You are here:

Coaching teachers in using technology

, , , University of Education Heidelberg, Germany

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, BC, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-24-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


This paper is a report on a continued professional development program for secondary school teachers. Over a long period, participants have been coached in using digital media in classrooms, e.g. implementing the flipped classroom or using wikis. The interventions are designed to enhance technological pedagogical content knowledge. In addition, changes to self-efficacy and attitudes necessary for using technology in the classroom are provoked. Therefore, methods of knowledge management, methods of instructor training, and methods of traditional coaching are adapted and combined. Design research has been used to improve the program. The concept of the continuing professional development program will be presented, and first results of the study will be discussed.


Dinse de Salas, S., Rohlfs, C. & Spannagel, C. (2016). Coaching teachers in using technology. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 927-934). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 27, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom. Reach every student in every class everyday. Eugene, Oregon: ISTE.
  2. BITKOM (2015). Digitale Schule – vernetztes Lernen. Ergebnisse repräsentativer Schüler-und Lehrerbefragungen zum Einsatz digitaler Medien im Schulunterricht. Retrieved from on February 18, 2016.
  3. Cassidy, S. & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133–153.
  4. Chai, C.S., Ng, E.M., Li, W, Hong, H.-Y., & Koh, J.H. (2013). Validating and modelling technological pedagogical content knowledge framework among Asian preservice teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 41-53.
  5. Cramer, T. (2015). Bewerten Sie Ihre „TPACK-Fähigkeiten“. Retrieved from On February 18, 2016.
  6. DuFour, R., & DuFour, R.B. (2012). Essentials for principals: the school leader’s guide to professional learning communities at work. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
  7. Edelson, D.C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning sciences, 1(1), 105-112.
  8. Fischer-Epe, M., & Schulz von Thun, F. (2015). Coaching: miteinander Ziele erreichen (4. Aufl). Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl.
  9. Gravemeijer, K.P.E. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD Bèta Press
  10. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from On February 18, 2016.
  11. Lionni, L. (2005). Fisch ist Fisch. Weinheim: Beltz und Gelberg.
  12. Lipowsky, F. (2010). Lernen im Beruf. Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbildung. In F.H. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders, & J. Mayr (Ed.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen. Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung (pp 51–70). Münster: Waxmann.
  13. Plomp, T. (2013). Educational Design Research: An Introduction. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.). Educational design research. Part A: an introduction. (pp. 10-51) Enschede: slo.
  14. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Ed.) (2013). Educational design research. Part A: an introduction. Enschede: slo.
  15. Radatz, S. (2013). Beratung ohne Ratschlag: systemisches Coaching für Führungskräfte und BeraterInnen (4. Aufl). Wien: Verl. System. Management.
  16. Reinmann, G. (2014). Welchen Stellenwert hat die Entwicklung im Kontext von Design Research? Wie wird Entwicklung zu einem wissenschaftlichen Akt? In D. Euler & P. Sloane (Eds.), Design-based Research (pp. 63-78). Zeitschrift für Berufs-und Wirtschaftspädagogik/Beiheft.
  17. Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
  18. Spannagel, C. (2012). Selbstverantwortliches Lernen in der umgedrehten Mathematikvorlesung. In: J. Handke, & A. Sperl (Ed.). Das Inverted Classroom Model. Begleitband zur ersten deutschen ICM Konferenz (pp. 73-81).
  19. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
  20. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  21. Vollmar, G. (2007). Knowledge Gardening: Wissensarbeit in intelligenten Organisationen. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
  22. Vollmar, G. (2013). „Lass dich irritieren”. Wissensmanagement, 3(2013). Retrieved from On January 27, 2016.
  23. Vollmar, G. (2015). Der Wissensgarten – oder: Knowledge Enabling Framework. Retrieved from On
  24. Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues& Answers Report, 33, 1-62. Retrieved from On February 18, 2016.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact