Week+3+(5.21-5.25)

Return to Weekly Journal Page
The beginning of this week brought a sense of panic because of the very low numbers enrolled in the Tech Camp. None of the sessions would run with the numbers that we had at the beginning of the week. Dr. Kanigsberg was also concerned about the lack of participation and commented that this was unusual. I sent out another email to all staff reminding them of the deadline and once again providing the professional development packet. Karen Holtzapple, who collects and coordinates the registrants' applications, sent out a second draft of the numbers enrolled, which was far more promising. There could be many reasons that the first draft was so low. I felt that perhaps teachers spirits were very low because of all of the changes that are occurring next year (including many building/classroom moves) and were wary to sign up when they knew they would already be spending time in school over the summer packing and unpacking their materials. In the end, I believe it boiled down to procrastination. media type="custom" key="18667308" media type="custom" key="18667314"

One aspect of the PLP project that was under time crunch to be completed by the end of the school year seems to be moving forward. Part of our first day back included giving out T-shirts to each staff member, color coded by the school in which they teach. In order to save a lot of money, we were going to have our High School Graphics Department students print the shirts for us. The year is quickly coming to a close and they will thankfully be printed next week. Our group will need to establish a timeline and some dates that we can meet either physically or virtually to hash out the rest of the details for our first day back events.

My LTMS 520 (assessment) class discussed Donald Kirkpatrick's framework for evaluating training this week. Kirkpatrick is a very well known expert in the field, specifically as it relates to the corporate sector. His four levels of evaluation are as follows. As we discussed them, I was attempting to determine how these levels matched up with what is the current practice of training evaluation at my district (from my perspective).

Level 1:Reactions How was the training? Did the participants enjoy the training? Was it beneficial to them? Typically, these are the evaluations that we fill out at the end of a professional development and also where education stops the evaluation of the training.

Level 2: Learning Did the trainees learn what they were supposed to learn from the training? This is an aspect that education does NOT even remotely touch. I can not imagine a principal walking into a faculty meeting and providing some sort of assessment to determine if the staff actually learned something from the training. The dissent in the room would be palpable. However, is this a practice that should be a part of our evaluation of the professional development experience? Shouldn't teachers take it more seriously? The conversation that we had in our class was very engaging. There are so many nuances to explore.

Level 3: Transfer Is the trainee now using the knowledge that they gained on the job? This is another aspect that is not present in education. For example, this year our grade level had a training on Fundations. Never once did I see my principal, or anyone else, come into my room to observe if I was indeed utilizing that training in my instruction. Why is this?

Level 4: Results:

Measuring the output of the training. Was it effective? The problem that education would run into at this level is that the output is most likely supposed to be student achievement. How do you isolate one training as the source of student achievement when there are so many other factors that could contribute to a child either growing, declining, or plateauing? In a business environment, it is easier to measure the level of output.