Teaching outdoor and adventure activities: an investigation of a primary school physical education professional development p

Evaluation of Professional Development 
School districts in the US are encouraged to adopt quality professional 
development programmes and practices that are supported by scientifically based 
research (Birman, Le Floch, Klekotka, Ludwig, Taylor, Walters et al., 2007; Blank, de 
las Alas and Smith, 2008). There is a need to ensure that professional development is 
evidence based and consequently a need for research to explore and evaluate its impact 
on the teacher and the student for legislative and practical reasons. A key factor in 
ensuring effective professional development is matching the professional development 
programme to the particular needs of the teacher and the activities are important in 
ensuring there is a positive effect at class level. An objective of this study was to 
evaluate the process and impact of a professional development programme, therefore 
the best methods of evaluation needed to be established. Many professional 

---

70 
development courses finish with the evaluation completion task or feedback sheet for 
the facilitator. This feedback centres mainly around the delivery of content, were 
objectives met and would it impact on teaching, rarely is the focus on teaching and 
learning – or providing evidence of teaching and learning (Muijs, Day, Harris & 
Lindsay, 2004). Fishman and colleagues (2003b) point out that ‘to create excellent 
programs of professional development it is necessary to build an empirical knowledge 
base that links different forms of professional development to both teacher and student 
learning outcomes’ (p. 643).
Over the years a number of frameworks have been devised to evaluate the 
impact of training and development. One of the first and best known frameworks is that 
of Kirkpatrick published in 1959 (Earley and Bubb, 2004). Although focussing on 
business and commerce training its four steps have been adapted by many over the 
years. The steps being, the relationship between the participant, and the context at four 
levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. Caffarella (2002) defined programme 
evaluation as, ‘a process used to determine whether the design and delivery of a 
programme were effective and whether the proposed outcomes were met’ (p. 225). This 
definition of programme evaluation matches the objectives of this study, but further 
research was reviewed to ensure all aspects of possible evaluation methods were 
considered. Effective evaluation of a programme of professional development serves 
two main purposes: summative evaluation (evaluation of the outcomes - are outcomes 
improved/is further professional development necessary?) and formative (evaluation of 
the process - can the programme be improved?). Craft (2000) when writing about the 
evaluation of in-service education and training or other forms of professional 
development identified the following areas for evaluation: 
Teacher satisfaction 
Impact on teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and skills 
Impact on teachers’ practice or professional growth 
Impact on teachers’ careers or roles 
Impact on school or team culture 
Impact on pupils’ learning 
Impact on school or team management and organisation’ (p. 86) 

---

71 
Comprehensive evaluation of professional development programmes provides 
useful and reliable information on the effectiveness of these programmes at achieving 
their stated outcomes. This evidence is vital to distinguish between good and poor 
forms of professional development. Evaluation from planning stages right through to 
completion of a programme of professional development should be an integral part of 
the process, just as we expect professional development to become an integral part of 
teaching rather than an add-on.
Guskey (2000) adapted Kirkpatrick’s model for use in education and extended 
the model to five levels of evaluation as follows.
Level 1 is the most common form of evaluation and centres on the participants’ 
reactions to the professional development experience. Questions asked may focus on 
enjoyment, resource provision, understanding of content, knowledge of facilitator 
and/or usefulness of learning. These questions address whether many of the key 
features outlined earlier were in fact effective such as content focus, coherence and 
active learning experiences of the PDP and whether these features underpinned teacher 
change. 
Level 2 focuses on measuring the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the 
participants. This gives the evaluator information on participant learning and allows 
him to make judgements on improving content, format or organisation of the 
professional development.
Level 3 evaluates organisational support and change. The participants may have 
learned and gained from the professional development they have engaged in, but on 
returning to their school and trying to apply their newly found knowledge they are faced 
with organisational difficulties and maybe lack of support from their Principal.
Evaluation at this level focuses on whether the change was supported with 
organisational change, for example operating procedures. Some programmes of 
professional development may aim to change school structures e.g. frequency or 
duration of physical education lessons. Others aim to change cultures which are a more 
difficult change to implement as they require teachers to develop new beliefs and 
attitudes. Teachers’ existing beliefs and attitudes may have developed over a number of 
years and are related to the context of the school, which makes them more ingrained and 
difficult to change. Teachers feel support, comfort and valued when changing practices 

---

72 
especially if they are given collegial and/or Principal support and encouragement. The 
reverse is also true and lack of structural change, collegial support or good leadership 
may inhibit professional development.
Level 4 assesses participants’ use of their new knowledge in their professional 
practice. This is an essential part of any professional development evaluation as there 
will be no impact on student learning without first improving teachers learning and 
teaching practices.
Finally, at level 5, Guskey’s evaluation model focuses on the pupils and how a 
professional development programme may have impacted on them. How did the 
children change or learn anything as a result of the professional development 
programme. This information offers a new perspective on the professional development 
and promotes high expectations of the professional development programme. In 
evaluating the programme and keeping children’s learning outcomes in mind it allows 
professional developers to ensure effective practices. Allied to the theoretical 
framework is the reality that this research is being carried out for evaluative purposes.
Frost and Durant (2003) developed Guskey’s model further to include how 
teachers’ learning is also able to make a contribution beyond the school community. As 
this study is a case study bound by the school, teachers and school community this 
model was not considered. Stufflebeam (1971) proposed the CIPP evaluation model 
which focusses on the decision making processes of policy makers and administrators 
when evaluating professional development. The model is based on four kinds of 
evaluation information: context, input, process and product, hence the acronym CIPP.
Although recognising the importance of decision making in the process of 
implementing a programme of professional development this study hoped to go beyond 
this, hence this model was also deemed inappropriate.
Surveys on completion of professional development activities were originally 
how programmes’ effectiveness was measured. More recently research has progressed 
on how we perceive professional development and therefore how we measure its 
effectiveness. According to Desimone (2009) measuring the quality of professional 
development involves measuring ‘the quality of teachers’ learning experiences, the 
nature of teacher change, and the extent to which such change affects student learning’ 
(p. 188). Measuring teacher or student learning in physical education involved issues 

---

73 
such as assessment and how to assess, and as yet there are no standardised testing 
procedures for physical education. Therefore approaches such as mixed methods 
combining the qualitative methods of questionnaires and qualitative methods of 
interviews and observations seem to be the best choice when researching in this area 
(Desimone, 2008; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). At this stage of the research no 
method was dismissed as being more appropriate than another in gathering information 
relating to the effectiveness of professional development in this study. The flexibility of 
the research design to incorporate the most appropriate method to gather specific 
information required in this study and how any researcher bias was avoided are 
discussed in detail in chapter 3.
Given the large public investment in professional development over the years, 
research has much to offer in addressing the practical questions which designing and 
implementing a professional development programme might face. The effectiveness of 
the programme of professional development in the study needs to be described and 
understood within the context in which it takes place; 
utilising the key features of professional development (needs based, 
active learning, collective participation, content focussed, contextualised, 
on-going and partnership) 
facilitated through a personalised programme (programme model and 
instructional strategies) 
and monitored and evaluated throughout primarily using qualitative 
methods of data collection 
In reviewing the models of evaluation, Guskey’s model of evaluation was 
identified as the model most closely aligned to the research framework. It was also 
highlighted by Day and Sachs (2004) as a meaningful model of evaluation of 
professional development for education. The model accounts for all the stakeholders 
and internal and external factors which may influence the success of the professional 
development programme at the centre of this research. How this model fits into the 
overall study conceptual framework is discussed further in chapter three.
Summary
. This section reviewed professional development and began with an 
explanation of the term from the simple (Earley and Bubb, 2004) to the complex (Day, 

---

74 
1997). The section continued by outlining many of the key features of effective 
professional development which included content focus, coherence, active learning, 
duration, collective participation, communities of practice, partnership, models and 
evaluation. Models of professional development such as Cafferella’s Interactive Model 
of Programme Planning, the INSET model and cognitive apprenticeship were presented 
and a rationale given for their selection in guiding the design of the PDP, 
acknowledging how they aligned with the key features of professional development.
Professional development if effective should lead to teacher change, and from the 
review it can be seen that change is complex. The professional development 
programme must contain the key features outlined above to be effective in achieving 
change. Change occurs in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, teachers’ classroom practice 
and pupil learning but we can see from the research that there is little consensus on the 
order in which this happens. The section concluded with a review of the literature on 
evaluation of professional development and a rationale for the selection of Guskey’s 
model of evaluation (2000) to inform the research framework for this study is given.