Title

A Comparison of the Effects of Three Types of Staff Development Presentation Methods On Teacher Implementation of Instructional Skills

Date of Award

1998

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)

Department

Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education

First Advisor

April D. Miller

Advisor Department

Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education

Abstract

The general purpose of the study was to determine the difference in the effectiveness of three types of staff development treatments and to ascertain if the differences were related to grade level(s) taught, course(s) taught, years taught on present grade level, teacher education, teacher experience, and teacher planning time. The effectiveness of each staff development treatment was determined by the difference in frequency of write-on response board use by teachers comparing frequency of use before and after the staff development treatments. Other purposes of the study included obtaining teacher perceptions of both the inservice training and the response board technique. The study indicated a significant difference in effectiveness between three staff development treatments $(F\sb{(2,57)}=16.14,\ p=.001).$ Subjects in the treatment group receiving both peer coaching and the provision of write-on response boards achieved at a higher level on the criterion variable of staff development effectiveness than the other two treatment groups, regardless of grade level(s) taught, course(s) taught, years taught on present grade level, teacher education, teacher experience, and teacher planning time. The study also indicated a significant interaction between treatment groups and course(s) taught on the criterion variable of staff development effectiveness $(F\sb{(6,48)}=4.09,\ p=.018).$ Additionally, results indicated a significant interaction between treatment groups and grade level(s) taught on the criterion variable of staff development effectiveness $(F\sb{(4,51)}=2.54,\ p=.029).$ The study indicated no significant interaction between treatment session and the following variables: (a) teacher educational level, (b) years of teaching experience, (c) years of teaching at present grade level, or (d) teacher planning time. Finally, teachers reported positive perceptions of both the staff development and the write-on response board technique. Recommendations are provided for staff development providers in crucial decision making areas: (a) scheduling, (b) program length, (c) techniques to introduce, (d) presentation modes, (e) program components, (f) implications of grade(s) taught and course(s) taught, and (g) staff development evaluations. A staff development script including guidelines and suggestions for using the write-on response boards, staff development evaluation, teacher information survey, and write-on response board use grid are also included.