Program Evaluation

Professional development has become widely pushed within the last few decades. It is

the continuation of education and career training after a person has entered the workforce.

Professional development allows professionals to develop new skills, stay up to date on current

trends and issues within the field and advance their career (Antley, 2020). As noted by Learning

Forward (2016), thousands of teachers partake in professional development sessions every

year, but little information is collected to analyze the quality of the learning or it’s impact on

teaching practices and student learning. This could be due to lack of time, lack of effective

resources, or even lack of knowledge on how to effectively evaluate a professional development

session.

Thomas Guskey believes that evaluation does not have to be complicated. According to

him, evaluation requires thoughtful planning, asking the right questions, and an understanding

of how to find valid answers (Guskey, 2002). Guskey believes that there are five critical stages

to evaluating professional learning as it relates to the field of education. He based this model off

Kirkpatrick’s model for evaluating businesses and companies (Guskey, 2016).

Based on Guskey’s model, I have developed some instruments that could be used to

evaluate school wide professional developments at each level. For the purpose of

understanding, I am going to use Pear Deck as an example. There are a total of four surveys

utilized to evaluate the professional development experience following the Guskey model. The

surveys are intended to be used for any school professional development that may occur, but

can be customized to specific topics if needed. Additionally, each survey evaluates the

appropriateness and integration of technology.

Evaluating Stage 1: Participants’ Reactions

 During this first stage of evaluation, the goal is to get a picture of the participants’

learning experience. This stage is focused on whether or not the participants enjoyed the

experience or not (Guskey, 2016). This is typically given at the conclusion of a professional

development session. For example, if there was a PD being given on Pear Deck for the school,

participants would answer a Professional Development Evaluation Form at the end

(anonymously), answering questions about their role and subject area, as well as their

experience and the impact the session had on them professionally. As far as their experience

(data collected in section 2 of the form), these data items are written in statement format, and

participants are asked to rate their level of agreeance with each statement. Some of the

statements include, “My time today was well spent.” and “The information delivered made

complete sense to me.”

From these questions, the presenter would know if learning about Pear Deck was an

enjoyable experience for the staff. By analyzing the responses to these questions, the presenter

would know whether or not they seemed knowledgeable, or even if the pont they were trying to

get across was clearly delivered. If the results came back with mostly negative responses, then

either the presenter did not do such a great job, or Pear Deck is simply not a need for the staff

as a whole.

Evaluating Stage 2: Participants’ Learning

During the second stage of evaluation, the goal is to gain information on the new

knowledge, skills, or even attitudes acquired by the participants (Guskey, 2016). This stage can

also be assessed at the conclusion of the PD. For this particular stage, the Professional

Development Evaluation Form (same as above) will be used to evaluate the participants’

learning. This stage is evaluated in section 3 of the form. Some of these questions are also

rated in terms of agreeance, with some open ended questions asking participants what was

most beneficial to them and how can the session be improved. By analyzing these types of
questions, the presenter of the Pear Deck PD would have information confirming if the set

objectives of the presentation, like knowing how to set up a Pear Deck session, were achieved.

Additionally, the presenter would know which parts of the presentation were useful to

participants and how they can make improvements for the future.

Evaluating Stage 3: Organization Support and Change

In stage three of evaluating professional development, the objective is to see how the

school supports, accommodates, facilitates, and recognizes teachers in their efforts to

implement the newly learned strategy or technique (Harvard Family Research Project, 2006).

This stage is evaluated some time after the initial professional development session. This

questionnaire, Professional Development Follow Up, is given maybe a month after the PD.

Ideally, by this time, participants would have had enough time to implement whatever strategy

was introduced to them at the PD. Through this survey, the presenter for the Pear Deck PD

would know whether or not the teachers have been supported and encouraged in their

implementation of the platform. This information is useful to both the presenter and the school

leadership. The presenter will know that growth using Pear Deck was limited due to reasons

outside of their control; this information is useful to school leadership as it informs them of any

organizational changes that may need to occur.

Evaluating Stage 4: Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skills

At this stage in evaluation, the goal is to analyze the degree and quality of

implementation (Harvard Family Research Project, 2006). This stage is developed after staff

members have had enough time to implement the newly learned strategy. According to Guskey

(2016), this is one of the most difficult levels to measure, as it takes time to get the results. More

than likely, if a professional development was given on the implementation of Pear Deck in the

classroom, the administrative team (principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, etc.)
would be the ones to evaluate this stage. Using the Proof of PD Observation Form, the

evaluator is able to see how often and how efficiently the new strategy is being implemented. If

no one is implementing it, or if they are, and they are implementing it ineffectively, then maybe

the presentation needs to be improved and redelivered.

Evaluating Stage 5: Student Learning Outcomes

At this last and final stage of evaluating professional development programs, Guskey

states that our goal is to evaluate the impact the implementation of the newly learned strategy

had on students’ learning (Guskey, 2016). The whole purpose of teaching is to grow students

so that they are prepared for the next stage of life. Like stage 4, this stage is difficult to collect

data for. Typically growth and progress are established by end of the year assessments, and

sometimes, students have already moved on before the results are determined.

For this stage, participants would fill out the Professional Development Student Impact

Form. With this, teachers, administrators, and even counselors can answer questions about

student growth and achievement. At the bottom of the form, artifacts displaying such growth

and achievement (or not) are able to be uploaded. With proof of growth, the school will know

that Pear Deck is working to move students toward success. If the data shows otherwise, then

the school can look into other resources and tools, and start the process all over.
 References:

Antley, T. (2020). What Is Professional Development and Why Is It Important? WebCE.

https://www.webce.com/news/2020/07/16/professional-development

Harvard Family Research Project. (2006). A Conversation with Thomas R. Guskey /

Professional Development / Issue Archive / The Evaluation Exchange / Evaluation

/ HFRP - Harvard Family Research Project.

https://archive.globalfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/pro

fessional-development/a-conversation-with-thomas-r.-guskey

Learning Forward. (2016). Gauge Impact with 5 Levels of Data. Journal of Staff

Development, 37(1).

https://tguskey.com/wp-content/uploads/Professional-Learning-1-Gauge-Impact-

with-Five-Levels-of-Data.pdf