online professional development thesis pdf

A useful framework for teacher professional development for online and blended learning to use as guidance in times of crisis

• Published: 28 January 2021
• Volume 69 , pages 7–9, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Gloria Natividad Beltrán del Río 1  

2736 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Teacher professional development (TPD) started getting attention around 30 years ago. Thomas Guskey in his book “Evaluating Professional Development” ( 2000 ) stated that in the history of education, the professional development of educators had increasingly gained greater importance. Learning professionals all around the world have agreed that in order to provide meaningful learning opportunities for students, meaningful learning opportunities need to be offered also for teachers (Nel 2017 ; Siko and Hess 2014 ; Thoma et al. 2017 ).

Bartalo ( 2012 ) claimed that the key to providing better learning opportunities for students is by taking what we know through research and putting it into practice. One of the main goals of this Special Issue is indeed to offer the community of researchers, designers and practitioners best practices and quick solutions to address the immediate teaching and learning needs, based on several high-quality research and development papers published in ETR&D; and to provide practical information aimed at helping educators better prepare for the future of education.

In “Improving Teacher Professional Development for Online and Blended Learning: A Systematic Meta-Aggregative Review”, Philipsen et al. ( 2019 ) provide a framework for teacher professional development (PD) for online and blended learning (OBL). Philipsen et al.’s framework, which resulted from the analysis of 15 research papers published between 2004 and 2015, introduced six interrelated components: (1) Design and develop a supportive TPD program and environment for OBL; (2) Acknowledge the existing context regarding OBL; (3) Address teacher change associated with the transition to OBL; (4) Determine the overall goals and relevance of teacher PD for OBL; (5) Acknowledge teacher PD strategies associated with the transition to OBL; and (6) Disseminate knowledge, skills and attitudes about OBL and evaluate the teacher PD.

Several scholars were interested in responding to Philipsen et al.’s systematic meta-aggregative review ( 2019 ). These respondents agreed that Philipsen et al.’s paper offers several valuable ideas and guidelines for reflection on how to develop TPD for OBL in times of crisis, and covered the perspectives of practice, design, international, research, adoption and diffusion of innovation, critical pedagogy, and practice K-12; as summarized in the following table:

These seven responses to Philipsen et al.’s study provide practical information for Educational Professionals by connecting published research to the current global crisis of rapidly moving face-to-face teaching and learning to online delivery, which was the purpose of this special issue.

Bartalo, D. B. (2012). Closing the teaching gap: Coaching for instructional leaders . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Google Scholar  

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Nel, L. (2017). Students as collaborators in creating meaningful learning experiences in technology-enhanced classrooms: An engaged scholarship approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12549 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., ParejaRoblin, N., et al. (2019). Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67, 1145–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8 .

Siko, J. P., & Hess, A. N. (2014). Win-win professional development: Providing meaningful professional development while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. TechTrends, 58, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0809-7 .

Thoma, J., Johnson, D., Johnson, K., & Stromer, E. (2017). Planning for technology integration in a professional learning community. The Reading Teacher, 71 (2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1604 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tecnológico Nacional de México. Instituto Tecnológico de Saltillo, Blvd. Venustiano Carranza, Colonia Universidad, 25280, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Gloria Natividad Beltrán del Río

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gloria Natividad Beltrán del Río .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Natividad Beltrán del Río, G. A useful framework for teacher professional development for online and blended learning to use as guidance in times of crisis. Education Tech Research Dev 69 , 7–9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09953-y

Download citation

Published : 28 January 2021

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09953-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Downloadable Content

Design and construction of an online professional development class

• Masters Thesis
• Sawyer, Cheryl Christine
• Foley, Brian
• Herr, Norman
• Rivas, Michael G.
• Secondary Education
• California State University, Northridge
• Dissertations, Academic -- CSUN -- Education.
• 2016-02-22T23:02:36Z
• http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/162495
• by Cheryl Christine Sawyer
• California State University, Northridge. Department of Education.
• Includes bibliographical references (leaves 60-61)

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, lifelong learning processes in professional development for online teachers during the covid era.

• 1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
• 2 Talpiot College of Education, Holon, Israel
• 3 Jerusalem College of Education, Jerusalem, Israel
• 4 Orot Israel College of Education, Rehovot, Israel
• 5 Management Information Systems, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States

Introduction: Lifelong learning encompasses four pillars: (1) learning to know; (2) learning to do; (3) learning to be; and (4) learning to live together. These four pillars, which are expanded upon within the current study provide a lens to examine relationships between professional development, use of technology for remote online teaching, and pedagogical efficacy in the age of COVID-19.

Methods: The study examined survey responses from 372 primary school subjects representing six different districts, and interviews with 16 teachers. The responses were analyzed using correlation and MANOVA statistical tests.

Results: Teachers’ professional development processes were found to have a positive impact on the teachers’ pedagogical efficacy, by means of positive perceptions toward the use of technology for remote online teaching. Learning foci predicted the use of technology, and the use of technology predicted learning assessment measurements.

Discussion: The study’s findings reinforce the need for professional development processes based on systematic identification of pedagogical needs that arise in the field, their analysis and the understanding of the added value of pedagogical tools that can support enhanced implementation of teaching - learning - evaluation. The study’s findings point to epistemological elements related to the types of acquired knowledge and to learning methods, which make it possible to differentiate between various processes in teachers’ professional development as well as processes in the use of innovative pedagogical technology.

1. Introduction

The Covid pandemic has motivated numerous changes. For example, students and teachers transitioned to online learning from their homes ( Mittal et al., 2021 ) causing anxiety, concerns about instructional quality, and educators’ teaching success ( Engzell et al., 2021 ; Paliwal and Singh, 2021 ). To mitigate issues, teachers participated in professional development processes aimed to develop pedagogical practices using technology ( Bragg et al., 2021 ). These online professional development processes, similar to traditional learning ones, require effective approaches ( Ross, 2011 ). Recommended approaches have been characterized in past research and may include online classes, workshops, resource material, video presentations, podcasts, wikis, blogs, and various downloadable artifacts. Venues may be synchronous, asynchronous, or blended, and may include social media components ( Roth et al., 2011 ). Often these venues provide interactive discussion forums or capabilities to review solutions to previously address teaching issues ( Prestridge, 2019 ). For purposes of this research, we adopt the Sancar et al. (2021) framework and definitional view of professional development and agree that professional development is difficult to define due to its multidimensional structure and its changes across a teacher’s professional life. Further, it must be “attentive to assessment, research scale, duration, comprehensiveness, dissemination, context, support and control, and collaboration” ( Sancar et al., 2021 ). We agree with Ragan et al. (2012) that the transition from face-to-face to online classrooms requires thoughtful adaptation of a wide variety of skills and competencies ( Ragan et al., 2012 ). Since professional development can take many forms and requires special considerations for online teachers, particularly those that may not have taught this way previously, additional research is required ( Ragan et al., 2012 ; Leary et al., 2020 ).

As such, the main goals for our study were to enhance pedagogical output ( Brunetti and Marston, 2018 ; Ran and Josefberg Ben-Yehoshua, 2020 ), explore Professional Development Practice (PDP), and understand how training helps achieve better outcomes using technology ( Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021 ). Another approach to integrating technology into teaching is called learning by Design (LDL). LDL promotes collaboration and peer learning while helping teachers effectively integrate technology into the teaching process ( Yeh et al., 2021 ). Yeh et al. (2021) offer a framework that leverages the reciprocal knowledge exchanged between individual teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and collaboratively developed knowledge. This approach, in context of designing technology-enhanced instruction, provides teachers with methods to acquire knowledge from colleagues in different teaching areas. This perspective of learning ties into earlier theory that posits attitudes toward technology impact user acceptance and the effectiveness of implementation ( Davis, 1989 ; Kao et al., 2020 ). Therefore, our study’s research question becomes: To what degree does a teacher’s professional development process influence pedagogical efficacy via formulating positive outlooks of remote teaching technologies. The following Background sections describe details relevant to this question.

2. Literature review

Many studies on the integration of technology into education help researchers understand the importance of interconnections between technological knowledge and the teachers’ professional knowledge. These studies help move the research focus from the technology tool (what to use – computer, tablet, etc.) to how the tool contributes to the teaching and learning process, and how it can be utilized ( Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021 ). Various approaches have emerged in order to increase the likelihood that teachers will integrate technology into the teaching process. We examine different approaches from perspectives that can be organized into clusters. Table 1 provides an overview of theoretical elements covered in the following sections broken into three clusters: pedagogical input, technological mediating, and output each of which is further decomposed for this study.

Table 1 . Research clusters.

2.1. Professional development

Teachers must be highly professional, up-to-date on changes and innovations, and desirous of developing and advancing at both personal and professional levels ( Arinaitwe, 2021 ). Over time, traditional professional development processes in the form of one-time, face-to-face workshops, have revealed limitations which have become more significant in light of Covid-19’s impact ( Tang, 2021 ). To be in step with innovations, education must develop reforms ( Pichardo et al., 2021 ). Theory-based reforms require significant contextualization to change education in significant, sustained ways. Deep changes in implementation and comprehension of reforms are required to maintain pedagogical practice that responds to changes ( McLaughlin and Mitra, 2001 ; Kim, 2019 ). Professional development approaches have emerged to address these requirements. Various researchers have suggested approaches for professional development and conducted research to better understand effectiveness. For example, are professional development programs better suited focusing on subject matter or pedagogy ( Scher and O’Reilly, 2009 )? What are features in effective programs ( Bray-Clark and Bates, 2003 )? How should professional development be offered ( Gumbo, 2020 )?

Teachers’ professional development is not acquired only during their academic training; it begins before and continues throughout a career. Ongoing learning, which the literature refers to as Lifelong Learning (LLL), includes the ability to adjust to new and changing situations and enables the transition from theory to practice ( Alt and Raichel, 2020 ). The current study focuses on this area of professional development for teachers.

2.2. Lifelong learning and teachers’ training

While no consensual definition for LLL exists, the literature offers many commonalities to help describe this area of study. Among these are a near-universal belief that LLL is key to remaining effective and relevant through the course of a career and that LLL is essential to personal development. For purposes of the current study, we draw on several synergistic definitions which support Delors et al. (1996) research depicting four pillars which form a solid basis for LLL ( El Mawas and Muntean, 2018 ; Smith, 2018 ).

According to Longworth and Davies (2014 , p. 22), “lifelong learning is the development of human potential through a continuously supportive process which stimulates and empowers individuals to acquire all the knowledge, values, skills and understanding they will require throughout their lifetimes and apply them with confidence, creativity, and enjoyment in all roles, circumstances, and environment.” LLL is ongoing learning throughout a teacher’s lifetime ( Berkhout et al., 2018 ). As knowledge is acquired, ideas, skills, talents, education and knowledge develop ( Ran and Josefberg Ben-Yehoshua, 2020 ). In pedagogical training programs, teachers learn how to transmit the importance of LLL to their students, accumulating knowledge, and learning on their own ( Sunthonkanokpong and Murphy, 2019 ). People faithful to the process succeed in organizing and controlling their learning needs ( Erdogan and Ayanoglu, 2021 ).

LLL encompasses four pillars: (1) Learning to know . Acquisition of theoretical knowledge and expertise in learning tools ( Brown, 2018 ). Relates to ability to obtain new and diverse information, comprehend this knowledge and adjust accordingly. (2) Learning to do . Procedural knowledge where teachers acquire and process information and then implement it using various practices or strategies that must be stable and dynamic ( Hunter, 2013 ). (3) Learning to be . Relates to teachers’ need to be free of prejudice/shallow thinking and be open to different cultures, religions, ethnic groups and political positions. This is rooted in psychological-social concepts and social–emotional learning ( Soland et al., 2019 ). (4) Learning to live together . Teachers must continually engage in self-discovery, examining harmony or disharmony between their personal and social lives. Acquired skills devoted to learning are shaped by teachers in ways such as self-directed and peer learning, and community-based participatory research ( Admiraal et al., 2021 ).

The LLL model’s pillars represent principles of thinking: the “what.” In order to translate conceptual principles into practice, teachers use a range of pedagogical methods for continuous professional learning ( Brunetti and Marston, 2018 ) and represent the “how.”

2.3. Continuing professional development for online teaching

Continuous professional development (CPD) encourages in-service teachers to share knowledge, experience, resources, and effective teaching practices with peers ( O’Toole, 2019 ). Solutions for applying professional development to teachers’ training in remote learning ( Ministry of Education, 2020 ), based on a map of assessment measures ( RAMA, 2018 ), include the following six pedagogical methodologies related to the LLL pillars.

2.3.1. Data-driven instruction

Educational Data Mining (EDM) studies data patterns emerging from pedagogical environments’ databases ( Romero and Ventura, 2020 ). This approach focuses on technological challenges in education and seeks patterns to develop new models that aid teaching and learning processes ( Margaliot and Gorev, 2020 ; Romero and Ventura, 2020 ). The popularity of EDM has grown since the outbreak of COVID-19, due in part to increased uses of online learning, instrumental auxiliary programs, and the Internet for learning ( UNESCO, 2020 ; Mukuka et al., 2021 ). New systems facilitate interaction between teachers, students and educational data or provide enhanced access to administrative data ( Romero and Ventura, 2020 ). In the practical application of “learning to know,” teachers acquire theoretical knowledge in order to use technological tools appropriately. According to Seufert et al. (2021) , they must determine the best context for each technology. In applying the “learning to do” pillar, the teacher translates knowledge into practice ( Ndukwe and Daniel, 2020 ). The application of “learning to live together” in data-driven instruction can promote a professional learning community ( Thornton and Cherrington, 2019 ).

2.3.2. Empathy-based pedagogy

Lyu et al. (2021) defined empathy as an ability to understand the circumstances and point of view of the other, in imagination and in reality. The lack of empathy can increase aggressiveness, bullying, and failure to connect emotionally ( Soliman et al., 2021 ). In the sphere of education, empathy helps achieving cooperation and a sense of belonging in the classroom, engaging the students’ inner motivation to learn ( Soliman et al., 2021 ). Building a meaningful empathy-based relationship places the student in the center. Empathy is related to attachment theory ( Bowlby, 2012 ), which is defined as behavior that preserves or achieves closeness with a person that allows him to better deal with the world ( Swan, 2021 ). The translation of empathy-based methodology into perceptual ideas in the context of LLL includes the acquisition of theoretical knowledge – “learning to know” – by exploring students’ differentness in order to estimate how they deal with disturbances or challenges that confront them ( Wink et al., 2021 ). The pillars “learning to do,” “learning to be” and “learning to live together” ideally are translated by teachers into empathetic behavior and environmental emotional intelligence ( Wink et al., 2021 ).

2.3.3. Experiential learning

Experiential learning is a constructive process that explains how knowledge is acquired and proposes that the learner create meaning from experiences ( Kolb, 2015 ; Watson et al., 2019 ). The teacher must recognize that every student may has a particular path and pace over the learning cycle ( Gittings et al., 2020 ). The shared idea is to learn through action ( Fromm et al., 2021 ), which dovetails with the LLL pillar “learning to do” and application of procedural knowledge. Students who were active during in the learning process succeeded in expressing themselves, more enjoying during the learning and felt a sense of group belonging ( Elyakim et al., 2019 ), strengthening the pillars of “learning to be” and “learning to live together.”

2.3.4. Differentiated learning

Differentness in the classroom is manifested in differences in language, culture and/or ethnic features. One of the most significant challenges that teachers face today is the need to reduce academic gaps between different students ( Flanagan et al., 2020 ). Vantieghem et al. (2020) defined differential instruction as a framework of teaching that aims to address individual learning needs and maximize students’ learning opportunities. The implementation of differentiated learning within the context LLL assumes students are different and require different learning and teaching practices ( Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020 ; Pozas et al., 2020 ). These concepts support “learning to know” and “learning to live together,” while “learning to do” can be implemented into different types of educational practices adopted by teachers in order to addressing their unique needs ( Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020 ).

2.3.5. SRL – Self regulated learning method

SRL often occurs beyond formal school boundaries. The means of learning to learn must be an important goal of educational systems ( Kadioglu-Akbulut and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, 2021 ). This practice demonstrates the LLL pillar “learning to know.” Another important aspect of continuing learning, “learning to do,” is demonstrated by the flipped classroom ( Tsai et al., 2020 ) which changes traditional educational focus into one where students are introduced to subject matter at home and practice it using high order thinking skills at school. “Learning to be” can be translated in this context into the teacher’s ability for self-evaluation, leading him to develop a sense of autonomous professional competence and aid in making pedagogical decisions such as how to teach ( Wilson-Daily et al., 2021 ). Teachers apply the “learning to live together” pillar via continuous learning by means of participation in professional communities which encourage their autonomous learning process ( Ran and Josefberg Ben-Yehoshua, 2020 ).

2.3.6. Assessment of learning method

Modern learning methods encourage students to achieve learning at their own pace ( Pang, 2020 ). Past studies show formative assessment can reduce the gap between the student’s current progress and aspirational processes ( Brooks et al., 2021 ). Until recently, this was the norm in traditional education and the idea behind “learning to know” in the LLL paradigm. By understanding the learning habits and outcomes for a student, the teacher can reach conclusions about which learning processes were the most successful ( Yan and Brown, 2021 ) and this applies to the “learning to do” pillar. In contrast to the traditional type of assessment, which focused on psychometric achievements, this type of assessment is based on the daily learning process that occurs in the classroom. In the practical application of “learning to be,” teachers and students can use information provided by assessment in order to synchronize learning and teaching and thus promote students’ success ( Wu et al., 2021 ).

2.4. Technological mediating cluster – UTAUT model

As demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the transition to online learning demands the use of various digitals tools and platforms ( Nikolopoulou et al., 2021 ). Various theoretical models attempt to explain the use of technology-based systems. Among these are the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which examines factors that influence technology use ( Venkatesh et al., 2003 ) and is operationalized using the UTAUT model.

The UTAUT model, developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003) is based on four theoretical components: which influence the behavioral intention of the user and the degree/extent of use behavior ( Dwivedi et al., 2020 ; Mittal et al., 2021 ). These are: (1) Performance expectancy : The extent the user perceives technology as effective ( Yan and Brown, 2021 ) and relates to the mental/intellectual perception of the user in which the use of technology can help, in the current study, the teacher achieves better performance, through the use of remote teaching technologies ( Hu et al., 2020 ; Shah et al., 2021 ). (2) Effort expectancy : The ease that the use of technological tools are perceived as lending to the learning process ( Alghazi et al., 2021 ). Effort expectancy is considered to be a significant factor in predicting the intention of the user to adopt a technology in the learning or teaching process, because it helps the user estimate the amount of effort he will have to invest in using a particular technology ( Kim and Lee, 2020 ). (3) Social influence : How the user perceives the way other appreciated people in his social network think about his use of technology ( Yuan et al., 2021 ). Xu et al. (2021) found social influence is one of the central factors in behavioral intention, and with the mediating variable of peer communication has a synergetic impact on teachers’ intention to use technology. (4) Facilitating conditions : The extent to which the user believes that suitable organizational and technical infrastructures exist that can support the teacher during use of the technological system ( Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). Kim and Lee (2020) measured the predictor of factors seen as helpful from the point of view of the teachers. When teachers believed that they had access to the necessary resources and training, technical support and a suitable infrastructure, there was a higher likelihood that they would adopt/use the technology ( Bauwens et al., 2020 ).

These four components influence teachers’ behavioral intention to use and integrate technology in their teaching ( Wiziack and Dos Santos, 2021 ) which refers to the extent to which the teacher will express intention to use technology ( van der Spoel et al., 2020 ) and the extent of the actual adoption of the behavior which refers to the actual use of technological aids for teaching purposes ( Nikolopoulou et al., 2021 ).

2.5. Output cluster – Teachers’ performance assessment

Assessment processes play an important role in the pedagogical world, bringing a comprehensive viewpoint learning progress ( Saeed et al., 2018 ). Assessment processes are important at the interpersonal level of teacher-student, and at the systemic-organizational level. In order to set a standard of quality for educators, the Israeli Ministry of Education’s National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation (RAMA) developed an assessment map, and built a training program with 4 dimensions ( RAMA, 2018 ). These are teachers’ commitment to the students and school, expertise in content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, teaching and education management, and teacher as learner.

2.5.1. Teachers’ commitment to the students and school

This dimension considers the relationship that the teacher builds and supports with students’ achievements ( RAMA, 2018 ). This is the foundation of the emotional and professional wellbeing of the teacher, influenced by students’ behavior. Building a positive, stable relationship becomes a major goal of teachers ( Aldrup et al., 2018 ). From a systemic viewpoint, the teacher is a key player in the school environment and the factor with most influence on the students’ scholastic level, academic development and emotional wellbeing ( Hawthorne et al., 2019 ). The second aspect of this dimension is the teacher’s ability to respond to variance among learners in the classroom. This differentness is also manifested in ethno-cultural and socio-economic and other characteristics of identity in the classroom. This impacts the quality of teaching and presents teachers with an ongoing challenge to develop learning methods suited to students’ needs ( Ashraf et al., 2021 ). The ability to provide advanced education and support for all students is a significant challenge that can be resolved through collaboration and joint work ( Griffiths et al., 2021 ). The third aspect of this dimension is the extent of the teachers’ partnership with external or internal stakeholders. For example, strengthening and improving the relationship and cooperation between teachers and parents can be essential to s student’s personal and academic progress ( Myende and Nhlumayo, 2022 ). Collaboration between schools can contribute to teachers’ professional development ( Wong and Dillon, 2020 ) as can collaboration among classmates ( Veldman et al., 2020 ).

2.5.2. Expertise in content knowledge, technology, and pedagogical content knowledge

Assessment in expertise in CK and PCK refers to the acquisition and development of knowledge and thought processes. Development and increased use of technology in education led to a growing need among teachers for technological knowledge (TK). This knowledge ties in with skills and capabilities, the how and for what purposes ( Sundqvist, 2020 ).

The biggest challenge for teachers was to change their teaching approach in order to meet the demands and needs of the current generation of students, who use multiple technological tools ( McHaney, 2011 ). Teaching millennials demands that the teachers know how to use technology ( Prasojo et al., 2020 ). The quick transition to online learning due to the COVID-19 outbreak caused significant pressure within teachers’ work. The transition was not only about transferring the instructional content to an online format; teachers also had to navigate new technological systems ( Allen et al., 2020 ).

The TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model concerns the integration of content, pedagogical and technological knowledge ( Mishra and Koehler, 2006 ). This model reflects the dynamic integration of these three areas of knowledge (content, pedagogy, and technology) and their importance in effective integration and mediation of technology in the teaching and learning processes ( Schmid et al., 2020 ; Yeh et al., 2021 ).

The second content-related aspect of assessment relates to development of emotional and social skills. This helps determine which knowledge is acquired from various sources. According to Toker Gökçe (2021) , teachers do more than transmitting specific knowledge and teaching skills required for a particular profession; rather, they must advance, lead forward, raise and enhance students’ ability to develop ideas and aptitudes that will enable them to explore the world independently. Teachers with psycho-pedagogical knowledge can use it to understand their students and build interpersonal relationships, thus empowering them ( Blândul and Bradea, 2017 ).

The third aspect of assessment in this component connects the previous ones to the moral aspect of education. This can generate positive change in students and pass on social norms and values of the environment ( Butera et al., 2020 ).

2.5.3. Teaching and education management

The first aspect of the teaching and education management dimension of assessment combines technological and frontal learning environments to deal with increases in available technologies. Integrating learning environments are connected to comprehensive cognitive processing, higher learning reception, better self-examination ability, and satisfaction from the learning process ( Müller and Wulf, 2021 ). A varied but stable environment can be developed when teachers organize the learning process to provide clarity about teaching content and expected learning sequence. The second aspect in teaching education management is clarity that aims to ensure the learning process is goal-oriented, mediated by the teacher, related to the subject and correctly scaled ( Ainley and Carstens, 2018 ; Wiens et al., 2022 ). Clarity includes paying attention to the classroom climate ( Corwin Smart Brief, 2017 ; Li et al., 2021 ).

The third and last aspect of education management dimension is performance of assessment and feedback in order to advance the learning and teaching process ( Brown et al., 2021 ). Assessment can serve as an educational tool, thanks to the learner’s active participation in the learning process.

2.5.4. Teacher as a learner

The teacher as a learner assessment dimension reconnects to the professional development cluster. According to the LLL pillar “learning to know,” offers teachers as agents of change to acquire, complete or expand their knowledge and skills, for the sake of successfully promoting their teaching ( Sailer et al., 2021 ; Seufert et al., 2021 ) with the goal of personal or professional advancement ( Garzón-Artacho et al., 2021 ). The first aspect notes the importance of learning and professional development throughout a teacher’s career. According to Özdemir (2020) and Özdemir et al. (2021) , more time invested by teachers in their professional development results in significant changes in the quality of their teaching. In other words, the teacher, like the student, is in a constant learning process. The second aspect of teacher as learner is learning by self-action research. In their study, Sailer et al. (2021) examined teachers’ self-assessment of teaching skills connected to technology. They found that teachers’ assessment of their learning methods helps them identify areas of excellence, progress, and improvement in the professional process that continues throughout their lives. The third aspect of teacher as learner relates to peer learning. Online professional development has gained momentum. This includes professional training courses that make remote collaborations among peers possible ( Dille and Røkenes, 2021 ). In addition to evaluating students’ performance, teachers use assessment for learning for self-feedback. Teachers can evaluate students’ learning processes to measure their teaching performance ( Zhang, 2020 ).

2.6. Background summary

Taken holistically, the three clusters, pedagogical input, technological mediating, and output, provide a framework to organize our study. The pedagogical input cluster comprises three elements: professional development, LLL and teachers’ training, and continuing professional development for online teaching elements. LLL in this cluster is composed of learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together. The continuing professional development element uses the RAMA (2018) map of tailored assessment measures for organization and considers data-driven instruction, empathy-based pedagogy, experiential learning, differentiated learning, SRL method, and assessment of learning method.

The second cluster, technological mediating measures, relies on the UTAUT model, and considers performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions for measurement. In the third and final cluster, called output, we examine teachers’ performance appraisal. Here we consider teachers’ commitment to the students and school; expertise in content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge; teaching and education management; and, teacher as learner. Together these elements provide a framework for our study.

3.1. Research question and hypothesis

The COVID-19 pandemic stimulated a need to expand pedagogical knowledge to include technology as well as professionalization in the teaching process ( van der Spoel et al., 2020 ). The unexpected transition to using more technological teaching tools caught many teachers unprepared ( van der Spoel et al., 2020 ). Some claimed remote teaching was not as effective as teaching in the classroom; however, it was important that students had continuity and the learning process continued uninterrupted ( Hebebci et al., 2020 ). Some claimed when teachers and students are not in the same physical environment, learning suffered. Further, some students may not have access to technological systems and some teachers may have difficulties operating the software ( Hebebci et al., 2020 ).

The current study illustrates the relationship between variables impacting pedagogical training aids used to achieve better teaching outcomes considering technology use by teachers. This study focuses on a hypothesis that examines direct and indirect influence, via the use of remote learning technology, on professional development considering the pedagogical outputs (teachers’ commitment to the students and school, expertise in content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, teaching and education management, and teacher as learner) defined by the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation ( RAMA, 2018 ).

As stated earlier, our research question is: To what degree does a teacher’s professional development process influence pedagogical efficacy via formulating positive outlooks of remote teaching technologies. This question integrated variables and created a research model as shown in Figure 1 . As shown, the integration essentially created three clusters: professional development which comprises structures, LLL, and methods; the UTAUT model to investigate the use of technology based on theoretical antecedents; and finally, assessment measures including commitment to students and schools, expertise in subject content and its teaching, management of teaching and education, and learning and professionalization throughout career.

Figure 1 . Research model.

The research question was operationalized as the following hypothesis: The teacher’s professional development processes will have a positive effect on the teacher’s pedagogical efficacy by forming a positive outlook on the use of remote teaching technologies.

3.2. Participants

The study included 372 participants from Hebrew-speaking schools’ communities in the state secular and religious school systems. These communities are ongoing in each of 6 districts in the country. The participants were selected randomly by the managers of each district. Participants were provided with an email inviting them to complete a questionnaire comprising questions related to the teacher learning center, remote learning technologies, and assessment measures. Sixteen randomly selected participants from this group also completed a qualitative interview. Average age of teachers in the sample was 46.14 (SD = 8.88); the youngest was 22 and the oldest, 64. Average seniority was 18.72 years (SD = 9.59) with a range from 1 to 35 years. Table 2 shows most were women (88.2%) and taught in state schools in regular education. About half study in online training courses at Pisga (teachers’ training centers) ( Pisga, 2022 ), about a third study in a professional teachers’ community, and the rest study independently.

Table 2 . Breakdown of the teachers.

Two one-way ANOVAs examined differences regarding age and seniority of respondents in different districts. No significant statistical differences were found regarding age, F (5,366) = 1.24, p  = 0.292, or seniority, F (5,366) = 1.07, p  = 0.377. Independent sample t-tests examined differences between men and women regarding age and seniority. No significant statistical differences were found in age, t (370 = 0.30, p  = 0.761, Cohen’s d  = 0.049, or seniority – t (370) = −0.82, p  = 0.416, Cohen’s d  = 0.131.

Differences between men and women in the breakdown of professional development were tested using the Chi-Square Test of Independence. No statistically significant difference was found, x 2 (2) = 1.61, p  = 0.447. Calculating the power analysis with G*Power in a regression analysis based on ƒ 2  = 0.15 (a medium effect power), Power = 0.95, alpha level a-priori significance level of 0.05 with 20 predictors, requires a sample of at least 222 participants. A MANOVA analysis, based on ƒ 2  = 0.0625, Power = 0.95, alpha level a-priori significance level of 0.05, with 6 groups and 6 dependent variables, requires a sample of at least 120 participants. Power was calculated on the most complicated planned analyses making a sample of 372 participants sufficient.

3.3. Procedure

The study was conducted in response to a call for a proposal on 23 November 2020, by the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education of Israel, to perform short-term studies on educational topics connected to the COVID-19 period. The teacher learning centers questionnaire used in the study was developed by the researchers, aided by educators with expertise in the field of professional development (e.g., directors of Pisga training centers and a district supervisor for professional development), in a series of meetings intended for consultation, for defining common learning methodologies in professional development during COVID-19, and for the precision of the questionnaire. This questionnaire comprised 24 statements that reference the interaction of the four pillars of learning of LLL using six different learning methodologies (data-driven instruction, empathy-based pedagogy, experiential learning, differentiated learning, SRL, assessment of learning method) defined and authorized by experts in the field of educator professional development ( RAMA, 2018 ). The questionnaire was composed of four factors that characterized teachers’ methods in the framework of professional development during the COVID-19 crisis: teacher alone; teacher and peers; teacher and students; and teacher and curriculum planning.

The study was approved by the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education of Israel. The questionnaire was distributed digitally by directors of Pisga centers throughout Israel, to all teachers meeting the study’s criteria (e.g., Hebrew-speaking primary school teachers). The questionnaire was distributed from May to August 2021.

3.3.1. Correlations between 4 assessment dimensions, technology use, and 4 learning foci

In order to test whether a link existed between the four assessment dimensions (RAMA) and technology use (UTAUT), and the four learning foci (LLL and four pillars), Pearson Correlations were conducted. All correlations were statistically significant.

3.3.2. Differences between districts

Influence of district on the 4 learning foci: in order to determine whether district made a difference with regard to the four learning foci, a one-way MANOVA was conducted. The dependent variables in the analysis were the four learning foci (teacher alone; teacher and peers; teacher and students; and teacher and curriculum planning), and the independent variable was district. No statistically significant differences were found between the districts in measuring the four learning foci, F (20,2,464) = 1.29, p  = 0.174, η 2  = 0.017.

In order to determine whether district affected positions regarding the use of technology for online teaching, a one-way MANOVA was conducted in the six districts. The dependent variables in the analysis were the seven positions regarding the use of technology for online teaching: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, facilitating conditions, intention to use, actual use, and actual daily use. The independent variable was the district. No statistically significant differences were found between the six districts in a simultaneous measuring of the seven positions, F (35,1815) = 1.36, p  = 0.080, η 2  = 0.025.

Similarly, no statistically significant differences were found between the six districts with regard to demographic variables. This indicates that the districts were not essentially different, and the sample was not biased by district. It can be assumed that there were no differences in the relationships between the variables in the various districts.

The tools used in this study comprise the questionnaire supplied to the participants. Among these are the teacher learning center questions, UTAUT questions focused on remote teaching technology use and behaviors, and the assessment measures questions. Each of these tools are described in more detail. We also describe the procedure followed with qualitative data acquisition in this section.

3.4.1. Teacher learning centers questions

The questionnaire contained 24 statements referring to interaction with the four pillars of LLL ( El Mawas and Muntean, 2018 ; Smith, 2018 ) using six different learning methodologies (e.g., data-driven instruction, empathy-based pedagogy, experiential learning, differentiated learning, SRL, assessment of learning method) defined and authorized by experts in professional development ( Ministry of Education, 2020 ). The questionnaire comprised 4 factors: learning foci that characterized teachers’ methods in the framework of professional development during the COVID-19 crisis: teacher alone; teacher and peers; teacher and students; and teacher and curriculum planning. Participants rated agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, to 5-strongly agree). Unrestricted factor analysis using varimax rotation of the questionnaire was conducted. The objective of the factor analysis was to identify factors that characterized learning methodologies. Results ( Table 3 ) show 4 factors that explain 73.17% of the variance.

Table 3 . Factor analysis and loadings of questionnaire on teachers’ learning methodologies and types of knowledge acquired.

3.4.2. Remote teaching technology (UTAUT) questions

The UTAUT questionnaire examined teachers’ perceptions regarding acceptance and use of technology for remote teaching and learning and was on research by Venkatesh et al. (2003) . The questionnaire included 27 statements divided into seven factors: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, intention to use, actual use, and actual daily use. Respondent rated agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree). A reinforcing factor analysis (varimax) was conducted, which limited the number of factors to six (two concerning actual use and daily use were merged). Likewise, two items were removed due to the lack of suitability for the environments examined. The factor analysis identified factors that should make up the questionnaire and explored the positions vis-à-vis remote online teaching technology. The results of the factor analysis ( Table 3 ) show 6 factors that explained 78.47% of the variance.

3.4.3. Assessment measures questions

The questionnaire included 12 statements divided into 4 factors: commitment to students and school; expertise in content and content instruction; instruction and education management; and career-long learning and professionalization ( RAMA, 2018 ). Respondents rated each question, using a Likert scale, considering the extent to which professional development contributed to improvement of personal professional capabilities during the COVID-19 (1–not at all to 6–very much). A varimax reinforcing factor analysis was performed, limiting the factors to 4. The objective was to identify assessment dimensions. Results of the factor analysis ( Table 4 ) show a division into 4 factors that explain 80.90% of the variance.

Table 4 . Analysis of factors and loadings of assessment questionnaire.

3.4.4. Analysis of qualitative data

Sixteen semi-structured interviews also were conducted with teachers that participated in a professional development process during COVID-19. The analysis process was qualitatively-interpreted, where each analysis unit represented a statement with one meaning. In total, 200 statements representing meaningful units were analyzed. Content analysis was performed in two stages: the first, top-down, was done in accordance with Venkatesh et al. (2003) regarding user acceptance of technology. The second, bottom-up stage, used an inductive, constructivist process to test features from each category. In addition, during the inductive analytical process, new, simple categories formed that did not appear in the research literature ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ) and touched on measures of teachers’ professional development quality. The researchers also used the etic approach ( Morris et al., 1999 ) for terminology and category simplicity to verify responses to report recipients. Reliability was achieved by using rich descriptions and direct quotes of the interviewees. Research process transparency was achieved by recording and transcribing the interviews. Finally, the selection process was performed simultaneously by two expert researchers, giving validity to the matching statements to appropriate categories ( Shkedi, 2003 ). The analysis used GoogleDocs’ highlighting feature.

The research hypothesis examined relationships between variables in the study. The model based on the hypothesis included the four learning assessment measures as dependent variables and the four learning foci and professional development items as predictor variables. Between them was the remote online teaching technology items, which mediate the array of relationships between the predictor variables and the dependent variables. The hypothesis was tested using two path analyses. The first analysis included all the variables in the study and related to the measure of remote online teaching technology as one general measure. The second analysis focused on measures of remote online teaching technology. This analysis examined the UTAUT model, which posits that four parameters – performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, and facilitating conditions – predict the intention to use the technology, while the intention predicts the actual use.

4.1. General model

A path analysis tested whether the learning foci predicted learning assessment measures through the use of remote teaching technology. The analysis included the four learning assessment measures, the general measure of remote online teaching technology usage, the four learning foci, and two professional development variables. The model that appears in Figure 2 shows high correlation values, suggesting a good data-model fit. All four learning assessment measures are predicted by the learning focus “teacher alone” as was the use of remote online teaching technology. The assessment measure “career-long learning and professionalization” was also predicted by the learning foci: the teacher and his peers, and the teacher and the student. Similarly, the variable, autonomous learning, predicted the three learning assessment measures: expertise in content and content instruction; instruction and education management; and career-long learning and professionalization. In addition, use of remote online teaching technology was predicted by the three learning foci: the teacher and his peers; the teacher and the student; and the teacher and the learning plan. Finally, the use of remote online teaching technology mediated the link between the learning foci – the teacher and his peers; the teacher and students; and the teacher and the learning plan – and the four learning assessment measures. Finally, higher values of the learning foci “the teacher and his peers” and “the teacher and the learning plan,” predicted higher values in the use of remote online teaching technology, and the use of remote online teaching technology as well as higher values for the four learning assessment measures. See Figure 2 .

Figure 2 . Model correlation values.

4.2. UTAUT model

The research model developed for this study included use of remote online teaching technology as a general measure. Path analysis examined relationships between performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, facilitating conditions, use intent and actual use as well as the relationship between intent and actual use related to preparing pedagogical tasks and teaching students. High correlation values indicated good data-model fit ( Figure 3 ). Three variables, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions, predicted intent to use teaching technologies. Intent predicted actual use. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions predicted actual use of teaching technologies.

Figure 3 . Data model fit.

The research hypothesis was verified. Learning assessment measures were predicted by technology use, while technology use was predicted by learning foci. Similarly, technology use mediated the relationship between the three learning foci: teacher and peers, teacher and students, and teacher and curriculum planning, and the four learning assessment measures. Likewise, the focus “teacher alone” predicted the four learning assessment measures, whereas the foci “teacher and peers” and “teacher and students” predicted the assessment measure “career-long learning and professionalization.” Furthermore, within the components of the use of remote online teaching technology, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions predict intent, and intent predicts actual use. Similarly, intent mediates the relationship between performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions, and actual use. All suggest that pedagogical efficacy is influenced by professional development via a positive outlook on the use of remote online teaching technology.

4.3. Qualitative outcomes

The objective of the interviews was to determine how teachers perceive various learning methodologies used in professional development during COVID-19. In addition, their attitude toward different factors related to online learning technologies used during this period was examined. The analysis process was qualitative-interpretive, where an analysis unit was a statement with one meaning. In total, the study analyzed 150 statements constituting meaningful units, which reflected teachers’ attitudes toward professional development and the use of remote online teaching technology ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 4 . Teachers’ attitudes toward the process of professional development.

Examples of statements provided by study participants included (translated from Hebrew): “Technology comes to serve pedagogy and not the other way around”; “Technology enables closer communication - allows the teacher to continue communicating with his students in the academic and social–emotional aspects and also allows the learner to continue learning and to be in contact with his teachers and friends”; and “We connected [technology] to the world of the children’s content, and it was very beautiful.”

5. Discussion

The study examined the relationship between professional development, remote online teaching technology, and pedagogical efficacy. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the educational system, particularly teachers, to move to online learning in order to maintain educational and academic continuity ( Wong and Moorhouse, 2020 ). Teachers’ professional development programs were also impacted by the pandemic and online learning offered an effective solution ( Van Nuland et al., 2020 ). This necessitated a pedagogical reform to make technology accessible to teachers. Theory-based change explains how to develop reforms. This requires understanding the need and most appropriate solution to structure a suitable, practical reform ( McLaughlin and Mitra, 2001 ). In this study, new measurements of learning principles were constructed based on research and analysis of changes needed during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the model of technology use processes.

The significant innovation of this study is the combination of pedagogical outputs, which are expressed in the four pillars of LLL ( Alt and Raichel, 2020 ) as methodologies of practice, according to RAMA’s map of dimensions ( RAMA, 2018 ). Together, they affect teachers’ technology use processes and create four learning foci. These include: (1) Teacher alone. Here, the teacher develops and becomes more professional in his field of knowledge. (2) Teacher and peers which focuses on peer learning that derives from the “learning to live together” pillar. (3) Teacher and students. Student-centred teaching that includes empathetic learning and differentiated teaching. (4) Teacher and curriculum planning which focuses on data-driven instruction methodologies. The teachers study existing needs and translate these into pedagogical practice to improve the learning process.

The research hypothesis was verified, creating a general model that shows how learning foci and professional development frameworks affect pedagogical output processes via use of online learning technology as was shown in Figure 3 . These findings validated that the four measures of learning assessment, according to the RAMA map of assessment measures ( RAMA, 2018 ), were dependent variables. The predictor variables were the four learning foci, and professional development. Use of technology processes mediated the predictor variables. Findings showed a direct relationship between teachers’ perception of advanced training as being positive and experience using technology as effective. Professional development formed a significant basis for increasing teacher’s ability to face challenges, or to expand pedagogical goals into new areas ( Davey and Egan, 2021 ). Figure 4 summarized these outcomes.

Teachers’ training programs were designed for the current situation, with the aim of developing educational practices to help teachers teach more effectively ( Ran and Josefberg Ben-Yehoshua, 2020 ). The qualitative analysis results in this study demonstrated the majority of teachers perceived technology as an educational tool that advanced the students and helped upgrade the learning process. Similarly, many study participants expressed the desire to continue using technological tools even after the full-return to the classroom. This finding is reinforced in the research literature ( van der Spoel et al., 2020 ). Table 5 summarizes the central research findings. Perusal of the table reveals that learning foci and professional development predict technology use and learning assessment, such that different learning foci predict measures of technology use and learning assessment.

Table 5 . Summary of predictors for the learning assessment measures in path analysis.

6. Conclusion

Despite the unexpected urgency required to integrate technology into the pedagogical arena in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak, many teachers found technological tools to be a good answer to the challenges that confronted them in the transition to remote learning. In the present study, the results of the statistical and qualitative analysis show that, indeed, teachers in the Israeli educational system experienced a mostly positive effect from the integration of technological tools into the learning process and reported that they would continue to use these tools after the return to the classroom. Use of technology for remote learning, with the appropriate professional development processes, produced improved pedagogical results.

The successful integration experience and the process of effective use of technology are products of various and diverse information resources, mainly those that allow teachers to learn autonomously as well as with peers. For teachers, information resources are the perceptual basis for using technology and can become the foundation for personal and professional advancement. Additionally, the use of technology is perceived by teachers as effective mainly when they experience high performance expectancy and low effort expectancy. In other words, our study indicates that the less complicated the technology and the greater the pedagogical benefits – for the teacher and, even more importantly, for the students – the more the teachers tended to perceive the integration as successful. Various sources of knowledge have a significant impact on technology use processes among Israeli teachers.

6.1. Limitations and research directions

This study had several limitations. Among these were that the study took place within a single nation during the pandemic. This could mean generalizability issues may exist. The study is also subject to all limitations inherent to self-report surveys, although the qualitative portion of the study may help mitigate this to some extent. Another potential limitation relates to the rapid changes taking place in educational technology. The pace of change may impact our findings.

Future research directions may include broadening the sample and testing in additional nations’ educational systems. Other interesting studies could include examining differences in educational institutions (e.g., higher education, adult education, and primary school differences). Obtaining students’ perspectives on teachers’ LLL could also be interesting.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due government restrictions. Please contact the corresponding author for more information and requests. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [email protected] .

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ministry of Education. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

The design of the research was done by NE and IR. NE, IR, and RM realized the review of the literature, analysis of the review of the literature and writing of the manuscript, and the additional research of literature. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was funded by the Israeli Ministry of Education. We wish to gratefully acknowledge this invited research support because the funding made our study possible. The authors also wish to thank Kansas State University’s College of Business Administration and the Daniel D. Burke Family for providing funding for the publication of this research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., De Jong, L., Emmelot, Y., and Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as professional learning communities: what can schools do to support professional development of their teachers? Prof. Dev. Educ. 47, 684–698. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2019.1665573

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ainley, J., and Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework . Washington: OECD Educa.

Google Scholar

Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., and Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learn. Instr. 58, 126–136. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.006

Alghazi, S. S., Kamsin, A., Almaiah, M. A., Wong, S. Y., and Shuib, L. (2021). For sustainable application of mobile learning: an extended UTAUT model to examine the effect of technical factors on the usage of mobile devices as a learning tool. Sustainability 13:1856. doi: 10.3390/su13041856

Allen, J., Rowan, L., and Singh, P. (2020). Teaching and teacher education in the time of COVID-19. Asia Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 48, 233–236. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2020.1752051

Alt, D., and Raichel, N. (2020). Problem-based learning, self-and peer assessment in higher education: towards advancing lifelong learning skills. Res. Pap. Educ. 37, 370–394. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2020.1849371

Arinaitwe, D. (2021). Practices and strategies for enhancing learning through collaboration between vocational teacher training institutions and workplaces. Empir. Res. Vocat. Educ. Train. 13, 1–22. doi: 10.1186/s40461-021-00117-z

Ashraf, M. A., Tsegay, S. M., and Meijia, Y. (2021). Blended learning for diverse classrooms: qualitative experimental study with in-service teachers. SAGE Open 11:215824402110306. doi: 10.1177/21582440211030623

Bauwens, R., Muylaert, J., Clarysse, E., Audenaert, M., and Decramer, A. (2020). Teachers’ acceptance and use of digital learning environments after hours: implications for work-life balance and the role of integration preference. Comput. Hum. Behav. 112:106479. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106479

Berkhout, J. J., Helmich, E., Teunissen, P. W., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., and Jaarsma, A. D. C. (2018). Context matters when striving to promote active and lifelong learning in medical education. Med. Educ. 52, 34–44. doi: 10.1111/medu.13463

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blândul, V. C., and Bradea, A. (2017). Developing psychopedagogical and methodical competences in special/inclusive education teachers. Prob. Educ. 75, 335–344. doi: 10.33225/pec/17.75.335

Bowlby, J. (2012). A Secure Base . London: Routledge.

Bragg, L., Walsh, C., and Heyeres, M. (2021). Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: a systematic review of the literature. Comput. Educ. 166:104158. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104158

Bray-Clark, N., and Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: implications for professional development. Prof. Educ. 26, 13–22.

Brooks, C., Burton, R., van der Kleij, F., Ablaza, C., Carroll, A., Hattie, J., et al. (2021). Teachers activating learners: the effects of a student-centred feedback approach on writing achievement. Teach. Teach. Educ. 105:103387. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103387

Brown, T. (2018). Lifelong learning: an organising principle for reform. Aust. J. Adult Learn. 58, 312–335.

Brown, T., Rongerude, J., Leonard, B., and Merrick, L. C. (2021). Best practices for online team-based learning: strengthening teams through formative peer evaluation. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2021, 53–64. doi: 10.1002/tl.20436

Brunetti, G. J., and Marston, S. H. (2018). A trajectory of teacher development in early and mid-career. Teach. Teach. 24, 874–892. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1490260

Butera, F., Batruch, A., Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., Pulfrey, C., and Autin, F. (2020). Teaching as social influence: empowering teachers to become agents of social change. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 15, 323–355. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12072

Corwin Smart Brief (2017). How to empower student learning with teacher clarity Available at: https://us.corwin.com/sites/default/files/corwin_whitepaper_teacherclarity_may2017_final.pdf (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Davey, N., and Egan, M. (2021). Sustained CPD as an effective approach in the delivery of the incredible years teacher classroom management programme. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 37, 169–186. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2021.1886910

Davies, W. K., and Longworth, N. (2014). Lifelong learning . Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008

Delors, J., Al Mufti, I., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., et al. (1996). Learning: the treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the international commission on education for the twenty-first century. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/%0Aimages/0010/001095/109590eo.pdf (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Dille, K. B., and Røkenes, F. M. (2021). Teachers’ professional development in formal online communities: a scoping review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 105:103431. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103431

Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Tamilmani, K., and Raman, R. (2020). A meta-analysis based modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (meta-UTAUT): a review of emerging literature. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 36, 13–18. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.008

El Mawas, N., and Muntean, C. (2018). Supporting lifelong learning through development of 21st century skills. in 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN) (IATED).

Elyakim, N., Reychav, I., Offir, B., and McHaney, R. (2019). Perceptions of transactional distance in blended learning using location-based mobile devices. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 57, 131–169. doi: 10.1177/0735633117746169

Engzell, P., Frey, A., and Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118:e2022376118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022376118

Erdogan, D. G., and Ayanoglu, Ç. (2021). The examination of relationship between lifelong learning trends of school administrators and teachers, and their innovative and entrepreneurial behavior levels. Int. J. Progress. Educ. 17, 331–351. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.332.21

Flanagan, A. M., Cormier, D. C., and Bulut, O. (2020). Achievement may be rooted in teacher expectations: examining the differential influences of ethnicity, years of teaching, and classroom behaviour. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 23, 1429–1448. doi: 10.1007/s11218-020-09590-y

Fromm, J., Radianti, J., Wehking, C., Stieglitz, S., Majchrzak, T. A., and vom Brocke, J. (2021). More than experience? On the unique opportunities of virtual reality to afford a holistic experiential learning cycle. Internet High. Educ. 50:100804. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100804

Garzón-Artacho, E., Sola-Martínez, T., Romero-Rodríguez, J. M., and Gómez-García, G. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of digital competence at the lifelong learning stage. Heliyon 7:e07513. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07513

Gittings, L., Taplin, R., and Kerr, R. (2020). Experiential learning activities in university accounting education: a systematic literature review. J. Account. Educ. 52:100680. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2020.100680

Griffiths, A.-J., Alsip, J., Hart, S. R., Round, R. L., and Brady, J. (2021). Together we can do so much: a systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools. Can. J. Sch. Psychol. 36, 59–85. doi: 10.1177/0829573520915368

Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Vantieghem, W., and Gheyssens, E. (2020). Exploring the interrelationship between universal design for learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction (DI): a systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 29:100306. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100306

Gumbo, M. T. (2020). Professional development of technology teachers: does their training meet their needs? Perspect. Educ. 38, 58–71. doi: 10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38i1.5

Hawthorne, B., Vella-Brodrick, D., and Hattie, J. (2019). Well-being as a cognitive load reducing agent: a review of the literature. Front. Educ. 4, 121–132. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00121

Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y., and Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci. 4, 267–282. doi: 10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.113

Hu, S., Laxman, K., and Lee, K. (2020). Exploring factors affecting academics’ adoption of emerging mobile technologies-an extended UTAUT perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 25, 4615–4635. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10171-x

Hunter, M. (2013). Skills, personal competencies and enterprise capabilities throughout the organization lifecycle. Psychosociol. Issues Hum. Resour. Manag. 1, 37–107.

Kadioglu-Akbulut, C., and Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2021). Implementation of self-regulatory instruction to promote students’ achievement and learning strategies in the high school chemistry classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 22, 12–29. doi: 10.1039/C9RP00297A

Kao, C.-P., Wu, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-Y., Chien, H.-M., and Mou, T.-Y. (2020). Understanding web-based professional development in education: the role of attitudes and self-efficacy in predicting teachers’ technology-teaching integration. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 29, 405–415. doi: 10.1007/s40299-019-00493-x

Kim, J. S. (2019). Making every study count: learning from replication failure to improve intervention research. Educ. Res. 48, 599–607. doi: 10.3102/0013189X19891428

Kim, J., and Lee, K. S.-S. (2020). Conceptual model to predict Filipino teachers’ adoption of ICT-based instruction in class: using the UTAUT model. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 42, 699–713. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2020.1776213

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . 2nd. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.

Leary, H., Dopp, C., Turley, C., Cheney, M., Simmons, Z., Graham, C. R., et al. (2020). Professional development for online teaching: a literature review. Online Learn. 24, 254–275. doi: 10.24059/olj.v24i4.2198

Li, C., Huang, J., and Li, B. (2021). The predictive effects of classroom environment and trait emotional intelligence on foreign language enjoyment and anxiety. System 96:102393. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102393

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lyu, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, B., Wang, Y., Jiang, M., Zhang, Q., et al. (2021). Teaching practice in the “empathy design thinking” course for elementary school students grounded in project-based learning. in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 544–555.

Margaliot, A., and Gorev, D. (2020). Once they’ve experienced it, will pre-service teachers be willing to apply online collaborative learning? Comput. Sch. 37, 217–233. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2020.1834821

McHaney, R. W. (2011). The new digital shoreline: How web 2.0 and millennials are revolutionizing higher education . Sterling, Virginia, USA: Stylus Publishing.

McLaughlin, M. W., and Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: going deeper, going broader. J. Educ. Chang. 2, 301–323. doi: 10.1023/A:1014616908334

Ministry of Education (2020). Remote Learning (512). Available at: https://apps.education.gov.il/htlzibur/FileOpener.aspx?file=512.pdf (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 108, 1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mittal, A., Mantri, A., Tandon, U., and Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). A unified perspective on the adoption of online teaching in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inf. Discov. Deliv. 50, 117–132. doi: 10.1108/IDD-09-2020-0114

Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., and Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24, 781–796. doi: 10.5465/amr.1999.2553253

Mukuka, A., Shumba, O., and Mulenga, H. M. (2021). Students’ experiences with remote learning during the COVID-19 school closure: implications for mathematics education. Heliyon 7:e07523. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07523

Müller, F. A., and Wulf, T. (2021). Blended learning environments that work: an evidence-based instructional design for the delivery of qualitative management modules. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 19:100530. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100530

Myende, P. E., and Nhlumayo, B. S. (2022). Enhancing parent--teacher collaboration in rural schools: parents’ voices and implications for schools. Int. J. Leadersh. 25, 490–514. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1731764

Ndukwe, I. G., and Daniel, B. K. (2020). Teaching analytics, value and tools for teacher data literacy: a systematic and tripartite approach. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17, 1–31. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00201-6

Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., and Lavidas, K. (2021). Habit, hedonic motivation, performance expectancy and technological pedagogical knowledge affect teachers’ intention to use mobile internet. Comput. Educ. Open 2:100041. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100041

O’Toole, C. (2019). “Virtual learning environment faculty continuing professional development-networked learning communities” A Critical Literature Review. Irish J. Tech. Enhanced Learn. 4, 48–67. doi: 10.22554/ijtel.v4i1.50

Özdemir, N. (2020). How to improve teachers’ instructional practices: the role of professional learning activities, classroom observation and leadership content knowledge in Turkey. J. Educ. Adm. 58, 585–603. doi: 10.1108/JEA-10-2019-0189

Özdemir, N., Gün, F., and Yirmibecs, A. (2021). Learning-centred leadership and student achievement: understanding the mediating effect of the teacher professional community and parental involvement. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. doi: 10.1177/17411432211034167

Paliwal, M., and Singh, A. (2021). Teacher readiness for online teaching-learning during COVID- 19 outbreak: a study of Indian institutions of higher education. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 18, 403–421. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-07-2020-0118

Pang, N. S.-K. (2020). Teachers’ reflective practices in implementing assessment for learning skills in classroom teaching. ECNU Rev. Educ. 5, 470–490. doi: 10.1177/2096531120936290

Pichardo, J. I., López-Medina, E. F., Mancha-Cáceres, O., González-Enr’iquez, I., Hernández-Melián, A., Blázquez-Rodriguez, M., et al. (2021). Students and teachers using mentimeter: technological innovation to face the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic in higher education. Educ. Sci. 11:667. doi: 10.3390/educsci11110667

Pisga (2022). Pisga Portal. Inst. in-service Teach. Prof. Dev. Available at: https://poh.education.gov.il/pituachmiktzoi/pages/merkazey_pisga.aspx (Accessed March 20, 2022).

Pozas, M., Letzel, V., and Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 20, 217–230. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12481

Prasojo, L. D., Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., and Yaakob, M. F. M. (2020). Domains of technological pedagogical and content knowledge: factor analysis of Indonesian in-service EFL teachers. Int. J. Instr. 13, 593–608. doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13437a

Prestridge, S. (2019). Categorising teachers’ use of social media for their professional learning: a self-generating professional learning paradigm. Comput. Educ. 129, 143–158. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.003

Ragan, L. C., Bigatel, P. M., Kennan, S. S., and Dillon, J. M. (2012). From research to practice: towards the development of an integrated and comprehensive faculty. J. Asynchron. Learn. Networks 16, 71–86. doi: 10.24059/olj.v16i5.305

RAMA (2018). Map of tailored assessment measurements for teachers. Available at: https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Rama/map_mmadim_2018.pdf (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Ran, E., and Josefberg Ben-Yehoshua, L. (2020). Lifelong learning . Tel Aviv: MOFET.

Romero, C., and Ventura, S. (2020). Educational data mining and learning analytics: an updated survey. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 10:e1355. doi: 10.1002/widm.1355

Ross, J. D. (2011). Online professional development: Design, deliver, succeed! . Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., and Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: effective science PD for teacher and student learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 117–148. doi: 10.1002/tea.20408

Saeed, M., Tahir, H., and Latif, I. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of classroom assessment techniques in elementary and secondary schools. Bull. Educ. Res. 40, 115–130.

Sailer, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., and Fischer, F. (2021). Contextual facilitators for learning activities involving technology in higher education: the C♭-model. Comput. Human Behav. 121:106794. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106794

Sancar, R., Atal, D., and Deryakulu, D. (2021). A new framework for teachers’ professional development. Teach. Teach. Educ. 101:103305. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103305

Scher, L., and O’Reilly, F. (2009). Professional development for K--12 math and science teachers: what do we really know? J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2, 209–249. doi: 10.1080/19345740802641527

Schmid, M., Brianza, E., and Petko, D. (2020). Developing a short assessment instrument for technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK. Xs) and comparing the factor structure of an integrative and a transformative model. Comput. Educ. 157:103967. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103967

Seufert, S., Guggemos, J., and Sailer, M. (2021). Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre-and in-service teachers: the current situation and emerging trends. Comput. Human Behav. 115:106552. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552

Shah, S. N. A., Khan, A. U., Khan, B. U., Khan, T., and Xuehe, Z. (2021). Framework for teachers’ acceptance of information and communication technology in Pakistan: application of the extended UTAUT model. J. Public Aff. 21:e2090. doi: 10.1002/pa.2090

Shkedi, A. (2003). Words of meaning: Qualitative research, theory and practice . Tel Aviv: Ramot.

Smith, P. (2018). Learning to know, be, do, and live together with in the cross-cultural experiences of immigrant teacher educators. Teach. Teach. Educ. 69, 263–274. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.10.018

Soland, J., Zamarro, G., Cheng, A., and Hitt, C. (2019). Identifying naturally occurring direct assessments of social-emotional competencies: the promise and limitations of survey and assessment disengagement metadata. Educ. Res. 48, 466–478. doi: 10.3102/0013189X19861

Soliman, D., Frydenberg, E., Liang, R., and Deans, J. (2021). Enhancing empathy in preschoolers: a comparison of social and emotional learning approaches. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 38, 64–76. doi: 10.1080/20590776.2020.1839883

Sundqvist, P. (2020). Technological knowledge in early childhood education: provision by staff of learning opportunities. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 30, 225–242. doi: 10.1007/s10798-019-09500-0

Sunthonkanokpong, W., and Murphy, E. (2019). Quality, equity, inclusion and lifelong learning in pre-service teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 21, 91–104. doi: 10.2478/jtes-2019-0019

Swan, P. (2021). The lived experience of empathic engagement in elementary classrooms: implications for pedagogy. Teach. Teach. Educ. 102:103324. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103324

Tang, H. (2021). Teaching teachers to use technology through massive open online course: perspectives of interaction equivalency. Comput. Educ. 174:104307. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104307

Thornton, K., and Cherrington, S. (2019). Professional learning communities in early childhood education: a vehicle for professional growth. Prof. Dev. Educ. 45, 418–432. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2018.1529609

Toker Gökçe, A. (2021). Core values in education from the perspective of future educators. SAGE Open 11:21582440211014484. doi: 10.1177/215824402110144

Tsai, M.-N., Liao, Y.-F., Chang, Y.-L., and Chen, H.-C. (2020). A brainstorming flipped classroom approach for improving students’ learning performance, motivation, teacher-student interaction and creativity in a civics education class. Think. Ski. Creat. 38:100747. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100747

UNESCO (2020). Global Education Coalition: COVID-19 Education Response. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition (Accessed December 8, 2021).

van der Spoel, I., Noroozi, O., Schuurink, E., and van Ginkel, S. (2020). Teachers’ online teaching expectations and experiences during the Covid19-pandemic in the Netherlands. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 43, 623–638. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1821185

Van Nuland, S., Mandzuk, D., Tucker Petrick, K., and Cooper, T. (2020). COVID-19 and its effects on teacher education in Ontario: a complex adaptive systems perspective. J. Educ. Teach. 46, 442–451. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2020.1803050

Vantieghem, W., Roose, I., Gheyssens, E., Griful-Freixenet, J., Keppens, K., Vanderlinde, R., et al. (2020). Professional vision of inclusive classrooms: a validation of teachers’ reasoning on differentiated instruction and teacher-student interactions. Stud. Educ. Eval. 67:100912. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100912

Veldman, M. A., Doolaard, S., Bosker, R. J., and Snijders, T. A. B. (2020). Young children working together. Cooperative learning effects on group work of children in grade 1 of primary education. Learn. Instr. 67:101308. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101308

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540

Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C., and Rodgers, M. O. (2019). Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student sustainability knowledge. Sustainability 11:4602. doi: 10.3390/su11174602

Watson, J. H., and Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2021). Predicting preservice teachers’ intention to use technology-enabled learning. Comput. Educ. 168:104207. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104207

Wiens, P. D., Calkins, L., Yoder, P. J., and Hightower, A. (2022). Examining the relationship between instructional practice and social studies teacher training: a TALIS study. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 46, 123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2021.05.006

Wilson-Daily, A. E., Feliu-Torruella, M., and Romero Serra, M. (2021). Key competencies: developing an instrument for assessing trainee teachers’ understanding and views. Teach. Dev. 25, 478–493. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2021.1930127

Wink, M. N., LaRusso, M. D., and Smith, R. L. (2021). Teacher empathy and students with problem behaviors: examining teachers’ perceptions, responses, relationships, and burnout. Psychol. Sch. 58, 1575–1596. doi: 10.1002/pits.22516

Wiziack, J. C., and Dos Santos, V. M. P. D. (2021). Evaluating an integrated cognitive competencies model to enhance teachers’ application of technology in large-scale educational contexts. Heliyon 7:e05928. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05928

Wong, V., and Dillon, J. (2020). Crossing the boundaries: collaborations between mathematics and science departments in English secondary (high) schools. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 38, 396–416. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2019.1636024

Wong, K. M., and Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). The impact of social uncertainty, protests, and COVID-19 on Hong Kong teachers. J. Loss Trauma 25, 649–655. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2020.1776523

Wu, X. M., Zhang, L. J., and Dixon, H. R. (2021). Implementing assessment for learning (AfL) in Chinese university EFL classes: teachers’ values and practices. System 101:102589. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102589

Xu, X., Shen, W., Islam, A. Y. M. A., Shen, J., and Gu, X. (2021). Modeling Chinese teachers’ behavioral intention to use recording studios in primary schools. Interact. Learn. Environ. 0, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1955713

Yan, Z., and Brown, G. T. L. (2021). Assessment for learning in the Hong Kong assessment reform: a case of policy borrowing. Stud. Educ. Eval. 68:100985. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100985

Yeh, Y.-F., Chan, K. K. H., and Hsu, Y.-S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: a systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Comput. Educ. 171:104238. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104238

Yuan, Y.-P., Tan, G. W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., and Lim, W.-L. (2021). Can COVID-19 pandemic influence experience response in mobile learning? Telemat. Informatics 64:101676. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101676

Zhang, X. (2020). Assessment for learning in constrained contexts: how does the teacher’s self-directed development play out? Stud. Educ. Eval. 66:100909. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100909

Keywords: COVID, remote learning, teacher training, pillars of learning, evaluation measurements of learning efficacy, lifelong learning

Citation: Reychav I, Elyakim N and McHaney R (2023) Lifelong learning processes in professional development for online teachers during the Covid era. Front. Educ . 8:1041800. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1041800

Received: 11 September 2022; Accepted: 22 February 2023; Published: 16 March 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Reychav, Elyakim and McHaney. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Iris Reychav, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Strengthening the Quality of Teacher Education Programs

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.9(6); 2023 Jun
• PMC10361013

Understanding teachers' online professional learning: A “community of inquiry” perspective on the role of Chinese middle school teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, and online learning achievement

Associated data.

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in “figshare” at https://doi.org/10.17608/k6.auckland.21601620.v5

Teachers' online professional development (PD) has been valued as a crucial and effective way to promote teaching competencies. Forming a professional learning community has been recognized as a means to promote effective PD. Within this realm of research, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework was deemed as a collaborative-constructivist process model that describes successful online learning experiences. The CoI has been associated with many psychological and educational variables, such as learning achievement and self-efficacy. This study leveraged on the CoI framework to assess teachers' online professional learning quality and explored its relationship with their self-efficacy and online professional learning achievement. A total of 456 teacher participants from Chinese middle schools participated in our study. A suite of questionnaires (the Community of Inquiry Questionnaire, the Teacher Efficacy Scale, and the Perceived Online Learning Achievement Scale) was distributed. Linear regression, PROCESS Macro mediation, and moderation analyses were run on the data to answer the research questions. Results revealed a significant relationship between teachers’ online learning quality and their self-efficacy and learning achievement. The mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning achievement were confirmed. The moderating role of time spent on receiving online professional learning was also recognized. Implications and future directions were discussed.

1. Introduction

The existing literature has pointed to the fact that teachers' teaching quality exerts significant influences on students' learning outcomes [ 1 ]. Therefore, promoting teachers' professional development (PD) is crucial to improving their teaching skills, sense of professional identity, cognitive ability, and student attainment [ [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] ]. For instance, researchers offered evidence regarding the effect of teachers' professional learning on their self-efficacy and commitment [ 9 ]. Moreover, professional learning communities also affect teacher leadership in the Chinese educational context [ 10, ]. However, some scholars argue that in-service teachers' continuous learning is seldom driven by oneself (e.g. Refs. [ 11 , 12 ]). Instead, institutional demands and peer influence are vital in motivating teachers to participate in professional learning activities [ 13 , 92 ]. Hence, considering such an extrinsically motivated nature of teachers participating in PD activities, it is imperative to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional learning process for the understanding and tracking of teachers' learning outcomes. One popular theoretical framework designed to offer guidelines for researchers to investigate learners' quality of learning is termed the Community of Inquiry (CoI). Nevertheless, no research to date has valued the CoI as a means of assessing teachers' online professional learning quality, not to mention fixating on the population of Chinese middle school teachers and attempting to connect the CoI with teachers' sense of efficacy. In filling this lacuna, the present research explored the relationship between Chinese middle school teachers’ online professional learning effectiveness, sense of efficacy, and learning achievement within the CoI framework.

2. Literature review

2.1. teacher professional development.

Researchers have been devoting resources to probing teachers' professional development with various methods and topics. However, at the core of such endeavors, one should understand that teachers' professional development is equivalent to teachers' learning of the methodologies of learning and the capabilities of transferring such knowledge into their teaching practice [ 14 , 93 ]. The impetus of teachers' PD lies within the desiderative need to improve teachers' growth of expertise, elevating self-efficacy, and thus boosting job satisfaction and morale [ 15 ]. Consequently, continuous PD will equip teachers with the knowledge to cater to all students’ needs, which will inevitably result in the growth of student competence and cognitive development, and learning achievement [ 16 , 17 ].

The extant research has witnessed a shift of focus in the realm of PD exploration from attending to isolated teacher professional learning-related aspects to contextualized and sustained activities that are interactive, dynamic, and continuously developing processes [ [18] , [19] , [20] ]. For instance, in the Chinese PD context, most PD programs are offered by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [ 21 ]. Scholars have criticized that some programs offered to teachers are not meritorious representatives of teachers' preferences or concerns and the rapid development of the Chinese educational status [ [22] , [23] , [24] ]. Although participating in PD activities is stipulated by most schools and universities in China as obligatory, teachers' lack of incentives and impaired learning quality are inevitable outcomes [ 92 ]. Hence, to compensate for the aforementioned deficiency with the purpose of strengthening the effectiveness of teachers' PD experience and motivating teachers' participation, some scholars are calling for new designs of PD programs (e.g. Refs. [ 25 , 26 ]). A good example was offered by Zhang, Admiraal, and Saab [ 26 ]. They explored the personal and school-level factors that contribute to enhancing teachers' motivation for PD in a new PD program, the New Basic Education (NBE), and obtained positive relationships among the proposed variables. However, more research is needed to illustrate what effective PD entails.

A meta-analysis yielded six characteristics perceived as prerequisites of effective PD [ 27 ]. First, an effective PD is built upon consistent participation in PD activities and frequent use of PD resources [ 28 ]. It is even argued that PD activities should be actively held or passively received in a rhythmic fashion instead of sporadically and irregularly. The latent consideration is that teachers will need time to assimilate new knowledge [ 29 ]. Second, it is also implied that teachers' active endorsement of PD activities is perceived as more effective than obligatory participation [ 30 ], which is consistent with recognizing that high-quality teacher professional development should establish an inquiry-based and teacher-driven learning habit [ 31 , 32 ]. Third, subject-specific training activities or resources are preferred in contrast to general pedagogical techniques training [ 27 ]. PD should offer activities, courses, or resources to cater to the specific needs of teachers, such as their teaching goals and assessment techniques [ 33 ]. However, it is also argued that both subject-specific and general training are complementary and indispensable. Thus, receiving both trainings is vital to teachers' effective PD. Fourth, inviting extrinsic expertise is an effective way to promote teachers' PD rather than recycling familiar knowledge [ 30 ]. This is to pose challenges and fresh input for teachers. Fifth, PD will be more effective if teachers are allowed to practice what they have learned [ 28 ]. This is justified by the consideration that students' performance can be used to analyze the impact of PD and offer feedback and reinforcement [ 33 ]. Finally, it is stated that PD is more effective when teachers learn and work in a coordinated fashion [ 27 , 28 ]. In most cases, forming a learning community or peer group can be a decent practice. It enhances teachers’ learning experience by presenting opportunities to challenge each other and offer unique insights into issues relevant to the community. Therefore, topics relating to the professional learning community have been extensively explored in the last three decades.

The notion of professional learning communities (PLC) is comprehended as the learning communities in which teachers collectively learn and work to form an atmosphere that embraces shared values, responsibilities, and professional learning practices to enhance teaching and learning [ 34 ]. It is often recognized, as stated above, as an approach to fostering effective PD. Empirical research has also confirmed the significant relationship between PLC and teachers' performance. For instance, PLC is identified to be related to teachers' self-efficacy (e.g. Ref. [ 35 ]), commitment (e.g. Ref. [ 36 ]), and job satisfaction (e.g. Ref. [ 37 ]). Consequently, such enhancement of teacher performance yields positive impacts on students' achievement [ 38 ]. According to McConnell and colleagues [ 39 ], a PLC should be designed to embody several components: shared values and vision, shared leadership, supportive conditions, shared practice, and collective learning and application of learning. Dufour [ 40 ] also emphasized that PLC should concentrate on learning and results that will exert consequences on student performance and, at the same time, create and maintain a culture of collaboration. Nevertheless, despite the effectiveness of PLC in improving teachers' PD, designing PLC to address all teachers’ needs can be challenging. Teachers may need to consider multiple influencing factors before participating in PD programs, such as being enlisted in full-time and long-term intensive learning programs [ 41 ] and the demanding workload and family responsibilities [ 42 ]. Fortunately, with the advancement of technology in online education, new opportunities are presented to the design and application of PLC, which offer promising solutions for motivating more teachers to participate in PLC.

Creating online collaboration in PLC for curriculum development, peer interaction, assessment, problem-solving, and reflection is one way to promote teacher participation in PD [ 43 ]. As mentioned earlier, effective PD relies heavily on teachers’ consistent participation, active endorsement, and collective culture. These are also non-negligible characteristics for designing effective PLCs. Participating in online PLCs enables teachers to significantly recognize the support from others and the sharing of knowledge [ 44 ]. In their empirical study, Cifuentes and colleagues [ 45 ] illustrated that with continuous participation in online PLC, teachers gradually relied on technology integration and became fond of such forms of learning. Moreover, collaborating online with peers helped shift the instructional pattern from teacher-centered to student-centered. Finally, online PLCs can also foster digital integration, offering diversity in the classroom setting.

In sum, in reviewing the benefit of PD, PLC, and online PLC, we have to evaluate the quality or effectiveness of teachers’ professional development activities organized in a collaborative community fashion.

2.2. The Community of Inquiry framework

According to Castellanos-Reyes [ 46 ], the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework is “a collaborative-constructivist process model that describes the essential elements of a successful online higher education learning experience.” Such a model emphasizes the factors contributing to the effective online higher education learning experience and the significance of developing a learning community. The impetus for focusing on this realm of research is the increasing number of online educational programs and the desire to strengthen student-teacher communication through online learning [ 47 ]. Hence, the Community of Inquiry framework was designed when transcribed online discussions were analyzed and results showed that they promoted student-instructor communication [ 48 ]. The Community of Inquiry framework comprises three elements of presence that are multidimensional and interdependent [ 49 , 50 ], which are cognitive presence (CP), social presence (SP), and teaching presence (TP). We review these next.

2.2.1. Cognitive presence

The connotation of cognitive presence implies learners' abilities to construct knowledge through discourse and reflection [ 48 , 51 ]. It values critical thinking as the goal of all educational experiences, which stemmed from Dewey's reflective thinking as a form of the generalization of the scientific method [ 52 ]. The Practical Inquiry Model was later framed based on Dewey's argument that reflective inquiry bears practical value [ 53 ] and operationalizes cognitive presence. According to this model, CP is a cycle of practical inquiry that describes an individual's active effort to progress the learning process from understanding the problem to exploration, integration, and application [ 54 ]. Thus, the Practical Inquiry Model embraces a four-phase inquiry process that begins with a triggering event when confronting a problem. Then, more information will be actively acquired for exploring the current issue. Following that, with the necessary information to understand the issue collected, a process of integration that connects the information will be executed, and attempts to search for viable explanations will be carried out. Finally, the most viable resolution will be selected. It is worth noting that such a process should not be witnessed as linear or discrete. Repetitions of any phase for new direction and new information may be required [ 53 ]. In the Community of Inquiry framework, cognitive presence is witnessed in online discussions. Research revealed that most online discussions orbit around the exploration phase of information sharing and searching for ideas but rarely move beyond this phase [ 47 ].

2.2.2. Social presence

The social presence factor of the CoI framework is conceptualized as the ability to establish purposeful interpersonal relationships to connect one to another in computer-mediated learning [ 55 ]. The core components of social presence are affectiveness (emotions expressed by learners), open communication (learners interact with others), and group cohesion (group commitment formed and sustained by group members) [ 56 ]. It arises from the concerns that online learning may hamper students from developing community/group belonging with their peers and instructors (e.g. Refs. [ 57 , 58 ]). Zydney, deNoyelles, and Seo [ 59 ] illustrated that students perceived online discussions to be more effective when included in the three aspects of social presence. In past research, scholars have delved into the social presence of the CoI framework independently of the other two presences. They found that the asynchronous nature of online learning could significantly affect learners' social lives [ 54 ]. Some scholars (e.g. Ref. [ 54 ]) even claimed that more research on the interaction of both social presence and cognitive presence be conducted. In response, Guo, Saab, Wu, and Admiraal [ 60 ] explored students’ social and cognitive presences within the CoI framework in online project-based learning and the impact of two presences on academic performance.

2.2.3. Teaching presence

The cognitive and social aspects (or presences) of the educational process are viewed as equivalent processes that should be weighted with equal importance. However, one must also acknowledge that the purpose, structure, and leadership should also be valued, which describes the teaching presence of the Community of Inquiry framework [ 55 ]. Hence, teaching presence in the CoI framework is defined as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” [ 61 ]. It serves as the role of foundation or support in the CoI framework as it offers the stage for the learning experience and creates the climate in which critical thinking is rooted [ 47 ]. Researcher have argued that the online learning environment challenges teaching presence [ 62 ]. New forms of communication may easily confuse students, and technology-related issues increase teachers' workload on maintaining the classroom environment and engagement with students. Inappropriate facilitation and compromised instruction techniques will inevitably result in damaged teaching presence. Ghaemi's [ 63 ] study of the effects of the Community of Inquiry model on Iranian students revealed a positive relationship between promoting the teaching presence elements and an enhanced sense of community.

The social, cognitive, and teaching presences function interdependently and affect learners' learning experiences with each of its components taken into account. In the CoI framework, the intersection and interaction of the three presences are clearly visible and that learners’ optimal educational experiences originate from the intersection of all the presences (see Fig. 1 .).

Community of Inquiry framework from Garrison and Arbaugh [ 47 ].

Research connecting the three presences is not unprecedented. For instance, Xu, Li, and Luo [ 64 ] examined the potential influencing factors of social, cognitive, and teaching presence in China by conducting a national survey. They reported that self-regulated learning and self-efficacy are significant influential factors of the three presences. Moreover, a study by Hong and Kim [ 65 ] verified the relationship between social presence, cognitive presence, and online learning satisfaction and revealed a positive relationship among them.

The primary application of the Community of Inquiry framework to the understanding of educational experience targets students. The evaluation and understanding of teachers' professional development from the CoI framework are scant.only a few studies are available. For instance, Knudsen [ 66 ] conducted a mixed-method study and revealed a relationship between social, cognitive, and teacher presence of the CoI framework and teachers' perceptions of learning in a blended professional learning environment when an online course incorporated all three presences. In light of this deficiency, the present research seeks to apply the Community of Inquiry framework to assess the middle school and high school teachers’ online learning experiences and explore the interaction with their sense of efficacy and perceived learning achievement.

2.3. The role of teacher self-efficacy

As an essential construct of motivation, teacher efficacy (or self-efficacy) belief is a judgment of one's capabilities to exert a desired influence on students' engagement and learning achievement [ 67 ]. Thus, it is often connected with students' engagement, motivational beliefs, and academic achievement (e.g. Refs. [ 68 , 69 ]). Past research has identified four sources that affect teachers' self-efficacy. First, mastery experience, as the preferable way to acquire new skills, improve performance, and teach oneself to be capable of learning new skills, serves as an indicator of capabilities [ 70 ]. Successful performance generates increased self-efficacy, while setbacks damage it. Mastery experience is gradually constructed with the increase of self-efficacy, and such experience will, in return, be used to reinforce the promotion of self-efficacy. The vicarious experience is the second source of developing potent self-efficacy provided by social models [ 71 ]. Social comparison and observation allow individuals to acquire vicarious experience, which substantially enhances self-efficacy, especially when individuals doubt their capabilities [ 72 ]. The third source of self-efficacy development is the social persuasion. Such a source draws benefit from the encouragement of individuals' trusted friends and family members by being persuaded to believe in themselves [ 73 ], albeit social persuasions are deemed as less effective compared with mastery and vicarious experiences in promoting self-efficacy [ 70 , 71 ]. Finally, the physiological state (or emotional arousal) is another way to develop self-efficacy by reducing negative emotions that can potentially harm one's self-efficacy and improving physical condition [ 74 , 75 ].

As a basic psychological construct, self-efficacy plays a vital role in maintaining a high quality of life and promoting learning and working performance, regardless of individuals' social status and profession. In education, the development of teachers’ self-efficacy has been given substantial attention. Teachers with a strong sense of efficacy exhibit more subjective initiatives and enthusiasm for teaching, are more effective and organized, and tend to be more resilient when facing obstacles [ 69 , 76 ]. Hence, scholars have recently been delving into the relationship between teacher self-efficacy, professional development, and the learning community.

As mentioned earlier, receiving professional development (PD) and participating in professional learning communities (PLC) is vital to enhancing teachers' teaching skills, work engagement, and student learning performance. Research has also revealed that PD and PLC profoundly influence teachers' self-efficacy. For instance, Zonoubi, Rasekh, & Tavakoli [ 77 ] conducted a longitudinal study exploring the impact of six-month PLC interventions on EFL teachers' self-efficacy. Results revealed that experienced teachers exhibited improved self-efficacy in applying new teaching strategies, and novice teachers reported enhanced self-efficacy relating to classroom management, autonomy, and perceived language proficiency. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, Zheng, Yin, and Liu [ 9 ] also reported that reflective dialogue in school-level PLC significantly predicted teachers' self-efficacy. Moreover, teachers' self-efficacy was also found to impact teachers' professional learning experiences. For instance, Kılınç, Polatcan, Atmaca, & Koşar [ 78 ] illustrated that teachers’ self-efficacy positively and significantly predicted their academic optimism and professional learning.

Considering its importance in the realm of education, teacher self-efficacy has been and should be regarded as a crucial factor connecting many other psychological and educational variables. The above literature sheds some light on this consensus. Hence, the present research also embedded teacher efficacy into the model.

3. The present study

From the above literature review, it is evident that no research to date has applied the Community of Inquiry framework to assess Chinese middle school teachers' online professional learning experience and has attempted to connect it with teacher efficacy and professional learning achievement. The present research was designed to fill this academic lacuna. The primary purpose of the present research was to understand the potential impact brought by teachers’ online professional learning activities on their sense of efficacy and professional learning achievement. More specifically, we addressed the following research questions:

• (1) How does a teacher's assessment of the quality of the online learning experience affect their sense of efficacy and learning achievement?
• (2) Does a teacher's sense of efficacy mediate the relationship between assessment of the online learning community and perceived learning achievement?
• (3) Does the teacher's perceived learning achievement mediate the relationship between assessment of the online learning community and sense of efficacy?
• (4) Will spending more time on online professional learning activities strengthen the effect of learning quality on teachers' perceived learning achievement?

4.1. Participants

We recruited a convenience sample comprising 456 teacher participants from 20 middle schools across China. Regarding the process of applying for ethical approval, it should be noted that there was no existing institutional review board at Henan University. In light of this, the School of Foreign Languages proactively established an institutional review board in response to our request (the School of Foreign Languages Institutional Review Board). Subsequently, this newly organized review board thoroughly reviewed and approved our ethics application (No. IRBFL2022041901). Upon their approval, we implemented the data collection procedure. All participants voluntarily took part in this study anonymously, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Upon preliminary data cleaning, we obtained a total of 439 valid cases with reference to the selection criteria. Those reported to have fewer than 18 years of teaching experience were excluded. In the end, 139 males (31.7%) and 300 females (68.3%) were retained in our study, with their ages ranging from 20 to 59 years old ( M  = 38.17, SD  = 8.57). Table 1 gives details about these participants.

Demographic information of the participants.

4.2. Instruments

4.2.1. the community of inquiry questionnaire.

To assess participants' assessment of their online professional learning experience, we adopted the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework survey developed and validated by Arbaugh and colleagues [ 79 ]. As reviewed in the literature review section, the structure of the Community of Inquiry framework comprises three independent and yet intertwined constructs, namely, cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. The CoI survey instrument was designed to accurately reflect these factors. Thirty-four items were created with items one to 13 loaded on the teaching presence factor (Cronbach α = 0.94 from Arbaugh and colleagues’ work), items 14 to 22 loaded on the social presence factor (Cronbach α = 0.91), and items 23 to 34 loaded on the cognitive presence factor (Cronbach α = 0.95). Sample items are “The instructor clearly communicated important course goals” (Teaching presence), “I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants” (Social presence), and “I felt motivated to explore content related questions” (Cognitive presence). The CoI instrument was translated from English to Chinese by an English major graduate student. All items were answered on a five-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The reliability of the translated instrument is shown to be excellent (Cronbach α = 0.98 for the overall scale).

4.2.2. The teacher efficacy scale

The Teacher Efficacy Scale used to assess teachers' self-efficacy for the present study was adapted from the work by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy [ 76 ]. The authors developed a 24-item scale measuring teacher self-efficacy from three dimensions: Efficacy for instructional strategies (Cronbach α = 0.91), efficacy for classroom management (Cronbach α = 0.90), and efficacy for student engagement (Cronbach α = 0.87). Items 1 to 8 loaded on the instructional strategies factor, 9 to 16 loaded on the classroom management factor, and 17 to 24 loaded on the classroom management factor. Nevertheless, despite the high reliability of the 24-item scale, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy [ 76 ] further pushed up the scale's reliability. They selected the four items with the highest loadings from each dimension, leaving a 12-item short version of the teacher efficacy scale. The factor structure remained intact, and the three dimensions still exhibited high reliabilities: 0.86 for instructional strategies, 0.86 for classroom management, and 0.81 for student engagement. The present study adapted and translated the 12-item version of Tschannen-Moran and Hoy's scale to situate the instrument in the Chinese middle school teaching context. Participants answered the items in a 9-point fashion, with anchors at 1 (nothing), 3 (very little), 5 (some influence), 7 (quite a bit), and 9 (a great deal). Sample items are “To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?” (Instructional strategies), “How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?” (Classroom management), and “How much can you do to help your students value learning?” (Student engagement). Test results for internal consistency of the overall instrument from the present research exhibited excellent reliability (Cronbach α = .95).

4.2.3. The Perceived Online Learning Achievement Scale

To measure teachers' perceived online learning achievement, we utilized the scale developed by Ramos-Pla and colleagues [ 80 ], which was designed to inquire about Catalan universities professors' perceptions of the impact of online training. The original scale consists of 6 blocks with 51 items in total, whichinclude: the type of training received (block 1: 9 items), level of learning derived from the training (block 2: 8 items), help from the knowledge acquired (block 3: 12 items), feelings towards the use of the new knowledge (block 4: 4 items), difficulties in the application of the training received (block 5: 9 items), and perceptions of the impact of the training (block 6: 9 items). From the six sub-scales, we deem the items from block three best fit our need to examine teachers' perceived online learning achievement as the original items from this block directly question participants' gains from online training. As the original scale by Ramos-Pla and colleagues [ 80 ] was created specifically for the participants from Catalan universities, we modified and translated the items in block 3 to situate the scale into the present research context. Participants answered the questions on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (nothing) to 4 (a lot) and were instructed to indicate how much their experience of online learning activities and use of online learning resources helped their teaching experience. Sample items are “Improve the quality of my teaching” and “Have more knowledge about methodologies that are adequate for teaching.” A 0.99 Cronbach's Alpha score was witnessed in the present study, signaling excellent reliability of the scale.

4.3. Data collection procedure

A convenient sampling strategy was exploited, and the suite of questionnaires was distributed online via the Wenjuanxing.com platform, a popular and sophisticated Chinese online website that excels in questionnaire design and distribution. The link to the questionnaires generated from the platform was later shared with our participants via WeChat, one of the most popular Chinese social media platforms. Detailed instructions on how to respond to each questionnaire item were provided for each instrument. Prior to accessing the survey, participants were presented with a consent form, informing their rights of participation and withdrawal and ensuring their anonymity. Only those who gave explicit consent were granted access to the questionaires. Finally, upon completing the questionnaires, participants were offered a small token of appreciation (3 RMB) for their participation. The data collection procedure took three months, from May 2022 to August 2022.

Descriptive statistics for the variables are presented in Table 2 .

Descriptive statistics.

Note: Values represent mean score (Standard deviation).

It is evident that participants reported relatively high perceptions of learning quality, sense of efficacy, and learning achievement.

5.1. The relationship between learning quality, achievement, and sense of efficacy

A simple linear regression was conducted to explore the potential relationship between teachers' learning quality reflected by the Community of Inquiry score (CoI) and their sense of efficacy. The scatterplot revealed a strong positive linear relationship between the two. A Pearson's correlation coefficient of .32 ( p  < .001) confirmed the result. A significant relationship between teachers' learning quality and sense of efficacy was identified from the result of simple linear regression ( F (1,437) = 50.18, p  < .001) shown in Table 3 . Teachers' self-efficacy level increased by 0.23 for each unit increase in online learning quality. The R 2 value was 0.10, suggesting that 10% of the variation in teachers' sense of efficacy can be explained by learning quality.

Regression (X = Community of Inquiry score; Y = Sense of Efficacy).

Another simple linear regression was applied to reveal the relationship between teachers' learning quality (CoI) and their perceived learning achievement. The scatterplot also revealed a strong positive linear relationship between the two and was confirmed by a Pearson's correlation coefficient of .61 ( p  < .001). A significant relationship between teachers' learning quality and perceived learning achievement was identified from the result of simple linear regression ( F (1,437) = 257.81, p  < .001) shown in Table 4 . Teachers' perceived learning achievement level increased by 0.31 for each unit increase in online learning quality. The R 2 value was 0.37, suggesting that 37% of the variation in teachers' perceived learning achievement can be explained by learning quality.

Regression (X = Community of Inquiry score; Y = Perceived Learning Achievement).

To sum up, results from two simple linear regressions confirmed the positive effects of teachers' perceived learning quality on their sense of efficacy and learning achievement, implying that the quality of the online learning community plays a vital role in enhancing teachers’ sense of efficacy and their professional learning achievement.

5.2. The mediating role of perceived learning achievement and teachers’ sense of efficacy

5.2.1. perceived learning achievement as the mediator.

For the purpose of investigating the role of perceived learning achievement in the effect of online learning quality on teachers' sense of efficacy, a mediation analysis was performed using the PROCESS Macro add-on in SPSS. The outcome variable for analysis was teachers' sense of efficacy. The predictor variable was teachers' evaluation of online learning quality. And the mediator for the analysis was teachers' perceived learning achievement. The results showed that online learning quality significantly affected teachers' sense of efficacy ( E  = .231, SE  = 0.038, p  < .001). The results of indirect effects also yielded significant relationships between online learning quality and perceived learning achievement ( E  = 0.313, SE  = 0.020, p  < .001) and between perceived learning achievement and teachers' sense of efficacy ( E  = 0.663, SE  = 0.074, p  < .001). These results highlight that perceived learning achievement significantly mediates the relationship between online learning quality and sense of efficacy [ E  = .207, SE  = 0.028, C.I. (0.1558, 0.0168)] (see Fig. 2 for the model coefficient diagram). Results from the Sobel test also confirmed the successful mediating effect ( E  = 0.207, SE  = 0.026, Z  = 7.831, p  < .001). Hence, it can be concluded from the results that the quality of a good online learning community can enhance teachers' sense of efficacy. This phenomenon can be explained, to a certain degree, by teachers’ perceived learning achievement.

Mediation coefficient diagram (Learning achievement as the mediator). Note. *** p  < .001.

5.2.2. Teachers’ sense of efficacy as the mediator

Similarly, to probe into the role of teachers' sense of efficacy in the effect of online learning quality on teachers' perceived learning achievement, a mediation analysis was performed again using the PROCESS Macro add-on in SPSS. The outcome variable for analysis was teachers' perceived learning achievement. The predictor variable was teachers' evaluation of online learning quality. And the mediator for the analysis was the teachers' sense of efficacy. The results showed that online learning quality significantly affects teachers' perceived learning achievement ( E  = 0.313, SE  = 0.020, p  < .001). The results of indirect effects also yielded significant relationships between online learning quality and teachers' sense of efficacy ( E  = 0.231, SE  = 0.033, p  < .001) and between teachers' sense of efficacy and perceived learning achievement ( E  = 0.236, SE  = 0.023, p  < .001). These results highlight that teachers' sense of efficacy is a significant mediator in the relationship between online learning quality and perceived learning achievement [ E  = .055, SE  = 0.013, C.I. (0.0330, 0.0847)] (see Fig. 3 for the model coefficient diagram). Results from the Sobel test also confirmed the successful mediating effect ( E  = 0.055, SE  = 0.010, Z  = 5.542, p  < .001). Hence, it can be concluded from the results that a good online learning community quality can promote teachers' learning achievement. To a certain degree, this phenomenon can be explained by teachers’ sense of efficacy.

Mediation coefficient diagram (Self-efficacy as the mediator).

5.3. The moderating role of time spent on online learning

A moderation analysis was conducted using the PROCESS Macro add-on in SPSS to explore the role of time spent in online learning quality in affecting teachers' perceived learning achievement. The outcome variable for the analysis was teachers’ perceived learning achievement. The predictor variable was perceived online learning quality reflected by the Community of Inquiry score. The moderator variable for the analysis was the approximate time teachers spent receiving online professional development education or using online professional learning resources in the last 12 months. The interaction between time spent in online learning and online learning quality was statistically significant [ B  = −0.0002, 95%C.I. (−0.0002, −0.0001), p  < .001]. The conditional effect of online learning quality on perceived learning achievement at values of learning time also revealed corresponding results. At a low moderation level (learning time = −125.4389), the conditional effect was 0.3632 [C.I. (0.3218, 0.4047), p  < .001]. At middle moderation level (learning time = 0.0000), the conditional effect was 0.3436 [C.I. (0.3044, 0.3827), p  < .001]. At a high moderation level (learning time = 361.3424), the conditional effect was 0.2869 [C.I. (0.2427, 0.3310), p  < .001]. These results identify time spent in online learning as a negative moderator of the relationship between online learning quality and perceived online learning achievement (see Graph 1 ). In other words, the less time teachers spend in online professional learning activities, the more intense the impact of online learning quality on perceived learning achievement.

Simple slope analysis graph for moderation analysis. Note. CI represents the Community of Inquiry; LA represents learning achievement.

6. Discussion

6.1. direct relationships.

The results of the present study offered us insight into the quality of online professional learning that bears significant influences on Chinese middle school teachers' sense of efficacy and learning achievement. First, a significant positive relationship was confirmed between teachers' online professional learning quality (assessed by the instrument built upon the Community of Inquiry framework) and perceived learning achievement. A possible justification of this relationship is that better quality of online professional learning should promote teachers' learning achievement by offering more enriched learning content, a tension-free learning environment, and meaningful communication among peers. This research finding is consistent with what was reported in existing studies. For instance, work by Choy and Quek [ 81 ] unveiled the direct positive relationship between cognitive presence within the CoI framework and academic-related online performance and achievement. Similar findings from the study by Maddrell, Morrison, and Watson [ 82 ] also confirmed the significant positive relationship between each of the presences of CoI framework and student-perceived learning. Nevertheless, the authors have also reported that no relationship was identified between the CoI composite score and students' learning achievements; only the cognitive presence exhibited a significant positive relationship with learning achievement. However, these findings do not decisively remove the possible relationship between CoI and learning achievement. Maddrell and colleagues' work [ 82 ] employed instructors' subjective assessments of critical projects or papers in the course as measurements of students’ learning achievement. The present study adopted a self-report fashion to reflect learning achievement.

Secondly, a positive relationship was also identified between teachers' assessment of online learning quality and their sense of efficacy. Such a result could possibly be justified by the influence that better quality of online professional learning should promote students' engagement in the study and learning achievement, thus resulting in enhanced self-efficacy. Past research discussing such a relationship was also prolific. Some scholars argued that self-efficacy is a potent predictor that affects learners' perceptions of Community of Inquiry factors. For instance, Shea and Bidjerano [ 83 ] reported that learners' self-efficacy predicted effort regulation, which yielded favorable perceptions of cognitive presence. Conversely, applying the CoI framework as guidance for course design was also found to generate positive influences such as enhancing self-efficacy. Brennan, Packard, and Newman [ 84 ] reported that asynchronous courses designed using the CoI framework to push learners' thinking about culturally responsive pedagogy witnessed positive shifts in learners' perceived self-efficacy over the year. In reviewing the literature, we found that research revolving around the CoI framework and self-efficacy either posits self-efficacy as a variable leading to changes in the three presences of CoI or explores the impact of the classroom environment guided by the CoI framework on learners' self-efficacy. Recognizing the CoI framework as a means to assessing learners’ online learning quality and explore its relationship with self-efficacy and learning achievement is the innovative consideration of the present research, not to mention the selection of Chinese middle school teachers as our sample and teacher professional development as the background.

6.2. Mediation and moderation

We speculated that the relationship between online professional learning quality assessment, self-efficacy, and learning achievement might not be straightforward. Hence, self-efficacy and learning achievement were separately explored as potential mediators in the model. The results confirmed our hypothesis. Self-efficacy significantly mediated the relationship between the assessment of online professional learning and perceived learning achievement. Such a finding implies that improving online learning achievement through the betterment of online professional learning quality is the consequence of elevated self-efficacy on account of better online learning quality.

The hypothesized mediational role of self-efficacy in the CoI and learning achievement model is not groundless. The mediating role of self-efficacy in Community of Inquiry research is supported by past research. For instance, Shea and Bidjerano's work [ 83 ] also confirmed the partial mediating role of self-efficacy in the links between teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence. Moreover, a study by Yandra and colleagues [ 85 ] revealed that online learning self-efficacy (OLSE) fully mediated the relationship between teaching presence and students' satisfaction. OLSE also partially mediated the relationship between social presence and students' satisfaction and the relationship between cognitive presence and students' satisfaction. As for the hypothesis of the present research, as discussed above, we uncovered a significant positive relationship between teachers' perception of learning quality (CoI) and self-efficacy. Although not viewing the CoI framework as a method to represent perceived learning quality, the work by Brennan and colleagues [ 84 ], as mentioned above, also supported the result from the present research. On the other hand, it is needless to explicate its influence when referring to the impact of self-efficacy on learning achievement. Numerous studies have been devoted to this realm of research. For instance, Bouih, Nadif, and Benattabou [ 86 ] reported in their article that self-efficacy significantly and positively impacted academic achievement. Moreover, in the study by Kim and Shin [ 87 ], definitive evidence was identified that self-efficacy directly influenced English language achievement. In viewing this, we think that it is justifiable to raise the hypothesis that self-efficacy plays an indirect mediational role in the relationship between teachers' perceived online learning quality assessed under the CoI framework and their learning achievement. Results from the present study confirmed this hypothesis.

Similarly, perceived online learning achievement was also reported as a significant mediator in the relationship between online professional learning quality assessment and teachers’ sense of efficacy. In other words, teachers grow a higher level of self-efficacy in favorable professional learning communities due to their improved learning achievement perception.

The correlational relationship between learners' self-efficacy and learning achievement is widely acknowledged. As stated above, possessing a high level of self-efficacy should consequently witness enhanced learning performance. Hence, it is reasonable to predict that favorable learning performance should, in turn, enhance an individual's self-efficacy level. Past research bolstered this prediction. For instance, Pajares and Johnson [ 88 ] acknowledged that better-performing students receive more positive evaluations, which consequently witnessed higher self-efficacy levels and less apprehension. Similarly, Zimmerman and Kitsantas [ 89 ] stated that strong academic performance strengthens learners' self-efficacy by boosting confidence and encouraging students to actively engage in learning tasks, resulting in better academic performance. In light of the existing literature, it is also justifiable for the present research to propose teachers' online learning achievement as a mediating factor that explains the effect of perceived online learning quality assessed under the CoI framework on teachers' self-efficacy. Results from the present research supported our hypothesis.

Finally, we also inquired about the time our participants spent receiving online professional development courses and using online professional learning resources in the past 12 months. We suspected the disparate length of professional learning time might alter the effect between online professional learning quality assessment and perceived learning achievement. Moreover, we hypothesized that the moderating role of time should be positive, which signifies that the more time spent on online professional learning, the stronger the effect online learning quality should have on learning achievement. It is self-evident and supported that time spent on learning plays a positive role in learners’ academic achievement (e.g. Refs. [ 90 , 91 ]). Conscientious learners often devote more time to studying. However, contrary to what we posited, a moderation analysis revealed that the time spent on online learning is a valid negative moderator for the model. Specifically, when teachers devote less time to online professional development, online learning quality should have a stronger effect on learning achievement. We suspect that the reason behind this result is that prolonged and conscientious learning makes study time the primary factor affecting academic performance when compared with perceived learning quality. More specifically, when learners devote little time to study, the learning quality is vital to enhancing academic performance. On the other hand, when learners work diligently, the quality of their learning will have little impact on academic performance. More research is needed to further confirm and explore this phenomenon to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanism behind it.

6.3. Implications, limitations, and future directions

The present research offers significant implications for addressing the academic lacuna and empirical guidance. No research in the realm of Community of Inquiry and teacher professional development has exploited the Community of Inquiry framework not as a guide to design courses but as an assessment of teachers' online professional learning quality. Moreover, situating the research in the Chinese middle school context is an academic lacuna and a desideratum. Finally, the present research is the first to comprehensively explore the relationship between the Community of Inquiry framework, teachers' self-efficacy, and their perceived professional learning achievement using linear regressions, mediation analyses, and moderation analysis. As for the empirical implication, it is self-evident that the quality of online professional learning for teachers bears immense influence on teachers’ self-efficacy and learning achievement. Hence, it is imperative for institutes, associations, and online platforms to improve their online professional learning course designs and enrich the online learning resources. In such a way, teachers will experience a better quality of online professional development, resulting in fruitful online learning achievement and enhancing their teaching efficacy.

Nevertheless, improvements can still be made to the present research. First, the nature of the convenience sampling strategy is bound to the lack of generalization power. The participants were recruited from only several Chinese middle schools, resulting in the sample's lack of representativeness given the expanse of the country and a wide arrange of schools. Future research may select different sampling strategies to address this issue. Second, to measure teachers' online professional learning achievement, we adopted self-report to allow teachers to actively report their perceptions of learning achievement. This is not the best way to measure learning achievement. The self-reported fashion of measuring learning achievement often bears the influence of other confounding variables, such as participants' social desirability bias. Future research can develop a valid and reliable way to examine teachers' online professional learning achievement or use sophisticated tests when probing specific learning subjects. Third, the R 2 value of the regression analysis for the relationship between teachers' online learning quality and their sense of efficacy is small (the model explains only 10% of the variance). Hence, more latent variables for this relationship are waiting to be revealed. Future research can devote its attention to addressing this need. Moreover, the present study only explored Chinese middle school teachers' online professional learning. Expanding the target sample group to include primary school and university teachers would be meaningful. Finally, it is advised that future research exploit different methods for data collection other than distributing questionnaires to explore the proposed relationships.

7. Conclusion

Findings from this research supplement empirical evidence regarding the relationships between teachers' assessments of online professional learning quality, their sense of efficacy, and perceived online learning achievement. The results emphasized the significant predictive role of online professional learning quality in affecting teachers’ self-efficacy and learning achievement, along with the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning achievement and the moderating role of time spent in online learning in the model. These results are also significant in their pedagogical implications as they enlighten students to put a higher value on the quality of online learning instead of focusing on the learning materials and instructors. Besides, the results also encourage students to emphasize the consequence brought by self-efficacy and online learning time.

Author contribution statement

Mingzhe Wang: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Lawrence Jun Zhang: Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Data availability statement

This study was also sponsored by Teacher Education Project of Henan Provincial Education Department, entitled “Using Online Learning Resources to Promote/Enhance English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Professional Development in the Chinese Middle School Context” (Grant No.: 2022-JSJYYB-027).

Consent to participate

Informed consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Informed consent for publication was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors have no interests to declare.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Henan University, Mainland China. This university has no role in the design and implementation of this study. The authors are also grateful for the insightful comments suggested by the editor and the anonymous reviewers.

Biographies

Mr. Mingzhe Wang is currently a Ph.D. in Education student in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. He obtained his MSc in Social and Organizational Psychology degree from the Department of Psychology at the University of Exeter in the UK. His research interests are positive psychology, English as a foreign language (EFL) achievement, teacher education, metacognition in psychology, and educational psychology.

Dr Lawrence Jun Zhang is Professor of Linguistics-in-Education and Associate Dean for the Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. His major interests and 100-plus publications are on learner metacognition, language-teacher education, and L2 reading-writing development. He is an editorial board member for Applied Linguistics Review, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Second Language Writing, Metacognition and Learning, and RELC Journal, among others . He was honoured by the TESOL International Association (USA) in 2016 with the award of “ 50 at 50”, acknowledging “50 Outstanding Leaders” in the field of TESOL around the world and was officially installed as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors of the Association in 2017. In the Stanford University Rankings 2022, he was listed in the top 2% of Scientists in the World in the disciplinary areas of Linguistics/Applied Linguistics/Language Education. His work has appeared in Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics Review, Modern Language Journal, TESOL Quarterly, Discourse Processes, System, Language Teaching Research, Reading and Writing, Reading and Writing Quarterly, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, RELC Journal and Journal of Second Language Writing, among others.

Effectiveness of Online Professional Development for Technical Educators

Numerous studies have shown multiple benefits gained through professional development for teachers, which address increasing pedagogical content knowledge, increasing student achievement and increasing teacher job satisfaction (Banks, 2008; Colbert, Brown, Choi &Thomas, 2008; Dash, de Kramer, O’Dwyer, Masters & Russell, 2012). However, barriers to professional development, including cost, time and access, make face-to-face professional development sessions difficult to meet teacher needs (Carr, 2016). Online professional development can help to address these barriers, while meeting the needs of teachers. Employing best practices established through both online learning pedagogy and professional development techniques, teachers can increase their pedagogical content knowledge and opportunities for collaboration using online platforms. This study demonstrated, using a blend of qualitative and quantitative assessments that online professional development was comparable in effectiveness to face-to-face professional development in preparation for teaching an introductory logistics course and the Manufacturing Skills Standards Council Certified Logistics Associate certification exam.

Degree Type

• Doctor of Philosophy

Campus location

• West Lafayette

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, additional committee member 4, usage metrics.

• Other engineering not elsewhere classified

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides