We are comfortable talking about pedagogy. In schools, we are constantly asking: what’s the best way to teach this concept? How do pupils learn most effectively?

When it comes to discussing teachers’ learning, though, we talk in more generic terms. We refer to “continuing professional development” or “training” and rarely ask the equivalent question that we ask about our pupils: how do teachers learn most effectively?

Earlier this year, the Teacher Development Trust convened a group to explore this very question. We wanted to understand whether the teaching of teachers should be considered a discipline in its own right - and, if so, what that might mean in practice.

Our conclusion, outlined in a new report, is that the teaching of teachers does indeed have unique qualities and requires distinct considerations. In fact, we determined that the study and practice of how teachers learn most effectively is important and unique enough to need its own terminology.

In response, we have coined the term “didagogy” (DIED-uh-goj-ee).

How did we reach this conclusion? What do we know so far about what makes didagogy unique? And how might this newly named concept reshape how the sector approaches professional development?

What makes teachers unique as learners?

There are common threads involved in teaching anybody, regardless of age, subject or background. Many approaches that work with children and adults will also work with teachers.

But teachers are unique learners. They approach professional development through the lens of their own pedagogical understanding, educational background and lived classroom experience. Their prior beliefs and professional identities shape how they interpret and apply training. They operate within a shifting world of evidence, accountability and professional pressure.

For a range of CPD options for schools, visit Tes Develop

Research into adult learning has long highlighted this point. Malcolm Knowles’ theory of “andragogy” (the theory, methods and activities involved in teaching adult learners) suggests that adults bring prior knowledge, seek relevance and want agency in their learning. Jack Mezirow’s work on “transformative learning” similarly underlines the role of critical reflection in adult growth.

For teachers, however, we believe these principles are magnified: their day job is teaching, so they cannot help but filter CPD through a lens of professional judgement and comparison.

Teacher identity research supports this view. In their 2010 book, The New Lives of Teachers, Christopher Day and Qing Gu describe teacher identity as being shaped by their professional values, commitment and resilience. In addition, 2009 research by Geert Kelchtermans highlights the “personal interpretive framework” through which teachers process professional experiences.

In plain terms, this means that two teachers can sit through the same training session but walk out with entirely different messages, because their identities, histories and contexts as teachers are not the same.

Too much CPD ignores this. It either copies techniques designed for pupils without adapting them, or it delivers content without recognising that teachers’ professional selves are already in play.

Why does didagogy matter?

That matters because we know that high-quality teaching is the most significant in-school factor for improving pupil outcomes. The Education Endowment Foundation put it plainly: “Ensuring every teacher is supported in delivering high-quality teaching is essential to achieving the best outcomes for all pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged.”

But investment in curriculum design, teaching strategies or subject expertise only pays off if teachers are supported to embed those ideas in practice.

In recent years, a desire to ensure excellent professional development has really taken hold, motivating new government approaches to initial teacher training, induction and progression. The “golden thread” of the Early Career Framework and national professional qualifications has brought necessary rigour.

‘When it comes to any teaching or training, content is only half the battle’

NPQs, for example, are underpinned by a set of framework statements supported by an agreed list of approved evidence. The Department for Education has also recently closed a process calling for ideas on what new evidence might be considered for leadership NPQs.

In theory, this should all ensure a uniformly high-quality experience, no matter the delivery provider.

The need for a robust evidence base is undeniable, but there is a danger here that evidence becomes over-emphasised and seen as the only thing that matters. With that comes the assumption that teacher development is simply a matter of delivering approved content. The framework itself becomes “the thing”.

Take the ECF as an example. Its evidence base is strong, but its delivery has often been tightly scripted, with mentors and early career teachers expected to “get through” prescribed content each week. The risk is that fidelity to the programme becomes more important than responsiveness to the teacher.

Yet when it comes to any teaching or training, content is only half the battle. We also need to consider how information is conveyed and received - and how the conditions and culture of a school shape its use and impact.

That gap between what leaders (or policymakers) intend and what teachers actually take on is where didagogy comes in.

But what does effective didagogical practice look like?

What does didagogy look like in practice?

The Teacher Development Trust-led paper suggests there are three essential elements in a conceptual model of didagogy:

• Practices: the knowledge, techniques and content being conveyed.
• Conditions: the culture and context of the school or trust.
• Identities: the motivations, needs and expertise of the individual teacher.

In this model, we see that practices (the core of traditional CPD) are still critical. But for the professional development to work, those practices need to be considered alongside the two other elements.

Our model of didagogy therefore suggests that for schools and trusts, there are three immediate challenges when it comes to leading more effective CPD:

1. Treat the leadership of CPD as a specialism

Didagogy does not invent a new field - it names and clarifies something that already exists. It brings together researchers, policymakers, programme designers, CPD leaders and, most importantly, teachers themselves.

We have a duty to promote professional development that is didagogically sound, that responds to the conceptual model outlined above and that explicitly considers how professional development is delivered through the lens of what is likely to be most effective for teachers and school leaders - ultimately improving the outcomes and experiences of the pupils they serve.

‘Effective professional development meets educators where they are’

Collectively, we have to embrace the demands this places upon any of us working in didagogy. We should look for new research opportunities that consider best practices and advance our understanding.

The leadership of CPD in schools and trusts should be considered as a specialism in its own right, and training and development in being an effective didagogue should be a core part of such a role.

2. Plan professional learning with depth and intent

School planning must account for the didagogy needed to deliver changes, including responsive mechanisms and structures to understand the ambitions, needs and motivations of teachers. CPD providers - from the DfE, through the range of national and regional delivery organisations, down to the sole-trader consultants - should have a clearly articulated didagogical approach, based on the current and emerging evidence.

The DfE should consider carefully the implications of didagogy for their current approach, not just to the “golden thread” but also to the range of subject and pedagogy hubs, as well as the evolving work of the Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence teams. The teacher professional development standards need to be updated to take into account this thinking, too.

Most importantly, every teacher, every school leader, can ask the question: “Have we thought about didagogy here?” Whether it is planning Inset provision, employing an organisation to deliver training, developing a trust-wide approach to professional development, deciding whether to take up an NPQ place, or simply googling to see what advice and training is out there, take a moment to think about how that support will be delivered and sustained - and whether the approach is didagogically sound.

3. Attend to conditions and identities, not just content

As part of that consideration, we must understand not only the conditions in which the training will be delivered but also the wider environment in which teachers work - the culture, priorities and pressures of their school.

While there are strong commonalities across schools, each also operates in distinct ways that shape teachers’ ability to engage with learning and translate it into practice.

‘If pedagogy shapes the classroom, didagogy shapes the profession’

Equally important is understanding the identity of the teacher or school leader being trained - including their motivations, needs and existing expertise.

Effective professional development meets educators where they are, connects with their current practice and builds on their existing knowledge and experience rather than assuming they are novices.

Given that teachers spend so much of their professional life alone at the front of the class, they must be motivated by the professional development they undertake in order to make the best use of it. Ignoring this fact is likely to prove fatal to the success of any professional development.

Final thoughts

It is important to point out that this conceptual model is not intended to be reductive; there is still plenty of space for further research and debate. People will hold justifiably different views on which practices should be promoted, how to respond to local context and how to balance the sometimes competing needs of individuals with wider school needs.

But by creating a term to capture these debates, and framing them all as part of the conversation about effective “didagogy”, we help to gain clarity about what it is we are all talking about.

If pedagogy shapes the classroom, didagogy shapes the profession. Without it, schools will continue to waste time and money on CPD that looks polished but changes little.

For policymakers and providers, the challenge now is to embed didagogy in frameworks and programmes, ensuring delivery is as well-designed as content.

Because if we want every pupil in every classroom to experience great teaching, we need to take just as much care over how we teach our teachers.

Andrea Bean is research and evaluation manager for Teacher Development Trust, and Sam Gibbs is director of education for Greater Manchester Education Trust

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android