Effects of Staff
                                 Development Trainings


           Roshana Safi
           EDUU 564
           Brandman University
           DR: Van Ourkerk


Picture 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 information




Picture 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 of
a flipchart that a
teacher 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.

Week 6 effectsoftechnology-roshana

  • 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 atthe 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 varietyof 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  EquipmentUsed  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 EETTTeachers  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 anexample 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 donot 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  Morefocused  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 teachersform 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.