Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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:
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,
and administrators are becoming technologically literate and responsible cyber citizens.
areas of attendance, discipline, record keeping, assessment, and homework. Support for
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
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
Kindergarten 172
Grade 1 139
Grade 2 106
Grade 3 137
Grade 4 117
Grade 5 127
Grade 6 127
Asian 1
Filipino 0.4
White 1.6
5
Foster Youth 0.9
CAASPP Test Results in English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics for All
Students (2015 - 2016)
English Language 20 26 48
Arts/Literacy
Mathematics 16 22 36
Student Information
Category %
6
Grade 4 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
best. The last technology PD Lisa can recall was March, 2017. As a staff, we were trained on
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
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
Literature Review
Though many teachers today are learning about technological resources and
implementing technology into their classrooms, research suggests that some teachers are still
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
interaction with real problems through simulation and diverse objects. Garcia, et al., (2013)
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
11
Needs Analysis
Determining the unique needs of the teachers at Edison Elementary was very important to
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
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
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Timeline
Monthly Professional Development
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.
23
1:00, Room 27 Padlet Evaluation (click on link)
Screencastify
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Reminder email about tech PD session #2 sent out to teachers on October 17, 2017
Hi Ladies,
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.
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
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
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
30
Lorraine and Krysta getting ready for Q&A (PD session 2)
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
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
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
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
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!!
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
to my students. Thanks!
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
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
Clark, A. , & Whetstone, P. (2014). The impact of an online tutoring program on mathematics
Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2014). Making change: Creating 21st century teaching and learning
Ertmer, P. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurer, E., Sendurer P. (2012). Teacher beliefs
Volume 59 ,(2).
Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affecting teachers adoption of educational computer games: a case
in reading and math: a correlation study in K-12 public schools. PhD Dissertation,
Kim, C. , Kim, M. , Lee, C. , Spector, J. , & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
37
Lowther, D., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. (2010). Educational technology research past and present:
http://wikieducator.org/images/4/4b/What_Research_Says_-_Training_Teachers.pdf
38
Appendices
Appendix A
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.
1. Promote the knowledge that the The 3 Year Technology Plan was
funds approved by the Board have presented to the Board on August
allowed the District to maintain a 22, 2017, and will be updated and
State-of-the-Art infrastructure. 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 For the 2016-17 school year, the
program to ensure that children Technology Refresh Program
have access to up-to-date refreshed:
technology equipment as devices 197 Teacher Instructional
continually grow and change. Devices
39
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.
4. Ensure that each and every child There are 13,000 Chromebooks in
has access to digital resources in circulation at our sites for student
their daily learning. 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
As a requirement for my
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
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
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
Please let me know which dates you are hoping to attend. I will send a
Please let me know if your classroom is available for me to hold the session(s) as I do not
Lisa
42
Appendix C
We will meet in Sandy's room, room 27 at 12:15 p.m. Please bring your device.
43