Preprint of: Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2015). A Fingerprint Pattern of Supports for Teachers’ Designing of Technology-Enhanced Learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 283- 307. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-014-9342-5 1 A Fingerprint Pattern of Supports for Teachers’ Designing of Technology- Enhanced Learning Vanessa Svihla 1 , Richard Reeve 2 , Ornit Sagy 3 , and Yael Kali 3 1 University of New Mexico 2 Queen’s University 3 University of Haifa 1 Corresponding author: vsvihla@unm.edu, 505-750-0263, 505-277-0455 Abstract Teachers often find themselves in a position in which they need to adapt technology-enhanced materials to meet the needs of their students; as new technologies – especially those not specifically designed for learning – find their way into schools, teachers need to be able to design learning experiences that use these new technologies in their local contexts. We leverage previous work and new analyses of three cases in this area to identify a ‘fingerprint pattern’ of supports for teachers’ designing, investigating research questions: (1) What are common constructs that can be identified as the 'fingerprint pattern' of formal programs aimed at supporting teachers as designers of technology-enhanced learning? (2) What types of learning can such programs support? Although design work was diverse, all studies involved technology as a support for teacher learning and design work, and as a component of their designs for learning. Across studies, our supports involved modeling practice, supporting dialogue, scaffolding design process, and design for real-world use. We view these constructs as a 'fingerprint pattern' of design courses; together, these supported teachers' deeper understanding and adoption of new pedagogical approaches and inclination to adopt a teacher-as-designer professional identity. Keywords Design; Professional Development; Teachers; Supports Background The implementation gap between the context in which an innovation is developed and where it is to be implemented represents one of the core challenges facing many efforts to reform educational practices (Supovitz and Weinbaum 2008). A key issue in crossing this gap is the role of the teacher and her/his understanding and implementation of the innovation (Spillane et al. 2002). From the perspective of some researchers, the solution has been to emphasize the fidelity of the initial innovation as it was developed in the laboratory setting (Ruiz-Primo 2006). Others have sought to solve this through a focus on principle-based descriptions (Kali et al. 2009) of