Teacher professional development and teacher inquiry

There is a rigorous evidence base that suggests effective teacher professional development (TPD) offers an opportunity to strengthen educational outcomes for children through improving the quality of teaching (e.g. see Hattie, 2009, whose meta-analysis indicates TPD as a key factor influencing attainment). Pre-service education cannot adequately prepare teachers for necessary long-term competence and skills considering the rates of social, educational, and technological change (Dudzinski et al., 2000). Continuous TPD therefore plays an important role in developing and enhancing quality learning opportunities for children.

TPD programmes typically review, assess, and build on teachers’ knowledge of content and pedagogy, their skills, attitudes as well as instructional approaches (Luneta, 2012). Approaches to TPD have evolved from previously focusing on bringing external experts to provide content knowledge to focusing on school-based teaching practice. This has culminated in more recognition of and focus on the importance of continuing professional development now than ever before. In continuing professional development, the focus is on teacher professionalism and context, is collaborative in practice, and emphasises empowerment (Mushayikwa & Lubben, 2009). Even though TPD provision has largely shifted from external expertise to empowerment, however, cascade models of TPD whereby training ‘lectures’ and rote learning for teachers are provided continue to remain dominant in the sector (Haßler et al., 2018).

Guidance from a range of relevant publications is presented below for the design, implementation and evaluation of high quality, educationally effective, and cost-effective TPD programmes that allow for sustainability and scaling. These draw insights and guidance in particular from Haßler et al. (2018), but also include key considerations raised by Blank and de la Alas (2009), Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), Darling-Hammond et al. (2009), Desimone et al. (2002), Hardman et al. (2011), Hennessy et al. (2015), Luneta (2012), Schwille and Dembélé (2007), Sentance (2016), Steiner (2004), and Villegas-Reimers (2003).

  • The design phase of TPD programmes must be informed by a comprehensive needs analysis that presents the unique needs of the teachers and their settings, and must have pathways for teachers to participate in the programme development, adaptation and refinement.
  • Materials should build on and improve existing materials, incorporating reflections and learning from previous participants. This means recognising teachers as reflective professionals.
  • Open source software for online programmes and resources (e.g. OERs) should be used, where possible, to improve accessibility and scalability.
  • TPD programmes should be pedagogically and not technically focused.
  • TPD programmes should also offer opportunities to model active, hands-on, independent, inquiry-based and collaborative learning.
  • TPD should be school-based and structured as part of an ongoing routine, where possible. This should ensure that time constraints, which are often cited by teachers as a significant challenge for engaging meaningfully with TPD, are addressed through offering programmes within working hours. Programmes structured as part of an ongoing long-term routine will be better placed to enable pedagogic change.
  • Meaningful TPD certification should be available, with teacher career progression and salary structure accurately and meaningfully reflecting achievement.
  • A balance is needed between the degree of prescription for teachers and ensuring teachers have the authority to tailor their own teaching to their unique learner and classroom needs. As is argued by Haßler et al. (2018), “self-contained materials need to provide enough scaffolding to enable groups of teachers to implement the programme autonomously without dependence on ephemeral induction events” (p. 67).
  • TPD should utilise the same principles it seeks to impart. For example, a dialogic approach to TPD should be used to model and promote the use of dialogic pedagogy in classrooms.
  • TPD should leverage the value of a community of practice in providing a supportive environment for teachers, where practitioners can engage in a process of collective learning (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015).
  • TPD should recognise that teachers’ beliefs and experiences influence how they use materials and resources (Hood, 2018). These considerations are framed by the understanding that providing evidence by itself is not enough to change practice (Levin, 2008) and TPD programmes must go beyond the provision of research and enable the reconstruction of new knowledge into practice. As is highlighted in the section above regarding dialogic pedagogy specifically, there is a significant role for teachers in maximising classroom dialogue, and therefore an important role for associated TPD. Vrikki et al. (2019) found differences in how teachers used ‘elaboration’ and ‘reasoning’ in their teaching, which was dependent on previous professional development experience. This indicates a critical importance in providing TPD that supports educators in utilising specific strategies for dialogic interaction.

While recently there have been more opportunities globally in supporting teachers to adopt dialogic teaching through professional development, research regarding the efficacy and outcomes of approaches remains limited and inconsistent. As articulated by Hennessy and Davies (2019),

The research and development to date in this area has been somewhat limited in both scope and scale, the methodologies and reports have been of variable strength, and the findings are mixed and relate inconsistently to specific features of dialogue. (p. 13)

The Toolkit for Systematic Educational Dialogue Analysis (T-SEDA) is designed for teachers at all educational levels to support their use of dialogic pedagogy. T-SEDA presents three core tools to support teachers in generating high quality educational dialogue in classrooms, in whole class discussion and between students working in groups (T-SEDA Collective, 2023):

  • A self-audit grid for teachers to systematically reflect on their current practice.
  • A step-by-step reflective cycle for teacher-led classroom inquiry that aims to iteratively develop practice and keep a record of how this happens.
  • A coding scheme to identify key dialogic features and moments of high quality dialogue in the classroom alongside the conditions that create these.

The aim of T-SEDA is to help teachers evaluate and improve the quality of the educational dialogue in their setting through providing opportunities and pathways for inquiry and self-reflection as well as collaboration between colleagues (Kershner et al., 2020). It is intentionally iterative in its development, which remains ongoing, and employs a design-based research approach (Bakker, 2018) with nested cycles of inquiry (Hennessy et al., 2021). This focus on inquiry and its support for teachers’ systematic inquiry into their own or others’ dialogic practices is an important feature of T-SEDA that makes it a unique offering, particularly as it is designed for adaptation. This relates to meaning-oriented learning in which educators are viewed as self-regulated learners in professional learning contexts who are willing and able to construct their own knowledge (Vermunt & Vermetten, 2004).

T-SEDA is also regularly refined by the research team in response to user feedback and research findings. Flexibility is further built in through the use of customisable tools that are designed for local adaptation in order to support sustainable change. This flexibility is intended to maximise international use, with translated versions available. Indeed, teachers who have successfully used the pack are spread globally (Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, USA, and the UK). A trial with 74 practitioners from preschool to higher education indicated that T-SEDA inquiries stimulated demonstrable changes in practice and adoption of the approach has been sustained over successive school years in some settings (Calcagni et al., 2023; Kershner et al., 2020). Hood (2018) also notes the importance of autonomy in teachers’ professional learning contexts and the ability for them to adapt materials to their contexts.

The literature presents features of TPD programmes regarding educational dialogue that have seen successful outcomes. Firstly, programmes should ideally include the systematic analysis of transcripts or video recordings of lessons as a reflective tool, a technique which has been seen as a success (Armstrong & Curran, 2006; Borko et al., 2008; Hennessy & Deaney, 2009; Hennessy & Davies, 2019; Reznitskaya & Wilkinson, 2015). While teacher reflection is necessary, it should be combined with further features to promote change in practice, such as co-inquiry into practice, the provision of multiple dialogic moves and strategies, co-planning lessons, and employing a dialogic approach to the professional development itself (Calcagni et al., 2023). Hennessy and Davies (2019) also argue for the viability of programmes without substantial funding and sustained external input, and the importance of theoretical underpinning: “we found that development of permanently accessible, open materials facilitated making explicit and clear the theoretical rationale and research evidence underlying the new approach, a key success factor highlighted by Osborne et al. (2013, p. 338).” (p. 11).

T-SEDA exemplifies the above successful features of TPD, in addition to the collaborative use of resources and bringing in diverse perspectives and knowledge (Calcagni et al., 2023). An important design consideration for T-SEDA is the collaborative development of inquiry tools and resources with researchers and practitioners. This is part of an increasing drive for teachers to become actively research engaged, shifting the landscape away from educational research framing teachers as ‘users’ instead of ‘producers’ of knowledge.

While some features are well documented, there remain significant outstanding gaps in the literature and evidence regarding TPD programmes for educational dialogue. These include: (i) Larger samples to make more generalisable claims (Hennessy & Davies, 2020). (ii) Programme scalability, considering that most available programmes tend to be costly and rely on external sources of expertise and funding. (iii) Contextualisation and localisation of materials, particularly for marginalised areas.

The use of technology within TPD is recognised for its potential, for example in low-resource contexts as Haßler et al. (2018) cite: e.g. Power (2014), Twining et al. (2013); for a broader evidence map on the use of technology in education in low-resource contexts see Muyoya et al. (2016). Technology offers a range of potential benefits for TPD programmes as long as it is selected and implemented appropriately. The literature widely agrees that technology should extend rather than replace previous characteristics of TPD programmes and should serve marginalised populations without exacerbating digital divides through ensuring that materials are appropriately contextualised (Haßler et al., 2018). In addition, an important feature of technology-enhanced TPD contexts as written about by Mercer et al. (2019) is that “they draw on research-based multimedia resources they have created to stimulate discussion, reflection and inquiry” (p. 195). Strategies like scaffolding are especially important to consider in light of the numeracy and literacy skills of many adult learners.


Previous submodule: