The value of active, experiential learning as a means of helping teachers to develop the capability to grasp opportunities for innovation that impact positively on learning, has been a live issue for some time, with contributions such as Elliot’s (1991) advocacy of action research being particularly influential. However, there is some evidence that, at an operational level, these influences are less embedded in the provision of CPD than might be expected.
For example, in her qualitative study of strategies for teachers’ CPD at the school level Cordingley (2008) observes that:
Although heads and teachers were reported to have rated action research very highly, there is no evidence from this report, or from subsequent whole school evaluations (Ofsted, 2006), studies of teachers perceptions of CPD (Hustler, 2003) or meta-studies such as Bolam and Weindling (2006) that their enthusiasm has influenced CPD policies and practices at the whole school level. (p. 5)
Phillips et al. (2004), in a study undertaken on behalf of nine professional bodies (which included the General Teaching Council for England, the custodian of professional standards for teachers) commented on the frustration of the professional bodies at the preponderance of structured learning inputs as the focus for CPD activity. However, they also noted that the professionals themselves were generally happy with this situation. They valued the opportunity to meet and engage with a variety of other professionals of broadly similar backgrounds but with a different set of experiences. Their objective appeared to be the acquisition of relatively discrete inputs of new information that would broaden and update their professional knowledge.