Dilemmas in continuing professional learning: learning inscribed in frameworks or elicited from practice

Abstract

This paper explores a dilemma in continuing professional learning: the way learning is typically inscribed in continuing professional education (CPE) frameworks differs from that elicited from practice. It examines these differences in relation to both different underlying assumptions about learning and varying epistemological perspectives and, as well as the different purposes of CPE frameworks of professional bodies and organisations. It suggests that the dominant adoption of narrower conceptions of learning in professional organisations' frameworks ignores understandings about work and learning emerging from recent research in the field of workplace learning and focuses on a view that may privilege formal provision. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research directions in developing alternative continuing professional learning frameworks.

Problematising standards in an era of increasing transparency

“…10 This is where the performative perspective is important in understanding why there might be a gap when those who develop the standards are typically removed from the practitioners who enact them. 11 Standards do double work in that they are enacted locally through judgements of competence and globally through ordering practice at a distance One consequence when assessment practices including standards are decoupled from everyday practice, is that they become a tool of compliance rather than a tool for learning.…”

“…Hence, performing a standard is a ‘complex accomplishment, a balance of improvisation and accommodation to constraint’ both locally and at a distance . This is where the performative perspective is important in understanding why there might be a gap when those who develop the standards are typically removed from the practitioners who enact them …”

Learning as the Basis for Continuing Professional Education

“…The relationship of context to practice is particularly important because, in today's environment, professionals are considered organizational employees rather than free, autonomous decision‐makers (Wilson & Cervero, ). Fenwick () and others (Reich et al., ) pointed out that these changing conditions necessitate a deeper understanding of organizational professions, the impact of bureaucracy on them, and changing organizational dynamics on professional work.…”

“…We know that the theory or new knowledge taught in CPE programs is seldom transferred immediately and directly to the practice arena (Foley & Kaiser, ). We know that most CPE programs are more effective in teaching novices than they are in fostering the professional development of experts (Daley, ; Reich, Rooney, & Boud, ). And, finally, we know there are factors in the work environment that inhibit practitioners from incorporating what they have learned in a CPE program into their practice (Daley, , ; Eraut, , ; Webster‐Wright, ).…”

Human elements and the pragmatic approach in the Australian, Scottish and Swedish standards for newly qualified teachers

“…We suggest that teacher standards potentially endanger the retention and development of NQTs in that they downplay classrooms as places where the unexpected often occurs and that teaching is learning from experience and adapting to new situations (Reich et al 2015). The Scottish Standard for Full Registration is very detailed when it comes to specifications of practice.…”