In the context of developing teaching competencies to benefit the entire educational community (Azparren Legarre, 2022), the present work is a scoping review conducted as part of the broader ProficiencyIES project, funded by the Complutense University of Madrid. ProficiencyIES continues the efforts of ProficiencyIn+E and ProficiencyIn+EDU, two previous projects aimed at improving teacher competencies for inclusive and excellent education. ProficiencyIn+E, a publicly funded project, identified 11 essential teaching competencies for inclusive and excellent educational practices: mastery of subject matter, innovation, adaptation to differences, planning, communication, technology, emotional competencies, ethics, pedagogical leadership, teamwork, and community engagement. Building on these findings, the ProficiencyIn+EDU project developed two training models: an individual self-training model using the ProficiencyIn+Edu® training capsules and a collaborative training model emphasizing group reflection and feedback. Both approaches used the PROFICIENCyIn+E® Rubric for Teaching Competencies (Biencinto et al., 2021) to assess teachers’ competencies and track progress. Despite the success of these projects, limitations were identified in evaluating their broader educational and social impact. To address this, ProficiencyIES aims to advance these efforts by identifying theoretical models and indicators to assess the impact of teacher training programs comprehensively. This scoping review represents the initial phase of this endeavor, synthesizing existing literature from European and international studies to inform a future impact evaluation project.

Impact, in this context, refers to the difference we make in people’s lives as a result of educational programs (Diem, 2004). Based on a literature review, three theoretical models were identified to measure the impact of teacher training programs: Bennett's hierarchical model as adapted to education by Diem (2004), Guskey's model (2002) and Kirkpatrik’s model (2006). Diem’s model comprises seven levels: resources invested; activities carried out; participant characteristics; participant reactions; changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations; changes in teaching practices; and final outcomes. Guskey's model consists of five levels: participant reactions; knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired; organizational support and change; application of acquired knowledge and skills; and student learning outcomes. Kirkpatrick’s model includes four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. After comparing these models, Diem’s model was selected for this study, as it encompasses the key aspects of the other two models. Studies have typically focused on level 5, providing evaluation instruments specifically designed to assess teacher learning resulting from teacher education programs. In this study, we focus on levels 6 (changes in teaching practices) and 7 (final outcomes) of Diem's model because of their significant involvement in the magnitude of the social and educational impact of teacher education programs.

A systematic exploratory review (scoping review) was conducted to identify relevant indicators for assessing the educational and social impact of teacher training programs, specifically focusing on levels 6 and 7 of the proposed framework. The PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018) were followed, and the review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework. Searches were conducted in WoS, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases, utilizing search terms in both English and Spanish: (Impact OR evidence) AND (measurement OR evaluation) AND (teacher training OR professional development OR educational program OR professional learning). Relevant documents were selected based on the inclusion criteria that emphasize studies that focus on teacher training programs or professional development initiatives designed to enhance teaching practices, competencies, and outcomes within educational settings. Priority is given to programs aimed at fostering inclusion and excellence, as these align with the overarching goals of improving both individual teacher capabilities and broader educational impact. The selected studies must include the evaluation of teacher training impact, presenting clear indicators, frameworks, or techniques for measuring changes at various levels, particularly focusing on higher levels of impact, such as changes in teaching practices (Level 6) and societal or educational outcomes (Level 7). Eligible research designs encompass qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches, provided they offer empirical evidence or theoretical insights into impact evaluation, with systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and well-documented case studies included. Special attention is given to research that connects teacher training outcomes with organizational or societal changes, highlighting the broader implications and transformative potential of these programs.

First, the common characteristics of the most effective teacher training programs were identified in the literature, comprising focus on content, active learning, coherence, collaboration, and sustained duration (Desimone, 2009; Desimone & Garet, 2015; Ingvarson et al., 2005). Additionally, three relevant models of impact evaluation in the literature are described and compared (Diem, 2004; Guskey, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), and the main research techniques for each of these levels are synthesized, with mixed methods standing out (Alsalamah & Callinan, 2021). Specifically, for levels 6 and 7, there is evidence of the need to apply these mixed methods to measure whether the program's impact extends to the educational and social levels (primary and secondary students, families, and program trainers). Furthermore, measurement instruments used to evaluate the educational and social impact of teacher training are compiled (Hall, 2006; Senden et al., 2021), highlighting the following three. The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall, 2006) is a framework that helps assess and support the implementation of innovations in educational settings by focusing on teacher concerns and levels of use. It provides a structured approach to understanding how educators adopt and integrate new practices, making it particularly useful for measuring changes in teaching practices (Level 6). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument (Danielson, 2025) is a comprehensive tool that evaluates teaching practices based on four domains: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. Its structured criteria are well-suited for analyzing both the quality of teaching and its broader impact. Lastly, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta & Hamre, 2009) focuses on teacher-student interactions and their impact on student learning and development, providing evidence of educational outcomes at the classroom level (Levels 6 and 7). These tools are highlighted for their versatility, reliability, and relevance to evaluating the educational and social impact of teacher training programs.

Alsalamah, A., & Callinan, C. (2021). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model of training criteria to evaluate training programmes for head teachers. Education Sciences, 11(3), 116. Azparren Legarre, M. P. (2022). The impact of CLIL teacher education on the beliefs of in-service CLIL teachers. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria De Didáctica De Las Lenguas Extranjeras, 47-61. Biencinto, C., García-García, M., Carpintero, E., Villamor, P., & Torrecilla, S. (2021). Psychometric properties of the ProficiencyIn+E rubric: Self-evaluation of teaching skills. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101040 Danielson, C. (2025). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. AsCD. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181-199. Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teacher’s professional development in the United States. Diem, K. (2004). Measuring impact of educational programs. Rutgers Cooperative Extension fact sheet, 869. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching, 8(3), 381-391. Hall, G. E. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational researcher, 38(2), 109-119. Senden, B., Nilsen, T., & Blömeke, S. (2021). Instructional Quality: A Review of Conceptualizations, Measurement Approaches, and Research Findings. En M. Blikstad-Balas, K. Klette, & M. Tengberg (Eds.), Ways of Analyzing Teaching Quality (pp. 140-172). Scandinavian University Press. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215045054-2021-05 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., & Weeks, L. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473.