Editor’s Note: Staff development promotes quality of teaching and learning in distance education. This study poses the question: What conditions are necessary a large-scale online staff development course to be effective. The paper is based on earlier research and two nationally convened focus groups. The data includes conditions that influence how online staff development might be delivered; requirements to be met by online delivery models, ways to engage teachers, sustain teacher involvement, and manage online staff development; and ideas for implementation of online staff development.

Parameters of
Online Staff Development Study

Edward L. Meyen and Chien-Hui Yang

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this article was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education. Appreciation is expressed to several people who served on the National Advisory Board, participated in the focus groups, responded to the survey, and who contributed to the larger project of which this study was a part. Recognition is due to Cheryl Harrod, Meng Yew Tee and Dan Spurgin of the e-Learning Design Lab staff for their contributions. Appreciation is also expressed to the Center for Research on Learning and the Information & Telecommunication Technology Center whose collaboration created the e-Learning Design Lab.

Abstract

This study was conducted as part of the activities carried out by a project to develop guidelines for delivery models to implement large-scale online staff development programs. The host project was in follow up to the Online Academy (H029K73002), funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which produced 22 fully online asynchronous short courses. The purpose of this study was to identify the conditions/parameters of successful large-scale online staff development programs. Fifty-one educators, in several professional roles, from nine states participated in a series of focus groups to identify conditions essential to implementing online staff development for teachers. An instrument comprised 115 items, developed by the focus Groups, and was used to verify the importance of the identified conditions.

Parameters of Online Staff Development Study

Background

This study on parameters of online staff development evolved early in a project to develop online delivery models for implementing large-scale online staff development. As planning began it became apparent the planning would be better informed if an effort was made to first examine the conditions that surround the implementation of large scale online staff development projects. The planning activity was a follow-up initiative to the work of the Online Academy (Meyen, 2002). It took the form of supplemental project at the University of Kansas (Meyen, 2003). The Online Academy involved the development of 22 online modules for pre-service teacher education programs. The modules were in the content areas of Reading, Positive Behavioral Support and Technology in Education. The Online Academy National Advisory Board subsequently determined that the instructional design of the modules was applicable to staff development. Consequently, a needs assessment study (Meyen, Ramp, Harrod, & Bui, in press) was conducted. This study identified 113 topics perceived as being important for staff development programs. Through a prioritization process to determine topics of national significance, five were selected for development as online staff development modules through a supplemental award from the Office of Special Education (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education. Those modules were subsequently develop, beta tested and released to states. (Meyen, 2003).

The supplemental project came about because many states lacked experience in implementing large scale online staff development programs. The e-Learning Design Lab, which the Online Academy was a part of, was engaged to conduct work with teams of educators to study conditions that would enhance the implementation of online staff development programs at the state, regional or national levels. Four strategies emerged as the foci of this project.

Engagement of planning participants in beta testing the online staff development modules to ensure a common understanding of one approach to online staff development.
The identification of the parameters or conditions that surround the development and/or delivery of online staff development on a large-scale basis.
The identification and validation of barriers likely to be encountered in implementing large scale online staff development programs for teachers.
The framing of recommendations on how best to approach the implementation of large-scale online staff development programs for teachers.

The results of the first three elements served to inform the planning process that led to recommendations on implementation. Early in the planning process six principles were framed. One principle was specific to the focus of this paper. That principle was described as follows:

It is important to understand the conditions that contribute to successful implementation of online staff development. To some extent these conditions represent the parameters of online instruction. They take the form of conditions that need to be met prior to implementation as well as technology requirements and strategies for engaging teachers in online staff development and sustaining their involvement (Meyen, 2003).

This study to identify the parameters of online staff development online staff development was carried out as an integral part of the overall planning process structured for the supplemental project. The information derived from this study was central to the ultimate decisions on recommendations for implementation. While the results of the Supplemental Project will not be presented in this paper a brief discussion on the structure of the project is important to the context of this paper.

The Supplemental Planning Project

The following organizational elements represent the structure of the supplemental project through which the barriers study was conducted.

Coordination: The project was based in the e-Learning Design Lab (eDL). Staffing of the project was achieved though the engagement of a national consultant and the part-time assignment of eDL staff to specific tasks carried out for the project.

External Leadership: The National Advisory Board for the project that produced the five online staff development modules also served as the Advisory Board for the supplemental project on delivery models. The board was comprised of nine individuals representing State Education Agencies (SEAs), Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), Local Education Agencies (LEAs), Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), and OSEP. The divisions of Research to Practice and Monitoring and State Improvement Planning in OSEP were both represented on the board.

State Teams: The state teams, represented the primary source of data and input to the planning process. Nine states selected by the National Advisory Board in conjunction with OSEP representatives included Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, and Utah. Each team was comprised of a representative of the respective SEA and an institution of higher education, along with a principal, a staff development specialist, and at least one teacher. In one case a Regional Resource Center representative served on a team (this person was also on the National Advisory Board), at least one teacher, and a principal. The SEA representative served as the team leader, coordinating all team activities.

Retreat Planning Sessions: Two two-day retreats involving the state teams and members of the Board represented the setting in which most discourse and decision-making took place. Planning sessions were held by the board prior to the planning retreats. During the planning sessions of the board the initial goals were framed, the planning process conceptualized, and the retreat model agreed to. OSEP awarded funds to each state to cover the costs for their team members to participate in the retreat sessions. Due to travel restrictions, two of the teams were not able to participate in the planning retreats. However, accommodations were made to obtain their input.

Project Web Site: The project web site served as the primary communications vehicle. For example, agendas and summaries of meetings were shared via the web site. Surveys were conducted electronically and the modules that were beta tested by the participants were accessed through the web site with data also being collected online. Further, participants communicated with their team members, the eDL staff, and their team leader via electronic communications. Some teams also met in person for planning.

Planning Process: The primary vehicle for engaging the state teams in the planning process were two-day retreats held in Alexandria, Virginia, and Park City, Utah, respectively. Extensive work prior to and following the retreats was done by both the participants and the eDL staff and the results shared via the project web site. Some state teams also met face-to-face to supplement their project work. This process maximized the effectiveness of teams and individual members in influencing the direction of the project.

Additionally, the work between retreats was facilitated by the intensity and nature of the work carried out during the retreat sessions. Specifically, a purposeful attempt was made to balance the agenda of the retreats across input sessions, focus groups, team sessions, and large-group interactions. Presentations were kept to a minimum, except for providing critical information and reporting the results of surveys conducted and the synthesis of focus groups. Agendas were shared in advance and open to modification as the retreats evolved.

The Final Report for the supplemental project, along with the five staff development modules, can be accessed on the eDL website at elearndesign.org.

Literature Review

As large scale online training programs are implemented by business (e.g., IBM, Ernst & Young, and Rockwell Collins) [Hall & LeCavalier, as cited in Strother, 2002)]), and online staff development by school districts (e.g., Los Angeles Unified School District, Clark County Nevada School District) [Richardson, 2001; Treacy, Kleiman, & Peterson, 2002]) it becomes evident that a number of conditions or parameters can be identified that enhance this new mode of delivery. For example, just as there are standards for quality face-to-face instruction there should be standards for online staff development (Hirsh, 2001). The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) and National Institute for Community Innovations (NICI) (2001) established standards for staff development, including content standards and process standards. Killion (2002) states “NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development, Revised Edition is the foundation upon which to make decisions about technology-mediated staff development. Because staff development through electronic resources serves the same function as face to face staff development, the context necessary to support adult learning, the processes by which they learn, and the content they need to increase student achievement are the same (p.12).”

The National Staff Development Council also proposes that successful staff development should be job-embedded and results-driven (Hirsh, 2001). Hirsh argues that staff development has to be embedded in every teacher’s daily work schedule and daily teaching experiences so that the school community can be a learning environment that fosters constant improvements. Many researchers agree that the content of staff development should be emphasized more than the technology infrastructure (Killion, 2000; Reilly, 2002; Wolinsky, 1999). Guskey (2003) analyzed 13 different lists of the characteristics of effective professional development, which can apply to online staff development. According to Guskey’s analyses, the most significant characteristics include enhancement of teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge, the provision of sufficient time and resources, the promotion of collegiality and collaborative exchange, inclusion of evaluation procedures, and the importance of using analyses of student learning data to guide professional development activities. Treacy et al. (2002) identified nine elements for successful online staff development. They include (1) assessment of local professional development needs and the development of an online professional development plan based on those needs; (2) connection of online staff development with other ongoing, face to face professional development activities; (3) carefully select and train online staff development specialist team members; (4) build a strong local team; (5) develop incentives; (6) publicize the online staff development program and involve local stakeholders; (7) provide readily available and reliable access to technology and support; (8) foster a rich, interactive online learning community; and (9) integrate online workshops with face to face meetings.

The challenge in creating the ultimate conditions for online staff development is that some of the conditions to be met are the responsibility of those who develop the content and the technical design while other responsibilities fall to those who adopt and implement the online programs. Most of the literature builds from experiences associated with effective face-to-face staff development. The paucity of research studies reported on the effectiveness of specific features online training or staff development is influenced by the relatively recent emergence of the Internet and the WWW that has created the capacity to deliver staff development online. None of the studies reviewed utilized methodologies that combined the use of focus groups and survey techniques to verify conditions essential to successful implementation of large-scale online staff development employed in this study.

Methodology

The primary method for developing the inventory of conditions involved the use of Focus Groups. They were conducted during two retreats held about four months apart. The purpose of the focus groups was to identify the conditions that need to be in place if large scale online staff development programs are to be successfully implemented.

Procedures for identifying and validating barriers included the following:

Two sets of Focus Groups were conducted during the first retreat. The first focus groups were organized around the individual roles represented on the state planning teams. These roles included SEA staff members, professors, classroom teachers, principals, staff development specialists, and a group comprised of members of the educators from other roles. Members of the National Advisory Board were invited to participate by selecting a role group similar to their professional role. See Table 1 for the distribution of participants among the focus groups by role.

Table 1
Focus Group Participants

Profession	n
State Education agency staff	10
Professors	6
Principals	6
Teachers	14
OSEP	3
Professional Development Specialists	8
Regional Resource Center staff, and others	7
Total	54

Each group received the same instructions i.e., to identify the conditions essential to successful implementation of large scale online staff development programs. They were asked to select a facilitator and a recorder. Prior to the large group reporting sessions each group was alerted to the amount of time remaining prior to reporting. They were also asked to edit their flip chart notes before reporting. Reports were made verbally to the group with time allowed for questioning to ensure clarification of statements. Two eDL staff members took notes during the discussions. The flip chart reports were collected as archival data and the recorder agreed to be available following the retreat to respond to questions from the staff to ensure accuracy in compiling the notes. The same process was repeated with the focus groups being reconfigured by state teams in contrast to the organization by roles in the first focus group process.

Reporting sessions were held following each set of focus groups. The reporting sessions were facilitated by an eDL staff member. These were extensive sessions with the goal being to ensure that each suggested condition was clearly communicated and that there was consensus that the condition should be retained in the inventory.

Agreement was reached on the items in the inventory of conditions they were reviewed to identify categories in which they appeared to cluster. The results of the reporting sessions at the conclusion of the two focus groups sessions during the first retreat was an inventory of statements describing conditions important to successful implantation of online staff development that were grouped by categories.

Within a week following the retreat the notes from the two focus group sessions were edited as statements describing the conditions identified by the Focus Groups. Each item was edited to achieve some consistency in format and structure of the wording. The intent of the statements was not changed nor were additional ones added. Redundancies were eliminated and the sorting by categories was reviewed to assure reasonable independence of each category.

The inventory of statements, clustered by the original categories, was posted on the Supplemental Project web site. Participants from the Focus Groups were asked to review the items and categories. They were also allowed to add items. Submit forms for responses were included one the web site.

The final instrument consisted of 115 items divided into six categories. Following is a list of six categories.

Conditions that influence how online staff development might be delivered.
Requirements to be met by online delivery models.
Way to engage teachers.
Ways to sustain teachers’ involvement.
Ways to manage online staff development.
Ideas for implementation of online staff development

While the category topics overlapped, it was decided that they were sufficiently independent to serve as a framework. Besides, it was important to ensure comprehensive coverage of the individual conditions that the group judged to be important.

A submit form was developed and placed on the web site, and participants were notified by email that they were invited to respond to the instrument. The instrument was preceded by a brief review of the discussions at the first retreat. Respondents were asked to provide demographic information and to rank each item on a 5-point scale of importance, ranging for responses from Not Important to Very High Importance.

The results of the responses were summarized and presented at the second planning retreat. The focus of this discussion was on how the preliminary results of the responses to the instrument informed the process of framing recommendations for the overall project recommendations on deliver models for the implementation of large scale staff development projects. (Meyen, 2003) A decision was made to do a follow-up to allow participants who had not responded to respond to the instrument. A second copy of the survey instrument was posted and those who had not responded the first time were asked to respond.

Results

Demographics of Participants

Focus groups followed by a total-group discussion session took place at both retreats. However, the first retreat was most productive in generating statements. In the second session the pilot results were reviewed and minor changes were made in items within the six categories. The composition of the two groups was almost identical since the membership of the teams did not change, but some participants were unable to attend the second session. Besides, some participants in the second session were new to the process. Fifty-four participated in the first session and thirty-four in the second session.

Results of the Ranking Process

The most significant results of the study were derived from the focus groups that generated the items. The ranking process served to confirm the importance of the statements and to rank them in relative importance. While respondents differentiated among statements of high importance and low importance, no item received a mean score of less than 3.52. Table 2 provides a comparison of the mean scores based on rankings of 4.5 and higher as 4.0 and higher across the six categories. The overall mean score across the 113 items was 4.22. Only 20 items received mean scores below 4.0.

Table 2
Comparison of Mean Scores Distributed Across Categories

Category	# of Items	Mean Scores 4.5+	Mean Scores 4.0+	Range
1.1 Conditions	32	9	27	4.76-3.71
1.2 Requirements	12	3	10	4.76-3.71
1.3 Teacher Engagement	25	0	19	4.48-3.52
1.4 Sustaining Involvement	14	1	11	4.52-3.67
1.5 Module Management	10	1	7	4.86-3.67
1.6 Implementation	22	4	21	4.86-4.00
TOTAL	115	18	95

Define Categories

Table 3 contains the mean scores and ranking of each item within the six categories. The number in the left column identifies the number of each item as it appeared in the instrument. Items with the same mean score have been assigned the same ranking; thus there are duplicate rankings in each category.

Lessons Learned

The lessons learned were directly influenced by the intense participation of the state team members in the focus and large-group sessions as described earlier. Their vested interest in the process derived from the high probability that each of them would ultimately have some responsibility for implementing online staff development through their professional roles.

Involving individuals with different professional responsibilities in discussions of online staff development creates an environment that is productive in identifying realistic conditions for effective implementation.

Engaging planning participants in the beta testing of online instruction results in more substantive contributions to planning for subsequent implementation of online staff development.

Once the conditions are described that influence online instruction, educational representatives with different professional roles can reach consensus on the relative importance of each of the specific factors that influence successful implementation of online staff development.

Online staff development, because of easy access and convenience for practicing professional as well as its unique capacity to maintain currency of content, is perceived as an important option in the delivery of staff development.

Table 3
Mean Scores and Ranking within Categories

Item	Items Category			Mean			Rank
1.1	Conditions that influence how online staff development might be delivered
1.1.1	Need to access connectivity.			4.67			3
1.1.2	Incentives appropriate to the demands on teachers should be available.			4.33			8
1.1.3	Administrative support essential.			4.62			4
1.1.4	Commitment from the staff development leadership.			4.29			9
1.1.5	Teachers should be given option in selecting the programs they complete.			4.43			7
1.1.6	CEUs and college credit important.			4.29			9
1.1.7	Easy access to technical assistance.			4.76			1
1.1.8	Clear communication on the instruction to be offered and expected outcomes.			4.57			5
1.1.9	System for reporting and managing records of participating teachers.			4.19			10
1.1.10	Effective program of marketing the staff development to teachers.			4.33			8
1.1.11	Established system of cohorts or study groups to support teacher participation.			3.76			15
1.1.12	Minimize the technical skills required to participate in the online staff development.			4.10			11
1.1.13	Reinforcement for an online culture of staff development.			3.76			15
1.1.14	Alternative modes, e.g. online and CD formats.			3.95			13
1.1.15	If fees are passed on to teachers, fees need to be very affordable.			4.62			4
1.1.16	If a licensing fee is employed, it needs to take into consideration the current decline in fiscal support for education.			4.71			2
1.1.17	System in place to provide immediate feedback to teachers.			4.52			6
1.1.18	Feedback on assessment should be immediate and instructional.			4.62			4
1.1.19	Give high visibility to the program in an attempt to establish acceptance of the approach.			4.29			9
1.1.19	Give high visibility to the program in an attempt to establish acceptance of the approach.			4.29			9
1.1.20	Appropriate support at the local, regional, and state levels			4.57			5
1.1.21	Establish relationships with institutions of higher education to facilitate the integration of staff development with institutional offerings.			4.43			7
1.1.22	Resources related to the staff development topics should be accessible.			4.10			11
1.1.23	Licensing requirements should be comprehensive and clearly stated.			4.05			12
1.1.24	Staff development on how to participate in online staff development should be available.			4.05			12
1.1.25	Staff development should be tied to application and ongoing systems of support, e.g. peer coaching, mentoring, etc.			4.33			8
1.1.26	An evaluation system to evaluate the program needs to be in place.			4.33			8
1.1.27	Teachers need to participate in selection of online staff development offerings.			4.29			9
1.1.28	There should be a relationship to certification.			4.10			11
1.1.29	Relate to salary increments.			3.71			16
1.1.30	Engagement of staff development leadership locally.			4.10			11
1.1.31	There should be a capacity in place to maintain currency of offerings and to expand offerings.			4.05			12
1.1.32	The infrastructure should not only be stable but should be perceived as a permanent arrangement.			3.90			14
Item	Items Category			Mean			Rank
1.2	Requirements online delivery models should meet
1.2.1	A system of quality control needs to be in place to ensure all programs are of high quality.			4.76			1
1.2.2	A strong accountability system to monitor all aspects of the program and to convene the value placed on participation.			4.48			3
1.2.3	When feasible, instructors should participate in the online staff development.			4.05			6
1.2.4	The technical infrastructure should be stable resulting in a minimum of special requirements for participation.			4.29			5
1.2.5	The online staff development program should be compatible with available resources for chats, threaded discussions, FAQs, forums, etc.			4.05			6
1.2.6	The fiscal commitment should be in place prior to implementation to minimize having to curtail offerings once operational.			4.43			4
1.2.7	There should be a vision as to how the program may evolve in the future.			4.29			5
1.2.8	Policies governing the roles of teachers need to take into consideration the flexibility online staff development offers teachers, e.g., if they complete online staff development they should be excused from the scheduled staff development assignments.			3.90			8
1.2.9	A plan should be in place as to how offerings will be expanded.			4.00			7
1.2.10	Establish a practice of ensuring that all offerings will be expanded.			4.76			1
1.2.11	The offerings should be available 24/7/365.			4.62			2
1.2.12	When appropriate content should apply to all teachers.			3.76			9
Item	Items Category			Mean			Rank
1.3	Models for engaging teachers
1.3.1	Tie offerings to national standards such as the CEC standards.			4.48			1
1.3.2	Broaden focus to attract the interest of teachers in general education.			4.43			2
1.3.3	Offer in-depth offerings not just introductory topics.			4.29			5
1.3.4	Create a career ladder that allows a teacher to gain recognition for completing offerings that enhance their expertise, e.g., a certificate might be awarded for completing a series of offerings on a topic that includes advanced knowledge.			4.10			9
1.3.5	Employment of cohort or study groups as a way of building community around topics of mutual interest.			3.95			11
1.3.6	Create a mechanism that facilitates teachers in deciding which offering or part of an offering will add to their knowledge and skill base.			4.05			10
1.3.7	Involvement of principal in a leadership role that clearly conveys value placed on participation.			4.38			3
1.3.8	Obtain endorsement of professional associations for the online offerings and where appropriate related the topics to the agenda of association.			3.95			11
1.3.9	Provide resources that enhance their applying what they learn.			4.33			4
1.3.10	Relate incentives to successful completion of online offerings.			4.33			4
1.3.11	Create opportunities for teachers to contribute to the development of online staff development offerings.			4.24			6
1.3.12	Establish a portfolio system that allows teachers to manage a dossier of what they have learned via the online staff development offerings.			3.76			13
1.3.13	Establish relationships with IHEs that results in consideration of credit for the work done by teachers.			4.33			4
1.3.14	Coordinate offerings where appropriate with National Board Certification.			4.29			5
1.3.15	Build a comprehensive set of offerings to maximize the probabilities of all teachers being able to match offerings with personal needs.			4.24			6
1.3.16	Provide strategies for teachers to focus on specific instruction for remediation without having to complete an entire course.			4.33			4
1.3.17	Provide released time for teachers in groups to construct their own staff development program from the online resources made available.			3.71			14
1.3.18	Teachers should have opportunities to influence the availability of topics.			4.10			9
1.3.19	Principals should fulfill a leadership role in promoting online staff development and in ensuring the flexible features are exercised.			4.05			10
1.3.20	Engage faculty from nearby IHEs in the staff development.			4.14			8
1.3.21	Include pre and post test assessments.			4.19			7
1.3.22	Maximize flexibility features.			4.29			5
1.3.23	Participation in the program should result in training roles for teachers.			3.52			15
1.3.24	The role of the principal should be central to implementation and maintenance of the program.			3.86			12
1.3.25	Offerings should relate to the priorities of the SIG.			4.05			10
Item	Items Category			Mean			Rank
1.4	Models for sustaining teacher involvement
1.4.1	Released timed for mentors.			4.14			6
1.4.2	Mechanisms for teacher to manage their progress.			4.14			6
1.4.3	Incentives tied to completion.			4.33			3
1.4.4	Professional culture that values online staff development.			4.19			5
1.4.5	Public acknowledgement of continued professional development.			4.10			7
1.4.6	Opportunities to pursue "elective" opportunities.			4.14			6
1.4.7	Recognition for becoming expert in a staff development topic.			3.95			8
1.4.8	Indicators for relating professional growth to student outcomes.			4.38			2
1.4.9	Opportunities to develop online staff development.			3.67			10
1.4.10	Clear evidence that offerings will be expanded and system sustained.			3.90			9
1.4.11	Application of successful staff development to degrees/ certification/salary increments.			4.52			1
1.4.12	Link to other sources of information important to teachers.			4.10			7
1.4.13	Relate to school improvement plans.			4.38			2
1.4.14	Participation of teachers in planning and refining the online staff development program.			4.29			4
Item	Items Category			Mean			Rank
1.5	Models for managing online staff development
1.5.1	Establish policies governing the management on online staff development to enhance continuity and to communicate value.			4.05			4
1.5.2	Engage broad participation in designing a management system that tracks the progress of all teachers.			3.90			7
1.5.3	Integrate the communication of teacher progress to appropriate administrators and policy makers into the management system.			3.95			6
1.5.4	Coordinate the features of the management system with others that may be available at the local, regional or state levels.			4.00			5
1.5.5	Tie the management system to individualized portfolios or professional development plans that may be operational at the local or state levels.			4.00			5
1.5.6	Centralize responsibility for the maintenance of the management system.			3.67			8
1.5.7	Teachers should have access to the management system to monitor the accuracy of the system in recording their progress.			4.24			3
1.5.8	The entry of data into the system should be user friendly and when possible automatic as a result of completing an offering.			4.33			2
1.5.9	The management system should be in place as part of the infrastructure prior to implementation.			4.33			2
1.5.10	The system should be affordable in terms of fiscal costs and labor requirements to ensure its sustainability.			4.86			1
Item	Items Category			Mean			Rank
1.6	Ideas for implementation of online staff development
1.6.1	Open participation to all teachers.			4.86			1
1.6.2	Initiate a communications (public relations) process targeted attracting the interests of teachers.			4.48			4
1.6.3	Phase in the offerings with topics that have the highest probability of being successful.	4.38			6
1.6.4	Present the program as being of high priority to the district and the state.	4.29			8
1.6.5	Obtain endorsement and affiliation is desirable with related professional associations.	4.43			5
1.6.6	Do not start until infrastructure is in place.	4.29			8
1.6.7	Establish communities of practice for those completing offerings.	4.19			10
1.6.8	Have incentives in place along with credit options.	4.52			3
1.6.9	Integrate with professional development or school improvement plans that the SEA or LEA may have in place.	4.33			7
1.6.10	Operate a very visible feedback system to retrieve information from users on how to improve the offerings.	4.33			7
1.6.11	If part of a statewide or regional system a monitoring process needs to be in place to ensure accountability and quality control.	4.19			10
1.6.12	Create options for online teaching that provide immediate feedback to teachers.	4.05			11
1.6.13	Create and value cohort approaches to participating in staff development.	4.00			12
1.6.14	Provide options such a chats, threaded discussions and forums for those enrolled in similar offerings.	4.00			12
1.6.15	Establish a user friendly enrollment process.	4.57			2
1.6.16	Ensure that a management system is operational that maintains records of teacher progress and communicates that progress to appropriate administrators and policymakers.		4.24			9
1.6.17	Ensure that a management system is operational that allows teachers to manage their own progress and build a portfolio that can be integrated with other professional achievements.		4.52			3
1.6.18	Establish policies that allow teachers to meet their staff development obligations online without having to also participate in scheduled activities.		3.95			13
1.6.19	Conduct a marketing strategy that engages a variety of spokespersons that are supportive of online staff development.		4.19			10
1.6.20	Generalize the same value placed on other forms of staff development to online staff development.		4.19			10
1.6.21	Establish partnerships with IHEs.		4.33			7
1.6.22	Involve Regional Resource Centers.		4.24			9

Summary

This study was part of a planning project to develop guidelines for the implementation of large scale online staff development programs. Fifty-four educators from nine states participated in the planning process. The study was designed to help inform the planning decisions. Two additional studies were conducted for the same purpose, but not reported in this paper. They addressed the beta testing of online staff development modules and the identification of barriers to the implementation of large scale online staff development programs. The conditions/parameters study was conducted prior to the development of implementation recommendations by the planning group. The focus of this study was to identify conditions essential to successful implementation of large scale online staff development programs. Focus groups were utilized to develop statements describing conditions and circumstances that need to be in place to enhance successful implementation of online staff development. Once consensus was reached on the statements they were placed in categories and embedded in an instrument and a ranking process employed to determine their relative importance.

References

Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.

Hirsh, S. (2001). We’re growing and changing. Journal of Staff Development, 22(3), 10-17.

Killion, J. (2000). Log on to learn: To reap the benefits of online staff development, ask the right questions. Journal of Staff Development, 21(3), 48-53.

Killion, J. (2002). Loading the e-learning shopping cart. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1), 12-16.

Meyen, E.L. (2002). Final Report: The Online Academy – Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Lawrence, Kansas: Center for Research on Learning – University of Kansas.

Meyen, E.L. (2003). Final Report: Online Delivery Model Project – Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Lawrence, Kansas: Center for Research on Learning – University of Kansas.

Meyen, E.L., Aust, R.J., Bui, Y.N., Ramp, E., & Smith, S.J. (2002). The online academy formative evaluation approach to evaluating online instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 89-108.

Meyen, E.L., Ramp, E., Harrod, C., & Bui, Y.N. (in press). A national assessment of staff development needs related to the education of students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children.

National Staff Development Council and National Institute for Community Innovations (2001). E-learning for educators: Implementing the standards for staff development. Retrieved January 30, 2003 from www.nsdc.org/e-learning.pdf

Reilly, R. (2002). Barriers to reengineering learning environments. Multimedia School, 9(6), 62, 64.

Richardson, J. (2001). Online staff development has great possibilities and pitfalls. Results. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res9-01rich.html

Strother, J.B. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning in corporate training programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3 (1). Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.1/strother.html

Treacy, B., Kleiman, G., & Peterson, K. (2002). Successful online professional development. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30(1), 42-47.

Wolinsky, A. (1999). What works in staff development. Multimedia Schools, 6(2), 36-40.

About the Authors

Edward L. Meyen, Ph.D., is Co-Director of the e-Learning Design Lab and Budig Teaching Professor for the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas. Contact Dr. Meyen at phone: 785-864-0675 email: meyen@ku.edu

Chien-Hui Yang is a Ph.D. student in early childhood special education and a graduate research assistant with the e-Learning Design Lab at the University of Kansas.

The authors can be contacted at:

The University of Kansas, e-Learning Design Lab
3061 Dole Human Development Center
1000 Sunnyside Drive, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

go top

February 2004 Index

Home Page

Parameters of Online Staff Development Study

Edward L. Meyen and Chien-Hui Yang

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Abstract

Parameters of Online Staff Development Study

Background

The Supplemental Planning Project

Literature Review

Methodology

Table 1Focus Group Participants

Results

Demographics of Participants

Results of the Ranking Process

Table 2Comparison of Mean Scores Distributed Across Categories

Define Categories

Lessons Learned

Table 3Mean Scores and Ranking within Categories

Summary

References

About the Authors

Parameters of
Online Staff Development Study

Table 1
Focus Group Participants

Table 2
Comparison of Mean Scores Distributed Across Categories

Table 3
Mean Scores and Ranking within Categories