International Journal for Academic Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rija20

A systematic review to explore how characteristics

of pedagogical development programmes
in higher education are related to teacher
development outcomes

Marloes Vreekamp, Judith T. M. Gulikers, Piety R. Runhaar & Perry J. Den

Brok

To cite this article: Marloes Vreekamp, Judith T. M. Gulikers, Piety R. Runhaar & Perry J.
Den Brok (18 Jul 2023): A systematic review to explore how characteristics of pedagogical
development programmes in higher education are related to teacher development outcomes,
International Journal for Academic Development, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2023.2233471

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2023.2233471

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

View supplementary material

Published online: 18 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1269

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rija20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2023.2233471

A systematic review to explore how characteristics of

pedagogical development programmes in higher education
are related to teacher development outcomes
Marloes Vreekamp , Judith T. M. Gulikers , Piety R. Runhaar
and Perry J. Den Brok
Education and Learning Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This systematic review explores what is known about the relation­ Received 10 July 2022
ships between characteristics of pedagogical development pro­ Accepted 20 March 2023
grammes (PDP) in higher education, context characteristics within KEYWORDS
which PDPs take place, and teacher development outcomes. Thirty- Pedagogical development
one peer-reviewed articles were reviewed using the Interconnected programmes; higher
Model of Professional Growth (IMPG) and curriculum spiderweb. PDP education; systematic
characteristics, context characteristics, and teacher development review; Interconnected
outcomes appeared to vary widely. Still, several relationships were Model of Professional
identified between specific PDP characteristics and teacher devel­ Growth; university teacher
opment. The review yielded an enriched model (building on the development
IMPG) of the pedagogical development of higher education tea­
chers. This model and the results of this review can help academic
developers to improve the design of PDPs and provide guidelines
to further investigate the value of PDP.

Introduction
The quality of teaching is widely seen as a key factor that positively impacts
student learning. Over the past decades, pedagogical training of university tea­
chers and the recognition for teaching in university career advancement have
received growing attention (Graham, 2018). Higher education institutes have set
up their own pedagogical development programmes (PDPs), and in many cases,
these activities have become mandatory for (new) academic staff. In this study, a
PDP is defined as a coherent set of activities targeted at stimulating pedagogical
teacher development (De Rijdt et al., 2013). Previous review studies have shown
that pedagogical development initiatives play an essential role in stimulating
university teacher development. In their review of studies in higher education,
Stes et al. (2010) concluded that most studies found positive effects on teachers’
behaviour and learning (i.e. attitudes, conceptions, knowledge, and skills) and in a
few cases, studies measured institutional impact and change within students. In

CONTACT Marloes Vreekamp [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2023.2233471
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

their review of studies in medical education, Steinert et al. (2016) concluded that
PDP initiatives received high satisfaction among participants and resulted in
changes in teachers’ behaviour and learning. According to Steinert et al. (2016),
the impact on organisational practices and student learning remained relatively
unexplored. These review studies did not describe how changes in teachers’
behaviour affects student learning.
There is consensus on at least some of the characteristics of high-quality PDPs
that stimulate teacher development (Desimone, 2009). For example, in their
review study, De Rijdt et al. (2013) focused on influencing variables that fostered
teachers’ transfer of learning into practice. They identified three categories of
influential variables, namely learner characteristics, intervention design, and
work environment. Moreover, Stes et al. (2010) and Steinert et al. (2016) defined
specific characteristics of pedagogical development initiatives that seemed to have
a positive impact on teacher development, such as longitudinal program design;
the relevance of the content for practice; the nature of the intervention (i.e. on the
job, collective course, alternative/hybrid format); and teaching methods wherein
teachers have opportunities for feedback, reflection, practice, and application.
While these studies do offer relevant insights into effective ingredients of PDPs,
they lack information on relationships between PDP characteristics and specific
teacher development outcomes. This is problematic, as a list of effective charac­
teristics does not help to understand how these characteristics relate to and affect
different teacher development outcomes, let alone, student learning (Van Veen et
al., 2012). As a result, it is unclear how academic developers could use these
characteristics effectively when designing PDPs. The current study aims to update
the existing literature with a focus on exploring what is already known about the
relationships between PDP characteristics and teacher development outcomes.

Theoretical background
The conceptual framework guiding this review study is the Interconnected Model of
Professional Growth (IMPG) (see Figure 1; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) and has
been used in a previous review study on teacher development in science education (i.
e. Van Driel et al. 2012). According to the IMPG, teacher development can be related
to the external domain (i.e. PDP characteristics) and takes place in a change environ­
ment consisting of hindering and stimulating factors (i.e. context characteristics).
Teacher development is categorised into three domains: the personal domain, refer­
ring to changes in teacher knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes; the domain of practice,
referring to changes in teachers’ behaviour in designing and executing education; the
domain of consequence, referring to outcomes in student learning or on the
organisation.
Because the IMPG does not provide detailed information on specific PDP character­
istics, we used the ‘curriculum spiderweb’ (Van den Akker, 2003) to operationalise the
external domain more precisely. The spiderweb distinguishes ten components that, when
aligned, form an inherently consistent curriculum (in this study the PDP) with the
rationale being the core component (see Table 1).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 3

Research questions
The central question of the current review is How are characteristics of pedagogical
development programmes (PDPs) for higher education teachers, and the context wherein
these programmes take place, related to different domains of teacher development1?
This question is subdivided into the following research questions:

(1) What PDP characteristics are described in the literature?

(2) What context characteristics within which PDPs take place are described in the
literature?
(3) What teacher development outcomes resulting from PDP have been reported in the
literature?
(4) How are PDP characteristics and the context characteristics within which PDPs take
place related to domains of teacher development?

Figure 1. The interconnected model of professional growth. From Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002).
Elaborating a Model of Teacher professional Growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X-02-00053-7. Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. Reprinted
with permission.

Table 1. Curriculum components in the curriculum Spiderweb.

Components Description
Rationale or vision Why are they learning?
Aims and objectives Towards which goals are they learning?
Content What are they learning?
Learning activities How are they learning?
Teacher role How is the teacher facilitating learning?
Materials & resources With what are they learning?
Grouping With whom are they learning?
Time When are they learning?
Assessment How to measure how far learning has progressed?
Location Where are they learning?
by Van den Akker (2003), in J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Ed.), Curriculum
landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

Method
Literature search procedure
This systematic review involved several steps (cf. Petticrew et al. 2006). The flow diagram
of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) shows the process of data collection and inclusion (see
Figure 2).

Databases and literature search terms

Web of Science, ERIC, and PsycINFO were used as databases. Because of the inconsistent
use of terminology in the literature, we used a variety of synonyms for PDP based on the
aforementioned review studies and our first readings of studies. We combined the search

Figure 2. Process of data collection and inclusion.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 5

term ‘pedagogical development’ with three other sets of search terms (see Appendix A):
synonyms for ‘university teacher’, ‘higher education or university’, and ‘programme or
trajectory’. Because the review of De Rijdt et al. (2013) was the last review that focused
specifically on key characteristics of pedagogical development in higher education, we
focused on articles published between 2013 and 2019. After deleting duplicates, the
search (executed in August 2020) resulted in 412 articles.

Inclusion process and quality check

The first author read the titles, abstracts, and key words of retrieved articles to check if
these met the inclusion criteria (see Figure 2), resulting in 167 articles. After having read
the full-text articles, 50 articles remained. The quality of the included articles was checked
by the first author using five quality criteria drawn from the Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (2018, 31) articles complied with all five quality criteria (see Figure 2). In all
these steps, the co-authors reviewed a subset of articles and agreed with the decisions
made by the first author.

Description of the dataset (Appendix B)

Most of the 31 studies included in the review have been conducted in North America (n
= 11) and Europe (n = 11). PDPs focused on different topics, varying from general
‘teaching in higher education’ (n = 14) to specific (combinations of) topics, such as
learner-centred approach (n = 8), technology integration (n = 4), English foreign lan­
guage education (n = 3), or specific theories. To measure teacher development (i.e.
personal domain, domain of practice, and domain of consequence), most studies relied
on teachers’ self-perceptions through surveys (n = 17), interviews (n = 14), reflections (n
= 8), and focus groups (n = 6). Observations (n = 8), student evaluations (n = 4), rubrics
(n = 3), and decibel analysis2 were used to measure changes in the domain of practice.
Student outcomes (n = 2) were used to measure changes in the domain of consequence.
Three articles used a control group and eight used pre- and post-measurements.

Data analysis
The Best Fit Framework Synthesis (BFFS) method (Booth & Carroll, 2015) was used for
analysing the included studies. BFFS builds further on established theories (here, the
IMPG and the Curriculum spiderweb) starting with a deductive phase of data analysis,
followed by an inductive phase to explore data further. See Appendix C for an overview
and description of the codes.
First, deductive coding was applied by using the domains of the IMPG to cluster the
data. The second author checked the reliability of the coding process. After several
rounds of coding, discussion, and sharpening the code book, sufficient reliability was
reached (Krippendorff’s Cu-α = 0.743).
Second, deductive and inductive coding were used to further analyse the fragments in
the different domains. The PDP characteristics (i.e. external domain), RQ1, were deduc­
tively coded using only the curriculum spiderweb components of learning goals, time­
frame, teaching methods, and grouping because the other components (e.g. assessment,
6 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

resources) were not included in the majority of studies. The context characteristics (i.e.
change environment), RQ2, were inductively coded leading to the codes voluntary/
compulsory, funding, facilitation, and accreditation. Teacher development fragments,
RQ3, were further coded by analysing if the reported outcome was positive, neutral, or
negative and by specifying the domains in subcodes. Within the personal domain, the
subcodes knowledge, attitude/belief, confidence, skills, and intention to apply emerged
from the data; within the domain of practice, these were design and teaching; within the
domain of consequence, the subcodes organisation, student, and teacher emerged.
Concerning RQ4, it appeared that relationships between the domains of IMPG were
not the focus of the included articles. Therefore, three steps were taken to identify
relationships. First, the first author analysed the reviewed articles that used perception
data showing some relationships between a PDP characteristic (external domain) or
context characteristic (change environment) and a change in the domains of teacher
development (i.e. personal domain, domain of practice, or domain of consequence). For
example, the fragment, ‘when my peers shared lessons learnt when things went wrong for
them, this helped me build up my own digital skills, knowledge, and confidence’
(Donnelly, 2019, p. 319), was coded as a perceived relationship between the PDP
characteristic teaching method ‘collaboration’ and development within the personal
domain.
Second, the first author analysed five articles that used triangulated data (i.e. using a
control group or combining multiple data sources). It can be assumed that measured
teacher development controlled by a control group or with multiple data sources are
actually an effect of the PDP and thus imply a relationship. The PDP characteristics, the
context characteristics, and the teacher development domains of these five articles as
analysed in RQs 1, 2, and 3 were visualised with the IMPG. The measured outcomes with
triangulated data were connected to the external domain (i.e. PDP characteristics) by an
arrow, which implies a relationship. Subsequently, commonalities in PDP characteristics
identified in more than one article were established.
Third, in answering RQ4, the results of steps one and two were combined by analysing
which relationships between characteristics and teacher development domains were
coded both in the perception and triangulated data. A selection of the relationships
found in steps 1 and 2 was checked by one other co-author, and the entire process and
results were discussed several times with the co-authors.

Results
The following sections describe the results in relation to the four research questions. See
Appendix B for an overview of the articles, as well as for the specific PDP characteristics,
context characteristics, and teacher development described in each article.

PDP characteristics (RQ1)

Learning goals
About two-thirds of the articles (n = 20) described a learning goal regarding the
personal domain: attitudes/beliefs (e.g. ‘a positive reinforcing attitude towards
learners’); teaching effectiveness and confidence (e.g. ‘bolstering teaching
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 7

assistants’ confidence and teaching effectiveness’); and knowledge and skills (e.g.
‘pedagogical and technological knowledge and skills for effective online tutoring’).
Thirteen articles described learning goals regarding the domains of practice (e.g.
‘implementing ICT supported student-centric teaching strategies’), and 11 articles
described learning goals in the domain of consequence, subdivided into student-
level goals (e.g. ‘to help their students improve their technology skills’) and
organisation-level goals (e.g. ‘support iterative change in biology teaching’). Half
of the articles (n = 16) described learning goals in multiple domains. In five
articles, the overall PDP’s learning goals were not specified further then describing
the generic purpose of aiming to enhance teaching quality.

Timeframe
The PDPs varied in timeframe from less than two weeks (short, n = 6), between two
weeks and a semester (medium, n = 6), and longer than a semester (long, n = 18). Once,
no time indication was described.

Teaching methods
Twelve different teaching methods were described: discussion, collaboration,
instruction, portfolio/reflection, study material, feedback, mentoring, designing
teaching, observation, micro teaching, modelling, and investigating effects.
Discussion, instruction, and collaboration were mentioned most (n = 20). The
articles varied in the number of teaching methods included. For example,
Toding and Venesaar (2018) solely described collaboration, while Jarvis (2019)
described nine different teaching methods. None of the articles described the same
set of teaching methods.

Grouping
Three aspects of grouping appeared: disciplinarity (17 multidisciplinary and 9 mono­
disciplinary), intercultural (n = 4), and teaching experience (2 experienced, 2 inexper­
ienced, and 6 using a mix of the two).

Context characteristics (RQ2)

Most PDPs were voluntary (n = 14), and four were compulsory. Two types of funding
were mentioned: received from the government (n = 7) or from the university itself (n =
6). Five articles reported on participants receiving facilitation for participation in PDP in
terms of time or money. Four articles mentioned that the PDP was accredited by other
universities or the government.

Teacher development (RQ3)

Personal domain
Twenty-seven articles reported positive outcomes in the personal domain. Teacher
development of knowledge was described most (n = 24; e.g. ‘additional depth of under­
standing of academic areas’), followed by change in attitude/belief (n = 23; e.g. ‘the PDP
made me see the value of engagement’), confidence (n = 19; e.g. ‘many participants voiced
8 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

strengthened self-efficacy’), skills (n = 14; e.g. ‘I did feel it did make me more reflective’),
and intention to apply (n = 7; e.g. ‘I’d like to further increase the use of active learning
methods’). Eight articles reported a negative or neutral change as a result of PDP:
confidence (n = 7), attitude/belief (n = 2), skills (n = 2), and knowledge (n = 1) for example,
‘I end up feeling horribly under-prepared’.

Domain of practice
In total, 24 articles reported a positive change in the domain of practice: application in
teaching (n = 19; e.g. ‘the teaching practice of the 2014 group developed over the three
years in this study’) and application in design (n = 21, e.g. ‘I reduced number of topics
covered and focused on fundamentals’). Seven articles described a negative or neutral
change, such as ‘Neither students nor faculty reported differences between PDP and non-
PDP instructors in the use of traditional lecture, which was commonly used in both
groups’.

Domain of consequence
In 19 articles, a positive change in the domain of consequence was measured: at the
organisation level (n = 12, e.g. ‘It has created a community of digital research informed
teachers’), student level (n = 11; e.g. ‘more student behavioural and cognitive engage­
ment’), and teacher level (n = 7; e.g. ‘now having a leading role in the department’). Two
articles reported no or a neutral change at the student level (e.g. ‘When I gave them a
question they were quiet and clearly they were working but I’m trying to get them to be
talking and discussing’).

Relationship of PDP and context characteristics with domains of teacher

development (RQ4)
Perception data
In 19 articles, teachers reported a perceived relationship between specific PDP character­
istics and their pedagogical development. All teaching methods, except for ‘mentoring’,
were perceived to be related to changes in the personal domain (n = 18; e.g. collaboration:
‘when my peers shared lessons learnt when things went wrong for them, this helped me
build up my own digital skills, knowledge, and confidence’). ‘Collaboration’, ‘instruc­
tion’, ‘designing teaching’, ‘mentoring’, ‘discussion’, and ‘feedback’ appeared related to
the domain of practice (n = 4; e.g. instruction: ‘learning new teaching tools and methods
was the most useful part of the studies . . . it provided a framework with the help of which
I could reflect upon my teaching practice, develop, and implement new solutions
appropriate to the subject’). ‘Collaboration’ and ‘investigating effects’ were related to
change in the domain of consequence (n = 2; e.g. collaboration: ‘It was nice to meet other
new lecturers . . . just to get to know other people in the faculty’).
The PDP characteristic multidisciplinary grouping was related to change in both the
personal domain (n = 2) and domain of consequence (n = 1). For example, ‘ I’m probably
now, from the PDP, more tolerant of listening to other people [from other departments].
There’s always that sort of . . . enclosure that you exist within. So whether I took things on
board or not, at least I came out of my enclosure and actually listened and engaged with
other people’. Practical relevance was related to change in the personal domain (n = 3; e.g.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 9

‘Yeah, because you’re putting the theory into practice again, even though you’ve been
doing the practical I felt as . . . it was making more academic sense what we were doing’).
Other characteristics that were mentioned were the trainers of the PDP (n = 2) and the
encouragement to experiment (n = 2) in relation to the personal domain (e.g. ‘I was able to
take more calculated risks and constantly change as I was actually delivering’).
Only three articles described a perceived relationship between a context characteristic
and teacher development. Receiving a certificate (i.e. qualification) was related to change
in the personal domain (n = 2) and domain of consequence (n = 1; e.g. ‘certainly I’ve been
able to support colleagues with issues that I’ve got some background knowledge as a
result of the PDP’).

Triangulated data
We first report changes in teacher development that were shown in the five reviewed
articles using triangulated data or a control group (see Figure 3). Then, we describe
commonalities and differences between the characteristics of the reported PDPs that
were connected to these identified changes in teacher development.
In Stains et al. (2015; see Figure 3d), teachers changed in the personal domain. In Owens
et al. (2018; see Figure 3b), Stains et al. (2015, see Figure 3d), and Zheng et al (2017; see
Figure 3e), teachers changed in the domain of practice, using more active learning strategies
or IT tools in the classroom. Hilpert and Husman (2017; see Figure 3a) and Sanders et al.
(2019; see Figure 3c) reported a change in the domain of consequence: students with
teachers who had followed the PDP reported more engagement or critical thinking skills
compared to students who were taught by a teacher who did not attend the PDP.
Table 2 shows an overview of commonalities and differences in PDP and context
characteristics per teacher development domain. The PDPs that resulted in a change in
the domain of practice used a variety of teaching methods, of which all three used
‘instruction’, ‘collaboration’, and ‘modelling’. All three PDPs explicitly focused on prac­
tical relevance. The PDPs differed in the characteristics of timeframe, grouping, and
whether participation was voluntary or not. The PDPs that resulted in a change in the
domain of consequence had a long timeframe and teachers voluntarily participated. In
addition, Sanders et al. (2019) concluded that a longer timeframe resulted in more growth
in students’ critical thinking. The PDPs differed in grouping and teaching methods used.

Combining perception and triangulated data

When combining relationships between PDP characteristics and teacher development
found in both perception data and triangulated data, we saw that for changes in the
personal domain, several teaching methods (i.e. ‘instruction’, ‘collaboration’, ‘feedback’,
‘designing teaching’, ‘modelling’, and ‘micro teaching’) as well as practical relevance, seemed
effective. Also, for influencing the domain of practice, the teaching methods ‘instruction’,
‘collaboration’, ‘discussion’, ‘feedback’, and ‘designing teaching’ were found in both percep­
tion and triangulated data. For impacting the domain of consequence, only the characteristic
‘multidisciplinary’ grouping was found in both perception and triangulated data.
10 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

Figure 3. Visualisation of found relationships among the various domains of IMPG. *teaching methods a.
Hilpert & Husman (2002) discussion, study material. b. Owens et al. (2018) discussion, collaboration,
instruction, portfolio/reflection, mentoring, observation, modelling, investigatingeffects. c. Sanders et al.
(2019) instruction, portfolio/reflection, feedback, mentoring, observation. d. Stain et al. (2015) collaboration,
instruction, feedback, designing teaching, micro teaching, modelling. e. Zheng et al. (2017) discussion,
collaboration, instruction, study material, feedback, designing teaching, observation, modelling.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 11

Table 2. PDP- and context-characteristics that stimulate teacher development.

Characteristics Personal domain Domain of practice Domain of consequence
Stains et al. (2015) Owens et al. (2018), Stains et al. (2015) Hilpert and Husman
and Zheng et al. (2017) (2017) and Sanders et
al. (2019)
PDP
Time frame short short and long long
Grouping monodisciplinary monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary multidisciplinary and
monodisciplinary
Teaching instruction, collaboration, discussion, instruction, collaboration, discussion, instruction,
methods feedback, designing feedback, designing teaching, portfolio/ feedback, portfolio/
teaching, modelling, reflection, mentoring, observation, reflection, mentoring,
micro teaching modelling, micro teaching, study material
investigating effects, study material
Practical x x x
relevance
Context
Facilitation facilitation
Voluntary/ voluntary voluntary
compulsory
Funding organisation
*italic = mentioned in two articles; underscore = mentioned in 3 articles; bold = mentioned in perceived relationship.

Discussion
This review was conducted to explore what is known about the relationships between
PDP or context characteristics and the changes in teacher development in Higher
Education.
Our review, which included 31 articles, showed that PDPs vary widely in terms of design
characteristics (RQ1). Moreover, studies paid little attention to context characteristics in
measuring PDPs’ results (RQ2). Given the importance of work-environment factors in
transfer of learning (e.g. Burke-Smalley & Hutchins, 2007, De Rijdt et al., 2013), this calls
for more research on how context affects the effectiveness of PDPs. Regarding teacher
development (RQ3), we found that PDPs can result in a variety of outcomes in teacher
development (i.e. change in the personal domain, domain of practice, and domain of con­
sequence). For example, our review showed teacher development in the domain of conse­
quence on the organisation level (38%) and the student level (35%). Interestingly, this is more
than the outcomes found in previous reviews (33% and 5% in Steinert et al., 2016; 25% and
33% in Stes et al., 2010). This suggests that more recent studies do pay more attention to
studying the effects of PDPs on the organisation or student levels. However, as the quality of
teaching is widely seen as a key factor that positively impacts student learning, more research
is needed to evidence the value and impact of PDPs on students learning.
Regarding research question four (i.e. relation between characteristics and domains of
teacher development), our study corroborated findings from previous review studies regard­
ing the overall positive impact experienced from PDP characteristics like longitudinal pro­
gramme design, practical relevance of the content, and several teaching methods (De Rijdt et
al., 2013, Steinert et al., 2016, Stes et al., 2010). In addition to the previous reviews, this review
showed which PDP characteristics (i.e. external domain) stimulate what domain of teacher
development (i.e. change in the personal domain, domain of practice, or domain of conse­
quence). For example, the teaching methods ‘instruction’, ‘collaboration’, ‘feedback’, and
12 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

‘designing teaching’ seemed to be related to teacher development in the personal domain and
domain of practice. Knowing what domain of teacher development is stimulated with a
specific PDP characteristic is just the first step. More research is needed to investigate in
what way these characteristics contribute to student learning and how changes in teachers’
knowledge and behaviour affect student learning (Van Veen et al., 2012) in order to improve
the effectiveness of PDP.

Limitations
The relationships explored in this study are based on a small sample of studies using
triangulated data and a wider range of studies using perception data only and thus must
be interpreted with care. More research, also using triangulated data, is needed to
establish relationships between specific PDP or context characteristics and teacher
development. In line with former reviews (e.g. Stes et al., 2010) we found that PDPs
are only briefly described in half of the articles. We recommend further research to report
PDP characteristics by using the components of the curriculum spiderweb (Van den
Akker, 2003) and specifically mentioning which PDP characteristic is evaluated.

Implications
We used the Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (IMPG; Clarke and
Hollingsworth, 2002) as an analytical framework, and enriched the model with the
curriculum spiderweb (Van den Akker, 2003) and inductive codes from the data (see
Figure 4). The enriched IMPG proved useful to identify specific PDP characteristics
and relationships between specific characteristics and domains of teacher

Figure 4. Enriched IMPG. Italic: indication of a relationship between characteristics and domains of
teacher development. Based on the Interconnected model of Professional Growth (Clarke &
Hollingsworth, 2002) and curriculum spiderweb (Van den Akker, 2003).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 13

development. We recommend future research to further develop the model and study
PDP characteristics (i.e. external domain) and context characteristics (i.e. change
environment) and their effect on teacher development by using the enriched IMPG
(see Figure 4).
The enriched IMPG model and the specific relationships identified in our review can
help academic developers to design more evidence-informed PDPs with a ‘theory of
change’ (i.e. assumed relationship between PDP characteristics and the change in teacher
knowledge and/or instruction) in mind (Van Veen et al., 2012). In Table 2 and Figure 3,
examples of relationships are presented and visualised. The following example shows how
this can be used: if a PDP intends to stimulate teachers to use more active learning
strategies in their classroom (i.e. change in domain of practice), our results suggest
incorporating the teaching methods ‘instruction’ and ‘collaboration’ in the design. While
instruction and collaboration can be operationalised in a variety of ways in practice, this
could mean, for example, that a trainer gives instruction about what active learning looks
like in the classroom by showing different examples from practice. Afterwards, participants
will observe each other (collaboration) in the classroom and give peer feedback (collabora­
tion) regarding whether and how the teacher used active learning in the classroom.

Conclusion
Studies on PDPs’ effectiveness appeared to vary widely in terms of how PDPs were
designed, as well as how effects were measured. Firm conclusions about what is known
from research about relationships between specific PDP characteristics and changes in
teacher development could therefore not be drawn. However, the review yielded an
enriched model (Interconnected Model of Professional Growth) on pedagogical devel­
opment of higher education teachers, which may benefit future studies, as well as the
design of more evidence-informed PDPs in practice.

Notes
1. Referring to the outcome domains as described by Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002):
personal domain, domain of practice, and domain of consequence.
2. Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching (DART) tool – a tool that measures classroom
sounds to classify teaching practices in college science courses.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education and Wageningen University.
14 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

Notes on contributors
Marloes Vreekamp is a PhD student at the Education and Learning Science (ELS) chair group of
Wageningen University & Research (WUR) and educational trainer and advisor at the WUR. Her
research is focused on pedagogical development programmes in higher education institutes.
Judith Gulikers is an associate professor at the ELS chair group (WUR). Her research, innovation,
and professional development activities are focused on formative assessment, assessment of ‘difficult
things’ (like boundary crossing), assessment in learning lines, and programmatic assessment.
Piety Runhaar is an associate professor at the ELS chair group (WUR). Her research is focused on
professional development of teachers and teacher teams and the roles of Human Resources
Management and leadership in stimulating professional development in various educational contexts.
Perry den Brok is a professor and chair in ELS (WUR). His research is focused on educational
innovation, rich and innovative learning environments, teacher learning and professional development.
Perry is also the chair of the 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education, a centre that initiates, supports,
and studies course and curricular innovations at the four universities of technology in the Netherlands.

ORCID
Marloes Vreekamp http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1803-3458
Judith T. M. Gulikers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9318-312X
Piety R. Runhaar http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-5003
Perry J. Den Brok http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4945-763X

References
*articles included in data sample
*Adnan, M., Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2017). Assessment of a multinational online faculty
development program on online teaching: Reflections of candidate E-Tutors. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.285708
*Ansyari, M. F. (2015). Designing and evaluating a professional development programme for basic
technology integration in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 31(6), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1675.
*Bain, Y., Brosnan, K., & McGuigan, A. (2019). Transforming practice, transforming practitioners:
Reflections on the TQFE in Scotland. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24(1), 83–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2018.1526907.
Booth, A., & Carroll, C. (2015). How to build up the actionable knowledge base: The role of ‘best
fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(11),
700–708. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003642
Burke-Smalley, L., & Hutchins, H. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review.
Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1534484307303035
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X-02-
00053-7
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP Qualitative Checklist. https://casp-uk.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklis-2018.pdfhttps://casp-uk.net/wp-content
/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf
De Rijdt, C., Stess, A., Van der Vleuten, C., & Dochy, F. (2013). Influencing variables and
moderators of transfer of learning to the workplace within the area of staff development in
higher education: Research review. Educational Research Review, 8, 48–74. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.edurev.2012.05.007
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 15

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward

better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
*Donnelly, R. (2019f). Supporting pedagogic innovators in professional practice through applied
eLearning. E-Learning & Digital Media, 16(4), 301–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2042753019836317.
*Fong, C. J., Gilmore, J., Pinder-Grover, T., & Hatcher, M. (2019). Examining the impact of four
teaching development programmes for engineering teaching assistants. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 43(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1361517.
Graham, R. (2018). The career framework for university teaching: Background and overview. Royal
academy of engineering. https://www.teachingframework.com/resources/Career-Framework-
University-Teaching-April-2018.pdf
*Gunbay, E. B., & Mede, E. (2017). Implementing authentic materials through Critical Friends
Group (CFG): A case from Turkey. The Qualitative Report, 22(11), 3055–3074. https://doi.org/
10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2744
*Gunersel, A. B., & Etienne, M. (2014). The impact of a faculty training program on teaching
conceptions and strategies. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
26(3), 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440701604898.
*Hilpert, J. C., & Husman, J. (2017). Instructional improvement and student engagement in post-
secondary engineering courses: The complexity underlying small effect sizes. Educational
Psychology, 37(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1241379.
*Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Supporting and constraining factors in
the development of university teaching experienced by teachers. Teaching in Higher Education,
22(6), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273206.
*Jarvis, C. (2019). The art of freedom in HE teacher development. Teaching in Higher Education,
24(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1456422.
*Kensington-Miller, B. (2019). ‘My attention shifted from the material I was teaching to student
learning’: The impact of a community of practice on teacher development for new international
academics. Professional Development in Education, 47(5), 870–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19415257.2019.1677746
*Lamers, A. M., & Admiraal, W. F. (2018). Moving out of their comfort zones: Enhancing teaching
practice in transnational education. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(2),
110–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1399133.
*Langdon, J. L., & Wittenberg, M. (2019). Need supportive instructor training: Perspectives from
graduate teaching assistants in a college/university physical activity program. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1530748.
*Lauridsen, K. M., & Lauridsen, O. (2018). Teacher capabilities in a multicultural educational environ­
ment: An analysis of the impact of a professional development project. International Journal for
Academic Development, 23(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1357557 .
*Lavis, C. C., Williams, K. A., Fallin, J., Barnes, P. K., Fishback, S. J., & Thien, S. (2016). Assessing a
faculty development program for the adoption of brain-based learning strategies. The Journal of
Faculty Development, 30(1), 57–69.
*McLeod, P., Steinert, Y., Capek, R., Chalk, C., Brawer, J., Ruhe, V., & Barnett, B. (2013). Peer
review: An effective approach to cultivating lecturing virtuosity. Medical Teacher, 35(4), 1046–
1051. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.733460
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine,
151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
*Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional development
program on effective integration of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society,
18(3), 16–28.
*Nevgi, A., & Löfström, E. (2015). The development of academics’ teacher identity: Enhancing
reflection and task perception through a university teacher development programme. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 46, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.003
16 M. VREEKAMP ET AL.

*Owens, M. T., Trujillo, G., Seidel, S. B., Harrison, C. D., Farrar, K. M., Benton, H. P. , and Tanner,
K. D. (2018). Collectively improving our teaching: Attempting biology department-wide pro­
fessional development in scientific teaching. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-06-0106
*Owusu-Agyeman, Y., Larbi-Siaw, O., Brenya, B., & Anyidoho, A. (2017). An embedded fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process for evaluating lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 55, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.07.001
*Pekkarinen, V., & Hirsto, L. (2017). University lecturers’ experiences of and reflections on the
development of their pedagogical competency. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
61(6), 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1188148.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H., Petticrew, M., Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social
sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
*Sanders, A. L., Snyder, S. J., & Mathews, S.-K. (2019). Fostering student motivation to think
critically: Critical thinking dispositions in higher education. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 30(2), 133–160.
*Sonntag, U., Peters, H., Schnabel, K. P., & Breckwoldt, J. (2017). 10 years of didactic training for
novices in medical education at Charite. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 34(4), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001116.
*Stains, M., Pilarz, M., & Chakraverty, D. (2015). Short and long-term impacts of the cottrell
scholars collaborative new faculty workshop. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(9), 1466–1476.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00324.
Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B. M., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., Prideaux, D., Spencer, J.,
Tullo, E., Viggiano, T., Ward, H., & Dolmans, D. (2016). A systematic review of faculty development
initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40.
Medical Teacher, 38(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851
Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional
development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research
Review, 5(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.07.001
*Stewart, M. (2014). Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring
the longer-term effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2013.11.006
*Toding, M., & Venesaar, U. (2018). Discovering and developing conceptual understanding of
teaching and learning in entrepreneurship lecturers. Education & Training, 60(7/8), 696–718.
https://doi.org/10.1108/et-07-2017-0101
*Tsui, C. (2018). Teacher efficacy: A case study of faculty beliefs in an English-medium instruction
teacher training program. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 15(1), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.30397/
TJTESOL.201804_15(1).0004.
Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. Van den Akker, W.
Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Kluwer Academic
Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_1
Van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing
links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design
features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03057267.2012.738020
Van Veen, K., Zwart, R., & Meirink, J. (2012). What makes teacher professional development
effective? A literature review. In M. Kooy & K. van Veen (Eds.), Teacher learning that matters
(pp. 23–41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805879
*Van Wyk, C., Nel, M. M., & van Zyl, G. J. (2019). Practise what you teach: Lessons learnt by newly
appointed lecturers in medical education. African Journal of Health Professions Education, 11
(2), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.7196/AJHPE.2019.v11i2.1115.
*Wilson, G., Myat, P., & Purdy, J. (2018). Increasing access to professional learning for academic
staff through open educational resources and authentic design. Journal of University Teaching
and Learning Practice, 15(2), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.15.2.5
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 17

*Wurgler, E., Van Heuvelen, J. S., Rohrman, S., Loehr, A., & Grace, M. K. (2014). The perceived
benefits of a preparing future faculty program and its effect on job satisfaction, confidence, and
competence. Teaching Sociology, 42(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x13507782.
*Zheng, M., Bender, D., & Nadershahi, N. (2017). Faculty professional development in emergent
pedagogies for instructional innovation in dental education. European Journal of Dental
Education, 21(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12180