169

Training needs assessment of teachers: The case of De La Salle University Dasmarinas

Crispina Corpuz, De La Salle University Dasmariñas

Abstract

The paper sought to describe the training needs assessment of De La Salle University

Dasmarinas (DLSUD) teachers based on their perception on Professional Development (PD) vis-

à-vis the PD program of the school in terms of its activities and support services relevant to

professional development. The research assumes that PD of teachers which includes training about

information, communication and technology (ICT) integration is essential to create a new

learning environment responsive to the needs of the 21st century learners. The study also involved

examining the current knowledge of the respondents in terms of instruction and classroom

management including their level of expertise in the use of technology applications and tools in

teaching amidst digital disruption. This study employed a qualitative research design and research

participants were teachers from the seven colleges of DLSUD including the graduate schools, and

senior high school. Frequency counts, ranking, weighted means and ANOVA were the statistical

tools used to determine the level of needs for the different categories identified. Findings show

that there’s no significant difference among all department/colleges when it comes to perceived

need while when grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational

background, there’s a significant difference between the means of the group when one looks at the

variables used for continuing education.

Keywords: training needs assessment (TNA), professional development program (PDP), digital

disruption, information, communication and technology (ICT)

Introduction

De La Salle University-Dasmarinas (DLSU-D), Cavite’s Premier University, prides itself

in preparing students to face the actual workplace after four years of college education (DLSU-D

portal). To make this possible, administrators, especially those at the Office of the Vice Chancellor

for Academics and Research (OVCAR), prepare and update the academic priorities every school

year to identify possible improvement and enhancement of its professional development programs

for teachers. To ensure compliance with the identified academic priorities as embodied in the 5-

year development program, the Academic Council approved commissioned research studies to

serve as basis for future administrative planning sessions. One of these include topics about the

identification of training needs of teachers in relation to the Professional Development Program

(PDP) of the university. Considering the school spent a lot for faculty development and there is a

need for cost-effective solutions, the OVCAR deemed it vital to ensure that the resources invested

in PD are placed at areas where it is needed and a positive return on the investment is guaranteed.

The rapid transformation in the field of technology which is considered the most important

characteristics of this century, makes it imperative for teachers in all sectors to develop their

capabilities because these changes disrupted the manner how professors deal and connect with

their students. Considering the availability and usage of new technology in almost all aspects of

our lives in a digitized world, inclusion of technology-related skills as part of the development of

170

competencies of teachers should be a major consideration in the PD of teachers (Drossel and

Eickelmann , 2016). Simply providing training to teachers may miss priority needs, or even cover

areas that are not essential. Although there were researches conducted about technology needs

assessments for education, these were usually unique and specific to the school where the studies

were conducted. Thus, the study hopes to provide additional literature on the field that will serve

as example to other academic institutions who would also like to assess the training needs of their

faculty.

Statement of the research problems

1. What is the training needs of DLSUD teachers when they are grouped according to

college/department, years in the teaching profession and educational background?

2. What is the current knowledge of DLSUD teachers in terms of instruction and

classroom management when they are grouped according to college/department, years

in the teaching profession and educational background?

Statement of the research objectives

1. To determine the profile of respondents relevant to training needs.

2. To analyze the current knowledge of respondents in terms of instruction and classroom

management including their skills in the application of technology apps and tools in

teaching.

Assumptions

1. The respondents answered the survey in an honest and candid manner.

2. Technology changes quickly, thus, the need for teachers to continuously participate in

professional development program relevant in the application of technology in

teaching.

3. General computer literacy is not enough to prepare teachers to use technology in the

classrooms.

4. PD of teachers which includes training about ICT integration is essential to create a

new learning environment responsive to the needs of the 21st century learners.

Operational definition of terms

1. Training Needs Assessment refers to the assessment of training needs of DLSUD

teachers.

2. Professional Development Program refers to the activities and support services of the

school to enhance the skills of teachers in instruction and classroom management

including the application of tech apps and tools in teaching.

3. Digital disruption refers to the change that occurs in the way we integrate the use of

technology in instruction because of the introduction of new digital modes in teaching

affecting the conventional learning set up of classrooms.

4. ICT refers to different tech apps and tools used to promote diverse learning methods

inside and outside the classroom.

171

Review of Literature

The following literature served as basis and inspiration in the present investigation about

training needs assessment and PD.

When it comes to PD content, the researcher would like to cite the study conducted by

Yurtseven and Bademcioglu (2016) to carry out content analysis about the studies on TPD. It

covers 60 studies that were registered at Turkish National Thesis Centre and ProQuest Database

between the years 2005-2015. Data showed that for areas of study, 13 studies reflect findings that

show PD activities have positive effects on teachers’ PD, 11 studies showed a positive relationship

between PD activities and improved teacher practice while 7 studies showed PD and student

learning relationship. It is worthy to note that out of 60 studies covered in the analysis, only 2

studies were about PD and technology. Recommendations of 18 studies demonstrated there is a

growing need for research about PD activities. This is also reflected in the study of Schoenfield

(2011) and Guskey (2000) who both inferred that PD is an ongoing process in which there are

learning opportunities for teachers every day.

In terms of pedagogy using the learner-centered approach, the research would like to

espouse the study of Orrill (2006) about what a learner-centered PD looks like. It demonstrated

the need for teachers to understand that PD is about their own learning rather than about supporting

their students’ learnings. This is because teachers are accustomed to participating in workshops

focused on pedagogical strategies, their own content knowledge development rather than how to

teach content to students.

When one looks at the impact analysis of ICT teaching aids used for training and

development of employees (Sharma et al, 2014), it can be inferred from the results that

management supports the use of modern ICT teaching aid and the research has proven that the use

of ICT teaching aids has improved the reach of learning and enhanced the quality of delivery. The

theoretical and monotonous training sessions of the past has been replaced with more interactive

and practical sessions inside and outside the classroom.

When it comes to training assessment surveys, Reilly (2016) pointed out that this is only a

one-dimensional tool, so to expand the process that will reflect a comprehensive approach, it could

include focus group discussion (FGD) about the results of the survey with stakeholders or

classroom observations to confirm the result.

For effective PD the study of Hammond (2017) inferred that a well designed and

implemented PD should facilitate the learning of students to develop their knowledge, skills and

competencies they need to thrive in the 21st century. This is based on the review of 35 studies

conducted before 2010 which demonstrated a positive link between teacher PD and student

outcomes. There is a wide agreement that PD for teachers is a necessary element for educational

change, especially for a more effective application of technology to enhance learning (Tondeur et

al, 2016; Kozma,2003). Caena (2011) pointed out that since not all teachers pay attention in

assuring that classroom learning results in practice, there should be specific professional learning

172

activities that will enable teachers to cope with rapid changes and update their individual skills and

approaches considering the fast-paced development of new teaching techniques and objectives.

Integrating technology in instruction can increase learners’ motivation, efficacy, curiosity, and

creativity (Carle, Jaffee & Miller, 2009; Idris & Nor, 2010; Molins-Ruano et al, 2014). Educational

systems all over the world are now facing the challenge of coping with the rapid technological

changes and development making it imperative for schools to continuously upgrade and develop

teachers who are tasked to prepare students for life and work in the information age ( Anderson

2008; Eickelmann 2011; Gerick, Eickelmann & Boss, 2017). Digital literacy in this digital age is

gaining a lot of importance (European Commission [EC], 2010; Fraillon et al, 2013) and designers

and experts in digital technologies do not suggest that these will make classroom obsolete but they

do argue that online instruction will change the nature of teaching on campus making it more

engaging and efficient. The net’s disruptive forces according to Carr (2012) will force college

professors and administrators to reconsider many of their assumption about the form and meaning

of teaching. With this, it becomes critical to look at the manner by which teachers help their

students to develop their ICT skills and examine factors that may support or hinder the acquisition

of such skills.

It is important to note that most of the research literature available describes uses of digital

tools and resources including its availability and the need to integrate the use of these tools in

teaching. It must be noted however that final product of a training needs analysis is an accurate

description of exactly what type of training is required, which is adapted inside and outside the

classroom. Thus, the training needs analysis makes it possible to transform the identified needs

into learning objectives, which can then be achieved through appropriate training activities

(McConnell, 2003).

Operational framework

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

Methodology

Policy

Implications Profile of Teachers

College/Department

Years in the Teaching

Profession

Educational

Background

Knowledge in Instruction

& Classroom

Management & Use of

Tech Apps and Tools In

Teaching

PDP of the School Activities & support

Services of the

School TNA of DLSUD

Teachers

173

Research Design

This study used the descriptive research design. It described teachers’ perception on PD

vis-a-vis the PDP of the school including its activities and support services relevant to PD using

the survey questionnaire distributed online and offline. To fulfil the aim of study, null hypothesis

was developed and this was tested using ANOVA.

Respondents

The research participants were teachers from the seven colleges of the university including

teachers from graduate schools and senior high school as directed by OVCAR.

Formulation of the Survey Questionnaires

The main source of information was based on the adopted survey questionnaires from

Wmich (2015-a) & Lomboy, 2009). It was modified by the researcher to solicit the opinions of

full-time faculty in the 7 Colleges and Senior High School level and the opinions of faculty at the

Graduate School level on their preferences for training activities provided by the institution. The

modification in the survey was mostly deleting of items not applicable in the present school setting

where the study was conducted.

The assessment utilized the descriptive–survey method with the use of Google forms as

well as the distribution of the hard copy of the survey to all concerned colleges/department.

Survey consisted of 3 parts:

The first part of the questionnaires was designed to identify the demographic profile of the

respondents such as college/department designation, years in the teaching profession, and

educational attainment.

Second part is all about determining the teachers’ own perception on PD vis-à-vis the PDP

of the school including list of activities and support services relevant to PD.

Third part presented a list of teachers’ competencies to measure their current knowledge

in instructions and classroom management, including their skills in the application of identified

technology apps and tools in teaching.

Pilot testing was done by requesting all college deans to identify professors from their

respective colleges to help improve the survey questionnaire. A total of 23 professors representing

the different colleges assisted the researcher for this purpose.

To test the validity of the survey questionnaires, Cronbach alpha was used.

174

Table 1

Reliability Statistics

Particulars Cronbach’s Alpha Number of Items

To measure perceived need 0.870 13

To measure activities & Support services 0.947 12

To measure knowledge 0.947 16

To measure technology skills 0.964 22

As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach alpha rating was identified from 0.870 to 0.947 which

is considered acceptable based on Nunnally (1978).

There were 213 respondents, 129 answered the online survey form, while 84 answered the

survey in hard copy. Representative sample was used to ensure that all teachers were adequately

represented.

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents Vis-à-vis the Actual Number of Faculty Based on the

HRMO List

Table 2 shows the different response code for the interpretation of data. The respondents

answered the questionnaire following the scale below.

175

Table 2

Response Code

Response Code Verbal Interpretation

5.0 - 4.5 Excellent/Extremely Important/Mastery & Could Teach Others/Extremely

Helpful/Expert Level

4.49 -3.5 Very Good/Very Important/Approaching Mastery/Very Helpful/Advance Skill

3.49 -2.5 Good/Important/Some Knowledge/Helpful/Intermediate Skill

2.49 -1.5 Fair/Minimal Importance/Very little knowledge/Slightly helpful/Basic Skill

1.49 - 1.0 Poor/Not Important/None/Not Helpful/None

0.0 Not Applicable

Results and discussion

Table 3

Level of Significance of Perceived Need by College

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mean Std Deviation F p-value Interpretation

Training

Activity (TA) CBAA 4.4598 0.51496 1.021 0.429 No significant

difference Average by

College CLA 4.3153 0.60321

CCJE 4.3333 0.42164

CSCS 4.3153 0.58766

COE 4.5278 0.59828

CTHM 4.25 0.71492

SHS 4.6944 0.38817

CBAA

GS 4.2381 0.59982

CLA GS 4.0833 0.68718

CSCS

GS 4.4667 0.29814

COE

GS 4.1944 0.54045

CEAT 4.3889 0.54742

Total 4.3818 0.57393 Continuing CBAA 4.0069 0.9479 1.353 0.198 No significant

difference

176

Education

(CE) CLA 3.9568 0.87703

Average by

College CCJE 4.3 0.54772

CSCS 3.8703 0.92522

COE 4.1111 0.9919

CTHM 4.2125 0.81148

SHS 4.4667 0.59289

CBAA

GS 3.3714 1.17999

CLA GS 3.85 0.75498

CSCS

GS 3.56 1.12606

COE

GS 3.4667 1.28299

CEAT 3.65 1.10248

Total 3.9568 0.95484 Development CBAA 4.1241 0.69367 0.6 0.828 No significant

difference Opportunity

(DO) CLA 4.0378 0.63916

Average by

College CCJE 4.2 0.4899

CSCS 3.9838 0.64701

COE 4.1056 0.98269

CTHM 3.8125 0.82452

SHS 4.1 0.85067

CBAA

GS 3.5714 0.93401

CLA GS 4.25 0.68069

CSCS

GS 4.28 0.64187

COE

GS 3.9 0.59391

CEAT 3.9333 0.83702

Total 4.0235 0.75261

Using ANOVA to test the level of significance of perceived need by college, Table 3 shows

that there’s no significant difference among all the colleges when it comes to perceived need. This

means that regardless of college, there is no significant difference in terms of how the respondents

rate the importance of perceived need while all the average mean scores are high ranging from

4.38 to 3.96 which shows how the respondents value the identified PD activities and support

services offered by the school.

177

Teaching is not an easy job that one-third of teachers leave the profession within three

years and 50% leave within five years (Ingersoll, 2003). As pointed out by Mizzell (2010) there

are a lot of challenges confronting teachers which include among others changes in subject content,

new instructional methods, advances in technology, changed laws and procedures, and student

learning needs. This according to Mizell (2010) would mean that school administrators who do

not provide effective PD activities and support services to their teachers will not help improve

their skills, and student learning suffers.

Table 4

Level of Significance of Perceived Need by Years in the Teaching Profession

Mean Std Deviation F p-value Interpretation

TA_AVE 1 -5 Yrs. 4.4 0.55656 1.9 0.089 No Significant

Difference 6 - 10 Yrs 4.5 0.53058

11 - 15 Yrs 4.4 0.49469

16 - 20 Yrs. 4.5 0.55627

21 - 25 Yrs. 4.4 0.49467

26 - 30 Yrs. 4.4 0.49139

31 Yrs &

Above 4 0.93216

Total 4.4 0.57393 CE_AV

E 1 -5 Yrs. 4.1 0.81946 4.2 0.001 Significant

Difference

6 - 10 Yrs 4.1 0.75255

11 - 15 Yrs 4 0.85903

16 - 20 Yrs. 4.1 0.8651

21 - 25 Yrs. 3.9 0.90233

26 - 30 Yrs. 4.2 0.56765

31 Yrs &

Above 2.9 1.561

Total 4 0.95484 DO_AV

E 1 -5 Yrs 4.1 0.7209 1.4 0.226 No Significant

Difference 6 - 10 Yrs 4.1 0.68813

11 - 15 Yrs 4.1 0.65582

16 - 20 Yrs 4.1 0.71184

21 - 25 Yrs 3.9 0.771

26 - 30 Yrs 3.8 0.78082

31 Yrs &

above 3.6 1.08369

Total 4 0.75261

178

When it comes to finding out if there’s a significant difference in terms of perceived need

of the training activity, and development opportunities when the respondents are grouped

according to years in the teaching profession, findings show there’s no significant difference

except when one looks at continuing education average with a p-value of 0.001. Continuing

education refers to getting certificate program on the respondents’ academic discipline,

pedagogical methods and the use of digital apps and tools. This implies that there is a difference

between the means of the groups when it comes to years in the teaching profession.

Relevant to this is the result of the OECD Report about Creating Effective Teaching and

Learning Environment (2009) which states that on average, the amount of professional

development that teachers received decreased with the age of the teacher. Averaged across all

countries included in the study showed a steady decline to an average of around 14 days for

teachers aged 50 years or more and these differences between age groups according to the study

are all statistically significant indicating less experienced teachers receive more days of

professional development than more experienced teachers.

Table 5

Level of Significance of Perceived Need by Educational Background

Mean Std Dev F P-Value Interpretation

TA Ave

MA

Ongoing

4.4762

0.4662

2.187 0.072 No Significant

Difference

With MA 4.2899 0.60699

Doctorate

Ongoing 4.4708 0.51611

With

Doctorate 4.2952 0.62048

Others 5 0

Total 4.3818 0.57393 CE Ave MA

Ongoing 4.2857 0.5127 6.293 0 Significant

Difference With MA 4.1522 0.68011

Doctorate

Ongoing 4.115 0.76026

With

Doctorate 3.5371 1.21895

Others 5 0

Total 3.9568 0.95484 DO Ave MA

Ongoing 4.0143 0.87518 0.643 0.632 No Significant

Difference With MA 3.9565 0.77047

Doctorate

Ongoing 4.025 0.71112

With

Doctorate 4.04 0.77392

Others 4.6667 0.57735

Total 4.0235 0.75261

179

Table 5 presents the level of significance of perceived need of the training activity, and

development opportunities when the respondents are grouped according to educational attainment,

findings show there’s no significant difference except when one looks at continuing education

average with a p-value of 0. Just like years in the teaching profession, results indicate that there is

a difference between the means of the groups when it comes to educational background.

Comparing this with the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) first

result which presents the qualification level differences across participating countries, the least

qualified or those with qualifications below the level of a Bachelor’s Degree received the least

professional development. Findings is parallel to results in the OECD Report for 2005 which

shows that the more highly educated adults in the general population are more likely to participate

in such training. This according to the report may raise questions on equity concerning demand

for training as well as its provision to teachers on an equitable basis since those who might benefit

most from further PD are getting the least.

Table 6 Level of Significance of the Current Knowledge of Respondents on Instruction and Classroom

Management when they are Grouped According to Department/College, Years in the Teaching

Profession and Educational Background

Mean Std. Deviation F p-value Interpretation

CBAA 4.0345 0.680

48 3.204 0 Significant Difference

Incorporating Writing &

CLA 4.4054 0.724

93

Communication CCJE 4.1667 0.752

77

Skills in the CSCS 3.8919 0.809

11

classroom COE 4.0833 0.603

56

CTHM 4 0.516

4

SHS 4.0833 0.792

96

CBAA

GS 4 0.816

5

CLA

GS 4.75 0.5

CSCS

GS 4.4 0.894

43

COE

GS 4.1667 0.834

85

CEAT 3.0833 1.164

5

180

Total 4.061 0.789

69

CBAA 3.931 0.70361 1.925 0.038 Significant

Difference

Designing

strategies CLA 3.9459 0.84807

& content to

match CCJE 4 0

Learning

outcomes CSCS 3.7027 0.90875

COE 3.9722 0.73625

CTHM 3.9375 0.57373

SHS 3.8333 0.57735

CBAA

GS 3.5714 0.9759

CLA

GS 4 0

CSCS

GS 3.8 0.83666

COE

GS 4.0833 0.90034

CEAT 2.9167 1.24011

Total 3.8357 0.82773

CBAA 4 0.75593 2.142 0.019 Significant

Difference Designing CLA 3.9459 0.84807 Collaborative CCJE 4 0 Learning

experience CSCS 3.8108 0.87679

COE 4.0278 0.6088

CTHM 3.8125 0.65511

SHS 3.8333 0.71774

CBAA

GS 3.1429 0.69007

CLA

GS 4 0

CSCS

GS 3.8 0.83666

COE

GS 4 0.8528

CEAT 3.0833 0.66856

Total 3.8545 0.77243

1 -5 Yrs 3.4167 0.66856 2.357 0.032 Significant

Difference

Writing

objectives 6 - 10 Yrs 4.087 0.84816

181

&

measurable 11 - 15 Yrs 3.8868 0.72484

outcomes 16 - 20 Yrs 4.1017 0.66163

21 - 25 Yrs 3.8667 0.7303

26 - 30 Yrs 4.2222 0.64676

31 Yrs &

above 4.1667 0.85749

Total 3.9906 0.73965

MA

Ongoing 3.5 0.85485 2.458 0.047 Significant

Difference Effective

instruction With MA 3.8261 0.90196

&

assessment Doctorate

Ongoing 3.9 0.85091

With

Doctorate 4.1571 0.79191

Others 3.6667 0.57735

Total 3.939 0.85287

MA

Ongoing 3.5 0.65044 5.291 0 Significant

Difference Writing

objectives With MA 3.8043 0.85945

&

measurable Doctorate

Ongoing 3.9375 0.66263

outcomes With

Doctorate 4.2714 0.65765

Others 4 1

Total 3.9906 0.73965

MA

Ongoing 3.7143 0.72627 3.78 0.005 Significant

Difference

Developing

& With MA 3.6087 0.88137

Integrating

research Doctorate

Ongoing 3.8625 0.79147

In the

course With

Doctorate 4.1714 0.76084

Others 4 1

Total 3.9014 0.82109

MA

Ongoing 3.4286 0.75593 3.135 0.016 Significant

Difference

Retooling

on With MA 3.4565 0.93587

Methods

of

research

Doctorate

Ongoing 3.5375 0.927

With

Doctorate 3.9429 0.79647

182

Others 3.3333 1.1547

Total 3.6432 0.8978

Table 6 presents the level of significance of the current knowledge of DLSUD faculty when

grouped according to the identified demographic profile. When the respondents are grouped

according to college/department, three identified variables; incorporating writing &

communication skills in the classroom, designing strategies and content to match learning

outcomes and designing collaborative learning experience showed significant difference. This

means different colleges significantly differ in knowledge when it comes to the above-mentioned

variables.

When grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational background,

writing objectives and measurable outcomes display a significant difference. Significant difference

is also displayed in the current knowledge of respondents in terms of effective instruction and

assessment and developing and integrating research in the course when they are grouped according

to educational background.

Related to this is the study of Hammond (2017) who demonstrated shared features of

effective PD; being content focused: PD that focuses on teaching strategies associated with

specific curriculum and incorporates active learning. Such PD according to Hammond uses

interactive activities, and other strategies to provide deeply embedded, highly contextualized

professional learning. This element includes an intentional focus on discipline-specific curriculum

development and pedagogies. Teachers reported a high level of adoption of and comfort with this

strategy. This implies the need to structure PD activities that are discipline-specific for it to be

successful.

Table 7

Level of Skills/Expertise in the Use of Technology in Teaching

Factors N Mean Std Deviation Interpretation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

Adobe software packages Total 213 2.4038 1.00301 Basic Skill

Blogs Total 213 2.4366 1.11676 Basic Skill

Broadcasting Images thru webcams, skypes Total 213 2.7089 1.10734 Intermediate Skill

Developing Open Educational Resources Total 213 2.2488 1.15704 Basic Skill Using E-books from different sources Total 213 2.7559 1.13542 Intermediate Skill

Using Microsoft Excel Total 213 3.5587 1.0106 Advance Skills

Using Microsoft Outlook Total 213 3.0376 1.22801 Intermediate Skill

Using Power BI Total 213 2.2441 1.24633 Basic Skill

Using Microsoft Sway Total 213 2.1737 1.21425 Basic Skill Use of macromedia flash, animation Total 213 1.9577 1.10449 Basic Skill

Webinars/Digital Literacy Total 213 2.3286 1.19944 Basic Skill

Use of Flashcard Apps Total 213 1.9108 1.11868 Basic Skill

Use of Gamifications Total 213 2 1.15742 Basic Skill Use of Grammar Apps Total 213 2.2066 1.23417 Basic Skill

Use of Homework Help & Research Apps Total 213 2.2817 1.18779 Basic Skill

Use of Mobile Apps Total 213 2.5915 1.39653 Intermediate Skill

Use of online learning apps, bookmark etc. Total 213 2.3756 1.20132 Basic Skill

Use of social networking sites and tools Total 213 3.338 1.10672 Intermediate Skill Use of virtual classrooms Total 213 2.2347 1.25567 basic Skill

Use of Neo LMS/Schoolbook Total 213 3.0704 1.20913 Intermediate Skill

Video Possibilities/Digital Formats Total 213 2.6009 1.20353 Intermediate Skill

Use of Wikis in Education Total 213 2.3756 1.16139 basic Skill

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

183

Table 7 presents the level of expertise of respondents on the uses of available technology

apps and tools in teaching. The respondents indicated advance skills in using Microsoft Excel,

intermediate skills in broadcasting images thru webcams, & skypes, use of E-books, Microsoft

outlook, mobile apps, use of social networking sites and tools, the use of NEO LMS/Schoolbook

and digital formats while the rest are mainly basic skills.

These are very useful information that can serve as basis in improving/enhancing the

content of the five-year faculty development plan of the institution. The researcher is not espousing

to just provide training about enhancing the tech apps and tools capability of the respondents but

rather, follow the general steps in TNA. This includes training needs assessment per discipline to

find out what is the appropriate tech apps and tools that would really enhance the teaching-learning

process. taking into consideration the available infrastructure and facilities available in the

institution. It also involves designing the training programs and objectives that should state the

benefit to the different stakeholders in the organization. The outcome of the training should take

into consideration the instructional objectives, the organizational and departmental objectives and

the individual and growth objectives (Corpuz, 2013). Considering budget limitation for training,

it is a must for training objectives to be stated clearly to set the right tone and direction for training.

The last part of the process is training evaluation which should not be just for compliance but with

the specific instrument to measure the impact of training when it comes to effective application of

new skills/knowledge/attitudes on the job. This also involves measuring the return on investment

(ROI) of training by looking at the business results. In the case of schools, instead of looking at

the customer satisfaction index, the institution can establish student satisfaction index since they

are the customers/clients of the school. As pointed out by ExploreHR (n.d.-a), measuring training

results should not be mere tallying of the results of the training evaluation survey submitted by the

faculty after attending the training but it should involve measuring the importance of the program

in meeting the organization’s goals, cost of the program and focusing on the quantified results of

training by computing the net program benefits divided the program costs multiplied by 100. The

process is somewhat rigorous and time consuming but identifying the appropriate performance

indicators to measure the impact of training can provide valuable inputs to support the cost of

training

Conclusions

It can be inferred from the results that when the respondents are grouped according to

college, there’s no significant difference while showing high mean scores for all variables

identified. Respondents value the identified activities and support services offered by the school.

When grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational attainment, there’s a

significant difference in terms of continuing education and a high mean scores for all variables

identified showing a strong interest on the part of the respondents to promote their professional

growth.

When grouped according to years in the teaching profession and educational background,

writing objectives and measurable outcomes display a significant difference. Significant difference

is also displayed in the current knowledge of respondents in terms of effective instruction and

assessment and developing and integrating research in the course when they are grouped according

to educational background.

184

In terms of current knowledge in the use of tech apps and tools, the respondents indicated

advance skills in using Microsoft Excel, intermediate skills in broadcasting images thru webcams,

& skypes, use of E-books, Microsoft outlook, mobile apps, use of social networking sites and

tools, the use of NEO LMS/Schoolbook and digital formats while the rest are mainly basic skills

Findings suggest that more and more teachers see the value of integrating ICT in education but

most of them only have the basic skills or knowledge about the app. The same holds true about

continuing education wherein the program on the use of apps and tools relevant to teaching were

considered by all colleges and departments as very important but lack the required skills to

integrate technology in teaching. Without careful planning of PDP of schools, trainings may

become disconnected from the needed skills in the classroom. It goes without saying that all PDPs

should be relevant or based on the specific discipline of the teacher concerned.

Policy implications

The results of the study could help the school administrators in adopting standards in

providing PD activities and support services to guide them in the design, evaluation and funding

of PDP.

Regardless of years in the teaching profession and educational background, continuing

education which includes getting certificate program on the respondents’ academic discipline,

pedagogical methods and the use of digital apps and tools should be given based on the need of

the teachers as reflected in their perceived need.

The different colleges and departments should be given due consideration in enhancing the

provisions included in the PDP of the school. Since this is by college/department, it would be

easier for the respective head to identify what training need should be given priority when

preparing the PD activities for teachers.

There is a need to regularly conduct training needs assessment considering tech-tools often

change fast and there is always a need for teachers to update their skills. This would address the

low level of expertise of respondents on the uses of available technology apps and tools in teaching

which are mostly basic skills as reflected in the findings.

For administrators to continuously provide tech-facilitated opportunity for professional

learning and coaching just like what CILP is doing. This is based on the firm understanding of the

teachers’ current skills is fundamental to resource allocation for training, training support and

ultimately ICT’s successful integration into professional practice. This would justify the amount

spent on faculty development.

The researcher recommends the possible adoption of the ICT Competency Standards for

Teachers developed by UNESCO (2013). This provides a Teachers’ Professional Development

Toolkit for ICT integration in education. The toolkit includes different set of resources from the

introduction of ICT into teachers’ education, including strategies to ensure success, collection of

education data, designing curriculum to materials development with open educational resources

(OER) including instructional videos available for viewing which could be used for training new

or in-service teachers. This tool was a product of collaboration and partnership of UNESCO, the

Commonwealth Secretariat (ComSec), the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), Microsoft, the

Ministries of Education of several countries in the Caribbean and Pacific who are committed to

enhancing teacher education. The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT-

CFT) was used as the conceptual framework for all the activities undertaken in different countries

included in the study. The set of teacher competencies described in the framework was designed

185

to facilitate improvements in school administration, teaching and learning, and TPD using

technology. The competencies indicated in the framework can serve as basis in identifying what

needs to be included and emphasized in any PDP. To add, the curriculum mapping template

provided is an excellent tool for course designers or those staff tasked to develop a new course or

revise an existing one. To be able to use the tools provided, key activities include conducting an

eReadiness Audit to identify infrastructure, equipment and skills baseline levels for planned

strategies and activities to work. This will also help identify the activities indicated in the toolkit

which have already been completed or accomplished by the school like the key role played by the

school Center for Innovative Learning (CILP) when it comes to identifying and adapting Open

Resources and Open Courseware, developing an advocacy strategy to encourage the use of ICT in

teaching and learning, the training of pre-and in-service teachers to integrate ICT into their

operations as well as monitoring and evaluation, revision of the strategy, courses and materials

References

Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education.

International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education,

20, 3-22.Retrieved February 20, 2018, from

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_1.

Caena, F. (2011). Literature review: quality teachers’ continuing professional development.

Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/11c9/e90f3fb8a97e463882d5ab0846b2373279a2.pdf

Carle, A.C. Jaffee, D., & Miller, D. (2009). Engaging college science students and changing

academic achievements with technology. A quasi-experimental preliminary

investigation. Computer & Education. 52(2), 376-380.

Carr, N. (2012). The crisis in higher education. Technology Review, 115(6). 32-40.

Corpuz, C. (2013). Human Resource Management (3rd ed.). Manila: Rex Publishing Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional

Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved December 15, 2017,

from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-

development-brief

[DLSUD Portal]. www.dlsud.edu.ph

Drossel,K., & Eickelmann, B. (2017). Teachers’participation in professional development

concerning the implementation of new technologies in class: a latent class analysis

of teachers and the relationship with the use of computers, ICT-self efficacy and

emphasis on teaching ICT skills. Large-scale Assessments in Education. Retrieved

February 20, 2018, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40536-017-0053-7

Eickelman, B. (2011). Supportive and hindering factors to a sustainable implementation of ICT in

schools. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3(1), s. 75-103, 75-103. Retrieved

February 20, 2018, from

https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2011/4683/pdf/JERO_2011_1_Eickelmann_Supportive_

and_hindering_factors_S75_D_A.pdf.

ExploreHr. (n.d.-a). Exploring HR management. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from

http://www.exploreHR.org/

European Commission, (2010). Teachers’ Professional Development: Europe in international

comparison: An Analysis of teachers’ professional development based on the OECD’S

186

Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Luxembourg: European Union.

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Gebhardt, E., (2014). Preparing for life in a

digital age. The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study

international report. New York: Springer. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from

http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/

user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_International_Report.pdf.

Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., & Bos, W.,(2017). School-level predictors for the use of ICT in schools

and students’ CIL in international comparison. Large Scale Assessments in Education,

5.10.1186/s40536-017-0037-7.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Corwin Press, Inc

Idris, N., & Nor, N.M. (2010). Mathematical creativity: usage of technology. Procedia-Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),1963-1967.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Consortium for Policy Research in

Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved January 20, 2018 from

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI-09-2003.pdf.

Kozma, R.B., (2003). Global perspectives: Innovative technology integration practices from

around the world. Learning and leading with technology, 31(2), 7-54.

Lamboy, C. (2009). Faculty development needs assessment: Report on findings. Retrieved

December 28, 2017 from

https://my.laureate.net/Faculty/docs/Faculty%20Documents/Needs-

Assessment-Report- 1-09.pdf

MIT Technology Review. (n.d.-a). Retrieved January 20, 2018, from

http://www.technologyreview.com/

Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters? Retrieved December 10, 2017, from

www.learningforward.com.

Molins-Ruano, P. , Sevilla, C., Santini, S., Haya, P.A., Rodriquez, P., & Sacha., G.M. (2014).

Designing videogames to improve students’ motivation. Computers in Human Behavior.

31, 571-579.

Nunally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. . New York: Mc Graw Hill

OECD, (2009). Creating effective teaching & learning effectiveness. OECD Publishing.

OECD (2014), A Teachers' Guide to TALIS 2013: Teaching and Learning International Survey.

OECD Publishing.

Orrill, C.H. (2006). What learner-centered professional development looks like? The Mathematics

Educator,16(1), 4-13.

O’Reilly, E.N. (2016). Developing technology needs assessments for educational programs: An

analysis of eight key indicators. IJEDICT, 12, 129-143.

[OVCAR (2017)]. DLSUD 5-year development program.

Sharmaa, S. et.al. (2015). Impact analysis of ICT teaching aids used for training and development

of employees. Elsevier Ltd. Academic World Education Center.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of

decision making. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 457-469. Retrieved December 10,

2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0307-8

Talis, (2009). OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey: Conceptual Framework.

Retrieved January 5, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/talis/

The future of work: How technology innovaton will transform our working environment. (2012).

187

Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.pega.com/insights/articles/future-work-

how-technology-innovation- will-transform-our-working-environment.

Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L.H., Vanderlinde R.R. & Van Braak, J. (2013). Getting inside the black

box of technology integration in education: Teachers’ stimulated recall of classroom

observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3) 134-144.

UNESCO. (2009). Information and communication technologies in teacher education. A planning

guide. Paris: UNESCO, Division of Higher Education.

UNESCO. (2013). ICT competency standards for teachers. ICT in Education Teachers’

Professional Development Toolkit.

Western Michigan University (2015). Office of the faculty development needs assessment report

2015. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from

https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u665/2016/OFD%20Needs%20Assessm

ent%202015.pdf

Yurtseven, N. & Bademcioglu, M. (2016). Teachers’ professional development: a content analysis

about the tendencies in studies. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(6).