Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teachers' CPD and sectoral interests: Opportunities for convergence

and divergence
Timothy R.N. Murphy a, *, Cathal de Paor b
a
Department of Education and Professional Studies, University of Limerick, Ireland
b
Mary Immaculate College

h i g h l i g h t s

Commonalities exist in the CPD needs identified by teachers across primary and post-primary.

Both sectors reported pedagogical content knowledge, technology, and assessment as priorities.

The responses of post-primary teachers illustrate the centrality of their subject(s).

Assessment, differentiation, technology, rated greater priorities by post-primary teachers.

Leadership was a greater priority among primary teachers.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Much research has been done on how best teachers' professional development can be supported.
Received 11 August 2016 However, for it to be effective, CPD provision needs to target the right content areas or topics. Planning
Received in revised form for such provision is normally undertaken by providers with a role in supporting professional devel-
18 April 2017
opment across both sectors, i.e., primary and post-primary. It raises the question as to what differences
Accepted 28 April 2017
Available online 10 May 2017
and similarities may exist between the priorities of teachers across both sectors. The current study shows
that certain commonalities exist across both sectors - pedagogical content knowledge, technology, and
assessment. However, the study also reveals some sectoral differences.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A range of evidence exists which highlights how teachers'
learning can be best supported. For example, it is over twenty years
since research has shown that CPD provision should be experien-
tial, grounded in enquiry, collaborative, sustained and derived from
teachers' work with their students (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1995; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas,
2006). However, while much research on CPD and teacher's
learning has focused on how teachers' learning can be best sup-
ported (Avalos, 2011), there has been less attention on what the
focus of such learning should be (see for example EL-Deghaidy,
Mansour, & Alshamrani, 2015; Mansour, EL-Deghaidy, Alsham-
rani, & Aldahmash, 2014). Yet, if it is to be effective, CPD provision
also needs to target the right content areas or topics, in accordance
with the needs and priorities among teachers (Geldenhuys &
Oosthuizen, 2015). In the Republic of Ireland for example, The
* Corresponding author. Department of Education and Professional Studies,
University of Limerick, Main Building CM-058, Ireland.
E-mail address: timothy.murphy@ul.ie (T.R.N. Murphy).
Teaching Council (2011, p. 19) states that teacher CPD should be
“based on teachers' identified needs within the school as a learning
community.”
Doing so, may respond to the issue of finding time for profes-
sional development, which Bubb and Earley (2013, p. 240) identi-
fied as a “universal problem”. They found that schools “were not
making best use of what there was available” (p. 240). In her review
of publications in Teaching and Teacher Education over a ten-year
period from 2000, Avalos (2011) also highlighted the significance
of time as a significant factor influencing teacher professional
development. She noted for example that teachers “did not have
time to discuss in depth any substantive teaching issue and most
did not attend professional development activities” (p. 16). Simi-
larly, in their study regarding the integration of inquiry-based in-
struction in elementary classrooms, Buczynski and Hansen (2010,
p. 599) specified “time constraints” as a barrier toward such
integration.
The way in which CPD should prioritise individual, school and
system needs has also been the focus of frequent discussion in the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.018
0742-051X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249 243

literature (Avalos, 2011; OECD, 2005). This has led to the impor- My interpretation of teacher development also reflects my view
tance of teacher needs analysis and greater teacher involvement in that it may enhance the status of the profession as a whole,
planning for CPD (Geldenhuys & Oosthuizen, 2015). Planning for exemplified by the evolution of an all-graduate profession, and
the CPD provision designed to meet these needs is normally un- it may improve teachers' knowledge, skills and practice. I define
dertaken by providers with a role in supporting professional it as: the process whereby teachers' professionally and/or pro-
development across both sectors, i.e., primary (elementary) and fessionalism may be considered to be enhanced. My interpre-
post-primary (secondary). It raises the question as to what differ- tation of 'teachers' is wide and extends to all who carry out
ences and similarities may exist between the priorities among professional, recognized teaching roles, including those who
teachers across both sectors. work at pre-school level and in the post-compulsory education
This article examines the extent to which such sectoral differ- sector. (Evans, 2002, p. 31, p. 31)
ences may exist by drawing on a CPD needs analysis conducted as
part of some work carried out prior to the establishment of a Na-
Therefore, for Evans, teacher development is a process, which
tional Institute for Studies in Education (NISE) based in Limerick,
may be on-going or which may have occurred and is completed. It
Ireland. The identification of any differences should be useful in
can also be a subjective or an objective process, or both. She ex-
informing future CPD provision. The said Institute will have the
plains that, “it may be thought of as an internalisation process on
responsibility of responding to the cross-sectoral as well as the
the part of teachers, or it may be an externally applied process,
differentiated needs of both primary and post-primary teachers.
directed at teachers, but effected by external agencies” (2002, p.
131).
1. Teachers' CPD needs
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) identify three different con-
ceptions of CPD, with “enquiry as stance” emanating from the third.
A definition of CPD which captures the breadth and diversity of
In “knowledge-for-practice,” teaching is about putting formal
CPD provision, and which reflects the existing range of provision is
knowledge which has been developed elsewhere into practice. This
contained in the following definition from Day (1999):
conception characterizes school effectiveness, school improve-
Professional development consists of all natural learning expe-
ment, and educational change literature, where the emphasis is
riences and those conscious and planned activities which are
primarily about up-grading teachers' skills and knowledge. Teach-
intended to be of direct or indirect benefit to the individual, group
ers are presumed to learn from ongoing training and coaching
or school and which contribute through these to the quality of
provided by certified trainers. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) note
education in the classroom. It is the process by which, alone and
that the preferred contexts in which this training and coaching
with others, teachers review, renew and extend their commitment
occur are the course and workshop.
as change agents to the moral purposes of teaching; and by which
In “knowledge-in-practice,” teachers learn practical and craft
they acquire and develop critically the knowledge, skills and
knowledge by examining and reflecting on their own practice and
emotional intelligence essential to good professional thinking,
in the ongoing actions of expert teachers. This conception is rooted
planning and practice with children, young people and colleagues
in a constructivist view of knowledge and is based on the idea that,
through each phase of their teaching lives. (p. 4).
“good teaching can be coached and learned (but not taught)
The comprehensive nature of this definition reflects the range of
through reflective supervision” (1999, p. 269). It favours facilitated
purposes which CPD can serve. In the case of teachers, the OECD
teacher groups, teacher communities, and other kinds of collabo-
has identified the following four (with key words bolded by these
rative arrangements (1999, p. 262).
authors):
The third conception, “knowledge of practice,” is similar to the
second. Teachers learn when they generate local knowledge of
1. Activities intended to facilitate the implementation of policy
practice by working in enquiry communities and networks, and by
or educational reforms, which are often taken by large groups
connecting this to larger social, cultural, and political issues. The
of teachers together, for example, through conferences designed
“knowledge-of-practice” conception of professional learning is
to provide new information
favoured by Cochran-Smith and Lytle for promoting teacher
2. Task-oriented professional development aimed towards prep-
enquiry or “inquiry as stance.” This emphasizes that teacher
aration of staff for new functions, which are often taken by
learning, “needs to be understood not primarily as individual pro-
individual or small groups of teachers, and which may include
fessional accomplishment but as a long-term collective project
courses, self-study and so on
with a democratic agenda” (1999, p. 296). Therefore, for Cochran-
3. School-based professional development aimed at serving the
Smith and Lytle, the extent to which CPD develops teacher
aim of school development and which often involve groups of
enquiry constitutes the real test for any CPD programme. Similarly,
teachers from the same school working jointly on a problem or
Evans defines teacher development as, “the process whereby
developing a programme
teachers' professionality and/or professionalism may be considered
4. Personal professional development chosen by the individual
to be enhanced” (Evans, 2002, p. 131).
participant for professional enrichment and further education.
The various purposes which CPD may serve may also create a
(OECD, 2005, p. 124)
certain tension. For example, the emphasis on contractual CPD
(Kennedy et al., 2008), which obliges teachers to undertake CPD in
This can therefore lead to great variation in teacher needs. Other
certain priority areas may undermine the attention given to
variables also contribute to the diversity of teacher needs. For
teachers' own needs as the basis for the CPD that they undertake,
example, experienced teachers differ from novice teachers in their
i.e., purpose 2 and 4 above. Elsewhere, in England, research shows
knowledge, skills, and beliefs, and therefore in their professional
how CPD provision is geared towards school improvement and
development needs (Bartell, 2005; Rodríguez & McKay, 2010).
performance, which may also detract from CPD that can address the
The term continuing professional education (CPE) is also being
actual needs of teachers (Hardy & Melville, 2013).
increasingly used with reference to policy and research on sup-
This may explain why research on the impact of teachers' pro-
porting professional learning, while, in the case of teachers, a term
fessional development may sometimes yield disappointing results,
that has received much usage is “teacher development.” This has
i.e., the CPD being provided may not correspond to what teachers
been defined as follows:
244 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249
actually need or want. For example, professional development ac-
tivities have often been found to be ineffective or to be perceived as
irrelevant by teachers (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008; Opfer &
Pedder, 2011a). This highlights the importance of CPD pro-
grammes being responsive to, and embedded in teachers' own
professional practices (e.g. Borko, 2004; Timperley & Alton-Lee,
2008). Research also shows the importance of teachers being
involved in decision-making around the CPD being undertaken
(Armour & Makopoulou, 2012). Productive teacher development
occurs when teachers participate in the planning, implementation,
and evaluation of CPD programmes offered (Geldenhuys &
Oosthuizen, 2015). In a study on CPD for science teachers,
Mansour et al. (2014) emphasise that CPD programmes should,
“take place at school where teachers have the opportunity to
collaborate with others in an authentic context and where they can
participate in the content of the CPD that directly meets their needs
within their work context” (p. 949).
Elsewhere, the TALIS study shows that the professional devel-
opment that teachers report receiving does not always meet their
needs (OECD, 2014). Professional development activities must
therefore build on teachers' own knowledge and beliefs, perceived
problems, and classroom practices (Opfer & Pedder, 2011a). A study
by van den Bergh, Ros, & Beijaard (2015), also highlighted that apart
from responding to individual teacher needs, it is necessary to take
account of the fact that teachers learn differently. These authors
conclude that, besides building from teachers' own knowledge,
beliefs and practices, differentiated feedback for individual teachers
is important for the professional development of teachers (2015, p.
150).
This links to teacher motivation. A study by McMillan,
McConnell, and O'Sullivan (2016) identifies the top four motiva-
tors among teachers for undertaking CPD as follows: (1) Personal
choice out of interest in the area; (2) Personal choice for career
advancement; (3) Personal choice to improve one's teaching; (4)
Related to post of responsibility. These authors then associate these
with the motivational categories identified by Herzberg, Mausner,
and Snyderman (1959), i.e., possibility of growth, advancement,
achievement, and responsibility.
However, while the literature on the how of CPD is rather
plentiful, less has been published in recent years on the actual
“what,” i.e., what content areas, skills and topics should be targeted.
Such studies where they exist tend to focus on the needs of teachers
at particular stages in their careers. For example, a study by
Kennedy and Clinton (2009) identified the CPD priorities of early
career teachers. The most common needs identified were: A Cur-
riculum for Excellence (CfE); career guidance and progression;
pedagogy; subject or topic specific CPD; additional support needs;
behaviour management strategies; CPD mode or delivery; man-
agement and leadership; ICT; inclusion. In another study that
involved secondary science teachers, EL-Deghaidy et al. (2015, p.
1560) found that “if teachers do not find the content that meets
their needs and addresses them clearly, then CPD experiences
might not attract as many teachers to attend.” They also noted that
teachers' responses to the preferred content of the activities were
categorised into four main themes according to the number of re-
sponses in a descending order: pedagogical, scientific, personal
skills and ICT (p. 1550).
Taking account of the learning needs and priorities of teachers
across both sectors, primary and post-primary, and how these may
be similar or different, is also desirable. This is because much of the
CPD provision designed to meet teacher needs is undertaken by
providers with a role in supporting professional development
across both sectors. Addressing questions of need across both sec-
tors can therefore make sense, ensuring that actions can be dove-
tailed and differentiated as appropriate (Day, 1999; Mansour et al.,
2014; Mockler & Sachs, 2011).
The identification of CPD priority areas is currently a major issue
in the Republic of Ireland, with the Teaching Council, which is the
professional standards body for the teaching profession there,
currently engaged in the development of a framework for teachers'
learning. In its draft consultation document for the development of
a CPD framework, The Teaching Council (2015) identifies a number
of priority areas based on existing national priorities at a system
level: inclusion, literacy, numeracy, ICT. Each of these can indeed be
linked to national strategies and policies, for example, the action
plan on inclusion through DEIS (Department of Education and
Science, 2005); the literacy and numeracy strategy for the teach-
ing of English, Gaeilge (Irish) and mathematics (Department of
Education and Skills, 2011) and the more recent digital strategy
(Department of Education and Skills, 2015). The three additional
priorities which the Cosa n document proposes are: supporting
teachers' learning; leading learning; and well-being (2015). The
identification of these areas by the Teaching Council followed from
an earlier consultation with teachers.
The current study will contribute to this work by examining the
priority areas identified by teachers for their CPD. It will also pro-
vide insight into the sectoral differences among teachers' priorities,
i.e., at primary and post-primary level. Such an examination can
inform CPD provision, identifying areas which can form the basis
for cross-sectoral approach, while also specifying those areas for
which a more sectoral response is needed.
2. Methodology
The paper draws on a needs analysis for CPD provision under-
taken to prepare for the development of the new National Institute
for Studies in Education (NISE) in the Republic of Ireland. The data
which provides the basis for the needs analysis was collected using
an online survey of 591 education professionals. As a research
method, a survey allowed the researchers to scan a wide field of
issues and research participants (Cohen, Manion, & Morison, 2000),
the key issue in this case being the exploration of the needs and
priorities of teachers in relation to CPD.
The questionnaire contained a total of 20 items, both open-
ended and closed-ended, and sought information from education
professionals on different aspects of their engagement in CPD,
views, preferences, etc. A review of key issues with regard to
teachers' CPD, nationally and internationally informed the design of
the questionnaire. For example, the item on professional learning
needs was informed by the Cosa n framework (Teaching Council,
2015), which identifies seven areas based on four existing na-
tional priorities: inclusion, literacy, numeracy, ICT (DES, 2005; DES,
2011; 2015), and an additional three: supporting teachers' learning;
leading learning; and well-being. Following the pilot, a decision
was taken to add an item where teachers were invited to identify
their own priorities, as opposed to just inviting them to select from
a menu of options provided.
Following the pilot study and further refinement of the ques-
tionnaire, invitations to participate in the main survey were sent to
the email addresses for all recognised primary and post-primary
schools throughout the Republic of Ireland, amounting to 3866
addresses in total (3145 addresses for primary and special schools,
and 721 addresses for post-primary schools). The recipient of the
email (whether principal, school secretary, etc.) was asked to for-
ward the survey link to staff members within the school to enable
their participation. In addition, an invitation to participate was
emailed to a number of other education and teacher associations so
that they in turn could forward it to their members and other
interested parties. This included the primary and post-primary
sector, as well as early childhood, further education, and higher
 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249
education. However, for the purposes of the current paper, only the
results for teachers working in the primary and post-primary sec-
tors are being presented as it is the views of these teachers that the
paper seeks to explore. While the TALIS study involved lower sec-
ondary teachers only, the inclusion of results for primary school
teachers in this study will enable certain inter-sectoral compari-
sons to be made. This resulted in a convenience sample of 507
teachers, comprising 233 primary teachers (46%) and 274 post-
primary teachers (54%).
While online surveys do offer advantages in terms of access,
time and cost, self-selection bias has been identified as a limitation,
in that there are undoubtedly some individuals who are more likely
than others to complete an online survey (Thompson, Surface,
Martin, & Sanders, 2003). This inhibits the ability to generalize to
the population, although such a limitation can also arise in the case
of paper-based surveys. The results are therefore presented as be-
ing indicative, rather than being representative of attitudes to CPD
among primary and post-primary teachers in Ireland.
This is due to the convenience and voluntary nature of the
sample. The approach used to access participants (by emailing the
link to the school email address and asking the recipient to forward
the link to teachers within the school) means that participation was
dependent on the recipients forwarding the link, and on teachers
having the inclination to then complete it. There is also the possi-
bility that only those persons who opened the email completed the
survey, but did not transfer it to other teachers within the school. A
sample drawn randomly from the population of teachers could
have enabled the authors to control for important variables,
thereby being more confident about the representativeness of the
final participants. Undoubtedly, it is possible that only teachers
interested in CPD provision or those with prior positive experiences
were more likely to participate in the survey. Nonetheless, the final
results obtained can be deemed to convey the kinds of responses
that would be found in a larger random sample.
The survey results include a mix of Likert scale and open-ended
responses. In the case of the latter (as reported in Table 3 below),
content analysis was undertaken in the initial analysis using a
coding process, codes being the labels attached to a phrase or other
short sequence of the text. The coded segments were then grouped
into categories or recurring content areas. These categories were
revised and developed following further re-reading until definitive
categories emerged, which were thought to capture the salient is-
sues and priorities in the responses. The survey was anonymous,
with no person, school, etc. identifiable in any of the data collected.
The first item asked respondents for their consent to the use of their
responses in any subsequent publication. Respondents were also
invited to supply an email address where they were willing to
participate in any follow-on focus group, which might be organised
to further explore issues raised in the initial survey.
3. Results
3.1. Priorities for undertaking CPD
The current paper reports the survey results relating to priority
areas identified by primary and post-primary teachers. In the first
item, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they
would prioritise CPD from a list of given learning areas. In the
second item respondents had an opportunity to propose their own
priority areas. Both sets of results can be considered in tandem.
In the first survey item, teachers were asked to indicate the
extent to which they would prioritise CPD from a list of given
learning areas. Tables 1 and 2 present the results for primary
teachers and post-primary teachers separately.
In the case of primary teachers, the learning areas prioritised the
245
most included:

technology (as a major priority or priority by 78%)

special educational needs (as a major priority or priority by 70%)

assessment (as a major priority or priority by 68%)

differentiation (as a major priority or priority by 67%)

school/curriculum leadership (as a major priority or priority by
67%).
Among post-primary teachers, the most prioritised learning
areas included: Technology (as a major priority or priority by 87%);
Specific curriculum subjects (as a major priority or priority by 82%);
Assessment (as a major priority or priority by 73%); Differentiation
(as a major priority or priority by 71%); Special educational needs
(as a major priority or priority by 63%).
Taken together, there are some marked similarities and differ-
ences between the priorities of both primary and post-primary
teachers. These can be discerned more obviously in Fig. 1, which
presents the same results visually using a stacked bar.
At a first glance, it would appear as if teachers from both sectors
have identified similar priority areas. Those areas which teachers
from both sectors prioritised most included: Assessment; Special
educational needs; Differentiation; Technology and learning; and
Personal well-being.
However, the results show that differences exist, even if these
are quite subtle in some cases. Thus, while both sectors identify
assessment, differentiation, and technology as priorities, they are
rated as greater priorities by post-primary teachers. For example,
while 73% of post-primary teachers considered assessment either a
“major priority” or a “priority”, the figure was lower for primary
teachers, i.e., 68%. Specific curriculum subjects are also more of a
priority for post-primary teachers than for primary. For example,
while it is either a “major priority” or a “priority” for 82% of post-
primary teachers, the figure is 69% in the case of primary teach-
ers. This reflects the nature of the primary curriculum as an inte-
grated construct with teachers being responsible for teaching all
subjects of the curriculum.
On the other hand, the results show that school or curriculum
leadership is a slightly greater priority among primary teachers,
with 31% of primary teachers deeming it a “major priority” as
against 24% of post-primary teachers. It should be acknowledged
that when those teachers who deemed it a “priority” are included,
the difference between both sectors is negligible, with the figure for
both groups being 67%.
3.2. Respondents' own suggested priorities
An analysis of the qualitative data helps to provide context to
the quantitative results presented above. In one of the open-ended
items, teachers were invited to specify areas that they would pri-
oritise for their own CPD in the next two years: “What areas of
practice would you like to prioritise for your own CPD in the next two
years?” Teachers had the option of identifying more than one
learning area in their comments. The teachers' responses were
analysed and coded into a number of recurring content areas as
presented in Table 3. The same results are presented visually in the
stacked bar in Fig. 2.
While the proposed priorities are wide-ranging, they all closely
related to teachers' work in classrooms. Before examining the
actual nature of the responses, it is worth noting the similarities
with the quantitative results presented earlier. As with the quan-
titative results, there are many similarities in how teachers priori-
tise the content areas. Among the three most frequent topics that
feature in the teachers' comments, two are common to both sec-
tors, i.e., Teaching/Learning/Assessment (13.8% of primary teachers
246 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249

Table 1
Priorities of primary teachers for undertaking CPD in a given list of areas over the next two years.

Answer Options Major priority Priority Not a priority Total

Assessment 45 105 71 221

20% 48% 32%
Special educational needs 53 101 67 221
24% 46% 30%
Differentiation (e.g., linguistic diversity, educational disadvantage, individual difference) 53 96 72 221
24% 43% 33%
Specific curriculum subjects 57 96 70 223
26% 43% 31%
Action research or other practitioner enquiry 17 49 151 217
8% 23% 70%
School/curriculum leadership 70 81 73 224
31% 36% 33%
Relationships and working with others 39 82 101 222
18% 37% 45%
Mentoring other colleagues 33 81 106 220
15% 37% 48%
Technology and learning 62 111 49 222
28% 50% 22%
Personal well-being 57 91 73 221
26% 41% 33%
Health education and promotion 40 93 84 217
18% 43% 39%

Table 2
Priorities of post-primary teachers for undertaking CPD in a given list of areas over the next two years.

Answer Options Major priority Priority Not a priority Total

Assessment 86 98 69 253
34% 39% 27%
Special educational needs 52 106 95 253
21% 42% 38%
Differentiation (e.g., linguistic diversity, educational disadvantage, individual difference) 74 100 72 246
30% 41% 29%
Specific curriculum subjects 117 93 47 257
46% 36% 18%
Action research or other practitioner enquiry 34 61 153 248
14% 25% 62%
School/curriculum leadership 61 85 108 254
24% 33% 43%
Relationships and working with others 51 84 114 249
20% 34% 46%
Mentoring other colleagues 48 82 119 249
19% 33% 48%
Technology and learning 110 111 33 254
43% 44% 13%
Personal well-being 74 101 77 252
29% 40% 31%
Health education and promotion 51 95 103 249
20% 38% 41%

and 18% of post-primary teachers), and curriculum (12.8% of pri-
mary teachers and 21.4% of post-primary).
And yet, while this suggests certain congruence, the differences
are also noteworthy, for example, the differential of over 8% in the
case of curriculum. There are also various differences with regard to
other sectoral priorities. For example, leadership is identified by
14.8% of primary teachers as a priority, while it is just 7.9% in the
case of post-primary teachers. On the other hand, 15.6% of post-
primary teachers identify technology as a priority, while it is 9.1%
in the case of primary teachers. (It should be noted that this priority
among post-primary teachers cannot simply be explained as being
due to an over-representation of technology teachers in the sample,
given that the results show that there was in fact only one teacher
out of the sample who indicated technology as a teaching subject.)
It is significant that these results on sectoral differences corre-
spond to the other results presented above, which invited teachers
to indicate priorities from a given list. Both sets of results show that
CPD in assessment, technology and learning and curriculum sub-
jects was deemed a greater priority by post-primary teachers than
primary, while the opposite was the case for CPD in curriculum/
school leadership.
The following sections provide some examples of the kinds of
comments which teachers provided:
Curriculum. As noted, the priorities which were coded as
“curriculum,” accounted for the greatest priority among post-
primary teachers (21.4%). Their comments included: “Own subject
area updates”, “Short Courses within each subject area” and “Subject
specific training”. Particular curricular areas or subjects for devel-
opment included “Art history”, “New English course for Junior Cycle”,
“Project maths curriculum” and “Designing curriculum content for the
New Junior Certificate programme in Science”. Issues relating to
curriculum and specific subject areas featured to a lesser extent in
the responses of primary teachers (12.8%). These included generic
suggestions for curricular development e.g. “Curriculum based
 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249 247

Fig. 2. Comparison of areas for CPD suggested in comments from primary and post-
primary teachers.

learning strategies in the classroom” and “Making students indepen-

Fig. 1. Comparison of primary and post-primary teachers with regard to priorities for
CPD from a given list of areas.
courses”, “Specific curriculum subjects” and “Effective planning in
primary schools”. Other primary teachers suggested particular
curricular areas or subjects for development leading to large list of
subjects being mentioned e.g. “Literacy”, “Gaeilge”, “Music”, “SESE”,
“Science”, “Arts education”, “PE”, “Visual Arts”, “SPHE”, etc.
Teaching, learning and assessment. The second major priority
identified in teachers' responses was teaching learning and
assessment. Almost 14% of primary teachers offered suggestions in
the area of teaching, learning and assessment, while the figure was
18% in the case of post-primary teachers. Primary teachers' re-
sponses ranged from general comments on strategies for enhanced
learning e.g. “Problem solving in the classroom” and “Active
learning & collaborative methodologies” to comments directly
related to “assessment” and “Assessment Approaches and Strategies”.
Comments from post-primary teachers included “Cooperative
dent learners”. Similar to comments from primary teachers, there
were a number of comments directly related to “assessment” and
“Assessment for learning”.
Leadership and management. A total of 15% of primary
teachers mentioned items relating to leadership, management and
staff relations as areas for development. Many simply responded
with the word “leadership” while others elaborated slightly with
comments such as “school leadership” and “distributed leadership”.
Other comments related to procedures around management e.g.
“Building capacity to manage and effect educational change within
school systems with ever dwindling resources”, “management team
development”, “Timetabling” with a focus on working with and
leading others, e.g. “motivation of staff”, and on relations in the
workplace “Leadership - how to effect change and a collaborative
reflective culture in schools” and “building positive relationships in the
workplace”. This topic occurred less frequently in the comments of
post-primary teachers (7.9%). Where it did occur, the comments
referred to “conflict resolution strategies”, “dealing with disillusioned
staff” and “Mediation, restorative practices”.
Technology. Over 15% of post-primary teachers suggested
technology as an area for CPD. A large number of respondents focus
on technology in the classroom, as can be seen in comments such as
“Using technology in the classroom (Tablet computers in use in school
with no specific training)”, “ICT-interactive boards”, “More ways to use
ICT in the classroom”, “Integration of ICT into subject areas” and “E
learning and technology”. Other comments indicate the need for up
skilling in the use of IT more generally “Software training”,

Table 3
Areas for CPD suggested in comments from primary and post-primary teachers.

Primary teacher priority areas for CPD No. % Post-primary teacher priority areas for CPD No. %

Leadership/management 75 14.8 Curriculum 89 21.4

Teaching/Learning/Assessment 70 13.8 Teaching/Learning/Assessment 75 18.0
Curriculum 65 12.8 Technology 65 15.6
Literacy 55 10.8 Differentiation/SEN/inclusion 44 10.6
Well-being 52 10.3 Leadership/management 33 7.9
Differentiation/SEN/inclusion 51 10.1 Wellbeing 26 6.3
Technology 46 9.1 Other 18 4.3
Numeracy 31 6.1 Teacher research 14 3.4
Behaviour 18 3.6 Mentoring/coaching 13 3.1
School evaluation 16 3.2 Literacy 12 2.9
Mentoring/coaching 12 2.4 Numeracy 11 2.6
Parents 7 1.4 Behaviour 8 1.9
Teacher research 6 1.2 School evaluation 7 1.7
Other 3 0.6 Parents 1 0.2
Total 507 100 416 100

N ¼ 416 comments from primary teachers; 507 comments from PP teachers.

248 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249
“Technology skills”, “IT Media” and “Digital Training”. Technology
was less of a priority among primary teachers (9.1%). In their
comments, primary teachers referred to “Incorporating IT into
teaching and learning” and “Using technology in the classroom (Tablet
computers in use in school with no specific training)”.
Differentiation/SEN/inclusion. The fourth most-frequently
occurring priority among post-primary teachers was coded as dif-
ferentiation/SEN/inclusion. A total of 10.6% of post-primary teach-
ers, and 10.1% of primary teachers mentioned teaching strategies
and differentiation as priorities for CPD. Primary teachers submit-
ted comments such as “Teaching techniques”, “collaboration in
teaching (how to team teach effectively)” and “collaborative meth-
odologies”. A large number of responses simply state “differentia-
tion” or specific instances of differentiation e.g. “Multi Grade
Teaching”, “Differentiation in a busy and crowded classroom; espe-
cially in mixed-ability groups” and “developing outcomes for different
levels”. Some comments from post-primary teachers referred spe-
cifically to Special Educational Needs, ranging from “Special
Educational Needs” to more specific areas for development within
SEN, e.g. “Students with Dyslexia”, “Helping children with Dyscalculia/
math learning difficulties”, “children with emotional and behavioural
difficulties: behaviour management approach” and “Autism training
for whole staff”.
Other significant differences among the priorities identified by
teachers include literacy. This was the fifth most-frequently
occurring priority for primary teachers (10.8%), while it was just
2.9% in the case of post-primary teachers.
4. Discussion
The results show that certain commonalities exist in the needs
identified by teachers across both sectors, with pedagogical content
knowledge, technology, and assessment being among the main
priorities. However, there are also some sectoral differences in the
extent to which these are prioritised. Areas such as assessment,
differentiation and technology were rated as greater priorities by
post-primary teachers, while school/curriculum leadership was a
greater priority among primary teachers. It is also noteworthy how
the responses of post-primary teachers illustrate the centrality of
their subject(s) in how they understand their work as teachers.
The importance placed on differentiation by post-primary
teachers in the present study, with 71% of post-primary teachers
considering it as a major priority or priority, corresponds to the
TALIS study where teaching students with special needs (22% of
teachers) was the most significant need (OECD, 2014). The next
most important areas identified in the TALIS study were ICT skills
(19%), and using new technologies in the workplace (18%). This
finding also corresponds with the findings in the present study,
with 87% of post-primary teachers considering “technology and
learning” a major priority or priority. Also, when invited to specify
areas that they would prioritise for their own CPD in the next two
years, over 15% of post-primary teachers suggested technology as
an area for CPD.
The findings above are significant in the context of planning
provision for CPD. In the Republic of Ireland, the Teaching Council is
at an advanced stage in the development of a CPD framework and
identified a number of priority areas based on existing national
priorities at a system level: inclusion, literacy, numeracy, ICT (The
Teaching Council, 2015). Each of these can indeed be linked to
national strategies and policies (Department of Education and
Science, 2005; Department of Education and Skills, 2011; 2015).
The three additional priorities which the Teaching Council pro-
poses are, supporting teachers' learning, leading learning, and well-
being. The merit of each of these as priorities can be easily illus-
trated. For example, it has been well established that mentors
derive substantial benefits from mentoring newly-qualified teach-
ers for their own work as teachers (Holloway, 2001). There is also
much to be gained from involving other teachers in such work so
that all teachers (not just those with a formal mentoring role) can
support professional learning in the context of the school as a
professional learning community (Stoll et al., 2006). Leading
learning is also a key part of teachers' work, whereby teachers may
use their professional knowledge to initiate and lead curriculum
projects in schools and linking with the broader school community,
reflecting the “knowledge-of-practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999) conception of teacher knowledge. The third priority, well-
being, is broad and may require further explanation so that its
meaning and rationale are clear enough to inform teachers' de-
cisions on their learning.
However, while The Teaching Council (2015) document envis-
ages teachers' learning as, “including but not limited to, the Priority
Learning Areas identified” (p. 15), it is worth emphasising that,
given the diverse nature of teachers' work, priorities for teachers
may also differ greatly (Bartell, 2005; Rodríguez & McKay, 2010).
Sectoral differences are one way in which this diversity can be
manifested. The results presented as part of this study can therefore
be useful in supporting CPD planning and provision in catering for
teachers in particular settings. Some of these may emanate from
curriculum reforms that may be particular to one sector only, rather
than both.
The literature review at the start of this paper provided insight
into how best teachers learn and can benefit from CPD. CPD needs
to be responsive to, and embedded in teachers' own professional
practices (Borko, 2004; Timperley & Alton-Lee, 2008). Teachers also
need to be involved in the planning, implementation, and evalua-
tion of CPD programmes offered (Geldenhuys & Oosthuizen, 2015).
The findings being reported here focused more on the actual
content, or the “what” of the CPD. The sectoral differences which
were highlighted, as well as the similarities, can help to inform the
kind of CPD that is offered to teachers, and to ensure that their
engagement is even more enhanced. It would also help to ensure
that the professional development offered is not perceived as being
irrelevant, as has often been reported (Lieberman & Pointer Mace,
2008; Opfer & Pedder, 2011a).
Taking account of these sectoral differences provide a reminder
of the importance of involving teachers in planning their CPD.
Furthermore, having prior insight into these differences can help to
ensure that any initial contact with teachers is focused on their
likely needs (such as those revealed in the current study), thereby
ensuring an optimum return on the time invested by all parties. It
has been shown that time was one of the major impediments
preventing teachers from engaging in CPD (Avalos, 2011; Bubb &
Earley, 2013; Buczynski & Hansen, 2010). For example, the TALIS
study from 2013 shows that the reasons that teachers cited most
commonly as barriers to professional development are a conflict
with the work schedule (51% of teachers), while lack of time due to
family responsibilities was also a barrier (36%) (OECD, 2014, p. 353).
Although caution is required in generalising from the above
results to the general population of education professionals, the
results do offer a number of directions for development which may
be useful in furthering the future provision of CPD.
5. Conclusion
The study reported here has identified a number of areas pri-
oritised by teachers in both primary and post-primary. While it is
useful to address the CPD needs of teachers cross-sectorally, there is
also benefit in providing some level of sectoral differentiation so
that CPD can be tailored to the actual needs of teachers, as they
perceive them. The range of priority areas identified suggests that
 T.R.N. Murphy, C. de Paor / Teaching and Teacher Education 66 (2017) 242e249
any future policy and provision to support CPD for the teaching
profession is broad enough to address these different priorities,
both within and across sectors. Responding to CPD in this way has
the potential to promote ownership of professional learning
through understanding specific needs (Timperley & Alton-Lee,
2008). Responding to such needs, as evidenced in the present
study, at an individual and school level, can be the hall-mark of
effective professional development (Stoll, Harris, & Handscomb,
2012, p. 3). A number of authors have drawn attention to the cor-
relation between effective CPD and the positive impact on student
learning (Bubb & Earley, 2007; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, &
Yoon, 2001; Opfer & Pedder, 2011b). While the present study en-
courages teachers to take ownership of professional learning by
having it respond to their specific needs, it is also recognised that
“pupils' learning needs should directly influence what teachers
needs to learn” (Stoll et al., 2012, p. 4). This is an aspect that the
authors intend to explore as a follow-up to the present study.
References
Armour, K. M., & Makopoulou, K. (2012). Great expectations: Teacher learning in a
national professional development programme. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28, 336e346.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher edu-
cation over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10e20.
Bartell, C. (2005). Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and mentoring.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Borko, L. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15.
Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2007). Leading and managing continuing professional devel-
opment. London: Paul Chapman.
Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2013). The use of training days: Finding time for teachers'
professional development. Educational Research, 55(3), 236e248.
Buczynski, S., & Hansen, B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher
practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 599e607.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249e305.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support profes-
sional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597e604.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenge of lifelong learning. London:
Falmer.
Department of Education and Science. (2005). Delivering equality of opportunity in
schools: An action plan for educational inclusion. Dublin, Ireland: The Stationery
Office.
Department of Education and Skills. (2011). Literary and numeracy for learning and
life: The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and
young people 2011-2020. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Education and Skills.
Department of Education and Skills. (2015). Digital strategy for schools 2015-2020:
Enhancing teaching, learning and assessment. Dublin, Ireland: Department of
Education and Skills.
EL-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., & Alshamrani, S. (2015). Science teachers typology of
CPD activities: A socio-constructivist perspective. International Journal of Sci-
ence and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1539e1566.
Evans, L. (2002). What is teacher development? Oxford Review of Education, 28(1),
123e137.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
249
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915e945.
Geldenhuys, J., & Oosthuizen, L. (2015). Challenges influencing teachers' involve-
ment in continuous professional development: A South African perspective.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 203e212.
Hardy, I., & Melville, W. (2013). Contesting continuing professional development:
Reflections from England. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(3),
311e325.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.
Holloway, J. H. (2001). The benefits of mentoring. Educational Leadership, 58(8),
85e86.
Kennedy, A., Christie, D., Fraser, C., Reid, L., McKinney, S., Welsh, M., et al. (2008).
Key informants' perspectives on teacher learning in Scotland. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 56(4), 400e419.
Kennedy, A., & Clinton, C. (2009). Identifying the professional development needs of
early career teachers in Scotland using nominal group technique. Teacher
Development, 13(1), 29e41.
Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educa-
tional reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226e234.
Mansour, N., EL-Deghaidy, H., Alshamrani, S., & Aldahmash, A. (2014). Rethinking
the theory and practice of continuing professional development: Science
teachers' perspectives. Research in Science Education, 44, 949e973.
McMillan, D., McConnell, B., & O'Sullivan, H. (2016). Continuing professional
development e why bother? Perceptions and motivations of teachers in
Ireland. Professional Development in Education, 42(1), 150e167.
Mockler, N., & Sachs, J. (2011). Rethinking educational practice through reflexive in-
quiry: Essays in honour of Susan Groundwater-Smith. New York: Springer.
OECD. (2014). Talis 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning.
Paris: OECD.
OECD (The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2005).
Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers - final report: Teachers
matter. Paris: OECD.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011a). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning.
Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376e407.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011b). The lost promise of teacher professional devel-
opment in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 3e24.
Rodríguez, A. G., & McKay, S. (2010). Professional development for experienced
teachers working with adult English language learners. Retrieved from Center for
Applied Linguistics website http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/pdfs/
ExpTeachersFinalWeb.pdf.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional
learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change,
7, 221e258.
Stoll, L., Harris, A., & Handscomb, G. (2012). Great professional development which
leads to great pedagogy: Nine claims from research. Nottingham: National College
for School Leadership.
The Teaching Council. (2011). Policy on the continuum of teacher education. Retrieved
from Department of Education and Skills, Ireland website https://www.
education.ie/en/Press-Events/Events/Ireland-s-Presidency-of-the-EU/
Conference-18-19-February-2013/Policy_Paper.pdf.
The Teaching Council. (2015). Cosa n: Draft framework for teachers' learning.
Retrieved from Department of Education and Skills, Ireland website http://
www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/Publications/Teacher-Education/Cosan-
Framework-for-Teachers-Learning.pdf.
Thompson, L. F., Surface, E. A., Martin, D. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2003). From paper to
pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology, 56(1),
197e227.
Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An
alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse
learners. Review of Research in Education, 32, 328e369.
Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a
continuing professional development programme: A case study. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 47, 142e150.