Reimagining a framework for teachers’ continuous professional development during curriculum reform

Figures & data

Table 1. Draft primary mathematics curriculum’s five core pedagogical practices.

Pedagogical practice	Aim	Student goals	Teacher goals
Fostering productive disposition	Increasing positive attitudes towards learning and doing mathematics	Persevere through challenging tasks, value mistakes, and develop an enthusiasm for mathematics.	Facilitate collaboration in mixed-ability groups, praise effort, and provide time for deep thinking
Emphasising mathematical modelling	Placing importance on conceptual understanding, flexible approaches to solving, and innovation rather than just on correct solutions.	Solve tasks using chosen methods, apply learning to new scenarios, and compare and contrast methods	Use questioning to promote deeper thinking, incorporate technology, and allow time for revisiting ideas
Using cognitively challenging tasks	Provide all students, no matter their ability level, the opportunity to engage with rich mathematics tasks to develop higher-order thinking skills.	Value productive struggle as part of doing mathematics, engage in real-world tasks, use a range of models to communicate thinking	Develop or modify tasks, allow time for students to explore methods for solving, provide opportunities for collaboration
Promoting maths talk	Students deepen their understanding of mathematics by communicating with peers and teachers.	Clearly explain their thinking to others, learn from the thinking of others, and link prior knowledge to new concepts	Develop a classroom culture where all students feel safe sharing and discussing ideas, select appropriate tasks for fostering conversations, facilitate discussions
Using formative assessment	Students and teachers know an individual’s progress in learning mathematics and how to adjust learning to meet each child’s needs.	Students become experts in their learning progress, self and peer-assess, take increased responsibility for learning	Use a variety of assessment approaches rather than only summative types in daily lessons, include students in the assessment process, teach students methods to monitor progress

Note: Developed based on Chapter 6 in the DPMC, which explains five critical pedagogical practices and guidance for teachers. From Draft Primary Mathematics Curriculum (25–37), by National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 2022.

Figure 1. STiCC (School culture, time, choice, connection to practice) framework for CPD during curriculum reform.

Table 2. Commonalities between document analysis and professional development framework (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2009).

Document analysis	Professional Development Framework: Critical Issues (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2009)
Choice in CPD (Hertz et al. 2022; McMillan, McConnell, and O’Sullivan 2016; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 2010)	Building capacity for sustainability
Time for CPD (Hertz et al. 2022; NCCA 2016; 2022)	Making time for CPD
Teaching Environment (McMillan, McConnell, and O’Sullivan 2016)	Learning Culture
Relevance between CPD and practice (Harford 2010; Murchan, Loxley, and Johnston 2009; NCCA 2016)	Scaling up

Figure 2. Spectrum of CPD models adapted from (Kennedy 2014).

Table 3. CPD models potentially useful during curriculum reform.

Transformative CPD models (Kennedy 2014)	Considers time	Considers choice	Considers culture	Considers connection to practice
Instructional coaching	X	X	X	X
Professional learning communities	X	X	X	X
Action research	X	X	X	X

NCCA. 2022. Primary Mathematics Curriculum Draft Specification for Consultation.” https://ncca.ie/en/resources/draft-primary-mathematics-curriculum-dr%C3%A9acht-churaclam-matamaitice-na-bunscoile/.

 Google Scholar

Loucks-Horsley, S., K. E. Stiles, S. E. Mundry, N. B. Love, and P. W. Hewson. 2009. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nuig/detail.action?docID=996256.

 Google Scholar

Hertz, B., H. Grainger Clemson, D. Tasic Hansen, D. Laurillard, M. Murray, L. Fernandes, A. Gilleran, D. Rojas Ruiz, and D. Rutkauskiene. 2022. “A Pedagogical Model for Effective Online Teacher Professional Development—Findings from the Teacher Academy Initiative of the European Commission.” European Journal of Education 57 (1): 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12486.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McMillan, D. J., B. McConnell, and H. O’Sullivan. 2016. “Continuing Professional Development – Why Bother? Perceptions and Motivations of Teachers in Ireland.” Professional Development in Education 42 (1): 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.952044.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2010. Teaching and Learning International Survey. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264079861-en

 Google Scholar

NCCA. 2016. “Background Paper and Brief for the development of a new Primary Mathematics Curriculum.” https://ncca.ie/media/1341/maths_background_paper_131016_tc.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Harford, J. 2010. “Teacher Education Policy in Ireland and the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century.” European Journal of Teacher Education 33 (4): 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.509425.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Murchan, D., A. Loxley, and K. Johnston. 2009. “Teacher Learning and Policy Intention: Selected Findings from an Evaluation of a Large-Scale Programme of Professional Development in the Republic of Ireland.” European Journal of Teacher Education 32 (4): 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760903247292.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kennedy, A. 2014. “Understanding Continuing Professional Development: The Need for Theory to Impact on Policy and Practice.” Professional Development in Education 40 (5): 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122.

 Google Scholar