Have you ever wondered what keeps professional development alive long after the workshop ends? In this compelling blog, the author, Els Tanghe, opens a rare window into a sub-study that explores the long-term impact of leadership programmes in real school settings. It is a timely reminder that the success of any professional learning initiative often lies in what happens after the final session – not just during it.
If you have any comments or thoughts about this blog and the points it raises, then do share on social media using the hashtag #BELMASblog or contact the BELMAS Blog editorial team by emailing: blog@belmas.org.uk
From Training to Practice: How Context and Coaching Sustain School Leadership and Development
‘It was a real success – for our school and for me as a school leader. The process set things in motion and changed a lot’.
This quote from a school leader exemplifies a two-year professional development trajectory (PDT) in Flanders (Belgium). Despite contextual differences, the PDT helped many participants take concrete steps, both during and after the programme.
This blog draws on findings from a PhD sub-study (Tanghe & Schelfhout, 2025a; 2025b) exploring the long-term impact of a PDT on school leadership and development. The broader doctoral research project examines the effectiveness of PDT for school leaders. The programme targeted primary and secondary school leaders (including both principals and middle managers), often participating with a colleague from the same school. Initiated by the Flemish government, the PDT combined training days, peer collaboration in professional learning communities (PLCs) and optional individual coaching. Participants developed school-specific action plans to transfer learning to practice.
The study builds on Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s four levels of learning (2016) and the concept of goal- and action-orientation (Kim et al., 2018; Culbertson & Jackson, 2016; DeGeest & Brown, 2011; Locke et al., 1988), emphasising the importance of contextualised, sustained transfer of training (Doe et al., 2016). The findings suggest something simple, yet powerful: learning transfer is more likely when there is a meaningful connection to the work context and when it promotes concrete action.
From Goals to Action
Emphasising goals and action, the PDT encouraged participants to define what mattered most in their schools, why, and how to act on it. Schools developed customised action plans. Grounded in theoretical frameworks and aligned with school-specific priorities, the plans were practical tools containing timelines, steps and clear links to broader school goals.
Consistent with previous research (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Gollwitzer, 1999), the action plans often served as a compass, motivating, focusing and guiding the work of leaders – even after the PDT.
Collaboration in Professional Learning Communities
Another pillar of the PDT was collaboration through inter-school PLCs. Supported by experienced coaches, they created space for peer learning, reflection and shared problem-solving. Participants appreciated the opportunity to exchange ideas, compare strategies and build professional networks.
The effectiveness of PLCs varied. Structure, trust and relevance fostered in-depth learning and continued collaboration. Lack of facilitation and direction impeded lasting momentum.
Coaching for Reflection and Accountability
Participants described the optional individual coaching as an opportunity for strategic reflection with external partners, helping them to connect content to contexts, challenging assumptions and supporting ownership of development goals. The impact of the coaching stemmed from a focus on questioning, feedback and alignment with school priorities.
Results confirm that coaching can deepen learning and foster action-orientation, especially when integrated with other components, like PLCs and action planning.
Context Matters
Despite their strengths, contextual factors shaped the impact of the PDT. Some leaders faced constraints, like time pressure, shifting priorities, staff turnover or difficulty maintaining focus during and after the trajectory. Others reported that the PDT helped them navigate these challenges by providing structure, focus and a sense of agency. Many described a sense of momentum, even if the effects of change were not immediately observable.
Sustainable change is not automatic. The PDT must align with the school’s vision, structures and culture. With team support and space to act, the PDT can become a catalyst for broader school improvement.
Conclusion: From Programme to Practice
Rather than a one-off event, the PDT marked the beginning of sustained school reform. Its perceived impact was strongest when theoretical input, goal-setting, action planning, collaboration and coaching were integrated and contextualised.
The study highlights four key insights:
Professional development does not necessarily lead to change. By creating space for reflection, supporting meaningful action, providing theoretical frameworks and building ownership, however, it can empower school leaders to lead with purpose. One participant noted, ‘The trajectory was the starting point for a comprehensive reform in our school’. When well-designed, professional development can thus catalyse systemic change.
These findings raise further questions. How can leadership development programmes be designed to incorporate contextual responsiveness from the start?
Culbertson, S. S., & Jackson, A. T. (2016). Orienting oneself for leadership: The role of goal orientation in Leader developmental readiness. New Directions for Student Leadership, 149, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20162
DeGeest, D., & Brown, K. G. (2011). The role of goal orientation in leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20072
Doe, T., Fradale, P., Lynch, D., et al. (2016). Unpacking the effective school leader. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 3(1), 39-54.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. The American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Kim, D., Choi, D., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Goal-Focused Leadership, leader-member exchange, and task performance: The moderating effects of Goal orientations and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business & Psychology, 33(5), 645-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9516-7
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306771
Tanghe, E. & Schelfhout, W. (2025a). Goal- and action-orientation as key factors during a professional development trajectory for school leaders to facilitate sustainable transfer of training. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2025.2485134
Tanghe, E. & Schelfhout, W. (2025b). Sustainable transfer of training after participation in a professional development programme for school leaders: influential factors related to school leaders and their school context. Management in Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206251330427
Tanghe, E., Schelfhout, W., & Smits, T. (2025). Learn to lead – together! The effectivity of professional development trajectories for school leaders: opportunities and challenges for sustainable professional and school development. Antwerp University. (doctoral dissertation)
