VILNIAUS APSKRITIES PRADINIŲ KLASIŲ PEDAGOGŲ POŽIŪRIS Į ŠVIETIMO CENTRŲ ORGANIZUOJAMAS KVALIFIKACIJOS TOBULINIMO VEIKLAS

Abstract

The quality of teachers’ professional practice depends on multiple factors, one of which is effective professional development. This article raises the following research questions: what professional development opportunities are available to primary school teachers in Vilnius County, according to their own perspective? What do these teachers think about professional development activities organized by educational centers? The aim of the article is to reveal the attitudes of primary school teachers in Vilnius County towards professional development activities organized by educational centers. Research object – the attitudes of primary school teachers in Vilnius County towards professional development activities organized by educational centers. The study was conducted between February and March 2025. A total of 350 primary school teachers from Vilnius County participated in the study. The sample size was determined using the Paniotto formula with a 5% margin of error (Kardelis, 2017). Of the respondents, 98.8% were women and 1.2% were men, which confirms the predominance of women in the primary teaching profession in Vilnius County. This trend is also supported by 2024–2025 ŠVIS data, showing that women constitute 96.7% (n = 2558) and men 3.3% (n = 87) of the primary school teaching workforce. 
The most active participants were those aged 51–60 years (42.3%), while the least active were teachers aged 20–30 years (4.1%).
An analysis of the data by work experience and professional qualification revealed that the majority of respondents were highly experienced teachers. More than half had 26 or more years of service (53.9%), while 13.4% had between 21–25 years of service. The proportions of teachers with 0–5, 6–10, and 11–15 years of service were relatively similar, ranging between 8% and 9.6%. The lowest proportion of respondents fell into the 16–20 years of service category (5.5%). By professional qualification, the majority held the rank of Senior Teacher (46.9%) or Methodologist (30.6%), while only 0.9% held the rank of Expert Teacher. In terms of geographical distribution, the largest proportion of participants worked in city schools (41.4%), whereas the lowest proportion worked in rural schools (6.1%). The survey was administered using a simple random sampling approach. An electronic questionnaire was distributed viaemail to the administrative offices of general education schools employing primary school teachers in Vilnius County (Vilnius city, Vilnius district, Šalčininkai district, Širvintos district, Švenčionys district, Ukmergė district, Trakai district, Elektrėnai district). Additionally, the link was shared in targeted social media groups (e.g., Facebook groups “Lietuvos mokytojai,” “Pradinių klasių mokytojai,” etc.). It employed analysis of scholarly literature and legal acts, as well as a quantitative research approach. The data collection method was a questionnaire survey, carried out electronically using the www.manoapklausa.lt platform. The quantitative study sought to identify the attitudes of primary school teachers in Vilnius County towards the professional development activities provided by educational centers. A hypothesis was formulated that teachers in Vilnius County positively evaluate the activities organized by educational centers. However, the hypothesis was only partially confirmed. 
The research revealed statistically significant differences in teachers’ opinions regarding the quality of consultations provided by educational center staff. Teachers with the highest qualification category – experts – agreed that educational centers provide high-quality consultations on relevant issues, while teachers holding the basic teacher qualification category were less inclined to agree with this statement. To assess statistical significance, nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis tests were applied. Group mean ranks were compared. The validity of the research instrument was verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Data analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0 and MS Excel 2016 software.
The findings revealed that teachers in Vilnius County do not hold a unified opinion regarding the activities organized by educational centers. Significant differences emerged across several aspects: expert-level teachers are more likely than basic-level teachers to agree that centers provide high-quality consultations on relevant issues; teachers in urban schools are more favorable towards in-person professional development events compared to those working in rural areas; younger teachers (aged 20–30) find various forms of professional development events more acceptable than older teachers (>61 years); teachers with higher qualification cat
egories view blended seminars/courses and online conferences as less attractive; teachers aged 51–60 expressed a stronger desire for feedback following professional development events.Although no statistically significant differences were identified, the findings suggest that the themes, duration, and formats of professional development activities organized by education centers may better address the needs of Expert Teachers compared to other groups. However, when analyzing teachers’ specific needs, statistically significant differences emerged. Older teachers were found to be more likely to express a lack of relevant professional development themes, convenient scheduling, and structured feedback after professional development events. In Lithuania, the teacher professional development system is regulated by legal frameworks that prescribe a variety of pathways and opportunities for continuous learning. Teachers tend to favor short-term learning formats, which are often limited to knowledge transfer 
and do not sufficiently foster deeper professional growth. The results of this study showed that primary school teachers in Vilnius County predominantly choose traditional forms of professional development such as seminars and training courses. This trend corresponds with the findings of the 2018 TALIS survey, which demonstrated that traditional short-term professional development formats remain attractive to the majority of teachers. Scholars present divergent perspectives on the effectiveness of such formats. Sabaliauskas et al. (2018) reported that many professional development activities fail to meet teachers’ expectations, as they do not provide useful information, do not enable the acquisition of new knowledge and skills applicable to teaching practice, and often fall short in terms of content quality, delivery methods, and lecturer performance. Brandišauskienė and Mičiulienė (2021) argue that short-term seminars represent a form of professional development that requires little effort from teachers. In contrast, Žilinskaitė and Lapėnienė (2024) found that long-term professional development programs were not effective, as they devoted insufficient attention to skill development and practical application. Other researchers (Jensen et al., 2016; Schereens, 2010, cited in Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, 2022) maintain that the greater the diversity of professional development activities in which teachers participate, the more likely they are to acquire and strengthen a wide range of competencies. Teachers’ professionalism and professional growth are often directly linked to student achievement, which remains a central focus of education policy. 
Therefore, particular attention should be given to the quality and impact of professional development programs. Empirical studies (Casian et al., 2021; Yoon et al., 2007) confirm that teachers’ qualifications significantly influence student learning outcomes. However, if teachers do not apply the acquired knowledge in the classroom, students are unlikely to benefit from their professional development.

Keywords: teachers, educational centers, teacher training.