Comparison of Effective Professional Development Activities for Teachers According to Demographic Variables in Qualitative Design

Abstract

This study aims to determine teachers’ views on the features of effective professional development activities. To this end, the study employed the nested single-case design, which is one of the case study designs. The study group consisted of seven hundred and sixty-seven teachers selected from different provinces according to the maximum variation sampling method. According to the results of the analysis, as the common features of effective professional development activities; Features such as the teacher's influence on teaching practices, enabling active participation and allowing practice, usefulness, addressing the needs of the participant, up-to-date content, being given by experts, being specific to the branch and field, being student-centered and having a positive effect on the learning outcomes of the students came to the fore. The analysis also revealed the following two themes related to the common features of effective professional development activities. It was found that participants’ views on the common features of effective professional development activities varied depending on the education level where they taught and their genders, educational backgrounds, and teaching experiences. Based on the results of the research, it is recommended to review professional development programs developed for teachers in order to standardize them and improve their quality

Keywords

• Professional development
• Teacher profeesional development
• Teacher improvement
• Effective development
• Teacher learning

Öğretmenler İçin Etkili Mesleki Gelişim Faaliyetlerinin Nitel Desende Demografik Değişkenlere Göre Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı öğretmenlerin etkili mesleki gelişim faaliyetlerine yönelik görüşlerini belirlemektir. Araştırmada, durum çalışması desenlerinden iç içe geçmiş tek durum deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu maksimum çeşitlilik örnekleme yöntemine göre farklı illerden seçilen yedi yüz atmış yedi öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Veri toplama aracı olarak görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Veriler içerik analizi yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, etkili mesleki gelişim faaliyetlerinin sahip olduğu ortak özellikleri olarak; öğretmenin öğretim uygulamalarına etkisinin olması, aktif katılım ve uygulama yapmaya imkânı vermesi, işe yaraması, katılımcının ihtiyacına hitap etmesi, içeriğinin güncel olması, uzman kişilerce verilmesi, branşa ve alana özgü olması, öğrenci merkezli olup öğrencinin öğrenme çıktılarına olumlu etki etmesi gibi özellikler öne çıkmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda etkili mesleki gelişim faaliyetlerinin sahip olduğu ortak özellikler kapsamında; mesleki gelişim faaliyetlerine ilişkin öğretim programları ve mesleki gelişimi kolaylaştıran unsurlar olmak üzere iki tema ortaya çıkmıştır. Etkili mesleki gelişim faaliyetlerinin sahip olduğu ortak özelliklere ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin cinsiyet, eğitim kademesi, eğitim durumu ve kıdem değişkenlerine göre farklılıklar gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına dayalı olarak, öğretmenlere yönelik mesleki gelişim faaliyetlerinde nitelik ve standartların sağlanması için, mesleki gelişim programlarının ve içeriklerinin gözden geçirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mesleki gelişim
• Öğretmen mesleki gelişimi
• Öğretmen gelişimi
• Etkili gelişim
• Öğretmen öğrenmesi.

Kaynakça

1. Abu-Tineh, A. M., & Sadiq, H. M. (2017). Characteristics and models of effective professional development: the case of school teachers in Qatar. Professional Development in Education, 44(2), 311–322. Doi:10.1080/19415257.2017.1306788.
2. Aktan, O. (2020). Evaluation of Postgraduate Education for the Teachers ‘Career Development. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 10(3), 596-607. Doi:10.5961/jhes.2020.419.
3. Ambler, T. B. (2016). The day-to-day work of primary school teachers: a source of professional learning. Professional development in education, 42 (2), 276–289. Doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.998343
4. Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press.
5. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20. Doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.
6. Aydın, M. (2021). Does the digital divide matter? Factors and conditions that promote ICT literacy. Telematics and Informatics, 58(2021),1-9. Doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101536.
7. Aziz, F., Akhtar, M. S., & Rauf, M. (2012). The motivation level of trained male and female teachers at higher education level in Pakistan: A comparative study. The Dialogue, 7(2), 37-50.
8. Bellibaş, M. S., & Gümüş, E. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the quantity and quality of professional development activities in Turkey. Cogent education, 3(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1172950

9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
10. Cooc, N. (2019). Teaching students with special needs: International trends in school capacity and the need for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 27-41. Doi:/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.021
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Darling Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo, Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b90cb101dbae64ff707585/t/5ade348e70a6ad624d417339/1524511888739/NO_LIF~1.PDF
13. DeMonte, J. (2013). High-quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training to ımprove student learning. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
14. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181–199.Doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140.
15. Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 252. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140.
16. Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory into practice, 56(1), 3-12. Doi:10.1007/s40299-019-00461-5, 2019.
17. Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., & Zhai, X. (2019). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school Support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29 (2),147–157. Doi:10.1007/s40299-019-00461-5.
18. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1-10. Doi:10.1177/2158244014522633.
19. Evers, A. T., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Kreijns, K. (2016). Organisational and task factors influencing teachers’ professional development at work. European Journal of Training and Development, 40 (1), 36-55.
20. Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report, 20 (11), 1772–1789.
21. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, A., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (7), 944-963. Doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158.
22. Göçer Şahin, S., & Gelbal, S . (2016). A Scaling of Preservice Teachers’ Motivational Factors in Choosing the Teaching Profession. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 7 (2) , 443-458.
23. Gultom, S., Hutauruk, A. F., & Ginting, A. M. (2020). Teaching skills of teacher in increasing student learning interest. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3), 1564-1569. Doi:10.33258/BIRCI.V3I3.1086
24. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748 –750 Hooker, T. (2013). Peer coaching: A review of the literature. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(2), 129-140.
25. Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 177179. Doi: 10.1080/19415257.2010.523955
26. İlğan, A. (2017). Professional development and supervision of teachers. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
27. İlğan, A. (2020). Öğretmenler için etkili mesleki gelişim yaklaşımları ile bir model önerisi ve uygulama yönergesi. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 11(21), 171-197.
28. İlğan, A. (2021). A conceptual frame about Professional development of teachers and implications for Turkish education system. Journal of Education for Life, 35(1), 256-280 Doi:10.33308/26674874.2021351225.
29. Karlberg, M., & Bezzina, C. (2020). The professional development needs of beginning and experienced teachers in four municipalities in Sweden. Professional Development in Education, Doi: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1712451.
30. Kovalchuck, V., & Vorotnykova, I. (2017). E-Coaching, e-mentoring for lifelong professional development of teachers within the system of post-graduate pedagogical education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18 (3), 214-227.Doi: 10.17718/tojde.328956
31. Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the teacher follow-up survey in the United States for 2000–2001. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1173-1184.Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.010.
32. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston: Pearson Education.
33. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
34. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
35. Murphy, G. A. & Calway, B. A. (2008). Professional developmentforprofessionals: Beyond sufficiency learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 48 (3), 424-444.
36. Murphy, C., Smith, G., Mallon, B., & Redman, E. (2020). Teaching about sustainability through inquiry-based science in Irish primary classrooms: the impact of a professional development programme on teacher self-efficacy, competence and pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 26(8), 1112-1136.Doi:10.1080/13504622.2020.1776843.
37. Naizer, G., Sinclair, B., & Szabo, S. (2017). Examining the sustainability of effective professional development using a workshop design. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 83(5), 37-48.
38. Osmond-Johnson, P., Campbell, C., & Faubert, B. (2019). Supporting professional learning: The work of Canadian teachers’ organizations. Professional Development in Education, 45(1), 17 32. Doi:10.1080/19415257.2018.1486877
39. OECD. (2009) Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS.
40. OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners, TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
41. Pennanen, M., Bristol, L., Wilkinson, J., & Heikkinen, H. L. (2016). What is ‘good’mentoring? Understanding mentoring practices of teacher induction through case studies of Finland and Australia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(1), 27-53.
42. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?.Teachers College Press.
43. Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers' makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British journal of educational technology, 50(3), 1260-1274. Doi:10.1111/bjet.12743.
44. Suri, H.(2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2) 63–75.Doi:10.3316/QRJ1102063.
45. Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., & Johansson, S. (2020). Teacher job satisfaction: the importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 71-79.Doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247.
46. Wells, M. (2014). Elements of effective and sustainable professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 40 (3), 488-504. Doi: 10.1080/19415257.2013.838691.
47. Zhao, Y., Pinto Llorente, A. M., Sánchez Gómez, M. C., & Zhao, L. (2021). The Impact of Gender and Years of Teaching Experience on College Teachers’ Digital Competence: An Empirical Study on Teachers in Gansu Agricultural University. Sustainability, 13(8), 1-13. Doi:10.3390/su13084163
48. Zepeda, S. J., Parylo, O., & Ilgan, A. (2013). Teacher peer coaching in Amerikan and Turkish schools. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(1), 64-82. Doi:10.1108/20466851311323096
49. Zepeda, S. J. (2015). Job embedded professional development: Support, collaboration, and learning in schools. NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
50. Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group