REVIEWING KENNEDY'S MODELS OF CPD AND THE RELEVANCE IN TEL

Full Article - PDF

Published: 2022-07-23

Page: 955-961


RYAN THOMAS WILLIAMS *

University of Sunderland, United Kingdom.

M. SHAH KAMARULZAMAN

University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.

KIMBERLY MORTON CUTHRELL

Saint James School of Medicine, USA.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Abstract

Educators are under increasing pressure to incorporate new kinds of pedagogy while also changing their teaching methods. In the literature, there is a strong debate about whether CPD should be handled by the organisation or by the individual. When thought is applied to CPD, it can appear complex, resulting in educators not partaking in CPD. Teachers report that CPD can be organised in a variety of ways, but determining the best suited model is difficult. Kennedy (2005) suggests nine categories for categorising CPD. These categories describe possible knowledge acquisition locations and discuss how they could be adopted and investigated. The following review will critique Kennedy's models of CPD and its appropriateness for TEL.

Keywords: Professional development, education, TEL, transformative


How to Cite

WILLIAMS, R. T., KAMARULZAMAN, M. S., & CUTHRELL, K. M. (2022). REVIEWING KENNEDY’S MODELS OF CPD AND THE RELEVANCE IN TEL. Asian Journal of Advances in Research, 5(1), 955–961. Retrieved from https://mbimph.com/index.php/AJOAIR/article/view/3095

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Weller S. What does peer mean in teaching observation for the professional development of higher education lecturers', International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2009;2(1):25-35.

Eraut M. Developing professional knowledge and competence. London, Falmer Press; 1994.

Stevenson M, Hedberg JG, O'Sullivan KA, Howe C. Leading learning: The role of school leaders in supporting continuous professional development, Professional Development in Education. 2016;42(5):818-835.

Kennedy A. Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis, Journal of in-Service Education. 2005;31(2): 235-250.

Day C. Developing Teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press; 1999.

Hoban GF. Teacher Learning for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.

Kennedy A. Understanding continuing professional development: The need for theory to impact policy and practice, Professional Development in Education. 2014;40(5):688-697.

Solomon J, Tresman S. A Model for Continued Professional Development: knowledge, belief and action, Journal of In-service Education. 1999;25:307-319.

Rhodes C, Beneicke S. Professional Development Support for Poorly Performing Teachers: challenges and opportunities for school managers in addressing teacher learning needs, Journal of In-service Education. 2003; 29:123-140.

Trowler P. Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.

Beyer L. The Politics of Standardization: teacher education in the USA, Journal of Education for Teaching. 2002;28:239- 245.

Smyth J. Teachers as Collaborative Learners. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1991.

Rhodes C, Beneicke S. Coaching, Mentoring and Peer-networking: Challenges for the management of teacher professional development in schools, Journal of In-service Education. 2002;28:297-309.

Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning as a social system, Systems Thinker. 1998; 9(5):2-3.

Boreham N. Collective Professional Knowledge, Medical Education. 2000;34:505-506.

Burbank MD, Kauchak D. An Alternative Model for Professional Development: investigations into effective collaboration, Teaching and Teacher Education. 2003;19:499-514.

Sachs J. The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2003.

Williams RT. A Systematic Review of the Continuous Professional Development for Technology Enhanced Learning Literature. Engineering International. 2020;8(2):61-72.

Available:https://doi.org/10.18034/ei.v8i2.506