Teacher Development

An international journal of teachers' professional development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

An evaluative inquiry into continuing professional

development: understanding faculty perceptions

Sandra Ifeatu Efu

To cite this article: Sandra Ifeatu Efu (2020) An evaluative inquiry into continuing professional
development: understanding faculty perceptions, Teacher Development, 24:5, 688-708, DOI:
10.1080/13664530.2020.1823463

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1823463

Published online: 30 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 109

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtde20
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT
2020, VOL. 24, NO. 5, 688–708
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1823463

ARTICLE

An evaluative inquiry into continuing professional

development: understanding faculty perceptions
Sandra Ifeatu Efu
Student Services, Keyano College, Fort McMurray, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article is comprised of the results of a developmental evalua­ Received 9 April 2018
tion inquiry into continuing professional development (CPD) at Accepted 2 July 2020
a college in Western Canada. Since 2015, despite having one of KEYWORDS
the most generous CPD budgets among all colleges in the region, Continuing professional
the faculty participation rate in CPD has ranged between approxi­ development; CPD;
mately 48% and 56%. Patton’s ‘What? So What? Now What?’ inquiry professional identity;
framework was used to investigate why more faculty were not evaluation; higher education
accessing CPD funds. This article also includes an examination of
the intersection between professional identity and self, and offers
some recommendations that could positively impact faculty parti­
cipation in CPD. Key recommendations include creating a stronger
workplace for faculty members, recognizing CPD as a key factor in
supporting excellence in teaching and learning, capitalizing on
mid-career academics, and exploring self-reflection as a tool for
faculty members to identify and pursue meaningful CPD.

Introduction
Continuing professional development (CPD) remains an integral part of the higher
education (HE) system. Through CPD activities, faculty members maintain a high level
of expertise and acquire new skills and knowledge that contribute not only to their
personal growth and development, but also the advancement of students and the
institution. CPD activities range from self-directed learning experiences to formal pro­
grams (including conferences, workshops, seminars, and certificate/degree-granting pro­
grams), community, and organizational development initiatives. At the core of CPD is
resource commitment by management, particularly in terms of finances. The level of
financial support provided to the faculty for CPD varies according to the institution
involved. Some institutions have a defined annual budget to support faculty in CPD,
while others go a step further by including it in their Faculty Agreement. Regardless of the
type and level of support, having a generous CPD budget is a ‘nice’ problem many faculty
members wish they had to contend with within their respective institutions.
This paper contains a small-scale developmental evaluation inquiry into CPD at
a college in Western Canada (henceforth ‘the College’), which boasts a generous CPD
budget for its faculty in comparison to other institutions in the region. Despite significant

CONTACT Sandra Ifeatu Efu sandra.efu@keyano.ca Student Services, Keyano College, Fort McMurray, Alberta
T9H 2H7, Canada
© 2020 Teacher Development
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 689

financial support, faculty participation rate in CPD over the last five years has ranged
between approximately 48% and 56%. In fact, for most years, CPD funds were not
exhausted. Why are more faculty members not taking part in CPD despite having
a generous CPD budget? Using Patton’s (2011) ‘What? So What? Now What?’ inquiry
framework, the present research hypothesizes that faculty members with a strong profes­
sional identity, evident in their approach to CPD and their level of participation in CPD
activities, are more likely to take advantage of CPD opportunities. After laying out the
definition and meaning of CPD, the present work discusses the intersection between
professional identity and self. The following section provides some context and perspec­
tive on CPD at a college in Western Canada, followed by a rationale for the use of the
developmental evaluation method for this study. The methodology section is next, which
contains the research framework, method, and data extraction process. Finally, the study’s
results are presented. Drawing on professional identity, the information in this article
offers a way forward for increasing faculty participation in CPD.

Defining CPD
The term CPD was first coined by Richard Gardner as cited in Gray and Leaton (2005) and
Friedman (2013), who was responsible for staff development within the building profes­
sions at York University in the mid-1970s (Gray and Leaton 2005). According to Friedman
(2013, 77–78), Gardner ‘introduced the term to signal his belief that there is more to
continuing education than formal courses.’ Many disciplines use CPD, and it now has
varied definitions. For example, Guskey (2000) defined CPD from a student-centered
perspective, as processes and activities that advance the skills and knowledge of teachers
so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of their students. Bubb and Earley (2007),
on the other hand, considered the interplay between personal and professional develop­
ment. According to the authors, CPD is an aspect of personal development comprising
both formal and informal training. It results not only in the development of one’s
occupation, but also the development of the ‘whole’ person, ‘and it almost always
involves changes in self-awareness’ (Bubb and Earley 2007, 3). CPD has also been defined
as an ongoing process, taking place throughout one’s professional life. Scholars such as
Peck et al. (2000) and Kanamu et al. (2017) explained CPD as a lifelong process which
builds on people’s initial qualifications and helps to prepare them not only for their
current professional role, but also for new opportunities and extended roles. Four com­
mon threads are evident within these definitions: (1) CPD is a lifelong process; (2) CPD
entails the acquisition of skills, new knowledge, expertise, and attitudes; (3) CPD spans
both formal and informal education; and (4) CPD is intentional. Essentially, CPD requires
commitment from both the professionals and their work institution.
The present work adopts a definition of CPD provided within the College’s policy on
faculty professional development, which is ‘an activity undertaken for the purpose of
acquiring skills and/or knowledge that will enhance a faculty member’s role in the College
and/or enhance their expertise in their discipline or specialization.’1 Examples of CPD
activities include: courses and seminars, dealing with instructional techniques, discipline-
specific study, the upgrading of technical expertise, studies to enhance managerial and
organizational skills for faculty members with administrative duties in the College, and
relevant work experience in a business or industry setting.
690 S. I. EFU

Within the context of HE, CPD benefits HE institutions and faculty in the following
ways:

(1) It helps faculty improve their knowledge in various areas and topics including
classroom management, teacher evaluation, and assessment (Ditmer 2013).
(2) For faculty, CPD can help to deepen their content and pedagogical knowledge as
well as to help build a desire to integrate key instructional principles into current
classroom practices (Wolbers et al. 2017).
(3) It is an opportunity for the renewal of licenses; for instance, for nurses, engineers,
and elementary school teachers (Geldenhuys and Oosthuizen 2015).
(4) High-quality teacher professional development can promote increased student
achievement, high-quality schools, and effective policy implementation (Kintz
et al. 2015).
(5) It can sometimes lead to career advancement or salary benefits (Geldenhuys and
Oosthuizen 2015).
(6) It serves as an opportunity for faculty members to recharge and network with
colleagues from other institutions (Ditmer 2013).

Through faculty interviews, this article examines whether similar trends can be
observed at the College. The present research provides preliminary evidence that the
College and its faculty have benefited from CPD in some of the ways listed above. For
example, several faculty members discussed using CPD to expand their knowledge and
introduce students to relevant issues within their field. Others, particularly in the School of
Health, have also used CPD to maintain their licenses, and to stay connected with their
counterparts at other HE institutions.

The intersection between professional identity and CPD

Professional identity helps to shed light on faculty engagement in CPD. One can view
professional identity through various lenses including: (1) as a theoretical construct that is
contextual, relational, and changeable in nature; (2) as one’s perception of themselves in
relation to their selected profession; (3) as a sense of maintaining continuity with the past,
finding meaning in the present, and having direction for the future (Abu-Alruz and
Khasawneh 2013); and (4) emotions, relationships, and beliefs that bring about multiple
aspects of oneself. As Fajardo Castañeda (2014) argues, these four lenses can be categor­
ized under the two interconnected dimensions, namely, community membership and
cognition. Community membership encompasses social recognition, while cognition
involves one’s beliefs, motivation, and emotions. For the purposes of this research,
professional identity takes the perspective of community membership (i.e., faculty
engagement within the workplace and the professional community, including interac­
tions with other professionals) and cognition (i.e., faculty members’ personal views of
themselves as professional individuals). Although professional identity is by definition an
internalized identity (Brownell and Tanner 2012), it guides the decisions and actions of
faculty members, including decisions concerning participation in CPD activities.
As discussed in later sections of this article, the professional identity of faculty needs to
be given due consideration in the design of policies and processes for increasing faculty
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 691

engagement in CPD. The interplay between community membership and cognition is

influenced by several factors, which are discussed by Helms (1998) as falling under four
major dimensions: (1) deliberate actions; (2) expectations from institutions, professional
communities, cultures, and societies; (3) the imagined future self (i.e., how people imagine
their future); and (4) values and beliefs. The first three dimensions are underpinned by the
fourth dimension – values and beliefs. Helms (1998) argued that, although actions
influence who we are in important ways, the link between deliberate actions on one
hand, and values and beliefs on the other hand, is the weakest of the three dimensions.
Starr et al. (2003) explored the influence of the above-mentioned factors on identity
formation under the realms of psychology and sociology. According to Starr et al. (2003),
sociological factors include relationships with colleagues, students, and staff at one’s
institution, as well as policy and reform movements. Psychological factors include knowl­
edge, life experiences and history, emotions, anxiety, motivation, satisfaction, commit­
ment, and aspirations. Although investigating the multidimensional nature of
professional identity is beyond the scope of this work, identifying key factors that affect
identity formation can shed some light on the current CPD trends evident in a typical
college setting.

CPD at the College: context and perspective

In an attempt to gain initial insight into CPD participation at the College, secondary data
were sourced from the College’s records. Table 1 provides a breakdown of faculty
participation in ‘short-term’ CPD over the last five years. The data indicate that a little
more than half of the faculty (52%) took advantage of CPD funding provided by the
College between 2012 and 2017. Indeed, this proportion is less than what could be
predicted and further informs the basis of the current study. Also, note that across the
academic years under investigation (2012/13–2016/17), there was no significant increase
in the proportion of CPD applications at the College (χ2(4, N = 617) = 2.36, p = .67). The
critical question therefore is, how can such a stagnant level of CPD participation be
explained?
Over the past seven years, the College experienced program suspensions resulting in
faculty redundancy and high turnover. Effectively, these events had a negative impact on
the total number of faculty members. Some redundancies were due to low student
enrolment in non-credit programs, which can be partly attributed to the global drop in
oil price in 2014. As shown in Table 1, the low faculty strength since the 2012/13
academic year was paralleled by a decline in the total CPD applications received and

Table 1. Faculty participation in short-term CPD (2012/17).

Academic year
2016/2017 2015/2016 2014/2015 2013/2014 2012/2013
*Total applications received 103 87 96 115 113
Number of ‘unique’ individual applications 60 56 59 71 72
Total number of faculty at the College 108 116 124 131 138
**CPD participation rate 55.56% 48.28% 47.58% 54.2% 52.17%
*This includes all applications received including multiple applications from faculty.
**Dividing the number of unique individual applications by the total number of faculty at the College and multiplying by
100% derives the CPD participation rate.
692 S. I. EFU

the number of ‘unique’ individual applications, with slight increases in 2016/17. In addi­
tion, the environment within the College has been that of uncertainty and unpredict­
ability, with constant changes in management. For example, there were as many as three
changes in high-ranking management positions in the year of writing this article. The
institutional landscape of the College over the past few years has had some bearing on
faculty’s sense of community. Note that this falls under the community membership
dimension. Faculty experience obtained as part of this study highlights how community
membership has impacted faculty engagement within the workplace and in CPD
activities.
To provide further context concerning CPD at the College, the College management
has always recognized the importance of CPD. As noted during an interview with
a current faculty member and former Chair of the CPD Committee,

the College has supported CPD for as long as I can remember. The funds to support CPD has
always been there even as far back as the 1980s, with the support being in the form of short-
term, long-term and specialised training.

CPD forms part of the institution’s Collective Agreement between the Board of Governors
and the Faculty Association. The College has three categories of CPD:

(1) Long-term CPD: activities that are longer than eight weeks.
(2) Short-term CPD: activities that are less than eight weeks.
(3) Specialized training, which includes activities that are confined to a period of eight
weeks or less and are designed to assist faculty in acquiring advanced knowledge
and skills training in specified areas of their discipline and assigned teaching
responsibilities.

Faculty members also have the option of undertaking CPD without leave or with paid
leave from work in excess of eight weeks. Although this study focuses on short-term CPD,
long-term CPD and specialized training categories have also experienced low faculty
usage.
In addition to the Collective Agreement, the last few years have had an increase in the
number of collaborative degrees between the College and other HE institutions within
the College’s province. This has resulted in added pressure on faculty members to remain
current in their field and to ensure quality programming for students. Despite the stated
need for CPD and the years of implementation and support, CPD at the College is yet to
be formally evaluated in terms of faculty participation, quality of CPD activities, relevance
of CPD categories, and impact. To help address this gap, the present research utilized the
developmental evaluation method. The following section contains a discussion of this
method within an HE context.

Methodology
Developmental evaluation inquiry framework
The present work adopts development evaluation mainly due to the environment of change
present at the College in the period under study. In addition to managerial changes and
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 693

high faculty turnover, new CPD guidelines and application forms were being developed.
Without implementation, there was no way to determine how these changes affected CPD
at the College. Therefore, developmental evaluation appeared best suited as an investiga­
tive approach. Furthermore, the method is flexible and allows evaluators to respond to
changes which may arise over the program’s evolution. Patton (2011, 2) conceived the
developmental evaluation method as a distinct concept while working on a complex
community leadership program which could not be assessed using traditional evaluation
methods. As the name suggests, developmental evaluation is a less prescriptive form of
assessing programs and interventions, particularly in innovative and complex adaptive
systems (Patton 2011). Additionally, the approach facilitates continuous development
cycle by aiding real-time (or close to real-time) feedback on programs (Developmental
Evaluation 2015). It is also responsive to context and has an emergent design.
The growing popularity of developmental evaluation among organizations and systems
thinkers can be attributed to the several benefits it offers. First, unlike traditional evaluation
methods (specifically formative and summative evaluation), developmental evaluation
helps to provide instant feedback to program implementers. Such feedback nurtures
learning and guides continuous program improvement. Second, developmental evaluation
is adaptable to new outcomes. As forces within a complex social system interact and new
results emerge, measures can change during the evaluation to capture changes as they
unfold. Third, the approach goes beyond rendering judgements regarding the merit and
worth of a program. Instead, it draws attention to unanticipated and emergent issues as
well as consequences and side effects of an intervention. By so doing, evaluators learn to
respond to situations where they possess less control by staying in touch with unfolding
situations, while responding accordingly (Developmental Evaluation 2015).
Despite these benefits, some challenges have been associated with developmental
evaluation. Gamble (2008), for instance, discussed six of such challenges. Most of these
challenges apply to the present study and the HE context as a whole, namely: (1) power;
(2) perceptions of credibility; (3) ambiguity and uncertainty; (4) volume of data; (5)
sustainability in building evaluation capacity; and (6) keeping a results focus. The present
work takes these six challenges into account. Steps taken to minimize the impact of these
challenges in the present study are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Power
The study revealed that power-related issues faced by the College include: (1) high
turnover rate at the executive level; (2) institutional budgetary constraints, including its
implications for CPD; and (3) interaction between evaluators and stakeholders (particu­
larly, faculty and management). These power-related issues could potentially bias data
collection, analysis, and interpretation. For instance, the opinions of a few vocal panel
members could easily overwhelm entire conversations. Thus, to control for power imbal­
ances and potential selection bias, the researcher obtained data using a questionnaire
design. Also, respondents were selected on the basis of their department at the College
and CPD usage.

Credibility perceptions
Development evaluators may also have close interaction with the investigation. Dozois,
Blanchet-Cohen, and Langlois (2010) argued that certain steps can be taken to address
694 S. I. EFU

this such as: verifying one’s perceptions with other stakeholders, working with an evalua­
tion learning community, cultivating self-awareness through reading and reflection, and
educating oneself about common types of biases. More particularly, Dozois, Blanchet-
Cohen, and Langlois (2010, 54) stated that evaluators should look out for five main
sources of biases: (1) framing bias; (2) bandwagon bias; (3) ethnocentrism; (4) confirma­
tion bias; and (5) selection bias. To ensure reliability and neutrality in the data collection
and analysis, the interview transcripts were sent to each interviewee for validation and
accuracy. The findings were also shared with the Coordinator of the Faculty Association.

Data volume and reactions

Since developmental evaluations generate large data volumes, cleaning and analysing
such data could be time-consuming. Furthermore, results from such investigations could
result in blow backs or pose a threat to the job security of internal evaluators, especially if
investigations present unpopular results. As Dozois, Blanchet-Cohen, and Langlois (2010,
60) noted:
Figuring out how to introduce uncomfortable information into the system is an art – one that
every development evaluator will need to develop. But even when that’s done with grace and
sensitivity, you can often count on some blow back. How you manage your responses to the
fall out is critical, not only to the ongoing health of the initiative, but also to your own mental,
emotional, and professional health. Having a trusted peer or mentor to consult with in
difficult times can be a real gift.

To address this concern, the researcher obtained feedback on the questionnaire from
a mentor, which was critical in ensuring the relevance of questions posed to faculty
members. This was supported with follow-up interviews with the aim of gaining further
insight into common themes identified from responses to the questionnaire. These steps
aided in ensuring collection of a manageable volume of data that remained relevant to
the research questions. Above all, despite the above criticisms, developmental evaluation
is appropriate for this study primarily because of its adaptability to changes and
uncertainties.
The developmental evaluation questions selected for this study were framed using the
What? So What? Now What? inquiry framework primarily due to its simplicity and useful­
ness when working with stakeholders relatively new to evaluation. What? probes the issue
at hand. It aims to capture emergent changes as they arise, and trends in the data. So
What? investigates the implications of the emerging changes and data, and their implica­
tions in the present and the future. Now What? relates to tangible next steps. It addresses
questions relating to options moving forward and available resources to support indivi­
dual or group action. Table 2 further explores the research question using this framework.
The methods, data collection approaches, and evidence used to flesh out these
questions are presented in the next section.

Method
This study made use of the qualitative research paradigm, which involved three data
collection procedures. The first procedure involved a questionnaire consisting of six open-
ended questions, which was circulated to all faculty via the College’s email distribution
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 695

Table 2. The What? So What? Now What? inquiry framework.

Why are more faculty not taking part in CPD despite having a generous CPD budget?
What?
What does the data tell us about the participation rate? Are certain departments more active in CPD than others?
So What?
What does this mean for the College?
Now What?
What do the findings tell us about the next steps?
What are the implications for the present and the future of the College?

list. This was to collect general perceptions about CPD. For the second procedure,
individual semi-structured interviews with a smaller group of faculty (n = 6) were con­
ducted. The content of the interview was centered on common themes identified from
responses to the six open-ended questions (i.e., responses in the first procedure). The
purposeful sampling method was used to select participants for the interviews.
Participants were drawn from various departments of the College to ensure diagnostic
richness. Also, participants were identified on the basis of those who would likely provide
the most varied perspectives with respect to the themes and the research question. The
selection criteria for participation included school, gender, and level of CPD funds usage
(see Table 3). Follow-up questions during the interviews depended on the information
value of responses. The final process involved data extraction and content analysis of
CPD-related documents at the College (e.g., minutes of meetings with information on CPD
approvals, policies and procedures, and guidelines), in order to provide supportive
evidence.

Data extraction and analysis

CPD participation and approvals were extracted from minutes of meetings, as well as CPD
spreadsheets. Interviews were also conducted with past CPD Committee Chairs who were
still present at the College to provide context and historical perspective on CPD at the
College. Ethics approval was obtained from the College’s Ethics Committee prior to data
collection. In all, 22 participants responded to the questionnaire, which corresponds to
a 20% response rate. A majority of participants have been at the College for over five years
and have accessed CPD at least once. Furthermore, most participants tie the planning of

Table 3. Interviewee profile.

*School Gender **Level of CPD usage
Interviewee 1 School of Arts and Science Male Active
Interviewee 2 School of Arts and Science Female Non-active
Interviewee 3 School of Health Female Active
Interviewee 4 School of Trades Male Active
Interviewee 5 School of Trades Female Non-active
Interviewee 6 School of Career and Education Services Male Active
*Faculty at the College belong to one of four schools, namely: (1) School of Health; (2) School of Career and Education
Services; (3) School of Arts and Science; (4) School of Trades.
**Two categories are used for level of CPD usage: active and non-active. Active CPD users are people who have accessed
CPD funds at least twice each academic year for the past five years. Non-active CPD users, on the other hand, are people
who have either not accessed CPD funds or accessed it once per academic year in the last five years.
Note: The School of Career and Education Services, though comparatively smaller than other schools, has all active CPD
users. The School of Health also has all active CPD users mostly because of registration and licensing requirements.
696 S. I. EFU

Table 4. Phases of thematic analysis.

Phase
1. Familiarizing yourself with Transcribing data (if necessary), reading and re-reading the data, noting down initial
your data
2. Generating initial codes
3. Searching for themes
4. Reviewing themes
5. Defining and naming
themes
6. Producing the report
Description of the process
ideas.
Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion across the entire
dataset, collating data relevant to each code.
Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each potential
theme.
Checking if the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire
dataset (Level 2), generating a thematic ‘map’ of the analysis.
Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme, and the overall story the
analysis tells, generating clear definitions and names for each theme.
The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples, final
analysis of selected extracts, relating back the analysis to the research question and
literature, writing up the data analysis.

their CPD to the Professional Growth Plan. This is an exercise that is completed indepen­
dently by participants and reviewed annually by their respective supervisors.
Analysis of the data was done utilizing the six-phase process for completing thematic
analysis developed by Braun and Clarke (2012). Thematic analysis is a qualitative data
analysis method applicable in various fields, including the social sciences. The purpose of
thematic analysis is to:

identify patterns of meaning across a dataset that provide an answer to the research question
being addressed. Patterns are identified through a rigorous process of data familiarisation,
data coding, and theme development and revision (Braun and Clarke 2012, 57).

It is important to note that the six phases are not linear. Rather, they are ‘an iterative and
reflective process that develops over time and involves a constant moving back and forth
between phases’ (Nowell et al. 2017, 4). Table 4 shows the six phases for thematic analysis,
as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2012).
In analysing the data, responses were examined based on the What? So What? Now
What? framework (Patton 2011; also, see Table 2). A similar process was also used for
analysing the semi-structured interviews. That is, the interview transcripts were coded
manually to identify overarching themes relating to the original research question,
followed by defining and naming identified themes. Comments and personal anecdotes
were highlighted to further contextualize the findings and recommendations.

Results
To address the research question, several main themes emerged. The results indicate that
professional identity impacts faculty engagement in CPD activities. As shown in Figure 1,
active CPD participants set personal and professional development plans at least once
a year, with periodic reviews of their goals bi-annually or monthly. They had also taken
advantage of CPD opportunities more than once a year over the past five years, which
included conferences, seminars, and courses. Some active CPD participants further sought
online CPD activities to have access to a broader selection of CPD offerings, while
minimizing potential negative impact on their workload. When asked about the main
driver behind their active participation in CPD, interviewees mentioned the need to stay
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 697

Community membership (faculty engagement

Cognition (faculty’s personal view of themselves
within the workplace and professional
as professionals)
community)

Active CPD participants: have strong ties Active CPD participants: are instrinsically
to their professional community by taking motivated and set personal and professional
part in CPD activities at least once a year. development goals.

Non-active CPD participants: are Non-active CPD participants: are in most

discouraged by the current institutional
landscape, particularly present CPD
policies, frequent changover in
management, and faculty layoffs.
cases also intrinsically motivated but have
their own personal beliefs and ways of
developing professionally, which fall
outside the spectrum of CPD support
provided by the College.

Key influencing factors: staying current, meeting

the needs of students, and interacting with peers.

Figure 1. CPD and the interconnected dimensions of professional identity (developed by author).

current in one’s field, meeting the needs of students, and networking with colleagues
from other institutions as the main factors. In the words of one interviewee, who had
worked at the College for over 10 years,

What drives me to take advantage of CPD is that my area is broad. So, I am always wanting to
make sure I stay current. When I am talking to students, I want to appear credible and
knowledgeable. Particularly, I love experiential learning and it works for me. Once I have seen
something and experienced it, I am able to explain it better to students. And students pick up
on that kind of stuff. They are very aware and know if you are not knowledgeable about
a particular subject or area.

Faculty’s commitment to lifelong learning, as in the case of this interviewee, has the
potential to positively impact their teaching and competencies.
Non-active CPD participants, on the other hand, were less particular about setting
personal and professional development goals within the formal fabrics of the College. As
part of the College process, faculty identify personal and professional CPD opportunities
annually when they complete their Professional Growth Plan. Non-active CPD participants
revealed that they complete the Professional Growth Plan as a matter of obligation, with
little self-reflection going into identifying professional development activities. As one
non-active CPD participant put it, ‘CPD is not required and is not part of our performance
review. It does not impact whether or not we keep our jobs. Therefore, no one cares.’
Interestingly, the same non-active CPD participants expressed strong emotions towards
their profession as an educator and are motivated to stay current in their field. This begs
the question of how an individual can have a weak sense of engagement within the
workplace and yet remain intrinsically motivated to want to pursue CPD opportunities.
698 S. I. EFU

The answer is two-pronged, as evident in the participants’ responses. First, non-active CPD
participants, like active CPD participants, have strong personal views of themselves both
in terms of their role as an educator and where they see themselves in the future. As one
participant puts it, ‘I continue to learn because of my students.’ Another participant stated
that:
For my area of specialization, it is important that I stay current. The day I leave this College or
change jobs, I don’t want to fall behind. One of my greatest fears is leaving here and realizing
that I am years behind my peers in terms of knowledge and expertise.

Second, non-active CPD participants have weak ties to the College’s institutional fabric.
Although they recognize the importance of CPD and are intrinsically motivated, they seek
CPD opportunities outside of what the College offers. When asked how they approached
CPD, one non-active participant stated privately:
I don’t use the process established by the College. It used to be because the former Dean was
difficult to work with and the CPD approval process is arduous. I set CPD goals for myself
privately, and I set personal goals as it relates to my job. I set my goals twice a year, at the
beginning of the semester.

When asked about specific CPD activities, another participant mentioned, ‘I do not
necessarily attend CPD activities. My professional improvement goals are tied to my
teaching and curriculum development for each semester.’ Both the community member­
ship and cognition of non-active CPD participants, therefore, have strong bearings on
whether or not faculty members take advantage of CPD opportunities made available by
the College. As such, eliminating the barriers that hinder faculty involvement in CPD is
crucial. The following section contains a discussion of the major obstacles hindering
faculty members from participating in CPD, followed by recommendations for addressing
them.

Factors that detract from CPD involvement

The analysis of data collected from faculty members through the general survey and
interviews reveals common factors that detract from CPD involvement. These include
time away from teaching duties, travel restrictions, personal circumstance, the CPD
process, and the institutional structure.

Time away from teaching duties

A majority of respondents, regardless of school, identified time as the primary impeding
factor for accessing CPD. Many felt that they could not attend CPD if it meant missing
class, as there are no faculty available to cover classes either due to scheduling conflicts or
a lack of relevant qualifications. One respondent stated, ‘the biggest problem we face is
our workload. If we create overload for anything, our CPD application will be denied.’
Another faculty member from a different school noted that:
Management discourages faculty from seeking CPD during the academic year when they are
in class, and since we are fully work loaded for the fall, winter, and spring semesters, we are
limited to CPD opportunities that fall during annual vacation leave or mid- and end-of-
semester school breaks.
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 699

In some departments, faculty can cover for each other in order to minimize the impact on
teaching duties. However, this considerably increases the workload of the faculty. Also,
without compensation for the extra hours of teaching incurred, there is little (if any)
incentive for faculty members to continue to cover each other for CPD.

Travel restrictions
The issue of travel restrictions is contentious amongst most faculty members, as noted in
the questionnaires and interviews, and is a major contributor to the low CPD participation
rate. Some faculty members mentioned that they faced tremendous difficulty finding
relevant CPD within the country and missed out on the opportunity to partake in the
more significant CPD activities held internationally, especially with regards to confer­
ences. That said, it was noted that the travel restrictions do not apply if faculty members
are presenting a paper. One faculty member noted that:
I personally do not like to be restricted to conferences within Canada. I like to attend the big
conferences in the U.S. and other countries where you can network with delegates from all
around the world. It’s broadening to be able to visit places you have not previously had
a chance to explore. In addition, the wide variety of topics and speakers available are useful to
inform our teaching practices. Why should it matter where we go as long as we stick to the
budget constraints? The decision to limit our PD to locations within Canada is arbitrary and
unnecessary in my opinion.

Without substantive explanation from management regarding their rationale for restrict­
ing travel for CPD, the College is likely to continue to have low faculty participation
in CPD.

Personal circumstance
Another major contributor to faculty’s ability to take part in CPD is personal circumstance.
Personal circumstance has been defined as focusing ‘specifically on the personal side of
our lives – not only the people, but also the circumstances or events in our private lives
which affect our ability to focus emotional or physical energies on our professional
endeavours’ (Caffarella and Zinn 1999, 245). For example, some faculty who have pets
and/or younger children or who have limited support from family and friends, identified
as being unable to maximize available CPD opportunities. One respondent said:
I have a pet and I pay 100 USD/day for my dog to be cared for while I am away. Going to
a conference can cost me up to 1000 USD in pet care if I am away for most of the week and
those expenses are significant and add up (and are not covered by the College).

Another faculty member noted that: ‘I have a young child and if my husband is working
late that week or month, attending CPD activities that take me out of town is not an
option.’ According to Caffarella and Zinn (1999), other personal circumstances that impact
upon an individual’s ability to fully participate in CPD include major life transitions and
crises (e.g., divorce, death of a loved one, major illness), and cultural and/or religious
values in conflict with professional roles as faculty members.

CPD process
The current CPD process for reviewing and approving applications poses some challenges
for faculty members. Some view the current procedure as not being flexible enough to
700 S. I. EFU

accommodate last-minute CPD opportunities. Although faculty identify personal and

professional CPD opportunities annually when they complete their Professional Growth
Plan, some relevant opportunities pop up at the last minute. The CPD Committee’s
schedule for reviewing CPD applications makes it difficult for faculty members to take
advantage of last-minute conferences and workshops. Additionally, some participants
noted that the current process for submitting CPD applications is tedious and lengthy. As
such, it could serve as a deterrent for accessing available CPD funds. As one respondent
noted, ‘I do not have much time to get approval for my CPD courses from my supervisor
before the CPD submission deadlines.’
Another detrimental factor linked to the CPD process is reimbursement of expenses.
Faculty are required to pay out of pocket initially before submitting expense claim
forms for refunds. Depending on the CPD activity, paying out of pocket can have
financial implications in the form of interest charges, especially if the initial payment
was made with a credit card. The reimbursement process can sometimes take weeks.
Faculty have the option of requesting cash advancements from the College in such
cases.
With the aforementioned issues at hand at the time of this research, there were
planned changes to the CPD process, including new guidelines and a more dynamic
application form for short-term CPD. As expressed by one faculty member: ‘some
changes to the CPD application procedure hold promise of a more efficient and
more equitable handling of CPD so that the individual faculty member can drive the
process of what to do for CPD.’ Many are hopeful about the new CPD guidelines and
process. Through joint discussions between faculty members and managerial staff,
these changes have the potential to encourage greater faculty engagement in CPD
activities.

Institutional structure
Institutional structure entails support from management in providing ongoing CPD
growth opportunities and ensuring the availability of necessary resources (Caffarella
and Zinn 1999). Resource availability has to be accompanied by structural and policy
support if it is to encourage faculty CPD participation. Despite having one of the most
generous CPD budgets in the province, several respondents noted feeling a lack of
support from management in the form of roadblocks, negative perceptions about
faculty participation in CPD, and role assumptions. One faculty member stated that
there is a ‘perception problem by management that faculty members are “gallivant­
ing” on College dollars when participating in CPD, and have too many CPD dollars,
which should be reduced.’ Another mentioned, ‘some Chairs and Deans have assumed
the authority to approve/disapprove CPD applications where they actually have no
such authority, thus usurping the CPD Committee’s authority (the only body which has
the authority to approve/disapprove a CPD application).’ On the other hand, some
faculty members expressed receiving support from specific people in management,
particularly Chairs endeavouring to help cover classes during faculty absences due to
CPD. It is important for faculty to feel supported by the institution to take part in CPD
beyond the provision of funding. Written and unwritten procedures, the actions of
supervisors, and management’s perception of CPD are institutional factors that influ­
ence faculty members’ willingness to engage in CPD. The more faculty feel supported
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 701

by the institution, the more likely they are to take part in CPD opportunities, ceteris
paribus.

Ways to enable greater participation in CPD

Increased awareness of factors detracting from CPD participation can cause managerial
staff and faculty to work collaboratively towards offsetting CPD barriers. In addition, there
is need to strike a balance between support for CPD participation and resource account­
ability. Note that CPD benefits accrue to both faculty and the institution. By addressing
these concerns, CPD programs will become more effective. That is, faculty members will
be able to maximize CPD opportunities, enhance career growth, increase student perfor­
mance, and advance their institutions as a whole. Some considerations in reducing the
barriers that faculty members face include providing a clear CPD definition, creating
enabling CPD processes, reviewing faculty workload, and implementing peer-to-peer
learning.

Defining CPD
Managerial staff often recognize conferences as the only legitimate use of CPD funds. In
some instances, management goes to the extent of denying requests for other uses. As
stated previously, CPD encompasses a wide range of formal (e.g., workshops, seminars,
conference presentations, journal articles, active membership in professional bodies) and
informal activities (e.g., reading relevant publications, podcasts, and community involve­
ment). Given the difficulties with managing faculty workload, encouraging and adopting
a wider approach to CPD could potentially garner more faculty interest. Activities such as
online training, webcasts, and purchasing relevant CPD materials (e.g., books, software,
and electronic devices) could serve a wide range of faculty members irrespective of
institutional affiliation.

Creating an enabling process

It is crucial to create an enabling process that ensures focused support for CPD participa­
tion. One factor necessary to achieve this is creating less cumbersome (or more user-
friendly) application forms. A second factor to consider is revising the application sub­
mission procedure so that faculty members can drive their own professional develop­
ment. In turn, CPD Committees will be strengthened in exercising their authority to
evaluate and make more objective decisions on CPD applications. Additionally, other
initiatives that are likely to improve the current CPD process include: providing avenues
for clarifying and answering faculty questions about CPD (e.g., including individual CPD
allocation, application guidelines, the CPD approval process) and ensuring the timely
turnaround of applications and reimbursements. These improvements build on faculty
feedback from the questionnaire and interviews, and send a strong message that the
College supports and values CPD.

Faculty workload
As the literature suggests, CPD benefits both faculty members and HE institutions.
However, it can be difficult to fit CPD around teaching schedules and other aspects of
faculty members’ workloads. Having an open discussion about ways to support faculty in
702 S. I. EFU

CPD, while also meeting the needs of students, can help reduce barriers to access.
Guidelines for managing short-term absences due to CPD could be drafted with the
following possibilities: minimizing faculty teaching load in the spring semester (either
every year or every other year), hiring contract faculty to cover classes, providing incentive
for faculty to cover for each other, and using blended learning where faculty may flexibly
deliver and manage parts of a course online.

Peer-to-peer learning
Peer-to-peer learning – a mutually beneficial concept that recognizes everyone as
a teacher and a learner – can serve as a tool for the implementation of CPD. It not only
provides an avenue for faculty to learn from each other but can also facilitate improve­
ments in all aspects of faculty relations and communities of practice. Peer-to-peer learning
can take the form of classroom observations, brown bag sessions (informal presentations
that typically take place over lunch), the use of a buddy system (i.e., faculty are paired to
support one another in their work including professional development activities), and
seminars. Beyond the cost-effectiveness and flexibility that peer-to-peer learning offers, it
could also serve as a tool for motivating inactive CPD users to become active. By
observing and learning from the experiences of other faculty members, inactive CPD
users are likely to be inspired and become more inclined to follow in the footsteps of their
colleagues.

Further considerations for promoting CPD with insights from professional identity
In addition to encouraging increased faculty participation in CPD and eliminating barriers
that hinder involvement, HE institutions should consider the key influence of professional
identity on CPD participation. Given the proposed link between CPD and professional
identity, specifically in relation to faculty engagement within the workplace and profes­
sional community, the following considerations could encourage more faculty members
to engage in institution-supported CPD initiatives.

Creating a stronger workplace community and recognizing CPD as key support for
excellence in teaching and learning
HE institutions play a significant role in both the identity formation of the faculty and
encouragement of faculty participation in CPD. As Nixon (1996) explains, HE institutions
need to recognize teaching as an important area of professional expertise in its own right,
and ensure the availability of structures for professional development and support to
safeguard the development of teaching expertise (Nixon 1996). A non-supportive institu­
tional system causes faculty members to disengage from their work and detracts from the
core activity of every HE institution – teaching and learning. The professional identity of
faculty members not only reflects the landscape that the faculty are part of but also
manifests in classroom practices (Clarke, Hyde, and Drennan 2013).

Capitalizing on mid-career academics

As mentioned previously, ‘professional identity is not a stable entity’ (Clarke, Hyde, and
Drennan 2013, 8). Several factors influence professional identity including one’s career
and place of work. Scholars such as Baldwin, Lunceford, and Vanderlinden (2005) and Hall
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 703

(1986) define mid-career as the peak performing period of a professional, and which
usually covers as much as 15–25 years of one’s professional career. During the mid-career
phase, a professional achieves mastery of their profession, after which disengagement
starts to set in, in preparation for retirement or a major career transition (Hall 1986). It is
important to note that the mid-career phase varies by individual and depends on age,
years of work experience, and personal outlook on one’s overall career advancement.
Similar trends present themselves within the HE domain. As Clarke, Hyde, and Drennan
(2013, 14) observed:
During the mid-career phase, faculties teach a majority of their students, produce the bulk of
their scholarship and publications, and serve their institution, disciplines, and society in
a variety of expert and leadership roles. Furthermore, faculty in the middle years represent
the largest segment of the academic profession.

For this reason, mid-career faculty members deserve special attention from HE institu­
tions. Once a faculty member has advanced beyond the novice stage and becomes a full-
fledged member of his or her profession or institution, there is a window of opportunity
for HE institutions to engage them in professional development initiatives (Clarke, Hyde,
and Drennan 2013). Mid-career professionals are more likely to take part in CPD activities.
As such, initiatives aimed at motivating them to stay engaged within the workplace and
professional community would help ensure CPD participation.

Exploring self-reflection as a tool for faculty to identify and pursue meaningful CPD
HE institutions need to view professional development as encompassing more than
formal activities. Viewing professional development primarily as formal activities is pro­
blematic in that it fails to position professional growth as an endeavour for which faculty
are ultimately responsible. This includes how and in what areas to develop. The literature
offers two possible explanations as to why little voice is given to the professionals
themselves. A group of scholars all pointed to the first reason (see Fishman et al. 2003;
Ghaye and Ghaye 1998; Mason 2002; Stringer 1996; Zeichner 1994). They noted that
education authorities and providers usually determine areas for professional develop­
ment, with little input from faculty. The second explanation is the rise of in-service
professional development in HE, which is largely collective and is not tailored to the
individual needs of the faculty (Day 2004). For example, CPD activities such as learning
days, conferences, and workshops encompass group sessions but with limited opportu­
nity for individuals to pursue learning activities that fit their unique learning styles and
professional growth needs. Academics have a moral and ethical obligation to students to
remain up to date with developments in their field of study and to continually seek ways
of promoting teaching and learning. Therefore, CPD should be seen as a proactive under­
taking driven by faculty members themselves.
As an individual endeavour, self-reflection is well positioned to promote and account
for both the ownership and the daily learning experiences of the faculty, which makes it
a powerful form of professional development. Dewey (1997) is credited for promoting
discourse on self-reflection through his inquiry into reflective thinking (see also, Farrell
2012; Reynolds 2011). According to Dewey (1997, 2), reflective thought is ‘educative in
value’ and entails deliberately seeking the ground or basis and consequences of beliefs.
Since Dewey’s early conception of reflective thinking in 1910 and 1933, several
704 S. I. EFU

researchers (e.g., Moon 2008; Rodgers 2002; Schön 1984; Sparks-Langer and Colto 1991;
Yost, Sentner, and Forlenza-Bailey 2000) have reviewed his theory and attempted to
provide a holistic view of reflective thinking that could help give meaning to faculty
teaching and professional development. For example, Rodgers (2002) discussed four
criteria that characterize Dewey’s view. These criteria are offered as a starting point for
discussions of reflection, so as to contribute to the evolution of the definition and practice
of reflective thinking. The four criteria are: (1) reflection as a meaning-making process; (2)
reflection as a rigorous way of thinking; (2) reflection in community; and (4) reflection as
a set of attitudes. Dinkelman (2003) also drew on the work of Dewey to discuss the
congruence of reflection with the activity of teaching and the potential for knowledge
production. According to Dinkelman (2003):
By distancing oneself from the immediacy of the classroom, by deliberately pursuing under­
standing – via the intentional framing of a problem, collection of data, and testing of
hypotheses – self-study highlights the reflective process and yields knowledge about practice
that does not arise from daily practice alone. Self-study is not the whole of teaching, but it
mirrors and systematizes that part of pedagogy that is reflection. Contrary to cliché, experi­
ence teaches nothing to the nonreflective practitioner.

Hence, for self-reflection to be meaningful, faculty members must make deliberate and
systematic attempts to reflect on their own practice. In doing so, faculty members
produce knowledge that can help them ‘understand how to better approach problems
in their own immediate contexts and teaching situations’ (Dinkelman 2003, 11). Of all the
contributors to Dewey’s work on reflective thinking, Schön (1984) is perhaps the most
recognized. Schön is credited with re-engaging the academic circle in reflective practice
after many years of lull following Dewey’s earlier work (Farrell 2012). Schön (1984) offered
an approach to the epistemology of practice based on the works of practitioners. In his
analysis of several case studies, Schön (1984, 8) operated from the premise that ‘compe­
tent practitioners often know more than they can say. They exhibit a kind of knowing-in-
practice, most of which is tacit.’ ‘This he called reflection-in-action, or how teachers think
on their feet’ (Farrell 2012, 12). Although Schön did not write directly about teachers, his
work could be applied to the academic profession. As Farrell (2012, 13) noted:
Schon offers sequences of moments in a process of reflection-in-action in which the practi­
tioner attempts to solve a problem as follows:

A situation develops that triggers spontaneous, routine responses (such as in knowing-in-

action).
Routine responses by the teacher (i.e., what the teacher has always done) do not produce
a routine response and instead produce a surprise for the teacher.
This surprise response gets the teacher’s attention and leads to reflection within an action.
Reflection now gives rise to on-the-spot experimentation by the teacher.

This sequence is present in faculty teaching and leads to reflection-in-action. The

interaction between faculty members and their students in a given setting, and faculty
members’ spontaneous reaction when a problem arises, provide the data which faculty
could reflect on and possibly create new meanings and plans for further action (Clarke
1995). By systematically reflecting-in-action, one is inadvertently engaging in personally
driven professional development. Most importantly, self-reflection also has the added
benefit of helping faculty members showcase their overall professional identity.
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 705

Conclusion
This researcher used a developmental evaluation inquiry framework to determine why an
increasing number of faculty members are not taking advantage of CPD, despite the
generous CPD funding provided by the College. The researcher applied the ‘What? So
What? Now What?’ inquiry framework and utilized data from a questionnaire sent to all
faculty at the College, semi-structured interviews (n = 6), and relevant College and
committee documents. The results indicate that having money available is not enough
incentive to motivate faculty to take part in CPD. Issues that contribute to low CPD
participation include time away from teaching duties, travel restrictions, the CPD process,
personal circumstance, and institutional structure.
HE institutions stand to gain by supporting faculty participation in CPD. High-quality
CPD has been shown to promote increased student achievement, high-quality schools,
and effective policy implementation (Kintz et al. 2015). Therefore, working with faculty to
address barriers to CPD is in the best interest of HE institutions. Recommendations for
management to consider include having a more robust understanding of CPD, creating
an enabling process, managing workload, and fostering peer-to-peer learning. Effective
and accessible CPD processes help faculty members build and sustain their knowledge
and capacity for quality HE programs.
The present work also examined the intersection between professional identity and
the self, and offered recommendations that could positively impact faculty participa­
tion in CPD. Specifically, these include: capitalizing on mid-career academics, recog­
nizing CPD as key support for teaching and learning, and exploring self-reflection as
a tool for faculty members to identify and pursue meaningful CPD. Although profes­
sional identity is by definition an internalized identity (Brownell and Tanner 2012), it
guides the external actions and decisions of faculty members. It also includes deci­
sions about participating in CPD activities. To increase faculty engagement in CPD, HE
institutions also need to give due consideration to the professional identity of faculty
members.
One limitation of this research is that the results may not be fully generalizable to
a wider context. This may be attributed to two factors. First, the researcher examined CPD
within a particular college and as a result, may not fully account for between-college
variation. For instance, even at a regional level, colleges may vary in CPD policies
compared to the focal college being studied. Such variations may also apply to employee
attitude towards CPD at the college level. Also, additional sources of variation may come
from individual traits or characteristics with respect to personal identification. Hence,
findings from this research may be better qualified by research from a more robust design,
which takes into account within- as well as between-college variations in CPD participa­
tion. Second, the extent to which one can extrapolate based on these findings may be
limited by the cross-sectional nature of our survey data. Further research may address this
concern by adopting two potential approaches which may aid validation of the current
findings: (1) a large-scale regional or country-level study, which adopts a stratified sam­
pling technique; and/or (2) a longitudinal study – that is, a study design with repeated
observations over time. Regardless of these limitations, the current research benefits from
multiple data sources and provides an initial framework towards understanding factors
affecting CPD participation in HE institutions.
706 S. I. EFU

Note
1. To maintain anonymity, I refer to policy documents by their title without providing complete
citations.

Disclosure statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial
relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Notes on contributor
Sandra Ifeatu Efu is the Director of Student Services at Keyano College. Her research interests
include the economics of education, teaching and learning in higher education, and program
design, evaluation and enhancement for social good.

References
Abu-Alruz, J., and S. Khasawneh. 2013. “Professional Identity of Faculty Members at Higher
Education Institutions: A Criterion for Workplace Success.” Research in Post-Compulsory
Education 18 (4): 431–442. doi:10.1080/13596748.2013.847235.
Baldwin, R. G., C. J. Lunceford, and K. E. Vanderlinden. 2005. “Faculty in the Middle Years: Illuminating
an Overlooked Phase of Academic Life.” The Review of Higher Education 29 (1): 97–118.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2005.0055.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2012. “Thematic Analysis.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods in
Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological,
edited by P. M. Harris Cooper, D. L. Camic, A. T. Long, D. R. Panter, and K. J. Sher, 57–71.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13620-004.
Brownell, S. E., and K. D. Tanner. 2012. “Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training,
Time, Incentives, and . . . Tensions with Professional Identity?” CBE – Life Sciences Education 11 (4):
339–346. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.
Bubb, S., and P. Earley. 2007. Leading and Managing Continuing Professional Development. London:
SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446216637
Caffarella, R. S., and L. F. Zinn. 1999. “Professional Development for Faculty: A Conceptual
Framework of Barriers and Supports.” Innovative Higher Education 23 (4): 241–254. doi:10.1023/
A:1022978806131.
Clarke, A. 1995. “Professional Development in Practicum Settings: Reflective Practice under
Scrutiny.” Teaching and Teacher Education 11 (3): 243–261. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00028-5.
Clarke, M., A. Hyde, and J. Drennan. 2013. “Professional Identity in Higher Education.” In The
Academic Profession in Europe: New Tasks and New Challenges, edited by B. M. Kehm and
U. Teichler, 7–21. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4614-5_2.
Day, C. 2004. A Passion for Teaching. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Developmental Evaluation 2015. “Better Evaluation.” http://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/
approach/developmental_evaluation
Dewey, J. 1997. How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dinkelman, T. 2003. “Self-Study in Teacher Education: A Means and Ends Tool for Promoting
Reflective Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education 54 (1): 6–18. doi:10.1177/
0022487102238654.
Ditmer, N. E. 2013. “President’s Pitch: Professional Development Opportunities.” Music Educators
Journal 99 (4): 5. doi:10.1177/0027432113482666.
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT 707

Dozois, E., N. Blanchet-Cohen, and M. Langlois. 2010. A Practitioner’s Guide to Developmental

Evaluation. Victoria, BC: International Institute for Child Rights and Development, University of
Victoria.
Fajardo Castañeda, J. A. 2014. “Learning to Teach and Professional Identity: Images of Personal and
Professional Recognition.” PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 16 (2): 49–65.
doi:10.15446/profile.v16n2.38075.
Farrell, T. S. C. 2012. “Reflecting on Reflective Practice:(Re) Visiting Dewey and Schon.” Tesol Journal 3
(1): 7–16. doi:10.1002/tesj.10.
Fishman, B. J., R. W. Marx, S. Best, and R. T. Tal. 2003. “Linking Teacher and Student Learning to
Improve Professional Development in Systemic Reform.” Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (6):
643–658. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3.
Friedman, A. L. 2013. Continuing Professional Development: Lifelong Learning of Millions. Milton Park:
Routledge.
Gamble, J. A. A. 2008. A Developmental Evaluation Primer. Montreal: J. W. McConnell Family
Foundation.
Geldenhuys, J. L., and L. C. Oosthuizen. 2015. “Challenges Influencing Teachers’ Involvement in
Continuous Professional Development: A South African Perspective.” Teaching and Teacher
Education 51 (October): 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.010.
Ghaye, A., and K. Ghaye. 1998. Teaching and Learning through Critical Reflective Practice. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Gray, L., and S. Leaton. 2005. An Enquiry into Continuing Professional Development for Teachers.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge and London: Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.
Guskey, T. R. 2000. Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hall, D. T. 1986. “Breaking Career Routines: Midcareer Choice and Identity Development.” In Career
Development in Organizations, edited by D. T. Hall, 20–59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Helms, J. V. 1998. “Science – And Me: Subject Matter and Identity in Secondary School Science
Teachers.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35 (7): 811–834. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736­
(199809)35:7<811::AID-TEA9>3.0.CO;2-O.
Kanamu, L. G., B. Van Dyk, L. Chipeya, and S. N. Kilaha. 2017. “Barriers to Continuous Professional
Development Participation for Radiographers in Kenya.” African Journal of Health Professions
Education 9 (1): 17–20. doi:10.7196/AJHPE.2017.v9i1.605.
Kintz, T., J. Lane, A. Gotwals, and D. Cisterna. 2015. “Professional Development at the Local Level:
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Critical Colleagueship.” Teaching and Teacher Education
51 (October): 121–136. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.004.
Mason, J. 2002. Researching Your Own Practice: The Discipline of Noticing. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Moon, J. 2008. Critical Thinking: An Exploration of Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Nixon, J. 1996. “Professional Identity and the Restructuring of Higher Education.” Studies in Higher
Education 21 (1): 5–16. doi:10.1080/03075079612331381417.
Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the
Trustworthiness Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 (1). doi:10.1177/
1609406917733847.
Patton, M. Q. 2011. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation
and Use. New York: Guilford Press.
Peck, C., M. McCall, B. McLaren, and T. Rotem. 2000. “Continuing Medical Education and Continuing
Professional Development: International Comparisons.” BMJ 320 (7232): 432–435. doi:10.1136/
bmj.320.7232.432.
Reynolds, M. 2011. “Reflective Practice: Origins and Interpretations.” Action Learning: Research and
Practice 8 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1080/14767333.2011.549321.
Rodgers, C. 2002. “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.”
Teachers College Record 104 (4): 842–866.
Schön, D. A. 1984. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic
Books.
Sparks-Langer, G. M., and A. B. Colto. 1991. “Synthesis of Research on Teachers’ Reflective Thinking.”
Educational Leadership 48 (6): 37–44.
708 S. I. EFU

Starr, S., W. J. Ferguson, H.-L. Haley, and M. Quirk. 2003. “Community Preceptors’ Views of Their
Identities as Teachers.” Academic Medicine 78 (8): 820–825. doi:10.1097/00001888-200308000-
00017.
Stringer, E. T. 1996. Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. London: Sage.
Wolbers, K. A., H. M. Dostal, P. Skerrit, and B. Stephenson. 2017. “The Impact of Three Years of
Professional Development on Knowledge and Implementation.” The Journal of Educational
Research 110 (1): 61–71. doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1039112.
Yost, D. S., S. M. Sentner, and A. Forlenza-Bailey. 2000. “An Examination of the Construct of Critical
Reflection: Implications for Teacher Education Programming in the 21st Century.” Journal of
Teacher Education 51 (1): 39–49. doi:10.1177/002248710005100105.
Zeichner, K. M. 1994. Research on Teacher Thinking and Different Views of Reflective Practice in
Teaching and Teacher Education. Teachers’ Minds and Actions: Research on Teachers’ Thinking
and Practice. London: Falmer Press.