Perspectives of Students and Teachers Form Continuing Professional Development: Challenge And Obstacle

Kartika Chrysti Suryandari, Rokhmaniyah Rokhmaniyah, Wahyudi Wahyudi


Continuous professional development (CPD) for teachers is crucial for enhancing their professional capabilities, particularly in pedagogical skills. Despite its importance, several barriers and challenges impede the effective development of the teaching profession. This study aims to investigate these obstacles through the perceptions of elementary school students and teachers, providing insights into the current state of CPD in education. A survey method was used to gather data from 150 participants, including students and teachers, to explore their perceptions of CPD. The survey focused on various aspects of CPD, including educational practices, learning processes, professional development activities, and supporting mechanisms. The findings revealed significant differences in perceptions between students and teachers across the examined aspects. Teachers predominantly prioritized the learning process in their professional development efforts. Major obstacles identified included a lack of motivation and insufficient intervention for practicing teachers. Additionally, a critical challenge for teachers was the deficiency of high-quality resources necessary to conduct effective research in learning methodologies. The disparity in perceptions between students and teachers highlights the need for more targeted CPD programs that address the specific needs of educators. Enhancing motivation and providing adequate support and resources are essential for overcoming these barriers. Addressing these challenges can lead to more effective teaching practices and ultimately improve the quality of education. This study underscores the importance of understanding the barriers and challenges to CPD from both students' and teachers' perspectives. By prioritizing the learning process and addressing motivational and resource-related issues, stakeholders can better support the professional development of teachers, leading to improved pedagogical outcomes.


continuing professional development; perspective; teacher


Arthur, L., et al., (2006). Postgraduate professional development for teachers: motivational and inhibiting factors affecting the completion of awards. Journal of in-service education, 32 (2), 201– 219.10.1080/13674580600650971

Anif, S. (2009). Keefektifan Model Peningkatan Kompetensi Profesional Guru Biologi Pasca Sertifikasi Berbasis pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan (PKB) di Karesidenan Surakarta. The Progressive and Fun Education Seminar, 500–510

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years.

Teaching and Teacher Education, (27),10-20

Beatty, A., Emilie, B., Luhur, B., Menno, P., Daniel, S. (2021). Schooling progress, learning reversal: Indonesia’s learning profiles between 2000 and 2014. International Journal of Educational Development, (85) 2021, 102436

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 7(2), 548–556. 0-08-044894-7.00654-0

Bragg, L. A., Walsh, C., & Heyeres, M. (2021). Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: A systematic review of the literature. Computers & Education, 166.

Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 466–487.

Cleary, T. J., Kitsantas, A., Peters-Burton, E., Lui, A., McLeod, K., Slemp, J., & Zhang, X. (2022). Professional development in self-regulated learning: Shifts and variations in teacher outcomes and approaches to implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education,111(2022), 1–12, 103619.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

De Vries, S., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2013). Profiling teachers' continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, (33),78-89.

Gibbs, A. (2000). Focus groups. Social research update issue 19 (Retrieved from http://sru.

Girvan, C., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. (2016). Extending experiential learning in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, (58), 129–139.

Glesne, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA Sociology Press.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381– 391.

Hinojosa, D. M. (2022). Practice what you teach: Onsite coaching and dialogic feedback to promote the appropriation of instructional strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111(2022), 1–16, 103582.

Kastawi, N. S., & Yuliejantiningsih, Y. (2019). Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan Guru untuk Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan. Kelola: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan, 6(2), 157–168. .p157-168

Klein, H.K., Tellefsen, T., & Herskovitz, P.J. (2007). The use of group support systems in focus group: Information technology meets qualitative research. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2113– 2132.

Manowong, S. (2016). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of Edmodo as a supplementary learning tool in an EFL classroom. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 16(2), 137–161

McMillan, D.J., McConnell.B., O’Sullivan. (2016). Continuing professional development – why bother? Perceptions and motivations of teachers in Ireland. Professional Development in Education. 42(1), 150-167.

Meyer. A., Kleinknecht. M., Richter.D. (2023). What makes online professional development effective? The effect of quality characteristics on teachers’ satisfaction and changes in their professional practices. Computers & Education 200, (2023) 104805.

Miles, B. M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3.

Carlifornia: Sage Publications.

Praetorius, A. K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM, 50(3), 407–426.

Reeves, T. D., & Pedulla, J. J. (2011). Predictors of teacher satisfaction with online professional development: Evidence from the USA’s e-Learning for Educators initiative. Professional Development in Education, 37(4), 591–611.

Steyn, G. M. (2011). Continuing professional development in South African schools: staff perceptions and the role of principals. Journal of Social Science, 28(1), 43-53.

Thomas, W. (2022). ‘Promoted widely but not valued’: Teachers’ perceptions of team teaching as a form of professional development in post-primary schools in Ireland. Professional Development in Education 48:4, pages 688-704.

Trotter, Y. D. (2006). Adult learning theories: Impacting professional development programs. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 8–13.

Xin, Z., Wilfried, A., & Nadira, S. (2022). Teacher autonomous motivation for continuous professional development: the relationship with perceived workplace conditions. Teachers and Teaching,(28)8, pages 909-924.

Xin, Z., Wilfried, A., & Nadira, S. (2021) Teachers’ motivation to participate in continuous professional development: relationship with factors at the personal and school level. Journal of Education for Teaching, (47) 5, pages 714-731.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.

Organization Science, (16)4, 409-421. orsc.1050.0133



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2024 Kartika Suryandari

Al-Ishlah Jurnal Pendidikan Abstracted/Indexed by:




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.