Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

CPD leaders also provided more information regarding who undertook evaluation
and how methods linked to action.
Respondents often identified more than one evaluator or group of evaluators,
however, the most frequently identified evaluators were headteachers and/or
senior management, although the range of evaluators is noteworthy (Table 16) .
Table 16. CPD evaluators identified
Identified evaluator
Frequency
Head teacher 74
Senior Management 61
CPD co-ordinator 58
Individual involved 54
Whole staff 25
Subject co-ordinators/leaders 21
Line manager 17
Provider 10
All involved 9
Governor/s 7
Performance Manager 4
LEA 3
Curriculum co-ordinator 3
Staff development officer 3
Course leader 2
INSET co-ordinator 2
Network learning community activist 1
Never evaluated 1
5.2.a.c
CPD leaders’ views on the usefulness of evaluations of CPD
CPD leaders were asked to think of an example of the evaluation of a CPD
event/experience that was particularly helpful in determining the usefulness of
the event/experience for themselves/colleagues. Evaluation methods fell into two
categories: verbal and written techniques. Written evaluations, typically
questionnaires, were sourced from a variety of areas, one example being a
‘Questionnaire from LEA about INSET’. More usually, the questionnaires appear
to have originated from within the senior management team, and were, initially at
least, dealt with at this level:
‘Questionnaires were collected and points noted by me [a headteacher].
Feedback provided verbally to colleagues plus handouts. (Female
Assistant Headteacher)’
- 52 -