The fourth article I selected is Fishman et al. (2022) because of the strong connections it shares with the other three articles. Hora et al. (2021), Marshall & Horn (2025), Clark et al. (2024), and Fishman et al. (2022) all explore how teachers learn and adapt their teaching practices in ways that better serve students, moving beyond simplistic “acquire-apply” models of professional development (PD). These studies emphasized the critical role of context, the importance of active engagement and collaboration, and the need for PD to be situated in authentic teaching environments and responsive to the complex realities of classroom practice. These articles collectively argued for a shift towards more socioculturally informed and contextually based approaches to teacher learning and instructional design. These shared insights have deepened my understanding of effective PD and how PD can be designed more effectively, situated, and practice-based to empower educators to grow in ways that directly benefit students’ learning.
Personally, I viewed Fishman et al. (2022) as a foundational article that provided a comprehensive overview of advances in teacher learning research within the learning sciences. It outlined key theoretical perspectives and empirically supported features of effective PD, which help contextualize and reinforce the specific arguments and findings in Hora et al. (2021), Marshall & Horn (2025), and Clark et al. (2024). In particular, Fishman et al. (2022) strengthened the shared emphasis on the importance of situated learning, the role of context, and the defining characteristics of effective PD.
I found Fishman et al. (2022) especially valuable because they considered “learning to be inextricably linked to context and that teacher learning is situated within practice” (p.619), which also represents the situative perspectives in the other three articles as well. Hora et al. (2021) highlighted that “educational work [is] fundamentally situated in specific social and organizational settings, where contextual factors both constrain and afford individuals’ decisions and actions” (p.750) and supported this by showing how instructors’ decisions are shaped by real-world factors like student needs and institutional expectations. This directly aligns Fishman et al. (2022)’s focus on context, also connecting to something I encounter daily when supporting instructors through course design and PD. Marshall and Horn (2025) took this further by introducing “recontextualization” to explain how educators adapt what they learn in PD to fit their specific classrooms settings, which often fit into the concept of “personally meaningful practices”. As an instructional designer, I see this kind of adaptation all the time, and Fishman et al.’s work helps me understand why it’s not just expected but necessary. Similarly, Clark et al.(2024) highlighted ” structural and cultural constraints ” (p.616) K-12 teachers face, recommending for a “designerly stance” that requires in-depth consideration of “needs, challenges, and perspectives of students and other stakeholders” (p.644). Their idea of taking a “designerly stance” aligns closely with my own practice of customizing support based on instructors’ unique constraints and goals. Overall, all four articles reinforce the importance of creating PD opportunities in real-world contexts, ensuring that learning experiences are not only relevant but also practically applicable to teachers’ everyday teaching environments.
In addition, I also found that Fishman et al. (2022) offered a clear and practical thoughts on what effective PD, listed essential characteristics, including extended duration, sustained nature, focus on content knowledge and student understanding, coherence, pedagogical practice, collaboration and social supports, which serve as valuable benchmarks when we are evaluating PD programs. Hora et al. (2021) critiqued current faculty development for being “short in duration,” “technocratic, top-down,” and relying on “didactic lectures”, suggesting instead for PD that “actively engage[s] faculty as learners”, is “grounded in authentic classroom situations” (p.755), which is aligns perfectly with the features of effective PD outlined by Fishman et al. (2022), which emphasizes the importance of real-world, hands-on learning in supporting teachers’ development. I also see this as essential for creating PD that is both impactful and relevant to teachers’ day-to-day work. Marshall and Horn (2025) added that traditional PD often “overwhelmingly focus on activities, content, process, or structure… implicitly relying on a simple acquire-apply model of learning” (p.2), which does not reflect how teachers truly learn. Their call to support teachers’ “agentic synthesis” highlights the importance of designing PD that allows for flexible, context-sensitive adaptation. Fishman et al.’s emphasis on “enactment and analysis of pedagogical practice” and the “development of professional learning communities and collaborative teacher discourse” provides a solid foundation for supporting this kind of learning. Clark et al. (2024) introduced a “designerly thinking framework” that requires specific pedagogical approaches in teacher education. The success of teaching this framework would depend on the PD adhering to principles such as emphasizing the “content knowledge” of design, being coherent, and providing opportunities for “enactment and reflection”. Clark et al. (2024) ‘s observation that pre-service teachers “can easily regress or default back to established and familiar frames” (p.654) highlights the need for the “ongoing support and scaffolding” emphasized by Fishman et al. as part of sustained PD. These articles collectively reinforce my belief that effective PD must be sustained, grounded in practice, and responsive to teachers’ evolving needs.
In summary, I would say that Fishman et al. (2022) served as a foundational piece that not only represents core ideas across from the other three articles but also offers a practical framework for designing effective, context-responsive PD. From my perspective as an instructional designer, these four articles together deepen my understanding of how to create PD that is situated, sustained, and supportive of teacher agency, ensuring it is meaningful, adaptable, and closely tied to the realities of classroom practice.
References
Clark, D. B., Scott, D., DiPasquale, J. P., & Becker, S. (2024). Reframing design in education: Proposing a framework to support pre-service teachers in adopting designerly stances. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 33(4–5), 613–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2024.2397762
Fishman, B. J., Chan, C. K. K., & Davis, E. A. (2022). Advances in Teacher Learning Research in the Learning Sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (3rd ed., pp. 619–637). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.038
Hora, M. T., Benbow, R. J., & Lee, C. (2021). A sociocultural approach to communication instruction: How insights from communication teaching practices can inform faculty development programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4–5), 747–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936533
Marshall, S. A., & Horn, I. S. (2025). Teachers as agentic synthesizers: Recontextualizing personally meaningful practices from professional development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2025.2468230
Leave a Reply