Slides for the following presentation: Siko, J.P. (2013, March). PD plus U: Professional development collaboration with school districts and universities. Presentation at the Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning Conference, Detroit, MI.

1. PD Plus U: Professional
Development
Collaboration with School
Districts and Universities
Jason Siko
Assistant Professor of Educational Technology
Grand Valley State University

2. What I’ll be doing…
 Case study detailing plan for offering PD for
graduate credit
 Decision Process
 Design Process
 Issues/Pitfalls
 Feedback
 Discuss Future/Brainstorm

3. Caveat
 I will be talking about this in OLD terms and rules
(i.e., SB-CEUs, 6 credits, etc.)
 Part of discussion will relate to changes in
certification laws

4. Problem
 Providing relevant technology PD
 Time constraints
 Desire to earn “credit” toward recertification
 $
 Outside technical PD not district specific
 Tech PD delivery is often abysmal
 “Here…look at this! Now go use it. Bye!”

5. Solution
 “Win-Win” Professional Development
 Find as many benefits for teachers, district,
designers, and providers as possible

6. Story
 Began in spring of 2011
 District’s media specialists (and a few others) gathered
to discuss possibilities of creating a sustained PD
program that would
 Help teachers meet their cert. renewal obligations
 Train teachers on district specific technology
 Move PD off-hours (online/after school/summer)
 Make part of new teacher PD
 Media specialists from all levels to address needs
specific to each level
 But then…POOF!

7. After the Bomb Dropped
 Who was left?
 Scrambling
 Workload (Whole district?)
 Time (fewer bodies)
 Expertise?
 Pay?

8. Credits vs. SB-CEUs
 SB-CEUs
 180 contact hours
 Paperwork
 No salary increase
 No income stream
 Credits
 84 contact hours
 Reduced paperwork
 Led to salary increase on pay scale (MA+30)
 Income Stream?

9. CMU - DDPD
 http://global.cmich.edu/4educators/ddpd/
 Just Google [without quotes] “CMU DDPD”
 District Designed Professional Development
 Teachers/District Staff design curriculum
 Submit syllabus to CMU for approval
 Recruit teachers
 Reduced rate of tuition (compared to standard CMU
rates; also lower than most local institutions)
 CMU shares revenue 50/50 with district.

10. Recruitment
 Spring of 2011, we sent surveys out to the high
school staff for topic ideas and interest
 Slanting toward technology but received ideas for
non-tech course offerings
 Initial list of potential students provided contact
information for summer

11. Design
 Based on previous events, we decided to offer
one course to HS staff in the fall of 2011, covering
basics of district technology (i.e., mostly teacher-centered
tools on productivity)
 In the winter of 2012, we revamped the course
and offered it district-wide
 In addition, we offered an “integration course” to
HS and MS staff in the winter.

12. Design
 To accommodate staff, courses were offered in a
hybrid format.
 Online portion through Moodle
 Five face-to-face sessions distributed throughout the
semester.
 F2F sessions held at high school (fall) and junior
high (winter) for three hours after school.

13. Design
 Team met over summer to design Basics course.
 Developed reusable materials (job aids, video
tutorials) demonstrating how to use various district
tools/software (SchoolCenter, gradebook, Google
Apps, A/V materials)
 Topics included file storage, cloud computing,
passwords and security, PLN, Web 2.0 intro
 Created lessons and assignments
 Discussion threads on how to better use tools in the
classroom
 Screenshots (before and after)
 Collaborative lesson planning and document sharing

14. Design
 Integration course
 More on PLNs
 Using 2.0 tools in the classroom (wikis, online
presentations, blogs)
 Copyright/Safety
 Simulations/Applets
 WebQuests
 Communication Tools
 Podcasting
 Photo editing
 Online resources (Thinkfinity, M.O.R.E.)

15. Numbers
 Fall
 Tech Basics Course: 12 (25 originally expressed
interest)
 Winter
 Tech Basics Course: 8
 Tech Integration Course: 8

16. Feedback
 Teachers (i.e., the students) were very pleased
with the course.
 Expressed a desire for more F2F classes
 CMU was easy to work with
 “Should we be paying for this?”
 What about those who didn’t want to take it for
credit, just the knowledge?

17. Issues
 Maintenance of different streams (audit, credit,
CEU)
 Pay for instructors
 Flat fee or %
 Recruitment
 Changes in laws

18. The future?
 Changes to the certification requirements
 150 DPPD hours
 180 SCECHs
 6 credits
 No more 18 credits
 Incentives for advanced degrees?
 Are we back to square one?

19. Questions?

20. Thanks for coming
 Jason Siko
 Assistant Professor of Educational Technology
 Grand Valley State University
 sikojp@gmail.com ; sikoj@gvsu.edu
 http://jasonsiko.com