The Effectiveness of Face-to-Face versus Online Delivery of Continuing Professional Development for Science Teachers: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Definition of Terms
1.1.1. Face-to-Face Delivery of CPD
1.1.2. Online Delivery of CPD
2. Research Questions
- RQ1. How does the effectiveness of face-to-face CPD compare to that of online CPD for science educators?
- RQ2. What factors could potentially impact the efficacy of diverse forms of CPD programs?
- RQ3. What are the advantages of different CPD delivery modes?
3. Methodology
3.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
3.2. Data Source
3.3. Search Strategy
3.4. Data Extraction
3.5. Quality Assessment
4. Results
4.1. Comparative Effectiveness of Face-to-Face and Online CPD
4.2. Factors Influencing Different CPD Delivery Modes
4.2.1. Factors Affecting Face-to-Face CPD Effectiveness
4.2.2. Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Online CPD
4.3. Advantages of Different CPD Delivery Modes
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
7. Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sims, A. Introducing continuing professional development. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 1994, 1, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collin, K.; Van der Heijden, B.; Lewis, P. Continuing professional development. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2012, 16, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njenga, M. Teacher Participation in Continuing Professional Development: A Theoretical Framework—Moses Njenga. J. Adult Contin. Educ. 2023, 29, 69–85. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14779714221123603 (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Padwad, A.; Dixit, K. Continuing professional development policy ‘Think Tank’: An innovative experiment in India. In Innovations in the Continuing Professional Development of English Language Teachers; British Council: London, UK, 2014; p. 249. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, J.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2009, 41, 393–416. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536 (accessed on 11 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Fütterer, T.; Scherer, R.; Scheiter, K.; Stürmer, K.; Lachner, A. Will, skills, or conscientiousness: What predicts teachers’ intentions to participate in technology-related professional development? Comput. Educ. 2023, 198, 104756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abakah, E. Teacher learning from continuing professional development (CPD) participation: A sociocultural perspective. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2023, 4, 100242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutnick, P.; Gartland, C.; Good, D.A. Evaluating a programme for the continuing professional development of STEM teachers working within inclusive secondary schools in the UK. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022, 113, 101974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rixon, S. Teacher Research in Language Teaching—A critical analysis. System 2013, 41, 1086–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. TALIS 2018 Technical Report; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jie, Y. Understanding and Enhancing Chinese TEFL Teachers’ Motivation for Continuing Professional Development through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 768320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abakah, E.; Widin, J.; Ameyaw, E.K. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Practices among Basic School Teachers in the Central Region of Ghana. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221094597. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440221094597 (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Casanova, C.R.; King, J.A.; Fischer, D. Exploring the role of intentions and expectations in continuing professional development in sustainability education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 128, 104115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-García, A.; Horrach-Rosselló, P.; Mulet-Forteza, C. Evolution and current state of research into E-learning. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klein, D.A.; Ware, M. E-learning: New opportunities in continuing professional development. Learn. Publ. 2003, 16, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, B.; Wong, B.Y.-Y.; Yau, J.S.-W. The E-learning Trends for Continuing Professional Development in the Accountancy Profession in Hong Kong. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2018, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Player, E.; Shiner, A.; Steel, N.; Rodrigues, V. Massive open online courses for continuing professional development of GPs. InnovAiT 2020, 13, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenstein, G.; Phillips, M. Comparing Online vs. In-Person Outcomes of a Hands-On, Lab-Based, Teacher Professional Development Program: Research Experiences for Teachers in the Time of COVID-19. J. STEM Outreach 2021, 4, n2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beardsley, P.M.; Csikari, M.; Ertzman, A.; Jeffus, M. BioInteractive’s Free Online Professional Learning Course on Evolution. Am. Biol. Teach. 2022, 84, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolton-King, R.; Nichols-Drew, L.J.; Turner, I.J. RemoteForensicCSI: Enriching teaching, training and learning through networking and timely CPD. Sci. Justice 2022, 62, 768–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binmohsen, S.A.; Abrahams, I. Science teachers’ continuing professional development: Online vs face-to-face. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2020, 40, 291–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gottlieb, M.; Egan, D.J.; Krzyzaniak, S.; Wagner, J.; Weizberg, M.; Chan, T.M. Rethinking the Approach to Continuing Professional Development Conferences in the Era of COVID-19. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 2020, 40, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasrullah, N.; Rosalina, E.; Mariani, N. Measuring Teacher Professional Development Learning Activities in Post COVID-19. Alsuna 2022, 4, 168–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bidwell, S.; Kennedy, L.; Burke, M.; Collier, L.M.; Hudson, B. Continuing professional development in the COVID-19 era: Evolution of the Pegasus Health Small Group model. J. Prim. Health Care 2022, 14, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mack, H.; Golnik, K.; Prior Filipe, H. Faculty Development of CPD Teachers in Low-Resource Environments Post-COVID-19. J. CME 2023, 12, 2161784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine. Rising above the Gathering Storm; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, M.; Stevenson, C.; Cooner, D. Improving Teacher Quality for Colorado Science Teachers in High Need Schools. J. Educ. Pract. 2015, 6, 42–50. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1083814 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Al Ofi, A.-H. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Continuous Professional Development Programmes for English Language Teachers. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2022, 10, 89–106. Available online: https://www.ijern.com/journal/2022/February-2022/08.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Kirkpatrick, D.; Kirkpatrick, J. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Oakland, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Guskey, T.R. Evaluating Professional Development; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000; Available online: https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/guskey-5-levels.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Guskey, T.R. The Characteristics of Effective Professional Development: A Synthesis of Lists. Ed.gov. 2003. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED478380 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Desimone, L. Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.S.; Cha, J.; Ha, B.W. What Should We Consider in Teachers’ Professional Development Impact Studies? Based on the Conceptual Framework of Desimone. Creat. Educ. 2013, 4, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L.; McLaughlin, M.W. Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Phi Delta Kappan 2011, 92, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravitz, J.; Stephenson, C.; Parker, K.; Blazevski, J. Early Lessons from Evaluation of Computer Science Teacher Professional Development in Google’s CS4HS Program. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 2017, 17, 1–16. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1252510 (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Masters, J.; De Kramer, R.M.; O’Dwyer, L.M.; Dash, S.; Russell, M. The Effects of Online Professional Development on Fourth Grade English Language Arts Teachers’ Knowledge and Instructional Practices. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2010, 43, 355–375. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2190/EC.43.3.e (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Dalgarno, N.; Colgan, L. Supporting novice elementary mathematics teachers’ induction in professional communities and providing innovative forms of pedagogical content knowledge development through information and communication technology. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2007, 23, 1051–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavalluzzo, L.; Lopez, D.; Ross, J.; Larson, M.; Martinez, M. Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL) at A Study of the Effectiveness and Cost of AEL’s Online Professional Development Program in Reading in Tennessee. 2005. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489124.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Russell, M.; Carey, R.; Kleiman, G.; Venable, J.D. Face-to-Face and Online Professional Development for Mathematics Teachers: A Comparative Study. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 2009, 13, 71–87. Available online: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/104029/ (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Sun, P.; Ray Jui-Fang Tsai Finger, G.; Chen, Y.-Y.; Yeh, D. What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2008, 50, 1183–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virani, S.R.; Saini, J.R.; Sharma, S. Adoption of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for blended learning: The Indian educators’ perspective. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 1060–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Q.N.; Pluye, P.; Fàbregues, S.; Bartlett, G.; Boardman, F.; Cargo, M.; Dagenais, P.; Gagnon, M.-P.; Griffiths, F.; Nicolau, B.; et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), Version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552); Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada: Gatineau, QC, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ventista, O.M.; Brown, C. Teachers’ professional learning and its impact on students’ learning outcomes: Findings from a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2023, 8, 100565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitan-Friedlander, N.; Dreyfus, A.; Milgrom, Z. Types of “teachers in training”: The reactions of primary school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2004, 20, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haydn, T.; Barton, R. “First do no harm”: Factors influencing teachers’ ability and willingness to use ICT in their subject teaching. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arce, J.; Bodner, G.M.; Hutchinson, K. A study of the impact of inquiry-based professional development experiences on the beliefs of intermediate science teachers about “best practices” for classroom teaching. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 2014, 2, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juuti, K.; Lavonen, J.; Aksela, M.; Meisalo, V. Adoption of ICT in Science Education: A Case Study of Communication Channels in a Teachers’ Professional Development Project. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2023, 5, 103–118. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ905663 (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mary, L.; Cha, J. Filipino Science Teachers’ Evaluation on Webinars’ Alignments to Universal Design for Learning and Their Relation to Self-Efficacy amidst the Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Asia-Pac. Sci. Educ. 2021, 7, 421–451. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1341612 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Owston, R.; Wideman, H.H.; Murphy, J.; Lupshenyuk, D. Blended teacher professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. Internet High. Educ. 2008, 11, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herbert, S.; Campbell, C.; Loong, E. Online Professional Learning for Rural Teachers of Mathematics and Science. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2016, 32, 99–114. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1106024 (accessed on 15 October 2023). [CrossRef]
- Modise, M.E.-P. Continuous professional development and student support in an open and distance e-learning institution: A case study. Int. J. Afr. High. Educ. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.; Prescott, D.; Lyon, S. Learning in Online Continuing Professional Development: An Institutionalist View on the Personal Learning Environment. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2017, 6, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
---|---|
(1) English-language research published in peer-reviewed journals, including both research articles and conference papers; | (1) Book reviews, reports, and degree dissertations; |
(2) Article focuses on the effectiveness of different delivery types of CPD in improving science teacher quality and practice; | (2) Studies involving subjects other than science teachers, such as physical education instructors. |
(3) Concerns science teachers or science educators. |
Sections | Terms |
---|---|
Keywords related to the topic | Continuing professional development, continuous professional development, CPD |
Study population | Science teachers |
Type of CPD delivery | Face-to-face, traditional, online |
Terms related to effectiveness | Effectiveness, efficacy |
Database | In | Publication Data | N |
---|---|---|---|
Web of Science (WoS) | Title, abstract, and keywords | Not specified in the search | 2 |
Scopus | Title, abstract, and keywords | Not specified in the search | 2 |
ERIC | Title, abstract, and keywords | 2004–2023 | 26 |
ScienceDirect | Title, abstract, and keywords | Not specified in the search | 52 |
No. | Category of Study Designs | Study | Methodological Quality Criteria | Responses | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | CANNOT TELL | Comments | ||||
1 | Quantitative descriptive studies | (Beardsley et al., 2022) [19] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
2 | Mixed-methods studies | (Binmohsen and Abrahams, 2020) [21] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
3 | Mixed-methods studies | (Bitan-Friedlander et al., 2004) [46] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
4 | Qualitative studies | (Haydn and Barton, 2008) [47] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
5 | Qualitative studies | (Arce et al., 2014) [48] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
6 | Qualitative studies | (Juuti et al., 2023) [49] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
7 | Quantitative non-randomized studies | (Mary and Cha, 2021) [50] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
8 | Mixed-methods studies | (Stevenson et al., 2015) [27] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
9 | Qualitative studies | (Owston et al., 2008) [51] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
10 | Mixed-methods studies | (Lichtenstein and Phillips, 2021) [18] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
11 | Quantitative descriptive studies | (Ravitz et al., 2017) [35] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ | ||||||
12 | Qualitative studies | (Herbert et al., 2016) [52] | S1. Are there clear research questions? | ✓ | |||
S2. Do the collected data allow us to address the research questions? | ✓ |
Category of Study Designs | Study | Methodological Quality Criteria | Responses | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YES | NO | CANNOT TELL | Comments | |||
Quantitative descriptive studies | (Beardsley et al., 2022) [19] | Is the sampling strategy relevant to the research question? | ✓ | |||
Is the sample representative of the target population? | ✓ | |||||
Are the measurements appropriate? | ✓ | |||||
Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? | ✓ | |||||
Is the statistical analysis appropriate to the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Quantitative non-randomized studies | (Mary and Cha, 2021) [50] | Are the participants representative of the target population? | ✓ | |||
Are the measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)? | ✓ | |||||
Are there complete outcome data? | ✓ | |||||
Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis? | ✓ | |||||
During the study period, is the intervention administered (or does exposure occur) as intended? | ✓ | |||||
Mixed-methods studies | (Binmohsen and Abrahams, 2020) [21] | Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | ✓ | |||
Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | ✓ | |||||
Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | ✓ | |||||
Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | ✓ | |||||
(Bitan-Friedlander et al., 2004) [45] | Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | ✓ | |||||
Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | ✓ | |||||
Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | ✓ | |||||
(Stevenson et al., 2015) [27] | Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | ✓ | |||||
Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | ✓ | |||||
Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | ✓ | |||||
(Lichtenstein and Phillips, 2021) [18] | Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | ✓ | |||||
Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | ✓ | |||||
Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | ✓ | |||||
(Ravitz et al., 2017) [35] | Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | ✓ | |||||
Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | ✓ | |||||
Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | ✓ | |||||
Qualitative studies | (Haydn and Barton, 2008) [46] | Is the qualitative approach appropriate to the research question? | ✓ | |||
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? | ✓ | |||||
(Arce et al., 2014) [47] | Is the qualitative approach appropriate to the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? | ✓ | |||||
(Juuti et al., 2023) [48] | Is the qualitative approach appropriate to the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? | ✓ | |||||
(Owston et al., 2008) [51] | Is the qualitative approach appropriate to the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? | ✓ | |||||
(Herbert et al., 2016) [52] | Is the qualitative approach appropriate to the research question? | ✓ | ||||
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | ✓ | |||||
Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by the data? | ✓ | |||||
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? | ✓ |
MAAT Categories of Research Design | N |
---|---|
Quantitative descriptive studies | 1 |
Quantitative non-randomized studies | 1 |
Qualitative studies | 5 |
Mixed methods studies | 5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Z.; Hassan, N.C.; Jalil, H.A. The Effectiveness of Face-to-Face versus Online Delivery of Continuing Professional Development for Science Teachers: A Systematic Review. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121251
Li Z, Hassan NC, Jalil HA. The Effectiveness of Face-to-Face versus Online Delivery of Continuing Professional Development for Science Teachers: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(12):1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121251
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Zhi, Norlizah Che Hassan, and Habibah Ab. Jalil. 2023. "The Effectiveness of Face-to-Face versus Online Delivery of Continuing Professional Development for Science Teachers: A Systematic Review" Education Sciences 13, no. 12: 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121251