This PPT is for my class EDUU564

1. Effects of Staff
Development Trainings
Roshana Safi
EDUU 564
Brandman University
DR: Van Ourkerk
Picture obtained from Electronic School

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Theoretical Framework
 Dewey
 Active participants to learn
 Progression of learning
 Learn better by doing
 Piaget
 Assimilate information
 Accommodate information
Picture obtained from dewey.pragmatism.org/ and www.marxists.org/glossary/people/p/i.htm

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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”

13. 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

14. This is an example of
a flipchart that a
teacher created.

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. “Knowledgeable, skillful
teachers form the bedrock of
good schools” (Noyce, 2006,
p.1).

19. 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.