Needs Assessment, Adult-Learning Theory and Program Evaluation Erica Ellis Needs Assessment Needs assessment or content evaluation

will be necessary for the planning stages of this professional development to better serve the teachers participating and give them ample resources and time to integrate strategies learned during this professional development into their classrooms for the academic year. The ThreePhase Model of Needs Assessment, described in Witkin and Altschuld (1995), shows how to determine needs at a primary, secondary and tertiary level. For this project, examining the primary level, those who are receiving the services or training, and the tertiary level, the resources needed for this training, will assist in forming a plan and format with which to conduct the technology professional development. The general question that must be asked is how do we improve our professional development training for our teachers? Participating faculty can complete surveys about their preferences in content and format that not only begin with this generalized question but also ask specific questions in search of useable data. To provide some base, a suggested format should be presented and commented upon. Beginning with the suggestion of moving the technology integration professional development to the spring professional development slot would give teachers time to add the topics they learn to their classrooms for fall. Asking faculty what kind of delivery methods they prefer for content, as well as what they wish the content to be, can assessed by both open-ended and multiple choice questions. (Johnson & Dick, 2012) Checkboxes with potential topics, allowing faculty to choose as many as they are interested in, can gauge the level of interest in

each topic or format and then data can be cross-referenced with subject or grade to project any patterns in professional development need. Using what was done at previous professional development workshops, asking faculty what they liked and did not like about that particular example would serve to improve of professional development of the past. In this example, let us consider that another complaint that was often found by arts and social studies teachers having sitting through presentations geared towards math and science. From the data, it can be determined that the faculty favor a springtime workshop. Further data suggests that a format should include the following elements 1. 2. Professional development will be a two-day workshop in March Teachers in each subject (math, science, English etc.) will be placed in groups together 3. These groups will rotate through the various stations where they will participate in workshops that cover specific required and suggested content a. Content may include topics such as a) iPad integration b) Using Power Point effectively c) Bring Your Own Device Policies d) Edmodo, Remind 101 and other classroom social networking e) Technology in Classrooms linked with Environmental Sustainability 4. Groups will work together to see how the content areas can best be suited to their subject areas

5.

The final workshop will change the group dynamic to reform teams to include one member from each subject. These teams will them be able to workshop how their subjects can intersect and work together to create across the board learning. These vertical teams should remain in place through the academic year to ensure that integrated and across the board learning happens. Students should be assigned to have all courses within one vertical group of teachers to maintain consistency.

6.

Level 3 Tertiary- Needs. Multiple classrooms will need to be set up, one room to accommodate each topic of professional development, which the groups will move to and from. Professional development conferencing staff will also need to be in numbers large enough to place in each group.

Adult Learning Theory As the professional development structure begins to form, applying adult learning theory to the workshops included in the professional development will be key to ensuring maximum engagement and retention by faculty. Zemke and Zemke (1981) and Knox (1896), as cited in Dean (1994), suggest that some of the helpful strategies in adult learning are The ability for learners to self-asses

Respecting adults life experiences that may be applicable to the classroom

Be aware of learners self-esteem and ego needs (Dean, 1994, p. 16). Open-ended questions that exercise need and ability for collaboration Allow feedback from the learner about the material

The nature of adult learners to self-assess will go a long way in making sure that what they need has been taught and that they feel confident in what they have learned. This confidence in their learning also feeds into their learning egos, another important element to adult learning. Allowing a small group, rotating conference format can foster each of the above strategies of adult learning. By placing likesubjected faculty together in their area of expertise (allowing them their ego needs as listed above), one creates a system in which learners (the faculty receiving training) feel comfortable speaking up and able to provide relevant life/classroom experiences to the workshop. Small groups will enable more effective and directed discussion relevant to the groups specific participants. When they create their vertical groups at the end of day two, they will also be able to apply their existing subject knowledge to the group collective in ways other group members may not have considered. Feedback and open-ended questions are also an inherent strength in small groups of adult learners work-shopping a technique instead of one large auditorium listening to a lecture.

Program Evaluation According to Johnson and Dick (2012) evaluation should set a standard for what we want the professional development to do. Some questions to ask in the evaluation stage of this project are: How much integration or change do we want to see come out of this professional development? What kind of integration or change do we want to see? What time frame would we like to see these changes take place within? Was the professional development cost effective? Was the learning itself productive and helpful to faculty?

Posavac and Carey (2007) suggest examining both the long-term and the short-term goals of a program for viability. As related to this project, the above questions can help to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of the program. A long-term question would be, Was this system effective and helpful enough to faculty to repeat again next year? Evaluation for this project should begin immediately. At the opening workshop a survey will be administered to develop a base reading for the participants knowledge of subject matter. After completing the workshops, faculty will be presented with a survey of questions similar to the first test to determine the amount of learning that took place. This follows what Johnson & Dick (2012) refer to as one-group pretest-posttest design. Though this is what they would consider a

moderately weak form of evaluation, dividing the faculty into two groups and only issue training to one would not be beneficial to the ultimate goal of technology integration. After collecting the surveys any consistent holes in knowledge must be addressed if faculty is to effectively use their learning in the classroom. Because the professional development occurs in March a secondary fill-in-the-blanks professional development session can be planned and held either in May or in the fall when faculty returns to school. Results could indicate that the multi-group and thus multi-room and instructor approach to this work shopping is not cost effective. Evaluation would have to weigh the benefits (both data quantified and participant described) of working in small rotating groups against the cost effectiveness of this format. About two to three months before possibly repeating the approach for the following year (near January), surveys, classroom observations and interviews with faculty participants should be conducted to determine if the levels and effectiveness of integration set forth by the evaluation questions have been met sufficiently to rule the new professional development format and timing a success. If it is deemed effective, planning will commence on the program for the following years development workshops. If the evaluation of the program finds that the current system is either not cost-effective or not effective in general, a new needs assessment and planning must commence to rework the technology professional development, using the gaps and weaknesses of this proposed model as a starting point for filling in the gaps.

References Dean, G.J. (1994). Designing instruction for adult learners. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Johnson, R.B., & Dick, W. (2012) Evaluation in instructional design: A comparison of evaluation models. In R. A. Resier & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. (pp. 96-104). Boston, MA: Pearson. Knox, A.B. (1986). Helping adults to learn: A guide to planning, implementing and conducting programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Posavac, E.J., & Carey, R.G. (2007). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Witkin, B.R., & Altschuld, J.W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1981). 30 things we should know for sure about adult learning. Training, 18(6), 45-52.