inTuition taster: Taking control

In the ever-evolving landscape of Further Education (FE) and Skills, CPD is essential for enhancing teaching and student outcomes. However, traditional top-down CPD models, often led by senior management or external agencies, have been criticised for limiting teacher autonomy and failing to address educators’ unique needs.

This article, based on a doctoral research study, explores the importance of teacher agency in CPD, arguing that empowering educators to shape their own learning leads to sustainable improvements in teaching practice.

It presents case studies of alternative CPD models, focusing on collaborative and teacher-led initiatives, which embed teacher agency within CPD frameworks through a participatory, ground-up approach.

These models, when employed in the right spirit, offer a more effective and engaging professional development experience, fostering collaboration and autonomy in CPD, which can enhance teacher development and the overall quality of education in FE and Skills institutions.

Theoretical framework

Teacher agency is defined as the capacity of educators to act purposefully and reflectively within their professional environments (Priestley et al, 2015). It encompasses the autonomy teachers have in making decisions about their professional practice and the learning opportunities they engage with to develop this.

Teacher agency challenges the traditional top-down view where educators are passive recipients of externally mandated professional development. Instead, it positions teachers as active participants in the creation of their own learning experiences.

A foundational argument supporting teacher agency comes from Stenhouse (1975), who states: “It is not enough that teachers’ work should be studied: they need to study it for themselves.” Stenhouse’s perspective underscores the importance of teachers not merely reflecting on their practices but critically engaging with educational theories and frameworks to inform how they implement them in their specific contexts.

This notion suggests that teachers should be trusted to take ownership of their professional development, and contemporary research (Collin and Smith, 2021; Sims et al, 2021) increasingly supports the idea that self-directed, personalised learning is more effective than prescriptive, one-size-fits-all CPD.

Challenges with traditional models

In many FE and Skills settings, traditional CPD models have been criticised for the following key challenges that limit their effectiveness:

• Lack of agency: Teachers are often mandated to attend CPD sessions that may not align with their individual needs or the unique challenges they face in their classrooms. These ‘off-the-shelf’ sessions often leave little room for teacher input, undermining the sense of ownership over their professional development.
• Top-down approaches: In many institutions, CPD is designed and enforced through a top-down model, where senior leaders or policymakers dictate the content and structure of the training. This often results in CPD that is disconnected from the specific needs and realities of teachers’ daily practices.
• Compliance culture: In many cases, CPD is driven by the need to comply with regulatory frameworks, such as Ofsted inspections or government mandates, rather than by a genuine desire for professional growth. This can lead to a tick-box mentality, where CPD becomes a superficial exercise rather than a transformative learning experience. Ball (2003) and Biesta (2009) both note that this can lead to a “performative culture” where teachers focus on complying with external demands, rather than on engaging with meaningful educational development.

Empowering educators

More recently, research such as Buckley and Husband (2020) advocates for a shift towards a more ground-up approach to CPD – one that empowers teachers to shape their own professional development. Teacher-led CPD models have been shown to encourage greater engagement and produce more meaningful outcomes. These models typically prioritise:

• Choice and ownership: Allowing teachers to choose the areas they wish to develop supports a sense of autonomy and personal investment in their professional growth. Teachers are more likely to be motivated when they feel ownership over the direction of their CPD.
• Collaborative inquiry: Teacher-led CPD often includes opportunities for teachers to engage in peer-led research, inquiry and reflection. Collaborative inquiry encourages a culture of professional dialogue, where teachers can share ideas, problem-solve and support one another’s development.
• Contextual attunement: When teachers lead their own professional development, they can focus on topics that directly impact their practice. This ensures that CPD is not only relevant but also practical and tailored to the specific challenges teachers face in their classrooms.

New approaches to CPD

During this doctoral study, several professional development initiatives were introduced to facilitate collaboration, support personal growth and promote innovative teaching. The outcomes from the programmes listed here provide important insights into effective professional development.

• College Projects: This was a college-wide initiative that encouraged staff to develop their own projects aimed at improving teaching, learning or other aspects of their roles. A total of 160 projects were submitted across three campuses, demonstrating varying levels of impact on individual practices, curriculum development and external partnerships.
  Project outputs were wide-ranging and included teachers revising schemes of work and creating student-centred teaching resources; students producing and sharing homemade revision videos; the engineering team, working with their students, refurbishing a minibus that was donated to a local charity; and a school sports partnership that not only earned the Gold School Games Mark but also led to the establishment of a long-term collaboration.
  Overall, the initiative provided a valuable shift towards self-determined learning, where staff could work on projects that were directly relevant to their roles, and it was widely regarded (by teachers themselves) as a positive change in the approach to professional development.
• Collaborative Teaching: This encouraged peer-to-peer collaboration, supporting staff to meet with a colleague and discuss teaching strategies (with a free coffee voucher). Depending on preferences, they could also arrange for peer observation, co-planning or follow-up meetings, but this was not mandatory.
  Staff used peer meetings in a variety of ways depending on their needs. Common activities included joint lesson planning, informal observation and post-lesson reflection. Some focused on trying out specific teaching strategies, such as Socratic questioning, while others explored new technologies or assessment formats. Even informal conversations over coffee led to useful insights, with staff reporting that the opportunity to discuss practice openly was often more beneficial than more formalised peer observations.
  This initiative saw a significant increase in engagement, with 136 peer meetings and corresponding activities recorded compared to just 12 peer observations in the previous year. The rise in participation highlighted the value staff placed on collaboration and feedback from colleagues.
• EduArcade: This offered a virtual learning environment (VLE) platform with resources such as instructional videos and lesson observation insights. The platform had a mixed reception, with some staff engaging regularly and others not at all. While it served as a useful repository of teaching materials, the lack of interactivity and personalised support led some staff to prefer in-person development over the digital platform.
• Theme of the Week: This initiative provided weekly tips via email and the EduArcade VLE on topics such as innovative pedagogy and EdTech. However, after six months, this initiative was discontinued due to limited impact. Staff expressed a preference for more in-person training, rather than receiving weekly emails, which did not resonate with many.

Reflections

The level of practitioner engagement with College Projects and Collaborative Teaching highlighted the value of self-directed, collaborative and real-world professional development. These initiatives demonstrated that when learning is tailored to teachers’ specific needs and goals, it has a lasting impact.

In contrast, the limited engagement with EduArcade and Theme of the Week reinforced a preference for more personalised and practice-focused development. This underscores the importance of meaningful CPD opportunities that, as Dewey (1934) posits, support ‘an’ experience rather than a mere activity.

This strong connection between professional development and personal relevance became evident in several ways, particularly in how it influenced:

• Motivation and engagement: Teachers were more motivated to participate in CPD when they had the freedom to select areas that were personally meaningful and aligned with their practice. This autonomy enabled deeper engagement with the learning process, making professional development more impactful.
• Action research and reflection: Incorporating opportunities for ‘action research’ encourages teachers to reflect on their practice while also experimenting with new ideas, theories and strategies. When applying these in their classrooms and assessing their effectiveness, teachers engaged in meaningful continuous learning and improvement.
• Collaborative reflection: The College Projects and Collaborative Teaching initiatives provided a platform for teachers to share insights and experiences with colleagues, in a collaborative learning environment. This collective reflection enabled meaningful discussions around challenges and successes, strengthening a sense of community and shared responsibility for professional growth.
• Wider institutional change: Beyond individual teacher development, these initiatives contributed to a noticeable cultural shift within the institution. As more educators engaged in collaborative and context-specific CPD, a shared language of professional dialogue emerged, fostering a more open, trust-based culture. Additionally, anecdotal feedback and internal reviews suggested a positive ripple effect on classroom innovation and the overall student experience, as teachers brought fresh strategies and renewed enthusiasm into their practice.

Implications for CPD in FE and Skills

The combination of College Projects and Collaborative Teaching presents an approach to professional development grounded in practical experience. Recognising that teaching is an evolving practice, this model positions CPD as professional learning that directly addresses the needs identified by teachers within their own context, rather than focusing on externally prescribed content that may or may not be relevant. Encouraging collaboration between educators, leaders and peers, these models support educational change from within.

The implications of these models go beyond professional learning for the individual teacher. They represent a shift in how educational institutions position themselves as learning organisations. When teachers feel empowered, their confidence and creativity often translate into more engaging and responsive teaching, which can improve student participation, motivation and achievement. Furthermore, a culture of collaborative CPD can enhance institutional resilience, innovation and staff retention, especially when aligned with strategic goals.

The findings presented here underline the transformative potential of teacher agency when embedded within CPD models that are collaborative, contextualised and teacher-led. Initiatives such as College Projects and Collaborative Teaching demonstrate that when educators are given ownership of their professional learning, they engage more meaningfully, apply new knowledge more effectively and cultivate a stronger sense of professional identity and community. These models shift CPD from a top-down requirement to a dynamic, reflective process rooted in everyday practice, enhancing not only teacher development but also wider educational outcomes.

Yet while these initiatives showed strong promise, their long-term sustainability was challenged by existing institutional practices, particularly the persistence of high-stakes, graded lesson observations. These traditional accountability mechanisms often conflicted with the values of trust, collaboration and autonomy essential for ground-up CPD to thrive.

This will be the focus of a second article, which will appear in a future issue of inTuition. It explores how moving towards a more dialogic, non-judgemental model can help resolve this tension, creating an environment where teacher agency is not only encouraged but structurally supported.

References and further reading

Ball S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215-228.
Biesta G. (2009) Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1): 33-46.
Buckley C and Husband G. (2020) Lecturer identities and perceptions of CPD for supporting learning and teaching in FE and HE in the UK. International Journal of Management and Applied Research 7(4): 432-453.
Collin J and Smith E. (2021) Effective professional development. Guidance report. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Dewey J. (1934) Art as Experience. New York: Balch.
Priestley M, Biesta G and Robinson S. (2015) Teacher agency: What is it and why does it matter? in Kneyber R and Evers J. (eds.) Flip the System: Changing education from the bottom up. London: Routledge.
Sims S, Fletcher-Wood H, O’Mara-Eves A et al. (2021) What are the characteristics of teacher professional development that increase pupil achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Stenhouse L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.

Dr Martin Hoskin is senior teaching fellow at the School of Education, Languages and Linguistics, University of Portsmouth.

Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of SET.