Technologies for career-long CPD: a literature review

David Noble, Scot-Ed Consultancy Ltd (scot-ed@hotmail.co.uk)

February 2011

Introduction

This paper examines teachers‟ professional development using Web technologies.

It draws on academic literature from the fields of continuing professional
development (CPD), teacher education, information and communication
technologies (ICT), and „communities of practice‟ (COP). The paper positions itself
partly as a response to recent international policy on lifelong learning, in particular
the Review of Teacher Education in Scotland; commonly referred to as The
Donaldson Report (Scottish Government, 2011). The literature was identified
through the use of search terms relating to the above fields. This approach was
supported by additional scoping from the Scottish Government Information
Management Unit.

The writer has held a professional and commercial interest in educational

technologies and teacher CPD since 2005. Within the Scottish education
community he is regarded as an expert in areas such as podcasting and teacher
„personal learning networks‟ (PLNs). His reflexive approach to studying
technologies and online CPD was initially developed through becoming a reflective
practitioner (Schön, 1983) during his Chartered Teacher studies, and continues to
develop through his work within an education doctorate (EdD).

The aim of this paper is to provide evidence-informed advice to the Scottish

Government that informs its „Technologies for Learning‟ strategy in the context of
„post-Donaldson Report‟ teacher education in Scotland. The writes believes that
his recommendations will directly assist improvements in career-long teacher
learning, and indirectly, the learning and teaching of young people moving through
compulsory schooling in Scotland. The paper begins with an identification of

1
common issues around, and requirements of, teacher professional development,
before charting how Web technologies have been incorporated into recent
solutions. Through drawing out key themes across reflections-on-implementation,
research findings, theoretical stances and other reviews of literature, this paper
establishes relevant guidance for all educationists with a stake in career-long CPD
and professional learning.

There are several peer-reviewed journals which focus on teacher education and
professional development, with other educational titles regularly featuring papers
of interest. Articles from many of these journals feature in this paper, along with
reports and literature reviews from Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs).
Discourses on professional development and learning are also shaped through the
work of inspectorates, professional bodies, trades unions, research conferences,
and activity within informal or non-formal (Knight et al, 2006) practitioner
environments on- and off-line. The paper draws on experiences from Scotland,
England, Europe, Asia, and North and South America.

The Donaldson Report

Many of the fifty recommendations in the conclusion of The Donaldson Report

(Scottish Government, 2011) will form the basis of changes in career-long teacher
education in Scotland. The report clusters these recommendations around the
following ideas:

The two most important and achievable ways in which school education can
realise the high aspirations Scotland has for its young people are through
supporting and strengthening, firstly, the quality of teaching, and secondly,
the quality of leadership
teaching should be recognised as both complex and challenging, requiring
the highest standards of professional competence and commitment
leadership is based on fundamental values and habits of mind which must
be acquired and fostered from entry into the teaching profession

2
 the imperatives which gave rise to Curriculum for Excellence still remain
powerful and the future well being of Scotland is dependent in large
measure on its potential being realised. That has profound and, as yet, not
fully addressed implications for the teaching profession and its leadership
career-long teacher education, which is currently too fragmented and often
haphazard, should be at the heart of this process, with implications for its
philosophy, quality, coherence, efficiency and impact.
(Scottish Government, 2011:2)

There are several recommendations in The Donaldson Report that relate directly
to the provision and use of ICT. These are outlined below, along with key text.
Many are evident in the recommendations contained in the concluding section of
this paper.

The Donaldson Report states that:

Student teachers should have a broader experience of working with

professionals from other disciplines and they should undertake extra
supported study online (Recommendations 2, 11 and 21). Diagnostic
assessments and online resources should be available to all teachers and
prospective teachers who are below baseline competencies in, for example,
literacy and numeracy (Recommendations 4, 5 and 13). Newly qualified
teachers should have a “Masters account opened for them”
(Recommendation 44) and have access to a separate mentor and
supporter (Recommendation 29 and 39).

Teachers and schools should take responsibility for CPD within improved
PRD processes. Clear progression and impact on young people should be
planned and evident (Recommendations 34 and 37). An online CPD profile
(Recommendation 37) should record the outcome of PRD meetings and
agreed foci of CPD, with clear expectations around action and resulting
impact on teaching and learning. The PRD process and profile should link
to a new Standard for Active Registration (Recommendation 36),
accounting for the planning and recording of individuals‟ „learning cycles‟

3
through integrating progress, targets and next steps (Recommendation 37).
ICT should be used to solve the “lack of conviction about (the) PRD
process” (Scottish Government, 2011:72), assisted by policy which will
ensure “the coordination and development of a more effective ICT
infrastructure.” (Scottish Government, 2011:105)

Professional learning communities (PLCs) could have a broader

membership than only teachers and they could focus on “knowledge
exchange” (Scottish Government, 2011:70). CPD should be facilitated
through blended, personalised models of delivery (Recommendation 40)
and often should be localised (Recommendation 33). “Combinations of high
quality blended learning and part-time provision (will build) on the positive
start made by a few universities and their partners.” (Scottish Government,
2011:88) CPD should be accredited, and be at Masters level where
possible (Recommendation 44). Teachers should use their CPD „journey‟ to
become accomplished teachers or extended professionals. This would
involve ongoing reflection, inquiry and improvement (Scottish Government,
2011).

There should be more extensive provision of online CPD which will be

accessed through a „one stop shop‟ (Recommendations 40 and 41). “Very
high quality (online) resources and easy access” (Scottish Government,
2011:98) would overcome resistance from some teachers. Supporting
online resources should be created, covering the fundamentals of theories
of pedagogy (Recommendation 12). “Online mechanisms” other the Glow
could be utilised (Scottish Government, 2011:96).

Additionally, part-time models of teacher education would be influenced by

the Open University (Recommendation 9) and a „teacher education
strategy‟ should be formulated to disseminate each new education policy to
practitioners; aiding implementation (Recommendation 38). Supply
teachers and unemployed teachers should continue to be supported
through an online community (Scottish Government, 2011:76) and an

4
 online-only school leadership college should be established
(Recommendation 50).

Issues within professional development

Presently, it appears that the terms „professional development‟ and „CPD‟ are
associated with all activities relating to the „journey‟ on which a teacher embarks
after their period of induction. Conlon (2004:116) states that CPD is “a broad term
that covers all forms of teachers‟ professional learning, whether formal or informal,
within school or out of school, self-directed or externally prescribed.” Harland and
Kinder (1997) outline up to nine outcomes, linked to changes in classroom
practice, which should arise from the provision of CPD experiences or from self-
directed teacher learning. These are: material and provisionary, informational, new
awareness, value congruence, affective, motivational and attitudinal, knowledge
and skills, institutional outcomes, and impact on practice. Throughout this paper,
the writer often distinguishes between CPD and „professional learning‟. He adopts
the distinction made by O‟Brien and Weiner (2007:387) that, unlike CPD,
professional learning “often diverges from management expectations; reflecting
individual and collective needs. (It) is characterised as a form of teacher agency.”

Continuing Professional Development (CPD), often contemporaneously referred to

as continuous or ongoing (Lock, 2006), is theorised widely within a deficit model of
provision. Lock (2006) summarises problems around: one-off events and periodic
activities; a transmission model of delivery with no differentiation; and a „just in
case‟ approach, remote from classroom practice. Riverin and Stacey (2008) found
that traditional teacher professional development opportunities are often
constrained by time, accessibility and relevance. Harris (2006) states that CPD is
often a solitary activity, remote from students, colleagues, and contextualised
curricula and pedagogies. Harris continues that it is often „delivered‟, is short in
duration, and does not effect a tangible change in either the practices of the
teacher and the nature of the curriculum, or the educational processes and
outcomes of young people. CPD is labelled as „resource wasteful‟ in terms of

5
money and time, and there is often a misalignment of the priorities of the expert
(content), and the teacher (as learner).

Friesen and Clifford (2003:2) state that teachers are “under significant pressure to
create new and different learning environments for their students if they are to
realise the potential of a knowledge society … (These are) environments that they
themselves have not experienced”. It is claimed that teachers are not developing
21st century learning skills, that is, the “need to be able to collect, store, interpret,
and share information using advanced technologies.” (Kibrick et al, 2010:3158) It
is also suggested that teachers are not committing themselves to professional
development and learning within a cycle of school and pedagogical improvement,
despite previously accepting this responsibility as part of their national and local
„pay and conditions‟ (Scottish Government, 2011).

The literature illustrates several systemic problems with CPD across education
systems worldwide. There is iniquitous access to many forms of CPD. Teachers
who are unemployed, on a career break, or working shorter periods of supply
cover are unable to participate in situated learning and collaborative inquiry
(Hutchings et al, 2009).

In Scotland, teacher learning is formal in nature during initial teacher education

(ITE), „probation‟, and mid-career bursts of intensive professional learning such as
the Chartered Teacher Programme and the Scottish Qualification for Headship
(SQH). During periods of time outside of these blocks of study, CPD is primarily
managed through employers‟ performance review and development (PRD)
processes. Generally, PRD has been found to impose subjective arrangements for
individual teachers‟ CPD, resulting in ineffective „systems change‟ within Scottish
education. PRD processes often take place uninformed by the framework of
professional standards (Scottish Government, 2011).

Reeves et al (2005) argue that where professional development through

collaborative action is „enforced‟, it fails to establish genuine mutual, and shared
moral, purpose among teachers; seeking consensus instead. Similarly, Daly et al
(2009:34) found a “tension between promoting criticality and promoting normative

6
standards of practice.” Criticality goes beyond „lay observations‟ (Furlong et al,
2000) and links with a cycle of practitioner inquiry and changing practice (Daly et
al, 2009). The Scottish Teachers for a New Era (STNE) project (Shanks, 2009) is
influencing moves to address part of the frequent career gap in deep, collaborative
and sustained CPD, by popularising Lave and Wenger‟s (1991) notion of change
within „communities of practice‟.

Recent neo-liberal discourse on CPD is noticeable for placing the responsibility for
lifelong (career-long) learning, and the subsequent evidencing of impact on
practice and outcomes for young people, onto the individual teacher. Teachers are
to be visible, reflective practitioners, engaged in collaborative professional action
in order to, primarily, improve the effectiveness of their work in their class, school,
local authority or system (Scottish Government, 2011). Although there is a
minimum entitlement to CPD in Scottish teachers‟ contracts (Scottish Negotiating
Committee for Teachers, 2011), the tone of many recent contributions to
discourses on CPD, including The Donaldson Report, appear to suggest that
teachers will increasingly be expected to invest their own resources in developing
their professional knowledge, skills and effectiveness.

There is likely to be an increasing demand for formal accreditation from teachers

and a concomitant search by „providers‟ and employers for valid and reliable
systems of assessing teachers‟ learning and development, and impact (see
Guskey‟s (2002) five-level evaluation framework, and the work of Lord et al, 2009).
This may lead to a greater incidence of teachers engaging in inquiry alongside
partner academics (Zhang and Hung, 2009).

A tension emerges where rhetoric is used to suggest that teachers are

autonomous professionals who are in control of their CPD. Firstly, this ignores the
requirement that teachers be accountable for, for example, visibly reflecting on
their CPD. Secondly, by „evidencing‟ parts of a relevant professional standard, the
teacher is acting alone, with the main purpose of ensuring that they achieve, for
example, „re-registration‟ (Scottish Government, 2010). This diverges from rhetoric
on community, collegiality, collaboration and mentoring, where teachers are said
to create new knowledge through sharing ideas, „good‟ or „extended‟ practice,

7
discussion or talk, and inquiry (Drucker, 1999; Hargreaves, 1999; Fisher et al,
2006). Online, where many teachers work freely during their personal lives
(Warlick, 2009), individuals may engage in professional learning unrelated to their
workplace or students, yet claim such action as CPD despite an inherent
disconnect from outcomes, national and local education policy, and school
priorities (Noble, 2010). Hustler et al (2003) argue that school development needs
take precedence over individual learning needs.

„Communities of practice’ for CPD, constructing educational knowledge

At this stage it is important to recognise the epistemological basis of much of what

is claimed as educational knowledge. In parts of the USA, for example, teachers
are: trained, assigned instructional coaches, expected to „redesign‟ established
curricula (Nelson and Thomeczek, 2006), and encouraged to consume „good
practice‟ (Simons, 2006). Such an approach suggests that there is a body of
knowledge requiring dissemination, modelling by experts, and co-opting by
practitioners. It implies that teachers need not engage in problem solving, as
solutions are „out there‟ to be discovered, consumed and adopted.

Darling-Hammond (2005:4) states that one type of CPD, „in-servicing‟, is

“designed to ensure more exact implementation of prescribed teaching
procedures. There is no need and little use for professional knowledge and
judgment, or for collegial consultation and planning. Problems of practice do not
exist; the only problems are failures of implementation”. Lock (2006:666) adds that
such an approach “fails to provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on their
beliefs and practices.” However, dominant within current discourses on CPD (and
educational research) in Scotland is the notion that knowledge is constructed by
teachers and others, particularly through collegial and critical talk within school-
based, teacher, or professional learning communities.

Jonassen et al (1999:5) define this social construction of knowledge

(constructivism) as “meaning making (through) a process of negotiation among the
participants, (involving) dialogues or conversations.” Such knowledge is iterative,

8
fluid, and may only relate to a specific context such as a class, subject, school, or
geographical area.

Before illustrating how recent developments in Web technologies have been

applied to earlier issues around CPD, it is important to recognise that within the
recent literature, solutions, through new approaches, have emerged. These can be
grouped around: learning opportunities that place the teacher at „the centre‟
(Schibeci et al, 2008); increasing ownership of CPD through programmes and
tutors utilising the experiences of teacher participants (Pickering, 2007); growing
practitioner self-awareness, leading to genuine collaboration and transformation in
practice (Daly et al, 2009); and exposure to content, with opportunities for „hands
on‟ activities which encourage alignment with the school context (Garet et al,
2001).

Daly et al (2009) argue that CPD becomes more visible, with actions and
outcomes more likely to be shared with parts of the wider education community,
when there is a fluid and responsive „community of practice‟ (Lave and Wenger,
1991). Here, demands for change (including curriculum planning and review) are
self-generated and more likely to be acted upon, due to the absence of direct
imposition from government, NDPBs and employers. Hadjithoma and Karagiorgi
(2009:8) state that „communities of practice‟ “should not be regarded by leaders as
mechanical and rational … but rather as a retroactive process, encompassing
humanistic, organic and qualitative aspects”. Such a new approach appears to be
focused on localities, for example, the single school. Daly et al (2009:75) label
them as “highly collaborative”, and advocate that “external players” are present to
help facilitate a “flexible and differentiated approach”.

A learning community is unified by a “common cause of mutual support and

learning, and by shared values and experiences … within an atmosphere of trust,
support, common goals, and respect for diversity.” (Jonassen et al, 1998)
Similarly, a „community of practice‟ is a group of people who share an interest in
an area of human endeavour and engage in collective learning, creating bonds
between them (Wenger, 2001). Conrad (2005:2) defines community in the online
learning environment as a “general sense of connection, belonging, and comfort

9
that develops over time among members of a group who share purpose or
commitment to a common goal.”

Professional actions within a community may include peer support (Reid and
Ostashewski, 2010) and the “explicit use of specialist expertise, applying and
refining new knowledge and skills, experimenting with ways of integrating them in
day-to-day practice, teachers observing one another; consultation with teachers
either about their own starting points, focus of CPD, or the pace and scope of
CPD; and involving specialists in observation and reflection.” (Cordingley et al,
2005:65-66)

A learning community is a “social process for turning information into knowledge”

(Hargreaves, 2003:170), where problems can be examined from multiple contexts
and viewpoints (Murphy and Laferrière, 2003). Social construction of knowledge is
a “process of negotiation among the participants through dialogues or
conversations” (Jonassen et al, 1999:5) that develops “critical thinkers and
analytical minds.” (Abas, 2009:98) One example would be where members of a
community experience a new model of pedagogy and then critically review it. Such
activity may lead to adapted or new models relating to a specific context, group of
learners or skill levels, avoiding surface adoption which often results from being
presented with a model (De Freitas et al, 2007). Each individual within a
community can be conceived of as a knowledge worker (Druker, 1999) and
knowledge creator, through auditing professional working knowledge from
practice, managing the process of creating new professional knowledge, and
validating and disseminating the professional knowledge created (Hargreaves,
1999).

A „community of inquiry‟ model (Garrison and Anderson, 2003) can be introduced.

This is intended to “help tutors ensure that deep learning is generated through …
three types of presence: social, teaching, and cognitive.” (Abas, 2009:101) „Inquiry
as stance‟ “opens (teachers) to questioning, exploring issues they identify as
important, making their work public, (and) gaining new ideas.” (Lock, 2006:669)
Web technologies enable new communities of practice or inquiry to emerge, and
existing ones to „look outwards‟ and attract new members or participants. Tutors

10
within „communities of inquiry‟ are able to „talk‟ with learners between, or instead
of, face-to-face meetings.

How do online communities ‘fit’ with notions of ‘communities of practice’?

“Online learning communities” (Lock, 2006:664) for “network-based learning”

(Lock, 2006:663) tend to be designed and nurtured within a pedagogical
framework. This is done to “carefully and deliberately … foster a learning culture
… designing, building, and supporting a structure and a process that are
purposeful and fluid in nature … meeting the personal ongoing professional
development needs of teachers.” (Lock, 2006:663) Vaughan (2004:104) supports
this approach, stating that “without proper planning, technology (in an online
learning community) can become a disconnected add-on.” For example, “Where
members are not geographically dispersed and have opportunities to meet face to
face or access local knowledge resources, the online environment may not (add)
value to the real community.” (Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou, 2009:133)

To be collaborative, an online community needs to feature at least two teachers

working together on a planned and sustained basis (Cordingley et al, 2005; Kibrick
et al, 2010), with colleagues having access to technologies at home and work
(Daly et al, 2009). Within such a model, there is access to a range of Web tools to
facilitate „talk‟. Rochelle et al (2000) found that discussion boards could be used by
learners and instructors to construct new knowledge, although Becta (2008) found
that there remained a slow uptake of technologies such as discussion boards for
the purpose of collaborative peer learning.

There are structured environments, for example blogs, within online portals such
as Glow. Blogs enable teachers to post text and multimedia, and seek responses
and dialogue. A wiki is a collaborative space for the asynchronous process of
artefact creation (Russell et al, 2009), such as a „scheme of work‟. Hall (2006:13)
defines a wiki as “a collection of Web pages that can be easily viewed and
modified by anyone, providing a means for sharing learning and collaboration”.
Moreland (2009) examined the use of wikis for collaboration and shared teaching.

11
Synchronous talk can take place across many designed and partially designed
environments on the Web, using text chat facilities, and web- and tele-
conferencing.

E-learning for CPD: moving from content to collaboration?

Online teacher professional development (oTPD) (Reid and Ostashewski, 2010),

or teacher e-learning, has been a distinct area of education systems and provision
for learning since the 1990s. E-learning has developed primarily within higher
education, though is now integrated with developments in pedagogy and teacher
education. E-learning has been concerned with the “online delivery of instructional
content as well as associated support services.” (Dela Pena-Bandalaria, 2009:65)
Mishra (2009) outlines the benefits of e-learning in terms of: access, flexibility,
learner control, content update, coverage and cost, and the notion of „anytime,
anywhere‟ learning (see also Bonk, 2009).

Despite e-learning being criticised for replicating a traditional model of learning

(Tan et al, 2009) and for not being used to develop pedagogies and andragogies
(theories of adult learning), Web courses proliferate around the world. Mishra
(2009) shows how the Government of India has always considered the use of ICT
as a means for the mass education of its people. Bonk et al (2009:9) write of the
“mass migration of training and education to the Web”. They continue, “There are
70 universities within Asia dedicated to open access to education … designing
unique blended programs which combine self study with online and face-to-face
experiences as needed by the learner or dictated by the content.” (Bonk et al,
2009:10)

E-learning is “promoted as a star industry in Taiwan to build a knowledge society

and support life-long learning.” (Zhang and Hung, 2009:50) E-learning courses
„deliver‟ content in a variety of forms within structured learning environments.
These may feature hypertext, audio and video, simulations, and quizzes. There
may be an area for the storage of course artefacts and facilitation of talk. The

12
emphasis is on preparation for external assessment, meeting pre-defined
outcomes (Dela Pena-Bandalaria, 2009).

There are other activities increasingly featuring within e-learning. Teachers can
use a variety of publishing tools and spaces to “create an online portfolio to
showcase their academic, professional, and personal achievements. The portfolio
serves (as) a personal home Web-page to showcase individual work … It also
allows users to record their reflections” (Tan et al, 2009:88) and can be worked on
anytime, anywhere (Tan et al, 2009). Teachers can access digital libraries
containing, for example, academic papers, e-journals featuring practitioner inquiry,
and videos of „enhanced‟ practice (Recker et al, 2007; Dela Pena-Bandalaria,
2009). Providers of career-long teacher education opportunities have established
online and blended programmes, some up to doctoral level. These often utilise
„virtual‟ and „managed‟ learning environments‟, and „content management
systems‟.

Development of the above constructivist and didactic approaches to e-learning are

the product of various policies on adult learning. The Council of the European
Union (2004) promoted the need to develop an integrated, coherent and inclusive
lifelong learning strategy for the teacher population. The European Union (2005)
recognised that networked communities held the potential for contributing towards
continuing professional development, complying with the Lisbon objective to
increase adult participation in lifelong learning (Rodrigues, 2003). The Donaldson
Report (Scottish Government, 2011:75) states that, “Internationally, there is a
move towards teaching becoming a „Masters-level profession‟. The European
Union‟s „Bologna process‟ has been a powerful stimulus in this direction.”

As a result of the present focus on resourcing teacher CPD and systems

transformation through learning communities, some argue that systems of e-
learning need to “develop new images of … professional development, based on
(participants‟) needs within an online community of learners.” (Lock, 2006:663)
Fullan (2001:79) found that learning organisations invest “heavily in technology
and possibly training, but hardly at all in knowledge sharing and creation. And
when they attempt to use and share new knowledge, they find it enormously

13
difficult.” There are moves within the fields of professional development and
educational technology to facilitate “human-centered, not technology-worshipped”
(Lee, 2009:19) e-learning opportunities. Tan et al (2009:84) write of “humaniZing”
e-learning through “high tech – high touch” delivery.

A critical analysis of ‘communities of practice’ and e-learning

In reflecting on the above challenge, it is important to critically examine the

assumptions underpinning theory and practice regarding constructivism and
learning communities. This paper now considers research indicating the
inclination, readiness, or otherwise of teachers in relation to CPD and e-learning
(in its broadest sense, encompassing constructivist and didactic approaches).

Zhang and Hung (2009) found that a significant number of learners are unfamiliar
with any form of e-learning, with one in five also stating that they would require
engagement to be modelled. Dela Pena-Bandalaria (2009) states that many are
dissuaded from engaging with e-learning due to perceived or actual „transactional
distance‟. Laohajaratsang (2009) found that there is reluctance among many tutors
and learners to use e-learning. Teachers may be resistant to change in
approaches to learning due to well-established beliefs that are not in line with
visions of reform (Forgasz and Leder, 2008). Daly et al (2009:29) add that, “There
can be limited tolerance of reduced levels of competence and control” experienced
through e-learning.

„Self-efficacy‟ is a learner‟s beliefs, confidence and expectations about their ability

to carry out a task. It has been identified as an important but under-researched
aspect of Web CPD (Kao and Tsai, 2009, in Daly et al, 2009:45). The challenge is
to “embed … Web CPD approaches with classroom teachers who are less
motivated (and) who are not „experts‟ or „enthusiasts‟.” (Daly et al, 2009:36)

There is an extensive body of research prolematising the notion of the designed

online learning community. Online learning communities “(are) still very
undeveloped in terms of evaluation of impact on transforming knowledge to

14
change practice.” (Daly et al, 2009:37; see also Fisher et al (2006); Kao and Tsai
(2009)) Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou (2009) chart the difficulties around a notional
online community growing into a „community of practice‟. Wenger (1998:81, in
Daly et al, 2009) states that, “Being able to „do‟ something within a COP means
developing judgements and becoming discriminating in deciding how to practise …
When these become shared … this allows participants to negotiate appropriate
ways to carry out tasks and behave within the community”.

Daly et al (2009:47) note that “Wenger makes it clear that a community does not
necessarily imply a shared practice and that this must be forged over time …
Frequent, informal talk is essential to learning within a COP and cannot be
artificially engineered, but rather grows out of an ethos of regular consultation and
shared experiences.”

In terms of talk, Prestridge (2009) distinguishes between collegial discussion,

essential for developing a community and understanding, and critical discussion,
which has a role in transforming teachers‟ beliefs. Grunberg and Armellini (2005)
found than online communication among teachers in South America developed a
sense of collegiality but did not improve teaching and learning. They found a lack
of collaborative discussion and a predominance of „privatised‟ conversations that
did not appear to construct and share new knowledge.

Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou (2009) also show that there are issues around what
they term the „social infrastructure‟ of a community, namely difficulties around
enhancing participation, building identity and community, facing administration and
facilitation concerns, and addressing technical aspects. As a response to
members‟ wishes (for example, where there is a lack of „self efficacy‟), the
expectations of an online „community of practice‟ may be downplayed to that
associated with traditional e-learning. Such a shift would enable members to
“interact at a level they are comfortable with. This accepts participants to view the
oTPD material without feeling too pressured to share their thoughts with others.”
(Reid and Ostashewski, 2010:1120)

15
Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou (2009) establish that the moderator of an online
community lacks the power of an instructor in an award-bearing course, as
participation can only be encouraged and not mandated. Within the online
community being researched, they found that “channels of interaction, information-
sharing and trust-building were missing … (and they) could not … define either
member roles or community goals.” (Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou, 2009:131)
„Social infrastructure‟ may be damaged by peripheral participation and „lurking‟
(Preece et al, 2004; Riverin and Stacey, 2008), and by „trolling‟ (Cuthell, 2004),
where unhappy participants with negative attitudes „hijack‟ online discussions.

Tensions can arise between members and moderators or tutors, where the need
to evidence competencies and professional standards are driving the contributions
of one or the other, but not both. Day (1999) claims that competencies and
standards are rooted in the need to control and monitor teachers. Tutors may
expect, and pursue, participants to respond to stimuli which they have made
available within a community (Abas, 2009). Abas recognises the damage done to
the sustainability of a community when tutors and moderators are frequently
absent. Berge and Collins (2000) claim that these are demanding roles. Tutors
and moderators have to be: technical troubleshooters, educators, hostesses,
chairpersons, facilitators, and community organisers. Schank et al (1999) highlight
the intense labour required to support a growing community, while maintaining
quality interactions.

Day (1999) argues that learning communities should include groups of schools
and university staff. Webb et al (2007:181) state that they should be “outward
looking ... actively find(ing) out about practice ... (avoiding being) closed cultures”.
Wider horizons will be necessary where activity in learning communities is to be
accredited by national or even international bodies for the purpose of academic
award or evidencing of professional standards.

Technologies can link disparate physical learning communities, however there is

little evidence of inter-community collaborative learning, through for example the
creation and action of expansive learning communities that bring together, say,
several 'teacher professional learning communities' (TPLCs) (Stoll and Louis,

16
2007). Day et al (2009) emphasise the high expectations and intense activity
necessary to create change that is owned by the entire school community.
Refering to Lingard (2003), they state, “(He) emphasised the importance of
collaboration in the culture of staffrooms and adult communities throughout the
school – TPLCs include the entire school-based workforce of teachers, heads,
students, parents, teaching assistants, mid-day supervisors etc.” (in Daly et al,
2009:31; see also HMIE, 2010)

A further issue emerging from the literature concerns the attitudes and actions of
school managers towards the involvement of their staff in learning communities. Of
interest, Smith et al (2008) found that when prioritising technology in their schools,
headteachers tended to focus on using ICT in management and administration,
and then on using it in teaching and learning. When a community forms, there is a
tendency for management to attempt to control the design, as communities often
sit outside established hierarchies within education systems. Daly et al (2009)
found that when management participated, they tended to focus on coverage of
policy rather than learning. When a community is online, management‟s
remoteness from notions of knowledge construction and collaborative learning
may lead to an absence of investment in hardware and technical support, both of
which Lee (2009) found to be essential for success.

Agnostic or ambivalent school leadership may reduce the incidence of a learning

community “gain(ing) access to subject specialists.” (Daly et al, 2009:63) New
knowledge is potentially powerful and transformative. If it is not openly shared by
the community in a collegiate, outward looking (and at the same time school
improvement focused) manner, then there will be a loss of trust held by those
close to, but outside of, the community.

It may be difficult, however, to give new knowledge a useful form. Reeves et al

(2005) state that where there is criticality, challenge and change, there may not be
consensus and thus a neatly packaged artefact that others can understand and
make use of. Given that “teachers (may be) actively involved in each other‟s
development across schools” (Daly et al, 2009:63), collaboration and sharing of
knowledge may be an issue for school management where there is local

17
competition. Finally, with a small research-base and lack of evidence supporting
positive claims around the extent and nature of interactions and outcomes within
online communities, education managers may not invest time or resources for
online activities until they see teachers using it in the first instance (Schlager et al,
2002).

In briefly focusing on the individual, it is likely that teachers will be members of

several other online communities (personal, professional, and mixed) and will
make choices over the amount of time they spend interacting within each one
(Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou, 2009). There is a further issue around teachers‟
histories of ICT use. A history of positive personal use of technologies makes it
likely that an early career teacher will have an inclination to use ICT, or a
propensity to see ICT as having value for them within their ongoing professional
learning and CPD. Hammond et al‟s (2009) research indicates that possessing an
inclination is more important than a set of ICT skills.

Dela Pena-Bandalaria (2007) found that Filipinos‟ satisfaction with online learning
is a function of learner variables, including: length/number of years of using the
computer; length/number of years of using the Web; and the number of
hours/length of using the computer and the Internet per access. A direct
relationship was visible between each of these variables and the level of
satisfaction in an online learning environment.

Based upon their ICT histories, many teachers are demanding more flexibility
regarding time and place of learning (Lee, 2009). Many are capable of extended
periods of self-study using the Web and consider themselves as requiring only
minimum tutor or colleague input (Suzuki, 2009). Daly et al (2009) foresee that
online CPD will become increasingly „demand led‟. Suzuki believes that as
teachers‟ expectations rise within a milieu where more CPD equates with higher
academic qualifications and career development pathways, greater rigour and
toughness will be necessary around quality assurance of all forms of e-learning.

In perceiving problems around the early adoption of on- and off-line „communities
of practice‟, in particular the prevalence of designed environments, many

18
professionals are using free Web resources to create environments and networks
in an effort to realise the potential benefits of collaboration within a community.

Teachers’ professional learning via Web 2.0 and ‘personal learning

networks’

The uses of Web 2.0 technologies by teachers (as learners) and learning
organisations, that is those “supporting collaborative and participatory interactions”
(Arakji and Lang, 2010), has grown for three reasons: learners‟ dissatisfaction with
traditional e-learning, frustration with the inadequacies and contrived nature of
designed learning communities, and a realisation of the new possibilities around
learning on the „open‟ web. Preston et al (2009) note growth in informal, fluid
online learning communities, facilitated by Web 2.0 technologies. Teachers are
seeking out peers to help facilitate their own learning and development (Sherer et
al, 2003), although this has been, and remains, a feature of teacher professional
action in staffrooms and conferences, and is not unique to online activity.

Cuthell (2008) describes a model of voluntary collaborative online CPD, which

takes place via learning platforms across international contexts. Teachers can take
part in online sharing of project-based self-directed learning (see also Day, 1999
and the notion of „responsibilisation‟ (Peters, 2001)). Cuthell‟s model is “based on
the importance of „learning by doing‟ and usually attracts self-selecting ICT
enthusiasts” (in Daly et al, 2009:35). It has been termed „braided learning‟
(Haythornthwaite, 2007). Braided learning appears to satisfy Daly et al‟s (2009:54)
requirement for “a shift to a model of bottom-up or „backward-mapping‟ innovation
coming from practitioners themselves to ensure a sustainable culture of change
and development.”

Interestingly, as far back as 2002 the Inspectorate in Scotland (HMIE, 2002:21)

stated that “many (teachers) have not yet fully recognised the advantages of being
able to access their professional development flexibly and at their own pace
through self-directed on-line work.” JISC (2007:32) found that, “(Learners) … seek
to personalise the technologies they use, just as they control other aspects of their

19
learning environment. In response to a variety of pressures – including shortage of
time, lifestyle, personal preferences and course requirements – learners are now
selecting their own blend of technologies to make their learning experiences more
congenial, manageable and appropriate to their needs.” This, along with Cuthell‟s
model, is exemplified by the emergence of MOOCs (massive open online courses)
(Mackness et al, 2010).

MOOCs originate from the University of Manitoba, Canada, and are grounded in
connectivism (Siemens, 2006); labelled and contested as a “new learning theory
for a digital age” Mackness et al (2010:266). This writer previously stated (Noble,
2010:12) that “Siemens (2006) identifies the creation of currency, that is, accurate,
up-to-date knowledge, as the intent of connectivist learning activities.” MOOCs
offer “extensive diversity, connectivity and opportunities for sharing knowledge …
Learners are … exercising autonomy regarding where, when, how, what and with
whom to learn, (and by) select(ing) technologies.” (Mackness et al, 2010:266)
Learners are free to create their own learning environment, remote from the
course or institution (Beetham, 2008; Guldberg and Makness, 2009).

Facilitators of MOOCs provide open access to a “cluster of resources around a

subject area, rather than a linear set of materials that all students must follow.”
(Downes, 2009) MOOCs make use of “readings and presentations already freely
available on the Web … supplemented by course instructor and visiting speaker
presentations and materials.” (Mackness et al, 2010:268) The emergence of new
sites of learning, such as MOOCs, illustrate that it is becoming “harder to draw
boundaries around (national) „educational‟ technological innovations and … ignore
the impetus from the outside world to develop collaborative, learner-centred ways
of communicating and learning.” (Daly et al, 2009:16)

Activities such as reading and publishing to blogs, managing and reading RSS
feeds, posting multimedia to „followers‟ and „friends‟ via social networking
applications, and uploading elements of one‟s practice to Glow, exemplify
Warlick‟s notion of online collegiality (Warlick, 2009, in Noble, 2010). “„Personal
learning networks‟ (PLNs) consist of loose interactions (Wilson, 2008), and fluid
and weak spaces, sources of data, and relationships (Hawthornthwaite, 2000).” (in

20
Noble, 2010:1) The term PLN is referred to by many educators who are engaged
in professional learning across the open web (Noble, 2011). Collegial behaviour is
evident, where learners (that is, teachers working with or within their PLN)
“become amplifiers as they engage in knowledge-building activities, connect what
they learn, add value to existing knowledge and ideas, and re-issue them back into
the network to be captured by others through their PLNs.” (Warlick, 2009:15; see
also Tan et al, 2009).

PLNs are “customised, personal Web environments … that explicitly support one‟s
social, professional, (and) learning … activities via highly personalized windows to
the networked world.” (Johnson et al 2009:19) This writer continues (Noble,
2010:9), “Online, artefacts such as Twitter-mediated dialogue, blog posts and web
conference recordings are created by teachers worldwide. In addition to text and
other media, Tobin (1998) includes as artefacts, all conversations, people and
organisations within PLNs. Nowadays, artefacts can be shared freely and
efficiently between those in and around online PLNs.”

Couros (2006) developed the notion of the „networked teacher‟, illustrated by his
„total learning environment‟ diagram. The diagram features: Web 2.0 tools,
colleagues and members of the local community, other physical and virtual
artefacts, and a variety of methods of talk. „Networked teachers‟ use collaborative
practices, and informal and formal opportunities to deepen their knowledge and
skills. Couros‟s diagram places the professional teacher at the centre of their own
learning.

Considering emerging criticism of free professional action on the Web

However, a pervasive, evangelical mindset is said to exist among some teachers

(Holmes et al, 2007). This mindset appears to elevate the value and perceived
benefits of informal, free and open professional on action on the Web above that
of CPD which relates directly to the improvement of a school and the learning of its
students (Noble, 2010). The claims of Holmes et al (2007) and this writer,
however, are not supported by Devereux (2009:19-20), who characterises these

21
teachers as being within “pervasive groupings of professionals (networks), ready
to push themselves further in the search for new ways of learning – for themselves
and their students.”

Mayer (2004) writes of an excess of free discovery learning which can hamper the
development of shared understanding and collaborative learning. This writer
suggests that such a problem can occur within online PLNs and school
professional communities. Mackness et al (2010:266) warn that “ethical
considerations … may need to be taken into account when testing new theory and
practice.” This writer interprets their warning in relation to teachers bringing new
knowledge and skills gained through online professional learning into their school,
despite these not arising or being acquired as a result of collaboration with
members of the school community.

Others argue that work within PLNs mirror „21st century‟ approaches to learning.
“Being critically informed about informal learning via Web 2.0 social networking
needs to be part of teachers‟ professional knowledge. This involves being
proactively experimental rather than „victims of technological vision‟” (Convery,
2009, in Daly et al, 2009:18). It also entails engaging with “Web 2.0 technologies
such as podcasts, wikis, blogs, and social networking tools such as Facebook …
(presently) being employed for elearning” (Bonk et al, 2009:12).

In relating PLNs to their work setting and notions of new expertise and leadership,
“Teachers need to be the main agents of change … rather than as managers in
reaction to external or internal policy making. This is where an emphasis on
increasing the „demand‟ side of professional development activities is relevant ...
(Teacher leadership) involves teachers leading other teachers by: coaching,
mentoring, leading wider groups, leading developmental tasks that underpin
learning and teaching, and crucially, leading pedagogy by developing and
modelling effective teaching.” (Harris and Muijs, 2005, in Daly et al, 2009:30)

In considering the possible interest from Scottish teachers in this form of online
CPD or professional learning, it is useful to consider Rogers‟ (1995) „theory of
diffusion of innovation‟. “The adoption of an innovation is a process which occurs

22
over time among the members of a social system. There are four main elements
which influence the adoption process: the innovation itself, the social system within
which the innovation is diffused among its members, the communication channels
through which messages about the innovation are communicated between the
members; and the awareness, persuasion, decision making and adoption that
takes place over time. The members involved in the innovation diffusion process
can be categorized into different types of adopters: innovators, early adopters,
early majority, late majority and laggards.” (Rogers, 1995, in Barton et al,
2009:132)

Januszewski and Molenda (2008) show that concepts of educational technology

continue to evolve. Every year there are significant changes in students‟ digital
studying environments (Anzai, 2009). Barton et al (2009) suggest that early
adopters become the change agents, at the same time helping with the iterative
development (Dela Pena-Bandalaria, 2009) of online CPD for teachers. Barton et
al (2009) researched influential early adopters, considered as change agents in
tertiary education in Turkey. They inspired the e-learning of small networks of their
peers (Henderson, 2009) by building on established social networks and
connections. However, Spector (2001) warns of teachers feeling intimidated by the
„technification‟ of education. He criticises the arrogance of new experts who
dominate discourse on pedagogies and new technologies. Convery (2009) argues
that teachers have become victims of policy-makers‟ rhetoric about technological
benefits and are encouraged to believe that serial adoption is a moral imperative.

Ways forward for online CPD, drawn from the literature

Shortly, this paper will make recommendations around online CPD for Scotland‟s
teachers, within the context of those aspects of The Donaldson Report which
relate to ICT. Firstly, it is important to draw on some broad themes around which
many of the writers above, and others, base their own recommendations.

Coombs and Denning (2006) argue that there needs to be recognition that
although there are multiple notions of „communities of practice‟, online teacher

23
communities can become redundant and ineffective without a considered basis
and strategy, backed by policy (Suzuki, 2009). Attention needs to be given to
social, cultural and organisational issues, rather than technological features
(Wenger, 2001). Conrad (2005:2) states that “the creation of community (ought to)
simulate for online learners the comforts of home, providing a safe climate, an
atmosphere of trust and respect, an invitation for intellectual exchange, and a
gathering place for like-minded individuals who are sharing a journey that includes
similar activities, purposes and goals.” Daly et al (2009:47) add that,
“Communication is core to establishing shared understanding among participants
about the nature of their work, and enables them to take future actions.”

Approaches to online discussion within teachers‟ own individual or networked

learning environments, or environments that have been designed for teachers,
need to promote critical thinking (Dela Pena-Bandalaria, 2009) in order for learning
to lead to changes in the circumstances of students. Daly et al (2009:47) also
suggest that “within a „community of practice‟, CPD should be socially binding
between teachers. A genuine COP is established by „a way of talking‟ among
members.”

Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou (2009:129) argue that “communities should emerge

rather than be created”. The participation of new teachers in these communities is
essential as they aide the process of teacher socialisation. Communities are
“environment(s) which encourages some activities and discourages others.” (Daly
et al, 2009:43) Online communities should be regarded as part of a „larger entity‟
(Schlager et al, 2002), rather than as artefacts to be built in the context of some
education policy intervention (Schlager and Fucso, 2004).

With Internet use “expected to grow even more with the proliferation of mobile
technologies coupled with the availability of increasingly affordable broadband
Internet access” (Abas, 2009:98), Abas (2009:102) identifies four ways of
improving e-learning:

24
 Enhance learner access to learning materials
improve education efficiency by increasing opportunities for collaborative
learning and by making course materials available in a timely manner, 24
hours a day, seven days a week
improve learning effectiveness by encouraging learner interaction with
tutors and classmates (colleagues) to support and promote collaborative
learning.

Other writers focus on a range of requirements for effective and useful e-learning:

Efficiency and cost effectiveness (Lee, 2009)

policies supporting the implementation (Lee, 2009)
technical and administrative support from institutions (Lee, 2009; Karagiorgi
and Lymbouridou, 2009)
effective instructional design (Lee, 2009; Zhang and Hung, 2009; Mishra,
2009)
appropriate digital technologies (Lee, 2009)
peer evaluation tools (Lee, 2009). Tan et al (2009:87) suggest that, “as a
reviewer, the (learner) will feel responsible for (their colleague‟s) learning
and will be motivated to give well-informed and constructive feedback on
(his or her) peer‟s work.”
sufficient budget (Zhang and Hung, 2009)
tutors who have knowledge and skills in new technologies (Dela Pena-
Bandalaria, 2009)
needs-based and contextual (Mishra, 2009).

In the (re)design of e-learning, Zhang and Hung (2009:61) call for the
establishment of “collaborative partnerships with business, government, and non-
profit sectors to share resources and expertise in the design, development, and
delivery”. Dela Pena-Bandalaria (2009) suggests that this will reduce costs and
enrich quality assurance (Coombs and Denning, 2006), which Zhang and Hung
(2009) found is necessary to raise the „acceptance rate‟ of e-learning. However,

25
Tan et al (2009:82) warn that providers and managers should measure success in
“mile-stones of achievements rather than page views”.

Dela Pena-Bandalaria (2009:75) later promotes the idea of the „quality circle‟,
which “consists of the writer who is an expert on the subject matter as well as a
subject matter specialist who will review the soundness of the content. In addition,
there is an instructional designer who determines if the chunking of lessons is
proper and appropriate. Such a person must also make decisions related to the
alignment of the program or course goals, content, and assessments. There is a
media specialist who will give recommendations related to the appropriate medium
of course and module delivery as well as multimedia supplements.” Abas
(2009:104) adds that, “Staffing (should) include … programmers, graphic
designers, animators, instructional designers, and Web developers to design and
develop online learning materials.”

However, excellent content does not equate to meaningful learning (Mishra, 2009).
Zhang and Hung (2006) found that assessment of e-learning is a major concern
among instructors. Some providers of accredited professional learning award a
small percentage of course marks for online collaboration, despite concerns
regarding validity and plagiarism (Tan et al, 2009). Suzuki (2009) states that
professional competencies (standards) covered by successful engagement and
completion of accredited online CPD must be communicated clearly and form the
basis of tutors‟ and learners‟ expectations.

Mishra (2009:128) argues that a statutory body for e-learning should exist to:
“(Develop) a nationally distributed repository of learning objects, maintain quality
standards for online learning, coordinate and promote online learning, (and)
accredit online learning courses … It could develop and maintain online learning
portals for lifelong learning … (containing) small learning objects (developed) by
teachers that they can use, share, and discuss.”

Laohajaratsang (2009:115) states that, “(The Thailand Cyber University) has

attempted to implement high quality and standard e-learning to expand
educational opportunities … without the limit of time and place … It provides 430

26
self-learning courses.” Linked to this, there has been a proliferation of „skillettes‟;
short modules of not more than thirty minutes which cover one specific unit of
learning and is considered to be facilitative of just-in-time education (Mitra, 2003;
2009). The RSC in the UK (RSC, 2011) runs an online web conferencing service,
RSC TV, which allows educators to similarly „snack‟ on learning (McIntosh, 2007).
Developing this idea, „courselets‟ are practitioner-led sequences of activities (Reid
and Ostashewski, 2010). They include “reflective professional practice, participant
feedback, requests from external bodies, directions from governing bod(ies),
reviews of the literature and formative evaluations. Courselets were originally
designed to be mini versions of university courses (Dodge and Molebash, 2005),
intended to “simulate a semester long learning experience in four weeks.” (Reid
and Ostashewski, 2010:1119-1121)

Eaton and Carbonne (2008) argue that schools need to invest in releasing
teachers to spend time on critical and reflective activities, either through group
facilitation during staff training time, or by allowing teachers to attend programmes
off-site. Daly et al (2009:83) add that “CPD (will) take place in increasingly
distributed locations as market forces continue to privatise the whole operation …
in multiple locations: government sponsored centres, cluster schools, classrooms,
(and) teachers‟ homes.”

Changing CPD in Scotland: learning from the NOF

The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) was a significant development in the

discrediting of „delivery‟ models of CPD. Reflecting on this policy creates helpful
guidance for implementing new approaches to teacher education, professional
learning and CPD, such as those proposed in The Donaldson Report. Based on
this literature review, the writer assumes that there are still significant numbers of
teachers deficient in ICT knowledge and skills relating to a number of areas of
teacher education identified for improvement or implementation in the report.

The NOF “ran from 1999 to 2003 and aimed to make every United Kingdom
teacher competent in the classroom uses of information technology.” (Conlon,

27
2004:116) Conlon (2004:122) states that the Teacher Training Agency in England
stipulated that NOF training must:

Be delivered by an accredited training provider, to be chosen by each

school from a centrally maintained list of providers
operate within a level of funding equal to £450 per teacher on average
deliver the prescribed training outcomes

on using ICT in the classroom

ion of training needs
-line support where appropriate
ascertain that teachers had good access to computers during their period of
training
be open to inspection.

The findings of Ofsted (2002) relating to the „delivery‟ model, and not the
technological content of the CPD, are of note. Teachers referred to: lack of
professional support, insufficient relevance to subject specialists, learning
materials that were not engaging, and failure to „up skill‟ and build on levels of prior
knowledge. There was also criticism of ICT support for self-directed study.
Teachers did not benefit from learning at a computer by themselves in their own
time. Online mentoring was of poor quality due to the ratio of learners to mentors.
These factors contributed to a high number of teachers not completing their
training.

“The assumption ... that teachers would welcome online training as a way of fitting
professional updating into busy working schedules seems to have been in
advance of practice and resources, in advance of what many school systems
could provide ... (and) incompatible with the … preferred learning styles of many
teachers.” (Ofsted, 2002:30) CPD providers were found to have made
assumptions regarding teachers‟ motivation and time management skills (HMIE,
2002). This one-size-fits-all approach to CPD was found to effect little change on
practice (Conlon, 2004).

28
Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) state that, “There are considerable differences
among teachers in their levels and needs … broadly categorised as:

1. Teachers who are increasingly products of the „Net Generation‟, who are
confident and familiar with Web 2.0 and other technologies. For these
teachers, the gap between their immersion in technologies and what and
how they are enabled to learn in school is part of an anomaly and likely to
become an increasing source of frustration and lost opportunities as time
goes by. They do not necessarily possess advanced pedagogical expertise,
however, and their development needs are important.
2. Teachers who have the skills and the access to technologies, but are not
motivated or not convinced of the benefits (Empirica, 2006) or who, for
„unspecified reasons‟, do not engage with technologies.
3. Teachers who are lacking skills and confidence.”
(in Daly et al, 2009:81)

Parihar (2004) identified four bottlenecks in the introduction of ICT in school

settings. First, teachers have to make a move to „new education‟, but lack time.
Second, teachers fear that ICT will dislocate them. Third, teachers are unsure of
the security provisions for their study materials. And, fourth, there is perceived
unreliability of networking and local computing services. Lawson and Comber
(1999) state that senior management can be effective in encouraging the use of
ICT, and Comber (2007) argues that management must go further and foster
inclusive, collaborative and teacher-led CPD. Holmes (2007) believes that
convergence should take place between management, teachers and technologies,
before new CPD and required online professional activities are introduced.

Conclusion - Recommendations in the context of The Donaldson Report

This paper has drawn on international research and discourse on professional

development and „technologies for learning‟. It has outlined the recommendations
of The Donaldson Report (Scottish Government, 2011), which itself was a
response to some of the issues regarding CPD detailed in this literature review.

29
Constructivist and traditional e-learning were examined in the context of teachers‟
CPD, and comparisons were made with the „free learning‟ of teachers who are
professionally active on the open Web. Finally, this paper highlighted useful
reflections, demands-on-policy, and „good practice‟. The purpose of the conclusion
is to make recommendations to educationists throughout Scotland. To aid focus,
they are separated into three sections; however each recommendation should be
considered by the reader.

Recommendations (particularly for The Scottish Government)

1. The work of professional learning communities should be available online and

be easy to search and locate. A resource could be developed by those
universities who are in coalition with local authorities and schools.
2. There should be a national database of subject experts (For example, on
curriculum, pedagogies, learning, and inter-professional working). Experts
would be able to move between communities as „critical friends‟ (Stenhouse,
1975) and may come from, for example, national education agencies, social
organisations, business, academia or the local community. They may also be
classroom practitioners.
3. There needs to be recognition that teachers‟ histories of using ICT personally
and professionally will greatly impact on the likelihood of perseverance and
success during their required use of online tools. „Anytime, anywhere‟ support
in using these tools should be available through the open Web and Glow, and
be available via mobile devices. Support should be provided in multimedia and
text format, with a regularly updated „frequently asked questions‟ section. The
tools outlined in The Donaldson Report should not be launched until they have
been tested by a sample of teachers and have a zero „error rate‟. The needs of
the least confident teachers should be considered throughout (Daly et al,
2009).
4. In reflecting on the NOF CPD policy and its high rate of non-completion,
consideration will need to be given as to how to ensure that provision is made
for all possible circumstances arising when teachers begin to use the online
tools. National CPD leaders must ensure that the potential for widespread

30
 anxiety and stress is not realised. Hardy (2008) warns of rising pressure when
teachers have to deal with multiple, complex changes. The structure and
content of the online environments will need to be mindful of different teacher
contexts. The online tools should be used to help support teachers in their
roles, rather than exist as an administrative account.
5. There should be recognition that the existence of a designed online community
is not significant in itself. The depth and criticality of talk, construction of
knowledge that can be shared, and influence on practice and policy are
significant.
6. There is a need for common standards to be agreed and maintained across the
work of providers of CPD. This should be achieved through the formulation of a
national CPD design policy (Suzuki, 2009). Such an approach should lead to,
for example, all teachers being clear as to which parts of the relevant
professional standard are being addressed through participation in each CPD
opportunity.
7. National CPD leaders should ensure that international online CPD
opportunities are identified and communicated to teachers in Scotland, with
support provided to ensure ease of access. Such opportunities may be short or
long in duration, passive or interactive, and could be engaged with through a
language other than English. Opportunities will also exist in the business world
or academic schools other than Schools of Education.
8. Teachers should be surveyed every year regarding favoured technologies and
environments for professional learning and CPD (Anzai, 2009).
9. Research should be commissioned into how online „communities of practice‟
around the world and in other professions foster criticality. Such research
would contribute knowledge to an emerging field of CPD that is presently
under-researched (Kirschner and Lei, 2007). Identified approaches could be
shared across Scotland, enabling criticality and reflection, even where teachers
are unable to physically meet.

31
Recommendations (particularly for Local Authorities and other employers)

10. There should be critical engagement with the assumptions underlying

constructivist learning environments such as professional learning communities
and online communities (both designed and practitioner-led), particularly when
considering the current absence of substantial, systems-wide evidence that
such environments are effective.
11. Capacity-building should partly focus on „ways of talking‟ online and within
communities. This may be informed by the growing literature on „learning
conversations‟ (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007).
Grossman et al (2001:973) advises that “learning from colleagues requires
both a shift in perspective and the ability to listen hard to other adults”.
12. Teachers who perceive of themselves as „change agents‟ and/or are
committed to new iterations of CPD should be encouraged and provided with
resources to take forward their ideas. They should ensure that plans are
evidence-informed and that the errors of earlier designed online communities
and experiences are not repeated. Projects should be small and based around
the change agents‟ existing networks, and place an emphasis on respect,
relationships and regular communication.
13. Assuming that PRD processes will be improved and that CPD and „teacher
reaccreditation‟ will be linked to this process, uptake of several of the online
tools outlined in The Donaldson Report will need to reach almost 100%. To
attain this coverage, each school will need to have at least one dedicated
desktop computer or notebook to support those teachers whose personal
circumstances mean that their online tasks may not be completed to either
party‟s satisfaction. Similarly, teachers‟ „working weeks‟ should have time built-
in for engaging with regular, required online CPD and PRD tasks.
14. Hub teaching schools should consider the introduction of recordings and online
broadcasts to share excellent practice beyond just pupils‟ lessons. Brunvand
(2010) illustrates design strategies, including prompts, commentary, reflective
tools and multiple perspectives, to produce effective live and archived video
content.
15. Teachers who are confident and competent in using Web 2.0 and other
technologies should not be constrained by unnecessary limits on their self-

32
study and their autonomous procurement and creation of CPD opportunities.
Whether they wish to, for example, engage with their PLN or take part in a
worldwide MOOC or conference in another continent, they should not be
blocked by systems administrators. Management may consider permitting, or
professional associations even licensing, such teachers to use their own
devices within school, disconnected from the network but connected wirelessly
to the open Web.

33
Recommendations (particularly for providers and facilitators of CPD and
professional learning)

16. There is continuing emphasis within career-long teacher education on: self-
evaluation, teacher reflection, collegiality, collaboration, construction and
sharing of new knowledge, and visible improvement. Online experiences will
need to cover, but ensure that they go beyond: modelling of good practice,
information on just-in-case scenarios, and one-way talks on policy
implementation.
17. In planning for any online CPD experience for teachers, emphasis should be
placed on: selecting the correct technologies, considering learner readiness
and cultures, quality assurance and quality circles, and stating the benefits to
participants in terms of teaching and learning, contractual and professional
obligations, and accreditation (Schlager et al, 2002).
18. CPD providers should be part of ongoing „quality circles‟. These may produce
economies of scale through the sharing of certain tasks and costs associated
with the creation of multimedia content and effective learning environments.
19. Providers of e-learning, and those with recognised expertise in terms of content
and (new) approaches to learning, should be partners in CPD design
processes.
20. Masters qualifications relating to career-long CPD should be offered as online-
only courses in addition to blended models, as there will be significant
expectation and uptake among teachers with a long history of ICT use and high
levels of „self efficacy‟ in learning online.
21. Collaborative and other online professional learning activities should be
embedded in Masters level CPD. Consideration should be given to assessment
rubrics and allocation of marks for group participation and co-creation of a
sharable artefact.
22. To ensure that online and face-to-face learning communities are outward-
looking, members should have a level of access to academic journals similar to
those of matriculated students in those universities with whom their employers
are in coalition. Cordingley (2008) argues that this is essential for practitioner
inquiry to take place.

34
Bibliography

Abas, Z. W. (2009). E-Learning in Malaysia: moving forward in open distance

learning. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.) A Special
Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake: Virginia. pp97-107

Anzai, Y. (2009). Digital trends among Japanese university students:

podcasting and wikis as tools for learning. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H.
Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake:
Virginia. pp23-37

Arakji, R. A., and Lang, K. R. (2010). An Evolutionary Theory of Innovation and

Strategic Platform Openness for Web 2.0 Businesses. Sprouts: Working
Papers on Information Systems [online].
http://sprouts.aisnet.org/1070/1/JAIS_EvolutionaryTheoryOfInnovation_Rev1_1
12010.pdf [Accessed 22nd February 2011]

Barton, S. M., Corbitt, B., and Nguyen, L. (2009). Academic social networks
affecting the adoption of e-learning in Turkey. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T.
H. Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake:
Virginia. pp131-145

Becta (2008). Harnessing Technology Review 2008: The role of technology

and its impact on education. Becta: Coventry

Beetham, H. (2008). Learners’ Experiences of E-Learning: research from the

UK [online]. Available at
http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/
BeethamIntro_464-466.pdf [Accessed 14th January 2011]

Berge, Z. L., and Collins, M. P. (2000). Perceptions of e-moderators about their

roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education.
21(1), pp81–100

35
Bonk, C. J. (2009). The World is Open: how web technology is revolutionizing
education. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco

Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., and Reynolds, T. H. (2009). Preface: A Special

Passage Through Asia E-Learning. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H.
Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake:
Virginia. pp9-15

Brunvand, S. (2010). Best practices for producing video content for teacher
education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 10(2),
pp247-256

Cohill, J. (2010). Collaborative CPD, school culture, school policy and teachers'
individuality. Education Today. 60(1), pp10-15

Comber, C. (2007). SLICT: how to integrate ICT in your school. Teaching

Expertise [online]. Available at http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/slict-
how-to-integrate-ict-in-your-school-2495 [Accessed 1st February 2011]

Conlon, T. (2004). A Failure of Delivery: the United Kingdom‟s New

Opportunities Fund programme of teacher training in information and
communications technology. Journal of In-service Education. 30(1), pp115-139

Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online

learning. Journal of Distance Education. 20(1), pp1–20

Convery, A. (2009). The Pedagogy of the Impressed: how teachers become

victims of technological vision. Teachers and Teaching. 15(1), pp25– 41

Coombs, S., and Denning, A. S. (2006). Designing work-based and distance

learning policy for university professional learning programmes. Paper
presented at International Professional Development Association Annual
Conference, Stirling Management Centre, University of Stirling, 1-2 December

36
Cordingley, P. (2008). Qualitative Study of School Level Strategies for
Teachers' CPD. Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education:
Coventry

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D., and Firth, A. (2005). The Impact of
Collaborative Continuing Professional Development (CPD) on Classroom
Teaching and Learning. Review: How do collaborative and sustained CPD and
sustained but not collaborative CPD affect teaching and learning? Research
Evidence in Education Library London: London

Council of the European Union (2004). Joint Interim Report of the Council and
the Commission: education and training 2010. The success of the Lisbon
strategy hinges on urgent reforms [online]. Available at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/jir_council_final.pdf
[Accessed 17th January 2011]

Couros, A. (2006). Examining the Open Movement: possibilities and

implications for education. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Regina:
Saskatchewan

Cuthell, J. P. (2004). What Does it Take to be Active? Teacher participation in

online communities [online]. Available at:
http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/changemanage/ecommunities/Teacher%20pa
rticipation%233912A.pdf [Accessed 6th January 2011]

Cuthell, J. P. (2008). The role of a web-based community in teacher

professional development. International Journal of Web Based Communities.
4(2), pp115-139

Daly, C., Pachler, N., and Pelletier, C. (2009). Continuing Professional

Development in ICT for Teachers: A literature review. Project Report. Becta,
London

37
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools:
early lessons, challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond, (ed.)
Professional Development Schools: schools for developing a profession.
Teachers College Press: New York. pp1-27

Day, C. (1999). Developing Teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning.

Falmer Press: London

De Freitas, S., Oliver, M., Mee, A., and Mayes, T. (2007). The practioner
perspective on the modeling of pedagogy and practice. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning

Dela Pena-Bandalaria, M. M. (2007). Learner Satisfaction in an Online

Learning Environment. Unpublished paper. University of the Philippines Open
University: Los Banos, Laguna

Dela Pena-Bandalaria, M. M. (2009). E-Learning in the Philippines: trends,

directions, and challenges. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.)
A Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake: Virginia. pp65-80

Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007). What is the learning
conversation? The Learning Conversation [online]. Available at
http://www.nationalstrategiescpd.org.uk/public_content/tlc_secondary/introducti
on/in010.html [Accessed 5th January 2011]

Devereux, C. (2009). Beyond the Curriculum: the positive effects of Continual

Professional Development for a group of post-16 science teachers. WLE
Centre Occasional Papers in Work-Based Learning. WLE Centre, Institute of
Education: London

Dodge, B., and Molebash, P. E. (2005). Mini-courses for teaching with

technology: thinking outside the 3-credit box. Society for Information
Technology in Teacher Education [CD ROM]. Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education: Norfolk, Virginia

38
Downes, S. (2009). Access 20ER: the CCK08 solution [online]. Available at
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2009/02/access2oercck08-solution.html
[Accessed 20th January 2011)

Eaton, P., and Carbone, R. (2008). Asking those who know: a collaborative
approach to Continuing Professional Development. Teacher Development.
12(3), pp261–270

Empirica (2006). Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT in European Schools.

Empirica: Bonn

European Commission (2005). Progress Towards the Lisbon Objective in

Education and Training. Working paper [online]. Available at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/lb-en.pdf [Accessed
23rd January 2011]

Fisher, T., Higgins, C., and Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers Learning with Digital
Technologies: a review of research and projects. Futurelab series 14 [online].
Available at http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm#lr14
[Accessed 3rd January 2011]

Forgasz, H. J., and Leder, G. C. (2008). Beliefs about mathematics and

mathematics teaching. In P. Sullivan and T. Wood, (eds.) International
Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education: Volume 1, Knowledge and
beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development. Sense Publishers:
Rotterdam/Taipei. pp173-192

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco

Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., and Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher
Education in Transition. Open University Press: Buckingham

39
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., and Yoon, K. S.
(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a
national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal. 38(4),
pp915–945

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., and Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of

teacher community. Teachers College Record. 103(6), pp942–1012

Grunberg, J., and Armellini, A. (2005). Talking about teaching: a study of the
professional uses of email by secondary school teachers in Uruguay.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 14(2), pp171–188

Guldberg, K., and Mackness, J. (2009). Foundations of communities of

practice: enablers and barriers to participation. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning

Guskey, T. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional

development. Educational Leadership. 59(6), pp45–51

Hadjithoma, C., and Karagiorgi, Y. (2009). The use of ICT in primary schools
within emerging communities of implementation. Computers and Education
52(1), pp83-91

Hall, B. (2006). Five innovation technologies [online]. Available at

http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_article.asp?articleid=1443andz
oneid=190 [Accessed 2nd February 2011]

Hammond, M., Crosson, S., Fragkouli, E., Ingram, J., Johnston-Wilder, P.,
Johnston-Wilder, S., Kingston, Y., Pope, M., and Wray, D. (2009). Why do
some student teachers make very good use of ICT? An exploratory case study.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education. pp59-73

Hardy, I. (2008). The impact of policy upon practice: an Australian study of

teachers' professional development. Teacher Development. 12(2), pp103–113

40
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: education in the
age of insecurity. Teachers College Press: New York

Hargreaves, D. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of

Educational Studies. 47(2), pp122–144

Harland, J., and Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers‟ Continuing Professional

Development: framing a model of outcomes. Journal of In-service Education.
23, pp71-84

Harris, A., and Muijs, D. (2005). Improving Schools Through Teacher

Leadership. Open University Press: Maidenhead

Harris, A., Day, C., Goodall, J., Lindsay, G., and Muijs, D. (2006). What
difference does it make? Evaluating the impact of continuing professional
development in schools. Scottish Educational Review. 37, pp91-99

Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: size, composition and

media use among distance learners. New Media Society. 2(2), pp195-226

Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). New International Theories and Models Of and For

Online Learning. First Monday: Chicago

Henderson, M. (2007). Sustaining online teacher professional development

through community design. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 24(3), pp162-
173

HMIE (2002) ICT: into the classroom of tomorrow. HMSO: London

HMIE (2010) Opening up learning in all-through schools. HM Inspectorate of

Education: Livingston

41
Holmes, B., Gardner, J., and Galanouli, D. (2007). Striking the right chord and
sustaining successful professional development in information and
communications technologies. Journal of In-service Education. 33(4), pp389-
404

Hustler, D., McNamara, O., Jarvis, J., Londra, M., and Campbell, A. (2003).
Teachers’ Perceptions of Continuing Professional Development. Department
for Education and Skills: London

Hutchings, M., Osgood, J., Allen, K., Maylor, U., and Williams, K. (2009).
Scoping Manageable and Strategic Approaches to CPD for Supply Teachers.
General Teaching Council for England

Januszewski, A., and Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology. Lawrence

Erbium Associates: New York

JISC (2007). In Their Own Words [online]. Available at:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/iowfin
al.pdf [Accessed 30th January 2011]

Jonassen, D. H., Peck K. L., and Wilson, B. G. (1998). Creating Technology

Supported Learning Communities [online]. Available at
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/learncomm.html [Accessed 26th January
2011]

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L, and Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with

Technology: a constructivist perspective. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., and Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 Horizon
report: K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium: Austin

Kao, C., and Tsai, C. (2009). Teachers‟ attitudes toward web-based

professional development, with relation to Internet self-efficacy and beliefs
about web-based learning. Computers and Education. 53(1), pp66-73

42
Karagiorgi, Y., and Lymbouridou, C. (2009). The story of an online teacher
community in Cyprus. Professional Development in Education. 35(1), pp119-
138

Kibrick, M., van Es, E., and Warschauer, M. (2010). Designing professional
development for 21st Century learning. Paper presented at Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, California, 29th
March

Kirschner, P. A., and Lai, K-W. (2007). Online communities of practice in

education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 16(2), pp127-131

Knight, P., Tait, J., and Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers
in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 31(3), pp319-339

Laohajaratsang, T. (2009) E-Learning readiness in the academic sector of

Thailand. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.) A Special
Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake: Virginia. pp109-117

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate and peripheral
participation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Lawson, T., and Comber, C. (1999). Superhighways Technology: personnel

factors leading to successful integration of ICT in schools and colleges. Journal
of Information Technology for Teacher Education. 8(1), pp41-53

Lee, M. M. (2009). Opening comments on e-learning in Asia. In C. J. Bonk, M.

M. Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage Through Asia E-
Learning. Chesapeake: Virginia. pp17-22

Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., and Christie, P. (2003). Leading Learning.
Open University Press: Maidenhead

43
Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: online communities to facilitate teacher
professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
14(4), pp663-678

Lord, P., Lamont, E., Harland, J., Mitchell, H., and Straw, S. (2009). Evaluation
of the GTC's Teacher Learning Academy (TLA): impacts on teachers, pupils
and schools. National Foundation for Educational Research

Mishra, S. (2009). E-Learning in India. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H.

Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake:
Virginia. pp119-130

O'Brien, J., and Weiner, G. (2007). Seeking to engage hearts and minds:
professional development and ICT. Professional Development in Education.
33(4), pp385-388

Mackness, J., Mak, Sui, Fai, J., and Williams, R. (2010). The Ideals and Reality
of Participating in a MOOC. In Networked Learning Conference, Aarlborg. pp.
266-274 [online]. Available at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Macknes
s.html [Accessed 14th January 2011]

McIntosh, E. (2007). Connected Live sums up the Festival. edu.blogs.com

[online]. Available at
http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2007/09/connected-live-.html [Accessed 4th
February 2011]

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure

discovery learning? American Psychologist. 59(1), pp14-19

Moreland, J. (2009). Using wiki technology to encourage reflective writing as

part of the Chartered London Teacher status. Education Today. 59(3), pp25-27

44
Murphy, E., and Laferrière, T. (2003). Virtual communities for professional
development: helping teachers map the territory in landscapes without
bearings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 49(1), pp70-82

Nelson, W. A., and Thomeczek, M. (2006). Design as a focus for technology

integration: lessons learned from a PT3 project. Computers in the Schools.
23(3/4), pp93-104

Noble, D. (2009). Grounded theory analysis of data from three edonis

interviews [online]. edonis methodology and EdD writings. Available at
http://edonisproject.blogspot.com/2009/12/grounded-theory-analysis-of-data-
from.html [Accessed 25th January 2011]

Noble, D. (2010). An analysis of teacher professionalism in the early 21st

Century, through the emergence of personal learning networks and an online
teacher habitus [online]. edonis methodology and EdD writings. Available at
http://edonisproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/perspectives-on-professionalism-
and.html [Accessed 16th January 2011]

Noble, D. (2011). edonis project: an interpretivist study of the social web and
PLNs [online]. Available at http://edonis.ning.com [Accessed 4th January 2011]

Oblinger, D., and Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the net generation. Educause.
Available at http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ [Accessed 4th
February 2011]

Ofsted (2002). ICT in Schools: effect of government initiatives. Ofsted: London

Parihar, S. M. (2004). ICTs in higher education. Information for Development.

2(2), pp25-28

Peters, M. (2001). Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: a

Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Educational Enquiry. 2(2), pp58–71

45
Pickering, J. (2007). Teachers’ professional development: not whether or what,
but how? In J. Pickering, C. Daly and N. Pachler, (eds.) New Designs for
Teachers‟ Professional Learning. Bedford Way Papers, Institute of Education:
London. Ch 8

Preece, J., Abras, C., and Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004). Designing and

evaluating online communities: research speaks to emerging practice.
International Journal of Web Based Communities. 1(1), pp2–18

Preston, C., Cuthell, J., Keuchel, T., Cych, L., Thomas, D., Buddie, D., and
Allen, A. (2009). New professional cultures: braided gatherings in The Third
Space. Paper presented at M-Learning Symposium 2009, WLE Centre,
Institute of Education, University of London

Prestridge, S. (2009). Teachers' talk in professional development activity that

supports change in their ICT pedagogical beliefs and practices. Teacher
Development. 13(1), pp43-55

Recker, M. M., Walker, A. S., Giersch, S., and Mao, X. (2007). A study of
teachers' use of online learning resources to design classroom activities. New
Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 13(2), pp117-134

Reeves, J., Turner, E., Morris, B., and Forde, C. (2005). Changing their minds:
the social dynamics of school leaders‟ learning. Cambridge Journal of
Education. 35(2), pp253–274

Reid, D., and Ostashewski, N. (2010). Evolution of online teacher professional

development in a social networking site: what’s been working and what’s not?
In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications 2010, Chesapeake, VA: AACE. pp1117-1122

Riverin, S., and Stacey, E. (2008). Sustaining an online community of practice:

a case study. Journal of Distance Education. 22(2), pp43–58

46
Rodrigues, M. J. (2003). European Policies for a Knowledge Economy, Edward
Elgar: Cheltenham

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. 4th edition. The Free Press:

New York

RSC (2011). RSCtv. Regional Support Centre North and East [online].
Available at http://www.rsc-ne-scotland.ac.uk/rsctv.php. [Accessed 21st
January 2011]

Russell, M., Kleiman, G., Carey, R., and Douglas, J. J. (2009). Comparing self-
paced and cohort-based online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education. 41(4), pp443-466

Schibeci, R., MacCallum, J., Cumming-Potvin, W., Durrant, C., Kissane, B.,
and Miller, E. (2008). Teachers' journeys towards critical use of ICT. Learning,
Media and Technology. 33(4), pp313-327

Schlager, M., and Fucso, J. (2004). Teacher professional development,

technology, and communities of practice: are we putting the cart before the
horse? In S. Barab, R. Kling and J. Gray, (eds.) Designing Virtual Communities
in the Service of Learning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Schlager, M. S., Fusco, J., and Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online

education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger and W. Shumar, (eds.)
Building Virtual Communities: learning and change in cyberspace. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge. pp129-158

Schank, P., Fenton, J., Schlager, M., and Fusco, J. (1999). From MOO to
MEOW: domesticating technology for online communities [online]. In
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning. pp518–526. Available online at:
http://ti2data.sri.com/info/papers/cscl99 [Accessed 14th January 2011]

47
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in
action. Temple Smith: London

Scottish Government (2010). Towards an independent General Teaching

Council for Scotland: consultation on the future status of the GTCS. Analysis of
the consultation and Scottish Government response [online]. Available at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/303671/0095189.pdf. [Accessed
12th February 2011]

Scottish Government (2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future : report of a review of

teacher education in Scotland (‘The Donaldson Report’) [online]. Available at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf [Accessed 13th
January 2011]

Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers (2011). The SNCT Handbook of

Conditions of Service [online]. Available at
http://www.snct.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Table_of_Contents [Accessed 13th
January 2011]

Shanks, R. K. (2009). The professional learning of new teachers in Scotland.

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Manchester, 2-5 September

Sherer, P. D., Shea, T. P., and Kristensen, E. (2003). Online communities of

practice: a catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher Education.
27(3), pp183–194

Simons, M. H. (2006). The Influence of Instructional Coaches on Improving

Teaching and Student Performance. Doctoral thesis. Mississippi State
University

Smith, P., Rudd, P., and Coghlan, M. (2008). Harnessing Technology: schools
survey 2008. Becta: Coventry

48
Spector, J. (2001). An overview of progess and problems in educational
technology. Interactive Educational Multimedia. 3, pp27-37

Stenhouse L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and

Development. Heinemann Educational: London

Stoll, L., and Louis, K. S. (eds) 2007. Professional Learning Communities:

divergence, depth and dilemmas. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill:
Maidenhead

Suzuki, K. (2009). From competency list to curriculum implementation: a case

study of Japan’s first online master’s program for e-learning specialists training.
In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage
Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake: Virginia. pp39-48

Tan, D. T. H., Lee, C. S., Chan, L. K., and Lu, A. D. H. (2009). University 2.0: a
view from Singapore. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.) A
Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning. Chesapeake: Virginia. pp81-96

Tobin, D. (1998). Building your personal learning network. Corporate Learning

Strategies [online]. Available at http://www.tobincls.com/learningnetwork.htm
[Accessed 7th January 2011]

Vaughan, N. (2004). Technology in support of faculty learning communities.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 97, pp101–109

Warlick, D. (2009). Grow your personal learning network: new technologies can
keep you connected and help you manage information overload. Learning and
Leading with Technology. 36(1), pp12-17

Webb, M., Pachler, N., Mitchell, H., and Herrington, M. (2007). Towards a
pedagogy of mentor education. Journal of In-service Education. 33(2), pp171–
188

49
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Zhang, K., and Hung, J. L. (2006). E-learning in Taiwan: policies, practices,

and problems. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education. 2(1), pp37-52

Zhang, K., and Hung, J. L. (2009). E-Learning in supplemental educational

systems in Taiwan: present status and future challenges. In C. J. Bonk, M. M.
Lee, and T. H. Reynolds, (eds.) A Special Passage Through Asia E-Learning.
Chesapeake: Virginia. pp49-64

50