The transition from Hora et al.’s (2021) article, which identifies critical issues and needs in faculty development, to Marshall and Horn’s (2025) article feels logical and natural because it shifts the focus to how teachers actually learn and adapt new practices in these complex, real-world contexts. These articles build on the need for instructor professional development (PD) that is responsive to specific context, rather than generic or prescriptive. Reading Marshall and Horn’s (2025) study led me to think more deeply about how PD can be designed to support instructors’ motivations, address their specific needs, and encourage meaningful learning and adaptation. I see strong connections between the two articles I selected, which align closely with my own professional experiences as an instructional designer.
Issues
Hora et al. (2021) argued that faculty development is “overly focused on technocratic, top-down approaches” (p.750) that prioritize technical techniques over reflection and situated practices. Similarly, Marshall & Horn’s (2025) questioned the “simple acquire-apply model of learning,” which fails to account for instructors’ professional judgment and fails to capture how learning evolves over time after PD sessions end. They also challenge the notion of “fidelity of implementation” as an insufficient measure of teacher learning, arguing it “offers little insight into whether or how learning occurs and obscures the ways in which recontextualization necessitates adaptation” (Marshall & Horn, 2025, p.30). This reflects on what I often see in my own work, that subject matter experts new to teaching may enthusiastically attend those generic PD trainings, but struggle to apply what they’ve learned to fit their specific teaching contexts. This raises a question for me: How can PD programs be designed to support meaningful adaptation rather than rigid implementation?
Frameworks/Approaches
Both articles are grounded in theoretical frameworks that emphasize the importance of context in learning: the sociocultural approach from Hora et al. (2021) and the situative perspective from Marshall and Horn (2025). These perspectives align closely with how I understand learning. Specifically, Marshall & Horn (2025) took a “situative perspective on teacher learning,” arguing that learning is “sculpted by the activity structures in which people engage, as well as the relationships and perspectives about actors in those activity systems” (Bang, 2015, p. 231). This perspective considers learners’ agency, identities, motivations, and contexts as “critical dimensions of learning” (Marshall & Horn, 2025, p.6). This perspective reinforces my thoughts that PD should be grounded in the real teaching practice rather than built around abstract or generic content. In addition to that, I’m prompted to think more deeply about designing PD that helps instructors navigate the complexities of their specific teaching contexts, which means moving beyond surface-level skill modules to focus on authentic tasks, collaborative learning, and reflective spaces tied to real teaching experiences. This also raises important questions for me: How can PD training better acknowledge instructors’ identities, values, and teaching contexts? With so many theoretical frameworks/approaches available, how do I choose the most appropriate one for designing meaningful PD?
Findings
Comparing the two articles reveals several key findings about how instructors engage with PD. One shared finding that caught my attention, relevant to my interests, is the influence of instructors’ prior experiences on how they make instructional decisions and adopt new practices. Hora et al. (2021) reported that faculty members’ past industry experience was the most common factor shaping their teaching choices, particularly by increasing their awareness of employer expectations and student needs. Likewise, Marshall and Horn (2025) illustrated how personal histories shaped how teachers interpreted PD content. Through a comparative case study of two math teachers, Lee and Kevin, the authors traced how each teacher took up different instructional practices and adapted them across multiple contexts (Marshall & Horn, 2025). Lee becomes more “de-centered teacher” grew out of past classroom experiences, while Kevin’s approach was shaped by his students’ “math trauma.” These examples highlight how instructors bring professional and personal backgrounds into their teaching and PD, which in turn deeply influences how they adapt and apply new ideas. This reminds me of the importance of recognizing and valuing the diverse experiences instructors bring to PD. Their past teaching, industry knowledge, and experiences with students are not just background context; they are central to how they make sense of and use what they learn. Besides, my questions would be “What other factors besides prior experience might influence how instructors adopt new practices?
References
Bang, M. (2015). Culture, learning, and development and the natural world: The influences of situative perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075402
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