A systematic review to explore how characteristics of pedagogical development programmes in higher education are related to teacher development outcomes

Figures & data

Figure 1. The interconnected model of professional growth.

From Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002). Elaborating a Model of Teacher professional Growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X-02-00053-7. Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. Reprinted with permission.

Table 1. Curriculum components in the curriculum Spiderweb.

Components	Description
Rationale or vision	Why are they learning?
Aims and objectives	Towards which goals are they learning?
Content	What are they learning?
Learning activities	How are they learning?
Teacher role	How is the teacher facilitating learning?
Materials & resources	With what are they learning?
Grouping	With whom are they learning?
Time	When are they learning?
Assessment	How to measure how far learning has progressed?
Location	Where are they learning?

by Van den Akker (2003), in J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Ed.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Figure 2. Process of data collection and inclusion.

Figure 3. Visualisation of found relationships among the various domains of IMPG. *teaching methods a. Hilpert & Husman (2002) discussion, study material. b. Owens et al. (2018) discussion, collaboration, instruction, portfolio/reflection, mentoring, observation, modelling, investigating effects. c. Sanders et al. (2019) instruction, portfolio/reflection, feedback, mentoring, observation. d. Stain et al. (2015) collaboration, instruction, feedback, designing teaching, micro teaching, modelling. e. Zheng et al. (2017) discussion, collaboration, instruction, study material, feedback, designing teaching, observation, modelling.

Table 2. PDP- and context-characteristics that stimulate teacher development.

Characteristics	Personal domain	Domain of practice	Domain of consequence
	Stains et al. (2015)	Owens et al. (2018), Stains et al. (2015) and Zheng et al. (2017)	Hilpert and Husman (2017) and Sanders et al. (2019)
PDP
Time frame	short	short and long	long
Grouping	monodisciplinary	monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary	multidisciplinary and monodisciplinary
Teaching methods	instruction, collaboration, feedback, designing teaching, modelling, micro teaching	discussion, instruction, collaboration, feedback, designing teaching, portfolio/reflection, mentoring, observation, modelling, micro teaching, investigating effects, study material	discussion, instruction, feedback, portfolio/reflection, mentoring, study material
Practical relevance	x	x	x
Context
Facilitation		facilitation
Voluntary/compulsory		voluntary	voluntary
Funding		organisation

*italic = mentioned in two articles; underscore = mentioned in 3 articles; bold = mentioned in perceived relationship.

Figure 4. Enriched IMPG. Italic: indication of a relationship between characteristics and domains of teacher development. Based on the Interconnected model of Professional Growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) and curriculum spiderweb (Van den Akker, 2003).

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X-02-00053-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_1

 Google Scholar

*Owens, M. T., Trujillo, G., Seidel, S. B., Harrison, C. D., Farrar, K. M., Benton, H. P. , and Tanner, K. D. (2018). Collectively improving our teaching: Attempting biology department-wide professional development in scientific teaching. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-06-0106

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sanders, A. L., Snyder, S. J., & Mathews, S.-K. (2019). Fostering student motivation to think critically: Critical thinking dispositions in higher education. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 30(2), 133–160.

 Google Scholar

*Stains, M., Pilarz, M., & Chakraverty, D. (2015). Short and long-term impacts of the cottrell scholars collaborative new faculty workshop. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(9), 1466–1476. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00324.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zheng, M., Bender, D., & Nadershahi, N. (2017). Faculty professional development in emergent pedagogies for instructional innovation in dental education. European Journal of Dental Education, 21(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12180

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hilpert, J. C., & Husman, J. (2017). Instructional improvement and student engagement in post-secondary engineering courses: The complexity underlying small effect sizes. Educational Psychology, 37(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1241379.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar