Rethinking How Teachers Learn: A Reflection from an August Workshop

In late August, as I was beginning my transition into my role as an EdTech coach, our staff attended a training session on IXL Analytics. The facilitators walked us through the dashboards and reports teachers could use to analyze student performance. We were told to open our laptops and log into our accounts, but because it was the first week of school, none of us had student data yet. Instead, we watched the facilitators demonstrate features using sample data. There were no discussion prompts or opportunities to try anything ourselves. At the end of the hour, the facilitators asked if there were any questions. No one asked any. The session felt less like a learning space and more like watching a tutorial.

At the time, the experience seemed fairly typical of many professional development sessions. However, as I began settling into my role as an EdTech coach, I found myself reflecting on that moment more carefully. It raised questions about how teachers actually learn in our school and what my role should be in supporting that learning. If my work was meant to help teachers meaningfully integrate technology into their classrooms, then simply demonstrating tools could not be enough. I began to wonder: What does meaningful learning for teachers actually look like?

Looking back now and revisiting notes from those early weeks, I realize I sensed something about the experience was not working, even if I did not yet have the language to explain why. Learning theory now provides a useful lens for understanding what happened.

From a behaviourist perspective, the workshop reflected a traditional input–output model of learning. Behaviourism assumes learning occurs when a stimulus leads to a desired response, often reinforced through feedback (Skinner, 1953). In this case, the stimulus getting the desired response, a completed data analysis, that could be reinforced. There was no reinforcement of the intended action but rather unintended punishment. This more than likely did the opposite of what the trainers were looking for, teachers may in fact be less likely to use the analysis due to this discomfort or positive punishment. 

A cognitivist lens highlights another issue. Cognitivism focuses on how learners process information and connect new ideas to existing knowledge (Miller, 1956). As I reflect on the session, I remember feeling overwhelmed by the number of dashboards being shown. Because the examples were not connected to my own students yet, I struggled to link the information to meaningful classroom contexts. Without opportunities to connect or apply the information, much of it likely remained in working memory only briefly before fading.

Finally, from a constructivism perspective the PD did not allow us to do! There was no opportunity for teachers to engage in the active construction of their learning. With a lack of analysis of data and discussion of instructional changes we were foced into a pasive role, meaning the learing did not stick. 

These perspectives help explain why the session struggled to support meaningful learning. Yet my early reflections also pointed toward something else. In my notes from that first month as a coach, I wrote that the workshop positioned teachers as observers rather than learners. Reading those reflections now, I find myself wondering: What if the “technology fatigue” teachers often talk about is not actually about technology? Perhaps the issue lies in how we ask teachers to learn. Viewing the experience through social learning theory helped clarify what might have been missing. Social learning theory suggests that people learn not only through individual cognition but also through observing others, interacting with peers, and participating in shared practices (Bandura, 1977).

From this perspective, the workshop lacked the social context that often supports learning. No colleague demonstrated how they used the analytics to make instructional decisions with their own students, and there was no opportunity to discuss how the data might shape instruction. Instead, we observed an expert model demonstrating features in a context that did not yet exist for us. What was missing was the social dimension of learning. Modelling, discussion, and shared problem solving help new ideas become meaningful in practice.

This reflection has shaped how I now approach my role as an EdTech coach. Rather than viewing professional development as delivering information, I see it as creating conditions for social learning among teachers. In my coaching work, I often begin as a resource provider, sharing tools or examples teachers can explore in their classroom context. From there, we move into short coaching cycles where teachers try an idea in their class and we reflect together on what worked and what needs adjustment.

We are also shifting how we structure professional learning. In upcoming workshops, teachers will choose a topic connected to their classroom needs and form learning communities around shared interests. Sessions will be teacher-led, and teachers will work on authentic tasks connected to their own students, with time for discussion and collaboration.

The August workshop initially seemed like a routine professional development experience. Reflecting on it through learning theory helped me see it differently. Behaviourist and cognitivist perspectives explain why the session struggled to support learning. Social learning theory highlights something more fundamental: learning is deeply social and contextual.

When teacher learning is structured as a collaborative process where educators observe, discuss, experiment, and reflect together, professional development moves beyond simply transmitting information. In many ways, the most powerful learning resource in a school may not be the technology being introduced, but the collective expertise of teachers learning alongside one another.

References

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. (Vol. 1). General Learning Press.

Cherry, K. (2024, July 10). Operant conditioning in psychology: Why being rewarded or punished affects how you behave. verywell mind.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Sprouts. (2020, February 28). Vygotsky's theory of cognitive development in social relationships. [Video]. YouTube.