Page 23 - The Architecture of Professional Development

Method

Depending on the purpose and context (organiza on, resources, and exper se) the methods for
systema cally gathering, analyzing, and repor ng professional development evalua on data will vary.
For instance, in Guskey’s five cri cal levels of evalua on, as the evalua on moves from par cipant
reac ons to par cipant learning and then on to student learning outcomes, the methods needed to
gather informa on generally require more me, resources, personnel, and exper se to complete the
assessment. If, for example, we want to know how par cipants liked the learning ac vity and if the
condi ons for learning were appropriate (Level I) we might use wri en ques onnaires, group
interviews, and/or individual wri en logs. At Levels II, III, IV, (teacher learning, organiza onal change
and support, and par cipant use of new knowledge and skills), methods may include paper‐pencil
assessments, simula ons, por olios, case study analyses, assessment of school/district records, direct
observa ons, and video recordings. These extensive evalua ons o en require external resources
(federal, state, and/or private monies). For example, Garret, Porter, Demimonde, Birman, and Yoon
(2001) in a large‐scale survey employed a na onal probability sample of 1,027 science and
mathema cs teachers to evaluate the effec veness of the Eisenhower Professional Development
Program, a component of the Title II of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA). Funded by
the United States Department of Educa on, the research team iden fied three core features of
professional development ac vi es (a focus on content knowledge, opportuni es for ac ve learning,
and coherence with other learning opportuni es for teachers) that significantly affected teachers’
self‐reported increases in professional knowledge and skills as well as changes in their classroom
instruc onal prac ces. The researchers also report that three structural features of professional
development ac vi es (form‐interac ve learning; dura on‐contact hours and me span; and,
collec ve par cipa on) exerted a significant influence on the core features that in turn posi vely
affected teacher learning.

14