Search

Curriculum materials (schemes of work, lesson plans, etc.) play a complex and pivotal role in school and teacher practices. The adaptation and development of curriculum materials often constitute part of teacher professional development (PD) activities. However, compared with research examining the relationship between PD and teacher professional change, the role of curriculum materials in professional learning remains under-researched and under-theorised. We address this gap by applying a multi-perspectival approach to data from a PD programme in which teachers were supported to develop curriculum materials. We use an interconnected model to analyse the role of curriculum materials in catalysing change in individual teachers’ practice. Our use of Boundary Theory proposes that curriculum material adoption is mediated by the solidity of boundaries between school practice and research findings, and Actor-Network Theory perspectives examine the assemblage of networked relations within and beyond schools that are entangled in curriculum materials. We highlight how combining linear and non-linear perspectives may contribute to improved understanding of the complexity of supporting teachers’ learning and use our analyses to outline implications of using curriculum materials in teacher professional development.

Globally, there are ongoing problems with teacher retention, leading to a loss of experience and expertise. In policy and research, the emphasis is often on the professional development and retention of early career teachers, whereas teachers in later stages of their career are relatively under-represented. This article addresses this imbalance, reporting on a mixed methods scoping study that explores definitions of mid-career teachers in England and their retention and development, via a literature review, primary data collection and secondary analysis of data from the OECD’s TALIS 2018 survey. We found that there is no agreed definition of mid-career teacher, relating to time in teaching, role and wider life circumstances and self-definition. Whatever definition is used, mid-career teachers are a heterogenous group, with varying needs, career plans and commitment to the profession. Whilst typically confident in their practice, their learning needs vary and are often experienced as unmet, especially for those looking for progression routes outside leadership and those with family commitments. This indicates that their potential for career development to benefit the profession may not be reached. The article concludes with suggestions for further study, policy and practice to improve understanding of this under-researched group.

One approach to designing, researching or evaluating professional learning experiences is to use models of learning processes. Here we analyse and critique five significant contemporary analytical models: three variations on path models, proposed by Guskey, Desimone and Clarke and Hollingsworth; a model using a systemic conceptualisation of learning by Opfer and Pedder; and a cognitive learning model by Evans. To do this, we develop and illustrate an analytical framework focused on model components, purposes, scope, explicit and implicit theories of learning and change processes, agency and philosophical underpinnings. We identify similarities, differences, inconsistencies and limitations in the models. This provides the basis for reconceptualising models as tools to be deployed alongside other relevant constructs and thus the analytical framework can support a more informed selection of theoretical models by researchers and practitioners.

This paper develops a path model of professional development (PD) to explore the relationship between teacher PD and teacher careers and retention. A focussed literature review frames the study, which is based on a survey of 500 + teachers and interviews with 25 teachers. The findings provide evidence of the influence of PD on intermediate outcomes within the model and some evidence of influence on career progression. The paper concludes that a path model can provide a useful frame for examining the influence of PD on career, but the approach is limited given the complex, situated nature of teachers' careers.

Policymakers and school leaders seek to improve the quality of teaching through curriculum innovations and professional development programmes, increasingly drawing on evidence‐based approaches. For innovations involving teacher professional learning, a causal connection is posited between professional development activities, teacher engagement in them, changed practices and outcomes for learners. However, implementation and teachers’ engagement in professional development activity varies. Reasons for this include the influence of both the local and wider systemic environment in which the activity takes place and actors’ relationships to these environments. Currently, both environments and actors’ relationships are often shaped by performativity discourses and pressures. Typical implementation and process evaluation methodologies are limited by a focus on the easily measurable, often using tools that do not support fine‐grained understanding of how actors’ situations, purposes and systemic influences, and the interrelationships between these, mediate and shape different degrees of participation. Developing more in‐depth accounts are hindered by a relative lack of theorisation of context in relation to professional development. The paper uses a set of theoretical constructs to provide a stronger account of the variation and engagement in participation in such activity, with particular attention paid to the way school and teachers’ positioning within performativity systems influences participation. Constructs employed are teachers and schools’ positioning in terms of relative degrees of systemic privilege or disadvantage—understood as economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital—figured worlds and system coupling.

Increasingly, policymakers seek to improve the quality of teaching through curriculum innovations and continuing professional development (CPD) programmes. However, engagement by schools and teachers varies due to mediating influences of neoliberal policies. In this article, we contribute to understanding how these tendencies affect participation. Problematising the notion of context, we examine ways in which systemic influences interacted with participation in a government-funded mathematics professional and curriculum development programme and also with participants’ purposes.\ud A 3-level clustered Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) and an implementation and process evaluation were augmented by in-depth case studies, cross-case analysis and the application of theoretical constructs to interpret findings. Theories of capital, figured worlds and systemic coupling are utilised to theorise context.\ud Different levels of engagement are partly explainable by: the interaction of schools' relative systemic advantage and disadvantage; their orientation and coupling to performativity regimes; and the alignment or dissonance between continuing professional development or change programmes and the pedagogical and CPD cultures and purposes of the ‘actors’ (schools, departments and teachers). Performativity concerns restricted what were considered legitimate outcomes in some case study schools. This depended on teachers and schools' positioning in terms of relative degrees of systemic privilege or disadvantage - understood as economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital - and also in terms of figured worlds and system coupling. The case studies provide insights into how collaborative professional learning can be fostered more productively. Methodologically, we demonstrate the power of combining methodologies and applying explanatory social theory to augment quasi-experimental paradigms.

Continuing professional development (CPD) evaluation in education has been heavily influenced by ‘level models’, deriving from the work of Kirkpatrick and Guskey in particular, which attempt to trace the processes through which CPD interventions achieve outcomes. This paper considers the strengths and limitations of such models, and in particular the degree to which they are able to do justice to the complexity of CPD and its effects. After placing level models within the broader context of debates about CPD evaluation, the paper reports our experience of developing such models heuristically for our own evaluation practice. It then draws on positivist, realist and constructivist traditions to consider some more fundamental ontological and epistemological questions to which they give rise. The paper concludes that level models can be used in a number of ways and with differing emphases, and that choices made about their use will need to reflect both theoretical choices and practical considerations.