Professional learning and development needs of Chinese university-based physical education teacher educators

ABSTRACT

This study examines the professional learning and development (PLD) needs of Chinese university-based physical education teacher educators (PETEds) and their views about effective ways to address them. This is significant given the limited research exploring this group. A European-wide survey was translated and distributed in China, receiving 251 responses of PETEds from 28 provinces. We found that the majority of PETEds had a strong desire to undertake further PLD in three areas: subject knowledge and didactics with particular emphasis on professional training in specific types of sports, research related academic activities and institutional activities. They preferred formal learning programmes as well as international learning activities to address these needs. The cost of the activities was the most significant factor influencing their engagement. We recommend paying closer attention to the PLD needs of specific subject area groups of teacher educators.

KEYWORDS:

• Physical education
• teacher educators
• professional learning
• professional development
• needs

Introduction

Teacher educators play a crucial role in the education system and significantly impact the quality of teacher education (Lunenberg et al. 2017; Smith 2003; Vanassche and Kelchtermans 2016). To best understand and support teacher educators’ professional learning and development (PLD), it is important to learn what skills and knowledge they need and how they effectively acquire such skills and knowledge throughout their career (MacPhail et al. 2018). The area of teacher educators’ PLD needs is gaining more interest, but is still under-researched (Czerniawski et al. 2018; MacPhail et al. 2018; White 2019). The literature on the PLD of physical education teacher educators (PETEds) is particularly scant (Coulter 2019).

Recently, the Chinese Ministry of Education (2018b) and the Chinese Ministry of Education, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, and State Commission Office for Public Sector Reform (2018) have published two documents offering more opportunities and support for teacher educators’ PLD. These include, for example, international and domestic visits and teaching observations. However, as Qiu (2015) suggested, Chinese institutions and policy makers should learn about teacher educators’ professional development needs before any action is taken. This study explores Chinese PETEds’ perceptions concerning their PLD needs, and how they can be addressed effectively. By using a survey that is part of the ongoing work of The International Forum for Teacher Educator Development (InFo-TED) (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017), this paper presents similarities and differences between Chinese PETEds’ and European teacher educators’ PLD needs, thus illuminating the significance of context.

Teacher educators’ professional learning and professional development

In many instances, the terms ‘professional learning’ and ‘professional development’ are used interchangeably, whereas in others each term is used deliberately (MacPhail et al. 2018). Professional learning refers to informal learning opportunities that are embedded in the workplace and arise on a daily basis (Berry, Clemans, and Kostogriz 2007). These include, for example, informal conversation with colleagues and personal reading. Professional development refers to more structured upskilling opportunities such as formal courses (MacPhail et al. 2014). Acknowledging the distinction, in this paper we use the term ‘professional learning and development’ (PLD) to refer to both types of learning.

International studies that explored teacher educators’ PLD preferences found that research and teaching are two highly valued areas (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017; Griffiths, Thompson, and Hryniewicz 2014; Guberman et al. 2020; Van Der Klink et al. 2017). Although most teacher educators are motivated to improve their professional skills, actual engagement is influenced by numerous contextual factors such as their professional identities, career stage, past experiences and aspirations for the future (Lunenberg et al. 2017; Smith 2017). Lack of time and work overload are significant obstacles (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017; MacPhail et al. 2018). Across wide national and institutional contexts, teacher educators’ participation in PLD activities is conceptualised as an individual endeavour (Guberman et al. 2020). There are very few examples of infrastructural support and encouragement (Van Der Klink et al. 2017), such as the voluntary registration processes offered by VELON, the teacher educators association in the Netherlands (Koster and Dengerink 2008).

Chinese physical education teacher educators

The current study deals with Chinese university-based PETEds. These professionals are involved in educating physical education pre-service teachers (PSTs) and/or facilitating the professional development of in-service physical education teachers. The interest in researching PETEds has steadily increased over the past two decades, with the majority of such research having been small-scale (McEvoy, MacPhail, and Heikinaro-Johansson 2015). Currently, little is known about PETEds in the western world (Lawson 1991; McEvoy, MacPhail, and Heikinaro-Johansson 2015) as well as in China (Zhong and Huang 2020).

In mainland China there are 1,423 colleges and 1,265 universities totalling 2,688 higher education institutions (Chinese Ministry of Education 2019), and 317 of these universities offer physical education teacher education (PETE) programmes to prepare future physical education teachers (Huang et al. 2016). Six universities offer tuition-free PETE programmes. In return, graduating students are required to teach in primary and secondary schools for a minimum of six years (see http://www.gov.cn). While the majority have the opportunity to teach physical education, the individual school determines the subjects they are to teach.

There are 65,613 full-time physical education lecturers/teachers across Chinese public higher education institutions (Chinese Ministry of Education 2018a), a sub-sample of whom are classified as PETEds. Physical education lecturers teach first and second year general university students, students in sport related majors, and/or coach university teams. Some of them also prepare future physical education teachers, and are therefore considered PETEds. Their areas of expertise could be professional sports skills, professional theory or sport pedagogy (Zhao 2013). In Chinese university Departments of Physical Education, there are consistently more male than female PETEds (Tan and Long 2012; Zhao 2013). Unlike Anglophone countries, the majority of Chinese university-based teacher educators do not have experience of teaching in schools (Zheng, Hu, and Zhang 2012). Rather, it is common that they follow the path of completing an undergraduate degree, going directly to a Master’s degree and then some of them continue to undertake a PhD before becoming a PETEd. In Shandong province, almost 40% of Chinese PETEds were reported as being unfamiliar with the most recent physical education and health curriculum in primary and secondary schools (Gu 2015). The Chinese PETE curriculum is usually divided into general modules (e.g. policy, English, computing), sport skills modules (e.g. volleyball, tennis, soccer), theoretical modules (e.g. sports biomechanics, sport psychology, school physical education), research modules (e.g. research methods) and teaching practice (e.g. observation, school placement). The State General Sports Administration and universities organise in-service training programmes to support university physical education lecturers to update their sport skills, coaching methods, subject knowledge, teaching skills and refereeing skills. While these opportunities are available for all physical education lecturers, there remains a lack of learning activities specific to PETEds (Zhong and Huang 2020).

PETEds’ research related academic interest

Research is important for teaching. As a PETEd in a PETE programme, MacPhail (2011) noted how her professional learning was guided by evidence-based teaching that is informed by what she researched and experienced about teaching in schools, and in turn affects PSTs’ professional learning.

Undertaking research is also one of the requirements necessary for every university-based teacher educator. A study that was conducted in Canada reported that PETEds were expected, at an institutional and national level, to engage in research, with 41% of PETEds perceiving that research was the most important role promoted by their institutions (Melnychuk et al. 2011). Exploring the research lives of an international group of PETEds, McEvoy, MacPhail, and Heikinaro-Johansson (2018) stated that PETEds were struggling and stressed to do research as part of their job requirements and career promotion. Time constraints and research skill gaps were perceived as challenges to research endeavours. Those PETEds who did not have English as their first language needed to expend significant effort to overcome language barriers to read and publish papers in international journals.

Chinese universities tend not to have such a strong expectation for PETEds to produce peer-reviewed publications (Yan 2015), and supporting the research abilities of Chinese university-based PETEds needs to be improved (Meizi 2008). In instances where PETEds have a higher degree (e.g. Doctoral degree), they are encouraged to be research active (Zhao 2013), with an acknowledgement that PETEds who have had limited formal learning experiences of how to conduct research have difficulties engaging in research. This is especially true for those who spend the majority of their time teaching sport skills modules. In one instance, in Jiangxin province, it has been noted that 43% of PETEds in seven universities did not have any publications in core academic journals over a five-year period (Tan and Long 2012). The main motivations for Chinese PETEds to engage in research are to gain a higher academic title (and in turn an increase in salary) and fulfil the research requirement of being an academic in a university (Meizi 2008).

PETEds’ subject knowledge and didactics

While documenting their own respective journeys as beginning PETEds, Casey and Fletcher (2012) struggled with the transition in pedagogical practices from being physical education teachers to PETEds. It is therefore important to acknowledge the possibility that teacher educators may lack the knowledge of how to be effective ‘teachers of teachers’ (Murray and Male 2005). This is disturbing, given the evidence that PSTs’ pedagogical knowledge and beliefs are primarily influenced by the practices of PETEds (Graber 1995; Graber and Schempp 2000).

Chinese university-based PETEds tend to use similar teaching methods to educate PSTs as those used by university-based physical education lecturers or coaches (Meizi 2008; Yan 2015; Zhao 2013). Both position physical activities as the core content of the school and PETE curriculum, thus representing a ‘sport-based’ attitude in their respective curriculum (Andriamampianina and Moussa 2005). While Chinese PETEds are confident in their sport skills and subject knowledge, they lack pedagogical knowledge (Zhao 2013), which in turn can have a negative influence on PSTs learning to teach.

In summary, Chinese PETEds appear to lack school experience, pedagogical knowledge and research skills (Gu 2015; Zhao 2013). However, little is known about Chinese PETEds’ perceptions of their own PLD needs. Such information is theoretically significant given the paucity of knowledge about this professional group. It can also have practical implications for future planning.

The current study explores the specific PLD needs of Chinese PETEds, the preferred ways in which these can be addressed, and factors that influence PETEds’ participation in upskilling activities. By comparing findings to those observed in other countries, better understanding can be achieved of commonalities in needs and differences resulting from context.

Method

Survey: A survey from an international study of teacher educators’ PLD needs (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017) was translated by the first author into Chinese. We introduced changes to adapt the survey to the Chinese PETE context to better fit the needs of a new population, the location, the language, and the combination of these (Harkness, Villar, and Edwards 2010). For example, we changed the work contexts from ‘University’ and ‘College’ to ‘Sport University’, ‘Comprehensive University’ and ‘Normal University’, as well as changing the terminology of ‘teacher educator’ to ‘physical education teacher educator’. A professor at a Chinese university helped us adapt the survey translation to Chinese PETE context. Then, in order to check for consistency with the English version of the survey, before the survey was disseminated through Chinese professional networks, a native Chinese speaker from Translators Association of China who was unfamiliar with the original questionnaire performed back-translation. The questionnaire included four sections: PLD preference (26 items); variables influencing engagement with PLD activities (8 items); research dispositions and experience (4 multi-item questions that are beyond the scope of this paper); and background information and role description (21 items). For each of the four sections, participants used an ordinal response scale to note their responses, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much). Two open-ended questions asked participants to record their most important PLD needs, and the PLD opportunities that would address their needs most effectively.

Data collecting: While Survey Monkey was the software used to design the original survey, it proved slow for a few participants to open when attempting to access the survey in China. To alleviate this issue, Wenjuan Xing, a Chinese research tool to design, share, and collect survey data, was used to create another survey link. Given that the most popular social media in China is WeChat, two academic colleagues from two Chinese universities contributed to the dissemination of the survey link through their WeChat professional networks. In addition, the lead author contacted over 400 participants through individual email accounts and disseminated paper copies of the survey at a Chinese conference attended by the first author and Chinese PETEds.

Participants: Two hundred and fifty one Chinese university-based PETEds (137 male and 57 female; 14 participants chose not to state their sex and 43 participants did not answer this question) from 28 provinces responded through Survey Monkey (196), Wenjuan Xing (37) and paper copies (18). As is common in collecting survey data, not all questions received a full complement of responses. The highest academic degree of 32% of the participants was PhD, 58% had a Master’s degree and 10% a Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science degree. The median age group was 35–44 years old and the number of years’ experience as PETEds ranged from 1 to 39, with a mean of 15.13 years (SD = 9.57). Just over 71% of participants noted that they had not worked as teachers before becoming PETEds. Near to 79% of participants worked full time as PETEds.

Data analysis: To reduce the amount of data and converge into a representative set of factors, we used a mix of exploratory and confirmatory analytical models (EFA and CFA respectively). Firstly, we explored the complete data, following the procedure suggested by Hefetz and Liberman (2017) to create stable content dimensions. In this modelling stage, we used the Principal Axis Factoring extraction (PAF) technique, with the PROMAX rotation method, which allowed for non-orthogonal extracted factors (SPSS V.25). Questionnaire items, which did not load sufficiently (loading<.45) on the relevant factor were excluded from the analysis, such that the final structure received the best results. For the exploratory test we used a random sample of 136 respondents among those who answered all items, whereas the CFA was applied to the rest of the sample, such that the first is a training set for the later (Costello and Osborne 2005). Next, we provided two types of validation to the extracted factors: a confirmatory analysis (CFA), or a measurement model, by which we ensured high factor loadings and acceptable goodness-of-fit (Muthén and Muthén 2017); and a parallel analysis test (O’connor 2000) with 1,000 simulations of samples of size n = 150, similar to the random training set selected for the exploratory analysis.

Our EFA modelling resulted in three distinct factors: Research Related Academic Interest; Subject Knowledge and Didactics; and Institutional activities. In these factors, all loadings exceeded the value of .45 (see Table 1). The two measures of fit quality were above acceptance level: KMO measure of adequacy: .881; and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: χ²₍₂₅₃₎ = 1615.61, p < .001. The total percent variance explained was 53.7%. Internal consistencies were assessed for each factor, resulting in above .80 Cronbach’s alpha, which is considered good (Devellis 2012). The left column in Table 1 presents loadings as estimated by the CFA model, also termed as measurement model. Goodness of fit of the measurement model: χ²₍₂₂₂₎ = 310.50, p< .001, RMSEA = .060, 95% CI[.043,.075]; CFI = .933, TLI = .923; SRMR = .071. These fit indices met the required level (Hu and Bentler 1999; Wang and Wang 2019). As for the parallel analysis results, the decision to retain the three factors received support from this analysis: all three eigenvalues of the first three factors were higher than the 95% confidence interval of the mean eigenvalue (8.73 > 1.00; 2.05 > .84; and 1.58 > .73), while the fourth was lower (.57 < .64).

Table 1. Interests in professional learning and development factor loadings.

	Research Related Academic Interest	Subject Knowledge and Didactics	Institutional Activities/ Activities with Colleagues	CFA Loadings
Reviewing journal articles, conference abstracts etc.	.86	.03	−.08	.76***
Research skills	.79	.21	−.12	.82***
Academic writing	.76	−.15	.06	.54***
Participation at conferences	.72	.19	−.10	.79***
International exchanges/visits	.62	.14	−.04	.59***
Personal reading (e.g. books, journals etc.)	.61	−.07	.25	.66***
Conference presentations	.52	.02	.21	.62***
Secondment/Sabbatical	.47	.06	.01	.47***
Curriculum development	−.03	.85	.01	.83***
Assessment	−.02	.76	.02	.75***
Current developments in teacher education	.14	.72	−.06	.79***
Integrating technology into your teaching and learning strategies	−.04	.71	.13	.79***
Subject knowledge enhancement	.17	.70	−.09	.81***
Researching my own practice	.26	.53	.08	.67***
Coaching and mentoring student teachers	.01	.47	.10	.54***
Peer coaching	−.01	−.16	.88	.75***
Observation by/of colleagues	−.33	.34	.69	.66***
Training activities within your institution (not award bearing)	.11	−.05	.67	.67***
On-line learning	.35	−.27	.65	.71***
Informal learning conversations with other colleagues	.06	.07	.65	.70***
Action research/practitioner-based research	.04	.13	.57	.61***
Visits to other schools/teacher education institutions	.22	.13	.57	.68***
Award bearing courses (e.g. related to Masters; Fellowships; Postgraduate certification etc.)	−.20	.24	.53	.53***
Eigenvalue	8.73	2.05	1.58
Percentage of total variation	37.9	8.9	6.9
Scale reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)	.86	.89	.86
Means	5.09	5.17	4.89
Standard Deviation	.59	.58	.64

EFA results: KMO measure of adequacy: .881; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: χ²₍₂₅₃₎ = 1615.61, p< .001; Percent varianceexplained by three factors: 53.7%. Correlations: factor 1with factor 2 r = .573; factor 1 with factor 3 r = .426; and factor 2 with factor 3 r = .512

For the EFA n = 136, and for the CFA n = 210.

Confirmatory analysis results: χ²₍₂₂₂₎ = 310.50, p< .001, RMSEA = .060, 95% CI[.043,.075]; CFI = .933, TLI = .923;SRMR = .071.

Two of the factors are closely related to those reported from the same survey conducted in Europe (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017). The first factor, ‘Research Related Academic Interest’ comprises activities characteristic of research universities (e.g. research skills, academic writing and conference presentations). This factor is similar to Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail (2017) ‘Academic Interest’ factor. The second factor, ‘Subject Knowledge and Didactics’ comprises activities and content areas related to teaching and teacher education (e.g. curriculum development, assessment). This factor is similar to Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail (2017) ‘Educational Interest’ factor. The third factor ‘Institutional Activities/Activities with Colleagues’ is unique to the Chinese sample and consists of predominantly institutional group, rather than individual, activities performed within participants’ respective institutes (e.g. peer coaching, training activities within their institution). Each of the factors has good internal validity (alpha Cronbach ranges from .85 to .89). Bivariate correlations between the three factors range from .52 to .60, far lower than scale reliabilities, indicating good discriminant validity, i.e. that the three factors represent different types of PLD interests. Mean scores were calculated for each factor and compared using GLM – Repeated Measures analysis. Repeated contrasts were used to assess differences among preferences within each factor.

Another set of mixed EFA and CFA analyses was conducted on the variables expected to affect engagement in PLD. A seven-item exploratory analysis (excluding the location of the activity which was weakly loaded on both original dimensions) resulted in two factors superior to alternative decompositions (see Table 2). These factors were found to explain 49% of the variance and the two measures of fit quality were above acceptance level: KMO measure of adequacy: .790; and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: χ²₍₂₁₎ = 187.74, p < .001. The parallel analysis procedure supported the two-factor structure (F1: 2.35 > .30; F2: .36 > .18; F3: .05 < .09). The first factor relates to inherent characteristics of the learning activities (such as knowing who the providers are), and had reasonable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .71), The second factor represents external outcomes of learning activities (such as networking and salary rise), and had moderate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .64). The follow-up measurement model confirmed the two-factor structure.

Table 2. Variables influencing the engagement in professional learning and development factor loadings.

	Inherent Characteristics	External Outcomes	CFA Loadings
Activity addresses teaching and learning	.78	.01	.76***
Knowledge of who the providers are	.76	−.07	.82***
Activity addresses research and writing skills	.58	.08	.54***
The availability of staff to cover your teaching/learning/normal work in your absence	.43	.26	.79***
Salary rise as an outcome from the learning	−.13	.87	.59***
Activity addresses networking potential	.16	.67	.66***
The cost of the activity	.06	.66	.62***
Eigenvalue	3.13	1.25
Percentage of total variation	37.9	11.3
Scale reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)	.71	.64
Means	4.58	4.65
Standard Deviation	.76	.81

EFA results: KMO measure of adequacy: .790; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: χ²₍₂₁₎ = 187.74, p< .001; Correlations: factor 1with factor 2 r = .52; For the EFA n = 136, and for the CFA n = 110.

Confirmatory analysis results: χ²₍₁₃₎ = 12.42, p= .49, RMSEA = .00, 95% CI[.00,.096]; CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00; SRMR = .041.

[Insert Table 2 here]

ANOVA (repeated measures) analysis with post-hoc contrasts was used in order to compare between different professional learning activities in terms of the values the participants attributed to them, and in order to examine the relative effects of different variables such as the cost and the location of the activities on participants’ preferences.

With respect to the two open-ended questions, the first author segmented the respondents’ answers into quotes, each containing a single idea (for example, ‘improve research writing skills’). In total, there were 301 quotes provided by 184 participants. The first author translated the Chinese quotes to English to allow the second author to code them independently. A deliberate decision was made not to use previously reported categories by Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail (2017), in view of the significantly different geographical contexts (Rivas 2012). After the initial coding, the first two authors considered generalisations across the responses, and arrived at five major categories, and two sub-categories for two of the major categories. The categories are research related academic interest (with the sub-categories of learning about research and academic activities); updating subject knowledge and didactics (with the sub-categories of teaching and teacher education and subject knowledge); professional training in specific types of sports; English and international relations; and management. We calculated the percent agreement between coders (82.39%, 248 items out of the total 301) and Kappa = .804, p < .001. Both indices indicate high inter-judge reliability. Before calculating categories’ frequencies, we resolved cases of disagreement and deleted 37 repetitions of the same categories that originated from different quotes of the same participants. For example, one of the participants mentioned both badminton and aerobics, but they were only counted once as ‘sports skills training’.

Results

Professional learning and development activities valued by Chinese university-based PETEds

Chinese university-based PETEds expressed medium to high levels of interest in PLD activities, ranging from 4.15 to 5.29 on a 6-level-scale. The specific activities the participants rated are listed in Table 3. In the research-related academic interest domain, international exchanges/visits were more highly valued than other activities (F_(1,204) = 6.92, p < .05, η² = .03), whereas conference presentations were less appealing (F_(1,204) = 5.16, p < .05, η² = .03). In the area of subject knowledge and didactics, subject knowledge enhancement was the most highly valued (F_(1,186) = 7.12, p < .01, η² = .04), whereas coaching and mentoring drew less interest (F_(1,186) = 10.70, p < .01, η² = .05). With respect to institutional activities, training activities within the institution were the least preferred activities (F_(1,206) = 16.56, p < .001, η² = .07).

Table 3. Interests in professional learning and development activities (expressed as mean value 1–6).

	M	SD	N
Research Related Academic Interest
International exchanges/visits	5.29	.71	209
Research skills	5.16	.82	208
Personal reading	5.16	.80	209
Participation at conferences	5.11	.84	208
Secondment/Sabbatical	5.09	.99	209
Reviewing papers	5.02	.84	210
Academic writing	5.01	.81	207
Conference presentations	4.89	.83	209
Academic interest (Overall)	5.09	.59	210
Subject knowledge and didactics
Subject knowledge enhancement	5.39	.67	208
Current developments in teacher education	5.30	.69	207
Curriculum development	5.22	.72	202
Researching my own practice	5.18	.73	206
Integrating technology into teaching and learning	5.14	.74	207
Assessment	5.09	.81	208
Coaching and mentoring student teachers	4.85	.77	200
Subject knowledge and didactics (Overall)	5.17	.58	210
Institutional Activities
Action research/practitioner-based research	5.17	.78	209
Visits to other schools/teacher education institutions	5.08	.83	210
Award bearing courses	4.99	.92	209
On-line learning	4.92	.83	209
Observation by/of colleagues	4.88	.85	208
Peer coaching	4.87	.81	208
Informal learning conversations with other colleagues	4.79	.86	209
Training activities within your institution	4.52	1.05	209
Institutional activities (overall)	4.89	.64	210
Other
Participation in professional organisations	4.94	.87	208
Other forms of empirical research	4.85	.89	209
Specialisation in academic administration	4.15	1.17	207

ANOVA (repeated measures) analysis (F_(2,208) = 25.77, p < .001, η² = .11) with post-hoc contrasts revealed that participants were most interested in the area of subject knowledge and didactics than in research related academic activities (F_(1,208) = 5.11, p < .05, η² = .03). Research related academic activities were more interesting than institutional activities (F_(1,208) = 23.18, p < .001, η² = .10).

Factors influencing the engagement in professional learning and development

Table 4 lists the variables influencing Chinese university-based PETEds’ willingness to participate in PLD activities. The cost of the activities was clearly the most influential variable (F_(1,204) = 12.98, p < .001, η² = .06). The second most influential variable was the reputation, authority and experience of the providers (F_(1,204) = 14.72, p < .001, η² = .07). The location of the activities has least influence on PETEds’ willingness to participate in PLD activities (F_(1,204) = 10.44, p < .01, η² = .05). The variables were divided into two factors: inherent characteristics and external outcomes, and they were of equal strength.

Table 4. Variables influencing the engagement in professional learning and development activities (expressed as mean value 1–6).

Factors	M	SD	N
Inherent Characteristics
Knowledge of who the providers are (e.g. reputation, authority, experience etc.)	4.84	1.02	208
The extent to which the activity addresses teaching and learning	4.59	1.01	207
The extent to which the activity addresses research and writing skills (including publication)	4.57	1.02	209
The availability of staff to cover your teaching/learning/normal work in your absence	4.30	1.09	209
External Outcomes
The cost of the activity	5.10	.91	209
The extent to which a salary rise might be one outcome from the learning activity	4.47	1.23	208
The extent to which the activity addresses networking potential	4.39	1.03	209
The location of the activity	4.00	1.27	209

Qualitative data: most important professional learning and development needs and how to address them

Similarities as well as differences were noted between the quantitative and the qualitative survey data. Four categories emerged as significant in participants’ responses (see Table 5). These were research related academic interest (35.61%) which include learning about research (24.24%) and academic activities (11.36%); updating subject knowledge and didactics (31.44%) which include teaching and teacher education (18.56%) and subject knowledge (12.88%); professional training in specific types of sports (17.80%); and English and international relations (11.36%). The categories of ‘research related academic activities’ and ‘updating subject knowledge and didactics’ were similar to the quantitative survey data. The need for ‘professional training in specific types of sports’ was unique and only appear in the qualitative data.

Table 5. Identified themes and categories with frequencies arising from PETEds’ most important professional learning and development needs.

Code	Frequencies	%
Research related academic interest
Learning about research	64	24.24%
Academic activity	30	11.36%
Total	94	35.61%
Updating subject knowledge and didactics
Teaching and teacher education	49	18.56%
Subject knowledge	34	12.88%
Total	83	31.44%
Professional training in specific types of sports	47	17.80%
English and international relations	30	11.36%
Management	7	2.65%
Other	3	1.14%
Total	264	100.00%

[Insert Table 5 here]

Research related academic activities

Research was the most frequently mentioned category of PLD needs and includes learning about research and academic activities. The participants provided specific research areas in which they wished to improve their methodological knowledge (for example, ‘research methods of anti-fatigue and sport’, or ‘research methods of sociology and statistics’). In addition, they wished to understand national and international research trends. Some participants wanted to undertake PhD studies. As for academic activities, participants clearly expressed they needed to publish more papers and submit high quality grant applications, although they did not mention in which specific research areas.

The most frequently mentioned ways to address research-related needs were: (1) attending professional training, (2) learning from experts in academic conferences, lectures and workshops, (3) studying or being a visiting scholar abroad and (4) undertaking a PhD. Surprisingly, only one participant mentioned the need of ‘enough time’ as a means to address research related needs.

Updating subject knowledge and didactics

The second most frequent PLD need was updating subject knowledge and didactics. Some participants explicitly mentioned needs related to teaching a specific type of sport (such as teaching yoga or swimming), and others conveyed the need to improve students’ teaching skills. Many of the responses were similar to the quantitative data. Participants were interested in online teaching, implementing ICT and social media, curriculum development, educational reforms and current developments in teacher education. Other responses were more focused on physical education disciplinary content (e.g. ‘human movement science’ or ‘exercise rehabilitation’).

Referring to the most effective ways in which these needs could be addressed, participants mentioned the same three ways as above: professional training, learning from experts in academic conferences, lectures and workshops and studying or being a visiting scholar abroad. In addition, participants asked for opportunities to observe colleagues in their own and other universities, in order to learn from each other as well as from exceptional examples. Few participants suggested studying on their own.

Professional training in specific types of sport

Some of the participants (47) mentioned the need for professional training in specific types of sport (e.g. high level training of Qigong, basketball training). Since many participants have the responsibility for organising and overseeing university sport competitions, there is a clear associated need to secure referee certification (such as ‘basketball referee’ and ‘volleyball referee’). Attending ‘in-service training’ was the most effective way to address this need. Such training generally ranges from a few days to one month and requires that universities or government cover training fees, transportation and accommodation.

English and international relations

English and international relations were noted as the fourth most frequent PLD need. Participants admitted that they needed to improve their English language skills to read more literature published in English and learn about international research in their areas. It was evident that participants were encouraged by their respective universities to publish in English in journals cited by international indices. Some participants wished to study or be a visiting scholar to learn in an international environment, improve their English language skills and enhance their international communication and networking.

Discussion

Chinese PETEds conveyed a passion to undertake PLD activities in the areas of research related academic activities, subject knowledge and didactics with specific emphasis on professional training in specific types of sports. They thought the best ways to address those needs were to participate in formal learning programmes and in international communities. We discuss these three themes in turn.

Research related academic activities

Similar to teacher educators in other countries (Czerniawski et al. 2018; Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017; MacPhail et al. 2018; Van Der Klink et al. 2017), Chinese PETEds wish to engage in academic activities, improve their research methods and skills, and publish in English in international journals. This finding is consistent with Ping et al. (2020) and Qiu (2015) who reported that Chinese university-based teacher educators’ PLD preferences and practices focus on academic activities. Doctoral studies were mentioned as a significant means to improve PETEds’ research abilities (Stylianou, Enright, and Hogan 2017). Interestingly, none of the PETEds in our study mentioned undertaking a PhD specifically in the PETE area. Another indicator attesting to the importance of research to Chinese PETEds is that finding sufficient time was not considered as a significant barrier to participation in research activities. This is somewhat surprising given that Chinese PETEds do not have specific time scheduled in their job remit to undertake research and have to use their own time for research activities. The high priority assigned to research can be understood in light of findings that research abilities of Chinese university-based PETEds need to be improved (Meizi 2008; Tan and Long 2012; Yan 2015; Zhao 2013).

Subject knowledge and didactics

Similar to other teacher educators, Chinese PETEds were highly interested in improving their teaching and teacher education practices (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017; Guberman et al. 2020; Van Der Klink et al. 2017). However, their strong interest in subject knowledge enhancement is markedly different from the rather low level of interest expressed by a heterogeneous sample of European teacher educators (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017). It is possible that this difference results from the multiple identities of Chinese PETEds who are positioned as sportspeople, team coaches and sport teachers to first and second year university students (Zhao 2013). This positioning may also explain Chinese PETEds high level of interest in professional training in specific types of sports.

A preference of formal learning programmes and international frameworks

Chinese PETEds preferred more formal learning programmes (such as attending professional training) and international communities of activities to address their PLD needs. This finding is dissimilar to studies that report teacher educators value informal activities, such as conversations with colleagues, to support their professional learning (MacPhail et al. 2018; Van Der Klink et al. 2017).

International learning activities were perceived as effective ways to address Chinese PETEds’ research related skills as well as teaching practices. This tendency is similar to Smith (2017) who claimed that teacher educators need international professional relations and stated that, in Norway, international exchange is highly recommended and supported at all levels of higher education. Qiu (2015) found that Chinese teacher educators valued international visits and exchange as a useful professional activity for their professional development. However, the cost of international visits could be a barrier preventing PETEds’ travel. In contrast with European teacher educators (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017), Chinese PETEds viewed the cost of PLD activities as the most important variable that can influence their decision to participate. The Chinese ‘Revitalisation Plan of Teacher Education (2018–2022)’ (Chinese Ministry of Education, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, and State Commission Office for Public Sector Reform 2018) as well as the Chinese Scholarship Council provide yearly funded programmes for lecturers, researchers and postdoctoral scholars to study abroad. However, these opportunities are unable to match the high demand for each. In addition to international exchange, Chinese PETEds expressed their wish to study from each other and from exceptional examples within their institutes. Here too, the opportunities are far from sufficient.

Concluding thoughts

The majority of Chinese PETEds had a strong desire to undertake further PLD activities in the areas of subject knowledge and didactics, with particular emphasis on professional training in specific types of sports, research related academic activities and institutional activities. The preferred ways to address these needs were formal learning programmes, observation of exemplary practices and international learning activities. The cost of the activities was the most significant factor influencing their engagement. In contrast to the European data (Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail 2017; Van Der Klink et al. 2017), lack of time did not appear to be a significant barrier to engagement in PLD opportunities. This attests to the high value Chinese PETEds attach to PLD. However, the motivations leading to such a high level of commitment remain unexplored and deserve further research.

Policy-makers and leaders of Chinese PETE institutes need to take PETEds’ preferences into consideration while planning PLD opportunities tailored to Chinese PETEds’ needs (Gu 2015). This study is prompts PETEds to have a better understanding of their PLD needs but also policy-makers, institution leaders and activity providers who need to understand PETEds’ needs and provide effective professional support.

The main limitations of this study are its exploratory nature, relatively small scale and lack of in-depth interviews. In later studies we need to examine whether the three factors we found are robust, and why there is such a strong distinction between individual and group activities in the Chinese sample but not in Czerniawski, Guberman, and MacPhail (2017) European sample. This difference may be related to local context or different subject areas. Further research across different countries would allow exploration of the extent to which teacher educators of the same and different subject areas convey similar or different PLD needs, and the extent to which these are influenced by national and institutional context.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank InFo-TED for their support in allowing access to the survey for translation. We would also like to acknowledge Professor Zijian Zhao from the Zhengzhou University and Professor Benlian Wu from the Hangzhou Normal University for their assistance in disseminating the survey.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Yueying Gong has been supported by the China Scholarship Council at the University of Limerick.

Notes on contributors

Yueying Gong

Yueying Gong is from China and currently doing her PhD at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Yueying’s research interests include (physical education) teacher educators’ professional learning and development as well as professional identity.

Ann MacPhail

Ann MacPhail is Assistant Dean Research in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her main areas of interest and expertise are teacher educators’ professional development, curriculum change and development and assessment.

Ainat Guberman

Ainat Guberman is Head of the Research Authority at The MOFET Institute in Tel Aviv, and senior lecturer at David Yellin Academic College of Education, in Jerusalem, Israel. Her main fields of interest are teacher educators’ professional development as well as cognitive development in early childhood.