High Satisfaction, Low Transfer in High School PD
At Northside High School, 68 teachers have had 1:1 Chromebooks for two years. Last year’s professional development consisted of six after-school sessions on Google Workspace tools; satisfaction surveys averaged 4.6/5, but classroom walkthrough data show 71% of observed lessons remain teacher-led with devices used mainly for note-taking or worksheets. Only 22% of teachers report using the LMS discussion board weekly, and 9 of 14 departments have no shared technology-integrated unit. The principal has 12 hours of paid PD time for the coming semester and a $3,000 materials budget. The district’s new teacher evaluation rubric includes “technology integration to deepen learning,” and several veteran teachers say they “already use technology” and resent being asked to change. The principal wants a plan that moves beyond “more Google training.”
1. Diagnose why the prior professional development produced high satisfaction but little change in practice. Use the specific evidence in the scenario.
Read the worked answer
The prior PD measured reaction, not learning or transfer. A 4.6 satisfaction score mainly says teachers liked the sessions; it does not show that they could redesign a task, and the walkthrough data show the opposite pattern. Six after-school tool sessions focused on Google Workspace features, which is knowledge about tools rather than pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers learned what buttons do, but they did not examine how a specific science discussion, history source analysis, or math explanation changes when the device is used to deepen thinking. That gap explains why 71% of lessons remained teacher-led and devices became note-taking or worksheet containers.
The absence of follow-up matters. One-shot sessions give no opportunity for try, observe, revise, and feedback, so teachers default to familiar routines under time pressure. The department data are also telling: 9 of 14 departments have no shared technology-integrated unit, meaning there is no collective model or common planning artifact to sustain change. The evaluation rubric adds pressure without support, and veteran teachers hear “you are doing it wrong” rather than a clear, content-specific goal. Finally, the 22% LMS discussion figure is a participation metric, not necessarily a quality metric, but it confirms that the new practice is not routine. The diagnosis is not teacher resistance; it is a design problem of transfer, relevance, and follow-up.
2. Design a 12-hour professional learning plan with the $3,000 budget that is likely to change practice. Explain how you would allocate time and money.
Read the worked answer
I would use a job-embedded cycle rather than six more tool sessions. Hours 1–2: a whole-faculty launch using anonymous walkthrough and student-work examples to make the problem visible without blaming individuals. Hours 3–6: department-based planning in two 2-hour blocks, where each department redesigns one upcoming unit using a simple question set: what is the learning goal, what does the device make possible that was not possible before, and how will we know it worked? Hours 7–10: coaching and observation, with each teacher trying one redesigned task, collecting student work, and debriefing with a peer or coach. Hours 11–12: a cross-department showcase focused on student work and revision, not app demonstrations.
With $3,000, I would not try to release all 68 teachers repeatedly. I would fund release time for a volunteer cohort of 12 lead learners across departments, roughly $150 each for a half-day substitute, leaving about $1,200 for materials, printing, and a working lunch at the showcase. The leads would co-plan with me and then support their departments, which stretches the budget. I would protect common planning time through the master schedule rather than buying it. The plan addresses the veteran teachers’ objection by starting with their existing content and asking what deeper learning would look like, not by requiring a new tool. I would also make the evaluation rubric a source of feedback, not a threat.
3. What evidence would you collect during and after the semester to show whether the plan changed teaching and learning, rather than just participation?
Read the worked answer
I would establish a baseline using the same walkthrough rubric that produced the 71% figure, then sample lessons again at mid-semester and end of semester. I would look for specific shifts: tasks that require student explanation, collaboration, or revision; device use that supports those tasks; and the quality of teacher questioning. Participation hours would be recorded but not treated as an outcome. I would collect the redesigned unit artifacts and a sample of student work from before and after, scored against the content objective rather than against appearance.
I would also gather short teacher interviews and a focus group with the veteran teachers to understand whether the plan felt relevant and whether they encountered barriers such as device access or grading time. For the LMS, I would examine discussion prompts and student responses for evidence of reasoning, not just weekly logins. A brief student survey could ask whether they received feedback and had to explain their thinking. Finally, I would track whether departments continued the work without me. The strongest indicator is whether a second unit was redesigned and taught after the formal PD ended; that would show transfer rather than compliance.