Session Information
01 SES 07 C, Critical Perspectives on Professional Development
Paper Session
Contribution
This paper proposes a meta-model of professional learning (PL) that attempts to synthesise the constructs, theories, and processes accounted for in published models to date. The paper builds upon two of the authors’ existing frameworks for designing (King, 2014; Poekert et al., 2020) and evaluating PL (King, 2014), whilst also drawing from the key constructs, theories, and processes of PL in the wider literature. The results advance a conceptual framework that aggregates empirical illustrations and practical tools to support the understanding and application of the constructs elaborated within the framework in both research and practice. It aims to serve as a diagram, as defined by Deleuze (1988, p. 44): “a diagram is a map, or rather a series of superimposed maps.” Such diagrams model the rhizomatic nature of experience.
By grounding the meta-model in pragmatism and complexity theory, it aims to address critiques that challenge scholars to highlight the epistemological, ontological, and ethical commitments that inform methodological decisions and approaches to PL (e.g., Boylan, 2021). Because the model is rooted in pragmatic complexity, it allows for flexibility in its application based upon the goal(s) that a user is trying to achieve. Previous taxonomies of professional learning (i.e., Kennedy, 2014) posit that these goals might range from the transmission of discrete skills or knowledge to the development of competencies to the transformation of professional identities. It stands to reason that as the goals of the professional learning activity vary, so will the constructs that must be accounted for in the design and evaluation of PL. Pragmatic complexity also allows for consideration of the emergence of different constructs operating within diverse contexts that can be understood and navigated through pragmatic inquiry, either during enactment or evaluation because both are understood to be experiments aimed at improving the situation under study toward an ethically grounded goal. The ultimate ethical goal of these efforts to improve teaching and learning is “equal participation by all in the conversation of humankind” because “initiation into this conversation is the purpose of education, and it is the purpose of educational research to provide tools to aid in this task” (Garrison, 1994, p. 13).
The model is also flexible enough to account for the complexity, nonlinearity, and nuance of individual experience situated within unique contexts as participants engage in PL activity while still highlighting patterns that emerge across individuals. This flexibility affords discretion to both the practitioner in the selection of tools and approaches and the researcher in the selection of methods and instruments that are fit for purpose. The model makes both theoretical and practical contributions by synthesising conceptualisations of PL to date and serving as a platform for future theoretical and programmatic development. Further, it is the ambitious goal of this framework to promote a meta-model that is simultaneously universal and deeply contextualised within and across national boundaries and circumstances because it can be configured and applied in a multiplicity of ways. By advancing a language that aims to be both accessible to researchers and practitioners alike and broadly applicable across nations, we aim to develop shared understandings across numerous audiences toward improving research and practice.
The paper directly responds to the theme advanced in the ECER call for papers in that it aims to represent the diverse influences in the lived experience of participants, schools and systems that affect how PL translates into teaching and learning outcomes. It also aims to offer a model that can be applied in diverse settings in the development, enactment, and evaluation of professional learning in order to optimise for equitable impacts on student learning outcomes.
Method
In an effort to develop a meta-model that could be utilised across various sectors of education, we conducted a search to identify literature that centred PL across educational contexts. Our goal was to capture suggestions and critiques of existing models or frameworks used for evaluation of PL that surfaced in literature, in an effort to develop a conceptual model that may also serve as a practical tool for academics and practitioners alike. We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria to produce quality articles for our proposed meta-model. These criteria included articles that focused on models or frameworks that incorporated professional learning or professional development in the contexts of schools or specifically working with teachers. We excluded articles beyond the years of 2014 through 2022 with any exceptions outside this range that were papers considered seminal to PL in education (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1959; Stake, 1967; Guskey, 2002; Desimone, 2009; and Bubb & Earley, 2010). We utilised Google Scholar, EBSCOHost, and Proquest, three large database search engines, to identify scholarly articles of interest. Additionally, we reviewed the publications of the Professional Development in Education journal and their references. A first round search for “professional development” in combination with other search terms including “framework,” “model,” “teachers,” and/or “schools” yielded 14 articles. A second round search for “professional learning” in combination with the same search terms yielded an additional 18 articles. In total, 32 articles were incorporated into the analysis. From the articles, we extracted the models and analysed the constructs inductively, comparing across models to identify common constructs and theories about the interaction and influence among the constructs. The analysis highlighted various conceptualizations of learning processes that illustrated the complexity at work among the constructs, contexts, and stakeholders, and these were synthesised into the meta-model presented in this article. The resulting meta-model draws upon the scholarly literature to yield a set of constructs and sub-constructs, along with examples of how those constructs can be employed in the enactment and evaluation of PL activities, including both formal activities and informal interactions.
Expected Outcomes
The PL literature has taken a decidedly nonlinear turn that embraces the complexity of interactions among teacher learning and practice and student learning within school contexts (e.g., Strom & Viesca, 2021). It must also be noted that due to the interconnectedness of the various constructs at play, for example among teacher knowledge, skills, and beliefs on one hand and teacher practices on the other, we should consider the constructs as highly entangled with one another (Boylan, 2021). The meta-model proposed in this paper synthesises the various phenomena accounted for in the PL literature into three major constructs: Context, Experience, and Outcomes. Context accounts for the circumstances surrounding the PL experience at the macro, meso and micro levels, ranging from the antecedent factors and previous experiences of the participants to the organisational culture of the school and school system. Experience accounts for the elements involved in the PL activity itself, including the core features of the PL experience, and the learning processes and theories, such as the level of collaboration and the use of situated inquiry-based learning techniques. Outcomes account for the outputs and outcomes of engagement in PL experiences, ranging from the immediate reaction of educators to the experience to the long-term impacts on students’ quality of life outcomes. There are myriad subconstructs within each of the three larger constructs that are charted out within a table. Guidance is provided to researchers and practitioners to utilise those subconstructs that are most pertinent to the aims of their PL programming or research, and examples of how the subconstruct was operationalized in research and practice are shared within an interactive web page.
References
Boylan, M. (2021). Entanglement, evaluation and practice in a professional learning innovation. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 478-492, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1879233 Bubb, S. & Earley, P. (2010). Helping staff develop in schools. London: Sage. Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault (S. Hand, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X08331140 Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5-14. DOI: 10.2307/1176280 Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (3), 381–391. DOI: 10.1080/135406002100000512 Kennedy, A. (2014). Models for continuing professional development: A framework for analysis. Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336-351, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2014.929293 King, F. (2014). Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development:an evidence-based framework. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 89-111, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2013.823099 Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3–9. Poekert, P.E., Swaffield, S., Demir, E.K., & Wright, S.A. (2020): Leadership for professional learning towards educational equity: A systematic literature review. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 541-562. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1787209 Stake, R.E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68(7), 523–540. Strom, K. & Viesca, K.M. (2021). Towards a complex framework of teacher learning-practice. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 209-224. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1827449
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.