Week 3: Course Design and Coaching for SMART Goal Attainment

 

Part 1: Designing an Asynchronous Professional Learning Course

My SMART goal focuses on helping teachers become more intentional about how they use technology to support student learning. By the end of two semesters, I will collaborate with at least five teachers to redesign an existing lesson or activity using the TPACK framework. The goal is to move beyond using technology just because it is available and help teachers make purposeful decisions about when and how technology can strengthen content and instruction.

As I consider building an asynchronous professional learning course to support this goal, one of the first considerations is that teachers need a process for making instructional decisions. TPACK provides that process by bringing together technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Hidayati et al. (2021) describe TPACK as a framework that helps teachers think about the knowledge needed to make instructional decisions when integrating digital technology as a learning tool. The authors also emphasize that teachers need opportunities to continually develop their knowledge through professional learning experiences.

For this reason, the course would begin with an introduction to TPACK and its three core areas: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge. However, I would want to make this introduction practical and relevant. Instruction would focus on teachers learning to use TPACK as a set of questions to guide their planning:

• What do students need to learn?

• What instructional approach will best support that learning?

• Does technology strengthen the learning experience?

• If so, what technology is the best fit?

This approach reinforces the idea that effective lesson planning should begin with learning goals. Technology should then be considered based on whether it provides students with opportunities that strengthen the learning experience.

The research from Hidayati et al. (2021) also influences how I would structure the course. Their study focused on improving teachers' ability to integrate TPACK through hands-on activities and a lesson study approach. The process involved planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting on lessons. The researchers found that participants improved both their learning tools and teaching practices after participating in the lesson study cycles (Hidayati et al., 2021).

Because of this, I would not design the asynchronous course as a series of videos followed by quizzes. Instead, each module would require teachers to apply what they are learning to an actual lesson. For example, after learning about TPACK, teachers could select an existing lesson and identify the content objective, instructional approach, and current use of technology. They could then evaluate whether the technology is actually supporting the learning goal.

The course could include the following modules:

1. Introduction to Purposeful Technology Integration
   Teachers would reflect on the difference between using technology and using technology intentionally. They would examine examples of technology use and consider whether the technology supports the intended learning.

2. Understanding TPACK
   Teachers would explore the relationship between technology, pedagogy, and content. Rather than focusing only on definitions, they would apply the framework to lessons they already teach.

3. Connecting TPACK to the ISTE Standards
   Teachers would explore the relevant ISTE Standards for Educators, particularly the Learner, Collaborator, Designer, and Facilitator standards. The course would also connect technology decisions to the relevant ISTE Student Standards, including Empowered Learner, Innovative Designer, Creative Communicator, and Global Collaborator (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2024a, 2024b).

4. Redesigning a Lesson
   Teachers would select an existing lesson and use a planning guide to identify opportunities to strengthen student learning with technology. The redesigned lesson would focus on what students need to know and be able to do before considering the technology.

5. Implementation and Reflection
   Teachers would implement the redesigned lesson and reflect on the results. They would consider whether the technology helped students collaborate, create, communicate, solve problems, or demonstrate their understanding.

6. Sharing and Continuous Improvement
   Teachers would review student evidence and reflect on what worked and what they would change. They could also share examples and ideas with colleagues.

The research supports the importance of hands-on experiences and opportunities for teachers to plan, implement, and reflect on technology-integrated lessons (Hidayati et al., 2021). This supports designing the course as an ongoing learning experience rather than a one-time training.

I would also connect the course to the expectations already in place for teachers. This includes the ISTE Standards for Educators and the teacher evaluation expectations within my school. Teachers should be able to see that purposeful technology integration is not another initiative added to their workload. It can support effective planning, instruction, student engagement, and professional growth.

In my role supporting this initiative, I would also participate in the same reflective process I am asking teachers to complete. I do not want to present TPACK as something teachers need to implement while I remain outside the process. Instead, I would model the same willingness to examine lessons, question technology choices, reflect on the results, and make adjustments.

Part 2: Pairing Asynchronous Learning with Cognitive Coaching

The asynchronous course can provide teachers with information, examples, and structured opportunities to apply TPACK. However, asynchronous learning alone will not be enough to change instructional practice. Teachers will also need opportunities to think through their own lessons, discuss challenges, and reflect on their decisions. This is where coaching can provide important support.

I would use the Cognitive Coaching approach to support teachers without immediately telling them what they should do. Instead of beginning a coaching conversation by recommending a specific tool or strategy, I would use questions to help teachers clarify their own goals and think more deeply about the relationship between content, pedagogy, and technology.

For example, during a planning conversation, I might ask:

• What do you want students to understand or be able to do by the end of this lesson?

• What challenges do students typically experience with this content?

• How do you want students to engage with the learning?

• What instructional strategies are you considering?

• What could technology make possible for students in this lesson?

• How will you know whether the technology strengthened the learning experience?

These questions support the TPACK framework because they keep the conversation focused on learning before moving to the technology. They also allow teachers to maintain ownership of their instructional decisions.

I would pair each major section of the asynchronous course with an opportunity for targeted coaching. After teachers complete the TPACK module, they could participate in a short one-to-one or small-group planning session. During this conversation, I would use open-ended questions, active listening, and reflection to help teachers clarify their thinking and identify their next steps.

The coaching process could follow a cycle similar to the plan, implement, and reflect process described in the TPACK lesson study research. Hidayati et al. (2021) describe a process in which teachers plan lessons, implement them, observe the teaching and learning process, and then participate in reflection. This approach provides a natural connection between asynchronous professional learning and coaching.

The asynchronous course could also include elements of reflective coaching by building reflection directly into each module. Instead of asking teachers only to answer factual questions, I would include prompts that encourage them to examine their own thinking. For example:

• What assumptions am I making about how students learn this content?

• Why am I choosing this particular technology?

• What evidence will show me whether the technology improved the learning experience?

• What surprised me during the lesson?

• What would I keep, change, or remove the next time?

Teachers could respond to these questions using a digital reflection journal, a discussion board, or a lesson-planning template. These reflections would then become the starting point for individual or small-group coaching conversations.

Small-group coaching could also be valuable for teachers who are working on similar instructional challenges. Teachers could share redesigned lessons, discuss what happened during implementation, and learn from each other's experiences. The lesson study approach described by Hidayati et al. (2021) demonstrates the value of collaboration, observation, and reflection in developing teachers' ability to integrate TPACK.

The overall goal would be to create a cycle of asynchronous learning, planning, implementation, reflection, and coaching. The course would provide the foundational knowledge and structure, while coaching would help teachers apply that learning to their individual content areas, students, and instruction.

Part 3: Reflection as a Facilitator of Peer Learning

As I think about my role in this process, several ISTE Standards for Coaches and Education Leaders are relevant. The ISTE Coach Collaborator standard is especially relevant to this work because it emphasizes collaboration with teachers (ISTE, 2024c). My role is to work alongside teachers as they identify challenges, explore possible solutions, and reflect on the results.

The Change Agent role is also important because I want to help shift the way we think about technology integration, from choosing a tool to first considering what students need to learn and how technology can enhance that learning. It may seem like a small shift, but it can meaningfully change the way we approach lesson planning and technology.

The ISTE Education Leader Standards for Empowering Leader and Connected Learner also connect to this work. An empowering leader creates a culture that allows educators to take risks, experiment, and continue learning. Teachers need to feel that they can try something new without the expectation that every attempt will be perfect. A connected learner also recognizes that professional learning is ongoing as technology and instructional practices continue to change (ISTE, 2024d).

The ISTE Essential Conditions provide additional support. Prepared Educators is important because teachers need more than access to technology. They need ongoing professional learning to understand how to use technology to support learning. Shared Vision can help ensure that technology integration aligns with broader instructional goals (ISTE, 2026).

Implementation Planning and Ongoing Evaluation are also important. The asynchronous course and coaching process should not be developed once and left unchanged. Teacher feedback, coaching conversations, lesson reflections, and evidence of student learning can all be used to evaluate whether the professional learning is making a difference. This idea is consistent with the lesson study process used by Hidayati et al. (2021), in which teachers repeatedly planned, implemented, observed, and reflected on their lessons.

Finally, Supportive Policies and Adequate Funding will be important to the continued success of this work. Teachers need time to complete professional learning, plan with colleagues, implement redesigned lessons, and participate in coaching conversations. Without that support, even a well-designed asynchronous course may become another task for teachers to complete and not a meaningful opportunity for professional growth (ISTE, 2026).

Conclusion

Developing an asynchronous professional learning course around TPACK gives me an opportunity to move beyond teaching teachers how to use individual technology tools. Instead, the goal is to help teachers develop a process for making intentional technology decisions based on their content, pedagogy, and students' learning needs.

The research on TPACK and lesson study reinforces the importance of hands-on practice and repeated opportunities to plan, implement, observe, and reflect (Hidayati et al., 2021). For that reason, the asynchronous course should serve as the foundation for learning, but it should not stand alone. Pairing the course with Cognitive Coaching can provide teachers with the individualized support they need to apply TPACK to their own classrooms.

I see my role as supporting and guiding learning rather than simply providing training. My priority is to help create the conditions where teachers can think critically about their instructional decisions, experiment with new approaches, reflect on the results, and determine when technology genuinely improves the learning experience.

References

Hidayati, I. N., Rahmah, M., & Gusnadi. (2021). Improving teachers' ability to integrate TPACK in their lessons through hands-on activities: A lesson study-based research. Journal of Learning Improvement and Lesson Study, 1(1), 28–33.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2024a). ISTE standards for educators. https://iste.org/standards/educators

International Society for Technology in Education. (2024b). ISTE standards for students. https://iste.org/standards/students

International Society for Technology in Education. (2024c). ISTE standards for coaches. https://iste.org/standards/coaches

International Society for Technology in Education. (2024d). ISTE standards for education leaders. https://iste.org/standards/education-leaders

International Society for Technology in Education. (2026). Essential conditions for effective tech use in schools. https://iste.org/essential-conditions-for-effective-tech-use-in-schools