This was a book I selected to see whether the ways in which we evaluate professional development might have something to bring to the table for my study of professional learning. A post outlining how we distinguish between professional development (PD) and professional learning (PL) will be forthcoming as I move forward in my understanding. My back of a beermat, pencil sketch of that is currently that PD is formal, top-down, target-driven activities designed to improve the knowledge, skills and practice of educators. Professional learning on the other hand is less-formal, self-initiated (and serendipitous) learning events which achieve the same ends. Guskey defines PD as follows:
those processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills and attitudes of educators, so they might in turn improve the learning of students. …
True PD is a deliberate process, guided by a clear vision of purposes and planned goals.
As a designed process with a manifest sense of intent, this is where I currently see the distinction from PL, however concede that I have yet to fully explore how others conceive it. Guskey summarises some of the ways PD can be organised and helpfully outlines the advantages and shortcomings which I’ve brought together here:
| Model | Notes | Advantages | Shortcomings |
| Training | A presenter or presenters share their ideas and expertise through a variety of activities | Efficient, cost-effective.
All participants will have a shared knowledge base and common vocabulary. |
Little choice or individualisation.
Difficult to accommodate different levels of prior knowledge and experience. Needs supplementary follow-up activities. |
| Observation/Assessment | Uses collegial observation to provide educators with feedback on their performance. | Provides benefits for observer and observed.Helps break down the isolation of teaching. | Demands significant time commitment.
Care needed in separating observation/assessment process from evaluation. |
| Involvement in a development/improvement process. | Educators brought together to develop or review new curriculum, plan strategies or solve particular problems. | Increases knowledge and skills, whilst enhancing collaborative methods.
Establishes new cross-interest communities. Closely linked in personal contexts. |
Generally restricted to a limited number of staff.
Tradition or persuasively-argued opinions can force the agenda. |
| Study groups | Entire staff (in groups of 4 – 6) work together to solve common problems.
(Powerful for facilitating curricular and pedagogical innovations) |
Bring focus and coherence to improvement efforts.
Reduce sense of isolation by leveraging learning communities. Emphasise ongoing nature of PD. |
Potential that forthright individuals might dominate.
Owing to demands of time, study groups can lapse into decision- rather than research-based decisions. |
| Inquiry/action research | Solving problems and finding answers to pressing problems. | Helps educators become more reflective practitioners and more systematic problem-solvers. | Requires significant initiative from those involved.
Can also require substantial commitments of time. |
| Individually guided activities | Educators determine their own individual professional development goals and then select activities to help them achieve them. | Flexible.
Offer choice and individualisation. |
Potential for ‘re-inventing the wheel.’
Few opportunities for collaboration. Notions of shared mission can be lost. |
| Mentoring | Pairing of an experienced, successful educator with a less experienced colleague to discuss goals, ideas and strategies. | Highly individualised.
Benefits both of those involved. Can forge highly productive, professional relationships. |
May limit opportunities for broader collaboration and collegiality. |
He also outlines some of the principal models of evaluation, but emphasises that they crucially involve ‘the systematic investigation of merit and worth.’ Building on Kirpatrick’s (1979) evaluation model, Guskey offers five critical levels of evaluation, which are hierarchically arranged:
- Participants’ reactions
- Participants’ Learning
- Organisation support and change
- Participants’ use of new knowledge and skills
- Student learning outcomes.
(Read more about these levels here)
Guskey also bemoans the fact that most evaluation of PD is currently done at Level 1, if at all and that it is rare indeed to find evaluations which move beyond Level 2.
These levels largely make sense to me, although I have some reservations about Level 3 and the organisational structures and practices which can have an impact on the professional learning. I’d argue that those ought to have been part of the process that took place in planning the professional development programme prior to commencement. After all what’s the point of, for example, improving your pedagogies to accommodate tablet technologies if your school doesn’t have, nor intends to acquire, said technologies?
I can see most of the aforementioned models of PD in certain aspects of (what I’m currently calling) professional learning, perhaps with the exceptions of observation and mentoring. What I see less of, and this may be where my study comes in, is of evaluation. This could of course be because that evaluation is being undertaken away from where the learning is taking place, so remains hidden. What is sometimes more evident however is examples of self-reflection and, albeit based only on anecdotal evidence, I’d that some of that does take place at the higher levels. It will be interesting to see whether those impressions can be supported by more concrete evidence.
Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks ; London: Corwin Press.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1979). Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78.
Marginal Notes 