“FLIPPING”  EDUCATIONAL  TECHNOLOGY  PROFESSIONAL   DEVELOPMENT  FOR  K-­‐12  EDUCATORS     By     Daniel  Spencer                   A  THESIS     Submitted  to   Michigan  State  University   in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements   for  the  degree  of     MASTER  OF  SCIENCE     Geological  Sciences     2012             ABSTRACT   “FLIPPING”  EDUCATIONAL  TECHNOLOGY  PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  FOR  K-­‐12   EDUCATORS     By     Daniel  Spencer       As  the  demand  for  more  effective  professional  development  increases  in  K-­‐12   schools,  trainers  must  adjust  their  training  methods  to  meet  the  needs  of  their  teacher   learners.    Just  as  lecture-­‐heavy,  teacher-­‐centered  instruction  only  meet  the  learning  needs   of  a  small  minority  of  students,  “sit  and  get”  professional  development  rarely  results  in  the   teachers  gaining  the  skills  and  confidence  necessary  to  use  technology  effectively  in  their   instruction.    To  resolve  the  frustrations  of  teachers  related  to  ineffective  professional   development,  a  “Flipped  PD”  training  model  was  developed  based  on  the  learning  needs  of   adult  learners,  the  integration  of  technological,  pedagogical,  and  content  knowledge   (TPACK),  learning  activities,  and  the  Flipped  Classroom  concept.    Under  this  model,   training  shifts  from  a  passive,  trainer-­‐centered  format,  to  an  active,  learner-­‐centered   format  where  teachers  learn  to  use  technology  in  their  classrooms  by  first  focusing  on   pedagogical  issues,  then  choosing  the  options  that  work  best  for  addressing  those  issues  in   their  unique  situation,  and  completing  “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”  projects.    Those  who  participate  in   “Flipped  PD”  style  trainings  tend  to  have  more  confidence  upon  completion  that  they  can   use  the  tools  they  were  trained  on  in  their  teaching,  as  well  as  believe  that  the  PD  was   engaging  and  a  good  use  of  their  time.               TABLE  OF  CONTENTS     LIST  OF  TABLES  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  iv       LIST  OF  FIGURES  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  v     INTRODUCTION  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1     IMPLEMENTATION  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    12       RESULTS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    29     DISCUSSION  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  41     APPENDIX  A:  Research  Participation  Information  and  Consent  Form  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    48     APPENDIX  B:  JCISD  Educational  Technology  PD  Survey  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  49     APPENDIX  C:  Post  Training  Survey  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  51     APPENDIX  D:  iPad  Training  (Grass  Lake)  “Learn-­‐By-­‐Doing”  Project  #1  –  iPad  Bingo  .  .  .  .  .  52     APPENDIX  E:  Screencasting  Training  (Burns  Elementary)  “Learn-­‐By-­‐Doing”  Projects  .  .  .  .  53     WORKS  CITED  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  55         iii     LIST  OF  TABLES     Table  1  –  Reasons  for  Ineffective  Professional  Development  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  30     Table  2  –  iPad:  Perceived  Level  of  Technology  Expertise  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  31     Table  3  –  iPad:  Tool  Familiarity  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    31   Table  4  –  Screencasting:  Perceived  Level  of  Technology  Expertise  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    32   Table  5  –  Screencasting:  Tool  Familiarity  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    33   Table  6  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (Pinconning):  Perceived  Level  of  Technology  Expertise  .  .  .  .  34   Table  7  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (Pinconning):  Tool  Familiarity  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  34   Table  8  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (DSA):  Perceived  Level  of  Technology  Expertise  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  35   Table  9  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (DSA):  Tool  Familiarity  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  36   Table  10  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (JCISD):  Perceived  Level  of  Technology  Expertise  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  37   Table  11  –  Flipped  Classroom  (JCISD):  Tool  Familiarity  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  37               iv     LIST  OF  FIGURES     Figure  1  –  TPACK  image  (rights  free)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  6   Figure  2  –  Teacher  (n=72)  Feedback  From  the  JCISD  PD  Survey  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  29   Figure  3  –  iPad  Training  Feedback  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  32   Figure  4  –  Screencasting  Training  Feedback  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    33   Figure  5  –  Flipped  Classroom  (Pinconning):  Training  Feedback  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    35   Figure  6  –  Flipped  Classroom  (DSA):  Training  Feedback  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    36   Figure  7  –  Flipped  Classroom  (JCISD):  Training  Feedback  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  38   Figure  8  –  Feedback  From  All  Flipped  PD  Trainings  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  38   Figure  9  –  Comparison  Between  Presurvey  and  Post  Training  Feedback  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  39   Figure  10  –  A  Comparison  Between  Flipped  PDs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  40     v     INTRODUCTION     “Happy  families  are  all  alike;  [but]  every  unhappy  family  is  unhappy  in  its  own  way”     (Tolstoy  &  Moser,  [18-­‐).    In  many  ways  the  same  can  be  said  for  the  effectiveness  of   professional  development  (PD)  in  K-­‐12  education.      Simply  ask  a  room  full  of  teachers  to   share  their  favorite  story  of  “bad”  PD  and  the  room  will  erupt  into  conversations.    Yet  ask   for  examples  of  effective  PD  that  made  a  positive  and  lasting  impact  on  their  classroom   teaching,  and  one  soon  realizes  that  the  traits  of  valuable  PD  are  not  so  obvious.   As  Common  Core  State  Standards  for  math  (Carmichael,  Martino,  Porter-­‐Magee,  &   Wilson,  2010),  the  Next  Generation  Science  Standards  (National  Research  Council,  2012),   and  the  National  Educational  Technology  Standards  for  students  (ISTE,  2007)  and  teachers   (ISTE,  2008)  becomes  the  bar  by  which  students  and  teachers  are  judged,  the  focus  on  rote   teaching  and  “sit  and  get”  learning  is  being  pushed  aside  (Donovan  &  Bransford,  2005;   National  Research  Council,  2000).    Each  of  these  sets  of  standards  carries  with  them  the   expectation  of  teachers  ability  to  use  technology  effectively  to  help  students  communicate,   collaborate,  and  create  through  differentiating  learning  and  continual  assessment   (Marzano,  Pickering,  &  Pollock,  2005;  Marzano,  2007).    Yet  the  continuous  and  timely   training  necessary  for  educators  to  learn  and  apply  these  tools  into  their  instruction  will  be   ineffective  at  best  without  the  proper  framework  of  best  PD  practices  (Garet,  Porter,   Desimone,  Birman,  &  Yoon,  2001;  Joyce  &  Showers,  2002;  Wayne,  Yoon,  Zhu,  Cronen,  &   Garet,  2008).         1     The  Problem  with  PD   Despite  the  need  for  quality  educational  technology  professional  development  as  it   relates  to  teaching  and  learning,  the  overwhelming  feedback  from  teachers  is  that  PD  is   mostly  seen  as  a  “waste  of  time,”  and  many  more  lack  confidence  to  use  those  tools  in  their   classroom  after  training  (Spencer,  2012).    Far  too  often,  attending  teachers  describe  these   sessions  in  terms  such  as  “sit  and  get”,  where  the  trainer  lectures  about  a  technology  tool   or  concept  to  a  large  group  of  teachers  for  a  time  and  then  expects  them  to  understand  how   to  effectively  apply  it  in  their  own  unique  classroom  environment  (Schrum,  1999).      While  a   few  teachers  in  attendance  may  be  inspired  to  dig  deeper  into  the  topic,  or  maybe  even   incorporate  it  into  their  teaching,  the  vast  majority  of  teachers  involved  will  leave  that   training  and  never  think  about  it  again.    However,  just  as  “sit  and  get”  teaching  only  works   for  a  select  few  students  in  the  science  classroom,  the  same  can  be  said  for  similar  models   of  PD.    While  this  is  a  convenient  format  for  the  trainer,  there  is  little  benefit  for  the  learner   (Garet,  et  al,  2001).    If  the  purpose  of  PD  is  to  make  a  positive  impact  in  the  classroom,  the   focus  must  be  on  developing  learner-­‐centered  trainings  that  match  the  needs  of  the   individual  teacher,  rather  than  the  convenience  of  the  trainer  (Polly  &  Hannafin,  2010).   When  it  comes  to  teacher  discontent  over  trainer-­‐centered  PD,  common  complaints   can  often  be  grouped  into  three  areas.    These  areas  include  frustrations  over  1.)  “I  can’t  use   this  in  my  classroom”  i.e.  a  lack  of  classroom  application,  2.)  “I  couldn’t  keep  up”  or  “I   already  knew  everything.”  i.e.  pacing  issues  for  teachers  of  different  ability  levels,  and  3.)   “We  didn’t  get  to  try  it  out”  i.e.  a  lack  of  “hands  on”  learning  time  and  the  inability  to   practice  using  the  technology  during  the  training.      It  is  easy  to  see  why  these  concerns,   stemming  from  a  trainer-­‐centered  PD  model,  would  translate  into  a  lack  of  transfer  into     2     teaching.    Yet  how  can  those  in  charge  of  training  shift  their  focus  from  what  is  convenient   for  them  to  what  is  most  effective  for  the  learner?   Adult  Learners  and  Andragogy   Moving  from  a  trainer-­‐focused  model  of  PD  to  learner-­‐focused  model  must  first   address  the  issue  of  learning  “ownership.”    Once  again,  just  as  “sit  and  get”  teaching  is  only   effective  for  a  select  few  students,  the  same  applies  for  adult  learners,  in  this  case  teachers,   mostly  because  in  the  trainer-­‐centered  model,  the  learner  has  little  to  no  investment  in  the   learning  process.    Without  engagement  in  the  learning  process,  teachers  will  never  make   the  steps  necessary  for  implementing  the  tool  into  their  teaching,  let  alone  using  it  to  make   a  positive  impact  on  learning  outcomes  (Shulman,  1986;  Watson,  2001).   To  address  the  learning  ownership  issues,  trainers  must  address  the  learning   preferences  of  their  teachers.    Malcolm  Knowles  is  considered  the  father  of  the  study  of   adult  learning,  also  known  as  “andragogy”  (Knowles,  1975;  Knowles,  1984;  Knowles,   1990).    According  to  Dr.  Knowles,  adult  learners  have  specific  needs,  which  must  be   addressed  in  order  for  them  to  take  ownership  of  the  learning  process.    For  example  (1984,   Appendix  D):   • The  need  to  understand  why  a  specific  topic  or  tool  is  being  taught.   • The  need  to  learn  by  doing  instead  of  memorizing.   • The  need  to  provide  learning  activities  and  materials  available  for  learners  of  all   backgrounds  and  experience.   • The  need  for  autonomy  or  allowing  learners  to  discover  for  themselves  while   still  having  help  available.     3       The  case  can  be  made  that  these  needs  apply  to  all  learners,  regardless  of  age.     Therefore  learning,  whether  it  be  in  a  K-­‐12  classroom  or  a  teacher  training,  depends  on   quality  instruction.    In  the  case  of  a  trainer-­‐centered  model  of  PD,  needs  for  learners  such   as  relevance,  personalization,  and  autonomy  are  often  ignored  in  pursuit  of  efficiency.    But   if  the  focus  of  training  is  truly  on  helping  teachers  learn  and  develop  skills,  efficiency  will   be  replaced  by  an  emphasis  on  personal  relevance.    For  example,  a  trainer-­‐centered   program  on  the  features  of  the  newest  presentation  software  could  be  covered  efficiently  in   a  faculty-­‐wide  demonstration  in  less  than  an  hour.    But  based  on  Knowles  needs  of   learners,  many  in  attendance  would  struggle  to  see  the  relevance  of  this  in  their  own   situation,  and  would  likely  walk  away  having  learned  little,  let  alone  be  able  to  apply  it  to   their  teaching.    So  the  question  becomes:  how  do  trainers  meet  the  needs  of  their  adult   learners  and  help  them  understand  how  the  technology  they  are  being  trained  on  applies  to   their  unique  situation?   TPACK       While  trainers  must  format  their  training  to  meet  the  expectations  of  adult  learners,   they  must  do  so  within  the  context  of  teaching  and  learning.    The  TPACK  framework   (Technological  Pedagogical  and  Content  Knowledge)  was  developed  by  Dr.  Punya  Mishra   and  addresses  the  interdependence  between  the  areas  of  technology,  pedagogy,  and   content  in  terms  of  teaching  and  learning  (Koehler  &  Mishra,  2005;  Mishra  &  Koehler,   2006).    Rather  than  viewing  these  three  areas  as  silos  which  function  independently  of  one   another,  TPACK  attempts  to  address  how  teachers  must  consider  all  three  areas  when  it   comes  to  effective  teaching  and  learning  (Koehler,  n.d.).     4       The  first  area  under  TPACK,  Technological  Knowledge  (TK)  involves  an   understanding  about  educational  technology  tools  and  concepts,  but  also  includes  the  skills   a  teacher  would  need  to  execute  them  effectively.    For  example,  technological  knowledge  of   a  software  program  such  as  Microsoft  PowerPoint®  would  involve  understanding  all  the   “in’s  and  out’s”  of  this  program  and  how  it  can  be  used  to  create  presentations.    Many   trainer-­‐centered  professional  development  courses  focus  specifically  on  the  tool,  with  the   intention  that  if  a  teacher  understands  how  to  use  a  particular  piece  of  software  or   hardware  they  will  automatically  know  how  to  use  it  in  their  teaching.     Koehler  also  explains  how  just  as  technological  knowledge  hinges  on  understanding   how  to  use  different  tech  tools,  Content  Knowledge  (CK)  revolves  around  an  understanding   of  the  subject  being  taught,  including  “central  facts,  concepts,  theories  and  procedures   within  a  given  field.”    At  its  most  basic  level,  a  teacher’s  content  knowledge  is  their   understanding  of  the  subject  area  they  teach.    While  understanding  the  content  area  being   taught,  simply  knowing  the  subject  does  not  automatically  translate  into  student  learning.   The  third  and  final  area  of  TPACK  is  Pedagogical  Knowledge  (PK),  moves  beyond   just  content  knowledge.    Rather,  it  is  an  understanding  of  the  methods  and  practices   needed  to  teach  a  particular  subject  effectively.    Once  again,  Koehler  explains  that  “as  such,   pedagogical  knowledge  requires  and  understanding  of  cognitive,  social  and  developmental   theories  of  learning  and  how  they  apply  to  students  in  their  classroom.”    Those  who   understand  how  to  teach  content  will  understand  the  processes  and  structure  needed  for   students  to  build  understanding  and  skills.     With  these  three  knowledge  areas  of  TPACK  in  mind,  any  overlap  between  them   represents  the  interaction  between  these  areas  in  teaching  and  learning  (Figure  1).    For     5     example,  if   content   knowledge  (CK)  is   the  understanding   of  a  subject,  and   pedagogical   knowledge  (PK)  is   the  understanding   of  how  to  teach   effectively,  then   that  overlap  is   referred  to  as   “pedagogical   content   Figure  1  –  TPACK  image  (rights  free)     For  interpretation  of  the  references  to  color  in  this  and  all  other  figures,   the  reader  is  referred  to  the  electronic  version  of  this  thesis.   knowledge”   (PCK),  or  how  to   teach  a  specific  subject  area  effectively.    The  intersection  between  technological  knowledge   (TK)  and  pedagogical  knowledge  (PK)  is  referred  to  as  “technological  pedagogical   knowledge”  (TPK),  or  how  technology  can  be  used  effectively  in  teaching  situations.     Ultimately,  the  goal  of  teaching  and  learning  focuses  on  the  intersection  of  all  three  areas  or   TPACK,  and  how  to  use  technology  to  teach  content  effectively.           For  instance,  a  high  school  chemistry  teacher  who  understands  TPACK  will  consider   all  three  areas  when  planning  a  unit  on  the  Periodic  Table.    In  terms  of  content,  the  teacher     6     must  understand  details  relating  to  the  history  of  the  periodic  table,  the  structure  of   elements  and  the  resulting  characteristics,  as  well  as  patterns  and  how  they  change   throughout  the  table.    When  it  comes  to  pedagogy,  this  teacher  would  understand  how  to   use  effectively  use  methods  such  as  explanations,  analogies,  demonstrations,  labs,  and   other  assignments  to  help  students  learn.    But  embedded  into  the  learning  cycle  would  also   be  the  use  of  technology  such  as  websites,  simulations,  and  web  2.0  tools  to  help  students   interact  with  the  topic  and  demonstrate  understanding  in  ways  which  were  not  possible   without  the  technology.    Used  properly,  all  three  areas  of  knowledge  for  this  teacher  would   complement  one  another,  while  removing  any  of  them  would  hinder  the  learning  process.   Learning  Activities     The  idea  of  learning  activities  is  an  extension  of  TPACK  from  Dr.  Judy  Harris  (Harris & Hofer, 2011; Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009).    The  emphasis  here  is  that  if  we  teach  just   technological  knowledge,  such  as  how  to  use  a  specific  software  program,  or  how  to   operate  a  unique  piece  of  hardware,  that  knowledge  becomes  quickly  outdated  and  is   rarely  advanced  to  a  level  of  classroom  application  (Harris  &  Hofer,  n.d.).    However,  if  the   focus  moves  from  being  tool-­‐specific,  to  pedagogical  issues,  then  the  use  of  that  tool  can  be   adapted  for  a  wide  range  of  classrooms.       A  training  which  effectively  utilizes  learning  activities  first  asks  teachers  “what  do   you  want  your  students  to  do?”  before  ever  discussing  specific  technology  tools  (Harris & Hofer, 2009).    This  is  a  similar  mindset  to  the  “backwards  design”  method  (Wiggins  &   McTighe,  1998)  used  by  many  educators  to  plan  their  curriculum.    In  the  realm  of  PD,   focusing  on  specific  tools  is  hampered  by  the  number  of  teachers  who  have  access  to  them   and  how  quickly  features  become  out  of  date.    However,  by  focusing  on  what  teachers  want     7     students  to  do  in  their  classroom,  and  then  offering  a  variety  of  choices,  the  conversation   moves  from  being  about  the  tool  in  isolation,  to  a  discussion  on  effective  pedagogy  first  and   then  about  which  tools  will  be  best  for  that  teacher.         For  example,  training  for  high  school  chemistry  teachers  on  Vernier®  probes  may   help  those  who  have  access  to  that  brand  of  probes  but  will  be  limited  by  the  specific   probes  demonstrated.    However,  training  focused  on  “how  do  we  help  students  effectively   collect  and  analyze  data?”  which  identifies  different  technological  options  to  address  the   pedagogical  problem  will  have  a  much  different  feel.    So  rather  than  just  teaching  how  to   use  a  Vernier  temperature  or  pH  probe,  a  learning  activities  training  would  focus  on   measuring  techniques  and  then  offer  a  variety  of  measurement  tool  options  from  which   teachers  can  choose  from  and  then  learn  more  about.   The  Flipped  Classroom     But  while  the  TPACK  and  Learning  Activity  concepts  address  the  “why”  behind   making  technology  training  applicable  to  a  wide  variety  of  teachers  and  classrooms,  the   problem  still  remains  in  the  area  of  “how.”    Just  as  students  exhibit  a  wide  array  of   interests,  learning  preferences,  and  background  knowledge  in  a  subject  area,  the  same   applies  to  teachers  involved  in  a  training  scenario.    Not  all  students  learn  in  the  same  way   and  at  the  same  pace.    So  yet  another  wrinkle  to  the  PD  problem  is  that  of  pacing  and  how   to  accommodate  learners  of  all  levels.     The  “Flipped  Classroom”  concept  has  received  much  focus  lately  in  educational   circles  concerning  accommodating  the  learning  needs  of  the  individual.    At  its  most  basic   level,  the  flipped  classroom  shifts  direct  instruction  (i.e.  lecture)  to  a  digital  format  done   outside  of  class,  and  then  using  class  time  for  applying  what  has  been  learned.    Those  who     8     use  the  flipped  classroom  effectively  focus  on  first,  how  to  leverage  technology  to  allow   teachers  to  be  available  when  students  need  their  help  the  most.    Secondly,  they  use   technology  to  allow  student  ownership  of  the  pace  and  structure  of  their  learning   (Bergmann & Sams, 2012).     When  it  comes  to  the  logistics  of  this  concept,  teachers  who  flip  their  classrooms  are   simply  shifting  when  and  where  content  is  delivered  and  providing  opportunities  for  a   more  meaningful  class  experience.    Rather  than  spending  valuable  face-­‐to-­‐face  time  on   direct  instructional  activities  such  as  lecture,  examples,  and  other  rote  activities,  these  are   instead  introduced  digitally  via  video  “screencasts”  outside  of  the  classroom.    Students   have  access  to  these  content  screencasts  at  all  times  both  in  and  out  of  class  and  can  learn   the  basics  at  their  pace  and  on  their  schedule.    But  the  true  power  of  this  concept  comes   through  when  class  begins.    With  content  available  at  any  time,  class  time  no  longer  has  to   be  monopolized  by  introducing  content  in  a  “one  size  fits  all”  model.    Rather,  class  time  can   now  center  on  the  individual  application  of  what  has  been  learned  through  a  multitude  of   higher-­‐order  thinking  activities  such  as  inquiry,  project  based  learning,  modeling,  and  most   importantly,  providing  authentic  demonstrations  of  their  understanding.     While  the  ability  to  focus  scarce  class  time  on  the  application  of  concepts  rather  than   introducing  them  is  extremely  valuable,  moving  from  a  teacher-­‐centered,  “whole  class”   mindset  to  one  which  focuses  on  the  individual  student,  allows  the  teacher  the  flexibility  to   be  available  when  students  need  help  the  most.    In  a  teacher-­‐centered  model,  teachers   often  spend  a  considerable  amount  of  class  time  lecturing  to  students  and  then  send  them   home  to  work  on  problems  before  returning  the  next  day.    A  flipped,  learner-­‐centered   model  allows  students  to  learn  content  at  their  own  pace  while  also  having  access  to  the     9     teacher  when  they  need  help  the  most.    In  essence,  by  untethering  themselves  from  whole   class  lectures,  and  a  confined  area  in  front  of  their  whiteboards,  flipped  teachers  create  a   learning  environment  where  they  are  readily  available  for  their  students  as  they  work   through  the  application  of  what  they  are  learning.     Some  may  feel  the  learner-­‐centered  model  made  possible  by  the  flipped  classroom   concept  would  only  result  in  chaos  and  frustration  when  it  comes  to  real  world  learning   situations  (especially  in  PD).  However,  individualization  does  not  mean  a  lack  of  structure.     Dr.  Ramsey  Musallam’s  “Explore-­‐Flip-­‐Apply”  method  (Musallam,  2010;  Musallam,  2012)   provides  context  for  how  this  can  be  done  effectively  in  a  classroom  or  training.    The  focus   of  “explore-­‐flip-­‐apply”,  regardless  of  the  subject  area,  is  to  first  allow  learners  to  “explore”   the  topic  and  build  background  knowledge.    After  the  exploration  phase,  teachers  or   trainers  then  “flip”  the  instruction  and  provide  rote  content  digitally,  which  the  learner  can   access  on  demand  to  answer  any  questions  or  fill  in  any  knowledge  gaps  from  the  explore   phase.    Finally,  learners  “apply”  what  they  have  learned  by  creating  learning  artifacts   related  to  the  topic.    Fortunately,  this  model  can  be  modified  to  work  in  any  learning   situation,  regardless  of  the  topic.   “Flipping”  PD     The  concept  of  “flipped”  PD  addresses  the  concerns  over  classroom  application,   pacing,  and  hands-­‐on  learning  opportunities  many  teachers  have  related  to  ineffective  PD.     By  combining  the  effective  attributes  of  learning  goals,  TPACK,  Learning  Activities,  and  the   Flipped  Classroom,  those  who  provide  educational  technology  training  to  K-­‐12  educators   can  shift  from  a  trainer-­‐centered  mentality,  to  a  learner-­‐centered  one.    As  such,  the  primary   focus  of  flipped  PD  will  be  on  the  classroom  application  of  technology  and  allowing     10     teachers  to  learn  at  their  own  pace  by  doing  projects  related  to  the  tool  regardless  of  the   tool  or  concept  being  taught.   Hypothesis     By  shifting  from  a  trainer-­‐centered  model  of  PD  to  a  learner-­‐centered  model,   participating  teachers  will  have  confidence  in  their  ability  to  use  educational  technology   tools  and  concepts  presented  in  trainings  in  their  teaching.   Demographics     Seventy  K-­‐12  teachers  from  schools  throughout  Michigan  participated  in  this  study.       Of  those  teachers,  41%  came  from  the  elementary  level,  52%  from  the  middle  or  high   school  levels,  and  the  remaining  7%  being  from  higher  education  or  administration.    Of  the   teachers  who  participated,  90%  said  they  chose  to  attend  the  training,  while  only  10%   were  asked  to  be  there.    When  asked  to  describe  their  level  of  technology  use  in  their   classroom,  70%  of  attending  teachers  said  they  “use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure   [their]  teaching  to  include  it.”    These  data  were  collected  in  conjunction  with  multiple   educational  technology  trainings  provided  during  April  through  June  2012.           11     IMPLEMENTATION     PreSurvey   In  January  2012,  a  presurvey  was  sent  to  K-­‐12  educators  throughout  Jackson   County,  Michigan  asking  them  about  their  experience  related  to  previous  educational   technology  professional  developments  they  had  taken  through  the  Jackson  County   Intermediate  School  District  (Appendix  A).    Seventy-­‐two  teachers  responded.    The  survey   was  sent  through  countywide  email  and  included  a  link  to  a  Google®  Form  designed  to   collect  information  anonymously.    The  Google®  Form  consisted  first  of  a  series  of   statements  and  asked  teachers  to  check  those  they  felt  accurately  described  their  PD   experiences  in  the  past.      Statements  included  phrases  such  as  “the  training  was  an  effective   use  of  time”,  “I  practiced  using  technology  related  to  the  topic”,  and  “I  was  able  to  use  what   I  learned  in  my  classroom  right  away.”    Responses  were  collected  and  tabulated  as  a   percentage  of  teachers  who  agreed  with  the  statement.    The  second  question  was  in  free   response  form,  and  asked  teachers  to  describe  a  training  experience  that  was  a  “waste  of   time”  for  them.    Free  response  answers  were  grouped  based  on  similarities.   The  Flipped  PD  Model     Trainings  were  designed  after  the  Explore-­‐Flip-­‐Apply  model  with  the  intent  to   address  the  main  issues  raised  by  teachers  in  the  survey,  which  included:  1.)  The  need  for   an  emphasis  on  classroom  application  and  addressing  pedagogical  issues,  2.)    Allowing   participants  to  learn  at  their  own  pace,  and  3.)  Incorporating  hands-­‐on  “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”   projects  into  the  training.    Ideally,  learn-­‐by-­‐doing  projects  create  an  artifact,  which  can  be     12     used  immediately  in  the  classroom.    Based  on  these  points,  the  Flipped  PD  model  used  in  all   trainings,  regardless  of  the  tool  or  concept  being  taught,  consisted  of  the  following  format:   Explore  Phase:   1. Addressing  a  pedagogical  issue  or  concern  as  the  focus  of  the  training.   2. Providing  classroom  examples  of  tools  or  concepts  used  to  address  the  issue.   3. Live  demonstrations  and  discussions  during  the  training  of  how  to  use  the  tool.   Flip  Phase:   4. Offering  tutorials  and  other  “how-­‐to”  resources  in  a  digital  format,  which  attendees   could  access  as  needed  both  during  and  after  the  training.   Apply  Phase:   5. Embedding  “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”  project(s)  throughout  the  training.         Over  the  course  of  this  project,  six  different  trainings  were  conducted  at  various  K-­‐ 12  schools  around  the  state  of  Michigan  using  the  Flipped  PD  model.    Trainings  included:   1. Cell  Phones  in  the  Classroom:  Columbia  Central  Middle  School,  May  2,  2012   2. iPad  Training:  George  Long  Elementary  School,  May  3,  2012   3. Screencasting:  Burns  Elementary,  May  18,  2012   4. Flipped  Classroom  Training:  Pinconning  Community  Schools,  June  6,  2012   5. Flipped  Classroom  Training:  Detroit  School  of  Arts,  June  8,  2012   6. Flipped  Classroom  Training:  Jackson  County  ISD,  June  12-­‐13,  2012   Consent  Forms  and  Training  Surveys     At  the  beginning  of  each  training  session,  participating  teachers  were  asked  to  sign  a   consent  form  (Appendix  B)  if  they  would  allow  their  feedback  to  be  included  in  this     13     research  project.    Teachers  who  consented  completed  a  two-­‐part  survey  (see  Appendix  C)   about  the  training.    The  first  part  of  the  survey  asked  for  information  about  the  training  and   background  on  themselves  and  their  experience  using  technology  in  their  teaching.     Questions  asked  them  to  describe  whether  their  attendance  was  voluntary  or  mandatory,   their  level  of  technology  use  in  the  classroom,  and  their  level  of  previous  experience  with   the  tool  they  were  learning  about  during  that  training.    The  second  part  of  the  survey  was   completed  at  the  end  of  the  training.    Teachers  were  asked  to  circle  all  the  provided   statements  they  felt  accurately  described  the  Flipped  PD  training  they  had  just   experienced.    Statements  were  similar  to  those  provided  in  the  JCISD  Educational   Technology  PD  Survey  sent  out  to  Jackson  County  Educators  previously  and  included   statements  such  as:   • The  time  allotted  was  appropriate  for  this  topic.   • I  learned  more  than  I  already  knew.   • I  practiced  using  the  technology.   • I  know  where  to  go  if  I  have  questions.   • This  was  an  effective  use  of  my  time.   • I  will  be  able  to  use  what  I  learned  in  my  classroom  right  away.   The  results  were  collected  anonymously  and  tabulated  using  Google®  Forms.               14     Cell  Phones  in  the  Classroom  Training  –  Columbia  Middle  School     “Cell  Phones  in  the  Classroom”  training  was  offered  May  2,  2012  at  Columbia  Middle   School  for  one  hour  after  the  end  of  school.    The  principal  had  recently  allowed  students  to   bring  their  own  cell  phones  to  school  and  to  use  them  for  educational  purposes  during   class.    The  district  curriculum  director  requested  training  on  the  effective  use  of  cell  phones   in  the  classroom  and  offered  it  as  an  optional  training  for  any  interested  teachers.       Explore  Phase:     The  emphasis  of  this  training  was  on  helping  educators  teach  students  how  to  use   mobile  devices  as  educational  tools,  and  not  just  as  toys  or  entertainment.     For  classroom  examples,  teachers  throughout  the  district  were  sent  Tom  Barrett’s   Google®  Presentation  –  Interesting  Ways  to  Use  Mobile  Phones  in  the  Classroom  to  review   five  days  before  the  training.    Web  address:  http://edte.ch/blog/interesting-­‐ways     Live  demonstrations  and  discussions  were  divided  into  two  areas:  1.)  Classroom   Management,  and  2.)  Classroom  Applications.    Classroom  Management  topics  included   Acceptable  Use  Policies  (AUP),  teaching  and  modeling  digital  citizenship,  and  classroom   procedures.  Classroom  applications  included  topics  such  as  using  cell  phones  for  internet   access  (i.e.  The  Google®  Rule),  texting  (i.e.  Shakespeare  summaries,  6  word  poems,   formative  assessment,  etc.),  capturing  audio  (i.e.  record  foreign  language  conversations,   record  interviews,  etc.),  camera  (i.e.  Scavenger  hunts,  demonstrate  understanding  with   pictures,  etc.),  video  camera  (i.e.  create  a  one  minute  video  demonstrating  understanding   about  HSCE  X.),  video  content  (access  to  Khan  Academy  and  Bright  Storm),  and  Apps.   Flip  Phase:       No  digital  tutorials  or  resources  were  provided  for  this  training.   15     Apply  Phase:   Attendees  choose  one  of  the  following  projects:   • Create  a  QR  code  for  a  website  you  would  have  your  students  use  in  class.   • Watch  a  video  related  to  the  content  you  are  currently  teaching  on   khanacademy.org  or  brightstorm.com.   • Create  a  wiffiti.com  account  and  make  a  wall.    Have  someone  else  post  to  your   wall.   • Summarize  your  favorite  book  or  poem  in  a  text.  Send  your  text  to  517-­‐262-­‐ 9785  or  as  a  Twitter  tweet  to  @runfardvs   • Create  a  polleverywhere.com  account.    Create  a  question.    Have  someone  text  in   their  answer.   • Record  a  conversation  on  your  phone  with  another  teacher  about  worries  you   have  about  students  using  their  own  devices  in  class.     • Go  on  a  scavenger  hunt.    Take  10  pictures  with  your  device  related  to  something   you  are  teaching  right  now.   • Use  the  video  camera  on  your  phone  to  record  yourself  doing  a  whiteboard   tutorial.   • Share  your  favorite  iPhone,  iPad,  or  Android  app  with  someone  else  and  explain   how  your  students  could  use  it  in  class.         16     iPad  Training  –  George  Long  Elementary     The  iPad  training  was  offered  to  teachers  at  George  Long  Elementary  School  for   three  hours  after  school  on  May  3,  2012.    The  entire  faculty  throughout  the  district  was   invited  but  attendance  was  optional.    Many  teachers  had  used  money  from  a  school  grant  to   purchase  iPads  for  their  classrooms  but  were  unfamiliar  with  how  to  use  them  properly.     Thirty-­‐three  teachers  and  administrators  attended.   Explore  Phase     The  emphasis  of  this  training  was  on  helping  educators  avoid  the  trap  of  turning  the   iPad  into  a  $500  “pencil”  and  helping  them  understand  how  can  they  could  use  the  iPad  to   teach  in  ways  they  were  previously  unable  to  do  without  it.     Attending  teachers  were  sent  an  email  one  week  before  the  training  with  links  to   examples  of  innovative  uses  of  iPads  in  elementary  classrooms.    Examples  included  Tom   Barrett’s  Google®  Presentation  –  Interesting  Ways  to  Use  iPads  in  the  Classroom.    (Web   address:  http://bit.ly/interestingways_ipad)    as  well  as  the  following  REMC  Connected   Educator  Videos.  (Web  address:  http://www.remc.org/projects/connectededucator   o Wikis  in  the  Classroom  (Amber  Kowatch):  How  a  second  grade  teacher  uses   iPads  and  a  class  wiki  to  help  students  connect  and  reflect  as  they  write.   o Using  iPads  for  Writing  (Ashley  McDonald):  How  a  kindergarten  teacher  uses   iPads  to  help  her  students  improve  their  writing.     Live  demonstrations  were  divided  into  three  sections:  1.)  Out  of  the  Box  Basics,  2.)   Native  Apps,  and  3.)  There’s  an  App  for  That.    “Out  of  the  Box  Basics”  included  demos  of   hardware  such  as  buttons,  ports,  basic  functions,  and  maneuvering  around  the  device.     “Native  Apps”  demonstrations  included  settings  and  apps  such  as  Safari,  Camera,  Notes,     17     iTunes,  and  Photos,  which  are  preinstalled  on  the  iPad.    “There’s  an  App  for  That”  focused   on  websites  such  as  Appitic,  MindLeap,  and  iEAR  which  review  educational  apps,  and   options  such  as  the  Apple®  TV  and  Reflection  App  for  projecting  the  iPad  screen.    A  few   basic  apps  such  as  Dropbox,  Zite,  Sock  Puppets,  and  the  Fantastic  Flying  Books  of  Morris   Lessmore  were  shown  as  examples.   Flip  Phase:     Teachers  were  provided  a  link  to  the  iPad  Academy  website   http://ipadacademy.com  which  gives  tricks,  tips,  and  tutorials  to  help  iPad  owners  from  all   backgrounds  learn  to  use  their  device.   Apply  Phase:     Three  projects,  one  for  each  demonstration  section,  were  embedded  into  the   training.    Project  #1  asked  attendees  to  play  “iPad  Bingo”  (Appendix  D).    For  this  project,   teachers  were  given  a  piece  of  paper  with  a  5x5  grid  on  it.    Each  box  contained  a  basic  task   on  the  iPad  such  as  changing  the  wallpaper  picture,  finding  the  multitasking  bar  to  switch   apps,  and  connecting  to  WiFi.    As  teachers  were  able  to  demonstrate  their  understanding  to   fellow  teachers,  those  teachers  initialed  the  appropriate  box.     For  Project  #2,  teachers  had  the  option  of  choosing  from  a  variety  of  tasks  related  to   the  native  apps  on  the  iPad.    Options  included:   • Download  the  free  iBooks  app  and  then  download  a  free  book  from  the  iBooks  store.   • Download  the  free  Screenchomp  app.    Create  a  short  tutorial  about  a  topic  you  will   teach  your  students  next  week.   • •   Write  a  paragraph  in  the  “Notes”  app  and  email  it  to  someone  else   Create  a  30-­‐second  video  introducing  yourself  to  your  students.       18     • Use  the  camera  app  to  take  5  pictures  of  examples  in  this  room  of  triangles.   • Use  Facetime  to  do  a  video  call  with  someone  else  in  this  training.         The  final  project  invited  teachers  to  search  through  educational  app  review   websites  such  as  Appitic  (http://www.appitic.com),  MindLeap   (http://www.mindleaptech.com),  or  iEAR  (http://www.iear.org)  and  find  a  free  app  that   they  could  use  in  their  classroom.    Participants  were  then  asked  to  share  their  favorite  app   with  someone  else.     Screencasting  Training  –  Burns  Elementary       Instructional  technology  coaches  from  Burns  Elementary  in  Detroit,  Michigan   requested  training  on  the  concepts  of  screencasting  and  how  to  use  Camtasia®  software.     Faculty  members  were  recently  given  laptops  and  administrators  wanted  them  to  learn   about  different  ways  they  could  be  used  in  their  teaching.    The  training  was  conducted  for   two  hours  after  school  on  May  18,  2012.    The  entire  faculty  was  invited  but  the  attendance   was  optional.    Eight  teachers  attended  but  due  to  other  meetings  there  was  considerable   movement  by  the  attendees  in  and  out  of  the  training.   Explore  Phase     Due  to  issues  of  not  teachers  not  having  enough  time  in  class  to  teach  all  of  the   content  required  by  the  state  of  Michigan,  the  emphasis  of  this  training  was  on  how  they   could  make  content  available  for  their  students  anytime  outside  of  class.     A  link  to  an  online  Google®  Presentation  titled  “Screencasting  in  the  Classroom”   (website:  http://bit.ly/OW7bEO)  was  sent  to  teachers  three  days  before  the  training.    The     19     presentation  included  examples  of  how  teachers  are  using  screencasts  in  their  classroom  to   do  such  things  as  provide  instructions  to  substitute  teachers,  develop  tutorials  for  student   questions,  as  well  as  student-­‐generated  content,  and  other  examples.     Teachers  were  first  shown  how  to  build  a  basic  screencast  using  free  tools  Jing®   and  Screencast-­‐o-­‐matic®.    Basic  Camtasia®  software  features  were  also  demonstrated.   Flip  Phase:     Techsmith,  makers  of  Jing®  and  Camtasia®,  have  a  Learning  Center  full  of  tutorials   about  how  to  use  their  software  which  can  be  found  at  their  company  website   http://www.techsmith.com/tutorial.html.    Teachers  were  shown  the  website  and  how  to   navigate  the  Learning  Center  if  they  ever  ran  into  issues  or  had  questions  about  how  to  use   certain  features  on  the  software.       Tutorials  for  the  use  and  application  of  Screencast-­‐o-­‐matic®  are  found  on  the   website  http://screencast-­‐o-­‐matic.com.     Learn-­‐By-­‐Doing  Projects     This  training  had  two  projects  as  well  as  “Going  Farther”  options  (see  Appendix  E).     Project  #1  asked  attendees  to  design  a  one  minute  screencast  showing  their  students  how   to  navigate  a  website  which  could  be  used  in  class  using  either  Jing®  or  Screencast-­‐o-­‐ matic®.    Those  who  already  had  experience  using  Jing  or  Screencast-­‐o-­‐matic®  were   invited  to  do  a  similar  project  with  Camtasia®.     Screencasting  Project  #2  asked  them  to  use  a  screencasting  program  other  than  the   one  used  in  Project  #2  to  create  one  of  the  following:   • •   A  whiteboard  tutorial  with  your  phone  or  camera.   An  example  problem  for  your  students.   20     • Instructions  for  a  substitute  teacher.   • A  “point  of  pain”  tutorial  for  another  teacher.   • Record  a  PowerPoint®  presentation   Those  who  had  experience  with  screencasting  had  the  option  to  do  one  of  the  “Going   Farther”  projects,  which  included:   • Post  a  link  of  your  video  to  your  classroom  website.   • Create  a  pen.io  page  and  embed  your  video  into  it  along  with  a  Google®  Form.   • Create  a  TED-­‐Ed  video  and  lesson.   • Try  out  some  of  the  iPad  whiteboard  apps  like  Screenchomp,  ShowMe,  or   Educations.       Flipped  Classroom  Training  –  Pinconning  Schools     As  part  of  their  Summer  Tech  Academy  on  June  6,  2012,  Pinconning  Schools   requested  training  on  the  Flipped  Classroom.    During  the  Tech  Academy,  attending   teachers  from  all  grade  levels  could  choose  from  several  two-­‐hour  sessions.    Arrangements   were  made  prior  to  the  training  for  us  to  use  the  computer  lab  so  teachers  could  make  a   TED-­‐Ed  or  pen.io  lesson.    Unfortunately,  TED-­‐Ed  and  pen.io  were  both  blocked  by  the   school  filters  so  the  training  consisted  of  strictly  demonstrations  and  discussions  rather   than  hands-­‐on  activities  and  projects.    Sixteen  teachers  attended.   Explore  Phase:     The  emphasis  of  this  training  was  on  determining  the  most  effective  use  of  class   time  and  then  using  technology  to  create  time  for  the  hands-­‐on,  minds-­‐on  activities  design   to  help  students  truly  build  understanding.     21       Tech  Academy  attendees  were  sent  an  email  describing  the  training  session  which   contained  a  link  to  the  Flipped  Classroom  pretraining  website   http://danielvspencer.org/flipclass/page7/index.html.    The  website  included  a  survey,   examples  of  materials  to  bring  to  the  training,  helpful  resources  related  to  the  Flipped   Classroom  concept,  along  with  several  articles  and  videos  describing  how  teachers  are   applying  the  flipped  concept  in  a  variety  of  ways.    Teachers  were  invited  to  review  the   content  before  attending.     Because  teachers  did  not  have  access  to  YouTube  or  pen.io,  the  entire  two  hours   were  spent  in  a  trainer-­‐centered  model  of  discussion  about  the  concept  of  the  Flipped   Classroom  and  demonstrations  of  tools  which  could  be  used.    The  discussion  centered  on   how  technology  can  be  leveraged  to  enable  more  effective  use  of  class  time  and  allowing   students  to  learn  content  at  their  own  pace.    Along  with  a  demonstration  on  how  to  make  a   screencast  using  Jing®,  it  evolved  into  a  detailed  explanation  of  the    “Flipped  Classroom   Spectrum”,  or  a  range  of  different  applications  of  the  Flipped  Classroom  concept.    The   Flipped  Classroom  spectrum  includes:   • Points  of  Pain:  Creating  screencasts  as  needed  to  address  questions  and   misconceptions  that  arise  during  the  learning  process.   • Content  Libraries:  Curating  a  bank  of  content  screencasts  that  students  can  access  at   any  time  both  in  and  out  of  class.   • Flipped  Classroom:  Switching  when  and  where  content  is  delivered.       • Flipped-­‐Mastery:  When  content  is  universally  available  and  students  have   ownership  of  their  learning,  a  classroom  learning  environment  can  be  arranged   where  students  progress  through  content  at  their  own  pace.         22     • Student  Created  Content:    Students  learn  more  deeply  when  they  have  opportunities   create  content  and  demonstrate  understanding.               After  the  Flipped  Spectrum  discussion,  two  options  for  using  screencasts  as   formative  assessment  on  student  understanding  and  progress  were  presented.    The  first   tool  was  from  the  website  TED-­‐Ed  (http://ed.ted.com)  where  teachers  can  develop  “flipped   lessons”  using  any  YouTube®  video  and  attaching  follow  up  questions.    The  example  used   (http://bit.ly/tededyt)  was  created  by  math  teacher  Stacey  Roshan,  using  a  YouTube®   video  by  Vi  Hart  about  the  legitimacy  of  SpongeBob  Squarepant’s  pineapple  home  and   Fibonacci  Numbers.    Attending  teachers  observed  how  students  watch  the  video  and   respond  to  the  questions,  and  responses  are  forwarded  to  the  teacher.         The  second  tool  demonstrated  was  the  free  webpage  developer  pen.io   (http://pen.io).    Teachers  using  pen.io  in  their  classrooms  can  create  unique  webpages   with  text,  graphics,  as  well  as  embed  content  from  a  variety  of  web  sources.    The  example   used  (http://whiteboardtutorial.pen.io)  contained  text,  an  embedded  YouTube  video,  along   with  an  embedded  Google®  Form  with  questions  about  the  video.    Attending  teachers  saw   how  students  can  watch  the  video  and  submit  their  responses  to  the  questions.    Responses   are  forwarded  instantly  to  the  teacher.   Flip  Phase:     Since  there  were  no  “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”  projects,  no  tutorials  were  given  but  several   resources  were  shared.    Resources  shared  include  the  following:   • The  Flipped  Classroom  Network  (http://flippedclassroom.org)  is  a  social  network  of   more  than  7,000  educators  from  around  the  world  who  are  using  the  Flipped     23     Classroom  concept  in  their  classrooms.    Members  share  resources  and  ideas  freely   with  others.   • Flipped  Classroom  Resources  Google®  Doc  (http://bit.ly/fcresources)  contains   information  about  the  flipped  classroom  concept,  equipment  needs,  answers  to   common  concerns,  and  addressing  misconceptions.   • Dr.  Ramsey  Musallam’s  website  http://cyclesoflearning.com  contains  many   examples  of  researched  pedagogy  on  the  effective  use  of  the  flipped  classroom   concept.   • Brian  Bennett  (http://www.brianbennett.org)  is  a  classroom  science  teacher   actively  using  the  flipped  classroom  concept.    His  blog  provides  continual  and   honest  reflections  on  what  is  going  well  (and  not  so  well)  in  his  classroom.   Apply  Phase:     Due  to  TED-­‐Ed  and  pen.io  being  blocked  there  were  no  projects.     Flipped  Classroom  Training  –  Detroit  School  of  Arts     In  an  effort  to  address  student  achievement  concerns  in  math,  the  math  department   from  the  Detroit  School  of  Arts  requested  training  on  the  Flipped  Classroom,  June  8,  2012.     The  training  was  held  for  two  hours  after  school  and  six  teachers  from  the  faculty,  as  well   as  three  student  teachers,  participated.    Much  of  this  agenda  mirrored  that  of  the   Pinconning  Schools  training.    However,  because  attending  teachers  had  working  computers   and  appropriate  access  to  the  internet,  more  time  was  spent  on  application  of  “learn-­‐by-­‐ doing”  projects  rather  than  just  discussion.       24     Explore  Phase:     Just  as  in  the  Pinconning  training,  he  emphasis  of  this  training  was  on  determining   the  most  effective  use  of  class  time  and  then  using  technology  to  create  time  for  the  hands-­‐ on,  minds-­‐on  activities  design  to  help  students  truly  build  understanding.     Attendees  were  sent  an  email  describing  the  training  session  which  contained  a  link   to  the  Flipped  Classroom  pretraining  website   http://danielvspencer.org/flipclass/page7/index.html.  Teachers  were  encouraged  to   review  the  content  before  attending.     Similar  to  the  Pinconning  training,  there  was  discussion  about  the  Flipped   Classroom  concept  and  Spectrum  but  with  less  detail  due  to  time  constraints.     Demonstrations  included  how  to  create  screencasts  using  Jing,  TED-­‐Ed,  and  pen.io.   Flip  Phase:     Resources  shared  were  the  same  as  at  Pinconning  with  website  links  to  the  Flipped   Classroom  Network,  the  Flipped  Classroom  Resources  Google®  Doc,   http://www.cyclesoflearning.com,  and  http://www.BrianBennett.org.   Tutorials  provided  included:   • Techsmith’s  Learning  Center  for  Jing®  http://www.techsmith.com/tutorial-­‐ jing.html   • Techsmith’s  Learning  Center  for  Camtasia  Studio®  (PC  version)   http://www.techsmith.com/tutorial-­‐camtasia.html  and  Camtasia  for  Mac® http://www.techsmith.com/tutorial-­‐camtasia-­‐mac.html     • •   TED-­‐Ed  lesson  tour  video  http://ed.ted.com/tour   pen.io  tutorial  page  http://tutorial.pen.io.     25     Apply  Phase:     Attending  teachers  had  two  “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”  projects  embedded  into  the  training.     Project  #1  asked  teachers  to  create  a  one-­‐minute  screencast  using  Jing®  or  Camtasia®   showing  students  how  to  navigate  a  classroom  relevant  website.    Project  #2  asked  teachers   to  design  a  whiteboard  tutorial  using  the  screencasting  program  of  their  choice  and  a   Wacom®  Bamboo  tablet.    For  those  who  felt  proficient  with  creating  screencasts,  they   were  challenged  to  either  create  a  TED-­‐Ed  lesson  or  pen.io  page.     Flipped  Classroom  Training  –  Jackson  County  ISD     On  June  12  and  13,  2012,  the  Jackson  County  ISD  hosted  an  in-­‐depth,  12-­‐hour   training  on  the  Flipped  Classroom.    Teachers  throughout  the  state  were  invited  to  attend.     While  similar  in  philosophy  to  both  the  Pinconning  and  Detroit  School  of  Arts  trainings,   teachers  had  much  more  time  to  discuss,  collaborate,  and  work  on  projects.    Nineteen   teachers  including  elementary,  middle  school,  high  school,  and  higher  ed  backgrounds   attended.   Explore  Phase     Once  again,  he  emphasis  of  this  training  was  on  determining  the  most  effective  use   of  class  time  and  then  using  technology  to  develop  time  for  the  hands-­‐on,  minds-­‐on   activities  design  to  help  students  truly  build  understanding.     Just  as  with  the  Pinconning  and  Detroit  School  of  Arts  trainings,  attendees  were  sent   an  email  describing  the  training  session  which  contained  a  link  to  the  Flipped  Classroom   pretraining  website  http://danielvspencer.org/flipclass/page7/index.html.  Teachers  were   invited  to  review  the  content  before  attending.     26     Day  #1  –  The  Big  Picture  and  Creating  Screencasts     The  first  day  included  several  conversations  about  the  Flipped  Classroom  concept   and  the  Flipped  Classroom  Spectrum.    In  addition,  several  teachers  with  experience  flipping   their  classrooms  from  around  the  country  participated  in  a  video  conference  via  Google®   Hangout.    The  teacher  panel  included  Nancy  Schutke  (TX-­‐Chemistry),  Troy  Cockrum  (IN-­‐ English),  Deb  Wolfe  (SD-­‐Teacher  Trainer),  and  Jen  Gray  (CO-­‐Chemistry).    Attending   teachers  had  the  opportunity  to  hear  their  stories  as  well  as  ask  questions.     Demonstrations  included  creating  screencasts  using  Jing®  and  Screencast-­‐o-­‐ matic®,  as  well  as  Educreation ®.    As  usual,  there  were  also  demonstrations  of  TED-­‐Ed  and   pen.io.    In  addition,  teachers  saw  options  for  hosting  their  videos  (YouTube®,  Vimeo®,   screencast.com,  and  TeacherTube®),  along  with  ways  to  post  content  for  their  students   (Moodle,  class  websites,  class  wikis,  class  blogs,  and  Edmodo ®).   Day  #2  –  Planning  the  Flip     Conversations  and  demonstrations  for  day  2  of  the  training  focused  on  planning  and   preparing  to  flip  the  classroom.    Teachers  saw  examples  of  Layered  Curriculum  Units,   student  tracking  systems,  rubrics,  and  examples  of  Explore-­‐Flip-­‐Apply  planning  using  the   Michigan  High  School  Content  Expecations  (HSCE).   Flip  Phase:     Resources  and  tutorials  provided  were  identical  to  those  shared  in  the  Detroit   School  of  Arts  training.           27     Apply  Phase:     Projects  in  the  Jackson  County  ISD  Flipped  Classroom  training  were  designed  to   build  upon  one  another.    Project  topics  included:  1.)  Creating  Content,  2.)  Hosting  Content,   3.)  Making  Content  Accessible,  4.)  Assessing  Student  Work,  and  5.)  Planning.         During  Project  #1  attendees  were  asked  to  make  a  one-­‐minute  screencast  using   Jing®,  Screencast-­‐o-­‐matic®,  and  Educreations®.    The  purpose  of  developing  three   screencasts  was  to  allow  teachers  to  get  experience  with  a  wide  range  of  tools  and  then   decide  upon  the  one  that  worked  best  for  their  situation.     Project  #2  required  participants  to  create  a  one-­‐minute  video  that  they  would  use   with  their  students  where  they  had  to  annotate  a  PowerPoint®  slide  using  a  Wacom®   Bamboo  tablet.    When  finished  they  were  to  embed  their  video  into  a  pen.io  page  and  share   the  link  with  class  members.     Project  #3  required  them  to  post  their  pen.io  link  from  Project  #2  to  the  classroom   “hub”  of  their  choice  –  Moodle,  Edmodo®,  webpage,  wiki,  or  blog.     In  Project  #4,  teachers  organized  an  Explore-­‐Flip-­‐Apply  learning  cycle  for  a  HSCE  or   GLCE,  which  they  would  be  teaching  the  following  year.     For  the  final  project,  attendees  were  allowed  to  go  back  and  work  on  improving  and   developing  any  of  the  previous  projects.         28     RESULTS           Presurvey     Seventy-­‐two  (72)  teachers  responded  to  the  JCISD  EdTech  PD  Survey.    Results  from   questions  #1  and  #2  of  the  survey  were  pertinent  to  this  research  project.    Question  #1   asked  teachers  to  identify  statements  they  felt  correctly  described  educational  technology   professional  development  trainings  they  had  attended  through  the  Jackson  County   Intermediate  School  District  in  the  past.  Figure  2  shows  most  statement  areas  hover   around  or  below  the  50%  agreement  range.    The  focus  of  the  feedback  however,  will  center   on  the  two  statements:  “This  was  an  effective  use  of  my  time”  and  “I  am  able  to  use  this  in   my  classroom  right  away.”    This  is  due  to  their  relevance  related  to  attendee  perception  of   training  quality  and  confidence.   Teacher  Feedback   JCISD  EdTech  PD  Presurvey   100%   80%   60%   40%   46%   53%   51%   51%   20%   42%   36%   0%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away   Figure  2  -­‐  Teacher  (n=72)  Feedback  from  the  JCISD  PD  Presurvey         29         Question  #2  was  an  open  response  format  where  teachers  were  asked  to  think  of   training  they  had  previously  participated  in  through  the  JCISD  and  felt  was  “a  waste  of   time”  and  identify  the  reason(s)  why.    Responses  were  grouped  based  on  similarities.     Table  1  below  shows  the  most  common  responses,  which  emphasized  a  lack  of  classroom   application  (36%),  followed  by  frustration  with  not  being  able  to  practice  using  the   technology  (24%).   Why  Training  was  a  “Waste  of  Time”   %  Mentioned   The  training  didn’t  apply  to  my  classroom.   36%   No  time  to  practice  using  the  technology   24%   No  examples  of  how  to  use  it  in  my  teaching   11%   Pacing  issues:  i.e.  too  fast  or  too  slow   11%   Table  1  –  Reasons  for  ineffective  professional  development.     Individual  Training  Demographics  and  Feedback     Information  collected  from  each  training  session  can  be  divided  into  two  areas:   demographic  information  and  post-­‐training  feedback.    Since  90%  of  attending  teachers  said   they  chose  to  attend  trainings,  demographic  areas  will  focus  on  grade  level  assignments,   the  perceived  level  of  technology  expertise,  and  familiarity  with  the  training  tool.    Post-­‐ training  feedback  will  focus  on  how  many  attendees  agree  with  each  statement  provided.     1.)  Cell  Phones  in  the  Classroom  Training  Feedback   Demographic  Information       Two  elementary  teachers  attended  the  Cell  Phones  in  the  Classroom  training.    Both   voluntarily  attended.    One  described  himself  as  using  technology  as  required  in  the     30     classroom,  and  the  other  as  using  technology  quite  a  bit.    Both  reported  to  have  used  cell   phones  on  a  limited  basis  in  the  past.   Post-­‐Training  Feedback       Both  attendees  agreed  with  all  the  post-­‐training  statements.     2.)  iPad  Training  Feedback     Demographic  Information     Thirty-­‐three  (33)  teachers  attended  the  iPad  Training.    As  seen  in  Table  2,  48%  of   attending  teachers  were  from  the  elementary  level,  with  15%  from  the  middle  school,  24%   from  the  high  school,  3%  from  high  education,  and  6%  being  administrators  (see  Table  2).     In  terms  of  technology  use,  Table  3  shows  61%  of  teachers  felt  they  use  technology  often   and  structured  their  teaching  to  include  it.    Of  those  teachers  who  attended,  the  majority   described  themselves  as  having  used  iPads  briefly  but  never  in  the  classroom  (33%)  or   having  used  it  a  little  in  their  classroom  (42%)  as  shown  in  Table  4.   Describe  your  level  of  technology  expertise   I  use  technology  very  little.   I  use  technology  as  required,  but  don’t  seek  out  opportunities  to  use  it.   I  use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure  my  teaching  to  include  it.   Table  2  -­‐  iPad:  Perceived  Levels  of  Technology  Expertise   3%   33%   61%     What  is  your  level  of  experience  with  the  tool  you  are  learning  about  today?   I  have  never  heard  of  it.   0%   I  have  heard  of  it,  but  never  used  it  before.   9%   I  have  used  it  briefly,  but  never  in  my  classroom.   33%   I  have  used  it  a  little  in  my  classroom.   42%   I  have  used  it  extensively  in  my  classroom.   12%   Table  3  -­‐  iPad:  Tool  Familiarity       31     Post-­‐Training  Feedback     Teacher  feedback  from  the  iPad  Training  (Figure  3)  shows  97%  of  teachers  involved   felt  the  training  was  an  effective  use  of  their  time  while  63%  feel  they  could  use  the  iPads   right  away  in  their  classrooms.   Teacher  Feedback   iPad  Training   100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   69%   84%   78%   81%   97%   63%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away   Figure  3  -­‐  iPad  Training  Feedback     3.)  Screencasting  Training  –  Burns  Elementary   Demographic  Information     Eight  (8)  teachers  attended  the  Burns  Elementary  training  on  screencasting.    Of   those  eight  teachers,  six  (6)  were  from  the  elementary  level,  while  the  other  two  (2)  were   from  the  middle  school  level.     In  terms  of  technology  use,  75%  felt  they  incorporate  technology  extensively  into   their  teaching  (Table  4).   Describe  your  level  of  technology  expertise   I  use  technology  very  little.   I  use  technology  as  required,  but  don’t  seek  out  opportunities  to  use  it.   I  use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure  my  teaching  to  include  it.   Table  4  -­‐  Screencasting:  Perceived  Levels  of  Technology  Expertise     32   0%   25%   75%         Yet,  when  it  came  to  experience  using  screencasting  tools,  half  of  those  teachers  had   heard  of  it  but  never  used  it.  (Table  5)   What  is  your  level  of  experience  with  the  tool  you  are  learning  about  today?   I  have  never  heard  of  it.   13%   I  have  heard  of  it,  but  never  used  it  before.   50%   I  have  used  it  briefly,  but  never  in  my  classroom.   13%   I  have  used  it  a  little  in  my  classroom.   25%   I  have  used  it  extensively  in  my  classroom.   0%   Table  5  -­‐  Screencasting:  Tool  Familiarity   Post-­‐Training  Feedback     Teacher  feedback  from  the  Screencasting  Training  (Figure  4)  shows  63%  of   teachers  involved  felt  the  training  was  an  effective  use  of  their  time  while  only  38%  felt   they  could  use  screencasting  right  away  in  their  classrooms.   Teacher  Feedback   Screencasting  Training  -­‐  Burns   100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   75%   63%   63%   63%   38%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away   Figure  4  -­‐  Screencasting  Training  Feedback               75%   33       4.)  Flipped  Classroom  Training  Feedback  –  Pinconning   Demographic  Information     In  the  two-­‐hour  Pinconning  training  on  the  Flipped  Classroom,  sixteen  (16)  teachers   attended.    Those  who  attended  were  spread  relatively  evenly  throughout  grade  levels  with   31%  from  the  elementary  level,  while  25%  from  middle  school,  and  the  remaining  44%   from  high  school.    The  majority  of  teachers  described  themselves  as  using  technology  as   required  (44%)  and  using  technology  quite  a  bit  (44%)  (Table  6).    The  bulk  of  attendees   were  inexperienced  with  the  concept  of  the  Flipped  Classroom  with  31%  having  never   heard  of  it  and  an  additional  50%  having  heard  of  the  concept  but  never  used  it  (Table  7).   Describe  your  level  of  technology  expertise   I  use  technology  very  little.   13%   I  use  technology  as  required,  but  don’t  seek  out  opportunities  to  use  it.   44%   I  use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure  my  teaching  to  include  it.   44%   Table  6  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (Pinconning):  Perceived  Levels  of  Technology  Expertise     What  is  your  level  of  experience  with  the  tool  you  are  learning  about  today?   I  have  never  heard  of  it.   31%   I  have  heard  of  it,  but  never  used  it  before.   50%   I  have  used  it  briefly,  but  never  in  my  classroom.   0%   I  have  used  it  a  little  in  my  classroom.   19%   I  have  used  it  extensively  in  my  classroom.   0%   Table  7  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (Pinconning):  Tool  Familiarity     Post-­‐Training  Feedback     It  is  important  to  note  once  again  that  due  to  issues  with  Internet  access,  this   training  consisted  of  discussion  but  no  hands-­‐on  learning  opportunities.    Because  of  this,  no   one  practiced  using  the  technology  as  in  other  Flipped  PD  trainings.    81%  of  the  teachers     34     who  attended  this  trainer-­‐based  inservice  felt  it  was  an  effective  use  of  their  time,  however   only  31%  felt  confident  they  could  use  it  in  their  teaching  right  away  (Figure  5).   Teacher  Feedback   Flipped  Classroom  Training  -­‐  Pinconning   100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   94%   88%   81%   31%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away   Figure  5  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (Pinconning):  Training  Feedback     5.)  Screencasting  and  the  Flipped  Classroom  Training  Feedback  –  Detroit  School  of  Arts   Demographic  Information     The  nine  (9)  teachers  who  attended  the  flipped  classroom  training  held  at  the   Detroit  School  of  Arts  were  all  members  of  the  high  school  math  faculty.    Many  of  them   (67%)  felt  confident  in  their  use  of  technology  in  the  classroom  (Table  8)  but  few  had  any   significant  experience  in  using  the  Flipped  Classroom  concept  in  their  teaching  (Table  9).     Describe  your  level  of  technology  expertise   I  use  technology  very  little.   0%   I  use  technology  as  required,  but  don’t  seek  out  opportunities  to  use  it.   33%   I  use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure  my  teaching  to  include  it.   67%   Table  8  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (DSA):  Perceived  Levels  of  Technology  Expertise               35       What  is  your  level  of  experience  with  the  tool  you  are  learning  about  today?   I  have  never  heard  of  it.   22%   I  have  heard  of  it,  but  never  used  it  before.   33%   I  have  used  it  briefly,  but  never  in  my  classroom.   33%   I  have  used  it  a  little  in  my  classroom.   11%   I  have  used  it  extensively  in  my  classroom.   0%   Table  9  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (DSA):  Tool  Familiarity   Post-­‐Training  Feedback     Those  who  attended  the  Flipped  Classroom  training  at  the  Detroit  School  of  Arts  had   the  opportunity  to  not  only  discuss  the  concept  but  also  gain  experience  creating  their  own   screencasts.    Of  those  teachers,  89%  felt  the  training  was  an  effective  use  of  their  time   while  56%  left  confident  they  could  begin  using  the  flip  in  their  classroom  right  away   (Figure  6).   Teacher  Feedback   Flipped  Classroom  Training  -­‐  DSA   100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   89%   89%   67%   89%   56%   44%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away   Figure  6  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (DSA):  Training  Feedback     6.)  Screencasting  and  the  Flipped  Classroom  Training  Feedback  –  Jackson  County  ISD     Demographic  Information     As  in  previous  Flipped  Classroom  trainings  done  in  Pinconning  and  the  Detroit   School  of  Arts,  the  inservice  hosted  at  the  Jackson  County  Intermediate  School  District  was     36       designed  to  help  teacher  begin  using  the  Flipped  Classroom  concept  in  their  own   classrooms.    However,  due  to  the  length  of  training  (2  full  days,  12  hours)  participants  were   able  to  delve  much  deeper  into  the  topic  and  also  spend  more  time  on  “Learn-­‐By-­‐Doing”   projects.    Nineteen  (19)  teachers  attended  with  the  majority  (63%)  being  from  the  high   school  level.    The  majority  of  these  teachers  also  felt  quite  confident  in  their  level  of   technology  use,  with  84%  saying  they  structure  their  teaching  to  include  it  (Table  10).    But   while  many  of  them  use  technology,  most  teachers  had  limited  experience  using  the   Flipped  Classroom  concept  in  their  teaching  (Table  11).     Describe  your  level  of  technology  expertise   I  use  technology  very  little.   0%   I  use  technology  as  required,  but  don’t  seek  out  opportunities  to  use  it.   16%   I  use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure  my  teaching  to  include  it.   84%   Table  10  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (JCISD):  Perceived  Level  of  Technology  Expertise     What  is  your  level  of  experience  with  the  tool  you  are  learning  about  today?   I  have  never  heard  of  it.   5%   I  have  heard  of  it,  but  never  used  it  before.   47%   I  have  used  it  briefly,  but  never  in  my  classroom.   21%   I  have  used  it  a  little  in  my  classroom.   26%   I  have  used  it  extensively  in  my  classroom.   0%   Table  11  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (JCISD):  Tool  Familiarity     Post-­‐Training  Feedback     After  two  days  of  in-­‐depth  training  on  the  Flipped  Classroom,  95%  of  attendees  felt   the  training  was  an  effective  use  of  their  time  and  89%  felt  they  could  use  it  in  their   classroom  right  away  (Figure  7).     37     Teacher  Feedback   Flipped  Classroom  Training  -­‐  JCISD   100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   100%   100%   95%   95%   89%   68%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away     Figure  7  -­‐  Flipped  Classroom  (JCISD):  Training  Feedback     Overall  Flipped  PD  Model  Feedback     The  feedback  from  all  the  trainings  using  the  Flipped  PD  model  can  be  found  in   Figure  8.    Of  the  72  attendees  who  participated  in  this  project,  93%  felt  this  training  model   was  an  effective  use  of  their  time  and  67%  could  use  it  in  their  teaching  right  away.   Teacher  Feedback   Feedback  From  All  Flipped  PD  Trainings   100%   80%   60%   40%   20%   0%   67%   84%   84%   86%   93%   67%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   Where  to  Go   Use  of  My   in   Time   Knew   Technology   With   Time   Classroom   Before   Questions   Right  Away   Figure  8  -­‐  Feedback  From  All  Flipped  PD  trainings         When  overall  feedback  results  (n=70)  were  compared  to  those  of  the  presurvey   (n=72),  there  was  a  increase  in  every  area  (Figure  9).    The  statement  “this  was  an  effective     38       use  of  my  time”  increased  the  most,  being  affirmed  by  42%  of  respondents  in  the   Presurvey,  while  jumping  to  93%  in  the  post  training  feedback  –  an  increase  of  51   percentage  points.    The  other  area  of  interest  was  related  to  those  who  felt  confident  they   could  use  what  they  had  learned  in  their  classrooms  right  away.    In  the  Presurvey,  just  36%   of  respondents  felt  confident  they  could  use  what  they  learned  in  their  classrooms,  while   67%  of  those  who  completed  the  learner-­‐centered  flipped  PD  trainings  felt  they  could  do   likewise.   Pre  Survey  vs.  Post  Training  Teacher  Feedback       Pre-­‐Survey   Post  Training   100%   80%   60%   40%   84%   84%   86%   93%   67%   46%   67%   53%   51%   51%   42%   20%   36%   0%   Appropriate   Learned   Practiced   Knew  Where   An  Effective   Able  to  Use   Training   More  Than  I   Using  the   to  Go  With   Use  of  My   in  Classroom   Time   Knew  Before   Technology   Questions   Time   Right  Away   Figure  9  -­‐  Comparison  Between  Presurvey  and  Post  Training  Feedback       The  three  Flipped  Classroom  trainings  at  Pinconning,  the  Detroit  School  of  Arts,  and   the  Jackson  County  ISD  provided  a  unique  comparison  between  different  training  formats.     As  mentioned  previously,  of  all  the  trainings  done  as  part  of  this  project,  the  Pinconning   training  most  closely  resembled  a  trainer-­‐centered  PD  due  to  an  unforeseen  failure  in   technology.    The  Detroit  School  of  Arts  training  was  done  in  a  similar  time  frame  as     39       Pinconning  while  also  covering  the  same  pedagogical  topics,  but  managed  to  incorporate   “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”  activities  into  the  training.    Finally,  the  JCISD  training  applied  the  same   pedagogical  discussions  and  “learn-­‐by-­‐doing”  activities  as  mentioned  previously  but  due  to   longer  training  time  allowed  attendees  to  delve  more  deeply  into  both  areas.         Comparing  the  results  (Figure  10)  of  each  flipped  classroom  training  to  the   Presurvey  also  showed  an  increase  in  teachers  feeling  this  was  an  of  effective  time  use  of   time  and  as  well  as  confidence  to  use  the  technology  in  the  classroom  setting.    At  the  same   time  there  was  an  increase  in  both  areas  when  comparing  the  trainer-­‐centered  model   (Pinconning)  to  learner-­‐centered  model  (DSA  and  JCISD).   A  Comparison:   PreSurvey  vs.  All  Flipped  Class  Trainings   100%   80%   81%   60%   40%   20%   89%   95%   89%   56%   42%   36%   31%   0%   Effective  Use  of  My  Time   Able  to  Use  in  My  Classroom   Right  Away   Figure  10  -­‐  A  Comparison  Between  Flipped  PDs         40   PreSurvey   Pinconning   DSA   JCISD       DISCUSSION     A  Comparison:  Presurvey  vs.  Post  Training     Overall,  a  comparison  between  the  JCISD  Educational  Technology  Feedback   Presurvey  and  Post  Training  surveys  suggests  a  drastic  rise  in  all  areas  being  measured   (Figure  9).    Most  notably,  there  was  an  increase  by  51  percentage  points  by  those  who   participated  in  the  learner-­‐center  model  of  PD  compared  to  the  previous  trainer-­‐centered   model  when  it  came  to  determining  whether  or  not  the  training  was  an  effective  use  of   time.    At  the  same  time,  those  who  participated  in  the  learner-­‐centered  model  trainings   indicated  they  had  more  confidence  in  their  ability  to  use  what  they  had  learned  in  their   trainings  by  a  margin  of  31  percentage  points  compared  to  those  who  participated  in   trainer-­‐centered  PD.    The  comparison  between  Presurvey  and  Post  training  data  seems  to   suggest  that  those  who  are  trained  in  a  learned-­‐centered  PD  model  not  only  feel  their  time   was  used  more  effectively,  but  are  also  more  confident  in  their  ability  to  use  what  they  have   learned  in  a  classroom  setting.   A  Comparison:  Flipped  Classroom  Trainings       When  the  feedback  from  the  Pinconning,  Detroit  School  of  Arts,  and  Jackson  County   ISD  Flipped  Classroom  trainings  are  compared  (Figure  10),  an  interesting  pattern  appears   in  teacher’s  perception  of  effective  time  use  and  their  confidence  to  use  the  technology  in   their  classrooms.    In  those  three  trainings  there  was  an  increase  in  teacher  perception  of   effective  time  use  between  the  trainer-­‐centered  model  in  Pinconning  (81%),  to  the  2-­‐hour   learner-­‐centered  training  at  the  Detroit  School  of  Arts  (89%),  to  the  2-­‐day  learner-­‐centered   training  at  the  Jackson  County  ISD  (95%).    In  terms  of  teacher  confidence,  only  31%  of     41     Pinconning  participants  responded  affirmatively,  while  that  number  grew  to  56%  at  the   Detroit  School  of  Arts,  and  again  to  89%  at  the  Jackson  County  ISD.    Just  as  the  comparison   between  the  overall  Pre  and  Post  training  surveys,  the  results  from  the  three  flipped   classroom  trainings  seems  to  suggest  that  as  training  shifts  from  trainer-­‐centered  focus,  to   that  of  a  learner-­‐centered  focus,  there  is  an  increase  in  teacher  perception  of  effective  time   use  and  confidence  to  use  technology  in  the  classroom.   Conclusions     Based  on  the  comparisons  between  the  feedback  from  the  Presurvey  and  the  overall   Post  training  survey,  as  well  as  the  three  Flipped  Classroom  trainings,  the  data  seems  to   suggest  that  teachers  who  participate  in  learner-­‐centered  models  of  professional   development  not  only  feel  their  time  has  been  used  effectively,  but  are  also  more  confident   in  their  ability  to  use  the  tools  they  learned  about  in  their  own  classrooms  compared  to   those  who  participate  in  trainer-­‐centered  models  of  PD.     The  purpose  of  TPACK  is  to  help  educators  understand  the  symbiotic  relationship   between  technology  and  teaching.    At  the  same  time,  the  purpose  of  the  Flipped  Classroom   is  to  leverage  technology  so  that  learners  have  the  flexibility  to  master  content  at  an   individual  pace.    The  combination  of  these  principles,  as  seen  in  this  study,  provides   teachers  who  are  learning  how  to  use  technology  in  their  classrooms  ownership  of  their   learning  in  ways  that  were  not  possible  in  trainer-­‐centered  models  of  PD.     Interestingly,  the  flipped  training  model  in  educational  technology  PD  for  K-­‐12   educators  has  the  potential  to  positively  impact  both  the  teacher  and  trainer.    It  can  be   argued  that  while  participating  teachers  benefit  from  an  increased  level  of  confidence,   trainers  are  also  empowered.    While  the  emphasis  on  classroom  relevance  and  hands-­‐on     42     experience  are  important  pieces  to  the  effectiveness  of  this  model,  the  opportunities  for   developing  positive  mentor  relationships  should  not  be  overlooked.    In  general,  trainer-­‐ based  models  of  PD  may  be  an  efficient  form  for  disseminating  information,  but  at  the  same   time  can  be  criticized  for  being  impersonal  and  indifferent  when  it  comes  to  the  needs  of   teachers.    However,  while  learner-­‐centered  trainings  can  give  teachers  the  autonomy  to   learn  in  a  personal  way,  it  also  gives  the  trainer  the  flexibility  to  move  from  a  role  of   lecturer  to  one  of  mentor.    With  that  added  flexibility,  trainers  have  the  opportunity  to   work  more  one-­‐on-­‐one  with  teachers,  give  them  individual  insights  and  assistance,  as  well   as  encouragement  in  ways  that  were  rarely  possible  previously.   Next  Steps     While  the  research  seems  to  suggest  that  those  who  participate  in  learner-­‐centered   trainings  following  the  Flipped  PD  model  are  more  confident  in  their  ability  to  use  what   they  have  learned  in  the  classroom,  there  are  still  other  aspects  to  consider.    For  example,   teacher  confidence  is  important  when  it  comes  to  taking  the  first  steps  to  implement   technology  tools  into  teaching  and  learning,  but  one  should  be  cautious  to  not  mistake   teacher  confidence  for  student  achievement.    If  the  true  purpose  of  teacher  training  is   ultimately  improving  student  achievement,  then  building  teacher  confidence  in  their  ability   to  use  what  they  have  learned  is  an  important  first  step  toward  student  achievement,  but  is   only  part  of  a  much  larger  picture.    Thus  the  question  becomes,  how  do  we  convert  teacher   confidence  into  student  achievement?     One  of  the  weaknesses  of  this  study  was  that  most  training  was  done  on  a  one-­‐time   basis  where  the  trainer  and  teacher  part  ways  at  the  end  of  their  work  together.     Regardless  of  teacher  confidence  upon  leaving  the  training,  there  will  come  a  time  when     43     they  must  experiment  with  what  they  have  learned  in  their  own  classroom  setting.    Their   ability  to  maneuver  through  the  problems  and  questions  that  will  most  definitely  arise  will   ultimately  determine  whether  or  not  what  they  have  learned  will  make  an  impact  on  their   classroom.    But  long  after  the  formal  training  sessions  finish,  how  do  we  help  even  the  most   confident  teacher  continue  to  work  through  the  difficulties,  and  continually  work  towards   using  the  technology  to  improve  student  learning?     One  way  to  improve  the  likelihood  of  training  making  a  positive  impact  on  student   achievement  is  to  not  only  move  from  trainer-­‐centered  to  learner-­‐centered  PD,  but  to  also   move  from  an  environment  of  one-­‐time  training  to  one  of  continual  coaching  (Joyce  &   Showers,  2002).    In  other  words,  when  done  correctly,  one-­‐time  training  can  inspire   teachers  to  try  new  tools  and  concepts  in  their  classrooms,  but  continual  coaching  helps   guide  them  towards  effective  implementation  long  after  introducing  the  initial  idea.     Ideally,  this  support  takes  place  in  individual  or  small  group  settings  where  a  technology   integration  coach  and  teachers  meet  together  on  a  regular  basis  to  set  goals,  plan,  discus,   and  improve  upon  classroom  projects  related  to  the  effective  use  of  technology  in  teaching   and  learning.     One  example  of  where  this  continual  coaching  model  is  being  used  effectively  in   conjunction  with  the  Flipped  PD  training  model,  is  in  Stillwater  Area  Public  Schools  in   Stillwater,  Minnesota.    Kristin  Daniels  and  Wayne  Feller  are  Technology  Integration   Specialists  who  work  with  elementary  school  teachers  in  their  district  to  effectively   incorporate  technology  into  the  learning  cycle  (Daniels  &  Feller,  2012).    In  an  effort  to   improve  student  achievement  through  professional  development,  Daniels  and  Feller  focus     44     their  efforts  on  working  with  teachers  to  develop  technology-­‐based  projects  tied  to  the   district’s  pedagogical  goals  (Daniels  &  Feller,  2012).     Under  their  model  of  continual  coaching,  interested  teachers  choose  a  technology   project  related  to  1.)  Collaboration,  2.)  Communication,  3.)  Creative  Media,  or  4.)   Presentation.    Daniels  and  Feller  then  work  with  individual  teachers  to  plan  and  define   what  the  teacher  wants  to  do  and  learn  from  the  project.    After  planning,  they  provide   teachers  with  the  tools  and  skills  needed  to  incorporate  this  project  into  their  teaching.    As   teachers  work  on  their  project  throughout  the  school  year,  Daniels  and  Feller  meet  with   them  monthly  to  provide  additional  training  and  ongoing  support  in  developing  the  project.     When  finished,  teachers  have  learned  to  use  technology  more  effectively  in  their  classroom   by  creating  something  directly  for  their  classroom.    Projects  are  then  shared  with  future   teachers  as  they  begin  their  own  continual  coaching  cycle.     The  Daniels  and  Feller  model  of  PD  coincides  with  the  Explore-­‐Flip-­‐Apply  method   and  could  be  easily  adapted  to  work  with  the  “Flipped  PD”  model  proposed  in  this  study.   Just  as  in  the  Flipped  PD  model  proposed  in  this  study,  the  Daniels  and  Feller  model  of  PD   focuses  first  on  classroom  application  of  technology  use  in  teaching  and  learning,  provides   teachers  with  resources  to  be  successful  at  their  own  pace,  and  then  allows  them  to  learn   through  hands-­‐on  projects.    The  major  difference  between  the  two  is  that  the  Daniels  and   Feller  model  recognizes  the  importance  of  continual  trainer  contact  with  learners  over  an   extended  period  of  time.    As  seen  in  the  comparison  between  the  flipped  classroom   trainings  conducted  at  the  Detroit  School  of  Arts  and  the  Jackson  County  ISD,  increased   contact  time  with  trainers  and  participants  seems  to  play  an  important  role  in  teacher     45     confidence,  which  would  most  likely  be  enhanced  when  done  on  a  consistent  schedule  over   an  extended  period  of  time.         46     APPENDICES     47       APPENDIX  A         JCISD  Educational  Technology  PD  Survey     Teachers,   I’m  trying  to  improve  the  way  educational  technology  PD  is  offered  at  the  ISD.    Please  be   candid  and  honest.    If  you  have  any  questions  or  suggestions  you  can  reach  me  at   dan.spencer@jcisd.org     Please  check  all  the  statements  below  you  feel  apply  to  PD  you  have  taken  through   the  ISD.   • The  time  allotted  for  training  was  appropriate  for  the  topic   • I  learned  more  than  I  already  knew  about  the  topic.   • I  practiced  using  technology  related  to  the  topic.   • I  knew  where  to  go  if  I  had  questions  about  the  topic.   • The  training  was  an  effective  use  of  my  time.   • All  of  the  above.   • None  of  the  above.     Think  of  a  time  you  went  to  a  PD  you  thought  was  a  waste  of  time.    What  was  it  about   that  training  that  kept  it  from  being  useful  to  you  in  your  teaching?                     Which  educational  technology  PD  topics  could  the  ISD  offer  that  would  be  useful  to   you?           48     APPENDIX  B           Research  Participant  Information  and  Consent  Form       You  are  being  asked  to  participate  in  a  research  project.    Researchers  are  required  to   provide  a  consent  form  to  inform  you  about  the  study,  to  convey  that  participation  is   voluntary,  to  explain  risks  and  benefits  of  participation,  and  to  empower  you  to  make  an   informed  decision.    You  should  feel  free  to  ask  the  researchers  any  questions  you  may  have.     Study  Title:     “Flipping”  Educational  Technology  PD  for  K-­‐12  Educators   Researcher:   Dan  Spencer   Department:  Technology   Institution:   Jackson  County  Intermediate  School  District   Address:   6700  Browns  Lake  Rd,  Jackson,  MI  49201   Contact  Info:  Phone:  (517)  262-­‐9785       Email:  dan.spencer@jcisd.org       Purpose  of  Research:   You  are  being  asked  to  participate  in  a  research  study  about  the  effectiveness  of  technology   professional  development  in  K-­‐12  schools.    You  have  been  selected  because  you  are  part  of   a  professional  development  being  conducted  by  Dan  Spencer  through  the  Jackson  County   Intermediate  School  District.    From  this  study  researchers  hope  to  learn  how  pedagogically   based  learning  activities  affect  teacher  attitudes  towards  the  effectiveness  of  the  training.     Your  participation  in  this  study  will  only  last  for  the  duration  of  this  training.     What  You  Will  Do:   As  part  of  this  study  you  will  be  asked  to  participate  in  the  technology  teacher  development   training  you  are  attending  and  then  take  an  anonymous  survey  concerning  your  perceived   effectiveness  of  the  training.    Surveys  will  be  given  as  paper  forms  or  via  Google  Form.     Potential  Benefits:   While  you  will  not  directly  benefit  from  your  participation  in  this  study,  the  results  of  your   feedback  will  help  the  researchers  improve  future  professional  development  trainings.     Potential  Risks:   There  are  no  foreseeable  risks  associated  with  participation  in  this  study.     Privacy  and  Confidentiality:   The  data  for  this  project  are  being  collected  anonymously.    Neither  the  researchers,  nor   anyone  else  will  be  able  to  link  data  to  you.       49     Your  Rights  to  Participate,  Say  No,  or  Withdraw   Participation  in  this  research  project  is  completely  voluntary.    You  have  the  right  to  say  no.     You  may  change  your  mind  at  any  time  and  withdraw.    There  will  be  no  consequences  for   withdrawal  or  incomplete  participation.    You  may  choose  not  to  answer  specific  question   or  to  stop  participating  at  any  time.    Choosing  not  to  participate  or  withdrawing  from  this   study  will  not  make  any  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  training  you  receive  or  the  benefits   to  which  you  are  otherwise  entitled.    Whether  you  choose  to  participate  or  not  will  have  no   affect  on  your  grade  or  evaluation.     Costs  and  Compensation  for  Being  in  the  Study   Procedures  are  being  performed  for  research  purposes  only  and  will  be  provided  free  of   charge.     Contact  Information  for  Questions  and  Concerns   If  you  have  any  concerns  or  questions  about  this  study,  such  as  scientific  issues,  or  how  to   do  any  part  or  it,  please  contact  Dan  Spencer  at  6700  Browns  Lake  Rd,  Jackson,  MI  49201,   or  by  phone  at  517-­‐262-­‐9785,  or  by  email  at  dan.spencer@jcisd.org.       If  you  have  questions  or  concerns  about  your  role  and  rights  as  a  research  participant,   would  like  to  obtain  information  or  offer  input,  or  would  like  to  register  a  complaint  about   this  study,  you  may  contact,  anonymously  if  you  wish,  the  Michigan  State  University’s   Human  Research  Protection  Program  at  517-­‐355-­‐2180,  Fax  517-­‐432-­‐4503,  or  email   irb@msu.edu,  or  regular  mail  at  207  Olds  Hall,  MSU,  East  Lansing,  MI  48824.     Documentation  of  Informed  Consent   Your  signature  below  means  that  you  voluntarily  agree  to  participate  in  this  research   study.         ____________________________________________________________     _______________________________   Signature                 Date           50     APPENDIX  C         Post  Training  Survey   The  purpose  of  this  survey  is  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  technology  professional  development   (PD).    Providing  your  name  is  optional.    Please  be  candid  and  honest.       Basic  Information   Date   District   Grade  Level   Training  Topic                 Time  allotted  for  this  training  (circle  one):   Setting  (circle  one):   • 1  hour  or  less   • Large  group  (10+)   • 1-­‐3  hours   • Small  group  (2-­‐9)   • 3-­‐6  hours   • Individual • Multiple  days       Pre-­‐Training  Survey   What  is  your  reason  for  attending  this  training?  (circle  one):   • I  was  asked  to  be  here   • I  chose  to  be  here     How  would  you  describe  your  level  of  technology  expertise?  (circle  one):   • I  use  technology  very  little.   • I  use  technology  as  required,  but  don’t  seek  out  opportunities  to  use  it.   • I  use  technology  quite  a  bit  and  structure  my  teaching  to  include  it.     What  is  your  level  of  experience  with  the  tool  you  are  learning  about  today?  (circle  one):   • I  have  never  heard  of  it.   • I  have  heard  of  it  but  never  used  it.   • I  have  used  it  briefly  but  never  in  my  classroom.   • I  have  used  it  a  little  in  my  classroom.   • I  have  used  it  extensively  in  my  classroom.       Post-­‐Training  Survey  –  Circle  all  that  apply:   • The  time  allotted  was  appropriate  for  this  topic   • I  learned  more  than  I  already  knew   • I  practiced  using  the  technology   • I  know  where  to  go  if  I  have  questions   • This  was  an  effective  use  of  my  time   • I  will  be  able  to  use  what  I  learned  in  my  classroom  right  away         51     Appendix  D         iPad  Training  (Grass  Lake)  “Learn-­‐By-­‐Doing”  Project  #1  –  iPad  BINGO         52     Appendix  E           Screencasting  Training  (Burns  Elementary)  “Learn  By  Doing”  Projects     Screencasting  Project  #1   Using  either  Jing  or  Screencast-­‐o-­‐matic.com  create  a  screencast  showing  your  students  how   to  get  around  our  favorite  classroom  website.     Screencasting  Project  #2   If  possible,  use  a  screencasting  program  other  than  the  one  used  in  Project  #1  to  create  one   of  the  following:   • A  whiteboard  tutorial  with  your  cell  phone  or  camera.   • An  example  problem  for  your  student  who  has  a  question.   • Class  instructions  for  a  substitute  teacher.   • A  “Point  of  Pain”  tutorial  for  another  teacher.   • Record  a  PowerPoint  presentation.     Going  Farther:   After  completing  Screencasting  Projects  #1  and  #2  feel  free  to  try  one  of  the  following:   • Post  a  link  of  your  video  to  your  website.   • Create  a  pen.io  page  and  embed  your  video  into  it  along  with  a  Google  Form.   • Created  a  TED-­‐Ed  video  lesson.   • Try  out  one  of  the  free  iPad  whiteboard  apps  like  Screenchomp,  ShowMe,  or   Educations.     Follow  Up:   What  problems  did  you  run  into  during  this  training?           What  went  well  for  you  during  this  training?           Think  about  how  you  could  use  screencasting  in  your  own  classroom.    What  are  the  next   steps?           53     WORKS  CITED     54             WORKS  CITED   Bergmann,  J.,  &  Sams,  A.  (2012).  Flip  Your  Classroom:  Reach  Every  Student  in  Every  Class   Every  Day.  Eugene,  OR:  International  Society  for  Technology  in  Education.     Carmichael,  S.  B.,  Martino,  G.,  Porter-­‐Magee,  K.,  &  Wilson,  S.  W.  (2010).  The  State  of  State   Standards  -­‐  and  the  Common  Core  -­‐  in  2010  (Rep.).  Washington  DC:  Thomas  B.   Fordham  Foundation  and  Institute.  (ERIC  Document  Reproduction  Service  No.   ED516607)     Daniels,  K.,  &  Feller,  W.  (2012).  FlippedPD.  FlippedPD.  Retrieved  June  20,  2012,  from   http://www.flippedpd.org/     Daniels,  K.,  &  Feller,  W.  (2012,  June  24).  Flipped  PD.  Lecture  presented  at  ISTE  2012   Conference  in  San  Diego  Convention  Center,  San  Diego.     Donovan,  S.,  &  Bransford,  J.  (2005).  How  Students  Learn:  Science  in  the  Classroom.   Washington,  D.C.:  National  Academies  Press.     Garet,  M.  S.,  Porter,  A.  C.,  Desimone,  L.,  Birman,  B.  F.,  &  Yoon,  K.  S.  (2001).  What  Makes   Professional  Development  Effective?  Results  From  a  National  Sample  of   Teachers.  American  Educational  Research  Journal,  38(4),  915-­‐945.  doi:   10.3102/00028312038004915     Harris,  J.,  &  Hofer,  M.  (n.d.).  Activity  Types  Wiki.  Learning  Activity  Types  Wiki.  Retrieved   June  20,  2011,  from  http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/     Harris,  J.,  &  Hofer,  M.  (2009).  Instructional  Planning  Activity  Types  as  Vehicles  for   Curriculum-­‐Based  TPACK  Development.  C.  D.  Maddux:  Research  Highlights  in   Technology  and  Teacher  Education  2009,  99-­‐108.     Harris,  J.,  Mishra,  P.,  &  Koehler,  M.  (2009).  Teacher's  Technological  Pedagogical  Content   Knowledge  and  Learning  Activity  Types:  Curriculum-­‐based  Technology  Integration   Reframed.  Journal  of  Research  on  Technology  in  Education,  41(4),  393-­‐416.     Harris,  J.  B.,  &  Hofer,  M.  J.  (2011).  Technological  Pedagogical  Content  Knowledge  (TPACK)   in  Action:  A  Descriptive  Study  of  Secondary  Teachers'  Curriculum-­‐Based,   Technology-­‐Related  Instructional  Planning.  ISTE,  43(3),  211-­‐229.     ISTE.  (2007).  NETS-­‐S  (Publication).  Washington,  D.C.:  International  Society  for  Technology   in  Education.       55     ISTE.  (2008).  NETS-­‐T  (Publication).  Washington,  D.C.:  International  Society  for  Technology   in  Education.     Joyce,  B.  R.,  &  Showers,  B.  (2002).  Student  Achievement  Through  Staff  Development.   Alexandria,  VA:  Association  for  Supervision  and  Curriculum  Development.     Knowles,  M.  S.  (1975).  Self-­‐directed  Learning:  A  Guide  for  Learners  and  Teachers.  New  York,   NY:  Association  Press.     Knowles,  M.  S.  (1984).  Andragogy  in  Action.  Applying  Modern  Principles  of  Adult  Education.   San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass.     Knowles,  M.  S.  (1990).  The  Adult  Learner:  A  Neglected  Species.  Houston,  TX:  Gulf  Pub.     Marzano,  R.  J.  (2007).  The  Art  and  Science  of  Teaching:  A  Comprehensive  Framework  for   Effective  Instruction.  Alexandria,  VA:  Association  for  Supervision  and  Curriculum   Development.     Marzano,  R.  J.,  Pickering,  D.,  &  Pollock,  J.  E.  (2005).  Classroom  Instruction  that  Works:   Research-­‐based  Strategies  for  Increasing  Student  Achievement.  Upper  Saddle  River,   NJ:  Pearson/Merrill  Prentice  Hall.     Koehler,  M.  J.  (n.d.).  TPACK.org.  TPACK.org.  Retrieved  June  11,  2011,  from  http://tpack.org     Koehler,  M.  J.,  &  Mishra,  P.  (2005).  What  Happens  When  Teachers  Design  Educational   Technology?  The  Development  Of  Technological  Pedagogical  Content   Knowledge.  Journal  of  Educational  Computing  Research,  32(2),  131-­‐152.  doi:   10.2190/0EW7-­‐01WB-­‐BKHL-­‐QDYV     Mishra,  P.,  &  Koehler,  M.  J.  (2006).  Technological  Pedagogical  Content  Knowledge:  A   Framework  for  Teacher  Knowledge.  Teachers  College  Record,  108(6),  1017-­‐1054.   doi:  10.1111/j.1467-­‐9620.2006.00684.x     Musallam,  R.  (2012).  Explore-­‐Explain-­‐Apply  -­‐  Google  Docs.  Explore-­‐Explain-­‐Apply  -­‐  Google   Docs.  Retrieved  June  1,  2012,  from   https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1SHTXTAFC5ZZ4qXQU-­‐ Y4xFDrRAkqVMQ04jwL-­‐u449QoQ/edit     Musallam,  R.  (2010).  The  Effects  of  Using  Screencasting  as  a  Multimedia  Pretraining  Tool  to   Manage  the  Intrinsic  Cognitive  Load  of  Chemical  Equilibrium  Instruction  for  Advanced   High  School  Chemistry  Students  (Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation).  The  University   of  San  Francisco.     National  Research  Council.  (2000).  How  People  Learn:  Brain,  Mind,  Experience,  and   School.  Washington,  D.C.:  National  Academy  Press.       56     National  Research  Council.  (2012).  A  Framework  for  K-­‐12  Science  Education:  Practices,   Crosscutting  Concepts,  and  Core  Ideas.  Washington,  D.C.:  The  National  Academies   Press.     Polly,  D.,  &  Hannafin,  M.  J.  (2010).  Reexamining  technology’s  role  in  learner-­‐centered   professional  development.  Educational  Technology  Research  and  Development,   58(5),  557-­‐571.  doi:  10.1007/s11423-­‐009-­‐9146-­‐5     Schrum,  L.  (1999).  Technology  professional  development  for  teachers.  Educational   Technology  Research  and  Development,  47(4),  83-­‐90.  doi:  10.1007/BF02299599     Shulman,  L.  S.  (1986).  Those  Who  Understand:  Knowledge  Growth  in  Teaching.  Educational   Researcher,  15(2),  4.  doi:  10.2307/1175860     Spencer,  D.  V.  (2012,  June  20).  [JCISD  Ed  Tech  Training  Survey].  Unpublished  raw  data.     Tolstoy,  L.,  &  Moser,  H.  ([18-­‐).  Anna  Karenina.  Leipzig,  NY:  Philipp  Reclam.     Watson,  G.  (2001).  Models  of  information  technology  teacher  professional  development   that  engage  with  teachers'  hearts  and  minds.  Journal  of  Information  Technology  for   Teacher  Education,  10(1-­‐2),  179-­‐190.  doi:  10.1080/14759390100200110     Wayne,  A.  J.,  Yoon,  K.  S.,  Zhu,  P.,  Cronen,  S.,  &  Garet,  M.  S.  (2008).  Experimenting  With   Teacher  Professional  Development:  Motives  and  Methods.Educational   Researcher,  37(8),  469-­‐479.  doi:  10.3102/0013189X08327154     Wiggins,  G.  P.,  &  McTighe,  J.  (1998).  Understanding  by  Design.  Alexandria,  VA:  Association   for  Supervision  and  Curriculum  Development.             57