A new, challenging perspective
Professional development (PD) is essential for the ongoing growth of educators, schools and the learning experiences of students. Over recent years, the importance of PD has been highlighted across various educational contexts, with schools and institutions seeking effective ways to support their staff. The landscape of PD is broad, ranging from workshops, seminars and online courses to practitioner-based research projects.
It may seem like we already know what effective PD looks like. However, an EEF study by Sims and Fletcher Wood[1] suggests that some long-held ideas about what makes high-quality PD may not be as well-founded as previously thought. Traditionally, good professional development has been seen as subject-specific, collaborative and ongoing. Sims and colleagues challenge this view, proposing that these elements may not be necessary in all situations.
Rethinking professional development: A critical review
Is Impact on student learning the only valid measure?
Sims and Fletcher Wood further suggest that PD should be evaluated based on its direct impact on student learning. This recalls for us Guskey’s argument that, to gain authentic evidence and make serious improvements, research on PD must focus on professional development’s ultimate goal: improvements in student learning outcomes.[2] It emphasises that 'the ultimate justification for professional development, and the time and taxpayer money invested in it, is the impact on student learning.'[3]
This raises an important question: Considering the challenges of recruitment and retention, should PD only be considered effective if it directly improves student learning? While student success is undeniably central to education, and to educators, many argue that it shouldn’t be the only measure of effective PD.