Research School Network: The Professional Development Paradox: Part 2 Professional Development design gap’ and potential solutions.

You can find part 1 here

The Design Gap

When we analyse typical school-based CPD through this lens, a familiar design flaw becomes visible. Internal CPD is often rich in Building Knowledge, the presentation, the rationale, the evidence, but alarmingly thin on Developing Teaching Techniques.

We frequently expect teachers to adopt new approaches after seeing them once on a slide deck, with little opportunity for modelling, rehearsal, or feedback. When change does not follow, this is sometimes interpreted as resistance or lack of motivation, rather than a predictable consequence of weak design.

Without the full set of active ingredients, even the most evidence-informed strategy is unlikely to become embedded classroom practice. As the TDT argues, changing ingrained habits requires more than an input; it requires a structured learning journey that deliberately activates these mechanisms over time.

Bridging the Capacity Gap

If internal CPD systems are to fulfil their purpose, those who lead and facilitate professional learning must be more than confident presenters. They must be designers of learning experiences, capable of intentionally weaving together knowledge, practice, feedback, and social support.

This is the real craft of professional learning: ensuring that every new idea introduced is accompanied by a plan for modelling, guided practice, contextual adaptation, and sustained reinforcement. Investing in this capacity is not an optional extra; it is a prerequisite for impact.

Moving Beyond the Evaluation Trap

Even where professional learning is well designed, many organisations falter at the final hurdle: evaluation. Measuring the impact of CPD is, as the CPD Leaders’ Forum notes, ​“notoriously difficult”. Too often, evaluation relies on low-inference data, such as participant satisfaction surveys or anecdotal feedback, which tell us little about changes in practice or outcomes.

To understand whether professional learning is making a difference, leaders need more sophisticated, inquiry-led approaches. Current guidance highlights five critical considerations:

• Avoid the mismatch: Do not confuse outputs (attendance, completion) with outcomes (changes in professional practice).
• Acknowledge the lag: High-quality PD rarely leads to immediate pupil gains; meaningful change takes time.
• Prioritise contribution over attribution: Rather than attempting to prove direct causality, consider how professional learning contributes to broader shifts in culture and practice.
• Triangulate evidence: Combine multiple sources — such as classroom observation, pupil work scrutiny, and teacher and pupil voice — to build a more reliable picture of impact.
• Use established frameworks: Models such as Guskey’s Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation help move evaluation beyond reaction data towards changes in teaching and student learning.

By shifting from compliance-based evaluation to an evaluative inquiry stance, organisations can ensure that CPD builds long-term organisational wisdom rather than simply generating reports.

Conclusion: From Compliance to Culture

The professional development paradox is not an unsolvable mystery. It is a design challenge.

When CPD is treated as a transactional event, its impact will always be limited. When it is understood as a sophisticated exercise in adult learning — deliberately designed, carefully facilitated, and meaningfully evaluated — its influence on classroom practice becomes far more likely.

By embedding the EEF’s mechanisms into professional learning design, we strengthen the didagogy of our systems. By adopting more thoughtful approaches to evaluation, we ensure that impact is understood rather than assumed. Ultimately, high-quality internal CPD should do more than distribute information: it should cultivate a culture of professional inquiry in which every teacher, at every career stage, is entitled to meaningful growth.

A Summary Checklist for CPD Leaders

Before launching your next internal programme, consider these five evidence-informed questions:

1. The Mechanism Check
   Does this programme include modelling, rehearsal, and feedback, or does it focus primarily on knowledge transmission?
2. The Adult Learning Lens
   Are staff supported through coaching and collaboration, rather than treated as passive recipients of information?
3. Contextual Alignment
   Does the training address a clearly defined problem of practice within your specific context?
4. Impact Inquiry
   Are you tracking changes in professional practice over time, or relying on end-of-session satisfaction data?
5. Capacity Investment
   Have facilitators been developed in the craft of professional learning, or simply provided with presentation materials?

References

CUREE (2009). Using research and evidence as a lever for change at classroom level. Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education.

Education Endowment Foundation (2021). Effective Professional Development: Guidance Report. EEF.

Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476 – 500.

Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Goodrich, J., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2023). Effective teacher professional development: New theory and a meta-analytic test. Review of Educational Research.

Sutton Trust (2016). Improving the quality of classroom teaching. Sutton Trust.

Teacher Development Trust (2025). Didagogy Report: Addressing the ​“Wicked Problems” of Professional Development.

Trust CPD Leaders’ Forum (2025). The Trust CPD Leaders’ Guide to… Subject Leadership Across a Trust. Version 1: November 2025..

Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Corwin Press.