IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i4p2158244020982614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of the Key Stakeholders on Professional Development of Teachers in Rural Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Nawab

Abstract

Professional development (PD) has generally been associated with the learning opportunities teachers avail externally. However, the latest trends propagate grounding PD activities in the work place with the assumption that such shift will not only enable teachers to be engaged in ongoing learning but also help them to find contextual solutions for their specific issues. For other academics, however, PD refers to all the planned and unplanned activities which teachers avail to improve their practices. In this background, this research explored how relevant stakeholders in rural Pakistan perceive PD. Using a survey method and questionnaire tool, data were collected from teachers, school leaders, education department officials, and representatives of PD providers. The outcomes showed that majority of stakeholders associate PD to external learning opportunities provided to the teachers. In addition, there is a lack of shared understanding among different stakeholders with regard to the meaning of PD. These conclusions have implications for PD providers and educational reformers. Teachers should be oriented on latest trends in PD as well as supported to use the latest school-based PD models for their ongoing development.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Nawab, 2020. "Perceptions of the Key Stakeholders on Professional Development of Teachers in Rural Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:2158244020982614
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020982614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020982614
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020982614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    2. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    3. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    4. Alvesson, Mats & Sveningsson, Stefan, 2011. "Management is the solution: Now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 349-361.
    5. Dupouet, Olivier & Yildizoglu, Murat, 2006. "Organizational performance in hierarchies and communities of practice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 668-690, December.
    6. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    7. Frédéric CREPLET, 2004. "Les Portails d’entreprise : une réponse aux dimensions de l’entreprise « processeur de connaissances »," Working Papers of BETA 2004-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Louie Rivers & Tamara Dempsey & Jade Mitchell & Carole Gibbs, 2015. "Environmental Regulation and Enforcement: Structures, Processes and the Use of Data for Fraud Detection," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-29, December.
    9. Mohajan, Haradhan, 2016. "Sharing of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations: A Review," MPRA Paper 82958, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Jun 2016.
    10. Xiao Zhang & Luqun Xie & Jiatao Li & Li Cheng, 2022. "“Outside in”: Global demand heterogeneity and dynamic capabilities of multinational enterprises," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 709-722, June.
    11. Cristina Páez-Avilés & Esteve Juanola-Feliu & Islam Bogachan-Tahirbegi & Mónica Mir & Manel González-Piñero & Josep Samitier, 2015. "Innovation And Technology Transfer Of Medical Devices Fostered By Cross-Disciplinary Communities Of Practitioners," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06), pages 1-27, December.
    12. Fioretti, Guido, 2009. "From men and machines to the organizational learning curve," MPRA Paper 19392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Gyewan Moon & Suk Bong Choi & Shaikh Javed Fardin, 2016. "Organisational factors for effective knowledge sharing: an empirical study of Korean learning teams," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 102-120.
    14. Maarten B.T. de Groot & Oli R. Mihalache & Tom Elfring, 2022. "Toward a Theory of Family Social Capital in Wealthy Transgenerational Enterprise Families," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(1), pages 159-192, January.
    15. Prencipe, Andrea & Tell, Fredrik, 2001. "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1373-1394, December.
    16. Parjanen, Satu & Hyypiä, Mirva, 2019. "Innotin game supporting collective creativity in innovation activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 26-34.
    17. Mike Bartholomaei, 2005. "To Know is to Be: Three Perspectives on the Codification of Knowledge," SPRU Working Paper Series 131, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Clint Chadwick & Adina Dabu, 2009. "Human Resources, Human Resource Management, and the Competitive Advantage of Firms: Toward a More Comprehensive Model of Causal Linkages," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 253-272, February.
    19. Nooteboom, B., 2005. "A Logic of Multi-Level Change of Routines," Other publications TiSEM 295ebc31-be01-46d9-894a-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:2158244020982614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.