Numerous researchers have examined different design features deemed crucial for high-quality teacher professional development (TPD) and, thus, its success (e.g., Bragg et al., 2021; Meyer et al., 2023). The design features include aspects such as content focus, coherence, collaboration, personalization, coaching, feedback and reflection, practical relevance, and active learning (e.g., Bragg et al., 2021; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009).Following all the design features listed across the different sources poses challenges for facilitators, given the impracticality of implementing so many different features—especially with limited resources. Additionally, the importance of some design features is discussed controversially.

We would argue, that some design features are of organizational nature (duration, format), while others refer to the process of the TPD and could be summarized as constitutes of TPD quality. Recent research categorized TPD quality into broader dimensions to which specific design features can be allocated (Meyer et al., 2023; Richter & Richter, 2024; Sims et al., 2021). Richter and Richter (2024) focused on cognitive activation, practical relevance, social interaction, and a clear structure. There are studies investigating for instance the TPD quality in online and face-to-face formats (e.g., Mulaimović et al., 2024), but to our knowledge, there is almost no research that systematically investigates the association between the organizational nature of TPD (e.g. its format or duration) and TPD quality.

Further, the current body of research on TPD quality has primarily drawn from studies that have investigated carefully designed, planned, and implemented single TPD activities in controlled settings, often directly implemented by researchers or developers who infuse these TPD activities with design features that can contribute to high-quality TPD. In contrast, there is only sparse research on field-based TPD. Only a few studies have investigated the many different ways of offering field-based TPD, which spans various topics and formats (Fischer et al., 2018), leaving a gap in our understanding of field-based TPD quality.

The area of field-based TPD is especially interesting in terms of relevance of education research. Critics in education research argue, that research prioritizes rigor over addressing practical realities (Schneider, 2009) and gaps persists between research production and its use in policy and practice (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). Educators for example value research with local data (e.g., Coburn et al., 2009) and Research-Practice-Partnerships (RPP, see Farrell et al., 2021) promise to increase the relevance and usability of education research.

In this study, our objective is to examine and compare various types of TPD, using data from a statewide evaluation (collected with an instrument developed in a RPP). We plan to compare online and face-to-face TPD, TPD series and one-offs, TPD with and without self-learning phases, and TPD with varying duration and number of participants. Therefore, we will investigate three research questions (RQ).

• RQ1: What differences can be found in the ratings of TPD quality (cognitive activation, social interaction, and content focus) between the various types of TPD?
• RQ3: How does the type of TPD affect quality ratings after the characteristics of the TPD activities and participants are controlled for?

To monitor the TPD system in a large federal state in Germany, we developed an evaluation instrument in a RPP involving scientists, school administrators, and representatives of TPD institutions. Based on practitioners’ needs and research findings on effective TPD (e.g., Desimone, 2009), the questionnaire evaluates various constructs, including characteristics of the TPD facilitator, the participants, and TPD quality. The data were collected between September 2023 and July 2025. The online survey was administered after the respective TPD course was completed. Overall, the final sample consisted of 59 254 participants (99.8% female; mean teaching experience in years M =15.39, SD = 8.56) and 6161 courses (with M = 30.76 participants (SD = 84.14) per course and an average duration of 1.18 days (SD = 0.75)). To operationalize TPD quality, we used three continuous variables: cognitive activation, social interaction, and content focus. Cognitive activation was assessed with three items (adapted from Meyer et al., 2023; α = .71, ICC1 = .21; e.g., “In this course, I was able to learn new approaches for my professional activities.”). Social interaction was operationalized by the open communication scale, which has three items (adapted from Norz et al., 2023; α = .92, ICC1 =.24; e.g., “I felt comfortable with the communication”). Content focus was assessed with three items (self-developed; α = .81, ICC1 = .18; e.g., “The courses focused on central content”). All items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = disagree to 4 = agree). As randomized group assignment was not possible, we examine the baseline difference of TPD courses and participants between the respective types of TPD. Some of the variables that we examine in the check for baseline differences are used in other analyses as grouping variable. Variables with relevant differences will be controlled for in later analyses. For RQ1, we conduct path models for the continuous variables of TPD quality (content focus, open communication and cognitive activation), using various grouping variables (online and face-to-face TPD, TPD series and one-offs, TPD with and without self-learning phases, longer and shorter TPD, and TPD with many and few participants). To answer RQ2 we estimate multilevel regression models, introducing TPD characteristics as predictors at the between level and participants’ characteristics at the within level. Due to the large sample size, many results will turn significant. Therefore, we will interpret the standardised regression coefficients to determine the practical relevance of the results.

The analyses are not yet completed. Nevertheless, we will be able to present the results to all research questions investigating all grouping variables at the ECER conference. So far, we have only conducted the analyses for RQ1 and RQ2 for two of the grouping variables: online vs. face-2-face and series vs. one-offs. First analyses of baseline differences show moderate (.10 < std. regression coefficient < .20) to large (std. regression coefficient > .20) differences in the number of participants and duration of TPD between online and face-2-face TPD. Online TPD course had more participants and were on average shorter. TPD series were longer compared to one-offs (moderate difference). We will include these variables in later regression models. In terms of RQ1, the results show lower ratings of content focus (moderate), open communication (large), and cognitive activation (large) in online TPD compared to face-2-face TPD. We found no moderate or large difference between series and one-offs. Investigating TPD quality using field data exposes an under-researched field, providing data on the quality of field-based TPD practices. Working in a RPP and addressing research questions that are relevant to both research and practice, has the potential to produce helpful results for stakeholders outside of research to make informed-decisions and take action: Knowledge of TPD quality equips facilitators with guidance on focusing their efforts in specific types of TPD, as part of ongoing TPD improvement efforts. Policymakers and administrators must monitor TPD quality and evaluate the justifications for the prevalent choice of TPD type and to allocate TPD resources. Approaches to make research more relevant requires researchers to reflect associated changes in the condition of research (e.g., academic freedom). Recognizing the importance of TPD in enhancing the educational landscape underscores the need for further research in this area (Sims et al., 2021).

Bragg, L. A., Walsh, C., & Heyeres, M. (2021). Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: A systematic review of the literature. Computers & Education, 166, 104158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104158 Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Hrsg.), The Role of Research in Educational Improvement (S. 67–86). Harvard Education Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute. https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1631243/15834.pdf Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking Connections Between Research and Practice in Education: A Conceptual Framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18761042 Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation. Fischer, C., Fishman, B., Dede, C., Eisenkraft, A., Frumin, K., Foster, B., Lawrenz, F., Levy, A. J., & McCoy, A. (2018). Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide science reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011 Meyer, A., Kleinknecht, M., & Richter, D. (2023). What makes online professional development effective? The effect of quality characteristics on teachers’ satisfaction and changes in their professional practices. Computers & Education, 200, 104805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104805 Mulaimović, N., Richter, E., Lazarides, R., & Richter, D. (2024). Comparing quality and engagement in face‐to‐face and online teacher professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, bjet.13480. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13480 Norz, L.-M., Hackl, W. O., Benning, N., Knaup-Gregori, P., & Ammenwerth, E. (2023). Development and Validation of the German Version of the Community of Inquiry Survey. Online Learning, 27(1), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3306 Richter, E., & Richter, D. (2024). Measuring the quality of teacher professional development: A large-scale validation study of an 18-item instrument for daily use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 81, 101357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101357 Schneider, M. (2009). Guest editorial: Imagining ies’s future. The Education Gadfly, 9(14). Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of teacher professional development that increase pupil achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/teacher-professional-development-characteristics