23
This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University] On: 17 October 2014, At: 06:31 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Professional Development in Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20 Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia Muhammad Kamarul Kabilan a & Kasthuri Veratharaju b a Basic Educational Research Unit , School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia , Minden , 11800 , Malaysia b Language Department , Institut Pendidikan Guru Pulau Pinang , Pulau Pinang , Malaysia Published online: 05 Mar 2013. To cite this article: Muhammad Kamarul Kabilan & Kasthuri Veratharaju (2013) Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia, Professional Development in Education, 39:3, 330-351, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2012.762418 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.762418 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 06:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Professional Development in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Professional development needsof primary school English-languageteachers in MalaysiaMuhammad Kamarul Kabilan a & Kasthuri Veratharaju ba Basic Educational Research Unit , School of Educational Studies,Universiti Sains Malaysia , Minden , 11800 , Malaysiab Language Department , Institut Pendidikan Guru Pulau Pinang ,Pulau Pinang , MalaysiaPublished online: 05 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Muhammad Kamarul Kabilan & Kasthuri Veratharaju (2013) Professionaldevelopment needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia, ProfessionalDevelopment in Education, 39:3, 330-351, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2012.762418

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.762418

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Professional development needs of primary schoolEnglish-language teachers in Malaysia

Muhammad Kamarul Kabilana* and Kasthuri Veratharajub

aBasic Educational Research Unit, School of Educational Studies, Universiti SainsMalaysia, Minden 11800, Malaysia; bLanguage Department, Institut Pendidikan Guru PulauPinang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

(Received 30 June 2012; final version received 21 November 2012)

Professional development (PD) is not only an ongoing process that contributestowards personal growth of teachers, but also an integral element in improvingthe quality of schools. Hence, educational authorities have invested significantly– in terms of money, time, effort and energy – in PD programmes/activities withthe aim of enhancing teachers’ competencies so that they become professionallycompetent. However, effective PD should be based on the actual needs andexisting practices of teachers. This paper reports the PD needs of MalaysianEnglish-language teachers teaching in the primary schools using quantitativeand qualitative data. The study, which was carried out in 2010 for six months(January to June), concludes that the Malaysian teachers prefer, mainly, PDprogrammes/activities that emphasise their pupils’ needs as well as their ownprofessional needs and interests. It is thus suggested that the Ministry ofEducation assists the schools and teachers to take more responsibility to plan,develop, implement and assess their own PD programmes/activities.

Keywords: professional development needs; needs analysis; teacher’s needs;pupils’ needs; school community; teacher effectiveness

1. Introduction

Professional development (PD) is not only an ongoing process that contributestowards personal growth of teachers, but also an integral element in improving thequality of schools (Thompson and Zeuli 1999, Smith et al. 2005, Desimone et al.2007). Research indicates that teachers’ personal and professional growth bringpositive changes in pupils’ performances, and progress concurrently with pupils’academic achievement (Garet et al. 2001, Carey 2004). For this to happen, ‘sus-tained investment in developing the knowledge and skills of classroom teachers andof personnel who provide instructional leadership’ must be planned and made(Anderson and Roshni 2009, p. 290).

The literature of PD and school change suggests that PD is most effective whenit is planned and reformed at the school level (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin1995, Lieberman 1995, Fullan 2003). Hence, educational authorities and institutionsin many countries have invested significantly – in terms of money, time, effort andenergy – in PD programmes/activities with the aim of enhancing teachers’ PD. It is

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Professional Development in Education, 2013Vol. 39, No. 3, 330–351, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.762418

� 2013 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

hoped that the teachers will become professionally competent (see Anderson andRoshni 2009, Garet et al. 2001, Peacock and Rawson 2001), and thus contribute tothe desired educational changes and reform at the school level.

Aspects of teachers’ PD needs have been continuously debated for decades butlittle empirical data area are available to specify what teachers really require tobuild effective PD practices (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003, Kennedy 2005). This ismainly because new ideas, knowledge and technological advancement and practicesproliferate rapidly over time, and it is almost impossible to keep track of the result-ing educational changes that occur. In other words, PD and its related aspectsshould be a continuous process (see Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995,Black and Wiliam 1998, Kabilan 2006), and not a one-off effort or initiative. Thismeans that planning, identifying needs and assessing effectiveness of teacher PDshould be done frequently, consistently and constantly over time. Black and Wiliamoffer further analysis by arguing that, ‘teachers need to know about their pupils’progress and difficulties with learning so that they can adapt their own work tomeet pupils’ needs that are often unpredictable and that vary from one pupil toanother’ (1998, p. 140). Black and Wiliam (1998) also believe that these teachingchallenges could be overcome by implementing PD programmes/activities and sup-port systems that are built on good practices. Therefore, the identification of teach-ers’ professional needs should be done regularly, taking into account new andcurrent developments and ideas in education and other areas of studies such asinformation and communications technologies (ICT), social sciences, pure andapplied sciences and economics.

Quite frequently, teachers’ needs of PD activities are neglected, and their needsare rarely given the attention they deserve (Guskey 2000). This is mainly becausethe teachers are not given opportunities to voice their needs for relevant and mean-ingful PD programmes/activities. In many contexts around the world, particularly indeveloping and Third World countries, teachers voice their frustrations at not gettingPD programmes/activities that fulfil their interests and needs. For example, in the1990s, Castro (1991) and Davini (1995) claimed that the content of PD programmes/activities in Latin America did not fulfil teachers’ needs, and that ‘teachers do nothave a systematic way of communicating to administrators (who are in charge ofdeveloping these courses) that which they need’ (in Villegas-Reimers 2003, p. 62).Ethiopian teachers lament about their ‘employer’s unresponsiveness in providing on-the-job training’ but are expected to perform at a very high standard (Tekleselassie2005, p. 624). In Ghana, Osei (2006) identifies many negative factors, especiallypolitical turmoils, diminishing training funds, lack of appropriately trained staff andteachers, scarce resources, large class size and poor salary scale that seriously impact‘the future education and training needs of the nation’ (p. 50). In some contexts,such as Namibia, teachers may not even know how to assess their PD needs, as theyare not given the freedom to do so or ‘were not sufficiently empowered to assesstheir own specific needs’ (O’Sullivan 2001, p. 114). Sometimes, local culture, wayof life and geographical boundaries do not permit teachers to be involved in PDprogrammes/activities, as exemplified by Sales of Pakistani women teachers:

The long hours after school create a problem for the women who are expected to spendtheir afternoons on household and agricultural work, and especially for the many work-ing mothers … Equally, the geography of the area means that teachers in the mostremote areas may find even ‘local’ training centres inaccessible. (1999, p. 414)

Professional Development in Education 331

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

In the Malaysian context, English-language teachers urge and demand far moreeffective PD programmes/activities that are tailored to their needs (Kabilan et al.2008). Issues related to the teaching and learning of English in Malaysia receiveconsiderable serious attention from various stakeholders – including politicians,who have debated it numerous times in the Malaysian Parliament (Kabilan 2007).The main reason behind this attention is that the Malaysian Government wantspupils to master the English language so that the demands of a knowledge-basedsociety (k-economy) can be met. For this to happen, the teachers should be compe-tent and skilled in terms of pedagogical knowledge and language proficiency. How-ever, teachers would not have acquired, in their initial education, all the knowledgeand competencies that are essential in their future years of teaching (Mulkeen andTetenbaum 1987). This would mean that they need time to prepare and equip them-selves with the needed English-language knowledge and skills necessary to createthat ideal classroom atmosphere.

PD programmes/activities should therefore be relevant, meaningful and cater tothe professional needs of teachers. Unfortunately, much research done in Malaysiahighlights the fact that teachers are not satisfied with their PD (see Kabilan 2004,Kabilan et al. 2008). The authors firmly believe that this is so because of the wayPD is planned and conducted in Malaysia, which is very centralised, dominated bycascade-type programmes (top-down) that neglect teachers’ interests and needs.Teachers in the Malaysian urban schools in some ways benefit from such PDprogrammes, as they have easy access to information and the programme. However,the teachers teaching in rural schools, who are usually ‘left out’ from the PD pro-grammes for reasons such as financial constraints and distance, do not enjoy thesame ‘luxury’ as their urban counterparts. In many cases, the elite and establishedschools, which are mostly located in the urban areas, are allocated bigger fundscompared with other schools, and this further widens the PD gap between teachersteaching in urban and rural schools. This situation is not helped by the constantchange of teaching and learning policies. For example, in 2005/06, the MalaysianMinistry of Education (MOE) introduced the teaching of mathematics and scienceusing the English language, replacing the old policy of teaching the subjects inBahasa Malaysia. But in 2010 the decision to teach mathematics and science inEnglish was reversed, as it is felt that this policy is not the right way to encouragethe learning of English. Thus, in 2012 a new English-language curriculum wasintroduced to all Malaysian schools. However, this introduction will have its weak-nesses if teachers’ professional needs are not identified and determined. The newcurriculum should take into consideration, among other factors: what the teachersare able to do (and not able to do); strengths and weaknesses of teachers in termsof teaching methods, orientations and perspectives/philosophy; and the new knowl-edge and skills (including readiness and adaptability) that are required of teachersto successfully implement the curriculum.

This study is therefore carried out with the aim of identifying primary schoolEnglish-language teachers’ current PD needs. The research question for this studyis: ‘What kind of PD programmes/activities would the primary school English-lan-guage teachers like to participate in and experience, and which will fulfil the teach-ers’ needs?’ Answering this research question will provide valuable insights toother countries and contexts in a similar vein since PD and identifying teachers’needs are important elements of educational planning and development of a nation.More importantly, listening to teachers’ voices would contribute to a more positive

332 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

atmosphere, where the teachers would be able to function better in attaining educa-tional success. Ignoring the teachers’ voices would cause more serious repercussionsas teachers may feel neglected and resist any reforms introduced (Villegas-Reimers2003). Findings from this study would enable PD planners to develop a frameworkas well as create and propose policies that would facilitate effective planning,organising (and organisation) and delivery of effective PD programmes/activitiesthat will provide meaningful experiences for teachers.

2. Literature review

In the 1980s and 1990s, teachers’ acquisition of knowledge and skills had alwaysbeen lacking in most teachers’ PD practices (Jackson and Davis 2000). The maincause, as identified and scrutinised by Darling-Hammond (2007) and Hollins andGuzman (2005), is the providers’ reluctance and failure to design suitable pro-grammes that are in accordance with the learners’ performance and achievement. Itis not only that PD programmes/activities have failed to produce successful learners;teacher education programmes are also partly blamed. Teacher educationprogrammes are held responsible for failing to produce efficient teachers (Chenget al. 2002, Thomas 2009), whereby their initial needs as pre-service teachers werenot clearly identified and addressed in the teacher education programmes, especiallythe curriculum and instructional components (Could 2003). Failure of teacher edu-cation programmes in this respect would have a damaging effect on the quality ofteachers placed in the educational system, particularly in the early childhood andprimary education levels. Literature also draws attention to how teachers themselvescontribute negatively to their own career – teachers often do not take responsibilityand ownership towards their professionalism (Chase 1998, Lee 2004/2005) toimprove themselves (Kent 2004).

It is strongly acknowledged by researchers that effective and meaningful PDprogrammes/activities are the ones that fulfil the needs and interests of the partici-pating teachers (see Darling-Hammond 1997, Garet et al. 2001), and that engagethem meaningfully and actively (Sikora and Alexander 2004, Lee 2011). Moreimportantly, these programmes should concentrate on the development and improve-ment of teaching and learning in the classroom (Garet et al. 2001). Garet et al.termed these as ‘high-quality PD’ (2001, p. 915) by illustrating Hiebert’s (1999)several core features that describe effective PD in the form of teacher learning:

… (a) ongoing (measured in years) collaboration of teachers for purposes of planningwith (b) the explicit goal of improving pupils’ achievement of clear learning goals, (c)anchored by attention to pupils’ thinking, the curriculum, and pedagogy, with (d)access to alternative ideas and methods and opportunities to observe these in actionand to reflect on the reasons for their effectiveness … (Hiebert 1999, p. 15)

By not focusing on the above cores, it would be difficult to achieve the aimsand objectives of a programme, and to sustain the teachers’ motivation level tolearn further and deeper. For instance, Atay (2007) finds that persistent boredomleads to participants becoming unreceptive learners, and at some stage of the PDactivity they become totally withdrawn. Hence, Anderson (2007) suggests that PDprogrammes should focus on equipping teachers with knowledge and skills so as todevelop and enrich their competency levels. Also, the knowledge and skills gained

Professional Development in Education 333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

and learned must be practised, as implied by Daloglu’s (2004) study of Turkishprimary English-language teachers, who evaluated a PD programme. The Turkishteachers found the PD programme to be effective because the focus of theprogramme identified by them addressed a specific need, and ‘the materialsdeveloped through the program were put into use immediately, providing a concretebenefit to the teachers’ (2004, p. 687). Villegas-Reimers (2003) explains that identi-fying and evaluating professional needs are crucial in deciding which ‘PD modelwould be the most beneficial to their particular situation’ (p. 15); and by doing so,teachers can be selective of their PD programmes/activities. Kabilan et al. (2008)discover that teachers are ‘wrongly’ sent to PD programmes/activities because ofthe, ‘failure of the organisers and planners of the programmes to carry out properneeds analysis of the teachers and ensure that the contents are suitable, appropriateand most crucially, are what they actually need in practice’ (2008, p. 89). Therefore,it is vital that teachers are included as ‘an integral part of the planning process, bothin decision making and in identifying needs and beliefs’ as findings on teachers’needs of PD must be deliberated in establishing a fluid PD framework (Haney andLumpe 1995, p. 191).

From the above literature review, we can conclude that identifying teachers’professional needs is an important concern for educators and the authorities. It isalso interesting to note that different research contexts present different challengesand difficulties. These challenges and difficulties include government educationalpolicies, teachers’ cultural sensitivity and teachers’ personal issues. Also, in differ-ent epochs, countries were concerned with different issues and problems. For exam-ple, in Turkey, according to Daloglu (2004) in the study reviewed above, theconcern was towards providing training (in the form of workshops) to teachers astheir PD. In Ghana in the 1990s, the concern was to provide adequate teachers,regardless of whether they were qualified or not, to schools especially in the ruralareas (Villegas-Reimers 2003). However, Osei (2006) quite recently examined theissues of remuneration and salary as a form of enhancing Ghanaian teacher PD.These examples re-emphasise and support the argument that teachers’ needs oughtto be frequently and consistently investigated and identified because the teachers’needs may change over time as their needs are dependent on other variables. Thesevariables include: learners’ interests, ability and variability; government and minis-try policy changes; new technological development and advancement; curriculumchanges and restructuring; and introduction of new teaching–learning methods.

3. Methods

3.1. Population, sampling procedures and sample size

The target population of this survey was English-language teachers in primaryschools in Malaysia. Only full-time teachers were accepted to participate in thisstudy. Part-time teachers or replacement teachers and pre-service teachers were notincluded as respondents to the survey, which was carried out for six months(January–June 2010). The teachers’ qualification as participants for the survey wasindicated in the letter that was sent to the headmasters of the selected schools.There are 7695 primary schools in Malaysia and 2,899,228 primary school childrenwith 230,499 full-time teachers (MOE 2010). The teachers in this study weretrained and certified as English-language teachers and they hold a variety of postssuch as heads of departments, senior administrators and headmasters. In terms of

334 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

PD, the teachers involved in this study, like all Malaysian teachers, are required bythe Ministry to engage in PD programmes that are school based, with the aim ofenhancing teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical skills, soft skills and classroompractices (MOE 2009). Each teacher has to fulfil (and document) at least 42 hoursof PD (equivalent to 7 days) per year that may encompass all types of PDprogrammes and activities (such as workshops, conference, expert teachers’ meet-ings, training, seminars and talks, etc.). Although the MOE propagates that the PDare now school based, the truth is that the operationalisation of PD programmes isstill very much a cascade type of programmes (top-down). This is because theMOE still dictates and organises PD courses, and hence teachers are still dependenton the MOE for their PD.

The sampling technique used for the survey was stratified random sampling.This sampling technique was used because it could ‘produce more accurate esti-mates of population characteristics’ (Peck et al. 2001, p. 44). For this study, dispro-portionate stratified random sampling was selected as the sampling techniquebecause the number of samples chosen according to the size of the populationwould result in, at times, a number of samples in the strata that was too small, andwas not representative of the population of the strata (Sekaran 1992). A single stra-tum was used as the basis for the sampling techniques – location of schools (urban/rural). This sampling approach ensured that English-language teachers in both theurban and rural schools were represented in proportion to their appearance in thepopulation (Black 1999). Also, it promised an equal representation of rural andurban schools in the study, as this approach enabled the researcher to randomlychoose the same number of rural and urban schools. The status of the schools –whether they were urban or rural schools – was determined using the status thatwas assigned by the Ministry. In order to obtain a sufficient sample size, 5000 ques-tionnaires were sent to randomly selected primary schools (both urban and rural)throughout the country, with a response rate of 31.22% (n = 1561).

3.2. Instruments and data analysis

The instrument used in this survey was a self-administered questionnaire thatconsisted of two sections – Section A and Section B. Section A is a construct with13 items pertaining to teachers’ needs for future PD programmes (see Table 2 later).The 13 items were included in this construct based on literature pertaining to PDneeds of English-language teachers, particularly Kabilan (2006), Bailey et al.(2001) and Kabilan et al. (2001). The teachers were given a five-level Likert scale– ‘Not at all important’ (Level 1) to ‘Extremely Important’ (Level 5) – to rateteachers’ needs of PD activities. This construct was tested for its reliability (with n= 71) and a Cronbach alpha score of 0.843 was obtained, indicating the construct’sstrong internal consistency. Frequencies, percentages and mean scores wereemployed to determine and describe teachers’ needs of their PD activities.

Section B consisted of a single open-ended structure item that sought toexplicate in detail the teachers’ notion and ideas of effective and meaningful PDthat would fulfil their needs. The specific question was:

In your opinion, what are the effective and meaningful professional developmentprogrammes/activities that would fulfil the needs of an English-language teacherteaching in a primary school in Malaysia?

Professional Development in Education 335

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

The teachers’ responses were identified by the codes given to them (T1, Teacher1; T2, Teacher 2; etc.). The data from the open-ended item were categorised intothematic constructs using coding strategies (Bogdan and Biklen 1992) thatincluded two types of codes – activity codes and situation codes. Activity codesare units of data that described the teachers’ regularly occurring behaviour andactivities in terms of their PD, whereby questions such as ‘What did the teachersdo in order to enhance their PD?’ and ‘How did the teachers carry out their PD?’were pertinent. On the other hand, the situation codes described the teachers’ defi-nition, understandings and perceptions of their own PD. Questions such as ‘Whatwere the teachers’ concerns of their PD?’ and ‘How did the teachers value theirPD?’ were some of the relevant questions for the researchers. These questionsguided the researchers to understand, reflect and categorise data into specificthemes that led to the thematic constructs (see Table 1 for sample codingstrategies).

This strategy enabled the researchers to direct the recurring themes, andphysically separated the different types of PD needs of the teachers. By groupingthese types of PD programmes and activities, the researchers were well aware ofthe teachers’ views and how they defined effective and meaningful PD activitiesthat fulfilled their needs (Bogdan and Biklen 1992). Readers should be aware thatsome data collected from the open-ended item indicated or enclosed more thanone theme at times; and as such, the themes may be intertwined with one another.The qualitative data were mainly used to support and give meaning to thequantitative data.

Table 1. Sample schema for activity and situation codes.

Example excerpts (teachers) Analyses (note/comment)Thematicconstructs

‘Research should be made toidentify the major problemamong teachers and students inthe real world. These activitiesshould be based on the result. Itshould be based on pupils’ andteachers’ needs’ (T451) [situationcode]

Research is an integral componentin identifying teachers’ as well aspupils’ needs. However, identifyingteachers’ and pupils’ needs cannotbe separated or treated in isolation

Pupils’ needs &teachers’ needs/interests

‘After 3 years being graduated fromUSM I feel very sad because Idon’t have a chance to attend inany course to improve myselfcompare to when I’m in primaryschool last time. Advertise thecourse to each school so we cantake part’ (T64) [activity code]

PD should be based on voluntarybasis and the opportunity for PDmust be given to each teacher

Voluntary basis

‘Involve not only these who areinterested but also those whooften find excuse not to attend. Inshort, should be madecompulsory’ (T158) [situationcode]

336 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

4. Results

4.1. Overall mean scores, frequencies and percentages

Data from the survey are presented in Table 2; that is, the mean scores of items andthe frequencies and percentages, respectively. There are two items that are consid-ered important by the teachers; that is, PD activities that are based on pupils’ needs(α = 4.11) and that are based on teachers’ professional needs (α = 4.05). The other11 items are slightly important to the teachers. The items with low mean scores are:attainment of higher education (α = 3.56); and considered as equivalent to Level 4of PTK (α = 3.65).

4.2. Pupils’ needs

The data indicate that teachers in this study identify pupils’ needs as the mostimportant factor that should be taken into consideration when a PD programme isdeveloped, planned and organised (α = 4.11). This is because, apart from the teach-ers, what the pupils do in the classroom critically impacts their learning (Black andWiliam 1998). The teachers (f = 1273, 81.5%) feel it is important that PD activitiesare based on pupils’ needs. T23 points out that PD activities should be tailoredaccording to ‘types of schools and pupils’ because, too often, the existing PD activ-ities are geared to cater to teachers from one type of school when the activities areattended by teachers from different types of schools. PD that is based on pupils’needs will also ‘guide teachers to do more pupil-centred activities’ (T17) and thuscontribute to pupils’ learning (T26). These pupil-centred activities will ‘generatepupils’ interests to learn English’ (T39). Therefore, T451 suggests that researchshould be carried out to identify the major problems faced by teachers and students.By doing so, as well as identifying pupils’ needs, the activities devised should beable to enhance pupils’ proficiency levels at both urban and rural schools (T155)and fulfil pupils’ needs in language learning (T52). Similarly, T23 suggests profes-sional activities for teachers that will eventually benefit ‘all levels of pupils and forall types of schools’.

4.3. Teachers’ professional needs and interests

With a mean score of 4.05, teachers in this study acknowledge that PD programmesshould be based on teachers’ professional needs as the second most important fac-tor. In total, 1278 (89.1%) teachers agree that it is important for the professionalactivities to be organised and planned according to the teachers’ professional needs,and suggest that more related conferences and seminars are organised to ‘improveand enhance the pedagogical aspects in teaching and learning’ (T24) as well as toimprove themselves and ‘be more alert to current teaching and learning practices’(T96). T27 hopes that with such professional activities, ‘we would be able toaddress genuine problems/issues at primary levels and get teachers and educatorsfrom different fields to participate’. Similarly, the respondents also want PD activi-ties to be based on their interests (α = 3.99), with 77.5% (f = 1210) of the teachersstating its importance.

The primary teachers’ voices clearly demonstrate their need for activities thatinterest them. According to T189, they ‘should be given room and the opportunityto choose PD activities that they are interested in’. T246, however, believes that all

Professional Development in Education 337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Table2.

Meanscore,

frequencyandpercentagesof

teachers’PD

needs.

Asateacher,IwantthePD

programmes/activities

to:

Not

atall

important

Less

important

Slig

htly

important

Important

Extremely

important

Mean

score

Bebasedon

pupils’needs

7(0.4)

23(1.5)

230(14.7)

809(51.8)

464(29.7)

4.11

Bebasedon

teachers’professional

needs

10(0.6)

16(1.0)

229(14.7)

910(58.3)

368(23.6)

4.05

Bebasedon

teachers’professional

interests

7(0.4)

35(2.2)

279(17.9)

853(54.6)

357(22.9)

3.99

Com

prisevariouslevelsof

know

ledge

4(0.3)

27(1.7)

325(20.8)

916(58.7)

260(16.7)

3.91

Bebasedon

school

needs

12(0.8)

35(2.2)

336(21.5)

887(56.8)

263(16.8)

3.88

Beregularlyevaluatedforim

proved

pupilacadem

icachievem

ent

5(0.3)

40(2.6)

372(23.8)

858(55.0)

257(16.5)

3.86

Com

prisevariouslevelsof

skills

5(0.3)

25(1.6)

372(23.8)

912(58.4)

219(14.0)

3.86

Beregularlyevaluatedfortheirim

pact

onincreasedteacher

effectiveness

8(0.5)

40(2.6)

374(24.0)

881(56.4)

230(14.7)

3.84

Com

prisevariousworkshopthem

es6(0.4)

33(2.1)

469(30.0)

871(55.8)

154(9.9)

3.74

Bean

integral

partof

anatio

nwideeducationalim

provem

ent

plan

(e.g.ETEMS)a

9(0.6)

62(4.0)

455(29.1)

822(52.7)

185(11.9)

3.73

Beon

avoluntarybasis

23(1.5)

76(4.9)

496(31.8)

719(46.1)

218(14.0)

3.67

Beconsidered

asequivalent

toLevel

4of

PTK

(Pencapaian

TahapKecekapan

)b32

(2.0)

118(7.6)

477(30.6)

640(41.0)

266(17.0)

3.65

Includetheattainmentof

higher

degree

(master’s/PhD

)23

(1.5)

111(7.1)

554(35.5)

675(43.2)

169(10.8)

3.56

Notes:Thisconstruct(w

iththeabov

e13

items)

isthemainconstructin

thequ

estio

nnaire.a Teachingof

mathematicsandscienceusingEng

lish.

bA

course/training

that

iscompu

lsoryforMalaysian

teachers

ifthey

wantto

mov

eto

ahigh

erpo

stand/or

salary

scale.

338 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

English-language teachers should be given the ‘chance to participate in activitieswhich interest them’. T252 states that PD activities should be based on teachers’professional needs and interests because this is connected to the issue of relevancyof those activities to teachers, as exemplified by T9:

Before conducting any activities, ask the question ‘is it relevant?’ when and to whom?Sometimes the content is interesting but the presentation can be such a bore … zzz …both content and delivery should be interesting. Make it less formal, perhaps? Formal-ity is not my forte … give me a chance to get my hands dirty instead of mutely lettingme ‘imagine’ the whole thing happening.

In addition, identifying teachers’ needs is imperative so that the PD experiences willbe meaningful and relevant to the teachers, and will be able to resolve other issues,particularly the effectiveness of the activities carried out. Some of the teachers claimthat ‘PD activities in school look like lecture session’ (T15) and are ‘too general tobenefit’ the teachers (T19).

Teachers in this study imply that there is a nexus between pupils’ needs and teach-ers’ needs in terms of the kind of PD activities that should be carried out – theyshould fulfil both teachers’ and pupils’ needs (T449, T451 and T454). Researchingand identifying teachers’ needs is crucial and should be the basis of developing,planning and organising PD. This also shows how much the teachers are aware of thesignificance of identifying their own needs, as well as their pupils’ needs:

Researchers/stakeholders should observe classroom teaching to find out English teach-ers’ needs. The findings from the observations should be used to plan and providerelevant activities. (T12)

KPM (MOE) should engage directly to school administrators in order to identifyteachers’ needs and requirement for PD courses. (T65)

In terms of researching and identifying teachers’ needs, T381 even suggestsassessment as a form of identifying teachers’ needs:

PD is very subjective and cannot be calibrated by the individual, teacher themselves.The teacher needs to be observed and assessed by a panel to really know whether he/she needs more activities to help him/herself. (T381)

T266 provides deeper insights into the connection between identifying teachers’needs and assessment of the professional activities:

Prior to designing PD activities, a needs analysis must be conducted to ascertain the areaof PD needed for teachers in general and ELT teacher in specific, this may reduce teach-ers’ anxiety in attending unnecessary courses because students would be left out. As wecome back from the courses nothing could be applied, [so] someone must monitor thecourses for the teacher, it’s faithful or just to fulfil the directive over the top. (T266)

Data presented in this section echo Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin’s (1995)views on PD that emphasise the provision of an appropriate platform for teachers toexchange and share knowledge, ideas and skills with others. The platform shouldalso facilitate the teachers’ learning and thus enable them to practise new ideas forthe benefits of their pupils’ learning.

Professional Development in Education 339

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 12: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

4.4. Assessment

Assessment of PD activities is needed and emphasised by a number of teachers.From the quantitative data, 71.5% of teachers in this study say it is important thatPD activities are regularly evaluated to improve pupils’ academic achievement(α = 3.86). Quite similarly, 71.1% of teachers state that the activities should be reg-ularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher effectiveness (α = 3.84).These statistics are well supported by the teachers’ qualitative voices, which high-light regular follow-ups (T3, T14 and T18) and observations (T4 and T391), evalua-tion of teachers’ performance (T360) and feedback on the effectiveness of theactivities (T3 and T8). These suggestions are given so that the PD activities andprogrammes provided can be improved and meaningfully help the teachers via a‘hands-on approach’ (T170) accompanied by ‘follow up activities and programmes’(T145). Guskey’s (2000) two forms of assessment of PD – formative and summa-tive assessments – are mentioned by the teachers in this study. For formative assess-ment, teachers in this study have indicated that continuous information andfeedback on the PD implemented and how the PD affect pupils’ learning and pro-gress are crucial. As for summative assessment, the teachers have given accounts ofthe extent of success (or failure) of the organised PD programmes/activities andtheir overall value to the teachers.

4.5. Knowledge and skills

Teachers in this study identify that PD programmes/activities should comprisevarious levels of knowledge and various levels of skills (α = 3.91 and α = 3.86,respectively). This finding is in accordance with Craft’s (1996) theory of the needof teachers to engage in PD, as well as Bell’s (1991) ideas and perspectives of aneffective PD. In the open-ended item, teachers accentuate that PD activities shouldlead to the learning of new knowledge and therefore develop ‘further expertise inpedagogy as well as content/subject matter’ (T113). The learning of new knowledgeis vital, and should be ‘regularly updated on issues/trends/developments in ELT’(T104). Many other teachers underscore the importance of existing knowledge andthe learning of new knowledge that should enhance their effectiveness as anEnglish-language teacher. Ideally, the new knowledge learned should be shared sothat ‘participant engage actively in the development activities’ (T328).

Qualitative data indicate that there are two main skills that the primary teacherswould like to see incorporated into PD activities: pedagogical skills and languageskills. Most of the teachers stress teaching skills as one key area that needs to befocused on during PD activities: to improve teaching styles/methods/skills; ‘to stim-ulate the mind, maintain interest and prevent burn-out syndrome’ (T37); ‘to impro-vise teaching skills/methods’ (T211); and ‘to enhance the quality of teaching andlearning process’ (T377 and T339). With improved and improvised teaching skillsand methods, it is hoped that the teachers will be more effective in ‘teachingstudents of different level of capabilities (especially the low achievers)’ (T199) and‘to teach weak students and how to make literature more fun’ (T336). Naturally, asEnglish-language teachers, they are very much concerned with students’ languageskills, and thus advocate teaching methods/skills that are related to reading, writing,listening and speaking. T203, for example, emphasises more content-based PD of‘teaching of essay writing and summary writing which are skills hard for studentsto acquire’.

340 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 13: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

4.6. School needs

Bell’s (1991) approach to PD puts stress on the school’s needs as the focal point toenhance teacher effectiveness. Similarly, in this study, an important criterion for PDprogrammes or activities is that they should be based on school needs (α = 3.88),with 1150 teachers (73.6%) claiming it to be important for them. The primaryschool teachers stress that the focus of PD should be on school and its ‘real needs’(T310), particularly the schools in the rural areas (T17, T130 and T443). By doingso, the PD activities will ‘enable the teachers to work on a common problem areaand improve their teaching strategies more effectively’ (T156); and be a ‘practicalsession with the real situation in schools where teachers can share ideas’ (T10) that‘are relevant to the Malaysian pedagogy’ (T106) and culture (T132), particularly inclassroom contexts.

4.7. Voluntary basis

Quite a number of teachers in this study agree that attending PD activities on a vol-untary basis is slightly important (α = 3.67) compared with earlier items. More thanone-half of the teachers in this study (64.6%) believe that attending PD activitiesand programmes on a voluntary basis is important, whereas 99 teachers (6.4%) indi-cate this is less important or not at all important. It is interesting to note that 496teachers (31.8%) concur that it is slightly important. However, the qualitative datapaint a different picture. Only T15 identifies that ‘in order to make PD activitiesbecome meaningful, it has to be on a voluntary basis and based on teachers’ needs’.Other teachers highlight the need for all English-language teachers to be activelyinvolved in PD activities and programmes. T158 is quite vocal and strong in herresponse: ‘Involve not only those who are interested but also those who often findexcuses not to attend. In short, should be made compulsory’. However, a numberof teachers lament that they are not given the chance to participate in PD activities:

After 3 years being graduated from USM I feel very sad because I don’t have achance to attend in any course to improve myself compare to when I’m in primaryschool last time. Advertise the course to each school so we can take part. (T64)

Rural school teachers have always been neglected from PD activities. Never beeninvited to any professional courses and PD activities. (T387)

Problem – mainly given to teachers from selected schools only. Then, no proper inhouse training is given to the rest of the teachers in other schools. Hence, ensure aproper mechanism to spread/share PD activities. (T68)

Many teachers point out that all English-language teachers should participate inat least one PD activity per year (for example, T81, T112, T217 and T24) so thattheir teaching skills can be improved (T243). Some also want to include ‘teachersfrom different parts of the country so that the activities provided are relevant to allteachers’ (T95). Teachers also raise the issue of fairness and being given an equalchance to participate in PD activities:

Course should also be attended by all English language teachers. It is rather burdeningto panel head to attend all the workshops and courses. All English teachers shouldshoulder equal responsibilities. (T229)

Professional Development in Education 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 14: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Qualified teachers be given the chance without discrimination. (T341)

The teachers justify that their demand is reasonable as it leads to first-handexperience and teacher effectiveness:

Send teachers for ‘first-hand’ seminar/workshops rather than choosing one teacher perschool and to expect that teacher to give an in-house training to other colleagues. Letteachers choose their preferred ESL courses. (T331)

Provide first-hand experience when courses are conducted for teachers there is acascading effect, which needs to be rectified. A lot of information is watered downand the end result is a lack of effectiveness, especially when the selected teacherreturn to school to carry out in house training. A week long course is sometimes pre-sented in an hour or two. (T111)

5. Discussion

Teachers in this study engage in PD activities with the main aim of helping theirpupils develop proficiency in the target language (Diaz-Maggioli 2003). However,in order to improve pupils’ learning of English, the pupils’ positive outcome orlearning must be sustainable and maintained at the highest level (Anderson andRoshni 2009). Geijsel et al. explain it by taking the view of teacher learning anddevelopment as a ‘constructive and socially and culturally situated process’ (2009,p. 408). Hence, Geijsel et al. (2009) imply that teachers become responsible fortheir ‘own professional functioning and acquire the necessary knowledge and reper-toire of activities to participate critically in the social and cultural practices withregard to education’ that will contribute to the overall development of the school.

Teachers in this study want PD programmes/activities that consider their profes-sional needs and interests so that they would be able to fulfil their pupils’ needs interms of learning English, and this is very specific to the enhancement and improve-ment of their teaching and gaining new content and pedagogical knowledge. Thisquest towards continuous improvement of teachers, Hirsh (2009, p. 3) argues,begins with ‘examining student data to determine the areas of greatest student need,pinpointing areas where additional educator learning is necessary’. It is thenexplicable as to why the teachers in this study emphasised research as an integralcomponent in identifying teachers’ as well as pupils’ needs. However, identifyingteachers’ and pupils’ needs cannot be separated or treated in isolation – both shouldbe analysed and determined in tandem with each other, mainly because the pupils’needs influence and determine the teachers’ professional needs and interests, asshown by the data in this study.

The teachers in this study demand far more effective, meaningful and relevantPD programmes/activities that are regularly assessed for their effectiveness.Constant assessment, evaluation, observation and follow-up activities will benefitthe teachers in determining future goals and objectives for future PD (Sikora andAlexander 2004). As a result, future PD programmes/activities will be more mean-ingful and engaging as the teachers are actively involved in designing them, anddetermining the direction and implementation of change (see Hargreaves andHopkins 1991, Coombe 1997).

Teachers in this study prefer PD programmes/activities that enhance existingknowledge and skills, and that allow the gaining of new knowledge and skills. Thiswould facilitate them to relate their prior knowledge to new experiences (Cohen

342 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 15: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

1990, Lieberman 1994). The teachers state that the knowledge and skills should bein the areas of pedagogy, content and linguistics, which are important to them ‘aspart of the professional knowledge base underlying their work’ (Geijsel et al. 2009,p. 408) that can be used to, among other things, achieve classroom efficacy(Mushayikwa and Lubben 2009), equip pupils with higher-order thinkingskills (Hunt 2009) and address changes needed in teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009).

The teachers’ insistence on PD programmes/activities that are based on theschools’ needs denotes a multifaceted approach that is needed to manage and con-duct meaningful PD programmes/activities, as ascertained by the teachers. Pupils’needs and teachers’ needs are the other main important elements that should bedeliberated and considered for PD programmes/activities. Hence, PD planners andproviders should consider both the institution’s needs (school) as well as the indi-viduals’ needs (teachers and pupils). According to Mushayikwa and Lubben (2009),such PD will engage the schools, teachers and pupils in ‘mutually supportive rela-tionships’ and, as a result, ‘symbiosis occur’. Consequently, the teachers and pupilswill feel ‘empowered’ and would be able to identify and relate to the missions andvisions of the schools. In other words, the needs of the school are the needs of thepupils and teachers because there exists ‘a shared vision and high delivery’(Mushayikwa and Lubben 2009, p. 377).

While many teachers express their liking for PD that are based on a voluntarybasis in the survey, the teachers also strongly advocate the need to make PD pro-grammes/activities ‘compulsory’ through the qualitative data. Although this appearsto be a contradiction, in reality there are perfectly logical explanations for such anintricate trend. Foremost, the teachers do desire PD programmes/activities that arebased on volunteerism, their needs and interests, as indicated by the survey, buttheir previous experiences of PD were most probably not meaningful due to variousfactors such as the lack of proper planning; incompetent facilitators; the irrelevantcontents and lame methods/approach of conducting PD programmes/activities;heavy school workload; and poor support and recognition, in monetary and fundingterms (see Pajak and Blase 1989, Sikora and Alexander 2004, Osei 2006, Kabilanet al. 2008, Torff and Byrnes 2011, Wichadee 2011). As such, teachers’ participa-tion in PD programmes/activities diminishes and they become non-committal orsceptical towards PD programmes/activities. Previous studies have pointed out thataddressing some of the above issues and problems using certain transformational orinnovative practices will enable administrators to re-capture and augment teachers’commitment for PD. For example, Geijsel et al. (2009) investigated ‘school organi-zational conditions and leadership practices and teachers’ psychological states inexplaining variation in teachers’ professional learning’ (p. 407), and found thattransformational leadership practices may lead to teachers’ commitment and partici-pation in PD. Nelson (2008) examined teachers’ engagement in a professional learn-ing community, and discovered that the teachers’ learning emerged from theintellectual work they were involved in, teachers ‘undertook the difficult task of cre-ating new ways to professionally interact’ (p. 578) and shared ideas and examinedteaching and learning ‘in ways uncommon in most schools’ (p. 579), eventuallyresulting in the increase of teachers’ commitment to PD.

The exchanges of information, experiences and materials, as well as the sharingof ideas and problems among teachers, are seen as valuable PD engagement andexperiences by the teachers. These are meaningful networking and collaborative

Professional Development in Education 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 16: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

practices that would keep them updated with the latest knowledge in the field ofteaching English, particularly with the use of ICT and its tools. Such collaborationand networking should, ‘contribute to the development of a positive culture in aschool, which is committed to change and creating better learning opportunities forall students’ (Robinson and Carrington 2002, p. 240). Nevertheless, the networkingand collaborative efforts between teachers must be sustained so that teachers will beable to expand on ‘their repertoire of methods to accommodate student diversity’(Robinson and Carrington 2002, p. 245). As such, ICT platforms could be used tofurther deepen their PD by keeping the teachers connected with an online commu-nity of practices. By using ICT tools and platforms such as email, blogs and socialmedia networks, more opportunities for powerful and meaningful learning will bepresented to the teachers. Such learning eventually will become more profound asthese tools offer, ‘the reconstruction, reconfiguration and reuse of knowledge pro-duced from teachers’ existing practices in professional engagement’ (Kabilan andEmbi 2006, p. 101). As a result, teachers will have more opportunities ‘to learnwith and from one another’ (Mangin and Stoelinga 2011, p. 50) since networkingand collaboration via online platforms are most likely to occur in a community ofpractice; that is, English-language teachers with similar interests, needs and sharedknowledge and practices.

6. Conclusion and implications

It is evident from the findings of this study that, in the process of identifying thePD needs of English-language teachers, various essential elements have to be takeninto consideration. These elements, based on the analysis and understanding of thedata, could be constructed and assembled in the form of a fluid and dynamic modelthat has the following stages of PD programmes/activities: planning and develop-ment; implementing PD and engaging teachers; and evaluating and enriching teach-ers’ experiences and professional growth.

These three stages, if well constructed and efficiently carried out, can lead to thereification of meaningful and useful knowledge and practices of teachers, andincrease their professional culture, which in turn may considerably contribute toschool change, school reform and school improvement (see Figure 1). Literaturehas concretely established these nexuses between PD and teacher learning to thenotions of school change (see Bullough Jr et al. 1997, Cohen and Hill 2001, Knapp2003, Darling-Hammond et al. 2009), school reform (see Smylie 1995, Little 1999,Darling-Hammond et al. 2009, Torff and Byrnes 2011) and school improvement(see Geijsel et al. 2009, Darling-Hammond et al. 2009, Putnam and Borko 2000).

The biggest challenge in implementing the above model is ensuring the schoolcommunity’s (both teachers and school administrators) total commitment and con-centrated effort. This is because, in the planning and developing stage, determiningthe degree of importance of the seven considerations, establishing the relationshipof each consideration with each other and achieving a balance among the consider-ations are vital tasks that must be examined critically. With careful analysis ofteachers’ needs in tandem with other considerations, then an equilibrium could beattained among the seven considerations, which then would make it easier toimplement and engage teachers in meaningful PD programmes and activities. Andwith proper evaluation and enrichment programmes in place (such as assessmentof effectiveness of PD programmes, provision of support and recognition and

344 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 17: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

facilitation of networking and collaboration), relevant, meaningful and sustainablePD programmes, activities and experiences that contribute to school improvementcould be provided to teachers. The strength of this model is that it could be adoptedby a school and its community of teachers. Teachers and school administrators arerequired to be totally committed and immersed in planning, developing, implement-ing, engaging, evaluating and enriching their own PD programmes at the schoollevel based on their own needs and interests. Hopefully, the teachers will be moreresponsible towards the PD programmes, become independent learners and sustaintheir PD. As for the school administrators, their exigent challenge is to motivateand move their teachers collectively as a community to be responsible for their ownPD, and to be the personal owner of their professional journey. The central idea ofthis model is to get teachers extensively and intensively involved in all the threestages by researching, evaluating and identifying their own professional needs andtheir pupils’ needs in relation to their school’s needs (note that teachers also needto take into consideration other aspects identified in the model). These practices

Stage 1: Planning & Developing

Considerations• Pupils’ Needs• Teachers’ Professional Needs & Interests • Schools’ Needs• Knowledge & Skills• Time & Venue• Facilitators• Volunteerism

Stage 2: Implementation & Engagement

Considerations• Content & Conduct• Facilitators

Stage 3: Evaluation & Enrichment

Considerations• Assessment• Support & Recognition• Networking & Collaboration

School ChangeSchool Reform

School Improvement

Figure 1. Elements of English-language teachers’ professional development needs.

Professional Development in Education 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 18: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

should be part of the school culture and carried out as collegial activities. Suchinvolvement of teachers would intensify and accelerate any school change, schoolreform or school improvement initiatives and plans.

This nationwide study has inadvertently aggrandised several discouragingMalaysian teachers’ perceptions and views of PD, and patterns of PD practices. Theidea of volunteerism in PD is strongly supported by the teachers, but they simulta-neously lament the perceived practice of favouritism in selecting participants forPD, as well as highlighting the need to enforce a rule or policy that ensures eachteacher participates in at least one PD programme/activity per year. By analysingthe qualitative data, the researchers were also able to sense a dispiriting practice ofPD, whereby the teachers have the idea that it is very much a privilege or anoption, and not their professional obligation. The teachers’ responses reflect arudimentary understanding of PD that include ‘attending conferences or courses’,‘participating in workshops or seminars’ or ‘attending training’. These concepts inrelation to PD, as reviewed by Doyle (2003), are quite futile and do not improveday-to-day teachers’ practices. These are also evidence that prove the teachers inthis study have a shallow understanding of the concept of PD and are very depen-dent on the MOE and other stakeholders to provide PD programmes/activities.

On the contrary, the teachers do not voice concepts such as ‘self-directed PD’,‘self-initiated PD’ or ‘teachers as experts’, which are concepts framed by the salientfeatures of constructivism. From the perspectives of constructivism, knowledge isconstructed and reconstructed by a community of practice that will result in themeaningful learning of the members of the community (Wenger 1998). This processis guided by the specific needs of teachers determined earlier by the members ofthe community (individually or collaboratively) or the entire community. In otherwords, English-language teachers should be involved in a more self-initiated/direc-ted PD, which also means that, as an individual teacher, he/she should be engagedin PD that is school based by collaborating with other teachers. By collaborating,they would be able to satisfy the needs of the students and the needs of the school;that is, fulfil the vision and mission of the school in achieving the desired schoolchange or reform for school improvement. We can facilitate this by assisting theteachers to fit new ideas to improve existing practices (Doyle 2003) and concentrateon daily classroom practices around a specific curriculum (see Ball and Cohen1999, Elmore 2002, Gabriel et al. 2011).

An important contribution of the present study is that it underscores the impor-tance of school administrators, PD providers and teachers consistently andfrequently researching and carrying out a series of continuous needs analyses ofteachers’ PD. This can decisively and critically pave the way for more sustainable,meaningful teacher learning and professional growth. For this to happen, self-initi-ated and school-based PD is vital and should be given the serious consideration itdeserves. Hence, it is suggested that courses on PD should be integrated into acurriculum of teacher education in which the accurate ideas and concept of PD aretaught and disseminated. The course should be designed and developed using adultlearning principles so that it will accomplish the ‘introduction of a pedagogicalinnovation’ and introduce to teachers the ‘experiences they need to practise, collab-orate, and apply to their practice what they have learnt about the innovation’ (Greg-son and Sturko 2007, p. 16). By doing so, Gregson and Sturko (2007) concludethat the future teachers would be able to reflect on their practice, construct profes-sional knowledge and skills with their peers, and develop collaborative professional

346 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 19: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

relationships with them. The aim of integrating such a PD programme is toempower future teachers to ‘take the initiative in identifying and acting on theirown individual needs’ (Mushayikwa and Lubben 2009, p. 375) because teacherswho are confident and are able to view themselves as knowledgeable professionalsor have the ability to recognise the opportunities to grow professionally, ‘maycontribute more to the school as their commitment to the organization and to theprofession increase’ (Bogler and Somech 2004, p. 286).

Identifying the needs of teachers is significant, as this particular process is mostlikely to determine the success of the planned PD programmes/activities. However,in identifying teachers’ professional needs, pupils’ needs and schools’ needs shouldbe in sync and forge a symbiosis that would contribute meaningfully to initiativesor programmes that are developed at the school-level related to school improve-ment. These needs of teachers, pupils and schools should take into account elementsthat have been identified by the primary teachers in this study.

It is also important that teachers’ work and contributions towards schoolprogress and change are supported and recognised. Without strong support andrecognition, teachers are unable to immediately implement any reform or schoolchange or even engage in PD programmes/activities (Osei 2006). Teachers deprivedof support and recognition are expected to deliver good results although they havehigh levels of ‘stress, anxiety and frustration’ (Mushayikwa and Lubben 2009,p. 376). Eventually, this will lead to teacher burnout, teachers leaving the professionor teachers transferring to another school (Ingersoll 2001). On the other hand, withsturdy and continuous professional support, research indicates that teachers’ profes-sional commitment is enhanced and their PD progress is enriched, and teachersbecome more engaged in the schools’ change and reform endeavours (see Singhand Billingsley 1998, Bogler and Somech 2004).

It would be interesting to discern whether the needs of primary school English-language teachers of other countries are the same or different from those of theMalaysian teachers. If they are the same (or different), then in which facets? Whatkind of implications would these similarities or differences entail, particularly forthe planning, implementing and evaluating of PD programmes and activities? Fromthe outcomes of those studies involving other countries, can we develop an appro-priate common framework that would be of great help to planners and providers inorganising PD programmes/activities? Future studies related to PD needs of Eng-lish-language teachers should explore and examine these questions.

AcknowledgementsThis paper was written based on data obtained from a larger research project, ‘Identificationand Development of an Essential Professional Development Matrix for English LanguageTeachers’, funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia under the Malaysian Research UniversityResearch Grant Scheme. Other research team members include Tan Kok Eng, NorlidaAhmad, Leong Lai Mei, Aswati Hamzah and Abdul Jalil Ali. Their contributions wereimmense in successfully completing the research.

ReferencesAnderson, J., 2007. Teachers’ motivation to attend voluntary professional development

in K–10 mathematics. In: M. Goos, R. Brown, and K. Makar, eds. Proceedingsof the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group ofAustralasia. Sydney: MERGA Inc, 51–58.

Professional Development in Education 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 20: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Anderson, S. and Roshni, K., 2009. Continuous improvement in schools: understanding thepractice. International journal of educational development, 29 (3), 281–292.

Atay, D., 2007. Teacher research for professional development. ELT journal, 62 (2),139–147.

Bailey, K.M., Curtis, A., and Nunan, D., 2001. Pursuing professional development. Boston,MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Ball, D. and Cohen, D., 1999. Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward a prac-tice-based theory of professional education. In: L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes,eds. Teaching as a learning profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 3–31.

Bell, L., 1991. Approaches to the professional development of teachers. In: L. Bell and C.Day, eds. Managing the professional development of teachers. Philadelphia, PA: OpenUniversity Press, 3–22.

Black, T., 1999. Doing quantitative research in the social sciences. London: Sage.Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 1998. Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom

assessment. Phi delta kappan, 80 (2), 139–148.Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S., 1992. Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.Bogler, R. and Somech, A., 2004. Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’

organisational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenshipbehaviour in schools. Teaching and teacher education, 20 (3), 277–289.

Bullough Jr, R., et al., 1997. Professional development schools: catalysts for teacher andschool change. Teaching and teacher education, 13 (2), 153–169.

Carey, K., 2004. The real value of teachers: using new information about teachereffectiveness to close the achievement gap. Thinking K–16, 8 (1), 3–42.

Castro, E., 1991. La formacion docente en America Latin: desafio que requiere respuesta[Teacher education in Latin America: a challenge that requires response]. Santiago,Chile: OREALC / UNESCO.

Chase, B., 1998. NEA’s role: cultivating teacher professionalism. Educational leadership, 55(5), 18–20.

Cheng, Y., Tam, W., and Tsui, K., 2002. New conceptions of teacher effectiveness andteacher education in the new century. Hong Kong teachers’ centre journal, 1 (spring),1–19.

Cohen, D., 1990. A revolution in one classroom: the case of Mrs. Oublier. Educationalevaluation and policy analysis, 12 (3), 311–329.

Cohen, D.K. and Hill, H.C., 2001. Learning policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Coombe, C., 1997. Unleashing the power of Africa’s teachers. International journal of

educational development, 17 (1), 113–117.Could, B., 2003. Principles and practices for effective teacher evaluation. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.Craft, A., 1996. Continuing professional development. London: The Open University Press.Daloglu, A., 2004. A professional development program for primary school English

language teachers in Turkey: designing a materials bank. International journal ofeducational development, 24 (6), 677–690.

Darling-Hammond, L., 1997. The right to learn: a blueprint for creating schools that work.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., 2007. The flat earth and education: how America’s commitment toequity will determine our future. Educational researcher, 36 (6), 318–334.

Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M., 1995. Policies that support professionaldevelopment in an era of reform. Phi delta kappan, 76 (8), 597–605.

Darling-Hammond, L., et al., 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession: astatus report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas,TX: National Staff Development Council.

Davini, M., 1995. La formacion docente en cuestion: politica y pedagogia [Teacher trainingin question: politics and pedagogy]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidos.

Desimone, L., Smith, T., and Frisvold, D., 2007. Is NCLB increasing teacher quality for pupilsin poverty? In: A. Gamoran, ed. Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: lessonsfrom No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 89–119.

348 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 21: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Diaz-Maggioli, G.H., 2003. Professional development for language teachers [online]. ERICdigest. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Available from:http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0303diaz.pdf [Accessed 18 February2013].

Doyle, J.A., 2003. Professional development in reading comprehension instruction. In:A. Sweet and C. Snow, eds. Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: GuilfordPress, 176–191.

Elmore, R.F., 2002. Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: the imperativefor professional development in education. Washington, DC: The Albert ShankerInstitute.

Fullan, M., 2003. Change forces with a vengeance. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Gabriel, R., Day, J., and Allington, R., 2011. Exemplary teacher voices on their own

development. Phi delta kappan, 92 (8), 37–41.Garet, M., et al., 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a

national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38 (4), 915–945.Geijsel, F., et al., 2009. The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and

leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The elementaryschool journal, 109 (4), 406–429.

Gregson, J. and Sturko, P., 2007. Teachers as adult learners: re-conceptualizing professionaldevelopment. Journal of adult education, 36 (1), 1–16.

Guskey, T.R., 2000. Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Haney, J. and Lumpe, A., 1995. A teacher professional development framework guided byreform policies, teachers’ needs, and research. Journal of science teacher education, 6(4), 187–196.

Hargreaves, D. and Hopkins, D., 1991. The empowered school: the management and prac-tice of development planning. London: Cassell.

Hiebert, J., 1999. Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal forresearch in mathematics education, 30 (1), 3–19.

Hirsh, S., 2009. Creating effective professional learning systems to bolster teaching qualityand student achievement. In: L. Darling-Hammond et al., eds. Professional learning inthe learning profession: a status report on teacher development in the United Statesand abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council, United States, 3–4.

Hollins, E. and Guzman, M., 2005. Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations.In: M. Cochran-Smith and K.M. Zeichner, eds. Studying teacher education: the reportto the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 477–548.

Hunt, J., 2009. Standards-based reform 2.0. In: L. Darling-Hammond et al., eds. Profes-sional learning in the learning profession: a status report on teacher development inthe United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council, UnitedStates, 2.

Ingersoll, R., 2001. Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis.American educational research journal, 38 (3), 499–534.

Jackson, A. and Davis, G., 2000. Turning points 2000: educating adolescents in the 21stcentury. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kabilan, M.K., 2004. Malaysian English language teachers’ practices and experiences ofonline professional development. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia, Bangi, Selangor.

Kabilan, M.K., 2006. English language teachers’ professional development: opportunities,practices and constraints. Journal of language studies, 2, 143–156.

Kabilan, M.K., 2007. English language teachers reflecting on reflections: a Malaysian experi-ence. TESOL quarterly, 41 (4), 681–705.

Kabilan, M.K. and Embi, M.A., 2006. English language teachers’ professional uses of email.Teacher development, 10 (1), 87–103.

Kabilan, M.K., Vethamani, E., and Chee, S.F., 2008. Learning from the less meaningfulINSET: teachers’ perspective. In: Malachi Edwin Vethamani and Muhammad KamarulKabilan, eds. Practices and issues in English language teacher development. PetalingJaya: Sasbadi, 80–96.

Professional Development in Education 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 22: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Kabilan, M.K., Yusfarina, M.Y., and Masni, K., 2001. Current practices of professionaldevelopment of English language teachers: some trends and suggestions. Paper pre-sented at international conference of Teacher Education, 16–17 July, UITM ShahAlam.

Kennedy, M., 2005. Inside teaching: how classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Kent, A., 2004. Improving teacher quality through professional development. Education, 124(3), 427–435.

Knapp, M.S., 2003. Professional development as policy pathway. Review of research ineducation, 27 (1), 109–157.

Lee, H.-J., 2004/2005. Developing a professional development program model based onteachers’ needs. Professional educator, 27 (1/2), 39–49.

Lee, I., 2011. Teachers as presenters at continuing professional development seminars in theEnglish-as-a-foreign-language context: ‘I find it more convincing’. Australian journalof teacher education, 36 (2), 30–42.

Lieberman, A., 1994. Teacher development: commitment and challenge. In: P. Grimmett andJ. Neufield, eds. Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity. New York:Teachers College Press, 15–30.

Lieberman, A., 1995. Practices that support teacher development: transforming conceptionsof professional learning. Phi delta kappan, 76 (8), 591–596.

Little, J.W., 1999. Teachers’ professional development in the context of high school reform:findings from a three-year study of restructuring schools. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., et al., 2003. Designing professional development for teachers of scienceand mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mangin, M. and Stoelinga, S., 2011. Peer? Expert? Journal of staff development, 32(3), 48–52.

Ministry of Education, 2009. Circular on professional development of in-service teachers.Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education, 2010. Available from: http://www.moe.com.my [Accessed 1 October2011].

Mulkeen, T. and Tetenbaum, T., 1987. An integrative model of teacher education and profes-sional development. Educational horizons, 65 (2), 85–87.

Mushayikwa, E. and Lubben, F., 2009. Self-directed professional development – hope forteachers working in deprived environments? Teaching and teacher education, 25 (3),375–382.

Nelson, T., 2008. Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: should we beoptimistic? Science teacher education, 93 (3), 548–580.

Osei, G., 2006. Teachers in Ghana: issues of training remuneration and effectiveness.International journal of educational development, 26 (1), 38–51.

O’Sullivan, M., 2001. The inset strategies model: an effective inset model for unqualifiedand underqualified primary teachers in Namibia. International journal of educationaldevelopment, 21 (2), 93–117.

Pajak, E. and Blase, J., 1989. The impact of teachers’ personal lives on professionalrole enactment: a qualitative analysis. American educational research journal, 26(2), 283–310.

Peacock, A. and Rawson, B., 2001. Helping teachers to develop competence criteria forevaluating their professional development. International journal of educationaldevelopment, 21 (1), 79–92.

Peck, R., Olsen, C., and Devore, J., 2001. Introduction to statistics and data analysis. Paci-fic Grove, CA: Duxbury.

Putnam, R. and Borko, H., 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have tosay about research on teacher learning? Educational researcher, 29 (1), 4–15.

Robinson, R. and Carrington, S., 2002. Professional development for inclusive schooling.The international journal of educational management, 16 (5), 239–247.

Sales, V., 1999. Women teachers and professional development: gender issues in the trainingprogrammes of the Aga Khan Education Service, Northern Areas, Pakistan. Interna-tional journal of educational development, 19 (6), 409–422.

350 M.K. Kabilan and K. Veratharaju

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 23: Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia

Sekaran, U., 1992. Research methods for business: a skill building approach. 2nd ed. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Sikora, D. and Alexander, K., 2004. Creating meaningful professional development for newFACS teachers through collaborative action research. Journal of family and consumersciences education, 22 (2), 47–52.

Singh, K. and Billingsley, B., 1998. Professional support and its effects on teachers’commitment. The journal of educational research, 91 (4), 229–239.

Smith, T., Desimone, L., and Ueno, K., 2005. ‘Highly qualified’ to do what? Therelationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-orientedinstruction in middle school mathematics. Educational evaluation and policy analysis,27 (1), 75–109.

Smylie, M., 1995. Teacher learning in the workplace: implications for school reform. In: T.R. Guskey and M. Huberman, eds. Professional development in education: new para-digms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press, 92–113.

Tekleselassie, A., 2005. Teachers’ career ladder policy in Ethiopia: an opportunity forprofessional growth or ‘a stick disguised as a carrot?’. International journal ofeducational development, 25 (6), 618–636.

Terehoff, I.I., 2002. Elements of adult learning in teacher professional development. NASSPbulletin, 86 (632), 65–77. doi: 10.1177/019263650208663207

Thomas, P., 2009. The futility and failure of flawed goals: efficiency education as smokeand mirrors. Power and education, 1 (2), 214–225.

Thompson, C.L. and Zeuli, J.S., 1999. The frame and the tapestry: standards-based reformand professional development. In: L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, eds. Teachingas the learning profession: handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, 341–375.

Torff, B. and Byrnes, K., 2011. Differences across academic subjects in teachers’ attitudesabout professional development. The educational forum, 75 (1), 26–36.

Villegas-Reimers, E., 2003. Teacher professional development: an international review ofthe literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.

Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wichadee, S., 2011. Professional development: a path to success for EFL teachers.

Contemporary issues in education research, 4 (5), 13–21.

Professional Development in Education 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

31 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014