Needs Assessment

This needs assessment study was conducted to find out the instructional technology needs for
educators in higher education.

The importance of instructional technology in education

We are no longer teaching if what we teach is more important than who we teach or how we
teach. Today’s learners are not the same as they were in the past. Todays’ learners are native
speakers of the developing technology and digital age (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray &
Krause, 2008). As they grow up with the developing technology and as a result of all the new
innovations, todays’ learners are thinking and getting the information in a brand new way.
Technology has influenced them, influenced the way they think, the way they learn, the way
their receive information and most importantly the way they interact with the world around
them. It is noticeable how todays’ learners are connected, they became collaborative,
autonomous and exploratory. Hence, our Education system, approaches and curriculum
doesn’t seem to be effective anymore, because our 21st century learners have found ways to
improve themselves (Kay & Greenhill, 2011). Researchers suggest that using instructional
technology with todays’ learners could help them to become better problem solvers, critical
thinkers, collaborative and interactive learners. Technology helps to provide them with
authentic materials to improve their abilities, thus all effective educators should be using
instructional technology to engage their students.

Importance that Teachers have relevant Professional Development

It is really crucial to involve teachers in the process of planning for their professional
development, because they would know better about the issues that arises at their workplace
thus they have the role of change agents (Sikes 1992). PD might work best when the teachers
are respected and acknowledged as professionals to the extent that they begin self-directed
approach and believing in their capacity (Kwo, 2005 & Jackson, 1992). Teachers are
professionals who are capable of initiating and maintaining their own development in
response to their specific needs (Clark 1992). They are active and knowledgeable and able to
learn (Hargreaves & Fullen, 1992).
Importance that Teachers have Focused Professional Development

Teacher inquiry and knowledge building cycle based on different factors which are students’ needs,
learning needs, teaching interaction and professional development sessions (Helen & Cherry, 2009).
As a teacher, I believe that this cycle is very important to improve the quality of teaching for
different reasons. Firstly, learning needs should be identified so teachers can recognize what are the
best ways to fill in these needs. When they know the needs of their students, they can easily find out
learning methods and approaches that match students’ needs. Then, it is useful to have professional
development sessions to introduce the methods and the obstacles they face and how to solve and deal
with the situation by sharing the ideas and experiences to improve the outcomes. Similarly, Bubb
(2005) suggests a similar cycle where there are “identification of professional development needs”,
“analysis of needs”, “planning and designing programs”, “implementation”, “monitoring” and
“evaluation”. “When professional development is supportive, job embedded, instructionally focused,
collaborative and ongoing, teachers are more likely to consider it relevant and authentic, which is
more likely to result in teacher learning and improved teaching practice” (Hunzicker, 2011, p. 178).
As Hager and Boud (2012) proposed that, real PD cannot be PD because of the metaphors that
describe PD. Supported by Timperley and Lee (2008); they concur; for it to be an effective PD it has
to accurately produce professional development and the proof to the PD is in the outcomes.

Importance for Teachers/ Educators/ Trainers to Use Instructional Technology to

Engage their Learners
The primary purpose of increased use of instructional technology is to improve student
learning (Parankimalil, 2015). It is important not to use technology for its sake, but rather to
embed technology appropriately to design meaningful learning experiences. Technology is
part of the teacher’s professional toolbox, it is among the resources that teachers use to help
facilitate student learning (Eady & Lockyer, 2013). Instructional technology transformed the
passive classrooms into an active and interactive learning environment. Which in return has
drastically increased the attention level of learners and motivated them to be engaged in the
learning experience (Parankimalil, 2015). Instructional technology has enhanced students’
retention and understanding of knowledge, through the use of digital learning resources.
Student attention and engagement with these resources helps them to process the information
into working memory. When students meaningfully interact with the multimedia information,
they encode this information into their long-term memory (Eady & Lockyer, 2013).
Identified Needs

We conducted both a survey and a focus group interview as a learning needs

assessment, developed to identify opportunities to plan a PD that could model
effective use of instructional technology. Our data analysis is further presented in
3 main steps: data preparation, descriptive analysis and infere ntial analysis.

The survey addressed 4 main questions, namely:

1. Do teachers use educational technology?
2. What are their knowledge levels and the use of certain instructional
technology tools?
3. Which instructional technology tools would they be most interested in learning
more about?
4. Do they have any learning challenges that someone designing a PD should
take into consideration?

These questions were designed to look at teachers’ needs and gaps that prevent
effective use of technology, as well as how their use of technology matches up
with their expected outcomes outlined in their Course Learning Outcomes or
assigned by their teaching supervisors.

We then had a follow-up interview, planned out as a focus group, with questions
addressing the theme of how digital technologies and resources are applied in the
classroom, and if teachers perceive those as useful in achieving learning goals and
learning objectives (specifically Course Learning Outcomes). The discussion was
also focused on teachers’ abilities to successfully integrate technology into their
teaching if they noticed any enhancement in student learning (versus using
technology just for the sake of technology) as well as how management supports or
enforces the use of technology. These questions were designed to gain an idea of
the extent as to which technology has impacted assessment practices and
achievement as perceived by those teachers, and if there was a measurable way to
see technology’s impact on student learning built into their plans.

The focus group discussion was framed by the following questions:

1. Warm-up, with teachers introducing themselves and how long they’ve been
teaching
2. How they would rate their overall skills in using technology, and why.
3. Which educational technology software they currently use, and why. This
included discussion of successful strategies that they’ve been using and the
training they took to build up their skills.
4. How well they felt their curriculum/course learning outcomes addressed
certain skills in terms of technology.
6. Their interest in learning more about using Internet resources that can be used
to teach the core curriculum. This included their interest in learning more about
Google classroom, class websites, blogs, and social networking.
7. Any missed questions that the survey was too specific to ask about, for
example, which educational technologies not mentioned before that they would be
most interested in learning about.

Some topics that weren’t planned but ended up being part of the conversation
were: teacher expectations of current and future educational technology, including
concerns about managing devices in the classroom; misuse of technology in
education and particularly in their classes; the role of te chnology; and
methodologies that teachers deem appropriate in evaluating the effectiveness of
previously used technology or technology that teachers are encouraged to use.

Once we gathered the data we used the following processes to identify the
instructional technology needs of participants. This was done to be able to develop
a professional development plan that would fill their instructional technology gaps
and knowledge skills.
Data Preparation

We used two methods for collecting data for evaluation: a survey followed by a
focus group interview. A total of 5 teachers responded, all of whom left their
emails for further contact. An overview of the responses can be found in the
following pages.

The aim of this survey and interview was to organize data and bring together a
plan for instructional technology PD. The results would be used to increase our
awareness as researchers on faculty knowledge on the use of technology and any
needs they have in their use of instructional technology services available to them
as part of their job.

Survey

For the survey, once the data collection deadline was closed, data was downloaded
from Survey Monkey in an Excel sheet. The survey was a short feedback form with
5 main questions and some follow-up clarification questions. Most of these were
structured questions as we planned to leave the unstructured questions for the focus
group.

Survey Monkey allows us to transfer the data as a summary. There are ways to
filter, compare and show results so that we can analyze dat a in the way that we
want. Since we only had 5 respondents we analyzed the data as a whole, and then
looked at responses individually.

Interview

The interview questions for the focus group built upon their responses and to help
interpret reasons behind responses. The interview results were logged in by typing
out the recorded answers and dividing them into major idea groups based on each
question.

For interview data, we used qualitative analysis in steps. During the

interview itself, notes were made based on first impressions, and then notes were
written out in detail after listening to the audio recording. We grouped questions
and answers into relevant categories based on what we were looking for – as part
of coding or indexing our data to organize ideas that we felt were very relevant to
our PD plan (Löfgren, 2013).

We used both descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the data. Descriptive
statistics were used to analyze questions in the survey, and inferential statistics
were used to analyze comments as well as interview responses.

Descriptive Statistics

Survey

• Item 1

Question title: Do you use instructional technology in your teaching and learning
environment?

For Research Question 1, “Do you use instructional technology in your teaching
and learning environment?” the responses were either Yes or No, with a comment
section for elaborating on what they use and why.

100% of respondents answered yes.

In the clarification question, their responses were:

“Online videos, online quizzes, online interactive learning sites, eBooks. These
are used on a regular basis.”

• “Edmodo, Socrative, Padlet and I intend to use Neo - a collaborative

learning management system next semester.”
• “YouTube, Teacher Tube, Google Tools for Collaborative work and Web
Tools such as Quill, No Red Ink, Read Theory, Tense Buster, Write and
Improve, Kahoot, Socrative, TediSubs, Quizlet.”

Item 2 (go to links page and to the bottom to the survey link)

Question title: Rate your knowledge and use of the following Instructional T ools.
There were 12 items on this question:

1. Blogs

2. Course management systems

3. E-portfolios

4. Instant messaging

5. Online lectures with audio

6. Online lectures with video

7. Podcasts

8. Streaming video

9. Surveys

10. Social networking

11. Wikis

12. Shared drives

Responses were based on a 4-point scale:

1 – I don’t know what this is.

2 – I want to use but need help.

3 – I use and I am comfortable, I do not need help.

4 – I use, but need new ideas.

For all items, at least one teacher responded that they use the tool but need new
ideas (rating 4).
As shown in the graph, the 3 items that 1 or more teachers did not know about
(rating 1) where

1. Online lectures with audio (interactive PowerPoint)

2. Surveys (blackboard, flashlight, survey monkey)

3. Wikis through blackboard

The items that 1 or more teachers responded that they wanted to use but needed
help with (rating 2) where:

1. Blogs

2. E-portfolios

3. Online lectures with audio

4. Podcasts

5. Streaming video

6. Wikis

The following items were rated (3), meaning respondents use and are comfortable
with, they did not need help:

1. Blogs

2. Course management systems

3. Instant messaging

4. Online lectures with audio

5. Online lectures with video

6. Podcasts
7. Streaming video

8. Surveys

9. Social networking

10. Shared drives

Item 3

Question title: Which of the following educational Instructional Technologies

would you be interested in learning more about?

Respondents had 5 categories to choose from (with an option to add more as a

comment):

• Interactive Classroom Tools

• Game-based Learning Platforms
• In-class Instant Feedback/Surveys
• Educational Social Networking
• Blogs

The majority (80%) of respondents reported being most interested in learning about
“Interactive Classroom Tools” and “Educational Social Networking”. 60% of
teachers indicated interest in learning about “Game-based Learning Platforms”;
“In-Class Instant Feedback/Surveys” and “Blogs”. One teacher specified in the
comments that he/she would be interested in learning more about The Neo LMS, a
tool that researchers would be very interested in researching and adding as part of
future surveys under ‘interactive classroom tools’.

Item 4

Question title: Do you have any learning challenges that need to be considered
when designing professional development?
60% of respondents answered yes, the remaining 40%, therefore, answering no.
Those who responded yes clarified that they disapprove of PD that is tech -led
rather than driven by sound research-based pedagogy, pushing commercial
agreements rather than focusing on what is best for students. It can be assumed
from this response that the respondent was descri bing challenges of PD sessions
rather than their own learning challenges. Another respondent stated “I ask a lot of
questions” and it might be assumed that some lecture -based PD were discouraging
of this. These responses will be analyzed further in the inf erential statistics
section.

Inferential Statistics

The comments section and the focus group were used to help us frame conclusions
extending beyond the immediate data alone (Trochim, 2006). Respondents were
asked clarification questions to help us infer or clarify what they meant – both in
the survey and in the focus group interview.

There were 4 instructors in the focus group interview, 2 of whom have taught in
the Foundations Department for over 10 years, and the other 2 have been in the
college for one semester now. They all self-perceived their instructional
technology usage expertise (rated as 1 being beginner level and 5 being an expert)
as 3-4, depending on the particular tool they were using.

They all responded in the survey question item 1 (Do you use instructional
technology in your teaching and learning environment?) as Yes (100%), and
elaborated that the following tools were the ones they currently used in teaching
(in the comments section of the survey as well as during the interview)

• Edmodo
• Blackboard
• Online videos, online quizzes, online interactive learning sites, eBooks.
These are used on a regular basis.
• Socrative, Padlet
 • YouTube, Teacher Tube, Web Tools such as Quill, No Red Ink, Read
Theory, Tense Buster, Write and Improve, Kahoot, So crative, TediSubs, and
Quizlet.

From these responses in both the survey and the interview, as well as their rating
themselves as being 3-4 in terms of how well they use technology, it can be
inferred that instructors are actively using technology in their teaching and that
their capacity to teach using technology is high. Establishing a PD plan that is set
for users with higher than beginner’s knowledge in using technology would be
suitable.

When asked to elaborate on certain technological tools they ment ioned, instructors
responded that if there were no barriers to them using any kind of instructional
technology tools (e.g. institutional contract with certain providers, tech support,
etc.) they would also use:

• Google classroom
• NEO

To clarify as to which other (physical) barriers might come in the way of using
instructional technology, they mentioned:

• Working smartboards
• Availability of classroom laptops (instead of their office ones)
• A room assigned to the teacher (instead of the teacher going to student
classrooms) so that they are able to set up their own classroom with their
preferred technology, classroom decoration, visible learning tools, etc.
Teachers mentioned research shows fewer power struggles showed when
teachers had their own classrooms that students visited, rather than teachers
going into ‘student classrooms’. This was noted as a good point to research
before preparing PD.
• iPad use (instead of the switch to laptop use for everybody, in which certain
apps are not friendly)
 • Projectors being set up in difficult positions in the classroom, making it
problematic for teachers to easily communicate with the class as they work
with the projector

Looking through the data we learned from this section that the challenges teachers
face when using instructional technology go beyond just their ability to learn how
to use it. The drawing conclusion would be that those in leadership positions might
have very specific views in terms of what teachers may use in the classroom and
that this may present complexities and challenges when planning for a PD that
might not be supported in certain places.

To clarify survey question 2 (Rate your knowledge and use of the following
Instructional Tools), the focus group answered the question of how much their
curriculum addresses certain aspects that would encourage them to use certain
instructional tools, namely:

• Communication and collaboration (yes)

• Creativity and innovation (yes)
• Critical thinking and problem solving (one teacher does not think the
curriculum addresses critical thinking and problem solving, but rather
focuses on some lower-order skills, yet all teachers agreed that they address
this as part of their teaching anyway)
• Global Awareness (yes)
• Health Literacy (yes)
• Information, Communications, & Technology (ICT) Literacy (yes, but with
more focus on lower-order skills instead of the actual use of technology, it
is very limited to skills like keyboarding, etc.)

Teaching lower-order technological skills, instructors commented, should not be a

classroom teacher’s duty but rather a separate class set up for students to learn how
to use basic technology tools, like Microsoft Office, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.,
outside of the content. However, all instructors did agree that they would attend
PD on how to teach basic tech skills, even if they don’t agree that they should
teach it in the classroom. They suggested a clear separation between IT skills
(which they shouldn’t teach), and ICT which would be part of content teachers’
lessons anyway. They suggested an integrated curriculum with more collaboration
between levels so one level follows up on ICT skills that were started at a lower
level).

The purpose of this question was to determine how much of the actual use of
technology was integrated as part of the curriculum, a s well as other technology-
related skills. In the previous question, we identified a few institutional barriers to
the use of technology, and now we confirmed that the curriculum does, in fact,
support most 21st century skills, and therefore the purpose of creating a training
plan for teachers is still valid.

To clarify question item 3 (Which of the following educational Instructional

Technologies would you be interested in learning more about?) they voted on
whether or not they would also be interested in learning more about:

• Google classroom – yes

• Creating a class website – yes, depending on the software
• Blogs – yes
• Social networking – yes, provided that theoretical background or research
that proves the benefits of using social media in teaching is made available
(rather than using technology for the sake of technology). They suggested
that there needs to be pedagogy that drives the use of the tool, and the
option that certain lessons can be done in completely different ways
with/without the use of technology.

These answers allow us to infer that PD for an instructional tool just for the
purpose of using technology will not be highly acceptable by teachers. For our PD
plan, we would need to show a relationship between research -based pedagogy and
the instructional tool itself. This way, teachers would be more convinced of the
importance of integrating a certain technological tool into their teaching knowing
how the tool can actually support student needs and help teachers gain their desired
outcomes.
To clarify question item 4 (Which of the following educational Instructional
Technologies would you be interested in learning more about?), during the focus
group teachers went into detail about the type of PD they would be interested in
attending:

PD sessions would need to have a technological and non-technological option e.g.

how to use Instagram as a social media educational tool or put up pictures with
post-its as notes on a bulletin board. They would also want to attend workshops
that focused on instructional technology that allowed students to work
independently and keep track of their progress (examples they gave were Read
Theory or Tense busters, or English Central). This would build students’ own
confidence in using technology, as well as give teache rs an opportunity to see how
well technology supports students.

The inferential analysis of the data collected overall provides us with the chance to
create a plan of possible PD options that would match the needs of these teachers,
who are a sample of the Foundations' teachers' population. We learned that by
identifying which factors influence teachers’ opinions about instructional
technology, we could tailor a PD that would suit them in all the different scenarios
they face as teachers.

Drawing inferential conclusions based on this data helped us identify and report
valuable conclusions and improved our understanding of the reasoning behind their
thoughts about instructional technology. It would help us improve on our PD plan,
and contribute to further improvement of any PD processes and tasks.
Goals and Objectives

After completing our needs analysis, we derived a list of goals that would cover what the
teachers wanted to learn to do through attending our instructional technology PD. Through
this analysis, we concluded that teachers needed:
- Practical experience with a technology-related program that would be implemented in
a classroom. This program would help them effectively complete their teaching goals
using instructional technology.
- PD on favorable programs that students would immediately recognize find relatively
easy to use (user-friendly). This PD would suit them as it would be based on a needs-
analysis, and help them achieve their goals of impacting student learning processes.
- Ability to work on a creative and interactive instructional tool that allows them to use
a preferred delivery mode and provide a successful lesson. Teachers’ teaching styles
as well as students’ learning styles would have to be taken into consideration.
 The actual effectiveness Survey Questions Number of Participants: Financial challenges of Finding alternative
Institutional goals
conflict of PD on participants :Validity and relaibility/ started with 15 and only the PD applications (free of Time and Scheduling
practice subjectivity and bias 5 responded charges

Finding the appropriate

trainer to deliver the
proposed PD

Contacting Foundation
Identify the Resources Department Chair

ISTE Standards for

Coaches
2h and 4c and 2g
Idenifty Challenges
8 to 10 Foundation
Identify Participants
Faculties

Identify the Learning

Standards Ethical Considerations

Professional
Development for Assessment Tools to
Teachers determine the needs Survey eg. Survey
Monkey. was conducted
through google forms)

Identofy Goals and Instant Polls eg. Poll

Impact and Results of Intervention and Objectives everywhere (were not
proposed PD Evaluation Plan ablet to conduct)

Interviews eg.
Unstructured Interviews
(was conducted)

Identified needs / Links

Projects Description Focus Group Report
to data tools
Learning Standards
Needs
Teachers need to teach their
content with a technology-
related program that helps
them complete their lesson
objectives, aims and
assessments as required.
Teachers need valuable PD
based on input from a survey
analysis that will actually
impact students’ learning
process and not be used just for
the sake of using technology.
Teachers need an effective
program that allows them to
bring together more than one
aspect of their teaching styles,
one that they can use in a
variety of educational
situations or apply a variety of
teaching strategies with.
Teachers need to be able to
give feedback and adapt the
program continuously.
Goals/objectives
To prepare a PD that helps
teachers perform duties with
emphasis on technology not
taking over the goal of
teaching itself.
To ensure that the PD provides
teachers with not only a
technological resource but a
way to evaluate students, help
students face learning
difficulties, and promote
digital age best practices in
teaching.
Examine instructional
materials after teachers have
implemented the program and
decide whether there are
components that can be
improved in terms of
instruction. Show teachers an
approach that they can use to
systematically review and
improve effectiveness of the
program used.
Educational Standards:
International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE
standards for coaches) 4.
Professional development and
program evaluation:
Technology coaches conduct
needs assessments, develop
technology-related professional
learning programs, and evaluate
the impact on instructional
practice and student learning.
a. Conduct needs assessments to
inform the content and delivery
of technology-related
professional learning programs
that result in a positive impact on
student learning
b. Design, develop, and
implement technology rich
professional learning programs
that model principles of adult
learning and promote digital age
best practices in teaching,
learning, and assessment
c. Evaluate results of
professional learning programs
to determine the effectiveness on
deepening teacher content
knowledge, improving teacher
pedagogical skills and/or
increasing student learning
Description of Intervention and Evaluation Plan:

We have come away from analyzing our data and objectives with 3 main actions in our action
plan. The first is to immediately begin to plan a PD that uses an ‘all-encompassing’ program
– one that can incorporate more than one instructional technology tool. It should be a
program that has all the components that can cover what the teachers needed, but also allow
them to embed other tools within it if they couldn’t find exactly what they were looking for in
the program itself.
The second action is to use a lesson approach in the PD, where the ‘instructors’ are the
persons giving the PD, and the ‘students’ are the teachers who are learning to use the
program. This plan is to help give teaches insight on to what students will gain from using the
program (see it through the students’ eyes), and be able to anticipate questions that students
will have when this program is applied to them in a classroom. This may help them assess
how user-friendly the program is, and what they can do to make the use of this technology
less-time consuming and more focused on learning the content rather than learning how to
use the program.
The third action is to conduct two surveys - one at the end of the workshop to gain insight on
how productive the PD was, and the second one a certain period after teachers have
implemented the program to provide continuous and constant updating and help based on
teacher feedback.
The expected outcomes and benefits is that teachers would implement this program as a
continuously updated system – the main part of this system are the learners, and the teachers
work together using technological instructional materials to present a positive learning
environment for students. The ‘continuous’ part means that as teachers learn more about this
program they implement it in different ways that suit them better and better. With our
intervention or follow-up PD based on their feedback, we can solve problems teachers or
learners face and determine new ways that the program can be implemented. It might even
get to the point when the teachers no longer perceive this program as effective, and therefore
the outcome would be for us to formulate a new PD promoting a different instructional tool
which could more effectively suit their needs.
Another expected outcome is that since we are introducing a program that allows for the
embedding of other instructional tools, the purpose of using technology for the sake of
technology would take a back seat. The tool would play the important role of making
learning easier for students, allowing for creativity, and emphasizing content rather than just
the use of technology. In introducing an assessment tool, teachers can also assess the
effectiveness of the program and give us feedback if they felt that the program isn’t
sufficiently meeting all their needs.

Our PD Plan

We decided to create a learning community in which professional development is an ongoing

plan. This is the idea of a customizable PD – one which will continuously improve as we
receive feedback from teachers. Now that we know the needs of the teachers our goals are
easier as we have solutions to challenges they might face, and the feedback once teachers
have implemented the program helps us make changes and prepare better PD goals which
will result in better outcomes.
The tool we chose that would all-encompassing is: Edmodo. The following is a 2-part process
for how we would conduct the PD.
Part 1:
Preparation and Plan
For this workshop to be successful, we would make it available face-to-face with the option
of a saved tutorial video that teachers can look through for future reference.
Workshop leaders would prepare the following:
✓ a statement of needs
o one that shows related research that proves why this kind of tool would be
successful in a classroom
✓ an agenda
o listing out what activities will be completed in the workshop and an estimated
time for completion
✓ a workshop description
o that teachers would look through like a lesson plan to gain idea of how the
workshop will be conducted
✓ planned outcomes
o which would be the objectives map mentioned previously
✓ methods of formative and summative assessment
 o the formative assessment would be the continuous activities in the ‘class’
submitted by the ‘students’
o the summative assessment would be a quick Q&A session at the end of the
PD, linked in to the tool as a Kahoot quiz that they would answer
✓ a post-workshop plan
o listing contact and what feedback we are looking for after teachers have
implemented this tool in their own classes

Part 2

PD would be created with the pretense of teaching a subject matter. The topic would be past
simple. Teachers would be asked to join a classroom as students. They had to do the
following
- Join a class.
- Complete a fill-in-the-blanks activity that was given to them, and attach the answers
back as a file.
- They would have to click on a quiz-link and complete an online quiz.
- They would have to research a past-simple video tutorial, and submit it as a link.
- They would have to access a document from the library and complete a reading
activity.
- They would have to respond to messages in the chat.
- Teachers would be put into a group and asked to complete a group activity where they
create a grammar box with information to share with the rest of the class.

Challenges

• Challenge 1: writing up the survey questions to be in general. Avoid bias and

subjectivity. Maintain validity and reliability of survey questions to be used at any
time with any stakeholders and maintain similar results.
• Challenge 2: Number of participants: the survey was sent to 15 person and only five
responded. From the five people who responded only 4 agreed to have a follow up
interview
• Challenge 3: Financial challenges: For Edmodo itself, there are no financial
constraints. However, we do have to make sure that during PD we mention that other
 tools that may be linked to Edmodo might need a certain fee to be able to use all the
options (e.g. Showbie, Nearpod).
• Challenge 4: Finding alternative applications (free of charge): The reason we chose a
tool like Edmodo was to ensure that teachers would have full access to all its options.
That being said, the other choices that they can link to Edmodo that we will mention
in our PD might not provide teachers with full access except after paying a certain fee
for membership. However, we hope that the use of more than one tool makes up for
the lack of some resources in others. Challenge 5: Time and Scheduling: it could be
very challenging to schedule a PD that suits all the participants’ time and date.
• Challenge 6: The actual effectiveness of PD on participants practice.
• Challenge 7: Institutional goals conflict: as mentioned in the PD, we had to ensure
that the tool we use did not interfere with institutional goals. The spirit of that goal is
for all teachers to use a specific educational platform. To ensure that Edmodo does
not interfere with that, we propose in the PD that Edmodo is used as part of the main
institutional platform, as an enhancement of it rather than to take over its place. It
provides some options that might not be so readily available in other platforms, and is
a bit more user friendly so teachers might want to start with this tool first before
introducing students to other more complicated learning platforms. We would suggest
in the PD different ways to organize teaching content, so the use of one tool doesn’t
overshadow the other but rather complements it.
• Challenge 8: Finding the appropriate trainer to deliver the proposed PD.

Impact and Results

The ideal impact of this proposed professional development plan is to fill in the gap of
instructional technology needs of faculties in the foundation department at Al Ain Women’s’
College.

Not all professional learning development sessions are effective. There is a measure that should be
taken into account to find the effectiveness of the sessions. How to find out the improvement on
teachers’ performance and students’ achievement? According to Bubb (2005, p.24), teachers should
know the criteria of what they are expected to do and how teaching should look like. They can know
their background knowledge about their previous knowledge and build the new knowledge on what
they already know. The institution should provide the support and help to the teachers to carry out
and encourage them to build different types of recourses. Teachers also should create their
professional development plan portfolio and include their short and long term goals so they have a
clear vision. Lastly, she mentions the importance of doing evaluations and write reflections to
improve the sessions next times. As Bubb (2005, p.24) says, “If any single element of this
prescription is absent, the impact of CPD is significantly reduced”.

Any professional development needs to be evaluated to get success. Evaluation of a professional

development program has two important goals: to improve the quality of the program, and to
determine its overall effectiveness. The PD facilitator can compound and put together one summary
report and share it with the participants, so in return they can share their success at the annual
conference of teachers. Or at the end of a school year, they can get feedback on how things went.

Hager and Boud (2012) proposed that, real PD cannot be PD because of the metaphors that describe
PD. Supported by Timperley and Lee (2008), they concur; for it to be an effective PD it has to
accurately produce professional development and the proof to the PD is in the outcomes.

“When professional development is supportive, job embedded, instructionally focused, collaborative

and ongoing, teachers are more likely to consider it relevant and authentic, which is more likely to
result in teacher learning and improved teaching practice” (Hunzicker 2011, p. 178).

Future recommendations
• Conduct the survey on a large number of participants, for example on an entire
department.
• Extend the length of the process to at least one year: and fully follow the professional
development cycle phases (for example ADDIE model) starting with Analysis Phase,
Design Phase, Development Phase, Implementation Phase and Evaluation Phase (the
most important phase to evaluate PD effectiveness).
• Initiating the PD can be a team effort and participants should be in charge of their
own PDs.
• Classify the PD as per participants’ needs and field of expert and study.
Resources

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/200007426?accountid=1215
Boud, D & Hager, P. (2012). Re-thinking continuing professional development through
changing
metaphors and location in professional practices, Studies in Continuing Education,
34:1, 17-30,
Bubb, S. 2005. Helping teachers develop. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Clark, C. (1992). ‘Teachers as designers in self-directed professional development’, in A

Hargreaves & M Fullan (eds.), Understanding teacher development, Teachers College
Press, N.Y., pp. 75-84.
Eady, M., & Lockyer, L. (2013). Tools for learning: Technology and teaching. Learning to
Teach in the Primary School, 71.
Hargreaves, A & Fullen, M (eds). (1992). Understanding teacher development, Teachers
College Press, N.Y.

Helen S. Timperley, Judy M. Parr & Cherry Bertanees. (2009): Promoting professional inquiry for

improved outcomes for students in New Zealand, Professional Development in Education,

35:2, 227-245.
Hunzicker, J. (2011). ‘Effective professional development for teachers: a checklist,
Professional Development in Education, 37:2, 177-179
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE; 2011). Standards for Coaches.
Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. In
Bringing schools into the 21st century (pp. 41-65). Springer Netherlands.
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year
students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?. Australasian journal
of educational technology, 24(1).

Kwo, OWY & Intrator, SM. (2004), ‘Uncovering the inner power of teachers’ lives: towards
a learning profession’, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41, no. 4-5,
 pp. 281-91, Retrieved December 30 2017 from Freedom Collection database,
http://d.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.001
Lee, L. (2002). The effect of agency training for Taiwanese child care director professional
development, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Spalding University, Louisville, KY.
Parankimalil, J. (2015, January 20). Role of Educational Technology in the Teaching-
Learning Process. Retrieved December 30, 2017, from
https://johnparankimalil.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/role-of-educational-technology-
in-the-teaching-learning-process/
Sikes, P. (1992). ‘Imposed change and the experienced teacher’ . in M Fullan & A
Hargreaves (eds), Teachers Development and Educational Change, The Falmer Press,
London, pp. 36-55.