Dimensions of professional development purpose and approach
We started our previous article on research-informed professional development (RiPD) with the observation that both research and professional development (PD) take many forms. We went on to describe what research is, the many ways in which it varies and how teachers, school leaders and policymakers might think about the contribution of research to professional development.[1] Now, we focus on the other side of the equation. In what ways does professional development vary which affect how (and which) research might contribute to its success?
Much previous research has characterised professional development in terms of its forms, features, characteristics, components and, more recently, mechanisms.[2][3][4][5] Common types of PD include training events, online communities, coaching or mentoring, review and feedback exercises, self-directed study and reflection, collaborative development projects, and so on. Research such as that by Sims and colleagues[5] and Cordingley and colleagues[3] has looked for common components and characteristics (for the latter) and forms and ‘mechanisms’ (for the former) that underpin what makes professional learning effective.
Here we offer an additional, complementary lens by considering common differences in the purpose and focus of professional development that affect the potential contribution of research to the PD. We also offer a framework for mapping out potential and actual PD variation. Our (untested) hypothesis is that what is effective and the form that general components (or mechanisms) take will depend on the focus and purpose of PD as per the dimensions described below. We do not claim that this is an exhaustive list, only that in our experience they all are relevant considerations.
Theory and practice