Professional development, as in most areas of education, has room for growth

and improvement. Many related programs assume a “one size fits all” approach without

acknowledging that teachers have unique learning needs that must be met if the

programs are to be successful (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Consideration of teacher learning

styles is vital toward this end (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Consequently, the

study of learning styles and the professional development preferences of educators will

likely prove valuable for the planning of in-service needs and alignment between

required standards and new teachers (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).

Fleischman (2006) suggested that, due to limited resources, professional

development programs are rarely evaluated, if at all. If this is accurate, inservice

specialists will have no way of determining whether their teacher training is impacting

educator knowledge or student achievement. Professional development appears to

target solely teacher participants, rather than practice, through evaluative methods and

the establishment of new goals. However, as Guskey (2000) indicated, most

components of such programs do not include sufficiently detailed descriptions of

evaluations to offer practical guidance in determining whether goals have been

achieved. The data collected tend to be focused on the type or amount of professional

development, as well as the number of participants, rather than on the subsequent

impact made by the teachers as a result of the program. Insufficient evaluations can

result in higher rates of program initiation without following through the goal-oriented

stages.

To determine the productiveness of professional development within the field

of education, and to strengthen related programs, continuous evaluation is essential.

1

Yet, the standard operating procedure for collecting data is to distribute an End of

Activity Form, which does not address follow-up evaluations nor support on the job

training or assessment (Oliva & Pawlas, 2004, p. 354). Oliva and Pawlis (2004)

advanced that the primary concept a school system must learn is whether an activity

improved teacher performance. Therefore, a plan must be developed to evaluate the

attainment of professional development objectives over a period of time, in addition to

the type or amount of teacher development actually being demonstrated.

If programs start and stop repeatedly without the support needed to sustain

them, the participating educators become frustrated with the process and eschew

future professional development. By not evaluating program impact, the school

system will never know if related resources were appropriately allocated, nor is there

accountability for the professional development delivered. In many instances,

evaluating professional development is viewed as a costly, time-consuming process

initiated upon completion of professional development activities and requiring

competence beyond those possessions of many instructors and administrators

(Guskey, 2000). He argued that the list is endless with procedures that challenge the

effectiveness of professional development evaluation. The types of challenges

include the questions asked of participants, the lack of follow-up to gain knowledge

surrounding the skills used in program implementation, school systems not

structured in a manner conducive to the provision of support, and a lack of

understanding surrounding the support needed to properly evaluate a program.

There is a problem with professional development programs without structured

support and proper follow-up evaluations. The ability to fully implement professional

2

development programs with guided practice, resources, and support from

administration is tantamount to teacher success in the classroom. The gap in the

literature supports that if evaluations of these programs are not fully analyzed, the

specific needs and goals of educators are not met. In a longitudinal study of K–12

teachers participating in professional development, Porter, Garet, Desimone, and Yoon

(2000) used self-reports of program impact from 297 teachers and found “little change

in overall teaching practice after 3 years . . . Teachers changed little in terms of the

content they teach, the pedagogy used to teach it, and their emphasis on performing

goals for students” (p. 70). Some of the teachers did demonstrate a moderate positive

change following professional development.

Professional development evaluation is not a new topic within the realm of

education. Interest has grown tremendously for three important reasons. The first is that

educators have gained a better understanding of the dynamic nature of professional

development (Lieberman & Miller, 2001) and now view it as an ongoing and continuous

process rather than an event (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987; Stigler, 2002; Weinbaum,

Allen, Blythe, Simon, & Rubin, 2004). The traditional perspective of professional

development as a 3 to 4 day event during the school year has been replaced by a series of

extended, job-embedded learning experiences (Iacoboni, 2008; Levin, Belfield,

Meunnig, & Rouse, 2007; Marzano, 2007). An important factor is the ability to measure

progress in better and more meaningful ways, hence the focus on evaluation.

A second reason for the growing interest in professional development evaluation

is its increasing recognition as an internal process (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Sparks,

1994). Regardless of the form it takes, professional development within the field of

3

education is a systematic effort to bring about change, but not solely for the sake of

change.

A third and very important reason for the emphasis on professional development

evaluation is the need for better information to guide education reform with greater

effectiveness (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Existing evidence has indicated that false

or exaggerated claims of success have grounded many school reform strategies. This is

primarily due to the lack of better and timelier evaluations of new practice and programs,

as well as their implementation (Ingersoll, 2003). Potential users require more detailed

information on the effects, conditions of success, cost, and unanticipated effects.

The existing system of evaluation, as it relates to the professional development

of educators, creates limited effective change in teacher knowledge, skills, school

organizations, and increased teaching performance within the classroom. Many

professional development programs take a one size fits all approach and do not

acknowledge that teachers have unique learning needs that must be met if programs are

to be successful (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Consideration of teachers’ learning styles is vital

for understanding and possibly improving professional development because teachers

become the students in professional development.

The challenge of teaching teachers is that they have a wealth of knowledge and

life experiences, are a diverse population and participate in various formats professional

development (King & Lawler, 2003). In the current era of high stakes testing it is

important that professional development meet the needs of teachers and students to

enhance learning for both (Diaz-Maggioli). This is important because if teachers are able

to learn more in professional development, they may bring new practices and ideas to the

4

classroom. Further, professional development programs need continuity and adequate

follow up (NCES, 2008).

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the importance of

evaluating the professional development of elementary-school teachers. According to

Sparks (2004):

If teachers are to successfully teach all students to high standards, virtually

everyone who affects student learning must be learning virtually all the time. That

not only includes teachers and principals, but superintendents and other

administrators, school board members, and school support staff. Because the vast

majority of the decisions about staff development are made in district offices and

school improvement team meetings, the urgent pressure that many school leaders

feel to improve student learning means that they are interested in knowing . . . if

their staff development is making a difference. (p. ix)

By studying educator learning styles and teacher self-efficacy, the research will

seek to understand how evaluating professional development will maximize teacher

effectiveness. Through an analysis of how teachers perceive themselves as effective

change agents within the classroom, factors surrounding where and how professional

development can become more effective are expected to emerge. The findings will be

provided to the professional development committee of the participating school district

and administrators within the county who are responsible for the planning and execution

of teacher inservice programs.

The theoretical foundation of the study is adult learning theory, frequently

referred to as age and stage theory. The focus of the construct is on learning styles and

5

preferences of the adult learner. Age theorists are interested in “distinct, qualitative

differences in modes of thinking that [are] not necessarily age related” (Trotter, 2006, p.

8). Stage theorists, however, focus on determining commonalities between adult learners

and various life states. Teachers parallel other learners. They progress through

developmental stages as they advance in their careers and experience specific needs and

crises they must address (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Despite these specific needs, many

professional development programs are based on standardized approaches. Consequently,

the concept of developmental stages is important to professional development and its

evaluation of teachers because it is contrary to the underlying assumption that all teachers

must perform at the same level regardless of their particular experiences.

In addition to adult learning theory, another important construct to the proposed

study is learning-style theory or experimental learning. Kolb (1981) asserted, “Each of us

develops a unique learning style, which has both strong and weak points” (p. 237).

Learning-style theorists differ on how to meet the different needs of the various learning

styles within each classroom (Muse, 2001).

The case study is qualitative in nature to effectively determine the optimal way to

evaluate the overall effects of professional development programs. Eight teachers and

two staff development specialists within one New York State school district will

participate in the research. The teachers will be randomly selected and the staff-

development specialists will be purposefully selected. The Guskey (2002) five levels of

professional development evaluation will provide structure for implementation and

evaluation of specific initiatives. Data will be collected via teacher interviews,

observation, and postobservation teacher reflection. Data sources will include the Guskey

6

five levels of evaluation processes to assess professional development practice within the

participating district.

The data collected in the proposed study will be organized and prepared by a

coding system that will identify the professional development processes under study.

Data intervals will be coded into a ratio of the number of times each process was

mentioned by interviewees, the reflective success of the process or delivery system based

upon the reflections of the participants, and interviewee knowledge of the processes

implemented. The open coding will include the setting, evaluation of the delivery system,

type of professional development, knowledge of professional development, and

classroom effectiveness.

The open coding process will generate a description of the setting including the

type of professional development used, the knowledge and comfort level of the

participants, and participant training. The data will be disaggregated by grade level and

participant job description, interconnecting the knowledge with the manner in which the

participants were trained. Axial coding will facilitate connections between each theme

presented by the open coding. The themes will be represented in narrative passages to

convey the findings of the analysis. This will include a chronological discussion of

events, a detailed discussion of the multiple perspectives of the participants, and a

connection between participant training in professional development processes and

classroom delivery.

The following research questions will guide the proposed study:

1. How can the school district move professional development from initiatives to

implementation within the classroom using the five critical levels of

7

evaluation (i.e., participant reaction, participant learning, organizational

support, participant use of new knowledge, and student outcomes)?

2. How can the school district identify any difference between the knowledge

and skills presented in professional development and classroom

implementation?

3. What tools or resources do teachers need to successfully implement

professional development initiatives within the classroom?

4. What is the professional development process implemented within the school?

5. What is the content of professional development delivered to teachers?

6. What is the format of professional development delivered to teachers?

Today, more productive approaches to investigating the effectiveness of

professional development are commonly implemented (Guskey, 2000). The key to

greater clarity with regard to the definition of effective professional development

rests in the development of stronger theories connecting practices with results

(Guskey & Sparks, 1996). An essential aspect is to identify and measure the

intervening professional development processes that result in improved student

learning (Guskey, 2000).

8

References

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:

Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(8), 249–

305.

Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Fleischman, B. J. (2006). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional

development in systematic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–

658.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New

York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press.

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff

development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff

Development, 17(4), 34–38.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.

Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.

Iacoboni, L. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others.

New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Grioux.

King, K. P., & Lawler, P. A. (2000). Planning for effective faculty development: Using

adult learning strategies. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

9

Kolb, D. A. (1981) Learning styles and disciplinary differences: Diverse pathways. In

A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 57–76). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Levin, H., Belfield, C., Meunnig, P., & Rouse, C. (2007). The costs and benefits of an

excellent education for all American children. New York, NY: Columbia

Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional

development that matters. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., &

Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher

development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement

of the Northeast & Islands.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: comprehensive framework for

effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Muse, F. (2001). A look at teacher to learning styles: Is it really worth the effort?

Journal of Correctional Education, 52(1), 76–87.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Overview and inventory of state

education reforms: 1990-2006. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nations

reportcard/states/

Oliva, L., & Pawlas, F. (2004). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teacher.

Education Research Quarterly, 24(4), 34–43

10

Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945

Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of Staff Development,

15(4), 26–29.

Sparks, D. (2004). The looming danger of a two-tiered professional development system.

Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 306–306.

Stigler, J. (2002). Redesigning professional development: Creating a knowledge base for

teaching. ASCD, 59(6), 6–11.

Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as

inquiry. New York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context

effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of

Teacher Education in Education, 11, 57–67.

11