The Impact of online CPD programme compared to face-to-face CPD programme on science pedagogical practice in Saudi Arabia

The purpose of this study is to compare the impact of an online Continuing Professional Development programme (CPD) to a face-to-face (f2f) CPD programme on changing science teachers’ pedagogical practice in the classroom. The process of CPD programmes evaluation is guided by Guskey’s 5 levels evaluation model, which is a helpful framework in gauging the impact of CPD programmes at five different levels. These level are: 1) Participants’ reactions; 2) Participants’ learning; 3) Organisational support and change; 4) Participants’ use of new knowledge and skills and 5) Students’ learning outcomes. The study reports on the research undertaken using a sample of science teachers in Saudi Arabia. Twenty male science teachers from different schools in Saudi Arabia were selected to participate in this study. The sample was divided into two equal groups of 10 teachers: one group participated in the f2f programme (the control group) while the other participated in the online programme (the experimental group). The study deployed a mixed methodology in order to maximize the robustness of findings by triangulating different forms of data. These methods were: (1) Classroom observations both before and after the programmes using the Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) system of classroom observational analysis; (2) A questionnaire survey of all teacher participants, conducted after the programmes had been delivered; and (3) semi-structured interviews, also conducted after the programmes had been delivered. The data from each stage were coded and analysed and the key findings were captured. The findings of the study suggest that the online CPD programme was at least as effective as, and in certain places more effective than, the f2f CPD programme. The overall satisfaction of the teachers was more positive towards the online CPD programme compared to the f2f CPD programme. The interview results indicate that the online CPD programme was slightly more effective than the f2f CPD programme in terms of the teachers’ learning. In some cases the online programme had distinct advantages over the f2f programme, however in other areas the f2f CPD programme displayed its own advantages. Teachers from both groups felt that they could apply what they had learnt (e.g. the 5Es instructional model) effectively and confidently, although there were often external factors that could affect its successful implementation, such as time constraints and class size issues. The study also finds that there was little, or no, impact from either of the CPD programmes on the sampled educational organisations. Although impact on student learning outcomes was not a focus for the study, the findings from the teacher interviews regarding the impact on student learning indicate that there was, to some degree, a more positive impact for students from online CPD programme. The study findings will have implications for policy makers in general, and in Saudi Arabia specifically, and contribute to the existing literature on online CPD programmes. Policy makers in Saudi Arabia might consider increasing the opportunities available to teachers to be trained via online programmes and may put this expansion of opportunity at the top of its agenda with regard to teacher CPD programmes. Also Policy makers at the Ministry of Education could use the data and findings of this study to further investigate the implementation of an online CPD programme, especially for training teachers in changing traditional approaches to an active learning model. Policy makers might also investigate the potential that online CPD programmes have for rolling out CPD programme to a wider teacher audience, because the findings suggests that the flexibility of this mode of training and learning was valued by the teachers.