Systemic teacher continuous professional development as support of teaching practice

Eva Trnova 1 *
More Detail
1 Faculty of Education, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 2, Issue 2A, pp. 204-211.
OPEN ACCESS   1265 Views   859 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The gap between the teachers’ education and the teaching practice in school is a significant problem. This problem has many causes. Our experience and research have brought us to the conclusion that it is necessary to create systemic teacher continuous professional development (CPD). Teacher pre-service and in-service education with practical experience should be systematically linked. Teachers’ professional competences are finally formed through the combination of these three core parts of CPD. The outputs of our design-based research confirm this fact. We propose using the natural binding of three core parts of CPD and linking them systematically. We have found a set of current specific teachers’ competences that need to be addressed in science and mathematics education. These include in particular: education of gifted students, implementation of connectivism and IBSME etc. These competencies can be sufficiently established only within systemic CPD. In our study we present some specific examples of these competences.


Trnova, E. (2014). Systemic teacher continuous professional development as support of teaching practice. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2A), 204-211.


  • Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349-352.
  • Coufalova, J., Minhova, J. and Vankova, J. (2003). Restructuring of teacher training in order to improve its quality. In Quality Education in European Context and the Dakar Follow-up. (pp. 53-57). Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. a Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., Cervetti, G. N. and Tilson, J. (2008). Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc., by Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. Edutopedia. (accessed January 2014)
  • Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. National Research Council. Canada. (accessed January 2014)
  • Duffy, G. and Roehler, L. (1986). "Constraints on teacher change." Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 55-58.
  • EU(2008). .do%3Ftype%3DREPORT%26reference%3DA6-2008-0304%26format%33DXML%26language%3DCS (accessed January 2014)
  • Fullan, M. G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Griffin, G. (1986). "Clinical teacher education." In J. Hoffman & S. Edwards (eds.), Reality and Reform in Clinical Teacher Education (pp. 1-24). New York: Random House.
  • Hanusek, A. E., Kain, F. J., Rivkin, G. S. (2005). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement. Econometrica, 2, 417-458. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B. and Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Routledge. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of research in science teaching, 36(8), 916-929. Magoon, A. J. (1977). Constructivist approaches in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 651-693.
  • Meyer, L. (1988). Research on implementation: What seems to work. In S. J. Samuels & P. D. Pearson (eds.), Changing School Reading Programs (pp. 41-57). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  • Morimoto, K. (1973). Notes on the context for learning. Harvard Educational Review, 10(4), 245-257.
  • Oblinger, D. and Oblinger J. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE. (accessed January 2014)
  • Osborne, J. and Dillon, J., (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Powers, S. W., Zippay, C. and Butler, B. (2006). Investigating Connections Between Teacher Beliefs and Instructional Practices with Struggling Readers. Reading Horizons, 47(2). Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher's mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for research in mathematics education, 550-576.
  • Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from the technology perspective. In J. V. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. (pp. 86-109). London, UK: Routledge. Richardson, V. (1998). How teachers change. Focus on Basics, 2(C), 1-10.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Elearnspace. (accessed January 2014)
  • Skrabankova, J. (2011). The Factors of the Development of Cognitive Processes of Gifted Pupils in the Constructivist Framework. The new educational review, 26(4), 219-227.
  • Trna, J. (2013). How to educate and train science teachers in IBSE experimentation. . Proceedings of conference IMSCI 2013. The 7th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics. Orlando, USA, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics. 176-180.
  • Trna, J. (2012). How to motivate science teachers to use science experiments. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 10(5), 33-35.
  • Trna, J. and Trnova, E. (2010). ICT-based collaborative action research in science education. Proceedings of conference IMSCI'10. The 4th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics. Volume I. Orlando, USA. International Institute of Informatics and Systematics. 68-70.
  • Trna, J. and Trnova, E. (2012). Inquiry-Based Science Education in Science and Technology Education as a Connectivist Method. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Education. Samos, Greece. Research and Training Institute of East Aegean. 831-837.
  • Trnova, E. and Trna, J. (2012a). Connectivism in Science and Technology Education with Emphasis on International Cooperation. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4), 490-496.
  • Trnova, E. and Trna, J. (2012b). Influence of connectivism on science education with emphasis on experiments. In Bruguiere, C., Tiberghien, A. & Clément, P., (co-ed. Marzin, P. & Lavonen, J.). E-book proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: Science Learning and Citizenship. Part 4. Lyon, France. European Science Education Research Association. 83-89.