School is facing various issues, ranging from broader themes, such as socio-cultural change to more specific topics, like the presence of pupils lacking basic skills in the local language, teacher Professional Learning (PL) has undergone several changes at various levels (Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Stewart, 2014; Boylan, Coldwell, Maxwell & Jordan 2018). Concerning terminology, we can find expressions going from ‘in-service training’ to ‘professional learning and development’; in terms of locus of control we go from externally provided programmes to more formative, school - based learning. The extension of what provided goes from limited offerings such as accredited courses to varied and blended learning offerings, such as coaching, mentoring and distance learning (Ostinelli & Crescentini, 2021). In some cases, the accent is more on accountability and performance, while in others on teacher professionalism and professionality (Hoyle, 2018).

The transition from In-service Education and Training (INSET) to Continuous Professional Development (CPD), to Professional Learning and Development (PLD) reflects different concepts of PL.

INSET focus on training teachers in some definite skills, sometimes necessary for the implementation of pre-defined curricula; CPD is oriented to updating existing teaching knowledge and practices, PLD tries also to foster new knowledge and expertise in teachers, conceived as developing professionals in a framework combining lifelong and lifewide learning. Also the same idea of stability in the professional role is different in these three kind of PL.

In a previous article (Ostinelli & Crescentini, 2021), we analysed how five European countries (Italy, Germany, England, France, Finland) are developing teacher PL, highlighting their similitudes and differences with a framework based on six dimensions and nine operational fields (indicators). In this study, we reached the conclusion that teacher PL in some countries is more PLD-oriented (Finland), while in other (France, Italy) it is more akin to INSET. Germany and England are representing situations in transition from more traditional to more innovative experiences in teacher PL.

Even if we work in Switzerland, we choose not include it in the participating group of nations. Cause the Swiss teacher PL system is rather intricate. Switzerland is composed by 26 cantons and four official languages, every canton is a state enjoying huge autonomy in matter of education. Needless to say, teacher PL is not practiced in homogenous ways in the country: a look at the study of EDK/IDES on compulsivity of continuous training (EDK/IDES 2020) shows how some cantons, like Basel Stadt, let their teachers of compulsory school almost totally free to choose if participating or not. In the meantime, others, like Ticino, prescribe minimally eight hours of training for every school year. During the past years, several attempt to coordinate the cantonal educational systems were done. The last one is the federal agreement Harmos (CDPE, 2017) that tried, with some success, to harmonise some basic aspects of the various cantonal compulsory educational systems.

We find important to analyse what is going on in teacher PL in Switzerland, also for contributing in finding innovative and more shared ways to practice teacher PL in our country. For doing this, it has been necessary to shift our focus from the European to the Swiss dimension, taking into account all its particularities. For this reason, we are currently developing a deep analysis on teacher PL in Switzerland, including all the 26 cantons. For this process we are using the above mentioned framework (described in the methodology section), that proved its validity in our previous experience. We think that our analysis will prove useful for future and more co-ordinated initiatives in the domain of teacher PL in Switzerland.

For analysing the Swiss teacher PL system we use a PLD-oriented framework including six dimensions and nine operational fields (indicators). a) Needs satisfaction: PLD should be built starting from teachers’, schools’ and states’ needs in a balanced form, conducive to pupils’ optimal learning (Datnow and Stringfield 2000, Deci 2009). b) Meaning: PLD should be developed around an attribution of shared meaning inside group dynamics (Hauge et al. 2014, Nguyen and Hunter 2018). c) Self-regulation: PLD should be part of intentional and innovative ecologic processes of self-organisation and self-regulation (Bronfenbrenner 1994, White and Levin 2016). d) Situated professional growth: PLD should take place in a system including several differentiated professional roles conducive to the management of change. The presence of teacher leaders may enhance the provision of PLD in school contexts (Sekulović and Grujić 2016, Ippolito et al. 2019). e) Adaptive re-organisation: The development of innovative teaching practices should be characterised by processes of deconstruction and reconstruction and of learning and unlearning from the perspective of lifelong and life-wide learning (Kim and Wilkinson 2019). f) Fitness with the global process: An effective process management should be present, and the resources for and format of CPD or PLD organisation should fit the task. In addition, the process should be managed, with evidence of its outcomes (Pedder et al. 2008, Terhart 2019). Based on these six dimensions, we defined nine indicators: 1) Needs (Match between teacher PLD and needs, procedures for the emergence of needs, stimulation of intrinsic + extrinsic motivation) 2) Validity (Relationship with academic research, practice of action research, relationship with evidence, contextual adaptation of research results) 3) Organic structure (Inclusion in a broader concept of school improvement; linearity; a balance between top-down, bottom-up and lateral dynamics; co-construction and positive interaction between professionals, unions, administrators, parents and other stakeholders) 4) Sustainability (Realistic goals, medium-/long-term planning, needs/resources ratio) Situated professional growth 5) Support (coaching and mentoring, emergence of new professional roles) Adaptive reorganisation 6) Professional learning (development of expert competencies, perspective of lifelong and life-wide learning) Fitness with the global process 7) Frame (requirement, resources, training days, etc.) 8) Form (Seminars, classes, assisted practice, work through projects, etc.) 9) Effectiveness (assessment of outcomes, added value, data-based corroboration of principles) We are collecting the data through a questionnaire where the items correspond to these indicators.

We are currently engaged in the process of information gathering. We estimate to complete the stage of analysis of the collected data by the end of June 2022. The presence of a process of harmonization involving the cantonal education systems of Switzerland is a relevant opportunity for the observation on how to overcome existing differences. The framework used in our European comparison, when applied to the present Swiss teacher PL policies can highlight some possible paths for their evolution in the perspective of a future progressive and reciprocal integration. During our presentation, we will present the data relating to the individual cantons through a comparative analysis. This shall be also an opportunity for exposing a sustainable, more PLD-oriented scenarios for the evolution of Swiss policies in teacher PL

Boylan, M., Coldwell, M., Maxwell, B. and Jordan, J. (2018). Rethinking models of professional learning as tools: a conceptual analysis to inform research and practice. Professional development in education, 44(1), 120-139. Bronfenbrenner, U., 1994. Ecological models of human development. Readings on the development of children, 2 (1), 37–43. CDPE (2011). L’accordo intercantonale sull’armonizzazione della scuola obbligatoria (concordato harmos)del 14 giugno 2007. Berna: CDPE Deci, E. (2009). Large-scale school reform as viewed from the self-determination theory perspective. Theory and research in education, 7 (2), 244–252. Datnow, A. and Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of education for students placed at risk (JESPAR), 5 (1–2), 183–204. EDK/IDES (2020) Enquête CDIP/IDES auprès des cantons. Bern: EDK. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Teachers College Press. Hauge, T., Norenes, S., and Vedøy, G. (2014). School leadership and educational change: tools and practices in shared school leadership development. Journal of educational change, 15 (4), 357–376. Hoyle, E. (2018). The primary school teacher as professional. In Handbook of primary education in Europe. Routledge. Ippolito, J., et al. (2019). Specialists, coaches, coordinators, oh my! Looking back and looking forward on the roles and responsibilities of specialized literacy professionals. Massachusetts reading association primer, 47 (2), 19–28. Kim, M. and Wilkinson, I. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, culture and social interaction, 21, 70–86. Nguyen, T. and Hunter, S. (2018). Towards an understanding of dynamics among teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators in a teacher-led school reform. Journal of educational change, 19 (4), 539–565. Opfer, V. and Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of educational research, 81(3), 376-407. Pedder, D., Storey, A., Opfer, V. (2008). Schools and continuing professional development (CPD) in England–State of the Nation research project. Cambridge: Cambridge University and the Open University. Sekulović, M. and Grujić, D (2016). New professional roles of teachers in electronic learning. Knowledge. Professional papers, 13 (4), 43–48. Stewart, C. (2014). Transforming professional development to professional learning. Journal of adult education, 43(1), 28-33. Terhart, E. (2019). Critical overview of teacher education in Germany. Oxford: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. White, D. and Levin, J. (2016). Navigating the turbulent waters of school reform guided by complexity theory. Complicity: an international journal of complexity and education, 13 (1), 43–80.