Scaling Professional Development: The Critical Role of Organizational Supports and Barriers

Abstract

We examine the role of organizational supports and barriers in shaping teachers’ professional development experiences across 46 education systems. We uncover overwhelmingly consistent and compelling results that providing organizational support and eliminating organizational barriers is associated with positive professional development outcomes. These supports are not just financial incentives or opportunities for career progression, but also arrangements that honor teachers’ time, their lives outside work, and their resource investments. These include release and readjustment in teaching time, study leave, reimbursement for costs incurred, and access to necessary materials. Similarly, eliminating organizational barriers to ensure programs align with teachers’ existing qualifications and needs and are attentive to teachers’ lives and obligations beyond school hours is also important. The consistency of these findings across diverse education systems offers insights for designing impactful and scalable PD experiences.

Introduction

Countries worldwide are experiencing unprecedented shortages of qualified teachers (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2024), and educators increasingly face complex demands and burnout in rapidly evolving classroom settings (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2023). In this context, teacher professional development (PD) emerges as a crucial intervention to support and retain teachers and to strengthen education systems (e.g., Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019). For many education systems, however, the challenge extends beyond merely providing PD opportunities—it requires offering these opportunities at scale (e.g., Olsen & Wyss, 2022). In Bangladesh, for example, 75% of higher secondary education teachers lack pre-service training, and in-service PD opportunities are severely constrained, with only a few hundred spots available each year for tens of thousands of teachers (United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2021). Similarly, in Sub-Saharan Africa, 35% of primary teachers and nearly half of secondary teachers do not meet national qualification requirements (UNESCO, 2024). In the United States, a recent study found that nearly 163,000 teaching positions are filled by individuals who are not fully qualified (Nguyen et al., 2024). This demonstrates a widespread and urgent need for accessible, scalable PD across diverse nations and continents.

Unlike pre-service training, which is often embedded in university systems, teacher professional development depends on a more complex ecosystem of actors (Boeskens et al., 2020). National and local contexts determine the involvement of stakeholders, including federal and state governments, local authorities, districts, teacher training institutions (Kabilan, 2013), unions (Govender, 2013), private organizations, school administrators, staff, and teachers (Vangrieken et al., 2017). Additionally, donors and international actors frequently play a significant role. For example, from 2000 to 2012, approximately two-thirds of the 171 World Bank education projects incorporated some component of teacher PD (Popova et al., 2022).

Effective PD design requires attention to content, pedagogical approach, and mode of delivery (Hill & Papay, 2022). Beyond these pedagogical aspects, however, successful implementation of PD demands attention to additional factors (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Recent research suggests that effective implementation is often what differentiates high-quality PD models that are successful on a small scale from those that succeed at scale (e.g., Kraft et al., 2018; World Bank, 2023).

Getting implementation right is challenging. A recent World Bank report highlighted that teacher policies often struggle to achieve large-scale success because they overlook systemic and individual challenges that hinder teachers from effectively adopting the policy (World Bank, 2023). Focusing on policy attributes, Desimone et al. (2025) found that professional learning policies that are specific, consistent, stable, supported by teachers, and have incentives or sanctions can bring impactful change in teachers’ instruction and student engagement. From an organizational perspective, Akiba et al. (2015) and Akiba, Moran et al. (2023) frame these as concerns about “organizational resources” available to support teacher PD participation. They note that, while there have been efforts to identify material, human, and social resources in promoting professional development, literature has only minimally addressed the influence of system-level resources and barriers on PD experiences (Akiba et al., 2015).

This paper seeks to address this gap by investigating the role of organizational and system-level resources and barriers in shaping teacher professional development experiences. We conduct this study across more than 40 diverse education systems, aiming to generate insights applicable across varied contexts. Our guiding question is: How do organizational supports and barriers that are amenable to policy shape teachers’ professional development experiences across education systems? Specifically, we ask (1) To what extent do organizational supports shape teachers’ participation in professional development and perceived impact of PD? (2) To what extent do organizational barriers shape teachers’ participation in professional development and perceived impact of PD?

Literature Review

Approaches to Understanding Teacher Professional Development

The literature on professional development is vast. It presents varying definitions of what is teacher professional development (Sancar et al., 2021), and it employs various theories of action (Kennedy, 2016). While it is beyond the scope of our paper to authoritatively summarize this literature, for our purposes we focus on how the broad understanding of teacher professional development has changed over time.

Over the years, scholars have identified key attributes of teacher professional development experiences and have continued to enhance this understanding with growing research. Sancar et al. (2021), in their comprehensive review, distinguish between studies that define professional development “based on traditional approaches” with studies using newer approaches. According to the traditional approaches, while professional development is seen as a complex, interactive activity (Desimone et al., 2002) it is primarily seen as “a teaching process/activity focusing on increasing teacher learning and changing teacher classroom practices to improve student outcomes” (p. 4). These definitions focus attention on key design features of effective PD, such as program’s content, duration, and teacher engagement in active learning.

Such conceptualizations have also been reflected in the empirical literature. Popova et al. (2022) reviewed 33 PD programs around the world to investigate how these factors matter for program’s success. They observe that the teacher PD programs with specific subject focus, which are delivered face-to-face, provide follow-up support, and which are connected to career incentives, lead to most student improvements. In a study of 1,000 teachers across the United States and 16 case-studies in five states, Birman et al. (2000) identified a set of factors for successful PD including once again the content, the format of the program (such as traditional conference or study group), duration of the program (length and amount of hours), collective participation (such as whether these teachers come from the same school or grade), and teachers’ active engagement and coherence with existing policies and teacher experiences.

Sancar et al. (2021) contrast these traditional approaches with efforts to define “PD based on new approaches.” These approaches are a response to the criticism that the earlier approaches do not focus on teachers’ “individual characteristics, needs, competencies, participation, and prior knowledge.” Scholars such as Neil and Morgan (2003) have offered what Sancar et al. (2021) refer to as a “situative perspective” (p. 4) that attends to the teacher attributes more holistically. For instance, Desimone (2009) and Desimone et al. (2025) argue that PD is a relation between attributes of PD and attributes of teachers, including their belief and knowledge. After reviewing these earlier approaches, Sancar et al. (2021) offer a more expansive conceptual framing of PD by including several teacher-focused factors such as professional experience, sentiments, and skills.

Guided by these newer insights, empirical literature has also shed light on a range of teacher-focused factors that align with a more expansive conceptual framing of teacher PD. TALIS 2013 results across most participating countries indicate that factors such as teacher gender, age, or experience are not important differentiating factors in teacher PD outcomes (OECD, 2019). However, teacher perceptions and values (L. Zhang, Carter, et al., 2024) and motives to teach (H. Zhang, Lyu, & Qiu, 2024) are important drivers for continuous PD and the benefits teachers derive from these engagements (Akiba, Byun, et al., 2023). Scholars have shown that teachers with higher job satisfaction and self-efficacy are more likely to participate in PD initiatives and are more open to changing teaching practices, while teachers with low self-efficacy tend to participate in PD less often (e.g., Gumus, 2013; Opfer, 2016). On the contrary, in the study of higher education teachers in Spain, teachers with extremely high confidence and beliefs in their teaching tended to be less open to new teaching and learning practices and as a result were less motivated to join PD activities (Rodríguez et al., 2014).

Importance of Organizational Resources (and Barriers) in Teacher Professional Development

To this robust and evolving conceptualization of teacher PD, Akiba and colleagues add a further dimension. Drawing from Gamoran’s (2003) framework on material, human, and social resources as key organizational contexts to support teaching, Akiba et al. (2015) focus on the importance of “organizational resources” for teacher PD. They find that middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri, United States, who received more organizational support were more likely to participate in high quality PD activities (Akiba et al., 2015).

Other studies have also acknowledged the importance of these supports and barriers (Gamoran, 2003; King, 2004; Spillane & Thompson, 1997). For example, providing release time from teaching, having teachers with rich knowledge of subject or pedagogy, and having positive relationships amongst teachers are identified as important resources that shape teacher participation in PD. However, existing studies have been mostly conducted in the United States or high-income countries using case studies, providing limited implications for teachers in diverse educational contexts.

Professional Development Policy Context in Various Education Systems

A relevant aspect of education system diversity is whether teacher PD participation is mandated or not mandated in existing policies. Teachers in different education systems face varying expectations about what non-teaching tasks they are required to perform in addition to their regular teaching role including mandatory or voluntary expectations regarding PD.

Depending on the education system teachers do not always have the authority to choose whether they can perform certain non-teaching tasks (see the OECD’s Education at a Glance report, 2018). In many education systems for instance,

According to regulations, individual planning or preparing lessons, marking/correcting student work, general administrative communication and paperwork, and communicating and co-operating with parents are the most common non-teaching tasks required of lower secondary teachers. . . during their statutory working time at school or statutory total working time. (p. 388)

The OECD report applies this categorization across education systems to expectations for teachers PD participation as well. Education systems are divided into three groups; systems where participation in PD activities is mandatory, systems where it is at the discretion of schools, and systems where PD participation is voluntary or at the discretion of individual teachers. While these OECD-recommended classifications are broad, they provide helpful context to better understand policy context that shapes teacher PD participation and preferences. ¹

Summary

Bringing together the various aspects of the literature reviewed highlights questions requiring additional investigation. In particular, we note that although the importance of organizational resources is increasingly recognized for effective PD design and implementation, to our knowledge, no large-scale, systematic study has assessed whether and how these “organizational resources”—framed here as supports and barriers—shape teacher PD experiences across diverse educational contexts with varying PD participation mandates.

We address this gap by investigating these relationships through an analysis of TALIS 2018 data from over 40 education systems worldwide by asking: How do organizational supports and barriers that are amenable to policy shape teachers’ professional development experiences across education systems with differing policy mandates? The analysis pays explicit attention to teacher background and other attributes, while also attending to the policy expectations regarding teacher PD participation. The results from this investigation contribute to discussions about designing sustainable and successful PD experiences at scale in diverse contexts.

Data and Variables

We use the OECD’s TALIS 2018 (Teaching and Learning International Survey) lower secondary education data collected from 1,077 ~ 7,407 teachers in 46 education systems. ² TALIS 2018 is the third cycle of this international survey. The survey explores 11 themes on teaching and learning, including educational background of teachers, teacher preparation, and PD activities (Ainley & Carstens, 2018). In each education system, a minimum of 200 schools were randomly selected and at least 20 teachers were randomly drawn from each school (Ainley & Carstens, 2018).

Outcomes: Professional Development Participation and Its Positive Impact

We operationalize teacher PD experiences in the following ways (see also Table 1A in the Appendix for the full list of variables used in this study). We use the range or extent of PD experiences teachers have had in the last 12 months as an outcome of interest. These experiences include teachers attending “courses/seminars in person,” “online courses/seminars,” “observation visits to other schools,” “reading professional literature,” and “participation in network of teachers formed for teacher PD.” For each teacher, we summed their responses for the 10 different PD activities options to generate a score from 0 (no PD participation in last 12 months) to 10 (participated in 10 different types of PD activities in last 12 months).

Earlier results from the OECD TALIS 2013 show that the PD embedded into schools’ regular activities has a more positive impact on teaching than such activities outside of the school (Opfer, 2016). We therefore distinguish PD activities that are embedded in school settings (observational visits to other schools, peer and/or self-observation and coaching, participation in a network of teachers formed for PD) and those that are likely not embedded in school settings (courses and seminars, education conferences, formal qualification programs, observation visits to business premises and organizations, and reading professional literature).

We also use a binary (yes/no) variable as an outcome that indicates if any of the PD activities in the past 12 months have positively impacted the teachers’ teaching practice. The survey item asks: “thinking of all of your professional development activities during the last 12 months, did any of these have a positive impact on your teaching practice?” Given the nature of this survey item, this information about positive impact of PD is available only for teachers who participated in at least one PD activity. We discuss below the implications of this in terms of varying sample sizes available for various analyses.

These two outcomes—the range or extent of PD participation, and the positive impact of PD on teaching practice—do not offer insights into the quality or specificity of PD experiences which many scholars of teacher PD would seek. However, these measures are suitable for the purpose of the present study. Also, these PD experience measures can be obtained for a representative sample of several thousand teachers from over 40 diverse education systems incorporated in TALIS.

Organizational Resources for Professional Development: Supports and Barriers

TALIS data offer a unique opportunity to understand individual teacher perspectives on the organizational support or barriers they encounter in pursuing PD across multiple education systems.

Measuring “support.”

Teachers in TALIS are asked; “For the professional development in which you participated during the last 12 months, did you receive any of the following?” The prompt is followed by eight questions that teachers answer as yes or no. These questions investigate availability of various sorts of supports: the teacher receiving release from teaching duties during regular working hours, receiving reduced teaching time, days off, study leave, being reimbursed or paid for the costs of PD, being provided material needed for PD, and receiving financial supplement for activities outside regular working hours. The questions also ask if the teacher receives rewards such as classroom resources/materials, book vouchers, software/apps, if the teacher receives professional benefits such as fulfilling PD requirements which can improve promotion opportunities, or if the teacher receives increased salary for the PD they participated in. We sum these eight types of “supports” to generate a total measure of support received by each individual teacher that ranges from 0 to 8.

Drawing on literature that underscores the significance of teacher rewards and recognition in effective PD (Popova et al., 2022), we also categorize these eight measures of support into “reimbursements” and “rewards.” The “reimbursement” category addresses compensation for the time, effort, and resources that teachers invest in PD. The “reward” category measures forms of remuneration or recognition provided to teachers for their PD participation.

Measuring “barriers.”

We also generate a measure of barriers individual teachers encounter in their PD pursuits. This variable is based on teacher response to seven questions where teachers respond to this prompt: “How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following present barriers to your participation in professional development?” Teachers can respond to each of these items stating that they “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “agree,” or “strongly agree.” We code these items as a binary measure to indicate if teachers perceive a particular item as a barrier (“agree,” “strongly agree”) or not (“disagree,” “strongly disagree”). The barriers in this case include teachers lacking pre-requisites for the program (e.g., qualification and seniority), teachers finding PD expensive, or PD conflicting with their work or family schedule. Similar to the support variables, we also group the barriers into two broad categories, we identify one set of barriers as organizational barriers in the design or availability of PD. These include considerations of lack of time, expense, and lack of suitable learning opportunity. To parallel the literature and our classification for support, we also identify one variable—lack of incentives (“there is no incentive for participating in PD”)—as a barrier that represents a lack of reward.

Using 15 distinct survey items, we developed measures of the supports received and barriers encountered by each teacher in our sample of over 40 countries as they engage in PD opportunities. This teacher-specific approach aligns with contemporary discourse on PD: that PD design which acknowledges teachers’ individual characteristics and needs is likely to foster greater immersion and engagement (Sancar et al., 2021). It also responds to the caution from organizations such as the World Bank, which emphasizes that teachers may experience supports and barriers differently based on their unique circumstances (Marynowski et al., 2022).

Finally, similar to the two outcome variables, survey questions associated with “Support” and “Barriers” also offer different coverage. While the question about supports is limited to only those who received at least some PD, (the questionnaire states, “For the professional development in which you participated during the last 12 months. . .”), the question about barriers is asked to every teacher. We discuss these varying sample sizes below in more detail.

Control Variables

In addition to teachers’ sense of supports and barriers, we also include in our regression models various measures of teacher background and their views about the teaching profession. Teacher background variables include teacher sex, educational background, teacher qualification, their teaching experience, a variable indicating if they have worked outside of the teaching profession, and a variable that indicates if they are on permanent or temporary contract.

Given the importance of teacher perception in the literature, we include a range of relevant variables from TALIS. Specifically, we consider their reported motives for joining teaching (because it is a reliable profession, because it offers a chance to contribute to the society), if teaching was their first-choice career, if they perceive teaching as a high-status job, and if they report being satisfied in their current position.

Addressing Varying Sample Sizes and Missing Data

For the key outcome and independent variables, as we noted earlier, due to the nature of TALIS questionnaire, data availability varies across survey items. Survey response on PD participation and PD barrier was requested from all teachers, whereas response on PD support and PD impact items was requested only from teachers who participated in at least one PD activity. To reflect this nuance of data collection, we create two samples: “main analytical sample” and “supplementary analytical sample.” The main analytical sample includes information on all variables of interest, including PD participation and PD barrier and also PD support, PD impact. The supplementary analytical sample includes complete information only on PD barrier and PD participation variables. The main analytical sample is suitable for our entire analysis; the supplementary analytical sample is suitable only for a subset of our research questions and we use each sample accordingly.

For the control variables we impute data that are missing at random. ³ These observations were imputed using mean imputation with the “repest ⁴ ” command. Using repest allows us to account for sample weights in TALIS’ complex survey design. While mean imputation can generate bias in the standard errors (Cheema, 2014), we settled for the mean imputation with the “repest” approach to employ correct sample weights while addressing the missing data issue. Before conducting the mean imputation for the control variables, we analyzed the extent of missing information in each of these variables (sex, education, qualification, teaching experience, non-teaching experience, contract status, reasons and preference for joining teaching, teaching as a first career choice, perception of status of teaching, and satisfaction in the current position) for all education systems. Overall, the extent of missing data is relatively small. Typically, the proportion of missing information ranged from 0.5%–3%. We are thus able to ensure that no more than 10% values are imputed in almost all cases across all 40-plus education systems. ⁵

We use the main analytical sample to understand the relationships between PD participation-PD support, PD impact-PD support, PD participation-PD barrier, and PD impact-PD barrier. We additionally also use the supplementary analytical sample to investigate the relationship between PD participation-PD barrier. For the sake of consistency, we present the descriptive table, and figures using the main analytical sample.

Operationalizing the Policy Context in Various Education Systems

The policy context for the study is primarily derived from various existing policy reports. Following the classification from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2018 report, we divide the education system into three categories: where participation in professional development activities is mandatory at the national/system level, at the discretion of schools, and voluntary or at the discretion of individual teachers. OECD report does not provide this information on 17 education systems, which we obtained from the TIMSS 2015 encyclopedia (Mullis et al., 2016) and the Eurydice Report on teachers in Europe (European Commission, 2021). ⁶ Information on five education systems, Alberta, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai, Vietnam, and Singapore, was not available in any of these three sources. For these systems, we obtained insights from the literature to classify these systems along the OECD criteria of “mandatory, discretion of school, voluntary” (see Appendix 2).

Methods

We generated a descriptive understanding of the outcomes and key independent variables, using descriptive and graphical approaches. Next, we conducted a series of regression analyses to understand how professional development experiences are associated with organizational supports and barriers. ⁷

For each education system, we analyzed the following (6) models for each of the four outcomes using the main analytical sample: participation in PD, participation in PD that are embedded in schools, participation in PD that are not embedded in schools, and positive impact of PD on teaching practices.

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{1}Supp\_Tota{l}_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_1$$

Model (1)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{2}Reimburse\_S_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_2$$

Model (2)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{3}Reward\_S_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_3$$

Model (3)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{4}Barrier\_Tota{l}_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_4$$

Model (4)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{5}Org\_B_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_5$$

Model (5)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{6}Reward\_B_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_6$$

Model (6)

Additionally using the supplementary analytical sample, we analyzed the following models for three outcomes: participation in PD, participation in PD that are embedded in schools, participation in PD that are not embedded in schools.

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{7}Barrier\_Tota{l}_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_7$$

Model (7)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{8}Org\_B_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_8$$

Model (8)

$$Outcom{e}_{ij}={\beta }_{9}Reward\_B_{ij}+TEACHE{R}_{ij}\alpha +{\delta }_j+{\epsilon }_9$$

Model (9)

The coefficient β in each model is the coefficient of interest associated with the key independent variables representing organizational supports and barriers teacher i experiences in school j. In each model α denote the vector of coefficients associated with teacher characteristics and δ_j is the school fixed effects term. School fixed effects accounts for school characteristics that may confound the associations between our outcomes of interest and organizational supports and barriers teachers experience. For instance, all school specific variations due to factors such as school size or school student composition are accounted for with the use of school fixed effects.

For each regression, we include teacher weights (TCHWGT) to reflect the broader population of teachers in each country. We use “repest” command in Stata to account for the complex survey designs in the estimation of sampling variances (Avvisati & Keslair, n.d.). In doing so, the standard errors computed account for the clustered sampling in TALIS. This command is recommended to analyze cross-national OECD data including TALIS and the Programme for International Student Assessment as it considers sampling weights and provides robust standard errors.

Results

Our primary research question (how do organizational supports and barriers that are amenable to policy shape teachers’ professional development experiences across education systems with differing policy mandates?) is answered using regression analysis. Before turning to regression results, we explain the broad cross-national patterns in teacher professional development experiences, the organizational resources they receive, and barriers they face in education systems across the world.

Cross-National Landscape of Teacher Professional Development, and Supports and Barriers

Table 1 provides an overview of the key variables arranged by OECD’s professional development policy classification. Figures 1 and 2 present information in Columns 2, 5, 6, and 7 from Table 1. Each column indicates the mean value of survey responses on overall PD participation, teacher-reported PD impact, teacher-reported PD support, and teacher-reported PD barrier. Please note that for ease of comparison, values in each of these columns have been rescaled to range between 0 to 1.

Table 1

Education System Background and Sample Sizes

	PD_ Total[0, 1]	PD_Sch[0, 1]	PD_NonSch[0, 1]	PD Impact[0, 1]	PD Support[0, 1]	PD Barrier[0, 1]	Sample Size	GDP per Capita	Policy Classification
Alberta (Canada)	0.46	0.43	0.51	0.91	0.31	0.32	981	51,987.9	M
Argentina	0.39	0.25	0.47	0.92	N/A	0.47	1,753	10,636.1	M
Austria	0.40	0.22	0.47	0.80	0.22	0.28	4,017	53,637.7	M
Belgium	0.33	0.28	0.37	0.69	N/A	0.32	4,753	51,247.0	M
Brazil	0.43	0.30	0.50	0.82	0.17	0.44	2,054	7,507.2	M
Bulgaria	0.44	0.37	0.48	0.71	0.32	0.37	2,446	12,221.5	M
Chile	0.32	0.26	0.36	0.77	0.22	0.57	1,656	16,265.1	M
Croatia	0.48	0.33	0.54	0.86	0.24	0.28	3,209	17,685.3	M
Cyprus	0.38	0.29	0.45	0.81	0.14	0.43	1,411	31,551.8	M
Czech Republic	0.40	0.30	0.45	0.78	0.43	0.27	3,273	26,821.3	M
Estonia	0.51	0.51	0.52	0.77	0.40	0.23	2,838	27,943.7	M
Finland	0.37	0.29	0.42	0.79	0.22	0.36	2,589	53,654.8	M
Italy	0.36	0.26	0.42	0.85	0.12	0.43	3,213	35,657.5	M
Japan	0.41	0.57	0.36	0.92	N/A	0.55	3,067	39,312.7	M
Kazakhstan	0.65	0.80	0.58	0.86	0.31	0.27	6,444	10,373.8	M
Korea	0.59	0.67	0.57	0.87	0.38	0.61	2,753	34,997.8	M
Latvia	0.53	0.53	0.55	0.89	0.36	0.22	2,173	21,148.2	M
Lithuania	0.62	0.63	0.59	0.89	0.25	0.31	3,683	23,723.3	M
Malta	0.34	0.28	0.39	0.71	0.21	0.39	1,407	33,486.7	M
Mexico	0.43	0.36	0.47	0.85	0.10	0.52	2,463	10,045.7	M
Romania	0.48	0.55	0.44	0.81	0.19	0.39	3,183	14,858.2	M
Saudi Arabia	0.50	0.55	0.49	0.75	0.21	0.60	2,027	23,185.9	M
Shanghai (China)	0.65	0.71	0.64	0.88	0.25	0.34	3,862	12,556.3	M
Singapore	0.51	0.58	0.53	0.91	0.31	0.31	3,159	72,794.0	M
Slovenia	0.49	0.39	0.54	0.87	0.32	0.35	2,016	29,291.4	M
South Africa	0.51	0.58	0.48	0.88	0.38	0.39	1,733	7,055.0	M
UAE	0.60	0.67	0.57	0.88	0.31	0.35	8,111	44,315.6	M
Vietnam	0.56	0.66	0.51	0.83	0.49	0.30	3,642	3,756.5	M
Australia	0.53	0.50	0.57	0.92	0.33	0.32	3,228	60,443.1	L
Colombia	0.45	0.34	0.52	0.89	0.25	0.49	2,097	61,04.14	L
Denmark	0.35	0.26	0.41	0.71	0.24	0.32	1,750	68,007.8	L
England (UK)	0.42	0.49	0.41	0.82	0.24	0.37	2,097	46,510.3	L
France	0.30	0.23	0.34	0.71	0.16	0.33	2,320	43,659.0	L
Netherlands	0.44	0.41	0.47	0.82	0.26	0.25	1,740	57,767.9	L
New Zealand	0.50	0.56	0.48	0.87	0.31	0.34	2,047	48,781.0	L
Sweden	0.41	0.40	0.43	0.73	0.16	0.35	2,433	61,028.7	L
Taipei	0.55	0.61	0.55	0.91	0.27	0.42	3,662	33,910.0	L
USA	0.46	0.43	0.50	0.89	N/A	0.33	2,376	70,248.6	L
Georgia	0.47	0.54	0.42	0.89	0.19	0.21	2,643	5,023.3	V
Israel	0.49	0.45	0.53	0.81	0.21	0.35	2,223	52,170.7	V
Norway	0.37	0.27	0.43	0.78	0.24	0.30	3,621	89,154.3	V
Portugal	0.34	0.21	0.41	0.82	0.09	0.64	3,135	24,567.5	V
Russia	0.64	0.72	0.60	0.88	0.34	0.29	3,856	12,194.8	V
Slovak Republic	0.37	0.30	0.41	0.81	0.26	0.31	2,664	21,391.9	V
Spain	0.37	0.21	0.44	0.79	0.15	0.47	6,731	30,103.5	V
Türkiye	0.46	0.32	0.54	0.72	0.23	0.46	3,595	9,661.2	V
Average	0.46	0.43	0.48	0.83	0.26	0.37	2,959	33,607.6

Note. The first six columns are the average value across each education system on a scale of 0–1 of the following measures: participation in overall PD, school-based PD, non-school-based PD, perceived impact of PD on instruction, support for participation in PD, and barriers on participation in PD. PD policy classification is explained in detail in the paper where M = national mandate, L = School or local level mandate, V = voluntary mandate. N/A means that the variable is not available in TALIS. GDP per capita data reported in $ are derived from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?name_desc=false). We use Canada’s GDP per capita for Alberta, Czechia’s data from the World Bank for Czech Republic’s GDP per capita. We use United Kingdom’s GDP per capita for England. We use IMF data for Taipei’s GDP per capita.

Figure 1.

Teacher PD participation and reported PD impact, By education system.

Figure 2.

Teacher reported PD support and PD barrier, By education system.

Table 1 shows that, on average, teachers report participating in about 4.6 PD activities per year. This means that, out of 10 possible types of PD activities listed in the survey, teachers typically take part in about four to five over the course of a year. The number of PD activities is greater in systems where it is mandatory (nearly 4.6 activities) and smaller in systems where it is voluntary (nearly 4.4 activities). Teachers in France, despite its economic prosperity, participated in three PD activities in the past year, whereas teachers in Vietnam, despite its relatively modest economic status report participating in five to six PD activities within the past year. Other upper-middle income countries like South Africa and Kazakhstan also have a relatively large and notable teacher PD participation. School-based PD participation is somewhat lower on average (0.4 on a scale of 0–1), and non-school based PD participation is somewhat higher (0.48 on a scale of 0–1). Countries like Spain, Portugal, Norway, France, and Denmark stand out for relatively limited school-based PD participation, whereas such practice seems prevalent in various Asian countries (Korea, Japan, Vietnam).

A large proportion of teachers (0.83) report that their PD positively impacted their teaching practice, although this number is somewhat lower in the education systems where teacher PD is voluntary. For instance, a smaller proportion of teachers report that PD is impactful in France or Türkiye where it is voluntary, and where teachers participate in fewer PD activities. More teachers report that PD positively impacted their teaching in education systems such as Japan or Singapore, where teachers participate in several (average five) different PD activities.

The support teachers receive for professional development varies a great deal across different education systems. This is more easily viewed in Figure 2. In several education systems, the average reported barriers exceed average reported supports on a scale of 0–1. In Spain and France, for instance, on average teachers report much lower levels of support. PD support is higher (on average) in education systems where PD participation is mandatory and lower in education systems where it is voluntary. Teacher-reported barriers do not follow a clear pattern, though on average teachers encounter multiple barriers based on these data. A few systems, including the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Vietnam, stand out for the extensive support their teachers receive compared to the barriers they face. In most other education systems teachers face proportionally more barriers than support, including Spain, Portugal, Mexico where these patterns are stark. Korea stands out for high-level of supports and barriers to professional development.

Association Between Supports and Barriers and Professional Development Experiences

While there are some clear cross-national differences in teachers’ PD experiences and the supports and barriers they encounter in their pursuit of PD, we now investigate these relationships at a more granular, teacher level. Specifically, we focus on the associations between supports and barriers and teachers’ PD experiences in each education system.

Supports and professional development experiences (main analytical sample)

Table 2 shows how teachers receiving greater support for PD participate in PD activities and report the positive impact of such PD on their teaching practice. Each cell represents a regression coefficient associated with overall support teachers receive while controlling for extensive teacher attributes discussed earlier and using school fixed effects.

Table 2

Association Between Professional Development Support and Professional Development Outcomes, By Education System

Outcome	PD_Total	PD_Sch	PD_NonSch	PD Impact	N
Systems With National Mandate
Alberta (Canada)	0.26***	0.38***	0.20***	0.28***	981
Austria	0.20***	0.21***	0.21***	0.40***	4,017
Brazil	0.32***	0.41***	0.29***	0.28***	2,054
Bulgaria	0.26***	0.32***	0.25***	0.49***	2,446
Chile	0.19***	0.24***	0.16***	0.31***	1,656
Croatia	0.27***	0.35***	0.21***	0.29***	3,209
Cyprus	0.32***	0.39***	0.28***	0.26***	1,411
Czech Republic	0.22***	0.27***	0.20***	0.34***	3,273
Estonia	0.24***	0.35***	0.20***	0.28***	2,838
Finland	0.36***	0.39***	0.38***	0.52***	2,589
Italy	0.27***	0.39***	0.23***	0.30***	3,213
Kazakhstan	0.20***	0.13***	0.23***	0.22***	6,444
Korea	0.31***	0.33***	0.29***	0.23***	2,753
Latvia	0.25***	0.32***	0.21***	0.25***	2,173
Lithuania	0.23***	0.31***	0.20***	0.24***	3,683
Malta	0.21***	0.30***	0.18***	0.32***	1,407
Mexico	0.25***	0.37***	0.18***	0.33***	2,463
Romania	0.40***	0.36***	0.42***	0.46***	3,183
Saudi Arabia	0.39***	0.43***	0.37***	0.34***	2,027
Shanghai (China)	0.23***	0.25***	0.19***	0.10***	3,862
Slovenia	0.23***	0.24***	0.23***	0.41***	2,016
South Africa	0.26***	0.23***	0.29***	0.21***	1,733
Vietnam	0.23***	0.28***	0.21***	0.23***	3,642
Singapore	0.26***	0.29***	0.25***	0.20***	3,159
UAE	0.28***	0.26***	0.28***	0.15***	8,111
Systems With Local Mandate
Australia	0.26***	0.33***	0.23***	0.28***	3,228
Colombia	0.30***	0.33***	0.29***	0.19***	2,097
Denmark	0.36***	0.29***	0.41***	0.53***	1,750
England (UK)	0.35***	0.36***	0.36***	0.41***	2,097
France	0.31***	0.38***	0.30***	0.52***	2,320
Netherlands	0.28***	0.34***	0.25***	0.44***	1,740
New Zealand	0.29***	0.31***	0.28***	0.25***	2,047
Sweden	0.36***	0.34***	0.38***	0.58***	2,433
Taipei	0.28***	0.28***	0.28***	0.15***	3,662
Systems With Voluntary Mandate
Georgia	0.26***	0.33***	0.22***	0.20***	2,643
Israel	0.27***	0.39***	0.22***	0.24***	2,223
Norway	0.35***	0.21***	0.44***	0.49***	3,621
Portugal	0.30***	0.35***	0.28***	0.41***	3,135
Russia	0.25***	0.28***	0.22***	0.10***	3,856
Slovak Republic	0.28***	0.25***	0.30***	0.40***	2,664
Spain	0.28***	0.35***	0.24***	0.39***	6,731
Türkiye	0.26***	0.30***	0.24***	0.26***	3,595

Note. Each coefficient estimate is based on a separate regression which controls for teacher views about teaching, teacher background, and school background variables (for the full list of controls, please see Appendix Table A1). Each column respectively indicates the role of PD support in teacher participation in overall PD, school-based PD, non-school-based PD, and teachers’ perceived impact of PD on their instruction. Teacher sampling weights are accounted for and robust standard errors are reported by using the repest command in Stata. Output for the following countries are not presented as PD support variables were not collected: Argentina, Belgium, Hungary, Japan, and the United States. UAE = United Arab Emirates, UK = United Kingdom.

*

p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

The results are strikingly consistent across diverse education systems. Teachers who receive more PD support consistently attend more PD activities overall. This relationship holds for PD activities teachers attend in school and outside of school. The relationship also holds consistently in education systems with different PD policies, where PD is mandatory, at the discretion of local entities, or voluntary. When teachers receive more support to engage in PD, they are also more likely to find that the PD experience positively impacted their classroom practices. This relationship is also maintained regardless of PD policy mandate of education systems.

Table 3 provides additional evidence about the importance of various support for promoting positive PD experiences for teachers. For this analysis, we separate support teachers receive into support akin to a “reimbursement” for time spent or expenses made, and support that is more like “incentive” or “reward,” which promises the teachers some improvement in (additional benefit from) their current situation. We find that support in the form of a financial or career incentive is associated positively with participation in more PD activities. But what is especially noteworthy is the importance of teachers simply receiving reimbursement for participation in PD. This is support that just makes up for what teachers have invested in terms of their time, material, or other resources. There are no additional long-term benefits, financial or otherwise, yet in each of these 46 education systems teachers who receive such support are also significantly more likely to engage in professional development experiences in the last 12 months. We also find that both forms of support, even just being reimbursed for resources they have expended, are associated with teachers reporting that their PD experience was more positively impactful, with one exception: the Netherlands.

Table 3

Association Between Two Types of Professional Development Supports and Professional Development Outcomes, By Education System

	Reimbursement				Reward
Outcome	PD_Total	PD_Sch	PD_NonSc	PD Impact	PD_Total	PD_Sch	PD_NonSc	PD Impact	N
Systems With National Mandate
Alberta (Canada)	0.17***	0.26***	0.12***	0.20***	0.18***	0.24***	0.16***	0.14***	981
Austria	0.13***	0.14***	0.13***	0.30***	0.13***	0.12***	0.13***	0.11***	4,017
Brazil	0.23***	0.31***	0.20***	0.24***	0.21***	0.24***	0.21***	0.12**	2,054
Bulgaria	0.22***	0.26***	0.21***	0.45***	0.13***	0.16***	0.12***	0.21***	2,446
Chile	0.15***	0.20***	0.12***	0.27***	0.11***	0.13***	0.11***	0.15***	1,656
Croatia	0.20***	0.25***	0.16***	0.22***	0.16***	0.22***	0.12***	0.17***	3,209
Cyprus	0.25***	0.29***	0.21***	0.19***	0.21***	0.27***	0.19***	0.17***	1,411
Czech Republic	0.16***	0.19***	0.16***	0.30***	0.13***	0.18***	0.11***	0.14***	3,273
Estonia	0.20***	0.29***	0.17***	0.29***	0.12***	0.18***	0.10***	0.06**	2,838
Finland	0.25***	0.26***	0.27***	0.38***	0.24***	0.26***	0.23***	0.27***	2,589
Italy	0.19***	0.27***	0.16***	0.22***	0.15***	0.20***	0.13***	0.14***	3,213
Kazakhstan	0.15***	0.10***	0.17***	0.20***	0.13***	0.08***	0.15***	0.10***	6,444
Korea	0.26***	0.29***	0.24***	0.21***	0.23***	0.23***	0.21***	0.15***	2,753
Latvia	0.18***	0.24***	0.16***	0.21***	0.14***	0.18***	0.11***	0.13***	2,173
Lithuania	0.17***	0.23***	0.15***	0.19***	0.14***	0.19***	0.12***	0.12***	3,683
Malta	0.16***	0.22***	0.14***	0.24***	0.11***	0.17***	0.09***	0.18***	1,407
Mexico	0.15***	0.24***	0.10***	0.27***	0.15***	0.21***	0.12***	0.15***	2,463
Romania	0.32***	0.29***	0.33***	0.31***	0.22***	0.19***	0.24***	0.31***	3,183
Saudi Arabia	0.35***	0.39***	0.34***	0.32***	0.25***	0.28***	0.24***	0.21***	2,027
Shanghai (China)	0.18***	0.20***	0.15***	0.08***	0.16***	0.17***	0.13***	0.06***	3,862
Slovenia	0.17***	0.18***	0.17***	0.29***	0.12***	0.12***	0.12***	0.26***	2,016
South Africa	0.19***	0.16***	0.22***	0.17***	0.19***	0.18***	0.21***	0.14***	1,733
Vietnam	0.17***	0.20***	0.16***	0.17***	0.18***	0.23***	0.16***	0.17***	3,642
Singapore	0.22***	0.24***	0.22***	0.17***	0.15***	0.17***	0.13***	0.11***	3,159
UAE	0.23***	0.22***	0.24***	0.12***	0.17***	0.16***	0.17***	0.09***	8,111
Systems With Local Mandate
Australia	0.21***	0.27***	0.20***	0.22***	0.13***	0.16***	0.11***	0.16***	3,228
Colombia	0.25***	0.28***	0.24***	0.18***	0.18***	0.19***	0.17***	0.08***	2,097
Denmark	0.23***	0.18***	0.26***	0.38***	0.32***	0.29***	0.33***	0.26***	1,750
England (UK)	0.27***	0.27***	0.29***	0.31***	0.20***	0.22***	0.18***	0.23***	2,097
France	0.20***	0.25***	0.19***	0.41***	0.23***	0.27***	0.23***	0.14**	2,320
Netherlands	0.20***	0.23***	0.19***	0.36***	0.16***	0.22***	0.11***	0.09	1,740
New Zealand	0.23***	0.25***	0.21***	0.19***	0.16***	0.15***	0.15***	0.13***	2,047
Sweden	0.25***	0.23***	0.27***	0.41***	0.25***	0.25***	0.25***	0.37***	2,433
Taipei	0.20***	0.22***	0.20***	0.10***	0.20***	0.16***	0.21***	0.12***	3,662
Systems With Voluntary Mandate
Georgia	0.21***	0.26***	0.18***	0.17***	0.16***	0.21***	0.13***	0.10***	2,643
Israel	0.21***	0.30***	0.16***	0.18***	0.17***	0.23***	0.14***	0.14***	2,223
Norway	0.24***	0.15***	0.31***	0.34***	0.26***	0.14***	0.32***	0.34***	3,621
Portugal	0.24***	0.30***	0.21***	0.29***	0.14***	0.14***	0.14***	0.23***	3,135
Russia	0.19***	0.21***	0.18***	0.08***	0.17***	0.21***	0.14***	0.07**	3,856
Slovak Republic	0.23***	0.18***	0.25***	0.36***	0.14***	0.16***	0.14***	0.17***	2,664
Spain	0.20***	0.25***	0.17***	0.24***	0.16***	0.20***	0.15***	0.28***	6,731
Türkiye	0.21***	0.23***	0.19***	0.21***	0.21***	0.24***	0.18***	0.18***	3,595

Note. The analytical strategies and column names are the same as Table 2. UAE = United Arab Emirates, UK = United Kingdom.

*

p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

Both in Tables 2 and 3, the positive sign on each coefficient indicates that system-level and organizational support for PD is associated with a more positive PD experience for teachers across divergent education systems. These coefficients are not only positive, but they are also statistically significant in each case, at a relatively high level of significance (0.05 and 0.01). The consistency of these results across so many education systems makes these findings particularly compelling and underscores the importance of providing system-level and organizational support to teachers to ensure successful PD outcomes.

Barriers and professional development experiences (main analytical sample)

To maintain consistency with Tables 2 and 3, we first present Tables 4 and 5 using the main analytical sample. These tables are structured similarly to Tables 2 and 3 to show the importance of barriers teachers encounter and the ways in which they hinder teacher PD experiences. Recall that this is not the full sample of teachers for whom most of this analysis is possible. We present relevant results from the full sample below in Table 6.

Table 4

Associations Between Professional Development Barrier and Professional Development Outcomes, By Education System

Outcome	PD_Total	PD_Sch	PD_NonSch	PD Impact	N
Systems With National Mandate
Alberta (Canada)	−0.04	−0.10*	−0.02	−0.19***	981
Argentina	0.01	0.03	0.00	−0.09**	1,753
Austria	0.02	0.03	0.03	−0.25***	4,017
Belgium	−0.03**	−0.06***	−0.01	−0.22***	4,753
Brazil	−0.04*	−0.11***	−0.00	−0.13***	2,054
Bulgaria	0.00	0.02	−0.01	−0.17***	2,446
Chile	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	−0.09*	1,656
Croatia	−0.06**	−0.11**	−0.04*	−0.19***	3,209
Cyprus	−0.03	0.01	−0.06***	−0.13**	1,411
Czech Republic	−0.06***	−0.10***	−0.05***	−0.23***	3,273
Estonia	−0.05***	−0.07**	−0.04**	−0.26***	2,838
Finland	−0.07***	−0.09***	−0.07***	−0.19***	2,589
Italy	−0.02*	−0.01	−0.04**	−0.15***	3,213
Japan	−0.00	−0.02	−0.00	−0.07***	3,067
Kazakhstan	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.04**	−0.15***	6,444
Korea	−0.01	−0.04*	0.00	−0.10***	2,753
Latvia	0.01	0.03	0.01	−0.25***	2,173
Lithuania	−0.05***	−0.12***	−0.01	−0.15***	3,683
Malta	−0.01	−0.06*	0.01	−0.25***	1,407
Mexico	−0.04**	−0.05*	−0.04**	0.00	2,463
Romania	−0.04*	−0.00	−0.05**	−0.19***	3,183
Saudi Arabia	−0.04*	−0.04	−0.05**	−0.12***	2,027
Shanghai (China)	−0.05***	−0.07***	−0.04***	−0.14***	3,862
Slovenia	0.01	−0.03	0.01	−0.08**	2,016
South Africa	−0.06**	−0.08	−0.06**	−0.12***	1,733
Vietnam	−0.05***	−0.08***	−0.04**	−0.09***	3,642
Singapore	−0.07***	−0.09***	−0.06***	−0.17***	3,159
UAE	−0.07***	−0.07***	−0.07***	−0.16***	8,111
Systems With Local Mandate
Australia	−0.09***	−0.16***	−0.07***	−0.19***	3,228
Colombia	−0.08***	−0.07*	−0.10***	−0.07	2,097
Denmark	−0.09***	−0.03	−0.14***	−0.25***	1,750
England (UK)	−0.13***	−0.16***	−0.12***	−0.24***	2,097
France	−0.06***	−0.09***	−0.05**	−0.26***	2,320
Netherlands	−0.04**	−0.04	−0.05**	−0.31***	1,740
New Zealand	−0.08***	−0.10***	−0.07***	−0.18***	2,047
Sweden	−0.12***	−0.13***	−0.13***	−0.31***	2,433
Taipei	−0.08***	−0.12***	−0.07***	−0.13***	3,662
United States	−0.09***	−0.10***	−0.08***	−0.20***	2,376
Systems With Voluntary Mandate
Georgia	−0.05***	−0.09***	−0.03*	−0.07**	2,643
Israel	−0.03	−0.05	−0.04	−0.18***	2,223
Norway	−0.09***	−0.08***	−0.11***	−0.17***	3,621
Portugal	−0.03	−0.02	−0.03	−0.07**	3,135
Russia	−0.02	−0.04	−0.02	−0.21***	3,856
Slovak Republic	−0.03*	−0.02	−0.04**	−0.21***	2,664
Spain	−0.00	−0.03	−0.01	−0.07**	6,731
Türkiye	−0.03*	−0.03	−0.04**	−0.23***	3,595

Note. The analytical strategies, sample, and column names are the same as Table 2. UAE = United Arab Emirates, UK = United Kingdom.

*

p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

Table 5

Associations Between Two Types of Professional Development Barriers and Professional Development Outcomes, By Education System

	Organizational Barrier				Lack of Reward
Outcome	PD_Total	PD_Sch	PD_NonSc	PD Impact	PD_Total	PD_Sch	PD_NonSch	PD Impact	N
Systems With National Mandate
Alberta(Canada)	−0.03	−0.08*	−0.00	−0.17***	−0.03*	−0.05	−0.02	−0.08***	981
Argentina	0.02	0.05	0.00	−0.08**	−0.01	−0.04	−0.00	−0.03**	1,753
Austria	0.03*	0.04	0.03*	−0.16***	−0.01	−0.01	−0.00	−0.14***	4,017
Belgium	−0.02	−0.05**	−0.00	−0.17***	−0.02***	−0.03***	−0.02***	−0.12***	4,753
Brazil	−0.03	−0.10***	0.01	−0.10**	−0.03***	−0.05***	−0.03*	−0.11***	2,054
Bulgaria	−0.00	0.01	−0.01	−0.14***	0.01	0.02	0.00	−0.09***	2,446
Chile	−0.03	−0.04	−0.02	−0.09*	−0.01	−0.01	−0.01	−0.03	1,656
Croatia	−0.05*	−0.09*	−0.04	−0.17***	−0.03***	−0.05***	−0.01**	−0.09***	3,209
Cyprus	−0.02	0.03	−0.05**	−0.12**	−0.03***	−0.03**	−0.03**	−0.06**	1,411
Czech Republic	−0.03*	−0.07**	−0.02	−0.16***	−0.05***	−0.07***	−0.05***	−0.14***	3,273
Estonia	−0.03*	−0.05	−0.02	−0.19***	−0.05***	−0.06***	−0.05***	−0.18***	2,838
Finland	−0.08***	−0.09***	−0.08***	−0.20***	−0.01	−0.02	−0.00	−0.04**	2,589
Italy	−0.03**	−0.01	−0.04***	−0.15***	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.04***	3,213
Japan	−0.01	−0.02	−0.01	−0.07***	0.01	0.00	0.00	−0.02**	3,067
Kazakhstan	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.04**	−0.13***	−0.01	−0.03**	0.00	−0.06***	6,444
Korea	−0.01	−0.04*	0.00	−0.10***	−0.00	−0.01	0.00	−0.02*	2,753
Latvia	0.02	0.04	0.01	−0.19***	−0.00	−0.00	−0.00	−0.14***	2,173
Lithuania	−0.05***	−0.11***	−0.01	−0.12***	−0.02**	−0.03***	−0.01	−0.08***	3,683
Malta	−0.00	−0.05	0.01	−0.21***	−0.01	−0.03*	−0.00	−0.11***	1,407
Mexico	−0.04**	−0.04	−0.04**	0.00	−0.02*	−0.03	−0.01	−0.00	2,463
Romania	−0.04*	−0.00	−0.05**	−0.19***	−0.01	−0.00	−0.01	−0.05**	3,183
Saudi Arabia	−0.03	−0.03	−0.05**	−0.12***	−0.03	−0.05*	−0.02	−0.02	2,027
Shanghai (China)	−0.05***	−0.06***	−0.04***	−0.14***	−0.03***	−0.04***	−0.03***	−0.06***	3,862
Slovenia	−0.00	−0.04	−0.01	−0.09**	0.02***	0.01	0.02*	−0.01	2,016
South Africa	−0.04	−0.06	−0.04	−0.10***	−0.05***	−0.05***	−0.05***	−0.06***	1,733
Vietnam	−0.04***	−0.08***	−0.03**	−0.10***	−0.02***	−0.04***	−0.02**	−0.01	3,642
Singapore	−0.06***	−0.07***	−0.06***	−0.16***	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.03***	−0.06***	3,159
UAE	−0.05***	−0.06***	−0.05***	−0.15***	−0.05***	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.06***	8,111
Systems With Local Mandate
Australia	−0.08***	−0.14***	−0.05***	−0.18***	−0.04***	−0.06***	−0.03***	−0.06***	3,228
Colombia	−0.07***	−0.05	−0.09***	−0.06	−0.04***	−0.04**	−0.04***	−0.03*	2,097
Denmark	−0.07***	−0.01	−0.11***	−0.19***	−0.05***	−0.03*	−0.06***	−0.13***	1,750
England (UK)	−0.11***	−0.14***	−0.10***	−0.21***	−0.07***	−0.08***	−0.06***	−0.11***	2,097
France	−0.04**	−0.07***	−0.04	−0.21***	−0.03***	−0.05***	−0.02**	−0.11***	2,320
Netherlands	−0.04*	−0.05	−0.04*	−0.31***	−0.02	−0.00	−0.02*	−0.09***	1,740
New Zealand	−0.08***	−0.09***	−0.07***	−0.15***	−0.02**	−0.04***	−0.01	−0.09***	2,047
Sweden	−0.10***	−0.10***	−0.10***	−0.26***	−0.07***	−0.08***	−0.07***	−0.15***	2,433
Taipei	−0.07***	−0.10***	−0.06***	−0.12***	−0.06***	−0.07***	−0.06***	−0.07***	3,662
United States	−0.08***	−0.08***	−0.07***	−0.18***	−0.03**	−0.04*	−0.03**	−0.08***	2,376
Systems With Voluntary Mandate
Georgia	−0.04**	−0.07**	−0.03	−0.05	−0.03***	−0.06***	−0.02*	−0.05***	2,643
Israel	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	−0.15***	−0.02	−0.04*	−0.02	−0.09***	2,223
Norway	−0.07***	−0.06***	−0.09***	−0.14***	−0.04***	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.07***	3,621
Portugal	−0.03*	−0.02	−0.03	−0.06**	0.00	0.00	−0.00	−0.03*	3,135
Russia	−0.02	−0.04	−0.01	−0.16***	−0.00	−0.00	−0.01	−0.13***	3,856
Slovak Republic	−0.02	−0.02	−0.02	−0.16***	−0.02***	−0.01	−0.03***	−0.10***	2,664
Spain	−0.00	−0.02	−0.01	−0.06*	−0.00	−0.02**	0.00	−0.05***	6,731
Türkiye	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	−0.22***	−0.03**	−0.01	−0.03***	−0.10***	3,595

Note. The analytical strategies and column names are the same as Table 2. UAE = United Arab Emirates, UK = United Kingdom.

*

p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

Table 6

Associations Between Professional Development Barrier and Professional Development Outcomes (Supplementary Analytical Sample), By Education System

	PD Barrier			Organizational Barrier			Lack of Reward Barrier
	PD_Total	PD_Sc	PD_NonSc	PD_Total	PD_Sc	PD_NonSc	PD_Total	PD_Sc	PD_NonSc	N
Systems With National Mandate
Alberta (Canada)	−0.05	−0.10**	−0.02	−0.02	−0.08	−0.00	−0.04**	−0.06*	−0.03	995
Argentina	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	−0.00	0.04	−0.02	−0.01	−0.03*	−0.00	1,968
Austria	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	−0.01	−0.01	−0.00	4,111
Belgium	−0.05***	−0.08***	−0.03**	−0.03**	−0.06***	−0.02	−0.03***	−0.04***	−0.02***	5,027
Brazil	−0.03	−0.10***	0.00	−0.02	−0.08***	0.02	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.03**	2,349
Bulgaria	0.00	0.01	−0.00	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	0.02	0.00	2,732
Chile	−0.02	−0.03	−0.02	−0.02	−0.03	−0.02	−0.01	−0.00	−0.01	1,909
Croatia	−0.06**	−0.10**	−0.03	−0.05*	−0.09*	−0.03	−0.03***	−0.05***	−0.01	3,272
Cyprus	−0.04	0.00	−0.06**	−0.03	0.02	−0.05*	−0.03**	−0.03**	−0.03**	1,563
Czech Republic	−0.06***	−0.10***	−0.05**	−0.02	−0.06**	−0.01	−0.06***	−0.07***	−0.05***	3,379
Estonia	−0.06***	−0.08**	−0.05**	−0.04**	−0.06*	−0.03*	−0.05***	−0.05***	−0.04***	2,920
Finland	−0.08***	−0.10***	−0.08***	−0.09***	−0.10***	−0.09***	−0.01	−0.02*	−0.01	2,810
Italy	−0.02*	−0.01	−0.04**	−0.03**	−0.01	−0.04***	0.00	−0.00	0.00	3,462
Japan	−0.03**	−0.05***	−0.03**	−0.03**	−0.05***	−0.03**	−0.01*	−0.02	−0.01*	3,483
Kazakhstan	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.03*	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.04**	−0.01	−0.02	0.01	6,547
Korea	−0.02	−0.04*	−0.00	−0.02	−0.04*	−0.00	−0.00	−0.01	0.00	2,845
Latvia	−0.02	−0.00	−0.02	−0.01	0.00	−0.02	−0.01	−0.01	−0.01	2,220
Lithuania	−0.05***	−0.11***	−0.01	−0.04***	−0.11***	−0.01	−0.02**	−0.03***	−0.01	3,721
Malta	−0.00	−0.05	0.01	−0.01	−0.05	0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.01	1,564
Mexico	−0.05**	−0.05*	−0.05**	−0.05**	−0.05*	−0.05**	−0.01	−0.01	−0.01	2,875
Romania	−0.04	−0.01	−0.04*	−0.04**	−0.01	−0.05**	0.00	0.01	0.00	3,577
Saudi Arabia	−0.05**	−0.05*	−0.05**	−0.05**	−0.05*	−0.06***	−0.02	−0.03	−0.01	2,391
Shanghai (China)	−0.05***	−0.07***	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.06***	−0.04***	−0.03***	−0.04***	−0.03***	3,913
Slovenia	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.00	−0.04	−0.00	0.03***	0.02	0.02**	2,055
South Africa	−0.09***	−0.11***	−0.09**	−0.07**	−0.09**	−0.06*	−0.06***	−0.06***	−0.06***	1,956
Vietnam	−0.05***	−0.08***	−0.04**	−0.04***	−0.07***	−0.03*	−0.02***	−0.03***	−0.02**	3,812
Singapore	−0.08***	−0.10***	−0.07***	−0.06***	−0.08***	−0.06***	−0.04***	−0.05***	−0.03***	3,229
UAE	−0.08***	−0.08***	−0.08***	−0.06***	−0.07***	−0.06***	−0.05***	−0.04***	−0.05***	8,396
Systems With Local Mandate
Australia	−0.09***	−0.16***	−0.07***	−0.08***	−0.15***	−0.06***	−0.04***	−0.06***	−0.03***	3,278
Colombia	−0.09***	−0.07*	−0.12***	−0.08***	−0.06	−0.11***	−0.04***	−0.04**	−0.04**	2,338
Denmark	−0.08***	−0.02	−0.12***	−0.06**	−0.01	−0.09***	−0.04***	−0.02	−0.05***	1,895
England (UK)	−0.14***	−0.17***	−0.13***	−0.12***	−0.15***	−0.11***	−0.06***	−0.07***	−0.06***	2,185
France	−0.06***	−0.09***	−0.06***	−0.05**	−0.07***	−0.05**	−0.03***	−0.05***	−0.02***	2,803
Netherlands	−0.05***	−0.05	−0.06***	−0.05**	−0.06	−0.06**	−0.02	−0.00	−0.02	1,777
New Zealand	−0.09***	−0.11***	−0.08***	−0.09***	−0.09***	−0.09***	−0.02**	−0.05***	−0.02	2,099
Sweden	−0.12***	−0.13***	−0.12***	−0.09***	−0.09***	−0.09***	−0.07***	−0.08***	−0.07***	2,558
Taipei	−0.10***	−0.13***	−0.09***	−0.08***	−0.11***	−0.07***	−0.07***	−0.08***	−0.07***	3,803
United States	−0.08***	−0.09***	−0.07***	−0.08***	−0.08***	−0.07**	−0.03**	−0.04*	−0.02*	2,424
Systems With Voluntary Mandate
Georgia	−0.07***	−0.11***	−0.06***	−0.07***	−0.09***	−0.06***	−0.03***	−0.06***	−0.02*	2,928
Israel	−0.03	−0.04	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	−0.03	−0.02	−0.03	−0.01	2,349
Norway	−0.08***	−0.07***	−0.10***	−0.06***	−0.06***	−0.08***	−0.04***	−0.03***	−0.05***	3,906
Portugal	−0.02	−0.02	−0.03	−0.03	−0.02	−0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	3,580
Russia	−0.01	−0.03	−0.01	−0.01	−0.04	−0.01	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	3,936
Slovak Republic	−0.02	−0.02	−0.03	−0.01	−0.01	−0.02	−0.02***	−0.01	−0.02***	2,914
Spain	0.01	−0.02	0.02	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.02	7,290
Türkiye	−0.02	−0.02	−0.02	−0.01	−0.02	−0.01	−0.02	−0.01	−0.02	3,888

Note. The analytical strategies and column names are the same as Table 2. UAE = United Arab Emirates, UK = United Kingdom.

*

p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.0.

The results are somewhat uneven in case of barriers and PD participation. Barriers to professional development seem more important (statistically significant) in some education systems than in others. In Table 4, barriers are significantly and negatively associated with PD participation in 17 out of 28 education systems where PD is mandatory. Barriers hinder PD participation more consistently in systems where PD requirements are at local discretion. In this case, teachers who experience more barriers in pursuing PD also report lower PD participation within and outside school. The relationship between barriers and teacher PD experiences is less consistent in systems where such participation is voluntary. Barriers to PD matter significantly in four out of eight education systems depending on the specific PD outcomes.

While the associations between system-level and organizational barrier and PD participation is somewhat uneven (except when PD is locally mandated), the association between such barriers and reported PD impact is far more consistent. Teachers who experience more barriers to obtaining PD also report that their PD experiences were less likely to have positively impacted their teaching practice (with two exceptions, Mexico and Colombia).

Table 5 provides additional evidence about the challenges barriers present in shaping teacher PD experiences. In education systems where PD participation is mandatory, organizational barriers are associated significantly and negatively with teacher PD participation in 12 systems out of 28. The absence of reward is also associated negatively and significantly with PD participation in 15 systems out of 28. Once again, we find that both types of barriers matter more consistently in education systems where PD participation is at local discretion. In education systems where PD participation is voluntary, the importance of both types of barriers is uneven.

Similar to Table 4, the results are more consistent for the association between organizational barriers and lack of rewards and impact of PD on teaching practice. Teachers who encounter more barriers, organizational and otherwise report that their PD was less impactful in informing their classroom practice. This result is consistent across education systems where PD participation is determined at the local level or is voluntary.

Unlike Tables 2 and 3, the findings in Tables 4 and 5 are not as universal across education systems. However, the results confirm that just as system-level and organizational support for PD matter, so do system-level and organizational barriers to teacher PD. This is true in half or more than half of the education systems we analyzed and in education systems where PD mandate is at local discretion these barriers matter consistently. Such barriers are also consistently and negatively associated with teacher-reported sense of how useful their PD experience was across these widely varying education systems.

Barriers and participation in professional development (supplementary analytical sample)

We conducted analyses to investigate the PD participation-PD barrier relationship also using the supplementary analytical sample.

Table 6, using the supplementary analytical sample of teachers, has a larger sample size than the main analytical sample used for earlier tables. However, the estimated coefficients show results that are consistent with Tables 4 and 5. We find that PD barriers overall and by type (organizational barriers and lack of rewards) are negatively and significantly associated with the PD outcomes. For systems with a national PD mandate, barriers appear important in about half the education systems. For systems where PD participation is voluntary, the importance of barriers appears relatively weak or uneven. In fact, with the supplementary analytical sample, these relationships appear to weaken particularly for systems where PD participation is voluntary. However, as observed earlier, even with the supplementary analytical sample we see the relatively consistent importance of barriers in systems where PD requirement is left to local discretion.

Additional check

As an additional check, we use principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of the PD barrier data to generate an internally consistent index for PD barrier where the individual questions are asked on a 4-point Likert scale. ⁸ We extracted the first principal component for each education system to capture the primary dimension of variation across the seven survey items. We use this first component as the PCA measure of PD barrier to investigate the relationships analyzed in Table 6. ⁹ The pattern of these relationships (not shown) also remains relatively consistent where barrier is measured using PCA, overall, the relationships remain negative and significant, especially in education systems where PD is at local discretion.

Summary of regression results

Tables 2 to 6 present results from hundreds of individual regression analyses with representative data from 46 education systems. Each analysis is carried out with attention to building a robust regression model, attentive to the complex sampling framework and accounting for an extensive range of confounders. These results to our knowledge present the most systematic, and large-scale analysis of the importance of organizational supports and barriers in shaping PD experiences of teachers across the world. The findings indicate that attention to such policy-amenable organizational supports and barriers is crucial in ensuring successful teacher PD experiences. The consistency of these findings across diverse educational contexts is particularly noteworthy. In case of the analysis about the importance of PD barriers this consistency is also evident in using the supplementary analytical sample and with PCA based measure of PD barrier.

The analysis on the importance of barriers additionally underscores the importance of system-level policy mandates and provides a nuanced view into the circumstances where organizational factors may be especially important. PD barriers matter in many education systems where PD is mandated and where it should happen regardless of the hardships teachers face in obtaining these experiences. PD barriers matter even more consistently in education systems where the mandate for PD participation is left to local discretion. While their influence is perhaps least prominent in systems where PD participation is voluntary. In the final section below, we explore the implications of these findings.

Conclusion and Discussion

Teacher PD and learning initiatives are essential for equipping educators to meet the evolving challenges of classroom environments, particularly as nations contend with growing shortages of qualified teachers. Implementing these efforts at scale demands substantial investments of resources and time and often involves diverse stakeholders, depending on the national context. Research has highlighted various considerations in designing effective PD for teachers. While content and pedagogical approach are foundational to PD, how PD is implemented is also crucial for its success, especially success at scale.

However, getting implementation right is challenging. Research argues that it requires consideration of individual and system-level barriers that teacher encounter and it requires designing PD experiences that are supported by organizational resources and not hindered by organizational barriers. Yet, little systematic, or large-scale research had explored the importance of such supports and barriers in shaping teacher PD experience. This is the task we undertake. We ask: How do organizational supports and barriers that are amenable to policy shape teachers’ PD experiences across education systems with differing policy mandates? The findings from over 40 education systems are overwhelmingly consistent and compelling. Before discussing the findings, we first discuss the limitations of our work.

Limitations

This work, like many papers based on analysis of large-scale, secondary data is plagued with several limitations. At the outset, our work is not causal. We are using cross-sectional, teacher-reported data to understand the associations between teacher-reported experience of support and barrier and their reported PD participation and the positive impact of PD on their teaching. It is possible then that our findings may be driven by overall preference or lack of preference teachers have for PD for instance (an unobserved variable) that can both make them favorably disposed to seeking more PD or finding it useful, and more charitable in their assessment of the supports they are receiving. This may lead us to misestimate the various relationships. While we cannot entirely rule out such possibilities, we control for a wide range of potentially confounding variables, including in this case teacher attitudes and perceptions more broadly and use school fixed effects. We also considered a school-level measure of support and barriers that leaves out the teacher themselves from a school-level average support/barrier calculation. In other words, the school average that is free of the influence of the specific teachers’ views, preferences, and so forth. This leave-teacher-out (“jackknife”) approach has been used in the literature recently (e.g., Chi, 2023; Kraft et al., 2021; Ost & Schiman, 2017), but we decided against this approach as leaving out the teachers’ own assessment of support and barrier runs counter to the guidance from the literature that emphasizes the importance of teacher-specific, and teacher-centered understanding of these concerns.

While the OCED’s TALIS data offer many advantages, we acknowledge that using the OECD data means that the representation of lower- and middle-income countries in our sample is limited. This limits our ability to speak in broad terms about a large portion of the world which these data do not capture. Another serious limitation we contend with is that our measures of PD experiences (key outcomes), supports, barriers, may leave keen scholars of this literature wanting for more depth and nuance. Similarly, the categories based on prior literature such as, school based, and not school-based PD experiences (Opfer, 2016) may appear far from exact or precisely measured and perhaps unduly influenced by our understanding and interpretation of the TALIS questionnaire. While we acknowledge these concerns these are unfortunately limitations that have no easy work arounds. These large-scale, representative data collection efforts that allow scholars to speak meaningfully to national and global patterns make many tradeoffs in terms of such nuances in measurement. We accept this limitation in return for our ability to make observations that spans populations of hundreds of thousands of practicing teachers in diverse education systems across the world.

Key Findings

The advances in the literature on teacher PD have argued for a “situative perspective” that attends to the teacher attributes more holistically. Scholarship on teacher policy design and implementation similarly argues that failing to consider the individual and system-level barriers can greatly limit the success and scalability of such policies. In the teacher PD discourse, understanding organizational resources and barriers faced by individual teachers presents one such area of study where a teacher-centered perspective may help enhance teachers’ PD experiences. Our study investigated these relationships across more than 40 diverse educational systems. In doing so we also considered TALIS’s complex survey structure, sample weights and a wide range of factors including teachers’ sex, experience, education, qualification, preferences and perceptions about their work, and their job satisfaction and school specific variations (due to school size, location, funding and host of other factors) that may influence these relationships.

The findings present a strikingly consistent story across widely different education systems. We find that organizational and system level support for teacher PD positively shape teacher PD experiences. Teachers participate in more such opportunities and find those opportunities positively impacting their teaching practices when they are supported. This support takes various forms, including providing release from teaching duties for activities during regular working hours, non-monetary support for activities outside working hours (e.g., reduced teaching time, days off, study leave), reimbursement or payment of costs, materials needed for the activities, monetary supplements for activities outside working hours, non-monetary rewards (e.g., classroom resources/materials, book vouchers, software/apps), non-monetary professional benefits (e.g., fulfilling PD requirements, improving promotion opportunities), and increased salary. While rewards, promotion opportunities and increased salary would no doubt be attractive, support matters even when it amounts to simply honoring the teachers’ time or resources they invest in PD.

Teachers encountering organizational and system level barriers are deterred by such barriers. The barriers can also be wide-ranging, lack of pre-requisites (e.g., qualifications, experience, seniority), expense of PD, lack of employer support, conflict with work schedule, conflict with family responsibilities, lack of relevant content, and lack of incentive for participation. Perhaps not surprisingly participation in PD appears to be more closely and negatively associated with such barriers in education systems where PD is left to local discretion. As in the case of supports, it is not just lack of incentive that matters: barriers arising from poor organizational arrangements matter as well. Teachers who encounter such barriers along their PD journey consistently find that their PD experience failed to positively impact their classroom practice.

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

While it may seem self-evident, that “supports” help and “barriers” hinder, to our knowledge our paper is the first to examine the importance of supports and barriers across a vast and diverse set of education systems and policy contexts. The study raises several new questions for future research and provides practical implications for policy and practice.

The findings show that support is consistently appreciated while barriers matter but do not consistently hinder. So, while teachers may fulfill a mandated requirement despite hardships and barriers what matters consistently across widely varying education systems is even some basic consideration and support to help them meet those mandates. These findings align with existing bodies of research on teacher job satisfaction and teacher working conditions. While the enabling factors we study here are specifically related to PD participation, extensive literature has shown the importance of nurturing working conditions and other sorts of support for teachers in their schools for favorable teacher related outcomes (e.g., Ferguson & Hirsch, 2015, Toropova et al., 2021) including greater job satisfaction (e.g., Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Relevant supports for PD activities thus may be an important area of research where these insights from prior literature on job satisfaction and working conditions can inform new work.

It is also noteworthy that the supports teachers seek are not just more financial remuneration or career progression, but teachers are attentive and responsive to even modest efforts to provide organizational supports and remove barriers that honor their time, their lives outside work, and their resource investments. In other words, it is not the pure economic reasoning of “incentives and rewards” that moves these teachers in education systems across the world. Again, this aligns with literature on the factors that motivate teachers and may prove to be a fruitful area of further research in the context of supporting teacher PD.

The observation that barriers matter more in systems where PD participation is left to local decisions also presents a fruitful area for further exploration. It is understandable that in the presence of a national mandate or left entirely to teachers’ discretion teachers may either feel compelled to engage with PD requirements, or comfortable disengaging from it. When there is a mandate that arises from their local entities or schools, however, the presence of such barriers matter. Additional qualitative research and context specific quantitative research can shed light onto the unique features of these systems where barriers play an outsized role.

While the results from this study are not based on causal analyses, the overall consistency of these findings also offer some guidance for policy and practice to equalize PD participation opportunities for teachers from a wide variety of backgrounds.

PD interventions are often driven by policy shifts and policy requirements. When the need for more PD is identified or acknowledged, attention is likely given to the content, curriculum, delivery approach, duration, opportunities to engage with the material inside and outside classroom. However, in those decisions the impact of adding this activity or requirement on teachers’ lives may be missed. From a policy perspective it would be valuable if every new PD design also makes a point of considering the ways in which teachers will be supported in various ways when fulfilling that requirement. This support could be release and readjustment in teaching time, study leave, reimbursement for costs incurred, and providing access to necessary materials. Additional benefits such as career progression or other forms of new resources or increased pay may also be valuable, but the results show that these supports do not have to entail expensive financial investments to be meaningful to the teachers. Similarly, if PD is required nationally or locally, it is important from a design perspective that attention is paid to programs aligning with teachers’ existing qualifications and needs and attentive to their lives and obligations beyond the school hours. Without attention to such barriers in PD design, teachers may struggle to participate in PD even when they are mandated to do so.

Such a well-designed PD implementation system attentive to providing supports and removing barriers can provide a robust organizational foundation or a blueprint to pave a pathway on which a wide range of PD experiences can be delivered and scaled in an ever-evolving educational context.

Providing teachers with various and consistent learning opportunities through their teaching careers is important. Ensuring that these activities are attentive to teachers’ needs and concerns, and supported by organizational resources and not hindered by organizational barriers, can generate tremendous impact. Attention to such policy-amenable organizational supports and barriers in PD design and implementation can help to create and sustain more equitable, affordable, and scalable PD experiences for all teachers across diverse educational systems. Future work in this area can continue to seek greater coordination between the fields of teacher education and education policy, in particular policy design and implementation. Neither field is likely to have all the answers, but greater coordination between these different sources of knowledge can support the design and implementation of excellent, scalable systems that can serve teachers’ PD needs equitably across diverse contexts.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251404941 – Supplemental material for Scaling Professional Development: The Critical Role of Organizational Supports and Barriers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251404941 for Scaling Professional Development: The Critical Role of Organizational Supports and Barriers by Amita Chudgar and Su Yon Choi in AERA Open

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-ero-10.1177_23328584251404941 – Supplemental material for Scaling Professional Development: The Critical Role of Organizational Supports and Barriers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ero-10.1177_23328584251404941 for Scaling Professional Development: The Critical Role of Organizational Supports and Barriers by Amita Chudgar and Su Yon Choi in AERA Open