organisational_factors impacting on cpd of teachers

7/29/2019 Organisational_factors Impacting on CPD of Teachers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organisationalfactors-impacting-on-cpd-of-teachers 1/22

Journal of European Industrial TrainingEmerald Article: Organisational factors and teachers' professionaldevelopment in Dutch secondary schools

Arnoud T. Evers, Béatrice I.J.M. van der Heijden, Karel Kreijns, John T.G.Gerrichhauzen

Article information:

To cite this document: Arnoud T. Evers, Béatrice I.J.M. van der Heijden, Karel Kreijns, John T.G. Gerrichhauzen,2011),"Organisational factors and teachers' professional development in Dutch secondary schools", Journal of European Industrial

Training, Vol. 35 Iss: 1 pp. 24 - 44

Permanent link to this document:

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591111095727

Downloaded on: 25-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 63 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by ZHEJIANG NORMAL UNIVERSITY

For Authors:

f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

usiness, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as



Organisational factors andteachers’ professional

development in Dutch secondaryschools

Arnoud T. Evers Ruud de Moor Centre, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen,

The Netherlands

Beatrice I.J.M. van der Heijden Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen,

The Netherlands, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen,

The Netherlands, and University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, and Karel Kreijns and John T.G. Gerrichhauzen

Ruud de Moor Centre, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen,The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on a study that investigates the relationship betweenorganisational factors, Teachers’ Professional Development (TPD) and occupational expertise.

Design/methodology/approach – A survey was administered among 152 Dutch teachers insecondary education.

Findings – Analysis of the data revealed that of the organisational factors, in particular, theavailability of organisational facilities contributes positively to the amount of TPD (that is, in trainingprogrammes, and social networks). Furthermore, participation in social networks appeared to have apositive influence on the development of occupational expertise.

Research limitations/implications – The study is cross-sectional (all data have been collected atone point in time), and data have been gathered in one country, i.e. The Netherlands. It would beinteresting to examine the proposed model in a longitudinal study, in order to address issues of causality. More research is also needed to explore the extent to which the findings would generalise toother occupational settings and/or to other countries. Owing to the relatively small sample size, amediation model was not empirically tested. Future research using larger sample sizes is needed inorder to test whether participation in learning activities (partially) mediates the relationship betweenorganisational factors and occupational expertise.

Practical implications – It is important that HRM departments and HRD managers in schools offerorganisational facilities for teachers. These facilities should focus not only on the traditional formal

training activities, but also on creating opportunities for participation in social networks. This studyindicates that, particularly, participation in intra- and extra-organisational social networks enhancesoccupational expertise. Managers can stimulate participation in these social networks by providingenough social support.

Originality/value – Although teachers’ professional development is increasingly perceived as beingimportant in school settings, until now little empirical research has been available that investigates therelationship between organisational factors, TPD, and occupational expertise.

Keywords Professional education, Skills, Secondary schools, Social networks, The Netherlands

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT35,1

24

Received 26 December 2009Revised 27 April 2010Accepted 21 June 2010

Journal of European Industrial

Training

Vol. 35 No. 1, 2011

pp. 24-44

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0590

DOI 10.1108/03090591111095727



1. IntroductionThe professional development of teachers has become an important issue on theagenda of many educational institutions, and of the Dutch Ministry of Education(Commissie Leraren, 2007). Teachers’ shortages in The Netherlands reinforce the risk

that unqualified teachers are given more responsibilities, than they can possibly dealwith, which is assumed to cause a negative effect on pupils’ performance (Cornet et al.,2006). In order to enhance teachers’ occupational expertise [and their career potential(see Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006; Fugate et al., 2004)], Teachers’Professional Development (TPD) should be a central point of attention in HRM andHRD policies in schools, as it is supposed to positively contribute to the performance of teachers and, therefore, pupils’ learning outcomes.

Stimulating and guiding TPD is an important task of Human ResourceManagement (HRM) and Human Resource Development (HRD) functions in schools.Vermeulen (1997) pointed out that HRM in schools in The Netherlands has four maincategories of functions:

(1) recruitment, selection, replacement and discharge;(2) assessment;

(3) rewarding and training; and

(4) (career) development.

TPD can be categorised under the functions of training and (career) development. Animportant purpose of HRD research is to get more insight into the question how todevelop employees in organisations (McGoldrick et al., 2002; McGuire and Cseh, 2006).Therefore, TPD is also an essential part of the HRD function in schools.

Little empirical research has been performed, investigating the impact of organisational factors upon professional development, among the population of

teachers. For example, the research on TPD in The Netherlands, focused on the addedvalue of personal factors which indeed have been found to be important, such as,cognitive and motivational factors (e.g. Kwakman, 2003; Van Eekelen, 2005). Muchlearning at work, certainly by professionals, is an individual activity, based onpersonal efforts at cognitive learning, skill development, and deliberate practice(Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 2008; Ericsson, 2005). However, an organisational contextwherein further professional development is nourished, and sound HRM and HRDpractices are advocated, might be of added value as well. Therefore, by means of thisstudy, we aim to obtain information on the predictive value of organisational factorsupon the further development and amount of expertise of teachers in their daily work.The findings of our research enable us to specifically advise school management andHRD professionals how these factors are to be brought into action in order to guarantee

teachers’ growth and development.Extensive research in the domains of HRM and HRD has been executed that looks at

the organisational factors important for the professional development of employees,like structural factors (e.g. an adequate learning infrastructure) at the level of theorganisation at large (Packer and Sharrar, 2003; Wenger and Snyder, 2000) andbuilding social-psychological relationships (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Van derHeijden, 2003). This literature has formed the basis of the organisational factorsstudied in this article (see section 3 for an elaborate discussion of these particular

Teachers’professional

development

25



factors). Although we do acknowledge that there are barriers to TPD, we took apositive psychological approach (Froman, 2010), that is to say, we looked at theorganisational factors promoting TPD. Apart from organisational predictors of TPD,we will also look at work-related outcomes.

Kwakman (2003) assumed that TPD, conceptualised as participation in professionallearning activities (that is, how one learns (Eraut, 2004)), is strongly connected tolearning outcomes, and results (what is learned), though she did not empiricallyinvestigate this herself, yet, stressed the importance to include this in further researchapproaches. In a similar vein, Cheetham and Chivers (2001) called for future researchthat investigates possible correlations between particular learning mechanisms, andthe development of particular kinds of competence. Therefore, next to organisationalfactors influencing TPD, we will empirically study the effects of TPD (that is, trainingparticipation, and participation in social networks) on an important learning outcome:the amount of perceived occupational expertise of teachers. Occupational expertise is akey variable in the light of employees’ broader career development (Van der Heijden,1998; Van der Heijden et al., 2009). With investigating this learning outcome, weelaborate Kwakman’s research model (Kwakman, 1999, 2003). To the best of ourknowledge, this relationship has not been empirically investigated up to now forteachers. Our main research question is as follows:

RQ1. What are the effects of organisational factors promoting TPD, and what, in itsturn, are the effects of TPD on perceived occupational expertise for teachers insecondary education?

In the next section we will define teachers’ professional development and occupationalexpertise. After that, we will discuss the organisational factors promoting TPD. Then,the methodology and results sections follow. This article ends with the conclusions anddiscussion.

2. Defining teachers’ professional development and occupational expertiseTeachers’ professional development In order to be able to investigate the influence of organisational factors on TPD, wefirst need to conceptualise, and subsequently, to operationalise TPD. In this article,TPD is conceptualised in line with Hoyle and John (1995), and with Kwakman (2003).Hoyle and John (1995, p. 17) defined TPD as: “The process by which teachers acquirethe knowledge, skills, and values which will improve the service they provide toclients”. Kwakman (2003) conceptualised this process further as participation inprofessional learning activities. Her conceptualisation can be positioned in the learningparticipation research tradition (Murphy and Cross, 2006; Wang and Wang, 2004).Traditionally, learning was focused on education and training, in more or less formal

classroom-based settings. Although problems regarding the transfer of the newlylearned during training to the workplace, have been recognised (Baldwin and Ford,1988), training is still assumed to be highly important for organisations nowadays(Smith et al., 2006).

In reaction to the previously mentioned transfer problems, the range of possiblelearning activities has been broadened by including informal learning activities in theworkplace as well (Cheetham and Chivers, 2001; Eraut, 2004; Marsick and Watkins,2001). Informal learning is often defined by contrasting it with formal learning (Eraut,

JEIT35,1

26



2004; Marsick and Watkins, 2001). For instance, Marsick and Watkins (2001, p. 25)defined it as: “[. . .] not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner.” The workplace is a typical placewhere informal learning can occur, as the workplace context entails a wide range of

more or less structured environments, which are only rarely organised with learning inmind. The latter implies that new points of view to research on learning are broughtabout (Eraut, 2004).

Cheetham and Chivers (2001) have provided an elaborate overview of informallearning activities (mainly in the workplace) amongst people working in professions,and emphasised the key contribution of informal learning to the acquisition of fullprofessional competence. They also stated that professional learning is a complexprocess, and that, often, individuals, themselves, are not even aware of how and whatthey have learned. For a better understanding of informal professional learning, anumber of learning theories is important, including behaviourism, cognitiveapproaches, mixed approaches (a combination of behaviourist and cognitiveprinciples), constructivism, discovery learning, and theories of adult development (seeCheetham and Chivers, 2001, for more elaborate discussions of these learning theories).We agree with Cheetham and Chivers (2001), that adhering to any single theoreticalperspective limits our capabilities in fully explaining the complexities of learning.

Also, with regard to the teaching profession, informal learning activities gained inimportance (Hoekstra et al., 2009), notwithstanding the fact that formal programmesare still in favour (Commissie Leraren, 2007). It is important for informal learning of teachers to take place, that teachers themselves, as well as school administrators, donot only consider pupils but also the teachers themselves as learners (Hoekstra et al.,2009). There are many types of informal learning activities, like working with clients(such as, in our case, pupils), tackling challenging tasks, working alongside others,participation in group activities and networking (Cheetham and Chivers, 2001; Eraut,

2004).Because social networking is increasingly propagated for facilitating continuous

learning (e.g. in Cheetham and Chivers, 2001), in this contribution, we will focus on thistype of informal learning activity. Learning in everyday work situations oftenoriginates from social events (Poell and Van der Krogt, 2003), that enable socialinteractions among people (Eraut, 2004). A social event at the workplace is, forexample, talking with colleagues, or with supervisors, during team meetings. Suchencounters, whether impromptu or organised, appear to facilitate the exchange of information, which may be relevant for job execution and further competencedevelopment (Isaacs et al., 1996; Kraut et al., 1990).

Van der Heijden (2002a) pointed out that participation in intra- andextra-organisational social networks, such as committees, work groups, and other

types of social networks, is crucial for an employees’ survival in an organisation.Though it is acknowledged that not all professional learning that takes place duringactive participation in these kinds of networks is beneficial for the teachers’ primaryconcern (i.e. quality of teaching in class), it nevertheless is, in varying degrees,contributing to it, depending on the type and class of the social network. For example,participation in the employees’ council is probably not adding to classroom teachingcompetence, but participation in a discussion group about “how to use a digitalwhiteboard in the classroom” is (Cordingley et al., 2003).


development

27



As previously stated, training activities remain important. Cheetham and Chivers(2001) view formal (training) programmes as instrumental for providing the highlyneeded specialist knowledge and theory, although they assumed them to provide notmore than a basic grounding. Van der Heijden (2002a) distinguished between the

following three formal training and development courses:(1) in one’s own job domain;

(2) in a different, or new job domain; and

(3) aimed at one’s personal development.

By means of survey research, we will quantitatively test the effect of these three typesof more traditional, formal training activities, in addition to participation in intra- andextra-organisational social networks, on perceived occupational expertise. As such, weaim to test the added value of informal learning, over and above, formal learningactivities (Eraut, 2004; Marsick and Watkins, 2001), enabling us to determine possiblelimitations of formal programmes (Cheetham and Chivers, 2001).

Occupational expertiseBoth what a person knows and what a person actually does, revealed by his or herovert behaviour, are taken to be the key issues in studying occupational expertise. Wewill follow the line of thought as explained by Van der Heijden (1998), who argued that“competence” and “expertise” could be used interchangeably, referring to the personalqualities and capabilities that are needed in the present-day workforce. To her opinion,competence involves not only ability but also the allocation and acceptance of responsibility in one’s job. This responsibility is not logically inherent to one’sexpertise, but it is probably an indispensable condition for gaining expertise. Furtherdevelopment of one’s professional competence or occupational expertise is onlypossible in a situation where an employee is able to exploit or sell the knowledge andskills with which he or she is equipped, and “last but not least” wherein the employeeexperiences the need to improvise building upon a combination of applied knowledgeand reflection (see also Cheetham and Chivers, 2000). For example, gifted people notgiven the opportunity to employ their faculties tend not to be regarded as experts. Thisis why occupational competence and occupational expertise are interpreted as havingthe same meaning, namely expertise at work.

Although professional competence development has been widely studied inindustrial and commercial settings (Grangeat and Gray, 2007), there is a serious lack of empirical research within the teaching profession. In the light of teachers’ professionalcompetence development, in particular, collective work situations, such as, spurringexchanges among teachers and school partners (like community-based professionalsand parents) seem to be key for further enhancement of their knowledge and skills, i.e.their occupational expertise base (Grangeat and Gray, 2007). To define occupationalexpertise we build upon the work of Van der Heijden (2002a, 2003), and Van der Heijdeand Van der Heijden (2006), and conceptualise the term as a conglomerate of fouraspects (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006):

(1) knowledge;

(2) meta-cognitive knowledge;

(3) skills; and

(4) social recognition.

JEIT35,1

28



Following Alexander et al. (1991), three different kinds of knowledge are distinguished:

(1) declarative (“knowing that”);

(2) procedural (“knowing how”); and

(3) conditional (“knowing when and where or under what conditions”).

The second aspect, that is, meta-cognitive knowledge refers to self-insight orself-consciousness. Skills incorporate the particular skills an employee must possess inorder to perform qualitatively well, and that are necessary to fulfill professional tasks.The requirement of social recognition implies that only in case an employee isrecognised by important key figures (for example, one’s supervisor and closecolleagues) as a person with outstanding capabilities, the employee is labelled as such.

3. Organisational factors promoting TPDIn the HRM and HRD literature one can find several organisational factors that areassumed to promote the professional development of employees (Bakker andDemerouti, 2007; Packer and Sharrar, 2003; Van der Heijden, 2003; Wenger and Snyder,2000). Evers et al. (under review), discussed several types of organisational factors, of which two will be investigated in this study:

(1) structural factors at the level of the organisation at large; and

(2) factors referring to social-psychological relationships.

First, the structure of an organisation is the result of the formal differentiation of tasks,and authority, in an organisation (Creemers and Sleegers, 2003). An adequate learninginfrastructure, and the availability of sufficient learning facilities are necessaryconditions in order to enable TPD (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Wenger and Snyder,2000).

Second, Sahlstein and Duck (2001, p. 372) defined a social (psychological)relationship as: “[. . .] a process created through the spontaneous and recurrent actionand communications of the partners”. Although, often, relationships are treated assomething people have, Sahlstein and Duck (2001) emphasised that relationships arebuilt, and sustained by doing through language, discourse and social behaviour.Bakker and Demerouti (2007) mentioned supervisor and co-worker support asexamples of social relationships in the workplace that foster learning and development.Moreover, Kwakman (2003) found some empirical evidence for a positive relationshipbetween co-worker support and participation in learning activities.

In this contribution, we will investigate two structural factors at the organisation atlarge:organisational facilities and provisions, and three factors referring tosocial-psychological relationships: social support from one’s immediate supervisor,

social support from one’s close colleagues, and attention by one’s immediate supervisorfor a broader career development. The reason we focused specifically on theseorganisational factors, is that Van der Heijden (2002b, 2003) already demonstrated thatthey positively contribute to professional competence development of employees, invarious occupational sectors (except the organisational factor provisions which wasadded as an extra factor in this study). A further explanation of the meaning of theseorganisational factors, and an elaboration on the reasons why we expect these factorsto be relevant for TPD, will be presented in the next paragraphs.


development

29



The organisational facilities enhance the professional competence development of employees (Van der Heijden, 2003), and can be defined as the possibilities oravailability for employees to learn, and to further develop themselves in the context of their own working organisation. Without being offered learning opportunities, the

professional development of employees will be seriously hindered. Therefore, weassume that organisational facilities are a relevant condition for TPD to take place.

Next to organisational facilities, we will deal with provisions. The factor provisionsemerged in a pilot study among ten teachers aimed at investigating the face validity of the organisational factors that we distinguished in the context of this study (see underMeasures, section 4, for more specific information). It is expected that if teachersreceive compensation for participation in training, and social networks, in terms of time and fees (that is, provisions), TPD will be enhanced.

A salient factor that has been confirmed to be of importance in several studies andthat we include in this study is (social) support (e.g. Ashton, 2004; Koike, 2002; Felsteadet al., 2005; Van der Heijden, 2002b, 2003). Social support comprises four functions(House, 1981; Van der Heijden, 2003):

(1) instrumental;

(2) emotional;

(3) appraisal; and

(4) informational.

Instrumental support is support that is aimed at completion of concrete tasks. Second,emotional support refers to the health-improving potentials of social support byenhancing one’s self-esteem. Third, appraisal support is defined as the transmission of information that is relevant to self-evaluation. Finally, informational support helpsindividuals to help themselves, so that they are able to proceed with their tasks.

Furthermore, in any organisation two parties seem to be especially important as itcomes to providing support for learning and professional development: one’simmediate supervisor (Felstead et al., 2005; Van der Heijden, 2003); and one’s (close)colleagues (Blokhuis, 2006; Van der Heijden, 2003). As one’s immediate supervisor andone’s close colleagues are salient actors in teachers’ live, we expect social support fromthese parties to be of particular importance in predicting TPD.

In addition to support from one’s immediate manager, and support from one’s closecolleagues, another factor of influence on the professional development of employees,with teachers being no exception, comprises the attention by one’s immediatesupervisor for a broader career development (Commissie Leraren, 2007; Van derHeijden, 2002b, 2003). Only where supervisors encourage employees to think about,and to actually invest in their further career development, is occupational expertise to

be developed.The relationships discussed so far can be summarised in an integrated research

model (see Figure 1) which we have labelled as the Teachers’ ProfessionalDevelopment (TPD) and occupational expertise-model (Evers et al., under review). Themodel is comprehensive as it is a combination of Kwakman’s (1999, 2003) line of thinking, and the previous research of Van der Heijden (2003). As stated before,Kwakman (1999, 2003) investigated participation in professional learning activities,and its predictors. Although her research was highly valuable, she incorporated a

JEIT35,1

30



limited number of organisational factors, and did not explain the process by whichTPD leads to an increase in occupational expertise. Van der Heijden (2003) investigatedoccupational expertise, and its organisational predictors, yet, not being the scope of herresearch, she did not investigate how TPD is enhanced by organisational predictors.For a more elaborate discussion of the advantages of interlacing the studies of

Kwakman (1999, 2003), and the one from Van der Heijden (2003), see Evers et al. (underreview).

In our research model (see Figure 1), personal characteristics are incorporated aswell, although these will mainly be used as control variables. As we are interested inthe effect of age, we will compare two age categories of teachers:

(1) between 20-45 years of age; and

(2) between 46-65 years of age.

Previous research has indicated that employees participate less in training anddevelopment after their forties (Van der Heijden, 1998). Referring to occupationalhealth research, De Lange et al. (2006) stated that the factor “age” has often only playedthe role of covariate or confounder (see also Griffiths, 1997). Similarly, also in careerresearch, few researchers have paid attention to possible underlying processes, such asage-related stereotyping, by studying differences in relationships between modelvariables for particular age groups (see for instance Van der Heijden, 1998; Warr, 1992,for some valuable exceptions). In our study, the distinction between younger and olderemployees ( . 45) (see Collins, 2003; Finkelstein and Farrell, 2007; Shultz and Adams,2007) is based on the respondent’s chronological or calendar age.

Gender and educational qualification will be used as control variables. The specificschool where the teacher is employed is also controlled for, in order to take possible

Figure 1.The proposed integrated

research model of TPDand occupational expertise


development

31



differences in the amount of participation in learning activities between schools intoaccount.

4. MethodologySample and procedureSecondary schools in The Netherlands comprise a considerable amount of students,varying between 800 and 1.500 students (mean is 1.400 students) (CBS, 2008). Since thenineties, the government policy is aimed to enlarge the amount of students per school,based upon the assumption that large schools are better equipped to provide theireducational services. Data was collected by means of a survey in six secondary schoolsin Limburg, a province in the southern part of The Netherlands. Of the participatingschools, four schools provided all levels of general, as well as, initial, vocationaleducation. Two schools only provided initial vocational education. Questionnaireswere collected via e-mail. Of the 665 teachers who were approached (two remindershave been sent), 152 returned the questionnaire (response rate of 23 per cent). This

response rate is quite average, nowadays, for questionnaires collected on-line, asSheehan (2001) has reported.Our final sample consisted of 78 men (51.3 per cent), and 74 women (48.7 per cent).

This is a reasonable representation of the Dutch population of teachers in secondaryeducation as a whole (57 per cent men and 43 per cent women, percentages based onfull-time equivalents (Statistieken Arbeidsmarkt Onderwijssectoren, 2009a,September)). With respect to age, 39 per cent of the teachers fell in the age categoryof 20-45 years, and 61 per cent in the age category of 46-65 years. This outcome is alsocomparable with the Dutch population of teachers in secondary education as a whole(43 per cent of the teachers fall in the 20-44 age category, and 57 per cent in the 45-65age category, percentages based on full-time equivalents (Statistieken ArbeidsmarktOnderwijssectoren, 2009b, September)). With regard to educational qualification level,

59 of the teachers (38.8 per cent) appeared to have a (University) Masters’ degree and 93(61.2 per cent) had a Bachelors’ degree. This outcome is not completely representativefor the Dutch population of teachers as a whole (around 30 per cent hold a UniversityMasters’ degree, and 70 per cent hold a Bachelors’ degree (Vogels andBronneman-Helmers, 2006)).

MeasuresThe survey questionnaire was developed in close cooperation with ten teachersworking in secondary education (pilot study group), who looked at the itemformulation, and the appropriateness of the items (their face validity). All items andconstructs (except the construct “provisions”) had already been thoroughly tested asregards their psychometric qualities, i.e. validity and reliability (see for more specific

information on the operationalisation of the concepts Van der Heijden (2000, 2003), andVan der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006)).

With some exceptions, all scale items were found to be suitable for inclusion in thisstudy among teachers. As far as the operationalisation of occupational expertise wasconcerned, the outcomes of the pilot study indicated that some items were not suitablefor empirical research among teachers, as far as word choice was concerned, and had tobe changed (we will go more deeply into this issue further on in this section). A fewitems had to be deleted because they appeared not to be appropriate in a secondary

JEIT35,1

32



educational setting. For the calculation of all scale means, one missing item perparticipant was allowed.

Occupational expertise. To measure the dependent variable, “occupationalexpertise”, 12 items from Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) have been

used. All items were scored using six-point (self-)rating scales. From the original 15items that were proposed to measure the construct of occupational expertise (Van derHeijde and Van der Heijden, 2006), three items were deleted because, according to thepilot study group, they appeared to be inappropriate in a secondary educationalsetting. The first item was: “The quality of my skills are of a . . . level” (ranging from:(1) “very low” to (6) “very high”). This item was deleted because the pilot studyparticipants unanimously believed that all teachers with a degree in teaching (whichthis study focuses on), should and probably will answer “very high” to this item,because they are qualified, implying that the variance in outcomes will be too low toallow for effective discrimination. The second and third item were: “During the pastyear, how sure of yourself have you felt at work?” and “Overall, how do you seeyourself in terms of your work performance?” The pilot study participants were of theopinion that these were not quite clear when it comes to measuring occupationalexpertise of teachers. This means that there was a lack of face validity for these items.Cronbach’s alpha for the “occupational expertise” scale in this study was 0.90.

Teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. The factor “participationin professional learning activities”, was measured by means of four items derived fromVan der Heijden (2002a). The first three items were formulated as follows: “How manydays in the past two years have you spent on training and/or developmentcourses . . . ..? The type of training on the dotted line being, respectively, “in your own

job domain”, “in a different or new job domain”, and “aimed at your further personaldevelopment”. The fourth item was formulated as follows: “How many intra- andextra-organisational social networks (like committees, work groups, and other types of

social networks) do you participate in?”Organisational factors. The category of organisational factors consisted of the

constructs “organisational facilities”, “provisions”, “social support from one’simmediate supervisor”, “social support from one’s close colleagues”, and “attentionby one’s immediate supervisor for a broader career development”.

“Organisational facilities” has been measured based on the original four items byVan der Heijden (2003). The first three items were formulated as follows: “In youropinion, are the possibilities in your school to participate in . . . sufficient?” The type of facilities on the dotted line are respectively “training and/or development courses inyour own job domain”; “training and/or development courses in a different, or new jobdomain” and “intra- and extra-organisational social networks”. The original fourthitem by Van der Heijden (2003): “In your opinion, are the possibilities in your

organisation for a further personal development sufficient?” was changed into: “In youropinion, are the possibilities in your school to work on your further (general)competencies sufficient?” All four items have been measured on a four-point ratingscale ranging from: (1) “no possibilities at all”, (2) “insufficient possibilities”, (3) “yes, intheory, but . . . ” and (4) “yes”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.

From the consultation of the ten teachers in the pilot study, it appeared that“provisions” (in terms of time and fees compensation for participation in training andsocial networks) were also seen as possibly important in terms of the amount of


development

33



participation in professional development activities. Therefore, four extra items withregard to “provisions” were formulated in close cooperation with the pilot studyparticipants. The first three items were formulated as follows: “Do you receiveprovisions from your employer, for your participation in . . .?” With, respectively

“training and/or development courses in your own job domain”, and “training and/ordevelopment courses in a different, or new job domain” and “intra- andextra-organisational social networks” on the dotted line. The fourth item wasformulated as follows: “Do you receive provisions of your employer for working onyour further (general) competencies?” For these items a two-point rating scale has beenused ranging from: (1) “no”, to (2) “yes”. Cronbach’s alpha comprised 0.81.

“Social support from one’s immediate supervisor” and “social support from closecolleagues” were measured on a six-point rating scale. Of the four original itemsused by Van der Heijden (2002b, 2003) to measure “social support from theimmediate supervisor”, one item seemed not appropriate according to the pilot studyparticipants: “Is your immediate supervisor in general ready to help you with the

performance of your tasks?” The pilot study group declared that they mainlycarried out their work independently (in the classroom) without direct help of theirsupervisor. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.84. For “social support from one’s closecolleagues”, the original four items of Van der Heijden (2002b, 2003) have been used.Cronbach’s alpha was 0.73.

“Attention for a broader career development by one’s immediate supervisor” wasmeasured by means of seven items. These were selected from the original list of 24items (Van der Heijden, 2003), in close consultation with Van der Heijden, and werefurther adapted with respect to wording by consulting the pilot group of teachers. Thefollowing items have been used:

(1) Have activities concerning your function or your functioning been initiated, byyour immediate supervisor, during the past two years?

(2) Have activities concerning your participation in intra- and extra-organisationalsocial networks been initiated, by your immediate supervisor, during the pasttwo years?

(3) Have activities concerning your participation in training and/or developmentprogrammes in your own job domain been initiated, by your immediatesupervisor, during the past two years?

(4) Have activities concerning your participation in training and/or developmentprogrammes in a different or new job domain been initiated, by your immediatesupervisor, during the past two years?

(5) Have activities concerning your mobility to other functions been initiated, by

your immediate supervisor, during the past two years?(6) Did you have a discussion on your further personal development with your

immediate supervisor in the past year?

(7) Did you have a discussion on career development, with your immediatesupervisor, in the past year?

For each item, a two-point rating scale has been used: (1) “no” to (2) “yes”. Cronbach’salpha was 0.69.

JEIT35,1

34



5. Results Descriptive statisticsIn Table I, the descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, reliabilitycoefficients, and inter-correlations between all model variables) are shown. As

Table I shows, all indices, except for “Attention for a broader career development byone’s immediate supervisor” (alpha was 0.69), had sufficient alpha levels $ 0.70(Nunnally, 1978). The means for participation in the distinguished types of trainingactivities were rather low, implying that the teachers in our sample have notparticipated in many training days in the past two years. It appeared that for “trainingin a different or new job domain”, even 89 per cent of the respondents had scored in thelowest category (1-10 days). Because the variance of this variable was interpreted asbeing low, it was decided to delete this variable in further (regression) analyses.Moreover, Table I shows that especially the factor “organisational facilities” issignificantly correlated with “participation in training activities”, and with“participation in social networks”. “Social support from one’s immediate supervisor”

appeared to be significantly correlated with particularly “participation in socialnetworks”. Finally, “participation in social networks” appeared to be significantlyassociated with “occupational expertise”.

Regression analysesIn order to test the relationship between the distinguished organisational factors, onthe one hand, and participation in training activities, and social networks, on the otherhand, multiple hierarchical stepwise regression analyses have been performed (seeTable II for the specific outcomes). In the first step of the regression analysis, dummiesfor the variable “specific school where the teacher was employed” (six differentschools), and the personal characteristics gender and educational qualification (two

categories: “Master” and “Bachelor”), were entered in the regression model as controlvariables.

In previous research, age has been found to have an influence on participation intraining activities (Van der Heijden, 2002a, 2003). Especially, it appears that employeeswho have passed their forties participate less in training. Because we were especiallyinterested in possible age effects we entered age (two categories: 20-45 years; and 46-65years) in step two of the regression analysis. Opposed to our expectation, we could notfind an age effect in our study.

In step three of the regression analysis, the organisational influencing factors wereentered. Because the sample in this study was relatively small ðn ¼ 152Þ; also effects ata 0.10 significance level are reported. As can be seen from Table II, especiallyorganisational facilities had an influence on the amount of participation in training

activities in one’s own job domain ðb ¼ 0:23; p , 0:05Þ; on the amount of trainingactivities aimed at one’s further personal development ðb ¼ 0:25; p, 0.01), and on theamount of participation in social networks of teachers ðb ¼ 0:20; p , 0.05). Socialsupport from one’s immediate supervisor appeared to contribute significantly to theamount of participation in social networks as well ðb ¼ 0:17Þ; although the effect wasonly significant at a 0.10 significance level. Attention for a broader career developmentby one’s immediate supervisor appeared to have a positive effect on participation intraining aimed at one’s further personal development ðb ¼ 0:25; p , 0.01).


development

35



M

R a n g e

S D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

P e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

1 .

G e n d e r

–

–

–

–

2 .

E d u c a t i o n a l

q u a l i fi c a t i o n

1 . 3

8

1 2

2

0 . 4

9

2

0 . 1

6 *

–

3 .

A g e

1 . 6

1

1 2

2

0 . 4

9

2

0 . 0

9

0 . 0

1

–

O r g a n i s a t i o n a l f a c t o r s

4 .

O r g a n i s a t i o n a l

f a c i l i t i e s

3 . 1

0

1 2

4

0 . 6

6

0 . 0

8

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

9

0 . 8

1

5 .

P r o v i s i o n s

1 . 8

6

1 2

2

0 . 2

8

0 . 0

6

2

0 . 0

7

2

0 . 1

3

0 . 2

4 * *

0 . 8

1

6 .

S o c i a l s u p p o r t

i m m e d i a t e s u p e r v i s o r

3 . 0

4

1 2

6

1 . 0

3

0 . 0

9

2

0 . 0

1

2

0 . 2

9 * *

0 . 2

9 * *

0 . 2

9 * *

0 . 8

4

7 .

S o c i a l s u p p o r t c l o s e

c o l l e a g u e s

3 . 7

0

1 2

6

0 . 7

7

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

4

2

0 . 2

5 * *

0 . 3

2 * *

0 . 3

1 * *

0 . 5

4 * *

0 . 7

3

8 .

A t t e n t i o n f o r c a r e e r

d e v e l o p m e n t

1 . 5

3

1 2

2

0 . 2

9

0 . 0

4

2

0 . 0

1

2

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

4

2

0 . 0

6

2

0 . 1

2

2

0 . 0

6

0 . 6

9

P a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o f e s s i o n a l l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s a n d o c c u p a t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e

9 .

T r a i n i n g o w n j o b

d o m a i n

1 . 2

3

1 2

3

0 . 5

4

2

0 . 1

4

2

0 . 0

2

2

0 . 0

9

0 . 2

1 *

0 . 0

4

0 . 1

2

0 . 0

9

0 . 1

6

–

1 0 .

T r a i n i n g n e w j o b

d o m a i n

1 . 1

7

1 2

3

0 . 4

8

2

0 . 2

1 *

2

0 . 0

3

2

0 . 0

8

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

6

2

0 . 0

4

2

0 . 0

0

0 . 1

6

0 . 3

2 * *

–

1 1 .

T r a i n i n g p e r s o n a l

d e v e l o p m e n t

1 . 2

1

1 2

3

0 . 5

5

2

0 . 1

8 *

0 . 0

6

2

0 . 0

6

0 . 1

9 *

0 . 0

6

0 . 1

1

0 . 0

2

0 . 1

9 *

0 . 4

8 * *

0 . 6

4 * *

–

1 2 .

S o c i a l n e t w o r k s

2 . 2

5

1 2

6

1 . 0

8

0 . 0

3

2

0 . 0

6

2

0 . 0

2

0 . 3

1 * *

0 . 1

8 *

0 . 2

6 * *

0 . 2

1 *

0 . 0

2

0 . 1

3

2

0 . 0

4

0 . 0 3

–

1 3 .

O c c u p a t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e

4 . 8

2

1 2

6

0 . 4

9

0 . 0

7

0 . 0

5

0 . 1

5

0 . 1

3

2

0 . 0

0

2

0 . 1

3

2

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

7

0 . 0

4

0 . 0 6

0 . 2

4 * *

0 . 9

N o t e s : * C o r r e l a t i o n i s s i g n i fi c a n t a t t h e 0 . 0

5 l e v e l ( t w o - t a i l e d ) ;

* * C o r r e l a t i o n i s s i g n i fi c a n t a t t h e 0 . 0 1 l e v e l ( t w o - t a i l e d ) ; n ¼

1 5 2

Table I.Means, standarddeviations, reliabilitycoefficients (Cronbach’salphas on the diagonal),and inter-correlationsbetween the modelvariables

JEIT35,1

36



In order to test the effect of teachers’ participation in professional learning activities onoccupational expertise, a multiple regression analysis was performed. The results aredepicted in Table III. Only participation in social networks appeared to contribute tothe amount of occupational expertise of teachers ðb ¼ 0:23; p , 0.01).

Dependent variables

PredictorsParticipation training

own job domainParticipation trainingpersonal development

Participationsocial networks

Step 1School 1 20.03 20.19 * * 0.09School 2 20.01 20.04 20.02School 3 0.01 20.06 0.18 *

School 4 20.13 20.07 0.15 *

School 5 20.06 0.07 0.03Gender 20.19 * * 20.22 * * * 20.00Educational qualification 20.06 0.03 20.15 *

Step 2 Age 20.10 20.09 20.00

Step 3Organisational facilities 0.23 * * 0.25 * * * 0.20 * *

Provisions 20.04 0.02 0.05Social support immediatesupervisor 0.08 0.14 0.17 *

Social support closecolleagues 20.04 20.13 0.05Attention for broadercareer development 0.12 0.25 * * * 0.08

Model summaryStep 1 D R square 0.07 0.06 0.08Step 2 D R square 0.01 0.01 0.00Step 3 D R square 0.06 0.10 0.10Full model R square 0.14 0.17 0.18Overall F 1.6 * 2.19 * * 2.31 * * *

Notes: Standardised regression coefficients (Beta) shown for the last step in the regression; * p, 0.10* * p , 0.05 * * * p , 0.01; n ¼ 152

Table II.Hierarchical regressionanalyses with personal

characteristics andorganisational factors as

predictors, andparticipation in training

and social networks asdependents

Dependent variablePredictors Occupational expertise

Step 1Part. training own job domain 0.02Part. training personal development 0.05Part. social networks 0.23 * *

Full model R square 0.06Overall F 3.17 *

Notes: Standardized regression coefficients (Beta) are shown; * p , 0.05 * * p ,0.01; n ¼ 152

Table III.Hierarchical regression

analysis withparticipation in training

and social networks aspredictors, and

occupational expertise asthe dependent variable


development

37



6. Conclusions and discussion Reflection upon the outcomesIn this study, several concepts have been used that were distilled from the domains of HRM and HRD, and that were supposed to contribute to teachers’ professional

development, and, subsequently, to the development of occupational expertise insecondary education. The outcomes of our study suggest that “organisationalfacilities” is the most important predictor in the light of teachers’ participation inprofessional learning activities. From this outcome, we conclude that in case schoolsoffer ample opportunities to participate in activities like training and social networks,chances that teachers will indeed use these opportunities increase. Although therelationship is weaker, there are indications that social support from one’s immediatesupervisor is a relevant predictor for the participation in social networks as well.

Attention for a broader career development by one’s immediate supervisorappeared to only have a positive effect on the amount of participation in training aimedat one’s personal development. From this outcome, we may conclude that in case thesupervisor is focusing upon the broader career of his or her subordinates, employeeswill be positively guided towards a broader career thinking too. According to Van derHeijden et al. (2009), management, in particular one’s immediate supervisor, shouldfocus upon facilitating career across working life, which helps enhancing workers’competences throughout their life-span.

The investigation of the relationship between participation in professional learningactivities, on the one hand, and occupational expertise, on the other hand, led to someinteresting results. Only the amount of participation in social networks, both inside andoutside one’s current school, appeared to be positively related to the amount of occupational expertise of teachers. An increase in the amount of participation in trainingactivities appeared not to have any effect on occupational expertise. Based upon thisoutcome, we are inclined to conclude that teachers’ participation in social networks is

more important for the development of their occupational expertise, than participation intraining activities. This could indicate that learning activities within the workplacecontext have a larger impact on occupational expertise than activities like training.However, although participation in social networks is potentially important for thedevelopment of occupational expertise, by no means will all socialnetworks at work leadto learning pertaining to all types of occupational expertise and sometimes fewopportunities for learning exist. For example, as has also been stated in the introduction,participation in the employees’ council is probably not adding to classroom teachingcompetence and is occasionally focused on procedures that are limiting learning.

Limitations of the study and recommendations for further research

This study has some limitations, which give us directions for future research. First of all, other learning activities and factors could be included in the proposed model. Forexample, TPD is defined by means of only four learning activities:

(1) participation in training and courses with respect to the own job domain;

(2) a different or new job domain;

(3) further personal development; and

(4) in intra- and extra-organisational social networks.

JEIT35,1

38



There are indications to conclude that these four learning activities should beexpanded with some other learning activities in the workplace context, because theymight have a more considerable impact on occupational expertise. Kwakman (2003)defined quite a number of learning activities at the workplace that could be fruitful to

further investigate in our proposed model, like reading, experimenting and reflecting.Additionally, it might be interesting to include learning activities related toInformation Technology, given its increasing impact nowadays. Apart from theselearning activities, it could be interesting to also incorporate other organisationalfactors in our proposed model.

Second, as the regression analysis, with social support from one’s immediatesupervisor included as a predictor variable appeared to have a high b -coefficient,although only significant at a 0.10 significance level, it would be interesting to test theTPD & occupational expertise-model using a larger sample size, in order to more safelyconclude on its contribution. Moreover, when having larger sample sizes, one can alsowork with more advanced analyses techniques, such as SEM (Structural EquationModeling).

Third, this study is cross-sectional (all data have been collected at one point in time).It would be useful to investigate the proposed model in a longitudinal study, in order toaddress issues of causality. Research using multi-wave designs can provide morespecific information about the stability and change of the variables, and aboutcross-lagged (i.e. over time) relationships compared with our cross-sectional approach(De Lange et al., 2004; Taris and Kompier, 2003).

Fourth, further research is also needed to investigate the extent to which ourfindings would generalise to other occupational settings and/or to other countries, thatis to say, whether they are culturally invariant.

Fifth, in this study both self-ratings have been used for the predictors and theoutcomes, which may lead to a common-method bias. Moreover, Van der Heijden (1998)

found that employees rate themselves significantly higher as far as occupationalexpertise is concerned, compared to their supervisors, implying a so-called “leniencyeffect” (Cascio, 1991). On the other hand, some person-bound factors can be betterassessed by the employees.

Finally, due to the relatively small sample size, we were not able to empirically testfor mediation (Fritz and MacKinnon, 2007). We recommend future research usinglarger sample sizes, in order to test whether participation in learning activitiesmediates the relationship between organisational factors and occupational expertise.

Practical implicationsIn short, in this study a theoretical model comprising organisational predictors of teachers’ professional development (TPD), and its effect on occupational expertise has

been empirically tested. Although the sample size was relatively small, our resultslegitimate a more thorough investigation in using a larger sample so that theabove-mentioned concerns can be taken into account.

Furthermore, our results suggest that school management and HRD professionalsin schools should offer teachers ample organisational facilities so that they canparticipate in professional learning activities. The results also implicate not to focussingularly on the traditional formal training activities – as is the case now (CommissieLeraren, 2007) – but on informal learning activities as well, like participation in social


development

39



networks. This research showed that especially participation in intra- en extraorganisational social networks adds to teachers’ occupational expertise, the latterbeing a key variable in the light of employees’ broader career development (Van derHeijden et al., 2009). A specific way for managers to stimulate teachers’ participation in

social networks, is to provide a reasonable amount of social support. As previouslyexplained in this article, social support comprises four functions to which managerscould pay attention (House, 1981; Van der Heijden, 2003):

(1) instrumental, aimed at the completion of concrete tasks;

(2) emotional, referring to enhancing teachers’ self-esteem;

(3) appraisal, referring to information relevant to self-evaluation; and

(4) informational, which helps individuals to help themselves.

It is essential for managers and HRD professionals to show leadership by not onlyinvesting more in social networks and informal learning, but also to provide thenecessary support for teachers so that they can use informal learning opportunities in

the workplace to its fullest potential. This kind of leadership is what we need todevelop schools for the future.

References

Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L. and Hare, V.C. (1991), “Coming to terms: how researchers inlearning and literacy talk about knowledge”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61 No. 3,pp. 315-44.

Ashton, D.N. (2004), “The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in theworkplace”, International Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 8, pp. 43-53.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state-of-the-art”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 309-28.

Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J.K. (1988), “Transfer of training: a review and directions for futureresearch”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 63-105.

Blokhuis, F.T.L. (2006), “Evidence-based design of workplace learning”, unpublished PhDdissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.

Cascio, W.F. (1991), Applied Psychology in Personnel Management , Prentice-Hall International,London.

CBS (2008), Onderwijs 2008 , Centraal Bureau Voor de Statistiek, Voorburg.

Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (2000), “A new look at competent professional practice”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 374-83.

Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (2001), “How professionals learn in practice: an investigation of informal learning amongst people working in professions”, Journal of European Industrial

Training , Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 248-92.

Collins, G.A. (2003), “Rethinking retirement in the context of an ageing workforce”, Journal of Career Development , Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 145-57.

Commissie Leraren [Dutch Teacher Commission] (2007), Leerkracht! ( [Teacher!] ), DeltaHage,Den Haag.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. and Evans, D. (2003), “The impact of collaborative CPD onclassroom teaching and learning”, Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPI-Centre,Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London.

JEIT35,1

40



Cornet, M., Huizinga, F., Minne, B. and Webbink, D. (2006), Kansrijk kennisbeleid, Report 124,Centraal Planbureau, Den Haag.

Creemers, B. and Sleegers, P. (2003), “De school als organisatie” (“The school as organisation”),i n Ve rl oo p, N. a nd Lo wyc k, J. ( Eds ), Onderwijskunde , Wolters-Noordhoff,

Groningen/Houten, pp. 113-48.Darling-Hammond, L. (1998), “Teacher learning that supports student learning”, Educational

Leadership, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 6-11.

De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D. and Bongers, P.M. (2004),“The relationships between work characteristics and mental health: examining normal,reversed and reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave study”, Work & Stress, Vol. 18 No. 2,pp. 149-66.

De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Jansen, P.G.W., Smulders, P., Houtman, I.L.D. and Kompier, M.A.J.(2006), “Age as a factor in the relation between work and mental health: results from thelongitudinal TAS survey”, in Houdmont, J. and McIntyre, S. (Eds), Occupational Health

Psychology: European Perspectives on Research, Education and Practice, Vol. 1, ISMAIPublications, Maia, pp. 21-45.

Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (2008), “Peripheral vision”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5,pp. 774-92.

Eraut, M. (2004), “Informal learning in the workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26No. 2, pp. 247-73.

Ericsson, H.A. (2005), “Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a generaloverview”, Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 988-94.

Evers, A.T., Kreijns, K., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. and Gerrichhauzen, T.G. (under review),“An organizational and task perspective model on teachers’ professional development”,

Human Resource Development Review.

Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Ashton, D., Butler, P. and Lee, T. (2005), “Surveying the scene:earning metaphors, survey design and the workplace context”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-83.

Finkelstein, L.M. and Farrell, S.K. (2007), “An expanded view of age bias in the workplace”,in Shultz, K.S. and Adams, G.A. (Eds), Aging and Work in the 21st Century, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, London, pp. 303-19.

Fritz, M.S. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2007), “Required sample size to detect the mediated effect”, Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 233-9.

Froman, L. (2010), “Positive psychology in the workplace”, Journal of Adult Development , Vol. 17No. 2, pp. 59-69.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004), “Employability: a psycho-social construct,its dimensions and applications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 65, pp. 14-38.

Grangeat, M. and Gray, P. (2007), “Factors influencing teachers’ professional competencedevelopment”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training , Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 485-501.

Griffiths, A. (1997), “Ageing, health and productivity: a challenge for a new millennium”, Work& Stress, Vol. 11, pp. 197-214.

Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D. and Imants, J. (2009), “Experiencedteachers’ informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions”, Journal of Workplace Learning , Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 276-98.

House, J.S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support , Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hoyle, E. and John, P.D. (1995), Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice, Cassell,London.


development

41



Isaacs, E.A., Tang, J.C. and Morris, T. (1996), “Piazza: a desktop environment supportingimpromptu and planned interactions”, in Ackerman, M.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1996

ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , ACM Press, New York, NY,pp. 315-24.

Koike, K. (2002), “Intellectual skills and competitive strength: is a radical change necessary?”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 390-408.

Kraut, R.E., Egido, C. and Galegher, J. (1990), “Patterns of contact and communication inscientific research collaboration”, in Galegher, J. and Kraut, R.E. (Eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Group Work, Lawrence Erlbaum,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 149-72.

Kwakman, K. (1999), “Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan” [“Teacher learningthroughout the career”], unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.

Kwakman, K. (2003), “Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learningactivities”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-70.

McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2002), Understanding Human Resource Development: A Research-Based Approach, Routledge, London.

McGuire, D. and Cseh, M. (2006), “The development of the field of HRD: a Delphi study”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 653-67.

Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2001), “Informal and incidental learning”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 89, pp. 25-34.

Murphy, C. and Cross, C. (2006), “The motivation of nurses to participate in continuingprofessional education in Ireland”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 30 No. 5,pp. 365-84.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Packer, A.H. and Sharrar, G.K. (2003), “Linking lifelong learning, corporate social responsibility,and the changing nature of work”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 3,pp. 332-41.

Poell, R.F. and Van der Krogt, F.J. (2003), “Learning-program creation in work organizations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 252-72.

Sahlstein, E. and Duck, S. (2001), “Interpersonal relations”, in Robinson, W.P. and Giles, H. (Eds),The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,pp. 371-82.

Sheehan, K.B.E. (2001), “E-mail survey response rates: a review”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-20.

Shultz, K.S. and Adams, G.A. (2007), Aging and Work in the 21st Century, Lawrence Erlbaum,Mahwah, NJ.

Smith, E., Smith, A., Pickersgill, R. and Rushbrook, P. (2006), “Qualifying the workforce. The useof nationally-recognised training in Australian companies”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 592-607.

Statistieken Arbeidsmarkt Onderwijssectoren [Statistics labour market sectors of education](2009a), September, available at: http://jaarboek.onderwijsarbeidsmarkt.nl/index.bms?verb¼showitem&item¼5.1.1 (accessed 9 June 2010).

Statistieken Arbeidsmarkt Onderwijssectoren [Statistics labour market sectors of education](2009b), September, available at: http://jaarboek.onderwijsarbeidsmarkt.nl/index.bms?verb¼showitem&item¼5.1.2 (accessed 9 June 2009).

Taris, T.W. and Kompier, M. (2003), “Challenges of longitudinal designs in occupational healthpsychology”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 29, pp. 1-4.

JEIT35,1

42



Van der Heijde, C.M. and Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2006), “A competence-based andmultidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability”, Human

Resource Management , Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 449-76.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (1998), “The measurement and development of occupational expertise

throughout the career. A retrospective study among higher level Dutch professionals”,unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2000), “The development and psychometric evaluation of amultidimensional measurement instrument of professional expertise”, High AbilityStudies, Vol. 11, pp. 9-39.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2002a), “Individual career initiatives and their influence uponprofessional expertise development throughout the career”, International Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 54-79.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2002b), “Organizational influences upon the development of professional expertise in SMEs”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 367-406.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2003), “Organisational influences upon the development of occupational expertise throughout the career”, International Journal of Training and

Development , Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 142-65.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., de Lange, A.H., Demerouti, E. and Van der Heijde, A. (2009),“Age effects on the employability-career success relationship”, Journal of Vocational

Behavior , Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 156-64.

Van Eekelen, I. (2005), “Teachers’ will and way to learn”, unpublished PhD dissertation,University of Maastricht, Maastricht.

Vermeulen, M. (1997), De school als arbeidsorganisatie, ABC, De Lier.

Vogels, R. and Bronneman-Helmers, R. (2006), Wie werken er in het onderwijs? Op zoek naar het ‘eigene’ van de onderwijs professional ( Who work in education? In search of the‘characteristic feature’ of the professional in education ), SCP-publication 2006/19, SCP,Den Haag, September.

Wang, G.G. and Wang, J. (2004), “Toward a theory of human resource development learningparticipation”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 326-53.

Warr, P. (1992), “Age and occupational well-being”, Psychology and Aging , Vol. 7, pp. 37-45.

Wenger, E.C. and Snyder, W.M. (2000), “Communities of practice: the organizational frontier”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, pp. 139-45.

About the authorsArnoud T. Evers is Researcher at the Ruud de Moor Centre/Open University of The Netherlandsand is currently supervising research in projects aimed at the education and development of teachers. He holds an MSc in Business Economics from Maastricht University. His main fields of interest are: HRD, in particular learning at work; HRM, the organisation and the professionaldevelopment of employees, in particular teachers; organisational behaviour and the economics of

education. Arnoud T. Evers is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Beatrice I.J.M. Van der Heijden is Professor of Business Administration, in particular,Strategic HRM at the Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and Head of theDepartment Strategic HRM. Moreover, she occupies a Chair in Strategic HRM at the OpenUniversity of The Netherlands, and in the Department of HRM, University of Twente. She holdsan MA in Work and Organizational Psychology from the Radboud University Nijmegen, and aPhD in Management Science from the University of Twente. In 2000, she was a visiting Professorat the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow (Scotland, UK). Currently, she coordinates two


development

43



European cross-cultural research projects on career success. Her main research areas are: careerdevelopment, employability, and aging at work. She serves on 12 editorial boards and haspublished over 100 international peer-reviewed journal articles in, among others, Journal of Vocational Behavior , HRM , Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, and Career

Development International .Karel Kreijns is Associate Professor at the Ruud de Moor Center/Open University of The Netherlands, and Lector at Fontys University of Applied Sciences. He holds an MSc inElectrical Engineering, in particular Control Systems, from Eindhoven University of Technology, and a PhD in Educational Technology from the Open University of The Netherlands. His research focus is on computer-supported collaborative learning using asocial-psychological and ecological-psychological perspective, and on teachers’ reluctance tointegrate technology in their instruction using expectancy-value and motivation theories.

John T.G. Gerrichhauzen is full Professor of Human Resources Management andDevelopment at Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen. Hehas consulted and done research in schools and industrial organisations about organisationallearning, competence development and management, employee benefits, career development andworkplace learning. The focus of his teaching and research is on how organisations change,

learn, develop and execute competence management, and with which HRM and HRD activities itis possible to add value for stakeholders in organisations.

JEIT35,1

44

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

organisational_factors impacting on cpd of teachers

Documents