Building a common understanding of the terminology and definitions within in the field is a necessary in uncovering guidance within the literature on theory, pedagogy, and best practice in online professional development. Teras and Kartoglu (2017) defined professional development as “activities that are intended to engage professionals in new learning about their professional practice” and emphasized the contrast of professional development with the process of professional learning. According to Teras and Kartoglu, professional learning is the desired outcome of professional development and cannot be 'forced or required'. In their article on myths of online professional development, Killion and Treacy (2014) agreed with Teras and Kartoglu and quoted the English proverb “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” to emphasize this idea. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) also distinguished professional development from professional learning in their definition. In their survey of 35 studies, Darling-Hammond et al. defined effective professional development as "structured professional learning that results in changes in teacher practices and improvement in student learning outcomes” (p. 2).

The literature reviewed focused on online professional development from 2004 to 2020 and revealed a variety of terminology used to describe similar programs or events. Table 1 identifies the terminology used and the author or authors who used each term in their research.

Table 1

Terminology Variety in the Literature

Table 1 shows areas of consensus on terminology within the literature reviewed, but no consistency across researchers. Kidd (2009), editor of a book containing research on online professional development, proposed that this lack of consistency makes building on prior research within the field more difficult. In their mixed methods study of 43 participants. Moore et al. (2011) compared terminology use by asking 43 world-wide developers, instructors and teachers from 12 countries to describe scenarios as ‘e-learning’, ‘online learning’ or ‘distance learning’. They found no consistent use of terminology by role, mode of delivery, or country. To highlight this lack of consistency, they shared an additional finding; inconsistent spelling of key terminology, e.g., the term for ‘electronic learning’ spelled as e-learning, e-Learning, E-Learning, and elearning. Moore et al. identified ‘distance learning’ as learning that provides access for learners in separate locations, and ‘computer based’ learning to indicate the delivery of both text based and online media for learning. In addition to inconsistency in terminology use, they also found participants associated ‘distance learning’ with ‘old fashioned’ ideas of online learning. In their 2020 review of the literature, Lay et al. also found a lack of consistent terminology within the filed that complicated their systematic review of existing literature. 

Kidd (2009) and researchers Brooks and Gibson (2012) both proposed that changes in terminology reflect the progression of the role of technology in online professional development from being considered an additional methodology to being seen as innovative pedagogy. Kidd highlighted the continuum of progress with the larger field of ‘e-learning’ from early iterations similar to the early interconnected gaming of PLATO in 1962 (UIUC, 2020) and forward to internet based interactive learning available at the time of the Kidd's article in 2009. Kidd further identified the evolving context of e-learning chronologically as it moved from predominantly ‘drill and practice’ in 1975-1985, to ‘computer-based training’ in 1983-1990, to ‘web-based training’ in 1990-1995 and to ‘e-learning’ in 1995-2005. Kidd summarized that, “Given the progression of the definitions, then, web-based training, online learning, e-learning, distributed learning, and net-based learning all speak of each other" (2009, p.49) and predicted that the field would continue to evolve and build upon new technologies as they develop.

Brooks and Gibson (2012) made a similar observation in their review of the development of online learning for educators and its alignment with the development of individualized technologies of Web 1.0 computer-based learning and later the interconnected, networked offerings available on the internet, or Web 2.0. Brooks and Gibson argued Web 2.0 technologies can provide unique opportunities for professional learning as long as the use of those technologies is considered to be a tool to support learning rather than the goal of learning. Brooks and Gibson's continuum shows the progression of models from traditional face-to-face professional development to online teacher professional development to technology-mediated professional learning. Brooks and Gibson's continuum of professional development models is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

 Professional Development Models Continuum 

(Brooks & Gibson, 2002, p.2). 

In addition to terminology development, Brooks and Gibson also identified two sets of characteristics that differentiate instructor-centered online teacher professional development from learner-centered technology mediated professional learning. According to the researchers, these characteristics include the role of structure in learning, social learning, and content delivery versus content discovery. Brooks and Gibson introduced another term, 'blurred learning', to describe a hybrid format that includes both face-to-face and online learning environments. Table 2 shows the two sets of characteristics identified by Brooks and Gibson.

Table 2

Characteristics of Online Teacher Professional Development and Teacher Mediated Professional Learning

(Brooks & Gibson, 2012, p.7)

Brooks and Gibson constrasted the ways that online professional development is used within the field and argued that teacher-mediated professional learning is more effective for teachers and makes more effective use of the affordances of technology. 

Powell and Bodur (2019)  stated their research applied Knowles’ (1977) characteristics of adult learners in their studies on teachers’ perceptions of online professional development. Powell and Bodur argued that the design of effective online professional development for teachers must include their needs as adult learners and used Knowles characteristics of adult learners in their research framework. Lewis and Chen (2010) stated that Knowles characteristics ‘set apart’ the adult learners in the e-learning experience and included them within the framework for their research on effective online learning practices at the higher education level.

 Knowles describes these five characteristics of adult learners in his 1977 article contrasting pedagogy and andragogy:

1. Adult learners prefer to be self-directed,
2. Adult learners bring a wealth of life experience into their learning,
3. Adult learners prefer and are motivated by social collaborative learning,
4. Adult learners prefer learning that is applicable and addresses their problem based concerns,
5. Adult learners are more often motivated by intrinsic than by extrinsic factors.

From the results of teachers’ reflective responses to video-based professional development, Powell and Bodur identified six ‘key tenets’ that support effective online teacher professional development. These include relevancy to teacher needs, practical usefulness, opportunities for interaction and collaboration, inclusion of authentic tasks and opportunities for teacher reflection.

Stevenson et al. (2015) found that a learner's perception of Knowles’ adult learning characteristics in the online learning environment often depends upon their comfort and confidence with the technology. Stevenson et al. identified Knowles’ adult learner characteristics as aligning with their description of teachers as ‘drivers’ of their professional learning. From interviews with eight school leaders on teacher-mediated professional development and use of technology, Stevenson et al. identified learners’ mindsets as either ‘drivers’ who were motivated to take ownership of their learning by engaging in active learning online or as ‘buyers’ who were less confident in engaging online and were looking to receive content more passively from an online source. School leaders provided multiple opportunities for online professional learning through curating content, creating media, blogging, and using social media across multiple devices. Both structured and unstructured (informal) professional learning was offered. Stevenson et al. found that success with newer forms of online teacher professional development required learners to change their mindset from passive recipients or ‘buyers’ to active knowledge producers taking charge of their own learning, ‘drivers’.

Rob and Rob (2018) define constructivism as an educational philosophy developed by Piaget (1968) who saw learning as an active process where new knowledge is constructed by learners based on their prior knowledge. Lewis and Chen (2010) referred to this knowledge construction as ‘meaning making’ in their study of design factors that lead to effective e-learning. They proposed that online learning can facilitate this type of learning. Liu et al. (2009) described Vygotsky (1978) as a ‘social constructivist’ who promoted the value of social learning proposing that learners construct new knowledge collaboratively in a social context. In 2002, Huang made the case for shifting pedagogy in online learning for adults from teacher-centered traditional learning to a learner- centered approach through reliance on the pedagogy of constructivism.e.

Lewis and Chen observed in their review of 20 years of studies of online and blended courses, that online adult learning has followed a progression from behaviorism to constructivism and predicted theory will continue to evolve as educational technology develops further and allows for more socially constructed knowledge. They cited the relative lower costs of online professional development or ‘e-learning’ and the unique affordances of ‘Web 2.0’, observing that education technology development has progressed as a “clear timeline that follows the evolution of learning theory” (p. 105). Lewis and Chen did not find e-learning to always be the best choice and pointed out that a hybrid of in-person and online teaching and learning are “most valuable when an institution wants to leverage all of the e-learning advantages while still maintaining the nuances that oftentimes face-to-face training provides to the learner” (p.106).

In their review of 40 studies of online teacher professional development in 2006, Whitehouse et al. found that social constructivism influenced most of the studies they examined and claimed this finding as evidence of the importance of social learning for teachers. They used the term “Learning 2.0 web” to indicate this ‘demand-pull’ as opposed to traditional ‘supply-push’ approach to professional learning. They also argued that the ‘Learning 2.0 web’ provides unique affordances that can be used to support social networking and online professional development. Later in 2019, Powell and Bodur identified constructivism and social constructivism as a basis for their qualitative case study of high school science teachers’ perceptions of job-embedded online teacher professional development which resulted in empirical evidence of six features of online teacher professional development: relevancy to teacher needs, practical usefulness, opportunities for interaction and collaboration, inclusion of authentic tasks, and opportunities for teacher reflection.

Liu et al. (2009) described the use of Vygotsky’s ‘social constructivist’ pedagogy in their two year case study of an online learning community developed to support teacher professional development to integrate engineering into PK-12. The study included video conferencing for modeling and feedback, collaborative Google documents and Facebook to facilitate social learning for the participants. The online professional development was used as an extension of a week-long in person learning session for 36 teachers during the summer. The researchers concluded that using an online learning community to extend professional learning over time provided “highly effective just-in-time and individualized support to in-service teachers in such a pioneering field [engineering]” (p. 12). Participant responses identified time and lack of support as barriers to participation in an online community of practice and access to needed resources and new activities as factors that would encourage their participation. Dixon and Dixon (2010) used a longitudinal study format to examine the effectiveness of a learner-centered constructivist pedagogy within fully online in-service professional development. Their work resulted in the development of the Online Pedagogical Effectiveness Framework discussed later in the following section.

In 2021, Howard stated they incorporated a constructivist approach in their study of online micro-course professional development that resulted in identification of factors that inhibited (‘barriers’) or facilitated (‘drivers’) professional learning. The term ‘driver’ refers to factors that were identified by teachers/learners to support online professional development while ‘barriers’ were factors that impeded or distracted from the effectiveness of the learning experience. Howard categorized teachers’ interview responses into three themes: Enactment of the interventions’ features, Institutional context, and outcomes. Teacher responses within each theme resulted in six subcategories that reflected the identified drivers or barriers: accessibility advantages, robust reflexivity, constrained collaboration, incongruent interests, compelled compliance, and promising practice shifts. Table 4 from Howard’s work provides specific descriptions of the drivers and barriers revealed in the teacher interview data.

Table 4

Online Professional Development Drivers and Barriers

(Howard, 2021, p.7)

Preceding Howard's work in 2021, Krutka et al. (2017), claimed that online Professional Learning Networks can support constructivist oriented learning. Their study of online networked professional development for teachers explored the use of social media including Facebook and Twitter among other platforms and noted the recent ability of teachers to network across classrooms, schools, districts, states and even globally. Building on their previous research, Krutka et al. used response data from 537 teachers to develop a ‘flexible framework’ for strengthening professional learning networking that centers on three common components: people, spaces, and tools. The Professional Learning Network Enrichment Framework includes essential questions to support educators in ongoing analysis and reflection individually or by groups. Table 5 displays Krutka et al.’s framework and aligned reflective questions.

Table 5. Professional Learning Network Enrichment Framework

(Krutka, et al., 2017, p.249)

Kruka proposed the use of this framework by educators to evaluate and focus the professional learning networks where they participate. According to the researchers, answering the three essential questions, 1. "What is my PLN?", 2. "How does my PLN shape my professional growth?", and 3. "What are my PLN goals?" for each of the three aspects, people, spaces, and tools, educators should be able to refine their involvment and make effective use of these online professional development resources.

Papert (1982) defines constructionism as ‘learning how to learn’ and includes the individual or collaborative development of an end product or artifact as integral to the learning experience. Papert (1982) further explains that constructionism builds on constructivism by stressing that knowledge development is most effective when a learning by doing or problem solving approach is incorporated into the learning experience alongside reflective discourse. Ostashewski et al. (2011) claimed that in comparison to Piaget, Papert’s theory was a better pedagogical base for online professional development because it was derived from digital media and computer-based technologies learning. The researchers observed that the types of activities and tools available online, including social media, facilitate constructionist principles of artifact construction and reflection that lead to new knowledge support Papert’s theory of constructivism.

According to Ostashewski et al. (2011), Dille & Rokenes (2021), and Teras and Kartoglu (2017), constructionist pedagogy was incorporated into their studies of online professional development. These studies are described individually in this next section. Ostashewski, et al. found that grounding an online teacher professional development ‘courselet’ in constructionist pedagogy allowed for ‘scaffolding’ the teachers’ learning and for accommodating diverse learners through differentiation. According to these researchers, constructionist pedagogy intentionally moves the focus away from the goal of ‘delivering content’ in online professional development onto facilitating the construction of knowledge by teachers through the creation of a contextualized artifact. Based on their review of recent literature, Dille and Rokenes developed a model for online community based professional development that included scaffolding as a major component and stressed constructionist pedagogy.

In the development of online vaccine management coursework for teachers, Teras and Kartoglu (2017) emphasized that ‘online’ is not a framework for adult learning of itself, it is merely a platform for learning and can remain didactic and imitative of the traditional professional development workshop or can be leveraged to facilitate deep collaborative learning. They identified the ‘authentic e- learning’ framework developed by Herrington, Reeves and Oliver (2010) as the pedagogical basis of the online learning program they explored in their study. This ‘authentic e-learning’ as described by Teras and Kartolglu supports application of the theory of situated learning as proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991). According to the researchers, authentic e-learning incorporates constructionism through development of a project or artifact applicable to the learners’ needs and context by using nine elements that align with Knowles’ adult learning principles. Table 6 lists each element followed by a brief description

Table 6. Authentic e-learning Elements

(Teräs & Kartoglu, 2017)

The social learning theory of Bandura (1971, 1977) was identified by some researchers in the reviewed literature as part of the framework for their research and by others as cited in the literature they reviewed within the field of online professional development. Bandura described social learning theory as including an emphasis on observational learning and the influence of the social context on adult learning. Bandura identified four elements of social learning: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. According to Bandura, attention requires the learner to notice what is to be learned so that learning must be designed to capture the focus of the learner as something to be learned. Retention refers to the role of memory in learning, as the learner must retain an internal memory of the learning for learning to occur according to Bandura. Linked to retention is Bandura’s third element, reproduction, which is determined by the learners’ ability to perform the action or cognition. The final element, motivation, requires the learner to see the benefit of using or acquiring the learning.

In their analyses of previous studies, Lewis and Chen (2010) identified the importance of social learning and advocated for the necessity of some form of in-person or online social learning as essential for effective online learning based on the reviewed literature of effective online professional development. At the time, Lewis and Chen limited the definition of online learning to experiences without interaction between learners and used the term ‘asynchronous online learning’ to define online learning where a discussion board or other online communication platform was used to support learner and instructor interaction. Synchronous learning was defined as ‘real time’ interaction among the learners that could be supported by technology or could occur in a hybrid format that included in-person opportunities. Lewis and Chen identified hybrid learning as most appropriate when an instructor or program finds the ‘nuanced’ feedback of in person teaching to be valuable for the experience. Synchronous learning for these researchers was defined as involving chat rooms or ‘real time’ discussion boards.

Parsons et al. (2019) and Powell and Bodur (2019) also concluded that some type of opportunity for social learning is essential to effective professional learning. They claimed that technology is uniquely situated to facilitate this opportunity more easily through synchronous online learning platforms that allow real time discussion and interaction without a need for in-person attendance. Researchers Stoezel and Shadrow (2020) made a similar observation from the perspective of K-12 instructional coaches providing coaching support in an online environment. They stated, “the direct interactions with peers and instructors helped to shape meaning, transfer learning to practices, and structure learning activities ...in individualized ways" (p.9).

Ostashewski and Reid (2010) studied social networking and the effects of social learning through design based research of an online professional development program using a social networking platform on the ‘Learning 2.0 web’. These researchers identified social learning as vital for effective professional development and proposed that online professional development can provide unique opportunities for scaffolding discourse through use of asynchronous discussion boards.

Dana et al.’s (2017) research on the Prime Online program explored the capabilities of online professional development to support social learning. They described Prime Online as a federally funded research project that provided a yearlong program of online professional development. The aim of program for 3rd -5th grade math teachers, according to the researchers, was to incorporate a structured model of inquiry that would scaffold online discussion and result in a deeper understanding of pedagogy and practice for those teachers. Results from their study showed online professional development can effectively support social learning, inquiry and reflection.

The literature reviewed for this work has identified theories of andragogy, constructivism, constructionism, and social learning within the field of online professional development. According to the researchers reviewed, these theories contributed to the development of models and frameworks that can support effective online professional development.

In 1989, Davis proposed the Technology Acceptance Model and described it as centered on the idea that teachers’ success in online learning formats is tied to their relative comfort and confidence with technology or ‘acceptance’ of the modality. Two key elements of this model are defined as ‘perceived usefulness’ and ‘perceived ease of use’. In Davis’ model, perceived usefulness is described as how closely the professional development content aligns with the specific learning needs of the teachers, while perceived ease of use represents how intuitive or user-friendly teachers find the technology to be in use. According to the Technology Acceptance Model, these factors are predictors of a learner’s ‘intention to use’ the acquired knowledge and skills beyond the professional development event or series.

Wasserman and Migdal (2019) stated they incorporated Davis’ model into their quantitative research comparing the attitudes of 495 teachers towards online asynchronous courses and traditional in-person professional development. Factor analysis of teachers’ questionnaire responses identified four factors related to teacher satisfaction with online professional development courses:

1.  Effectiveness and Application,
2.  Environment,
3.  Course Assignments, and
4.  Attitudes towards Information and Communication Technology.

Wasserman and Migdal identified the factors of ‘Environment’ and ‘Attitudes towards Information and Communication Technology’ as significantly different between professional development provided in asynchronous courses and traditional in person professional development. Questionnaire items for these two factors are included in Table 7.

Table 7.  Questionnaire items for significant factors (Wasserman & Migdal, 2019)

Wasserman and Migdal (2019) and Holmes et al. (2010) both found teachers showed a slight preference for online professional development courses when the online learning is provided in the form of an asynchronous course. Similarly, Parsons et al. (2019) surveyed 251 teachers across the U.S. who did not participate in online professional development and found only 27% stated a preference for in-person offerings as the reason why they did not participate. Sixty-five percent of the teachers who did not participate stated their reason as lack of awareness of the availability of online professional devleopment. 

According to Davis (1989), the Technology Acceptance Model applies across learning platforms or modalities, but teachers who are unfamiliar with the technology may need additional support.  Expanding on this finding in 2019, Wasserman and Migdal identifed that the presence of additional technology support may ultimately impact whether the professional development experienced by teachers results in changes to their practice in the classroom.

In 2000, Garrison, Archer and Anderson developed the Community of Inquiry model to support the creation of an effective online learning experience where communication takes place primarily through written text. Garrison et al. analyzed text based 'computer-mediated' communication to identify what they labeled as three essential elements of online learning that contribute to an effective learning experience:

• Social Presence,
• Teaching Presence, and
• Cognitive Presence.

Garrison et al. describe these three elements as interactive features that contribute to a community of inquiry in an online learning community. Cognitive presence, according to Garrison et al. is the ability of the learner to construct meaning as a result of participating in the community and its communication methodology. Social presence is defined as how well learners can present themselves as real personalities within the confines of the online learning environment. Finally, Garrison et al. define teaching presence as the result of the design and facilitation of the learning experience a function of both the 'teacher' and the 'learner' interactions. Each presence supports the other and ultimately the educational experience, according to Garrison et al. Figure 2 diagrams the interaction of the three ‘Presences’ of Garrison et al.’s model.

Figure 2. Community of Inquiry Model 

(http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/coi).

Liu et al., (2019), Ostashewski & Reid (2011), Holmes et al. (2010), Howard, (2021) and Wagner (2020) all identified the Community of Inquiry model as a basis for their research. Although Garrison et al. (2000) stated that cognitive presence was the most crucial for higher education contexts, Holmes et al. found teacher presence and social presence to be the greatest factors associated with learner satisfaction. Holmes et al. used mixed methods that included a survey that measured teacher’s perceptions of the ‘Presences’ following a five week program of professional development. Howard stated that the Community of Inquiry model was foundational to the development of micro-courses provided for in-service teachers. Howard ‘s results identified that teachers perceived the inclusion of a requirement for online posting within the course as a barrier to authentic social presence. Wagner found that using a teacher inquiry framework as the basis for online professional development for early childhood teachers facilitated all three presences within the Community of Inquiry model. These results were derived from coding the verbal and written responses of five multilingual teachers across ten sessions totaling approximately 15 hours of online professional learning.

In 2005, Reeves identified Carrolls’ model of ‘School Learning’ (1963, 1989) as foundational to their ‘WWW-based Learning Model’. Reeves argued against the practice of replicating in-person instruction onto an online learning environment and advocated for incorporating its unique ‘affordances’ for the benefit of the learner. Reeves claimed their adaptation of the Carroll model incorporated the unique interactive learning environment of web-based learning. Reeves described the WWW-based Learning Model’ as having three critical aspects to be addressed in the design of effective online learning:

1. what the learner brings to the learning experience,
2. the learning variables within the learning experience, and
3. the expected outcomes following the learning.

These 3 aspects of Reeves’ model of WWW-based learning. and their components are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. 

  A Model of WWW-based Learning 

(Reeves, 2005, p.4)

Reeves (2005) theorized that desired learning outcomes can be achieved by manipulating 6 variables to bridge the gap from learner aptitude to learning outcomes. These variables are identified in the center of the model pictured in Figure 2.3. According to Reeves, effective web-based learning can be achieved by first recognizing the learner's cultural habits of mind, aptitude and individual differences, and origin of motivation. Reeves' model identifies mediating variables that can be used within the learning including opportunities to construct learning, task ownership, sense of audience, collaborative support, teacher support, and metacognitive support in order to achieve the learning outcomes of knowledge and skills, robust mental models, and higher order outcomes. Failure to accommodate these variables in the design on the learning can negatively affect learner outcomes, particularly higher order thinking outcomes, according to Reeves.

Dixon and Dixon (2010) stated they built Reeves’ model of WWW-based learning into their longitudinal study of in-service teachers participating in online professional learning. Their mixed methods study followed a cohort of 42 learners across 3 years from 2004 to 2007 as they participated in a fully online program. Dixon and Dixon developed their program to rely on a learner-centered approach to accommodate the ‘new millennium learner’ where “the technology is the environment and for whom the process of learning means different things” (p. 22). Dixon and Dixon compiled their results and proposed the Online Pedagogical Effectiveness Framework. This framework includes nine dimensions of effective pedagogy in an online learning environment and are listed below in Table 2.8. Each dimension is aligned with supporting concepts that result in indicators to be considered in design or evaluation. Table 8 describes the components of Dixon and Dixon’s framework aligned with Reeves’ dimensions.

Table 8. The Online Pedagogical Effectiveness Framework

(Dixon & Dixon, in Kidd, 2010 Ed., p18.) 

Dixon and Dixon argued that results from their study opposed popular ideas at the time about the importance of instructor influences and the benefits of learner interaction in the online learning environment. According to Dixon and Dixon, an expected result was that learner interaction on discussion boards and chat rooms diminished as the learners became more adept at navigating the technology. Dixon and Dixon pointed out that one possible explanation was the higher average age of the participants, 39 years, and the fact that they were employed learners spread out over time zones. 

Also in 2010, Lewis and Chen reviewed studies that assessed the effectiveness of online learning and the online aspect of blended learning for adult learners in the higher education context. Their goal was to propose a pedagogy to support the effective use of technology in online learning. Lewis and Chen concluded that the internet effectively supports a collaborative and social learning environment and proposed 9 ‘E-learning Attributes’ that add the importance of social learning onto Dixon and Dixon’s Online Pedagogical Effectiveness Framework (2010).  Table 9 shares Lewis and Chen’s proposed pedagogy of nine E-learning attributes and examples for their inclusion in online learning.

Table 9. E-learning Attributes

(Adapted from Lewis, & Chen, in Kidd, Ed., 2010)

In the studies reviewed, Lewis & Chen found no difference in effectiveness between online and traditional in-person learning. As advantages for online professional learning, they cited the comparative lower cost of ‘e-learning’ and the advantage of greater interaction between teacher and learner in synchronous online learning using the internet.

Ostashewski and Reid (2011) identified the Community of Inquiry model as a basis for their Networked Learning Framework model for designing professional learning within a social networking platform. They cited the affordances unique to online learning and coined the term 'networked teacher professional development' identifying it as a subset of online teacher professional development. Ostashewski and Reid cited the lack of research on online professional learning using social learning and networking on the ‘Learning 2.0 web’ and proposed 7 ‘design principles’ to support improved research and design of networked professional learning (p.13).

1.  Relevant to teacher professional practice,
2.  Easy for teachers to access with flexibility and support,
3.  Theoretically and pedagogically sound,
4.  Able to provide support for learners with varied experience levels,
5.  Providing authentic opportunities for networked skill development,
6.  Supportive of sharing and discourse between learners,
7.  Able to support learning connections to the broader networked community

In addition to these seven principles, Ostashewski and Reid identified four ‘cornerstone components’ that are included in their framework. Ostashewski and Reid summarized these four components as:

1. Engage with research and practice,

2. Explore resources and strategies,

3. Discuss ideas and potential strategies and,

4. Create new practices and contextualized artifacts as a result of learning.

Figure 4 shows how these components are incorporated into the Networked Learning Framework.

Figure 4

The Networked Learning Framework 

(Ostashewski & Reid, 2011, n.p.)

Osteshewski & Reid (2011) proposed the use of this model in designing and informal evaluation of online professional development provided in a social learning environement. They also stressed the ease of use within the online environment, the role of the facilitator, and the availability of quality tools as critical to the success of online learning. 

In 2013, the Conceptual Model of Online Professional Development (Reeves & Pedulla, 2013) was built from the foundation of Desimone’s Path Model (2009) according to the researchers. Desimone’s model identified a linear sequential conceptualization of adult learning with three phases. Although not developed specifically for online learning according to Desimone, this model was cited by researchers in several studies of online professional learning in this review, including Reeves and Pedulla. Desimone described their theory of action for teacher professional development as consisting of four phases (Desimone, 2009, p. 184):

Phase 1. Teachers experience effective professional development.

Phase 2. The professional development increases teachers’ knowledge and skills and/or changes their attitudes and beliefs.

Phase 3. Teachers use their new knowledge and skills, attitudes, and beliefs to improve the content of their instruction or their approach to pedagogy, or both.

Phase 4. The instructional changes foster increased student learning.

Desimone (2009) also identified five core features of effective professional development that result in increased knowledge and skills and changes in attitudes and beliefs of teachers. These core features include:

1. content focus,
2. active learning,
3. coherence,
4. duration and,
5. collective participation.

According to Desimone, incorporating these features into professional development facilitates changes to teacher practice that result in changed instruction and improved student learning outcomes. Figure 5 shows Desimone’s Path Model.

Figure 5. Path Model of Professional Learning

(Desimone, 2009, p.185)

Lay et al. (2020) reviewed 73 studies of online teacher professional development over the past decade. They found that only 10 of 73 studies they reviewed examined the impact of teacher learning directly on student outcomes in a linear manner similar to Desimone's Path Model. Lay et al., observed that 44 of the 73 studies appeared to assume that if teachers enjoyed the learning and if their knowledge and skills increased, they would necessarily implement changes in their classrooms, and student outcomes would be impacted. Lay et al. questioned this assumption and called for more research on the impact of online professional development on student outcomes. Lay et al. tied Desimone’s Path Model in 2009 with the beginning of more rigorous, scientific research of online teacher professional development and an explicit focus on outcomes for both teachers and students.

In 2013, Reeves and Pedulla conducted a correlational study of 1,231 teachers participating in an online professional development course through the U.S. Department of Education’s E-learning for Educators initiative. Survey data were collected from teachers who chose to participate in these fully online, asynchronous courses. Teacher perception data were collected prior to, immediately following and within six to 12 months following the course. According to the researchers, results from the teacher self-report data reinforced Desmione’s linear pathway model of learning for the online environment and shared a diagram of that learning model seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6

Conceptual Model of Online Teacher Professional Development

(Reeves & Pedulla, 2013, p.57)

In the Conceptual Model of Online Teacher Professional Development, Reeves and Pedulla identified changes in teacher knowledge and classroom practice as 'intermediate' changes and changes in student outcomes as 'ultimate' changes. The researchers summarized their results as demonstrating that Desimone's Path Model was also effective for the online professional development environment.

In 2017, Teras and Kartoglu stressed the need for intentional design of online professional development and proposed a ‘grounded’ theory that envisions learning taking place in through a ‘web’ of interactions with the learner at the center. The researchers described this model as explicitly shifting the design focus from incorporating features of effective professional development to facilitating conditions that support effective professional learning. Teras and Kartoglu stated their model was grounded in ‘authentic e-learning’ built from the theory of ‘situated learning’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Their study focused on post-secondary learners participating in an online professional development course in vaccine management. The course consisted of three phases of learning, pre-course, during the course and a final task to develop a process in a real-world setting. The ‘authentic e-learning’ framework consists of 9 elements.

1. Authentic context
2. Authentic tasks
3. Access to expert performances and the modeling of the process
4. Promoting multiple roles and perspectives
5. Collaborative construction of knowledge
6. Reflection
7. Articulation
8. Coaching and scaffolding
9. Authentic assessment

Teras and Kartoglu incorporated these nine elements of authentic e-learning elements into the online e-learning course. Qualitative data from the study were coded into eight categories and merged to form a e-learning model of “learning as a web of interactions” with the learner at the center. Figure 7 shows the resulting framework.

Figure 7. A Framework of Professional Learning in Authentic Learning Based Online Professional Development

(Teräs & Kartoglu, 2017, p.200)

Two years later in 2019, Yurkofsky et al. drew a similar conclusion about learner-centered social learning processes through research on an online Massive Online Open Course for teachers. Teachers were interviewed following their participation in the online programming course and asked what features of the learning were most valuable for them as practitioners. Results reinforced the importance of the ‘core features’ of professional development for the acquisition of knowledge and skills as identified by Desmione (2009). The researchers also pointed out that the open ended interview process captured unexpected outcomes of the collaborative constructivist approach of the course. They stated that one unexpected finding was evidence against a single linear sequential path where teacher learning leads to changes in practice and that lead to improved student outcomes. Interview results showed while some teachers described a linear path to learning, others expressed a greater value for the interaction within the online learning community for discovery of new ideas to enhance their practice or for the validation and encouragement from other teachers that provided the needed confidence to try new ideas or persist in changes to practice.

Later in 2020, Wagner defined and used a teacher inquiry model for online professional learning for multilingual early childhood educators. Wagner described the use of the Teacher Inquiry model as incorporated into a synchronous online learning community based on Garrison et al, 2000. This researcher described this model of learning as “structured spaces for sustained and iterative cycles of reflection, action, and evaluation” (p.185). Wagner identified key features of this model to include:

• teachers as knowledge producers,
• the classroom as the focus of inquiry, and
• teacher collaboration focused on changing instructional practice.

. Results from teachers’ journals, focus groups, and interviews revealed six themes. Teachers using the inquiry model in the online learning community felt supported to:

1. Learn about their students
2. Develop a greater awareness of and intentionality towards instruction
3. Share their experiences with each other
4. Try new practices and take ‘instructional risks’
5. Participate in the inquiry process
6. Learn in a ‘common context’ despite diverse perspectives.

Wagner concluded that including an inquiry approach in an online learning community can deepen communication and enhance teacher support to use new practices. In alignment with Wagner’s conclusion, Yurkofsky et al. (2019) and Teras and Kartoglu (2017) found evidence that using an online platform for learning can support the social context necessary for successful collaboration and inquiry. Yurkofsky et al.’s research involved a ‘Massive Online Open Course’ for teachers and Teras and Kartoglu focused on post-secondary learners participating in an online professional development course in vaccine management. These researchers noted that some participants found online formats more conducive to deeper levels of communication.

In 2021, Dille and Rokenes developed a model of teacher online professional development for online communities based on their reveiw of current literature review. Dille and Rokenes stated the purpose of their literature review was to focus on ‘formally organized online teacher communities’ and the factors that supported online teacher professional development. They synthesized the results of 52 empirical studies and identified 5 factors supportive of learners’ participation and professional development in an online learning community. The authors proposed that the design and delivery of online teacher professional development should consider the importance of: 

1. facilitating a shared understanding within the community,
2. the facilitator’s role in scaffolding the learning,
3. the connection of content to learners’ contexts,
4. flexible design to accommodate individual learning goals,
5. relevant work-related activities within the learning.

Dille and Rokenes identified teachers’ ‘internal factors’ as crucial to their learning including their readiness to learn, attitudes towards technology, fear of negative reactions from other learners and feeling overwhelmed by the content or technology use requirements. They proposed scaffolding as the overarching feature of effective online teacher professional development. Dille and Rokenes’ proposed model of community-based online teacher professional development is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Categories of Online Professional Development Communities

(Dille & Rokenes, 2021)

In addition to the importance of scaffolding other key findings included the complexity of online teacher professional development and the need for differentiation. Based on their findings, Dille and Rokenes claimed that a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not result in effective online professional learning.

Parsons et al. (2019) suggested that “learning and technology are dialectical” in so far as technology continues to develop, newer models of online professional development will also emerge. These researchers surveyed U.S. teachers to explore their perceptions of online professional development and concluded that teachers hold mostly positive perceptions and that those attitudes become even more positive toward online professional development following participation. These researchers stated they envision teacher professional development moving forward in the direction of greater reliance on and incorporation of technology.

Gunter and Reeves (2017), Krutka, et al. (2017), and Fancera (2020) examined the use of social media, devices, and networking to facilitate online professional learning. Gunter and Reeves noted that mobile devices are readily available for most teachers and that the ubiquitous nature of mobile devices might help address the need for ongoing professional development for teachers. They also stated that using devices in their own learning helps teachers better understand how to integrate technology into their instruction to further support student learning and engagement. These researchers described their research methodology as sequential explanatory mixed methods exploring the attitudes of 139 teachers toward mobile learning. Their survey responses revealed four themes: teacher empowerment, self-efficacy, parental involvement, and self-confidence. The study results showed that the eight week professional development opportunity supported change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about integrating mobile devices through building their self-efficacy around device use and by modeling ways to integrate its use into their instruction. Gunter and Reeves cited the most significant finding identified from their quantitative and qualitative data as, “an online professional development course using an authentic, integrated, subject-specific curriculum changed teachers’ dispositions toward the relative value of mobile learning and empowered them to change their own instructional strategies to integrate mobile learning into their curriculum” (p.1314).

Krutka et al. (2017) and Fancera (2020) described the use of social media networking as integral to online professional learning that is accessible and personalized. Krutka et al. identified their research focus as exploring ‘professional learning networks’ that support engaged and ongoing professional development for teachers. They proposed that professional learning networks can incorporate social constructivist and situated learning theory in an ongoing format based on the work of Desimone (2009) who identified similar factors as supportive of effective in-person professional development. Krutka et al. also found that professional learning networks are able to provide needed follow up support for teachers based on the self-report of 537 teachers involved in online professional learning networks. Based on their research findings, Krutka et al. proposed the Professional Learning Network Enrichment Framework that included the three components of an interactive online learning environment: the people/learners, the spaces learners interact, and the tools that support their interaction. Krutka et al. identified four features of a successful professional learning network for educators: Identification, Reflection, Intention and Action Steps.

1. 'Identification' asks, "What is my professional learning network (PLN)?”
2. 'Reflection' asks "How does my PLN shape my professional growth?”
3. 'Intention' asks, "What are my PLN goals?"
4. ‘Action Steps’ identifies what a learner plans to do to enhance their participation in a professional learning network.

In this framework each feature is described by a general question supported by sub-questions and aligned to each of the learning network components; people, spaces, and tools. Krutka et al.’s Professional Learning Enrichment Framework appears in Table 10.

Table 10. Professional Learning Network Enrichment Framework

(Krutka, et al., 2017, p.249)

Fancera (2020) researched the use of social media and networking platforms to provide online professional development opportunities for teachers. They described the use of qualitative methods to explore the experiences of six school leaders in charge of providing professional development to their teaching staff. Fancera stated one motivation for this study was a need to find more cost effective and accessible methods for professional development for teachers and hypothesized that social media and online networking might accomplish that goal. As Krutka et al. (2017) did, this researcher incorporated Desimone’s (2009) features of effective professional development. Fancera described applying these features and integrating them with social-cognitive learning theory to support the use of social media and networking for school leaders. They stated their primary finding was that school leaders tended to use social media networking, mainly Twitter, as one part of a multi-faceted program of professional development. Self-report results from the school leaders indicated that using social media and networking in professional development allowed for personalization and eliminated some barriers of in-person professional development including time, cost, and the need for substitute teachers.

Ostashewski and Reid (2010), Brooks and Gibson (2012), and Krutka et al., (2017) all identified unique opportunities afforded by online teacher professional development. These researchers cited the online learning environment as uniquely situated to facilitate teacher collaborative discussion, peer support, file (resource) sharing, cooperative planning, technology learning experience, and access to ‘just in time’ professional development as compared to in-person opportunities.

Brooks and Gibson (2012) identified three ‘affordances’ of online teacher professional development in their paper on professional learning in the ‘digital age’. These researchers propose personalization, practice-focus, and professional learning community as facilitated by online professional learning. These researchers recommend including an online professional learning community or professional learning network as part of the online teacher professional development framework. They cite three types of professional learning networks addressed in the literature. Table 11 shows these types and provides an example of each.

Table 11. Types of Professional Learning Networks (PLNs)

(Brooks & Gibson, 2012, p.9) 

Brooks and Gibson (2012) posit that online networking and collaborative learning opportunities based on the work of Wenger (1998), eventually become part of a “school-wide culture that makes collaboration expected, inclusive, genuine, ongoing and focused on critically examining practice to improve student outcomes” (p. 6). Krutka et al. (2017) concluded that online professional development provides unique opportunities for teachers to engage with diverse colleagues and can support a greater sense of connectedness and provide emotional support. They offered one teacher's example from their study of 537 P-12 teachers’ responses regarding their use of professional learning networks, "My PLN [professional learning network] consists of my co-teachers, department, and the growing community of educators I connect with online (and a lot of times in person through edcamps, etc)".

Lewis and Chen (2010), in a synthesis of an unidentified number of previous studies of online and hybrid online courses for adults, claimed that both forms of online learning can effectively provide a collaborative, social learning environment. In 2020, Wagner explored the interactions of five multilingual Early Childhood teachers through qualitative data including coding of written and verbal responses. Results showed that online professional learning facilitated the inquiry process for these Early Childhood teachers and supported deeper conversation and communication, allowing them to comfortably share their experiences and support each other in trying new strategies in their classrooms. In their reviews of the literature, Dede at al. (2009) and Dille and Rokenes (2021) cited the benefit of additional modes of communication provided in the online environment and identified both synchronous and asynchronous online communication as effective in facilitating deeper discussion and communication.

In their three year study of 42 online learners, Dixon and Dixon (2010) observed what they called development of the ‘maturity’ of the learners over time as they became more adept at using the online learning platform. They found that as they provided more flexibility in year two of the constructivist based program, the learners tended to isolate to independent learning where they focused more on task completion than communication. Dixon and Dixon measured the participation of the learners over two years and found less participation in discussion boards and chat rooms and less need for teacher support in the second year. Study results also showed that learners in year two’s more flexible format pursued deeper learning through problem solving tasks and case studies and reported greater relevance of their learning over time.

In their 2011 study, Ostashewski et al. used constructionist principles to support online professional development provided as ‘courselets’. Teachers’ responses collected after the completion of the professional development identified easy access as one of the benefits of this type of online professional learning. In their review of the literature, Dede et al. (2009) also noted the convenience of online teacher professional development as part of a rationale for incorporating it into current professional development opportunities. More recently, Dille and Rokenes’ (2021) scoping literature review reported access to resources as one important factor supporting teacher satisfaction with online teacher professional development. Similarly, results from participant interviews in Howard’s 2021 study of online professional development provided in a micro-course format identified ‘accessibility advantages’ as one of the ‘drivers’ of engagement and learning. Howard focused on teacher identity and agency and identified ‘drivers’ from the coded and themed interview responses. A ‘driver’ indicated a feature that supported professional learning within the micro-course.

The Education Development Center (Burns, 2013) identified easy access to resources as an affordance of professional development using mobile devices and cited use of devices for online professional development to effectively personalize professional development for teachers. This 2013 report concludes, "Together, smartphones and apps allow teachers to capitalize on what many see as the future of the web: "the fully mobile web," a platform that is mobile and differentiated resides on a teacher's learning device and offers access to a customized menu of PD opportunities via changeable and customizable apps at the time and place of the teacher's choosing" (p18).

Ally and Prieto-Blazquez (2014) and Gunter and Reeves (2017) found that online professional development can provide opportunities for ubiquitous learning. Ally and Prieto-Blazquez stated that the ubiquitous nature of mobile technology use in business, government, social services, and healthcare should be replicated for education. They described the ‘disruption’ that device based learning will create as inevitable and called for additional research to uncover best practice. The key to effective use of mobile learning, according to Ally and Prieto, is incorporating research-based pedagogy into its design and delivery. In their research, Gunter and Reeves explored the use of iPads and iPhones to provide eight weeks of professional development on incorporating mobile learning in the classroom to 139 PK-12th grade teachers. Following the professional development, they surveyed participants using a validated survey of mobile learning. Results from the participants’ responses indicated that they saw improvement in each of these four areas: teacher empowerment, self-efficacy, parental involvement, and self-confidence. These researchers noted that this experience changed teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using technology in their classrooms to support instruction.

In addition to devices, Krutka et al.’s (2017) study of 537 P-12 teachers’ responses cited the advantages of access to professional learning provided by social media networking on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Fancera (2020) studied the experiences of six school leaders and found that by incorporating Twitter into professional development for their teaching staff, school leaders were able to provide greater access and ongoing support. Liu et al., (2009) included an online learning community to extend week-long face to face teacher professional development across the school year using Google document sharing and Facebook as part of the program of learning. These researchers concluded that the providing an online learning community was an effective method for providing both ‘just-in-time’ access and individualized professional development for teachers.

In contrast, Killion and Treacy (2014) and Powell and Bodur (2019) warn that professional development providers should not assume that access to technology-supported professional learning equates to actual learning or leads to changes in adult practice. Killion and Tracy identified this idea as one of the ‘myths’ of technology-based professional learning in their article synthesizing recent research on online professional development. Powell and Bodur used a multi-case study approach to explore secondary teachers’ responses to job-embedded online professional development on differentiation. Powell and Bodur described the professional development as viewing videos and providing written responses. They concluded that one important finding of using this approach was, “mere access to PD and follow-up reflection questions in an online format is inadequate” (p.26). Both Killion and Treacy and Powell and Bodur highlighted teachers’ challenges in accessing quality professional development as one outcome that could be addressed by improving access to high quality online professional development.

Stevenson et al. (2015) interviewed eight school leaders about their use of technology to support teacher professional learning. They noted the shift from teacher-led to learner-centered professional development and described some online learning participants as ‘drivers’ of their learning. They distinguished between the terms ‘professional development’ and ‘professional learning’ as the difference in the position of the learner. According to Stevenson et al., professional development includes the idea that teachers can be ‘developed’ from the outside. In contrast, they claimed that professional learning is centered on the learning process that occurs within the learner. They also noted that teachers’ responses highlighted the need for effective online professional learning to move from what they described as a “buyer” to a “driver” design mindset. They defined a ‘driver’ mindset as learner-led and learner-centered professional learning accessed in a self-directed manner. They also claimed that technology can easily support this type of professional learning by enabling teacher choice through the availability of multiple online strategies and tools. They concluded that lack of teacher autonomy and choice may hinder professional learning.

Parsons et al. (2019) used a self-developed survey and interviews in their study of K-12 teachers’ perceptions of online learning. Results from 258 survey responses showed that the importance of teachers’ agency and choice in online professional development. Survey results revealed that teachers who were required to participate in online learning reported it to be less helpful than those who were able to choose participation. Parsons et al. concluded, “Where a high degree of choice exists, educators arguably have more autonomy to engage in professional learning; restricted choice may perpetuate notions of development" (p.18).

Similarly, Howard’s (2021) qualitative research on online micro-course professional development identified teacher sense of identity and agency as important impacting factors. Howard claimed the study was framed by ‘identity in practice’ theory and teacher agency. Results from interviews of 11 teachers participating in the programs identified barriers and drivers of online micro-course professional development. Survey results also revealed increased self-efficacy as one of the ‘drivers’ of effective online professional development for teachers. Other drivers identified by the researcher included accessibility, opportunities for reflection, and support to change practice.

Howard (2021) stated that teachers’ perceptions of online professional development revealed that learning within a community supported them to develop their practice overall. In their article on technology-supported professional learning, Killion and Treacy (2014) advocated for collaborative online professional learning as a method for addressing teacher isolation and potentially reducing disparity within student learning. They cited learning communities as powerful designs for online teacher professional learning, "Online professional learning, designed with a learning community model, enables educators to build strong connections with other educators, give and receive feedback, share and analyze student work, collaborate on curriculum and instruction, interact with local and distant experts and colleagues, and engage in reflection in, on, and for practice" (p. 162).

Stevenson et al. (2015) concurred with Howard’s observation of the impact of online learning communities on teachers’ professional development. Stevenson et al. studied eight school leaders’ integration of technology into teacher professional development including tools to support content curation, creation of media, blogging and social media. Results included the finding that technology enabled professional learning can facilitate two types of learning communities. One learning community that is created within the school and the other that develops between schools as technology extends access to the professional learning to other schools’ learning communities.

Yurkofsky et al., (2019) in their exploration of 57 teachers’ valued outcomes from online professional development identified three domains of teachers’ experiences as ‘teacher and idea’, ‘teacher and practice’, and ‘teacher and world’. One conclusion of their study was that online professional learning communities were able to effectively connect teachers from rural areas with others across the U.S. Holmes et al. (2010) found social ‘presence’ defined as a sense of community to be closely associated with teacher satisfaction and overall learning in online professional development. This mixed-methods study of K-12 in-service teachers found participants valued social networking and on-demand access to the learning community offered in the online professional learning environment. Ostashewski and Reid (2010) in their study of online teacher professional development in a blended format, identified the ‘Learning 2.0 web’ as able to provide unique opportunities for social networking and collaborative learning.

In contrast, Borko et al. (2010) cited the need for skilled facilitators to support the development of a ‘tech-based’ learning community, although still identifying collaborative online learning as important for teachers., Suthers et al. (2013) made a similar observation in their research using ‘associograms’ to measure community structures within ‘socio-technical’ networks in an online professional learning platform for teachers. Suthers et al. described an 'associogram' as a visual of "a network of artifact-mediated associations". They argued that the diversity and breadth of a learning community may hinder the development of deeper and more authentic learning community characteristics as measured by the levels of participation within and across communities within a network. Figure 9 depicts Suthers et al.'s 'associogram' visual where colors indicate connections across communities and width of color bands depict depth of communication within a community. 

Figure 9. Example of an Associogram Visual 

(Suthers, et al., 2013, p.4)