Assessing blended and online-only delivery formats for teacher professional development in Kenya

Abstract

The present study compared the learning and experiences of Kenyan teachers randomly assigned to either an online or a blended 12-week intensive teacher professional development program (TPD). The TPD addressed the fundamentals of early literacy development as well as how to use early literacy software to support students learning. TPD outcomes were assessed through surveys, course performance and discussion elements. Teachers demonstrated pre- to post-test gains in domain knowledge, lesson plan construction and comfort teaching early literacy skills. Few differences were observed between the online versus blended formats. However, teachers endorsed a blended instructional format over online-only or in-person formats. Challenges regarding resources and infrastructure were identified as barriers to technology integration within the classroom. Some cultural challenges were identified as potential barriers for young learners using software developed in Western countries. Overall, both online and blended formats appear to be effective TPD delivery systems for Kenyan teachers, however, findings highlighted challenges that need to be addressed to optimize learning when using technology. Future research recommendations include broadening the teacher sample to assess potential differences due to regionalism, associated differences in access to resources, and further examination of teaching experience on learning in the two types of online formats.

Keywords:

• Teacher professional development
• literacy
• pedagogy
• Kenya
• online and blended learning
• educational technology

1.

With a population of 55.7 million people in 2020 (UNDP, 2021), Kenya ranks 147th out of 183 countries on the Human Development Index, indicating significant challenges in meeting adequate standards of living, health and education (World Bank, 2019). In 2017, the UN proposed several Sustainable Development Goals for countries to improve lives across the world. One of these goals is to ensure quality education so that “all youth and a substantial number of adults, both men and women achieve literacy and numeracy” (UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics UIS, 2017). The Kenyan government launched two innovative initiatives that directly impact education and that address the need for high-quality literacy instruction: the Digital Literacy Program and the new Basic Education Curriculum Framework (BECF), (CBC, 2018). Building the infrastructure to support use of technologies as instructional tools was a key aspect of the Digital Literacy Program.

Concomitant with the physical infrastructure changes was the need to train teachers how to use and integrate technology as part of their ongoing educational program delivery (Ogolla, 2019). The new curriculum also impacted educational programming through a pedagogical shift to student-centered approaches (Akala, 2021). These progressive initiatives introduced the need to develop and provide professional development programs, especially with respect to early literacy development, to assist both novice and experienced teachers in the acquisition of knowledge and skills to integrate these new pedagogical and technological demands. Efforts to engage teachers in Professional Development training (TPD), however, faced a further challenge as the COVID-19 pandemic occurred at the same time as some in-person professional development programs were being launched. The pandemic resulted in a shift from in-person to primarily online formats for both educators and students. This shift posed particular challenges for many Kenyan teachers who had no prior experience with online learning. The present study examined Kenyan teachers’ experiences and learning following participation in TPD programs targeting early literacy development delivered using two formats: fully online or blended.

2. Foundations of literacy

National and international reading experts have identified several fundamental skills underlying early literacy skill development. For example, the (2000) identified alphabetics, fluency and comprehension as three central areas that are essential in learning how to read. The (2008), which incorporated early literacy and preliteracy skills associated with younger learners, extended these categories and presented six skills: phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, rapid automatic naming (RAN) of letters and digits, RAN of objects and colors, writing, and phonological short-term memory. Key among these skills is phonological awareness (Anthony & Francis, 2005; Baker et al., 2018; Vibulpatanavong & Evans, 2018; Wilsenach, 2019), which involves the ability to analyze and manipulate sounds of spoken language and includes skills such as syllable awareness, rhyming, and phonemic awareness (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Stahl & Murray, 1994). Phonemic awareness, a subcomponent of phonological awareness, includes the ability to segment and blend sounds in words as well as the deletion or substitution of individual sounds (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Grant et al., 2012). Concurrently, while children are developing these phonological awareness skills, they also begin to understand grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPC) by identifying letter sounds, which they can blend to form words (Cunningham, 1990; Grant et al., 2012; National Reading Panel, 2000). Knowledge of these developing skills and awareness of pedagogies to facilitate their development in young learners is critical to the delivery of effective early literacy instruction. Therefore, the present study examined two versions of a TPD program designed to train teachers about the underlying concepts related to reading skills, specifically alphabetics (grapheme-phoneme knowledge, phonological awareness), fluency (automatic decoding), comprehension and writing.

3. Teacher professional development

Ongoing teacher professional development is a common requirement mandated by many professional bodies or governmental agencies to allow teachers to be up to date regarding emerging teaching practices, pedagogy, and domain knowledge (Hattie, 2012). Enhanced pedagogical knowledge and instructional skills gained through professional development are associated with successful student outcomes (Ko et al., 2006; Wijekumar et al., 2019). The need for professional development is especially pertinent for early literacy instruction as several studies have demonstrated a disconnect between teachers’ perceived content knowledge and actual content knowledge in this domain (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Uribe-Banda, 2019). Specifically, many teachers indicated high confidence in their knowledge of fundamentals associated with reading but were unable to demonstrate that knowledge when tested.

Professional development opportunities need to be both effective and efficient. Effective early literacy TPD programs incorporate both theoretical and pedagogical information accompanied with opportunities for hands-on practice to reinforce knowledge and instructional strategies (Barrera-Pedemonte, 2016; Hattie, 2012; Popova et al., 2022). A recent meta-analysis highlighted that quality rather than quantity of instruction yields greater teacher gains (Basma & Savage, 2017). Well-designed TPD programs enhance teacher adoption and practice as well as maximizing student outcomes (Avalos, 2017; Basma & Savage, 2017).

3.1. TPD in Africa and the Kenyan context

Developing and delivering effective TPD programs has become a focal point for several countries in Africa. For example, the Ethiopian Ministry of Education implemented the General Education Quality Improvement Program (GEQIP). This program targeted teacher education institutions providing them with resources and support to improve the quality of teacher education (World Bank, 2017). Outcomes from this program have not yet realized significant improvements in teaching quality and effectiveness (World Bank, 2017). In South Africa, the Continuing Professional Teacher Development system was implemented to provide in-service training for teachers including workshops, seminars, and mentoring (South African Council for Educators [SACE], 2021). Although some improvements in teaching skills have been documented, some targets for the program have not yet been met. Shortcomings identified by teachers point to a lack of availability of TPD training, or the inability of teachers to attend programs being offered (SACE, 2021). Other researchers in sub-Saharan Africa point to the complex interplay of school organisation and leadership, teacher motivation and perceptions of opportunities for TPD, availability of resources, teacher collaboration, and viewpoints of policymakers in determining the success of TPD endeavours Hennessy et al. (2015).

In Kenya, the Teachers Service Commission implemented new guidelines which require public school teachers to renew their professional certificates every five years (Capital News, 2021). Teachers must register with accredited service providers to complete their training. This change in policy has substantially increased the need for professional development programs. As of 2020, Kenya, had approximately 218,077 primary school teachers (Statista, 2022) distributed over 47 counties. Providing early literacy and technology skill training in a timely manner for so many teachers poses a significant challenge (Ajani, 2018). Previous attempts to provide wide scale instruction to teachers have employed cascade models where a small group of teachers is provided short-term, in-person training and these teachers subsequently deliver instruction to others, who then provide instruction for a third group and so on. These models have proven ineffective in providing in-depth training of large numbers of teachers (e.g., Bett, 2016).

Consistent across the initiatives introduced in Kenya and other countries in Africa is the acknowledged importance of teacher professional development, and the need to support and encourage training. Also apparent is the challenge in developing and executing effective programming. The present study introduced online professional development training as a possible means of addressing the challenge of wide-scale instruction in Kenya. Online instruction also offered a potential solution for accommodating teachers schedules to allow them to attend training. The study was also situated during the COVID-19 pandemic when face-to-face instruction was limited at various time points in Kenya, thus necessitating alternative instructional models to previous in-person formats of TPD delivery. The need for alternative models of instruction combined with the initiatives driving greater use of digital technologies provided a context for piloting the two online presentation formats examined in the present study.

Greater flexibility is one of the key benefits associated with online delivery when compared to traditional in-person formats. Specifically, online contexts allow anywhere, anytime learning which accommodates a multitude of work, family and other constraints (Fletcher et al., 2007). In addition, online formats allow learners opportunities to access information at their own pace and review information as needed (Means et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2005). Purely online courses, however, typically fare less favourably when compared to blended instructional formats that incorporate online instruction with opportunities to engage face-to-face (Bethel & Bernard, 2010; Means et al., 2013). A meta-analysis of 45 studies comparing the effectiveness of in-person, online only and blended learning formats among users determined that blended learning yielded better learning outcomes than did face-to-face learning (i.e., mean effect size of .35). Online-only formats did not yield different outcomes than face-to-face learning (Means et al., 2013).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers across the world faced a rapid shift from in-person to online forms of instruction. Consistent with reports in other parts of the world, teachers in Africa who were required to make this transition struggled both with the online context and working from home (Ngeze & Iyer, 2022). Ngeze and Iyer (2022) examined the effectiveness of an online four-week TPD that was co-created by teachers in Africa and available to teachers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The TPD identified skills associated with effective instruction using online delivery formats as well as how to integrate ICT within lesson plans (Ngeze & Iyer, 2022). Over half of the teachers who started the course completed all required assignments (58.5%). Among those who finished, approximately two thirds (66.7%) were able to apply the knowledge gained to their classroom teaching. These outcomes suggest that online delivery formats have the potential both to enhance knowledge and transfer of knowledge to classroom practice.

The present study adds to the existing literature in several ways. The study extends the contexts in which online learning is experienced by going beyond North American and European contexts and adding to the exploration of online TPD formats in African contexts. Within the African context, the study provides a first consideration of the unique experiences and outcomes associated with online-only and blended presentation formats for teacher professional development in Kenya where face-to-face instruction is the norm. The study addresses the need to examine the effectiveness of online and blended learning in different contexts with different cultural expectations.

4. Technology integration

The professional development training designed for the present study not only employed technology as an instructional method for teachers, but it also introduced an early literacy software program as an instructional tool to support early literacy instruction in the classroom. The software program, called ABRACADABRA (ABRA), is an evidence-based software program developed for children and designed to be used in conjunction with ongoing teaching practices (Abrami et al., 2020). The program provides activities and reading materials that foster development of alphabetic, reading comprehension, fluency and early writing skills. ABRA has been implemented in Canada, China, Australia, Hong Kong and Great Britain as well as with diverse learners with demonstrated efficacy in improving childrens’ early reading abilities (Abrami et al., 2020; Bailey et al., 2017; Cheung & Guo, 2018; Wolgemuth et al., 2013). Teachers in the present study were provided with instruction regarding the foundational skills (e.g., What is phonological awareness? What is fluency?) as well as how to teach these skills. Use of ABRA and offline activities in the form of typical in-class teaching strategies and tools were addressed. Thus, teachers in the present study were learning what skills serve as foundational for early literacy, how to teach early literacy as well as how to integrate technology as part of teaching. These three skills are consistent with elements central to the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) which identifies three key areas of knowledge that impact technology integration in the classroom: domain, pedagogical and technological knowledge. Although each of these areas of knowledge contributes uniquely to outcomes, they also intersect and overlap.

For literacy, domain/content knowledge would reflect a teacher’s awareness of foundational skills associated with early reading and writing. For example, teachers should understand the concepts underlying early language and literacy instruction, such as phonological and phonemic awareness, comprehension, and vocabulary. Pedagogical knowledge reflects the teachers’ awareness of best teaching practices, skills in instructional design and learner needs. Technological knowledge corresponds to teachers’ familiarity with technology in general as well as its use as an instructional tool (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Strengths across the three areas allow the teacher to integrate technology comfortably and effectively as a teaching tool within a given domain area (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Several studies have found that even when teachers are confident in their knowledge regarding the three core components of the TPACK framework, they may struggle to apply this knowledge when planning lessons (Maeng et al., 2013; Pamuk, 2012). The TPD that is the focus of the present study provides explicit training in each of the three domains as well as how to implement instruction. One focus of the instructional design of both courses included opportunities for teachers to create and evaluate lesson plans in order to gain practice with integrating technology as a teaching tool specifically in the area of early literacy instruction.

5. The present study

The present study examined teacher learning and experiences with a novel 12-week intensive teacher professional development program (TPD) designed to cover the fundamentals of early literacy development, including alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, word reading and writing, with specific connections between the TPD and the new Kenyan curriculum. Although previous research has examined similar in-person TPD programs with Kenyan teachers, all previous work has involved in-person workshops involving groups of teachers meeting together over a weekend or a few days (Wood et al., 2022). The present study is a novel adaptation as the TPD was provided online over a twelve-week period. Using this online format rather than brief, condensed workshops afforded teachers an opportunity to acquire skills over an extended time using multiple media and included opportunities for hands-on practice and implementation. In addition, teachers had opportunities to engage in discussion with peers. In an in-person workshop context, these opportunities were not readily available during periods when schools were closed or lockdowns were imposed due to COVID restrictions. This pilot project also allowed the potential to test the scalability of online instructional approaches. Course delivery was either only online or using a blended format. Although the content of both programs was identical, the blended learning condition included two in-person sessions during the 12 lessons. During the course, teachers were introduced to a freely available, evidence-based early literacy software program for children (i.e., ABRA) as an instructional tool that teachers could use to facilitate student learning (Abrami et al., 2020).

Teachers were required to log into the online course learning management system, to complete lessons/modules and associated readings to acquire knowledge about early literacy concepts and understand how to best implement the program into their teaching. Teachers were evaluated on this knowledge through quizzes, assignments, and discussion board posts. In addition to literacy knowledge, teachers were surveyed about their perceptions regarding teaching early literacy and were asked to complete and reflect on self-prepared lessons planned to integrate ABRA and offline activities into their course design. The study employed a pre-test and post-test design as well as comparing across conditions. Consistent with the TPACK model, the course had three objectives, which included increasing knowledge about early literacy instruction, enhancing pedagogical skills, and applying knowledge gained by using technology to learn, and to teach in their classroom.

As a pilot and exploratory project, the present study addressed several research key questions. A key goal was to examine potential changes in knowledge and perceptions as a function of participating in this novel and intensive TPD. Do teachers demonstrate gains in literacy knowledge following PD from this course? Do teachers’ perceptions change as a result of participating in the course (i.e., comfort with technology etc)? A second goal was to examine potential outcome differences as a function of instructional format. Specifically, do outcomes differ between the online only and the blended instructional formats? The present study occurred in a Kenyan context. Thus, it was important to examine teachers’ experiences with the TPD and in particular challenges associated with learning from and teaching with technology. Given much of the extant literature is generated in and applies to North American/European samples, understanding teacher experiences in cultural contexts where infrastructure and technological knowledge may be less developed was an important goal (Wood et al., 2022).

6. Method

6.1. Participants

Of the 75 teachers who participated, 71 provided information about gender and age (66 females, 5 males; M_age = 39.47, SD = 8.75, Range 22–56 years). Teachers averaged approximately 14 years of teaching experience (M = 14.15, SD = 7.49, Range 2–34 years). All teachers had completed teachers college and the majority of teachers (75%) had completed university or a college degree/diploma or higher (i.e., graduate university degree).¹ A total of 61.1% had received some professional development regarding teaching reading. Only 20.8% of the teachers had taken an online course. Teachers were randomly assigned to the online-only (n = 43) or blended (n = 32) condition. This research was reviewed and approved by a university research ethics board and all participants were treated in accordance with APA/CPA ethical guidelines.

6.2. Materials and procedure

The 12-week online course was comprised of 12 lessons hosted on a university learning management system (LMS). The LMS permitted teachers to respond to posted discussion questions and reply to peers’ posts, upload exercises in a dropbox, receive feedback from course facilitators and complete survey and quiz measures.

Lesson content was arranged weekly with the first two weeks dedicated to the introduction of the two technologies used in the course. Specifically, in week one teachers were introduced to the LMS platform and short step-by-step videos explained how to navigate each of the functions (e.g., how to submit an assignment in a dropbox) with hands-on activities to encourage active use. Week two introduced the design and activities of the ABRA program with hands-on practice engaging with some of the 35 early literacy activities embedded within this program. Remaining course topics covered four key fundamentals of early reading with two weeks dedicated to alphabetics, phonological awareness and grapheme-phoneme correspondences, and one week each for, fluency, comprehension and writing. In addition to these fundamental domain areas, one week reiterated key components of these lessons within the topic of parent engagement with literacy instruction. One additional week covered teaching and learning with technology. Two weeks provided instruction regarding the creation, implementation, and reflection on lesson plans. Lesson plans were specific to the fundamental literacy areas and how ABRA content aligned with the goals of the new BECF curriculum. A final week was dedicated to summarizing content and a graduation ceremony.

All lessons provided introductory/background information through text, images, videos and readings. Lessons were accompanied with hands-on activities that could be practiced at home or in teaching contexts (when COVID restrictions permitted). Lessons associated with alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, and writing incorporated freely-available, evidence-based, online TPD modules specific to early literacy and ABRA prepared by the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (Wood et al., 2017). These online materials included various assessment tools and practice exercises. In addition, LMS tools were interspersed across the 12 weeks to allow teachers to use tools such as the dropbox, discussion posts quiz and other functions. Teachers were given access to a digital repository of children’s books called READS. Peer and instructor feedback was incorporated into the lessons.

At the outset both groups of teachers were instructed to create accounts on the LMS and consult the course syllabus and LMS, which contained a weekly schedule of content, activities and assignments. Readings, videos and the TPD modules conveyed foundational early literacy concepts and pedagogical methods. In addition, the TPD modules explained how components of ABRA software could be used to support development of literacy concepts and be integrated within ongoing instruction. Target time frames were set for progression through the course and submission due dates for assessment tools, however, teachers had some flexibility regarding when to initiate and complete work for each week.

The blended group differed from the online-only group for four of the lessons. These lessons were face-to-face meetings occurring on two days. The first meeting involved a full day of instruction on the first day of the course and allowed participants to cover all materials relevant to weeks one and two (i.e., overview of LMS, course outline, and ABRA). The second full day in-person meeting covered the lesson plan content for weeks six and seven.

6.2.1. Measurement tools

Assessment tools varied across the course and included surveys, performance measures, and interactions among participants through discussion boards. These different assessment measures permitted a broad understanding of teachers’ knowledge, skill development and experiences with the TPD and the LMS

6.2.1.1. Pre-post tests

A pre-exposure survey assessed demographic information (i.e., gender, age, years teaching experience, education, prior workshop training on reading). In addition, teachers were asked to indicate their level of comfort teaching six areas of early literacy (e.g., alphabetics, reading comprehension) prior to and after completing the workshop training, Comfort was assessed using a 5-point scale with higher scores indicating greater comfort (i.e., 1 = extremely uncomfortable to 5 extremely comfortable).

6.2.1.2. Literacy knowledge assessment

Two 10-item quizzes (one prior to the start of the course and one after completion of the course) assessed pre- and post-test literacy knowledge. The maximum score for each quiz was 10 points. The quizzes contained two multiple choice questions (defining a phoneme and phonological awareness) and a phoneme counting task (where participants were asked to provide the number of phonemes in eight words).

6.2.1.3. Transferring knowledge to lesson plan construction

The two lesson plans were scored using a rubric with a maximum score of 10 points. Content was scored for accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of the proposed activity for the learning objective. The lesson plans were also designed to be aligned with the new curriculum. Participants received feedback for the first lesson plan before completing a second one. Feedback regarding the second lesson plan was also provided to teachers.

6.2.1.4. Qualitative assessment of literacy knowledge

Discussion boards were used to assess teachers understanding of the topics (i.e. teachers were asked to define literacy topics and concepts) and lesson planning with ABRA (i.e. teachers were asked to select one ABRA activity for the modules and develop two learning stations). For the lesson on integration of technology, participants were asked to respond to the question “Identify specific challenges and strengths you may encounter when implementing ABRA software in the classroom.” These open-ended discussion responses and replies were thematically coded.

6.2.1.5. Teacher experience of training

At post-test, participants were asked to rate several aspects of their experience with their course. Specifically, in terms of course design, participants rated the layout (MyLS) of the course using a 5-point scale (1 = very easy to follow to 5 very difficult to follow) and the pace of instruction (1 = too fast to 5 = too slow). Participants rated how closely the time and energy required of the course met their expectations using a 5-point scale (1 = spent a lot less time than expected to 5 = spent a lot more time than expected). Participants also used 5-point scales to rate their level of learning (1 = learned a lot less than expected 5 = learned a lot more than expected) and how confident they felt in their ability to navigate their students through ABRA (1 = not at all confident to 5 = extremely confident). One question assessed preferred course delivery. Participants were asked which form of instruction they enjoy most (online only, in person only, blended online and in-person, blended online with remote video-conferencing meetings).

7. Results

Analyses included pre- to post-test differences, comparisons between the online only and blended TPD formats, and qualitative analysis of the responses to the discussion post regarding potential challenges using technology as a teaching tool. All quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27. In some cases, non-parametric tests were used when assumptions (i.e., normality) were violated.

7.1. Pre- to post-test differences

7.1.1. Comfort teaching early literacy

In general, teachers’ self-rated comfort teaching the six content areas related to early literacy fell above the midpoint of the scale both before and after the TPD, indicating relative comfort with these content areas. Wilcoxon Signed-ranks tests were conducted to assess pre- to post-test differences for teachers’ self-ratings (see Table 1 for summary). Participants teaching comfort increased for four of the six content areas: word reading (M = 4.18 vs. M = 4.53), reading comprehension (M = 3.75 vs. M = 4.23), reading fluency (M = 3.65 vs. M = 4.18) and writing (M = 4.10 vs. M = 4.33). No significant change in teaching comfort occurred for vocabulary or alphabetics.

Table 1. Summary of teachers’ comfort ratings for teaching early literacy skills

	Pre-Intervention M (SD) Median	Post-Intervention M (SD) Median	Wilcox test
Word reading	4.18 (.87) 4	4.53 (.88) 5	Z = 2.52, p = .01 r = .40
Reading Comprehension	3.75 (1.01) 4	4.23 (1.05) 4.5	Z = 2.63, p = .009 r = .42
Reading Fluency	3.65 (1.11) 4	4.18 (.88) 4	Z = 2.51, p = .01, r = .41
Writing	4.10 (.89) 4	4.33 (.86) 4.5	Z = 1.94, p = .05, r = .31
Vocabulary	4.03 (.84) 4	4.23 (.97) 4.5	Z = 1.80 p = .07, r = .28
Alphabetics	4.40 (.79) 5	4.56 (.88) 5	Z = .62, p = .54, r = .01

7.1.2. Performance gains

Teachers’ performance on the 10-item literacy knowledge quiz fell below the midpoint at pre-test (M = 4.32, SD = 1.73; MDN = 4) and above the midpoint at post-test (M = 5.40, SD = 2.12; MDN = 5.5). There was a significant increase in scores on the literacy knowledge quiz from pre- to post-test, Z = 3.36, p < .001, r = .46.

Performance on the two lesson plans increased from the first lesson plan (M = 5.85, SD = 1.23; MDN = 5.5) to the second lesson plan (M = 7.45, SD = 1.62; MDN = 8), Z = 4.35, p < .001, r = .76 (maximum score of 10).

7.1.3. Instructional format: online only vs. blended

For comparisons examining potential differences between the two groups (online only vs. blended) regarding comfort teaching early literacy concepts, only one difference emerged. On post-test scores, teachers in the blended condition (M = 4.42, SD = .72) reported greater comfort teaching writing than those in the online only group (M = 3.88, SD = .95) (See Table 2 for a complete summary).

Table 2. Post-test differences between instructional conditions regarding comfort teaching in the six areas of literacy

	Online Group M (SD) Median	Blended Group M (SD) Median	Mann Whitney U Test
Word reading	3.97 (.85) 5	4.46 (.83) 5	U = 135.5, p = .13
Reading Comprehension	3.5 (.99) 4	4.13 (.92) 5	U = 179, p = .62
Reading Fluency	3.33 (1.11) 4	4.08 (.97) 4.5	U = 147.5, p = .35,
Writing	3.88 (.95) 4	4.42 (.72) 5	U = 127.5, p = .05
Vocabulary	3.86 (.89) 4	4.29 (.69) 5	U = 206, p = .84
Alphabetics	4.24 (.92) 5	4.63 (.49) 5	U = 171.5, p = .48

Performance differences between the two groups were evident with respect to the 10-item literacy knowledge quiz at post-test. The online only group (M = 6.0, SD = 2.28) attained average scores above the mid-point of the scale and outperformed teachers in the blended group who remained below the midpoint on the literacy knowledge scale. (M = 4.35, SD = 1.23; U = 145, p = <.001). There were no differences between the two groups (M = 7.38, SD = 1.99 vs. M = 7.57, SD = 1.21, U = 96.5, p = .22, for online and blended respectively) in terms of performance on lesson plan construction.

7.1.4. Teacher experiences of training

Teachers’ ratings regarding level of learning, ease of navigation, and confidence in being able to assist their students’ use of ABRA were generally favourable. Overall mean scores were measured on the 5-point scale, with 1 being the most favorable. Teachers reported greater perceived learning than expected (M = 1.28, SD = .51), greater ease in following the layout of the course, (M = 2.18SD =.78), and higher confidence in being able to navigate the ABRA software with their students (M = 1.75, SD = .78). Teachers reported that the pace of instruction fell between “just right” and “fast” (M = 2.55SD = .64) with 1 being too fast and 5 being too slow. The perceived time commitment for the TPD reflected a rating of a little more time than expected on the course (M = 2.08, SD = 1.16). Ratings for participants in the online only and the blended conditions did not differ for these items.

Participants were asked to indicate their preferred mode of instruction. Overall, more than half of the participants (57.5%) indicated a preference for blended instruction (some online and some in-person instruction), followed by remote blended instruction (22.5%; some online learning with some interactive online sessions), online only (15%), with solely in-person (face-to-face) teaching formats being rated the least desirable (5%). Comparisons between teachers in the online only and blended conditions did not differ on these ratings of preference.

7.1.5. Qualitative analysis of discussion posts regarding use of technology

Using an open-coding approach, a thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended teacher responses to the discussion board post regarding challenges teachers experienced when using technology in teaching (Boyatzis, 1998). Forty-three teachers participated in this discussion. Five primary themes were extracted: infrastructure short-comings, limited resources, hardware challenges, cultural concerns with the software and pedagogical issues. See Table 3 for a description of the themes, properties and sample responses from participants.

Table 3. Summary of qualitative themes extracted from discussion posts

Category	Participants (N)	Examples
Infrastructure Shortcomings	41	“Power failure. Lesson will end at the middle if you are using technology because WiFi will be off.” “Network availability and reliability pose challenges.”
Limited Resources	36	“Fighting for already stretched resources due to high enrollments” “Inadequate gadgets because the learners are many.” “Expensive to operate as it requires bundles to buy
Hardware Challenges	14	“Inadequate knowledge in using the gadgets.” “Lack of proper mechanism to handle the gadget
Cultural Concerns with Software	2	“Language of instruction cannot be comprehended” “Learners may not be able to clearly get the pronunciation accent used by the software thus consuming a lot more time because they will keep on with repeated listening”
Pedagogical Considerations	9	“Differences in ability” “Digital literacy levels of learners pose challenges” “Teacher-child ratio may be a problem as others may choose to click on other things if no supervision hence time wastage”

7.1.5.1. Infrastructure shortcomings

Challenges related to infrastructure shortfalls were mentioned most frequently in the discussion posts. The majority of participants (95%) identified power supply issues, specifically, power supply outages and Wi-Fi connectivity issues as significant challenges. Teachers (19%) also indicated that their schools did not have a backup generator to accommodate power outages.

7.1.5.2. Limited resources

The second most frequently discussed issue concerned the lack of working tablets/laptops available for student use, with many students having to share devices. Sharing placed stress on lesson planning especially with regard to time as more time was needed to allow each student an opportunity to access the tablet/laptop to complete the ABRA activities. In some cases, there was insufficient time in a lesson for each student to engage in the activity.

Limited resources also led to discussions concerning cost and maintenance issues. Teachers acknowledged how expensive it is to maintain devices. They suggested that having IT personnel check devices monthly would help to ensure they were all in working condition.

7.1.5.3. Hardware challenges

Teachers (28%) expressed both difficulties and frustration using tablets because they would often “freeze” mid-lesson. In addition to this challenge, some teachers (12%) felt that they did not have adequate knowledge to navigate the tablets and laptops that were provided by their schools.

7.1.5.4. Cultural concerns with the software

The English accents for characters in the ABRA software were discussed as a concern. The accents were perceived to be “too thick” or different for children and this resulted in learning challenges for some children.

7.1.5.5. Pedagogical considerations

Some teachers (7%) expressed concerns about using technology as a teaching tool. They worried that children would be easily distracted when using the devices and would not pay attention to the key material at hand. In addition, teachers (14%) felt that the software was not directed towards diverse learners, at least in large classrooms where resources are already so limited. Children who had additional needs would require their own devices to be able to work at their own pace, however this is not possible with the limited number of tablets available.

8. Discussion

Examining the effectiveness and learning experiences of Kenyan teachers when provided with one of two online TPD delivery systems, online only and blended, were the key goals of the present study. Although online instruction became the default instructional strategy across the world due to school closures resulting from COVID-19, the transition to this format had additional challenges for learners in low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya. Despite government initiatives to develop and support digitization in Kenya, teachers in the present study identified challenges associated with insufficient infrastructure and resources related to technology (Dlamini & Mbatha, 2018). Teachers reported limited numbers of devices, lack of reliable power sources, and unreliable WiFi access were barriers to their ability to learn and their students’ ability to learn using digital tools. This finding is consistent with other research citing that both teachers and students lacked access to computers, tablets, or other hardware and that even when access was available, lack of reliable internet service and unaffordable data plans posed obstacles for teachers and learners (Dlamini & Mbatha, 2018; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021; Schwartzman, 2021). These challenges may have become especially apparent during the pandemic as digital formats replaced other in-person avenues of instruction and thus shortcomings were more notable. Despite these challenges, however, teachers in the present study demonstrated significant personal knowledge gains and shifts in perceptions about their ability to teach in the early literacy domain after engaging in the online TPD programs provided.

An important outcome of the present study was the notable improvement in developing lesson plans by teachers in both formats. These gains provide evidence of teachers’ abilities to integrate domain content, pedagogy and technological skills, consistent with the criteria for successful integration inherent in the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This particular outcome is also important as it confirms that teachers demonstrated pedagogical skill development by translating key elements of the new curriculum into practical active-learning opportunities for children.

Overall, teachers demonstrated learning gains regarding knowledge of constructs related to early literacy instruction after completion of the TPD program. This successful outcome is tempered by the lack of pre- to post-test differences in teachers’ self-reported comfort in teaching foundational concepts related to early literacy (i.e., alphabetics). However, the lack of gains in perceived comfort, may be an artifact of ceiling effects at pre-test. It could be that the initial ratings were too high, and thus the teachers could not indicate increases in comfort even if their perceptions about their level of comfort with teaching literacy skills increased. Alternatively, it may that teachers’ awareness does not reflect their knowledge. Specifically, mean scores for knowledge regarding foundational skills shifted from below the mid-point of the scale to just slightly above the mid-point, suggesting ongoing challenges with content in this domain. These challenges are not reflected in the near ceiling levels of reported comfort teaching foundational skills. This discordant pattern is consistent with previous research (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Joshi et al., 2009; Uribe-Banda et al., 2021) which indicates a disconnect between perceived knowledge and actual knowledge regarding fundamentals of early literacy instruction with perceived knowledge being inflated. These differences between actual knowledge and perceptions regarding teaching comfort are not unique to the Kenyan context but instead reflect a more general concern regarding teacher training in the area of early literacy skill instruction. Specifically, teachers who provide early literacy instruction may need specialized instruction (Moats, 2014). Given that teachers in the present study demonstrated gains, albeit modest, in knowledge but also in their ability to design and plan effective lessons. These findings suggest that teachers need comprehensive intervention programs such as the current TPD as well as follow-up interventions to target key areas of weakness such as core elements of alphabetics.

Teachers did report greater comfort in areas related to teaching reading fluency, word reading, reading comprehension, and writing after participation in the TPD. This shift supports the need for ongoing instruction beyond early literacy skills to more complex reading skills. This outcome is consistent with research indicating that effective early literacy instruction extends beyond decoding (Callaghan & Madelaine, 2012; Dickinson et al., 2003; Wilsenach, 2015).

Comparisons across instructional formats, online only versus blended, yielded few significant differences overall. Although other researchers describe the drawbacks of online/virtual learning (Cilliers et al., 2022), only two group differences were noted. Performance gains were greater on the literacy measure for those in the online condition, while comfort in teaching ratings for writing were greater in the blended condition. Given the wide array of measures assessed, these limited findings suggest more similarities than differences in these conditions. The lack of differences is not surprising given that the majority of the instruction for the blended condition was conducted online. Interestingly, however, when teachers were asked for their preferred format, most selected blended instruction, in particular blended instruction that combines online and in-person opportunities. This preference for blended formats is consistent with a wide body of literature (e.g., Bernard et al., 2014) which identifies the affordances inherent in online formats (convenience, access at any time, opportunities for review etc.) as important for independent learning while in-person contact allows for collaboration and greater immediate interactions with instructors (Johnson et al., 2000).

The second most frequently endorsed instructional approach was a blended approach with online video conferencing meetings, again supporting the balance between individual study and collaboration with others. This was followed by online only and the least often endorsed choice—in-person only. Although, these preferences suggest that online opportunities may be advantageous and welcome means for instruction, it is important to be cautious about interpreting these findings. This study was conducted during times of lockdowns, high health threat and unknowns associated with the pandemic. Under these circumstances, online contexts may have been judged more positively given accessibility and health concerns. In addition, the sample of volunteers who participated in the present study may have been a select group who initially had a more favourable view toward technologies and online instruction. Even with these caveats however, it is important to note that for the vast majority of participants in the present study this was their first experience with online instruction. Thus, it is likely that their endorsement of these approaches indicates at some level that online formats, especially those that permit some in-person contact may be a desirable and potentially scalable mechanism for providing consistent, effective, evidence-based professional development for teachers.

Ratings of the professional development program were favourable. Participants did find some challenges with the pace and with the amount of time needed to engage in this TPD. It is possible that cultural differences in accent may have contributed to some extra load in this presentation. Although teachers noted accent challenges for children, they too may have found the “Western” accent present in the TPD to cause extra demands on their time and effort. Alternatively, the novelty of the TPD format, including time needed to acquire familiarity with both the learning management system and the early literacy software, may have contributed unexpected demands especially for teachers who were new to online learning tools. Anecdotal evidence supports this latter interpretation, as additional video and text supports were created at the outset of the course to assist teachers in accessing and navigating the LMS in particular. This led to some delays for teachers who then had to “catch up”.

Technology challenges related to accessibility of power, Wi-Fi and devices were a common concern mentioned by teachers in the present study. These concerns are evident in existing research and continue to be related to infrastructure and resource challenges faced by teachers in Kenya and other parts of the Global South (Dlamini & Mbatha, 2018; Uribe-Banda et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2022). These same limitations that impact teacher instruction with technology may also impede teacher learning with technology. These challenges point to ongoing concerns that may limit the effectiveness of online based TPD programs as a teaching tool and their potential for scalability.

9. Conclusion

The present study provides evidence of knowledge gains and enhanced lesson planning as a result of an online TPD, either blended or online-only. These outcomes support extant research in Western countries and build on a growing body of research regarding African countries (e.g., Bertram, 2011; Ngeze & Iyer, 2022) suggesting that use of online instruction may be an appropriate form of instruction to address the need for efficient, consistent and high-quality instruction for many teachers (Basma & Savage, 2017). In addition to demonstrated knowledge gains and transfer of skills to classroom planning, teachers’ perceptions toward the online instruction formats in general were positive. The teachers appreciated the opportunity to interact with course facilitators/instructors and engage in in-person instruction, thus blended online models may meet both the learning needs and instructional preferences for Kenyan teachers. Use of online instruction may provide a scalable as well as effective, evidence -based solution to facilitate TPD delivery for Kenyan teachers and others in the Global South (Popova et al., 2022).

However, further research is necessary. Future research should expand the scope of the teachers sampled, and the roles of regionalism, access to resources, and level of teaching experience on learning in the two types of online formats. In addition, development of TPD courses should encourage feedback and collaboration with teachers (Ngeze & Iyer, 2022), specifically, teachers from the country or cultural group for whom the TPD is being developed. Teachers in the present study identified key challenges specific to the context in Kenyan and in other low- and middle-income countries (Popova et al., 2022). Their observations, experiences and feedback provide a foundation from which TPD programming could be optimized in their cultural context. Ongoing adaptations and refinements would provide researchers with a basis for foundational teacher education knowledge and target the specific areas that require further development. In addition, outcomes could inform policy makers regarding where supports are most needed to meet the best educational outcomes for teachers and their students. Future research could further inform understanding on how online formats can be used to promote teacher professional development in different cultural and geographic contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the GPE (Global Partnership for Education) & KIX (Knowledge Innovation Exchange), a joint endeavour with the International Development Research Centre, Canada under Grant 109375-001.

Notes

1. Level of education is noted as elementary school teachers in Kenya were not required to have post-secondary education until recently.