1

Running head: PCM AmeriCorps 2018-2019 Evaluation Report 

Evaluation of Play-Based Learning Training on AmeriCorps Members’ Learning Club 

Implementation 

AmeriCorps 2018-2019 Evaluation Report

Providence Children’s Museum

Prepared: Fall 2019
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

2

Table of Contents 

Introduction...................................................................................................5

Research Questions.........................................................................................10

Methods......................................................................................................11

Instruments...................................................................................................12

Pre- and Post-Surveys.............................................................................12

Learning Club Observations.....................................................................13

Lesson Plan Rubric................................................................................14

Students’ Math Pre- and Post-Test..............................................................14

Limitations.........................................................................................15

Findings......................................................................................................15

Pre- and Post-Survey Findings..................................................................15

Pre- and Post-Survey Conclusions..............................................................20

Learning Club Observation Findings............................................................21

Learning Club Observation Conclusions.......................................................24

Lesson Plan Rubric Findings.....................................................................25

Lesson Plan Rubric Conclusions................................................................27

Math Outcomes.............................................................................................28

The Need............................................................................................28

Testing...............................................................................................29

Measurement.......................................................................................30

Performance Measures.....................................................................................30

Conclusion...................................................................................................32

References...................................................................................................34

Appendices...................................................................................................36
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

3

List of Tables and Figures 

Tables

Table 1: PCM’s play training concepts..................................................................9

Table 2: Members’ understanding of play-based learning descriptors.............................16

Table 3: Examples of members’ definitions of play before and after training.....................17

Table 4: Examples of members’ definitions of play-based learning 

 before and after training........................................................................18

Table 5: Average score from first to second observation.............................................22

Table 6: Point increase indicative of level of change in members 

 from first to second observations.............................................................23

Table 7: Members’ lesson plan score distribution....................................................26

Figures

Figure 1: Timeline of data collection and methods used in data collection.......................12

Figure 2: Members’ use of key terms in their definition of play....................................16

Figure 3: Members’ use of key terms in their definition of play-based learning.................17

Figure 4: Members’ familiarity with lesson plans....................................................19

Figure 5: Members’ confidence in observing and discussing play-based learning...............19

Figure 6: Members’ individual score increase from first to second observation..................23
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

4

Executive Summary 

This report presents the findings from the process evaluation conducted by the 

Providence Children’s Museum (PCM) on their AmeriCorps program, MuseumCorps, during the 

September 1, 2018 – August 30, 2019 grant period. MuseumCorps members play an invaluable 

role in bringing the Museum’s play values into the greater Providence community. During their 

service, they reach over 2,000 local families through the Museum’s outreach. Most pertinent to 

this report are their interactions with students in Learning Club, a museum-designed afterschool 

program within Boys and Girls Clubs in Providence and Pawtucket. 

PCM focused its evaluation on the quality of members’ training and implementation of 

the Museum’s play-based learning theory. More specifically, we investigated the effectiveness of 

members’ training to learn if it successfully prepared members to implement play-based learning 

strategies within their Learning Club programs, thereby improving their likelihood to affect 

positive child outcomes. Through pre- and post-surveys, Learning Club observations and 

members’ lesson plans, we learned members improved in their ability to observe and 

communicate play-based learning. The quality of their Learning Club lesson delivery increased,

and we saw a growth in their play-based facilitation strategies. We found that we need to focus 

more time on members’ lesson plan development. Members were able to successfully reference 

PCM’s Learning Frameworks, demonstrating their knowledge of play-based learning theory and 

its link to learning, but they had trouble threading these strategies throughout their lesson 

content. 

This evaluation process has placed PCM in the pre-preliminary tier of the evidence 

continuum. We know members’ knowledge and skill in play-based learning improved with our 

training. Moving forward, we will make minor changes to our training, such as focusing more on 

lesson plan development, to maximize its effectiveness. We will continue to formally assess our 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

5

MuseumCorps program and investigate how play-based learning directly impacts students’ selfefficacy and motivation.

Introduction 

The Providence Children’s Museum’s MuseumCorps program extends the play-based 

mission of the Museum out into the community, ensuring that children from the communities 

that we serve have access to the learning that happens at the Museum. The MuseumCorps 

members focus on a wide range of access points, including Museum Education, park-based 

outreach, and engagement with young learners in Head Start classrooms, but the largest focus of 

their year of service is running Learning Clubs for children in grades 2-4 in an afterschool setting 

at local Boys and Girls Clubs. Learning Clubs are a math intervention that uses STEAM 

activities and play-based learning to strengthen kids’ number sense and measurement skills. In 

teams of 4-5, members spend 4 afternoons a week implementing these lessons to groups of 10-24 

children (groups tend to average around 12-14 students) in 1.5 hour blocks of time. Children 

attend clubs for a minimum of 12 sessions. 

The Learning Club curriculum was developed by PCM Education team staff in 

collaboration with our math coach, Jill Cote. The curriculum is designed to use play to have 

children explore math concepts through STEAM activities. Members begin the year with a full 

set of lessons plans where they are encouraged to notice play and math at work. As time goes on 

the lesson structure is scaffolded so that members are layering in additional math and play as 

they strengthen their experience in those areas, and eventually members have the opportunity to 

write and implement their own lessons. Members participate in weekly coaching with Education 

team staff around lesson implementation and development. 

PCM inspires and celebrates learning through active play and exploration. To us, play is a 

freely chosen process that involves active engagement and is personally directed and intrinsically 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

6

motivated by the child. This is the foundation for all programming – including off-site programs, 

like Learning Club. The Museum has been investigating the power of play and its relationship to 

learning for over ten years. Like play, we see learning as experiential, dynamic and shaped by 

the child and their experiences. From our research, we know play fuels the cognitive, social, 

emotional and psychical development of young children (The LEGO Foundation, 2017). In 

addition, providing children playful opportunities in school-like settings encourages subjectrelated exploration that builds motivation and interest (The LEGO Foundation, 2018). The 

natural relationship between play and learning is the basis of our play-based approach 

implemented in Learning Club. Play, when guided by an adult, actively engages children in 

learning. Guided play is situated between direct instruction and free-play on the educational 

continuum (Weisberg, Hirsch-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013; Weisberg, Hirsch-Pasek, Golinkoff, 

Kittredge, & Klahr, 2016) and is what we model in our Learning Clubs. In trainings, we refer to 

it as “play-based learning.” In this play, educators and children are co-collaborators and learning 

goals are flexible. Lessons highlight children’s interests and promote active engagement (Fisher, 

Hirsh-Pasek, Newcombe, & Golinkoff, 2013). Educators scaffold support to children through 

questions and comments that extend their interests. This prompts deeper exploration, a sense of 

agency, and more active participation (The LEGO Foundation, 2017; Weisberg, Hirsch-Pasek, 

Golinkoff, Kittredge, & Klahr, 2016; Weisberg, Hirsch-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013). 

Knowledgeable and appropriately trained educators are essential in creating an effective playful, 

yet goal-directed, learning environment (Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013). 

Data from the Rhode Island Department of Education shows math comprehension is low 

in Providence area schools. Numbers demonstrate less than half of third graders in Providence 

and Pawtucket are meeting state math test expectations (Rhode Island Department of Education, 

2019). Yet, children can strengthen their learning abilities, outcomes and motivations through 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

7

quality afterschool support and play-based practice (UNICEF, 2018; Vandell, Reisner & Pierce, 

2007; Shernoff, 2010). Learning Club provides Providence youth the opportunity to hone their 

math skills in guided-play afterschool sessions. MuseumCorps members are essential to this 

goal. 

PCM recruits AmeriCorps members beginning in January of each year and continues 

throughout the summer, with the bulk of recruitment taking place in late spring. If needed, a 

second period of recruitment takes place throughout the fall, with new members joining the team 

in December. This cohort was recruited for the 2018-2019 year. Members come to the program 

from diverse backgrounds – age, language, education level – with shared interest in working with 

children and promoting hands-on learning throughout the greater Providence community. 

Members are recruited through both the national AmeriCorps web platform and through a series 

of local engagement strategies, including through our networks and using local posting methods 

such as RICOMJOBS. The PCM AmeriCorps program is committed to recruiting members from 

the communities we serve and has been successful in this endeavor in recent years. More 

recently, PCM has also made use of national college career office tools like Handshake to 

recruit. Applicants to the MuseumCorps program follow a multiple step process, which includes 

submitting an application, supplying supporting information such as resumes and essays, and 

completing an interview that includes teaching a lesson. 

In their role, members work with Museum staff to develop and lead after-school mathfocused STEAM Learning Clubs, implement creative thinking programming in Head Start 

classrooms, deepen the Museum’s connections with the community through park outreach and 

family nights, and facilitate play and learning in the Museum’s hands-on exhibits. MuseumCorps

members are an integral and essential part of the Museum and are the center of our outreach 

efforts. 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

8

In addition to these program activities, PCM places considerable value on member 

development. AmeriCorps members take part in at least 140 hours of in-depth training 

throughout their service. They undergo this intensive training as part of their year of service, 

both to ensure they are able to implement our programs successfully but also to grow as 

professionals. Museum education staff (2.23 FTE) lead trainings, with support from additional 

Museum staff. Staff have significant experience in developing and implementing hands-on 

programs for children. Members also receive guidance from PCM’s math consultant, Jill Cote. 

Jill has worked with the Museum for three years and has extensive experience as an elementary 

school classroom teacher. She was a founding member of a charter school, helping to develop 

the school’s programs, and has worked with AmeriCorps members in educational settings in past 

roles.

At the beginning of their term, members undergo pre-service training (PST), a three week 

(September start members) or two week (December start members) intensive training that covers 

essentials about the Museum, Learning Club, Head Start, and the AmeriCorps program. After 

that, members participate in both weekly coaching with Education team staff and have a twohour “brown bag” training each week, a formal training with a range of topics. Three to four of 

these “brown bag” sessions are developed by Jill Cote and are dedicated to math expectations 

and standards for children in grades 2-4. They provide members with strategies and examples of 

how to communicate and build on math concepts and allow members to address math-related 

questions and challenges they encounter in the Learning Club setting. 

Members use their training in Learning Club and throughout all of their community 

engagement initiatives. Overall, members develop their play-based practice through interactions 

with over 2000 families from Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls. 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

9

For this evaluation, we focused on our play trainings, a six-part series that covers the 

play-based theories, background, tools, and strategies that make our work unique and provide the 

foundation for our approach (see Table 1). Trainings have been developed over time by an 

interdepartmental team made up of staff from the education, visitor services, exhibits and 

research departments. They have been revised and expanded upon as the Museum has grown in 

expertise. Three of the trainings (What is Play, Learning Through Play, and Adult’s Role in 

Play) take place during pre-service training. The remaining three (The Learning Frameworks, 

Observation, and Facilitation) take place later in the year once members have had the 

opportunity to incorporate their real-world practice into their reflections and learning. 

Table 1

PCM’s play training concepts

What is Play? An introduction to PCM’s play theory. Members start with a play memory 

and build a list of shared features. Discussions and reflections are led 

around themes such as play as a natural and holistic learning strategy;

fueled by self-direction and self-determination. Members build their 

understanding that play is needed for the development of children and 

learn of the play deficit facing today’s children. 

In this session, MC members are also introduced to idea of play-based 

learning and learn its roots are based in free-play.

Learning Through Play An in-depth session which expands on members’ understanding of play. 

Members are led through a series of experiences to discover why play is so 

important—the learning that happens naturally in free play such as 

exposure to new ideas, skills, abilities, attitudes and processes. 

Members immerse themselves in a play experience and use a playobservation tool to make the learning through play more visible. 

Developmental capacities (social, emotional, cognitive, and physical) that 

are strengthened through play are reviewed. 

Further discussion of the AC role in engaging children and families in 

different types of free play in different contexts. Comparisons are made to 

formal vs informal learning and environments.

Adult’s Role in Play A session dedicated to the role of adults in a free-play environment.

Members consider the layers of adult engagement and are prompted by 

staff to discuss and reflect on experiences. THE LAND: An adventure play 

documentary by New Day Films is presented. This documentary used 

widely by educators and play advocates, designers and parents as a tool to 

launch robust conversations about play, risk, freedom and children's 

culture. Members engage in deep discussion following the showing. 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

10

Learning Frameworks This session focuses on the Museum’s Learning Frameworks. It explores 

different types of play (child directed, child led, etc.) and introduces the 

link between play, learning and exploration. It clearly defines how the 

Museum views learning. Members consider their personal learning 

experiences and relate these experiences to the components related to 

learning (experiential, dynamic, physical, social, emotional, and cultural). 

Observation A session highlighting the importance of observing children’s experiences 

and what can be learned from it. Members work with the Museum 

researcher to define observation and strategize how it can be used in 

practice. Members then practice their observation skills on the museum 

floor. Observation reflection is included at the end of session. Members 

consider the challenges of observation, the pros and cons and discuss 

actions and behaviors they witnessed. They then think about what they 

learned from their observations. 

Facilitation Techniques This session breaks down the Museum’s three most important facilitation 

techniques: hands-in-pocket, open-ended questioning and observation. 

These techniques are important in providing children an open-ended play 

experience. Members hear about these strategies in-depth and are then 

asked to practice the techniques with each other through role play. 

Members then discuss challenges and benefits to each facilitation approach 

and how they can be used in combination. 

Research Questions 

Members lead Learning Club sessions three times throughout the academic year and once 

in the summer. Each session consists of a minimum of twelve 1.5-hour long programs. Children 

take pre- and post-tests to measure their math abilities. Over the course of the program, we want 

to see changes in children’s math knowledge, skills, and attitudes. We know that proper 

facilitator training and implementation are crucial to these outcomes. Thus, we have focused our 

evaluation on the Museum’s training process. Our research questions are as follows:

• To what extent are members receiving the required training to effectively implement

play-based learning theory in their programs?

• To what extent is the Learning Club curriculum, which includes play-based learning,

being implemented at each site with the intended program beneficiaries at the intended

dosage?
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

11

• To what extent has the Learning Club experience improved children’s mathematics

skills/understanding?

This report is broken down into five sections; these sections contain a description of our

methodologies and instruments, an in-depth account of our findings, student math outcomes, 

performance measure review and a conclusion. Our methodologies include subcategories listing 

the methods for each evaluation method that we used while our findings include subcategories 

highlighting each component of the evaluation and its implementation. At the end of each 

finding subcategory, we draw conclusions and discuss implications.

Methods 

Before starting the evaluation process, we needed to identify where PCM fell on the 

evidence continuum. We determined our AmeriCorps program fell between the no evidence and 

pre-preliminary tiers using the evidence guidelines set by the Corporation for National 

Community Service. In the past, we have collected systematic data to inform our logic model –

fueling Learning Club’s need in the community. We also continuously tested our program 

participants in math efficiency through pre- and post-tests (this data measurement will be 

discussed further in the Math Outcomes subcategory in this report). However, because we have 

never systematically formalized data collection or our reporting, we felt this project needed to 

place us firmly within the pre-preliminary tier of the evidence continuum. A process evaluation 

was the best way to do this. We chose a process evaluation to examine our inputs into Learning 

Club – specifically member development. Members’ knowledge and skill in play-based learning 

is a key component in improving students’ math self-efficacy, interest and motivation in 

Learning Club. Before formally assessing student outcomes, we needed to learn if our training 

was providing our members with the tools they needed to successfully and confidently 

implement play-based math learning. This evaluation focused on the training and development of 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

12

15 MuseumCorps program members. The 2018-2019 cohort originally had 17 members. 

However, two left the program for compelling circumstances. As a result, they were not included 

in analysis. Data collection occurred in different capacities throughout the year. See Figure 1 for 

a visual timeline. 

Figure 1. Timeline of data collection from members and methods used

Instruments 

Pre- and Post-Surveys 

Members were asked to complete a pre-training survey at the start of their service and a 

post-training survey at the end of their four-month training. Members who started in December 

received their post-survey after their intensive one-month training. Members were given ten 

minutes to complete the surveys. Our Spanish speaking members were given additional time, if 

needed and encouraged to respond in Spanish. These surveys were later translated by a Spanishspeaking member of staff. Fifteen out of seventeen members completed both the pre- and postsurveys. One member left the program prior to our post-survey distribution and the other’s presurvey was not documented. Both pre- and post-surveys focused on members’ understanding of 

play, play-based learning and confidence levels about implementing play-based learning at 

Learning Club. Only the final two questions changed from the pre- to post-survey. In the pre-
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

13

survey, the questions highlighted possibilities and questions related to play-based learning while 

the questions in the post-survey were intended to have members reflect on the methods they 

learned or witnessed over time. Both pre- and post-surveys can be found in Appendix A and B at 

the end of this document. 

Learning Club Observation 

Using a set observation instrument, our Museum’s AmeriCorps Associate conducted two 

rounds of Learning Club lesson observations for each member (n=15). PCM’s Museum 

Researcher and an external evaluator established the observation instrument in March of 2019 

with the help of the Museum’s Education Department. Prior to implementation, the team 

validated the tool using a facilitator training video provided by Marbles Kids Museum located in 

Durham, NC. The team watched the video together and individually scored the facilitator in the 

video using the rubric. They then reviewed the scoring, talked through any large discrepancies, 

and discussed changes that needed to be made. Observations began in late March of 2019 and 

continued throughout May 2019. Our AmeriCorps Associate conducted each observation and 

scored members on three major components: rapport with students, lesson implementation, and 

facilitation strategies. The scoring also included a scoring for member preparedness. The 

associate noted play-based learning principles present in the lesson as well as logistical details

like who was being observed, the date, location, lesson plan, the members’ role in the lesson, the 

number of children present, and if this was the first or second observation. She observed two 

members per Learning Club session. Members were able to pick their own observation time. 

This gave them control over a somewhat intimidating circumstance and provided them with the 

opportunity to mentally prepare for the lesson. The day after the first observation, members met 

with our associate for a post-observation discussion and to review their scoring. Questions in the 

post-observation discussion focused on how members felt throughout the lesson – their comfort 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

14

level, how they incorporated play, and the facilitation strategies that felt most/least comfortable. 

Members’ second round of observations were conducted 4-5 weeks after their first. They were 

scored using the same instrument. Again, a discussion followed members’ second observations. 

Questions were the same with an additional question comparing their experience and growth to 

their first observed lesson. A copy of the observation instrument is included in Appendix C. 

Lesson Plan Rubric 

Towards the end of their service, we asked members to write their own play-based lesson 

plan. Members were given the option to implement their lesson plan at Learning Club but this 

was not required. Members used a blank lesson plan outline provided by the Museum and were 

given 3-4 weeks to complete and submit their lesson. Members were familiar with the format of 

this outline because it was used over the course of their year for play-based lesson plans 

developed by the Museum. Our AmeriCorps Associate provided limited feedback to members if 

they sought guidance or if the lesson was going to be implemented in Learning Club. After 

submission, the Associate and Museum Researcher used the Museum’s newly developed rubric 

to grade members’ lessons. The lesson plan rubric graded members’ lessons on various lesson 

plan components. A draft of the rubric was established by the outside evaluator. It was edited and 

finalized by the Museum Researcher and the Education team. Together, they decided on the 

weight of each element. Most heavily weighted was the lessons link to play-based learning. See 

Appendix D for the complete lesson plan rubric used for this part of the evaluation and the 

Lesson Plan Rubric Findings section for details regarding grading.

Students’ Math Pre- and Post-Test

Students’ math progress was measured using the Monitoring Basic Skills Progress 

Assessment (MBSP) tool. This was a pre- and post-test measurement that did not change in 

difficulty from pre to post. Students were given the pre-test at the start of the Learning Club 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

15

experience. After twelve sessions, they were given the post test. For more information on MBSP, 

see the Testing subcategory in the Math Outcomes section of this report. 

Limitations 

There were several limitations with the methods used this evaluation. Surveys, though 

easy to implement, rely on members’ self-report. Respondents can be unclear in their answers, 

decidedly skip questions, or inflate their responses. Pre- and Post-surveys are also inflexible in 

their design. After our first round of implementation, we found a section of the survey that did 

not provide us with meaningful data. Changing it before the post-survey would have limited the 

pre/post comparison. 

Asking members to be observed can make them nervous. There is also the 

unpredictability of the sessions. As stated previously, all Learning Club sites and sessions are 

different. Timing, content, attendance and even member roles change from session to session. 

All of these variables could impact how a member performs. 

Finally, members were asked to complete their lesson plans in English. This could have 

been a barrier for our English Language Learners and affected their score. 

Findings 

Pre- and Post-Survey Findings 

Surveys show that both before and after training, all but one member had a high 

understanding of play-based learning when asked to categorize the descriptors on the survey 

(e.g., is open-ended, has multiple entry points, etc.). Members needed to categorize 6-8 playbased learning descriptors correctly to be considered as having a “high understanding.” As a 

result, no knowledge development was documented by this measurement. The member who 

scored a medium understanding in the pre-survey was not the same member who scored a 

medium understanding in the post-survey. See Table 2 for more detail.
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

16

Table 2

Members’ understanding of play-based learning by descriptors

High Understanding 

(6-8)

Medium Understanding

(3-5)

Low Understanding

(0-2)

Pre-Survey 14 1 0

Post-Survey 14 1 0

To analyze members’ definitions of play and play-based learning, we searched their 

responses for key words that PCM uses in our definitions. For play, we looked for language 

related to child-directed, active engagement, and unstructured and/or free. For play-based 

learning, we looked for word variations on child-centered, hands-on, and open-ended and/or 

exploratory. We found an increase of words associated with a conceptual and practical 

understanding of play and play-based learning from pre to post survey – with child-directed 

(play) and child-centered (play-based learning) vocabulary demonstrating the most growth. 

Figure 2. Members’ use of key terms in their definition of play
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

17

Figure 3. Members’ use of key terms in their definition of play-based learning 

We also looked at members’ definitions more broadly. Below, we have highlighted four 

definitions of play and play-based learning that we believe exemplify the development of 

members’ definitions and deepening understanding over time. 

Table 3

Examples of members’ definitions of play before and after training

Definitions of Play Before 

Training 

Definitions of Play After 

Training

Member 

Ex 1

Acts in which people use 

their imagination and 

creativity to channel physical 

activity, create stories, or 

otherwise amuse themselves.

Play is a freely-chosen 

activity following a child’s 

interest and unburdened by 

objectives. In other words, a 

child (or adult) choose an 

activity, based on their 

interests without a final goal.

Member 

Ex 2

Play is to be active, to learn, 

open-minded, perseverance.

Play is a form of learning. 

When you’re playing you are

learning; getting your handson things; actively engaging, 

your exploring, they decide to 

do it their own way, with 

their interests.

Member

Ex 3

Having fun in a carefree 

manner.

Freely exploring an 

undirected activity for 

personal enjoyment.

Member 

Ex 4

An activity that brings joy to 

many people of all ages.

Play is an integral part in a 

child’s development. It 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

18

encourages activity, 

imagination and cognitive 

development.

Table 4

Examples of members’ definitions of play-based learning before and after training

Definitions of Play-Based 

Learning Before Training 

Definitions of Play-Based 

Learning After Training

Member

Ex 1

Activities in which people 

use the same imagination and 

creativity used in play to 

explore a learning objective 

and find a sense of fun and a 

deeper understanding in the 

concept.

Play-based learning is the 

learning done through freeplay or guided-play. Here 

children are encouraged to 

play within a concept in the 

hopes of guiding learning but 

there is still no final goal. If 

they explore bridges without 

actually making one, they are 

not penalized for not having a 

final product.

Member

Ex 2

Engaging with material in a 

creative and exciting way; 

there is no right or wrong 

way to do this and people are 

allowed to explore what suits 

them best.

A learning approach that is 

hands-on, open-ended, and 

intrinsically motivates a child 

by building on their interest.

Member

Ex 3

Happens with most play, may 

be most effective with 

intentional (loose?) direction 

or set up or with 

active/critical reflection.

Happens to varying degrees 

every time play happens. All 

play involves social, spatial 

mathematical, logical, 

physical, emotional, scientific 

or some other types of 

learning, even if it is not 

noted or pointed out. The 

more open-ended and child 

led the play is the more types 

of learning are likely to 

occur.

Member

Ex 4

Learning that relies on the 

child’s own interest and 

creativity to reach the 

learning objective.

Guided learning through play, 

themes are included in 

activity that support 

frameworks that will help 

grow child’s understanding.

The majority of survey questions focused on members’ confidence, comfort and ease in 

developing and implementing play-based learning theories in Learning Club. In-depth analysis of 

these questions shows an average increase of 3.3 points in members’ abilities after training 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

19

concluded. Questions that highlighted the most change were members’ familiarity with lesson 

plans (Figure 4) and their confidence in observing and discussing play-based learning (Figure 5). 

Questions that showed limited growth were members’ comfort in working with 2nd-4th graders, 

the ease of bringing play-based learning into a formal learning environment, and their confidence 

in facilitating play-based learning lessons. 

Figure 4. Members’ familiarity with lesson plans

Figure 5. Members’ confidence in observing and discussing play-based learning
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

20

Pre- and Post-Survey Conclusions

Though we did not quantify any pre/post development through the categorization of playbased learning descriptors, growth was clear in members’ written definitions of play and playbased learning. Their definitions showed a richer, more articulate understanding of the 

Museum’s play theory. However, members’ confidence in working with 2nd-4th graders and in 

the facilitation of play-based learning showed little change from pre-training to post-training. 

While we expected to see growth in members’ facilitation confidence, it makes sense their 

comfort level in working with children remained unchanged. Members’ come to us from diverse 

backgrounds, but all share a strong interest in working with children. In fact, many have prior 

experience working with children – in both formal and informal settings. In thinking about 

members’ unchanged facilitation confidence, we’ve considered two options. The first could be 

contributed to the survey’s self-report measure. Members at the start of the program could have 

overestimated their knowledge and confidence in the delivery of play-based learning and only at 

the end of training were they accurately reporting their confidence levels. The second could be 

the timing of post-survey implementation. Surveys were given after six months of training—only 

halfway through their experience. It would be interesting to see how their confidence might have 

grown after their entire 11-month service. Implementing a third and final survey at this time is 

something we aim to do in the future. Where we see our largest gains are in members’ familiarity 

with lesson plans and in their ability to observe and communicate play-based learning. The latter 

is supported by the growth in vocabulary we saw in their definitions. From this, we can conclude 

that PCM’s in-depth play-based learning training provided members with the skills to recognize 

play-based learning in practice and communicate it clearly to others. 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

21

Learning Club Observation Findings 

Participants of Learning Club are 2nd to 4th graders attending Boys’ and Girls’ Club 

afterschool programming in the greater Providence area. There is an average of eight to fifteen 

children in each club. Our MuseumCorps members are divided into four teams of 4-5 members. 

Members work together to decide what roles to fill within the group. There are opportunities to 

lead lessons, support lessons, prep for lessons, etc. Some teams rotate roles while others do not. 

We visit six Boys and Girls Clubs throughout the year. Five of these clubs (Southside, Fox Point, 

Wanskuck, Manton, and Hartford) are under the Boys and Girls Clubs of Providence umbrella, 

and one, the Pawtucket Boys and Girls Club, is a standalone. During the school year, we go all 

year, four days per week, to Pawtucket and Southside, where with other clubs, we rotate days 

and/or seasons. In summer, we run programming four days per week at two clubs: Fox Point and 

Wanskuck. Learning Club sessions are intended to be a full ninety minutes but are often cut short 

due to transition times within the afterschool program (like switching from snack or dinner to the 

club) or shaping the Learning Club program to the overall Boys and Girls Club structure that 

requires more time than anticipated. It is important to note that all six clubs are operated 

separately; therefore, they are very distinct from one another. They have different levels of 

rigidity (some sites require Learning Club attendance while others do not), site staff roles and 

dynamics, physical club environments, and discipline support.

While these differences are present, most Learning Club sessions have three distinct 

parts: the warm-up, the lesson, and clean-up. Some warm-ups tie into lessons and some are 

separate. Members are expected to plan for warm-ups and lessons on their lesson planning 

sheets. Members are prepared to facilitate Learning Clubs during pre-service training, during 

weekly coaching, and during brown bag trainings throughout the year. Beyond our play training 

described earlier, we train members in behavior management, developmental stages and 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

22

milestones, prototyping lessons and activities, and setting up learning environments. Members 

are also expected to reflect frequently and use a daily and weekly debrief sheet to talk out issues. 

During weekly coaching, members are able to reflect, debrief, and problem solve with each 

other, including other teams, and with Education Department staff. 

Overall, members demonstrated growth in their Learning Club implementation from their 

first to second observation. Members’ were able to score up to 16 points in each major category 

(rapport, lesson delivery, and facilitation). When we calculated the cohort’s average score, we 

saw a point increase across all three categories.

Table 5

Average score from first to second observation

Rapport Lesson Facilitation

First Observation 11.5 13.1 10.7

Second Observation 13.9 14.9 13.2

Point Increase 2.4 1.8 2.5

Individually, we looked at the score difference between members’ first observation score 

and their second for each category. We considered members with more than a 4 point increase to 

show a “high” change, members with a 2-3 point increase to show an “average/average plus” 

change, members with a 0-1 difference to show a “below average” change and those with 

negative points to show a “low” change. Only one member demonstrated a “low” change in one 

category: lesson delivery. This sounds drastic but this member received a perfect score (16/16) 

for their lesson delivery in their first observation – only losing one point in their second (15/16). 

Factors that could have contributed to this negative change could have been the number of 

children in the session, the lesson flexibility or content or the level of support provided from 

other members. All other members showed growth or remained the same across all other 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

23

categories. Our largest change came in facilitation—nine members scored 2-3 points higher in 

this category during their second observation while three members scored 4-6 points higher. 

Table 6

Point increase indicative of level of change in members from first to second observations

Level of Change Point Increase

High 4 & up

Average/Average + 2 to 3

Below average 0 to 1

Low -1 and below

Figure 6. Members’ individual score increase from first to second observation

Members’ lesson preparedness remained the same from first to second observations with 

all members receiving a check for five major components (followed lesson plan, room prepared, 

materials prepared, materials accessible, and clean up initiated). The play-based learning 

principles we were looking for in our lessons were: open-endedness (not directive), encouraged 

exploration, provided multiple entry points, was process-driven (not product-driven), promoted 

active engagement and included multisensory components. While the type of play-based 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

24

principles presented in members’ lessons varied from first to second observation, all members 

used at least three listed principles in both sessions. Seven members showed an increase of 1-2

principles in their second lesson observation and four members implemented five out of six 

principles. 

Learning Club Observation Conclusions 

Members’ skills in Learning Club lesson delivery increased from our first observation to 

our second. We saw major growth in facilitation scores with 12 members increasing two or more 

points. Members’ first post-observation discussion could contribute to this growth. In this 

discussion, we included a series of questions related to facilitation reflection. We asked members 

to consider the facilitation strategies that felt most comfortable and how the strategies helped 

them achieve their lesson’s learning goals. We also asked them which strategies felt 

uncomfortable and which they would like to continue to grow in. We intended these questions to 

focus their attention on facilitation strategies and consider ones they may have overlooked. This 

activity provided an opportunity to expand their more formal training, to think about their jobembedded performance.

When reviewing members’ use of play-based learning principles, we found that “openended (not directive)” was the most utilized principle. All but one member used this principle 

throughout both observations. Seven of our members increased in their principle use (increasing 

in 1-2 principles) from first to second observation and all members used at least three principles 

throughout both. Yet, scoring for principles of play-based learning proved to be difficult. As 

mentioned above, there was little consistency as to which principles members utilized and we 

saw three members lose a principle from first to second observation. This might have to do with 

the type of lesson. Lesson content can cater towards different principles – focusing on some 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

25

more than others. It could also have to do with the day the lesson was being presented/observed. 

Many lessons take place across two sessions. The first is often a more directive, introductory

lesson. The second is more open-ended and exploratory. If we observed a lesson on its first day, 

members may have not had the opportunity to put certain principles into practice. 

Finally, while we did not conduct an in-depth analysis of members’ post-observation 

discussions, we believe the questions prompted members to reflect on their implementation 

practice. We informally noted members’ eagerness to review their performance with our 

associate and plan to continue to do this with future cohorts. Looking back, we should have 

documented conversations more formally. 

Lesson Plan Rubric Findings 

The current Learning Club curriculum was developed by PCM Education team staff in 

collaboration with our math coach, Jill Cote, and with input from MuseumCorps alumni. Rather 

than a set curriculum, we use a lesson plan “menu,” and have a number of lessons that 

MuseumCorps members can shape around a theme and order in ways that make sense to their 

team and site. These lessons were built off original member lessons, core Museum programs, and 

Education staff experiences. The first set of lessons, which members use at the beginning of the 

year, are complete and ready to go. The second set, which members begin to use in the winter, 

have blank spaces where members need to fill in math and play to notice the Learning 

Frameworks on their own. In the spring, once members have mastered the lessons provided and 

have been able to work with Education staff in coaching to fill in the blanks and reflect on their 

second set of lessons, members are able to develop and implement their own lessons. This offers 

a scaffolded approach that allows the lessons to feel cohesive with the math goals and the playbased learning mission of the MuseumCorps program while allowing the members to grow in 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

26

confidence and practice as educators. All member-developed lessons are approved by Education 

staff prior to being implemented in club. 

All lessons use the same template whether part of the original curriculum or memberdeveloped. Many lessons are designed to be used over two Learning Club sessions, though not 

all of them, and members are able to shrink or extend lessons to meet club logistics and/or 

participant interest. All lessons fall under the STEAM umbrella and use a play-based approach to 

solidify the practice of math skills and instill creative confidence with kids. The lesson plan 

format used in this evaluation was the standardized lesson plan format that the Museum uses for 

all Learning Club activities and was therefore familiar to AmeriCorps members. 

Our lesson plan rubric highlighted ten components of the lesson plan outline. Each 

element was weighted by importance with members being able to score a maximum of 120 

points. The Museum’s Researcher and the AmeriCorps Associate reviewed and scored members’ 

lesson plans together and agreed on each element’s score before moving onto the next. 

Combined, members’ overall scores averaged 78.6 points (SD=15.8, Range: 49-100). For 

analysis we broke these scores into the same categories we used for each rubric element (exceeds 

expectations, meets expectations, needs improvement, and does not meet expectation). Five 

members exceeded expectations with scores over 90 points while one failed to meet 

expectations, scoring under 50. See Table 7 for members’ full score distribution. 

Table 7

Members’ lesson plan score distribution

Exceeds 

Expectations 

(Above 90)

Meets 

Expectations 

(70-90)

Needs 

Improvement

(50-69)

Does Not Meet 

Expectation 

(Under 50)

Number of 

Members 5 4 5 1

We also broke down members’ scores by each individual element. From this, we wanted 

to see which lesson plan components members were most successful in and which needed 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

27

improvement. Members’ most successful element was the Lesson Overview. Twelve of our 15

members received 4-5 points on this component. The second most successful element was the 

lesson’s reference to PCM’s Learning Framework. The Learning Framework is a written 

document that includes the Museum’s principles related to play and learning. In it, we define our 

learners, how they learn, and how they play. We also consider the defining features of our 

museum experiences (both in the museum and in outreach). Eight members exceeded 

expectations in this element, clearly referencing the Learning Framework and appropriately 

listing the types of play and learning taking place throughout the lesson. 

Elements that demonstrated a need for improvement were our most important elements: 

the lesson’s link to play-based learning and the link to math. Members’ scores were much more 

varied in these elements. Seven of our members needed improvement or did not meet 

expectations in their understanding of play-based learning, while five members needed 

improvement or did not meet expectations in their understanding of grade appropriate math links. 

All five members who needed improvement or did not meet expectations in their lesson’s link to 

math were included in the seven who needed improvement or did not meet expectations in their 

understanding of play-based learning. This suggests there was a subset of members who could 

have benefited from additional training focusing on a review of play-based learning within a 

lesson and making math connections within play-based learning. 

Lesson Plan Rubric Conclusions

Members scored an average of 78.6 points on their lesson plans. If members scored over 

90 points, their lessons exceeded expectations. We had five members exceed expectations, four 

meet expectations, five needing improvement, and one not meeting expectations. The Lesson

Overview was our most successful element. However, it was also the easiest component of the 

lesson plan outline. Members only needed to communicate the purpose of the lesson clearly and 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

28

comprehensively to receive the highest number of points available. More meaningful to us, was 

the second most successful element: the lesson’s reference to PCM’s Learning Framework. This 

suggests members are knowledgeable about the Museum’s play theory and its link to learning. 

They can clearly communicate its components and can identify it throughout their lessons. 

Members’ lesson plans were lacking in their link to play-based learning and to math. 

Moving forward, we should focus more explicitly on these two elements in our pre-written 

lesson plans. While we believe members understand these key elements, they may need more 

support in translating these principles to fit a formalized lesson plan in which they are the sole 

writer. Another thing to consider when looking at our Lesson Plan Rubric data, the number of 

members in our cohort who are English Language Learners. Four of our members list English as 

their second language. This could have impacted their lesson plan writing and, ultimately, their 

scores. The timing we implemented for our lesson plan evaluation was also not ideal. Lessons 

were due at the end of June –the start of summer and a busy time. Members could have been 

distracted with other responsibilities or felt the fatigue of the program, not dedicating the proper 

time and attention to their lesson plan. 

Math Outcomes

The Need

Children’s overall math performance in the country remains low. The Nation’s Report 

Card assessment in 2019 shows only 41% of 4th graders in the United States are performing at or 

above proficiency level. By 8th grade, that percentage decreases to 34%, and by the 12th grade, 

only 25% are considered proficient (Nationsreport card.gov, 2019). Furthermore, Rhode Island 

state trends shows math comprehension in the Providence City School District to be even lower 

than the national average. Only 35% of 3rd graders met or exceeded overall expectations in the 

RICAS math assessment in 2018 while 8th graders are at 23% (Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

29

2019). These percentages are particularly alarming as math continues to be an essential skill for 

the 21st century. Math confidence is critical not only to workplace competency (National 

Research Council, 2009) but in everyday life as well. 

In their book highlighting research related to mathematics in early childhood, the 

National Research Council (2009) is particularly concerned about the low performance levels of 

students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Children living in poverty are likely to 

have difficulty in school – they are less likely to attend preschool, more likely to go to a school 

with limited resources and have little opportunity to engage in extracurricular activities (Rhode 

Island KIDS COUNT, 2019). As of 2017, 17% of children in the state of Rhode Island were 

living in poverty. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those children were from four main cities: Central 

Falls, Pawtucket, Providence and Woonsocket. These are four cities in which we conduct our 

Learning Club programming. As of 2018, only 22% of low-income 3rd graders in Rhode Island 

met the RICAS math expectations (Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, 2019).

Testing

We measured Learning Club participants’ math progress using the Monitoring Basic 

Skills Progress (MBSP) Assessment Tool from PRE-Ed, Inc. Children in grades 2-4 received a 

pre-test at the start of their Learning Club participation and a post-test at the end. Tests are a 

research-based standardized set of measurement. They are designed in accordance with the 

curriculum-based measurement (CBM) model and do not change in difficulty. Because of this, 

students’ increasing score reflects improvement in the students' math abilities. In 2nd and 3rd

grade, the test includes things like counting, number concepts, name of numbers, measurement, 

money, charts and graphs, fractions, decimals, applied computations, and word problems. Fourth 

grade focuses additionally on vocabulary, grid reading, and area and perimeter.
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

30

Again, tests are administered at the beginning of children’s Learning Club participation. 

Members use the initial results to inform activity development (e.g., if children scored low on 

charts and graphs then members will have children record data during STEM activities in graph 

or chart form). After 12 Learning Club sessions, children were given the assessment again. 

Measurement

The level of improvement that is required for a child to be counted under our 

improvement measure is 10%. This percentage was selected because the Monitoring Basic Skills 

Progress math manual indicates that the average normative score increase, over the course of a 

semester, for children in the 25th percentile is 12% in a classroom setting. As children who attend 

Learning Club are from schools that have less than a 30% math proficiency and are being 

assessed in an after-school setting with only 12 contacts (rather than a full semester), a 10% goal 

was rigorous. The results of the math performance are discussed under Performance 

Measurement #3.

Performance Measures

PCM listed three performance measures for the 2018-2019 AmeriCorps National and 

Community Service grant. These measures quantify the: 

1. Number of students who started in a Learning Club program

2. Number of students who completed a Learning Club program

3. Number of students with improved performance in math

We surpassed two out of three our performance measures. Our third measure, on paper,

did not reach its intended target number and is discussed Performance Measure #3, listed on the 

following page. In reviewing Performance Measures #1 and #2, we see that our Learning Club 

curriculum was implemented effectively across sites. We surpassed our intended number of 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

31

program beneficiaries and saw growth in children completing the intended number of Learning 

Club sessions.

Performance Measure #1

Title Number of students who started in the Learning Club program

Indicator ED1: Number of students who start in an CNCS-support education 

program

Target Value 250 students

Actual Performance 286 students

Explanation Children must attend Learning Club two or more times to be counted 

in this measure. We have achieved 114% of our target for the 2018-

2019 year. 

Performance Measure #2

Title Number of students who completed a Learning Club program

Indicator ED2: Number of students completing a CNCS-supported education 

program

Target Value 165 students

Actual Performance 190 students

Explanation Children must attend Learning Club 12 or more times to be counted 

in this measure. We have achieved 115% of our target for the 2018-

2019 year. 

Performance Measure #3

Title Number of students with improved performance in math

Indicator ED4: Number of students with improved literacy and/or math

Target Value 122 students

Actual Performance 63 students

Explanation Our actual performance was lower than our target value. We met 

52% of our goal. However, after further analysis, we found that 87% 

of students who made progress in their math performance began with 

pre-test scores below 50%. This suggests students who demonstrated 

growth were ones who needed it most. 

We have established that our testing instrument is no longer aligned 

to Common Core standards and therefore imperfect. We believe this 

had a major effect on student measurement. If the test is not aligned 

to what is being learned within Learning Club, it is likely to be 

unsuccessful. Working with our math consultant, we identified 

within our testing instrument a series of questions that were 

“aligned,” meaning those questions matched up with up-to-date 

Common Core standards and our Learning Club curriculum. When 

considering only the answers to those “aligned” questions, 92 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

32

students (75% of our target), showed 10% or more growth from preto post-test. 

We are also aware that the 10% marker we use to determine growth 

was too high. When we think about the average normative score 

increase over the course of the semester, set by the Monitoring Basic 

Skills progress manual, we see 12% in the classroom setting. If 

students engage in math studies for an hour a day throughout a 

semester, that is a total of 75 hours. Students attending Learning 

Club, however, engage in 18 hours (1.5 hours x 12 sessions) of math 

studies at most. That is roughly 1⁄4 of classroom time. With the 

Monitoring Basic Skills progress manual being 12%, we calculated 

1⁄4 of that percentage. This gives us a more realistic target increase of 

3%. When examining data with a 3% marker, we saw 103 students, 

84% of our target, demonstrating growth. 

During the 2018-2019 grant year, we also refocused our Learning 

Clubs to work with a smaller, targeted partnership made up solely of 

Boys and Girls Club sites in the Providence area. This lowered our 

overall reach. While we are still exceeding our targets for ED1 and 

ED2 in terms of the number of students we engage with, our overall 

reach for students completing the program went down; therefore, our 

testing pool decreased by 25%. This explains why our percentage of 

student growth has gone down from last year. 

Conclusion 

Our focus on PCM’s MuseumCorps training sought to measure the impact of our inputs 

on AmeriCorps members, and ultimately, the children attending our Learning Club 

programming. Overall, our training was successful in preparing members to implement playbased learning theory within their Learning Club programs. From this evaluation, we were able 

to document effective aspects of our training and identify areas that need improvement or 

continued attention. Moving forward, we will provide more continuous implementation support 

to members – even after our six session trainings are complete. We plan to do this through our 

lesson observations and post-observation discussions. In this evaluation, we saw major growth in 

play-based implementation from our first to second observations. This growth could be 

contributed to members’ post-observation discussion. This discussion prompted a reflection on 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

33

members’ practice and provided them with the opportunity to discuss what they found most 

difficult. We believe it also provided them with individualized support and encouragement. We 

will also be more intentional in demonstrating a written link between play-based learning and 

math theory in our pre-written lesson plan. 

Our ED1 and ED2 performance measures show our Learning Club curriculum, which 

includes play-based learning, is being implemented successfully across sites, reaching the 

intended beneficiaries at the intended dosage. While we did not meet our ED4 performance 

goal, we still believe the Learning Club experience has contributed to an increase in children’s 

mathematical understanding. When we consider our data further, we see that students who 

demonstrated the most growth were those who needed our intervention the most. Since we did 

not conduct an outcome evaluation, we cannot say with absolute certain that Learning Club had a 

direct impact on their scores. We can, however, draw inferences from students’ math growth and 

the successful implementation of our play-based learning theory within club. As we move up the 

evidence continuum, it will be essential to examine the effect of our inputs on student’s attitudes 

and academic performance through an outcome based evaluation. This is something we will 

continue to work towards in further grant cycles. 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

34

References 

Fisher, K. R., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: 

Supporting preschoolers' acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child 

development, 84(6), 1872-1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12091

Nationsreportcard.gov. (2019). NAEP Mathematics: National Achievement-Level Results. 

[online] Available at: 

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/nation/achievement/?grade=4 [Accessed 

22 Oct. 2019].

National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward 

excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Rhode Island Department of Education. (2019). Assessment Results. [online] Available at: 

https://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/Assessment/AssessmentResults.aspx

[Accessed 12 Nov. 2019]

Rhode Island KIDS COUNT. (2019). Rhode Island KIDS COUNT factbook. 

Providence, RI: Rhode Island KIDS COUNT.

Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence

and academic performance. American journal of community psychology, 45(3-4), 325-

337.

The LEGO Foundation. (2017). What we mean by: learning through play. Koldingvej, DK: The 

LEGO Group.

The LEGO Foundation. (2018). Learning through play: strengthening learning through play in 

early childhood education programmes. New York, NY: United Nations Children’s 

Fund. 

Van Oers, B., & Duijkers, D. (2013). Teaching in a play-based curriculum: Theory,
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

35

practice and evidence of developmental education for young children. Journal of 

Curriculum Studies, 45(4), 511-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.637182

Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes Linked to High-Quality 

Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings from the Study of Promising Afterschool 

Programs. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular 

goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104-

112. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016). 

Guided play: Principles and practices. Current Directions in Psychological 

Science, 25(3), 177-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416645512
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

36

Appendices

Appendix A: Pre-Training Survey 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

37

Appendix B: Post-Training Surveys 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

38

Appendix C: Lesson Observation Instrument 

OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT (March 2019) 

AmeriCorps member: _____________________________ Date: ___________________

Learning Club: ___________________________ Lesson Plan: ___________________________ 

Role of AC member in this observation:___________________________________________________

Number of observation ❑ 1

st ❑ 2nd Number of children: _____________ 

Was there a lesson plan for the day that all AC members were following? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was room prepared for the day’s activities? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were the materials for the activity prepared in advance? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were the materials made accessible to the participants? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were clean-up activities initiated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Scoring Guidelines 

4 3 2 1

Very evident throughout

lesson

Evident during most, 

but not all, of lessson

Evident during a limited 

portion of lesson

Not evident to any 

degree during the lesson

Note: For any responsibilities not in AC’s role, mark NA 

Rapport 

Score Comment

Demonstrated rapport with participants.

Showed awareness of participants’ needs.

Interactions with students promoted playful

exploration.

Worked in tandem with other AC members

Lesson 

Score Comment

Put into practice principles of play-based 

learning (circle codes*)

a b c d e f

g. Specify:

Appeared comfortable in their role as facilitator.

Showed familiarity with lesson plan.

Carried out the goals of the lesson plan.

Adapted lesson to children’s energy level/focus

*Codes for Principles of Play-Based Learning

a. open-ended (not directive) b. encouraged exploration c. provided multiple entry points d. process-driven e. active f. multisensory

g. other (specifiy in comment section)

Facilitation Strategies 

Score Comment

Observed situations and responded accordingly

Asked open-ended questions

Utlized hands-in-pockets strategy

Used appropriate language and encouraged 

communication 

Post Observation Discussion: 

How did you [AC member] think the observed lesson went?

Please explain how play helped promote learning in the observed lesson.

What types of learning do you think went on today in the club?

What play facilitation strategies felt most comfortable/natural to you? How did these strategies help you achieve the 

learning goals? [Be sure to bring up PCM’s three strategies if they do not come up naturally.] 

What strategies felt uncomfortable? What play facilitation strategies to do you want to continue to grow in? 

What might you have done differently? 

If second observation, what differences are noted from the first time? How did you grow in play facilitation from the last 

time you were observed? 
PCM Evaluation Report 2019

39

Appendix D: Lesson Plan Rubric 

RUBRIC FOR LESSON PLANS 

Element Exceeds

Expectations

Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Does Not Meet

Expectations

Points

Overview

(5pts)

Statement of

lesson/purpose is

comprehensive and 

clear

5-4

Statement of

lesson/purpose is

included but not

specific

3

Limited discussion of the 

planned lesson

2-1

Overall concept not

clear or not listed

0

Warm Up

(5pts)

Successfuly

introduces children 

to lesson

5-4

Some attempt to 

introduce children to 

lesson

3

Limited attempt to 

introduce children to 

lesson

2-1

Does not attempt to 

introduce children to 

lesson

0

Materials

(10pts)

Complete list of

material s,use, how

children access, and 

who prepares

10-9

Good list of materials

to be used and how

8-6

Limited listing of

materials, list not fully

planned for the lesson

5-3

Materials are not clear 

or not listed

2-0

Process: Steps

(15pts)

Detailed discussion

of steps, timing, 

responsibilities

15-13

Discussion of steps

included, some 

mention of timing and 

responsbilities

12-8

Some discussion of steps

but somewhat

incomplete

7-4

Discussion of steps in 

the process confusing, 

limited, or not clear 

3-0

Process: 

Consideration 

and Guidance

(15pts)

In-depth 

considerations and 

guidance for how the 

lesson will be

presented

15-12

Some consideration for 

the implementation of

the lesson

11-8

Limited guidance and 

consideration for 

implementing the lesson

7-4

Little to no guidance

and consideration for

implementing the 

lesson

3-0

Process:

Meaningful

Extension

(10pts)

Suggests meaningful

and detailed 

extensions for 

children’s learning

10-8

Suggests some 

extensions for 

children’s learning

7-5

Suggests limited 

extensions for children’s

learning

4-3

Does not suggest

extensions for 

children’s learning

2-0

Learning

Framework

(15pts)

Clear reference 

to Learning

Framework; types

and characteristics of

learning

15-13

Some reference to 

Learning Framework;

mention of types and 

charaterstics of

learning

12-9

Limited or weak

reference to types of

learning and Learning

Framework

8-4

Reference to types of

learning and Learning

Framework missing or 

not on target

3-0

Link to Math

(15pts)

Shows understanding

of grade levels’ math 

focus areas

15-11

Shows some 

understanding of grade 

levels’ math focus

areas

10-7

Shows limited or weak

under-standing of grade 

levels’ focus areas

6-3

Shows no

understanding of grade 

levels’ focus areas

2-0

Link to PlayBased Learning

(20pts)

Shows understanding

of play-based 

learning

20-17

Shows some 

understanding of playbased learning

16-11

Shows limited 

understanding of playbased 

10-4

No understanding of

play-based learning

3-0

Overall Inclusion 

of Play-Based 

Learning

(10pts)

Play-based theory is

threaded throughout

entire lesson plan 

10-8

Includes play-based 

theory throughout

most of lesson plan

7-4

Play-based theory is

limited throughout

lesson plan

3-2

Play-based theory is

not present in lesson 

plan

1-0

Total Points Earned:

 /120