1 Professional development, as in most areas of education, has room for growth and improvement.

Many related programs assume a one size fits all approach without acknowledging that teachers have unique learning needs that must be met if the programs are to be successful (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Consideration of teacher learning styles is vital toward this end (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Consequently, the study of learning styles and the professional development preferences of educators will likely prove valuable for the planning of in-service needs and alignment between required standards and new teachers (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Fleischman (2006) suggested that, due to limited resources, professional development programs are rarely evaluated, if at all. If this is accurate, inservice specialists will have no way of determining whether their teacher training is impacting educator knowledge or student achievement. Professional development appears to target solely teacher participants, rather than practice, through evaluative methods and the establishment of new goals. However, as Guskey (2000) indicated, most components of such programs do not include sufficiently detailed descriptions of evaluations to offer practical guidance in determining whether goals have been achieved. The data collected tend to be focused on the type or amount of professional development, as well as the number of participants, rather than on the subsequent impact made by the teachers as a result of the program. Insufficient evaluations can result in higher rates of program initiation without following through the goal-oriented stages. To determine the productiveness of professional development within the field of education, and to strengthen related programs, continuous evaluation is essential.

2 Yet, the standard operating procedure for collecting data is to distribute an End of Activity Form, which does not address follow-up evaluations nor support on the job training or assessment (Oliva & Pawlas, 2004, p. 354). Oliva and Pawlis (2004) advanced that the primary concept a school system must learn is whether an activity improved teacher performance. Therefore, a plan must be developed to evaluate the attainment of professional development objectives over a period of time, in addition to the type or amount of teacher development actually being demonstrated. If programs start and stop repeatedly without the support needed to sustain them, the participating educators become frustrated with the process and eschew future professional development. By not evaluating program impact, the school system will never know if related resources were appropriately allocated, nor is there accountability for the professional development delivered. In many instances, evaluating professional development is viewed as a costly, time-consuming process initiated upon completion of professional development activities and requiring competence beyond those possessions of many instructors and administrators (Guskey, 2000). He argued that the list is endless with procedures that challenge the effectiveness of professional development evaluation. The types of challenges include the questions asked of participants, the lack of follow-up to gain knowledge surrounding the skills used in program implementation, school systems not structured in a manner conducive to the provision of support, and a lack of understanding surrounding the support needed to properly evaluate a program. There is a problem with professional development programs without structured support and proper follow-up evaluations. The ability to fully implement professional

3 development programs with guided practice, resources, and support from administration is tantamount to teacher success in the classroom. The gap in the literature supports that if evaluations of these programs are not fully analyzed, the specific needs and goals of educators are not met. In a longitudinal study of K12 teachers participating in professional development, Porter, Garet, Desimone, and Yoon (2000) used self-reports of program impact from 297 teachers and found little change in overall teaching practice after 3 years . . . Teachers changed little in terms of the content they teach, the pedagogy used to teach it, and their emphasis on performing goals for students (p. 70). Some of the teachers did demonstrate a moderate positive change following professional development. Professional development evaluation is not a new topic within the realm of education. Interest has grown tremendously for three important reasons. The first is that educators have gained a better understanding of the dynamic nature of professional development (Lieberman & Miller, 2001) and now view it as an ongoing and continuous process rather than an event (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987; Stigler, 2002; Weinbaum, Allen, Blythe, Simon, & Rubin, 2004). The traditional perspective of professional development as a 3 to 4 day event during the school year has been replaced by a series of extended, job-embedded learning experiences (Iacoboni, 2008; Levin, Belfield, Meunnig, & Rouse, 2007; Marzano, 2007). An important factor is the ability to measure progress in better and more meaningful ways, hence the focus on evaluation. A second reason for the growing interest in professional development evaluation is its increasing recognition as an internal process (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Sparks, 1994). Regardless of the form it takes, professional development within the field of

4 education is a systematic effort to bring about change, but not solely for the sake of change. A third and very important reason for the emphasis on professional development evaluation is the need for better information to guide education reform with greater effectiveness (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Existing evidence has indicated that false or exaggerated claims of success have grounded many school reform strategies. This is primarily due to the lack of better and timelier evaluations of new practice and programs, as well as their implementation (Ingersoll, 2003). Potential users require more detailed information on the effects, conditions of success, cost, and unanticipated effects. The existing system of evaluation, as it relates to the professional development of educators, creates limited effective change in teacher knowledge, skills, school organizations, and increased teaching performance within the classroom. Many professional development programs take a one size fits all approach and do not acknowledge that teachers have unique learning needs that must be met if programs are to be successful (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Consideration of teachers learning styles is vital for understanding and possibly improving professional development because teachers become the students in professional development. The challenge of teaching teachers is that they have a wealth of knowledge and life experiences, are a diverse population and participate in various formats professional development (King & Lawler, 2003). In the current era of high stakes testing it is important that professional development meet the needs of teachers and students to enhance learning for both (Diaz-Maggioli). This is important because if teachers are able to learn more in professional development, they may bring new practices and ideas to the

5 classroom. Further, professional development programs need continuity and adequate follow up (NCES, 2008). The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the importance of evaluating the professional development of elementary-school teachers. According to Sparks (2004): If teachers are to successfully teach all students to high standards, virtually everyone who affects student learning must be learning virtually all the time. That not only includes teachers and principals, but superintendents and other administrators, school board members, and school support staff. Because the vast majority of the decisions about staff development are made in district offices and school improvement team meetings, the urgent pressure that many school leaders feel to improve student learning means that they are interested in knowing . . . if their staff development is making a difference. (p. ix) By studying educator learning styles and teacher self-efficacy, the research will seek to understand how evaluating professional development will maximize teacher effectiveness. Through an analysis of how teachers perceive themselves as effective change agents within the classroom, factors surrounding where and how professional development can become more effective are expected to emerge. The findings will be provided to the professional development committee of the participating school district and administrators within the county who are responsible for the planning and execution of teacher inservice programs. The theoretical foundation of the study is adult learning theory, frequently referred to as age and stage theory. The focus of the construct is on learning styles and

6 preferences of the adult learner. Age theorists are interested in distinct, qualitative differences in modes of thinking that [are] not necessarily age related (Trotter, 2006, p. 8). Stage theorists, however, focus on determining commonalities between adult learners and various life states. Teachers parallel other learners. They progress through developmental stages as they advance in their careers and experience specific needs and crises they must address (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Despite these specific needs, many professional development programs are based on standardized approaches. Consequently, the concept of developmental stages is important to professional development and its evaluation of teachers because it is contrary to the underlying assumption that all teachers must perform at the same level regardless of their particular experiences. In addition to adult learning theory, another important construct to the proposed study is learning-style theory or experimental learning. Kolb (1981) asserted, Each of us develops a unique learning style, which has both strong and weak points (p. 237). Learning-style theorists differ on how to meet the different needs of the various learning styles within each classroom (Muse, 2001). The case study is qualitative in nature to effectively determine the optimal way to evaluate the overall effects of professional development programs. Eight teachers and two staff development specialists within one New York State school district will participate in the research. The teachers will be randomly selected and the staffdevelopment specialists will be purposefully selected. The Guskey (2002) five levels of professional development evaluation will provide structure for implementation and evaluation of specific initiatives. Data will be collected via teacher interviews, observation, and postobservation teacher reflection. Data sources will include the Guskey

7 five levels of evaluation processes to assess professional development practice within the participating district. The data collected in the proposed study will be organized and prepared by a coding system that will identify the professional development processes under study. Data intervals will be coded into a ratio of the number of times each process was mentioned by interviewees, the reflective success of the process or delivery system based upon the reflections of the participants, and interviewee knowledge of the processes implemented. The open coding will include the setting, evaluation of the delivery system, type of professional development, knowledge of professional development, and classroom effectiveness. The open coding process will generate a description of the setting including the type of professional development used, the knowledge and comfort level of the participants, and participant training. The data will be disaggregated by grade level and participant job description, interconnecting the knowledge with the manner in which the participants were trained. Axial coding will facilitate connections between each theme presented by the open coding. The themes will be represented in narrative passages to convey the findings of the analysis. This will include a chronological discussion of events, a detailed discussion of the multiple perspectives of the participants, and a connection between participant training in professional development processes and classroom delivery. The following research questions will guide the proposed study: 1. How can the school district move professional development from initiatives to implementation within the classroom using the five critical levels of

8 evaluation (i.e., participant reaction, participant learning, organizational support, participant use of new knowledge, and student outcomes)? 2. How can the school district identify any difference between the knowledge and skills presented in professional development and classroom implementation? 3. What tools or resources do teachers need to successfully implement professional development initiatives within the classroom? 4. What is the professional development process implemented within the school? 5. What is the content of professional development delivered to teachers? 6. What is the format of professional development delivered to teachers? Today, more productive approaches to investigating the effectiveness of professional development are commonly implemented (Guskey, 2000). The key to greater clarity with regard to the definition of effective professional development rests in the development of stronger theories connecting practices with results (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). An essential aspect is to identify and measure the intervening professional development processes that result in improved student learning (Guskey, 2000).

9 References Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(8), 249 305. Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Fleischman, B. J. (2006). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systematic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643 658. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 3438. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 4551. Iacoboni, L. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Grioux. King, K. P., & Lawler, P. A. (2000). Planning for effective faculty development: Using adult learning strategies. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

10 Kolb, D. A. (1981) Learning styles and disciplinary differences: Diverse pathways. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 5776). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Levin, H., Belfield, C., Meunnig, P., & Rouse, C. (2007). The costs and benefits of an excellent education for all American children. New York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast & Islands. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Muse, F. (2001). A look at teacher to learning styles: Is it really worth the effort? Journal of Correctional Education, 52(1), 7687. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Overview and inventory of state education reforms: 1990-2006. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nations reportcard/states/ Oliva, L., & Pawlas, F. (2004). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teacher. Education Research Quarterly, 24(4), 3443

11 Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915945 Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 15(4), 2629. Sparks, D. (2004). The looming danger of a two-tiered professional development system. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 306306. Stigler, J. (2002). Redesigning professional development: Creating a knowledge base for teaching. ASCD, 59(6), 611. Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as inquiry. New York, NY: Columbia Teachers College Press. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education in Education, 11, 5767.