From INSET to professional learning: 50 years of change as seen through the pages of Professional Development in Education

Professional Development in Education (PDiE) is 50 years old in 2024. In this Editorial we are celebrating with a look back at the ways in which the professional learning of educators has developed over the last half century. We can make the confident claim that over this time, Professional Development in Education and its predecessors have provided the most comprehensive collection of academic writing on professional learning and development. Our aim here is to briefly reflect on the history and achievements of the Journal and to highlight some of the significant developments in policy, practice, research and theory that have been recorded in its pages.

As we outlined in our 40^th anniversary Editorial (Jones and O’Brien 2014) the journal began its life on 1 January 1974 as the British Journal of In-service Education. The Founding Editors, Malcolm Lee, David Johnston and Bob Gough had identified the need for an academic and professional journal focusing on the continuing education of serving teachers, or INSET as it was then commonly referred to (the term ‘education’ was emphasised by the Editors to distinguish it from ‘training’). The word ‘British’ was removed from the title in 1997 to reflect the growing number of international submissions which have provided its strong global dimension, and two years later the Journal celebrated 25 years of publication with a silver colour change to the print cover for Vol.25. Ten years on, the first issue of Volume 35 of the Journal marked the major title change to Professional Development in Education. At the time of the renaming of the Journal there was a significant debate within the Editorial Board about the most appropriate title (O’Brien 2009, Jones and O’Brien 2014). ‘INSET’ had become an all-encompassing term but was considered passe. ‘Staff development’ remained a relevant term but restrictive, while ‘Continuing Professional Development’ (CPD) was in common usage but was being shortened to ‘Professional Development’ (PD) in certain jurisdictions. An emerging emphasis on ‘Professional Learning’ (PL) was evident especially in Australia and the renaming debate coalesced around PD or PL. Professional Development in Education was chosen as, at that moment, PD was in more common usage. The debate about whether Professional Learning should replace Professional Development in the title is ongoing.

The Editorial in issue 40.1 (the 40^th anniversary) was partly retrospective and in celebration, three seminal articles (Dadds 2014, Harland and Kinder 2014, Kennedy 2014) were re-published. Additionally, Aileen Kennedy (2014) was invited to update and reflect on her original paper ‘Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis’ which to date has been the Journal’s most cited article. However, unlike other Journals (Bush and Crawford 2007, Avalos 2011, Livingston and Flores 2017), overall retrospective consideration and analysis of content and themes over the decades has been limited. This Editorial forms the first of a series of articles looking more deeply at changes in practice and policy and in conceptual changes in the field of professional learning and development.

To date Lee (1979) offers the only retrospective review of the issues and themes covered by the journal over a prolonged period 1974–1997. The aim of Lee’s work was twofold. His study described the state of in-service education at that time and highlighted the key trends in professional development reflected through articles published in the journal. Our editorial for the current issue provides a perspective on two elements: trends in the shift from in-service education to professional learning as evidenced through policy changes outlined in articles published in PDiE, and the key themes that were apparent in the period leading up to Lee’s article and those that have emerged since then.

From INSET to professional learning: changing perspectives; changing policies

Jones et al. (2024, p. 237) have proposed a model illustrating potential stages in the conceptualisation, policy and practice of professional learning and development at national (system) level, and it is useful to use this alongside Lee’s retrospective in tracking the changes evidenced by 50 years of articles in this journal.

Jones et al. (2024) suggest that it is possible to see the development of professional learning policy and practice as a series of steps or stages that can be applied at the individual, institutional, regional, and national levels (p236–237). While they emphasise that the model is not linear, they identify characteristics of each stage which epitomise policy and practice in national systems at particular points in time. The initial stage is one of ‘laissez-faire’. This corresponds with Lee’s perception of in-service education in its infancy with no coordinated plan nor firm conceptual framework existing for teachers’ professional development. Individuals are personally responsible for their own professional education with their motivation being principally a general belief in the value of in-service education as an individual life-long learning process. Opportunities for in-service education at this stage are mainly limited to award-bearing programmes provided by Higher Education institutions and local ‘training’ courses. In the UK during this stage, one-year secondments and/or curriculum initiatives linked to specific projects were available in some areas, but these were geographically variable (Lee 1997). In other countries at varying points in time, the lack of coordinated professional learning opportunities beyond the provision of university accredited courses and specific one-day training events, is documented. The perceived need for a co-ordinated approach brought up three main questions in the policy debates of the 1970s in the UK, in particular:

• the consistency of teachers’ needs and resources available for in-service education;

• the efficiency of in-service education;

• the management of in-service education and its value for school improvement.

The Journal became a forum for discussion of such issues and subsequently expanded to a broader ‘analysis of policy development, trends and issues that were addressed by both researchers and policy-makers’ (Lee 1997, p. 11).

Steps 2 and 3 of the Jones et al model highlight the emergence of ‘sector leaders’ and formal intervention. Sector leaders are leading players who set up systems or structured professional support for colleagues, often informally but increasingly in the newly-defined role of ‘professional tutor’ or ‘staff development co-ordinator’ (Davies 1975, Riches and Hill 1976, O’Brien and MacBeath 1999, Perry and Booth 2021). The journal provides an interesting chronological trail of the emergence of policy (broadly defined) in the field of professional learning (stage 3), initially focusing on British education (Hicks 1987, Bailey and Oldroyd 1993) but including international contributions from an early stage, such as Herbison’s overview of in-service education in New Zealand in 1975 (Herbison 1975) and Jackson’s assessment of in-service education in China in 1977 (Jackson 1977). It also shows how ideology and policy can change or be contested (Larsen and Mockler 2023), often with a shift in government, but occasionally through enlightenment as a result of new thinking (Koster and Snoek 1998), research (Dimmock 2016), approaches to defining performance (Mockler 2022), assessment ranking (Tonga et al. 2022), impact (Pedder and Opfer 2011) or, most recently, the impact of a global pandemic (Torrance et al. 2023).

The fourth stage in the model relates to the embedding of systems policy at sub-national level. This is often a key stumbling block for system leaders attempting to implement policy and generate equitable approaches to professional learning. Research at practitioner level often highlights the gap between policy and practice (Kennedy 2014) and at this stage the significance of leadership is highly important (Lofthouse 2023). As we move through the latter stages the issue of complexity becomes more apparent (Strom and Viesca 2021, McMillan and Jess 2021) and linear approaches to moving through the stages are questioned. Indeed, Jones et al emphasise that the ‘steps’ indicated in the model used here are not linear; individuals, institutions and systems move through and revisit particular stages, and there is fluidity in the interpretation and implementation as new approaches to professional learning emerge or political ideologies impact on interpretations of professional learning.

The final stage of sustainable systemic adoption of professional learning practice is, at a systems level, difficult to evidence. Editors have attempted to move away from the publication of ‘victory narratives’ claiming ‘effectiveness’ and ‘impact’ with little longitudinal evidence and with narrowly defined success criteria outcomes. Attempting to provide definitive accounts of professional learning in changing systems is aiming at a moving target, and it would be interesting to read more retrospective analyses of policy impact 10 years on.

Themes

In identifying the policy trends and issues in professional education, Lee performed a qualitative content analysis of all texts published in the journal and then allocated articles into 32 broad categories (1997: 13–14). This led to the identification of the most topical themes, and a majority of articles can be apportioned to the following areas:

• Policy (75)

• Research (70)

• Professional development (42)

• Management (41)

• Teaching subjects/areas (40)

• Evaluation (37)

• Methodology of INSET (33)

Lee distinguished more clearly between policy-focused (analytical) papers and research papers. Policy – focused (analytical) papers were defined as those which reflected the policy process of INSET development, its funding, problems, prospects, and reforms in education (Roberts 1981, Golby et al. 1981, Graham 1986, Jones and Reid 1988). The key topics addressed in the policy papers were:

• Conceptualisation of in-service education and training (INSET) using the concepts of staff development, professional development, continued professional development (Roberts 1981, Eraut 1977, Lee 1990);

• Development of new curricula and innovation in the educational process (Golby et al. 1981);

• Major policy changes related to the introduction of the training grant schemes in England and Wales in 1986 (Jones and Reid 1988);

• Funding arrangements for full-time award-bearing courses and specific areas of training, and the changing role of higher educational institutions in teachers’ professional development (Day 1989);

• Discussion of educational reform (Maguire and Ball 1994).

The research papers were defined as those which mainly focused on empirical studies of INSET. The key interest of the research was in the following areas:

• School-centred in-service teacher education: school-based and school-focused in-service work and the evaluation of in-service activity (Eraut 1991, Chatwin et al. 1988);

• Approaches to learning in in-service education;

There were also a range of topics which spanned both research and policy papers:

• Strategies of INSET development, new curricula and innovation in the educational process (Golby et al. 1981, Jones and Reid 1988, Graham 1986);

• Competency, criteria for assessment and accreditation (Chown 1994);

• The value of action research in in-service training (Whitehead 1977, Bell 1987);

• Induction for newly qualified teachers (McCabe 1974; Trafford, 1989; Special Issue on Teacher Induction, 1993, 19:1);

• Analysis of teachers’ in-service needs (Mortimore 1981); specific focus on subject teachers and broader agenda on gender, multicultural education and special educational needs;

• Education and training of educational managers (Gray and Cunningham 1974, Kerry and Murdoch 1992).

The use of such broad categories has limitations and the scope for mis-interpretation can lead to possible confusion in article allocation to a specific group. For instance, ‘policy’ and ‘research’ have multiple interpretation, and articles could overlap with another category in the list. Therefore, we have not attempted to calculate how many articles might be categorised under the emerging themes listed below (in volumes 1–49, (a total of 1,737 articles have been published in the last 50 years, excluding Research Notes and Viewpoints). Instead, we seek to highlight trends in thinking and changes in policy and practice in the field of professional learning.

On reading the articles in the early issues of the journal, the extent of changes in terminology, policy and practice becomes apparent:

• the notion of teachers’ needs has become superseded by the priorities of the school and by national priorities (Bangs and MacBeath 2012);

• the loose definition of ‘efficiency’ becomes tighter as teacher appraisal and performativity (Lloyd and Davis 2018) are introduced;

• the term ‘management’ is replaced by ‘leadership’ and this becomes a prominent feature of later contributions to the journal (Swaffield and Poekert 2020)Of particular significance is that the term in-service is less-frequently used and has been superseded by professional development and, later, professional learning. In our view, it is important to maintain a distinction between these two terms. (Jones and O’Brien 2014)

A brief overview of emerging themes would include:

• leadership: from ‘managing staff development’ to ‘leadership development’ to ‘teacher leadership’ to ‘leading professional learning’ (Poekert and King 2023)

• practitioner enquiry: built on formal and informal school/HE partnerships, but also highlighting individual and institutional desires to look more deeply and critically at practice (Clayton and Kilbane 2016)

• accreditation: recording changes in the perception of professional learning through Master’s programmes (including the emergence of school-based and school-focused Master’s) to the rise and fall of national programmes, sub-Master’s level programmes and Ed Ds (Fox and Slade 2014).

• Collaboration and networking: from in-school team professional learning to inter-school clusters/consortia to professional learning communities to lesson study to co-construction (Hamilton 2020)

• Induction and Early Professional Development – changing policy and practice from the so-called probationary year to the emergence of professional standards checklists, flexible routes into teaching, the changing role of Higher Education in the ITE-induction continuum and the role of more experienced professionals as mentors (O’Brien and Christie 2008)

• mentoring and coaching: from the emergence of the terms in an education context to their use as performative tools to more critical consideration of their application as professional learning support (Lofthouse 2019)

• Policy: at the meso and micro levels, evidencing the growth of local policies of professional learning focusing on individual, team and whole-school needs and the need for equity and social justice (Forde and Torrance 2017)

• The internet and social media: especially the use of Twitter/X and the growth of digital technologies to underpin more-recent approaches to professional learning (Carpenter et al. 2022)

• Conceptual changes – the move in terminology from INSET to staff development to continuing professional development to professional learning, the use and misuse of models of professional development (Boylan et al. 2018), the acknowledgement of professional learning as complex (Strom and Viesca 2021), and the need to move from reproductive to transformative approaches in professional learning (Kennedy and Stevenson 2023).

These key trends in professional learning are often evident in collections of articles in special issues These include:

• Professionalism and Professional Development (Vol 35.2, 2009);

• The Professional Development of Teacher Educators (Vol 36.1-2, 2010);

• Professional Development in Teacher Education: European Perspectives (Vol 37.5, 2011);

• The Professional Development of Early Years Educators (Vol 41.2, 2015);

• Leadership for Professional Learning (Vol 46.4, 2020);

• The Place of Professional Growth and Professional Learning in Leading Socially Just Schools (Vol 47.1, 2021);

• Non-linear perspectives on Teacher Development: Complexity in Professional Learning and Practice (Vol 47.2-3, 2021);

• Beyond Reproduction: The Transformative Potential of Professional Learning (Vol 49.4, 2023); and

• Leading Professional Learning to Navigate Complexity (Vol 49.6, 2023).

Forthcoming special issues also reflect cutting-edge themes and open up international thinking to a global professional learning audience:

• Professional learning for praxis development (scheduled for Vol 50.3, 2024)

• Latin American and Caribbean perspectives on professional learning research, policy and practice (scheduled for Vol 51.1, 2025)

• Applying Critically Complex Theories to Professional Learning with and about Advanced Technologies (scheduled for Vol 51.3, 2025).

In this current issue, we have selected articles that question assumptions about professional learning. The first group of articles raise important issues regarding how the idea of ‘effective’ professional learning has drifted and become more problematic. Asterhan and Lefstein (2023) look critically at the ways in which indicators of effective professional learning have been mis-interpreted, drawing into question the practice of using interpretation as evidence and how the ambition to identify general features of effective professional development based on research may be problematic. Cirkony et al. (2022) also argue that there is a need to go beyond the consensus of ‘effective approaches’ and consider the broader conditions and methodological limitations that impact improved and sustained change and Simmie and colleagues (2023) take us on a border-crossing journey exploring the embedded contradictions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities encountered in moving towards an advanced professional practice.

The second group of articles consider the impact of culture on policy and raise questions about the transferability of ideas across cultures and institutions. Seleznyov, Goei and Ehren (2021) consider why the adaptation of Japanese Lesson Study is fraught with challenges when translated for use in a different host nation. Ostinelli and Crescentini (2021) examine the ways in which approaches to professional learning in in five European countries are influenced by policy, culture and practice, and Nguyen et al. (2023) examine literature on the rapid upward trend of professional learning communities in what is known as the Global South.

What used to be known as the transfer of training is considered in a group of articles looking at impact on practice. Hayes, Preminger and Bae (2023) consider reasons why intended outcomes of professional development are often not realised in practice. Lynch et al. (2023) address the factors that influence principals’ perceptions of what constitutes effective professional learning and Perry and Booth (2021) argue for greater focus on professional development facilitators who lead, plan and deliver professional development programmes. Rönnerman and Olin (2021) consider the effects on teachers’ practice of engaging in a Master’s programme. In a study of pre-service teachers in Hong Kong, Huang and Wang (2021) explore how pre-service teachers’ professional identities dynamically change when following their programme of study.

The final group of articles looks at the professional learning approaches associated with digital technologies. Fowler and Simon (2021) consider the transformative power of digital technologies and the problematic nature of scaling the innovative pedagogies emerging from research into the use of digital technologies. Grierson, Gallagher and St Hilaire (2022) explored the experiences of a digital technology coach in Canada and argue for further research exploring the professional learning of DT coaches and continued exploration of factors that affect the efficacy of DT coaching. In the final article, Ahadi et al. (2021) conduct a systematic literature review on how professional development workshops on the use of technology in classrooms are evaluated. They find a significant lack of structured workshop evaluation and argue for this to be addressed so that the impact of such workshops may be fully evidenced.

Conclusion

The current aims of PDiE are provided on the journal’s website (https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=rjie20). They state:

“The journal aims to push thinking in the field in a more critical and diverse way, and we welcome both empirical and conceptual articles that can add something new to the literature on PLD across a wide range of professions. In particular, we are interested in receiving articles which:

• offer new ways of theorising PLD;

• ask challenging questions about current research and practice, and the assumptions underpinning them;

• offer critical and analytical perspectives on PLD policy and governance;

• interrogate the structures which allow the reproduction of inappropriate, unjust or ineffective PLD practices;

• offer new ways of understanding how PLD can improve both educators’, and ultimately also their learners’, lives for the better

Our strapline is ‘more than a journal’, and the Editorial Board seeks to enact this through active engagement in PLD networks, supporting and organising symposia and events, encouraging dialogue with eminent scholars of PLD and contributing in an active way to the mentoring and development of new scholars in the field.”

We seek to engage with authors, not just to act as an outlet for written articles. Our editorials try to stimulate debate so that readers can look critically at the research we publish and, ideally, raise issues professionally with authors and editors (see Jones (2012) What’s the point of an editorial?, Kennedy (2015) ‘Useful’ professional learning … useful for whom? And Stevenson (2019; 2023) Professional learning – What is the point? and [Is it] fit for purpose in an age of crises?). Similarly, we encourage reaction to articles which take a critical approach to educational ‘truths’ (see, for example, Asterhan and Lefstein (2023) The search for evidence-based features of effective teacher professional development: a critical analysis of the literature published in this issue).

Being ‘more than a journal’, PDiE has tried to build a culture of professional learning within its editorial board. The team of editors has always played an invaluable role in providing critical advice and guidance on the direction of the journal, and the growing success of PDiE over the past 50 years has reflected the strength of this professional engagement. This is typified by the leading engagement of editors representing PDiE in international networks, exemplified by the Leadership for Professional Learning symposium (https://lfplsymposium.org/). This is held every two years and has generated numerous articles and two special issues which highlight the changing approaches to leading professional learning. In our 50^th year, the next symposium in this series will be held in Santiago, Chile, in June 2024.

PDiE is part of the International Professional Development Association (IPDA - https://ipda.org.uk/) which has a global reach and publishes two academic journals, PDiE and Practice: Contemporary Issues in Practitioner Education (https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/rpra20). The IPDA annual international conference provides an excellent opportunity to ‘meet the editors’, share research on professional learning, and offer critical perspectives on current issues.

This Editorial cannot provide a fully comprehensive analysis of the changes in professional learning thinking, policy and practice over 50 years, so further articles are planned to look in more detail at specific aspects of the historical record that PDiE provides. For students of professional learning and of current and future thinking in the field, the back pages of PDiE provide an invaluable resource.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr Evgeniya Plotnikova for her initial contribution in support of this Editorial Review.

Disclosure statement

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