Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.2.b.b CPD Providers views on evaluation methods Table 23. Evaluation of different outcomes according to CPD providers HEI LEA Consultants Percentage Yes No Yes No Yes No Participant satisfaction 96 4 100 0 96 4 Change in participant views and attitudes 87 13 72 38 75 25 Improvement in participant knowledge/ 91 9 94 6 88 12 skills Changes in participant behaviour 65 35 61 39 58 42 Organisational change 48 52 50 50 58 42 Student outcomes 83 17 39 61 54 46 Cost effectiveness 52 48 50 50 25 75 All providers overwhelmingly reported evaluating participant satisfaction and improvement in participant knowledge/skills (Table 23). HEI providers also usually evaluate change in participant views and attitudes and student outcomes (all over 80%). Changes in participant behaviour are evaluated by around 60% of respondents. Cost effectiveness and organisational change are evaluated by only about half of HEI and LEA providers, however. Organisational change is more frequently evaluated by private consultants (58%). However, they infrequently evaluate cost effectiveness (25%). LEA providers (40%) are significantly less likely to evaluate student outcomes than HEI providers (83%), with private consultants taking up an intermediate position (54%). No statistically significant differences were found between the providers for any method. Respondents were also asked to rate the usefulness evaluating these different areas. - 75 -
Table 24. CPD providers’ views on the usefulness of the effects of CPD HEI LEA Consultants Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Participant satisfaction Change in participant views and attitudes Improvement in participant knowledge/ skills Changes in participant behaviour Organisational change Student outcomes Cost effectiveness 83 17 0 0 72 22 6 0 56 34 10 0 91 9 0 0 72 28 0 0 77 18 5 0 96 4 0 0 72 28 0 0 85 10 5 0 74 22 4 0 67 33 0 0 60 40 0 0 61 35 4 0 50 50 0 0 57 36 7 0 75 20 5 0 56 44 0 0 65 25 5 5 56 39 4 0 50 50 0 0 44 35 6 15 All the specified elements were seen as usefully evaluated by at least half of all providers (with one exception: cost effectiveness among private consultants). In only 2 out of 21 instances was an element considered not at all useful: consultants’ views on the evaluation of student outcomes and cost effectiveness. Evaluating improvement in participant knowledge/ skills and change in participant views and attitudes were most often mentioned as very useful, cost effectiveness and organisational change least often, which is in line with actual practice. No significant differences were found between different providers. It has to be remarked, however, that tests in some cases were compromised by the fact that expected cell counts were frequently below 5. - 76 -
Page 1 and 2:
RESEARCH Evaluating the Impact of C
Page 3 and 4:
1. Executive Summary...............
Page 5 and 6:
1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduct
Page 7 and 8:
The fourth phase of the project was
Page 9 and 10:
expertise within the school and dir
Page 11 and 12:
The interview phase found some enth
Page 13 and 14:
• Schools should be supported in
Page 15 and 16:
• The current arrangements for ev
Page 17 and 18:
3. Methodology A mixed method appro
Page 19 and 20:
3.1. Literature review The literatu
Page 21 and 22:
school size (pupil roll), and demog
Page 23 and 24:
3.3.a. Interview Phase design proce
Page 25 and 26: 4. Literature review 4.1. Introduct
Page 27 and 28: improvement’ (DfEE, p3) and it of
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2. Evaluating CPD at Three L
Page 31 and 32: Day (1999) (see Figure 3) although
Page 33 and 34: 4.2. Effective Continuing Professio
Page 35 and 36: professional development activities
Page 37 and 38: acquired. Evaluation of this level
Page 39 and 40: data needs to be collected from a v
Page 41 and 42: 5. 5. Questionnaire Findings 3 5.1.
Page 43 and 44: sabbaticals/secondments. Job shadow
Page 45 and 46: projects, school university partner
Page 47 and 48: While ratings of CPD leaders and te
Page 49 and 50: Table 8. Evaluation of different ou
Page 51 and 52: Table 12. Methods used to evaluate
Page 53 and 54: CPD leaders also provided more info
Page 55 and 56: “questionnaires were collated and
Page 57 and 58: Finally, some respondents linked ev
Page 59 and 60: 5.2.a.f Conclusions on evaluation m
Page 61 and 62: Table 19. Methods used to evaluate
Page 63 and 64: ‘Following the course on KS3 stra
Page 65 and 66: 2. Discussion Discussion among coll
Page 67 and 68: CPD experience to subsequent though
Page 69 and 70: Evaluation that was spread over tim
Page 71 and 72: ‘All my responses to the first qu
Page 73 and 74: Table 21. Types of CPD do you provi
Page 75: Table 22. CPD Providers use of eval
Page 79 and 80: Table 26. CPD providers’ views on
Page 81 and 82: 6. Interview Phase Findings The fin
Page 83 and 84: exemplifies the point that there wa
Page 85 and 86: “When I first got the role there
Page 87 and 88: “We have a number of young teache
Page 89 and 90: new teaching strategies or introduc
Page 91 and 92: “Children’s learning - that’s
Page 93 and 94: workers”. If you don’t offer pe
Page 95 and 96: To this end, a number of respondent
Page 97 and 98: value to the work of the school: bu
Page 99 and 100: Lack of time, however, was highligh
Page 101 and 102: in with their personal, class/depar
Page 103 and 104: of chipping away: “Yeah, but what
Page 105 and 106: Participant Reaction In the intervi
Page 107 and 108: It is interesting that most respond
Page 109 and 110: the children’s work reflect that
Page 111 and 112: One head teacher highlighted the va
Page 113 and 114: “When you get back to school, so
Page 115 and 116: 7. Route Map Development 7.1. Route
Page 117 and 118: The Route Map is published here as
Page 119 and 120: Outcomes of Day Two: The outcomes o
Page 121 and 122: Use of the materials ranged from in
Page 123 and 124: 7.3.e. Inner Circle Responses There
Page 125 and 126: The implication of this for schools
Page 127 and 128:
is, through accredited courses, acc
Page 129 and 130:
school outcome, so that evaluation
Page 131 and 132:
School focussed questionnaires duri
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 2. Respondent and Non Resp
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 3. Comparison of responden
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix 4. Interview Phase Schools
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 6. Interview Schedules EVA
Page 141 and 142:
Needs Analysis and Effective CPD Pr
Page 143 and 144:
Head of Department/ Team Leader Rol
Page 145 and 146:
Teacher Provision and Role 1. How w
Page 147 and 148:
CPD Provider Provision and Role 1.
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix 7. Questionnaires CPD Lead
Page 151 and 152:
Section 2: CPD evaluation in practi
Page 153 and 154:
8c. When support from the school fo
Page 155 and 156:
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Nev
Page 157 and 158:
21. Would you be interested in work
Page 159 and 160:
Teacher Questionnaire EVALUATING TH
Page 161 and 162:
2. When you have participated in CP
Page 163 and 164:
……………………………
Page 165 and 166:
2. Has the effectiveness of CPD act
Page 167 and 168:
13. What is your role within the or
Page 169 and 170:
Preface These materials are intende
Page 171 and 172:
Capacity building in a school must
Page 173 and 174:
Summative evaluation, on the other
Page 175 and 176:
Figure 2: A Range of CPD Activities
Page 177 and 178:
Participant reaction This is the mo
Page 179 and 180:
anch”, or if the usual response t
Page 181 and 182:
Assessment scores are one way of as
Page 183 and 184:
Participant Reaction Immediate eval
Page 185 and 186:
! Consider how current procedures m
Page 187 and 188:
Moving on: Participant Learning Mos
Page 189 and 190:
Organisational support and change I
Page 191 and 192:
Most ticks in the “Enhancing” c
Page 193 and 194:
Moving on: Participant Use of New K
Page 195 and 196:
Pupil learning outcomes Scrutiny of
Page 197 and 198:
Evaluation of the Impact of CPD Eva
Page 199 and 200:
Most ticks in the “Enhancing” c
Page 201 and 202:
superficially very much alike - in
Page 203 and 204:
Appendix 10. Citations Benfield, C.
Page 205 and 206:
Citations for Report Benfield, C. R
Page 207 and 208:
Smith, C. L. (2002). "Using continu
show all

Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?