Cited by 28Teacher Education and Leadership StudiesOnline and Blended LearningEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Comparing quality and engagement in face‐to‐face and online teacher professional development

Open access
Mulaimović, Nina, Richter, Eric, Lazarides, Rebecca, Richter, Dirk·2025·British Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

In order for teachers to successfully gain new knowledge during professional development (PD), courses must be of high quality and stimulate active involvement from participants. More and more PD courses are taking place online, without clear evidence of whether face‐to‐face and online courses differ in terms of their quality or level of participants' engagement. The present study investigates differences between face‐to‐face and online PD with respect to certain quality characteristics: clarity and structure, cognitive activation, collaboration and practical relevance, as well as participants' behavioural, cognitive and affective engagement. The study is based on 2210 teachers from Germany who participated in 1 of 137 face‐to‐face or 54 online PD courses. Although participants rated face‐to‐face and online courses very positively regarding all quality characteristics and engagement dimensions, they evaluated online courses slightly less favourably compared to face‐to‐face courses. Implications for practice and research are derived to help ensure high‐quality PD offerings in the future. Practitioner notes: What is already known about this topic Face‐to‐face and online PD have the potential to be similarly effective. PD quality and participants' engagement can be assumed to be predictors of PD effectiveness. PD quality contains clarity and structure, cognitive activation, collaboration and practical relevance. Engagement is a three‐dimensional construct composed of behavioural, cognitive and affective components. What this paper adds PD quality was rated very positively for online and face‐to‐face courses. Participants rated the quality of online PD lower compared to face‐to‐face PD. Participants rated their engagement in online PD lower compared to face‐to‐face PD. Implications for practice and/or policy PD format should always be chosen with which a higher benefit can be achieved. Quality assurance should take place before PD is conducted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.13480

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mulaimović, N., Richter, E., Lazarides, R., & Richter, D.
Affiliations
University of Potsdam (DE)
Corresponding author
Mulaimović, Nina
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-05-12
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
61-79
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
OpenAlex
W4396866584
Cited by
28
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6
FWCI
35.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Publication Server of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
teacher professional development, online professional development, course quality, participant engagement, behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, cognitive activation, collaboration, practical relevance, quality assurance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review