Richard Dunston

Questioning the efficacy of online Continuous Professional Development (CPD); practitioner reflections through experiential and theoretical lenses

Richard Dunston

Abstract

Continuing Professional Development (CPD), a long-established feature of modern-day practice, often divides practitioner opinion in terms of its necessity and relevance. As modern-day educators, we find ourselves in a seemingly perpetual struggle to meet the obligations of the job role as we become slaves to temporality, the importance of time, and its lack thereof, becoming more prevalent and a precious commodity for all. The need for CPD is not up for question, most practitioners would advocate for its necessity and value however, it is the very nature of the CPD that brings about the need for questioning. CPD has become more widespread over the last decade, with practitioners required to undertake development linked to their fields of expertise and wider skill sets as educational professionals. An inversely proportional relationship between time and developmental requirements has evolved, leading to an exponential shift in CPD towards more cost-effective and accessible online mediums. Experientially speaking, I must question this trend as there would appear to be more pitfalls associated with a move away from synchronous models of delivery to wider, asynchronous alternatives. These pitfalls are clearly highlighted when evaluating the effectiveness of online CPD and applying a theoretical lens, in the guise of Moore’s transactional distance theory, to establish its overall efficacy as a result of its metamorphosis and ensuing virtual rebirth.

Introduction

This study is located within the arena of continuous professional development (CPD) focusing on the widening shift, on the part of educational providers, to implement CPD through online mediums, akin to distance learning models. This emerging trend is a result of the need to counter the issue of increased employee workloads (Razak et al, 2015) whilst, simultaneously, optimising the potential for coverage and accessibility of wider professional development. However, as a long-standing practitioner, I would argue that this shift towards asynchronicity may appear to be effective from a cost-effective and lean-management perspective however, removing key, intrinsic elements associated with a synchronous delivery model, and attempting to emulate them asynchronously, is simply not viable. In many cases, this renders the CPD moot in terms of its value to the practitioner and wider organisation. The aim of the study is to explore current research related to CPD and distance learning, with particular attention paid to the core conceptual framework for CPD (Desimone, 2009; Timperley et al, 2007), Transactional Distance theory (Moore, 1973 and 1993) and, to a lesser extent, Equivalency Theory (Simonson et al, 1999 and 2015). This research is considered and combined with subjective

reflections, attempts to illustrate the differences and conflicts between synchronous and asynchronous delivery models and how this can directly impact upon the efficacy of the CPD itself.

Research and Reflections

CPD is deeply embedded within the culture of modern-day educational practice (Peel, 2005) and has long been regarded as being a vital component in contributing towards practitioner currency (Bolderston, 2007; Cervero, 2001; Kennedy, 2014) and the wider notion of professional validation. Peel expands upon this theme by suggesting that the impacts of CPD extend beyond the workplace and, potentially, shape an individual’s personal and societal positioning and profile. However, from an alternative, and seemingly negative, perspective, Guskey (2002) suggests that CPD is nothing more than ‘systematic efforts to bring about change in classroom practices’ (2002:381); furthermore, he states that its objective is to ‘initiate change in teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and perceptions’ (2002:382), changes that, by proxy, will lead to improved practice. Are we therefore to assume that when CPD is implemented by the organisation something is wrong? Do we immediately infer that our practice or professionalism is deficient in some way? Does this perhaps explain the reticence and resistance we encounter amongst our fellow practitioners?

Practitioners recognise the benefits of CPD (Guskey, 2002) and strongly advocate for its existence and purpose however, the widening breadth of CPD that we seem to encounter year on year, coupled with the time implications associated with their completion, has had a negative impact on this recognition and advocacy, with many practitioners reticent to engage (de Vries et al, 2014). Modern day educators have become slaves to temporality, time has become our most precious commodity, and we find ourselves grappling with exponentially increasing workloads and responsibilities amidst dedicating time for CPD, a sentiment shared by Clay and Weston (2018). One can clearly see the argument for the aforementioned shift towards online mediums, but it is not the need for CPD itself that is up for question, it is the very nature of the CPD that brings about the need for questioning.

Upon reflection, I consider my own positionality in relation to the notion of online CPD, one of scepticism or cynicism at best; I find myself struggling to rationalise the concept of online CPD and locate its proposed, inherent value. Perhaps my positionality, as it is, is generationally-linked? Is my propensity towards scepticism or cynicism a result of my generation-X origins? Has my previous experience tainted my ability to be open-minded about alternatives? In an age where technology has come to the fore, is it possible to design and deliver models of CPD through distance learning? Can this alternative approach be effective and fulfil its intended purpose fully?

CPD is understood to be the umbrella term applied to all aspects of training and development within the job role that occurs following any period of initial training or induction (Eraut, 1994; Keegan, 2019). The expectation is that CPD is executed in such a way that individual development is ‘logical and structured’ (Armour and Yelling, 2004:95), propelling the participant in some form of upward trajectory. Assumptions can be inferred from this; should it transpire that any given CPD was irrelevant or repetitive, then this would impede or alter the aforementioned trajectory for that individual. With this in mind there is a need to design and implement CPD that clearly meets the needs of its participants with minimal, if any, ambiguity in terms of its intent or execution. Research has shown that CPD effectiveness is directly relational to the impact it has on ‘knowledge, skills, values, attributes, behaviours and changes in practice in the workplace’ (Schostak et al., 2010:586) again supporting the assumption that any form of CPD lacking in impact is effectively redundant.

At the heart of this study is the focus on the efficacy of online CPD, specifically when implemented via distance learning, where considerations must be made to compensate for the lack of face-to-face contact and a minimal

support network. I find myself in conflict with Tyreman (2019), who suggests that online CPD can be as effective as face-to-face CPD stipulating that it is simply a question of its design and implementation. Speaking subjectively as someone who has experienced a range of CPD mediums, it is the human element that is the point for debate, this bringing to the fore the philosophical notion or concept of habitus (Bourdieu, 1984), having to factor individual tendencies and inclinations into thought processes. Moving from a synchronous learning environment to one that is asynchronous, requiring greater levels of autonomy on the part of the user, is not always viable, not everyone is capable of such a transition; design and implementation aside, change must also be perceived as being of value to, and meet the needs of, the individual (Schostak et al, 2010). Despite my initial disagreement with Tyreman (2019), when considering CPD efficacy I concur with her, as someone who has designed and delivered CPD sessions and courses, in recognising the need to ensure learners are challenged and taken out of their comfort zone, almost forced into a state of disequilibrium (Makopoulou, 2018). Learning cannot be effective if it is mundane or a variation of previously visited theme; participants must be exposed to new ideas and practices that forces them to question their inherent beliefs and practices without demeaning them or suggesting any level of inadequacy or ineptitude on their part. This perhaps allays the fears raised as a result of Guskey’s (2002) earlier comments.

A question of habitus

CPD, in distance learning form, lacks the element of face-to-face interaction and, therefore, embodied or active learning as we perceive it. Collectively, as humans, we are, at heart, social in our proclivities (Baker, 2017; Tomasello, 2014); as such, our primal instincts crave interaction with peers, communication is something we seek and embrace in any scenario. In the case of distance learning, this is lacking and, as such, places undue pressures on participants who have to re-evaluate and adopt mind-sets that align with distance learning and all it entails. A brief foray into Pierre Bourdieu and his notion of habitus (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) is useful here as we have to ask how difficult is it to transition to something that goes against our nature? How malleable is an individual’s habitus or predispositions? Wacquant (2016:68) offers that one’s habitus is in a state of ‘permanent revision’ therefore the notion of malleability is axiomatic. Human nature suggests that we are, at times, creatures of habit therefore, having to adapt to that which is not habitual can be problematic. This notion of habitus gives us a better understanding of practitioner behaviour, certainly from a psychological perspective, when considering those who are more reticent or resistant towards undertaking CPD. It is somehow ingrained in their psyche to the point where the realisation that CPD is beneficial exists, however their habitus is such that they tend towards negativity in the first instance. When considering a shift towards asynchronous learning, it is imperative that, before considering relevant theoretical frameworks in the planning stages, as discussed in the following section, we must consider the underlying, and potentially obstructive, influence that philosophical concepts, such as habitus, can have on the implementation of pedagogical change. If one were to acknowledge, for example, that participant uptake on a particular course of CPD would be minimal, then this would indicate that the need for the course itself is negated.

Theoretical underpinning

The underpinning theoretical framework associated with the foundations of this study, specifically, Moore’s transactional distance theory, is associated with, but not exclusive to (Naylor and Wilson, 2009), distance learning and it is important to understand this distinction before considering the theory and its applicability. Terms including online learning, e-learning and distance learning can be semantically confusing however, the qualifying distinction that differentiates distance learning from its contemporaries is the absence of the teacher

from the process (Keegan, 1980; Rumble, 1989; Simonson et al, 1999) coupled with the lack of interaction with others. The premise behind the theories under review in this study is that they attempt to identify, and effectively posit interventionist strategies for, the disparities highlighted between distance learning and more traditional models.

Transactional distance (TD) theory, as explained by Moore (1973), encapsulates the discursive relationship that exists between structure, dialogue and autonomy (Gorsky and Caspi, 2005; Ramdoo, 2008) and considers the degrees of separation between them in terms of their theoretical positional juxtaposition. It is posited that any apparent theoretical or cognitive gap, often labelled as a ‘psychological or communication space’ (Moore, 1993:20), must be bridged in order for distance learning to effectively take place. Gorsky and Caspi (2005) pointed to the importance of TD theory as it identifies that the essential distance in distance education is transactional, not spatial or temporal; it relates to the teacher-student relationship as opposed to the time or geographical location of learning. Moore stipulates that the narrower the level of TD, the more effective the teaching (Hauser et al, 2012: Stein et al, 2005), as one would expect. Transactional distance, the term applied to the aforementioned gap, cannot be quantified statistically but evaluated in terms of its prevalence and relational impact; one could argue that it would be omnipresent to some extent unless the levels of dialogue, structure and autonomy were such that its manifestation could truly be nullified. Although it is associated with distance and other non-traditional learning typologies, it can be applied to traditional face-to-face models as, even in classrooms where learning and the environment can be controlled, TD can exist (Naylor and Wilson, 2009) for one or more learners in any given situation.

Initially, it is necessary to break down the theory into its composite parts, or dimensions, and explain each of them and their respective connotations in order to understand the purpose they fulfil within the wider theoretical framework. Transaction, in this instance, refers to the discourse or interplay that exists between the learner and teacher within a given distance learning relationship and the degree to which the three component parts, structure, dialogue and autonomy (Moore, 1997; Naylor and Wilson, 2009; Ramdoo, 2008) exist within that discourse. Structure denotes the course or program being undertaken, including its content, resources and/or relevant support mechanisms; it is often represented in tandem with the learner’s capacity for individualisation, the relationship between the two being oppositional in nature as the higher the level of embedded structure, the lower the capacity for individualisation and vice versa. It is necessary to note here that capacity for individualisation and the wider notion of autonomy are independent of each other however, as expected, they become directly relational once the structure-dialogue relationship or level of TD has been established. Similarly, the relationship between structure and TD is positive and they will increase or decrease harmonically, never finding themselves in opposition. Secondly, dialogue represents the level of direct interaction or communication, verbal or otherwise, between the learner and teacher or learner and their peers across the distance divide. Unlike structure, dialogue is negatively related or inversely proportional to TD with the increase or decrease in one having the opposite effect on the other. Thirdly, autonomy signifies the level of control or determination learners have over the learning content or the wider learning process; it is often viewed as being magnitudinal in its orientation as it fluctuates and is defined as a result of the direct correlation between the other two variables, arguably classifying it as being a consequential factor as opposed to being contributory. The image below illustrates the relationship between structure and dialogue and how this impacts upon the level of TD:

Analysing the image (fig.1), assumptions can be made when contrasting levels of structure and dialogue at specific points however, as we move away from the origin and axial extremes, there is the potential for interpretational ambiguity such is the complexity of the wider theory and the intricateness of the various dimensional relationships. The image below however, a three-dimensional representation of TD theory, offers higher levels of clarity and integrates the tertiary variable of ‘autonomy’ previously discussed.

Fig.1 Transactional distance and the structure-dialogue relationship (Delgaty, 2018)

Fig.2 Overview of transactional distance theory (Delgaty, 2018)

Figure 2, above, eliminates the potential for interpretational ambiguity and enables us to utilise the visual representation of the theory to propose the following assumptions in terms of the structure-dialogue relationship and how these affect the level of TD within each given transaction:

1. Increased structure + decreased dialogue = highest levels of TD/autonomy 2. Decreased structure + increased dialogue = lowest levels of TD/autonomy 3. Increased structure + increased dialogue = increased levels of TD/autonomy 4. Decreased structure + decreased dialogue = increased levels of TD/autonomy

It is important to understand that the level of learner autonomy within the framework is commensurate with the level of TD, as would be expected, with more autonomy on the part of the learner required when faced with

greater levels of transactional distance to compensate for apparent the lack of dialogue.

Research does appear to suggest that the common approach, one I classify as being bottom-up, is to establish the structure-dialogue relationship which, in turn, defines the transactional distance level and, consequently, the degree of autonomy placed upon the learner. I am not sure I fully support this angle of approach; I agree with Moore (1993) and Ramdoo (2008) that learner autonomy is perhaps the most important of the variables, the one that defines the structure-dialogue relationship and, therefore, the transactional distance therein. In this instance, the approach becomes one that is almost top-down with autonomy becoming the main contributory or guiding factor, the others becoming more consequential in their manifestation as they are integral rather than defining components. For example, with a learner demographic suited to autonomous learning, in order to implement this, it would be deliberately designed to be highly structured yet lacking in dialogue throughout, resulting in high levels of transactional distance and capacity for individualisation. Conversely, with a low-ability or high-maintenance demographic, the design of the learning would be based around minimal autonomy with the focus being on dialogue and structure laden with support mechanisms. My point here is that distance learning practitioners must adopt whichever approach best suits the learner demographic, avoiding falling into the trap of psychological myopia where autonomy takes a back seat and is not harnessed fully in the learning design process.

CPD and Transactional Distance theory

Transactional distance theory comes to the fore when contrasting and evaluating the various CPD typologies, especially those that are non-traditional in orientation as any move away from the norm, so to speak, will automatically result in some level of disparity that requires consideration. In an effort to illustrate this discussion thread, three typologies have been defined and labelled, its corresponding positioning within the previously discussed models illustrated below:

Fig.3 Transactional distance theory models (Delgaty, 2018)

1. When implementing face-to-face CPD, we would expect there to be degrees of structure within the session complemented by good levels of dialogue throughout; the session would undoubtedly contain discussion, debate, delivery, collaboration and, perhaps, active learning. In this case the level of TD would be low, similarly with autonomy, and this would locate this typology towards position one in the images above. Its position, as with others, is not a fixed point, as any change in terms of the variables previously stipulated, will result in movement in and around the positional area it finds itself.

2. Online learning, in most cases, contains good levels of structure as it aims to replicate what occurs in the traditional classroom and must be in place to counter any issues such as absence or inability to interact; this structure is augmented by assumed ‘medium’ levels of dialogue as interaction takes place but at a level lower than in the classroom. The level of TD, as with autonomy, within online learning would fluctuate to compensate for increased levels of structure combined with decreased levels of dialogue. For purposes of this study, I suggest a mid-model positioning (number 2 above) for both as they will be impacted upon by the ever-shifting degrees of structure and dialogue present but, not to the point where one or the other becomes non-existent.

3. Distance learning will clearly position itself towards the apex of each model (number 3) as it is traditionally high in structure, in order to cater to learners and ensure progression through their learning with minimal or zero contact. Lacking in any form of interaction therefore results in the need for high levels of autonomy on the part of the learner and therefore the greatest level of TD across the typologies.

Understanding the concept of TD is imperative in the design process as the online packages evaluated would clearly not suit learners who struggle with being autonomous or who rely on interaction.

Concluding comments: food for thought

The assumption made above is arguably the most important one for us as practitioners, as we readily accept that, as individuals, we are diverse and this diversity must be accounted for regardless of the mode of delivery or the learning approach employed. In the case of everyday learners, we cater to their differentiated needs and we must apply the same strategies when considering CPD for employees as, is often the case, there is no one-size fits all panacea with regard to education. The dilemma facing practitioners today when considering CPD is how do we harness it, how do we ensure it is fit for purpose across the piece? In a search for a solution, I defer to Michael Simonson, the founder of Equivalency Theory, who believed that distance education ‘should be built on the concept of equivalency of learning experiences’ (Simonson et al, 1999:70). In essence, he proposed that, whilst acquiescing that there are fundamental differences between traditional learning and distance learning (Simonson, 1995), he suggested that a degree of parity is possible as ‘the more equivalent the learning experiences of distant learners are to those of traditional learners, the more equivalent will be the outcomes of the educational experiences for all learners’ (Simonson et al, 1999:70). The first question here must be is equivalency sufficient? Equivalency and equality are not the same thing; equality refers to holistic similarity throughout, whereas equivalency intimates at aspectual similarity only.

When considering distance learning and traditional learning, one must conclude that, regardless of the equivalency between the two entities, equality of learning experiences will never be achieved, therefore should one entity (in this case distance learning) be presumed as being lesser, potentially inferior, than the other?

The challenge in relation to online CPD, it would seem, continues…

References

Armour K and Yelling (2004) Continuing Professional Development for Experienced Physical Education Teachers: Towards Effective Provision, Sport, Education and Society, vol.9 (1), pp.95-114 Baker L (2015) Human Persons as Social Entities, Journal of Social Ontology, vol,1 (1), pp.77-87 Bolderston A (2007) Maintaining competence: a holistic view of continuous professional development, Journal of Radiology in Practice, vol.6, pp.133-141

Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge, Harvard University Press Bourdieu P, Wacquant L (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Oxford, Polity Press Cervero R (2001) Continuing professional education in transition, 1981 - 2000, International Journal of Lifelong Education, vol.20 (1/2), pp.16-30 Clay B and Weston D (2018) “No teacher thinks they have enough time for proper CPD. Here’s how schools can MAKE time…” [Online][Accessed 22/03/2020] Retrieved from: https://www.tes.com/news/no-teacherthinks-they-have-enough-time-proper-cpd-heres-how-schools-can-make-time Delgaty L (2006) “Transactional Distance Theory: A Critical View of the Theoretical and Pedagogical Underpinnings of e-Learning” [Online][Accessed 17/04/2020] Retrieved from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/ interactive-multimedia-multimedia-production-and-digital-storytelling/transactional-distance-theory-a-criticalview-of-the-theoretical-and-pedagogical-underpinnings-of-eDesimone L (2009) Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures, Educational Researcher, vol.38 (3), pp.181-199 De Vries S, van de Grift W, Jansen E (2014) How teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching relate to their continuing professional development, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, vol.20 (3), pp.338-357 Eraut M (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, London, Falmer Press Gorsky P, Caspi A (2005) A critical analysis of transactional distance theory, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol.6 (1), pp.1-11 Guskey T (2002) Professional Development and Teacher Change, Teachers and Teaching, vol.8 (3), pp.381-391 Hauser R, Paul R, Bradley J (2012) Computer Self-Efficacy, Anxiety, and Learning in Online Versus Face to Face Medium, Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, vol.11, pp.141-154 Keegan D (1980) On defining distance education, Distance Education, vol.1 (1), pp.13-36 Keegan R (2019) Unleashing the Powers Within: Delving Into Our Own Talents to Provide Effective CPD, Physical Educator, vol.76, pp.110-134 Kennedy A (2014) Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis, Professional Development in Education, vol.40 (3), pp.336-351 Makopoulou K (2018) An investigation into the complex process of facilitating effective professional learning: CPD tutors’ practices under the microscope, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, vol.23 (3), pp.250-266 Moore, M.G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance, in Keegan D (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp.22-38), New York, Routledge Moore M (1973) Toward a Theory of Independent Learning and Teaching, Journal of Higher Education, vol.44 (9), pp.661-679 Naylor L, Wilson L (2009) Staying connected: MPA Student Perceptions of Transaction Presence, Journal of Public Affairs Education, vol.15 (3), pp.317-331 Peel D (2005) Dual professionalism: facing the challenges of continuing professional development in the workplace? Reflective Practice, vol.6 (1), pp.123-140 Ramdoo S (2008) Beyond the Theoretical Impasse: Extending the applications of Transactional Distance Theory, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.9 (3), pp.1-17 Razak R, Yusop F, Halili S, Chukumaran S (2015) Electronic Continuous Professional Development (E-CPD) for Teachers: Bridging the Gap between Knowledge and Application, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology [Online][Accessed 23/03/2020] Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1077613.pdf

Rumble G (1989) Concept: On defining distance education, American Journal of Distance Education, vol.3 (2), pp.8-21 Schostak J, Davis M, Hanson J, Schostak J, Brown T, Driscoll P, Starke I, Jenkins N (2010) ‘Effectiveness of Continuing Professional Development’ project: A summary of findings, Medical Teacher, vol.32 (7), pp.586-592 Simonson M, Smaldino S, Zvacek S (2015) Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education, 6th edition, IAP, Charlotte Simonson M, Schlosser C, Hanson D (1999) Theory and distance education: A new discussion, American Journal of Distance Education, vol.13 (1), pp.60-75 Simonson M (1995) Does Anyone Really Want to Learn, Tech Trends, vol.40, p.12 Stein D, Wanstreet C, Calvin J, Overtoom C, Wheaton J (2005) Bridging the Transactional Gap in Online Learning Environments, American Journal of Distance Education, vol.19 (2), pp.105-118 Timperley H, Wilson A, Barrar H, Fung I (2007) Teacher professional learning and development. Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Tomasello M (2014) The ultra-social animal, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol.44, pp.187-194 Tyreman H (2019) “What does good online teacher CPD look like?” [Online][Accessed 21/03/2020] Retrieved from: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/what-does-good-online-teacher-cpd-look-like/2 Wacquant L (2016) A concise genealogy and anatomy of habitus, The Sociological Review, vol.64, pp.64-72