1. Measuring Differences in the Quality of Professional Development
Symposium - Evaluating the Quality of Professional Development: Implications for Districts and States
Measuring Differences in the Quality of Professional Development
Michael S. Garet
Kwang Suk Yoon
American Institutes for Research
Andrew C. Porter
Vanderbilt University

2. Focus
How to conceptualize and measure the full set of professional development experiences districts offer and teachers participate in

3. Levels of analysis District portfolio of Professional Development (PD)
Specific PD activities
Specific time-periods during which PD takes place (months, semesters)
Teacher collection of PD experiences

4. Levels of analysis (continued)
District Portfolio
Other PD A1 A2 A3 A4
tp1
tp2
tp1
tp2
tp1
tp1
tp2
tp3
Teacher 1 PD
Teacher 2 PD

5. Features of PD activities
Structural features
Type
Duration (contact hours and span)
Collective participation
Core features
Content focus
Active learning
Coherence

6. Design of MSP evaluation
4 MSP projects
Within each project, 2 groups of teachers
Treatment group: teachers targeted for MSP participation
Comparison group: matched teachers or schools

7. Design of MSP evaluation (cont)
Data on professional development collected through Professional Development Activity Log (PDAL)
teachers provide 1 log on each activity each month
data collected for 15 months (July October 2004)

8. Professional Development Activity Log (PDAL)
                                                                         
Professional Development Activity Log (PDAL)
The PDAL is a web-based, self-administered, longitudinal data collection tool for teachers to record their professional development experiences in detail with the assistance of a series of structured prompts
Teachers log on to their password-protected web account and fill out their PDAL at regular intervals
Visit for more information

10. PDAL data structure (teacher by activity by month)

11. Contact Hours (teacher by activity by month)

12. % of months with PD (math)
0=none, 1=little (10% or less of instructional time), 2=some (11-25%), 3=moderate (26-50%), 4=considerable (51-75%), and 5=almost all (more than 75%).

13. Contact hours by calendar month
0=none, 1=little (10% or less of instructional time), 2=some (11-25%), 3=moderate (26-50%), 4=considerable (51-75%), and 5=almost all (more than 75%).

14. Contact hours per month (math)
0=none, 1=little (10% or less of instructional time), 2=some (11-25%), 3=moderate (26-50%), 4=considerable (51-75%), and 5=almost all (more than 75%).

15. Topic intensity (science)
0=none, 1=little (10% or less of instructional time), 2=some (11-25%), 3=moderate (26-50%), 4=considerable (51-75%), and 5=almost all (more than 75%).

16. Next steps 1. Exploring teachers’ PD experiences
Is there a relationship between PD participation and change in instructional practice and achievement? Which teachers receive high-quality PD?

17. Next steps (cont.)
2. Using the PDAL to examine specific PD activities and portfolios.
Do MSP activities have the intended features? Are some activities of particularly high quality?
3. Examining the reliability and validity of the PDAL

18. Contact Information
Michael S. Garet
Kwang Suk Yoon
Andrew C. Porter
Visit us