10.1007@978 3 030 38844 7

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION
Claudia Krille
Teachers’
Participation
in Professional
Development
A Systematic Review
123
SpringerBriefs in Education
We are delighted to announce SpringerBriefs in Education, an innovative product
type that combines elements of both journals and books. Briefs present concise
summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications in education.
Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the SpringerBriefs in Education
allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with a minimal time
investment. Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook Collection. In
addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase.
SpringerBriefs in Education cover a broad range of educational fields such as:
Science Education, Higher Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment &
Evaluation, Language Education, Mathematics Education, Educational Technology,
Medical Education and Educational Policy.
SpringerBriefs typically offer an outlet for:
• An introduction to a (sub)field in education summarizing and giving an over-
view of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field
• A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques and instruments in the
field of educational research
• A presentation of core educational concepts
• An overview of a testing and evaluation method
• A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic or policy change
• An in-depth case study
• A literature review
• A report/review study of a survey
• An elaborated thesis
Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the
SpringerBriefs in Education series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete
and submit the Briefs Author Proposal form. All projects will be submitted to
editorial review by editorial advisors.
SpringerBriefs are characterized by expedited production schedules with the aim
for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic
dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise
author contracts guarantee that:
• an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript
• each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author
• the author retains the right to post the pre-publication version on his/her website
or that of his/her institution
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

Claudia Krille
Teachers’ Participation
in Professional Development
A Systematic Review
123
Claudia Krille
Goethe Universität
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Education
ISBN 978-3-030-38843-0 ISBN 978-3-030-38844-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Relevance and Scope of the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1

1.1 Motivation for the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1
1.2 Research Questions for the Literature Review . . . . . . . . ....... 3
1.3 Theoretical Approaches to Teachers’ Participation
in Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 4
1.4 Teacher Professional Development in Germany, Austria,
and Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 5
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 6
2 Methods of the Systematic Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Search Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Description of Included Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Reasons for Participation in Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 Barriers to Participation in Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5 Individual and Context Characteristics Related to Teachers’
Professional Development Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1 Characteristics of Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2 Characteristics of Professional Development Program . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3 Context Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
v
vi Contents
6 Conclusions from the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . ............. 91

6.1 Summary of Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . ............. 91
6.2 Limitations of Included Studies and Conclusions
for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 95
6.3 Limitations of the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . ............. 98
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 99
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Chapter 1
Relevance and Scope of the Literature
Review
Abstract There only seem to be a limited amount of studies regarding teachers’ par-
ticipation in professional development (PD). However, there is a rather wide range
of studies dedicated to this research area. This research is characterized by different
methodology approaches, target groups, and a focus of certain PD programs and
therefore quantitative synthesizing approaches (e.g., meta-analysis) are not appli-
cable. Nevertheless, this body of research provides relevant results for this area of
research. Against this background, the first chapter introduces the relevance of con-
ducting a systematic literature review on teachers’ participation in PD and potential
aspects that may influence their attendance. To do so, the chapter presents why (for-
mal) PD is important and emphasizes the relevance of the first step in the PD process:
The choice of participating in a (certain) PD workshop. The chapter also outlines
the inconsistent and hard to compare state of research. Furthermore, it presents the
three main research questions that motivated the literature review and describes the
conditions for teacher PD within the three focused countries. Finally, a short preview
of the book structure is outlined.
Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · In-service

teacher education · Teacher learning · Lifelong learning · Context conditions ·
Germany · Austria · Switzerland
1.1 Motivation for the Literature Review
Teachers’ competence has a crucial effect on their teaching as well as their stu-
dents’ success (e.g., Baumert et al., 2010; Hattie, 2009). The foundation for that
competence is established during the initial teacher training and continues through-
out their entire teaching career. The constantly varying context conditions in schools
and classrooms, as well as the changing requirements for students and for teachers
themselves, require teachers to continue learning throughout their careers in order to
maintain and develop their professionalism (e.g., Lipowsky & Rzejak, 2015; OECD,
2009). Furthermore, subject contents may change and be updated, regulations and
standards with regard to processes in the school routine may be adapted, and new
teaching methods might be developed and implemented. Professional development
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

C. Krille, Teachers’ Participation in Professional Development,
SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7_1
2 1 Relevance and Scope of the Literature Review
(PD) provides an opportunity for teachers to learn about such changes to improve
their professional behavior. Furthermore, PD workshops may help teachers learn
strategies for handling challenging situations (for different possible scopes of teacher
in-service PD courses, see Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2011).
Different meta-analyses have demonstrated that PD can have a positive effect
on teachers’ learning and behavior as well as on students’ performance (e.g., Hat-
tie, 2009; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, &
Shapley, 2007). Based on these results, the studies identify characteristics of learning
opportunities that are able to influence teaching in a positive manner. The analyzed
studies often focused on “formal PD”, i.e. the participation of learning opportunities
provided by education and training institutions (e.g., PD workshops; Commission
of the European Communities, 2000; Richter, 2013). In the context of continuous
teacher education, formal PD activities do not necessarily lead to recognized qual-
ifications (see the distinction with “further qualifying training” in Eurydice (2003,
p. 103) but are officially recognized as further development. Both formal and non-
formal learning activities (e.g., learning communities, cooperation with organiza-
tions, or individual information search) are characterized by the intention to learn
something whereas informal learning may happen unintentionally and in the course
of doing something different (Commission of the European Communities, 2000; see
also Richter, 2011 for teachers). Yet the various learning activities should not com-
pete with each other, but rather complement each other (e.g., Commission of the
European Communities, 2000).
The current literature review focuses on formal teacher PD—that is, learning
activities such as courses or workshops that are organized and offered by educational
institutions. These learning opportunities are pre-structured by teacher educators
and therefore have the potential to impart knowledge to teachers efficiently (Richter,
2016). Furthermore, in several countries, participation in formal PD is mandatory (for
an overview of European countries, see European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice,
2013) and can therefore be seen as a “minimum requirement” for teachers’ PD.
Different international studies have shown that formal PD is highly relevant and
used by many teachers (e.g., Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; OECD, 2009).
The current review focuses on such PD activities that aim to maintain and update
existing a teacher’s competences (called Fortbildung in German) but not provide
further qualifying training, which enables teachers to assume an office or teach other
subjects (Weiterbildung in German; e.g., Daschner, 2009; Richter, 2016).
Although a large body of research on crucial elements of successful PD courses
exists (e.g., Lipowsky, 2011; Timperley et al., 2007; Yoon et al., 2007) and several
models have been developed to investigate and explain the efficacy of PD workshops
(e.g., Desimone, 2009; Lipowsky, 2010; Lipowsky & Rzejak, 2015; Van Veen, Zwart,
& Meirink, 2012), there is no systematization of studies with regard to teachers’ par-
ticipation in PD as well as aspects that may influence their attendance or be associated
1.1 Motivation for the Literature Review 3
with it.1 With regard to the quantity of PD workshops attended, existing studies focus
on either a certain region within a country or teachers from a specific school type or
few certain school subjects (Richter, 2016). In addition, studies concerned with the
reasons for teachers to attend or not attend formal PD are rather scarce according to
Richter (2016). Furthermore, the existing studies are not based on a coherent model
of PD attendance, or teachers’ decision-making process for or against certain PD
workshops or programs (for the initial overviews of possible influencing variables,
see Diehl, Krüger, Richter, & Vigerske, 2010; Kwakman, 2003).
However, it is important to understand the underlying processes and correlations
as successful PD programs can only take an effect when teachers participate in them.
Therefore, the process of effective teacher PD starts even before attending and utiliz-
ing the workshop—namely, when deciding on a PD activity and a specific learning
opportunity (see Beier & Kanfer, 2010, for a stage model for training motivation in
a general context). Accordingly, Rzejak et al. (2014) suggested not only considering
“training motivation” but also further differentiating it into “training choice motiva-
tion” (the choice of a certain PD program before participating), “training utilization
motivation” (how teachers use the program and actively engage in it), and “training
transfer motivation” (motivation to apply new knowledge and skills in classroom).
The differentiation into the three phases and qualitatively different motivation stages
allows for investigating the whole training process more precisely and considering
constructs that may be more influential in one of the phases but not throughout the
whole process (Beier & Kanfer, 2010).
The current review focuses on the first phase: the training choice. For countries
in which teachers’ participation in PD is not mandatory (for an overview see e.g.,
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013), it is important to know what moti-
vates teachers to attend PD, what hinders them, and what other aspects may influence
that choice. Furthermore, knowing what is crucial for teachers’ PD participation can
provide a valuable insight for designing attractive and effective PD programs and
workshops.
1.2 Research Questions for the Literature Review
Against this background, the present literature review aims to summarize and sys-
temize existing research results with regard to teachers’ training choice or what influ-
ences teachers’ PD behavior. To provide broad insights into this topic, the review
not only focuses on motivational constructs (cf. Rzejak et al., 2014), but also covers
teachers’ self-reported reasons for and barriers to attending PD, as well as individual
and context characteristics that have been examined with regard to their associations
with teachers’ PD attendance. The current literature review focuses on results from
1 SeeRichter (2016) for a first approach to summarizing studies from Germany with regard to
teachers’ participation as well as reasons for and against attending PD. However, the results are
based only on eight publications.
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland which are often (but not always) published in Ger-
man and therefore may not be accessible to international researchers. Through this
review, comparisons between studies from different countries and teacher education
systems may be possible.
In a first step, the applied methods of the systematic literature review are pre-
sented and the included studies are summarized. Afterwards, the results are presented
focusing on three research questions:
(1) What are teachers’ self-reported reasons for choosing and participating in a
(certain) PD program?
(2) What barriers do teachers report with regard to their participation in PD
programs?
(3) What variables are associated with teachers’ PD behavior?
The aim of the paper is to provide a broad overview of the existing research from
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland on these questions. Applying a narrative approach
serves to reveal what was examined in the context of teachers’ PD behavior thus far
rather than calculating effects of certain characteristics or variables. Nevertheless,
this review may be used as a basis for further analyses, such as meta-analyses on more
specific research questions. At the end, the results are summarized and incorporated
into a comprehensive model of teachers’ choice of PD programs.
1.3 Theoretical Approaches to Teachers’ Participation

in Professional Development
In order to systemize the results of the literature review, several attempts to system-
ize aspects that may affect teachers’ PD participation exist. For example, Kwakman
(2003) proposed a theoretical model with three different kinds of factors: personal
factors (characteristics of the teacher), task factors (context conditions within the
school), and work environment factors (different forms of support within the school).
However, the hypothesized model is concerned with any professional learning activi-
ties at the workplace, particularly informal learning activities. In contrast, Diehl et al.
(2010) outlined different summaries of affecting aspects and proposed a model that
also included three factors: individual, internal contextual and external contextual
factors. Individual factors are concerned with teachers’ characteristics, such as their
motivation, willingness to invest effort into PD, private conditions, and prior expe-
riences. In contrast, the internal contextual factors represent factors concerned with
characteristics of the school to which the teachers belong and their work environment.
Examples of this kind of factors are regulations of class cancellations, colleagues’
attitudes regarding PD, and available budget for PD attendance. Finally, external
contextual factors comprise characteristics of the PD program that may influence
teachers’ decisions regarding potential participation, such as available information
on the course, distance to the location, and organizational aspects such as the reg-
istration deadline (Diehl et al., 2010). When comparing the two described models,
1.3 Theoretical Approaches to Teachers’ Participation … 5
it becomes apparent that both models distinguish individual characteristics of the

teacher from those of the context. However, Kwakman (2003) differentiated charac-
teristics of the school into two groups (task factors and work environment factors)
but does not consider any characteristics of the targeted learning activity, as Diehl
et al. (2010) did. This makes sense as she considered different learning activities in
her study that vary widely. Against the background that the current literature review
is concerned with participation in formal PD, it seems plausible to consider the
courses’ characteristics. Diehl et al.’s (2010) model is suitable for systemizing the
results from a small qualitative pilot study. However, the results of the main study
and therefore a proof of the model’s usefulness have not yet been published. Never-
theless, a similar categorization of factors can be found in Lipowsky and Rzejak’s
(2015) model, which is concerned with the effectiveness of PD courses and what
influences their success. Therefore, it can be assumed that this classification may be
helpful to systemize characteristics and circumstances that are crucial for teachers’
PD participation.
Against this background, it was aimed to summarize and systemize the results
of the literature review in three steps: First, the results of all included studies were
recorded regardless of the described categories. Next, in accordance with qualitative
content analysis (Mayring, 2014), the outcomes were reviewed to determine if they
would fit into the model suggested by Diehl et al. (2010) in the sense of a deductive
analyses. In order to facilitate readability, the more obvious terms “characteristics
of the teacher”, “characteristics of the PD program”, and “context conditions” were
used. Finally, it was examined whether further categories should be considered in
the context of teachers’ PD participation or if the existing categories could be fur-
ther subdivided in order to provide a suitable model for future research (inductive
analyses).
1.4 Teacher Professional Development in Germany,

Austria, and Switzerland
Overall, continuous PD is part of teachers’ duty in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

(e.g., European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013). However, there are hardly
any specifications on topics that teachers should consider or to what extent they should
participate in formal PD. Therefore, there are no possibilities to monitor teachers’
PD activities or sanction measures for not attending any formal PD courses. As a
result, PD participation depends primarily on the teachers themselves and their char-
acteristics, such as personal interest, perceived needs, and motivation (e.g., Kotthof
& Terhart, 2013; Richter, 2013) as well as on the perceived trade-off between costs
and benefits associated with PD participation (Rice, 2009). Furthermore, incentives
that are typically considered to have a motivating effect in other professions (e.g., pay
increase, further career steps or promotion, change of workplace; see, e.g., Tharenou,
2001) do not apply for teachers in these three countries. Instead, it is stated that PD
activities are an essential part of the teaching profession and therefore self-evident
for every teacher (e.g., Balmer, 2017). There are a few exceptions within Germany,
Austria, and Switzerland with regard to prescriptions on how much time teachers
have to spend for PD. However, these obligations are not equal for all teachers and
instead depend on where they teach or in what type of school they teach (e.g., Balmer,
2017; Daschner & Hanisch, 2019; Feller & Stürgkh, 2017). In addition, although in
organizational contexts PD attendance counts as working hours, teachers are encour-
aged to participate in PD activities outside their class time to avoid class cancellation
(e.g., Bundesgesetzblatt §40a, Section 12) and have to align their PD participation
with class preparations, grading, or additional responsibilities within their school.
Therefore, PD attendance is often associated with additional workloads for teachers.
Finally, teachers have the main responsibility for choosing PD courses without being
supported by a systematic assessment of needs or development plans.
Against this background, it is of particular interest to analyze teachers’ PD behav-
ior in order to understand why they participate in (certain) PD courses or what pre-
vents them from doing so (Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014; Hildebrandt & Eom,
2011). Considering these findings, implications can be derived for the design of
PD courses as well as context conditions in order to support teachers in their PD
(Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014).
References
Balmer, T. (2017). Wirksamkeit von Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerweiterbildung: Effekte von Lehrmit-
telkursen auf Kognitionen und die Unterrichtsgestaltung von Lehrpersonen sowie die Unter-
richtswahrnehmung der Schülerinnen und Schüler. University of Zurich, Zurich. Retrieved from
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/157257/1/157257.pdf https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-157257.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’
mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157.
Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2010). Motivation in training and development: A phase perspective.
In S. W. J Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations
(pp. 65–98). New York: Routledge.
Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes
professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500114819.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning. Brussels.
Daschner, P. (2009). Lehrerfort- und weiterbildung: Professionalisierung im Kontext der Lehrerbil-
dung. In S. Blömeke, T. Bohl, L. Haag, G. Lang-Wojtasik, & W. Sacher (Eds.), Handbuch Schule:
Theorie—Organisation—Entwicklung (pp. 490–494). Julius Klinkhardt.
Daschner, P., & Hanisch, R. (Eds.). (2019). Lehrkräftefortbildung in Deutschland: Bestandsauf-
nahme und Orientierung. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
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.
References 7
Diehl, T., Krüger, J., Richter, A., & Vigerske, S. (2010). Einflussfaktoren auf die Fort- und Weiterbil-
dung von Lehrkräften—Erste Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojekts [Factors influencing the teach-
ers’ professional development—First results of a research project]. bwp@ (19), 1–21. Retrieved
from http://www.bwpat.de/ausgabe19/diehl_etal_bwpat19.pdf.
Eurydice. (2003). The teaching profession in Europe: Profile, trends and concerns. Report III:
Working conditions and pay. Key topics in education in Europe: Vol. 3. Brussels: Eurydice.
Feller, W., & Stürgkh, A. (2017). Was Österreichs Lehrer lernen: Warum Fortbildung mindestens so
wichtig ist wie die Erstausbildung. Wien: Agenda Austria. Retrieved from https://www.agenda-
austria.at/publikationen/was-oesterreichs-lehrer-lernen/lehrerfortbildung-in-oesterreich/.
Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and
to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2013.12.001.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hildebrandt, S. A., & Eom, M. (2011). Teacher professionalization: Motivational factors and the
influence of age. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.
2010.09.011.
Kotthof, H.-G., & Terhart, E. (2013). ‘New’ solutions to ‘old’ problems? Recent reforms in teacher
education in Germany. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 22, 73–92.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activ-
ities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(02)00101-4.
Lipowsky, F. (2010). Lernen im Beruf: Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbil-
dung [Learning in the profession: Empirical findings on the effectiveness of teacher professional
development]. In F. H. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders, & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und
Lehrer lernen: Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung. Waxmann: Münster.
Lipowsky, F. (2011). Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von
Lehrerfort- und -weiterbildung [Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on the effective-
ness of teacher professional development]. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.),
Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 398–417). Münster: Waxmann.
Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2015). Key features of effective professional development pro-
grammes for teachers. Ricercazione: Six-monthly Journal on Learning, Research and Innovation
in Education, 7(2), 27–51.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and
software solution. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
Rice, J. K. (2009). Investing in human capital through teacher professional development. In D. D.
Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 227–247). Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Richter, D. (2011). Lernen im Beruf [Learning in the profession]. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum,
U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften.
Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV (pp. 317–325). Münster: Waxmann.
Richter, D. (2013). Professional development across the teaching career. In M. Kunter (Ed.), Math-
ematics teacher education. Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional
competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 333–342). New York, London:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_17.
Richter, D. (2016). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen: Fort- und Weiterbildung im Lehrerberuf [Teach-
ers learn: Professional development in the teaching profession]. In M. Rothland (Ed.), Beruf
Lehrer/Lehrerin (pp. 245–260). Münster: Waxmann.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional develop-
ment across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008.
Rzejak, D., Künsting, J., Lipowsky, F., Fischer, E., Dezhgahi, U., & Reichardt, A. (2014).
Facetten der Lehrerfortbildungsmotivation—eine faktorenanalytische Betrachtung [Facets of
teachers’ motivation for professional development—Results of a factorial analysis]. Journal for
Educational Research Online, 6(1), 139–159.
Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and devel-
opment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 599–621. https://doi.
org/10.1348/096317901167541.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: best evidence synthesis. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
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:
International perspectives (pp. 3–21). New York: Routledge.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence
on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers Report,
REL 2007–No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sci-
ences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_
2007033_sum.pdf.
Chapter 2
Methods of the Systematic Literature
Review
Abstract The chapter describes the methodological approach realized for identify-
ing relevant literature to the research questions raised in Chap. 1. (What are teach-
ers’ self-reported reasons for choosing and participating in a (certain) PD program?
What barriers do teachers report with regard to their participation in PD programs?
What variables are associated with teachers’ PD behavior?). As important previously
known studies were not contained in the search results of relevant databases (e.g.,
PSYNDEX, ERIC), Google Scholar was used for the initial search. This also enabled
a search for different kinds of publications and a broad basis of studies. The results
were first examined based on the titles and abstracts (if applicable). The remaining
studies were screened in more detail based on the full text. In addition, snowballing
as well as analyses of content tables were conducted. By applying these steps, a final
set of 81 studies was identified as relevant for the literature review. The included
studies are described in this chapter with regard to different characteristics, such as
publication form, teacher samples, and kind of conducted analyses.
Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · In-service

teacher education · Systematic literature search · Research review
2.1 Search Procedure
First, a search in scientific databases relevant to the research domains related to

teacher education and PD (e.g., pedagogical psychology, pedagogy, vocational
education) was conducted (ERIC, PsyARTICLES, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Web
of Science). A brief initial search using “professional development” and “teacher”
as keywords returned only a few studies, and important previously known studies
were not contained in these results. Therefore, Google Scholar was used because
it has a broader access to (more or less) scientific publications and also includes
search results from peDOCS, a document server for freely accessible publications.
In addition, the results of the previously mentioned databases were included as a
subset of the Google Scholar search results. Another advantage of this approach is
that more types of publications (e.g., research reports, monographs, edited volumes,
dissertations, conference presentations) can be included because Google Scholar is
not limited to journal papers, as other databases are (e.g., PsycARTICLES).
10 2 Methods of the Systematic Literature Review
The initial search was done on 26 July 2017. As the focus was on studies from
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the following German keywords were used:
“Fortbildungsverhalten1 ” (PD behavior), “Fortbildungserwartungen” (PD expecta-
tions), “Fortbildungswünsche” (PD wishes), “Fortbildungsinteresse” (PD interests),
and “Fortbildungsmotive” (PD motives). Each keyword was combined first with
“Lehrkraft” and then with “Lehrer” (teacher2 ). If necessary, the actual publications
or titles were searched as some results from Google Scholar were ambiguous. This
approach identified 463 distinguishable hits.
As stated in Chap. 1, the focus was on training choice, meaning the phase before
a PD workshop or program started was relevant (see first phase in Beier & Kanfer,
2010 or Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, & Baumert 2014). The goal was to
include all empirical studies focused on school teachers from Germany, Austria,
or Switzerland that either examined teachers’ self-reported reasons or barriers for
participating or reported the relationship between individual or context characteristics
with (the amount of) teachers’ actual participation in formal PD in the past (but
no results on efficacy of training programs or evaluations). Both quantitative and
qualitative studies were considered. In addition, only studies with data collection after
1990 (i.e., after the German reunification) were included. Figure 2.1 summarizes the
Publications after initial

search using key search Excluded publications: n = 219
terms in Google Scholar: - No actual article (e.g., websites, reference lists) or
N = 463 indeterminate result (n = 7 )
- Published before 1990 (n = 9)
Examining titles - Double references or book reviews / comments
and abstracts (n = 42)
Replacing one - No in-service school teachers (other professions:
cumulative thesis by n = 151; student or pre -service teachers: n = 10)
contained articles not
included yet (n = 2) Remaining publications Excluded publications: n = 212
for detailed evaluation: - Publication not available ( n = 1)
N = 245 - No empirical study ( n = 68)
- Data collected before 1990 ( n = 2)
Examining full text - Teachers from other country than intended ( n = 4)
Including publications - No in-service school teachers (other professions:
after screening n = 9; student or pre-service teacher: n = 9)
reference lists/ tables of - No information on reasons/barriers for
contents (n = 46) and Final set of included participating in formal PD or associated variables
publication lists (n = 2) publications in (n = 108)
literature review: - Only participation rate reported ( n = 3)
N = 81 - Report of same results in different publications
(n = 8)
Fig. 2.1 Flow diagram for procedure of systematic literature search
1 As stated in Sect. 1.1 the review does not include research on further qualifying training. Therefore,
the search term “Weitebildung” was not used. However, a screening of the search results when
including this term did not reveal any important studies that could contribute to the research aim of
the current literature.
2 “Lehrkraft” and “Lehrer” are both translations of “teacher”. The former is a gender-neutral term
whereas the latter refers to male teachers, although it was sometimes used as job title in earlier
studies.
2.1 Search Procedure 11
search procedure as a PRISMA flow diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman,
2009) and provides an overview of the process.
All titles and abstracts of the search results were screened and compared against
the previously discussed inclusion criteria to determine if they were suitable for
the review. If it was not possible to infer the relevance from the title or abstract, the
publication was included for further screening. During this process, 219 publications
were excluded (e.g., because the studies were published before 1990, studies occurred
more than once, or the examined sample was not schoolteachers; see Fig. 2.1). One
publication was a cumulative doctoral thesis (Nitsche, 2013) that included three
articles; thus, it was replaced by the contained articles. Therefore, 245 publications
remained for the second step: the screening of the full texts. If two publications
reported the same results from the same study, only one of them was considered.3
After collating the remaining texts with the inclusion criteria, 212 additional publica-
tions were excluded (e.g., because there was no data collection or it occurred before
1990, there was no information on teachers’ reasons/barriers for their PD participa-
tion or on related variables; see Fig. 2.1). To broaden the publication basis of the
literature review, reference lists and tables of content were reviewed for publications
that might fit the inclusion criteria, which resulted in 48 additional publications being
included. Ultimately, a final set of 81 publications was used as the basis of the current
literature review.
2.2 Description of Included Studies
The 81 remaining publications contained 19 journal articles (16 from peer-reviewed

journals), 17 chapters from edited volumes, 17 monographs, 13 research reports,
10 dissertations (4 published as monographs), 2 theses (Diploma), 2 conference
presentations, and 1 article in a special issue that was used as a research report. Core
characteristics of the study sample are summarized in Table 2.1 (see Table A.1 for
an overview of all included studies).
In 67 studies (80%), data were collected using questionnaires that predominantly
contained closed-ended questions; this is also true for 4 studies (5%) reporting results
from standardized interviews. The questions in both kind of studies were typically
concerned with PD workshops the teachers visited in the past (amount and/or topics),
what reasons they have to attend formal PD, and what were or may have been reasons
not to participate. Most studies asked teachers to rate predefined aspects with regard
to their relevance for attending or not attending PD workshops. Only 13 studies (15%)
used open-ended questions: 3 (4%) conducted group discussions, 8 (10%) worked
with (semi-structured) interviews, and 2 (2%) used mixed methods. Overall, in 37
studies (44%) the analyses were realized through descriptive statistics. Finally, 46
publications (55%) reported results from statistical analyses, from which 32 studies
(38%) realized group comparisons.
3 Thefollowing studies were not considered for the analysis: Bachmaier (2011), Beck and Ullrich
(1996), Daus et al. (2004), Jetzschke and Henn (2016), Neu and Melle (1998), Richter (2013),
Richter and Klein (2013), Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, and Baumert (2014).
12 2 Methods of the Systematic Literature Review
Table 2.1 Characteristics of included studies

Characteristic Number of studies
Region Germany: n = 70/86% (one federal state or specific region: n
= 34/42%; several federal states: n = 8/10%; whole country:
n = 28/35%); Austria: n = 9/11% (specific region: n =
4/5%; whole country: n = 5/6%); Switzerland: n = 2/2%
(one canton: n = 1/1%; several cantons: n = 1/1%)
Time of data collection Overall between 1992 and 2017; missing data (n = 14/17%)
Considering periods of 5 years: most data collection were
realized between 2007 and 2011 (n = 20/30%)a
Sample sizeb Ranging from 6 to 4265 teachers (<100 persons: n =
13/15%; <1000 persons: n = 35/42%; >1000 persons: n =
30/36%); missing data (n = 6/7%)
Age Report of means (n = 20/49%): ranging from 37 to 50 years;
report of mode (n = 28/68%): greater than 40 years (n = 11),
greater than 50 years (n = 16); missing data (n = 40/49%); 8
studies reported mean and mode; 1 study reported range
Gender (proportion of women) Less than 50% female (n = 15/28%; smallest amount: 19%
female, physics teacher at academic-track school); greater
than 50% female (n = 38/72%; proportions above 80%: n =
11/21%, especially teachers from primary schools); missing
data (n = 28/35%)
School typec Primary schools (n = 13/16%); academic-track schools
(“Gymnasium”/“Allgemeinbildende höhere Schule”, n =
4/5%); intermediate-track schools (“Regelschulen”, n =
1/1%); vocational schools (here “Berufskolleg”, n = 1/1%);
several school types (n = 60/75%); missing data (n = 1/1%)
General education (n = 57/72%); (considering) vocational
schools (n = 20/25%)
School subject Several subjects (n = 39/51%); religion (n = 5/7%);
mathematics (n = 5/7%); chemistry (n = 4/5%); geography,
German, physics, sciences in lower classes (“Sachunterricht”)
(n = 2/3% each), science (n = 1/1%), mathematics and
science (n = 8/11%); other specific combinations of subjects
(n = 5/7%); missing data (n = 5/6%)
Focus of PD General/no specification (n = 39/48%)
Certain contents: ICT (n = 12/15%); chemistry (n = 4/5%);
mathematics (n = 4/5%); religion (n = 3/4%), physics (n =
2/2%); other contents (n = 11/14%);
Certain provider (n = 5/6%);
Notes Relative frequencies are based on valid information
a Databases (e.g., from COACTIV, TIMSS, TALIS) used in several publications are only considered
once
b n = 84 studies were considered because three publications reported two different studies each
with different samples

c For a brief explanation of different school types, see for example Richter (2013)
References 13
References
Bachmaier, R. (2011). Fortbildung Online: Entwicklung, Erprobung und Evaluation eines tutoriell
betreuten Online-Selbstlernangebots für Lehrkräfte [Professional development online: Develop-
ment, testing, and evaluation of a tutored online self-learning program for teachers]. Dissertation,
Universität Regensburg, Regensburg.
Beck, C., & Ullrich, H. (1996). Fortbildungsinteressen von Lehrenden: Ergebnisse einer repräsen-
tativen Befragung [Professional development interests of teachers: Results of a representative
survey]. Die Deutsche Schule, 88(2), 198–213.
In S. W. J. Kozlowski, & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations
Daus, J., Pietzner, V., Höner, K., Scheuer, R., Melle, I., Neu, C., et al. (2004). Untersuchung des
Fortbildungsverhaltens und der Fortbildungswünsche von Chemielehrerinnen und Chemielehrern
[Investigation of the professional development behaviour and professional development related
wishes of chemistry teachers]. Chemkon, 11(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ckon.200410007.
Jetzschke, M., & Henn, P. (2016). Evangelischer Religionsunterricht an beruflichen Schulen. Real-
ität, Wünsche, Ideen—Ein Kommentar aus Sicht der kirchlichen Fortbildungsinstitute der EKvW
und EKiR [Protestant religious education in vocational schools: Reality, desires, ideas—A com-
mentary from the point of view of the EKvW and EKiR Christian institutes for professional
development]. In M. Marose, M. Meyer-Blanck, & A. Obermann (Eds.), “Der Berufsschulre-
ligionsunterricht ist anders!”: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage unter Religionslehrkräften in NRW
(pp. 103–109). Münster: Waxmann.
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/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Neu, C., & Melle, I. (1998). Die Fortbildung von Chemielehrerinnen und -lehrern: Gegenwärtige
Situation und Möglichkeiten zur Veränderung [Professional development of chemistry teachers:
Current situation and opportunities for change]. Chemkon, 5(4), 181–186.
Nitsche, S. (2013). Zielorientierungen von Lehrkräften und ihre Bedeutung für das berufliche
Lern- und Fortbildungsverhalten [Teachers’ goal orientations and their significance for voca-
tional learning and professional development behavior]. Dissertation, Universität Mannheim,
Mannheim.
Richter, D., & Klein, R. (2013). Lehrerfortbildung im Ländervergleich: Ergebnisse einer Lehrkräfte-
befragung [Teacher professional development in comparison with other states: Results of a
teacher survey]. SchulVerwaltung Baden-Württemberg, 22(1), 2–4.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2014). Professional development
across the teaching career. In S. Krolak-Schwerdt, M. Böhmer, & S. Glock (Eds.), Teachers’
professional development: Assessment, training, and learning (pp. 97–121). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-536-6_7.
educational research online, 6(1), 139–159.
Chapter 3
Reasons for Participation in Professional
Development
Abstract The chapter is dedicated to the first research question of the systematic
literature review: What are teachers’ self-reported reasons for choosing and partic-
ipating in a (certain) PD program? Based on the quantitative data in the included
studies, teachers’ reasons to participate in PD workshops are systemized and their
relevance evaluated by summarizing the reported means and (relative) frequencies.
The overview is supplemented with results from qualitative studies. The reasons
teachers rate as most relevant for their PD attendance are: receiving easy imple-
mentable materials and teaching strategies, inspirations for teaching, refreshing or
extending (pedagogical) content knowledge and knowledge about new standards or
changes, exchanging and networking with colleagues, and reflection of one’s own
teaching. The results also reflect the importance of organizational characteristics of
PD workshops, such as time and location, as well as opportunities for active learning
during the course. The results are systemized along the categories characteristics of
PD program and characteristics of teacher. There were no studies identifying reasons
for teachers’ PD participation that can be categorized as context conditions.
Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · Training

participation · Reasons · In-service teacher education
To systemize teachers’ reasons for participating in PD, all corresponding aspects

from the included studies were analyzed and categorized. Reasons for PD attendance
that are relevant for a significant number of teachers were especially considered.
Therefore, the following results contain aspects that were rated as (if applicable: very
or rather) relevant by more than 25% of the surveyed teachers in at least one study. If
statistical means were reported, they were re-scaled to allow comparisons of different
studies with different rating scale ranges. The re-scaled values ranged between 0
and 1, with 1 corresponding to the highest agreement. In the following discussion,
reasons for participation were considered if the mean was equal to or greater than
0.25.1 In addition, study results regarding motives for and expectations toward PD
1 As teachers’ responses were not equally distributed among the answer options, it cannot be assumed
that the re-scaled mean of 0.25 is equivalent to the agreement of 25% teachers. However, results
from studies reporting both measures (Prenzel, 1995; Richter & Schellenbach-Zell, 2016) revealed
that the two criteria are comparable for including results in the report.
16 3 Reasons for Participation in Professional Development
attendance were considered, as both aspects often overlap with participation reasons.
Afterwards, it was examined if results from studies with open-ended questions raised
new aspects that had not yet been considered.
Table 3.1 summarizes the reasons for participating in formal PD that were rated
or mentioned as relevant according to the previously described criteria. The different
reasons are not sorted by the relevance ratings as there is no clear ranking order
due to the (sometimes high) ranges between different studies. Furthermore, when
the results referred to certain types of knowledge that teachers wanted to acquire,
Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, and Baumert (2011) categorization scheme was
used. The suggested categorization is based on a model of teachers’ professional
competence (Baumert & Kunter, 2013). The model proposes that professional
competence encompasses different aspects, such as beliefs and values, motivational
orientations, self-regulatory abilities, as well as professional knowledge. Further-
more, based on expertise research, different types of knowledge are differentiated
(content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, orga-
nizational knowledge, and counselling knowledge) that are assumed to be important
for successful teachers (Baumert & Kunter, 2013). Richter et al. (2011) used the
different domains of knowledge to categorize different PD contents and inductively
added categories that had not yet been considered. The final categorization scheme
comprised nine categories that were suitable to subsume teachers’ attended PD
programs. Therefore, this categorization scheme was used in the current literature
review to simplify and summarize the various wordings within the included studies.
The results of the different studies can be summarized into two of the deductively
derived categories (see Sect. 1.3) “characteristics of PD program”, and “character-
istics of teacher”. However, no studies identify relevant reasons for teachers’ PD
participation that can be categorized as “context conditions”.
With regard to the characteristics of PD programs, there are several reasons
encompassing the intention of using PD workshops as tools to accomplish certain
goals. Teachers seem to see PD courses as an instrument to acquire information
on or knowledge of specific contents or to achieve support for their daily work.
Therefore, the following aspects may be categorized as teachers’ assessment of the
“instrumentality of PD programs”: suggestions and inspiration for teaching, refresh-
ing or extending knowledge of subject content, subject-specific pedagogy, as well
as knowledge of pedagogy and psychology, and counselling. Furthermore, teachers
seem to see formal PD as a chance to get to know something about new requirements
they need to implement and how to handle different (challenging) situations in the
profession. However, support for teaching outside one’s own subject area was barely
rated as relevant. A possible explanation for this may be that only a few teachers
need to teach subjects they did not study before whereas most teachers stay within
their subject area and, therefore, do not need any help with this issue.
Teachers attend formal PD not only to refresh or acquire certain knowledge, but
also because they perceive PD courses as an opportunity for other aspects. For exam-
ple, they participate to receive ready-to-use materials and concepts for their classes,
network with colleagues, build their careers, reflect on their own teaching and profes-
sional behavior, and to stay motivated for the job. While networking and exchanging
Table 3.1 Summary of teachers’ reasons for participating in PD
Reason for participation M (Min–Max): Referencesa
% of agreement & (results smaller than 25% agreement or re-scaled mean of 0.25)
rescaled mean
New suggestions and inspiration for 76% (–) Aschenbrenner (2010), Diehl, Krüger, Richter, and Vigerske (2010), Greve
teaching 0.88 (0.85–0.90) and Höhne (2009), Gröber and Wilhelm (2006), Jäger and Bodensohn
(2007), Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Schmidt and Neu (2004),
Schwetlik (1998)
Refreshing or extending knowledge of…
… subject content 78% (67–86%) Beck, Ullrich, and Schanz (1995), Diehl et al. (2010), Feige and
0.80 (0.67–0.93) Tzscheetzsch (2005), Gröber and Wilhelm (2006), Jacobi, Verweyen, and
Wedding (1996), Kanwischer, Köhler, Oertel, Rhode-Jüchtern, and
Uhlemann (2004), Landert (1999), Niederhaus and Schmidt (2016),
Pennig (2006), Pietzner, Scheuer, and Daus (2004), Prenzel (1995),
Schmidt and Neu (2004), Wolf, Göbel-Lehnert, and Chroust (1997)
…(subject-specific) pedagogy, 76% (58–90%) Aldorf (2016), Beck et al. (1995), Diehl et al. (2010), Feige and
0.78 (0.70–0.95) Tzscheetzsch (2005), Gröber and Wilhelm (2006). Häuptle, Florian, and
Reinmann (2008), Jacobi et al. (1996), Jäger and Bodensohn (2007),
3 Reasons for Participation in Professional Development
Kanwischer et al. (2004), Landert (1999), Niederhaus and Schmidt (2016),

Pennig (2006), Pietzner et al. (2004), Prenzel (1995), Rzejak et al. (2014),
Schmidt and Neu (2004), Schwetlik (1998), Wolf et al. (1997)
…pedagogy and psychology, and 70% (–) Aldorf (2016), Beck et al. (1995), Jacobi et al. (1996), Jäger and
0.71 (0.56–0.84) Bodensohn (2007), Wolf et al. (1997)
…consulting 50% (–) Kanwischer et al. (2004), Wolf et al. (1997)
0.78 (–)
(continued)
17
Table 3.1 (continued)
18

rescaled mean
Support for implementing (new) 65% (–) Aschenbrenner (2010), Häuptle et al. (2008), Jacobi et al. (1996), Jäger
directives, standards of education, and 0.61 (0.57–0.70) and Bodensohn (2007), Kanwischer et al. (2004), Schwetlik (1998), Wolf
curricula et al. (1997)
Getting to know solutions for…
…challenging situations or current 63% (58–69%) Greve and Höhne (2009), Jacobi et al. (1996), Prenzel (1995), Richter and
problems, 0.66 (0.58–0.74) Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Wolf et al. (1997)
…changing demands/requirements, or 40% (31–48%) Landert (1999), Niederhaus and Schmidt (2016)
0.25 (–)
…communication or cooperation 50% (29–71%) Kanwischer et al. (2004), Prenzel (1995)
problems within staff 0.46 (0.44–0.48)
Support for teaching outside one’s 16% (–) Greve and Höhne (2009), Jacobi et al. (1996), Schwetlik (1998)
subject area 0.28 (–) (Kanwischer et al., 2004)
Ready-to-use materials and preparation 68% (25–96%) Aldorf (2016), Beck et al. (1995), Faßmann (1994, 1995), Greve and
of PD content for immediate 0.80 (0.78–0.81) Höhne (2009), Herrmann and Hertramph (2002), Höhnle, Fögele,
implementation in classroom Mehren, and Schubert (2016), Jäger and Bodensohn (2007), Kanwischer
et al. (2004); Keppelmüller, Sigl, Lauber, and Feichtner (2004), Niederhaus
and Schmidt (2016), Pennig (2006); Pietzner et al. (2004), Schmidt and
Neu (2004), Schwetlik (1998)
Networking and sharing experiences 70% (54–95%) Aldorf (2016), Aschenbrenner (2010), Beck et al. (1995), Diehl et al.
with colleagues 0.68 (0.54–0.83) (2010), Faßmann (1994), Feige and Tzscheetzsch (2005), Greve and Höhne
(2009), Jacobi et al. (1996), Jäger and Bodensohn (2007), Kanwischer et al.
(2004), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Landert (1999), Pietzner et al. (2004),
Prenzel (1995), Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Rzejak et al. (2014),
Schmidt and Neu (2004), Schwetlik (1998), Wolf et al. (1997)
(continued)
rescaled mean
Instrumentality for career, e.g., for taking 18% (13–30%) Jacobi et al. (1996), Kanwischer et al. (2004), Niederhaus and Schmidt
on further responsibilities within school 0.33 (–) (2016)
or… (Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Landert, 1999; Richter and Schellenbach-Zell,
2016)
…continuing such responsibilities 34% (–) Landert (1999)
(–)
Reflection of one’s own teaching and 30% (29–31%) Beck et al. (1995), Diehl et al. (2010), Jacobi et al. (1996), Jäger and
professional behavior 0.72 (0.68–0.78) Bodensohn (2007), Landert (1999), Schwetlik (1998), Wolf et al. (1997)
Distance and diversion from daily 20% (14–30%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Diehl et al. (2010), Feige and Tzscheetzsch
routine and… 0.29 (–) (2005), Landert (1999)
(Faßmann, 1994, 1995)
…inspiration for changing habits and 62% (–) Aldorf (2016), Faßmann (1994), Kanwischer et al. (2004), Wolf et al.
staying motivated for teaching 0.80 (–) (1997)
Relatedness to subject contents taught 92% (88–96%) Gysbers (2008), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Pietzner et al. (2004), Schmidt
or… 0.64 (–) and Neu (2004), Schwetlik (1998)
…school type 69% (–) Pietzner et al. (2004), Schmidt and Neu (2004)
0.58 (–)
Active learning activities 69% (–) Greve and Höhne (2009), Höhnle et al. (2016), Jäger and Bodensohn
0.67 (0.66–0.67) (2007), Pietzner et al. (2004), Prenzel (1995), Schmidt and Neu (2004),
Schwetlik (1998)
Appropriate and convenient 47% (32–70%) Faßmann (1994, 1995), Gysbers (2008), Keppelmüller et al. (2004),
circumstances of PD program (e.g., date, 0.62 (–) Pietzner et al. (2004), Schmidt and Neu (2004)
duration, location, application procedure)
(continued)
19
20

rescaled mean
Positive experiences with PD provider or 47% (35–63%) Faßmann (1994, 1995), Häuptle et al. (2008), Keppelmüller et al. (2004)
(–)
…instructor 26% (–) Keppelmüller et al. (2004)
(–)
Having a voice in designing the PD 10% (8–12%) Greve and Höhne (2009), Pietzner et al. (2004)
program 0.42 (–) (Faßmann, 1994, 1995)
Personal interest in PD content 85% (75–98%) Aldorf (2016), Aschenbrenner (2010), Faßmann (1994, 1995), Greve and
0.90 (–) Höhne (2009), Häuptle et al. (2008), Hessisches Kultusministerium
(2008), Kanwischer et al. (2004), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Nittel, Schütz,
Fuchs, and Tippelt (2011), Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016),
Schwetlik (1998), Wolf et al. (1997)
General willingness/motivation for PD 79% (–) Faßmann (1994, 1995)
or… (–)
…enjoying PD participation 84% (–) Greve and Höhne (2009), Keppelmüller et al. (2004)
(–)
Personal development 43% (32–54%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Beck et al. (1995), Faßmann (1994), Landert
(–) (1999)
PD as a duty within teacher vocation 63% (–) Kanwischer et al. (2004)
(–)
Notes a Italics indicate results from qualitative analyses
3 Reasons for Participation in Professional Development 21
experiences with other teachers is always ranked highly among all studies, there
are mixed results with regard to the teaching materials. In Faßmann’s (1994, 1995)
studies, receiving materials ranked in the middle as a reason for participating in PD
(thereby lowering the overall mean reported in Table 3.1) while in other studies the
aspect of immediately implementable materials, solutions, and strategies was most
important. A possible explanation for this discrepancy may be the kind of ques-
tions used: Faßmann asked if the distribution of teaching materials was expected,
whereas other studies used phrases such as “for the concrete lesson” (e.g., Kanwis-
cher et al., 2004) or “ready-to-use” (e.g., Keppelmüller et al., 2004). Therefore, it
can be assumed that it is not essential for teachers to just receive materials; they wish
for information and materials they can easily implement in the classroom (see also
Pennig, 2006). The practical relevance and the importance of usability as an incentive
is also well represented in the results of the studies with open-ended questions as
almost all of them report that teachers wish for them (Aldorf, 2016; Greve & Höhne,
2009; Herrmann & Hertramph, 2002; Höhnle et al., 2016; Schmidt & Neu, 2004).
In contrast, the ratings of PD’s instrumentality for career as a reason for participat-
ing are rather low among different studies. Again, it can be assumed that this motive
and, consequently, the corresponding PD programs are only interesting for a small
portion of teachers because not every teacher wants to take on further responsibili-
ties. A similar pattern can be found for diversion from daily routines. Although some
studies show that this is a relevant reason for teachers to participate in PD programs,
other studies could only find a small relevance (e.g., Aschenbrenner, 2010, reported
that only one teacher mentioned this aspect). Overall, this reason seems to be vital
to only a few teachers. Changing routines and getting new motivation for teaching
appear to be stronger motives for participating in PD.
A second group of reasons for participating in PD courses seems to be the formal
characteristics of the PD program, such as content, learning activities, and timing.
According to the previously mentioned results on easily implementable solutions
and materials, teachers perceive a high relevance of PD workshops being related to
their subject area and taught contents. It can be assumed that it is easier for teachers
to implement newly learned knowledge into their classrooms if it is already tailored
to their subject. However, it is less important to them that the PD program be only for
teachers from the same school type. It is also quite important to teachers to have the
opportunity for active learning and to apply different teaching or learning strategies as
well as conduct experiments in the context of science PD workshops (Pietzner et al.,
2004; Schmidt & Neu, 2004). This may also correspond with teachers’ mentioned
need for easily implementable teaching strategies: Applying and practicing strategies
by themselves help easily incorporate them into one’s own classroom and, therefore,
accomplishes the teachers’ wish for high practical relevance. Another important
reason to participate in PD, as found in several studies, is the fit between the course
set-up with work-related and private requirements (e.g., short distance to PD location
to save time). Only one study asked teachers for the relevance of an attractive PD
location and found that this is a motivation for only a few teachers (Keppelmüller
et al., 2004). Therefore, pragmatic considerations seem to be more important than

those related to personal convenience. Some teachers seem to prefer participating in
PD workshops about which they already know something positive (e.g., about the
provider or colleagues’ positive experiences). In addition, some teachers like to have
a voice in what and how contents are taught during the workshops. However, only a
few teachers perceive this as a relevant aspect for participating in formal PD.
Finally, there are several reasons for participating in PD that can be summarized as
teacher characteristics. A very important reason for teachers to attend PD courses is
their personal interest in the PD topic (see also Sect. 5.1). In addition, a few studies
considered a general will or motivation for PD as well as an interest in PD as an
activity, which were rated as relevant in those studies. Therefore, it can be assumed
that enjoying dealing with certain topics and developing their own knowledge are
important intrinsic reasons for teachers’ PD attendance. Furthermore, in Kanwischer
et al.’s (2004) sample, a considerable number of teachers considered PD to be a crucial
part of the teaching profession and perceived this as a motive to attend PD courses.
Only about 20% of teachers agreed with the statement that the expected outcome
of a PD program needs to be relatively high compared to the effort that is related
to the workshop (Faßmann, 1994, 1995). Nevertheless, attempts to create extrinsic
incentives seem to reinforce this “calculation”. Indeed, 79% of surveyed teachers in
Hesse mentioned that more attention is paid to the ratio of received credits and spent
time due to the credit system introduced in 2005 (Hessisches Kultusministerium,
2008). Therefore, one could conclude that the aforementioned outcomes, such as
knowledge refreshment or gain, or other aspects, such as receiving materials or
networking, are more crucial than incentive systems provided by federal institutions.
However, systematic studies examining the effect of (different) incentive systems or
obligations are lacking so far.
Another extrinsic aspect, that could be categorized as a context condition—the
principal’s request for a teacher to participate in PD—was considered in several
studies but turned out to be relevant for only a few teachers (6–7%/0.08; Faßmann,
1994, 1995; Jacobi et al., 1996; Kanwischer et al., 2004; Keppelmüller et al., 2004).
The same is true for the support by colleagues (8–15%/0.12; Faßmann, 1994, 1995;
Richter & Schellenbach-Zell, 2016; Rzejak et al., 2014). However, in studies with
open-ended questions, this aspect was mentioned by some teachers (Aldorf, 2016;
Aschenbrenner, 2010; Höhnle et al., 2016). These studies also show that it may be
fruitful to distinguish between requirements and recommendations by the school
management. There can be discussions between teachers and principals with regard
to reasonable PD topics, for example within the context of personal development.
However, even recommendations may be perceived as a request. These differences
cannot yet be clarified with the available data.
References 23
References
Aldorf, A.-M. (2016). Lehrerkooperation und die Effektivität von Lehrerfortbildung [Teacher
cooperation and the effectiveness of teacher professional development]. Wiesbaden: Springer
VS.
Aschenbrenner, S. (2010). Fort- und Weiterbildung von Lehrer und Lehrerinnen an berufsbildenden
höheren Schulen im Wald- und Weinviertel im Schuljahr 2008/2009 [Professional development
of teachers at vocational secondary schools in the Wald- und Weinviertel in the school year
2008/2009]. Diploma thesis, Universität Wien, Wien.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. In M.
Kunter (Ed.), Mathematics teacher education. Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom
and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 25–48). New
York, London: Springer.
Beck, C., Ullrich, H., & Schanz, R. (1995). Fort- und Weiterbildungsinteressen von Lehrerin-
nen und Lehrern in Rheinland-Pfalz [Professional development interests of teachers in
Rhineland-Palatinate]. Schriftenreihe des ILF: Vol. 59. Mainz.
Diehl, T., Krüger, J., Richter, A., & Vigerske, S. (2010). Einflussfaktoren auf die Fort- und Weit-
erbildung von Lehrkräften—Erste Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojekts [Factors influencing
the teachers’ professional development—First results of a research project]. bwp@ (19), 1–21.
Retrieved from http://www.bwpat.de/ausgabe19/diehl_etal_bwpat19.pdf.
Faßmann, H. (1994). Lernen Lehrer? Eine empirische Erhebung über das Ausmaß der
Lehrerweiterbildung im berufsbildenden mittleren und höheren Schulbereich, über Kritik
und Verbesserungsvorschläge [Do teachers learn? An empirical survey on the amount of teacher
professional development in the vocational middle and higher school track, on criticism and
improvement suggestions]. Wien: Bundesministerium für Unterricht und Kunst.
Faßmann, H. (1995). Fortbildungsverhalten von Berufsschullehrern: Eine empirische Analyse
der Grundfragen des Fortbildungsverhaltens, Akzeptanz des bisherigen und Gestaltung des
zukünftigen Angebots [Professional development behaviour of vocational school teachers: An
empirical analysis of the basic questions on professional development behaviour, acceptance
of the previous and design of the future program]. Wien: Pädagogisches Institut des Bundes,
Abteilung für Lehrer an Berufsschulen.
Feige, A., & Tzscheetzsch, W. (2005). Christlicher Religionsunterricht im religionsneutralen
Staat? Unterrichtliche Zielvorstellungen und religiöses Selbstverständnis von ev. und kath.
Religionslehrerinnen und -lehrern in Baden-Württemberg [Christian religious education in a
religion-neutral state? Teaching objectives and religious self-image of Protestant and Catholic
religious teachers in Baden-Württemberg]. Ostfildern, Stuttgart: Schwabenverlag.
Greve, A., & Höhne, G. (2009). Qualifizierung von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern für
Schulentwicklungsprozesse in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Eine empirische Studie zur Effizienz von
Schulleitungsfortbildung in der Primarstufe [Qualification of school principals for school
development processes in North Rhine-Westphalia: An empirical study on the efficiency of
professional development for school management in primary schools]. Dissertation, Carl von
Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg.
Gröber, S., & Wilhelm, T. (2006, March). Empirische Erhebung zum Einsatz neuer Medien
bei Physik-Gymnasiallehrern in Rheinland-Pfalz: Arbeitsplatzausstattung und Mediennutzung
[Empirical analysis of the use of new media by physics teachers in high schools in Rhineland-
Palatinate: Workplace equipment and media use]. Didaktik der Physik, DGP-Frühjahrstagung,
Kassel.
Gysbers, A. (2008). Lehrer—Medien—Kompetenz: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur medien-
pädagogischen Kompetenz und Performanz niedersächsischer Lehrkräfte [Teachers—Media—
Competence: An empirical study on media pedagogical competence and performance of teachers
in Lower Saxony]. Berlin: VISTAS.
Häuptle, E., Florian, A., & Reinmann, G. (2008). Nachhaltigkeit von Medienprojek-
ten in der Lehrerfortbildung: Abschlussbericht zur Evaluation des Blended Learning-
Lehrerfortbildungsprogramms “Intel® Lehren-Aufbaukurs Online” [Sustainability of media
projects in teacher professional development: Final report on the evaluation of the blended
learning professional development program for teachers “Intel® Teaching—Advanced Course
Online”]. Arbeitsberichte: Vol. 20. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg, Medienpädagogik.
Herrmann, U., & Hertramph, H. (2002). Reflektierte Berufserfahrung und subjektiver Qualifika-
tionsbedarf [Reflected work experience and subjective qualification needs]. In U. Herrmann (Ed.),
Wie lernen Lehrer ihren Beruf? Empirische Befunde und praktische Vorschläge (pp. 98–116).
Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Hessisches Kultusministerium. (2008). Fortbildung braucht Steuerung: Bestandsaufnahme und
Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung [Professional development needs control: Stocktaking and
considerations for further development]. Wiesbaden: Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung. Retrieved
from http://www.gew-wiesbaden.de/fileadmin/user_upload/aktuelles/090219_fortbildung_
braucht_steuerung_web.pdf.
Höhnle, S., Fögele, J., Mehren, R., & Schubert, J. C. (2016). GIS teacher training: Empirically-based
indicators of effectiveness. Journal of Geography, 115(1), 12–23.
Jacobi, J., Verweyen, E., & Wedding, M. (1996). Umfrage zur religionspädagogischen Lehrerfort-
bildung mit allen Religionslehrerinnen und -lehrern im Bistum Münster [Survey on professional
development in religious education with all religious education teachers in the diocese of
Münster]. Kirche und Schule, 22(98), 1–16.
Jäger, R. S., & Bodensohn, R. (2007). Bericht zur Befragung von Mathematiklehrkräften: Die
Situation der Lehrerfortbildung im Fach Mathematik aus der Sicht der Lehrkräfte [Report
on the survey of mathematics teachers: The situation of teacher professional development in
mathematics from the teachers’ point of view]. Landau: Universität Koblenz-Landau.
Kanwischer, D., Köhler, P., Oertel, H., Rhode-Jüchtern, T., & Uhlemann, K. (2004). Der Lehrer
ist das Curriculum!? Eine Studie zu Fortbildungsverhalten, Fachverständnis und Lehrstilen
Thüringer Geographielehrer [The teacher is the curriculum!? A study on professional devel-
opment behavior, technical understanding, and teaching styles of geography teachers in
Thuringia]. Bad Berka: Thüringer Institut für Lehrerfortbildung, Lehrplanentwicklung und
Medien (ThILLM).
Keppelmüller, J., Sigl, G., Lauber, F., & Feichtner, E. (2004). Fortbildungsverhalten und Fort-
bildungswünsche oberösterreichischer Pflichtschullehrer/innen: Eine empirische Studie an OÖ
Pflichtschulen [Professional development behavior and wishes of compulsory school teachers
in Upper Austria: An empirical study at Upper Austrian compulsory schools]. Aspach: edition
innsalz.
Landert, C. (1999). Lehrerweiterbildung in der Schweiz: Ergebnisse der Evaluation von aus-
gewählten Weiterbildungssystemen und Entwicklungslinien für eine wirksame Personalentwick-
lung in den Schulen [Teacher professional development in Switzerland: Results of the evaluation
of selected professional development programs and development lines for effective personnel
development in schools]. Chur: Rüegger.
Niederhaus, C., & Schmidt, E. (2016). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer für das Unterrichten neu zuge-
wanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler qualifizieren: Zur Qualifizierungsreihe für Lehrkräfte neu
zugewanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler des Instituts für Deutsch als Zweit- und Fremdsprache
der Universität Duisburg-Essen [Qualify teachers to teach newly immigrated students: The
qualification series for teachers of newly immigrated students of the Institute for German as a
Second and Foreign Language at the University of Duisburg-Essen]. In C. Benholz, M. Frank, &
C. Niederhaus (Eds.), Neu zugewanderte Schülerinnen und Schüler—eine Gruppe mit besonderen
Potentialen: Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis (pp. 261–281). Münster: Waxmann.
Nittel, D., Schütz, J., Fuchs, S., & Tippelt, R. (2011). Die Orientierungskraft des Lebenslangen
Lernens bei Weiterbildnern und Grundschullehrern. Erste Befunde aus dem Forschungsprojekt
PAELL [The orientation power of lifelong learning among trainers and primary school teachers.
First findings from the PAELL research project]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (Suppl. 57), 167–183.
References 25
Pennig, D. (2006). Entwicklung, Erprobung und Evaluation eines Konzepts zur Lehrerfortbildung
und Lehrerausbildung [Development, testing, and evaluation of a concept for teacher professional
development and education]. Dissertation, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
Pietzner, V., Scheuer, R., & Daus, J. (2004). Fragebogenstudie zum Fortbildungsverhalten von
Chemielehrerinnen und -lehrern [Questionnaire study on the professional development behavior
of chemistry teachers]. Frankfurter Beiträge zur Didaktik der Chemie, 3, 13–54.
Prenzel, D. (1995). Zur Lehrerfortbildung in Brandenburg/Berlin Ost: Erfahrungen, Wirkungen
und Erwartungen. Eine Befragung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern der Grundstufe [On teacher
professional development in Brandenburg/Berlin East: Experiences, effects, and expectations. A
survey of teachers at elementary level]. Interagla Dokumentation: Vol. 15. Frankfurt am Main:
Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung.
Richter, D., & Schellenbach-Zell, J. (2016). Fort- und Weiterbildung von Lehrkräften in Schleswig-
Holstein: Ergebnisse einer Befragung im Jahr 2016 [Professional development of teachers in
Schleswig-Holstein: Results of a survey in 2016]. Kronshagen: Institut für Qualitätsentwick-
lung an Schulen Schleswig-Holstein. Retrieved from https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/
Landesregierung/IQSH/Organisation/Material/berichtLehrerfortbildungSH-2016.pdf?__blob=
publicationFile&v=5.
across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities.
Educational Research Online, 6(1), 139–159.
Schmidt, S., & Neu, C. (2004). Interviewstudie zum Fortbildungsverhalten von Chemielehrerinnen
und -lehrern [Interview study on the professional development behavior of chemistry teachers].
Frankfurter Beiträge zur Didaktik der Chemie, 3, 55–108.
Schwetlik, R. (1998). Lehrerfortbildung: Eine Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Einschätzungen
von Grundschullehrerinnen und -lehrern bezüglich der Lehrerfortbildung im Fach Heimat-
und Sachkunde [Teacher professional development: A study on the collection of subjective
assessments of primary school teachers regarding teacher professional development in the
subject of local history and subject knowledge]. Hamburg: Kovaéc.
Wolf, W., Göbel-Lehnert, U., & Chroust, P. (1997). Lehrerfortbildung in Hessen: Eine empirische
Bestandsaufnahme aus Lehrersicht [Teacher training in Hesse: An empirical stocktaking from
the teachers’ point of view]. Marburg: Hessisches Institut für Lehrerfortbildung.
Chapter 4
Barriers to Participation in Professional
Development
Abstract In the light of the high relevance of PD, it is of particular interest to

examine why teachers do not attend PD workshops. Therefore, the second research
question of the systematic literature review is focused in this chapter: What barriers
do teachers report with regard to their participation in PD programs? In accordance
with the procedure in Chap. 3, barriers for PD attendance rated as relevant by the
teachers are summarized based on the quantitative results of the reviewed studies and
supplemented with qualitative insights. The most important obstacles according to
the studies are: High workload of teachers, concerns about cancelled classes, prob-
lems with the timing of PD workshops, (especially for women) family commitments,
difficulties to organize substitute classes, as well as issues with the existing PD pro-
gram (inappropriate content, poor quality, overbooked courses, high costs, faraway
locations). Again, the results are summarized and systemized along the categories
characteristics of PD program, characteristics of teacher, and context conditions. The
barriers are discussed and reflected considering the reasons for PD participation.
Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · Training

participation · Barriers · In-service teacher education
In light of the high relevance of PD (Chap. 1), it is of particular interest to examine

why teachers choose not to attend PD workshops. Therefore, the included studies
were also analyzed with regard to reasons that are seen as relevant for avoiding formal
PD. The analysis of these obstacles are realized in accordance with the procedure
outlined in Chap. 3 for identifying reasons for PD participation. Thus, barriers for
PD attendance are considered if they were rated as (very or rather) relevant by more
than 25% of the teachers or have an empirical mean equal to or greater than 0.25 in
at least one study.
Studies focusing on this part of training motivation mostly apply one of the fol-
lowing two approaches: ask the whole sample what it is that hinders them or makes it
at least difficult to participate in PD or focus on those teachers who did not attend any
PD workshops during a certain period of time (e.g., the last two years) and compare
the results to teachers who did participate in PD. Those studies that applied the lat-
ter approach revealed that the responses between participating and non-participating
teachers hardly differ (Pietzner, Scheuer, & Daus, 2004; Richter & Klein, 2013;

28 4 Barriers to Participation in Professional Development
Schmidt & Neu, 2004). Therefore, there was no differentiation between studies fol-
lowing the different approaches, and they were analyzed together herein. The results
are summarized in Table 4.1.
After comparing different studies, it is apparent that teachers’ agreement with
the relevance of several barriers differs among these studies (see range of results
in Table 4.1). For example, there was a wide range with regard to the agreement
to concerns about cancelled classes (16–54%) or fully booked workshops (0–61%).
Possible explanations for these differences are considered in the following discussion.
Furthermore, by comparing the results presented in Chaps. 3 and 4, it becomes appar-
ent that the relevance of the given barriers (overall mean approximately: 27%/0.30) is
rated lower in general than the reasons for attending PD (overall mean approximately:
52%/0.58).
After analyzing the included studies, the results with regard to relevant barriers for
attending formal PD could be categorized into the deductively derived categories (see
Sect. 1.3): “context conditions”, characteristics of PD program”, and “characteristics
of teacher”.
With regard to barriers that can be summarized as context conditions, several
results seem to be linked to characteristics of the profession as a schoolteacher, but
less with characteristics of the work environment associated with single schools. For
example, teachers seem to perceive the high workload as especially relevant for their
PD behavior. However, from the few studies differentiating between burdens due to
teaching and due to other school-related tasks, it can be assumed that the workload
because of tasks beyond in-class responsibilities prevents teachers from attending
workshops (see Beck et al., 1995; Diehl et al., 2010; similar relevance in Richter et al.,
2012) more than in-class teaching (Faßmann, 1994, 1995). Nevertheless, concerns
about class cancellation are also relevant to the decision to participate in a workshop or
not as teachers already have too little time for teaching the provided contents within a
school year (Diehl et al., 2010; Kanwischer et al., 2004). This issue may be aggravated
due to more rigorous requirements for teachers to prevent class cancellation (Breiter
et al., 2010). Due to the high workload of all teachers, it is not only seem to be
challenging to find a colleague with “spare time” to substitute for the class, but
teachers also feel bad about encumbering their colleagues with additional work.
Against this background, it seems reasonable that some teachers complain about not
getting any teaching reduction (or other incentives) to compensate for the extra effort.
As such, incentives that have been shown to be useful for predicting PD behavior
and success within industrial and organizational contexts (e.g., reach certain career
goals, pay increases, job security, change of workplace, or promotion; e.g., Colquitt,
LePine, & Noe, 2000) cannot be applied to the teaching profession and it seems that
teachers’ PD attendance depends on intrinsic reasons in particular.
The described barriers interact with additional barriers due to characteristics of the
PD program. Given the perceived high workload, teachers have problems reconciling
PD courses with their school hours. Maybe the results regarding the aspect of an
Table 4.1 Summary of teachers’ barriers to participating in PD
Barriers to participation M (Min–Max): References
% of agreement & (results smaller than 25% agreement or rescaled mean of 0.25)
rescaled mean
High workload in school or… 44% (31–61%) Beck, Ullrich, and Schanz (1995), Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann (2010), Forsa
0.54 (0.40–0.68) (2017), Gagarina and Saldern (2010), Greve and Höhne (2009), Heitmann
(2013), Jacobi, Verweyen, and Wedding (1996), Kanwischer, Köhler, Oertel,
Rhode-Jüchtern, and Uhlemann (2004), Landert (1999), Nittel, Schütz, Fuchs, and
Tippelt (2011), Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Richter, Kuhl, Reimers,
and Pant (2012), Wolf, Göbel-Lehnert, and Chroust (1997)
…no time in general 30% (26–34%) BITKOM (2015), Büsching and Breiter (2011)
(–)
Concerns about cancelled classes 31% (16–54%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Beck et al. (1995), Breiter et al. (2010), Diehl et al.
(–) (2010), Forsa (2017), Gagarina and Saldern (2010), Jacobi et al. (1996),
Kanwischer et al. (2004), Keppelmüller, Sigl, Lauber, and Feichtner (2004),
Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
(Bachmaier, 2008; Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Wolf et al., 1997)
4 Barriers to Participation in Professional Development
Difficulties in organizing 34% (11–53%) Breiter et al. (2010), Diehl et al. (2010), Faßmann (1995), Kanwischer et al.
substitute classes and/or… 0.23 (–) (2004), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Richter, Kuhl, Haag, and Pant (2013),
Schwetlik (1998)
(Faßmann, 1994; Landert, 1999)
…feeling guilty about 30% (24–37%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Beck et al. (1995), Wolf et al. (1997)
additional load for colleagues 0.38 (–) (Bachmaier, 2008)
due to substitution
No (or insufficient) class 20% (12–27%) Heitmann (2013), Jacobi et al. (1996), Schwetlik (1998)
reduction to compensate for PD (–) (Landert, 1999)
participation or…
…other incentives (open ended) Heitmann (2013)
(continued)
29
30

rescaled mean
Time of workshops is 46% (28–66%) Gagarina and Saldern (2010), Grafendorfer, Neureiter, and
incompatible with school hours (–) Längauer-Hohengaßner (2009), Jacobi et al. (1996), Richter et al. (2013)
Workshop is scheduled for 49% (32–72%) Greve and Höhne (2009), Kanwischer et al. (2004), Landert (1999), Richter et al.
inconvenient time or… 0.45 (–) (2012, 2013), Schmidt and Neu (2004), Wolf et al. (1997)
…planning of appointment in 37% (–) Beck et al. (1995), Diehl et al. (2010)
advance is necessary 0.18 (–) (Wolf et al., 1997)
Workshops during holidays 30% (28–33%) Beck et al. (1995), Kanwischer et al. (2004)
(–)
Long distance to PD location 35% (8–57%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Beck et al. (1995), Diehl et al. (2010), Gallasch and
0.52 (–) Sprenger (2000), Greve and Höhne (2009), Jacobi et al. (1996), Kanwischer
et al. (2004), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Pietzner et al. (2004), Richter and
Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Richter et al. (2012), Schmidt and Neu (2004),
Schwetlik (1998)
(Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Landert, 1999; Prenzel, 1995)
High monetary costs 22% (0–42%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Gagarina and Saldern (2010), Greve and Höhne (2009),
(–) Kanwischer et al. (2004), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Richter and
Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Richter et al. (2013), Schmidt and Neu (1998, 2004)
(BITKOM, 2015; Forsa, 2017; Grafendorfer et al., 2009; Landert, 1999; Richter
et al., 2012)
Workshop has too little practical 16% (10–37%) Breiter et al. (2010), Greve and Höhne (2009), Kanwischer et al. (2004),
relevance or… 0.62 (–) Pietzner et al. (2004), Schwetlik (1998)
(Beck et al., 1995; Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Neu, 1999; Prenzel, 1995)
(continued)
rescaled mean
…poor quality and teachers 18% (1–39%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Diehl et al. (2010), Gagarina and Saldern (2010),
have bad experiences 0.33 (0.30–0.37) Greve and Höhne (2009), Nittel et al. (2011), Pietzner et al. (2004), Richter et al.
(2012, 2013)
(Beck et al., 1995; Büsching and Breiter, 2011; Faßmann, 1994, 1995;
Kanwischer et al., 2004; Richter and Schellenbach-Zell, 2016)
Requested workshops are 22% (0–61%) Bachmaier (2008), Beck et al. (1995), Breiter et al. (2010), Diehl et al. (2010),
overcrowded and fully booked (–) Gagarina and Saldern (2010), Schwetlik (1998)
(Büsching and Breiter, 2011; Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Kanwischer et al., 2004;
Landert, 1999; Prenzel, 1995)
Too few workshops or 38% (14–84%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Beck et al. (1995), BITKOM (2015), Faßmann (1994),
appropriate workshops for 0.60 (–) Forsa (2017), Gagarina and Saldern (2010), Gallasch and Sprenger (2000),
teachers’ needs Grafendorfer et al. (2009), Häuptle, Florian, and Reinmann (2008), Kanwischer
et al. (2004), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Neu (1999), Pietzner et al. (2004),
Richter et al. (2012, 2013), Schmidt and Neu (2004), Schwetlik (1998)
(Büsching and Breiter, 2011; Faßmann, 1995; Keppelmüller et al., 2004; Landert,
1999)
(continued)
31
32

rescaled mean
Mismatch between 13% (3–25%) Gallasch and Sprenger (2000), Häuptle et al. (2008), Richter et al. (2013)
pre-knowledge and aspiration (–) (Grafendorfer et al., 2009; Richter and Schellenbach-Zell, 2016)
level of workshops
With regard to PD in the context 47% (35–59%) BITKOM (2015), Büsching and Breiter (2011), Gallasch and Sprenger (2000)
of ICT: other PD contents are (–)
more important
No need of PD (e.g., due to 28% (10–46%) Büsching and Breiter (2011), Forsa (2017), Häuptle et al. (2008), Kanwischer
sufficient knowledge and/or lack 0.20 (–) et al. (2004), Schwetlik (1998)
of relevance to teaching) (Neu, 1999; Pietzner et al., 2004)
Family commitments 28% (17–41%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Bachmaier (2008), Beck et al. (1995), Gagarina and
0.24 (0.18–0.30) Saldern (2010), Grafendorfer et al. (2009), Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Landert
(1999), Neu (1999), Nittel et al. (2011), Pietzner et al. (2004), Richter et al.
(2012), Schwetlik (1998)
(Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Kanwischer et al., 2004; Richter et al., 2013; Wolf et al.,
1997)
Personal reasons, such as…
… already spending enough 41% (35–46%) Greve and Höhne (2009), Landert (1999)
resources on the profession or… (–)
…lack of energy 25% (9–42%) Aschenbrenner (2010), Richter et al. (2013)
0.15 (–) (Kanwischer et al., 2004; Wolf et al., 1997)
Preferring other learning 52% (27–79%) Faßmann (1994), Landert (1999), Prenzel (1995), Richter and Schellenbach-Zell
activities than formal PD (–) (2016), Richter et al. (2013), Schwetlik (1998)
Notes a Italics indicate results from qualitative analyses. Results from Richter, Richter, and Marx (2018) were not considered as they overlap with the results
presented in Richter et al. (2013) (Richter et al., 2013 reported results on an item level while Richter et al., 2018 used the same data to calculate and report
scale values).
4 Barriers to Participation in Professional Development 33
inconvenient time of PD can be interpreted in a similar way.1 For example, Greve

and Höhne (2009) reported that teachers mentioned during their interviews that even
PD workshops in the afternoon increase time pressure as they have to leave school
immediately after classes to make it to the workshop on time. It is also conceivable
that PD programs take place during times in which teachers have a high workload
outside their classrooms, such as when grading final examinations, participating in
teacher conferences, or writing school certificates. Evidence suggests that teachers
prefer PD programs during the school year but not at its beginning or end (e.g.,
Keppelmüller et al., 2004; Wolf et al., 1997). Accordingly, when PD is scheduled it is
important with regard to not only the time of day, but also the time within the school
year. Rather controversial are the results concerning PD courses during vacation. For
some teachers it seems to be a reason not to attend PD, but this is not true for all
teachers. Studies that asked for the preferred time for workshops usually found (but
not always: e.g., Pietzner et al., 2004) that teachers prefer sessions outside vacation
time (e.g., Beck et al., 1995; Faßmann, 1994; Jacobi et al., 1996; Keppelmüller et al.,
2004; Wolf et al., 1997).
In addition, many studies addressed the location where workshops take place.
When a long drive is necessary, teachers stated that they are less willing to take
that workshop. This barrier has a medium relevance according to different studies,
suggesting that this aspect may be more important for some teachers. For example,
all teachers who mentioned this reason in Aschenbrenner’s (2010) study were female
(see also the following discussion and Sect. 5.1 for a more detailed discussion of the
association between gender and PD attendance). The results of this exemplary study
indicate that there may be interactions between the characteristics of the teacher and
the PD course. Therefore, more detailed analyses or re-analyses of existing datasets
considering different groups of teachers should be conducted in future studies.
Although, teachers perceive costs associated with PD as an obstacle, it does not
seem to be a decisive factor. In some studies, high costs are not even relevant after
applying the previously described criterion (BITKOM, 2015; Landert, 1999). This
is not surprising given that a lot of PD workshops are free for teachers, and schools
have a budget for teachers’ development (see, e.g., Hessisches Kultusministerium,
2008). However, Richter et al. (2013) differentiated the aspect of costs and asked
for a separate assessment of the relevance of indirect costs (e.g., journey, board and
lodging) and attendance fee. The results indicated that teachers rated the indirect
costs as more relevant than the direct costs for not participating in PD. In contrast,
the BITKOM (2015) study only asked if the PD workshop itself was too expensive,
which was not crucial for teachers. Overall, the influence and relevance of costs
probably depend on how often teachers attend PD in general and what obligations
exist in the different federal states (e.g., Richter et al., 2012) or countries. This may
lead to varying ratings, and therefore to an overall smaller relevance.
1 None of the studies considering this phrase specifies in what way the PD time may be “inconve-
nient”. Therefore, it cannot be differentiated if teachers refer to overlaps with other responsibilities
within the school or their family or other aspects.
As discussed in Chap. 3, teachers wish for highly practical relevance and easily
implementable strategies first and foremost. Accordingly, teachers perceive a lack
of these characteristics as a possible obstacle to their PD attendance. However, the
relevance is not as high as one might expect from the previously discussed results
and is a rather low ranked barrier. Interestingly, the relevance ratings regarding poor
quality and bad experiences with PD workshops load on the same factor as those of
the lacking practical relevance in the study of Richter et al. (2018). One explanation
may be that the ease of implementing the PD contents is an essential characteristic
for the teachers’ quality assessment (see also the similar ratings of both in Beck
et al., 1995). However, further studies are needed to identify aspects that dominantly
influence teachers’ perceptions of PD courses.
Furthermore, some teachers complained that interesting workshops are already
overcrowded or fully booked. In two studies, this reason was even the most important
obstacle (Bachmaier, 2008; Beck et al., 1995), whereas in other studies it appeared to
be not as crucial. Yet teachers not only complain about too few courses but also that
they are unavailable—both in general and with regard to their PD needs. In some stud-
ies, this was teachers’ most important reason for not attending PD (Faßmann, 1994;
Gagarina & Saldern, 2010; Grafendorfer et al., 2009; Neu, 1999). In addition to the
mismatch of the contents with their needs, teachers sometimes perceive the required
knowledge level as being inappropriate and, therefore, do not attend the workshops.
This is especially true for PD programs with regard to information and computer
technology (ICT). There seem to be very heterogeneous levels of knowledge in this
context, which may influence PD participation. However, it is not possible to draw
any conclusions without knowing the available PD programs at this time.
With regard to barriers due to teacher characteristics, teachers reported no need
for PD, either because they already had a high level of knowledge or did not see the
PD program as having any relevance to their own teaching. The relevance of this
barrier, however, differs highly between teachers and studies (see Table 4.1). A wide
range in the results exists with regard to the self-assessment of one’s own knowledge.
In addition, there may be other relevant beliefs. For example, Häuptle et al. (2008)
found that teachers who perceived no added value in integrating multimedia into
classes also had no intentions of attending PD workshops with such a scope. These
teachers perceived participating in ICT workshops and implementing multimedia as
only an additional qualification, which does not seem to be attractive for a lot of
teachers. Furthermore, in the context of ICT, several teachers perceived other topics
as more crucial in the near future and, therefore, preferred workshops concerned
with those other topics. But even if a teacher is interested in a certain course, other
barriers may be relevant. For example, studies revealed that many teachers assess
family commitments as relevant for their PD participation. However, the relevance of
this barrier is rated quite differently over the different analyzed studies and sometimes
appears rather low (see Table 4.1). One possible explanation may be that they are a
barrier for female teachers in particular. For example, Aschenbrenner (2010) reported
that five of the six teachers mentioning family-related issues as being important to
their PD decisions were female. Furthermore, most studies with a high rate of female
participants (more than 50%) reported higher ratings with regard to being hindered
4 Barriers to Participation in Professional Development 35
by family commitments (exceptions: Kanwischer et al., 2004; Richter et al., 2013; see
also Sect. 5.1 for a more detailed discussion of the association between gender and
PD attendance). However, Nittel et al. (2011) also found a low relevance of family
commitments, although the surveyed sample consisted of primary school teachers,
who are typically female. This contradicts the aforementioned argument. Due to the
missing information about the sample in the latter study, further conclusions cannot
be drawn.
Various personal reasons for not participating in PD were mentioned. When the
high workload is a major obstacle, it is not surprising that some teachers lack energy
to engage in further activity outside the school or do not want to spend personal
time attending PD. In addition, studies with open-ended questions pointed out that
health-related issues may be a reason for not participating in PD. Finally, a high
proportion of teachers indicated a preference for other learning activities than formal
PD and the belief that they can be up-to-date without PD workshops. Almost half of
the surveyed teachers agreed with this aspect (Landert, 1999; Richter et al., 2013).
Considering the high relevance, it is surprising that only a few studies considered
this aspect in their surveys.
Some potential barriers considered in several studies did not reach the cut-off
value of 25% or 0.25, such as:
– complaints from parents because of cancelled classes (20%/0.10; Beck et al., 1995;
Wolf et al., 1997),
– difficulties with exemption by the principal or school management (8–19%/0.05–
0.20; Diehl et al., 2010; Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Gagarina & Saldern, 2010; Gallasch
& Sprenger, 2000; Kanwischer et al., 2004; Neu, 1999; Richter & Schellenbach-
Zell, 2016; Richter et al., 2012),
– insufficient information about workshops (2–22%; Aschenbrenner, 2010; Bach-
maier, 2008; Diehl et al., 2010; Greve & Höhne, 2009; Kanwischer et al., 2004;
Schmidt & Neu, 2004) or a lack of familiarity with the PD program (6–17%;
Büsching & Breiter, 2011; Richter & Schellenbach-Zell, 2016),
– no need for PD due to the lack of opportunities to apply the contents (especially in
the context of ICT workshops: lack of equipment in school: Büsching & Breiter,
2011; Gallasch & Sprenger, 2000; Gerick, Schaumburg, Kahnert, & Eickelmann,
2014; currently no teaching in the subject: Aschenbrenner, 2010),
– a fear of additional work before and after a workshop (2–23%; Beck et al., 1995;
Faßmann, 1994, 1995; Landert, 1999) or getting more responsibilities respectively
(1–6%, Kanwischer et al., 2004; Wolf et al., 1997), and
– the need for time to oneself or hobbies (3–13%/0.05; Faßmann, 1994, 1995;
Kanwischer et al., 2004; Landert, 1999; Wolf et al., 1997).
Most of these barriers are rated as rather irrelevant or were relevant to only a
small number of teachers. However, being hindered by insufficient information about
PD courses was named in several qualitative studies (Aschenbrenner, 2010; Bach-
maier, 2008; Greve & Höhne, 2009; Kanwischer et al., 2004; Schmidt & Neu, 2004),
although the quantitative results revealed a rather low relevance of this aspect. Fur-
ther studies are needed to determine the information on PD courses and programs
teachers actually receive, how they process the provided information, and what infor-
mation they need or want to receive. This is especially interesting as communication
methods and channels have probably changed over the last couple of years due to
the increased use of emails and newsletters as well as web portals.
References
Bachmaier, R. (2008). Lehrer/-innen, ihr Fortbildungsverhalten und ihr Verhältnis zu Computer,
Internet, E-Learning: Auswertung der Studie [Teachers, their professional development behaviour
and their relationship to computers, Internet, e-learning: Analysis of the study]. Regensburg.
Retrieved from https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/4631/1/bachi1.pdf.
Beck, C., Ullrich, H., & Schanz, R. (1995). Fort- und Weiterbildungsinteressen von Lehrerinnen
und Lehrern in Rheinland-Pfalz [Professional development interests of teachers in Rhineland-
Palatinate]. Schriftenreihe des ILF: Vol. 59. Mainz.
BITKOM. (2015). Digitale Schule—vernetztes Lernen: Ergebnisse repräsentativer Schülerund
Lehrerbefragungen zum Einsatz digitaler Medien im Schulunterricht [Digital school—networked
learning: Results of representative student and teacher surveys on the use of digital media
in school classes]. Berlin: Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und
neue Medien e.V. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom.org/noindex/Publikationen/2015/Studien/
Digitale-SchulevernetztesLernen/BITKOM-Studie-Digitale-Schule-2015.pdf.
Breiter, A., Welling, S., & Stolpmann, B. E. (2010). Medienkompetenz in der Schule: Integra-
tion von Medien in den weiterführenden Schulen in Nordrhein-Westfalen [Media literacy in
schools: Integration of media in secondary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia]. Düsseldorf:
Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (LfM). Retrieved from www.lfmpublikationen.
lfm-nrw.de/modules/pdf_download.php?products_id=237.
Büsching, N., & Breiter, A. (2011). Ergebnisse der Befragungen von Schulen und Lehrkräften in
Bremen zum Themenbereich Digitale Medien [Survey results of schools and teachers in Bremen
on the topic digital media]. Bremen: Institut für Informationsmanagement Bremen GmbH.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training moti-
vation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(5), 678–707. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.5.678.
from http://www.bwpat.de/ausgabe19/diehl_etal_bwpat19.pdfin.
Lehrerweiterbildung im berufsbildenden mittleren und höheren Schulbereich, über Kritik und
Verbesserungsvorschläge [Do teachers learn? An empirical survey on the amount of teacher
Faßmann, H. (1995). Fortbildungsverhalten von Berufsschullehrern: Eine empirische Analyse der
Grundfragen des Fortbildungsverhaltens, Akzeptanz des bisherigen und Gestaltung des zukünfti-
gen Angebots [Professional development behaviour of vocational school teachers: An empirical
analysis of the basic questions on professional development behaviour, acceptance of the previ-
ous and design of the future program]. Wien: Pädagogisches Institut des Bundes, Abteilung für
Lehrer an Berufsschulen.
References 37
Forsa. (2017). Qualität der MINT-Lehrerfortbildung in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer repräsen-

tativen Befragung von MINT-Lehrern [Quality of STEM teacher professional development in
Germany: Results of a representative survey of STEM teachers]. Berlin. Retrieved from https://
www.telekom-stiftung.de/sites/default/files/forsa_umfrage_qualitaet_mint_lehrerfortbildung_
gesamt.pdf.
Gagarina, L., & Saldern, M. v. (2010). Professionalisierung der Lehrkräfte [Professionalisation
of teachers]. In M. Demmer & M. V. Saldern (Eds.), “Helden des Alltags”: Erste Ergeb-
nisse der Schulleitungs- und Lehrkräftebefragung (TALIS) in Deutschland (pp. 49–63). Münster:
Waxmann.
Gallasch, U., & Sprenger, R. (2000). Medienerziehung in der Grundschule aus der Sicht von
Lehrerinnen und Lehrern: Ergebnisse mündlicher Interviews [Media education in primary school
from the teachers’ point of view: Results of oral interviews]. In G. Tulodziecki & U. Six (Eds.),
Medienerziehung in der Grundschule: Grundlagen, empirische Befunde und Empfehlungen zur
Situation in Schule und Lehrerbildung (pp. 231–297). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Gerick, J., Schaumburg, H., Kahnert, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2014). Lehr- und Lernbedingun-
gen des Erwerbs computer- und informationsbezogener Kompetenzen in den ICILS-2013-
Teilnehmerländern [Teaching and learning conditions for acquiring computer and information-
related competences in the ICILS 2013 participating countries]. In W. Bos (Ed.), ICILS 2013:
Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern in der 8.
Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 147–196). Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann.
Grafendorfer, A., Neureiter, H., & Längauer-Hohengaßner, H. (2009). Fortbildung [Professional
development]. In J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), TALIS 2008. Schule als Lernumfeld und
Arbeitsplatz: Erste Ergebnisse des internationalen Vergleichs (pp. 31–38). Graz: Leykam.
Schulleitungsfortbildung in der Primarstufe [Qualification of school principals for school
development processes in North Rhine-Westphalia: An empirical study on the efficiency of
professional development for school management in primary schools] (Dissertation). Carl von
Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg.
projects in teacher professional development: Final report on the evaluation of the blended
learning professional development program for teachers “Intel® Teaching—Advanced Course
Online”]. Arbeitsberichte: Vol. 20. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg, Medienpädagogik.
Heitmann, K. (2013). Wissensmanagement in der Schulentwicklung: Theoretische Analyse und
empirische Exploration aus systemischer Sicht [Knowledge management in school development:
Theoretical analysis and empirical exploration from a systemic point of view]. Wiesbaden:
Springer Fachmedien.
Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung [Professional development needs control: Stocktaking and
considerations for further development]. Wiesbaden: Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung. Retrieved
from http://www.gew-wiesbaden.de/fileadmin/user_upload/aktuelles/090219_fortbildung_
braucht_steuerung_web.pdf.
bildung mit allen Religionslehrerinnen und -lehrern im Bistum Münster [Survey on professional
development in religious education with all religious education teachers in the diocese of
Münster]. Kirche und Schule, 22(98), 1–16.
Medien (ThILLM).
innsalz.
Neu, C. (1999). Fortbildung von Chemielehrerinnen und Chemielehrern—Neue Ansätze, Erprobung
und Bewertung [Professional development of chemistry teachers—New approaches, testing and
evaluation]. Dissertation, Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main.
Richter, D., & Klein, R. (2013). Lehrerfortbildung im Ländervergleich: Ergebnisse einer Lehrkräfte-
befragung [Teacher professional development in comparison with other states: Results of a
teacher survey]. SchulVerwaltung Baden-Württemberg, 22(1), 2–4.
Richter, E., Richter, D., & Marx, A. (2018). Was hindert Lehrkräfte an Fortbildungen teilzunehmen?
[What stops teachers from participating in professional development? An empirical study of deter-
rent factors for secondary school teachers in Germany]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,
18(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0820-4.
Richter, D., Kuhl, P., Reimers, H., & Pant, H. A. (2012). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von
Lehrkräften in der Primarstufe [Aspects of education and professional development of primary
school teachers]. In P. Stanat, H. A. Pant, K. Böhme, & D. Richter (Eds.), Kompetenzen von
Schülerinnen und Schülern am Ende der vierten Jahrgangsstufe in den Fächern Deutsch und
Mathematik. Ergebnisse des IQB-Ländervergleichs 2011 (pp. 237–250). Münster: Waxmann.
Richter, D., Kuhl, P., Haag, N., & Pant, H. A. (2013). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von
Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftslehrkräften im Ländervergleich [Aspects of the education
and professional development of mathematics and science teachers in comparison with other
states]. In H. A. Pant, P. Stanat, U. Schroeders, A. Roppelt, T. Siegle, & C. Pöhlmann (Eds.),
IQB-Ländervergleich 2012. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen am Ende
der Sekundarstufe I (pp. 367–390). Münster: Waxmann.
References 39

Chapter 5
Individual and Context Characteristics
Related to Teachers’ Professional
Development Behavior
Abstract To not only rely on the self-reported reasons for and barriers to teachers’
PD participation, the systematic literature review was also concerned with other vari-
ables that were examined within the included studies. The results are differentiated
into the three categories: Characteristics of teacher (e.g., age, teaching experience,
gender, school type, subject, private circumstances, attitudes, beliefs etc.), the PD
program (e.g., content, timing and duration, provider, location), and context condi-
tions (e.g., school characteristics). For each category, the investigated variables are
presented along with their associations to PD related variables, such as quantitative
measures of teachers’ PD participation, reasons and barriers for PD attendance, or
characteristics of the attended PD workshops. Each category is discussed in more
detail and against the background of the previously presented results.
Keywords Teacher professional development · Training participation · Teacher

characteristics · School characteristics · Professional development programs ·
In-service teacher education
Among the reasons that teachers mention or perceive for increasing or decreas-
ing their PD participation, other individual and context characteristics and their
associations with teachers’ PD behavior are examined within the included studies.
This chapter summarizes and discusses these aspects and their associations with
teachers’ actual PD participation. As in Chaps. 3 and 4, the deductively derived cat-
egories “characteristics of teacher”, “characteristics of PD program”, and “context
conditions” (see Sect. 1.3) are used to structure the results. They are presented and
discussed in the following sections.
5.1 Characteristics of Teacher
Many of the reviewed studies were concerned with the question of which character-
istics of teachers are associated with their PD behavior. The results of the analyzed
studies are summarized in Table 5.1. It must be noted that the results are quite con-
tradictory (see, e.g., results regarding teachers’ age) or based on only a few studies
that do not allow further conclusions on the relevance of teachers’ characteristics to
their PD behavior.
Table 5.1 Overview of teachers’ characteristics examined in the context of teachers’ PD behavior
42
Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

Age Participation in PD
– Inverse U-shaped association: Younger and older teachers Doedens (2008), Forsa (2017), Kanwischer, Köhler, Oertel,
participate less in PD than teachers in the age groups in between Rhode-Jüchtern, and Uhlemann (2004), MPFS (2003), Wolf,
Göbel-Lehnert, and Chroust (1997)
– Negative association: Younger teachers participate in PD more BITKOM (2011)
than older teachers
– Positive association: Older teachers participate in PD more than Florian (2008)
younger teachers
– No association Gröber and Wilhelm (2006), Schmidt and Neu (2004), Sieve
(2015)
Frequency of PD
– Inverse U-shaped association: Younger and older teachers Richter et al. (2011)
participate less frequently in PD than teachers in the age groups in
between (especially with regard to workshops concerning subject
content, subject-specific pedagogy, pedagogy and psychology, and
general skills)
– Positive association: Older teachers participate in PD more MPFS (2003)
frequently than younger teachers
– No association Pietzner, Scheuer, and Daus (2004); regarding school
organization, school system, counselling: Richter et al. (2011)
(continued)
5 Individual and Context Characteristics Related to Teachers’ …
Amount of PD
– Inverse U-shaped association: Younger and older teachers spend Grafendorfer, Neureiter, and Längauer-Hohengaßner (2009),
less time on PD than teachers in the age groups in between Wolf et al. (1997)
Need for PD
– Negative association: Younger teachers report a higher need for PD Jäger and Bodensohn (2007)
than older teachers
Reasons for attending PD

– Younger teachers: Instrumentality for career, diversion from daily Faßmann (1994)
routine, sent by principal
– Older teachers: Convenient PD location Faßmann (1994)
– Potential incentives for younger teachers: Florian (2008), Keppelmüller et al. (2004)
instrumentality for career
monetary incentives, and child care Florian (2008)
Barriers to attending PD
– Younger teachers: Kanwischer et al. (2004), Pietzner et al. (2004), specially
Family commitments, … between 30 and 45 years old: Keppelmüller et al. (2004)
always the same speakers, bad reputation of provider, lack of Faßmann (1994)
interesting workshops
(continued)
43
44

– Older teachers: Pietzner et al. (2004)
poor experiences with PD
follow-up obligations, poor school climate Faßmann (1994)
long distance to PD location Pennig (2006)
Willingness to attend PD during vacation
– Positive association: Younger teachers are more willing to Pietzner et al. (2004)
participate in PD during vacations
Characteristics of attended PD workshops
– Content: Teachers in different age groups participate in workshops Forsa (2017)
focusing on different topics (e.g., younger teachers:
[subject-specific] pedagogy; older teachers: inclusion,
performance assessment; both: teaching with multimedia; others in
between: communication training)
Other associations
– No association with usage of information channels Kanwischer et al. (2004)
– No association with attitude toward PD Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
Teaching Participation in PD
experience – Inverse U-shaped association: Teachers with little or high Wolf et al. (1997)
experience participate in PD less than medium experienced
teachers
(continued)
– Positive association: Experienced teachers participate in PD more Gysbers (2008), MPFS (2003)
than teachers with little experience
– Negative association: Teachers with little experience participate in Faßmann (1995), Richter, Richter, and Marx (2018)
PD more than more experienced teachers
Frequency of PD
– Positive association: Experienced teachers participate in PD more Gysbers (2008)
frequently than teachers with little experience
– No association Goldgruber (2012), Wolf et al. (1997)

Amount of PD
– Inverse U-shaped association: Teachers with little or high Wolf et al. (1997)
experience spend more time on PD than medium experienced
teachers
Need for PD
– Negative association: Teachers with little experience report a Schwetlik (1998)
higher need for PD than experienced teachers
– Inexperienced teachers: Qualification within pedagogical Wolf et al. (1997)
psychology and with regard to didactics
– Medium experienced teachers: Change of professional routine Wolf et al. (1997)
(least important for other experience groups)
(continued)
45
46

– Highly experienced teachers: Refreshing or extending competence Diehl, Krüger, Richter, and Vigerske (2010)
– Teachers with little or high experience (inverse U-shaped): family Wolf et al. (1997)
commitments
– Medium experienced teachers: investment of personal time Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
– Experienced teachers: Wolf et al. (1997), contradictory: Richter and Schellenbach-Zell
Problems with substitute classes (2016)
workload Wolf et al. (1997)
high costs Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
Gender Participation in PD
– Male teachers participate in PD more than female teachers BITKOM (2011), Faßmann (1995), Gerick and Eickelmann
(2015)
– Female teachers participate in PD more than male teachers Grillitsch (2010), Richter et al. (2018), Rüegg (1997)
– No association Faßmann (1994), Sieve (2015), Wolf et al. (1997)
– Inverse U-shaped association between age and PD participation, Wolf et al. (1997)
especially true for female teachers
Frequency of PD
– Female teachers participate in PD more frequently than male Richter et al. (2011)
teachers
– No association Wolf et al. (1997)
(continued)
Amount of PD
– Male teachers spend more time on PD than female teachers Wolf et al. (1997)
– No association Grafendorfer et al. (2009)
– Interaction with children at home: With two or more children, male Wolf et al. (1997)
teachers spend more time on PD than female teachers
– Female teachers: Faßmann (1994)

relief from family commitments, high practical relevance,
instrumentality for career
…personal interest and enjoyment Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Wolf et al. (1997)
…change of professional routine, qualification within pedagogical Wolf et al. (1997)
psychology and didactics
– Potential incentives for female teachers: Florian (2008)
Child care, monetary incentives, certificate of attendance
Close PD location Pietzner et al. (2004)
– Female teachers: family commitments Bachmaier (2008), Diehl et al. (2010), Pietzner et al. (2004),
Wolf et al. (1997)
– Male teachers: Wolf et al. (1997)
difficulties finding free time for PD (e.g., due to volunteer work or
school-related workload)
(continued)
47
48

no exemption, organization of substitute classes, high Bachmaier (2008)
organizational effort within school, overcrowded workshops,
comfort
no need for PD Pietzner et al. (2004)
Willingness for PD during vacation
– Female teachers are more willing to participate in PD during Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Pietzner et al. (2004)
vacation
Willingness to bear PD costs
– Female teachers are more willing to bear PD-related costs Landert (1999)
– Content: Hildebrandt (2008), Rüegg (1997)
Female teachers especially participate in workshops concerning
social and educational topics, counselling
…and didactics Rüegg (1997)
There are contradictory results with regard to subject-specific More women: Hildebrandt (2008), More men: Rüegg (1997)
workshops
– Provider: Female teachers participate in workshops offered by Faßmann (1994), Florian (2008)
teacher training institutes more than male teachers
Male teachers prefer attending workshops by: Faßmann (1994)
Companies
(continued)
Universities Florian (2008)
– Duration and timing: Female teachers prefer to participate in PD Rüegg (1997)
outside school hours and one-time workshops
Male teachers prefer periodic workshops or blocked courses Rüegg (1997)
Personal Participation in PD
circumstances – Teachers with partners participate in PD more than single teachers Faßmann (1995)
– Teachers with children participate in PD more than childless Faßmann (1995)

teachers
– No association with partners, children or relatives in household Faßmann (1994), Prenzel (1995), Wolf et al. (1997)
Frequency of PD
– Teachers with partners participate in PD more frequently than Richter et al. (2010, 2011)
single teachers
Origin Participation in PD
– Teachers from Eastern Germany participate in PD more than Hildebrandt (2008), Hoffmann and Richter (2016), Richter et al.
teachers from Western Germany (2018)
– Differences between regions/federal states Germany: Hoffmann and Richter (2016), Kammerl, Lorenz, and
Endberg (2016), Richter et al. 2013b; Austria: Faßmann (1995);
Grillitsch (2010), Switzerland: Landert (1999)
– No association Faßmann (1994)
(continued)
49
50

Frequency of PD
– Teachers from Eastern Germany participate more frequently in PD Richter et al. (2010)
than teachers from Western Germany
– Differences between federal states Hoffmann and Richter (2016), Richter, Kuhl, Reimers, and Pant
(2012, 2013b)
Amount of PD
– Differences between federal states Richter et al. (2012)
– No differences between Eastern and Western Germany Brunner et al. (2006)
– Distance to PD location most relevant in Saxony; no differences Pietzner et al. (2004)
for other examined barriers
– Differences between federal states (especially high willingness in Germany: Pietzner et al. (2004); Switzerland: Landert (1999)
Saxony)
– Differences between cantons Landert (1999)
– Content: Differences between federal states in: Kammerl et al. (2016)
most chosen PD contents
variety of topics Richter et al. (2018)
(continued)
School type Participation in PD
– Teachers for academic-track schools participate in PD less than Gerick and Eickelmann (2017), Jäger and Bodensohn (2007),
teachers from other school types Wolf et al. (1997), exception: Doedens (2008)
– Teachers from vocational schools participate in PD more often Doedens (2008), Wolf et al. (1997)
than teachers from other school types
– Teachers from special schools participate in PD more often than Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
teachers from other school types

– No association Germany: Büsching and Breiter (2011), Doedens (2005),
Hoffmann and Richter (2016), Richter et al. (2018); Austria:
Grillitsch (2010)
Frequency of PD
– No association Richter (2011), Richter et al. (2010),
Amount of PD
– Teachers from academic-track schools spend more time on PD Germany: Bachmaier, (2008), Wolf et al. (1997); Austria:
than teachers from other school types Grafendorfer et al. (2009), Mayr and Müller (2010)
– Teachers from vocational schools spend more time on PD than Wolf et al. (1997)
teachers from other school types
(continued)
51
52

– No association Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
– Teachers from academic-track schools assess the relevance of Beck, Ullrich, and Schanz (1995), Landert (1999), Wolf et al.
several reasons for PD attendance lower; teachers from primary (1997)
schools and vocational school assess them higher than teachers
from other school types
– No differences with regard to the relevance of: Beck et al. (1995), Landert (1999)
networking with colleagues and innovations in subjects
receiving materials for class Beck et al. (1995)
– No association Pietzner et al. (2004)
– Potential incentives: Child care most important for teachers from Florian (2008), Prenzel (1995)
primary schools
– No systematic association with school type among all studies,
although differences were found, for example:
– Important barriers for teachers from special schools: canceling Kanwischer et al. (2004)
classes and organizing substitute classes
– For teachers from primary schools: PD location Kanwischer et al. (2004), Landert (1999)
– For teachers from academic-track schools: workload Kanwischer et al. (2004), Landert (1999); opposite results: Wolf
et al. (1997)
(continued)
– Teachers from primary schools are more willing to participate in Keppelmüller et al. (2004), Pietzner et al. (2004)
PD during vacations than teachers from other school types,
especially from lower secondary schools (“Hauptschule”)
– Teachers from vocational schools are the least willing to bear Landert (1999)
PD-related costs
– Content: Teachers from academic-track schools would rather Forsa (2017), Gerick and Eickelmann (2017), Hoffmann and
participate in workshops concerning subject-content and Richter (2016), Jäger and Bodensohn, (2007),
subject-specific pedagogy Richter (2011),Richter et al. (2010), Richter et al. 2013b),
Schmidt and Neu (2004)
performance assessment and differentiation Richter et al. (2013b), Riedel, Griwatz, Leutert, and Westphal
(1994); exception: Forsa (2017)
– Teachers from other school types (especially from lower secondary Forsa (2017), Hoffmann and Richter (2016), Jäger and
schools) would rather participate in workshops concerning Bodensohn (2007), Richter (2011), Richter, Engelbert, Weirich,
didactics as well as pedagogy and psychology and Pant (2013a, b), Riedel et al. (1994), Schmidt and Neu
(2004); pattern also true for PD needs: Kast (2010)
– There are no differences for general workshops such as those Richter (2011)
concerning school system, teacher licensing, or teacher training
– Provider: Teachers from academic-track schools would rather Florian (2008)
participate in workshops offered by universities
(continued)
53
54

Other associations
– The effect of school affiliation length on PD frequency is weaker Richter (2011)
for teachers from academic-track schools than for teachers from
other school types
– Predictors for PD participation differ for teachers from lower Mayr and Müller (2010)
secondary schools (especially school-related aspects such as lack
of support by principal or colleagues) and academic-track schools
(gender, external feedback)
Subject Participation in PD
– Teachers teaching science-related subjects participate in more PD BITKOM (2011)
than teachers teaching other subjects (e.g., languages)
– No association… Grillitsch (2010), Sieve (2015)
… or systematic association recognizable, respectively Faßmann (1994, 1995)
– Provider: Teachers teaching constructional engineering or Faßmann (1994)
electrical engineering would rather participate in PD provided by
companies than other teachers
(continued)
Teaching load Participation in PD
– Inverse U-shaped association: Teachers with a small or high Faßmann (1994, 1995)
teaching load participate in PD less than teachers with a medium
teaching load
– No association Richter et al. (2018), Wolf et al. (1997)
– Positive association: Teachers with a higher teaching load for a Doedens (2005, 2008), Kanwischer et al. (2004)
subject participate in PD more than teachers with a smaller

teaching load
Frequency in PD
– Positive associations: Teachers with higher teaching load for a Pietzner et al. (2004)
subject participate in PD more frequently than teachers with a
lower teaching load
Amount of PD
– Positive association: Teachers with a higher teaching load for a Schmidt and Neu (2004)
subject spend more time on PD than teachers with a lower teaching
load (especially in schools at the higher secondary level)
Other associations
(continued)
55
56

Additional Participation in PD
professional – Positive association: Teachers with additional professional Büsching and Breiter (2011), Wolf et al. (1997)
responsibilities responsibilities participate in PD more than other teachers
Frequency in PD
– Positive association: Teachers with additional professional Richter et al. (2011)
responsibilities participate in PD more frequently than other
teachers
Amount of PD
– Inverse U-shaped association: Teachers with two additional Wolf et al. (1997)
professional responsibilities spend more time on PD than teachers
with fewer or more professional responsibilities
– Teachers with additional professional responsibilities participate in Wolf et al. (1997)
PD to learn more about organizational aspects in particular, other
teachers focus on methods and didactics
– Teachers with additional professional responsibilities rate Wolf et al. (1997)
problems with finding spare time for PD, organizing substitute
classes, and a high workload as more important than other teachers
– Content: Teachers with additional responsibilities in counselling Kast (2010)
would rather participate in workshops concerning social topics
(continued)
Study and Participation in PD
qualification – Teachers teaching the subject they studied participate in PD more Doedens (2005, 2008)
than teachers teaching outside their subject area
– No association with major of study… Porsch and Wendt (2015)
… or teacher training Richter et al. (2018); see also Hoffmann and Richter (2016)
Frequency of PD
– Positive association with number of classes taught within the Keppelmüller et al. (2004)
subject teachers have studied
Amount of PD
– Negative association with number of studied subjects Schmidt and Neu (2004)
– Teachers with teacher training consider spending personal time for Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
PD more relevant than lateral entrants
– Content: Teachers with teacher training in their taught subject Geest-Rack (2013), Hoffmann and Richter (2016); especially
participate in PD concerning: true for inexperienced teachers: Porsch and Wendt (2015);
subject contents more often than teachers teaching outside their partially opposite results: Porsch (2015), Porsch and Wendt
subject area (2016)
(continued)
57
58

subject-specific aspects (subject-specific pedagogy, educational Porsch (2015), Porsch and Wendt (2016), Richter et al. (2013b)
standards, curricula), and individual assessment/promotion more
often than teachers teaching outside their subject area
– Teachers teaching outside their subject area would rather attend Geest-Rack (2013)
workshops concerning:
Superordinate topics within the subject
inclusion Hoffmann and Richter (2016); for mathematics teachers also
Richter et al. (2013b)
– Lateral entrants participate in PD regarding class design more than Hoffmann and Richter (2016)
teachers with teacher training in their subject
Other associations
Secondary Participation in PD
employment – Teachers with secondary employment participate in PD more than Faßmann (1995)
other teachers
– Teachers with secondary employment participate as frequently as Faßmann (1994)
other teachers
– Provider: Teachers with secondary employment participate in PD Faßmann (1994)
provided by companies and universities more than in those offered
by teacher training institutes
(continued)
Burnout Participation in PD
– No association with burnout and/or “inner resignation” Lauck (2003)
Amount of PD
– No association with burnout and/or “inner resignation” Lauck (2003)
– Teachers suffering from burnout (without “inner resignation”) rate Lauck (2003)
workload and organizational issues as more relevant than teachers

without burnout and/or “inner resignation”; teachers with burnout
and “inner resignation” assess the lack of adequate workshops as
crucial
Achievement Frequency of PD
goals – Positive association with learning goals Nitsche, Dickhäuser, Dresel, and Fasching (2013a, b)
– Contradictory results with regard to performance goals: Nitsche et al. (2013a)
positive association with approach goals and negative association
with avoidance goals
no association Nitsche et al. (2013b)
(continued)
59
60

– Contradictory results with regard to work avoidance goals: Nitsche et al. (2013b)
negative association
no association Nitsche et al. (2013a)
– Content: Teachers would rather participate in workshops that Nitsche et al. (2013a)
match their learning goal facets
Subject-specific Frequency of PD
interest – Positive association with teachers’ personal interest in their subject Peschel and Koch (2014)
– No association with pursuing a subject-related hobby Peschel and Koch (2014)
Self-efficacy Participation in PD
– Positive association Mammes (2008), Richter et al. (2013a), Sieve (2015); also true
for sustainable PD: Mayr and Müller (2010)
– Content: Teachers with high self-efficacy participate in different Richter et al. (2013a)
workshops with diverse topics
Beliefs about Participation in PD
teaching – Teachers who prefer constructive teaching methods would rather Mayr and Müller (2010)
participate in “sustainable” PD
(continued)
Frequency of PD
– Positive association with constructive orientations Richter et al. (2010)
– No association with constructive or traditional orientations Mammes (2008)
Amount of PD
– Negative association with traditional orientations Mayr and Müller (2010)
– Content: Teachers with constructive orientations would rather Mammes (2008)

participate in PD concerning teaching strategies (no association for
subject content)
Work Frequency of PD
engagement – Positive association Richter et al. (2010, 2011)
Attitude toward Participation in PD
PD – No association Schmidt and Neu (2004), Wolf et al. (1997)
Frequency of PD
– No association Nitsche et al. (2013b)
Amount of PD
– No association with attitude regarding necessity of PD Schmidt and Neu (2004)
(continued)
61
62

Relevance of Participation in PD
reasons for PD – Positive association Wolf et al. (1997)
Relevance of Participation in PD
barriers to PD – Negative association with: Richter et al. (2018)
disengagement and perceived lack of PD quality
worries regarding PD and avoidance of additional effort Wolf et al. (1997)
– No association Richter et al. (2018), Schmidt and Neu (2004), Wolf et al. (1997)
Frequency of PD
– No association Landert (1999)
Willingness to Participation in PD
bear PD costs – No association Gagarina and Saldern, (2010); also true for sustainable PD:
Mayr and Müller (2010)
Frequency of PD
– No association Landert (1999)
Amount of PD
– Positive association Mayr and Müller (2010)
(continued)
Other associations
– Positive association between having paid attendance fee for the last Landert (1999)
workshop and the motivation to attend that course
Other variables Participation in PD
– No association with status as civil servant Faßmann (1994, 1995)
– No association with number of taught subjects Schmidt and Neu (2004)
– No association with mentioned PD need (teachers attend only Huppert and Abs (2008)
some of the workshops they wished for before)
– Positive association with previous PD experiences: teachers with Schmidt and Neu (2004)
positive experiences participate in PD more than teachers with
negative experiences
– Negative association with professional experiences before Faßmann (1995)
teaching: Teachers with more experience before teaching
participate in PD less than teachers without such experiences
– Participation with colleagues: Goldgruber (2012)
Teachers participate by themselves more often than with colleagues
Teachers participate as much with and without colleagues Jäger and Bodensohn (2007)
Frequency in PD
– Teachers with status as civil servant participate in PD more than Faßmann (1995)
other teachers
(continued)
63
64

– No association with individual professional result Mammes (2008)
– No association with job satisfaction or if teachers would re-choose Wolf et al. (1997)
the profession
Amount of PD
– Teachers with “role model” profile (adaptive prerequisites Kunter and Klusmann (2010)
regarding knowledge, constructive beliefs, teaching enthusiasm,
but low in self-regulation) spend more time on PD than teachers
with other, partly maladaptive profiles
– Content: Feige and Tzscheetzsch (2005)
No association with denomination of religion teachers
No association with personal professional result Mammes (2008)
Notes a Participation in PD = participation in PD in general (yes/no; also “participation rate”); Frequency of PD = number of attended PD workshops; Amount
of PD = number of hours or days spent on PD
b Italics indicate results from qualitative analyses
5.1 Characteristics of Teacher 65
Age and Teaching Experience

One of the often-examined attributes is teachers’ age and teaching experience. Con-
sidering the high correlation between both variables (e.g., r = 0.90 in Richter et al.,
2011), the results for both variables are quite similar, as expected. With regard to the
participation rate, frequency, and amount of PD, an inverse U-shaped association was
repeatedly found. In other words, young and inexperienced teachers as well as older
and very experienced teachers participate in PD the least, while teachers between
these groups attend PD the most. Results from some qualitative studies suggest that
there are different rationales for the low participation of the “fringe groups”. Young
teachers reported that they had just entered the teaching profession and still had high
knowledge from their pre-service teacher training; therefore, they had no PD needs.
Alternatively they might be overwhelmed by the job (e.g., summary of first and sec-
ond phase of teaching profession in Richter et al., 2011) and need time to adjust to
it (Faßmann, 1994; Kanwischer et al., 2004). Older teachers, however, mentioned
that they were not considered for PD workshops because of their age or because they
wanted to yield to younger teachers (Bachmaier, 2008; Faßmann, 1994).
Considering obstacles to PD participation, only a few single studies focused on
different aspects, which does not allow for well-founded conclusions. However, the
results from these different studies (see Table 5.1) are summarized as follows: Young
teachers in particular cannot attend PD courses due to family commitments—a bur-
den that becomes relevant again for some older teachers (roughly inverse U-shaped
in Wolf et al., 1997; high dispersion for older teachers, Kanwischer et al., 2004).
Younger teachers are probably more concerned with caring for their children, while
some older teachers may need to take care of other relatives. Furthermore, for older
teachers the high workload is an important obstacle for PD participation. This is not
only true for the already existing workload, but also includes the concern of getting
more responsibilities as a consequence of PD workshops. Accordingly, they are less
willing to participate in PD during vacations than their younger colleagues. Maybe
they need this time to either “recover” or to handle loose ends. Furthermore, both
young and older teachers criticized existing PD programs. Although criticism from
older (and therefore mostly more experienced) teachers is probably based on their
former experiences with PD, it is not clear how younger teachers developed their
opinions, as they could not yet have gathered that many insights into different work-
shops (Faßmann, 1994). Overall, it becomes obvious that it is not enough to consider
only teachers’ age or experience; one must take a deeper look into the different
reasons for (not) participating in PD when examining teachers’ PD behavior.
Accordingly, Richter et al. (2011) proposed interpreting such results in light of
career stage models. However, in their study, the authors only compared the partici-
pation rate with the model and did not examine the rationale behind their hypotheses.
Nevertheless, they used a statistical approach that allowed them to examine nonlinear
relationships that other studies did not take into account. In contrast, most studies
have used linear analyses (e.g., Goldgruber, 2012; Pietzner et al., 2004) or com-
pared young and older teachers (e.g., Sieve, 2015), which may be a reason why these
studies did not find any or only small associations with age or teaching experiences.
66 5 Individual and Context Characteristics Related to Teachers’ …
Also, when comparing teachers with a low and high amount of PD participation (e.g.,
Gröber & Wilhelm, 2006; Schmidt & Neu, 2004), such associations cannot be iden-
tified. Although middle-aged teachers in particular should be included in the “active”
group, the group of less active teachers should contain younger and older persons.
When comparing the means, there should be no differences, and only the dispersions
within both groups could give some further hints. However, the standard deviations
are often not reported in the included studies and cannot be used for further analyses.
There may also be content-related reasons for the missing associations. Richter et al.
(2011) showed that the curvilinear relationship existed only for certain PD topics
(subject content, subject-specific pedagogy, pedagogy and psychology, and general
skills). For other contents (school organization and system as well as counselling),
they found no relationship as only a few teachers, irrespective of their age, attend
these courses.
Other studies have found a negative association with age or teaching experiences.
However, the effects reported by Faßmann (1995) and Richter et al. (2018) are,
although statistically significant, rather small and therefore barely meaningful. The
other study with a negative association (BITKOM, 2011) is concerned with PD work-
shops on multimedia. In this context, younger teachers seem to be more willing to
attend PD than their older colleagues. Two studies that reported a positive associa-
tion between age/teaching experience and the number of attended workshops were
set in the same context, but were concerned with PD courses that focused on basics
in dealing with computers (Gysbers, 2008; MPFS, 2003). It can be assumed that
younger teachers grew up with computers and are more familiar with them whereas
older teachers have a higher need for PD in this area (MPFS, 2003). Nevertheless,
the results reveal that, overall, there is—at least for the most popular PD topics—an
inverse U-shaped association between age and teaching experiences, respectively,
and PD attendance.
As with the already-mentioned barriers, there are differences with regard to the
reasons for attending PD between the different age groups. Older teachers tend to
emphasize the relevance of the PD location. Maybe they consider it a chance to escape
their school in which they already spend a lot of time. In contrast, younger/less expe-
rienced teachers see instrumentality to their career as an incentive for attending PD.
In addition, they tend to emphasize the need to build up teaching-related knowledge
that is hardly elaborated yet and perhaps get helpful input on that. Once teachers
have some experience and are more versed in teaching, they seem to perceive PD as
a measure to get inspiration to change their teaching routines.
Gender
With regard to teachers’ gender, there are contradictory results. Some studies revealed
that men participate more in PD while other studies reported the opposite. Interest-
ingly, two of the studies that reported higher PD activity among men were in the
context of multimedia usage (BITKOM, 2011; Gerick & Eickelmann, 2015). A third
study only examined teachers from vocational schools (Faßmann, 1995), but the
reported effect was rather small. In accordance with this result, a previous study by
the author (Faßmann, 1994) did not find any association with gender. When survey-
ing teachers from different schools and without narrowing the PD topics (Richter
et al., 2018; Rüegg, 1997), the results indicate that women participate in PD more
than men, although the reported effect from Richter (2011) was also rather small. In
contrast, Wolf et al. (1997) reported that the inverse U-shaped association between
age and PD participation can be found especially for female teachers and that the
effect of gender on PD attendance varies depending on the number of children in
the household. This finding fits very well the results from various studies that family
commitments are particularly relevant for women as a barrier for PD participation and
that being relieved from these commitments is a reason for them to participate in PD.
In addition, the preference for nearby PD locations as well as one-time workshops
(that do not require a long-term commitment) could be associated with women’s high
family responsibilities. Results from the qualitative study by Diehl et al. (2010) also
point in this direction. In contrast, men tend to participate in periodic workshops,
which may explain why Wolf et al. (1997) found that male teachers spend more time
on PD, although there was no difference between women and men with regard to
the number of attended PD courses. However, considering that family commitments
seem to have such an influence on female teachers’ PD behavior, it is surprising that
they tend to participate in workshops more in the afternoon and are more willing
to participate during vacation time than their male colleagues. One could conclude
that PD is more attractive to women. This may be also recognizable in the fact that
women usually rate pre-defined reasons for PD attendance as being more relevant
than men do, while men perceive most barriers as being more relevant than women
do. Furthermore, women are more willing to invest time beyond school hours and to
bear the PD costs.
Another difference with regard to gender refers to the choice of PD topics exam-
ined in a few studies: Women prefer courses on pedagogy and psychology and per-
ceive an enhancement in these knowledge areas as a reason to participate in PD more
than men. Similarly, women more often choose workshops provided by teacher train-
ing institutes (while men prefer courses by companies and universities) that may be
more suited to pedagogy and teaching. However, there are rather contradictory results
for PD courses on subject content. Faßmann (1994) concludes that the effect of gen-
der is rather an effect of the school subject as male teachers often teach technical
topics that may be more focused on in workshops offered by companies.
Personal Circumstances
With regard to personal circumstances, most studies show that teachers with part-
ners are more active in PD than those without partners. Wolf et al. (1997) examined
whether married teachers attend more PD workshops, but could not find any differ-
ences. Considering the high relevance of family commitments, it is surprising that
only a few studies have investigated if and to what extent children in the household
have an influence on teachers’ PD behavior. Against the background of the above-
mentioned results, one would expect that teachers with children participate less in
PD. However, usually no effect or the opposite effect has been found.
Origin
When examining German teachers’ origin and its relevance to their PD activity,
studies repeatedly reported that teachers from Eastern Germany participate in PD
more than teachers from Western Germany (e.g., Richter, 2016, for such a conclu-
sion). Comparisons of teachers’ participation in the different federal states, however,
suggest that this is probably too rough a differentiation (see also Table A.2 in the
Appendix). They reveal that teachers from Thuringia and Brandenburg are espe-
cially more active in PD, while the results for teachers from Saxony-Anhalt and
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania vary, and teachers from Saxony usually range in the
middle compared to all other federal states (Hoffmann & Richter, 2016; Kammerl
et al., 2016; Richter et al., 2012, 2013b). With regard to Western Germany, the studies
also showed that teachers from Hamburg often participate in PD while those from
Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate are less active in PD. One possible
explanation for these differences may be that regulations regarding PD obligations
differ between the German states (see Sect. 1.4 and Table A.2). However, these regu-
lations apparently have not had the expected effect (Hoffmann & Richter, 2016; Mayr
& Müller, 2010; Richter, 2016; Richter et al., 2012; see also italic printed federal
states in Table A.2). Although Bavarian teachers are supposed to participate in PD
rather frequently, they rank in the middle compared to the other states with regard to
their PD participation. In contrast, there are no obligations for teachers in Thuringia,
but the teachers attend PD rather often. However, the studies’ results reveal that it
is more crucial which dependent variable is chosen (participation rate, frequency, or
amount of PD) as even within the same study, the ranking order of the states differs
depending on the focused outcome variable (e.g., Bavaria: first place for participation
in PD versus seventh place for amount of PD in Richter et al., 2012; see Table A.2).
The different focuses of the examined PD topics may also influence the results (e.g.,
multimedia in Kammerl et al., 2016 versus no certain focus in other studies). Overall,
there are differences between the different German federal states with regard to their
teachers’ PD behavior and associated variables but more studies on the actual reasons
are needed in future. The included studies from Austria and Switzerland also found
differences between teachers from different regions. However, the small number of
existing studies does not allow any comprehensive conclusions yet (see also Richter,
2016).
School Type
Another often-examined characteristic in the context of teachers’ PD behavior is the
school type,1 but no consistent results were found for this aspect. A large number of
studies found no differences between teachers in different school tracks. The only
result reported among the different studies is that teachers from vocational schools
participate relatively often in PD compared to other teachers. Also, it does not seem
1 School type is considered as a characteristic of the teacher (instead of the school context) as
the teachers choose which kind of school to teach in and follow different initial teacher training.
Presumably, individual variables and processes influence this decision.
that teachers from academic-track schools attend PD the least. However, when ana-
lyzing the studies that compare academic-track school teachers with other teach-
ers, the differences do not become significant (Hoffmann & Richter, 2016; Richter
et al., 2010, 2011, 2018). Therefore, it seems insufficient to focus only on quan-
titative measures when examining the differences between teachers from different
school types. For example, the taught subject (chemistry teachers from academic-
and intermediate-track schools participated more often than other teachers in Piet-
zner et al., 2004) and its importance within each school type (e.g., in terms of how
often it is offered) may be a conceivable variable that moderates possible associa-
tions. However, other variables, such as gender (see, e.g., high proportion of female
teachers in primary schools) should also be kept in mind and controlled for. Further-
more, the analysis of rank orders is questionable as comparable participation rates
may lead to different ranks in different studies (e.g., for primary school: 83% corre-
sponds with the third place in Jäger and Bodensohn, 2007, versus 88% corresponding
with first place in Keppelmüller et al., 2004). In addition, it is important to consider
the available PD programs for teachers in different school types. For example, Kep-
pelmüller et al. (2004) stated that there are barely any workshops for teachers from
special schools or vocational schools and that they have fewer possibilities to attend
(school-specific) PD.
There do not seem to be any systematic differences between teachers from differ-
ent school types with regard to the reasons for and barriers to their PD attendance,
and it is easier to find similarities than differences between them. Results, such as that
child care could enhance PD participation for primary school teachers or that they
are more willing to attend PD during vacation, seem to confirm the problem of con-
founded results due to the high proportion of female teachers (see previous discussion
on gender). The most consistent results can be found with regard to the contents of the
attended PD workshops: Teachers from academic-track schools tend to participate in
workshops on subject content or subject-specific pedagogy as well as performance
assessment and differentiation (which is probably also subject specific—at least to
some extent). Assuming that universities provide primarily subject-related courses,
it is not surprising that teachers from academic-track schools prefer this kind of
workshops in particular. Other teachers, most notably those from lower secondary
schools, are more interested in pedagogy and psychology. Again, for topics concern-
ing school in general or teacher licensing/training there is a rather low participation
rate regardless of the school types in which teachers teach. Finally, there is evidence
that there are differences with regard to predictors for PD behavior of teachers from
different school tracks. The results suggest that school characteristics are less predic-
tive for teachers from academic-track schools than for those from other school types.
Why these differences exist cannot yet be clarified, and more research is needed to
understand the underlying processes and reasons for the few differences that can be
found between teachers from different school types.
Subject
When comparing teachers teaching different subjects, there are hardly any (system-
atic) results with regard to PD behavior. The BITKOM study (2011) is an exception;
it revealed that mathematics and science teachers in particular attend PD workshops

on multimedia usage. A possible explanation may be that these teachers already have
a higher interest in technology and multimedia and, therefore, attend courses in this
context more often. However, this assumption cannot be proved with the results of
the analyzed studies and needs further research. Another finding is that teachers of
technical subjects would rather participate in PD courses provided by companies
than other teachers. Again, this might be a consequence of a PD program lacking
in this subject area when considering other providers. Overall, most studies have
reported a participation rate of about 70% or 80%, regardless of the subject area
(see also Richter, 2016). Only for religion teachers does the attendance rate seem to
be smaller (about 50%; Doedens, 2005, 2008). Nevertheless, the studies are hard to
compare due to, for example, the different time periods to which they refer (e.g., last
school year versus last five years).
Teaching Load
At first glance, one might expect that teachers with a high teaching load participate
less in PD because of their higher workload. However, most studies have reported a
positive association between the number of classes a teacher has to teach and their PD
activity. It can be assumed that the increased teaching load leads to a greater PD need
as well as to more possibilities for applying new learned strategies, which increases
the cost-benefit ratio. When considering the overall teaching load per week, the
relationship with teachers’ PD participation is more inverse U-shaped than linear.
It can be assumed that the high workload becomes more salient with a very high
teaching load as a barrier to PD attendance as those teachers have limited time for
participating in PD courses. In contrast, teachers with lighter teaching loads may
not perceive any need for PD. Maybe other aspects—such that cause the teacher to
teach only a small number of classes in the first place—are relevant. This would also
match results from Faßmann (1994), revealing that the teaching load is related to the
teachers’ current contract as well as their age/teaching experience.
Additional Professional Responsibilities
In addition to the teaching, some teachers take on additional professional respon-
sibilities in their schools. The results of the reviewed studies revealed a positive
association between such responsibilities and PD activity. In other words, the more
tasks teachers take on, the more involved in PD they are. Again, it can be assumed
that there are increased PD needs due to the different kinds of responsibilities. This
is also in accordance with the higher relevance of learning something about organi-
zational aspects as a reason for PD, and that counselling teachers in particular attend
PD courses on social topics. However, Richter et al. (2011) pointed out that their pos-
itive correlation is rather small. One possible reason for this could be that the time
spent on PD decreases when a teacher has more than two additional professional
responsibilities (Wolf et al., 1997). Here, the workload is probably too high to have
enough time to attend PD courses as well.
Study and Qualification

With regard to the initial studies and qualification, it does not seem to be relevant for
PD behavior if a teacher completed an initial teacher training or works as a lateral
entrant. At least for primary school teachers, it is also irrelevant if the major was in
the taught subject or in a similar subject. Only for religion teachers does studying a
specific subject (i.e., religion) seem to matter (Doedens, 2005, 2008): Teachers who
teach religion without having studied it before attend less PD than those who studied
religion.
With regard to PD contents, teachers with subject-specific initial training prefer
workshops on subject contents relevant for their classes and subject-specific peda-
gogy rather than teachers who teach outside their subject area. The latter ones would
rather attend courses concerned with more general subject contents or on pedagogy
and psychology (e.g., inclusion). These results are counterintuitive insofar as one
would assume that teachers who did not study a subject have an interest in enhancing
their knowledge in the subject they have to teach. The fact that teachers primarily
attend PD workshops in the field they studied before and they are interested in is
discussed as “inclination hypothesis” (Richter, 2013). Intuitively, the results showing
that teachers without an initial teacher training participate in PD workshops on teach-
ing strategies make more sense as their education probably focused on the subject
content but not on how to teach it to others (subject-specific pedagogy). To explain
the negative association between the number of studied subjects and the amount of
PD, more research is necessary; it cannot be clarified on the basis of the currently
available data. However, Schmidt and Neu (2004) stated that the detected correlation
is rather small.
Secondary Employment
The effect that secondary employment has on teachers’ PD behavior was only exam-
ined in Faßmann’s (1994, 1995) studies, which focused on vocational school teachers.
The results of both studies are contradictory, but there seems to be no negative effect
of secondary employment regarding PD activity. The preference of teachers with
secondary employment for workshops provided by companies and universities may
be explained as follows: They focus on PD with regard to not only their teaching
profession, but also their second occupation. However, the number of teachers with
secondary employment is probably rather small (about a third of the examined voca-
tional school teachers in Faßmann, 1994, 1995), meaning possible effects apply for
only a few teachers. Further research is needed to investigate how many teachers actu-
ally hold down secondary employment and the influences it has on their professional
behavior.
Burnout
With teachers’ declaration of their high workload as one of the main reasons for
not participating in PD, it is interesting to examine if exhaustion or disorders such
as burnout are associated with PD activity (for the relevance of burnout within the
teaching profession see, e.g., Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert,
2008). However, only one study examined this relation and only a total of 36 teachers
were affected. It seems reasonable that teachers with burnout symptoms perceive
their daily workload as an important obstacle for PD attendance. However, it does

not influence the PD activity of teachers with burnout syndrome.
Achievement Goals
Several studies examined the associations between PD behavior and different
motivation-related variables. Unfortunately, they were mainly single studies that
involved a particular construct. With regard to achievement goals, the existing stud-
ies indicated that learning goals are positively associated with the number of attended
PD workshops—that is, the more teachers are motivated by their desire to improve
their teaching skills, the more they participate in PD. In addition, they tend to partic-
ipate in workshops with topics that fit the highly self-rated facets of learning goals
(e.g., higher proportion of pedagogical topics when highly motivated to increase
pedagogical[-content] knowledge). However, there are no consistent results on the
other types of achievement goals, which indicates the need for further research to
learn more about the relevance of achievement goals within the PD process.
Subject-specific Interest
Against the background that personal interest in the PD topic is an important reason to
attend PD (Chap. 3), one may expect that interest in the subject is positively related
to PD activity. Accordingly, this positive relationship is reported by the existing
study. However, a physics-related hobby is not a suitable predictor for the number
of physics-related PD workshops attended, although this seems to be a reasonable
indicator for someone’s personal interest. Overall, only one study (Peschel & Koch,
2014) investigated the role of personal interest in the taught subject and PD activity.
It focuses on teachers of only one subject (physics). Therefore, more research is
needed to understand the role of (subject-specific) interest within the PD process.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy, another motivational construct, is also positively associated with teach-
ers’ PD activity. Teachers with high self-reported self-efficacy or self-rating of their
own knowledge about teaching strategies not only participate more in PD, but also
choose more “sustainable” PD programs (e.g., comprehensive qualification pro-
grams, network meetings, individual research; Mayr & Müller, 2010). Furthermore,
teachers with high self-efficacy have a broader scope with regard to the PD con-
tents they choose than teachers with lower self-efficacy. This again reflects the previ-
ously mentioned inclination hypothesis, as teachers seem to attend courses in content
areas they think they are good at. Against this background, it would be interesting
how teachers can be motivated to also participate in PD workshops concerning new
developments in the context of teaching or topics in which the teachers have low
self-efficacy or only limited knowledge.
Beliefs About Teaching
With regard to teachers’ beliefs about teaching, studies have revealed that construc-
tive orientations and the use of respective methods are positively associated with PD
participation, whereas traditional orientations are negatively related. This seems to
be especially true for sustainable PD programs and probably for PD workshops on

(subject-specific) pedagogy as well. In other words, if teachers do not focus exclu-
sively on passing on knowledge to their students, they are more likely to attend PD
workshops on teaching. However, it is not clear if teachers apply their beliefs about
teaching to their own learning (and want to construct sustainable knowledge instead
of “receiving” knowledge) or if they perceive PD workshops as a tool to design con-
structive classes better. In accordance with the latter explanation, Häuptle, Florian,
and Reinmann (2008) reported that teachers who believe that using multimedia in
their classes does not add any value or improves their teaching or students’ learning
are not interested in PD workshops on multimedia.
Work Engagement
The results also suggest that high work engagement is positively associated with
the number of attended PD workshops. In other words, teachers who consider the
teaching profession as important to themselves, want to proceed in their career, and
are willing to put effort into it also participate in PD courses more. This makes sense
as formal PD can be seen as a tool to perform well on the job. However, according
to Richter et al. (2011) the detected association is rather small.
Attitude Toward PD
When comparing the included studies with regard to teachers’ attitudes toward PD,
several operationalizations were used and showed different associations with teach-
ers’ PD activity. For example, Nitsche et al. (2013b) used a rather broad definition
that includes the perceived utility of PD as well as the willingness to attend PD during
vacation. They do not find any association with the frequency of PD participation.
The same applies for other studies using assessments of the necessity or utility of
PD. In contrast, Wolf et al. (1997) reported significant differences between teach-
ers who attended or did not attend any PD courses within the last two years with
regard to two attitude scales. However, the difference between means seems so small
that it is questionable if there is any meaningful effect (see p. 131; effect sizes are
not reported). Overall, operationalizing “attitude” rather broadly and with regard to
teacher PD in general does not seem to be suitable for predicting their PD behavior.
However, Hofmann’s (2015) results indicated that measures adapted to certain PD
workshops can reveal the impact of attitudes on teachers’ PD activity. Specifically,
teachers who were convinced that working with video tapes during the workshop
would be useful for them participated in the examined PD program more regularly.
Interestingly, there was no effect when teachers assessed the utility of the workshop
format for their students.
Relevance of Reasons for and Barriers to PD
Surprisingly, only a few studies examined if the relevance of different reasons and
barriers is actually associated with teachers’ attendance in PD. They revealed that
teachers who participate in PD more noted several reasons for PD being more relevant
than their less active colleagues. However, the differences are rather small. With
regard to the barriers to PD participation, some studies found no association. Only
general disengagement in formal PD, bad experiences with workshops, avoidance of

additional effort, and worries regarding a PD workshop were negatively related with
teachers’ PD participation. Unfortunately, these results are only based on studies
with predefined reasons for (not) attending PD. Therefore, it cannot be clarified if
there are other reasons that actually influence teachers’ participation behavior.
Willingness to Bear PD Costs
When analyzing the results with regard to teachers’ willingness to bear PD costs,
there are mostly no associations with their PD behavior. There is only a positive
relation with the amount of PD namely, the more teachers are willing to pay for PD
workshops, the more time they spend on PD in a certain period of time. This finding
seems plausible as it can be assumed that longer workshops are more expensive and,
if a teacher wants to attend it, there may be the need to personally bear the costs—
especially in the light of schools’ limited budgets. Although there is probably no
direct relationship between the willingness to pay for PD and spending more time on
it, both variables may be indicators for another variable, such as teachers’ training
motivation. Indeed, Landert (1999) reported a positive correlation between paying
the attendance fee of the last workshop and the motivation to participate in that
particular course.
Other Variables
Several additional variables were considered in the analyzed studies, such as status
as a civil servant, number of taught subjects, religion teachers’ denomination, and
(variables associated with) teachers’ job satisfaction. However, the named variables
were not found to be associated with teachers’ PD behavior. Surprisingly, this is also
true for reported PD needs: Teachers only partly attend the workshops they wished
for before. Significant results exist for at least some variables. For example, previous
experiences with PD are related with actual participation in PD; teachers with nega-
tive experiences tend to attend fewer courses than teachers with positive experiences.
In addition, professional experience before teaching is negatively associated with
PD attendance, meaning the more teachers worked in a different profession before
becoming a teacher the less they participate in formal PD. However, this correlation
is probably only relevant for a particular sample of teachers as the results derive
from a study examining vocational school teachers in Austria (Faßmann, 1995). The
author reported that teachers have to have work experience before they can teach in
vocational schools. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if the associations are
also true for teachers in other countries (and for currently active teachers as that study
was conducted in the 1990s). Considering that in Germany vocational school teach-
ers also often complete other professional qualifications (for apprenticeship before
study see, e.g., Fritsch et al., 2015), it would be interesting to take a closer look at
the relevance of previous work experiences and qualifications.
Finally, there are inconsistent results in terms of whether teachers participate in
PD workshops by themselves or together with colleagues. Aldorf’s (2016) results
suggest that participating with colleagues makes PD more attractive, but it is probably
difficult to realize considering the problems of cancelling classes and organizing

substitute classes.
Overall, most studies only surveyed one or two particular teacher characteristics
and analyzed their individual associations with PD activity, but not the interaction
of these constructs (Kunter & Klusmann, 2010). In contrast, Kunter and Klusmann
(2010) used latent profile analyses to examine if different individual profiles of several
constructs are able to predict teachers’ PD activity. They identified profiles positively
associated with the number of attended PD workshops. Therefore, more studies using
a range of theoretically well-chosen variables are needed in the future to get deeper
insights into the effect and interactions of different teacher characteristics on their
PD behavior.
5.2 Characteristics of Professional Development Program
The characteristics of PD workshops are an obvious and regularly examined aspect

in the research on PD behavior. Within the reviewed studies, data concerning dif-
ferent characteristics of PD programs were collected, including content, learning
activities, provider, duration and timing, as well as (distance to) location. The results
are summarized in Table 5.2.
PD Content
With regard to the PD content, teachers often choose workshops focusing on sub-
ject content and (subject-specific) pedagogy whereas other topics, such as teaching
with multimedia (exception: Kanwischer et al., 20042 ) and school organization or
development, play a subordinate role. In the context of multimedia usage in class-
rooms, teachers attend primarily subject-specific courses, which is consistent with
the previously discussed results. It can be assumed that these kinds of workshops
were included in the category “subject-specific pedagogy” in studies that did not con-
sider workshops on teaching with multimedia explicitly, as the courses cover possible
strategies to teach subject contents. However, the way that reported PD contents were
differentiated and the “resolution” of these classifications are quite different among
studies (e.g., very detailed in Richter et al., 2012, 2013b, versus rather roughly in
Richter et al., 2010), making it difficult to summarize the studies and draw con-
clusions among them. Furthermore, rather broad categories may be problematic if
they are presented to teachers in a questionnaire as closed-ended questions (e.g.,
Hildebrandt, 2008; Kirchner, 2016; Mammes, 2008) as teachers may have trouble
allocating their attended workshops to these categories. Interestingly, teachers’ pref-
erences differ among studies depending on the question format. When teachers were
asked to list their last attended PD workshops, which were subsequently catego-
rized by the authors (e.g., Richter et al., 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013b), workshops on
2 In addition, Porsch and Wendt (2015) report a high attendance rate of 70% in workshops concerning
multimedia. However, analyzing the more detailed results, this must be a typographical error and
is supposedly a rate of about 7%.
Table 5.2 Overview of characteristics of PD programs examined in the context of teachers’ PD behavior
76
Variable Association to PD related variablesa References

Content Participation in PD
– Teachers participate in workshops focusing especially on Drossel, Wendt, Schmitz, and Eickelmann (2012), Forsa
subject contentb and (subject-specific) pedagogy (2017), Hildebrandt (2008), Hoffmann and Richter (2016),
Kanwischer et al. (2004), Kirschner (2013). Mammes (2008),
Porsch and Wendt (2015, 2016), Prenzel (1995), Richter and
Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Richter et al. (2012, 2013a, b)
Less favored workshops focus on: Drossel et al. (2012), Hoffmann and Richter (2016), Porsch
using multimedia in classes and Wendt (2015, 2016), Richter et al. (2012); Richter and
Schellenbach-Zell (2016), Richter et al. (2013b); exception:
Kanwischer et al. (2004)
school organization/development Hildebrandt (2008), Mammes (2008), Richter et al. (2012,
2013b)
– In the context of PD regarding multimedia, subject-related Gerick and Eickelmann (2015, 2017)
workshops are especially chosen
Amount of PD
– Teachers spend the most time on workshops focusing on Richter et al. (2010, 2011); exception: Richter and
subject content and (subject-specific) pedagogy Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
(continued)
– They spend the least time on PD concerning school Richter et al. (2011)
organization
Activities during PD Participation in PD
– Teachers participate more in workshops with presentations Florian (2008)
or study groups, but less in field trips; individual consulting
or supervision, and blended learning are rarely used
– Pre-structured PD workshops are attended more frequently Neu (1999)
than fully open, shapeable forms
Provider Participation in PD
– Teachers participate in particular in workshops provided by Faßmann (1994, 1995), Kanwischer et al. (2004), Richter and
teacher training institutes Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
Teachers also tend to attend workshops by other Richter and Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
providers, …
…such as private suppliers/companies, universities, unions, Faßmann (1995), Florian (2008)
and church-based institutions
5.2 Characteristics of Professional Development Program
Frequency of PD
– Teachers participate most frequently in workshops provided Marose (2016)
by teacher training institutes or in study groups
(continued)
77
78

Amount of PD
– Teachers spend the most time in workshops offered by local Bachmaier (2008), teacher training institute: Richter and
providers or teacher training institutes Schellenbach-Zell (2016)
Duration and timing Participation in PD
– Teachers participate in short workshops (half-day or one to Abs, Roczen, and Klieme (2007), Faßmann (1994, 1995),
two days) more often than in longer ones (several days) Forsa (2017), Grillitsch (2010), Hessisches Kultusministerium
(2008), Jäger and Bodensohn (2007), Kanwischer et al. (2004)
– Teachers participate in workshops during school hours more Rüegg (1997)
often than outside class time
Teachers rarely participate in workshops held on Jäger and Bodensohn (2007)
weekends …
…or vacation Rüegg (1997)
Frequency of PD
– Teachers participate more frequently in recurring and short Kanwischer et al. (2004)
workshops than in one-time and/or long workshops
Distance to PD location Participation in PD
– Teachers would rather participate in workshops provided Neu (1999), Prenzel (1995)
nearby than in ones that are further away (more than 50
km/about 30 miles)
b As stated in Chap. 3, the differentiation of PD program contents by Richter et al. (2011) is used
5.2 Characteristics of Professional Development Program 79
subject-specific pedagogy were more often chosen than those on subject contents. In
studies with closed-ended questions asking teachers to tick off categories to which
their attended courses belong (e.g., Drossel et al., 2012; Hoffmann & Richter, 2016;
Porsch & Wendt, 2015, 2016), the order was reversed (exception: Kanwischer et al.,
2004). Overall, the differences are rather small and become more salient when ana-
lyzing ranking order instead of total frequencies, but future studies should examine
whether the different results are a methodological artifact. Nevertheless, the prefer-
ence for subject-related topics and pedagogy matches the desire to get something
out of the courses that is easy to implement in the classroom, which was one of the
most important reasons for participating in PD (see Chap. 3).
Activities During PD
Only two studies examined if certain activities during PD courses are related to
teachers’ PD participation. The results with regard to activities in frequently attended
PD workshops somewhat contradict previously reported results. Although teachers
reported that they want to be active and apply teaching and learning strategies them-
selves (see Chap. 3), they mainly participated in courses with presentations. However,
it cannot be clarified if teachers attended such courses because they preferred listen-
ing to a pre-structured input, because presentations are shorter than more elaborated
courses, or if the most available courses are designed this way. In contrast, their fre-
quent participation in study groups fits well with the desire to exchange experiences
with colleagues as this format should provide teachers with room to discuss different
topics instead of getting input from a facilitator. In accordance with the low relevance
of teachers having a voice in designing a workshop (Chap. 3), Neu (1999) reported
that more teachers participated in a pre-structured workshop than in one that could be
structured by the participants themselves. These results suggest that teachers seem
to be willing to engage in some learning tasks actively but prefer to be provided with
pre-structured information and a given course structure. However, more research is
needed.
PD Provider
Teachers most often attend workshops offered by teacher training institutes. It can
be assumed that these courses are tailored to teachers’ needs and the requirements of
their profession as the only target group is teachers. This may reflect the importance
of easily transferring the PD contents into the classroom, and teachers probably
expect the facilitator to create a link between the workshop and classrooms or school.
However, it is also possible that teacher training institutes offer the most courses for
teachers and, therefore, it would be more likely to participate in such workshop.
Duration and Timing of PD Workshops
The typical choices for teachers with regard to the duration and timing of the PD
courses are in accordance with the high relevance of teachers’ workload for not
attending PD, namely they participate primarily in short workshops that only take up
a little time. This may also be a way for teachers to avoid cancelling classes, which
is also a relevant barrier to PD attendance (see Chap. 4). However, results Rüegg’s
(1997) results revealed that teachers prefer courses during school hours, which seems
to contradict this assumption. Therefore, future research should systematically inves-
tigate participation rates of courses with different durations and timings as well as
how and why teachers consider these aspects in their decisions. Initial hints from
studies examining teachers’ reported preferences with regard to these characteris-
tics do not seem to shed more light on this question as the results are inconsistent
(e.g., wish for outside-class time, Aschenbrenner, 2010 versus during school hours,
Beck et al., 1995). The appropriate duration and timing of a PD workshop probably
depend on other aspects, such as the topic (e.g., Aschenbrenner, 2010; Gallasch,
Moll, & Tulodziecki, 2000; Scheuer, 2002). Wolf et al. (1997) revealed that low-
participating teachers in particular prefer courses that are held before noon whereas
more often-participating teachers favor those that take place in the afternoon or last
all day long. However, the root of these differences cannot be concluded from the
reviewed studies.
Distance to PD Location
Finally, the question of a possible association between distance to the PD location
and teachers’ PD behavior was examined, albeit only in two studies. Supporting the
finding that a long distance to the PD location is an obstacle to attending PD (Chap.
4), teachers more often participated in workshops that took place nearby. However,
it can be assumed that the decision to make longer journeys to attend PD depends on
other course characteristics. For example, in two studies with open-ended questions
teachers stated that they would agree to greater distances to PD locations if the topic
was interesting or if the courses took longer (Aschenbrenner, 2010; Scheuer, 2002).
As stated previously, any further conclusions need to be drawn carefully as none
of the analyzed studies considered the available PD courses (Richter et al., 2013a).
For example, teacher training institutes are expected to offer more PD workshops
targeting teachers rather than other providers (e.g., Hessisches Kultusministerium,
2008) and most courses rely on presentations, which are considered a less time-
consuming method and therefore suitable for short workshops. If provided more
often, it is much more likely that teachers would choose such workshops. Therefore,
when analyzing teachers’ PD behavior and how it is connected to different workshop
characteristics, the provided courses need to be kept in mind in future research.
5.3 Context Conditions
Context conditions include characteristics of the school in which the teachers work
as well as the staff to which the teacher belongs. The results of the analyzed studies
in the current literature review are summarized and categorized in Table 5.3. Overall,
only a few studies considered context conditions as influencing factors for teachers’
PD behavior. Most studies focused on variables more directly linked to teachers’ PD
attendance (see Sects. 5.1 and 5.2).
Table 5.3 Overview of context conditions examined in the context of teachers’ PD behavior
Variable Association to PD-related variablesa References
School Participation in PD
management/principal – No association with school management’s priority of certain PD Gerick and Eickelmann (2015)
contents
Amount of PD
5.3 Context Conditions
– No association with leadership behavior (self-reported or by teachers) Mayr and Müller (2010)
Need of PD
– No association with school management’s attached importance of PD Kast (2010)
or its reconcilement with teaching goals
School size Participation in PD
– Positive association: Teachers from bigger schools participate in PD Faßmann (1995)
more than teachers from smaller schools
– Inverse U-shaped association: Teachers in small schools (up to 30 Faßmann (1994)
teachers) and bigger schools (more than 60 teachers) participate in
PD more than teachers in medium-sized schools
– No association Wolf et al. (1997)
School location Amount of PD
– No association Mayr and Müller (2010)
– Teachers working in bigger cities perceive costs for PD, a lack of Kanwischer et al. (2004)
adequate workshops, and unqualified speakers as higher barriers than
teachers in smaller towns; teachers teaching in smaller towns
perceive the distance to a PD location as more relevant
(continued)
81
82
Variable Association to PD-related variablesa References

– Teachers working in urban areas perceive their workload as more Prenzel (1995)
relevant than teachers from rural areas
– Duration and timing: Teachers in bigger cities would rather Kanwischer et al. (2004)
participate in workshops in the afternoon than teachers in smaller
towns
Other school Participation in PD
characteristics – Positive association with perceived value of PD within staff Richter et al. (2010)
Amount of PD
– Positive association with collegial cooperation regarding PD Mayr and Müller (2010)
– No association with evaluation practices or student–teacher Mayr and Müller (2010)
relationships in particular schools
– Content: Teachers perceiving a high level of cooperation with Richter et al. (2013)
colleagues would rather participate in workshops with diverse topics;
teachers perceiving a below average level of cooperation participate
less in PD
Other associations
– Teachers from schools that are part of PD projects participate more in Dalehefte et al. (2014)
PD (even beyond program-specific topics), …
…and report a higher willingness to travel for PD Neu (1999)
5.3 Context Conditions 83
School Management/Principal
Among different studies, characteristics of the school principal/management showed
no association with teachers’ PD behavior. This is true for several variables, such
as the school management’s beliefs about PD or leadership behavior. A possible
explanation may be that the responsibility for teachers’ PD is mainly in their own
hands. That would match previously reported results that most teachers did not
have any problems with being exempted by the principal for a certain PD course
(Chap. 4).
School Size
The size of the school (usually operationalized as the number of teachers in a school)
generates different results. However, Faßmann (1995) already stated that the found
effects are rather small and therefore match the results of Wolf et al. (1997) who
found no relationships for PD activity. As the effects reported by Faßmann (1994)
are also rather low, it can be assumed that no considerable associations exist between
school size and teachers’ PD behavior.
School Location
The size of the town in which the school is located is also not related to the time
teachers spend on PD, although it seems to be associated to teachers’ perceptions
of barriers to attending PD workshops as teachers from smaller and bigger towns
differ in the obstacles they perceive as relevant. However, studies have not examined
why these differences exist. Kanwischer et al. (2004) assumed that teachers in big-
ger towns participate more often in non-formal PD activities (e.g., exhibitions and
presentations), which influences the teachers’ assessment of barriers. There are also
differences in the duration of PD workshops that teachers attend. Given the influence
that available PD programs may have, Kanwischer et al. (2004) argued that not as
many short workshops are offered in rural areas as in urban areas. However, they did
not analyze the programs offered at the time of their survey.
Other School Characteristics
When analyzing further characteristics of schools, it becomes apparent that mostly
non-quantitative variables are related with teachers’ PD behavior. For example, there
is a positive association with the perceived value colleagues assign to formal PD.
This can also be seen in the higher PD attendance of teachers who teach in schools
that are part of a PD-related project. It can be assumed that being part of a project
is associated with appreciation of PD (although it cannot be clarified how these
aspects influence each other). Similarly, a perceived cooperation between colleagues
is positively associated with teachers’ PD activities.
However, other school-level characteristics, such as evaluation practices, are
not related with teachers’ PD behavior. Mayr and Müller (2010) stated that this
pattern can also be found in many other countries. It is also in accordance
with the result presented in Chap. 3 that only a few teachers feel motivated by
requests/recommendations from school management or colleagues to participate in
PD. Nevertheless, results suggest that the school to which teachers belong is associ-
ated with the frequency of PD attendance (14% explained variance on school level in
Richter et al., 2011). It can be assumed that it is the school climate between colleagues
rather than quantitative variables or characteristics of the school management that
may affect a teacher’s PD behavior.
References
Abs, H. J., Roczen, N., & Klieme, E. (2007). Abschlussbericht zur Evaluation des BLK-Programms
“Demokratie lernen und leben” [Final report on the evaluation of the BLK programme “Learning
and Living Democracy”]. Materialien zur Bildungsforschung: Bd. 19. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF,
DIPF.
VS.
BITKOM. (2011). Schule 2.0: Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zum Einsatz elektronischer Medien
an Schulen aus Lehrersicht [School 2.0. A representative study on the use of electronic media
in schools from teachers’ point of view]. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom.org/Publikationen/
2011/Studie/Studie-Schule-2-0/BITKOM-Publikation-Schule-20.pdf.
Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Krauss, S., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Dubberke, T., et al. (2006). Welche
Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen dem fachspezifischen Professionswissen von Mathematik-
lehrkräften und ihrer Ausbildung sowie beruflichen Fortbildung? [How is the content specific
professional knowledge of mathematics teachers related to their teacher education and in-service
training?]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 521–544.
Dalehefte, I. M., Wendt, H., Köller, O., Wagner, H., Pietsch, M., Döring, B., et al. (2014). Bilanz von
neun Jahren SINUS an deutschen Grundschulen: Evaluation der mathematikbezognenen Daten
im Rahmen von TIMSS 2011 [Taking stock after nine years of SINUS at elementary schools
in Germany: An evaluation of mathematics-related data within the framework of TIMSS 2011].
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(2), 245–263.
Doedens, F. (2005). Situation des Religionsunterrichts in der Sek. I: Ergebnisse und Konsequen-
zen einer Befragung von Hamburger Religionslehrerinnen und -lehrern im Jahr 2003 [Situa-
tion of religious education in lower secondary level: Results and consequences of a survey of
References 85
religious education teachers in Hamburg in 2003]. In U. Günther, M. Gensicke, C. Müller, G.

Mitchell, T. Knauth, & R. Bolle (Eds.), Theologie—Pädagogik—Kontext: Zukunftsperspektiven
der Religionspädagogik (pp. 179–196). Münster: Waxmann.
Doedens, F. (2008). Evangelischer Religionsunterricht in Schleswig-Holstein: Befragung der
ReligionslehrerInnen in allen Schularten und Schulstufen [Protestant religious education in
Schleswig-Holstein: Survey of religion teachers in all types of schools and school levels].
Hamburg: PTI.
Drossel, K., Wendt, H., Schmitz, S., & Eickelmann, B. (2012). Merkmale der Lehr- und Lernbe-
dingungen im Primarbereich [Characteristics of teaching and learning conditions in primary
education]. In W. Bos, H. Wendt, O. Köller, & C. Selter (Eds.), TIMSS 2011: Mathematische und
naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen
Vergleich (pp. 171–202). Münster: Waxmann.
Verbesserungsvorschläge. [Do teachers learn? An empirical survey on the amount of teacher
Feige, A., & Tzscheetzsch, W. (2005). Christlicher Religionsunterricht im religionsneutralen Staat?
Unterrichtliche Zielvorstellungen und religiöses Selbstverständnis von ev. und kath. Religion-
slehrerinnen und -lehrern in Baden-Württemberg [Christian religious education in a religion-
neutral state? Teaching objectives and religious self-image of Protestant and Catholic religious
teachers in Baden-Württemberg]. Ostfildern, Stuttgart: Schwabenverlag.
Florian, A. (2008). Blended Learning in der Lehrerfortbildung—Evaluation eines onlinegestützten,
teambasierten und arbeitsbegleitenden Lehrerfortbildungsangebots im deutschsprachigen Raum
[Blended learning in teacher professional development—Evaluation of an online-supported, team-
based, and work-accompanying teacher training programme in German-speaking countries]. Dis-
sertation, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg. Retrieved from https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.
de/opus4/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/1170/file/Dissertation_Alexander_Florian.pdf.
gesamt.pdf.
Fritsch, S., Berger, S., Seifried, J., Bouley, F., Wuttke, E., Schnick-Vollmer, K., et al. (2015).
The impact of university teacher training on prospective teachers’ CK and PCK—a comparison
between Austria and Germany. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(1),
133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-015-0014-8.
Gagarina, L., & Saldern, M. V. (2010). Professionalisierung der Lehrkräfte [Professionalisation
Waxmann.
Gallasch, U., Moll, S., & Tulodziecki, G. (2000). Aus- und Fortbildungssituation zur Medi-
enerziehung in der Grundschule: Ergebnisse von Analysen und Befragungen [Education and
professional development situation in media education in primary schools: Results of analy-
ses and surveys]. In G. Tulodziecki & U. Six (Eds.), Medienerziehung in der Grundschule:
Grundlagen, empirische Befunde und Empfehlungen zur Situation in Schule und Lehrerbildung
(pp. 385–458). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Geest-Rack, S. (2013). Ernährungsbildung an Berliner Grundschulen [Nutrition education at

primary schools in Berlin]. Dissertation, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin.
Gerick, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2015). Lehrerprofessionalisierung und Fortbildungsaktivitäten
im Kontext von Schulentwicklung mit neuen Technologien [Teacher professionalization and
training activities in the context of school development with new technologies]. Journal für
Schulentwicklung, 7(2), 32–38.
Gerick, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2017). Abschlussbericht im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen
Begleitung der Evaluation des Projekts “Lernen mit digitalen Medien” in Schleswig-Holstein
[Final report within the scientific monitoring of the project evaluation “Learning with digital
media” in Schleswig-Holstein]. Retrieved from http://www.leb-gym-sh.de/images/downloads/
2017.02.01_Abschlussbericht_wissenschaftliche_Begleitung_Projekt_Lernen_mit_digitalen_
Medien.pdf.
Goldgruber, E. (2012). Der Stellenwert von Fort- und Weiterbildung im Professionalisierungskon-
tinuum von Lehrer/innen der Primarstufe mit Fokus auf Lehrer/innen an Volksschulen in Wien
[The significance of continuing education in the professionalisation continuum of primary school
teachers with a focus on teachers at elementary schools in Vienna]. Diploma thesis, Universität
Wien, Wien.
Grillitsch, M. (2010). Bildungsstandards auf dem Weg in die Praxis: Ergebnisse einer Befragung
von Lehrkräften und Schulleiter/innen der Sekundarstufe I zur Rezeption der Bildungsstandards
und deren Implementation [Educational standards on the way to practice: Results of a survey
of teachers and school management at lower secondary level on the reception of educational
standards and their implementation]. BIFIE-Report: Vol. 6. Graz, Österreich: Leykam.
Kassel.
Gysbers, A. (2008). Lehrer—Medien—Kompetenz: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur medienpäd-
agogischen Kompetenz und Performanz niedersächsischer Lehrkräfte [Teachers—Media—Com-
petence: An empirical study on media pedagogical competence and performance of teachers in
Lower Saxony]. Berlin: VISTAS.
projects in teacher professional development: Final report on the evaluation of the blended learning
professional development program for teachers “Intel® Teaching—Advanced Course Online”].
Arbeitsberichte: Vol. 20. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg, Medienpädagogik.
Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung [Professional development needs control: Stocktak-
ing and considerations for further development]. Wiesbaden: Institut für Qualitätsentwick-
lung. Retrieved from http://www.gew-wiesbaden.de/fileadmin/user_upload/aktuelles/090219_
fortbildung_braucht_steuerung_web.pdf.
Hildebrandt, E. (2008). Lehrerfortbildung im Beruf: Eine Studie zur Personalentwicklung durch
Schulleitung [In-service teacher professional development: A study on personnel development by
school management]. Weinheim, München: Juventa.
Hoffmann, L., & Richter, D. (2016). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von Deutsch- und Englis-
chlehrkräften im Ländervergleich [Aspects of teacher education and professional development
for German and English teachers in comparison with other countries]. In P. Stanat, K. Böhme, S.
Schipolowski, & N. Haag (Eds.), IQB-Bildungstrend: Sprachliche Kompetenzen am Ende der 9.
Jahrgangsstufe im zweiten Ländervergleich (pp. 481–507). Münster: Waxmann.
References 87
Hofmann, J. (2015). Untersuchung des Kompetenzaufbaus von Physiklehrkräften während einer

Fortbildungsmaßnahme [Investigation of the competence development of physics teachers during
a professional development program]. Berlin: Logos.
Huppert, A., & Abs, H. J. (2008). Schulentwicklung und die Partizipation von Lehrkräften:
Empirische Ergebnisse zur Markierung eines Spannungsverhältnisses [School development and
the participation of teachers: Empirical results on the marking of a charged relationship].
Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 31(3), 8–15.
Situation der Lehrerfortbildung im Fach Mathematik aus der Sicht der Lehrkräfte [Report on the
survey of mathematics teachers: The situation of teacher professional development in mathematics
from the teachers’ point of view]. Landau: Universität Koblenz-Landau.
Kammerl, R., Lorenz, R., & Endberg, M. (2016). Medienbezogene Fortbildungsaktivitäten von
Lehrkräften in Deutschland und im Bundesländervergleich [Media-related professional develop-
ment activities for teachers in Germany and in comparison to other federal states]. In W. Bos,
R. Lorenz, M. Endberg, R. Kammerl, & S. Welling (Eds.), Schule digital—der Länderindikator
2016: Kompetenzen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I im Umgang mit digitalen Medien im
Bundesländervergleich (pp. 209–235). Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Medien (ThILLM).
Kast, F. (2010). Fortbildungsbedarf: Disparitäten in Abhängigkeit von Schulart, Alter und
Geschlecht der Lehrer/innen [Professional development needs: Disparities depending on type
of school, age, and gender of teachers]. In J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), TALIS 2008:
Schule als Lernumfeld und Arbeitsplatz. Vertiefende Analysen aus österreichischer Perspektive
(BIFIE-Report 4/2010) (pp. 27–49). Graz, Österreich: Leykam.
innsalz.
Kirchner, V. (2016). Wirtschaftsunterricht aus der Sicht von Lehrpersonen: Eine qualitative Studie
zu fachdidaktischen teachers‘ beliefs in der ökonomischen Bildung [Business education classes
from the point of view of teachers: A qualitative study on pedagogical content related teachers’
beliefs in economic education]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-658-10832-8.
Kirschner, S. B. (2013). Modellierung und Analyse des Professionswissens von Physiklehrkräften
[Modelling and analysis of the professional knowledge of physics teachers]. Berlin: Logos.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and
emotional exhaustion in teachers: Does the school context make a difference? Applied Psychology,
57(s1), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00358.x.
Kunter, M., & Klusmann, U. (2010). Die Suche nach dem kompetenten Lehrer—ein personen-
zentrierter Ansatz [The search for the competent teacher—a person-centred approach]. In W.
Bos, E. Klieme, & O. Köller (Eds.), Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzentwicklung:
Festschrift für Jürgen Baumert (pp. 207–230). Münster: Waxmann.
Lauck, G. (2003). Burnout oder innere Kündigung? Theoretische Konzeptualisierung und

empirische Prüfung am Beispiel des Lehrerberufs [Burnout or inner resignation? Theoretical
conceptualization and empirical testing using the teaching profession as an example]. München,
Mering: Hampp.
Mammes, I. (2008). Denkmuster von Lehrkräften als Herausforderung für Unterrichtsentwicklung
[Teachers’ thought patterns as a challenge for teaching development]. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius
Klinkhardt.
Marose, M. (2016). Fortbildungen: Ziele und Interessen [Professional development: Goals and inter-
ests]. In M. Marose, M. Meyer-Blanck, & A. Obermann (Eds.), “Der Berufsschulreligionsun-
terricht ist anders!”: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage unter Religionslehrkräften in NRW (pp. 67–78).
Münster: Waxmann.
Mayr, J., & Müller, F. H. (2010). Wovon hängt es ab, wie und wieviel sich Lehrerinnen und Lehrer
fortbilden? [What does it depend on, how and how much do teachers attain professional devel-
opment themselves?]. In J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), TALIS 2008: Schule als Lernumfeld
und Arbeitsplatz. Vertiefende Analysen aus österreichischer Perspektive (BIFIE-Report 4/2010).
Graz, Österreich: Leykam.
MPFS. (2003). Lehrer/-Innen und Medien 2003: Nutzung, Einstellungen, Perspektiven [Teachers
and media 2003: Use, attitudes, perspectives]. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsver-
bund Südwest. Retrieved from https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/Einzelstudien/
Lehrerbefragung.pdf.
Nitsche, S., Dickhäuser, O., Dresel, M., & Fasching, M. S. (2013a). Zielorientierungen von
Lehrkräften als Prädiktoren lernrelevanten Verhaltens [Teachers goal orientations as predictors
of vocational learning behavior]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27(1–2), 95–103.
Nitsche, S., Dickhäuser, O., Fasching, M. S., & Dresel, M. (2013b). Teachers’ professional goal
orientations: Importance for further training and sick leave. Learning and Individual Differences,
23, 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.017.
Peschel, M., & Koch, A. (2014). Lehrertypen—Typisch Lehrer? Clusterungen im Projekt SUN
[Teacher types—typical teachers? Clustering in the SUN project]. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Natur-
wissenschaftliche Bildung zwischen Science- und Fachunterricht: Gesellschaft für Didaktik der
Chemie und Physik—Jahrestagung in München 2013 (Vol. 34, pp. 216–218). Kiel: IPN.
Porsch, R. (2015). Unterscheiden sich Mathematiklehrkräftean Grundschulen mit und ohne Fach-
Lehrbefähigung hinsichtlich ihrer berufsbezogenen Überzeugungen?: Ergebnisse aus TIMSS
2007 [Do mathematics teachers at primary schools with and without subject teaching qualifica-
tions differ in their professional beliefs? Results from TIMSS 2007]. mathematica didactica, 38,
5–36.
Porsch, R., & Wendt, H. (2015). Welche Rolle spielt der Studienschwerpunkt von Sachunterricht-
slehrkäften für ihre Selbstwirksamkeit und die Leistungen ihrer Schülerinnen und Schüler? [What
role does science teachers’ major field of study play in their self-efficacy and the performance of
their students?]. In H. Wendt, T. C. Stubbe, K. Schwippert, & W. Bos (Eds.), 10 Jahre interna-
tional vergleichende Schulleistungsforschung in der Grundschule: Vertiefende Analysen zu IGLU
und TIMSS 2001 bis 2011 (pp. 161–183). Münster: Waxmann.
Porsch, R., & Wendt, H. (2016). Aus- und Fortbildung von Mathematik- und Sachunterricht-
slehrkräften [Education and professional development of mathematics and science teachers]. In
References 89
H. Wendt, W. Bos, C. Selter, O. Köller, K. Schwippert, & D. Kasper (Eds.), TIMSS 2015: Math-
ematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im
internationalen Vergleich (pp. 189–204). Münster: Waxmann.
Richter, D. (2016). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen: Fort- und Weiterbildung im Lehrerberuf
[Teachers learn: Professional development in the teaching profession]. In M. Rothland (Ed.),
Beruf Lehrer/ Lehrerin (pp. 245–260). Münster: Waxmann.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Anders, Y., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2010). Inhalte
und Prädiktoren beruflicher Fortbildung von Mathematiklehrkräften [Content and predictors
of professional development activities of mathematics teachers]. Empirische Pädagogik, 24(2),
151–168.
across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities.
Richter, D., Engelbert, M., Weirich, S., & Pant, H. A. (2013a). Differentielle Teilnahme an
Lehrerfortbildungen und deren Zusammenhang mit professionsbezogenen Merkmalen von
Lehrkräften [Differential use of professional development programs and its relationship to pro-
fessional characteristics of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27(3), 193–207.
Richter, D., Kuhl, P., Haag, N., & Pant, H. A. (2013b). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von
Riedel, K., Griwatz, M., Leutert, H., & Westphal, J. (1994). Schule im Vereinigungsprozeß. Probleme
und Erfahrungen aus Lehrer- und Schülerperspektive [School in the unification process. Problems
and experiences from the perspective of teachers and students]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Rüegg, S. (1997). Professionalität und Geschlecht: Eine Studie zum Fortbildungsverhalten von
Lehrerinnen und Lehrern am Beispiel des Kantons Aargau [Professionalism and gender: A study
on the professional development behavior of teachers in the canton of Aargau]. Bildungsforschung
und Bildungspraxis, 19(2), 207–223.
Scheuer, R. (2002). Konzeption und Erprobung einer Lehrerfortbildung zum Konzept der Alltags-
chemie am Beispiel des GDCh-Kurses “Textilien/Kleidung—sich richtig kleiden lernen”: Eine
Untersuchung zur Wirkung einer Lehrerfortbildung [Conception and testing of a professional
development course for teachers on the concept of everyday chemistry using the example of the
GDCh course “Textiles/clothing—learning to dress properly”. A study on the effect of teacher pro-
fessional development]. Dissertation, Universität Essen, Essen. Retrieved from http://duepublico.
uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-11036/Dissertation_Scheuer.pdf.
Sieve, B. F. (2015). Interaktive Tafeln im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Entwicklung und
Evaluation einer Fortbildungsmaßnahme für Chemielehrkräfte [Interactive boards in Science
classes: Development and evaluation of a professional development program for chemistry
teachers]. Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum.
Chapter 6
Conclusions from the Literature Review
Abstract This chapter summarizes the results from the systematic literature review.
The insights from the chapters on reasons for and barriers to teachers’ participation in
PD are integrated to provide a comprehensive overview about the recent research in
the context of teacher PD. The interplay of the so far separately discussed reasons for
and barriers to teachers’ PD participation is highlighted. Conclusions are discussed
for the design and implementation of PD courses for teachers. In addition, conclusions
are derived with regard to further research questions and future research. It is argued
that expectancy-value theories should be applied for examining teachers’ training
motivation and illustrated how the current results fit into this approach. Limitations
of the existing and included studies are discussed and methodological suggestions for
future studies are derived. Finally, the limitations of the systematic literature review
are discussed.
Keywords Teacher professional development · Training participation · Training

motivation · Expectancy-value theory · Teacher characteristics · School
characteristics · Professional development programs · In-service teacher education
6.1 Summary of Results and Discussion
This systematic literature review aimed to summarize and systemize the results of
studies from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland since 1990 with regard to teachers’
reasons for and barriers to attending formal PD as well as potential associations
with teachers’ choice for or against (certain) PD courses. Figure 6.1 summarizes the
results with regard to relevant reasons for and barriers to teachers’ PD participation
as well as further characteristics and context conditions that were analyzed. In the
following sections, the results will be briefly discussed.
Overall, the study results indicate that teachers align their PD activities with their
perceived need for enhanced knowledge. They use PD workshops to refresh or extend
knowledge on subject content or (subject-specific) pedagogy, especially when they
currently give lessons within that subject and teach it a lot. PD courses are also
attractive for learning something about new directives or curricula and how to apply
them in school or classrooms. Teachers use PD to take on additional professional

92 6 Conclusions from the Literature Review
Characteristics of PD program
Formal characteristics
• Content (esp. relatedness to own
subject and teaching)
• Activities during PD
• Duration and timing
• (Distance to) location
Characteristics of teacher • Direct and indirect costs
Context conditions
• Age, teaching experiences, gender, origin, • Participant capacity
personal circumstances (e.g., family • Provider / instructor School
commitments, health) • Information about PD program • Size and location
• Qualification (study, subject, school type)
• Climate and collegial cooperation
• Perceived PD needs
Instrumentality for teachers’ goals • School requirements and program
• Previous experiences with PD
• Knowledge gain
• Additional professional responsibilities
• Inspiration and new teaching concepts Characteristics of teaching profession
• Professional knowledge
• Support for changes • Teaching and work load
• (Subject-specific) interest
• Networking • Potential class cancelation
• (Achievement) goals
• Solutions for challenges • Problems with organizing substitute
• Self-efficacy and beliefs
• Further responsibilities and career classes
• Work engagement and willingness for PD
• Motivation for teaching • Lack of incentives or compensations
• Personality
Teachers’ participation in professional development
Fig. 6.1 Summary of relevant characteristics of teachers and PD programs, as well as context
conditions for teachers’ PD participation (based on Diehl, Krüger, Richter, and Vigerske 2010; see
Sect. 1.3)
responsibilities (in terms of enhancing their career), or, if they already have such
responsibilities, to meet the requirements. They also hope to learn about input and
solutions for difficult situations in school or the classroom. Therefore, teachers seem
to perceive PD as a tool to get solutions for their current needs. To this end, they hope
to receive easily applicable materials and teaching strategies or methods, as well as
“recipes” they can test during the workshops. Guskey (2010) already referred to this
aspect by stating that teachers “tend to be quite pragmatic” (p. 382). In line with his
statement, the analyzed studies revealed that teachers look for PD courses that are
linked to their subjects (and sometimes even their school type). If workshops do not
meet these requirements, teachers perceive them as unattractive (see also Guskey,
2010).
In addition to teachers’ intention to achieve certain goals by attending PD courses
(referred to as the “instrumentality of PD programs” in Fig. 6.1), whereas other
motives include personal interest in the PD topic and improving oneself. Teachers
aim to reflect their own teaching—be it in light of scientific results or by exchanging
experiences with colleagues. They may also want to break out of their daily routine,
see something new, put themselves into the role of learners, be inspired, and become
motivated for their classes. Overall, most teachers report that they are willing to
participate in PD and enjoy this learning activity.
The greatest burden for attending PD is the additional effort teachers have to
invest. Teachers already perceive a high workload due to responsibilities within and
outside the classroom. PD workshops outside of school hours restrict the time for
grading or preparing classes; courses within school time require the organization
and preparation of substitute classes (and colleagues with the time and willingness
6.1 Summary of Results and Discussion 93
to undertake the additional classes), as well as long journeys and high (indirect)
monetary costs that increase the effort. In addition, family commitments are an issue,
especially for female teachers.
Therefore, considering the trade-off between costs and benefits is crucial in the
decision to attend (or not) a certain PD workshop. Important characteristics of the
PD program in this calculation are the content, activities during the course, course
provider or instructor, and consequential expected outcome (or its usefulness and
ease of implementation into the classroom). The circumstances of a workshop (such
as timing, duration, or location) help teachers estimate the effort they need to put
into a course. However, teachers have reported that there are too few workshops that
meet their wishes and needs.
When evaluating the trade-off of a PD workshop, teachers can only rely on the
information they receive about the course (typically from a description of the sin-
gle workshops, but sometimes from colleagues or the school principal as well).
Therefore, a poor workshop description can negatively influence a teacher’s PD par-
ticipation. When evaluating the available information with regard to the utility of a
certain workshop, previous experiences with PD may be helpful and influence cur-
rent choices of PD courses. Yet individual (e.g., age, gender, taught subject, school
type) and motivation-related (e.g., achievement goals, self-efficacy, ability beliefs,
and beliefs about teaching) teacher characteristics also seem to influence how much
teachers perceive the need for PD and if they decide on a certain PD topic and format.
However, it can be assumed that no certain individual characteristics of teachers (e.g.,
gender, taught subject, and school type) are directly related with their PD activity.
Instead, it is more likely that different requirements or needs arise due to these charac-
teristics (e.g., caring for children, focus on subject-content or disciplinary questions),
thereby affecting teachers’ PD behavior. These individual characteristics may also
interact with a teacher’s other individual prerequisites, such as interest, goals, and
beliefs. Still, the kinds of associations and processes that lie behind the choice of PD
workshops cannot be untangled with the current research due to the many inconsistent
results among the various studies. Furthermore, only a few studies considered inter-
actions between different characteristics and conditions in the research on teachers’
PD behavior. Moreover, some variables are only relevant for some teachers, seeming
crucial for these teachers. Even if a teacher finds a PD course in which he or she is
interested, it may be overcrowded and fully booked, the school management may dis-
agree with the participation for some reason, or personal reasons (e.g., health issues)
may prevent attendance. Constructs identified as relevant for the teaching profession,
such as burnout and exhaustion, also need to be more integrated into the research on
teachers’ PD behavior as PD may help cope with such issues while also putting even
more pressure on teachers. In the end, it is necessary to obtain not only teachers’ needs
and characteristics, but also their context conditions. Current studies on the latter
aspects are rather scarce. For example, requirements of the teachers’ schools as well
as standards and guidelines from ministries or school authorities are not considered
in studies or examined to determine how they may influence teachers’ PD behavior
(Richter, Engelbert, Weirich, & Pant 2013a; Timperley, 2008). It can be assumed that
such conditions can either lead to new PD needs (e.g., change of curriculum or educa-
tional standards) or influence the availability or accessibility of PD courses (e.g., due
to changes in budgets, guidelines on important PD contents, or class cancellation).
None of the publications provided a model that considered how the examined
variables influence teachers’ PD participation and how teacher characteristics, char-
acteristics of PD programs, and context conditions interact (see Fig. 6.1). Recently,
Gorges (2016) suggested transferring expectancy-value theory (e.g., Eccles & Wig-
field, 2002) into the context of adult education. She argued that PD participation
can be seen as a form of task choice, and relevant motivational processes for such
a choice should be transferable to the decision process of an adult learner contem-
plating whether to attend a PD course. Following this argumentation, decisions with
regard to task choice—or, in the current case, to PD participation—depend on the
(teachers’) assessment of (a) one’s expectancy of success and (b) the subjective task
value (Eccles, 2007; Gorges, 2016). The task value in turn comprises four different
kinds of values specifying if a task is joyful and interesting (intrinsic value), useful
for reaching certain goals (utility value), or personally relevant (attainment value).
In addition, the cost component refers to how much effort or other resources a person
needs to invest in a task.
Considering the results of the literature review, highly relevant intrinsic reasons,
such as interest in the PD topic or in participating in PD, can be allocated as an
intrinsic value of PD participation whereas aspects referred to as “instrumentality
of PD programs” can be categorized as utility values (see also Gorges, 2016). In
addition, Gorges (2016) differentiated four types of costs: effort, time, money, and
psychological strain. Again, the reported results of the current literature review fit
with these costs as teachers often claimed to have no time for PD and to be already
fully stretched with teaching and other responsibilities. However, monetary costs are
only an issue for some PD courses as many programs are offered free for teachers
(Chap. 4). It may also be interesting to further distinguish some of the categories; for
example, there are different reasons why teachers reported having too little time for
PD (e.g., work load versus family commitments), which may in turn influence how
different groups of teachers systematically assess the value in different ways (e.g.,
women and men; see Chap. 4). However, the theory provides a suitable framework to
systemize the different reasons for and barriers to PD participation. In addition, the
approach suggests that values and costs are not independent factors. Instead, there is
a trade-off between values and costs (Eccles, 2007). Only if the values outweigh the
costs will teachers want to participate in a PD course. Future research should examine
if this theoretical approach is suitable for predicting teachers’ PD participation as the
influence of the expectancy of success on the choice of a PD course has not been tested
yet. The results with regard to the influence of self-efficacy on teachers’ PD partici-
pation suggest that there is a positive relationship (Sect. 5.1) suggested by the theory
(Eccles, 2007). However, it is not clear if and/or how teachers’ success expectancy
influences their assessment of the task values. Furthermore, the subjective task values
probably depend highly on the targeted PD course as they vary widely in their formal
characteristics, such as content, timing and duration, provider, and location (e.g., see
the research design by Gorges, Neumann, Lütje-Klose, and Wild, 2017). In contrast,
6.1 Summary of Results and Discussion 95
previous research has mainly asked about teachers’ participation in PD in general

without differentiating between the kinds of PD programs. Against the background of
the expectancy-value theory, it seems reasonable to focus more on teachers’ reasons
for and barriers to attending particular PD courses. Finally, further work is necessary
to examine how individual characteristics (e.g., beliefs about teaching, interest in
subject, previous experiences with PD) influence teachers’ value assessment. Eccles
(2007) already described how two important motivation theories, self-determination
theory and achievement goals, can be integrated into the expectancy-value theory.
Therefore, further research should investigate if the hypothesized relationship can be
found for teachers’ choice of PD courses. This is also true for the influence of context
conditions. The suggested model already considers the impact of environmental
conditions, but seems rather narrow. Thus, further research is needed to examine how
context conditions within schools as well as due to state and/or country regulations
affect teachers’ subjective task values and, ultimately, their PD behavior.
Nevertheless, the existing results can be used to derive some suggestions for
designing attractive PD courses for teachers. For example, teachers should be pro-
vided with detailed and transparent information on the PD courses to enable teachers
to assess the related values and costs. Furthermore, there should be a clear connection
to teachers’ daily work within the classroom and in supporting them to transfer the
knowledge into their classrooms. In addition, it would be appropriate to offer the
same course at different times to enable different teacher groups to participate in the
course. When designing PD courses, research results on characteristics of effective
PD courses should be considered as well (e.g., Rzejak et al., 2014; Timperley, Wil-
son, Barrar, & Fung, 2007; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, Shapley, 2007). It would
be interesting to investigate how teachers actually assess PD courses that meet these
criteria as such courses are related with more effort and investment of time by the
participants and, thus, with higher costs.
In addition to designing attractive PD courses, the results of the literature review
suggest that teachers should be supported in identifying their PD needs. Thus,
teachers’ choice is highly dependent on individual characteristics, such as interest,
but not necessarily knowledge gaps. In addition, although barriers (or costs) should
be reduced (providing teachers with times in which they can attend PD courses
without cancelling classes or supporting the organization of substitute classes),
potential positive values should be facilitated. Here, a positive climate among school
staff (see Sect. 5.3) or incentives may be a way to highlight the importance of PD
courses (see Chap. 4).
6.2 Limitations of Included Studies and Conclusions

for Further Research
While reviewing the included studies, several limitations became apparent. One of
the most dominant issues is that none of the analyzed studies considered the available
PD programs when examining teachers’ PD behavior. As previously mentioned, due
to the lack of this information, it cannot be differentiated how much the obtained PD
behavior is influenced by the available courses. Studies on teachers’ wishes regarding
the design of PD courses as well as analyses of the given PD program may help fill the
gap. This also applies for the consideration of regulations regarding PD obligations in
the different states and countries. The results from Chaps. 3, 4, and 5 suggest that these
regulations do not seem to have a meaningful influence on teachers’ PD participation
(see also the results with regard to “origin” in Sect. 5.1). Only six studies examined
teachers from states that have regulations about the amount of PD teachers have to
attend (Bachmaier, 2008; Büsching and Breiter, 2011; Doedens, 2005; Hessisches
Kultusministerium, 2008; Mammes, 2008; Schwetlik, 1998). The results of these
studies correspond with those from other studies from different regions, which may
be a first indication that obligations to attend PD are not that crucial for teachers’ PD
behavior. However, teachers reported that the implementation of a system with credit
points changed their perception of the available PD program and how they chose
PD courses (Hessisches Kultusministerium, 2008). Furthermore, an international
comparison of different education systems revealed that successful countries require
their teachers to engage in PD activities. Therefore, studies are needed that explicitly
examine the influence of obligations and how they need to be designed to motivate
teachers to participate in meaningful PD courses.
Furthermore, all studies focused on decision-making processes related to PD
workshops in the past. Therefore, it cannot be clarified which aspects and character-
istics of the teacher, the PD workshops, and the context are crucial for the choice of
a certain course and which aspects actually hinder teachers. Teachers’ answers may
be biased when thinking about past decisions. In addition, most studies only focused
on single variables instead of recognizing or examining how different context or
individual characteristics interact in their influence on teachers’ PD participation.
For example, a correlation exists between gender and school type as well as taught
subject, which were in turn examined as influencing aspects. More than one variable
needs to be considered at the same time, along with more complex research models
and more comprehensive data analyses. This is also true for examining teachers’
reasons for and barriers to participating in PD courses. Thus, most studies have con-
sidered either reasons or barriers and reported lists of different aspects that teachers
consider as relevant for their decision on PD participation (see also Gorges, 2016,
for adult education). However, none of them included an interaction between the
different elements and how the combination of different individual and context char-
acteristics may influence a teacher’s decision. Considering expectancy-value theories
(e.g., Eccles, 2007; Gorges, 2016), this approach is too narrow as it is acknowledged
that individual decisions are influenced by a trade-off between costs and benefits
associated with that decision.
In addition, more studies focusing on the current and actual decisions or selec-
tion processes are needed. The analyzed studies were based on teachers’ voluntary
responses. Therefore, it can be assumed that teachers already more engaged in PD
filled in the questionnaires rather than those less engaged. This may lead to a bias
within the reported results (Rzejak et al., 2014). Studies focusing more on teachers
who do not regularly attend PD are needed.
6.2 Limitations of Included Studies and Conclusions for Further … 97
Due to the frequent use of closed-ended questions, most studies examined aspects
pre-selected by the researchers and are quite different among the included studies
(with regard to the content as well as amount). Qualitative studies are rather scarce
and seem to coexist with the quantitative studies instead of serving as the basis for or
extension of quantitative studies. However, during the systemization of the results for
the current review, the qualitative studies helped interpret and understand the results
of the quantitative studies. Therefore, more qualitative studies are needed, especially
those that help explain existing results. It also remains unclear if the question format
influenced the study outcomes (see the discussion regarding PD contents depending
on open- and closed-ended question formats). Beyond this problem, summarizing the
results was also difficult due to the different operationalizations used in the included
studies (e.g., see discussion on attitude towards PD or referenced period for PD
attendance) as well as due the fact that most studies focused on certain teachers
(e.g., in terms of school type or subject; Richter, 2016). Therefore, further research
is needed with representative teacher samples using comparable operationalizations
of the investigated constructs. As several constructs and variables are investigated
only within one or few studies, this approach would also help replicate the existing
studies and clarify how stable the reported results are. Such studies shall take a deeper
look into those school types (e.g., vocational schools) or subjects (e.g., languages,
physical training, music) that have not yet examined.
Most studies did not report any effect sizes, and some did not even conduct statisti-
cal testing to prove their descriptive interpretations. In addition, post hoc calculations
were often not possible as relevant information was missing (e.g., dispersion mea-
sures) or frequencies, means, and effects had to be read off graphics and diagrams
(e.g., Landert, 1999; Wolf, Göbel-Lehnert, & Chroust, 1997). Other studies did not
present all results, but only the “most important” reasons for and barriers to PD atten-
dance (e.g., Gröber and Wilhelm, 2006; Jacobi, Verweyen, & Wedding, 1996; Jäger
and Bodensohn, 2007), making the comparison of studies even harder (especially as
it was not always transparent how the authors decided what is important and what
is not). With regard to the publications using statistical analyses, group comparisons
were realized most often. More complex analyses, such as multilevel analyses (cf.
Richter, 2011), or polynomial regressions that do not presume linear relationships
between variables (cf. Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2011) can
only be found in a few studies, although they seem to contribute to the insights into
teachers’ PD behavior. Finally, all studies were cross-sectional and cannot be used to
investigate either progresses in or adaptations to policy changes or test predictions of
subsequent PD activity (e.g., OECD, 2014). Cross-sectional data are not suitable for
deriving causal relations or for determining what actually influences teachers’ PD
attendance. One exception is the study by Huppert and Abs (2008), who collected
longitudinal data and compared current data on PD participation with previously
collected data and to show that the teachers’ reported PD needs did not completely
correspond with their actual choices for PD workshops and attendance.
Taking these limitations together, several suggestions can be offered for future
studies in the field of teacher PD:
– Consider available PD programs, characteristics of existing PD courses and context
conditions (e.g., PD obligations, regional promotion of certain PD topics, revisions
of curricula)
– Consider several relevant variables, especially their interactions when analyzing
the influence on PD behavior
– Consider existing research and operationalizations of relevant variables as well as
items to enable the comparability of study results
– Replicate existing studies with thus far little-considered variables in different
samples
– Aim for representative teacher samples
– Use research designs that allow for causal conclusions
– Report statistical testing, relevant parameters, and effect sizes
– Focus on actual decision-making process (instead of asking about decisions in the
past) by, for example, using learning journals or (quasi-)experimental designs with
controlled conditions
– Conduct longitudinal studies considering teachers’ intentions and actual behavior
as well as the development of teachers’ PD behavior throughout their careers.
6.3 Limitations of the Literature Review
Among the shortcomings of the included studies, some limitations of the current
review also need to be considered. First, the review focuses only on teachers’ par-
ticipation in formal PD, which might be too narrow of a focus when thinking about
teachers’ professional learning. Several studies did not find any associations between
teachers’ participation in PD and their knowledge (Brunner et al., 2006) or stu-
dent performance (for Germany, e.g., Hoffmann and Richter, 2016; Richter, Kuhl,
Haag, & Pant, 2013b; Wendt et al., 2016; see also Lipowsky, 2011). However, Hattie
(2009) showed in his meta-analysis that different kinds of PD programs can have
different effects (see also OECD, 2009). Therefore, future studies should focus not
only on teachers’ motivation to participate in PD, but also on how to promote their
participation in sustainable and effective PD. Thus far, teacher preferences for PD
characteristics rarely match such PD formats (Lipowsky, 2011).
As stated herein, there are other ways for teachers to extend their knowledge and
abilities, which were not taken into account for the review (see also Richter, 2016).
The use of professional literature seems to be an especially important source for
teachers (e.g., Breiter, Welling, & Stolpmann, 2010; Florian, 2008; Gysbers, 2008;
OECD, 2009; Prenzel, 1995; Richter et al., 2013b). Some studies also discussed and
examined the exchange of ideas and collaboration between colleagues as a form of
teacher PD (e.g., OECD, 2009; Richter, 2011, 2013). Recently, new formats such
as online training have been developed and discussed to overcome certain barriers
6.3 Limitations of the Literature Review 99
(e.g., long distance to PD locations, inconvenient dates) and fit with teachers’ needs
(e.g., Dede, Jass Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey, 2009). However, when
comparing the research on teachers’ reasons for and barriers to engaging in more
informal activities (e.g., Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009; Kwakman, 2003;
Lohman, 2000, 2003, 2006) or web-based PD or learning activities (e.g., Downer,
Locasale-Crouch, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; Duncan-Howell, 2010; Kao, Wu, & Tsai,
2011), quite similar results can be found, indicating that there might be motivational
processes as well as certain context characteristics that are relevant for different kinds
of learning activities. Therefore, systematic empirical studies and literature reviews
on already existing research are needed to gain deeper insights into different kinds of
learning activities as well as what influences teachers’ engagement in them (see e.g.,
Nitsche, 2013). Simply participating in PD courses does not guarantee that teachers
actually learn something or transfer their knowledge into the classroom. As stated
in Sect. 1.1, the current literature review only focused on the choice to participate in
PD (Beier & Kanfer, 2010; “training choice motivation”, Rzejak et al., 2014); it was
not concerned with the influence of this phase on processes during and after a PD
program. Therefore, research is needed on how the different (motivational) stages
interact and if the decision-making process before a PD course has any influence on
how teachers use the learning activity and transfer the gained knowledge into their
classrooms.
Finally, by the use of Google Scholar as a starting point for the systematic literature
search was an effort to identify a broad basis of studies that might be relevant for the
current literature review. However, it cannot be ruled out that certain publications
were not identified. Especially for Austria and Switzerland, only a few studies were
found. A systematic approach and snowballing were used in order to minimize the
number of missed studies. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the publication bias
(i.e., non-significant or null results are less likely published than significant and
expected results) had an influence on the presented results. The current systematic
literature review aimed to gain insights into the variety of existing studies with regard
to teachers’ PD participation in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The publications
found seem to have contributed well to this question and are a good starting point
for further research questions and studies.
References

In S. W. J. Kozlowski, & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations

Dede, C., Jass Ketelhut, D., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research
agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108327554.
Downer, J. T., Locasale-Crouch, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2009). Teacher characteristics
associated with responsiveness and exposure to consultation and online professional develop-
ment resources. Early Education and Development, 20(3), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10409280802688626.
Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: Online communities as a source of pro-
fessional learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 324–340. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00953.x.
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. Model of achievement-related choices.
In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50002-4.
Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psycholog-
ical and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/593940.
Gorges, J. (2016). Why adults learn: Interpreting adults’ reasons to participate in education in terms
of Eccles’ subjective task value. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 3(1),
26–41. Retrieved from http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/115/120.
Gorges, J., Neumann, P., Lütje-Klose, B., & Wild, E. (2017). Dimensionen inklusionsbezo-
gener Fortbildungsmotivation von Sonderpädagoginnen und Sonderpädagogen und Lehrkräften
allgemeiner Schulen. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 3, 199–214.
References 101
[Empirical analysis of the use of new media by physics teachers in high schools in
Rhineland-Palatinate: Workplace equipment and media use]. Kassel: Didaktik der Physik,
DGP-Frühjahrstagung.
Guskey, T. R. (2010). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3),
381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.
bildung mit allen Religionslehrerinnen und -lehrern im Bistum Münster [Survey on profes-
sional development in religious education with all religious education teachers in the diocese
of Münster]. Kirche und Schule, 22(98), 1–16.
Kao, C.-P., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ motivation toward web-
based professional development, and the relationship with Internet self-efficacy and belief about
web-based learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2010.09.010.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activ-
ities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(02)00101-4.
Lipowsky, F. (2011). Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von
Lehrerfort- und -weiterbildung [Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on the effective-
ness of teacher professional development]. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.),
Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 398–417). Münster: Waxmann.
Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case
study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.
1177/07417130022086928.
Lohman, M. C. (2003). Work situations triggering participation in informal learning in the work-
place: A case study of public school teachers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(1), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2003.tb00271.x.
Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620610654577.
Klinkhardt.
Nitsche, S. (2013). Zielorientierungen von Lehrkräften und ihre Bedeutung für das berufliche
Lern- und Fortbildungsverhalten [Teachers’ goal orientations and their significance for voca-
tional learning and professional development behavior]. Dissertation, Universität Mannheim,
Mannheim.
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An international perspective on teaching and learning: OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
Richter, D. (2016). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen: Fort- und Weiterbildung im Lehrerberuf [Teach-
ers learn: Professional development in the teaching profession]. In M. Rothland (Ed.), Beruf
Lehrer/Lehrerin (pp. 245–260). Münster: Waxmann.
Lehrkräften [Differential use of professional development programs and its relationship to
professional characteristics of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27(3),
193–207.
Rzejak, D., Künsting, J., Lipowsky, F., Fischer, E., Dezhgahi, U., & Reichardt, A. (2014). Facetten
der Lehrerfortbildungsmotivation—eine faktorenanalytische Betrachtung [Facets of teachers’
motivation for professional development—Results of a factorial analysis]. Journal for educational
research online, 6(1), 139–159.
von Grundschullehrerinnen und -lehrern bezüglich der Lehrerfortbildung im Fach Heimat- und
References 103
Sachkunde [Teacher professional development: A study on the collection of subjective assess-

ments of primary school teachers regarding teacher professional development in the subject of
local history and subject knowledge]. Hamburg: Kovaéc.
Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Geneva: International
Academy of Education. Retrieved from http://edu.aru.ac.th/childedu/images/PDF/benjamaporn/
EdPractices_18.pdf.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: best evidence synthesis. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Wendt, H., Bos, W., Selter, C., Köller, O., Schwippert, K., & Kasper, D. (Eds.). (2016). TIMSS 2015:
Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland
im internationalen Vergleich [TIMSS 2015: Mathematical and scientific skills of primary school
children in Germany in an international comparison]. Münster: Waxmann.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence
on how teacher professionaldevelopment affects student achievement. Issues & Answers Report,
REL 2007–No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sci-
ences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_
2007033_sum.pdf.
Appendix
See Tables A. 1 and A.2.
SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7
Table A.1 Overview of studies included in systematic literature review
106
Study Country Data Subject School type Sample Method Focus of PD

(region) collection program
Abs, Roczen, and Klieme DE (except 2006 Various Various (incl. N = 2039 Questionnaire Certain program
(2007) SL, BY, NI, vocational)
NW)
Aldorf (2016) DE (BW) 2012 Various Secondary schools N =6 Interview None
Aschenbrenner (2010) AT (LA) 2009 Languages, Various N = 24 Interview None
business (vocational)
education
Bachmaier (2008) DE (BY) 2008 Various Various N = 628 Questionnaire None
Beck, Ullrich, and Schanz DE (RP) – Various Various N = 989 Questionnaire None
(1995)
BITKOM (2011) DE 2011 Various Secondary schools N = 501 Interview Digital media
(standardized)
BITKOM (2015) DE 2013/14 Various Secondary schools N = 502* Interview Digital media
Breiter, Welling, and DE (NW) 2009 Various Secondary schools N = 46 Interview, group Digital media
Stolpmann (2010) discussion
Brunner et al. (2006) DE 2004 Mathematics Secondary schools N = 195 Questionnaire –
Büsching and Breiter DE (HB) 2010 – Various (incl. N = 833 Questionnaire Digital media
(2011) vocational
Dalehefte et al. (2014) DE 2011 Mathematics Elementary schools N = 274 Questionnaire Certain program
(continued)
Appendix
Table A.1 (continued)
Appendix
Diehl, Krüger, Richter, and DE (BW) 2010 Various Various (incl. N = 41 Interview None
Vigerske (2010) vocational)
Doedens (2005) DE (HH) 2002/03 Religion Secondary schools N = 431* Questionnaire –
Doedens (2008) DE (SH) 2007 Religion Various (incl. N = Questionnaire –
vocational 1764*
Drossel, Wendt, Schmitz, International 2011 Mathematics, Elementary schools – Questionnaire Mathematics
and Eickelmann (2012) science
Faßmann (1994) AT (BL, 1993 Various Various N = 2800 Questionnaire Certain provider
CA, UA, VI) (vocational)
Faßmann (1995) AT 1994 Various Various N = 1892 Questionnaire Certain provider
(vocational)
Feige and Tzscheetzsch DE (BW) – Religion – N = Questionnaire Religion
(2005) 4196*
Florian (2008) DE 2006/07 Various Various (incl. N = 1613 Questionnaire None
vocational)
Forsa (2017) DE 2017 STEM Various N = 500* Interview None
Gagarina and Saldern DE 2007/08 Various Secondary schools N = Questionnaire None
(2010) 3734*
Gallasch and Sprenger DE (NW) 1999 Various Elementary schools N = 40 Interview Digital media
(2000)
Geest-Rack (2013) DE (BE) 2011 Various Elementary schools N = 122 Questionnaire Nutrition
(continued)
107
108

Gerick and Eickelmann International 2013 Various Various N = 1386 Questionnaire Digital media
(2015)
Gerick and Eickelmann DE (SH) 2016 Various Various N = 383 Questionnaire Digital media
(2017)
Gerick, Schaumburg, International 2013 Various Various N = 1386 Questionnaire Digital media
Kahnert, and Eickelmann
(2014)
Goldgruber (2012) AT (VI) 2012 Various Elementary schools N = 221 Questionnaire None
Grafendorfer, Neureiter, AT 2008 Various Secondary schools N = 4265 Questionnaire None
and
Längauer-Hohengaßner
(2009)
Greve and Höhne (2009) DE (NW) 2000 – Elementary schools – Group discussion None
Grillitsch (2010) AT 2009 German, Secondary schools N = 1270 Questionnaire Educational
English, standards
mathematics
Gröber and Wilhelm (2006) DE (RP) 2004 Physics Academic-track N = 293 Questionnaire None, digital
schools media in Physics
Gysbers (2008) DE (NI) 2004/05 Various Various N = 1013 Questionnaire Digital media
Häuptle, Florian, and DE (HH, 2007 Various Various (incl. N = 64 Interview, group Digital media
Reinmann (2008) BY, RP, TH) vocational) discussion
Heitmann (2013) DE (SH) – Various Academic-track N = 13 Interview None
schools
(continued)
Appendix
Appendix
Herrmann and Hertramph DE (BW) – – Various (incl. N = 64 Interview None

(2002) vocational)
Hessisches DE (HE) 2007/08 German Secondary schools N = 685 Questionnaire Reading
Kultusministerium (2008) promotion
Hildebrandt (2008) DE 2004/05 Various Academic-track N = 368 Questionnaire None
schools
Hoffmann and Richter DE 2015 German, Secondary schools N = 2988 Questionnaire None
(2016) English
Höhnle, Fögele, Mehren, DE – Geography Various – Group discussion Geography
and Schubert (2016)
Huppert and Abs (2008) DE – – Various (incl. – Questionnaire Certain program
vocational)
Jacobi, Verweyen, and DE (NW, 1995 Religion Various (incl. N = 685 Questionnaire Religion
Wedding (1996) NI) vocational)
Jäger and Bodensohn DE 2006 Mathematics Various N ≈ 1715 Questionnaire Mathematics
(2007)
Kammerl, Lorenz, and DE 2016 Various Secondary schools N = Questionnaire Digital media
Endberg (2016) 1210*
Kanwischer, Köhler, DE (TH) 2003 Geography Secondary schools N = 477 Questionnaire None
Oertel, Rhode-Jüchtern, 2004 Geography Secondary schools N =6 Interview None
and Uhlemann (2004)
Kast (2010) AT 2008 Various Secondary schools N = 4134 Questionnaire None
(continued)
109
110

Keppelmüller, Sigl, Lauber, AT (UA) 2000 Various Various N = 1427 Questionnaire Certain provider
and Feichtner (2004)
Kirschner (2013) DE (NW, – Physics Secondary schools N = 186 Questionnaire Physics
BY, HE,
HB, TH, NI,
BE)
Kunter and Klusmann DE 2004 Mathematics Secondary schools N = 229 Questionnaire None
(2010)
Landert (1999) CH 1995 Various Various (incl. N = 3789 Questionnaire None
vocational)
Lauck (2003) DE (BW) 2002 Various Vocational schools N = 333 Questionnaire None
Mammes (2008) DE (BY) – Science Academic-track N = 487 Questionnaire None
schools
Marose (2016) DE (NW) – Religion Vocational schools N = 81 Questionnaire Religion
Mayr and Müller (2010) AT 2008 Various Secondary schools 3209 Questionnaire None
MPFS (2003) DE 2002/03 Various Various N = 2002 Interview Computer
Neu (1999) DE (HE) 1996 Chemistry Secondary schools N = 173 Questionnaire Chemistry
1996–98 Chemistry Various (incl. N = 97 Questionnaire Chemistry
vocational)
Niederhaus and Schmidt DE (NW) 2015 German as – N = 15 Questionnaire Certain program
(2016) 2nd language
Nitsche, Dickhäuser, DE (BW, – Various Various N = 667 Questionnaire None
Dresel, and Fasching RP, NW)
(2013a)
(continued)
Appendix
Appendix
Nitsche, Dickhäuser, DE – Various Various (incl. N = 224 Questionnaire None

Fasching, and Dresel vocational)
(2013b)
Nittel, Schütz, Fuchs, and DE (BY, – Various Elementary schools – Questionnaire None
Tippelt (2011) HE) – Various Elementary schools – Group discussion None
Pennig (2006) DE (TH) 2003/04 Chemistry Secondary schools N = 119 Questionnaire Chemistry
Peschel and Koch (2014) DE (NW) 2006/07 Social Elementary schools N = 1210 Questionnaire Physics
studies and
science
Pietzner, Scheuer, and DE (BY, 2002 Chemistry Secondary schools N = 852 Questionnaire Chemistry
Daus (2004) HE, NI,
NW, SN)
Porsch (2015) DE 2007 Mathematics, Elementary schools N = 242 Questionnaire Mathematics
social studies
and science
Porsch and Wendt (2015) International 2011 Social Elementary schools N = 146 Questionnaire Social studies
studies and and science
science
Porsch and Wendt (2016) International 2015 Mathematics, Elementary schools N = 450 Questionnaire Mathematics
social studies
and science
Prenzel (1995) DE (BE, 1990/91 Various Elementary schools N = 136 Questionnaire None
BB)
Richter (2011) DE 2003 Mathematics, Various N = 1939 Questionnaire None
science
111
(continued)
112

Richter, Engelbert, DE 2009 German, Secondary schools N = 2076 Questionnaire None, languages
Weirich, and Pant (2013a) English
Richter, Kuhl, Haag, and DE 2012 Mathematics, Various N = 4050 Questionnaire None
Pant (2013b) science
Richter, Kuhl, Reimers, DE 2011 German, Elementary schools N = 1816 Questionnaire None
and Pant (2012) mathematics
Richter et al. (2010) DE 2003 Mathematics Secondary schools N = 330 Questionnaire None
Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, DE 2003 Mathematics, Secondary schools N = 1939 Questionnaire None
Lüdtke, and Baumert science
(2011)
Richter, Richter, and Marx DE 2012 Mathematics, Secondary schools N = 2447 Questionnaire None
(2018) science
Richter and DE (SH) 2016 Various Various (incl. N = 523 Questionnaire None
Schellenbach-Zell (2016) vocational)
Riedel, Griwatz, Leutert, DE (BE) 1992 Various Secondary schools N = 175 Questionnaire None
and Westphal (1994)
Rüegg (1997) CH (AG) 1994 Various Various N = 1054 Questionnaire Certain provider
Rzejak et al. (2014) DE (HE) – – Secondary schools N = 102 Questionnaire None
Schmidt and Neu (2004) DE (BY, 2002 Chemistry Secondary schools N = 96 Interview Chemistry
HE, NI,
NW, SN)
Schwetlik (1998) DE (BY) 1993/94 Social Elementary schools N = 1364 Questionnaire None
studies and
science
(continued)
Appendix
Appendix
Sieve (2015) DE (NI) 2010/11 Various Secondary schools N = 360 Questionnaire Interactive
whiteboards
Wolf, Göbel-Lehnert, and DE (HE) 1994 Various Various (incl. N = Questionnaire None
Chroust (1997) vocational) 1718*
Notes DE … Germany; BW … Baden-Wuerttemberg; BY … Bavaria; BE … Berlin; BB … Brandenburg; HB … Bremen; HH … Hamburg; HE … Hesse;
MV … Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania; NI … Lower Saxony; NW … North Rhine-Westphalia; RP … Rhineland-Palatinate; SL … Saarland; SN … Saxony;
ST … Saxony-Anhalt; SH … Schleswig-Holstein; TH … Thuringia; AT … Austria; BL … Burgenland; CA … Carinthia; LA … Lower Austria; UA … Upper
Austria; VI … Vienna; CH … Switzerland; AG … Aargau. *… attempts to achieve representativity
113
114
Table A.2 Ranking order of German federal states with regard to teachers’ PD attendance depending on dependent variable
Kammerl et al. (2016) Richter et al. (2013b) Richter et al. (2012) Hoffmann and Richter (2016)
PD on multimedia PD in general PD in general PD in general
Several subjects Mathematics, Science German, Mathematics German, English
Participation in PD Participation in PD Frequency of PD Frequency of PD Amount of PD Participation in PD Amount of PD
THE STE THE BYW HBW MVE MVE
BEE/W THE STE THE HH W THE THE
BBE MVE BBE HBW HEW BBE HH W
HH W HH W HH W BBE BBE SNE BBE
SHW SNE SNE STE THE STE STE
SLW BBE MVE HEW NWW NIW SNE
STE HBW HBW SNE BY W BY W HBW
HEW HEW SLW MVE SNE HBW BY W
MVE BEE/W BEE/W BEE/W MVE HH W NIW
RPW SLW NIW NWW BWW NWW BEE/W
BY W BY W HEW HH W BEE/W BEE/W HEW
HBW NIW BWW NIW NIW HEW SHW
BWW BWW BY W SLW STE SLW NWW
NIW NWW NWW SHW SHW SHW BWW
NWW SHW SHW BWW RPW BWW SLW
SNE RPW RPW RPW SLW RPW RPW
Notes Italic printed states have regulations regarding PD obligations. E … Federal state from Eastern Germany (former GDR); W … Federal state in Western
Germany; BW … Baden-Wuerttemberg; BY … Bavaria; BE … Berlin; BB … Brandenburg; HB … Bremen; HH … Hamburg; HE … Hesse; MV … Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania; NI … Lower Saxony; NW … North Rhine-Westphalia; RP … Rhineland-Palatinate; SL … Saarland; SN … Saxony; ST … Saxony-Anhalt;
SH … Schleswig-Holstein; TH … Thuringia
Appendix
References
Abs, H. J., Roczen, N., & Klieme, E. (2007). Abschlussbericht zur Evaluation des BLK-Programms
“Demokratie lernen und leben” [Final report on the evaluation of the BLK programme “Learning
and Living Democracy”]. Materialien zur Bildungsforschung: Bd. 19. Frankfurt am Main: GFPF,
DIPF.
VS.
BITKOM. (2011). Schule 2.0: Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zum Einsatz elektronischer Medien
an Schulen aus Lehrersicht [School 2.0. A representative study on the use of electronic media
in schools from teachers’ point of view]. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom.org/Publikationen/
2011/Studie/Studie-Schule-2-0/BITKOM-Publikation-Schule-20.pdf.
BITKOM. (2015). Digitale Schule—vernetztes Lernen: Ergebnisse repräsentativer Schülerund
Lehrerbefragungen zum Einsatz digitaler Medien im Schulunterricht [Digital school—net-
worked learning: Results of representative student and teacher surveys on the use of digital
media in school classes]. Berlin: Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und
neue Medien e.V. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom.org/noindex/Publikationen/2015/Studien/
Digitale-SchulevernetztesLernen/BITKOM-Studie-Digitale-Schule-2015.pdf.
SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38844-7
116 References
Dalehefte, I. M., Wendt, H., Köller, O., Wagner, H., Pietsch, M., Döring, B., et al. (2014). Bilanz von
neun Jahren SINUS an deutschen Grundschulen: Evaluation der mathematikbezognenen Daten
im Rahmen von TIMSS 2011 [Taking stock after nine years of SINUS at elementary schools
in Germany: An evaluation of mathematics-related data within the framework of TIMSS 2011].
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(2), 245–263.
Doedens, F. (2008). Evangelischer Religionsunterricht in Schleswig-Holstein: Befragung der
ReligionslehrerInnen in allen Schularten und Schulstufen [Protestant religious education in
Schleswig-Holstein: Survey of religion teachers in all types of schools and school levels].
Hamburg: PTI.
Drossel, K., Wendt, H., Schmitz, S., & Eickelmann, B. (2012). Merkmale der Lehr- und Lernbe-
dingungen im Primarbereich [Characteristics of teaching and learning conditions in primary
education]. In W. Bos, H. Wendt, O. Köller, & C. Selter (Eds.), TIMSS 2011: Mathematische und
naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen
Vergleich (pp. 171–202). Münster: Waxmann.
Verbesserungsvorschläge [Do teachers learn? An empirical survey on the amount of teacher
Feige, A., & Tzscheetzsch, W. (2005). Christlicher Religionsunterricht im religionsneutralen Staat?
Unterrichtliche Zielvorstellungen und religiöses Selbstverständnis von ev. und kath. Religion-
slehrerinnen und -lehrern in Baden-Württemberg [Christian religious education in a religion-
neutral state? Teaching objectives and religious self-image of Protestant and Catholic religious
teachers in Baden-Württemberg]. Ostfildern, Stuttgart: Schwabenverlag.
References 117

gesamt.pdf.
Gagarina, L., & Saldern, M. V. (2010). Professionalisierung der Lehrkräfte [Professionalisation
Waxmann.
Gallasch, U., & Sprenger, R. (2000). Medienerziehung in der Grundschule aus der Sicht von
Lehrerinnen und Lehrern: Ergebnisse mündlicher Interviews [Media education in primary school
from the teachers’ point of view: Results of oral interviews]. In G. Tulodziecki & U. Six (Eds.),
Medienerziehung in der Grundschule: Grundlagen, empirische Befunde und Empfehlungen zur
Situation in Schule und Lehrerbildung (pp. 231–297). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Geest-Rack, S. (2013). Ernährungsbildung an Berliner Grundschulen [Nutrition education at
primary schools in Berlin]. Dissertation, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin.
Gerick, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2015). Lehrerprofessionalisierung und Fortbildungsaktivitäten
im Kontext von Schulentwicklung mit neuen Technologien [Teacher professionalization and
training activities in the context of school development with new technologies]. Journal für
Schulentwicklung, 7(2), 32–38.
Gerick, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2017). Abschlussbericht im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen
Begleitung der Evaluation des Projekts “Lernen mit digitalen Medien” in Schleswig-Holstein
[Final report within the scientific monitoring of the project evaluation “Learning with digital
media” in Schleswig-Holstein]. Retrieved from http://www.leb-gym-sh.de/images/downloads/
2017.02.01_Abschlussbericht_wissenschaftliche_Begleitung_Projekt_Lernen_mit_digitalen_
Medien.pdf.
Gerick, J., Schaumburg, H., Kahnert, J., & Eickelmann, B. (2014). Lehr- und Lernbedingun-
gen des Erwerbs computer- und informationsbezogener Kompetenzen in den ICILS-2013-
Teilnehmerländern [Teaching and learning conditions for acquiring computer and information-
related competences in the ICILS 2013 participating countries]. In W. Bos (Ed.), ICILS 2013:
Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern in der 8.
Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 147–196). Münster, New York, NY: Waxmann.
Goldgruber, E. (2012). Der Stellenwert von Fort- und Weiterbildung im Professionalisierungskon-
tinuum von Lehrer/innen der Primarstufe mit Fokus auf Lehrer/innen an Volksschulen in Wien
[The significance of continuing education in the professionalisation continuum of primary school
teachers with a focus on teachers at elementary schools in Vienna]. Diploma thesis, Universität
Wien, Wien.
Schulleitungsfortbildung in der Primarstufe [Qualification of school principals for school devel-
opment processes in North Rhine-Westphalia: An empirical study on the efficiency of profes-
sional development for school management in primary schools]. Dissertation, Carl von Ossietzky
Universität, Oldenburg.
118 References
Grillitsch, M. (2010). Bildungsstandards auf dem Weg in die Praxis: Ergebnisse einer Befragung
von Lehrkräften und Schulleiter/innen der Sekundarstufe I zur Rezeption der Bildungsstandards
und deren Implementation [Educational standards on the way to practice: Results of a survey
of teachers and school management at lower secondary level on the reception of educational
standards and their implementation]. BIFIE-Report: Vol. 6. Graz, Österreich: Leykam.
Kassel.
projects in teacher professional development: Final report on the evaluation of the blended learning
professional development program for teachers “Intel® Teaching—Advanced Course Online”].
Arbeitsberichte: Vol. 20. Augsburg: Universität Augsburg, Medienpädagogik.
Heitmann, K. (2013). Wissensmanagement in der Schulentwicklung: Theoretische Analyse und
empirische Exploration aus systemischer Sicht [Knowledge management in school develop-
ment: Theoretical analysis and empirical exploration from a systemic point of view]. Wiesbaden:
Springer Fachmedien.
Herrmann, U., & Hertramph, H. (2002). Reflektierte Berufserfahrung und subjektiver Qualifika-
tionsbedarf [Reflected work experience and subjective qualification needs]. In U. Herrmann (Ed.),
Wie lernen Lehrer ihren Beruf? Empirische Befunde und praktische Vorschläge (pp. 98–116).
Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Hildebrandt, E. (2008). Lehrerfortbildung im Beruf: Eine Studie zur Personalentwicklung durch
Schulleitung [In-service teacher professional development: A study on personnel development
by school management]. Weinheim, München: Juventa.
Höhnle, S., Fögele, J., Mehren, R., & Schubert, J. C. (2016). GIS teacher training: Empirically-based
indicators of effectiveness. Journal of Geography, 115(1), 12–23.
bildung mit allen Religionslehrerinnen und -lehrern im Bistum Münster [Survey on profes-
sional development in religious education with all religious education teachers in the diocese
of Münster]. Kirche und Schule, 22(98), 1–16.
References 119
Kammerl, R., Lorenz, R., & Endberg, M. (2016). Medienbezogene Fortbildungsaktivitäten von
Lehrkräften in Deutschland und im Bundesländervergleich [Media-related professional develop-
ment activities for teachers in Germany and in comparison to other federal states]. In W. Bos,
R. Lorenz, M. Endberg, R. Kammerl, & S. Welling (Eds.), Schule digital—der Länderindikator
2016: Kompetenzen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I im Umgang mit digitalen Medien im
Bundesländervergleich (pp. 209–235). Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Medien (ThILLM).
Kast, F. (2010). Fortbildungsbedarf: Disparitäten in Abhängigkeit von Schulart, Alter und
Geschlecht der Lehrer/innen [Professional development needs: Disparities depending on type
of school, age, and gender of teachers]. In J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), TALIS 2008:
Schule als Lernumfeld und Arbeitsplatz. Vertiefende Analysen aus österreichischer Perspektive
(BIFIE-Report 4/2010) (pp. 27–49). Graz, Österreich: Leykam.
innsalz.
Kirschner, S. B. (2013). Modellierung und Analyse des Professionswissens von Physiklehrkräften
[Modelling and analysis of the professional knowledge of physics teachers]. Berlin: Logos.
Kunter, M., & Klusmann, U. (2010). Die Suche nach dem kompetenten Lehrer—ein personen-
zentrierter Ansatz [The search for the competent teacher—a person-centred approach]. In W.
Bos, E. Klieme, & O. Köller (Eds.), Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzentwicklung:
Festschrift für Jürgen Baumert (pp. 207–230). Münster: Waxmann.
Lauck, G. (2003). Burnout oder innere Kündigung? Theoretische Konzeptualisierung und
empirische Prüfung am Beispiel des Lehrerberufs [Burnout or inner resignation? Theoretical
conceptualization and empirical testing using the teaching profession as an example]. München,
Mering: Hampp.
Klinkhardt.
Marose, M. (2016). Fortbildungen: Ziele und Interessen [Professional development: Goals and inter-
ests]. In M. Marose, M. Meyer-Blanck, & A. Obermann (Eds.), “Der Berufsschulreligionsun-
terricht ist anders!”: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage unter Religionslehrkräften in NRW (pp. 67–78).
Münster: Waxmann.
Mayr, J., & Müller, F. H. (2010). Wovon hängt es ab, wie und wieviel sich Lehrerinnen und Lehrer
fortbilden? [What does it depend on, how and how much do teachers attain professional devel-
opment themselves?]. In J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), TALIS 2008: Schule als Lernumfeld
und Arbeitsplatz. Vertiefende Analysen aus österreichischer Perspektive (BIFIE-Report 4/2010).
Graz, Österreich: Leykam.
120 References
MPFS. (2003). Lehrer/-Innen und Medien 2003: Nutzung, Einstellungen, Perspektiven [Teachers
and media 2003: Use, attitudes, perspectives]. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsver-
bund Südwest. Retrieved from https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/Einzelstudien/
Lehrerbefragung.pdf.
Niederhaus, C., & Schmidt, E. (2016). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer für das Unterrichten neu zuge-
wanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler qualifizieren: Zur Qualifizierungsreihe für Lehrkräfte neu
zugewanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler des Instituts für Deutsch als Zweit- und Fremdsprache
der Universität Duisburg-Essen [Qualify teachers to teach newly immigrated students: The qual-
ification series for teachers of newly immigrated students of the Institute for German as a Second
and Foreign Language at the University of Duisburg-Essen]. In C. Benholz, M. Frank, & C.
Niederhaus (Eds.), Neu zugewanderte Schülerinnen und Schüler - eine Gruppe mit besonderen
Potentialen: Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis (pp. 261–281). Münster: Waxmann.
Nitsche, S., Dickhäuser, O., Dresel, M., & Fasching, M. S. (2013a). Zielorientierungen von
Lehrkräften als Prädiktoren lernrelevanten Verhaltens [Teachers goal orientations as predictors
of vocational learning behavior]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27(1–2), 95–103.
Nitsche, S., Dickhäuser, O., Fasching, M. S., & Dresel, M. (2013b). Teachers’ professional goal
orientations: Importance for further training and sick leave. Learning and Individual Differences,
23, 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.017.
Peschel, M., & Koch, A. (2014). Lehrertypen—Typisch Lehrer? Clusterungen im Projekt SUN
[Teacher types—typical teachers? Clustering in the SUN project]. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Natur-
wissenschaftliche Bildung zwischen Science- und Fachunterricht: Gesellschaft für Didaktik der
Chemie und Physik—Jahrestagung in München 2013 (Vol. 34, pp. 216–218). Kiel: IPN.
Porsch, R. (2015). Unterscheiden sich Mathematiklehrkräftean Grundschulen mit und ohne Fach-
Lehrbefähigung hinsichtlich ihrer berufsbezogenen Überzeugungen?: Ergebnisse aus TIMSS
2007 [Do mathematics teachers at primary schools with and without subject teaching qualifica-
tions differ in their professional beliefs? Results from TIMSS 2007]. Mathematica Didactica, 38,
5–36.
Porsch, R., & Wendt, H. (2015). Welche Rolle spielt der Studienschwerpunkt von Sachunterricht-
slehrkäften für ihre Selbstwirksamkeit und die Leistungen ihrer Schülerinnen und Schüler? [What
role does science teachers’ major field of study play in their self-efficacy and the performance of
their students?]. In H. Wendt, T. C. Stubbe, K. Schwippert, & W. Bos (Eds.), 10 Jahre interna-
tional vergleichende Schulleistungsforschung in der Grundschule: Vertiefende Analysen zu IGLU
und TIMSS 2001 bis 2011 (pp. 161–183). Münster: Waxmann.
Porsch, R., & Wendt, H. (2016). Aus- und Fortbildung von Mathematik- und Sachunterricht-
slehrkräften [Education and professional development of mathematics and science teachers]. In
H. Wendt, W. Bos, C. Selter, O. Köller, K. Schwippert, & D. Kasper (Eds.), TIMSS 2015: Math-
ematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im
internationalen Vergleich (pp. 189–204). Münster: Waxmann.
References 121

Lehrkräften [Differential use of professional development programs and its relationship to pro-
fessional characteristics of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie,27(3), 193–207.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Anders, Y., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2010). Inhalte
und Prädiktoren beruflicher Fortbildung von Mathematiklehrkräften [Content and predictors of
professional development activities of mathematics teachers]. Empirische Pädagogik, 24(2), 151–
168.
Riedel, K., Griwatz, M., Leutert, H., & Westphal, J. (1994). Schule im Vereinigungsprozeß. Probleme
und Erfahrungen aus Lehrer- und Schülerperspektive [School in the unification process. Problems
and experiences from the perspective of teachers and students]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Rüegg, S. (1997). Professionalität und Geschlecht: Eine Studie zum Fortbildungsverhalten von
Lehrerinnen und Lehrern am Beispiel des Kantons Aargau [Professionalism and gender: A study
on the professional development behavior of teachers in the canton of Aargau]. Bildungsforschung
und Bildungspraxis, 19(2), 207–223.
Rzejak, D., Künsting, J., Lipowsky, F., Fischer, E., Dezhgahi, U., & Reichardt, A. (2014). Facetten
der Lehrerfortbildungsmotivation—eine faktorenanalytische Betrachtung [Facets of teachers’
motivation for professional development—Results of a factorial analysis]. Journal for educational
research online, 6(1), 139–159.
122 References
von Grundschullehrerinnen und -lehrern bezüglich der Lehrerfortbildung im Fach Heimat- und
Sachkunde [Teacher professional development: A study on the collection of subjective assess-
ments of primary school teachers regarding teacher professional development in the subject of
local history and subject knowledge]. Hamburg: Kovaéc.
Sieve, B. F. (2015). Interaktive Tafeln im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Entwicklung und Eval-
uation einer Fortbildungsmaßnahme für Chemielehrkräfte [Interactive boards in Science classes:
Development and evaluation of a professional development program for chemistry teachers].
Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum.

10.1007@978 3 030 38844 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1007@978 3 030 38844 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1007@978 3 030 38844 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic)

1 Relevance and Scope of the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1

6 Conclusions from the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . ............. 91

Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · In-service

1.1 Motivation for the Literature Review

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

1.2 Research Questions for the Literature Review

1.3 Theoretical Approaches to Teachers’ Participation

it becomes apparent that both models distinguish individual characteristics of the

1.4 Teacher Professional Development in Germany,

Overall, continuous PD is part of teachers’ duty in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · In-service

2.1 Search Procedure

First, a search in scientific databases relevant to the research domains related to

Publications after initial

Fig. 2.1 Flow diagram for procedure of systematic literature search

2.2 Description of Included Studies

The 81 remaining publications contained 19 journal articles (16 from peer-reviewed

Table 2.1 Characteristics of included studies

with different samples

Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · Training

To systemize teachers’ reasons for participating in PD, all corresponding aspects

Kanwischer et al. (2004), Landert (1999), Niederhaus and Schmidt (2016),

Reason for participation M (Min–Max): Referencesa

Reason for participation M (Min–Max): Referencesa

et al., 2004). Therefore, pragmatic considerations seem to be more important than

Abstract In the light of the high relevance of PD, it is of particular interest to

Keywords Teacher professional development · Training motivation · Training

In light of the high relevance of PD (Chap. 1), it is of particular interest to examine

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 27

Barriers to participation M (Min–Max): References

Barriers to participation M (Min–Max): References

inconvenient time of PD can be interpreted in a similar way.1 For example, Greve

Forsa. (2017). Qualität der MINT-Lehrerfortbildung in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer repräsen-

Schwetlik, R. (1998). Lehrerfortbildung: Eine Studie zur Erfassung subjektiver Einschätzungen

Keywords Teacher professional development · Training participation · Teacher

5.1 Characteristics of Teacher

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

Reasons for attending PD

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

– No association Goldgruber (2012), Wolf et al. (1997)

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

– Female teachers: Faßmann (1994)

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

– Teachers with children participate in PD more than childless Faßmann (1995)

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

teachers from other school types

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

subject participate in PD more than teachers with a smaller

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

workload and organizational issues as more relevant than teachers

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

– Content: Teachers with constructive orientations would rather Mammes (2008)

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb

Variable Association to PD-related variablesa Referencesb