Training needs assessment of teachers: The case of De La Salle University Dasmarinas
Crispina Corpuz, De La Salle University Dasmariñas
Abstract
The paper sought to describe the training needs assessment of De La Salle University Dasmarinas (DLSUD) teachers based on their perception on Professional Development (PD) vis- à-vis the PD program of the school in terms of its activities and support services relevant to professional development. The research assumes that PD of teachers which includes training about information, communication and technology (ICT) integration is essential to create a new learning environment responsive to the needs of the 21st century learners. The study also involved examining the current knowledge of the respondents in terms of instruction and classroom management including their level of expertise in the use of technology applications and tools in teaching amidst digital disruption. This study employed a qualitative research design and research participants were teachers from the seven colleges of DLSUD including the graduate schools, and senior high school. Frequency counts, ranking, weighted means and ANOVA were the statistical tools used to determine the level of needs for the different categories identified. Findings show that there’s no significant difference among all department/colleges when it comes to perceived need while when grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational background, there’s a significant difference between the means of the group when one looks at the variables used for continuing education.
Keywords: training needs assessment (TNA), professional development program (PDP), digital disruption, information, communication and technology (ICT)
Introduction
De La Salle University-Dasmarinas (DLSU-D), Cavite’s Premier University, prides itself in preparing students to face the actual workplace after four years of college education (DLSU-D portal). To make this possible, administrators, especially those at the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academics and Research (OVCAR), prepare and update the academic priorities every school year to identify possible improvement and enhancement of its professional development programs for teachers. To ensure compliance with the identified academic priorities as embodied in the 5- year development program, the Academic Council approved commissioned research studies to serve as basis for future administrative planning sessions. One of these include topics about the identification of training needs of teachers in relation to the Professional Development Program (PDP) of the university. Considering the school spent a lot for faculty development and there is a need for cost-effective solutions, the OVCAR deemed it vital to ensure that the resources invested in PD are placed at areas where it is needed and a positive return on the investment is guaranteed. The rapid transformation in the field of technology which is considered the most important characteristics of this century, makes it imperative for teachers in all sectors to develop their capabilities because these changes disrupted the manner how professors deal and connect with their students. Considering the availability and usage of new technology in almost all aspects of our lives in a digitized world, inclusion of technology-related skills as part of the development of
169
competencies of teachers should be a major consideration in the PD of teachers (Drossel and Eickelmann , 2016). Simply providing training to teachers may miss priority needs, or even cover areas that are not essential. Although there were researches conducted about technology needs assessments for education, these were usually unique and specific to the school where the studies were conducted. Thus, the study hopes to provide additional literature on the field that will serve as example to other academic institutions who would also like to assess the training needs of their faculty.
Statement of the research problems
1. What is the training needs of DLSUD teachers when they are grouped according to college/department, years in the teaching profession and educational background? 2. What is the current knowledge of DLSUD teachers in terms of instruction and classroom management when they are grouped according to college/department, years in the teaching profession and educational background?
Statement of the research objectives
1. To determine the profile of respondents relevant to training needs. 2. To analyze the current knowledge of respondents in terms of instruction and classroom management including their skills in the application of technology apps and tools in teaching.
Assumptions
1. The respondents answered the survey in an honest and candid manner. 2. Technology changes quickly, thus, the need for teachers to continuously participate in professional development program relevant in the application of technology in teaching. 3. General computer literacy is not enough to prepare teachers to use technology in the classrooms. 4. PD of teachers which includes training about ICT integration is essential to create a new learning environment responsive to the needs of the 21st century learners.
Operational definition of terms
1. Training Needs Assessment refers to the assessment of training needs of DLSUD teachers. 2. Professional Development Program refers to the activities and support services of the school to enhance the skills of teachers in instruction and classroom management including the application of tech apps and tools in teaching. 3. Digital disruption refers to the change that occurs in the way we integrate the use of technology in instruction because of the introduction of new digital modes in teaching affecting the conventional learning set up of classrooms. 4. ICT refers to different tech apps and tools used to promote diverse learning methods inside and outside the classroom.
170
Review of Literature
The following literature served as basis and inspiration in the present investigation about training needs assessment and PD.
When it comes to PD content, the researcher would like to cite the study conducted by Yurtseven and Bademcioglu (2016) to carry out content analysis about the studies on TPD. It covers 60 studies that were registered at Turkish National Thesis Centre and ProQuest Database between the years 2005-2015. Data showed that for areas of study, 13 studies reflect findings that show PD activities have positive effects on teachers’ PD, 11 studies showed a positive relationship between PD activities and improved teacher practice while 7 studies showed PD and student learning relationship. It is worthy to note that out of 60 studies covered in the analysis, only 2 studies were about PD and technology. Recommendations of 18 studies demonstrated there is a growing need for research about PD activities. This is also reflected in the study of Schoenfield (2011) and Guskey (2000) who both inferred that PD is an ongoing process in which there are learning opportunities for teachers every day.
In terms of pedagogy using the learner-centered approach, the research would like to espouse the study of Orrill (2006) about what a learner-centered PD looks like. It demonstrated the need for teachers to understand that PD is about their own learning rather than about supporting their students’ learnings. This is because teachers are accustomed to participating in workshops focused on pedagogical strategies, their own content knowledge development rather than how to teach content to students.
When one looks at the impact analysis of ICT teaching aids used for training and development of employees (Sharma et al, 2014), it can be inferred from the results that management supports the use of modern ICT teaching aid and the research has proven that the use of ICT teaching aids has improved the reach of learning and enhanced the quality of delivery. The theoretical and monotonous training sessions of the past has been replaced with more interactive and practical sessions inside and outside the classroom.
When it comes to training assessment surveys, Reilly (2016) pointed out that this is only a one-dimensional tool, so to expand the process that will reflect a comprehensive approach, it could include focus group discussion (FGD) about the results of the survey with stakeholders or classroom observations to confirm the result.
For effective PD the study of Hammond (2017) inferred that a well designed and implemented PD should facilitate the learning of students to develop their knowledge, skills and competencies they need to thrive in the 21st century. This is based on the review of 35 studies conducted before 2010 which demonstrated a positive link between teacher PD and student outcomes. There is a wide agreement that PD for teachers is a necessary element for educational change, especially for a more effective application of technology to enhance learning (Tondeur et al, 2016; Kozma,2003). Caena (2011) pointed out that since not all teachers pay attention in assuring that classroom learning results in practice, there should be specific professional learning
171
activities that will enable teachers to cope with rapid changes and update their individual skills and approaches considering the fast-paced development of new teaching techniques and objectives. Integrating technology in instruction can increase learners’ motivation, efficacy, curiosity, and creativity (Carle, Jaffee & Miller, 2009; Idris & Nor, 2010; Molins-Ruano et al, 2014). Educational systems all over the world are now facing the challenge of coping with the rapid technological changes and development making it imperative for schools to continuously upgrade and develop teachers who are tasked to prepare students for life and work in the information age ( Anderson 2008; Eickelmann 2011; Gerick, Eickelmann & Boss, 2017). Digital literacy in this digital age is gaining a lot of importance (European Commission [EC], 2010; Fraillon et al, 2013) and designers and experts in digital technologies do not suggest that these will make classroom obsolete but they do argue that online instruction will change the nature of teaching on campus making it more engaging and efficient. The net’s disruptive forces according to Carr (2012) will force college professors and administrators to reconsider many of their assumption about the form and meaning of teaching. With this, it becomes critical to look at the manner by which teachers help their students to develop their ICT skills and examine factors that may support or hinder the acquisition of such skills.
It is important to note that most of the research literature available describes uses of digital tools and resources including its availability and the need to integrate the use of these tools in teaching. It must be noted however that final product of a training needs analysis is an accurate description of exactly what type of training is required, which is adapted inside and outside the classroom. Thus, the training needs analysis makes it possible to transform the identified needs into learning objectives, which can then be achieved through appropriate training activities (McConnell, 2003).
Operational framework
PDP of the School Activities & support Services of the School TNA of DLSUD Teachers Policy Implications Profile of Teachers College/Department Knowledge in Instruction Years in the Teaching & Classroom Profession Management & Use of Educational Tech Apps and Tools In Background Teaching
Figure 1. Research Paradigm
Methodology
172
Research Design
This study used the descriptive research design. It described teachers’ perception on PD vis-a-vis the PDP of the school including its activities and support services relevant to PD using the survey questionnaire distributed online and offline. To fulfil the aim of study, null hypothesis was developed and this was tested using ANOVA.
Respondents
The research participants were teachers from the seven colleges of the university including teachers from graduate schools and senior high school as directed by OVCAR.
Formulation of the Survey Questionnaires
The main source of information was based on the adopted survey questionnaires from Wmich (2015-a) & Lomboy, 2009). It was modified by the researcher to solicit the opinions of full-time faculty in the 7 Colleges and Senior High School level and the opinions of faculty at the Graduate School level on their preferences for training activities provided by the institution. The modification in the survey was mostly deleting of items not applicable in the present school setting where the study was conducted.
The assessment utilized the descriptive–survey method with the use of Google forms as well as the distribution of the hard copy of the survey to all concerned colleges/department.
Survey consisted of 3 parts:
The first part of the questionnaires was designed to identify the demographic profile of the respondents such as college/department designation, years in the teaching profession, and educational attainment.
Second part is all about determining the teachers’ own perception on PD vis-à-vis the PDP of the school including list of activities and support services relevant to PD.
Third part presented a list of teachers’ competencies to measure their current knowledge in instructions and classroom management, including their skills in the application of identified technology apps and tools in teaching.
Pilot testing was done by requesting all college deans to identify professors from their respective colleges to help improve the survey questionnaire. A total of 23 professors representing the different colleges assisted the researcher for this purpose.
To test the validity of the survey questionnaires, Cronbach alpha was used.
173
Table 1 Reliability Statistics Particulars Cronbach’s Alpha Number of Items To measure perceived need 0.870 13 To measure activities & Support services 0.947 12 To measure knowledge 0.947 16 To measure technology skills 0.964 22
As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach alpha rating was identified from 0.870 to 0.947 which is considered acceptable based on Nunnally (1978).
There were 213 respondents, 129 answered the online survey form, while 84 answered the survey in hard copy. Representative sample was used to ensure that all teachers were adequately represented.
Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents Vis-à-vis the Actual Number of Faculty Based on the HRMO List
Table 2 shows the different response code for the interpretation of data. The respondents answered the questionnaire following the scale below.
174
Table 2 Response Code Response Code Verbal Interpretation
5.0 - 4.5 Excellent/Extremely Important/Mastery & Could Teach Others/Extremely Helpful/Expert Level 4.49 -3.5 Very Good/Very Important/Approaching Mastery/Very Helpful/Advance Skill 3.49 -2.5 Good/Important/Some Knowledge/Helpful/Intermediate Skill 2.49 -1.5 Fair/Minimal Importance/Very little knowledge/Slightly helpful/Basic Skill 1.49 - 1.0 Poor/Not Important/None/Not Helpful/None 0.0 Not Applicable
Results and discussion
Table 3 Level of Significance of Perceived Need by College
------Mean Std Deviation F p-value Interpretation
Training CBAA 4.4598 0.51496 1.021 0.429 No significant Activity (TA) difference Average by CLA 4.3153 0.60321 College CCJE 4.3333 0.42164 CSCS 4.3153 0.58766 COE 4.5278 0.59828 CTHM 4.25 0.71492 SHS 4.6944 0.38817 CBAA 4.2381 0.59982 GS CLA GS 4.0833 0.68718 CSCS 4.4667 0.29814 GS COE 4.1944 0.54045 GS CEAT 4.3889 0.54742 Total 4.3818 0.57393 Continuing CBAA 4.0069 0.9479 1.353 0.198 No significant difference
175
Education CLA 3.9568 0.87703 (CE) Average by CCJE 4.3 0.54772 College CSCS 3.8703 0.92522 COE 4.1111 0.9919 CTHM 4.2125 0.81148 SHS 4.4667 0.59289 CBAA 3.3714 1.17999 GS CLA GS 3.85 0.75498 CSCS 3.56 1.12606 GS COE 3.4667 1.28299 GS CEAT 3.65 1.10248 Total 3.9568 0.95484 Development CBAA 4.1241 0.69367 0.6 0.828 No significant difference Opportunity CLA 4.0378 0.63916 (DO) Average by CCJE 4.2 0.4899 College CSCS 3.9838 0.64701 COE 4.1056 0.98269 CTHM 3.8125 0.82452 SHS 4.1 0.85067 CBAA 3.5714 0.93401 GS CLA GS 4.25 0.68069 CSCS 4.28 0.64187 GS COE 3.9 0.59391 GS CEAT 3.9333 0.83702 Total 4.0235 0.75261
Using ANOVA to test the level of significance of perceived need by college, Table 3 shows that there’s no significant difference among all the colleges when it comes to perceived need. This means that regardless of college, there is no significant difference in terms of how the respondents rate the importance of perceived need while all the average mean scores are high ranging from 4.38 to 3.96 which shows how the respondents value the identified PD activities and support services offered by the school.
176
Teaching is not an easy job that one-third of teachers leave the profession within three years and 50% leave within five years (Ingersoll, 2003). As pointed out by Mizzell (2010) there are a lot of challenges confronting teachers which include among others changes in subject content, new instructional methods, advances in technology, changed laws and procedures, and student learning needs. This according to Mizell (2010) would mean that school administrators who do not provide effective PD activities and support services to their teachers will not help improve their skills, and student learning suffers.
Table 4 Level of Significance of Perceived Need by Years in the Teaching Profession Mean Std Deviation F p-value Interpretation
TA_AVE 1 -5 Yrs. 4.4 0.55656 1.9 0.089 No Significant Difference 6 - 10 Yrs 4.5 0.53058 11 - 15 Yrs 4.4 0.49469 16 - 20 Yrs. 4.5 0.55627 21 - 25 Yrs. 4.4 0.49467 26 - 30 Yrs. 4.4 0.49139 31 Yrs & 4 0.93216 Above Total 4.4 0.57393 CE_AV 1 -5 Yrs. 4.1 0.81946 4.2 0.001 Significant E Difference
6 - 10 Yrs 4.1 0.75255 11 - 15 Yrs 4 0.85903 16 - 20 Yrs. 4.1 0.8651 21 - 25 Yrs. 3.9 0.90233 26 - 30 Yrs. 4.2 0.56765 31 Yrs & 2.9 1.561 Above Total 4 0.95484 DO_AV 1 -5 Yrs 4.1 0.7209 1.4 0.226 No Significant E Difference 6 - 10 Yrs 4.1 0.68813 11 - 15 Yrs 4.1 0.65582 16 - 20 Yrs 4.1 0.71184 21 - 25 Yrs 3.9 0.771 26 - 30 Yrs 3.8 0.78082 31 Yrs & 3.6 1.08369 above Total 4 0.75261
177
When it comes to finding out if there’s a significant difference in terms of perceived need of the training activity, and development opportunities when the respondents are grouped according to years in the teaching profession, findings show there’s no significant difference except when one looks at continuing education average with a p-value of 0.001. Continuing education refers to getting certificate program on the respondents’ academic discipline, pedagogical methods and the use of digital apps and tools. This implies that there is a difference between the means of the groups when it comes to years in the teaching profession. Relevant to this is the result of the OECD Report about Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environment (2009) which states that on average, the amount of professional development that teachers received decreased with the age of the teacher. Averaged across all countries included in the study showed a steady decline to an average of around 14 days for teachers aged 50 years or more and these differences between age groups according to the study are all statistically significant indicating less experienced teachers receive more days of professional development than more experienced teachers. Table 5 Level of Significance of Perceived Need by Educational Background
Mean Std Dev F P-Value Interpretation
MA 2.187 0.072 No Significant TA Ave Ongoing 4.4762 0.4662 Difference With MA 4.2899 0.60699 Doctorate 4.4708 0.51611 Ongoing With 4.2952 0.62048 Doctorate Others 5 0 Total 4.3818 0.57393 CE Ave MA 4.2857 0.5127 6.293 0 Significant Ongoing Difference With MA 4.1522 0.68011 Doctorate 4.115 0.76026 Ongoing With 3.5371 1.21895 Doctorate Others 5 0 Total 3.9568 0.95484 DO Ave MA 4.0143 0.87518 0.643 0.632 No Significant Ongoing Difference With MA 3.9565 0.77047 Doctorate 4.025 0.71112 Ongoing With 4.04 0.77392 Doctorate Others 4.6667 0.57735 Total 4.0235 0.75261
178
Table 5 presents the level of significance of perceived need of the training activity, and development opportunities when the respondents are grouped according to educational attainment, findings show there’s no significant difference except when one looks at continuing education average with a p-value of 0. Just like years in the teaching profession, results indicate that there is a difference between the means of the groups when it comes to educational background. Comparing this with the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) first result which presents the qualification level differences across participating countries, the least qualified or those with qualifications below the level of a Bachelor’s Degree received the least professional development. Findings is parallel to results in the OECD Report for 2005 which shows that the more highly educated adults in the general population are more likely to participate in such training. This according to the report may raise questions on equity concerning demand for training as well as its provision to teachers on an equitable basis since those who might benefit most from further PD are getting the least.
Table 6 Level of Significance of the Current Knowledge of Respondents on Instruction and Classroom Management when they are Grouped According to Department/College, Years in the Teaching Profession and Educational Background Mean Std. Deviation F p-value Interpretation
CBAA 4.0345 0.680 3.204 0 Significant Difference 48 Incorporating CLA 4.4054 0.724 Writing & 93 Communication CCJE 4.1667 0.752 77 Skills in the CSCS 3.8919 0.809 11 classroom COE 4.0833 0.603 56 CTHM 4 0.516 4 SHS 4.0833 0.792 96 CBAA 4 0.816 GS 5 CLA 4.75 0.5 GS CSCS 4.4 0.894 GS 43 COE 4.1667 0.834 GS 85 CEAT 3.0833 1.164 5
179
Total 4.061 0.789 69
CBAA 3.931 0.70361 1.925 0.038 Significant Difference Designing CLA 3.9459 0.84807 strategies & content to CCJE 4 0 match Learning CSCS 3.7027 0.90875 outcomes COE 3.9722 0.73625 CTHM 3.9375 0.57373 SHS 3.8333 0.57735 CBAA 3.5714 0.9759 GS CLA 4 0 GS CSCS 3.8 0.83666 GS COE 4.0833 0.90034 GS CEAT 2.9167 1.24011 Total 3.8357 0.82773
CBAA 4 0.75593 2.142 0.019 Significant Difference Designing CLA 3.9459 0.84807 Collaborative CCJE 4 0 Learning CSCS 3.8108 0.87679 experience COE 4.0278 0.6088 CTHM 3.8125 0.65511 SHS 3.8333 0.71774 CBAA 3.1429 0.69007 GS CLA 4 0 GS CSCS 3.8 0.83666 GS COE 4 0.8528 GS CEAT 3.0833 0.66856 Total 3.8545 0.77243
1 -5 Yrs 3.4167 0.66856 2.357 0.032 Significant Difference Writing 6 - 10 Yrs 4.087 0.84816 objectives
180
& 11 - 15 Yrs 3.8868 0.72484 measurable outcomes 16 - 20 Yrs 4.1017 0.66163 21 - 25 Yrs 3.8667 0.7303 26 - 30 Yrs 4.2222 0.64676 31 Yrs & 4.1667 0.85749 above Total 3.9906 0.73965
MA 3.5 0.85485 2.458 0.047 Significant Ongoing Difference Effective With MA 3.8261 0.90196 instruction & Doctorate 3.9 0.85091 assessment Ongoing With 4.1571 0.79191 Doctorate Others 3.6667 0.57735 Total 3.939 0.85287 MA 3.5 0.65044 5.291 0 Significant Ongoing Difference Writing With MA 3.8043 0.85945 objectives & Doctorate 3.9375 0.66263 measurable Ongoing outcomes With 4.2714 0.65765 Doctorate Others 4 1 Total 3.9906 0.73965
MA 3.7143 0.72627 3.78 0.005 Significant Ongoing Difference Developing With MA 3.6087 0.88137 & Integrating Doctorate 3.8625 0.79147 research Ongoing In the With 4.1714 0.76084 course Doctorate Others 4 1 Total 3.9014 0.82109
MA 3.4286 0.75593 3.135 0.016 Significant Ongoing Difference Retooling With MA 3.4565 0.93587 on Methods Doctorate 3.5375 0.927 of Ongoing research With 3.9429 0.79647 Doctorate
181
Others 3.3333 1.1547 Total 3.6432 0.8978
Table 6 presents the level of significance of the current knowledge of DLSUD faculty when grouped according to the identified demographic profile. When the respondents are grouped according to college/department, three identified variables; incorporating writing & communication skills in the classroom, designing strategies and content to match learning outcomes and designing collaborative learning experience showed significant difference. This means different colleges significantly differ in knowledge when it comes to the above-mentioned variables. When grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational background, writing objectives and measurable outcomes display a significant difference. Significant difference is also displayed in the current knowledge of respondents in terms of effective instruction and assessment and developing and integrating research in the course when they are grouped according to educational background. Related to this is the study of Hammond (2017) who demonstrated shared features of effective PD; being content focused: PD that focuses on teaching strategies associated with specific curriculum and incorporates active learning. Such PD according to Hammond uses interactive activities, and other strategies to provide deeply embedded, highly contextualized professional learning. This element includes an intentional focus on discipline-specific curriculum development and pedagogies. Teachers reported a high level of adoption of and comfort with this strategy. This implies the need to structure PD activities that are discipline-specific for it to be successful.
Table 7 Level of Skills/Expertise in the Use of Technology in Teaching
Factors N Mean Std Deviation Interpretation ------Adobe software packages Total 213 2.4038 1.00301 Basic Skill Blogs Total 213 2.4366 1.11676 Basic Skill Broadcasting Images thru webcams, skypes Total 213 2.7089 1.10734 Intermediate Skill Developing Open Educational Resources Total 213 2.2488 1.15704 Basic Skill Using E-books from different sources Total 213 2.7559 1.13542 Intermediate Skill Using Microsoft Excel Total 213 3.5587 1.0106 Advance Skills Using Microsoft Outlook Total 213 3.0376 1.22801 Intermediate Skill Using Power BI Total 213 2.2441 1.24633 Basic Skill Using Microsoft Sway Total 213 2.1737 1.21425 Basic Skill Use of macromedia flash, animation Total 213 1.9577 1.10449 Basic Skill Webinars/Digital Literacy Total 213 2.3286 1.19944 Basic Skill Use of Flashcard Apps Total 213 1.9108 1.11868 Basic Skill Use of Gamifications Total 213 2 1.15742 Basic Skill Use of Grammar Apps Total 213 2.2066 1.23417 Basic Skill Use of Homework Help & Research Apps Total 213 2.2817 1.18779 Basic Skill Use of Mobile Apps Total 213 2.5915 1.39653 Intermediate Skill Use of online learning apps, bookmark etc. Total 213 2.3756 1.20132 Basic Skill Use of social networking sites and tools Total 213 3.338 1.10672 Intermediate Skill Use of virtual classrooms Total 213 2.2347 1.25567 basic Skill Use of Neo LMS/Schoolbook Total 213 3.0704 1.20913 Intermediate Skill Video Possibilities/Digital Formats Total 213 2.6009 1.20353 Intermediate Skill Use of Wikis in Education Total 213 2.3756 1.16139 basic Skill ------
182
Table 7 presents the level of expertise of respondents on the uses of available technology apps and tools in teaching. The respondents indicated advance skills in using Microsoft Excel, intermediate skills in broadcasting images thru webcams, & skypes, use of E-books, Microsoft outlook, mobile apps, use of social networking sites and tools, the use of NEO LMS/Schoolbook and digital formats while the rest are mainly basic skills.
These are very useful information that can serve as basis in improving/enhancing the content of the five-year faculty development plan of the institution. The researcher is not espousing to just provide training about enhancing the tech apps and tools capability of the respondents but rather, follow the general steps in TNA. This includes training needs assessment per discipline to find out what is the appropriate tech apps and tools that would really enhance the teaching-learning process. taking into consideration the available infrastructure and facilities available in the institution. It also involves designing the training programs and objectives that should state the benefit to the different stakeholders in the organization. The outcome of the training should take into consideration the instructional objectives, the organizational and departmental objectives and the individual and growth objectives (Corpuz, 2013). Considering budget limitation for training, it is a must for training objectives to be stated clearly to set the right tone and direction for training. The last part of the process is training evaluation which should not be just for compliance but with the specific instrument to measure the impact of training when it comes to effective application of new skills/knowledge/attitudes on the job. This also involves measuring the return on investment (ROI) of training by looking at the business results. In the case of schools, instead of looking at the customer satisfaction index, the institution can establish student satisfaction index since they are the customers/clients of the school. As pointed out by ExploreHR (n.d.-a), measuring training results should not be mere tallying of the results of the training evaluation survey submitted by the faculty after attending the training but it should involve measuring the importance of the program in meeting the organization’s goals, cost of the program and focusing on the quantified results of training by computing the net program benefits divided the program costs multiplied by 100. The process is somewhat rigorous and time consuming but identifying the appropriate performance indicators to measure the impact of training can provide valuable inputs to support the cost of training
Conclusions
It can be inferred from the results that when the respondents are grouped according to college, there’s no significant difference while showing high mean scores for all variables identified. Respondents value the identified activities and support services offered by the school. When grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational attainment, there’s a significant difference in terms of continuing education and a high mean scores for all variables identified showing a strong interest on the part of the respondents to promote their professional growth. When grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational background, writing objectives and measurable outcomes display a significant difference. Significant difference is also displayed in the current knowledge of respondents in terms of effective instruction and assessment and developing and integrating research in the course when they are grouped according to educational background.
183
In terms of current knowledge in the use of tech apps and tools, the respondents indicated advance skills in using Microsoft Excel, intermediate skills in broadcasting images thru webcams, & skypes, use of E-books, Microsoft outlook, mobile apps, use of social networking sites and tools, the use of NEO LMS/Schoolbook and digital formats while the rest are mainly basic skills Findings suggest that more and more teachers see the value of integrating ICT in education but most of them only have the basic skills or knowledge about the app. The same holds true about continuing education wherein the program on the use of apps and tools relevant to teaching were considered by all colleges and departments as very important but lack the required skills to integrate technology in teaching. Without careful planning of PDP of schools, trainings may become disconnected from the needed skills in the classroom. It goes without saying that all PDPs should be relevant or based on the specific discipline of the teacher concerned.
Policy implications
The results of the study could help the school administrators in adopting standards in providing PD activities and support services to guide them in the design, evaluation and funding of PDP. Regardless of years in the teaching profession and educational background, continuing education which includes getting certificate program on the respondents’ academic discipline, pedagogical methods and the use of digital apps and tools should be given based on the need of the teachers as reflected in their perceived need. The different colleges and departments should be given due consideration in enhancing the provisions included in the PDP of the school. Since this is by college/department, it would be easier for the respective head to identify what training need should be given priority when preparing the PD activities for teachers. There is a need to regularly conduct training needs assessment considering tech-tools often change fast and there is always a need for teachers to update their skills. This would address the low level of expertise of respondents on the uses of available technology apps and tools in teaching which are mostly basic skills as reflected in the findings. For administrators to continuously provide tech-facilitated opportunity for professional learning and coaching just like what CILP is doing. This is based on the firm understanding of the teachers’ current skills is fundamental to resource allocation for training, training support and ultimately ICT’s successful integration into professional practice. This would justify the amount spent on faculty development. The researcher recommends the possible adoption of the ICT Competency Standards for Teachers developed by UNESCO (2013). This provides a Teachers’ Professional Development Toolkit for ICT integration in education. The toolkit includes different set of resources from the introduction of ICT into teachers’ education, including strategies to ensure success, collection of education data, designing curriculum to materials development with open educational resources (OER) including instructional videos available for viewing which could be used for training new or in-service teachers. This tool was a product of collaboration and partnership of UNESCO, the Commonwealth Secretariat (ComSec), the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), Microsoft, the Ministries of Education of several countries in the Caribbean and Pacific who are committed to enhancing teacher education. The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT- CFT) was used as the conceptual framework for all the activities undertaken in different countries included in the study. The set of teacher competencies described in the framework was designed
184
to facilitate improvements in school administration, teaching and learning, and TPD using technology. The competencies indicated in the framework can serve as basis in identifying what needs to be included and emphasized in any PDP. To add, the curriculum mapping template provided is an excellent tool for course designers or those staff tasked to develop a new course or revise an existing one. To be able to use the tools provided, key activities include conducting an eReadiness Audit to identify infrastructure, equipment and skills baseline levels for planned strategies and activities to work. This will also help identify the activities indicated in the toolkit which have already been completed or accomplished by the school like the key role played by the school Center for Innovative Learning (CILP) when it comes to identifying and adapting Open Resources and Open Courseware, developing an advocacy strategy to encourage the use of ICT in teaching and learning, the training of pre-and in-service teachers to integrate ICT into their operations as well as monitoring and evaluation, revision of the strategy, courses and materials
References Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 20, 3-22.Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_1. Caena, F. (2011). Literature review: quality teachers’ continuing professional development. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/11c9/e90f3fb8a97e463882d5ab0846b2373279a2.pdf Carle, A.C. Jaffee, D., & Miller, D. (2009). Engaging college science students and changing academic achievements with technology. A quasi-experimental preliminary investigation. Computer & Education. 52(2), 376-380. Carr, N. (2012). The crisis in higher education. Technology Review, 115(6). 32-40. Corpuz, C. (2013). Human Resource Management (3rd ed.). Manila: Rex Publishing Inc. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional- development-brief [DLSUD Portal]. www.dlsud.edu.ph Drossel,K., & Eickelmann, B. (2017). Teachers’participation in professional development concerning the implementation of new technologies in class: a latent class analysis of teachers and the relationship with the use of computers, ICT-self efficacy and emphasis on teaching ICT skills. Large-scale Assessments in Education. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40536-017-0053-7 Eickelman, B. (2011). Supportive and hindering factors to a sustainable implementation of ICT in schools. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3(1), s. 75-103, 75-103. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2011/4683/pdf/JERO_2011_1_Eickelmann_Supportive_ and_hindering_factors_S75_D_A.pdf. ExploreHr. (n.d.-a). Exploring HR management. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from http://www.exploreHR.org/ European Commission, (2010). Teachers’ Professional Development: Europe in international comparison: An Analysis of teachers’ professional development based on the OECD’S
185
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Luxembourg: European Union. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Gebhardt, E., (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report. New York: Springer. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/ user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_International_Report.pdf. Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., & Bos, W.,(2017). School-level predictors for the use of ICT in schools and students’ CIL in international comparison. Large Scale Assessments in Education, 5.10.1186/s40536-017-0037-7. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Corwin Press, Inc Idris, N., & Nor, N.M. (2010). Mathematical creativity: usage of technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),1963-1967. Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved January 20, 2018 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI-09-2003.pdf. Kozma, R.B., (2003). Global perspectives: Innovative technology integration practices from around the world. Learning and leading with technology, 31(2), 7-54. Lamboy, C. (2009). Faculty development needs assessment: Report on findings. Retrieved December 28, 2017 from https://my.laureate.net/Faculty/docs/Faculty%20Documents/Needs- Assessment-Report- 1-09.pdf MIT Technology Review. (n.d.-a). Retrieved January 20, 2018, from http://www.technologyreview.com/ Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters? Retrieved December 10, 2017, from www.learningforward.com. Molins-Ruano, P. , Sevilla, C., Santini, S., Haya, P.A., Rodriquez, P., & Sacha., G.M. (2014). Designing videogames to improve students’ motivation. Computers in Human Behavior. 31, 571-579. Nunally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. . New York: Mc Graw Hill OECD, (2009). Creating effective teaching & learning effectiveness. OECD Publishing. OECD (2014), A Teachers' Guide to TALIS 2013: Teaching and Learning International Survey. OECD Publishing. Orrill, C.H. (2006). What learner-centered professional development looks like? The Mathematics Educator,16(1), 4-13. O’Reilly, E.N. (2016). Developing technology needs assessments for educational programs: An analysis of eight key indicators. IJEDICT, 12, 129-143. [OVCAR (2017)]. DLSUD 5-year development program. Sharmaa, S. et.al. (2015). Impact analysis of ICT teaching aids used for training and development of employees. Elsevier Ltd. Academic World Education Center. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 457-469. Retrieved December 10, 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0307-8 Talis, (2009). OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey: Conceptual Framework. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/talis/ The future of work: How technology innovaton will transform our working environment. (2012).
186
Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.pega.com/insights/articles/future-work- how-technology-innovation- will-transform-our-working-environment. Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L.H., Vanderlinde R.R. & Van Braak, J. (2013). Getting inside the black box of technology integration in education: Teachers’ stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3) 134-144. UNESCO. (2009). Information and communication technologies in teacher education. A planning guide. Paris: UNESCO, Division of Higher Education. UNESCO. (2013). ICT competency standards for teachers. ICT in Education Teachers’ Professional Development Toolkit. Western Michigan University (2015). Office of the faculty development needs assessment report 2015. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u665/2016/OFD%20Needs%20Assessm ent%202015.pdf Yurtseven, N. & Bademcioglu, M. (2016). Teachers’ professional development: a content analysis about the tendencies in studies. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(6).
187