Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20

Professional Development in Education

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

The professional development needs of beginningand experienced teachers in four municipalities inSweden

Martin Karlberg & Christopher Bezzina

To cite this article: Martin Karlberg & Christopher Bezzina (2020): The professional developmentneeds of beginning and experienced teachers in four municipalities in Sweden, ProfessionalDevelopment in Education, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1712451

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1712451

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup.

Published online: 10 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 186

View related articles

View Crossmark data

ARTICLE

The professional development needs of beginning andexperienced teachers in four municipalities in SwedenMartin Karlberga and Christopher Bezzinaa,b

aDepartment of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; bDepartment of Leadership for Learning &Innovation, Faculty of Education, University of Malta, Imsida, Malta

ABSTRACTThis article reports findings from a larger study aimed at identifying theperceptions of teachers across four municipalities in Sweden on continu-ing professional development. It focuses on beginning teachersˡ, namelythose who are in their first five years of their career. This study has beenundertaken amidst growing concern that current models of in-servicetraining in Sweden are not leaving the desired impact on teacher motiva-tion and student achievement; that the teaching profession feels disen-gaged, disempowered, distrusted. It has been undertaken in a contextwhich is finding it hard to attract teachers into the profession, and onewhere teacher attrition is high. The responses help to shed light on whatthe municipalities and teacher education institutions need to focus on inorder to support new teachers. Implications are drawn out for schools,municipalities and teacher education institutions as they need to cometogether to engage in more collaborative ventures to ensure adequateand ongoing support to new teachers.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 30 December 2018Accepted 3 January 2020

KEYWORDSBeginning teachers; teacherprofessional needs;continuing professionaldevelopment

Introduction

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

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

For a clearer understanding of the context in which this study has been conducted reference hasto be made to a recent OECD publication (2015) which highlights the political and cultural contextin which Swedish teachers and school leaders are currently working in. This study reports that

CONTACT Martin Karlberg martin.karlberg@edu.uu.se Department of Education, Uppsala University, Box 2156, UppsalaSE-750 02, Sweden

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATIONhttps://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1712451

© 2020 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 theoriginal work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

teachers’ levels of motivation and job satisfaction are low. The report throws light on the existingculture both within schools and within their municipalities. Evidence suggests that there is a higherincidence of teacher absenteeism, teachers struggling with student learning differences, and studentlearning being hindered by teachers’ low expectations of their students than in other OECDcountries. There also seems to be an unclear relationship between principals and the politicalleadership in municipalities, a relationship which is marked by distrust. Principals and teachershave a heavy workload which seems to have increased in recent years. Turnover amongst principalsis high and the main reasons cited are lack of resources and lack of trust. Ongoing reforms atnational and municipality level, and the lack of support to implement such initiatives, havenegatively effected teachers. Respondents at all levels ‘observed that there has been a markedcultural shift in the school system, from belief in the professional competence and expertise ofeducators and a high degree of social trust in their judgements, to one of distrust, increasingbureaucratisation of decisions, and uncertainty about expectations under which educators aresupposed to operate’ (OECD 2015, p. 114).

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

Induction and continuing professional development: a brief review

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

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

Another ‘environmental difficulty’, as Gordon and Maxey (2000) describe it, is that beginningteachers go through what is known as ‘reality shock’. According to Veenman, ‘reality shock’ is ‘thecollapse of the missionary ideals formed during teacher training by the harsh and rude reality ofclassroom life’ (1984, p. 143). A review of the literature conducted by Wideen et al. (1998) on thefirst years of teaching pointed to a common theme of incongruity between pre-service and thefirst year of teaching. This is caused by the beginning teacher’s realisation about the world ofteaching and her lack of preparation for many of the demands and difficulties that teaching brings

2 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

with it. The discrepancy between the beginning teacher’s vision of teaching and the real world ofteaching can cause serious disillusionment (Braga 1972, Kagan 1992, Cameron 1994). Corcoran(1981) found that ‘transition shock’ can lead to a state of paralysis that renders teachers unable totransfer to the classroom the skills they learned during the initial teacher education phase. Therealisation that their vision of a creative, dynamic and autonomous professional may be in conflictwith the harsh realities of prescribed curricula and textbooks, poor working conditions and lack ofmaterials may be a daunting experience which could even lead to job dissatisfaction, stress(Newberry and Allsop 2017, Harmsen et al. 2018) or even burn out (Fernet et al. 2016).

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

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

During my first year, I continually felt like my successes were few andmy failures were many. I’m thankful thatno experienced teacher ever criticised or harangued me when I fell on my face; instead my colleagues listenedto me vent, made me laugh, and offered tried-and-true suggestions for the future.

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

The continuing professional development of teachers

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

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

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

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

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

Although for many years we have understood that PD takes place within a community oflearning, educational reforms are often dictated by national or regional agencies that tend todownplay the importance behind empowerment, motivation and involvement of school leadersand teachers. Many educational reform processes in various countries have adopted a technicistview to development, one that assumed that change can be delivered in a ‘linear’ way from the

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 3

‘centre’ to teachers to implement in their classrooms. As a result, professional development hassupported the model of teacher-as-technician, one associated with the delivery concept of educa-tional reform. This sees the teacher as positioned as the uncritical implementer of policies emanat-ing from ‘above’. This model projects an image of a teacher who has limited to no role or say ininfluencing their practice. Dadds (1997) argues that such a delivery model is ‘dangerous’ (p.32); itignores the processes that teachers undergo as they learn about their professional craft, as they gainnew knowledge and understanding, review and reconstruct their attitudes, beliefs and practices asthey engage and struggle with the demands of the curriculum and the change processes.

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

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

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

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

Methodology

Research methods

In this article we draw on the data from an internet-based survey conducted during the autumn of2017. The respondents were recruited from four municipalities and consisted of teachers frompreschools (1–5 year old children), primary schools (6–12), secondary schools (13–15), and highschools, including vocational schools (16–18). Unqualified teachers (11.2%) were included in thestudy. As can be seen from Table 1 the majority of respondents are female (80%); the overall

4 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

Table1.

Dem

ograph

icprofileof

theparticipants.

Allrespo

ndents

Upto

5yearsof

experience

Morethan

5yearsof

experience

Frequency

(N)

Percentage

(%)

Frequency

(N)

Percentage

(%)

Frequency

(N)

Percentage

(%)

Difference

depend

ingon

teaching

experience

Age

−29

149

7.9

143

36.3

60.4

χ2(df=

4)=761.48,p

<.0001

30-39

421

22.4

165

41.9

256

17.2

40-49

611

32.4

5313.5

558

37.5

50-59

503

26.7

307.6

473

31.7

60+

200

10.6

30.8

197

13.2

Gender

Female

1480

80300

76.5

1180

80.4

χ2(df=

2)=3.18,p

=n.s.

Male

379

2092

23.5

287

19.6

Other

1.04

00

10.1

Sector

Preschool(0–5)

358

1978

19.9

280

18.8

χ2(df=

2)=1.17,p

=n.s.

Primary(6–9)&

Middlescho

ol(10–12)

892

47.4

192

48.8

700

47Secondary(13–15)and

HighSchool(16–18)

632

33.6

123

31.3

509

34.2

Teaching

experience

Firstyear

623.3

6215.7

-1-2years

116

6.2

116

29.4

-3-5years

216

11.5

216

54.8

-6-10

years

306

16.2

--

306

20.5

11-15years

330

17.5

--

330

22.2

16-20years

314

16.7

--

314

21.1

20years+

540

28.7

--

540

36.2

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 5

majority are between the ages of 40–49 (32.4%); 79% have more than 6 years experience, out ofwhich 37.5% are within the 40–49 age bracket.

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

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

Procedure

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

The survey

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

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

6 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

Findings

The introduction of this section contains a presentation of the perceived effect of previous profes-sional development. Two questions looked into the perceived positive impact that formal andinformal forms of professional development (PD) had on respondents. As can be seen from Table 3the main forms of formal PD identified by the majority of respondents were ‘University courses’(68.5%), those ‘provided by the National Board of Education’ (56.9%), ‘web-based learning’(49.4%), ‘study visits’ (42%) and ‘collaborative learning’ (40.7%). When one looks across the agegroups one notes a number of interesting findings. What stands out is that those with more than5 years experience identify a significant impact on forms of PD that reinforce and promotecollaborative practices, namely ‘school-based sessions’, ‘collaborative learning’ and ‘network meet-ings’. This resonates with findings of other studies (e.g. Bieler 2012, Girvan et al. 2016) that promotesuch initiatives. This may mean that overall teachers prefer engaging in collaborative school-basedendeavours in spite of contexts that do not promote them.

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

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

Impact of previous PD sessions by content area

Through the question that explored the perceived positive impact that courses focusing onparticular content had had on the respondents one notes from Table 5 that these were related to‘pedagogical content knowledge’, ‘subject-content knowledge’, and ‘special education.’Whilst thosewith more than five years experience note that courses that focused on ‘pedagogical contentknowledge’, ‘subject-content knowledge’, and ‘special education’ were identified as leavinga positive impact on their PD, those with up to five years experience identified ‘subject-contentknowledge’, ‘planning, teaching and reflecting’, and ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ as thosehaving had a significant impact. As can be seen from Table 4 there are practically no significantdifferences between the age cohorts except for one item – ‘technology enhanced learning’ – with the

Table 2. Reasons for not responding to the questionnaire.

Reasons given by teachers Number (%)

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

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 7

Table3.

Perceivedpo

sitiveimpactof

previous

form

alPD

onteachers’develop

ment(in

descending

order).

Allrespo

ndents

Upto

5years

ofexperience

Morethan

5years

ofexperience

Participated

(N)

Highlevelof

impact(%

)Highlevelof

impact(%

)Highlevelof

impact(%

)Difference

depend

ingon

teaching

experience

Form

sof

PDUniversity

runcourses

438

68.5

72.4

67.9

χ2(df=

1)=19.47,p<.0001

Sessions

provided

byNBE

a485

56.9

47.5

58.8

χ2(df=

1)=9.82,p

<.01

Web-based

learning

395

49.4

49.2

49.4

χ2(df=

1)=10.31,p<.01

Stud

yvisits

797

42.8

47.5

42.0

χ2(df=

1)=24.76,p<.0001

Collabo

rativeLearning

787

40.7

30.1

42.6

χ2(df=

1)=27.78,p<.0001

Mentorin

g250

39.6

41.1

39.0

χ2(df=

1)=10.24,p<.01

Planning

meetin

gs1164

38.2

40.5

37.7

χ2(df=

1)=11.21,p<.001

Scho

ol-based

sessions

890

32.8

29.2

33.4

χ2(df=

1)=31.76,p<.0001

Networkmeetin

gs678

32.7

24.1

34.4

χ2(df=

1)=20.24,p<.0001

Sessions

provided

bymun

icipality

1093

22.1

18.5

22.8

χ2(df=

1)=51.33,p<.0001

a.NationalB

oard

ofEducation.

8 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

Table4.

Perceivedpo

sitiveimpactof

previous

inform

alPD

onteachers’develop

ment(in

descending

order).

Allrespo

ndents

Upto

5years

ofexperience

Morethan

5years

ofexperience

Participated

(N)

Highlevelof

impact(%

)Highlevelo

fimpact(%

)Highlevelof

impact(%

)Difference

depend

ingon

teaching

experience

Form

sof

PDInform

aldiscussion

s1674

61.2

63.2

60.7

χ2(df=

1)=27.03,p<.0001

Readingresearch

stud

iesa

1346

41.2

33.2

42.9

χ2(df=

1)=44.68,p<.0001

Peer

observation

742

35.6

44.7

33.4

χ2(df=

1)=1.14,p

=n.s.

Use

ofsocialmediab

928

35.2

36.3

34.9

χ2(df=

1)=.70,p=n.s.

Readingprofession

aljournalsc

1273

30.7

24.4

31.9

χ2(df=

1)=29.85,p<.0001

Web

pages(sharin

gof

lesson

plans)

943

17.4

19.3

16.9

χ2(df=

1)=.23,p=n.s.

a.Dissertation,peer

review

edpapersetc.

b.Facebo

okgrou

ps,twitter

etc.

c.Educationalm

agazines,b

logs

etc.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 9

Table5.

Perceivedpo

sitiveimpactof

previous

PDsessions

onteachers’develop

ment(in

descending

order).

Allrespo

ndents

Upto

5yearsof

experience

Morethan

5yearsof

experience

Participated

(N)

Highlevelofimpact

(%)

Highlevelo

fimpact(%

)Highlevelo

fimpact(%

)Difference

depend

ingon

teaching

experience

Pedago

gicalcon

tent

know

ledg

e378

60.3

48.6

63.0

χ2(df=

1)=.12,p=n.s.

Subjectcontentknow

ledg

e184

55.4

52.4

55.8

χ2(df=

1)=3.31,p

=n.s.

Specialedu

catio

n617

50.4

46.2

51.2

χ2(df=

1)=.49,p=n.s.

Planning

,teachingandreflectio

n676

47.9

50.0

47.4

χ2(df=

1)=.10,p=n.s.

Readingandwritingskills

548

46.5

37.9

48.3

χ2(df=

1)=.51,p=n.s.

Vocatio

naledu

catio

n245

42.9

46.3

42.2

χ2(df=

1)=.02,p=n.s.

Form

ativeassessment

694

41.9

40.7

42.1

χ2(df=

1)=1.42,p

=n.s.

Handlingbehaviou

rconcerns

552

40.4

42.7

40.0

χ2(df=

1)=.09,p=n.s.

Classroom

managem

ent

444

40.1

41.1

39.8

χ2(df=

1)=1.82,p

=n.s.

Syllabi

andsubjectplanning

619

39.9

35.1

40.8

χ2(df=

1)=4.80,p

<.01

Assessmentandgrading

829

39.3

37.7

39.6

χ2(df=

1)=.82,p=n.s.

Conflictresolutio

n376

38.3

41.9

37.4

χ2(df=

1)=.63,p=n.s.

Techno

logy

enhanced

learning

688

37.5

28.4

39.2

χ2(df=

1)=23.10,p<.0001

Theperformingarts

247

36.4

41.5

35.4

χ2(df=

1)=.04,p=n.s.

Teaching

migrant

children

386

36.3

44.1

34.6

χ2(df=

1)=1.28,p

=n.s.

Inclusionandequity

issues

688

36.1

24.6

34.9

χ2(df=

1)=.56,p=n.s.

Criticalthinking

284

34.2

37.8

33.5

χ2(df=

1)=.94,p=n.s.

Evaluatio

nof

competenciesachieved

bystud

ents

574

33.3

28.4

34.1

χ2(df=

1)=.00,p=n.s.

Discrimination

432

33.1

41.9

31.6

χ2(df=

1)=.94,p=n.s.

Bullyingandharassment

293

32.4

26.7

33.5

χ2(df=

1)=.04,p=n.s.

Addressing

theneedsof

gifted

children

498

32.1

33.8

31.9

χ2(df=

1)=.00,p=n.s.

Diversity

(e.g.LGBTQ)

446

27.6

24.6

28.1

χ2(df=

1)=.04,p=n.s.

*p<0,05,**p=<0,01,***

p=<0,001.Theresults

presentedinthistablerepresentstheprofession

aldevelopm

entneedsidentifi

edof

major

impo

rtance

totherespon

dents(highlevelofn

eed).

10 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

more experienced teachers noting a significant perceived impact on their development. This isencouraging news as it shows that more experienced teachers recognising the importance behindthe use of technology in the teaching and learning process.

Current PD needs by content areas

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

PD needs by years of experience

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

Engaging in PD sessions: current and preferred format

Another question explored in this study and presented in this article aimed at comparingthe ways that teachers currently follow PD sessions and the preferred format and so acrossyears of experience. Table 8 shows that the majority of teachers (46.7%) respect the existingformat which sees groups of teachers coming together and attending various in-servicecourses. At the same time, a significant percentage (40%) follow courses ‘individually’. Onenotes that whilst respondents with more than 5 years experience have no clear preferencewith 45% following courses individually and another 48% opting to take part as a group.This is in stark contrast to the younger ones with 40% opting to take part as a groupcompared to only 21% following courses individually. When one then compares the findingswith the preferred format one notes that both cohorts in their majority (av. 65%) prefertaking part as a group rather than following courses individually (33.7%). One appreciatesthat this is still significantly high and tends to reflect previous responses which shows thatteachers are not quite exposed to collaborative practices in schools and still rely on the one-off, off-site forms of PD. The older and more experienced teachers have, up to now,preferred participating individually in PD sessions as against the younger and less experi-enced that prefer working in groups. However, given a choice the majority of teacherswould opt for collaborative approaches. In a context where teachers feel disengaged,disempowered and distrusted (OECD 2015) this could be a significant finding and

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 11

highlights to school leaders, those involved in running PD course in the municipalities anduniversities to start considering new forms of PD – ones that encourage greater levels ofparticipation within different settings (Selter et al. 2015). Various empirical studies haveshown that PD that manages to stimulate teacher co-operation can lead to improvement inteaching and learning (Hiebert and Morris 2012).

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

No need Low level of need Moderate level of need High level of need

VariableFrequency

(N)Percentage

(%)Frequency

(N)Percentage

(%)Frequency

(N)Percentage

(%)Frequency

(N)Percentage

(%)

Special education 81 5.1 315 19.7 651 40.6 556 34.7Technology-enhancedlearning

94 5.8 331 20.5 655 40.6 533 33.1

Teaching migrantchildren

145 9.4 374 24.2 548 35.4 481 31.1

Handlingbehaviourconcerns

92 5.8 377 23.9 637 40.3 474 30.0

Subject contentknowledge

341 31.8 170 15.8 261 24.3 302 28.1

Pedagogicalcontentknowledge

333 30.4 196 17.9 284 25.9 283 25.8

Addressing theneeds of giftedchildren

115 7.4 355 23.0 693 44.9 382 24.7

Conflictresolution

134 8.8 441 28.8 640 41.8 317 20.7

Vocationaleducation

266 18.1 472 32.2 452 30.8 278 18.9

Assessment andgrading

279 17.9 422 27.1 592 38.1 262 16.9

Evaluation ofcompetenciesachieved bystudents

210 14.3 495 33.8 550 37.5 211 14.4

Planning,teaching andreflection

161 10.6 531 34.8 617 40.5 215 14.1

Formativeassessment

260 17.1 446 29.3 606 39.7 213 14.0

Classroommanagement

271 17.9 552 36.4 488 32.2 204 13.5

Reading andwriting skills

261 17.4 499 33.3 545 36.3 195 13.0

The performingarts

266 18.0 567 38.3 471 31.8 176 11.9

Diversity (e.g.LGBTQ)

195 13.2 577 39.0 535 36.2 172 11.6

Syllabi andsubjectplanning

311 20.5 563 37.1 482 31.8 161 10.6

Bullying andharassment

173 11.7 626 42.2 529 35.7 154 10.4

Inclusion andequity issues

157 10.5 608 40.5 595 39.6 141 9.4

Critical thinking 190 12.9 588 39.8 563 38.1 138 9.3Discrimination1 232 15.8 692 47.2 464 31.7 78 5.3

Teachers could choose more than one alternative. They could choose all alternatives they found relevant.aProfessional development regarding how teachers can work in accordance with legislation, which states that it is prohibited todiscriminate based on sex, gender identity, ethnicity, religion or other beliefs, disability, sexual orientation or age.

12 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

Table7.

PerceivedPD

needsby

yearsof

experience(in

descending

order,by

totalp

ercentage).

Allrespo

ndents

Upto

5yearsof

experience

Morethan

5yearsof

experience

Frequencyansw

ered

(N)

Highlevelofn

eed

(%)

Highlevelofn

eed(%

)Highlevelofn

eed(%

)Difference

depend

ingon

teaching

experience

Specialedu

catio

n1603

34.7

32.5

35.3

χ2(df=

1)=.82,p=n.s.

Techno

logy

enhanced

learning

1613

33.1

33.7

32.9

χ2(df=

1)=.10,p=n.s.

Teaching

migrant

children

1548

31.1

32.5

30.7

χ2(df=

1)=.49,p=n.s.

HandlingBehaviou

rCo

ncerns

1580

30.0

27.4

30.7

χ2(df=

1)=1.42,p

=n.s.

Subjectcontentknow

ledg

e1074

28.1

29.8

27.7

χ2(df=

1)=.56,p=n.s.

Pedago

gicalcon

tent

know

ledg

e1096

25.8

30.5

24.5

χ2(df=

1)=4.80,p

<.01

Addressing

theneedsof

gifted

children

1545

24.7

34.7

22.0

χ2(df=

1)=23.10,p<.0001

Conflictresolutio

n1532

20.7

22.1

20.3

χ2(df=

1)=.51,p=n.s.

Vocatio

naledu

catio

n1468

18.9

18.1

19.3

χ2(df=

1)=.12,p=n.s.

Assessmentandgrading

1555

16.9

16.1

17.1

χ2(df=

1)=.09,p=n.s.

Evaluatio

nof

competenciesachieved

bystud

ents

1466

14.4

14.2

14.4

χ2(df=

1)=.00,p=n.s.

Planning

,teachingandreflectio

n1524

14.1

13.9

14.2

χ2(df=

1)=.00,p=n.s.

Form

ativeassessment

1525

14.0

11.5

14.6

χ2(df=

1)=1.82,p

=n.s.

Classroom

managem

ent

1515

13.5

14.6

13.2

χ2(df=

1)=.63,p=n.s.

Readingandwritingskills

1500

13.0

14.7

12.6

χ2(df=

1)=.94,p=n.s.

Theperformingarts

1480

11.9

9.9

12.4

χ2(df=

1)=1.28,p

=n.s.

Diversity

(e.g.LGBTQ)

1479

11.6

11.3

11.7

χ2(df=

1)=.04,p=n.s.

Syllabi

andsubjectplanning

1517

10.6

10.2

10.7

χ2(df=

1)=.02,p=n.s.

Bullyingandharassment

1482

10.4

13.1

9.7

χ2(df=

1)=3.31,p

=n.s.

Inclusionandequity

issues

1501

9.4

10.6

9.1

χ2(df=

1)=.94,p=n.s.

Criticalthinking

1479

9.3

9.0

9.4

χ2(df=

1)=.04,p=n.s.

Discrimination

1466

5.3

5.5

5.3

χ2(df=

1)=.04,p=n.s.

*p<0,05,**p=<0,01,***

p=<0,001.Theresults

presentedinthistablerepresentstheprofession

aldevelopm

entneedsidentifi

edof

major

impo

rtance

totherespon

dents(highlevelofn

eed).

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 13

Table8.

Engaging

inPD

sessions:current

andpreferredform

at.

Allrespo

ndents

Upto

5yearsof

experience

Morethan

5yearsof

experience

Frequency

(N)

Percentage

(%)

Percentage

(%)

Percentage

(%)

Difference

depend

ingon

teaching

experience

Inwhatw

aysdo

youcurrently

followPD

sessions

Individu

ally

740

40.2

21.5

45.3

χ2(df=

2)=284.44,p

<.0001

Aspartof

agrou

p858

46.7

40.4

48.3

Haveno

ttakenpartin

PDsessions

241

13.1

38.1

6.4

Preferredform

atof

PDsessions

Individu

ally

615

33.7

31.7

34.3

χ2(df=

2)=7.51,p

=.02

Aspartof

agrou

p1187

65.2

66.0

64.9

Dono

twantto

take

partin

PDsessions

201.1

2.3

.8

14 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

Discussion

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

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

TheOECD(2015) report cited in the Introductionhighlighted that the political and cultural context inwhich school leaders and teachers areworking in is onewhere the levels of job satisfaction andmotivationare low. The report went on to highlight the need for enhanced co-ordination and collaboration betweenteacher education institutions, municipalities and schools so that continuous professional developmentbetter met the learning needs of teachers. This project aimed to start addressing these concerns byundertaking a survey amongst teachers to get a better understanding of teachers’ experiences ofprofessional development. We argue that such feedback will help the different stakeholders involved tostart addressing the level of negativity currently being experienced and strengthen the bond between thepartners and develop a collaborative model for addressing professional learning.

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

Other approaches will need to be introduced as this partnership is strengthened.This study has shown that the majority of respondents have identified university courses and

courses run by the municipality as the two most effective forms of PD. This was followed closely bythe more informal ones that sees teachers holding discussions with their colleagues. These responsesshow that teachers are still exposed and used to the more traditional forms of learning which tend,in the main, to be external to the school. An interesting and hopeful finding shows moreexperienced teachers identifying collaborative and collegial forms of learning as having an impacton their development. This could imply that such forms of learning need to be strengthened.

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

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

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

The one main area where experienced teachers felt less need than beginning teachers was dealingwith gifted children, although this area was still identified as important and one in which theyrequired support. This could be an interesting area for development. Whilst our discussions on aninclusive education tend to be focused on providing children with learning difficulties the oppor-tunities to be educated in mainstream classes we have tended to ignore students with talent, who aregifted but are ignored by the system. Such a recognition shows teachers who are concerend about

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 15

the present state of affairs and highlights a window of opportunity to develop an area not onlythrough the research work that can be generated by the pedagogical impact it can have on theteaching and learning of such students.

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Ambler, T.B., 2016. The day-to-day work of primary school teachers: a source of professional learning. Professionaldevelopment in education, 42 (2), 276–289. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.998343

16 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA

Baker, E., 2014. Exploring meanings of professional development. Unpublished dissertation. University of Missouri.Beattie, M., 2000. Narratives of professional learning: becoming a teacher and learning to teach. Journal of educa-

tional enquiry, 1 (2), 1–23.Begley, P.T. (2010). Leading with moral purpose: the place of ethics. In: T. Busch, L. Bell, & D. Middlewood

(Eds.). The principles of educational leadership and management (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Bezzina, C., Bezzina, N.R., and Stanyer, R., 2004. Exploring beginning teachers’ perceptions of their preparation and

professional development in Malta. Mediterranean journal of educational studies, 9 (2), 39–70.Bieler, D., 2012. What new teachers want from colleagues. Educational Leadership, 69 (8), 46–49.Borman, G.D. and Dowling, N.M., 2008. Teacher attrition and retention: a metaanalytic and narrative review of the

research. Review of educational research, 78 (3), 367–409. doi:10.3102/0034654308321455Braga, J.L., 1972. Teacher role perception. Journal of teacher education, 23 (1), 53–57. doi:10.1177/

002248717202300112Bushman, J., 2006. Teachers as walk-through partners. Educational leadership, 63 (6), 58–61.Cameron, I.M.R., 1994. Beginner’s tale. Education in Rural Australia, 4 (2), 15–21.Corcoran, E., 1981. Transition shock: the beginning teacher’s paradox. Journal of teacher education, 32 (3), 19–23.

doi:10.1177/002248718103200304Dadds, M., 1997. Continuing professional development: nurturing the expert within. British journal of in-service

education, 23 (1), 31–38. doi:10.1080/13674589700200007Day, C., 1999. Developing teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer.Day, C. and Sammons, P., 2016. Successful school leadership. Berkshire: Education Development Trust.Desimone, L.M., 2009. Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptuali-

zations and measures. Educational researcher, 38 (3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140Drakenberg, M., 2001. The professional development of teachers in Sweden. European Journal of Teacher Education,

24 (2), 195–204. doi:10.1080/02619760120095589Earley, P. and Bubb, S., 2004. Leading and managing continuing professional development: developing people,

developing schools. Vol. A. London: Paul Chapman.European Commission, 2010. Developing coherent and system-wide induction programmes for beginning teachers:

a handbook for policymakers. Brussels: European Commission.Featherstone, H., 1993. Learning from the first years of classroom teaching: the journey in, the journey out. Teachers

college record, 95 (1), 93–112.Feiman-Nemser, S., 2003. What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 25–29.Fernet, C., et al., 2016. Committed, inspiring, and healthy teachers: how do school environment and motivational

factors facilitate optimal functioning at career start? Teaching and teacher education, 59, 481–491. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.019

Fisher, P., et al., 1999. The importance of relationships in teacher education. Journal of education for teaching, 25 (2),135–149. doi:10.1080/02607479919600

Flint, A.S., Zisook, K., and Fisher, T.R., 2011. Not a one-shot deal: generative professional development amongexperienced teachers. Teaching and teacher education: an international journal of research and studies, 27 (8),1163–1169. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.009

Fry, S.W., 2007. Firs-year teachers and induction support: ups, downs, and in-betweens. The qualitative report, 12 (1),216–237.

Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of organizational behavior,26 (4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.v26:4

Garet, M.S., et al., 2010. Middle school mathematics professional development impac study: Findings after thefirst year of implementation (NCEE Publication No. 2010-4009). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Gilbert, L., 2005. What helps beginning teachers? Educational leadership, 62 (8), 36–39.Girvan, C., Conneely, C., and Tangney, B., 2016. Extending experiential learning in teacher professional

development. Teaching and teacher education, 58, 129–139. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.009Goodwin, B., 2012. New teachers face three common challenges. Educational leadership, 69 (8), 84–85.Gordon, S.P., 2004. Professional development for school improvement. Boston: Pearson.Gordon, S.P. and Maxey, S., 2000. How to help beginning teachers succeed. 2nded. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Guskey, T.R., 2014. Planning Professional Learning. Educational Leadership, 71 (8), 11–16.Hargreaves, A. and O’Connor, M.T., 2017. Collaborative Professionalism. Research Report. World Innovation

Summit for Education, Qatar Foundation.Hargreaves, E. and And Elhawary, D., 2019. Professional development through mutually respectful relationship:

senior teachers’ learning against the backdrop of hierarchical relationships. Professional development in education,45 (1), 46–58. doi:10.1080/19415257.2018.1500390

Harmsen, R., et al., 2018. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice. IEEE transactions on visualization andcomputer graphics, 24 (6), 626–643. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744019

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION 17

Hiebert, J. and Morris, A.K., 2012. Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction.Journal of teacher education, 63 (2), 92–102. doi:10.1177/0022487111428328

Kagan, D.M., 1992. Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of educational research, 62(2), 129–169. doi:10.3102/00346543062002129

Kessels, C.C., 2010. The influence of induction programs on beginning teachers’ well-being and professional develop-ment (Doctoral dissertation). Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and the Dutch InteruniversityCenter for Educational Research. Leiden University.

Lindgren, U., 2005. Experiences of beginning teachers in a school-based mentoring program in Sweden. Educationalstudies, 31 (3), 251–263. doi:10.1080/03055690500236290

Lindqvist, P. and Nordӓnger, U.K., 2016. Already elsewhere – A study of (skilled) teachers’ choice to leave. Teachingand teacher education, 54, 88–97. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.010

Lindqvist, P., Nordӓnger, U.K., and Carlsson, R., 2014. Teacher attrition the first five years – A mutlifaceted image.Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.005

Mansfield, C. and Thompson, G., 2017. The value of collaborative rounds for teacher professional learning inAustralia. Professional development in education, 43 (4), 666–684. doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1216883

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D., and Pollock, J.E., 2001. Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies forincreasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McCann, T.M. and Johannessen, L.R., 2004. Why do new teachers cry? The clearing house: a journal of educationalstrategies, issues and ideas, 77 (4), 138–145. doi:10.3200/TCHS.77.4.138-145

McCormack, A., Gore, J., and Thomas, K., 2006. Early career teacher professional learning. Asia-Pacific journal ofteacher education, 34 (1), 95–113. doi:10.1080/13598660500480282

Melnick, S.A. and Meister, D.G., 2008. A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’ concerns. Educationalresearch quarterly, 31 (3), 40–56.

Newberry, M. and Allsop, Y., 2017. Teacher attrition in the USA: the relational elements in a Utah case study.Teachers and Teaching, 23, 863–880. doi:10.1080/13540602.2017.1358705

Nie, Y., et al., 2015. The importance of autonomy support and the mediating role of work motivation for well-being:testing self-determination theory in a chinese work organisation. International Journal of Psychology, 50 (4),245–255. doi:10.1002/ijop.12110

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2011. Teachers matter: attracting, developingand retaining effective teachers: pointers for policy development. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2015. Improving schools in Sweden: an OECDPerspective. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/improving-schools-in-sweden-an-oecd-perspective.htm

Oliva, P.F. and Pawlas, G.E., 1997. Supervision for today’s schools. 5thed. New York, NY: Longman.Osmond-Johnson, P., Campbell, C., and Faubert, B., 2019. Supporting professional learning: the work of Canadian

teachers’ organizations. Professional development in education, 45 (1), 17–32. doi:10.1080/19415257.2018.1486877Parker, L.S., 1990. A prototypic human resource model. In: P. Burke., R. Heideman, and C. Heideman, eds.

Programming for Staff Development: fanning the flame. London, UK: Falmer Press, 87–116.Reeves, D.B., 2008. Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.Schernpp, P., et al., 1998. Differences in novice and competent teachers’ knowledge. teachers and teaching. Theory

and Practice. The journal of international study association on teachers and teaching, 4 (1), 2–18.Selter, C., et al., 2015. Variations of in-service training for primary mathematics teachers: an empirical study. ZDM

mathematics education, 47, 65–77. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0639-2Shank, M.J., 2005. Common space, common time, common work. Educational Leadership, 62 (8), 16–19.Sparks, D. and Loucks-Horsley, S., 1989. Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of staff development,

10 (4), 40–57.Spencer, P., et al., 2018. The professional development needs of early career teachers and the extent to which they are

met: a survey of teachers in England. Professional development in education, 44 (1), 33–46. doi:10.1080/19415257.2017.1299028

Stevenson, H., 2019. Editorial: professional learning –what is the point? Professional development in education, 45 (1),1–2. doi:10.1080/19415257.2019.1549306

Veenman, S., 1984. Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of educational research, 54 (2), 143–178.doi:10.3102/00346543054002143

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., and Moon, B., 1998. A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: making thecase for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of educational research, 68, 130–178. doi:10.3102/00346543068002130

18 M. KARLBERG AND C. BEZZINA