Administrative Support and Implementation Barriers in University Teacher Professional Development: A Qualitative Case Study in China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v5i3.8316Keywords:
Administrative Support, China, Higher Education, Professional Development, Qualitative Case Study, University TeachersAbstract
This study examined how university administrators support teacher professional development and how implementation barriers shape that support. A qualitative single-case study was conducted at a public university in Zhejiang Province, China, during the 2025–2026 academic year. Twelve purposively selected administrators representing university-level and academic-unit leadership participated. Data were generated through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and document review, and then analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were developed. First, the professional development portfolio prioritized activities that were practical, internally deliverable, and immediately applicable, particularly technology integration and the dissemination of educational research and trends; leadership development and international exchange were less prominent. Second, financial provision, protected time, and career-related support were visible and comparatively well established, whereas sustained mentoring and other forms of practice-embedded instructional support were less consistent. Third, misalignment with institutional priorities, difficulty sustaining programs, budget and time constraints, resistance to change, weak monitoring, and limited recognition operated as an interconnected system rather than as isolated problems. The findings suggest that funding and participation opportunities are necessary but insufficient when instructional follow-through, monitoring, and recognition remain fragmented. A coordinated institutional approach that aligns professional development with strategic and teacher needs, protects time and resources, strengthens mentoring, and recognizes professional learning is therefore required.
Downloads
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021a). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021b). To saturate or not to saturate? questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
Eroğlu, M., & Donmuş Kaya, V. (2021). Professional development barriers of teachers: A qualitative research. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 1896–1922.
Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J., & García-Martínez, I. (2022). Digital competences for teacher professional development: Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389
Karacabey, M. F. (2021). School principal support in teacher professional development. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 9(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2020.5158
Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2021). Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896042
Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2024). The effects of instructional leadership, teacher responsibility and procedural justice climate on professional learning communities: A cross-level moderated mediation examination. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(3), 556–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221089185
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
Sancar, R., Atal, D., & Deryakulu, D. (2021). A new framework for teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, Article 103305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103305
Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841
Thien, L. M., Lim, S. Y., & Adams, D. (2024). The evolving dynamics between instructional leadership, collective teacher efficacy, and dimensions of teacher commitment: What can Chinese independent high schools tell us? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(4), 739–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1913236
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ouyang Peng, Mark Joseph D. Pastor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
