Professional Development in Education

ISSN: 1941-5257 (Print) 1941-5265 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Professional learning of instructors in vocational

and professional education

Annemarieke Hoekstra, Jeff Kuntz & Paul Newton

To cite this article: Annemarieke Hoekstra, Jeff Kuntz & Paul Newton (2018) Professional learning
of instructors in vocational and professional education, Professional Development in Education,
44:2, 237-253, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2017.1280523

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1280523

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 31 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6438

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
Professional Development in Education, 2018
VOL. 44, NO. 2, 237–253
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1280523

OPEN ACCESS

Professional learning of instructors in vocational and professional

education
Annemarieke Hoekstraa  , Jeff Kuntzb and Paul Newtonc
a
Learning and Teaching Commons, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 11762 106 Street NW, Edmonton, AB
T5G 2R1, Canada; bFaculty of Foundational, Career, and Intercultural Studies, NorQuest College, 10215 108 Street
NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 1L6, Canada; cEducational Administration, University of Saskatchewan, 28 Campus Drive,
Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X1, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article presents insights from a study into instructor professional Received 15 June 2016
learning in vocational and professional education (VPE) in Canada. While Accepted 6 January 2017
most studies on instructor learning focus on learning through formal
KEYWORDS
professional development programmes, this study specifically focuses on Professional learning;
professional learning as it happens in day-to-day practice. Analysis of 116 instructor learning;
learning episodes reported by 27 instructors from various institutes for VPE vocational education;
shows that instructor learning is mainly focused on developing pedagogical professional education;
content knowledge (PCK). Learning episodes studied were often externally pedagogical content
prompted, not self-directed and involved mostly action-oriented reflection. knowledge
Ellström’s theory of adaptive and developmental learning is used to further
explain these findings. Because of the specialized nature of the content
taught in VPE programmes, formal training in PCK is often not available;
instructors rely on trial and error, student feedback and peer feedback to
develop PCK. Educational leaders within institutes for VPE should consider
encouraging professional development models that include collegial
dialogue, such as mentoring and communities of practice, as well as the
implementation and enactment of professional learning plans. Further
research could focus on how existing workplace practices may be enhanced
to further support instructor professional learning.

Introduction
This article explores instructor professional learning in vocational and professional education (VPE). In
Canada, VPE is provided in community colleges, institutes offering trade apprenticeship programmes
as well as institutes providing diploma and degree programmes aimed at attaining professional desig-
nations, such as X-ray technologist, landscape architect, financial advisor and social worker. Instructors
are typically required to have considerable work experience in the profession before they get hired by
VPE institutes to teach. Instructors in western Canada typically receive up to two weeks of teacher
training before they start teaching and are still learning to teach in their first years on the job. Beyond
the first years of teaching, instructors need to adapt constantly due to changing job requirements

CONTACT  Annemarieke Hoekstra  annemarh@nait.ca

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
238   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

(Harris et al. 2001, Darwin 2007) such as increasingly diverse student populations, changing industry
practices and technologies, and the expanding role of instructor (Darwin 2007).
In order to support instructors in learning on the job and meeting these changing requirements,
VPE institutes have traditionally invested by funding course and conference attendance. However, for
decades, studies have suggested that these types of formal professional development (PD) opportuni-
ties, based on the training model described by Kennedy (2005), typically yield limited impact on the
professional performance of PD participants (Baldwin and Ford 1988, Blume et al. 2010). In a review
of the literature on PD, Webster-Wright (2009) asserted that this limited impact can be explained
partially by PD practices not aligning with what the literature has come to know about how profes-
sionals learn at work (see also Mitchell 2013). In addition, Fraser et al. (2007, p. 166) suggested that:
‘The nature, extent and role of informal incidental opportunities in teachers’ professional learning
are currently under-researched and therefore remain unclear’. By focusing on how instructors learn
in the absence of any systematically supported PD programme, the present article aims to further aid
educational leaders and providers of PD opportunities in optimizing instructor professional learning.
Since the study of workplace learning has gained momentum in the past 20 years (Billett 2011), a
number of authors have called for studies into workplace learning in specific sectors and professions
(Tynjälä 2008, Manuti et al. 2015). Studies into the professional learning of VPE instructors specif-
ically are limited. A 2015 search of peer-reviewed publications in the educational research database
ERIC using ‘professional development’ AND ‘vocational education’ as descriptors revealed only 187
publications between 1977 and 2013. The majority of these publications focus on student learning in
work placements and practica. Most of the other publications describe PD programmes for vocational
educators and their evaluation. Few studies actually describe the professional learning of vocational
educators as it occurs through everyday work.
This article contributes to addressing this lacuna by describing episodes of professional learning by
instructors from several VPE institutes in western Canada. As such, the article intends to add insight
into how instructors learn at work, as well as identify strategies to further support their learning.

Professional learning and professional learning activities

Research on professional learning shows that such learning is deeply embedded in practice (Schön
1983), and is informed by the way people conduct and understand their work (Lave and Wenger 1991,
Bound 2011, Engeström 2011). Most conceptualizations of learning imply a relatively lasting change
in behaviour or capacity for behaviour (Shuell 1986, Fraser et al. 2007). The capacity for behaviour
refers to the knowledge, skills and/or attitudes that enable the learner to demonstrate certain behaviour
(Stes et al. 2010). The present study, therefore, defines professional learning as engaging in activities
that lead to improved professional behaviour or the capacity to behave in improved ways (Opfer and
Pedder 2011). Professional learning activities, consequently, refer to the activities through which
professional learning occurs. What separates professional learning from all other learning in life is
that the activities and/or the resulting improvements in behaviour are work related (Mitchell 2013).
Literature on workplace learning in general and on teacher learning specifically has generated a num-
ber of typologies and categorizations of professional learning activities (Eraut 2004, Hoekstra et al.
2009, Kwakman 2003, Lohman and Woolf 2001). For instance, Eraut (2011) distinguishes between:
work processes with learning as a by-product (e.g. problem-solving); learning actions located within
work or learning processes (e.g. asking questions); and learning processes at or near the workplace
(e.g. job shadowing). This typology illustrates the wide range of activities associated with profes-
sional learning, which includes both informal learning (for example, Lom and Sullenger 2011) and
activities that might be part of a training model of PD (Kennedy 2005). Further to this, recent studies
show that in various professions such as age care (Choy et al. 2013), teaching (Meijs et al. 2016) and
digital media (Bridgstock 2016), workers prefer professional learning activities that are embedded in
the workplace. While engaging in learning activities does not necessarily lead to improved practice
(Hoekstra et al. 2007), recent studies have related five types of learning activities to teacher PD and
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   239

school improvement: keeping up to date; experimenting; self-reflection; asking for feedback; and
information sharing (Oude Groote Beverborg et al. 2015). These learning activities might be planned
and self-directed (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, Ellinger 2004) but they could also be prompted
by unexpected events, and thus would be unplanned and possibly even unintentional (Marsick and
Watkins 1990, Van Eekelen et al. 2005). Understanding what it is that prompts instructors to learn
at work might provide insight into the levers that could be used to support instructor professional
learning. The next section explores types of learning the instructor role might require.

Professional learning processes: adaptive versus developmental

What kind of learning is required for instructors to undertake the actions that make them good at
their job? To answer this question we refer to the work of Ellström (2011). Building on Rasmussen
(1986) and Frese and Zapf (1994), Ellström (2011, p. 110) distinguished between four levels of action:
skill-based or routinized action; rule-based action; knowledge based action; and reflective action.
According to Ellström (2011), skill-based or routine action is guided by implicit knowledge: the actor
does not require conscious reflection on the situation in order to perform the required action. In the
context of teaching, routine action has been described as ‘immediate behaviour’, which ‘is character-
istic of a good deal of teacher behaviour’ (Korthagen 2010, p. 101). Rule-based action, on the other
hand, requires some conscious control and allows the actor to handle familiar situations. Tasks such
as lesson planning and marking are examples of rule-based action. Skill-based and rule-based action
are both developed through a process of adaptive learning, in which the learner routinizes his/her
actions (Ellström 2011). Implicit in Ellström’s (2011, p. 111) description of adaptive learning, is that
such learning involves repetitiously engaging in the same tasks, or through ‘imitation and trial and
error’. Through adaptive learning, the instructor becomes more adept at employing the right strategy at
the right time, and needs fewer mental resources to support routine behaviour (Billett 2004). However,
a lack of conscious reflection could contribute to the development and continuation of ineffective
teaching behaviours (Hoekstra et al. 2007).
Knowledge-based and reflective action is required in novel or unfamiliar situations, where no
standard responses or processes are available. This level of action would occur, for instance, when
students request an extension on a deadline. While adaptive learning can be associated with increased
efficiency, developmental learning seems to be required to develop professional judgement and innova-
tion. Thurlings et al.’s (2015) review study confirmed that reflection is often considered an important
component of innovative behaviour.
For decades, both workplace learning and the teacher learning literature have stressed the need
for reflective practice as a prerequisite for ongoing professional learning (for example, Amundsen
and Wilson 2012, Brookfield 1995, Hoekstra and Korthagen 2011, Van Woerkom and Croon 2008,
Zeichner and Liu 2010). In their studies on teacher learning, Mansvelder-Longayroux et al. (2007)
and Hoekstra et al. (2009) discriminated between meaning-oriented and action-oriented reflection.
Their studies showed that action-oriented teachers focused on improving their own performance,
and on what works in the classroom. Only a small percentage of teachers reported meaning-oriented
reflection, aimed at understanding student learning and themselves. More insight into the type of
reflection involved in instructors’ professional learning might help assess its potential to contribute
to innovation and the development of professional judgement.

Domains of instructor professional learning: content, pedagogy and more

Meirink et al. (2009) found a relation between teachers’ preferred learning activities and the type of
situation or topic they were learning about. Building on this, we categorize instructor learning accord-
ing to core aspects of the job. Various categorizations of aspects of the teacher job exist (for example,
Shulman 1987, Verloop et al. 2001). Shulman (1986) described content (subject matter) and pedagogy
as two generally accepted foci of teacher learning. Pedagogy includes interpersonal teacher behaviour
240   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

(Den Brok et al. 2004), which includes behaviours needed to manage the classroom (Woolfolk-Hoy
and Weinstein 2006).
However, seeing instructor learning as only focused on content or pedagogy is limiting. Shulman
identified pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as a missing paradigm in teacher learning (Van
Driel et al. 1998):
Within the category of pedagogical content knowledge I include, for the most regularly taught topics in one’s
subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, […] Pedagogical content knowledge also
includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and
preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most
frequently taught topics and lessons. (Shulman 1986, p. 9)
In the role of instructors, PCK is used in tasks such as illustrating theory with engaging examples,
lesson planning, addressing students’ questions and establishing the pacing of content throughout the
semester. PCK recognizes that certain subject matter requires content-specific methods and strategies.
Another component of instructor learning involves learning related to participation in wider organ-
izational processes, such as departmental meetings, serving on committees and ancillary tasks such as
arranging job placements and maintaining laboratory equipment. We thus identify four domains of
instructor learning relevant to our study: subject matter content; pedagogy; PCK; and participation
in the wider organization. Greater insight into which domains of learning are most or least prevalent
in instructors’ professional learning might help educational leaders decide what domain of learning
requires more or less support.

Research questions
In summary, we consider learning activities to exist in the interaction between instructors and their
environment. In this interaction, a variety of learning processes take place, including adaptive and
developmental learning, which might be prompted by the instructor and/or by events in the instructor’s
environment. The main research questions addressed in this article are as follows:
(1)  What prompts instructor professional learning and does the type of prompt for learning
differ according to what instructors are learning about?
(2)  What is the level of reflection involved in instructor professional learning and does the type
of reflection differ amongst instructors, or by topic or prompt for learning?

Methods
The study followed a mixed-method approach (Creswell 2008). This approach allowed us to use the
strengths of qualitative data – rich descriptions and emerging themes – combined with the strengths
of quantitative data – the ability to search for significant correlations. A semi-guided interview struc-
ture yielded rich descriptions of learning episodes of 27 instructors from five departments in three
institutes for VPE. A flexible interview process was necessary to help research participants explore
and explicate experiences that they would otherwise not have identified as relevant to their learning.
During transcript analysis we first identified and coded 116 learning episodes reported by the 27
instructors interviewed. In this comparison we were able to establish categories of prompts, domains
of learning and levels of reflection. We then quantified the occurrence of these categories in our data
set, further analysing relationships using cross-tabulations and chi-square tests in order to identify
patterns in the qualitative data.

Recruitment, context and ethics

A research ethics proposal was drafted and approved to ensure compliance with Canada’s Tri-Council
Policy Framework for Research Involving Human Subjects. To protect the identity of the research
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   241

participants, institutes and participants have been given pseudonyms and programmes are described
in broad terms. Three institutes were approached for this study. Prairie College is a large institute for
technical education, offering trade and diploma programmes and a few bachelor degrees. Mountain
College is a teaching university offering diploma and bachelor degree programmes. River College is
a community college offering employment and upgrading programmes as well as certificate and two-
year diploma programmes. Upon receiving further research ethics approval from the three institutes,
department chairs and deans were contacted to invite departments for inclusion in the study. They
were informed that to be included in the study a programme needed to have at least 10 instructors
to safeguard anonymity, and the primary function of the programme must be to prepare students
for a specific trade or profession. Liberal arts and general science programmes were thus excluded.
Five departments contacted the researchers to volunteer their department for inclusion in the study.
Subsequently, instructors within each of these five departments were recruited to participate in the
study and were requested to fill out an informed consent form. From the instructors who volunteered,
we randomly selected four or five instructors from average-size departments (20–40 instructors) and
six to eight instructors from large departments (>40 instructors) to participate in an interview. A few of
the selected instructors declined the interview invitation due to scheduling conflicts. In their place, we
randomly selected alternative volunteers, which ultimately resulted in participation by 27 instructors.

Description of sample
To protect the identity of our research participants, we chose not to list all participant characteristics
in a table. This is because the unique combination of characteristics, such as age, gender and years of
experience, might allow colleagues to identify certain participants. Twenty-seven instructors partic-
ipated in this study, eight from a trade programme, five from a health technology programme, four
from a business programme, four from a social programme and six from a health services programme.
Eight of the participants were male, 19 were female. This gender division is largely representative of the
gender distribution in the five programmes; over 80% of the social and health programme instructors
were female, and over 80% of the trade programme instructors were male. Three participants were
in their twenties, five in their thirties, four in their forties, ten in their fifties and five over 60 years of
age. Older participants did not necessarily have more teaching experience. All but three participants
had a minimum of six years of industry experience, with 10 participants reporting over 20 years of
industry experience before becoming an instructor. Thirteen participants interviewed had less than
five years of teaching experience, seven of which had started teaching less than two years ago. Another
10 participants had six to 15 years of teaching experience. Four instructors had more than 15 years
of teaching experience.

Data collection
A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on an established method to study teacher
learning activities (Meirink et al. 2009). Participants were invited to one-on-one interviews by email
and were provided with the interview guide prior to the interviews. Our main questions were: ‘Could
you share and elaborate on four or five concrete fairly recent examples of situations/experiences/
activities where you were learning as an instructor?’ and ‘Where, when and how did this come about?’
To help instructors think about examples we used prompts such as: ‘Think of situations where you
were learning by doing, getting feedback, reflecting on your lessons, collaborating with colleagues,
trying out new things or attending PD events.’ As instructors recounted learning experiences, we used
follow-up questions based on the study of Meirink et al. (2009): what prompted the learning, what
they wanted to achieve, what activities they undertook to respond to the prompt, how they thought
and felt throughout, and what the outcome was. Interviews were conducted and audio recorded in
mutually agreeable locations, and transcribed verbatim by students from a Captioning and Court
Reporting programme.
242   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

Data analysis
To analyse the data, we first selected learning episodes: interview excerpts that contained sequences
of events and activities culminating in a learning outcome. The learning outcome could be a change
in knowledge, skills, attitude or behaviour. We then created a summary matrix (Miles and Huberman
1994) to capture each learning episode’s prompt, domain of learning, activities and level of reflection
employed in the sequence, and whether or not colleagues were involved in the episode. Based on these
summaries, six types of prompts were inductively identified. Subsequently, we coded each episode as
focusing on one of four different domains of learning as discussed in our literature overview. In terms
of reflection, we discerned a difference between action-oriented reflection, meaning-oriented reflection
and a rapid/intuitive mental response, which did not resemble action or meaning-oriented reflection.
The first two authors then revisited the selected episodes and coded the first 50 of them independently
using sub-codes for prompt, domain and level of reflection. This resulted in an 80–85% agreement.
Differences in coding were discussed and final coding decisions were made. One of the two authors
then coded the remaining episodes. Example rows of the resulting matrix can be found in Appendix
1. Additionally, we cross-tabulated the code frequency and used Pearson chi-square tests to analyse
potential relationships between prompt, domain of learning and level of reflection.

Findings
The following sections describe prompt, domain and levels of reflection identified in the learning
episodes, as well as the interrelations between them.

What prompted instructor professional learning?

A total of 116 episodes of learning were reported by 27 instructors, ranging from one to eight learning
episodes per instructor. A learning episode refers to a sequence of events culminating in a learning
outcome: a change in knowledge, skills, attitude or behaviour.

External prompts for learning

Our data revealed four types of prompts for learning that were provided by events in the workplace:
novel task, novel content, feedback and formal learning events:
• The instructor faces a novel situation or task. Twenty-five of the learning episodes reported were
prompted by a change in the instructor’s assigned tasks, such as teaching a certain course for the
first time or becoming a course coordinator. For instance, Dale,1 a business instructor, recounted:
‘I did get switched into a new coordination; I was given a new course. So the learning happened
in terms of knowledge transfer from the previous coordinator to myself.’
• Novel content, materials, technology. Five of the learning episodes reported were prompted by
the instructor being required to use a new book or teach newly implemented industry prac-
tices. Taylor, a health technology instructor, explains how she/he was faced with teaching to a
completely new course outcome: ‘… they needed to be taught more safety than they had been in
the past. And the way that the particular objective was written necessitated a type of evaluation
which has never been done [in this programme], ever.’
• Student/peer/supervisor feedback. Nineteen learning episodes were prompted by feedback, includ-
ing 16 prompted by student feedback and two by supervisor feedback. For instance, Terry, a
soft-spoken business instructor, received feedback from students which made him/her realize
that disruptive student behaviour disadvantages other students: ‘But then when I got student
feedback [I learned that the students] were saying [that] when other people are talking, if I don’t
do anything about it, they are not happy about it. And I started to be more aggressive.’
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   243

• Formal learning event. In 22 learning episodes, learning was prompted by a formal learning
event, such as attending a course, conference or workshop. In 19 of these cases, the formal
learning events were either content-related or pedagogy-related. But in the case of Jonni, health
technology, and Marlin, a business instructor, the learning involved practising a strategy for
ongoing improvement, which they had learned about in their introductory teaching course.
Jonni explained the strategy as follows:

 They [the course facilitators] told us to do lesson plans. And after every class I have stopped, you know, at
some point and reviewed what worked, what didn’t work, how I felt about it, those kinds of things. And,
you know, I have my binder that has everything in it.

Instructor-prompted learning
A number of learning episodes reported were not prompted by external events, but by the instructors
themselves:
• Issues identified by instructor as concerning. Twenty-four of the learning episodes reported were
prompted by an issue that the instructor had identified in his/her practice. Marlin, a business
instructor, looked for engaging learning activities for students on the departmental shared drive,
because she/he ‘felt that my previous lecture, the last time I taught this class, was really boring;
and so I just thought, you know, I want to find a more fun interactive way.’
• Openness to or actively looking for new ideas and insights. Twenty-one of the reported learning
episodes were not prompted by any external events or issues faced by the instructor, but by a
general desire to find out more about teaching and student learning. For instance, Aiden, a trade
instructor, looked for ideas online: ‘I’ll sometimes take time … to watch a TED Talk’. Aiden
explained that ‘you can learn something just watching somebody’s presentation on whatever’.
In total, 71 learning episodes were prompted by events external to the instructor, whereas 45 epi-
sodes were prompted by the instructors themselves. This composition confirms that learning at work
often happens as a result of participating in work activities (Billett 2004, Eraut 2004). It also confirms
that the majority of instances of instructor learning in our findings cannot be considered part of a
self-directed learning process (Ellinger 2004).

What domains of learning were instructors focused on?

Almost half of all learning episodes (47 out of 116) involved PCK, where instructors were concerned
with finding the optimal way to teach very specific content. In a number of episodes, instructors
expressed concerns regarding managing the scope and sequence of the intended student learning
outcomes. Other learning episodes focused on supporting students when challenged by particular
concepts, and finding ways to informally assess whether or not the students were learning the course
concepts. Edson, a trade instructor, explained that she/he learned best about how students learn their
trade by looking at the way the students physically connect materials in the laboratory:
… the lab atmosphere is really good that way because you see them working on the stuff. It’s a golden oppor-
tunity to address weaknesses because you can see them. The way they put circuit boxes together, you can see
what they don’t know.
In this case, Edson observed how students physically connected circuit boxes, demonstrating their
(mis)understanding of the theory taught in the course. Edson used the labs to study student learning
processes, thereby developing the PCK required to adequately teach the course theory.
The second most frequently (46/116) mentioned domain of learning was pedagogy – that is,
learning regarding teaching practices in general. In these episodes, the instructors shared how they
accommodated needs of specific students, experimented with innovative methods such as ‘flipping
the classroom’ or simply adjusted their presentation style in order to promote student engagement.
244   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

Table 1. Number of learning episodes by type of prompt and domain of learning.

Domain of learning
Pedagogical content Participating in
Type of prompt Pedagogy knowledge Subject-mattercontent organization Total
Novel task/situation 5 17 1 2 25
Novel material/tech- 1 4 – – 5
nology
Feedback 9 7 2 1 19
Formal learning 14 – 5 3 22
Instructor concern 11 9 1 3 24
Openness to new ideas 6 10 5 – 21
Total 46 47 14 9 116

In the following excerpt, Aiden, a trade instructor, related the steps she/he took to better understand
the effect of different presentation styles on student learning:
… we asked a number of our students for some feedback on what their preferences were as far as PowerPoint
and whiteboard-type presentations. […] And what we ended up finding out was especially with the SMART
Boards – where we can write right onto the whiteboard over the PowerPoint slide; that’s the blending of the two
in that way – is probably most preferential to most students.
This learning episode illustrated how Aiden used student feedback to learn more about the optimal
ways to teach adult learners.
Fourteen of the 116 learning episodes were about learning new subject matter knowledge due to
changes in industry. Aiden went to a conference on building codes relevant to his/her trade, while
Misha, a health technology instructor, attended a conference where innovative technologies now being
implemented in industry were demonstrated.
Finally, there were four instances in which instructors shared professional learning episodes related
to their participation in the wider organization. Drew, in health technology, for instance, learned
through a misinterpreted email how important it was to be very careful in his/her communications
with various stakeholders external to the institute.
To summarize, a large portion of learning episodes involved PCK and pedagogy. This is not sur-
prising considering that the instructors are experienced professionals in their field but with limited
teaching experience. The limited number of episodes related to new subject matter knowledge could
also be related to the fact that we asked about the past year only, and that possibly there had not
been many changes to the subject matter over the course of one year. The limited number of learning
episodes related to the organization could have resulted from instructors’ perceptions that activities
besides teaching are possibly not noteworthy to mention or that they might not really be part of their
job as instructor.

Did different domains of learning have different prompts?

Table 1 presents a cross-tabulation of the learning episodes by domain of learning and type of prompt.
The table shows that learning in the area of pedagogy was most often prompted by formal learning
events, but also quite often by instructor concern and feedback.
Unsurprisingly, Table 1 shows that learning PCK was mostly prompted by having to teach a course
the instructor had not taught before or by having to teach new content. It is in these situations that
the instructors found themselves at a disadvantage: unable to anticipate the ways in which students
might interact with the subject matter. In these situations instructors relied on colleagues’ experience
and teaching materials, thus using the learning opportunities their workplace affords (Billett 2004).
Another worthwhile observation was that the reported formal learning opportunities either focused on
pedagogy or on subject matter. None of the episodes prompted by formal learning involved learning
PCK. This may be due to the fact that the subject matter these instructors teach is so specialized that
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   245

there are no formal learning opportunities available which focus specifically on teaching their subject
in the context of their trade or profession.

What level of reflection did instructors report?

The second research question focused on the levels of reflection that were involved in instructors’
learning episodes: action-oriented, meaning-oriented and rapid/intuitive modes of cognition.

Action-oriented reflection
The majority of learning episodes (85 out of 116) included reports of action-oriented reflection: eval-
uating what worked, what did not work and what the instructor might do next time. For instance,
Taylor, in health technology, confronted with having to teach to a new outcome, tried a new way of
combining theory and laboratory activities. Afterwards, she/he reflected:
I asked people out there what they needed, and I couldn’t quite get the feedback that I wanted. So I went from an
approach that, you know, try it this way and had to tweak a couple of things along the line, but it worked really
well. We were quite pleased with the outcomes.
Taylor focused on what worked and tweaked what did not. In this episode she/he does not seem to
have reflected on why certain strategies worked better than others.

Meaning-oriented reflection
Twenty-one of the learning episodes reported included a reference to why the instructor chose to
proceed a certain way. This varied from providing just one reason to a more in-depth reflection. For
instance, Terry provided a rationale for his/her adjustments:
I have one girl in my class. She gave me feedback. She asked me to write down more details, like step-by-step
calculation on the board […] because I think what she was saying [was] that not everybody can follow [along].
[…] I see value in her feedback, right. Because some people have to be able to visualize what you are talking
about. They cannot hear and then write it down.
In this instance, Terry provided a hypothesis for why the student might have needed the instructor
to write more detailed calculations: because some people have to be able to visualize. We have coded
this episode as involving meaning-oriented reflection, because Terry provided a reason why she/he
started to include more written detail when explaining calculations.

Rapid/intuitive responses
A third type of mental activity, associated with the 10 remaining learning episodes, was characterized
by a seeming absence of any sort of deliberation. The instructor appeared to intuitively respond to
a prompt. Following Eraut (2004), we called this a rapid/intuitive level of cognition. Hollis, a trade
instructor, for instance, was teaching a course that had just recently been revised. She/he used a
colleague’s PowerPoint presentation, which contained a picture of a diagram that had a mistake in
it. Running out of time, Hollis was unable to recreate the diagram, and instead needed to improvise.
Hollis: ‘so I told my students, there’s a mistake in the PowerPoint, and I have a bag of candy, and if
you find the mistake, I’ll give you a candy.’ Hollis did not provide a reflection regarding alternative
ways of approaching the situation, as Hollis reported to have rapidly responded to the situation. In
our data we found relatively few examples of rapid/intuitive reflection. Perhaps this is because these
actions happen so spontaneously they are hardly memorable. If our research had involved classroom
observations and stimulated recall interviews, we may have been able to find more instances of situ-
ations that lacked such conscious reflection (see also Hoekstra et al. 2007).

Meaning-oriented reflection less frequently reported by new instructors

During the analysis, we noticed that meaning-oriented reflection was less frequent amongst newer
instructors. To further verify this observation, we cross-tabulated level of reflection with years of expe-
rience. Table 2 presents an overview of the number of instructors who reported at least one learning
246   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

Table 2. Level of reflection reported by instructors by years of teaching experience.

Teaching experience
Level of reflection 0–2 years >3 years Total
At least one learning episode with meaning-oriented reflection 1 12 13
No meaning-oriented reflection 6 8 14
Total 7 20 27
Note: Pearson chi-square test p = 0.037, significant at the α = 0.05 level.

episode involving meaning-oriented reflection compared with instructors who reported no mean-
ing-oriented reflection, by their years of teaching experience. The table shows that meaning-oriented
reflection was less common among beginning instructors, while the majority of the remaining instruc-
tors did in fact report meaning-oriented reflection. A chi-square test confirmed that the distribution
presented in Table 2 is statistically significant at the α = 0.05 level (p = 0.037). While meaning-oriented
reflection may be less common amongst newer instructors, action-oriented reflection was common
amongst all instructors – all of the instructors with more than three years of teaching experience also
reported many learning episodes involving only action-oriented reflection.
In summary, the great majority of learning episodes involved action-oriented reflection. This could
be explained by considering Ellström’s (2011) distinction between adaptive and developmental learn-
ing. We hypothesize that adaptive learning is characterized either by rapid/intuitive modes of reflection
or action-oriented reflection. The fact that meaning-oriented reflection was far less common amongst
the beginning instructors suggests that adaptive learning might take priority in the early years of a
teaching career.

Did level of reflection differ depending on the prompt or domain of learning?

Cross-tabulation of the level of reflection by type of prompt (Table 3) or domain (Table 4) of the
learning episode did not reveal any apparent relationships between level of reflection on the one hand
and prompt or domain of learning on the other. Pearson chi-square tests revealed that neither of the
two distributions was statistically significant at the α = 0.05 level. This may, however, be due to small
numbers in some of the categories. Larger data-sets might reveal relationships where our data do not.

Discussion
Our findings show that professional learning of the instructors in our study: was mostly prompted
by events external to the instructor; mostly involved action-oriented reflection; and focused for a
large part on developing PCK. We further found that: the topic the instructors were learning about
was related to what prompted their learning; and instructors with fewer than three years of teaching
experience were less likely to report meaning-oriented reflection. In the following, we first highlight
some limitations of our study. The section continues with discussion of the findings and ends with
implications for practice and concluding remarks.

Limitations
In the interpretation of our findings, some limitations of our study have to be considered. A first lim-
itation, common to qualitative research, is the sample size, which does not allow for generalization of
our findings to the wider population of VPE instructors. Secondly, the voluntary nature of research
participation, necessary to comply with research ethics requirements, might have caused our sample
to be skewed in favour of instructors who are interested in new experiences such as participating in a
research interview. It could be argued that such instructors might also have a more favourable attitude
towards professional learning. Thirdly, the self-reported nature of the data might have created two
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   247

Table 3. Level of reflection by type of prompt.

Level of reflection
Type of prompt Meaning-oriented Action-oriented Rapid/intuitive Total
Novel task 7 15 3 25
Novel content 2 3 – 5
Feedback 3 12 4 19
Formal learning 2 20 – 22
Instructor concern 5 17 2 24
Openness to new ideas 2 18 1 21
Total 21 85 10 116

Table 4. Level of reflection by domain of learning.

Level of reflection
Topic of learning Meaning-oriented Action-oriented Rapid/intuitive Total
Pedagogy 8 35 3 46
Pedagogical content knowledge 11 29 7 47
Content 1 13 – 14
Participation in organization 1 8 – 9
Total 21 85 10 116

types of bias. First of these, in obtaining the data, we needed to rely on instructors’ interpretation of
professional learning. Instructors might have had a limited understanding of the range of learning
episodes we intended to include in our study. To mitigate this potential for bias, we aimed to elicit
a variety of learning episodes using probing questions such as ‘Can you tell me some things you
recently did to improve yourself as an instructor?’ and ‘Do you use student feedback to inform your
learning?’ While these questions opened the door to additional anecdotes, a number of instructors
found it difficult to recall learning experiences, possibly because they did not consider their day-to-day
activities to be part of a learning process. A second bias could have occurred because instructors were
free to choose which learning episodes they wanted to discuss. They might not have included learning
episodes that might have reflected negatively on them. We aimed to mitigate this bias by providing a
safe and confidential environment for the interviews. Yet the retrospective nature of the interviews,
even when our questions only concerned the past year, still probably elicited the more memorable
learning episodes in favour of the less memorable day-to-day learning activities. Regardless of these
limitations, our findings provide some valuable insights that can inform further study into instructor
professional learning and inform practice.

Instructor professional learning is partially self-directed and often prompted by workplace

events
Our findings show that the majority of learning episodes (71 out of 116) were prompted by events
external to the instructors. In addition, none of the instructors reported having formulated a learning
goal for themselves. In this respect, our findings are similar to those of Van Eekelen et al. (2005), who
studied professional learning of university teachers in the Netherlands. Van Eekelen et al. described that
many of the learning episodes they studied were triggered by an external prompt but then were taken
up by the teacher for further problem-solving. Van Eekelen et al. therefore described such regulation
processes as ‘non-linear’ and regulated by both external events and the teachers’ own response to those
events. The literature on self-directed learning has also pointed to the non-linearity of self-directed
learning projects (Ellinger 2004). The finding that instructor professional learning is regulated by
both work events and the individual’s response to those events also supports Billett’s (2004) notion of
workplace participatory practices. Billett explains that workplace participatory practices arise when
248   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

individuals elect to engage with the affordances the workplace provides the learner. For our partici-
pants these affordances included feedback available in the workplace, having to teach new (to them)
courses or new content and formal learning opportunities. Individuals elected to participate in these
opportunities in different ways, resulting in different workplace participatory practices and learning
activities. Our findings thus show that instructor professional learning is regulated by the interaction
between work events and the individual instructor’s response those events (see also Billett 2004, Van
Eekelen et al. 2005, Sambrook 2005).

Instructor professional learning: some instructors more intentional about improving practice
While the majority of the learning episodes could be characterized as problem-solving or preparing
for a new course or task, there were three instructors who reported using an intentional and structured
method for continuous improvement of teaching. They shared that they would take notes on how
classes went, and then use these notes to improve their lesson plans for next time. These activities
could be characterized as a self-directed process for improving teaching practice (Van Eekelen et al.
2005). Several quantitative survey studies indicate that differences in the way instructors approach
their learning at work have been linked to teacher self-efficacy and goal orientation (Runhaar et al.
2010, Oude Groote Beverborg et al. 2015) as well as leadership practices. Further studies could focus
more specifically on studying how exactly departmental practices inform and regulate instructor
professional learning, and how leadership might impact instructor self-efficacy and goal orientation.
A study of care workers by Ellström and Ellström (2014) describes how first-line managers impacted
on the quality of professional learning of care workers they supervised. In the VPE context, the focus
could be on those who directly supervise the instructors (i.e. departmental leadership). Applied to
VPE instructors, a large survey study by Oude Groote Beverborg et al. (2015) indeed found an indi-
rect effect of perceived leadership practices on VPE instructors’ learning activities. Qualitative studies
could further identify specific ways in which departmental leaders may support instructor learning.

Instructor professional learning: more adaptive than developmental learning

Similar to the findings of Mansvelder-Longayroux et al. (2007), Hoekstra et al. (2009), and Hoekstra
and Crocker (2015), our study revealed a prevalence of action-oriented reflection accompanying
instructors’ learning episodes. As discussed in our Introduction, Ellström (2011) posed that adaptive
learning happens through repetition, imitation and trial and error. We hypothesize that adaptive learn-
ing is characterized either by rapid/intuitive modes of reflection or more deliberate action-oriented
reflection. Instructors need to master ‘a good deal’ (Korthagen 2010, p. 101) of teaching behaviours at
the level of skill-based and rule-based action. Yet the instructors in our study only received two weeks
of formal training in teaching. Consequently, the adaptive learning required to master teaching rou-
tines and strategies necessarily happens while instructors are already teaching full-time. Yet a lack of
reflection in adaptive learning might contribute to the reinforcement of ineffective practices (Hoekstra
et al. 2007). Mentoring and guidance to stimulate meaning-oriented reflection could thus be of key
importance in the first years of teaching (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, Mansvelder-Longayroux
et al. 2007). Finally, further studies could focus more specifically on types of reflection involved in
instructor learning, for instance by employing alternative research methods such as participant journals
(Hoekstra et al. 2009, Meirink et al. 2009).

Instructors develop pedagogical content knowledge relying on practice and colleagues

Using mixed methods – a quantification of qualitative data – allowed us to study learning activities in
their context, along with their prompts, domain of learning and level of reflection, as well as observe
their interrelations. We thus observed that almost half of the learning episodes involved learning how
to teach a specific area of the subject matter, or what Shulman (1986) coined ‘pedagogical content
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   249

knowledge’ (PCK). Often this type of learning was prompted by having to teach certain content for the
first time, and it was largely accompanied by action-oriented reflection. Considering that our research
participants themselves chose the learning episodes they wished to report, the high volume of episodes
that reported learning PCK could mean that PCK is front and centre in instructors’ minds. To further
develop PCK, instructors relied on trial and error, as well as on observations of their colleagues and
colleagues’ teaching materials. While research into secondary education has focused on studying how
teachers develop PCK (for example, Henze et al. 2008), to our knowledge there have not been studies
into how VPE instructors develop PCK required to teach their trade or profession. Because the PCK
of VPE instructors is so specialized and takes such a central role in instructor professional learning,
further study into how VPE instructors develop the knowledge and skills to teach their specific trade
or profession is warranted. In a related study of department chairs’ leadership for instructor learning
(Hoekstra and Newton 2016), department chairs indicated that most formal PD was related to changes
in industry requirements. Those findings, and the ones reported here, would suggest that most for-
mal PD centres on content knowledge, while most day-to-day learning is in the domain of PCK. As
such, PCK development might be viewed as idiosyncratic. It is worth considering how PCK might be
more systematically applied through formal PD focused on ‘how x might be taught more effectively’.
This context appears to differ from the teacher education context for K–12 educators where content
knowledge is assumed or developed prior to teacher training, and more emphasis is placed on PCK
in teacher education programmes.

Implications for practice

With regard to support for learning, the data revealed that, faced with having to teach a course they
had not taught before, instructors relied on their departmental colleagues for advice, shared materi-
als and opportunities to observe colleagues teach. This suggests that rather than formal off-the-job
training, a coaching/mentoring or a community of practice model of PD might be more suited. As
Kennedy (2005, p. 242) described: ‘Key to the coaching/mentoring model … is the notion that pro-
fessional learning can take place within the school context and can be enhanced by sharing dialogue
with colleagues’. Both models also allow for professional autonomy and ensure relevance to current
teaching practice (Fraser et al. 2007).
However, because adaptive learning seems prevalent in the first years of teaching, we advocate for the
creation of formal teacher training and mentorship for instructors in VPE, taught by teacher educators
who are both industry professionals and experienced instructors in vocational education. Permanent
employment at the institute could be made contingent upon a three-year staged induction process,
during which the instructors participate in a formal training programme. This programme would
include some direct instruction by teacher educators, but would mostly involve extensive on-the-job
guidance, mentorship, classroom observations by peers and teachers educators, accompanied with
debriefing, culminating in the compilation and evaluation of a teaching dossier. In order to support
more meaning-oriented reflection, the teaching dossier would need to include frequently solicited
student feedback, and written reflections on that feedback (for example, Zubizaretta 2006).
In addition to provisions for new instructors, experienced instructors could also profit from addi-
tional support for their learning. Our findings suggested that instructors often learn by consulting
with colleagues. Time could be scheduled for colleagues to create and revise course materials and
assessments together, collaboratively teach or at least compare the actual implementation of new
lessons and collaboratively reflect on their work. Portions of staff meetings could involve discussion
of best practices in teaching specific industry practices. Such collaborative and reflective work might
need to be prioritized, for instance, by encouraging course coordinators to create communities of
practice (Kennedy 2005) for instructors teaching the same course. To further support and encourage
professional learning in well-established instructors, these instructors might be offered positions in
which they can develop instructional coaching skills and spend part of their time coaching colleagues
who are developing their teaching practice.
250   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

Finally, training for departmental leaders could be augmented with knowledge about and strate-
gies for supporting instructor professional learning. Departmental leaders might receive direction in
working with their instructors to develop professional learning plans. Such annual plans might include
the pedagogical focus instructors intend to work on, workshops to attend or resources to consult,
sources of data that might substantiate that their professional learning is having an impact on their
students and ways that they might share their learning with their colleagues. However, developing
such a plan is only one part of the process. The instructor and the departmental leader would need to
make a commitment to enacting the plan, establishing regular ‘check-ins’, thus prioritizing professional
learning amongst all other responsibilities of instructors.

Conclusion
Given what we know about the limited impact of courses and training programmes, and given the
need for continuous instructor learning, a greater understanding of instructor professional learning
is required. The present study contributes to this understanding by showing how instructor learning
is embedded in and supported by workplace processes. It also shows how a large part of instructor
learning is focused on PCK: the mastery of the skills and knowledge required to teach the specific
industry practices of their profession/trade. In the absence of formal training in PCK, instructors rely
on each other and on trial and error. More can and should be done to support instructors in this area
of their professional learning. Specifically, instead of supporting instructor learning solely by offering
formal training, educational leaders within institutes for VPE should consider ways of integrating
supports for professional learning into the very fabric of its ongoing practices.

Note
1. 
Pseudonyms are used to protect the participants’ identity.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pamela Timanson for her help with data analysis and for proofreading the manuscript.
We also thank the Captioning and Court Reporting students who transcribed the interviews for us.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grant
[grant number: 430-2013-000556].

ORCID
Annemarieke Hoekstra   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8469-4972

References
Amundsen, C. and Wilson, M., 2012. Are we asking the right questions? a conceptual review of the educational
development literature in higher education. Review of educational research, 82 (1), 90–126.
Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J.K., 1988. Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. Personnel psychology,
41 (1), 63–105.
Billett, S., 2004. Workplace participatory practices: conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal of
workplace learning, 16 (6), 312–324.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   251

Billett, S., 2011. Subjectivity, self and personal agency in learning through and for work. In: M. Malloch, L. Cairns,
K. Evans and B.N. O’Connor, eds. The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 60–72.
Blume, B.D., et al., 2010. Transfer of Training: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 1065–1105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880.
Bound, H., 2011. Vocational education and training teacher professional development: tensions and context. Studies in
Continuing Education, 33 (2), 107–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2011.554176.
Bridgstock, R., 2016. Educating for digital futures: what the learning strategies of digital media professionals can teach
higher education. Innovations in education and teaching international, 53 (3), 306–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1
4703297.2014.956779.
den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M. and Wubbels, T., 2004. School effectiveness and school improvement, 15 (3-4), 407–442.
Brookfield, S., 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Choy, S., Billett, S., and Kelly, A., 2013. Engaging in continuing education and training: learning preferences of worker-
learners in the health and community services industry. Australian journal of adult learning, 53 (1), 72–94.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S., 1999. Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities.
Review of research in education, 24, 249–305.
Creswell, J.W., 2008. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and qualitative research. 3rd
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Darwin, S., 2007. The changing contexts of vocational education: implications for institutional vocational learning.
International journal of training research, 5 (1), 55–71.
van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N. and de Vos, W., 1998. Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal
of research in science teaching, 35 (6), 673–695.
Ellinger, A.D., 2004. The concept of self-directed learning and its implications for human resource development. Advances
in developing human resources, 6 (2), 158–177.
Ellström, P.E., 2011. Informal learning at work: conditions, processes and logics. In: M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans
and B.N. O’Connor, eds. The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 105–119.
Ellström, E. and Ellström, P.E., 2014. Learning outcomes of a work-based training programme. European journal of
training and development, 38 (3), 180–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2013-0103.
Engeström, Y., 2011. Activity theory and learning at work. In: M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans and B.N. O’Connor, eds.
The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 86–104.
Eraut, M., 2004. Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26 (2), 247–273. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/158037042000225245.
Eraut, M., 2011. How researching learning at work can lead to tools for enhancing learning. In: M. Malloch, L. Cairns,
K. Evans and B.N. O’Connor, eds. The SAGE handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 181–197.
Fraser, C., et al., 2007. Teachers’ continuing professional development: contested concepts, understandings and models.
Journal of in-service education, 33 (2), 153–169.
Frese, M. and Zapf, D., 1994. Action as the core of work psychology: a German approach. In: H.C. Triandis,
M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough, eds. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press Inc, 271–340.
Harris, R., et al., 2001. The changing role of staff development for teachers and trainers in vocational education and training
[online]. Leabrook, Australia: The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) Ltd. Available from:
http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/595.html
Henze, I., van Driel, J.H., and Verloop, N., 2008. Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International journal of science education, 30 (10), 1321–
1342.
Hoekstra, A., and Crocker, J.R., 2015. ePortfolios: enhancing professional learning of vocational educators. Vocations
and Learning, 8 (3), 353–372. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9133-4.
Hoekstra, A., and Korthagen, F.A.J., 2011. Teacher learning in a context of educational change: informal learning versus
systematically supported learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 76–92.
Hoekstra, A., and Newton, P., 2016. Leading teaching excellence in vocational and professional education. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Hoekstra, A., et al., 2007. Experienced teachers’ informal learning from classroom teaching. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and Practice, 13, 191–208. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600601152546.
Hoekstra, A., et al., 2009. Experienced teachers’ informal learning: learning activities and changes in behavior and
cognition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 363–373. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.007.
Kennedy, A., 2005. Models of continuing professional development: a framework for analysis. Journal of in-service
education, 31 (2), 235–250.
Korthagen, F.A.J., 2010. Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: towards an integrative view of
teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and teacher education, 26, 98–106.
Kwakman, Kitty, 2003. Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and teacher
education, 19, 149–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4.
252   A. HOEKSTRA ET AL.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lohman, M.C. and Woolf, N.H., 2001. Self-Initiated learning activities of experienced public school teachers: methods,
sources, and relevant organizational influences. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 7, 59–74.
Lom, E. and Sullenger, K., 2011. Informal spaces in collaborations: exploring the edges/boundaries of professional
development. Professional development in education, 37 (1), 55–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.489811.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D.D., Beijaard, D. and Verloop, N., 2007. The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by
student teachers. Teaching and teacher education, 23 (1), 47–62.
Manuti, A., et al., 2015. Formal and informal learning in the workplace: a research review. International journal of
training and development, 19 (1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12044.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E., 1990. Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London/New York: Routledge.
Meijs, C., Prinsen, F.R., and de Laat, M.F., 2016. Social learning as approach for teacher professional development; how
well does it suit them? Educational media international, 53 (2), 85–102.
Meirink, J.A., et al., 2009. How do teachers learn in the workplace? An examination of teacher learning activities.
European journal of teacher education, 32 (3), 209–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802624096.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, R., 2013. What is professional development, how does it occur in individuals, and how may it be used by educational
leaders and managers for the purpose of school improvement? Professional development in education, 39 (3), 387–400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2912.762721.
Opfer, V.D. and Pedder, D., 2011. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of educational research,
81 (3), 376–407.
Oude Groote Beverborg, A., Sleegers, P.J.C., and Van Veen, K., 2015. Promoting VET teachers’ individual and social
learning activities: the empowering and purposeful role of transformational leadership, interdependence, and self-
efficacy. Empirical research in vocational education and training, 7 (5), 1–20.
Rasmussen, J., 1986. Information processing and human machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. New
York, NY: North Holland.
Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., and Yang, H., 2010. Stimulating teachers' reflection and feedback asking: an interplay of self-
efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teaching and teacher education, 26, 1154–1161.
Sambrook, S., 2005. Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: synthesizing findings from
two research projects. Human resource development international, 8 (1), 101–119.
Schön, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shuell, T.J., 1986. Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of educational research, 56, 411–436.
Shulman, L.S., 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L.S., 1987. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57, 1–23.
Stes, A., et al., 2010. The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research.
Educational research review, 5 (1), 25–49.
Thurlings, M., Evers, A.R., and Vermeulen, M., 2015. Toward a model of explaining teachers' innovative behavior: a
literature review. Review of educational research, 85, 430–471.
Tynjälä, P., 2008. Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational research review, 3, 130–154.
Van Eekelen, I.M., Boshuizen, H.P.A., and Vermunt, J.D., 2005. Self-Regulation in higher education teacher learning.
Higher education, 50, 447–471.
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J.H., and Meijer, P., 2001. Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International
journal of educational research, 35, 441–461.
Webster-Wright, A., 2009. Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning.
Review of educational research, 79, 702–739.
van Woerkom, M. and Croon, M., 2008. Operationalising critically reflective work behaviour. Personnel Review, 37,
317–331.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A. and Weinstein, C., 2006. Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management. In: C.M.
Evertson and C.S. Weinstein, eds. Handbook of classroom management: research, practice, and contemporary issues.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 181–219.
Zeichner, K. and Liu, K.Y., 2010. A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. In: N. Lyons, ed. Handbook
of reflection and reflective inquiry. New York, NY: Springer, 67–84.
Zubizaretta, J., 2006. The professional portfolio: expanding the value of portfolio development. In: P. Seldin, ed. Evaluating
faculty performance: a practical guide to assessing teaching, research and service. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing,
201–216.
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION   253

Appendix 1. Analysis matrix used to analyse learning episodes reported in the

interviews

Participant
number and Paragraph Level of Learning
pseudonym number Domaina Promptb Activities reflection outcome
1128/Edson 317-333 P FL Practises using a technique to Action-oriented Expanded
get to know students, learned repertoire of
during introductory teaching instructional
course techniques
1136/Aiden 114-119 P ON Watching online presentations Action-oriented Gained ideas
on how to
present
information
to listeners
1144/Brett 116-147 P C Gets frustrated with own lack Action-oriented Learned to
of ability to engage students, use new in-
observes colleagues, asks structional
students for feedback, tries techniques
out alternative strategies
1150/Cory 31-49 PCK NT Observing students responses Meaning-oriented Learned
during one-on-one instruc- about how
tion, watching students work students
through labs together learn certain
course
concepts
1212/Taylor 57-60 PCK NM Needed to teach completely Action-oriented Included
new course material that was novel
not part of the programme content and
before, went to learn from activities in
expert, tried an approach in course
class, asked students for feed-
back, decided it was a success,
tweaked it a bit
1215/Misha 97-107 C FL Attend conference, learn how Action-oriented Gained
new machine used out in knowledge
industry works, request de- about
partment purchases machine machine
for students
1218/Reese 36-104 P C Wanted students to be more Meaning-oriented Insight: stu-
prepared for class, attended dents might
workshop on flipped class- need an
room, experimented with new orientation
teaching strategy to new
teaching
strategies
1225/Drew 126-132 OP F Receives heated responses Action-oriented Learned to be
to email she/he wrote, gets careful with
coaching by supervisor phrasing of
emails
1341/Terry 166-173 P F Received student feedback, Action-oriented Learned a
complaining about other strategy
students’ behaviour, asked to address
colleague for advice on ad- classroom
dressing classroom disruption disruption
directly
Note: For the purpose of this article, this table includes those learning episodes that best illustrate the variety of learning episodes
found in the data.
A total of 58 learning episodes were reported by 17 instructors, ranging from one to eight learning episodes per instructor.
a
P = pedagogy, PCK = pedagogical content knowledge, C = content, OP = participation in the organization.
b
F = upon receiving feedback, FL = upon attending formal learning event, C = instructor has a concern and wants to improve an
area of practice, NT = new task (e.g. having to teach a course she/he has not taught before), NM = having to teach completely new
material that was not part of the programme before, ON = openness to/actively looking for new idea.