The professional development needs of beginning and experienced teachers in four municipalities in Sweden

ABSTRACT

This article reports findings from a larger study aimed at identifying the perceptions of teachers across four municipalities in Sweden on continuing professional development. It focuses on beginning teachersˡ, namely those who are in their first five years of their career. This study has been undertaken amidst growing concern that current models of in-service training in Sweden are not leaving the desired impact on teacher motivation and student achievement; that the teaching profession feels disengaged, disempowered, distrusted. It has been undertaken in a context which is finding it hard to attract teachers into the profession, and one where teacher attrition is high. The responses help to shed light on what the municipalities and teacher education institutions need to focus on in order to support new teachers. Implications are drawn out for schools, municipalities and teacher education institutions as they need to come together to engage in more collaborative ventures to ensure adequate and ongoing support to new teachers.

KEYWORDS:

• Beginning teachers
• teacher professional needs
• continuing professional development

Introduction

New teachers bring energy, enthusiasm and commitment to their classrooms (Goodwin 2012, Fernet et al. 2016) but at the same time face what Fernet et al., describe as ‘daunting challenges’ that need to be addressed. A teacher’s first years on the job are the most critical and often the most difficult. The quality of a teacher’s experience in the initial years is fundamental to developing and applying the knowledge, competences, beliefs and attributes acquired during the initial teacher education (ITE) phase and help in the formation of a positive attitude to teaching as a career. There is also a general acceptance of the value of good induction programmes (European Commission 2010, Kessels 2010, OECD 2011) for the beginning teacher, but, as the European Commission reported some years ago ‘new teachers do not have access to coherent and system-wide support measures; where support measures exist, they are relatively unsystematic and not fully embedded in the education system’ (2010, p. 7).

Beginning teachers’ induction period is also very important in view of their future careers. It is during the initial years that teachers form their professional identity, construct a professional practice and often decide to stay in the profession or to leave it (Feiman-Nemser 2003, Lindqvist and Nordӓnger 2016). The teaching profession in Sweden faces similar concerns. A number of studies have shown that teacher attrition in the first years is cause for concern (Lindqvist et al. 2014)

For a clearer understanding of the context in which this study has been conducted reference has to be made to a recent OECD publication (2015) which highlights the political and cultural context in which Swedish teachers and school leaders are currently working in. This study reports that teachers’ levels of motivation and job satisfaction are low. The report throws light on the existing culture both within schools and within their municipalities. Evidence suggests that there is a higher incidence of teacher absenteeism, teachers struggling with student learning differences, and student learning being hindered by teachers’ low expectations of their students than in other OECD countries. There also seems to be an unclear relationship between principals and the political leadership in municipalities, a relationship which is marked by distrust. Principals and teachers have a heavy workload which seems to have increased in recent years. Turnover amongst principals is high and the main reasons cited are lack of resources and lack of trust. Ongoing reforms at national and municipality level, and the lack of support to implement such initiatives, have negatively effected teachers. Respondents at all levels ‘observed that there has been a marked cultural shift in the school system, from belief in the professional competence and expertise of educators and a high degree of social trust in their judgements, to one of distrust, increasing bureaucratisation of decisions, and uncertainty about expectations under which educators are supposed to operate’ (OECD 2015, p. 114).

It is within this context that we have to view this study, the findings and the recommendations being made. It is built round the conclusion drawn by Melnick and Meister (2008) who argued that ‘districts need to develop ongoing systematic assessments of the professional development needs of teachers and provide appropriate ongoing training’ (p. 54). In this respect, the study is introductory in nature. The scope is not to draw any fast conclusions or offer some quick fixes. It aims to provide the partners with insights and possible avenues to pursue. We will start with a brief review of the literature which can help set the scene.

Induction and continuing professional development: a brief review

The quality of a teacher’s experience in the initial years of teaching is critical to developing and applying the knowledge and skills acquired during initial teacher training and to forming positive attitudes to teaching as a career (Bezzina et al. 2004, Kessels 2010). Newly qualified teachers’ entry into full-time teaching is widely acknowledged as problematic. Beginning teacher often feel ‘thrown into the deep end’, with a full teaching load and associated responsibilities.

Beginning teachers are faced with a number of challenges as soon as they take on full-time teaching in a school. They feel vulnerable. They experience anxiety and difficulty in coping with the various challenges they face at the personal and professional level as they try to address students’ diverse needs; children coming from different home backgrounds; are assigned to schools that enrol poor, minority and low-achieving students (Borman and Dowling 2008, OECD 2015); they struggle with classroom management concerns (Fry 2007, Melnick and Meister 2008),such as large number of students in the classroom and disruptive or unmotivated students (Fisher et al. 1999, McCormack et al. 2006). At the same time, given lack of experience, novice teachers tend to be inflexible, finding it difficult to improvise or change plans to suit students’ needs and behaviour (Featherstone 1993, Schernpp et al. 1998). The burden and demands of the curriculum also start taking their toll on the beginning teacher who had more freedom to develop sessions during their ITE field practicum. Various case studies have shown novice teachers struggling ‘just trying to come up with enough curriculum’ to address their immediate needs (Fry 2007, p. 225) They also report time pressures to plan long-term, mounting paperwork, and feeling overwhelmed and exhausted dealing with non-teaching duties (McCann and Johannessen 2004, Gilbert 2005).

Another ‘environmental difficulty’, as Gordon and Maxey (2000) describe it, is that beginning teachers go through what is known as ‘reality shock’. According to Veenman, ‘reality shock’ is ‘the collapse of the missionary ideals formed during teacher training by the harsh and rude reality of classroom life’ (1984, p. 143). A review of the literature conducted by Wideen et al. (1998) on the first years of teaching pointed to a common theme of incongruity between pre-service and the first year of teaching. This is caused by the beginning teacher’s realisation about the world of teaching and her lack of preparation for many of the demands and difficulties that teaching brings with it. The discrepancy between the beginning teacher’s vision of teaching and the real world of teaching can cause serious disillusionment (Braga 1972, Kagan 1992, Cameron 1994). Corcoran (1981) found that ‘transition shock’ can lead to a state of paralysis that renders teachers unable to transfer to the classroom the skills they learned during the initial teacher education phase. The realisation that their vision of a creative, dynamic and autonomous professional may be in conflict with the harsh realities of prescribed curricula and textbooks, poor working conditions and lack of materials may be a daunting experience which could even lead to job dissatisfaction, stress (Newberry and Allsop 2017, Harmsen et al. 2018) or even burn out (Fernet et al. 2016).

Beginning teachers also highlight the importance of having opportunities to be with other teachers to dialogue, to observe, to co-plan, to have time to establish relationships with experienced teachers and mentors (Reeves 2008, Mansfield and Thompson 2017).

Bieler (2012, p. 47) speaks of ‘crafting community’ through sharing friendship and ideas:

During my first year, I continually felt like my successes were few and my failures were many. I’m thankful that no experienced teacher ever criticised or harangued me when I fell on my face; instead my colleagues listened to me vent, made me laugh, and offered tried-and-true suggestions for the future.

Considering such an observation one realises how important it is for novice teachers to find experienced teachers who are genuinely committed to support and give of themselves so that novice teachers can settle in. Various studies (Gagné and Deci 2005, Nie et al. 2015) have shown the strong impact that the school environment has on teacher motivation and job functioning. In the end, it is the way people, especially what school leaders do (Day and Sammons 2016), that will help create supportive and caring environments that all teachers need, whatever their age or experience.

The continuing professional development of teachers

The literature provides various definitions of professional development. As Gordon notes ‘there are nearly as many definitions of professional development as there are authors who have written about the topic’ (2004, p. 5). Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) and Parker (1990) define professional development (PD) as those processes that improve the job-related knowledge, skills or attitudes of teachers so as to enable them to design instructional programmes to improve student learning. Oliva and Pawlas (1997) and Earley and Bubb (2004) see PD as a programme of activities planned and carried out to promote the personal and professional growth of teachers.

On the other hand, Day presents us with quite a comprehensive definition. He notes that:

Professional development consists of all natural learning experiences and those conscious and planned activities which are intended to be of direct or indirect benefit to the individual, group or school, which contribute through these, to the quality of education in the classroom. It is the process by which, alone and with others, teachers review, renew and extend their commitment as change agents to the moral purposes of teaching; and by which they acquire and develop critically the knowledge, skills and emotional intelligence essential to good professional thinking, planning and practice with children, young people and colleagues throughout each phase of their teaching lives. (Day 1999, p. 4)

Day (1999) helps us to appreciate not only the complexity of teaching but also the need to ensure that teachers play a central and active role, as against a passive one, in shaping their professional growth.

Such definitions help us to appreciate the importance behind capacity building as educators focus on empowerment of individuals and teams, situating schools as sites of professional learning (Osmond-Johnson et al. 2019).

Although for many years we have understood that PD takes place within a community of learning, educational reforms are often dictated by national or regional agencies that tend to downplay the importance behind empowerment, motivation and involvement of school leaders and teachers. Many educational reform processes in various countries have adopted a technicist view to development, one that assumed that change can be delivered in a ‘linear’ way from the ‘centre’ to teachers to implement in their classrooms. As a result, professional development has supported the model of teacher-as-technician, one associated with the delivery concept of educational reform. This sees the teacher as positioned as the uncritical implementer of policies emanating from ‘above’. This model projects an image of a teacher who has limited to no role or say in influencing their practice. Dadds (1997) argues that such a delivery model is ‘dangerous’ (p.32); it ignores the processes that teachers undergo as they learn about their professional craft, as they gain new knowledge and understanding, review and reconstruct their attitudes, beliefs and practices as they engage and struggle with the demands of the curriculum and the change processes.

We now see a recognised need to place teachers at the centre of professional development, professional development that emanates from within the profession allowing practices that are more collaborative and focused on identified needs. Over the years we have seen various leadership models that are aimed at building teachers’ capacity by nurturing a culture of learning, where educators are committed to cultivating their capacity to serve an ideal, a moral purpose (Begley 2010, Spencer et al. 2018).

There is a growing body of empirical research that not only highlight the type of courses/programmes that teachers find useful but suggests that effective PD programmes share a common set of features (e.g. Desimone 2009, Garet et al. 2010). These core features include the following: a) content focus, that is activities focused on subject matter content and how students learn that content; b) active learning, opportunities for teachers to observe, receive feedback, analyse student work, and/or make presentations, as opposed to passively listening to input by others, often defined as the ‘experts’; c) coherence, content, goals and activities that are consistent with the school curriculum, teacher knowledge and beliefs, the needs of students, school, municipalities and State policies; d) sustained duration, PD activities that are ongoing throughout the school year; and e) collective participation, groups of teachers from the same grade, subject, or school participate in PD activities together to build a learning community (Ambler 2016,, Bushman 2006, Guskey 2014, Marzano et al. 2001).

Within this context, what is clear is that schools need to create a positive learning culture. Various studies (e.g. Gilbert 2005, Shank 2005, Hargreaves and O’Connor 2017) have identified that teachers value a collegial atmosphere, supportive leadership, time and space to share and learn from each other, and access to resources as essential for greater job satisfaction and student achievement. We recognise the importance of individuals constantly interacting with and influencing each other; the creation of enabling conditions and supportive structures for teachers to work together within and across schools as they engage in networked learning. This resonates the views of Flint et al. (2011) who argue that teachers’ voices are related to professionalism and identity where teachers see their identity through authentic inquiry, relationships and dialogue. In this context voice is recognised and respected.

This implies that school leaders need to also identify potential constraining conditions that may impede a positive climate from being nurtured (Baker 2014). What makes this model a more compelling one, whilst at the same time challenging, is the involvement of educators that work in the municipalities and the teacher education institution as they engage in partnerships that lead towards joint work and joint contributions. This is the model that will be promoted as part of our initiative and which this research study forms part of.

Methodology

Research methods

In this article we draw on the data from an internet-based survey conducted during the autumn of 2017. The respondents were recruited from four municipalities and consisted of teachers from preschools (1–5 year old children), primary schools (6–12), secondary schools (13–15), and high schools, including vocational schools (16–18). Unqualified teachers (11.2%) were included in the study. As can be seen from Table 1 the majority of respondents are female (80%); the overall majority are between the ages of 40–49 (32.4%); 79% have more than 6 years experience, out of which 37.5% are within the 40–49 age bracket.

Table 1. Demographic profile of the participants.

		All respondents		Up to 5 years of experience		More than 5 years of experience
		Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Difference depending on teaching experience
Age	−29	149	7.9	143	36.3	6	0.4	χ^2 (df = 4) = 761.48, p < .0001
	30-39	421	22.4	165	41.9	256	17.2
	40-49	611	32.4	53	13.5	558	37.5
	50-59	503	26.7	30	7.6	473	31.7
	60+	200	10.6	3	0.8	197	13.2
Gender	Female	1480	80	300	76.5	1180	80.4	χ^2 (df = 2) = 3.18, p = n.s.
	Male	379	20	92	23.5	287	19.6
	Other	1	.04	0	0	1	0.1
Sector	Preschool (0–5)	358	19	78	19.9	280	18.8	χ^2 (df = 2) = 1.17, p = n.s.
	Primary (6–9) & Middle school (10–12)	892	47.4	192	48.8	700	47
	Secondary (13–15) and High School (16–18)	632	33.6	123	31.3	509	34.2
Teaching experience	First year	62	3.3	62	15.7	-
	1-2 years	116	6.2	116	29.4	-
	3-5 years	216	11.5	216	54.8	-
	6-10 years	306	16.2	-	-	306	20.5
	11-15 years	330	17.5	-	-	330	22.2
	16-20 years	314	16.7	-	-	314	21.1
	20 years +	540	28.7	-	-	540	36.2

The original sample was of 5070 teachers, out of which a significant percentage did not respond. The main reasions cited are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Reasons for not responding to the questionnaire.

Reasons given by teachers	Number	(%)
Total number of teachers invited to participate	5070	(100)
Cause not stated	2682	(52.90)
Emails automatically rejected (ie. ‘Recipient address rejected’)	306	(6.04)
Retired, or just about to retire	64	(1.26)
Inaccurate email addresses (could not be sent)	29	(.57)
Newly appointed teachers	26	(.52)
Teachers on long sick leave	24	(.47)
Moved to another municipality	17	(.34)
No time to answer	16	(.32)
Took up positions within or outside the field of education	12	(.24)
Questionnaire perceived as too complicated	7	(.14)
Considered the survey intrusive	3	(.06)
Total number of non-respondents	3186	(62.84)

A total of 1,884 questionnaires were collected, representing a response rate of 37 percent. The teachers who did not state any reason why they did not answer the questionnaire could be a result of survey fatigue, or have been influenced by the current atmosphere in municipalities in Sweden, characterised by a lack of trust that permeates the system (OECD 2015). Finally, the low response rate might in part be explained by the fact that the largest municipality involved in the study was in the process of changing teachers’ email addresses as the study was being carried out.

Procedure

In order to investigate teachers’ experiences of previous training and their current need for continuing professional development, it was decided to approach potential respondents through an online survey. The first version of the survey was based on questions from TALIS. In collaboration with the four municipalities central school management and the two teachers’ unions that organise teachers in Sweden, the questions were reviewed to examine what the parties involved considered relevant, especially in relation to previously conducted surveys in the municipality. Webropol’s internet-based survey tools were used to send the questionnaires to all preschool teachers, primary school teachers, high school teachers and vocational teachers in the four municipalities. Before the survey was sent out, the questionnaire was pilot tested with a small group of teachers. The questions were then tested on the digital platform (Webropol) before they were sent out to the participating teachers. Potential respondents received weekly reminders for around a month. In designing and carrying out the study the researchers followed the guidelines mapped out by the Swedish Research Council.

The survey

The first section of the questionnaire consisted of twelve questions. It started off by asking for background information about the participants. respondents such as age, workplace, work experience, their highest level of education (see Table 2). This was followed by a series of 14 questions organised in two overarching sections. These explored previous professional development experiences and current professional development needs. In addition, questions were asked about the form and content of continuing professional development, as well as the effect of the previous training on the teacher’s own practice and development and the pupils’ development and learning. Four of the 14 questions contained 22 examples of content in professional development courses. The teachers who answered the questionnaire felt that these four questions were quite extensive. The background questions were answered as multiple choice questions and the questions regarding perceived effect of previous professional development and the need for future professional development were answered on a four-graded Likert scale.

The statistic program SAS 9.4 was used to compile the study’s descriptive data and to conduct chi-square tests. Initially, the 1,884 teachers were divided into five age groups (0–2, 3–5, 6–10, 11–20, 21+ years of experience). Tests showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the five groups. In order to increase the statistical power, the teachers were divided into two groups: beginning teachers (up to, and including 5 years of experience, n = 394) and experienced teachers (from 6 years and more, n = 1,490). This increased the possibility of rejecting the null hypothesis if it was indeed false.

Findings

The introduction of this section contains a presentation of the perceived effect of previous professional development. Two questions looked into the perceived positive impact that formal and informal forms of professional development (PD) had on respondents. As can be seen from Table 3 the main forms of formal PD identified by the majority of respondents were ‘University courses’ (68.5%), those ‘provided by the National Board of Education’ (56.9%), ‘web-based learning’ (49.4%), ‘study visits’ (42%) and ‘collaborative learning’ (40.7%). When one looks across the age groups one notes a number of interesting findings. What stands out is that those with more than 5 years experience identify a significant impact on forms of PD that reinforce and promote collaborative practices, namely ‘school-based sessions’, ‘collaborative learning’ and ‘network meetings’. This resonates with findings of other studies (e.g. Bieler 2012, Girvan et al. 2016) that promote such initiatives. This may mean that overall teachers prefer engaging in collaborative school-based endeavours in spite of contexts that do not promote them.

Table 3. Perceived positive impact of previous formal PD on teachers’ development (in descending order) .

		All respondents		Up to 5 years of experience	More than 5 years of experience
		Participated (N)	High level of impact (%)	High level of impact (%)	High level of impact (%)	Difference depending on teaching experience
Forms of PD	University run courses	438	68.5	72.4	67.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = 19.47, p < .0001
	Sessions provided by NBE^a	485	56.9	47.5	58.8	χ^2 (df = 1) = 9.82, p < .01
	Web-based learning	395	49.4	49.2	49.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = 10.31, p < .01
	Study visits	797	42.8	47.5	42.0	χ^2 (df = 1) = 24.76, p < .0001
	Collaborative Learning	787	40.7	30.1	42.6	χ^2 (df = 1) = 27.78, p < .0001
	Mentoring	250	39.6	41.1	39.0	χ^2 (df = 1) = 10.24, p < .01
	Planning meetings	1164	38.2	40.5	37.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = 11.21, p < .001
	School-based sessions	890	32.8	29.2	33.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = 31.76, p < .0001
	Network meetings	678	32.7	24.1	34.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = 20.24, p < .0001
	Sessions provided by municipality	1093	22.1	18.5	22.8	χ^2 (df = 1) = 51.33, p < .0001

a. National Board of Education.

Table 4, on the other hand, shows that teachers perceive a positive impact of informal PD forms namely ‘informal discussions’, ‘reading research studies’, and ‘peer observation.’ High among both age groups is ‘informal discussions.’ The main difference between the two age cohorts relate to ‘reading research studies’ and ‘reading professional journals’ with those with more than five years experience perceive a more positive impact than younger teachers. The less experienced teachers identify ‘informal discussion’ as leaving a more positive impact on them than experienced teachers do.

Table 4. Perceived positive impact of previous informal PD on teachers’ development (in descending order) .

		All respondents		Up to 5 years of experience	More than 5 years of experience
		Participated (N)	High level of impact (%)	High level of impact (%)	High level of impact (%)	Difference depending on teaching experience
Forms of PD	Informal discussions	1674	61.2	63.2	60.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = 27.03, p < .0001
	Reading research studies^a	1346	41.2	33.2	42.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = 44.68, p < .0001
	Peer observation	742	35.6	44.7	33.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.14, p = n.s.
	Use of social media^b	928	35.2	36.3	34.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = .70, p = n.s.
	Reading professional journals^c	1273	30.7	24.4	31.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = 29.85, p < .0001
	Web pages (sharing of lesson plans)	943	17.4	19.3	16.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = .23, p = n.s.

a. Dissertation, peer reviewed papers etc.

b. Facebook groups, twitter etc.

c. Educational magazines, blogs etc.

From Tables 3 and 4 one notes that the respondents highlight University run courses, informal discussions, following sessions run by the NBE, following web-based learning and study visits as the main experiences that are perceived as leaving a positive impact. Experience has significant effect on a number of choices they make.

Impact of previous PD sessions by content area

Through the question that explored the perceived positive impact that courses focusing on particular content had had on the respondents one notes from Table 5 that these were related to ‘pedagogical content knowledge’, ‘subject-content knowledge’, and ‘special education.’ Whilst those with more than five years experience note that courses that focused on ‘pedagogical content knowledge’, ‘subject-content knowledge’, and ‘special education’ were identified as leaving a positive impact on their PD, those with up to five years experience identified ‘subject-content knowledge’, ‘planning, teaching and reflecting’, and ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ as those having had a significant impact. As can be seen from Table 4 there are practically no significant differences between the age cohorts except for one item – ‘technology enhanced learning’ – with the more experienced teachers noting a significant perceived impact on their development. This is encouraging news as it shows that more experienced teachers recognising the importance behind the use of technology in the teaching and learning process.

Table 5. Perceived positive impact of previous PD sessions on teachers’ development (in descending order) .

	All respondents		Up to 5 years of experience	More than 5 years of experience
	Participated (N)	High level of impact (%)	High level of impact (%)	High level of impact (%)	Difference depending on teaching experience
Pedagogical content knowledge	378	60.3	48.6	63.0	χ^2 (df = 1) = .12, p = n.s.
Subject content knowledge	184	55.4	52.4	55.8	χ^2 (df = 1) = 3.31, p = n.s.
Special education	617	50.4	46.2	51.2	χ^2 (df = 1) = .49, p = n.s.
Planning, teaching and reflection	676	47.9	50.0	47.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = .10, p = n.s.
Reading and writing skills	548	46.5	37.9	48.3	χ^2 (df = 1) = .51, p = n.s.
Vocational education	245	42.9	46.3	42.2	χ^2 (df = 1) = .02, p = n.s.
Formative assessment	694	41.9	40.7	42.1	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.42, p = n.s.
Handling behaviour concerns	552	40.4	42.7	40.0	χ^2 (df = 1) = .09, p = n.s.
Classroom management	444	40.1	41.1	39.8	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.82, p = n.s.
Syllabi and subject planning	619	39.9	35.1	40.8	χ^2 (df = 1) = 4.80, p < .01
Assessment and grading	829	39.3	37.7	39.6	χ^2 (df = 1) = .82, p = n.s.
Conflict resolution	376	38.3	41.9	37.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = .63, p = n.s.
Technology enhanced learning	688	37.5	28.4	39.2	χ^2 (df = 1) = 23.10, p < .0001
The performing arts	247	36.4	41.5	35.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = .04, p = n.s.
Teaching migrant children	386	36.3	44.1	34.6	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.28, p = n.s.
Inclusion and equity issues	688	36.1	24.6	34.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = .56, p = n.s.
Critical thinking	284	34.2	37.8	33.5	χ^2 (df = 1) = .94, p = n.s.
Evaluation of competencies achieved by students	574	33.3	28.4	34.1	χ^2 (df = 1) = .00, p = n.s.
Discrimination	432	33.1	41.9	31.6	χ^2 (df = 1) = .94, p = n.s.
Bullying and harassment	293	32.4	26.7	33.5	χ^2 (df = 1) = .04, p = n.s.
Addressing the needs of gifted children	498	32.1	33.8	31.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = .00, p = n.s.
Diversity (e.g. LGBTQ)	446	27.6	24.6	28.1	χ^2 (df = 1) = .04, p = n.s.

* p < 0,05, ** p = <0,01, *** p = <0,001. The results presented in this table represents the professional development needs identified of major importance to the respondents (high level of need).

Current PD needs by content areas

One of the main questions in this study and the main one reported in this article explored the professional development needs of teachers (see Table 6). The majority of respondents highlighted a few areas that stand out as significant and whilst the responses are typical of beginning teachers practically worldwide they represent the current state of affairs in Sweden (OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2015). The majority of beginning teachers highlight a moderate to high level of need for more support in the area of special education (75.3%) so that they could provide students with specific learning difficulties with adequate support. Following closely are concerns dealing with the use of technology in the classroom (73.7%) and handling behavioural concerns in the class (70.3%), and closely linked to this is that of conflict resolution (62.5%). One also notes that more schools in Sweden are becoming more and more multicultural and teachers are identifying the need of getting more professional development in ways of providing migrant children with a quality education (66.5%). It is also interesting to note that teachers identify the area of giftedness as an area that they require training in (69.6%).

Table 6. Perceived professional development needs identified by respondents (in descending order).

	No need		Low level of need		Moderate level of need		High level of need
Variable	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)
Special education	81	5.1	315	19.7	651	40.6	556	34.7
Technology-enhanced learning	94	5.8	331	20.5	655	40.6	533	33.1
Teaching migrant children	145	9.4	374	24.2	548	35.4	481	31.1
Handling behaviour concerns	92	5.8	377	23.9	637	40.3	474	30.0
Subject content knowledge	341	31.8	170	15.8	261	24.3	302	28.1
Pedagogical content knowledge	333	30.4	196	17.9	284	25.9	283	25.8
Addressing the needs of gifted children	115	7.4	355	23.0	693	44.9	382	24.7
Conflict resolution	134	8.8	441	28.8	640	41.8	317	20.7
Vocational education	266	18.1	472	32.2	452	30.8	278	18.9
Assessment and grading	279	17.9	422	27.1	592	38.1	262	16.9
Evaluation of competencies achieved by students	210	14.3	495	33.8	550	37.5	211	14.4
Planning, teaching and reflection	161	10.6	531	34.8	617	40.5	215	14.1
Formative assessment	260	17.1	446	29.3	606	39.7	213	14.0
Classroom management	271	17.9	552	36.4	488	32.2	204	13.5
Reading and writing skills	261	17.4	499	33.3	545	36.3	195	13.0
The performing arts	266	18.0	567	38.3	471	31.8	176	11.9
Diversity (e.g. LGBTQ)	195	13.2	577	39.0	535	36.2	172	11.6
Syllabi and subject planning	311	20.5	563	37.1	482	31.8	161	10.6
Bullying and harassment	173	11.7	626	42.2	529	35.7	154	10.4
Inclusion and equity issues	157	10.5	608	40.5	595	39.6	141	9.4
Critical thinking	190	12.9	588	39.8	563	38.1	138	9.3
Discrimination^Footnote1	232	15.8	692	47.2	464	31.7	78	5.3

Teachers could choose more than one alternative. They could choose all alternatives they found relevant.

^aProfessional development regarding how teachers can work in accordance with legislation, which states that it is prohibited to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, ethnicity, religion or other beliefs, disability, sexual orientation or age.

PD needs by years of experience

On the other hand, Table 7 explores the PD needs by years of experience. One notes that on practically all areas there are no statistical differences. Both age cohorts identify ‘special education’, ‘technology-enhanced learning’, ‘teaching migrant children’, and ‘handling behaviour concerns’ as the four main areas they require training/support in. The only significant difference is on a few items, namely ‘addressing the needs of gifted children’, and to a much lesser degree the need for ‘pedagogical content knowledge’, with those having less years of experience identifying them as amongst the most important areas they need training in.

Table 7. Perceived PD needs by years of experience (in descending order, by total percentage).

	All respondents		Up to 5 years of experience	More than 5 years of experience
	Frequency answered (N)	High level of need (%)	High level of need (%)	High level of need (%)	Difference depending on teaching experience
Special education	1603	34.7	32.5	35.3	χ^2 (df = 1) = .82, p = n.s.
Technology enhanced learning	1613	33.1	33.7	32.9	χ^2 (df = 1) = .10, p = n.s.
Teaching migrant children	1548	31.1	32.5	30.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = .49, p = n.s.
Handling Behaviour Concerns	1580	30.0	27.4	30.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.42, p = n.s.
Subject content knowledge	1074	28.1	29.8	27.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = .56, p = n.s.
Pedagogical content knowledge	1096	25.8	30.5	24.5	χ^2 (df = 1) = 4.80, p < .01
Addressing the needs of gifted children	1545	24.7	34.7	22.0	χ^2 (df = 1) = 23.10, p < .0001
Conflict resolution	1532	20.7	22.1	20.3	χ^2 (df = 1) = .51, p = n.s.
Vocational education	1468	18.9	18.1	19.3	χ^2 (df = 1) = .12, p = n.s.
Assessment and grading	1555	16.9	16.1	17.1	χ^2 (df = 1) = .09, p = n.s.
Evaluation of competencies achieved by students	1466	14.4	14.2	14.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = .00, p = n.s.
Planning, teaching and reflection	1524	14.1	13.9	14.2	χ^2 (df = 1) = .00, p = n.s.
Formative assessment	1525	14.0	11.5	14.6	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.82, p = n.s.
Classroom management	1515	13.5	14.6	13.2	χ^2 (df = 1) = .63, p = n.s.
Reading and writing skills	1500	13.0	14.7	12.6	χ^2 (df = 1) = .94, p = n.s.
The performing arts	1480	11.9	9.9	12.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = 1.28, p = n.s.
Diversity (e.g. LGBTQ)	1479	11.6	11.3	11.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = .04, p = n.s.
Syllabi and subject planning	1517	10.6	10.2	10.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = .02, p = n.s.
Bullying and harassment	1482	10.4	13.1	9.7	χ^2 (df = 1) = 3.31, p = n.s.
Inclusion and equity issues	1501	9.4	10.6	9.1	χ^2 (df = 1) = .94, p = n.s.
Critical thinking	1479	9.3	9.0	9.4	χ^2 (df = 1) = .04, p = n.s.
Discrimination	1466	5.3	5.5	5.3	χ^2 (df = 1) = .04, p = n.s.

* p < 0,05, ** p = <0,01, *** p = <0,001. The results presented in this table represents the professional development needs identified of major importance to the respondents (high level of need).

Engaging in PD sessions: current and preferred format

Another question explored in this study and presented in this article aimed at comparing the ways that teachers currently follow PD sessions and the preferred format and so across years of experience. Table 8 shows that the majority of teachers (46.7%) respect the existing format which sees groups of teachers coming together and attending various in-service courses. At the same time, a significant percentage (40%) follow courses ‘individually’. One notes that whilst respondents with more than 5 years experience have no clear preference with 45% following courses individually and another 48% opting to take part as a group. This is in stark contrast to the younger ones with 40% opting to take part as a group compared to only 21% following courses individually. When one then compares the findings with the preferred format one notes that both cohorts in their majority (av. 65%) prefer taking part as a group rather than following courses individually (33.7%). One appreciates that this is still significantly high and tends to reflect previous responses which shows that teachers are not quite exposed to collaborative practices in schools and still rely on the one-off, off-site forms of PD. The older and more experienced teachers have, up to now, preferred participating individually in PD sessions as against the younger and less experienced that prefer working in groups. However, given a choice the majority of teachers would opt for collaborative approaches. In a context where teachers feel disengaged, disempowered and distrusted (OECD 2015) this could be a significant finding and highlights to school leaders, those involved in running PD course in the municipalities and universities to start considering new forms of PD – ones that encourage greater levels of participation within different settings (Selter et al. 2015). Various empirical studies have shown that PD that manages to stimulate teacher co-operation can lead to improvement in teaching and learning (Hiebert and Morris 2012).

Table 8. Engaging in PD sessions: current and preferred format.

		All respondents		Up to 5 years of experience	More than 5 years of experience
		Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)	Percentage (%)	Percentage (%)	Difference depending on teaching experience
In what ways do you currently follow PD sessions	Individually	740	40.2	21.5	45.3	χ^2 (df = 2) = 284.44, p < .0001
	As part of a group	858	46.7	40.4	48.3
	Have not taken part in PD sessions	241	13.1	38.1	6.4
Preferred format of PD sessions	Individually	615	33.7	31.7	34.3	χ^2 (df = 2) = 7.51, p = .02
	As part of a group	1187	65.2	66.0	64.9
	Do not want to take part in PD sessions	20	1.1	2.3	.8

Discussion

This introductory study into the professional needs of teachers in four municipalities in Sweden has helped to identify a number of issues that will help the partners concerned, namely the municipalities, the schools and the University in their deliberations as they identify the courses that need to be developed in the future.

This study has shown the type of PD experienced by the respondents over the years, the perceived impact that such courses had on them, the preferred forms of PD and the type of courses they identify as crucial at this stage. Such responses help us not only to appreciate but understand how they feel about being a teacher and the impact that PD has on their learning. Beginning teachers and experienced teachers alike have identified the various courses they feel will help them to address the challenges they are facing in their schools and classrooms.

The OECD (2015) report cited in the Introduction highlighted that the political and cultural context in which school leaders and teachers are working in is one where the levels of job satisfaction and motivation are low. The report went on to highlight the need for enhanced co-ordination and collaboration between teacher education institutions, municipalities and schools so that continuous professional development better met the learning needs of teachers. This project aimed to start addressing these concerns by undertaking a survey amongst teachers to get a better understanding of teachers’ experiences of professional development. We argue that such feedback will help the different stakeholders involved to start addressing the level of negativity currently being experienced and strengthen the bond between the partners and develop a collaborative model for addressing professional learning.

At the same time, it is recognised as only one approach to giving teachers the opportunity to ‘develop their own authentic voices’ (Beattie 2000, p. 19), to share their ideas and opinions about professional development that are then acted upon.

Other approaches will need to be introduced as this partnership is strengthened.

This study has shown that the majority of respondents have identified university courses and courses run by the municipality as the two most effective forms of PD. This was followed closely by the more informal ones that sees teachers holding discussions with their colleagues. These responses show that teachers are still exposed and used to the more traditional forms of learning which tend, in the main, to be external to the school. An interesting and hopeful finding shows more experienced teachers identifying collaborative and collegial forms of learning as having an impact on their development. This could imply that such forms of learning need to be strengthened.

The responses that reinforce collegial models of professional learning augurs well to the nurturing of contexts that develop through ‘mutually respectful relationships’ (Hargreaves & Elhawary, 2019) rather than those that perpetuate individualised learning or are centrally imposed.

These responses are indicative in that they can help the partners involved not only create professional learning opportunities that are identified by teachers themselves, such as the courses identified through this study, but also engage with pedagogies of learning that help participants to develop the skills and attributes necessary for collaborative learning to take place.

Both beginning and experienced teachers identify four main areas in which they require training, namely special education, technology-enhanced learning, handling behaviour concerns, and teaching migrant children. Such a response tends to highlight the complexity of schools and, in particular, the classrooms that are becoming more diverse and demanding with higher expectations coming from all quarters. The issues for teachers in coping effectively with these demands are ongoing and complex (Drakenberg 2001, Lindgren 2005).

The one main area where experienced teachers felt less need than beginning teachers was dealing with gifted children, although this area was still identified as important and one in which they required support. This could be an interesting area for development. Whilst our discussions on an inclusive education tend to be focused on providing children with learning difficulties the opportunities to be educated in mainstream classes we have tended to ignore students with talent, who are gifted but are ignored by the system. Such a recognition shows teachers who are concerend about the present state of affairs and highlights a window of opportunity to develop an area not only through the research work that can be generated by the pedagogical impact it can have on the teaching and learning of such students.

Conclusions

This study cannot be deemed as exclusive or exhaustive. It is merely an introduction that seeks to push our thinking and challenge the way we currently view professional development in Sweden. It encourages us to reflect more widely on developments in the field of professional development regionally, nationally and internationally which will contribute to advancing new and fresh thinking. This is always going to be an incomplete process but one that is supported when educators come together, as we are doing here, to pose questions and search for answers.

The study is the result of a partnership between the university, as a teacher education institution, the municipalities and schools, the first of its kind, and directly addresses and engages with the recommendations put forward by the OECD (2015). The study, which can only be considered as exploratory in nature, has helped us first and foremost start, in a concrete manner, addressing the lack of trust that exists between educators at school level and the municipalities. Secondly, the study helps to get first-hand feedback from educators in relation to their perceptions about their professional development and the various training opportunities currently being provided.

In a context that sees teachers working within hierarchical structures and relationships the results of this study support a drive to develop more participative models that can see teachers engaging in more ‘situated’ learning which incorporates a recognition that professional learning and development occur as part-and-parcel of everyday working life. This is encouraging as it helps those involved in teacher development programmes to develop alternative ways of improving teachers’ continuous development programmes.

Naturally, the approach we have adopted can easily be replicated in other regions in Sweden thus extending our understanding of how teachers respond across the country. Whilst the intention is not to draw any conclusions it is worth mentioning that the majority of teachers favour professional development opportunities that bring teachers together so as to learn from each other through more school-based initiatives. This can make a difference in countering a teaching profession from one that is currently described as disengaged, disempowered and distrusted (OECD 2015) to one which is at the centre of the CPD as teachers, schools, the municipality and the university engage collaboratively.

We acknowledge that there are no simple solutions; that it is a long and ardeous process. Anyone working in the field can attest to this. We hope that we can engage different stakeholders to push, as Stevenson argues, our ‘thinking and challenge orthodoxies in relation to professional learning and development’ (2019, p. 2). Whilst we may be engaging in an incomplete process we are creating opportunities for developing working models that see institutions coming together and working collaboratively.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In this paper, the terms ‘beginning teacher’ and ‘novice teacher’ are used interchangeably.