Tech Professional Development Plan: Front Row

Thomas Edison Elementary, Anaheim

Fall 2017 (EDEL 590 and 594)
Krysta Bradley, Lisa Davisson, Lorraine Hernandez, Gina Kim

1
 Table of Contents

Introduction 3
Purpose 3
Vision Statement 4
School Description 4
Technology Access and Use 6

Literature Review 8

Needs Analysis 12

Rationale for Tech PD 16

Research Support for Goals 17
Professional Development Model 19

Implementation Plan 21

Timeline 22

Budget 26

Evaluation 26

Individual Reflections 36

References 37

Appendices 39
Appendix A 39
Appendix B 41
Appendix C 43

2
Technology Professional Development Plan
EDEL 590 and 594 - Fall 2017
Krysta Bradley
Lisa Davisson
Lorraine Hernandez
Gina Kim

Introduction

Purpose
The purpose of this document is to determine and design a technology plan for Thomas

Edison Elementary School that introduces, teaches, and supports educators in the effective use

and implementation of digital resources in the classroom. This will, in turn, support student

learning and promote student success. The school mission statement is as follows:

At Edison, we value each child and share a commitment to ensure all

students learn essential standards and become successful in life.

In order to determine that students are provided the best opportunity for success, it is vital that

educators collectively are utilizing digital resources effectively and appropriately for student

learning. For this to occur, teachers need to be properly trained in the use and implementation of

digital resources. Teachers must feel comfortable using technology in multiple aspects of the

classroom. The goal of this plan is to provide learning opportunities for classroom teachers and

support staff, that strengthen technological skills and build confidence in using those abilities.

3
Vision Statement

The Anaheim Elementary School District is closing the gap-the digital divide-between

those individuals and communities that have access to Information Age tools and those

that do not. Through the addition of infrastructure, wide and local area networks,

classroom computers, Internet connectivity, and instructional software, students, teachers,

and administrators are becoming technologically literate and responsible cyber citizens.

A student information management system provides technology support to staff in the

areas of attendance, discipline, record keeping, assessment, and homework. Support for

the budgeting, accounting, payroll, attendance, purchasing, and warehousing operations

comes from the MIS-Management Information Support-system.

School Description

Thomas Edison Elementary is a public school, located in Anaheim, California. There are

currently twenty-four elementary schools in the Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD).

Three out of the twenty-four elementary schools, Edison being one of them, maintain a year

round, non-traditional school schedule. Dual Language Immersion (DLI) instruction is offered at

five of the school sites. Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs are provided at all

school sites in self-contained classrooms and cluster groups, for those students who have been

identified as GATE in grades three through six.

The population of Thomas Edison Elementary is 925 students. The Academic

Performance Index (API) score for 2013 was 762. The information below represents information

4
from the 2015-2016 school year. School Accountability Report Cards (SARC) for 2016 - 2017

will be posted, by law, by February 1, 2018.

Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2015-16)

Grade Level Number of Students

Kindergarten 172

Grade 1 139

Grade 2 106

Grade 3 137

Grade 4 117

Grade 5 127

Grade 6 127

Student Enrollment by Group (School Year 2015-16)

Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment

Black or African American 0

American Indian or Alaska Native 0

Asian 1

Filipino 0.4

Hispanic or Latino 96.5

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.1

White 1.6

Two or More Races 0

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 90.2

English Learners 67.7

Students with Disabilities 8.5

5
 Foster Youth 0.9

CAASPP Test Results in English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics for All
Students (2015 - 2016)

Subject School District State

English Language 20 26 48
Arts/Literacy

Mathematics 16 22 36

Student Information

Category %

GATE students 24%

English Learners 50%

English Only 13%

Reclassified as English proficient 37%

Migrant Education program participants 3%

Eligible for free/reduced price lunch 97%

Special Education within past two years 11%

Technology Access and Use

Grade Level Available Technology

Kindergarten 12 Chromebooks per class

Grade 1 12 Chromebooks per class

Grade 2 12 Chromebooks per class

Grade 3 12 Chromebooks per class + cart to share per grade level, 24

Chromebooks

6
 Grade 4 12 Chromebooks per class + cart to share per grade level, 24
Chromebooks

Grade 5 12 Chromebooks per class + cart to share per grade level, 24

Chromebooks

Grade 6 12 Chromebooks per class + cart to share per grade level, 24

Chromebooks

In addition to the classroom computers and computer carts, there are three computer labs

on campus. Teachers can schedule times in the computer lab to work on class projects if needed.

Each class has two scheduled times in a specified computer lab to access and work on the district

math support program, ST Math. Each teacher computer is a Surface Pro, brand new this year,

2017. The teacher can project lessons, hard copy documents with the camera feature and videos

using the tablet.

The history of our technology professional development can be described as spotty at

best. The last technology PD Lisa can recall was March, 2017. As a staff, we were trained on

https://www.codecampus.com/. The training consisted of us being taught how to login to Code

Campus and how to access the instructional videos. We independently watch videos for 50

minutes on how the program works - no conversation, no collaboration. Our site DLC told us

that she did us a big favor by copying off our lessons for us. It was presented as a wonderful

opportunity and that we did not have to utilize class time to teach the lessons with our students.

We were told that we were to teach this program in place of our ST Math online program, a

program that supports student learning in math. Due to improper training, teachers had to spend

additional time preparing for lessons. If prep time was not taken, lessons were ineffective due to

the lack of experience and training with the program.

7
 Two weeks ago, I (Lisa) was provided a new Surface Pro tablet to use as my teacher

computer. The training on how to use it went something like this: Here is your new tablet. It is

easy to use. It will not take you long to figure it out. Unfortunately, the experience to the

technology training for teachers at our school site is minimal and for the majority of the teachers,

frustrating. Essentially, we teach ourselves how to use new digital programs and tools, and how

to implement them appropriately and effectively for use in the classroom. Not all teachers are

willing and/or able to spend the time it takes to learn new technologies. As a result, they fall

further behind in the implementation of online resources and computer use in the classroom, as

well as moving towards a 21st century learning environment.

Literature Review

Though many teachers today are learning about technological resources and

implementing technology into their classrooms, research suggests that some teachers are still

reluctant for several reasons.

Starr (2012) argues that one reason teachers may resist using technology is the lack of

time to learn to use a certain technology resource. Brand (1998) suggests that schools need to

implement the type of training that allows teachers to have sufficient time to practice using a

piece of technology in order to effectively integrate it into the classroom. Similar sentiments

were found by a study conducted by Kim, et al. (2013). These researchers purport that teachers

have repeatedly expressed they need more training and support in the use and integration of

technology in the classroom (Kim, et al., 2013).

8
 Another reason that teachers may be resistant to incorporate technology into their lessons

is a lack of resources. Whetstone, Clarke, and Frank (2013) found that for educators to use

technology effectively in the classroom, quality of devices and easy access are needed. Although

schools are seeing a rise in technology devices entering the classrooms, some districts may have

as little as 4 computers per classroom (Whetstone, et al., 2013). Teachers struggle to effectively

create student-centered lessons with the use of technology when budgets for technology do not

allow for this. Starr (2012) discusses that access to technology would make incorporating it

easier and schools cannot expect teachers to utilize technology-based activities until most

students have access to computers.

In addition to lack of technology resources for students, Starr (2012) further found that

some teachers do not have the adequate support and struggle to get help from their technology

department. It can be frustrating for teachers to have to go through red tape to receive the support

or equipment they need. Having a receptive technology department is key to having teachers use

and implement technology in their classrooms (Starr, 2012). In fact, Clark and Whetstone (2014)

found that when educators were properly trained on technology, students outcomes improved

because teachers were able to create more student-centered lessons. This resulted in improved

student attitudes towards school and learning.

Lastly, Starr (2012) describes that some teachers today do not possess the confidence in

their ability to utilize technology in their lessons. Teachers have a wide range of technological

skills, some may use technology in the classroom at the Substitution level of SAMR, while

others may be trying to figure out how to use technology at the Accommodation and

Redefinition levels. Brand (1998) adds that although professional development for technology

9
may be provided, teachers may have anxiety about their range of abilities. The training must

meet each teachers specific developmental need.

This technology plan will support and meet the needs of teachers by using literature that

supports adequate professional development strategies. Best practices have been set in place to

address technology professional development. To be mindful of teachers anxiety and lack of

abilities, Brand (1998) argues that novice technology users must first feel emotionally supported

and they must know they have someone to turn to when they have questions about technology.

Furthermore, the professional development training must be a non-threatening environment and

supportive to the level of the teachers experience and expertise. Training must also begin with a

needs analysis of the teacher (Kim, et al., 2013). Their current interests and needs in curriculum

must be accounted for from the beginning so they can be certain their needs will be addressed.

McKenzie (1999) supports that districts should be asking teachers what is most important to

them, as well as asking their preferred learning styles. As a result of teacher needs being met,

they will feel more confident to incorporate technology which has been shown to increase

student performance (Clark and Whetstone, 2014).

Research states that another best practice of technology professional development

includes a link between the teachers interests and the goals of the school. Brand (1998) explains

that the objective of the technology training should provoke teachers to think about their lessons

and how to incorporate technology into the schools current curriculum. Educators will begin to

think about ways to change their practice and integrate technology when it connects to what they

are already doing in the classroom. Mackenzie (1999) suggests presentation of measurable data

will help resistant teachers view the training as an advantage when it may result in higher scores

10
and improved student performance of the schools learning targets. This is further affirmed in a

study by Garcia, Garcia, and Pacheco (2013). They found students who were able to use

technology during math instruction and practice were able to construct their knowledge through

collaboration and online activities. In addition, it increased their engagement by including

interaction with real problems through simulation and diverse objects. Garcia, et al., (2013)

found student collaboration using constructivist platforms increased as a result.

Providing sustained and ongoing technology training has proven to be another best

practice of technology professional development. Teachers require time to learn to use and

explore technology resources. Brand (1998) explains that technology is not easy to learn and

effectively integrating it into the classroom will require continual training. Without substantial

time, teachers will not gain the knowledge and skills to fully integrate technology into their

pedagogical practices.

It is clear from research that there is a push for teachers to incorporate and integrate

technology into their classroom (Kim, et al., 2013). It is also clear that these same teachers are

not given adequate training, access to technology, nor time to learn about technology

(Whetstone, Clarke, & Frank, 2013). Our technology PD plan is designed to ensure our teachers

feel safe and confident to use technology. In addition, it is our goal to make sure teachers have

access to technology at their sites as well as support in order for them to effectively integrate it

into their classrooms. Lastly, we want to factor in time. Time is essential when it comes to

learning technology and we know it takes time to learn how to use a piece of technology

proficiently. Therefore, we have factored in a reasonable amount of time for teachers to learn to

use the technology outlined in this PD plan.

11
Needs Analysis
Determining the unique needs of the teachers at Edison Elementary was very important to

us as a team planning a Technology Professional Development (PD). In order to identify the

level of access of technology as well as teachers interests and needs, teachers were given a

Google Form survey via email (linked here). The survey includes six items ranging from

multiple choice grids to open ended questions. The questions asked about level of access to

technology, teachers comfort level with various technology tools such as document cameras,

tablets, and desktops as well as programs such as ST Math and Front Row. The survey also

asked about teachers interests in technology programs and applications in addition to the best

time for PD. Teachers filled out the survey on their own time and the results were analyzed to

discern which programs and/or applications would be desired learning outcomes and which areas

of support would best meet the needs of the teachers.

Based on the results, it seems the level of access to Chromebooks is relatively high with

most teachers saying their students either have a 1:1 access or one device per two to five students

(refer to Figure 1). The same was found for the computer lab: most teachers reported their

students had a 1:1 level of access at the computer lab. However, level of access to student tablets

and desktops were low with the majority of teachers reporting it not being available.

12
Figure 1:

While having access to technology is the beginning of integration, the stages of adoption

for each teacher are equally important. At Edison Elementary, most teachers feel very

comfortable with the document camera, projector, and tablet and cant imagine teaching without

these devices (refer to Figure 2). The teachers at this school also use ST Math and Front Row.

Based on the results of the survey, it seems most teachers are getting acclimated with the

aforementioned programs but are not fully comfortable incorporating these technologies into

their daily their teaching practices.

13
Figure 2:

When looking at the teacher's unique interests at this school, it seems the majority love

using the document camera, projector, desktop computer, laptop computer, and tablets. However,

teachers were less enthusiastic about ST Math and Front Row, presumably because it is new and

there is not a lot of support for it currently (refer to Figure 3). Three of the teachers have already

incorporated the free version of Frontrow into math and ELA instruction. Of the teachers who

currently use it, one is researching and looking into the possibility of getting a paid, full

subscription of Front Row for the school. A lot of teachers have indicated a high level of interest

in learning and using this program. In addition, some just wanted to learn more about technology

as a whole. One teacher stated, I want to extend my knowledge in all areas related to

technology. while another said she would like to learn anything you [Lisa] know about.

Furthermore, two programs that were specifically mentioned by teachers that they want to learn

to use were Screencastify and Kahoot.

14
Figure 3:

The last step to move this Technology PD Plan along was to make sure we worked

around the teachers time and schedules. Most teachers specified Wednesdays to be a good time,

with majority stating their preference to have PD right after school on that day (refer to Figure

4). After consulting and reviewing the schools master calendar, which is already very full with

mandatory as well as optional after school trainings and meetings during the months of October

and November, and to be mindful and courteous to all parties involved, we have decided to

conduct two lunchtime PD sessions and one after school session. The PD sessions will be held

on the following dates: October 13, 2017, 12:15 - 1:00, lunch; October 18, 2017, 1:45 - 2:30,

afterschool; October 25, 2017, 12:15 - 1:00 lunch.

15
Figure 4:

The the invitation email sent out to teachers at Edison Elementary will be found in

Appendix B. Six upper grade teachers responded to the email invitation saying they would like to

attend the PD. Four will attend all three sessions, one would like to attend the October 18th and

25th sessions and one would like to attend the October 25th session. One of the teachers

attending all three sessions has made her classroom available for us to hold the PD. A similar

email was sent out to the primary teachers offering a lunch PD to them during their scheduled

lunchtime, 11:30 - 12:15, on the same day(s). No confirmation responses were received from any

primary teachers. The confirmation email sent for Oct. 13 session can be found in Appendix C.

Rationale for Tech PD

In order to best serve our audience, we wanted to identify their needs and interests. We

created a survey with Google Forms to determine how we could best meet and cater to those

16
needs. After our team distributed the needs assessment, it was determined teachers would like the

opportunity to learn more about the program Front Row, which is an adaptive software that

focuses on the content areas of Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA). For our

purposes, we will focus primarily on the area of Mathematics. Research implies student

engagement increases when technology is integrated into math instruction (Garcia, et al, 2013).

According to Mackenzie (1999), in order to get buy-in from teachers, measurable data should be

presented so the audience can see the benefits of using a program (in our case, Front Row) to

support and enhance instruction. Further, acceptance and implementation of this program will be

dependent upon each teacher's personal and professional goals as well as their personal

perspective and beliefs about best teaching practices (Kim, et al 2013). This is the reasoning

behind the needs analysis survey that was sent out to each teacher, so we can better understand

the school sites unique needs and tailor our PD to those needs.

Research Support for Goals

Based on the needs assessment, we set goals based on three days of professional

development sessions:

In session one of our PD, we will meet with teachers during lunch. The primary goal of

this session is to get teachers started on Front Row. We have created a slide presentation for

them to follow, which will serve as a visual demonstration as the presenter also discusses these

first steps of how to get started. We will first have them access the website

www.frontrowed.com. Then, they will sign up, create a class, and print student login cards. We

then will give teachers time to explore the main menu. This will be guided by the PD presenter,

17
while allowing time for individual exploration. In research by Starr (2012), he found that

teachers felt that they were not given enough time to interact with new programs during

technology PD. We want to ensure that our teachers have the time needed to get comfortable

with the new program with a goal of successful implementation into instruction. The PD

presenter will be available to support and guide teachers and answer any questions that may arise

during this initial exploration.

In session two, our PD will be held after school. During this session, we will be focusing

on how teachers have progressed with Front Row and host a question and answer (Q&A) type

session and Skype in with two of our group mates, Krysta and Lorraine. They will answer any

and all questions that might have arisen since the last PD session. Current literature states that

teachers feel frustrated about the lack of adequate support when implementing new technology

(Starr, 2012) which is why we have formatted the first part of our second session as more of a

Q&A for teachers.

Providing sustained and ongoing technology training has proven to be a best practice for

technological professional development and Brand (1998) explains that technology is not easy to

learn. Effectively integrating it into the classroom will require continual training. Without

continual support, teachers will not gain the knowledge and skills to fully integrate technology

into their pedagogical practices (Brand, 1998).

In addition to our Q&A time, we will also be focusing on how to use the Math portion of

Front Row to support math instruction as well as inquiry-based math projects. Furthermore,

Edison teachers will also get an overview of the differences between the paid and free versions

18
of Front Row and how to create student groupings based on student data reports generated by

Front Row.

During our third PD session, we will be focusing on Kahoot! and Screencastify because

these technology tools were among the most popular ones teachers at Edison Elementary wanted

to learn about. Research states, just like students, teachers are more motivated and have more

buy-in when they feel their needs and interests are factored into a PD (Kim, et al., 2013). We will

start the third session by introducing a game of Kahoot! and having teachers participate in the

game. Then, we will show teachers how to get set-up with Kahoot! themselves and answer any

questions they may have. We will also give an overview of Screencastify and how to record a

video using this Google extension. As always, a contact person--usually the on-site group

member, Lisa--will be available to answer any questions about these applications even after time

has passed after the third session because continual support is paramount to sustained technology

integration (Brand, 1998).

Professional Development Model

We will be using several professional development models. For the first PD session, we

will have a tech PD lunch to introduce the program and provide an overview of its components.

The second PD session will be after school. This will be a combination of face-to-face tech PD

with Lisa, while Krysta and Lorraine join the session via Skype. Teachers will have the

opportunity to ask questions about the program that have come up. Finally, for our third PD

session, we will conduct another tech lunch to introduce the programs Screencastify and Kahoot.

19
 As the literature states, teacher resistance is usually based upon lack of time, lack of

resources, and lack of confidence. While we do not anticipate resistance, per se, we do want to

ensure teachers feel confident to take the software back into their classrooms and be able to

integrate Front Row into their math routine. While the math component of Front Row is the

focus of the technology PD we will be providing, the ELA component is a great part of the

program as well, and may be explored in addition to the math, depending on teacher/attendee

interest.

The atmosphere of professional development session is intended to be informative,

relaxed, and supportive. As suggested by Brand (1998), teachers need to feel emotionally

supported when trying something new. We plan to present the different ways Front Row can be

used during math instruction based on our own experiences to help teachers determine how to

best integrate the program into their daily math routine. Brand further suggests teachers will

think critically about how to incorporate technology effectively and appropriately into instruction

when they see how it can improve upon what they are already doing in the classroom.

As teachers, we know any given group of students requires differentiation. As suggested

by Starr (2012), teachers also require differentiation. During the PD, the teachers are the learners

and they will be coming to us with varying levels of background knowledge. Levels of

comfortability with technology will range from novice to expert. Therefore, we will not only

structure our time to meet the needs of each teacher, but also allow time for teachers to discuss

and learn from one another. This is critical as a few of the teachers on site have preliminarily

used Front Row to support instruction and student learning, but seek additional support using the

20
program. To best support our learners, we will provide teachers with ample time to explore the

program. They will also have the opportunity to ask questions (Kim et al., 2013).

Finally, we will provide ongoing and continual support for teachers implementing the

program. Starr (2012) found teachers often feel frustrated when they do not receive adequate

support when trying to implement new technology. We want our learners to feel supported until

they are fully comfortable with the program. We will help teachers locate the site FAQ section so

they can access this as questions arise later on. Additionally, we will be sure to note that once

teachers sign up for Front Row, they will receive emails regarding professional development

opportunities via webcast. Finally, as stated before, we plan to provide ongoing and continual

support through Lisas on-site availability and offering email support through Krysta and

Lorraine.

Implementation Plan

Based off the needs analysis results provided by our survey, there will be 3 goals to

address in this Technology Professional Development.

Goal 1: The goal of PD day 1 is to teach the basics of Front Row. We will instruct how to

sign-up, create a class, and print student cards. We will briefly go through the main menu

to familiarize teachers with the program. We will specifically introduce the math

component, showing the teachers how they can choose a skill/standard/assignment. No

formal evaluation for this PD session.

Tech PD #1 Slide Presentation

21
 Goal 2: The goal of PD day 2 is to be more specific about how to assign lessons to

students. Using screencasts, we present the teacher view and the students view. We will

stop after each section to allow time for teacher questions. We will lead a discussion of

the implementation of Front Row in teachers classrooms and briefly discuss how to

analyze data in the Reports section of Front Row. We will discuss the differences

between the paid version and the free version of Front Row. We will share webinar

opportunities offered by Front Row with teachers as well as a link that will instruct them

how to get a free month access to the paid version. If time, teachers will be given time to

form student groupings based on student data. Teacher will use Padlet to do the

evaluation of this session.

Tech PD #2 Slide Presentation

Goal 3: The goal of PD day 3 is to introduce the software teachers stated their interest in,

which are Kahoot! and Screencastify. An evaluation will be given using Google Forms at

the completion of the third PD to determine satisfaction of the PD presented regarding

Kahoot! and Screencastify.

Tech PD #3 Slide Presentation

Timeline
Monthly Professional Development

Month Topic/format Person Evaluation

responsible

22
October PD lunch 10-13-17 Lisa Teachers will be guided through setting
12:15 - 1:00pm up classes and ask questions during the
Room 27 process.
Draft
Agendas Topic: Getting Teachers will explore Front Row as a
(Oct. F2F started with Front student to gain understanding of how the
sessions) Row software words and ask questions about
the features.
Signing up,
creating class Teachers will be given an informal
and printing evaluation. They will orally state what
log in student they learned and what they will take away
cards. from the session to the presenter.
Exploration
of home Tech PD #1 Slide Presentation
screen in
Front Row to
explore
features of
Front Row
Math.

PD 10-18-17, 1:45 -
2:30 pm Room 27 Lisa,
(Krysta and
Question and Lorraine via
answer Zoom)
session with
Krysta and Teacher will share how implementation of
Lorraine Front Row is progressing in their classes.
(guided by
attending Teacher will ask questions via skype
teachers) about additional questions on Front Row.

Tech PD #2 Slide Presentation

Teachers will evaluate face-to-face

PD 10-25-17, 12:15 - Lisa session using Padlet

23
 1:00, Room 27 Padlet Evaluation (click on link)
Screencastify

Tech PD #3 Slide Presentation

Teachers will orally state what they

learned

A Final evaluation link will be sent out

for the three face-to-face/tech lunch PDs
given in October.

November Continued Support Teacher Teachers will be guided through Front

on Front Row expert Row math reports and time to explore
Topics: data section. Teacher will be given the
Accessing opportunity to ask questions on this
and feature.
Analyzing
Math Data
Reports. Teacher will complete an evaluation
Screencastify survey on PD session.
on Math Data
section. Teacher expert will check in with
colleagues to help support groupings -
Time and two weeks after PD.
support to
form student
groupings
based on data

January Front Row (cont. Teacher Teachers will log in as a student to

support) expert explore the 3 ELA features discussed.
Topics: Teachers will give feedback of how it can
ELA: support their reading instruction.
-Word study
-Articles Teachers will evaluate session using
-Vocab Padlet.

24
 -Decodables
-Sight Words

Assigning
ELA
assignments

Intro online
PD module
Using Haiku
for
collaboration
and
communicat-
ion

February Front Row (cont. Teacher Teachers will ask questions about ELA
support) expert Data reports and be given time to analyze
their own student data and set up possible
PD day groupings or interventions.
Topic:
Accessing Teachers will evaluate using Padlet.
and analysis
of ELA data

Screencastify
on ELA data

Grade level
small groups-
to form
student
groupings.

March Tech PD Teacher Teachers will evaluate session on Haiku

Topics determined Expert
by grade level

25
 The table above shows our projected yearly outline of our Technology PD necessary to

meet our goals. The formal professional developments on Front Row will be presented to all

teachers interested in learning about utilizing this software with their students. These face to face

professional developments will span from October through February, once a month, in order to

provide teachers with continuous support. Each Front Row session will build upon the preceding

session and teachers will be able to guide the topics that they want more information on in Front

Row

Budget

Substitute teachers were not needed for the Tech PD sessions held at Thomas Edison

Elementary.

No apps were purchased for this Tech PD. We presented the free version of Front Row as

well as the free programs, Screencastify and Kahoot.

$46.92 spent on lunch for the 10/13/17 PD session.

$21.03 spent on lunch for the 10/25/17 PD session.

Each monthly tech lunch session will be approximately $30.

Raffle prizes at end of the year for attendees (5) $10 gift cards.

Evaluation
Attendees to the 10/13/17 PD Session - 12:15 - 1:00 p.m.

Monica Kristine Catherine

Sandy Jamie Robin

26
 Lexie Kaylie Dee

Goal 1 Evaluation:

Although only four teachers initially responded to the email PD invitation, nine teachers

attended, eager to hear (more) about Front Row. For this session, we did not provide a formal

evaluation document or form. A few teachers emailed, thanking me for the session and lunch,

and stated they were glad to hear how other teachers are using Front Row in their classrooms

currently.

Lisa shared a slide presentation at the first session. On slide 10, it was decided that she

would go live so the teachers could navigate with her. Lisa should not have gone live at this

point, but rather continued to use screenshots on Google slides to guide the presentation. While

going live, she encountered technological problems which slowed the progress of the

presentation. Additionally, she was unable to navigate as easily and seamlessly in the program as

she had intended.

A picture of the first seven teachers to arrive. The lunch.

27
Based on teachers questions from PD session 1 (e.g., How much does the program cost per

school/per teacher? What reports do we have access to on the free version of Front Row?),

Lisa scheduled a phone meeting with a Front Row rep to get answers to their (and her) questions.

Confirmation email from Front Row.

Reminder email about tech PD session #2 sent out to teachers on October 17, 2017
Hi Ladies,

This is a friendly reminder that

our second tech PD on Front
Row will be tomorrow,
Wednesday, 10/18/17, from

28
1:45 - 2:30. I actually have answers to some of your questions from last weeks session, Also,
Krysta and Lorraine, from my team, will be joining us via Skype, to answer additional questions
you may have. We will be meeting in Sandy's room, room 27.

Look forward to seeing you all there!

Lisa
P.S. There will be yummy cookies!!
Attendees to the 10/18/17 PD Session - 1:45 - 2:30 p.m.

Monica Kristine Catherine

Sandy Jamie

Goal 2 Evaluation:

For Tech PD session 2, nine teachers accepted the email invitation to attend the PD

session, however only five showed up. Our team created a slide presentation to guide teachers

through multiple aspects of the program, including showing teacher and student views in the

program. Krysta and Lorraine, our team Front Row experts, created YouTube and Screencastify

videos which are included in the presentation. Additionally, Krysta and Lorraine video

conferenced into the session via Zoom, and were available to answer questions. We felt great

about this session, having tested all technology aspects of the presentation the day before.

Lisa arrived to school early to set up for the PD session to ensure that all technologies

were in place and working. Lisa prepared and projected our slide presentation and also connected

with Krysta and Lorraine via Zoom. We felt prepared and ready to go. Unfortunately, as the

session began we had a few glitches. We did not anticipate that Anaheim Elementary School

District (AESD) would block the YouTube videos that Krysta had created. After trying a couple

things to troubleshoot the problem (ex: bringing YouTube up on the district staff portal as well as

accessing YouTube directly), to no avail, we decided to move onto the screencasts of the

29
presentation that Lorraine had created. Those videos worked and provided the teachers with a

visual and How to of program navigation and assigning lessons for students. Furthermore,

about 25 minutes into the PD session, our video connection was lost. We had a plan B, which

was to connect via Facetime using my iPad. However, this attempt to reconnect was

unsuccessful. Therefore, Krysta and Lorraine were unable to answer questions that the attending

teachers had about how to create assignments and use the program reports.

Per our first PD session, the teachers had questions about the free version versus the paid

version of Front Row. Lisa reached out to a Front Row representative, Eric Sarb, and obtained

that information via a phone conference. The information is provided on our slide presentation,

slide 12, and was shared with the teachers in attendance. Additionally, resources about available

webinars offered by Front Row were shared and a link to get a 30-day free trial of the paid

version of the program.

At the conclusion of this session, the teachers communicated that while they liked the

program, they felt that the program licenses were expensive and not something they wanted to

pursue with administration at this time. They are okay using the free version with its

limitations. Additionally, they stated that while they like the program interface, they felt that the

current district approved online math program ST Math by the Mind Institute, was more

conceptual and assisted students in developing a greater understanding of mathematical skills

and concepts. Lisa completed the session by asking the teachers to complete a Padlet Evaluation

(click on the link to view teacher responses - password, Thankyou). Lisa shared the slide

presentation with all of the attendees so that they have access to all videos and information that

was shared during the PD session.

30
 Lorraine and Krysta getting ready for Q&A (PD session 2)

Attendees to the 10/25/17 PD Session - 12:15 - 1:00 p.m.

Denise

Goal 3 Evaluation:

Eighteen teachers responded to our initial technology needs analysis Google Forms

survey, shared via email. Based on the data from that survey, we planned the PD sessions.

However, only ten upper grade teachers responded to the tech PD sessions invite which was sent

via email to both primary and upper grade teachers. Of those teachers, nine attended session 1 on

Front Row and five attended session 2 on Front Row. Out of the teachers that attended those two

sessions, all currently use Screencastify and Kahoot in their classrooms. Only one teacher who

responded to the original email invite communicated she uses Kahoot, but has never used

Screencastify. Based on this information, attendance for PD session 3 was expected to be low.

Although the first two PD sessions were held in Sandys room, the third session was held

in Denises room because Lisa knew that Denise was the one teacher who responded to the email

stating that she wanted to attend the PD session on Screencastify. We waited a few minutes to

allow time for more attendees to arrive, then proceeded with the session. Because it was only

31
Lisa and Denise, Lisa shared the presentation with her so that she could follow along on her

computer as Lisa guided her through the instruction of how to install and use Screencastify.

Screencastify was already installed on her computer which made it easy to move ahead and have

Denise create a screencast (slide 7 of this slide presentation). She was successful and was

surprised how easy it was to create a video using this program. Additionally, she loved the

students sample that was shared. We checked to determine that Screencastify was installed on

her classroom student Chromebooks. It is and she is excited to begin having her students create

and tell stories using Screencastify.

As an aside, on Friday, October 27, 2017, there was an AESD (Lisas district)

district-wide PD day. After an all staff meeting in the morning, teachers were dismissed to work

in grade level teams. Robin, one of Lisas grade level team members, communicated that she was

bummed that she missed the PD session on Wednesday, October 25, (she was out due to an

illness of a family member). She told Lisa that she had never used Screencastify and asked if

Lisa could show her. Lisa showed her that Screencastify was already installed on her tablet by

showing her the film strip icon, top right. When Robin clicked on the film strip icon it prompted

her to set up the camera. Because they were to supposed be working on ELA development, not

Screencastify, they decided to set up a time next week so Lisa could teach her how to use the

Google extension. Lisa did share the Screencastify slide presentation with Robin, which provides

explicit instructions on how to use it, in case Robin wanted to work through it on her own. Lisa

will touch base with Robin next week.

Final Evaluation Technology PD sessions:

32
 Our final face-to-face PD session took place on October 25, 2017. We shared our final

evaluation, created using Google Forms, on October 27, 2017, via email with the ten teachers

that attended one or more of the PD sessions. Due to the slow response to the final evaluation

form, a reminder email asking teachers to take a minute to complete the final evaluation form

was sent out on October 31, 2017. Of the ten teachers that attended our PD sessions, eight

completed the survey. Three track D teachers attended at least one PD session. However, they

tracked off on October 26, 2017 (we are a year round, multi track school), which may account

for the 80% completion rate of the survey.

Of those teachers who completed the survey, five of the teachers (62.5%) gave the

sessions a 5 rating, meaning they found the sessions to be a very valuable learning experience.

Three teachers (37.5%) gave the sessions a rating of 4, meaning they found the sessions valuable

but need more support (refer to Figure 1). Of the eight teachers who completed the survey, 100%

of them stated that they would be using www.frontrowed.com to support instruction in both math

and ELA (refer to Figure 2). Five teachers (62.5%) stated that they would anticipate using

Screencastify and Kahoot! in the classroom. This response percentage reflects that those who

attended the PD already know how to use Kahoot in the classroom. Of the eighteen teachers who

responded to our initial Needs Analysis survey, it can be determined that those who responded

that they wanted to learn how to use Kahoot to support student learning, did not accept the

invitation to attend PD.

33
Figure 1:

Figure 2:

34
 Our last question on the final evaluation of PD sessions was, How can I further assist

you in Front Row or other resources that were discussed? Teacher responses are as follows:

I don't need anything at the time, but I know where to go if I have questions.

Thanks!!

Nothing at this time. Thanks!

I know you're "down the hall" so if I have difficulties you can offer assistance. :)

You covered a wide range of information! Thank you! Hopefully admin can

purchase more of the subscription to FrontRow for us!

I want to know more about Screecastify.

Thank you so much for the info Lisa!

Currently I am okay. I may need your assistance when I introduce Screencastify

to my students. Thanks!

I would like more suggestions on uses with Front Row.

Currently, six of the eight teachers surveyed are comfortable where they are at in their

use of Front Row in the classroom. One teacher needs additional support with how to use Front

Row effectively in the classroom and one teacher needs more assistance with Screencastify.

Donovan and Green (2014) state the continued informal conversation (p. 138) is an important

aspect of evaluation. It is important to touch base with teachers to discuss implementation and

impact of the programs presented during the technology PD sessions. As we partake in casual

conversations--as teachers and as colleagues--we learn from one another how to best utilize

online programs to support instruction and student learning. Based on the survey responses,

35
combined with conversations Lisa has had with teachers on campus, Lisa has determined that

Robin, a fourth grade level team member, is the one who would like further assistance using

Screencastify.

Based on the AESD technology goals, our PD has specifically addressed the goal that

states, Ensure that each and every child has access to digital resources in their daily learning,

(AESD Technology Goals, 2016-2018, Appendix A). As a group, we are confident that our

technology professional development sessions conducted on Front Row, Screencastify, and

Kahoot! have assisted Thomas Edison Elementary in becoming a 21st Century teaching and

learning environment.

Individual Reflections
Each group member completed an individual reflection. The reflections have been added

to our respective Evernote's. Please see our individual Evernote's to access our reflections.

36
 References

Brand, G. A. (1997). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal of

Staff Development, 19(1), 1-9.

Clark, A. , & Whetstone, P. (2014). The impact of an online tutoring program on mathematics

achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 1-5.

Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2014). Making change: Creating 21st century teaching and learning

environments. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education Publishing, Inc.

Ertmer, P. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurer, E., Sendurer P. (2012). Teacher beliefs

and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers & Education,

Volume 59 ,(2).

Garcia, I. , Garcia, I. , & Pacheco, C. (2013). A constructivist computational platform to support

mathematics education in elementary school. Computers & Education, 66, 25.

Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affecting teachers adoption of educational computer games: a case

study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256270.

Keegan-Yoho, J. 2006. Technology leadership, technology integration, and school performance

in reading and math: a correlation study in K-12 public schools. PhD Dissertation,

Department of Philosophy, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.

Kim, C. , Kim, M. , Lee, C. , Spector, J. , & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and

technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of

Research and Studies, 29, 76-85.

37
Lowther, D., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. (2010). Educational technology research past and present:

balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational

Technology, 1(1), 17-35.

Whetstone, P. , Clark, A. , & Flake, M. (2013). Teacher perceptions of an online tutoring

program for elementary mathematics. Educational Media International, 1-12.

http://wikieducator.org/images/4/4b/What_Research_Says_-_Training_Teachers.pdf

38
 Appendices
Appendix A

AESD Technology Goals, 2016-2018

ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

VIII. TECHNOLOGY

Vision: The Anaheim Elementary School District is closing the gap-the digital divide-between
those individuals and communities that have access to Information Age tools and those
that do not. Through the addition of infrastructure, wide and local area networks,
classroom computers, Internet connectivity, and instructional software, students, teachers,
and administrators are becoming technologically literate and responsible cyber citizens.
A student information management system provides technology support to staff in the
areas of attendance, discipline, record keeping, assessment, and homework. Support for
the budgeting, accounting, payroll, attendance, purchasing, and warehousing operations
comes from the MIS-Management Information Support-system.

The Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services is responsible for all Technology Key
Performance Targets.

2016-18 Key Performance Targets 2016-18 Key Performance Indicators

1. Promote the knowledge that the
funds approved by the Board have
allowed the District to maintain a
State-of-the-Art infrastructure.
The 3 Year Technology Plan was
presented to the Board on August
22, 2017, and will be updated and
presented again at the start of the
2017-18 school year to include
information about how eRate
funds are being used for the next
five years.
AESD received full eRate funding
on March 15, 2017.

2. Continue the technology refresh
program to ensure that children
have access to up-to-date
technology equipment as devices
continually grow and change.
For the 2016-17 school year, the
Technology Refresh Program
refreshed:
197 Teacher Instructional
Devices

39

3. Become an official Future
Ready District.
4. Ensure that each and every child
has access to digital resources in
their daily learning.
645 Student Chromebooks
96 Classroom Projectors
Technology Leadership
Committee met to discuss
feedback from technology
purchases and commissioned
pilots of alternative instructional
devices to address these concerns.
Technology Leadership
Committee will make decisions on
purchases for the 2017-18 school
year in April 2017, after reviewing
feedback from these pilots.
Convene Future Ready Leadership
Team.
Take the District Leadership
Future Ready Self-Assessment.
Analyze and discuss Districts
Scores and Readiness Levels
utilizing the futureready.org
dashboard
There are 13,000 Chromebooks in
circulation at our sites for student
use.
All students, TK through
sixth-grade have an account for
GSuite for Education, Discovery
Plus, and Safari Montage, ensuring
every child is able to learn and
create in a 21st Century digital
environment.
Technology Refresh for 2017-18
will focus on refreshing student
Chromebooks at a rate of 10 per
classroom.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
Program is in its final year of
phase-in, and will be available for
all grade levels at all sites for the
2017-18 school year, so that all
students may use the technology
they prefer.
40
Appendix B

Hi there Upper-Grade Teachers,

As a requirement for my

Master's Program, I need/get to

conduct Tech PD. Based on the

survey my team sent out, many of

you are interested in learning more

about www.frontrowed.com. After

looking at the school calendar and

being aware of how busy we all are, I have decided to host the first session as a lunch

session. Yes!! Free lunch - yum! Below are the dates and times of the proposed sessions:

Friday, October 13, 2017, 12:15 - 1:00. Location TBD. This session is

designed to get teachers who are not yet using Frontrow set up with a class and

started. Of course, ALL are welcome!

Wednesday, October 18, 2017, 1:45 - 2:00. Location TBD. During this

session, one of my team members who uses Frontrow as part of her daily math

rotation will join us via Skype to answer any questions you may have. Her

school uses the paid version.

TENTATIVE. Wednesday, October 25, 2017, 12:15 - 1:00, Upper grade OR

11:30 - 12:15 Primary. Location TBD. Some teachers expressed learning more

about Screencastify and Kahoot. Based on the conversation of the first two

41
 sessions, the third session will be confirmed at our Oct. 18 session. This will

also be a lunch session.

Please let me know which dates you are hoping to attend. I will send a

follow-up/confirmation email close to the session dates.

Please let me know if your classroom is available for me to hold the session(s) as I do not

have complete access to my classroom while I am off track.

Thanks so much and look forward to working with you,

Lisa

42
Appendix C

Good Morning Ladies,

Just to confirm, Sandy, Dee, Monica, and Kristine will be

attending the lunch PD on Friday, October 13. There is still

time to sign up if you would like. I will be providing lunch,

so please respond to this email if you would like to attend

this PD session on Front Row.

We will meet in Sandy's room, room 27 at 12:15 p.m. Please bring your device.

43