Exploring empowering practices for teachers’ sustainable continuing professional development

ABSTRACT

Background

The question of how best to enable sustainable professional development remains a challenging one. The research reported here is situated within a professional learning communities (PLCs) approach as a long-term goal for continuing professional development (CPD) with action research (AR) principles as a means of organisation.

Purpose

The aim of the study was to investigate how teachers’ CPD can be structured and facilitated to enable sustainable professional development. In this context, ‘sustainable’ refers to an impact of professional learning beyond the duration of the course in question.

Method

An AR-oriented CPD course was used as a case study, with a specific focus on the participants’ experiences of how the course work affected their professional practice and the enabling factors contributing to this end. Data were qualitative interviews with the 11 in-service teachers who completed the course, 6 months after its completion. The interviews were analysed in an inductive manner using qualitative content analysis.

Findings

The analysis identified eight different categories relating to participants’ experiences of how the AR-inspired CPD process affected their practice. Effects were connected to three overarching levels in terms of scope: individual level, school level and level of the wider community. In addition, we determined ten interconnected factors that appeared to influence the scope and quality of the process.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the importance of grounding CPD courses in participants’ own practice and offer insights into the significance of collaboration and collegial relationships for sustainable professional development. The study reflects how an increase in strategies and structures for collaboration has the potential to transform school cultures into more collaborative ones. It also draws attention to how cognitive and affective aspects are intertwined during developmental processes: teachers suggested that acknowledgement and supportive actions of colleagues and leadership had underpinned development, empowered them and spurred them on as active agents of change.

KEYWORDS:

• Action research
• teacher agency
• Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
• professional learning community
• sustainability
• teacher collaboration

Introduction

In any educational setting, perhaps the most important point about continuing professional development (CPD) is that it should be truly sustainable: i.e. it should have a positive impact well beyond the duration of the course in question. However, determining how teachers’ CPD can be structured and facilitated to enable sustainable professional development is challenging. CPD is realised in many different and varied forms, ranging from occasional lecture-type sessions to long-term programmes; some may carry mandatory requirements, whilst other courses may be presented as optional opportunities for professional learning. Some research suggests that, although teachers may find competence acquired from CPD to be valuable, implementing learnings based on CPD can be difficult in the context of everyday practice (see e.g. Kennedy 2016).

Much research has been devoted to investigating the characteristics and features of effective CPD. In their meta-study, Timperley et al. (2007) identified successful CPD as collaborative, systematic and long term, building on school-based activities, observations of each other’s teaching, mutual reflections of observed teaching and containing input by external expertise (see also McLaughlin and Talbert 2006). Further, Onchwari and Keengwe (2008) stress the benefits of collegial processes conducted through mentor-coaching, where teachers have the opportunity to discuss methods, plan together and be supported by others in their professional role (see also Hardy, Rönnerman, and Edwards-Groves 2018). According to Porche, Pallante, and Snow (2012), CPD with sustainable results tends to be built on collegial learning, where teachers engage in efforts intended to show measurable changes in students’ results (see also Zehetmeier 2010.) Here, the formation of professional learning communities (PLCs) becomes of interest, with a PLC being conceptualised as a community of continuous inquiry and improvement (Hord 2004) – a school-wide framework with the possibility of encompassing the enabling features listed above. Whilst there are different definitions and descriptions of PLCs, here we understand the five dimensions of a PLC to be supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application of learning, supportive conditions and shared practice (Hord 2004; see also McLaughlin and Talbert 2006).

In Europe, the current overarching direction of travel related to all stages of professional development in education tends towards a more holistic approach, linking pre-service and in-service teacher education (TE) (Commission of the European Communities 2007; Niemi 2015). This relates to an increase in efforts to support an inquiry stance in the profession, starting from pre-service TE onwards (see, e.g. Cochran-Smith et al. 2009). In Finland, TE has been university-based since the 1970s. It aims to qualify reflective, autonomous teachers capable of addressing the practical challenges in their profession based on research-informed principles. In line with the Bologna declaration, TE consists of a two-cycle degree system that includes undergraduate studies leading to a Bachelor’s degree, and graduate studies resulting in a Master’s degree. The programme comprises 300 ECTS¹ credit points and is designed to be completed in 5 years. An inquiry stance is supported through a research-based orientation, which emphasises the integration of theory and practice through reflection. Using scholarly methods and gaining insights into scientific tools, student teachers carry out their own small-scale research projects for their Bachelor’s and Master’s theses (Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006; Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2011; for further insights into the Finnish context, see Aspfors et al. 2018).

CPD in Finland has traditionally consisted mainly of individual teachers attending lecture-type sessions or workshops, after which they are expected to implement their new knowledge into their daily practice. For financial reasons, school districts sometimes come together for larger seminars. The content of such one-time gatherings tends to be of a more general nature and they seldom cater for the need to support teachers on a long term basis. Subject teachers, in particular, have a long tradition of working individually in their classrooms. Consequently, although TE in Finland is research-based at Master’s level, CPD and school contexts do not, by default, make provision for continuous collegial reflective inquiry to be built into daily practice. However, increased efforts have been made in recent years to support the development of CPD with more long-term effects (Heikkinen, Aho, and Korhonen 2015; Niemi 2015).

Thus, we identified a need for understanding more about enabling arrangements that not only allow but also require collaborative and continuous professional development opportunities (Niemi 2015; see also Kemmis et al. 2014). In this paper, we report on a study that analysed teachers’ experiences from a CPD course in Finland in order to explore how teachers’ CPD can be structured and facilitated to enable sustainable professional development. The course was built around principles of collaborative action research (AR), as AR can be a useful approach for bridging the theory-practice gap and simultaneously supporting the development of an inquiry stance throughout the teaching career (Ferrance 2000; Kosnik and Beck 2000; Smith and Sela 2005; Timperley et al. 2007). Conducted collaboratively, externally facilitated, and structured around the four phases of planning, acting, observing and reflecting commonly connected to the AR spiral, the process can also support the drive for continuous action that enables sustainability in accordance with a well-functioning PLC. However, before we explain more about how we conducted our study, we will contextualise it further in relation to the conceptual background that underpinned our approach.

Background

As outlined out above, our study is based on the notion that CPD – when conducted according to the principles of collaborative AR – can offer the possibility of sustainability, in the form of the enactment of new competence through a collegial, activating process. This process, in turn, can support the formation of a PLC, enabling growth of expertise in the professional community as a whole. In the paragraphs that follow, we will discuss central aspects of such processes further.

Kemmis and McTaggart (1994) describe AR as involving people in making critical analyses aimed at discovering how situations have been socially and historically constructed, and using these analyses as a source of insight into ways in which we might construct situations differently (see also Kemmis and Smith 2008; Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014). The transformative nature of successful collaborative AR is highlighted in Hardy, Rönnerman, and Edwards-Groves’ (2018) account of how teachers in an Australian primary setting were able to reorient what was initially a constraining, accountability-driven situation, for their own CPD purposes. Such processes entail an inquiry stance and empowerment through an active, transformative approach to competence building, rather than CPD conducted as transfer of a prescribed body of knowledge (Kennedy 2016).

As Gibbs et al. (2017) pointed out, AR has tended to be used for both pre-service and in-service TE in a technical and practical manner, rather than for emancipatory ends; moreover, it has often been conducted individually rather than collaboratively (see also Kemmis and Smith 2008; Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014). Thus, AR within CPD arrangements cannot be understood as only one type of process (Aspfors et al. 2015). An inevitable challenge for CPD through more extended processes, such as AR, is that of time. In their small-scale, year-long Canadian study of classroom teachers and literacy intervention teachers engaging in a PLC, Kelly and Cherkowski (2015) discuss the balance required alongside regular professional demands. Whilst recognising this, they underscore the possibility, and the importance, of attending to the affective components of collaborative CPD. These components include feelings of trust and support, a sense of connecting through shared goals, and the respect received as part of the PLC (see Kemmis et al. 2014 on social-political arrangements in AR processes). Citing Mitchell and Sackney (2009), Kelly and Cherkowski (2015) also reference the aspect of enhanced accountability in relation to colleagues as a further driving force in collaborative endeavours (Forsman 2019).

Among others, Bredeson (2000) discusses the significance of school principals as enablers for CPD (see also Nehez and Blossing 2020). A vital form of support concerns the provision of material-economic resources, which also signals that CPD is prioritised and appreciated. Further stressing the responsibility of leadership, Timperley et al. (2007) suggest starting from contextual needs rather than from the individual content interests of the teachers. AR involves building on the needs of local sites (Kemmis and Smith 2008; Kemmis et al. 2014), either contextual or individual. The contextual caveat can constitute a dilemma, as research indicates that CPD efforts may be less successful in situations where teachers are given directives from above, e.g. in the form of mandatory participation (Kennedy 2016). Although teachers might not actively resist change, they are more likely to disregard it in practice if they do not experience a need for change. Focusing on areas in need of development that teachers experience as challenging, and collaboratively embedding the knowledge into daily routines, is often stressed as beneficial, particularly as teacher agency can be strengthened in relation to various system needs (Hattie 2009; Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014; Kemmis et al. 2014; Niemi 2015; see also Aspfors et al. 2015). Ideally, contextual and individual aims can converge through the creation of a shared vision or be combined (Forsman 2019). If challenges arise, focus can be put on enabling arrangements rather than on individual teachers’ degree of engagement (Darling-Hammond and Lieberman 2012; Kemmis et al. 2014).

We noted earlier that support in the form of mentoring-coaching and input by external expertise are thought to be among the core enabling features in CPD. In a meta-analysis of 28 carefully selected studies in the USA context, Kennedy (2016) noted less sustainable results from CPD where coaches were observing and evaluating practices, compared to programmes with a collaborative problem-solving stance designed to help teachers develop a more strategic approach to their work (Kelly and Cherkowski 2015). When coaches gave teachers research reports to reflect on and discuss as they planned their lessons, results were even better, which suggests the importance of providing teachers with opportunities to process and internalise new knowledge. AR projects in school contexts, including CPD, are often facilitated by researchers. This can be helpful, as researchers can provide input in the form of new knowledge as well as support the different phases of the AR process. In our study, such facilitation was provided as part of the course, in a manner similar to sustainable CPD discussed in Kennedy (2016).

Finally, considering how professional cultures can be both taken-for-granted and deep-rooted, the formation of school-wide PLCs is often challenging (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012). In the study of such processes, including CPD, there is always a risk of over-simplification, considering the layers of constraining factors (ranging from economical to relational) which are simultaneously at work within a single context (Nehez and Blossing 2020). Indeed, a central feature such as collaboration cannot, in itself, be regarded as a panacea for professional development, as it can vary considerably in quality and scope (Kennedy 2016). This can be exemplified by Hargreaves and Fullan’s (2012) identification of different collaborative cultures in schools, depicted as contrived collegiality, balkanisation (teachers collaborating independently in smaller groups) and PLCs, respectively. In an early problematisation of this complexity, Little (1990) depicts a continuum of teacher-to-teacher collaboration ranging from independence to interdependence. The continuum ranges from scanning and storytelling, via help and assistance and sharing of materials and strategies, to joint work. Of course, not all collaborative set-ups can support sustainable CPD to the same extent. However, the question of whether some parts might constitute important steps towards finding the necessary drive for continuous action to enable the creation of a well-functioning PLC needs consideration (see, for example, Blankenship and Ruona 2007).

Purpose

The aim of the study was to explore how teachers’ CPD could be structured and facilitated to enable sustainable professional development. Our research was conducted within the context of an AR-oriented CPD course, which we utilised as our case study. It had a specific focus on the participants’ experiences of how the course work affected their professional practice and the contributing enabling factors. The research questions were: (1) How has the AR-inspired CPD process affected professional practice?  and (2) What factors influenced the scope and quality of the AR-inspired CPD process?  The first question focused on participants’ experiences of development, as shown through knowledge growth, enactment of new knowledge and/or change in practice. With respect to the different dimensions of sustainability, focus was also placed on the scope of the effects (i.e. whether the identified aspects pertained to changes on individual or collective levels). The second question explored factors that, in the participants’ experience, were perceived as enabling CPD, with specific attention to how these factors were seen to affect the scope and/or quality of the process.

Methods

The CPD course case study context

As explained above, we used a specific AR-oriented CPD course as our case study. The course was developed building on previous research and experiences regarding sustainable CPD processes. Specifically, the course entitled Developing instruction in multicultural settings was intended for teachers active in basic education, vocational education and tertiary-level education. Although individual participants were also welcome, the course was designed for several participants from the same site, with the explicit purpose of adding affordances for implementation and sustainability. This course aimed at developing teachers’ competences for teaching and supporting learners in multilingual and multicultural settings. It included three overarching content areas: intercultural pedagogy, additional language teaching and language-aware teaching in multicultural classrooms. Comprising 15 credit units, the course consisted of five study periods (total 45 contact hours) spread over a period of 7 months and included lectures, workshops, individual or group presentations and school visits.

A central integrated feature of the course was the development of work in the form of small-scale AR projects connected to the participants’ own practice.  To meet the needs of local sites, participants could choose the specific focus of their projects, and collaborative efforts were encouraged. Having been introduced to the principles of AR and informed by research literature, participants drew up plans for their projects. The plans were presented and discussed during seminars, with other participants and course instructors acting as critical friends. The plans were then enacted and further developed in each working context. During the final session, each project was presented. A written report, which included theoretical underpinnings, description of implementations and reflection on the outcome, was handed in.

Six projects were completed within the framework of the course. Two of these were individual projects focusing on course development. In the other four projects, 2 to 4 participants collaborated and the focus was on developing and improving existing routines for receiving, integrating and/or teaching newly arrived students in each respective context. The authors of this article functioned as course instructors and mentors for the AR projects. The course did not involve the assessment of participants’ performance.

Ethical considerations

The study adheres to the ethical principles specified by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2019). When participants were contacted by email after the course had ended, they were informed about the details and purpose of the study and asked if they were willing to take part in an interview focusing on their experiences of the course. They were informed that participation was voluntary and were assured of confidentiality. When reporting the findings, data were anonymised (e.g. participants were assigned pseudonyms and names of people and specific locations were removed). In the context of the study, permissions beyond the informed consent of participants were not required.

Data collection

About 6 months after the course had been completed, interviews were carried out with course participants (henceforth teachers) who had completed their AR projects within the framework of the course. Out of the 13 teachers who met this criterion, 11 agreed to be interviewed. The choice was made to interview the teachers in the constellations in which they had carried out their projects. This meant that there were six interviews (referred to as C1 – C6) in total, of which two (C2 and C3) were individual interviews, and four were group interviews (C1, C4, C5 and C6). The interviewed teachers came from different schools. The majority worked in basic education (grades 1–6 or 7–9; pupil ages 7–12 and 13–15), but vocational and university education was also represented. The participants were all female and their ages ranged from 30 to 55. Based on the research questions, an interview guide for semi-structured interviews was constructed, focusing on teachers’ experiences of the different aspects of the course and of CPD endeavours in general. More specifically, the teachers were asked to reflect upon if and how the course, and in particular, their project work contributed to their professional practice, how their project was received in their respective contexts and whether they could see an impact of the project in their contexts. The questions also focused on particular challenges experienced during the process and aspects they experienced as having a positive impact.

The interview guide, together with an overview of the course content and set-up, was sent to the teachers beforehand to allow more time for them to reflect on their experiences. We decided to conduct the interviews ourselves, despite potential challenges to the quality of the study (see Limitations below). The thorough insights into the whole process allowed us to draw upon and refer to shared experiences and were crucial for the ensuing data analysis (Kelly and Cherkowski 2015). The audio-recorded interviews were conducted in Swedish,² which was the home language of the participants and researchers. They lasted between 40 and 55 minutes and were carried out at locations that were convenient for the teachers, usually at their workplace.

Data analysis

The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed in an inductive manner by means of conventional qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2018; see also Moser and Korstjens 2018). Initially, this meant reading and re-reading the transcripts to familiarise ourselves with the data and to obtain a sense of the whole. Next, essential portions relevant for the study were selected and organised into two sets, depending on which research question was being addressed. Each selected portion was furnished with a short descriptive note, which condensed its meaning in relation to the relevant research question. By connecting and contrasting the ensuing descriptions, two preliminary sets of codes were inductively developed. The initial codes were compared in terms of similarities and differences. They were then further condensed and collected under emergent categories in relation to the two research questions. Until this point, the data analysis was carried out independently by one of the researchers in the team. In the following step, the preliminary results are discussed and scrutinised collectively, such that emergent categories are compared and contrasted in relation to the coded extracts and the entire data set in an iterative process. In this manner, a final set of categories was developed and labelled to capture the specific quality of each category (Moser and Korstjens 2018). In relation to the first research question, the effects or changes described in the categories were scrutinised again with respect to the scope of the effects. This created three overarching levels: the individual level, the school level and the level of the wider community.

Findings

In the sections below, the findings from the analysis are presented as responses to the two research questions that we aimed to address in our study. Where relevant, anonymised and translated quotations from the data are included to illuminate and exemplify some of the themes that emerged from the analysis.

How has the AR-inspired CPD process affected professional practice? 

The analysis pertaining to this question resulted in the identification of eight different categories of effects connected to three overarching levels, as illustrated in Figure 1. As the figure shows, there were variations concerning the types of effects reported in each interview, and no interview included reference to all eight categories.

Figure 1. The eight categories of effects connected to three overarching levels.

Note on Figure 1: C1–C6 refer to the groupings for the six teacher interviews (C2 and C3 were individual interviews; C1, C4, C5 and C6 were group interviews).

In terms of the overarching levels, it is evident from Figure 1 that the individual level connects categories that describe development relating to the teachers’ own professional competence. This level comprises three categories: expanding one’s knowledge of own practice, developing self-confidence and identifying areas for further development. All interviews noted changes on this level, but they differed as to how and to which degree the different categories were represented. In all interviews, the teachers commented that the process expanded their knowledge of their own practice and for some (C1, C4), this was the most significant outcome of participating in the course. The teachers explained that the process functioned as an ‘eye opener’ (C2), provided them with new tools for their respective lines of work (C3, C4 and C6) and offered new perspectives or a new understanding of their own practice, as they had been able to apply course content in their work (C3, C1). The teachers further expressed that their self-confidence had grown because of the process. The course work had confirmed their thoughts and their ways of working so that they felt assured of being on the right track (C1, C2, C4 and C5). As one teacher observed:

Through the course I have become assured of the fact that there is a sound idea and research behind all this, which has confirmed my own teaching. With added weight behind you it becomes easier to push forward.

The course work also contributed to the teachers’ professional development, in the sense that it helped them to identify areas in need of further development, thus recognising that the developmental process is ongoing. As one teacher explained, ‘[The process] heightened my awareness that there was something beyond methodology that I would need to develop’ and ‘when I started posing concrete questions about what would happen if I did this or that, it helped me narrow down the focus’. She then concluded, ‘So I would like to continue to develop the methodology, as it was useful for me’.

The categories connected to the school level describe effects connected to the school as an organisation, including effects on students and colleagues. The school level comprises five categories, of which one, identifying areas for further development, is also found on the individual level. Thus, besides recognising their own developmental needs, the teachers in C6 also identified areas that needed to be developed in connection with the whole school. As one of the participants pointed out, ‘what remains of the strategy is to implement the multicultural team, so we still have things to develop’.

The next category connected to the school level is change in students’ knowledge and attitudes. Here, two teachers who focused on trying out new practices in their own teaching observed changes not only in the students’ knowledge but also in the students’ attitudes and beliefs towards the subject and their abilities to learn that subject. Another teacher also noted a more positive attitude towards newly arrived refugee students after the students had been prepared according to the new programme the teachers had developed for the school. In three of the interviews, teachers reported a greater awareness and interest among colleagues. One of them commented that although her colleagues had not been directly involved in the project, she believed they had been inspired and that her experiences got them thinking about whether they, too, should try a similar approach. In addition to having noted a greater awareness and interest among their colleagues, some teachers reported a change in their own role in relation to colleagues; i.e. taking on the role of the expert. The teachers spoke about being asked to give advice, offer knowledge, explanations and guidance to their colleagues.

Finally, teachers in C4 and C6 reported that their respective projects brought about changes in school practices – in other words, changes in how the school operated. The teachers worked on developing action plans for integrating and supporting newly arrived students and teachers in C4 and C6 gave several examples of the changes. For instance, the teachers in C4 explained that, before the start of their project, the support of newly arrived students was largely considered the responsibility of the special education teachers. With the introduction of the action plan, their colleagues became more aware of the kind of challenges that newly arrived students faced and what they could do to support and help them. As a result, the practice of the school changed in that teachers started offering support to newly arrived students before exams and developed alternative forms of assessment more suited for this group of students.

The third level of change, the level of the wider community, describes contributions to societal development. Even though the projects of participants in C1 and C6 focused on school development, the teachers reported that their internal development work had had more far-reaching spin-off effects. As one of the teachers in C1 explained:

One thing leads to another/…/it all started with our own school and then we applied for money to do more and arrange seminars where we can enlighten local companies of the situation and of the issues that need to be addressed.

At the time of the interview, they reported having promoted and given information about the product they developed on ‘several occasions and events’. Furthermore, the teachers in C6 talked about having planned and taught a CPD course that focused on the issues they had worked on in their project.

What factors influenced the scope and quality of the AR-inspired CPD process? 

The analysis identified ten qualitatively different factors that, according to the interviewed participants, influenced the scope and quality of the CPD process. Table 1 presents these factors and shows how they were distributed across the interviews (C1–C6).

Table 1. Factors connected to the scope and quality of the AR-inspired CPD process

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6
Scientific and systematic approach	x	x	x	x	x	x
Continuous action	x	x		x
Concrete product			x	x		x
Goal orientation	x	x				x
Relevance for own practice	x	x	x	x	x	x
Collaborative process	x	x		x		x
Material-economic support	x		x		x	x
Flexible arrangements	x	x	x	x	x	x
Opportunities for sharing and networking	x	x	x	x	x	x
Acknowledgement and reciprocity	x	x	x	x	x	x

Note on Table 1: C1–C6 refer to the groupings for the six teacher interviews (C2 and C3 were individual interviews; C1, C4, C5 and C6 were group interviews).

The first two factors, scientific and systematic approach and continuous action, are connected to the use of AR as a tool for professional development within the framework of the course. In relation to the category scientific and systematic approach, the teachers pointed out that having an understanding of the theory and state of research in the fields connected to their projects affected both the quality and scope of the process. As one teacher explained, the fact that there was sound research backing up their work made it easier for them to share knowledge with their colleagues, as it gave more weight to their argument. It was also noted that the systematic approach afforded by AR provided a model and focus for their own development process; as one teacher stated, ‘I started to understand how I could use [AR] to develop myself and my own work’.

The second factor, continuous action, highlights the fact that learning is effective when it involves action and reflection on action. One teacher commented that ‘we remember better and development improves when we have produced something ourselves and really put our minds to it’. In other words, continuous action was seen to affect the quality of the CPD process, as it involves a constant interplay between knowledge, action and reflection.

Thirdly, the teachers stressed the importance of being able to share and implement something concrete, specific and readily accessible for everyone. For example, the teachers in interview group C4 said that their plan of action for supporting newly arrived students was easy to present to their colleagues and concrete enough to implement, as they could pinpoint specific changes in the practice of the school after the plan had been introduced. In addition, the fact that the plan was published as part of an online staff guide made it both readily available to everyone and an explicit and integrated part of the guiding principles of the school. The fourth factor – goal orientation – concerns the fact that teachers’ own mindset may affect the degree of spread in a particular context. Thus, the teachers in interviews C1 and C6, who managed to implement their ideas into the wider community, expressed beliefs in their own role as change agents (C1) and had a clear vision of how they would go about spreading their ideas (C6).

A factor reported in all six interviews was relevance for own practice. The teachers said that it was important for them that the course work was relevant for their own needs and practices. The perceived relevance was noted to affect motivation and the amount of effort invested into the process. Furthermore, when the CPD process is in keeping with the current needs and developmental efforts of the wider work context, additional effects can be obtained. This was illustrated in interview C1, where the project was linked to a forthcoming field trip. Because the project was of immediate interest to the teacher’s colleagues, it was well-received (compare acknowledgement and reciprocity below). Additionally, the teachers reported that their project was one among many similar projects taking place in their work context at that time. By linking their project to a context-wide developmental process, the issue could be addressed from many angles, and different forces were working towards the same goal.

Many of the teachers who were able to work on their projects together with one or more colleagues (interviews C1, C4 and C6) stressed the importance of the collaborative process. Benefits of this co-operation included sharing the workload, exchanging ideas and providing support for one another throughout the process. Besides affecting the quality of the process, collaborating with somebody from the same work environment enhances the possibilities of achieving enactment. As one teacher put it, ‘when there are two of you, you discuss more and then other people can listen in’. According to another teacher, ‘it was a positive thing that there was a group of us to speak for our cause’. Furthermore, collaboration was mentioned as a key factor when it came to achieving more widespread impact. For participants in interview groups C4 and C6, collaboration on the project was extended to include the whole school. Thus, in C4, colleagues were interviewed and their ideas subsequently integrated into the action plan that was being developed. As a result, the colleagues felt included in the process and, as they saw that their opinions mattered, there was a sense of empowerment. Two teachers took part in the CPD course without colleagues from their respective work contexts. One of them expressed the view that her course attendance probably led to less collegial cooperation, as she was so focused on her project. She thought working together with a colleague would have been beneficial in terms of exchanging ideas and providing mutual support. Instead, collaboration with the course instructors became an important substitute. She said that their support gave her the confidence to take the necessary steps in order to develop.

The final four factors – material-economic support, flexible arrangements, opportunities for sharing and networking and acknowledgement and reciprocity – all concern affordances or enabling arrangements connected with the course and/or work contexts. Availability of material-economic support concerns workplace arrangements that are conducive to teachers’ participation in CPD, such as the paid leave and substitute teachers provided for the teachers in C5 and C6. Even if the teachers in C1 attended the course without getting paid leave, they considered material-economic support important to enable and encourage more teachers to get involved in CPD. As one of them explained, ‘to get more [teachers] involved it would have to be within working hours and supported in another manner. Many do not want to spend their spare time on developing their work’.

Flexible arrangements concern how a CPD course is arranged. Opinions differed regarding the optimal duration of a course and what the course requirements should include. This raises the issue of flexibility, which was summed up by one teacher as follows:

I would be so frustrated with a very tight time frame, not having sufficient time. Now, I was informed well in advance and I could work on it during the summer break. Because you cannot squeeze it into everyday life just like that.

This teacher stressed the importance of being allowed to choose the topic of the development project, as it allowed her to focus on something that responded to her specific needs. Opportunities for sharing and networking both during the course and at the workplace, formal as well as informal ones, were considered important enabling factors affecting both the quality and the scope of the CPD process. In C5 and C6, the teachers were offered arranged opportunities at their workplaces for presenting their work to colleagues. In C6, this involved presenting their project during a school staff meeting; in C5, one of the teachers was asked to speak at a network meeting in her municipality, as a form of internal CPD, initiated and supported by the director of education. In relation to the course, formal opportunities for presenting were seen by teachers in interviews C6 and C3 to provide valuable insight into other people’s work. Additionally, the importance of sufficient time for discussions during coffee breaks, both at the workplace and during a course was stressed in five out of six interviews, and some teachers commented they would have liked even more of this. Such informal discussions can serve multiple purposes because they provide opportunities for information exchange and networking, as well as for receiving and providing support.

Finally, acknowledgement and reciprocity concern the fact that the effect and quality of a CPD process is not only in the hands of the individual teacher. This factor emphasises the importance of leaders who acknowledge the work and show interest in it, as well as colleagues who are willing to accept the teacher in the role of an expert and who are willing to learn from that teacher. The teachers related both positive and negative examples of acknowledgement and reciprocity. A positive example was provided by the teachers in one of the interview groups. They expressed appreciation for the acknowledgement and support they received from their principal. The principal was well aware of their participation in the CPD course and showed both interest and appreciation for their work, which manifested itself into an offer to present their project during a staff meeting. In contrast, teachers in another interview group reported a different perspective. They explained that they had given their school leaders some materials developed during the course, but at the time of the interview had not received feedback on their work. This reflected a sense that their work, contrary to their intentions, had not, at that stage, been disseminated or put into use more widely. In summary, these, and other examples from the data analysis, draw attention to how acknowledgement and reciprocity have the potential to affect both the extent and degree of enactment.

Discussion

In this study, we set out to explore how teachers’ CPD might best be structured and facilitated to enable sustainable professional development. We addressed this by analysing participants’ experiences of how an AR-oriented CPD course affected their professional practice and the enabling factors that contributed to this. The central features of AR permeating the course concerned working towards improved practice, preferably collaboratively in a PLC, through a reflective inquiry process where new knowledge is intertwined with continuous action.

The different developmental patterns that emerged in connection with our first research question (How has the AR-inspired CPD process affected professional practice? ) indicated examples of different dimensions of sustainability. Clearly, all effects identified in this study do not (yet) meet all the demands of a PLC as described by Hord (2004). For one thing, changes reported on the individual level do not per se have an impact beyond the teacher’s own classroom, even if they do have a lasting impact beyond the duration of the course. Also, building a PLC takes time (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012; see also Nehez and Blossing 2020). Nevertheless, the findings indicate that changes on the individual level can serve as important stepping stones towards more widespread collaboration and change (Little 1990; see also Blankenship and Ruona 2007). For instance, one of the teachers who attended the course on her own reported that the positive outcome of the project inspired her to continue on the path she had started. She felt that she had managed to arouse the interest of her colleagues but, beyond that she did not yet feel that the method was developed up to a point where she was ready to involve and recommend it to colleagues. During the CPD course, she had benefitted from the collegial support and guidance of the course instructors (Kennedy 2016; Timperley et al. 2007). However, after the course ended, she would have to find this support among her colleagues. There is, in other words, a possibility that, with time, changes on a broader scale may come about.

In relation to our second research question (What factors influenced the scope and quality of the AR-inspired CPD process?), the teachers’ descriptions of their experiences during and after the CPD course offer insights into the significance of collaboration and collegial relationships for sustainable development. It has to be recognised that, if colleagues are not involved in the process, the benefits of many of the factors affecting the scope and quality of the development process at the workplace may be lost. It is noteworthy that, in the interviews, the two situations where collaboration on the projects extended to include other colleagues were the only ones reporting actual change in school practices. This collaboration created a more inclusive process of joint work (chiming with the steps of collaboration in Little 1990), resulting in a sense of ownership among all colleagues. However, collegial interdependence and cultures of sharing do not necessarily develop on their own accord. Here, principals have an important role as enablers (e.g. Bredeson 2000; Timperley et al. 2007), as exemplified in the study when some of the participants were invited to share their ongoing project work at a staff meeting.

The factors influencing the scope and quality of the process interact in a constant interplay between agent and context (Kemmis et al. 2014; Kennedy 2016). We noted that when the vision and goals of the individual(s) coincided with the needs of the working context, there were benefits in terms of both quality and spread. Again, this underscores the research findings that sustainable CPD is a collective effort grounded in practice and serving the vision of the work context (Timperley et al. 2007). Thus, when arranging CPD courses, one needs to consider how the goals and arrangements of the course not only meet the individual teacher’s needs but also how they interplay with other factors that influence the outcome of the process. Not least, this concerns the importance of provision of material-economic resources, such as time for developmental work, that signal that teachers’ CPD is prioritised (Kemmis and Smith 2008; Kemmis et al. 2014).

Our findings also remind us that cognitive and affective aspects are intertwined, thereby underscoring the importance of making sure that both aspects are sufficiently catered for in CPD programmes. The teachers testified that the knowledge they gained through the process boosted their self-confidence and made them feel empowered. Additionally, the acknowledgement and supportive actions of colleagues and leadership were identified by the teachers as enabling factors (e.g. as in the example from our analysis where the teachers felt acknowledged by their principal as they were offered opportunities for sharing new knowledge). The affective aspects can be seen to belong to what Kemmis et al. (2014) discussed as the arena of social-political arrangements; Kelly and Cherkowski (2015), too, discuss the importance of attending to the affective components of the CPD process (such as feelings of trust and support, a sense of connecting through shared goals and the respect received).

Limitations

Through this small-scale case study, we offer some in-depth insights and discussion into the wider issues of how to create sustainable CPD. However, it is important to acknowledge that further larger-scale research would be needed to determine the extent to which the findings can be generalised and what other factors may contribute to sustainable CPD. As the authors of this article were in the roles of both course instructors and researchers, efforts were made to achieve an unbiased research process, through ensuring openness regarding interview questions and safeguarding against unconsciously confirming individual researchers’ preconceptions in the analysis by reaching agreement on findings. However, we nonetheless recognise that the situated nature of the research and the implications of this must be borne in mind. In addition, we cannot take for granted that a specific solution will work in all contexts. Thus, the need for the development of site-based, tailor-made solutions for teachers’ professional development is indisputable (Hattie 2009; Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014; see also Aspfors et al. 2015).

Conclusions

The findings of this small-scale study cannot, of course, pinpoint all factors that are relevant for making a CPD process sustainable. However, our analysis yields valuable examples of how reciprocity and interdependence between agent(s), course design and workplace factors can affect the outcome. Even if enabling factors inherent to AR processes – such as collaboration and steps towards continuous action – were identified as beneficial, their impact for sustainable CPD may not be fully realised unless this interplay is considered. What can be seen is in line with previous research regarding conditions that promote and support an ongoing process of collegial competence, building towards sustainable change (Kennedy 2016; McLaughlin and Talbert 2006; Onchwari and Keengwe 2008; Timperley et al. 2007). By understanding more about how best to structure and facilitate CPD, we can move closer to the goal of enabling teachers’ professional learning to have an impact well beyond the duration of the course itself.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. ECTS refers to the European Credit Transfer System.

2. Swedish is one of the national languages in Finland.