Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
5.2.b. Views <strong>of</strong> <strong>CPD</strong> providers<br />
5.2.b.a<br />
<strong>CPD</strong> providers’ range <strong>of</strong> <strong>CPD</strong> and use <strong>of</strong> evaluation<br />
<strong>CPD</strong> providers indicated <strong>the</strong>y had varying involvement in different forms <strong>of</strong> <strong>CPD</strong>.<br />
Table 20 indicates <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> respondents in each group (HEIs, LEAs and<br />
Consultants) that <strong>of</strong>fer each type <strong>of</strong> <strong>CPD</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten, sometimes, rarely or never.<br />
These analyses revealed statistically significant differences (p < .05) for every<br />
type except classroom observation and specialised school <strong>of</strong>ferings. However, in<br />
a minority <strong>of</strong> cases <strong>the</strong> requirement that predicted cell sizes (under <strong>the</strong> conditions<br />
<strong>of</strong> no differences between groups) are at least 5 is violated, necessitating caution<br />
in interpreting <strong>the</strong>se differences. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> pattern <strong>of</strong> results overall is<br />
consistent: <strong>the</strong> three types <strong>of</strong> <strong>CPD</strong> providers differ in <strong>the</strong> types <strong>of</strong> <strong>CPD</strong> <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
(NB Given <strong>the</strong> numbers <strong>of</strong> respondents, percentages are given to <strong>the</strong> nearest<br />
whole number).<br />
- 71 -