Effects of Staff Development Trainings Roshana Safi EDUU 564 Brandman University DR: Van OurkerkPicture obtained from Electronic School
Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Review of Literature Theoretical Framework Methodology Teacher Technology Survey Teacher Survey Focus Group Observations Summary of Findings Implications Further Research References
Abstract Look at the effects of staff development trainings Focus on teachers who are involved in EETT Data collected Surveys Focus groups Observations Staff development trainings Teachers attend Take information back and implement in their classroom Need more opportunities
Introduction “A variety of studies indicate that technology will have little effect unless teachers are adequately and appropriately trained” (Kelley & Ringstaff, 2002, p.12). Education is technology driven Accountability Professional development Competency Research Questions How much of what is learned at staff development trainings in technology is implemented in the classroom? Are teachers utilizing staff development opportunities in technology?
Review of Literature It is said that fewer than five hours of professional development is for technology (McKenzie, 2000) Barriers Time Administrative support No follow up Money Trained in wrong areas Outcomes More successful Use of technology will rise Higher order thinking skills
Review of Literature Cons Geared towards basic software Lack of training on how to incorporate into the curriculum Teacher Competency Accountability Bausell and Klemick (2007), reported that only 45 states had standards to measure competency, 9 states had requirements tied to licensure and recertification, 39 states offered online courses for professional development and only 9 require teachers to demonstrate competency. Barriers Copyright laws Test scores Lack of professional development
Review of Literature Solutions Incentives All are temporary Technology Can Work Co-Nect Schools Whole school technology reform Technology changes the way you teach Conclusion Lack of professional development Teachers need to be motivated
Theoretical Framework Dewey Active participants to learn Progression of learning Learn better by doing Piaget Assimilate information Accommodate informationPicture obtained from dewey.pragmatism.org/ and www.marxists.org/glossary/people/p/i.htm
Methodology Setting Southern California School district Participants EETT teachers Enhancing Education through Technology Grant Data Collected Teacher Technology Surveys Given twice a year through the district Teacher Survey Designed after reviewing information from technology survey Focus Group Discussion Made up of EETT teachers Observations Four observations of EETT teachers
Teacher Technology Survey Competency Word – 60% of teachers can teach someone how to use this while only 2% say they do not know how to use it. Excel – 33% say they need help while 28% do not know how to use it. Presentation software – 66% do not know how to do this while 9% can do this by themselves. Implementation Majority do not use technology to its fullest
Teacher Survey Trainings Of the teachers surveyed, all teachers attend staff development trainings Of the 17 teachers, only 1 had attended a technology training recently Implementation 16 teachers said they learned something from the training and immediately implemented something while 1 said they did not implement anything. Technology Trainings Only 2 teachers had been to technology training during this school year. Offered by the district Would like to go Have already been Would not be beneficial to me No time Need more information
Focus Group Equipment Used Projector, laptop, document camera, promethean board, activotes, slate Implementation in the Classroom Make lesson more interactive Only 1 was not using the technology to its fullest Last training attended All had attended a training recently EETT institute, activote, weblockers, cluster meeting, iTree, Google Earth Learning All teachers learned some new piece of information Implementation 11 teachers implemented something write away Activotes Google earth 2 did not implement anything “just yet”
Observations 4 EETT Teachers Attended an Activ Studio Training on how to make flipcharts After training, observations took place 3 out of 4 teachers were using new information learned. Flipcharts were used and student engagement was high. 1 teacher went above and beyond Flipcharts Activates 3 out of 4 showed competency with the equipment Difficulties First year Incorporating new technology
This is an example ofa flipchart that ateacher created.
Summary of Findings Teachers are required to go to staff development trainings. Teachers are learning and implementing new information. District Ensure teachers get appropriate training Implement better staff development opportunities Follow up Make teachers aware of trainings Implementation of technology is successful when the information learned is relevant to the learner. Trainings need to be offered at different levels.
Implications Teachers do not use technology to its fullest potential. Staff development center Share data Personal mission Share with my colleagues Share knowledge about technology Share dates and times of technology trainings Teachers can use technology in different ways. eChalk Weblockers
Further Research More focused One staff development training Survey before Survey after Observe or hold discussion group Follow up from district Student perspective Does using technology affect student learning? Why do you think teachers do or do not use technology? Survey students
“Knowledgeable, skillful teachers form the bedrock of good schools” (Noyce, 2006, p.1).
References Bausell, C. Vinograd, Klemick, E. (2007) Tracking U.S. Trends. Education Week, 26 (30), 42-44. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/29/30trackingtrends.h26.html?qs=digital+equity Becker, H., Ravitz, J., and Wang, Y. (1999). Computer Use and Pedagogy in Co-NECT Schools, A Comparative Study. Teaching, Learning, and Computing, 1999. Retrieved on June 24, 2007 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/co-nect/startpage.html CDW Government, Inc., (2006). Technology as a teaching tool. CDW-G teachers talk technology 2005, Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://newsroom.cdwg.com/features/feature-08-29-05.htm#contact McKenzie, J. (2000). Head of the Class. Electronic school, January, 2001. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from http://www.electronic-school.com/2001/01/0101f2.html Noyce, P. (2006). Professional Development: How Do We Know If It Works?. Electronic School. September, 2006. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/ProfDev_HowDoWeKnowIfItWorks-EdWeek091306.pdf Office of Technology Assessment. Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection. OTA Publications, April, 1995. Retrieved on June 24, 2007 from http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/ns20/year_f.html Ringstaff, C, & Kelley, L (2002). The Learning Return on Our Educational Technology Investment. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://www.netdaycompass.org/outside_frame.cfm?thispath=instance_id=1700^category_id=5&this Smerdon, AuthorB., & Cronen, S. (2000). Teachers Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers Use of Technology. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on July 14, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102 Tenbusch, J. (1998). Teaching the Teachers: Technology Staff Development that Works. Electronic School. March, 1998. Retrieved on October 20, 2007 from http://www.electronic-school.com/0398f1.html.