Evaluation: Sound Practice for Professional Development and Student Learning

There is a common theme with regards to the need for effective instruction and professional development. In their article highlighting a research study supporting the effectiveness of professional development, Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet (2000) state ". . . it is essential that staff development provide the content and opportunities necessary to foster teacher learning and changes in practice" (p. 32). In light of instructional leadership on the part of teachers, Dick and Carey (2001) state that "[i]t is our thesis that the primary role of the teacher is that of designer of instruction, with accompanying roles of implementor and evaluator of instruction. This is a critical statement to consider. If education is to meet the needs of individual students through provision of appropriate knowledge and training in important skills, there must be increased dependence upon well-designed, effective instruction (p. 73). There repeated call for well-designed and effective professional development for teachers in addition to student learning opportunities.
Evaluation is a cornerstone in education. It informs us of potential issues in the future, how we are doing currently and how effective our learning experience was. According to Guskey (1999) in his paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association where he explores the evaluation process of professional development evaluation is defined as the examination of evidence and the application of judgment in a systematic investigation of merit and worth (p. 3). There is an obvious connection between the systematic design for instruction and effective professional development programs.
Guskey (1999) identifies three broad categories of evaluation including: planning, formative and summative (p. 4). Planning refers to an evaluation that takes place prior to the professional development activity. He highlights four aspects in this evaluation process including: identification of needs, assessing the characteristics of the participants, analysis of the context and the collection of related baseline information (p. 4). It is difficult not to draw the parallels that exist between Guskey's (1999) work with Dick and Carey's (2001) model of instructional design. Referring to their instructional model below, these four aspects are explicitly identified by Dick and Carey in their first three steps of a nine step design process for instruction.

Continuing the comparison, formative evaluation, according to Guskey (1999) is an evaluation that occurs throughout the process. Dick and Carey (2005) include formative evaluation in their instructional model and state that "[formative] evaluation provides the designer with a different type of information that can be used to improve the instruction" (p. 16). Guskey (1999) supports this by identifying formative evaluation as the most useful form of assessment as it is focused on the conditions necessary for success. It happens throughout the activity it usually provides the opportunity to make adjustments, modifications or revisions throughout (pp. 5-6). There appears to be a common belief between these individuals that formative assessments can inform and aid in the revision of instruction whether it is for teachers or students. It is integral and key to effective design.
Another commonality is that of the presence of a summative evaluation. Summative evaluations happen after the learning has occurred and it provides feedback about the effectiveness of the activity. Guskey (1999) indicates its role in the evaluation process of professional development, allowing for judgments of the overall worth or merit of the professional activity. The summative evaluation provides the opportunity for decisions regarding the life of the program or activity (pp. 6-7). In contrast, Dick and Carey (2005) have the summative evaluation as a separate component of the design for learning and do not consider it an integral part of the design process.

Clearly the three aspects of evaluation, planning, formative and summative are regarded as integral to effective instruction both for teachers and students.

References

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Poter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership(May), 28-33.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2001). The systematic design of instruction: Origins of systematically designed instruction. In D.P Ely & T. Plomp (Eds), Classical writings on instructional technology (vol. 2., pp. 71-80). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2005). The systematic design of instruction: (sixth edition). Boston, M.A : Pearson/ Allyn & Bacon.

 

Guskey, T. R. (1999). New perspectives on evaluating professional development. In the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Teachers and Educational Research- Promoting Staff Development

It is that time of year again, the same doom and gloom of the budget. Ballooning class sizes is the new way to deal with the budget constraints that have been placed on school leadership. How does one deal with this, how about teach 7 out of 8 classes? Sound familiar? I know that there are a number of teachers in the province that do this on a yearly basis. My question is at what expense? There is a clear statement in the literature to ensure effective performance of students in the classroom there needs to be effective teaching. How does one bring about effective teaching? Through the provision of ongoing professional development teaching practice is improved and thus student learning.

In their comprehensive review of the state of professional development in America, Sparks and Hirsh (2000), list a number of standards and guidelines that the National Staff Development Council states that they feel school systems should use including; setting high standards for the learning of all students, invest in teacher learning, embed opportunities for professional learning to name but a few (pp. 5-6). They also state that the NSDC promotes "at least 25 percent of teachers' time be devoted to their own learning" (p. 6). My question to those in power, controlling the funding for education, when do educators do this professional development that is highly recommended for enhanced teaching when individuals are teaching 7 out of 8 classes? Teaching without preparation time, would for me personally be reason enough for me to switch careers. I know that if I am not provided this time, I cannot do the best possible job for those kids in front of me. I have a moral obligation to bring my best for these kids and yet the system in which we work is not conducive to that. Where is the foresight on the part of political leadership? Are we not informed enough about sound education?

Sparks and Hirsh (2000) highlight the fact that teachers are not in the loop as they are often unaware of current research findings. "Staff development should be grounded in solid research, not only to convey the best teaching methods and appropriate curriculum content, but also to help school staff understand the process of change and how to work collaboratively to solve problems, alter the school's culture, and build structures that support teacher learning" (p. 8). If our teachers are not in the loop I would propose that our political leaders are even further out of the loop as evidenced by the priorities they set with their budgetary choices. The question arises as to how we as educators and future leaders in education bring this to everyone's attention? Spark and Hirsh (2000)propose the establishment of a National Centre on Professional Development to collect, filter and distribute information on professional development while States (or provinces) could be responsible for ensuring that there are adequate resources (ie. new teachers with mentors, increasing funding and time for quality staff development and monitor how the funds are spent). This information would need to be monitored by the provincial government, specifically the department responsible for education. Clearly there is a need to have education become a priority for our leaders in order for professional development to take its appropriate place.

Are there things that we can do at a local level that can promote the teacher learning that we so need? Can we do more with less? Spark and Hirsh (2000) outline a number of strategies that we can do at a local level in an effort to create a learning school: 1. Allow more time for staff to work and plan together, 2. Provide common planning time so teachers can study standards together, create lessons and practice and share new teaching methods, 3. Organize a time for sets of teachers who share common students to meet and discuss student issues, 4. Assign new and struggling teachers with a mentor (preferably with a common time to meet throughout the day), 5.Provide opportunities for peer observation, 6. Organize programs of peer coaching where teachers could help each other (p.11). In light of these suggestions, local school leadership have a difficult task (but worthy of the effort) in organizing their schools for staff learning.

"Missing from the field of research on teaching, . . ., are the voices of teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask and the interpretive frames that teachers use to understand and improve classroom practices" (Evans, Lomax and Morgan, 2000, p. 416). As an alternative to the common way of providing professional development, (one shot workshops, two day conferences) there is evidence of establishing an action research program with a staff as an effective way to enhance teacher learning. In writing about a school-university partnership that has led to the establishment of a community of teacher researchers whose investigations provide the evidence upon which they make decisions to improve their teaching, Evans, Lomax and Morgan (2000), state that ". . . action research partnerships between schools and universities [are an] effective way for research-based school improvement too happen" (p. 407). Through the creation of an Action Research Group, led by a deputy principal, the leadership of Denbigh School was able to give the control over teacher learning, providing them the autonomy needed to create the intrinsic motivation required for true staff improvement (p.408). Handing over the reins to teachers, providing them with time embedded throughout the year to develop professionally and linking their work to a university where they contribute to the learning of all teachers is an extremely powerful tool for PD.

Dealing with budgets and the organization of a school is an unenviable task. Balancing the financial needs of the public with the learning of teachers and students is important for the success of education as a whole. Teacher involvement in, and public understanding of, educational research is not at the level which it should be. Political leaders and teachers alike need to be aware of current educational research and its findings. For teachers, doing research appears to be even more beneficial than just reading about it. It is an effective way to enhance teacher learning and subsequently fostering lifelong learning. For our political leaders we need to call on them to fund education in a way that promotes significant student improvement.

References

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Evans, M., Lomax, P. & Morgan, H. (November 2000). Closing the circle: Action research partnerships towards better learning. CambridgeJournal of Education 30 (3), 405-419.