IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/jetsjl/v10y2022i3p43-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Educators’ Preferences for Professional Learning Formats by Learning Objective

Author

Listed:
  • Cheyne A. LeVesseur
  • Julie Q. Morrison
  • Melissa Nantais

Abstract

Innovations in information technology have generated an array of options for the professional learning for educators. Face-to-face, remote, and hybrid formats for professional learning each have their advantages and disadvantages for advancing educators’ knowledge and skills in evidence-based practices to promote student achievement. The purpose of this study was to better understand teacher and educational leaders’ preferences for professional learning formats in relation to the intended learning objective. The results indicate that educators preferences for professional learning format varied by the intended learning objective of the session. Remote professional learning was preferred relative to face-to-face and hybrid formats for a session in which the primary objective was to share information uni-directionally from the presenter to the audience (53% versus 25% and 22% preferred hybrid). The respondents were equally split in their preference for either a face-to-face or remote format when the learning objective was to understand new concepts and learn how to apply the concepts to their setting. The results have important implications for designing professional learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheyne A. LeVesseur & Julie Q. Morrison & Melissa Nantais, 2022. "Educators’ Preferences for Professional Learning Formats by Learning Objective," Journal of Education and Training Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 10(3), pages 43-50, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:rfa:jetsjl:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:43-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/jets/article/download/5495/5696
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/jets/article/view/5495
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rfa:jetsjl:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:43-50. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.