English language teachers’ insights into continuous professional development: A cross-case exploration

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 55 - 80, 25.12.2020

Serhat Başar , Halenur Çeliktürk İrem Çomoğlu

https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.793002

Abstract

This qualitative cross-case study explores and reflects on the insights of six English language teachers working at one secondary school and one tertiary level institution in Turkey regarding the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) practices offered by their institutions respectively. It also investigates what contextual factors interact with these teachers’ insights and experiences about CPD as part of teacher education regarding within-case and cross-case differences. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews, written reflections and program documents and analysed using a descriptive coding strategy. The findings reveal that the participant teachers consider CPD as a customized, practice-focused, collaborative and reflective endeavour. Implications for future continuous professional development programs are also discussed.

Keywords

Continuous Professional Development (CPD), English language teachers, teacher insights, cross-case

References

• Aktekin, N. C. (2019). Critical Friends Group (CFG): Inquiry-based professional development model for Turkish EFL teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19(81), 1-20.
• Alfaki, I. M. (2014). Professional development in English language teaching: A teachers’ view. British Journal of Education, 2(7), 32-49.
• Atay, D. (2006). Teachers' professional development: Partnerships in research. TESLEJ, 10(2), 1-14.
• Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139-147.
• Babanoğlu, M. P., & Yardımcı, A. (2017). Turkish state and private school EFL teachers’ perceptions on professional development . Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(2), 789-803.
• Balta, N., Arslan, M., & Duru, H. (2015). The effect of in-service training courses on teacher achievement: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 254-263.
• Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
• Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Chang, K.-S. (1998). Reflective teaching: A bottom-up approach to INSET. English Teaching, 53(1), 25-40.
• Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. In Research evidence in education library. Version 1.1. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
• Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34-55.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. (2018). Reseach design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (Fifth edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Çelik, S., Macianskiene, N., & Aytın, K. (2013). Turkish and Lithuanian EFL instructors' professional development experiences: worth the effort, or waste of time? Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(2), 160-187.
• Çimer, S. O., Çakır, İ., & Çimer, A. (2010). Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of in‐service courses on the new curriculum in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 31-41.
• Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press.
• Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In C. Day, & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3-32). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
• Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
• Dikilitaş, K. (2015). Professional development through teacher-research. In K. Dikilitaş, R. Smith, & W. Trotman (Eds.), Teacher-researchers in action, (pp. 47-55). England: IATEFL.
• Gándara, P., Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners. Santa Cruz: The Center for the Future of Teaching & Learning.
• Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California, USA: Sage.
• Hayes, D., & Chang, K. (2012). Theoratical perspectives on and international practice in continuing professional development for English teachers. English Teaching, 67(1), 107-129.
• Hos, R., & Topal, H. (2013). The current status of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development in Turkey: A systematic review of literature. The Anthropologist, 16(1-2), 293-305.
• Hung, B. P. (2016). Evaluation of an in-service training program for primary school teachers of English in Vietnam . International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(4), 96-103.
• Hunzicker, J.L. (2011). Characteristics of effective professional development: A checklist. Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 177-179.
• Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. NY: Routledge.
• Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. NY: Routledge.
• Kabilan, M. K., Adlina, W., & Embi, M. (2011). Online collaboration of English language teachers for meaningful professional development experiences. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 94-115.
• Kasi, F. (2010). Collaborative action research: An alternative model for EFL teacher professional development in Pakistan. Asian EFL Journal, 12(3), 98-116.
• Khan, R. (2009). Developing professionally. The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 169-180.
• Koç, E. M. (2016). A general investigation of the in-service training of English language teachers at elementary schools in Turkey. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 455-466.
• Korkmazgil, S., & Seferoğlu, G. (2013). Exploring non-native English teachers’ professional development practices. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 30(1), 1-10.
• Lieberman, A., & Friedrich, L. (2007). Teachers, writers, leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 42-47.
• Macias, A. (2017). Teacher-led professional development: A proposal for a bottom-up structure approach. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 8(1), 76-91.
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 961-972.
• Özer, B. (2004). In-service training of teachers in Turkey at the beginning of the 2000s. Journal of In-service Education, 30(1), 89-100.
• Richards, J. C. & Farrell, T. S. (2005). Professional development for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Saldana, J. (2014), Coding and analysis strategies. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 581-605). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. USA: Sage.
• Sanchez, H. S., & Borg, S. (2014). Insights into L2 teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: A cognitive perspective on their grammar explanations. System, 44(1), 45–53.
• Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers (Third Edition b.). New York: Teachers Collage Press.
• Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019). Teachers’ Professional Training Program for September [Öğretmenlerin 2019 Eylül Dönemi Mesleki Çalışma Programı]. Ankara: T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Retrieved on May, 26, 2020, from https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlerin-2019-eylul-donemi-meslekicalisma-programi/icerik/754
• Uştuk, Ö., & Çomoglu, I. (2019). Lesson study for professional development of English language teachers: Key takeaways from international practices. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 12(2), 41-50.
• Uştuk, Ö., & De Costa, P. I. (2020). Reflection as meta‐action: Lesson study and EFL teacher professional development. TESOL Journal, e531.
• Uysal, H. H. (2012). Evaluation of an in-service training program for primary school language teachers in Turkey . Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(7), 14-27.
• Uztosun, M. S. (2018). In-service teacher education in Turkey: English language teachers’ perspectives. Professional Development in Education, 44(4), 557- 569.
• Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47-59.
• Vermunt, J. D., Vrikki, M., van Halem, N., Warwick, P., & Mercer, N. (2019). The impact of Lesson Study professional development on the quality of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 81, 61-73.
• Wyatt, M., & Dikilitaş, K. (2016). English language teachers becoming more efficacious through research engagement at their Turkish university. Educational Action Research, 24(4), 550-570.
• Yılmaz, F. (2016). An institutional perspective into professional development of English teachers: A case of schools of foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 828-832.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and method (6th Edition b.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Yurtsever, G. (2013). English language instructors’ beliefs on professional development models and preferences to improve their teaching skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 70. 666–674