2015 ASDN Participant Evaluation/Network Representative Survey Results Executive Summary

2015 ASDN Participant Evaluation/Network Representative Survey Results Executive Summary

Prepared for:

Alaska Staff Development Network

Kelly Tonsmeire, Director

2204 Douglas Highway, Suite100

Douglas, AK 99824

907.364.3809

907.364.3805

www.asdn.org

Prepared by:

Goldstream Group, Inc.

Jennifer Danielson, Evaluation Consultant

Angela Larson, Principal Consultant

PO Box 83418

Fairbanks, Alaska 99708

907.452.4365

907.452.4375

www.goldstreamgroup.com

Introduction

The Alaska Staff Development Network has surveyed professional development participants and network representatives in a similar fashion annually since 2011. The most recent surveys were distributed through Survey Monkey in February 2015 and a link on the ASDN website. The Professional Development Participant Evaluation 1) assessed participants’ satisfaction with the professional development opportunities in which they participated during the previous year and 2) asked participants to detail the professional development they would like to take in the future. The Network Representatives Survey assessed 1) the relevancy of ASDN professional development opportunities to district needs; 2) satisfaction with the quality of ASDN professional development; 3) prioritization of ASDN professional development topic areas; and 4) district self-described professional development needs. Since the survey is similar every year, results can be easily compared.

Survey Response

Network Representative Survey Respondents

Network representatives completed 69 surveys, representing 34 of Alaska’s 53 school districts.

Professional Development Participant Evaluation Survey Respondents

There were 706 valid respondents to the professional development participant survey. Email invitations were sent to 3333 professional development participants. Respondents were asked to indicate their current position. Many (126) held more than one position. Figure 1 shows the distribution.

Figure 1: Participant Evaluation Survey Respondents by Position (n=706)

School District

More than half (54%) of the respondents indicated they work for one of Alaska’s largest school districts: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Juneau, and Kenai (Figure 2). Eleven percent worked for other organizations or school districts outside of Alaska.

Figure 2: Participant Evaluation Survey Respondents by District (n=705)

Participation in ASDN Professional Development

Consistently, for all four years, approximately half (50-52%) of the respondents reported occasionally participating in ASDN professional development (Figure 3). The percent of respondents who reported “rarely” participating in ASDN professional development decreased slightly to 24% in 2014.

Figure 3: Participant Evaluation Survey Respondents reported frequency of ASDN Participation in 2011 (n=1391), 2012(n=898), 2013 (n=908) and 2014 (n=706)

The percent of respondents who indicated they would “probably” or “definitely” participate in future ASDN professional development has increased slightly over the 4 years to 86% (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Participant Survey Respondents’ Reported Likelihood of Participating in ASDN Professional Development Next Year (2011, n=1391; 2012, n=899; 2013, n=906; 2014, n=706)

Program Evaluation: Participant and Network Representative Satisfaction

Participants and network representatives were overwhelmingly positive in their evaluation of the professional development they attended. More than 89% (Figure 5) of participants and 93% of network representatives (Figure 6) agreed or strongly agreed that 1) their organization or school district was satisfied with the professional development ASDN provided over the past year, and that it 2) provided new knowledge and/or skills for participants from their school district, 3) would be used in their organization, and 4) would improve student learning outcomes. The participant positive satisfaction responses decreased slightly or remained the same in 2013 compared to 2012. The network representatives had a ten percent increase in positive satisfaction responses over the same time period, particularly in the improved student learning category (Figure 6).

Figure 5: Participants Evaluation of Professional Development. Percents indicate total agreement with the statement in 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011

Figure 6: Network Representatives Evaluation of Professional Development. Percents indicate total agreement with the statement in 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011

Relevance to Professional Development Needs

More network representatives indicated the professional development was relevant to their district’s needs each year since 2011(Figure 7).

Figure 7: Network Representatives Evaluation of Professional Development Relevancy to Needs in 2014 (n=68), 2013 (n=76), 2012 (n=94) and 2011 (n= 81) Percent indicates total agreement.

Areas of Interest

Figure 8 shows the percentage of participants and network representatives who indicated high or medium priority for each professional development topic. For participants, “Effective Teaching Strategies” and “Effective Assessment Strategies” had the most interest (91% and 84% total medium and high priority). “Multi-grade Instruction” (47%) and “Instructional Leadership for School and District Leaders” (46%) has the least, but still considerable, interest. The network representatives were most interested in “Effective Teaching Strategies”, “Using Data to Improve Student Achievement”, and “Implementing New Math and Language Arts Standards” all with a 93% total for medium and high priority combined.

Figure 8: Participant and Network Representatives Topic Interest

When asked to give a single priority topic, participants chose “Effective Teaching Strategies” (17%) and “Positive Behavior Management” (13%) most often (Figure 9). The distribution of choices has become more evenly distributed over the years. The list of topics was changed for the 2014 survey.

Figure 9: Participants Priority Learning Strategy

The 2014 network representatives (Figure 10) choose “Teacher Evaluation” as their top professional development topic 26% of the time. This topic was new to the survey list this year. “Response to Intervention” has decreased in popularity from 18% last year to 6% this year.

Figure 10: Network Representative Priority Learning Strategy

Write-in Suggestions for Speakers

Anita Archer and Lexie Domaradzki were popular speaker suggestions for both professional development participants and network representatives (Figure 11). Network representatives were interested in a speaker that could present on the Danielson Framework, like Charlotte Danielson or Melissa Linton.

Figure 11: Top Write-in Speaker Suggestions

Write-in Suggestions for Improvement

There was a chance on the survey to suggest improvements that ASDN could make (Figure 12). Of the 441 participants that responded, 180 (41%) thought ASDN was doing a good job. For the network representatives, 65 responded to the open-ended question about improvements and 32 (47%) praised ASDN. Other specific suggestions included additional class offerings in a specialized field, such as counseling, special education, math, and physical education courses; keep prices low, and offer many scheduling options.

Figure 12: Participant Top Write-in Improvement Suggestions

2

ASDN 2014 Survey Results, Executive Summary