‘THE ROLE OF TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE PREPARATION FOR AUTONOMY... 203 learning and professional development path in this dual context, They should be able to represent and share their knowledge, as well as to learn individually and in communities. The issue of collaboration and autonomy in the course of professional development According to the most relevant literature on CPD (Schén 1990; Hargreaves 2000; Korthagen 2004; McKenzie et al. 2005; Kennedy 2005), one of the fundamental prerequisites of professional development is collaboration (collegiality). When interpreting the concept of autonomy, many refer to it as a defensive behaviour that indicates shortages and uncertainty (Rosenholtz, as cited in Clement - Vandenberghe 2000: 7,). Hargreaves points out (as cited in Clement—Vandenberghe 2000: 6-7.) that the perception of autonomy is not positive among teachers, it is considered as a kind of “heresy” that can lead to isolation. In his work he distances himself from the deficit-based approach of the concept, and introduces three dimensions of autonomy: (1) limited autonomy is when teachers would work in collaboration, but the system environment does not support it; (2) strategic individualism is when the teacher “escapes” to his/her classroom due to rigorous expectations and pressure; (3) optional individualism that is urged mostly by internal motivation and that is mostly related to the professional development. With regards to the issue of collegiality, Little (1990) raises the idea that collegiality on its own does not necessary bring results. In her research she points out the process-like nature of collaboration between colleagues: (1) while exchanging ideas and storytelling, the professional relationship between colleagues is rather loose, in fact, they share their experiences in casual situations; (2) when asking for help or support, the process is rather one-directional; (3) exchanging materials and ideas is already sharing; (4) joint work is based on sharing responsibility, shared visions and closer connections. Collaboration and autonomy on the level of training programs The changes in training program development contributed to the satisfaction of these expectation in many respects, because they have opened completely new dimensions to program development and interpretation that rest on modern learning theories and outcomes (e.g.: Ball-Cohen 1996; Adams eral. 2007; Biggs et al. 2007). Constructivist training program development models supported the validation of prior knowledge, and learning activities based on motivation and experiences, and these were connected to the content. In such a development