Chapter 5. Providing opportunities for continuous development

Continuous professional development is a vital element of the career path of teachers and principals, providing training that can affect both classroom and school practices. This chapter examines participation rates in in-service training for teachers and principals and discusses the different types of development opportunities available to them. It also reports teachers’ views on the characteristics of impactful training. After exploring the content of training activities attended by teachers and principals, it contrasts levels of participation with needs for further training. The chapter concludes by examining barriers to participation in training and the support received by teachers and principals to overcome them.

    

A note regarding Israel

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Highlights
  • Participation in some kind of in-service training is commonplace among teachers and principals in the OECD countries and economies participating in TALIS, with more than 90% of teachers and principals attending at least one continuous professional development (CPD) activity in the year prior to the survey.

  • The type of training attended by teachers and principals varies across OECD countries and economies participating in TALIS. Only 44% of teachers participate in training based on peer learning and networking, which is relatively modest compared to participation rates of over 70% in out-of-school types of training, such as attending courses or seminars.

  • More than 80% of teachers report that their training had a positive impact on their teaching practices. The characteristics of training that teachers found most impactful are those based on strong subject and curriculum content, collaboration and incorporation of active learning and collaborative approaches to instruction.

  • Teachers who report participating in impactful training tend to display higher levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Furthermore, teachers participating in training focused on teaching in diverse classrooms tend to report high levels of self-efficacy in teaching in diverse environments. In addition, teachers participating in training focusing on the implementation of pedagogical practices tend to report a more frequent implementation of effective practices.

  • Since more than 70% of teachers already attend training focused on building knowledge (both subject-based and pedagogical), there is not a particularly high need for training of this kind in OECD countries and economies participating in TALIS. Instead, teachers report a high level of need for training in advanced information and communication technology (ICT) skills, teaching methods for multicultural/multilingual settings and teaching methods for students with special needs. Both the participation rate and the need for training in these areas have increased over the last five years.

  • Principals in OECD countries and economies in TALIS report a great interest in improving both their school organisation and the practices of their teachers, with more than 70% of them attending training to become an instructional and / or pedagogical leader. Their main needs for training range from using data to make informed decisions, to improving collaboration among their teachers.

  • Around half of teachers and principals report that participation in professional development is restricted by schedule conflicts and a lack of incentives to engage in these activities. While support mechanisms in some TALIS countries and economies are associated with higher participation rates, in other contexts, the support still seems insufficient.

Introduction

A pressing concern of education systems today is to ensure that students acquire the skills and competences they need to succeed in today’s society. This task is challenging in our rapidly changing world, where labour instability, migration, demographic transformation and the globalised economy are constantly redefining the needs and demands of society (OECD, 2018[1]). In the face of these changes, teachers must continuously validate and update their skills to help students become competent, competitive and socially integrated adults (OECD, 2005[2]). Education systems have sought to support their teachers by designing, implementing and promoting diverse forms of continuous professional development (CPD) (Akiba, 2013[3]; Villegas-Reimers, 2003[4]).

A broad definition of professional development includes activities “… that develop an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher [or principal].” (OECD, 2009, p. 49[5]). This definition encompasses all the stages of training for teachers and principals, ranging from initial education to in-service training opportunities. This chapter examines continuous professional development, understood to be activities in the form of in-service training activities beyond initial education and induction programmes.1

Concepts underlying the idea of effective CPD are based on the assumption that teachers and principals are lifelong learners, with different professional needs through their careers. It is the task of stakeholders and responsible authorities acting within education systems to accurately identify these needs and secure access to relevant training (OECD, 2005[2]). At the same time, teachers and school leaders have the professional responsibility to seek, identify and engage in these training activities, when available. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the type of training that has the greatest impact on teachers’ and principals’ practices, the areas where teachers and principals feel the greatest need for training, and the barriers to participation.

CPD activities allow teachers to develop skills that will be beneficial for their learning, their teaching practices and their students’ development (Desimone, 2009[6]; Hattie, 2009[7]). Indeed, effective CPD programmes can have an impact on teachers’ skills and dispositions (Borko, 2004[8]; Garet et al., 2016[9]; Youngs, 2001[10]), their classroom practices (Fischer et al., 2018[11]) and their beliefs (Guskey, 2002[12]; Nir and Bogler, 2008[13]; OECD, 2014[14]), and they can help build professional learning communities (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner, 2017[15]; OECD, 2013[16]). It has even been found that professional development is an effective mechanism to prevent burnout among teachers (Kyriacou, 2001[17]). Teachers’ participation in CPD can also have a modest but direct positive impact on boosting student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007[18]) and reducing the performance gap among students (Meissel, Parr and Timperley, 2016[19]).

CPD that takes place in the school has been found crucial to create a culture of improvement and to develop a shared vision of learning across the teaching and management staff (Jensen et al., 2016[20]; OECD, 2013[16]). Principals must not only provide opportunities for CPD training but also participate in these activities, to reinforce their managerial and leadership skills (Sparks, 2002[21]; Zepeda, Parylo and Bengtson, 2013[22]; OECD, 2016[23]).

Furthermore, CPD activities are a fundamental element for the success of any major educational reform in OECD countries (OECD, 2015[24]). CPD helps teachers acquire the necessary skills to be informed and critical receptors of such policy efforts (Kennedy, 2005[25]). Recent policy reviews have, in fact, identified CPD strategies as a key attribute of high-achieving education systems (Darling-Hammond, 2017[26]; Jensen et al., 2016[20]; OECD, 2018[27]).

Given CPD’s relevance for improving the teacher and principal workforce, this chapter seeks to provide insights on the participation of teachers and principals in CPD activities. It starts by examining participation rates, the type of training attended by teachers and how these participation rates change based on the characteristics of teachers and schools. Next, it explores the characteristics of training activities that teachers rate as having a positive impact on their teaching and to what extent they are associated with their self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The chapter then looks at the content of CPD activities attended by both teachers and principals and describes their needs for further training. Finally, the chapter examines the barriers to and overall support for teachers’ and principals’ participation in CPD activities.

Providing learning opportunities for teachers and school leaders

In-service training, through CPD activities, is an integral part of the professionalisation of the teaching workforce, as it provides teachers with opportunities for further learning and improvement throughout their careers (Guerriero, 2017[28]). The inclusion of participation in CPD as an indicator for the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is evidence of the increasing relevance that continuous training has on the development of teachers (United Nations, 2015[29]).

More specifically, UNESCO has defined participation in CPD activities as a way to monitor the achievement of Goal 4.c: “By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States”2 (United Nations, 2015, p. 17[29]). The TALIS indicator of participation in CPD activities aligns well with the SDG indicator (see Box I.5.1 for details).

This section starts by looking at overall participation in CPD training for both teachers and principals. Next, it assesses whether participation rates differ, examining a series of characteristics of teachers and schools. The section concludes by examining the type of CPD training attended by teachers and principals.

Participation in continuous professional development

An indicator for total participation in CPD was constructed from teachers and principals who attended at least one of the ten possible types of training listed in the teacher and principal questionnaires (Box I.5.1). This indicator shows an undeniable spread of participation in professional development across countries and economies. On average across OECD countries and economies,3 94% of teachers participated in at least one type of professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey (Figure I.5.1, Table I.5.1). TALIS countries and economies with 99% of teachers participating in CPD are Alberta (Canada), Australia, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania and Shanghai (China). Even countries with comparatively lower shares of teachers participating in CPD, such as Saudi Arabia (86%) and France (83%), still show quite high levels of participation.

For principals, participation in in-service training is almost universal: on average across the OECD, 99% of principals report engaging in these activities (Table I.5.10). TALIS countries and economies where 100% of principals report that they have participated in at least in one professional development activity in the past 12 months are: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Shanghai (China), Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United States and Viet Nam.

These results reflect the fact that professional development has become a crucial step in the career paths of both principals and teachers. For teachers, many systems have actually transformed professional development into a mandatory component embedded in the professional career structure for teachers (Box I.5.2).

Box I.5.1. The SDG and TALIS 2018 indicators for teachers’ professional development

The UN SDGs have acknowledged the importance of implementing adequate CPD as a crucial policy lever for ensuring teachers’ learning and improvement throughout their career. Consequently, UNESCO defined the following strategy for educational systems: “Review, analyse and improve the quality of teacher training (pre-service and in-service) and provide all teachers with quality pre-service education and continuous professional development and support” (p. 55).

To help systems fulfil this strategy, SDG Goal 4.c. encompasses a series of measurable indicators on teachers’ work and development. The indicator on professional development, aligned with the TALIS indicator, is defined as: “Percentage of teachers who received in-service training in the last 12 months, by type of training”.

In TALIS 2018, the percentage of participation in training is derived from teachers who have at least attended one of the following types of professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey:

  • courses/seminars attended in person

  • online courses/seminars

  • education conferences

  • formal qualification programmes

  • observation visits to other schools

  • observation visits to business premises, public organisations, or non-governmental organisations

  • peer and/or self-observation and coaching

  • participation in a network of teachers

  • reading professional literature

  • other types of professional development activities

Through its indicator on professional development, TALIS is committed to helping countries monitor and report their work towards achieving and sustaining the SDGs.

Source: UNESCO (2016[30]), Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf.

Figure I.5.1. Participation in professional development activities
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who participated in professional development activities1
Figure I.5.1. Participation in professional development activities

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who participated in professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.1.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932741

Box I.5.2. Requirements for participation in professional development

CPD is compulsory for lower secondary teachers, either to maintain employment or for promotion/salary increases, in 23 of the 35 participating countries and economies with available data (Figure I.5.2).

Figure I.5.2. Requirements for teachers’ professional development in public institutions
For teachers teaching general subjects in public institutions, lower secondary education, 2013
Figure I.5.2. Requirements for teachers’ professional development in public institutions

Note: Data collected by the PISA 2015 study.

Source: Based on OECD (2016[31]), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264267510-en, Table II.6.57.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932760

Policies requiring compulsory participation in CPD may reflect the efforts of a particular system to ensure that every member of their workforce has access to these opportunities. For example, Lithuania is one of only two countries where CPD is mandatory for both maintaining employment and for the purposes of promotion. It is also the country with the highest share of teachers accessing training activities (Figure I.5.1). However, compulsory policies can also signal a highly centralised training system, with little room for teachers’ own discretion in choosing the type of CPD that suits their needs and preferences (Scheerens, 2010[32]; Scribner, 1999[33]).

In addition, compulsory policies should not be considered the only way to secure participation in CPD. Singapore does not have a policy of compulsory CPD activities, but it is one of the countries with the highest levels of participation in training (Figure I.5.1). One possible explanation is that, in Singapore, CPD is ingrained in a school’s shared vision of professional learning. Teachers are given 100 hours per year to invest in training, with guidance for their development decisions and access to teacher networks (OECD, 2011[34]). As a result, CPD activities are more than a mechanism for the renewal or promotion of teachers; they are part of teachers’ day-to-day work and regular school tasks.

Participation in continuous professional development, by teacher and school characteristics

Given that participation in CPD activities is almost universal in the majority of countries and economies participating in TALIS, the next question is whether there is any difference in CPD participation based on the type of school in which teachers are currently working. Regardless of the type of school in which they are enrolled, all students should have equal access to well-qualified teachers in order to ensure the quality of the education system as a whole (OECD, 2018[27]). Equitable distribution of CPD opportunities across schools is an important consideration for ensuring equitable provision of quality instruction throughout the education system (Darling-Hammond and Sykes, 2003[35]). Providing learning opportunities to teachers across a wide range of schools ensures that students from different backgrounds benefit from their training.

This section also explores whether there is any difference in CPD participation across the socio-demographic characteristics of the teaching workforce. Empirical evidence has found that, in some countries and economies, access to different forms of professional training is associated with teachers’ gender and completion of initial training (Barrera-Pedemonte, 2016[36]). As discussed in Chapter 3, teachers’ profiles are varied with respect to age, experience and gender. It is relevant to determine if a similar distribution of characteristics can be observed for teachers participating in CPD training. Finally, this section concludes with an exploration on the association of teachers’ motivation to become a teacher and their participation in different forms of CPD activities.

Regarding differences in participation based on school characteristics, it is reassuring to observe from TALIS results that, in the vast majority of countries and economies, there are no significant differences in CPD participation across school types, locations or socio-demographic composition (Table I.5.2). These results may reflect that, for the most part, the characteristics of the school where teachers work do not translate into barriers to participation.

However, for a few selected countries, some interesting patterns are worth highlighting. In Chile, teachers in schools with a relatively high concentration of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes (over 30%) display a higher level of participation in CPD opportunities than teachers in schools with lower concentrations of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Brazilian teachers in schools with a relatively high concentration of students with special needs (over 10%) participate more in CPD training than colleagues from schools with low concentrations of students with special needs (Table I.5.2). Teachers in these types of schools experience more teaching and learning challenges than those in other schools, as they serve a vulnerable student population. This may push teachers to seek additional training (Choy et al., 2006[37]).

Regarding socio-demographic differences in accessing CPD activities, in general across the OECD, there are no major differences in CPD participation by teachers’ gender, age or experience (Table I.5.1). These outcomes echo the results found in the 2013 cycle of TALIS: gender, experience, school type and location were significant factors of participation for only a few countries. Although, on average across OECD countries and economies, female teachers participate more frequently in in-service training than their male colleagues and more experienced teachers participate more often than novice teachers, these differences are marginal (around 1 percentage point).

Another key teacher characteristic acting as a driver for teachers’ participation in CPD training is their level and type of motivation for their work (Scribner, 1999[33]). Educational systems have usually made use of career progression incentives (i.e. promotion, salary increases, bonuses) to promote participation in CPD training (OECD, 2013[38]). Although these incentives have shown a degree of success, they run the risk of transforming CPD training into just a means to ensure work stability. Moreover, “external” intervention to improve performance, such as financial incentives, can actually decrease participation, since they could be perceived as controlling programmes that are disruptive to teachers’ work (Jacobsen, Hvitved and Andersen, 2014[39]). Empirical research has found that a heavy reliance on external rewards, such as monetary incentives, can actually affect the intrinsic motivation of employees, specifically their need for relatedness, competence and autonomy (Kohn, 1998[40]).

Participation in CPD is driven not only by this “utilitarian” view, but also by a genuine desire among teachers to get better skills to help and support their students (Scribner, 1999[33]). Public service motivation – that is, motivation aimed at doing good for others and society (Perry, Hondeghem and Wise, 2010[41]) – can improve individual performance in the workplace, as it increases teachers’ commitment to and engagement with their tasks (Andersen, Heinesen and Pedersen, 2014[42]). People showing high levels of public service motivation are willing to make extra efforts to improve the quality of their work, as they perceive that the outcomes have implications for the improvement of others and of society as a whole (Perry and Wise, 1990[43]). Under the frame of CPD participation, these extra efforts related to work could be interpreted as participation in in-service training. As such, it is relevant to observe how different types of motivation relate to participation in CPD training.

The following analysis examines the relationship between the motivation to become a teachers and participation in a number of different CPD activities (Table I.5.5 and Table I.5.6). The 2018 cycle of TALIS asks teachers about their main motivations for becoming a teacher (see Chapter 4 for a detailed description of the results). Two indices were constructed from teachers’ answers: a personal utility value index and a social utility value index. The personal utility value index includes motivations for being a teacher, such as “teaching offered a steady career path” and “teaching provided a reliable income”. The social utility value index aligns with the public service motivation concept, as it includes motivations such as “teaching allowed me to influence the development of children and young people” and “teaching allowed me to benefit the socially disadvantaged”.

On average across the OECD, after controlling for teachers’ characteristics, individuals with higher values in the social utility index (teachers who were motivated to become teachers because of the social contribution teaching represented) tend to participate in more CPD activities. This holds true for all countries and economies participating in TALIS except Alberta (Canada), Saudi Arabia and South Africa (Table I.5.5). Inversely, the relationship between teachers’ personal utility motivations to enter their careers and their level of participation in CPD activities is statistically significant in only about a quarter of TALIS countries and economies (Table I.5.6). Furthermore, no clear pattern can be identified within this group since, in six of these countries and economies, teachers with higher values in the personal utility index are more likely to participate in more CPD activities while, for the seven other countries, teachers with higher values in the personal utility index report participating in fewer CPD activities.

These results stress the importance of societal motivation for teachers to participate in further training. Even more, teachers’ social utility motivation can be affected and encouraged by management staff (Jacobsen, Hvitved and Andersen, 2014[39]). As such, school and management staff should have the responsibility of nourishing this intrinsic motivation, while governments and institutions providing CPD training should take into account these motivational aspects when seeking to promote participation across teachers and designing corresponding incentives.

Types of continuous professional development activities

The breakdown of the TALIS indicator for CPD participation presents relevant information about the format of this training (see Box I.5.1 for the ten types of CPD activities). These formats range from formally structured activities (e.g. conferences, workshops, participating in a formal qualification programme) to informal activities (e.g. networking, within-school peer collaboration, reading professional literature) (Avalos, 2011[44]).

The literature indicates that training is potentially more effective when teachers are able to participate in a wide range of formats (Jensen et al., 2016[20]; Hoban and Erickson, 2004[45]; Scheerens, 2010[32]). Some formats, such as participation in courses or seminars or reading professional literature, may develop knowledge-based skills (Hoban and Erickson, 2004[45]), while others, like participation in professional networks or coaching, foster collaborative and social skills (Kraft, Blazar and Hogan, 2018[46]). These characteristics help to build a more rounded profile of teachers and principals (Chen and McCray, 2012[47]).

On average across the OECD, teachers attended about four different types of CPD activities in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table I.5.7). There are important cross-country variations across TALIS countries and economies regarding the number of activities in which teachers participate. On average, teachers attend six different CPD activities in Kazakhstan, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Shanghai (China), but less than three activities in Chile, France and Portugal (Table I.5.7). Participation in multiple forms of CPD is higher for principals. On average across the OECD, principals participated in about six different forms of CPD training in the 12 months prior to the survey. On average among TALIS countries and economies, principals in Kazakhstan, Korea, the Russian Federation and Shanghai (China) attended more than seven different types of training, while principals in France, Japan and Sweden attended less than five activities (Table I.5.10).

On average across the OECD, the most common forms of professional development, according to teachers, are: “courses/seminars attended in person” (76%); “reading professional literature” (72%); and “education conferences where teachers, principals and/or researchers present their research or discuss educational issues” (49%) (Figure I.5.3).

Figure I.5.3. Type of professional development attended by teachers and principals
Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers and principals (OECD average)1, 2
Figure I.5.3. Type of professional development attended by teachers and principals

1. OECD average covers 31 countries for teachers and 30 countries for principals (see Annex B).

2. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Note: The figure only includes those items that were common both for the teacher and the school leader questionnaire.

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who participated in the following professional development activities.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.7 and I.5.10.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932779

As was the case for TALIS 2013 results (OECD, 2014[14]), participation in these forms of CPD varies considerably across participating countries and economies. In Australia, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania, Singapore and Slovenia, over 90% of teachers participate in “courses/ seminars attended in person”, while less than or equal to 50% of teachers do so in France, Japan and Romania. In Alberta (Canada), Croatia, Latvia and Shanghai (China), 70% or more of teachers participate in “education conferences where teachers and / or researchers present their research or discuss educational issues”, while less than 30% of teachers do so in the Czech Republic, Georgia, Saudi Arabia and the Slovak Republic. Finally, in Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, Shanghai (China), Slovenia and Viet Nam, 90% or more of teachers engage in “reading professional literature”, but less than 50% do so in Chile, France, Italy, Malta, Saudi Arabia and Spain (Table I.5.7).

Attendance at courses and seminars has often been criticised as a traditional approach to teachers’ development, since such programmes tend to view teachers as passive recipients of knowledge rather than co-constructors of their own development (Avalos, 2011[44]; Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002[48]). Although these types of programmes are necessary and have been found to be effective in providing teachers with the content and subject knowledge required to improve their skills (Hoban and Erickson, 2004[45]), they are usually disconnected from the context of the schools where teachers work and from the daily reality of their classrooms (Borko, 2004[8]).

Instead, critics have proposed a school-embedded approach to CPD activities. School-embedded professional development is able to incorporate the teaching experience, the school context and teachers’ collegiality to improve teachers’ instruction (Borko, 2004[8]; Opfer, 2016[49]; Opfer and Pedder, 2011[50]). CPD training is more likely to affect teaching practices if teachers can relate the content of their training to their everyday work in their schools and classrooms. Furthermore, since school-embedded professional development relies on capacities and know-how within schools (e.g. school climate, networking, quality relationships), it can be a cost-efficient way to support teachers and principals (Kraft, Blazar and Hogan, 2018[46]).

Box I.5.3. Coaching as an effective form of professional development: Evidence from Brazil and South Africa

Brazil

The Ceará programme in Brazil was conceived as a response to two key issues affecting the quality of teaching and learning in Brazil: limited instructional time and low levels of student engagement. The nine-month-long coaching programme for secondary education teachers provided support and practical strategies on lesson planning, classroom management and keeping students engaged. The programme also consisted of school-level pedagogical co-ordinators providing feedback to teachers, based on classroom observations and self-help resources, such as books and online video examples. Moreover, it uses one-on-one coaching for pedagogical co-ordinators via Skype, a video-conferencing software, which makes the programme highly cost-effective. An impact evaluation of the programme revealed that the intervention resulted in:

  1. teachers gaining more instructional time in the classroom by reducing the time spent on classroom management;

  2. more frequent use of interactive strategies to improve student engagement; and 3) and an overall improvement in the academic outcomes of students in state and national tests.

South Africa

An experimental study from South Africa compared the effects of two forms of in-service teacher development on changes in primary education teachers’ practices and student outcomes. The two forms of professional development were: 1) training at a centralised venue (training); and 2) classroom visits by coaches who observe teaching, provide feedback and demonstrate corrective actions (coaching). In addition, both of these forms of professional development included complementary resources, such as grade-reading booklets and lesson plans. The results showed that teachers whose professional development was in the form of coaching were more likely to implement “group-guided reading” (a difficult strategy to put in place) than teachers whose professional development was in the form of training or teachers who did not receive either form of professional development. Furthermore, students whose teachers received professional development in the form of coaching improved their reading proficiency by a considerable margin compared to teachers who participated in professional development in the form of training. The results show that a structured pedagogical programme based on in-person coaching was instrumental in enabling teachers to effectively use the resources available to them and inducing behavioural change in their instructional practices.

Sources: Bruns B., L. Costa and N. Cunha (2018[52]), “Through the looking glass: Can classroom observation and coaching improve teacher performance in Brazil?”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 64, pp. 214-250,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.003; Cilliers, J. et al. (2019[53]), “How to improve teaching practice? An experimental comparison of centralized training and in-classroom coaching”, The Journal of Human Resources, https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0618-9538r1.

On average across the OECD, participation in school-embedded professional development is lower than in traditional approaches to training. This is the case for “peer and/or self-observation and coaching as part of a formal school arrangement” (44%) (Figure I.5.3). “Peer/self-observation and coaching” is an effective form of collaboration among teachers that is embedded in the school culture (OECD, 2016[23]). It can be part of regular school tasks requiring the involvement of all members of the school community (Borko, 2004[8]; Villegas-Reimers, 2003[4]). Indeed, evidence has shown that teachers who engage in collaboration at their work are more receptive of further CPD activities (Loxley et al., 2007[51]). Like the other types of CPD described, “peer/ self-observation and coaching” shows a great degree of cross-country variation in participation, ranging from more than 85% of teachers in Kazakhstan, Shanghai (China) and the United Arab Emirates to less than 20% of teachers in Finland, France and Spain (Table I.5.7). Box I.5.3 describes initiatives from Brazil and South Africa of CPD activities that are anchored in a coaching approach.

TALIS shows a mixed global trend on whether experienced or novice teachers participate more frequently in “Peer/self-observation and coaching”. The share of less experienced teachers participating in this type of training is significantly lower than among their more experienced counterparts in 9 countries and economies. However, in 11 countries and economies, the share of novice teachers participating in “peer/self-observation and coaching” is significantly higher than among more experienced teachers (Table I.5.7). For these 11 countries and economies, the difference could be explained by the fact that training in the form of coaching and peer-observation is often an element of induction or mentoring initiatives. Indeed, as shown in Chapter 4, “supervision by principal and/or experienced teachers” and “networking collaborating with other new teachers” are among the most common provisions of induction reported by teachers. Also, novice teachers, especially if they are new to a school, may be more inclined to request support from management staff and/or experienced teachers (OECD, 2017[54]).

Like school-embedded professional development, participation in professional networks has also been identified as an innovative and effective form of professional development (Trust, Krutka and Carpenter, 2016[55]). This type of training creates a collegial environment, where teachers and principals are encouraged to collaborate and share ideas. Networking opportunities allow for co-construction of knowledge, provide support that better fits the actual needs of teachers and encourage pedagogical innovation (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[56]).4

Box I.5.4. Participation in and types of professional development from primary to upper secondary education

Teachers’ participation in CPD is almost universal, regardless of the level of education they teach. However, primary teachers tend to participate slightly more often in CPD activities than lower secondary teachers in 6 out of 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2 (Table I.5.3). The largest difference in favour of primary teachers in CPD participation is found in France (14 percentage points). Also in France, the percentage of lower secondary teachers (83%) participating in CPD is the lowest of all TALIS countries and economies (the participation rate exceeds 90% in most of them) (Table I.5.2).

By contrast, when comparing CPD participation rates of upper secondary teachers with those of their lower secondary peers, there is not much difference in the 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3 (Table I.5.4).

CPD activities encompass various types of activities. By far, the most popular are “courses/seminars attended in person” and “reading professional literature”, in which about three out of four teachers across the OECD participated. By contrast, less than half of teachers report that they have participated in one of the other eight types of CPD activities (Table I.5.7). In the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, primary teachers tend to participate more often in the different types of CPD activities than their lower secondary peers. In 8 out of 11 countries, more primary teachers than lower secondary level teachers report having frequently attended courses/seminars in person, with the largest differences in France (21 percentage points) and England (United Kingdom) (15 percentage points) (Table I.5.8). Depending on the type of CPD format, the same tendency is found in 7 of these 13 countries for participation in education conferences where teachers and/or researchers present their research or discuss educational issues, observation visits to other schools, peer and/or self-observation and coaching as part of a formal school arrangement and participation in a network of teachers formed specifically for the professional development of teachers.

At the upper secondary level, some types of CPD are more popular. For instance, in 10 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, upper secondary teachers do more observation visits to business premises, public organisations, or non-governmental organisations (Table I.5.7 and Table I.5.9). In Croatia and Sweden, the frequency increased by more than 15 percentage points. Despite the high increase, the percentage of teachers at the upper secondary level having done this activity remains below 40% in the majority of countries.

However, on average across the OECD, only 40% of teachers state that they participated “in a network of teachers formed specifically for the professional development of teachers” (Figure I.5.3). Among TALIS countries and economies, at least 65% of teachers participate in networks in Kazakhstan, Korea, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam, while less than 25% do so in Austria, CABA (Argentina), Chile, the Czech Republic, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Spain. Results indicate that, for 20 countries and economies, experienced teachers participate more in this type of training than novice teachers. This could be explained by the fact that networks rely on professional contacts that are acquired with years of experience at work. However, novice teachers participate more in networks than their more experienced counterparts in Alberta (Canada), England (United Kingdom), Malta and Shanghai (China) (Table I.5.7).

Among principals, as for teachers, the most frequent types of CPD activities are: “reading professional literature” (87%); “courses and/or seminars attended in person” (77%); and “education conferences where teachers, principals and/or researchers present their research or discuss educational issues” (75%) (Figure I.5.3). Comparing the participation of teachers and principals in each type of training reveals that teachers participate less than principals in every form of CPD. It is interesting to observe that, for some types of training, the share of principals’ participation is quite high compared to that of teachers. That is the case of participation in “education conferences” (75% of principals compared to 49% of teachers) and “participation in a network formed specifically for their professional development” (61% of principals compared to 40% of teachers). For professional development networks, the difference could be because school leaders have more years of experience than teachers and have, thus, accumulated more professional contacts to network with (Sparks, 2002[21]). In Croatia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Korea, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Singapore and Slovenia, at least 80% of principals have participated in professional networks. Participation of principals in “peer/self-observation and coaching” is lower (47%). However, in Hungary, Kazakhstan, Korea and the Russian Federation, more than 80% of principals have participated in coaching (Table I.5.10).

Overall, it seems that principals are given more opportunities than teachers for in-service training or take greater advantage of it. This can be observed through wide gaps of participation in certain types of activities (participation in networks and education conferences), the fact that principals participate in more CPD activities than teachers (on average, four activities for teachers compared to six activities for principals) and that overall participation in CPD is higher for principals (95% of teachers compared to 99% of principals [see the section Participation in continuous professional development]).5

Exploring impactful forms of professional development

Around the world, education systems strive to find the most cost-effective mechanisms to deliver professional training (Kraft, Blazar and Hogan, 2018[46]). As a result, there is high policy interest in assessing whether participation in CPD is affecting teaching practices and student achievement and whether some types of activities are more effective than others (Desimone, 2009[6]; Hattie, 2009[7]; Ingvarson, Meiers and Beavis, 2005[57]; Timperley et al., 2007[58]; Yoon et al., 2007[18]).

TALIS provides evidence of the impact of CPD activities by giving teachers the opportunity to voice their opinions on their training. This section starts by describing the share of teachers who report a positive impact of their training activities and the extent to which this perceived impact is associated with three professional outcomes of teachers: self-efficacy, job satisfaction and cognitive activation practices. It then discusses the characteristics that made the training effective.

Impact of continuous professional development activities

Teachers were asked whether any of the CPD activities they took in the 12 months prior to the survey had an impact on their teaching practices. It is important to ask teachers themselves about the impact of their training, as they need to understand and believe that their training matters for CPD activities to be effective (Scribner, 1999[33]).

On average across the OECD, 82% of teachers report a positive impact on their teaching practices from their participation in CPD activities (Table I.5.15). However, there are important cross-country variations among TALIS countries and economies. More than 90% of teachers report that their training had a positive impact on their teaching practices in Alberta (Canada), Australia, CABA (Argentina), Japan and Singapore. Inversely, less than 75% of teachers report a positive impact in Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Malta, Saudi Arabia, Sweden and Turkey.

Previous OECD research has shown that CPD activities not only provide teachers with necessary skills, but also improve their sense of confidence and satisfaction (OECD, 2016[59]; OECD, 2014[14]). As such, by boosting both self-efficacy and job satisfaction, CPD activities can also be effective mechanisms for the retention of teachers. TALIS 2018 results show that, on average across the OECD, after controlling for teachers’ characteristics, teachers who state that their training in the 12 months prior to the survey had an impact on their teaching practices have higher levels of job satisfaction than those teachers reporting that their training had no impact on their teaching practices (Figure I.5.4, Table I.5.13). This holds true for 46 TALIS countries and economies. The association is particularly strong in England (United Kingdom), Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. Regarding the relationship with self-efficacy, on average across the OECD, after controlling for teachers’ characteristics, it can be observed that teachers who state that their training in the 12 months prior to the survey had an impact on their teaching practices have higher levels of self-efficacy. It is possible to observe this positive association in 33 TALIS countries and economies, with Shanghai (China), South Africa and the United Arab Emirates showing the strongest association (Figure I.5.4, Table I.5.14). Although caution against causal arguments is recommended, these results may hint that teachers who report a positive impact from their training also tend to be more content with their work and have stronger confidence in conducting their classroom instruction. As such, these results add evidence of the importance of professional development for increasing teachers’ level of satisfaction with their work and boosting their self-confidence.

Figure I.5.4. Relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and self-efficacy and participation in impactful professional development
Change in the index of self-efficacy1 and the index of job satisfaction2 associated with having participated in impactful professional development3, 4, 5
Figure I.5.4. Relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and self-efficacy and participation in impactful professional development

1. The index of self-efficacy measures teacher self-efficacy in classroom management, instruction and student engagement.

2. The index of job satisfaction measures teachers’ satisfaction with their current work environment and satisfaction with the profession.

3. Results of linear regression based on responses of lower secondary teachers.

4. The predictor is a dummy variable: the reference category is “professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey did not have a positive impact on teaching practice”.

5. Controlling for the following teacher characteristics: gender, working full-time, years of experience as a teacher; and for the following classroom characteristics: share of low academic achievers, share of students with behavioural problems and class size.

Note: Statistically significant coefficients are marked in a darker tone (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the index of job satisfaction associated with having participated in impactful professional development.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.13 and I.5.14.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932798

Characteristics of impactful continuous professional development activities

Identifying the characteristics or combinations of characteristics that define effective CPD activities is one of the major policy challenges in ensuring continuous quality training. Policy reviews often tend to highlight the limited effects of professional development programmes on teacher practices by criticising flaws of design or adequacy (Garet et al., 2001[60]). TALIS makes it possible to ask the professionals who participate in this training – teachers themselves – about the characteristics of the programme that had the largest positive impact on their teaching. Teachers were asked to select the pertinent characteristics from a list of 12 elements identified in the specialised literature as key attributes of effective training. These characteristics were classified into four comprehensive and distinctive groups; “content focus”, “active learning and collaboration”, “sustained length” and “school-embedded training” (Figure I.5.5). Only teachers who reported that their training had a positive impact were asked to rate these characteristics (83% of the original sample from TALIS countries and economies) (Table I.5.15).

Among teachers reporting that their training had a positive impact, one of the most frequent characteristics mentioned relates to the content of the training. The specialised literature agrees that effective CPD programmes should be content-driven, with strong subject and curriculum-based components that help teachers have a better grasp of their subject (Borko, 2004[8]; Guskey and Yoon, 2009[61]). These programmes should also take into account the experience and be consistent with the previous knowledge and learning experiences of teachers, along with their specific needs for training (Desimone, 2009[6]). Furthermore, it is important that the training have a coherent structure connecting the previous experience of teachers with classroom practices and measurable outcomes (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002[48]). On average across the OECD, among teachers who found their training impactful, such characteristics correspond to four elements: 1) “built on [the teacher’s] prior knowledge” (91%); 2) “adapted to [the teacher’s] personal development needs” (78%); 3) “had a coherent structure” (76%); and 4) “appropriately focused on content needed to teach [the teacher’s] subjects” (72%) (Figure I.5.5, Table I.5.15). TALIS countries and economies displaying, on average, the highest share of teachers reporting these four content-related characteristics as part of their impactful training are Shanghai (China), South Africa and Viet Nam, while Bulgaria and Japan have the lowest share of teachers reporting these characteristics as part of their training (Table I.5.15).

Another set of characteristics mentioned by teachers who found their training impactful relates to active learning and collaboration. Active learning refers to pedagogical approaches that put learners at the centre of instruction (OECD, 2014[14]). Policy reviews and research literature have recommended incorporating this approach into CPD training, as it envisions teachers as co-constructors of their own learning and provides interactive strategies to contextualise teaching instruction to their local settings (Desimone, 2009[6]; Garet et al., 2001[60]; Villegas-Reimers, 2003[4]). In addition, a crucial component of active-learning approaches is collaboration between peers (OECD, 2014[14]). Collaboration incentivises peer learning and coaching modalities that allow for a more flexible and efficient learning experience for teachers. (Avalos, 2011[44]; Cordingley et al., 2003[62]; Jensen et al., 2016[20]). Collaboration is often considered a more cost-effective approach to professional development than other initiatives, such as courses or seminars, since it allows for teachers’ learning to be based on informal networking within schools (Trust, Krutka and Carpenter, 2016[55]).

On average across the OECD, among teachers who report that their training was impactful, the characteristics of this dimension were that the training: 1) “provided opportunities to practise/apply new ideas and knowledge in [their] own classroom” (86%); 2) “provided opportunities for active learning” (78%); 3) “provided opportunities for collaborative learning” (74%); and 4) “focused on innovation in [their] teaching” (65%) (Figure I.5.5). Among the TALIS countries and economies with the highest concentration of teachers reporting, on average, these four characteristics of active learning and collaboration as part of their impactful training are Colombia, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam. The countries and economies with the lowest share of teachers reporting these characteristics as part of their impactful training are the Czech Republic, Denmark, Iceland and Japan (Table I.5.15).

Sustained length of professional development has been identified as one of the main characteristics of CPD programmes that have been able to affect teaching practices (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner, 2017[15]; Desimone, 2009[6]; OECD, 2014[14]; Villegas-Reimers, 2003[4]). Across OECD countries and economies, among teachers who reported impactful training, only 41% of teachers report that their CPD “took place over an extended period of time”, and only 52% report that “it provided follow-up activities” (Figure I.5.5). TALIS countries and economies with a comparatively higher share of teachers reporting characteristics of sustained length as elements of their impactful training are Israel and Viet Nam, while Belgium, France and Japan are among the systems with the lowest share of teachers reporting these elements as part of their training (Table I.5.15).

Figure I.5.5. Characteristics of effective professional development, according to teachers
Percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom the most effective professional development activities had the following characteristics1 (OECD average-31)
Figure I.5.5. Characteristics of effective professional development, according to teachers

1. Includes teachers who report on the professional development activity that had the greatest positive impact on their teaching in the 12 months prior to the survey. Teachers declaring that none of the professional development taken in the last 12 months had a positive impact in their teaching practice were filtered out and are not covered in the figure.

Values are ranked in descending order of the characteristics of the most effective professional development activities as reported by teachers.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.15.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932817

Box I.5.5. Characteristics of effective continuous professional development activities from primary to upper secondary education

Across OECD countries and economies, teachers report that the most effective professional development activity is content driven: “built on [the teacher’s] prior knowledge” (91%); “provided opportunities to practise/apply new ideas and knowledge in [the teacher’s] own classroom” (86%); or “adapted to [the teacher’s] personal development needs” (78%) (Table I.5.15). The proportion of teachers reporting these characteristics as elements of an impactful professional development tends to decrease as the level of education they teach rises. Depending on the characteristic concerned, in 7 to 9 out of 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, teachers at the primary level are more likely than their peers at the lower secondary level to signal one of the content-driven components of CPD as an important characteristic of effective training (Table I.5.16). Moreover, in 9 to 10 countries and economies, CPD providing “opportunities for collaborative learning” or “follow-up activities”, as well as CPD involving “most colleagues from the teacher’s school” are more often highlighted as effective by primary teachers than their lower secondary peers.

The views of upper secondary teachers on the important characteristics of CPD tend to be more similar to those of lower secondary teachers in the 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3. However, there are still some slight differences. For instance, in 7 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, the share of teachers highlighting the importance of the provision of “opportunities to practise/apply new ideas and knowledge in the teacher’s own classroom” decreased between the lower and upper secondary level (Table I.5.17).

As discussed in the previous section, offering CPD activities in the teacher’s school is another key attribute of effective CPD (Opfer, 2016[49]). Since school context and teacher background characteristics shape classroom practices, they should be ingrained in the content of effective CPD (Fischer et al., 2018[11]). On average across the OECD, only 47% of teachers report that their training “took place at the teachers’ school”, and only 40% that “it involved most colleagues from the teacher’s school” (Figure I.5.5). TALIS countries and economies with an exceptionally high share of teachers reporting school-embedded characteristics as part of their impactful training are the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam, while Austria, Croatia and France are among the countries and economies with the lowest share of teachers reporting these characteristics (Table I.5.15).

It is interesting to observe the relatively low reporting of characteristics related to sustained length and school-embedded professional development. It may be that these characteristics were not present at all in their training or that teachers did not consider these attributes as impactful training. Yet, what these results show clearly is that teachers more frequently mention characteristics linked to content, active learning and collaboration than those linked to sustained duration or school-embedded approaches as the main attributes of training that had the most impact for them.

Exploring the content of professional development and the need for it

Collecting information about the content of the CPD activities attended by teachers and principals can provide policy makers with valuable information on issues teachers face in their schools and classrooms. In addition, identification of needs is a crucial prerequisite for implementation of effective professional development, as it allows for the design of training opportunities aligned to teachers’ requests (Opfer and Pedder, 2011[50]). This section provides information on both of these areas. After describing the content of training and the specific needs for further development, it assesses whether participation in training on certain topics or the need for it are related to differences among teachers and school characteristics. This is followed by an analysis of changes over time in CPD content and needs, and an examination of how participation in specific CPD content is associated with self-efficacy and implementation of teaching practices.

Content of teachers’ continuous professional development and need for it

TALIS asked teachers to select the topics that were covered in their CPD activities from a list of 14 items. For each of the items, teachers were also asked to indicate their level of need for training, choosing among: “no need”; “low level of need”; “moderate level of need”; and “high level of need” (Figure I.5.6). On average across OECD countries, teachers tend to take part in subject or content-oriented CPD activities that focus on specific subject areas, pedagogy of the subject and general pedagogic topics. Participation is less frequent for CPD programmes focusing on the practical skills and tools to address concrete situations in their classrooms.

On average across the OECD, teachers report more frequent participation in CPD activities consisting of “knowledge and understanding of my subject field(s)” (76%) and “pedagogical competencies in teaching my subject field(s)” (73%) (Figure I.5.6). More than 90% of teachers report participating in training on each of these topics in Latvia, Shanghai (China) and Viet Nam (Table I.5.18). These two topics also concentrated the highest share of teachers in the 2013 cycle of TALIS (OECD, 2014[14]). A possible explanation for the popularity of these programmes is that CPD training is often linked with large-scale educational reforms that have put forward changes in subject and pedagogical content (Avalos, 2011[44]; Kennedy, 2005[25]; Little, 1993[63]).

At the low end of participation rates are CPD activities covering “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” (22%) and “communicating with people from different cultures or countries” (19%) (Figure I.5.6). These results may reflect the struggle of education systems to tackle increased diversity related to the expansion of educational coverage and migration flows (OECD, 2010[64]).6 In fact, countries with a longer tradition of tackling instruction in diverse settings have comparatively higher rates of participation in multicultural or multilingual training (OECD, 2015[65]). That is the case in Alberta (Canada), New Zealand, Shanghai (China), South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and Viet Nam, where more than 40% of teachers participate in these activities. Teachers in the United Arab Emirates show exceptionally high participation, with 65% reporting participating in multicultural or multilingual training (Table I.5.18). It is particularly relevant to explore the high need for CPD, because it provides access to first-hand knowledge of the training requests of teachers. On average across the OECD, the three areas where large shares of teachers report a high need are: “teaching students with special needs” (22%); “ICT skills for teaching” (18%); and “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” (15%) (Figure I.5.6). The highest share of teachers was concentrated on the same needs in the 2013 cycle of TALIS (OECD, 2014[14]). These results on “teaching students with special needs” and training to “teach in a multicultural or multilingual setting” could reflect the pressure and the demands on teachers to teach in increasingly diverse classrooms7 (Table I.5.21) (UNESCO, 2016[30]; OECD, 2018[1]). In particular, the recent migration trends have affected the school composition of several European OECD countries. A few of them, like Italy and Spain, which were traditionally countries from which immigrants originated, have become destination countries for immigrants and refugees (OECD, 2018[66]).

The need for training for “teaching special needs students” seems to be particularly urgent in Latin American countries, since all of the five TALIS participants from that region show exceptionally elevated shares of teachers reporting high needs: Brazil (58%), Colombia (55%), Mexico (53%), Chile (38%), and CABA (Argentina) (36%). High values can also be observed for Japan (46%) and South Africa (39%), as well as Croatia (36%), Romania (35%) and France (34%). Almost the same group of Latin American countries, with the exception of CABA (Argentina), also exhibit the highest values for needs in “teaching in multicultural and multilingual settings” (Table I.5.21). There may be two explanations for the high priority of needs in these areas in Latin American countries and economies. First, in recent decades there has been a proliferation in the region of inclusive school programmes targeted at building more diverse classrooms, which have translated into an increasing need for teachers to get training on managing diverse classrooms (OECD, 2016[67]; OECD, 2018[68]; Santiago et al., 2017[69]). Second, countries in Latin America have recently seen a notable increase in the cultural diversity of their classrooms, due to the recent influx of migrants (OECD, 2015[65]).

Incorporation of information and communication technologies (ICT) into the classroom is another of the major challenges currently facing education systems (OECD, 2018[1]). OECD results have shown that being exposed to technology will not improve student learning without the mediation and training of teachers (OECD, 2015[70]). Training in this area seems to be a major request for Vietnamese teachers, as 55% of teachers in Viet Nam report a high need for training in ICT. Other TALIS countries and economies showing high shares of teachers reporting high needs in this area are: Japan (39%), Colombia (34%), Georgia (33%), South Africa (32%), Shanghai (China) (30%) and Kazakhstan (30%) (Table I.5.21).

The contrast between shares of participation and shares of high need for CPD activities allows for further insights (Figure I.5.6). Topics with high shares of participation also display lower shares of high need, such as: training in “knowledge and understanding of my subject field(s)” (9% of teachers report a high need, while 76% report having participated in this training); and “pedagogical competencies in teaching my subject field(s)” (10% report a high need, while 73% report having participated in this training). Inversely, topics such as “teaching in a multicultural and multilingual setting” display low levels of participation but comparatively high levels of need (15% of teachers report a high level of need in this area while 22% report participation in training). A possible explanation is that topics with the highest levels of participation are also those with lower levels of need, as participation in a single session of CPD could satisfy the need, and no more demand for it would be observed.

Figure I.5.6. Participation in professional development for teachers and need for it
Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers (OECD average-31)
Figure I.5.6. Participation in professional development for teachers and need for it

Note: ICT: Information and communication technology.

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers for whom the above topics were included in their professional development activities.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.18 and I.5.21.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932836

However, one group of topics shows relatively high levels of participation (above 40%) and high levels of need (above 13%): “ICT skills for teaching”; “student behaviour and classroom management”; “teaching cross-curricular skills”; “approaches to individualised learning”; and “teaching students with special needs”.8 High participation and high need for a given topic may be explained by a desire for further development, even if teachers have already participated in training on that topic. So high need for training on a specific topic should not be interpreted solely as a lack of participation in training on that topic (Cooc, 2018[71]). Teachers may want more training on a topic they have already explored because they were dissatisfied with the quality of their original training or they want to invest more time in it. In addition, the knowledge field of areas such as “ICT skills for teaching” or “teaching students with special needs” changes rapidly following the development of new pedagogical frameworks. As such, teachers may present a constant “need” to keep updated with the latest findings in this areas.

In order to further explore the relation between in-service training participation and need, TALIS explored the three areas with the highest need (“teaching students with special needs”, “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” and “ICT skills for teaching”) to see whether the need for training in these areas is equally prevalent between teachers that have participated in the respective in-service training and in teachers that have not participated in it (Figure I.5.7, Table I.5.24).

Figure I.5.7. Teachers’ need for professional development in teaching students with special needs, by teachers’ participation in professional development1
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report a high level of need for professional development in teaching students with special needs2
Figure I.5.7. Teachers’ need for professional development in teaching students with special needs, by teachers’ participation in professional development

1. Refers to professional development activities in teaching special needs students in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

2. “Students with special needs” are those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they are mentally, physically, or emotionally disadvantaged.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers who participated in a professional development activity in teaching special needs students and report a high level of need for professional development in this topic.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.24.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932855

On average across the OECD, it is possible to observe that, regarding professional development in teaching students with special needs, there are no significant differences between the percentages of participating teachers that still report having a high need and the percentage of those that have not participated and have a high need (Figure I.5.7). These results seem to suggest that the needs of teachers are persistent regardless of whether they have previously participated in training in that area or not. The need for training may emerge not only from previous access to training, but also as a response to concrete school and classroom demands and/or policy requirements (more on this issue in the section Content of continuous professional development and need for it, in trends perspective).

However, there are important cross-country variations that are relevant to acknowledge. For example, in most of the Asian countries participating in TALIS 2018, the percentage of teachers who participated in “teaching students with special needs” in-service training and still report a high need for it is significantly greater than that of those that have not participated in it and report a high need. That is the case for Japan (57% of participating teachers report a high need against 36% of non-participating teachers with a high need), Shanghai (China) (32% of participating teachers report a high need against 18% of non-participating teachers with a high need) and Viet Nam (40% of participating teachers report a high need against 11% of non-participating teachers with a high need). Inversely, in most of the Latin American countries and economies, the proportion of teachers that have not participated in “teaching students with special needs” and have a high need is greater than the percentage that have participated and still have a high need. This is the case for Brazil (45% of participating teachers report a high need against 66% of non-participating teaches with a high need), Colombia (46% of participating teachers report a high need against 61% of non-participating teaches with a high need) and Mexico (38% of participating teachers report a high need against 60% of non-participating teachers with high need) (Figure I.5.7). A similar pattern is observed for the other two training areas (Table I.5.24).

A possible explanation in the case of the Asian countries is that the design and implementation of in-service training actually ingrains in teachers the desire to get further and additional training. In the case of the Latin American countries and economies, it is interesting to observe that, despite the gap, the percentage of teachers reporting a high need is quite elevated, both in participating and non-participating teachers. This suggests that the issues of teaching special needs students, teaching in multicultural or multilingual classrooms and using ICT skills are quite present across these systems. Yet, the fact that the need is so drastically high for Latin American teachers that have not participated indicates that greater effort should be put into providing access to and the promotion of training in these areas.

Regarding principals, on average across the OECD, 73% have participated in “courses/seminars about leadership” (Figure I.5.8). The share of principals who have participated in that type of training is particularly high in Korea (96%), Singapore (96%), Croatia (94%) and Georgia (92%), while CABA (Argentina) (40%) and the Russian Federation (35%) have the lowest percentage of principals participating in this type of training (Table I.5.10). This result could reflect the value that principals allocate to training to help them be better leaders of their schools, as well as the training offered by institutions and educational systems (OECD, 2016[23]).

Similarly, on average across the OECD, 72% of principals participated in “courses/seminars about subject matter, teaching methods or pedagogical topics” (Figure I.5.8). As shown in the TALIS 2013 results (OECD, 2016[23]), the profile of instructional leaders (principals who spend time improving the instructional quality of their teachers) is expanding across education systems. Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Norway are the countries with the highest share of principals accessing this type of training (Table I.5.10). TALIS countries and economies showing comparatively low participation rates in this type of training are France, Hungary, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, with a rate of participation between 43 and 47% of principals.

Figure I.5.8. Principals’ participation in professional development courses or seminars
Percentage of lower secondary principals who participated in the following professional development activities1
Figure I.5.8. Principals’ participation in professional development courses or seminars

1. Refers to professional development activities in which principals participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary principals who participated in courses/seminars about leadership in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.10.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932874

Box I.5.6. Content of and need for continuous professional development from primary to upper secondary education

Content of continuous professional development activities

Across OECD countries and economies, the two most popular types of CPD activities are those consisting of “knowledge and understanding of my subject field(s)” and “pedagogical competencies in teaching my subject field(s)”, with participation rates of more than 70% in most countries (Table I.5.18). However, in the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, primary teachers tend to report higher levels of participation in these CPD activities than lower secondary teachers, with a significant decrease in levels of participation in 7 or 8 countries, depending on the programme (Table I.5.19). The largest differences are found in England (United Kingdom), with a decrease of 18 percentage points in the level of participation of lower secondary teachers for training on “knowledge and understanding of my subject field(s)” and France, with a decrease of 12 percentage points for lower secondary teachers for training on “pedagogical competencies in teaching my subject field(s)”. Moreover, the general tendency in the decrease of participation in CPD activities between primary and lower secondary education is mirrored in most of the other 13 types of CPD. For instance, in 9 to 11 countries and economies, a significant decrease in participation rates is found for CPD on “student behaviour and classroom management”, “approaches to individualised learning”, “teaching students with special needs” and “teaching cross-curricular skills”. The largest differences are found in Japan (depending on the item, a decrease up to 17 percentage points for lower secondary teachers).

In upper secondary education, the levels of participation tend to decrease further, in the 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3. The highest decrease is found in training on “teaching students with special needs”: in 9 countries, lower secondary teachers participate more often than upper secondary teachers, with a decrease of 15 or more percentage points in Croatia and Turkey (Table I.5.20).

Need for different types of continuous professional development activities

On average across the OECD, among lower secondary teachers, the highest levels of training needs are reported for training on “teaching students with special needs” (22%), “ICT skills for teaching” (18%) and “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” (15%) (Table I.5.21). In the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, primary teachers tend to report a high level of need for these types of training more often than their lower secondary peers. The largest decrease for lower secondary teachers, significant in 7 countries, is found for training on “teaching students with special needs”, with a difference exceeding 10 percentage points in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Denmark, France, Japan and Viet Nam (Table I.5.22). Moreover, a similar pattern is found in 7 to 8 countries for high levels of need for activities on “student behaviour and classroom management”, “ICT skills for teaching” and “approaches to individualised learning”. The decrease in the need for training in classroom management is in line with the reported drop between the primary and lower secondary levels in teachers’ use of classroom management teaching practices (see Chapter 2).

A further decrease in the level of need, for at least some of the CPD programmes, is observed at the upper secondary level. In particular, in 7 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, a significant decrease is found in the percentage of teachers reporting a high level of need for training activities on “teacher-parent/guardian co-operation”, with the largest decrease in Viet Nam (13 percentage points decrease for upper secondary teachers). Also, the expressed level of need for training on “student behaviour and classroom management” and “teaching students with special needs” decreases further in 6 countries (Table I.5.23).

However, in 5 countries, principals seem to participate more in “courses/seminars about leadership” than in “courses/seminars on subject matter, teaching methods or pedagogical topics” (a difference of more than 20 percentage points). That is the case for Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia. Inversely, higher participation in “courses/seminars on subject matter, teaching methods and pedagogical topics” than in “courses/seminars about leadership” is observed for Brazil, CABA (Argentina), Italy, Latvia, the Russian Federation and Spain (Table I.5.10). The differences in the participation of this training could be a reflection of certain profiles prioritised by school systems or principals themselves. While training in leadership usually seeks to reinforce the skills of principals to lead and provide guidance to their schools, training in “subject matter, teaching methods or pedagogical topics” is particularly focused on providing the necessary skills for being an instructional leader able to support their teachers in their development needs as well as in their work in the classroom (OECD, 2016[23]).

Principals were asked about the level of need (“no need”; “low level of need”; “moderate level of need”; or “high level of need”) on 11 CPD topics. The results may reflect the fact that principals are required to be proficient in multiple roles, ranging from keeping their school financially secure to being pedagogical leaders (Zepeda, Parylo and Bengtson, 2013[22]) (Table I.5.32). The main area highlighted for development concerns the promotion of collaborative work. Across OECD countries and economies, 26% of principals report a high need for professional development in developing collaboration among teachers. In Japan, Shanghai (China) and Viet Nam, more than 50% of principals report a high level of need for training in developing collaboration among teachers. Training programmes based on collaborative work have been found to be a key component for instructional leadership (OECD, 2016[23]). Indeed, CPD programmes that train school leaders to build trust in their schools and promote teacher learning have been considered crucial steps in creating schools as learning organisations and helping build professional learning communities (Kools and Stoll, 2016[72]; Youngs and Bruce King, 2002[73]). Results also reveal that, across OECD countries and economies, 24% of principals report a high need for training in using data to improve the quality of the school and 23% of principals report a high need for training in financial management.

Content of continuous professional development and need for it, by teacher characteristics

TALIS results show interesting differences in the content of CPD attended by teachers, based on their socio-demographic characteristics, particularly their level of experience. The topic for which the gap in participation rates between teachers with less and more experience is largest is CPD training in “student behaviour and classroom management” (an average gap of 6 percentage points) (Figure I.5.9). Novice teachers participated more often in this training than their more experienced colleagues in 14 countries, with the largest gaps observed in France (26 percentage points), England (United Kingdom) (22 percentage points), and Japan (17 percentage points) (Table I.5.18). In other words, less experienced teachers are getting training in handling their classroom in greater shares than more experienced teachers. As studies have shown, teachers with less experience are usually allocated to more challenging schools in terms of the student socio-demographic composition (OECD, 2014[14]; OECD, 2018[27]), which can translate into higher participation by novice teachers in classroom management training than by their more experienced peers. Given the time that they have spent in classrooms, more experienced teachers may already have developed these classroom management skills.9

Figure I.5.9. Participation in professional development in classroom management, by teachers’ teaching experience
Percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom student behaviour and classroom management were included in their professional development activities1
Figure I.5.9. Participation in professional development in classroom management, by teachers’ teaching experience

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Note: Statistically significant differences between experienced teachers (with more than 5 years of experience) and novice teachers (with less than or equal to 5 years of experience) are shown next to the country/economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom student behaviour and classroom management were included in their professional development activities.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.18.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932893

Figure I.5.10. Need for professional development in teaching students with special needs, by teacher characteristics
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report a high level of need for professional development in teaching students with special needs1
Figure I.5.10. Need for professional development in teaching students with special needs, by teacher characteristics

1. “Students with special needs” are those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they are mentally, physically, or emotionally disadvantaged.

2. Experienced teachers are teachers with more than 5 years of teaching experience.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who report a high level of need for professional development in teaching students with special needs.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.25.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932912

In addition, novice teachers are more likely than more experienced teachers to attend the following CPD activities: “communicating with people from different cultures or countries” (gap of 1.5 percentage points on average across the OECD); “teaching students with special needs” (gap of 1.6 percentage points); and “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” (gap of 3.6 percentage points) (Table I.5.18).

Socio-demographic differences in professional development needs are also pronounced for CPD training in “teaching students with special needs”. On average across OECD countries and economies, there are higher shares of teachers expressing a high need for training in “teaching students with special needs” among female teachers than among male teachers, among teachers under age 30 than among those age 50 or above, and among novice teachers than among more experienced teachers. There are significant differences in the training needs of female teachers on this topic compared to those of male teachers in 27 countries and economies, with Croatia, France and Japan showing a gap of 14 percentage points. The share of younger teachers reporting a high level of need on this topic is significantly higher than the share of older teachers for 32 countries and economies, with Hungary (22 percentage points), Italy (20 percentage points) and Spain (20 percentage points) showing the largest difference in favour of younger teachers. Finally, 28 countries show a significant difference in need for training in this topic by teacher experience, with the proportion of novice teachers exceeding that of more experienced teachers. The gaps are particularly high in Norway (13 percentage points), Iceland (12 percentage points) and New Zealand (11 percentage points) (Figure I.5.10 and Table I.5.25).

In 8 countries and economies, the share of teachers reporting a need for training on “teaching students with special needs” is significantly higher among teachers in schools with a relatively high concentration (over 10%) of students with special needs than among teachers in schools with a lower concentration of special needs students (Table I.5.26). The differences are particularly high in Austria and Japan, with 9 percentage points. However, in Colombia, the share of teachers reporting a need for this training is higher among those in schools with a low concentration of special needs students than among teachers in schools with higher concentrations (12 percentage points). This result could reflect that Colombian teachers teaching in schools with high concentrations of special needs students are being adequately supported, but not enough support is given to those teachers working in schools with low concentrations of special needs students.

Content of continuous professional development and need for it, in trends perspective

Given the rapid pace of education policy reforms (Akiba, 2013[3]; OECD, 2015[24]), some changes over time can be expected in both the participation in certain topics of CPD and the high need for it. TALIS data makes it possible to compare the changes in participation between 2013 and 2018 for 11 of the 14 topics listed in the 2018 cycle (Table I.5.27). In the case of training needs, comparisons are possible for 2008, 2013 and 2018 for 5 of the 14 topics (Table I.5.28).

Between 2013 and 2018, there has been an overall increase in participation in all topics of CPD with available data. Those CPD topics that exhibit the highest number of countries and economies displaying a significant increase are: 1) “student assessment practices” (participation increased in the 28 countries and economies with available data); 2) “teaching students with special needs” (participation increased in the 27 of the countries and economies with available data); 3) “teaching cross-curricular activities” (participation increased in the 27 of the countries and economies with available data); and 4) “student behaviour and classroom management (participation increased in the 27 countries and economies with available data) (Table I.5.27). For none of the 14 topics were there more than five countries and economies showing a significant decrease in participation.

Regarding changes in high need for CPD on specific topics, between 2013 and 2018, the topics showing the highest increase in reported need are: 1) “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” (an increase in the 21 countries and economies with available data); and 2) “teaching students with special needs” (an increase in the 20 countries and economies with available data). Training in “ICT skills for teaching” exhibits a complex pattern: although there is a significant increase in the 10 countries and economies with available data, there is also a significant decrease in 8 countries and economies (Table I.5.28).

A direct contrast between changes in participation and high need for particular content can shed additional insights on how professional development demands have varied over time. The analysis conducted for the remainder of this section is grounded in the three topics with the highest level of need for both 2013 and 2018: “teaching special needs students”; “teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings”; and “ICT skills for teaching”.

Participation in CPD training in “teaching students with special needs” rose between 2013 and 2018 for 27 countries and economies, while high need for CPD in this topic has also increased in 20 of the 32 countries and economies with available data (Figure I.5.11). Italy is one of the countries with the largest increase in participation in CPD in “teaching students with special needs”, but the level of high need for it has decreased, possibly suggesting that demand for this type of training has been satisfied. Inversely, there are 18 countries that have also shown a high level of increase in participation in CPD in special needs, but the need for training in this area has actually increased. Finland and Korea are the only countries displaying a significant decrease in participation in training in this topic.

The changes observed between 2013 and 2018 in both participation and high need for professional development in teaching special needs students could be attributed to the implementation of specific national legislation, reforms or initiatives. A reform can be responsible for a rise in teacher participation by providing or expanding access to specific topics of professional development. At the same time, reforms tend to respond to concrete needs of an educational system and, as training is being implemented, the reported needs for access to specialised training can also be high. For example, the Czech Republic, which is among the countries showing the highest increases in both participation and high need for training in this area (Figure I.5.11), introduced legislation in 2016 assuring the legal right of special needs students to access support measures in mainstream schools. Enforcement of this new legislation in the Czech Republic could have translated into an increase in participation due to teachers accessing specialised training in order to provide the support required by the legislation. At the same time, an increase in the enrolment of special needs students in mainstream schools could have boosted the reported needs for training (Shewbridge et al., 2016[74]). Another example is Chile, which, from 2013, has developed and implemented initiatives for the integration of special needs students in schools (Programas de Integración Escolar). This could explain the rise in both participation and high need for professional development in teaching special needs students in Chile between 2013 and 2018 (OECD, 2017[75]).

Figure I.5.11. Change in participation in and need for professional development in teaching students with special needs from 2013 to 2018
Percentage point differences between 2018 and 2013 in the share of teachers (i) having participated1 in and (ii) reporting a high level of need for professional development in teaching students with special needs2
Figure I.5.11. Change in participation in and need for professional development in teaching students with special needs from 2013 to 2018

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

2. “Students with special needs” are those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they are mentally, physically, or emotionally disadvantaged.

Notes: Values over zero reflect an increase in participation or need between 2013 and 2018 while values below zero reflect a decrease in participation or need between 2013 and 2018.

Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of teachers reporting that teaching students with special needs was included in their professional development activities (TALIS 2018 – TALIS 2013).

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.27 and I.5.28.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932931

For some countries and economies, the changes in teachers’ participation in and need for training could also be explained by changes in the share of schools with special needs students between 2013 in 2018 (Chapter 3, Table I.3.31). Chile, the Czech Republic, and Italy are among the countries exhibiting the highest increases in teachers teaching in schools with more than 10% of students with special needs, and they are also among the countries displaying the highest increase in participation in training in teaching special needs students (Figure I.5.11). In England (United Kingdom), Iceland and Sweden, the share of teachers in schools with more than 10% of students with special needs has decreased and, although participation in training in this topic has increased, the high need for it shows no significant changes that may imply that the availability of training has sufficiently satisfied the demand. Korea has also experienced a significant decrease in the share of teachers teaching in schools with more than 10% of students but, unlike the aforementioned countries, it has experienced one of the highest declines in participation (32 percentage points) and, at the same time, exhibits one of the highest declines in high need for this training (23 percentage points) (Table I.5.27 and Table I.5.28).

Regarding participation in CPD in “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting”, it is also possible to observe an increment in both participation and need (Figure I.5.12) indicating once again that, even though availability has increased, the demand for training is still quite high. Results show that there has been an increase in participation in most countries and economies with available data and an increase in the need for CPD in teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings in 21 of the 32 countries and economies with available data. The countries and economies displaying the highest increase in participation are Alberta (Canada), Georgia, Italy, New Zealand and Shanghai (China) (Table I.5.27). TALIS countries and economies that have experienced a decrease in the need for this type of training are England (United Kingdom), Italy and Korea (Table I.5.28).

For some TALIS countries and economies, the increase in participation and need for training in “teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings” could also be reflecting changes in the proportion of schools enrolling students whose first language is different from the language(s) of instruction (Chapter 3, Table I.3.29). For example, Bulgaria, England (United Kingdom), the Flemish Community (Belgium), Iceland, Portugal and Sweden, which all display an increase in both participation and need (Figure I.5.12), have also, at some point during the last ten years, experienced an increase in the share of teachers teaching in schools with more than 10% of students whose first language is different from the language(s) of instruction. Countries and economies exhibiting an increase in participation in training but not a significant increase in need, such as Brazil, Singapore and Spain, have experienced a significant decrease of teachers teaching in schools with more than 10% of students whose first language is different from the language(s) of instruction.

Figure I.5.12. Change in participation in and need for professional development in teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings from 2013 to 2018
Percentage point differences between 2018 and 2013 in the share of teachers (i) having participated1 in and (ii) reporting a high level of need for professional development in teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings
Figure I.5.12. Change in participation in and need for professional development in teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings from 2013 to 2018

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Notes: Values over zero reflect an increase in participation or need between 2013 and 2018 while values below zero reflect a decrease in participation or need between 2013 and 2018.

Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of teachers reporting that teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings was included in their professional development activities (TALIS 2018 – TALIS 2013).

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.27 and I.5.28.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932950

Mexico presents an interesting situation, since it is the country displaying one of the highest decreases in the share of teachers teaching in schools with more than 10% of students whose first language is different from the language(s) of instruction between 2008 and 2018 (-12 percentage points) (Chapter 3, Table I.3.29). However, Mexico has experienced the highest increase in need (+13 percentage points) and the highest decrease in participation (-11 percentage points) (Table I.5.27 and Table I.5.28). A decrease in the share of teachers working in schools with more than 10% of students whose first language is different from the language(s) of instruction could be signalling a desegregation effect, as students coming from different multicultural or multilingual backgrounds are being more evenly allocated across schools. As of 2014, only 10% of the Indigenous population between 15 and 17 years old were enrolled in a school and, in recent years, Mexico has made a series of efforts to increase the levels of inclusion of these young people (OECD, 2018[76]). As a result, schools that had traditionally not received students from diverse backgrounds could now be confronting a new student population. Therefore, teachers in these schools may be more in need of training in new areas, such as teaching students with a multicultural or multilingual background (see Chapter 3 for further interpretations of the changes in school composition, school segregation and countries’ demographic changes). Alberta (Canada) and Sweden exhibit interesting examples of professional development mechanisms to tackle teaching in multicultural and multilingual settings (Box I.5.7).

Box I.5.7. Building teacher capacity for diverse educational environments in Alberta (Canada) and Sweden

Alberta (Canada)

For its educators, the government of Alberta prioritises awareness, understanding and the need to support students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This issue is highlighted in the preamble to the Ministerial Order on Student Learning and aligned to professional development tools for teachers. Alberta Education offers a series of resources to in-service teachers so they can learn about the Indigenous communities of Canada (First Nation, Métis and Inuit) as well as understand contemporary issues affecting students from these communities. It further supports teachers by providing a curriculum development tool, Guiding Voices, for the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives throughout the school curriculum. Thus, teachers are guided to incorporate the history and contemporary realities of Indigenous peoples in programmes of study, assessments, and teaching and learning resources. For example, the toolkit includes examples of narratives and images of First Nation, Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous groups that could be included while teaching certain subjects in the classroom. It also provides guidelines on how teachers, through their classroom practices, can prevent social exclusion among students. This support mechanism stands out, as it focuses on building a strong foundation of knowledge and awareness among teachers, followed by concrete teaching strategies and resources for reference, to encourage informed implementation of the recommended practices.

Sweden

In Sweden, the capacity of teachers to teach in diverse environments is developed as a continuum from pre-service training to in-service professional development opportunities. Teachers have opportunities to practice and learn about strategies to manage diversity once they start teaching. The National Agency in Sweden offers courses in the area of newly arrived and multilingual children, with the objective of supporting teachers in vocational guidance for newly arrived students, subject-specific instruction and acquisition of Swedish as a second language. These content areas are important features in the professional development of Swedish teachers to teach in multicultural and multilingual environments.

Sources: Alberta Education (2015[77]), Guiding Voices, www.learnalberta.ca/content/fnmigv/index.html (accessed 1 March 2019); Cerna, L., et al. (2019[78]), “Strength through diversity’s Spotlight Report for Sweden”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 194, https://doi. org/10.1787/059ce467-en.

The relation between changes in participation in and need for training in ICT skills presents a less clear pattern (Figure I.5.13). It is possible to observe a significant increase in participation in 20 countries and economies, while 8 out of the 32 countries and economies with available data report a significant decrease in high need for this training, and 10 out of these 32 countries report a significant increase in high need for this training. Finland (+27 percentage points) and Norway (+25 percentage points) display the highest increases in participation (Table I.5.27). Estonia, Iceland, Italy, Korea and Sweden display an increase in participation along with a decrease in high need. Australia, the Czech Republic, Romania and Mexico show a decrease in participation in ICT training, with Mexico also displaying a significant decrease in need.

Nordic countries display an interesting situation when changes in participation in and need for ICT training are compared with changes in the share of teachers frequently or always letting students use ICT for projects or class work (Chapter 2, Table I.2.4). Between  2013 and 2018, Finland, Iceland and Sweden are among the countries that display the highest increase in the share of teachers using digital technologies to support student learning. At the same time, these three countries also display the highest increase in the share of teachers participating in ICT training (Figure I.5.13). It could be argued that the training in Iceland and Sweden has been effective since, along with a higher increase of teachers using technology in the classroom, there has also been a significant decrease in the need for training in this area.

Figure I.5.13. Change in participation in and need for professional development in ICT skills for teaching from 2013 to 2018
Percentage point differences between 2018 and 2013 in the share of teachers (i) having participated1 in and (ii) reporting a high level of need for professional development in ICT2 skills for teaching
Figure I.5.13. Change in participation in and need for professional development in ICT skills for teaching from 2013 to 2018

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

2. ICT: Information and communication technology.

Notes: Values over zero reflect an increase in participation or need between 2013 and 2018 while values below zero reflect a decrease in participation or need between 2013 and 2018.

Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of teachers reporting that ICT skills for teaching was included in their professional development activities (TALIS 2018 – TALIS 2013).

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.27 and I.5.28.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932969

The introduction of policy reforms promoting the use of ICT in the classroom could explain the increase in both participation in and need for this training in a few countries. For example, Finland’s curricular reform of 2016 put emphasis on providing educators with digital resources to support their teaching. For Estonia, the Lifelong Learning Strategy for 2020 has highlighted the need to apply modern digital technologies in the learning process (OECD, 2015[24]). The implementation of these curricular initiatives in ICT could explain the increased participation in this type of training in Finland and Estonia.

Content of continuous professional development, self-efficacy and effective classroom practices

In addition to describing the content of CPD attended by teachers, it is relevant to assess whether the related training is associated with implementation of pedagogical practices. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the goal of CPD activities is to provide training opportunities for teachers with the expectation that the training will have an impact on their teaching practices and influence student achievement. The positive association between CPD training reported as impactful by teachers and their levels of job satisfaction and self-efficacy was discussed earlier in this chapter. This section seeks to further explore these relationships by examining the association of teachers’ participation in specific CPD content areas with teachers’ levels of self-efficacy and practices in these areas. In particular, regression models were conducted to examine the relationships between: 1) participation in CPD training on pedagogical practices and the implementation of effective practices in the classroom; 2) participation in CPD training on classroom management and teachers’ level of self-efficacy in classroom management; and 3) participation in CPD training in teaching in multicultural/multilingual settings and teachers’ levels of self-efficacy to teach in multicultural environments.

The first relationship examined is the association between participation in at least one of the three CPD training activities focusing on pedagogical practices (“pedagogical competencies in teaching my subject”, “approaches to individualised learning” and “teaching cross-curricular skills”) and the implementation of effective practices in the classroom (based on the teaching practices scale encompassing items of effective practices in clarity of instruction, cognitive activation and classroom management). After controlling for teacher characteristics (such as gender and teaching experience) in almost all TALIS countries and economies, teachers who have participated in at least one of the training activities in pedagogical practices are more likely to have higher levels of implementation of effective practices than teachers who did not participate in this type of training. The relationship is especially strong in Colombia, Kazakhstan, Korea, South Africa and the Russian Federation (Table I.5.29).

The second relationship consists of the association between teachers’ participation in CPD training in “student behaviour and classroom management” and the scale of teachers’ self-efficacy in classroom management. After controlling by teacher characteristics, on average across the OECD, teachers who have participated in CPD focusing on classroom management are more likely to report higher levels of self-efficacy in classroom management than teachers who have not participated in this type of training. This holds true for teachers in three out of five countries and economies that participate in TALIS. The association between training in classroom management and self-efficacy in this area is especially strong in Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Shanghai (China), South Africa and the United Arab Emirates (Table I.5.30).

The last relationship explored is the association between participation in at least one of the two training activities focusing on multiculturalism (“teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” and “communicating with people from different cultures or countries”) and the scale of teachers’ self-efficacy in multicultural environments. After controlling for teacher characteristics in 41 countries, teachers who have participated in at least one of the training activities on multicultural teaching report higher levels of self-efficacy in this area than teachers who did not participate in either of these two training activities. The relationship is particularly strong in Korea and Shanghai (China), while the only countries/economies where this association is not significant are Alberta (Canada), Chile, Iceland, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and the Slovak Republic (Table I.5.31).

These findings suggest that, for teachers in most countries and economies, participation in professional development is associated with implementation of effective practices and building confidence to do their work. Although caution must be exercised in drawing a causal link, these results mirror previous findings on the relation between training, self-efficacy and teaching practices (Barrera-Pedemonte, 2016[36]; Fischer et al., 2018[11]). The relationship between training and self-efficacy should not be neglected, since affecting the beliefs of teachers regarding their practices is a first step towards improving their classroom instruction (Guskey and Yoon, 2009[61]).

Supporting continuous professional development for teachers and school leaders

A big part of the success of CPD activities relies on design and implementation (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner, 2017[15]). Content should be linked with the curriculum, take teachers’ experience into account and be aligned with their needs (Opfer and Pedder, 2011[50]). But no professional development programme can be successful if teachers and school leaders do not participate in it. Thus, policy makers must take into consideration the possible barriers to teachers’ participation in these training opportunities and identify support mechanisms to facilitate their participation. Indeed, participation in CPD programmes should not be viewed as a responsibility solely borne by teachers and principals. High-achieving education systems provide guidance and support to teachers and principals to help them select and participate in the most pertinent training for them (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017[79]; Jensen et al., 2016[20]). This section describes the main barriers to accessing training, as reported by teachers and principals. It then examines the level of support received by teachers and how that relates to actual participation in training programmes.

Barriers to participation in continuous professional development

TALIS presented teachers and principals with a list of seven possible impediments to participation in CPD training and asked to what extent they agreed that these issues represented a barrier to participation at the time of the survey (“strongly disagree”; “disagree”; “agree”; or “strongly agree”). On average across the OECD, most teachers (54%) and principals (48%) “agree” or “strongly agree” that the issue of “conflicts with the teacher’s/principal’s work schedule” was a barrier (Figure I.5.14). The percentage of teachers reporting a “conflict with the work schedule” varies considerably across TALIS countries and economies, from particularly high values in Korea (88%) and Japan (87%) to a very low percentage in Georgia (20%) (Table I.5.36). For principals, Japan is again at the top of the scale, with 82% of principals reporting schedule conflicts as a barrier, while in Croatia only 7% of principals report this barrier (Table I.5.40).

Figure I.5.14. Types of barriers to teachers’ and principals’ participation in professional development
Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers and principals (OECD average)1, 2
Figure I.5.14. Types of barriers to teachers’ and principals’ participation in professional development

1. OECD average covers 31 countries for teachers and 30 countries for principals (see Annex B).

2. Includes teachers and principals who “agree” or “strongly agree” that the following elements present barriers to their participation in professional development.

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers reporting the following barriers to their participation in professional development.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.36 and I.5.40.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932988

These results should not come as a surprise, since time allocated for training has been identified as one of the major challenges for implementation of effective CPD (Scribner, 1999[33]; Sparks, 2002[21]). Systems should strive to allocate some hours for teachers and principals to participate in training within their regular work schedules, whether through formal channels (such as participation in courses or seminars) or informal channels (such as collaborating with colleagues) (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner, 2017[15]; Jensen et al., 2016[20]).

The second-highest reported barrier for both teachers (48%) and principals (35%) is that “there are no incentives for participating in professional development” (Figure I.5.14). The cross-country variation regarding reporting of “lack of incentives” as a barrier to participation in CPD activities is high, with 85% of teachers in Portugal and Saudi Arabia reporting this issue and only 15% of teachers in Estonia and Kazakhstan doing so (Table I.5.36). In the case of principals, 84% of principals in Saudi Arabia report “lack of incentives” as a barrier, while only 4% of principals do so in Singapore (Table I.5.40).

The issue of incentives for participating in CPD is linked to the question of what motivates teachers and principals to engage in further training (Richter et al., 2011[80]). An important aspect of participation in CPD training is career advancement since, more often than not, participation in CPD translates into an accumulation of credits that count for career promotion (OECD, 2013[38]). However, CPD training should not be understood solely as a mechanism for career advancement; it should also be considered a means for learning and improvement. Many teachers and principals are attracted to CPD because it offers the opportunity to tackle situations or issues that they face in their daily lives (Scribner, 1999[33]). One of the great incentives of CPD programmes is developing an offer in which the content is aligned with the needs of teachers and principals (Opfer and Pedder, 2011[50]).

TALIS makes it possible to display changes in the barriers to CPD training for teachers between 2013 and 2018 (Figure I.5.15). For teachers, in 14 countries and economies with available data, there has been a significant increase in reporting of “conflicts with the teacher’s work schedule” as a barrier to participation. The largest increases are observed in Denmark (+10 percentage points) and Croatia (+7 percentage points). But 6 of the 32 countries and economies with available data show a significant decrease in this area: Georgia (12 percentage points) and Alberta (Canada) (-9 percentage points) display the largest decreases between 2013 and 2018 (Table I.5.39).

Regarding the changes over time on “lack of incentives” being a barrier to participation in CPD activities, it is possible to see that 9 of the 32 countries with available data show a significant decrease in teachers signalling lack of incentives as a barrier. The decrease is particularly high in Italy (-13 percentage points), the Netherlands (-9 percentage points) and the Czech Republic (-7 percentage points). However, 6 of the 32 countries with available data show a significant increase in the share of teachers reporting “lack of incentives” as a barrier. Countries with the highest increases are: New Zealand (+10 percentage points), Finland (+9 percentage points), Korea (+9 percentage points) and Mexico (+8 percentage points).

Figure I.5.15. Change in barriers to teachers’ participation in professional development from 2013 to 2018
Percentage of lower secondary teachers reporting the following barriers to their participation in professional development1
Figure I.5.15. Change in barriers to teachers’ participation in professional development from 2013 to 2018

1. Includes teachers who agree or strongly agree that the following elements present barriers to their participation in professional development.

Notes: Only countries and economies with available data for 2013 and 2018 are shown.

Statistically significant change between 2013 and 2018 (TALIS 2018 – TALIS 2013) are found next to the category and the country/economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers reporting professional development conflicts with the teacher’s work schedule as a barrier to their participation in professional development in 2018.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.39.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933933007

Efforts to reduce barriers for teachers in accessing professional development in countries like Georgia (-12 percentage points decrease in the share of teachers reporting “conflict of schedules as a barrier) and Italy (-4.4 percentage points decrease in the share of teachers reporting “conflict of schedules as a barrier”) (Table I.5.39), could be explained by concrete initiatives that have sought to further support the engagement of teachers with in-service training (Box I.5.8).

For principals, there are only a few significant changes between 2013 and 2018 in the share of those reporting barriers to CPD training (Table I.5.43). In 5 of the 32 countries and economies with available data, there is a significant increase in the share of principals signalling schedule conflicts as a barrier to CPD participation: the Czech Republic (+22 percentage points), Finland (+17 percentage points), Norway (+17 percentage points), the Flemish Community (Belgium) (+15 percentage points) and the Slovak Republic (+15 percentage points). Furthermore, in 5 of the 33 countries and economies with available data, there is a significant increase in the share of principals reporting lack of incentives as an obstacle to participation: Korea (+15 percentage points), Japan (+14 percentage points), Georgia (+9 percentage points), the Flemish Community (Belgium) (+8 percentage points) and Shanghai (China) (+8 percentage points).

Box I.5.8. Aligning incentives and opportunities with teachers’ professional development needs in Georgia and Italy

Georgia

The Teacher Professional Development Scheme in Georgia is a key component of the overarching Teacher Recruitment, Evaluation, Professional Development, and Career Advancement Scheme (2015). The Scheme offers Georgian teachers career advancement opportunities through differentiation of teacher status: practitioner, senior teacher, leading teacher and mentor. All in-service and new teachers are expected to pass a certifying examination to gain the status of a senior teacher. Teachers are required to participate in a number of mandatory and optional professional development activities to earn credits and, thus, maintain or enhance their status. A main constituent of the scheme, introduced in 2016, is an increased number of optional activities replacing mandatory activities for teachers. This allows more flexibility for teachers to tailor their professional development based on their needs and interests. In addition, teachers have a financial incentive to improve their status through participation in professional development activities, as they receive higher salaries based on their status advancement. The programme also stands out by offering teachers the opportunity for self-reflection through self-evaluation, including design of an individual work plan by the teacher, self-assessment of performance and identification of professional development needs.

Italy

The Italian government is focusing on school-level autonomy as a key lever for educational improvement. Reflecting this orientation, in-service professional development provisions at the school level and chosen by teachers are a key feature of the Good School reform (La Buona Scuola), introduced in 2015. The reform has made in-service training mandatory, permanent and structural. These provisions were designed to respond to the low participation of Italian teachers in professional development activities. First, the Italian government made a large financial investment (EUR 1.5 billion) exclusively for training in areas of system skills (school autonomy, evaluation and innovative teaching) and 21st century skills (such as digital skills, schoolwork schemes) and skills for inclusive education. Second, the programme stands out because of its tailored approach and scope of choice for teachers to participate in professional development according to their needs. This is done by providing teachers a sum of EUR 500 per year on their “Teachers Card” to participate in training activities, purchase resources (books, conference tickets, etc.) and offering matching processes to align training offers with training demands using a digital platform.

Sources: Government of Georgia (2015[81]), [Decree of the Government of Georgia no. 68: Initiating teacher activities, approving professional development and career progression scheme, Chapter V], https://matsne.gov.ge/document/view/2739007?publication=0 (accessed 8 April 2019); OECD (2017[82]), Education Policy Outlook: Italy, www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Italy.pdf.

The increase in reports signalling “lack of incentives” and “conflicts with work schedule” as barriers across years could be partially explained by the budget cuts incurred by many countries (OECD, 2015[24]). A lack of financial resources could translate into a lack of human resources, augmenting the workload of current staff and presenting a barrier to professional development. Also, the lack of funds limits the possibility of establishing concrete rewards for teachers and principals to engage in professional development activities.

Box I.5.9. Barriers to teachers’ participation in professional development activities from primary to upper secondary education

Even though participation in CPD activities is generally high, about half of teachers at the lower secondary level (on average in the OECD) agree or strongly agree that the training programme “conflicts with the teacher’s work schedule” (54%), “there are no incentives for participating in professional development” (48%) or that training programmes are “too expensive” (45%) (Table I.5.36). By contrast, primary teachers tend to have fewer barriers to participation in CPD activities than their lower secondary peers. In particular, depending on the category, in 7 to 8 out of 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, primary teachers are less likely to agree or strongly agree that “there are no incentives for participating in professional development” or that “professional development conflicts with the teacher’s work schedule” (Table I.5.37). The largest differences for work schedule conflicts are found in CABA (Argentina) (-11 percentage points lower for primary teachers) and England (-17 percentage points lower for primary teachers). The opposite pattern is observed in France, where the percentage of teachers reporting work schedule conflicts as a barrier to training decreases from 61% at the primary level to 46% at the lower secondary level, a difference of 15 percentage points. In fact, work schedule conflicts, lack of employers’ support and the feeling that there are no incentives for participating in professional development are highly correlated across countries and economies (Table I.5.36). In this sense, it is not surprising that, in France, concurrent to the decrease in the difference between primary and lower secondary teachers in work schedule conflicts as a barrier, there have also been decreases in the difference between the two levels of education on “lack of employers’ support” (-19 percentage points) and lack of “incentives for participating in professional development” (-5 percentage points).

At the upper secondary level, depending on the barrier, the changes go in different directions, and no unique tendency arises. However, a remarkable increase in the percentage of teachers reporting “conflicts with the teacher’s working schedule” as a barrier to training is found in 5 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, with the largest difference in Alberta (Canada) and Denmark (both 9 percentage points higher for upper secondary teachers) (Table I.5.38).

Available support for teachers’ participation in continuous professional development

Once the barriers to CPD have been identified, it is crucial to provide support to teachers to overcome them. These support efforts encompass every part of education systems, from central administration to management staff in local schools (Jensen et al., 2016[20]). Results from TALIS 2013 have shown the importance of monetary support for participation in professional development (OECD, 2014[14]), but relevant support can also be provided through allocation of time for training or guidance on further training (Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner, 2017[15]).

TALIS countries and economies had the option of choosing a question on mechanisms to support participation in CPD. Of the participating countries and economies, 43 have available data. Teachers were asked to select the support mechanisms they receive for their CPD training from a list of eight options. On average, among the group of TALIS participants that included this question, the options more frequently highlighted by teachers were: “release from teaching duties for activities during regular working hours” (48% of teachers); “material needed for activities” (38%); and “reimbursement or payment of costs (34%). The least-mentioned option was “increase of salary” (10% of teachers) (Table I.5.44).

A summary indicator was developed to indicate if the teacher listed at least one of the eight possible options for support. Overall, across these 43 TALIS participants, more than 75% of teachers report receiving at least one type of support to participate in professional development activities during the months preceding the survey (Table I.5.45). Nine out of ten teachers report receiving some type of support in the Czech Republic (93%), Estonia (93%), Latvia (93%), Viet Nam (91%) and Australia (91%). Countries with a comparatively lower share of teachers reporting any form of support are Spain (59%), Italy (54%), Mexico (47%) and Portugal (44%). Furthermore, for 13 countries, teachers from privately managed schools report more frequently receiving some type of support to participate in CPD training than teachers in publically managed schools (Table I.5.45). The gap is particularly pronounced in Mexico (+26 percentage points in privately managed schools), Turkey (+17 percentage points), Spain (+12 percentage points) and Norway (+11 percentage points). For 13 countries and economies, the share of teachers in rural schools receiving at least one type of support is significantly higher than that of teachers in city schools. The gap is particularly pronounced in Brazil (+12 percentage points in favour of rural school teachers), Alberta (Canada) (+11 percentage points), Spain (+11 percentage points), Croatia (+11 percentage points) and New Zealand (+10 percentage points).

This section started with the premise that support is important for teachers’ participation in CPD. Figure I.5.16 explores this association by looking at the country-level association between participation in a number of different CPD activities and the support received for this participation. Results show a positive correlation between support received by teachers and overall participation in CPD activities (the linear correlation coefficient r is r=.59 among OECD countries and r=.50 among the 43 TALIS countries). Percentage levels above the OECD average of both participation and support are observed for 12 countries. Inversely, percentage levels significantly below the OECD average for both support and participation are observed for 7 countries.

Countries in the upper-left quadrant exhibit high levels of participation despite having comparatively low levels of support, as is the case in Georgia, Israel, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai (China) and Turkey. Participation in CPD within those systems might be mandatory, or they could have strong incentives motivating teachers to engage in CPD. Given the proportion of teachers stating that they are receiving support for their training, countries and economies in the lower-right quadrant of the figure (such as Colombia, Finland, Denmark) should have higher levels of participation in CPD activities. It is possible that factors other than support, such as motivation for further training or remaining barriers, may be impeding higher levels of participation.

The eight types of support can be grouped into two distinct groups: monetary support and nonmonetary support10. Further analyses at the teacher level allow for a more nuanced understanding of how these different types of support relate to participation in different types of professional development. TALIS results showed that, in all 43 countries and economies with available data, after controlling for teachers’ characteristics, teachers who report having received at least one type of non-monetary support tend to participate in more professional development activities (Table I.5.46). Likewise, for 40 countries and economies, teachers who report receiving at least one type of monetary support also tend to participate in more professional development activities (Table I.5.16). The evidence shows the importance of both types of support in promoting the participation of teachers in CPD activities. Indeed, the results suggest that teachers benefit from monetary and non-monetary support. As such, systems should not only be mindful of monetary incentives to increase participation, such as increased salary for participation, but also of non-monetary factors, such as providing flexible schedules for participation or providing the materials necessary for the activities.

Figure I.5.16. Participation in professional development and level of support received
Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers
Figure I.5.16. Participation in professional development and level of support received

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Notes: Only countries and economies with available data for the average number of different professional development activities in which teachers participated and for the percentage of teachers who received any kind of support for participating in professional development activities are shown.

The OECD average-27 includes all TALIS 2018 OECD countries, with the exception of Belgium, Hungary, Japan and the United States.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.7 and I.5.45.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933933026

References

[3] Akiba, M. (ed.) (2013), Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley.

[77] Alberta Education (2015), Guiding Voices, www.learnalberta.ca/content/fnmigv/index.html (accessed on 1 March 2019).

[42] Andersen, L., E. Heinesen and L. Pedersen (2014), “How does public service motivation among teachers affect student performance in schools?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 24/3, pp. 651-671, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut082.

[44] Avalos, B. (2011), “Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27/1, pp. 10-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.

[36] Barrera-Pedemonte, F. (2016), “High-Quality Teacher Professional Development and Classroom Teaching Practices: Evidence from Talis 2013”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 141, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlpszw26rvd-en.

[8] Borko, H. (2004), “Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33/8, pp. 3-15, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003.

[52] Bruns, B., L. Costa and N. Cunha (2018), “Through the looking glass: Can classroom observation and coaching improve teacher performance in Brazil?”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 64, pp. 214-250, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.003.

[78] Cerna, L. et al. (2019), “Strength through diversity’s Spotlight Report for Sweden”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 194, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/059ce467-en.

[47] Chen, J. and J. McCray (2012), “A conceptual framework for teacher professional development: The whole teacher approach”, NHSA Dialog, Vol. 15/1, pp. 8-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240754.2011.636491.

[37] Choy, S. et al. (2006), Teacher Professional Development in 1999-2000: What Teachers, Principals, and District Staff Report, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006305.pdf.

[53] Cilliers, J. et al. (2019), “How to improve teaching practice? An experimental comparison of centralized training and in-classroom coaching”, The Journal of Human Resources, https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0618-9538r1.

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

[71] Cooc, N. (2018), “Who Needs Special Education Professional Development?: International Trends from TALIS 2013”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 181, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/042c26c4-en.

[62] Cordingley, P. et al. (2003), The Impact of Collaborative CPD on Classroom Teaching and Learning: How Does Collaborative Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for Teachers of the 5-16 Age Range Affect Teaching and Learning?, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London, http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/ CPD_rv1.pdf.

[26] Darling-Hammond, L. (2017), “Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?”, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 40/3, pp. 291-309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399.

[79] Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2017), Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

[15] Darling-Hammond, L., M. Hyler and M. Gardner (2017), Effective Teacher Professional Development, Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto, CA, https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf.

[35] Darling-Hammond, L. and G. Sykes (2003), “Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the ’highly qualified teacher’ challenge”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 11/3, http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n33.2003.

[6] Desimone, L. (2009), “Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 38/3, pp. 181-199, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140.

[11] Fischer, C. et al. (2018), “Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide science reform”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 72, pp. 107-121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011.

[9] Garet, M. et al. (2016), Focusing on Mathematical Knowledge: The Impact of Content-Intensive Teacher Professional Development (NCEE 2016-4010), National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569154.pdf.

[60] Garet, M. et al. (2001), “What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38/4, pp. 915-945, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915.

[81] Government of Georgia (2015), [Decree of the Government of Georgia no. 68: Initiating teacher activities, approving professional development and career progression scheme, Chapter V], https://matsne.gov.ge/document/view/2739007?publication=0 (accessed on 8 April 2019).

[28] Guerriero, S. (ed.) (2017), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.

[12] Guskey, T. (2002), “Professional development and teacher change”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 8/3, pp. 381-391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.

[61] Guskey, T. and K. Yoon (2009), “What works in professional development?”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 90/7, pp. 495-500, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/003172170909000709.

[7] Hattie, J. (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge, London.

[45] Hoban, G. and G. Erickson (2004), “Dimensions of learning for long-term professional development: Comparing approaches from education, business and medical context”, Journal of In-service Education, Vol. 30/2, pp. 301-324, www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.1080/13674580400200247.

[57] Ingvarson, L., M. Meiers and A. Beavis (2005), “Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 13/10, pp. 1-28, http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/ epaa.v13n10.2005.

[39] Jacobsen, C., J. Hvitved and L. Andersen (2014), “Command and motivation: How the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service motivation”, Public Administration, Vol. 92/4, pp. 790-806, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/padm.12024.

[20] Jensen, B. et al. (2016), Beyond PD: Teacher Professional Learning in High-Performing Systems, National Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC, http://ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BeyondPDDec2016.pdf.

[25] Kennedy, A. (2005), “Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis”, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 31/2, pp. 235-250, www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/13674580500200277.

[40] Kohn, A. (1998), “Challenging behaviorist dogma: Myths about money and motivation”, Compensation & Benefits Review, Vol. 30/2, pp. 27-37, https://doi.org/10.1177/088636879803000206.

[72] Kools, M. and L. Stoll (2016), “What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.

[46] Kraft, M., D. Blazar and D. Hogan (2018), “The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88/4, pp. 547-588, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268.

[17] Kyriacou, C. (2001), “Teacher stress: Directions for future research”, Educational Review, Vol. 53/1, pp. 27-35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628.

[63] Little, J. (1993), “Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 15/2, pp. 129-151, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015002129.

[51] Loxley, A. et al. (2007), “The role of whole-school contexts in shaping the experiences and outcomes associated with professional development”, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 33/3, pp. 265-285, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674580701487034.

[19] Meissel, K., J. Parr and H. Timperley (2016), “Can professional development of teachers reduce disparity in student achievement?”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 58, pp. 163-173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.013.

[13] Nir, A. and R. Bogler (2008), “The antecedents of teacher satisfaction with professional development programs”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 24/2, pp. 377-386, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.03.002.

[76] OECD (2018), Education Policy Outlook: Mexico, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Mexico-2018.pdf.

[27] OECD (2018), Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en.

[68] OECD (2018), Teachers in Ibero-America: Insights from PISA and TALIS, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/pisa/Teachers-in-Ibero-America-Insights-from-PISA-and-TALIS.pdf.

[1] OECD (2018), The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030, OECD, www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20 (05.04.2018).pdf.

[66] OECD (2018), The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background: Factors that Shape Well-being, OECD Reviews of Migrant Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292093-en.

[83] OECD (2018), “What Does Innovation in Pedagogy Look Like?”, Teaching in Focus, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ cca19081-en.

[54] OECD (2017), “Do New Teachers Feel Prepared for Teaching?”, Teaching in Focus, No. 17, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/980bf07d-en.

[75] OECD (2017), Education in Chile, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264284425-en.

[82] OECD (2017), Education Policy Outlook: Italy, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Italy.pdf.

[67] OECD (2016), Education in Colombia, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250604-en.

[31] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.

[23] OECD (2016), School Leadership for Learning: Insights from TALIS 2013, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258341-en.

[59] OECD (2016), Supporting Teacher Professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264248601-en.

[24] OECD (2015), Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en.

[65] OECD (2015), Immigrant Students at School: Easing the Journey towards Integration, OECD Reviews of Migrant Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264249509-en.

[70] OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.

[14] OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.

[16] OECD (2013), “Fostering Learning Communities Among Teachers”, Teaching in Focus, No. 4, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4220vpxbmn-en.

[38] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.

[34] OECD (2011), Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en.

[64] OECD (2010), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264079731-en.

[5] OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en.

[2] OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en.

[49] Opfer, D. (2016), “Conditions and Practices Associated with Teacher Professional Development and Its Impact on Instruction in TALIS 2013”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 138, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlss4r0lrg5-en.

[50] Opfer, V. and D. Pedder (2011), “Conceptualizing teacher professional learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 81/3, pp. 376-407, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609.

[56] Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en.

[41] Perry, J., A. Hondeghem and L. Wise (2010), “Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future.”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 70/5, pp. 681-690, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02196.x.

[43] Perry, J. and L. Wise (1990), “The motivational bases of public service”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 50/3, pp. 367-373.

[80] Richter, D. et al. (2011), “Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27/1, pp. 116-126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008.

[69] Santiago, P. et al. (2017), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Chile 2017, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en.

[32] Scheerens, J. (ed.) (2010), Teachers’ Professional Development: Europe in International Comparison: An Analysis of Teachers’ Professional Development Based on the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg, http://dx.doi.org/10.2766/63494.

[33] Scribner, J. (1999), “Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35/2, pp. 238-266, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99352004.

[74] Shewbridge, C. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Czech Republic 2016, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262379-en.

[21] Sparks, D. (2002), Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals, National Staff Development Council, Oxford, OH.

[58] Timperley, H. et al. (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES], New Zealand: Ministry of Education, Wellington.

[55] Trust, T., D. Krutka and J. Carpenter (2016), “’Together we are better’: Professional learning networks for teachers”, Computers & Education, Vol. 102, pp. 15-34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007.

[30] UNESCO (2016), Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, UNESCO, Paris, http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf.

[29] United Nations (2015), Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York, NY, www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.

[4] Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003), Teacher Professional Development: An International Review of the Literature, UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000133010.

[18] Yoon, K. et al. (2007), “Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement”, Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007, No. 033, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf.

[10] Youngs, P. (2001), “District and state policy influences on professional development and school capacity”, Educational Policy, Vol. 15/2, pp. 278-301, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904801015002003.

[73] Youngs, P. and M. Bruce King (2002), “Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38/5, pp. 643-670, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239642.

[22] Zepeda, S., O. Parylo and E. Bengtson (2013), “Analyzing principal professional development practices through the lens of adult learning theory”, Professional Development in Education, Vol. 40/2, pp. 295-315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.821667.

Notes

← 1. Professional development, understood in a broad sense, encompasses all training opportunities, from initial education to in-service training. For analytical purposes, TALIS has divided the analysis of these training opportunities across different chapters. Chapter 4 focuses on pre-service initial training activities and training opportunities (induction and mentoring) for those who are new to the profession or the school. Chapter 5 focuses on recent (defined as having taken place in the 12 months prior to the survey) in-service training activities involving teachers and principals.

← 2. For a full description of the United Nations Strategic Development Goals and their link with the TALIS study, please see Box A in What is TALIS?.

← 3. The OECD average corresponds to the arithmetic mean of the estimates of the OECD countries and economies that participate in TALIS, with adjudicated data.

← 4. Participation in a network of teachers allows not only for dissemination of knowledge and support of concrete areas of teachers’ work, but also for expanded possibilities of pedagogical innovation – see, for example, the Mathematics Teachers’ Network (https://completemaths.com/events/mtn) and the AMICO Robot Network (OECD, 2018, p. 5[83]).

← 5. The high participation of principals in professional development could be somewhat explained by the lack of initial training they receive in the specific tasks of their role. Only 53% of school leaders have completed a programme or course in school administration or principal training before taking up their position as principal, with the same share having completed an instructional leadership training programme or course. For more information, see Chapter 4.

← 6. These results also reflect findings from Chapter 3 that show that the proportion of teachers reporting high levels of self-efficacy drops to 59% when it comes to adapting their teaching to the cultural diversity of students, i.e. much lower than for aspects related to promoting positive relationships and interactions between students from different backgrounds (Figure I.3.11, Table I.3.38).

← 7. On average across the OECD, 31% of teachers work in schools with at least 10% of students with special needs, 30% in schools with at least 1% of refugee students, 21% in schools with at least 10% of students whose first language is different from the language(s) of instruction, 20% in schools with at least 30% of socio-economically disadvantaged students and 17% in schools with at least 10% of students with a migrant background. For more information, see Chapter 3.

← 8. It is also interesting to note that more than half of the teachers report that “student behaviour and classroom management”, “teaching cross-curricular skills” and “use of ICT for teaching” were included in teacher formal initial education and training. It may signal that there is constant demand to further develop these areas, regardless of the previous training received by teachers. For more information, see Chapter 4.

← 9. The results mirror the findings of Chapter 2, where it was shown that 78% of novice teachers feel that they can control disruptive behaviour in their classroom, while 87% of experienced teachers report that they can do so. In accordance with previous research, this supports the concept that experience helps teachers to develop skills and routines to manage their classroom better and to try out various strategies of teaching and assessing students.

← 10. Monetary support refers to teachers who report receiving at least one of the following: “reimbursement or payment of costs”, “monetary supplements for activities outside of the working hours”, “increased salary”. Non-monetary support refers to teachers reporting receiving at least one of the following: “release from teaching duties for activities during regular working hours”, “non-monetary support for activities outside working hours”, “material needed for the activities”, “non-monetary rewards”, “non-monetary professional benefits”.

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page