Professional development of secondary school EFL teachers: Voices from Indonesia

System 85 (2019) 102111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Professional development of secondary school EFL teachers: Voices from Indonesia Andrzej Cirocki a, *, Thomas S.C. Farrell b a b

Department of Education, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK Department of Applied Linguistics, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 22 May 2018 Received in revised form 29 July 2019 Accepted 30 July 2019 Available online 31 July 2019

Continuing professional development (CPD) means that language teachers need to keep updating their knowledge and skills continuously throughout their careers. This paper reports on a study of the CPD experiences of 250 teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in secondary schools in Indonesia. Using a mixed-methods approach e through the use of a questionnaire, a reflective report and a focus group interview e the results revealed a detailed picture of the continuing professional development in the context under study. Specifically, the findings indicated that the EFL teachers conceptualise professional development in five different ways: school-based learning, an academic undertaking, a professional pursuit outside the school environment, a government scheme and self-directed learning. The study also showed that although the teachers said that they have ample opportunity to develop professionally, not everyone takes advantage of this. The study additionally reveals that some professional development activities are more impactful than others. Finally, the article recommends steps that seek to help EFL teachers to sustain their continuing professional development as well as offers directions for future research. Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Continuing professional development Teacher learning Perceptions Secondary school teachers English as a foreign language

1. Introduction A considerable number of stakeholders, teachers, students, administrators and policy makers agree that professional development for practising teachers is essential to their professional success and for the benefit of their students’ learning (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). More recently, there has been increased interest in the CPD of English language teachers where they can gain new knowledge and experience which they later integrate into the teaching-learning process to make their courses more efficient and successful (Crandall & Christison, 2016; Hashimoto & Nguyen, 2018; Wilden & Porsch, 2017). However, although CPD is considered important, there is not always agreement on its definition, policies, or how it should be implemented (Friedman & Phillips, 2001). Moreover, many teachers view CPD as a top-down process, imposed by school administrations as an overly prescriptive one-size-fits-all solution to some perceived teacher deficit and where outside experts are invited to ‘fix’ the deficit without any real knowledge of the context (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Teachers experiencing such a CPD approach are rarely consulted about what procedures or activities should be undertaken to benefit their practice (Friedman & Phillips, 2001). As a result,

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Cirocki), [email protected] (T.S.C. Farrell). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102111 0346-251X/Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

teachers tend to consider this approach inappropriate or a waste of their time, because it usually benefits some administration-set goals (top-down), but not their own (bottom-up). These teachers begin to view CPD, or the ‘dreaded’ school ‘PD Day’ (Farrell, 2015), as a set of meaningless workshops led by outside experts with no real understanding of the specific context where teachers work (Chan, 2016; Farrell, 2019; Stevenson, 2014). These problematic issues related to CPD are further compounded by the fact that, within English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching contexts, little is known about the planning that goes into CPD, the different types and quality offered, and what local EFL teachers think about these initiatives. This is particularly true in the context of Indonesia, where little is known about CPD programmes beyond anecdotal evidence related to conferences organised with the general aim of improving the quality of local EFL teachers (Rahman, 2016; Raihani & Sumintono, 2010). Thus, the present study is an attempt to fill the gap in research related to Indonesia's EFL teachers' CPD. More specifically, this article investigates how Indonesian EFL teachers: (1) perceive the concept of CPD, (2) engage in CPD activities and (3) perceive the impact of these activities on their professional development. 2. Continuing professional development: a literature review The term ‘professional development’ has prompted a lot of discussion in education circles for decades and there remains some controversy as to its exact meaning, as indicated in the introduction to this article. Much of the debate surrounds what constitutes ‘development’ and what teachers can gain from it. The controversy has led to diverse conceptualisations of CPD (e.g., Adams, 2014; Goudarz & Najibeh, 2015), perceiving it in terms of school-based learning, a professional pursuit outside school, self-directed learning or a government project, to name but a few. Given this controversy, for the purposes of this article we adopt Guskey’s (2000, p. 16) general definition of professional development as “the process and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitude of educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students.” In terms of approaches to professional development, teachers can choose from two main options, labelled formal and informal (Farrell, 2004; Lohman, 2000; Smaller, 2012; Tarc, 2012; Wilden & Porsch, 2017). The formal approach involves teachers attending an education programme which follows a set curriculum on a specific topic. Informal learning is usually self-initiated and self-directed; topics of study are chosen because they are interesting to individual teachers, and as a result of day-to-day teaching experiences or informal conversations with more experienced practitioners (Bennett, 2012; Farrell, 2004). The formal approach to professional development can therefore be considered to be top-down, while the informal approach can be considered bottom-up. Most formal professional development experiences come from within an educational institution and are usually labelled in-service training. Their purpose is to improve some aspect of practice so that the institution benefits as a whole (Adekola, 2007; Dalin, 2005; OECD, 2010a). Such sessions are usually delivered as presentations, workshops, seminars or conferences. For example, the training might focus on introducing or exploring new teaching methodologies, effective classroom management techniques, educational technology or classroom-based research. In-service teacher development can have positive effects, such as encouraging more collegiality (because it brings administrators and teachers together, improving mutual understanding and relations) and helping teachers to develop the skills favoured by their particular institution (Farrell, 2004). Some schools provide opportunities built around day-to-day teaching. Such development can be designated as jobembedded professional development (Griffith, Ruan, Stepp, & Kimmel, 2014). According to Wood and Killian (1998, p. 52), jobembedded professional development is “learning by doing, reflecting on the experience, and then generating and sharing new insights and learning with oneself and others.” This method lasts longer than workshops or seminars, because it allows teachers to reflect and apply new knowledge to their classes while receiving feedback (Cavazos, Linan-Thompson, & Ortiz, 2018). It takes an institutional perspective and is also relevant to individual teachers’ needs, interests, and personal motivations and meanings (Atay, 2008; Crandall & Christison, 2016; TESL Ontario, 2011). More informal approaches include teachers taking individual responsibility for keeping up to date with new teaching methodologies and associated skills (Farrell, 2004). For instance, some teachers are interested in clarifying and understanding their principles, beliefs and values, and how these relate to their practice (Farrell, 2019). Others focus on enhancing subjectmatter knowledge, pedagogical expertise, self-awareness, understanding of learners, curriculum and materials, career advancement and even language upgrading (Farrell, 2004, 2019). More recently, a strong emphasis has been placed on the ‘continuing’ element of CPD to encourage practitioners to regularly re-examine their pedagogical practice and further “their personal understandings and explanations of life in the classroom” (Murphy, 2014, p. 614). Thus, we think it is important that CPD combines formal and informal approaches because it should engage teachers in a range of learning opportunities (Rodriguez & McKay, 2010), and include collaboration and coaching over an extended period (Desimone, 2009; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007) because broadening or developing pedagogical skills and competences is an onerous and time-consuming task. In addition, it is vitally important that the impact of all CPD activities is systematically evaluated. This contributes to a deeper understanding of activities and benefits, as well as their effect in the form of improved pedagogical practices or more successful learning experiences. Ways to measure the impact of CPD can include feedback questionnaires, interviews and observations which focus on participants' reactions/responses to CPD activities, use of new knowledge and skills, and the subsequent impact on students’ learning and student learning outcomes (Guskey, 2000).

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

3

Although there is a paucity of research on the impact of different approaches to CPD within TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), the existing research suggests that, overall, TESOL teachers value a practical approach (Bryant et al., 2000; Yumru, 2015). In addition, TESOL teachers report that they have benefited more when allowed to select their own CPD activities (Cordingley, Bell, Thomason, & Firth, 2005). TESOL teachers have also reported improvements in pedagogical knowledge and skills, subject knowledge, and even more effective learning by their students in the longer term when they pursue such bottom-up approaches to CPD (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010; Coburn, 2016; Gabriel, Day, & Allington, 2011; Motallebzadeh, Hosseinnia, Domskey, & Popescu, 2017; Shukri, 2014; Tabatabaee-Yazdi, Motallebzadeh, Ashraf, & Baghaei, 2018). However, an under-researched consideration in CPD is the specific context in which CPD is undertaken and especially the conditions it should meet to be effective, as well as related activities required to achieve its goals and the teachers' perceptions of all these (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). This contribution attempts to fill this gap in the literature on the conditions and impact of CPD in a specific context e Indonesia. More specifically, the article aims to explore Indonesian EFL teachers’ perceptions about their CPD and seeks answers to the following three research questions: 1. How do Indonesian EFL teachers conceptualise CPD? 2. What CPD activities do Indonesian EFL teachers engage in to develop professionally? 3. How do Indonesian teachers perceive the impact of the CPD activities on their professional development?

3. Methodology Utilising a mixed-methods research design, the study explored the perceptions of 250 Indonesian EFL teachers. It adopted a sequential explanatory form, in which the data were collected in two consecutive stages. The findings in the qualitative stage were employed to help explain and interpret the results in the quantitative stage (Creswell, 2003). The purpose of using quantitative and qualitative methods in combination, synthetic interpretative methodology, resulted in a better understanding of the issues under study. The combined methodology allowed including both analysis and exploration in the current project. 3.1. Participants The participants (N ¼ 250) were EFL teachers from secondary schools in the Eastern, Central and Western provinces of Java, Indonesia. There were 90 (n ¼ 90; 36%) male and 160 (n ¼ 160; 64%) female participants in the sample, all Indonesian. Their ages fell into the following groups: 20e29 (n ¼ 80; 32%), 30e39 (n ¼ 70; 28%), 40e49 (n ¼ 60; 24%), 50e59 (n ¼ 25; 10%) and over 60 (n ¼ 15; 6%). The participants held BA (n ¼ 155; 62%) and MA (n ¼ 95; 38%) degrees, and their EFL teaching experience was categorised as follows: 0e5 (n ¼ 45; 18%), 6e10 (n ¼ 40; 16%), 11e15 (n ¼ 70; 28%), 16e20 (n ¼ 35; 14%), 21e25 (n ¼ 30; 12%), 26e30 (n ¼ 20; 8%) and 31 (n ¼ 10; 4%) years and over. None had any experience in mentoring teachers. The demographic information regarding the participants is presented in Table 1 below. 3.2. Data collection Three instruments were employed to collect the data: the questionnaire, the reflective report and the focus group interview. The questionnaire included both closed- and open-ended questions, some borrowed from or modelled on those used in the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (OECD, 2010b). By including different types of questions, it was possible to document both objective and subjective information about Indonesian teachers' experience with CPD. The report required twenty participants to write a reflective account of their CPD and its benefits. The intention of using reflective accounts was twofold: to allow participants to produce text which included their emotional reactions and real-life anecdotes, and to help the researchers to position and understand these “personal stor[ies] within a wider educational and societal context” (Bold, 2012, p. 6). The last instrument was the focus group. Based on five questions, it consisted of eight participants per group, with forty-eight participants in total. Two focus group sessions were arranged in each of Java's three provinces. The

Table 1 Participants: Gender, age, qualifications and teaching experience. Participants (N ¼ 250) Gender M 90

Age F 160

20e29 80

Qualifications 30e39 70

40e49 60

50e59 25

60 and over 15

BA 155

MA 95

Teaching Experience (number of years) 0e5 45

6e10 40

11e15 70

16e20 35

21e25 30

26e30 20

31 and over 10

4

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

purpose was to explore the themes generated by the questionnaires and reflective reports. The last instrument was particularly advantageous, for it encouraged “greater honesty, spontaneity, involvement, and thoroughness of responding” (Kerr, Aronoff, & Messe, 2000, p. 181). 3.3. Sampling procedure All participants attended CPD workshops organised in different cities across Java. The current study was discussed with the organisers of these workshops in advance and incorporated into the structure of these events. The participants were informed about this research prior to the workshops, so they could decide whether to take part. For the questionnaire element, they were recruited using simple random sampling, where every participant had an equal chance of selection (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Consequently, nitems for the current sample were selected by Microsoft Excel software. This particular procedure was chosen to minimise any sampling bias, as well as to ensure generalisation of the findings. The participants for the reflective report phase were selected using convenience sampling. The study sample comprised readily available volunteers, all attendees at the aforementioned workshops. The convenience sampling was also dictated by the constraint of time. Not all participants submitted reports within the allocated time, and so did not qualify for this phase. Finally, in the focus group interviews, the participants were recruited using stratified simple random sampling from the pool of workshop attendees. At the outset, the population was divided into strata which took into account participants’ gender and geographical location. Then, a random selection of participants took place in each stratum. The stratified random sampling was chosen because it provided better coverage of the population; it also ensured that the three Javanese provinces and the gender of the participants in each province were proportionately represented. 3.4. Data analysis The three instruments generated a large body of data. The quantitative data were analysed statistically, using PQStat (version 1.6.4.110). Descriptive statistics were calculated first. Then, statistical tests, such as the chi-squared test for trend, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, and the Mann-Whitney U test, were employed to measure the relationships between specific variables. The level of significance selected for this study was p < 0.05, whereas highly significant differences were observed when p < 0.001. By contrast, the qualitative data were analysed using thematic coding, in order to identify and analyse themes in the dataset and to “understand the meanings that people give to their lived experiences and social reality” (Schütz, 1962, p. 59). Since the qualitative data were collected using three instruments, codes were employed to ensure the clear presentation of these data: Q ¼ questionnaire, T1 ¼ teacher number 1, FG2 ¼ focus group number 2 and RR3 ¼ reflective report number 3. 4. Findings This section presents empirical findings providing answers to the three research questions discussed under separate headings below. 4.1. Indonesian EFL teachers’ conceptualisations of CPD The questionnaire data showed that the participants conceptualised CPD in various ways. Their definitions fitted into five categories where CPD was understood in terms of (1) school-based learning, (2) an academic undertaking, (3) a professional pursuit outside school, (4) self-directed learning and (5) a government scheme. According to the first category, as some participants reported, teachers develop professionally by “fulfilling their job responsibilities” (Q, T3; Q, T16; Q, T80), as specified in their teaching contracts. This type of development was observed in situations “when the complexity of teachers’ work enhance[d] as a result of their prior experience, greater autonomy and stronger leadership in their place of work” (Q, T4). The participants also perceived CPD as an educational undertaking. This type of development referred not only to “enhancing teachers’ professional knowledge” (Q, T90) and “strengthening their classroom practice” (Q, T198), but also “supporting teacher competence and teacher identity development” (Q, T14) through “formal learning such as undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in English language education” (Q, T71). CPD as a professional pursuit outside school appeared to refer to activities which, as one participant concisely stated, aimed at “developing professional knowledge and skills as well as utilising them fully in the wider community” (Q, T7). Some activities in this category included: “being a member of a teaching association or a community of practice” (Q, T7), “delivering workshops for other teachers” (Q, T32) or “attending ELT conferences or seminars” (Q, T61). Other participants considered this type of CPD as “a well-organised process that supported teacher competence development” (Q, T12), “a series of activities that enabled teachers to develop social and emotional competences” (Q, T33), and “a course of collaborative learning that created opportunities for teachers to learn new things, discuss already known concepts as well as share practical skills and individual classroom experiences” (Q, T64). A very small group of participants defined CPD in terms of self-directed learning. They stated that CPD was a way of “lifelong learning for teachers” (Q, T13; Q, T23; Q, T183), for it “enabled [them] to be in charge of [their] own professional learning” (Q, T66). For example, the participants made key decisions about which professional literature to read (books,

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

5

journals, magazines) or the types and depth of “reflection [they] needed to engage in with regard to [their] teaching practice” (Q, T117). According to the last category, CPD was viewed as a government scheme employed by schools to “help EFL practitioners to be fully engaged in ongoing learning” (Q, T23), both formal and informal, “to ensure stable, effective and high-quality English language education in Indonesia” (Q, T209). The ongoing learning, according to some participants, was necessary for increasing “student achievement” (Q, T77) and “student well-being at school” (Q, T118), as well as “enhancing the school's reputation in the community” (Q, T197). The conceptualisation of CPD also led to a clear divide between regular and high-quality CPD events. The latter were “systematic and well-organised” (FG1, T5), “offer[ed] teachers a variety of handouts or ready-made materials to be used in the classroom” (FG1, T3), “encourage[d] teachers to use technology in their practice” (FG3, T2) and “promote[d] action research among language practitioners” (FG5, T1). Two focus groups pointed out that the difference lay in the high-quality events being delivered by foreign experts. They stated that: (…) high-quality CPD events do not exist without foreign experts. Foreign speakers are a must. They bring new perspectives on teaching to Indonesia. Their ways of teaching and managing classrooms are more effective. We find them more fun than our traditional ways. (FG3, T7) Another group added that: (…) the core element of high-quality CPD is invited speakers from foreign countries, preferably native speakers. We can not only learn new ways of teaching from the speakers, or how to be more effective teachers, but also practise the target language with them. We think that high-quality CPD should include an English language development component so that Indonesian teachers can improve their knowledge of the language they teach. (FG6, T1) While providing various definitions in their questionnaires, the participants referred to CPD as important (n ¼ 250; M ¼ 1.66), useful (n ¼ 250; M ¼ 1.62), necessary for career progression (n ¼ 210; M ¼ 1.24), and enjoyable (n ¼ 185; M ¼ 0.64). As one focus group commented: CPD is important as it helps us to become better teachers; it is also necessary from the career progression point of view. The more CPD certificates we have, the better the chances of promotion. (FG3, T3) However, in a less favourable light, CPD was seen as stressful (n ¼ 90; M ¼ 0.12), intimidating (n ¼ 96; M ¼ 0.36) and bureaucratic (n ¼ 60; M ¼ 0.70). One focus group contributed the following comment: Despite being important, CPD tends to be bureaucratic. Teachers have to manage a lot of documents and forms, which may be stressful at times. Sometimes, but only sometimes, CPD events are intimidating. The invited speakers consider themselves to know everything, whereas teachers know very little, or nothing. (FG1, T4)

4.2. Indonesian EFL teachers’ engagement in CPD activities According to the quantitative data, most participants (n ¼ 200; 80%) were involved in CPD. In the past 12 months, they had been involved in sixteen types of activities (Fig. 1). As Fig. 1 shows, the participants had been engaged in informal dialogues with colleagues on how to improve their teaching (n ¼ 49; 25%), attended 1-day ELT workshops (n ¼ 44; 22%), participated in performance appraisal (n ¼ 34; 17%), attended ELT conferences (n ¼ 26; 13%) and seminars (n ¼ 24; 12%), and carried out individual research in the classroom (n ¼ 22; 11%). Similar observations were made during the focus groups. For example, two interviewees said that “ELT workshops and conferences seem to be the most popular ways of CPD among Indonesian EFL teachers” (FG3, T3; FG5, T4). The least popular forms included: participating in a network of teachers formed specifically for CPD (n ¼ 4; 2%), observing teachers in other schools (n ¼ 5; 3%), carrying out collaborative research (n ¼ 6; 3%) and observing teachers in their current place of work (n ¼ 8; 4%). The following statements were telling: I do not do collaborative research because I do not really know how to go about it. In fact, it is not only about collaborative research but research in general. Many teachers, including myself, have some theoretical knowledge about it, but practical aspects seem to be a big problem. (FG1, T7) Collaborative research is totally new to me. I have never heard or done it before. (FG2, T8) We do not really observe each other's lessons. Peer observations [as well as] peer teaching in schools are not very common here. (FG5, T3) These comments are supported by one reflective report in which the writer pointed out that: It would be useful if regional offices of education, additionally to what they already do, focused more on how teachers learn and what teachers could do to see their professional growth in a relatively short period of time. For instance, teachers could be shown how to effectively self-monitor their development, how to implement (…) peer coaching, or how to develop mentoring skills (…) so that more experienced teachers can offer guidance to those who are less experienced. (RR, 13)

6

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

Fig. 1. CPD activities undertaken in the past 12 months.

An interesting observation was that the more teaching experience the participants had, the less engaged in CPD they were. A significant downward trend was observed in eleven out of the sixteen CPD activities (Fig. 2). The collected data further showed that, on average, in the past 12 months, the participants had attended five days of CPD events, three of which were compulsory and two optional. Most participants (n ¼ 176; M ¼ 2.64) decided themselves what and how many CPD events they attended. School principals (n ¼ 176; M ¼ 1.98) and senior teachers (n ¼ 140; M ¼ 1.42) were involved in these decisions too, but teacher autonomy was given priority. Some participants (n ¼ 73; 37%) revealed that a number of the CPD events were free, while others needed to be paid for (n ¼ 127; 63%). In the past 12 months, on average, the participants had had to cover 34.55% of the cost of CPD undertaken. Only twelve participants (n ¼ 12; 6%) admitted to receiving a salary supplement for CPD activities undertaken outside regular work hours in the past 12 months. Likewise, focus groups and reflective reports revealed that “teachers [were] strongly encouraged by [their] principals to choose CPD events [they] want[ed] to attend” (FG6, T2). Some interviewees mentioned that school principals generally “support[ed] teachers in their CPD journeys” (FG2, T5) and “want[ed] them to attend those events that they [found] useful” (FG4, T7). In this way, they were sure that “teachers enjoy[ed] and benefit[ted] from the events they attend[ed]” (FG1, T2). However, one report disclosed that “teachers hardly ever [got] extra pay for attending workshops after their regular teaching hours” (RR3). Two other reports showed that teachers “frequently [had] to cover some costs related to [their] CPD activities” (RR11), which they found “unfair because [their] salaries [were] very low” (RR16). 4.3. The impact of CPD activities on Indonesian EFL teachers’ development Regarding the self-perceived impact that the undertaken CPD events had had on the participants’ development as teachers in the past 12 months, the results seemed highly varied (Fig. 3). The most impactful CPD activities were: engaging in informal dialogues with colleagues on how to improve one's own teaching (n ¼ 196; 98%), attending 1-day ELT workshops (n ¼ 176; 88%), participating in performance appraisal (n ¼ 136; 68%), as well as attending ELT conferences (n ¼ 104; 52%) and seminars (n ¼ 96; 48%). These findings were endorsed by comments made in the reflective reports, such as: “the best form of CPD is the spontaneous talk you can have with your fellow teachers. You can discuss your classroom issues, share your problems and be offered constructive and sound advice” (RR4). Other writers mentioned that “workshops [were] always useful because they combine[d] theory and practice” (RR7). The practical part was “especially valuable because it always present[ed] innovative methods and strategies” (RR20). For example, one writer was “pleased to have learnt how to promote learner autonomy” (RR14). Two other writers said that practical workshops created opportunities to “analyse their instructional practices in relation to [their] own beliefs about teaching (…), [their] personal philosophy of teaching” (RR6), [as well as] “the wider theoretical frameworks that underpin English language teaching in Java” (RR9). The least impactful activities included: participating in a CPD network of teachers (n ¼ 16; 8%), observing teachers in other schools (n ¼ 20; 10%), doing collaborative research (n ¼ 24; 12%), observing teachers in the current place of work (n ¼ 32; 16%), and reading professional literature (n ¼ 40; 20%). To find out why, the least impactful activities were probed during the focus

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

7

Fig. 2. Engagement in CPD activities vs. work experience.

groups. The interviews revealed that teacher networks and lesson observations were not “very much encouraged in Indonesia” (FG2, T2) and their “importance for professional development [was] not emphasised” (FG2, T5). Some focus groups indicated that EFL “teachers [did] not know much about [collaborative research]” (FG1, T6; FG5, T1), adding that “this type of research [was] not the focus of teacher education in Indonesia” (FG3, T4). One group even pointed out very explicitly that teachers “were expected to do action research, [yet] nobody [had] trained them how to do it” (FG1, T6). As far as reading professional literature is concerned, almost all focus groups indicated that Indonesia was not a reading culture, and in the case of EFL teachers this meant reading in both English and Bahasa Indonesia (literally “the language of Indonesia”). One group commented that “a lot is being done about the reading crisis, but time is needed to be able to describe Indonesia as a [land] of readers” (FG2, T6).

8

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

Fig. 3. Impact of CPD activities on teachers' development.

The data further suggested that participants' CPD had contributed to improvements in two areas (Table 2); the first connected with English language instruction, the second related to participants’ teaching careers generally. The teachingrelated benefits were: a better understanding of instructional practices (n ¼ 200; M ¼ 1.62), more successful teaching (n ¼ 156; M ¼ 0.9), more confident teaching (n ¼ 164; M ¼ 0.88), and enhanced student educational achievements (n ¼ 116; M ¼ 0.88). The teaching-career-related benefits included: more opportunities for professional development (n ¼ 200; M ¼ 1.62), positive changes in job satisfaction (n ¼ 156; M ¼ 1.02), and public recognition from the principal and/or colleagues (n ¼ 136; M ¼ 0.88). 5. Discussion The literature review revealed that CPD is conceptualised in various ways, and the Indonesian context illustrates this perfectly. The data suggest that the Indonesian EFL teachers perceive CPD in terms of school-based learning, an academic undertaking, a professional pursuit outside the school environment, a government scheme and self-directed learning, which Table 2 Benefits of CPD activities undertaken in the past 12 months. Item

CPD events have directly led to:

M

2. 16. 21. 3. 9. 6. 18. 7. 10. 5. 12. 8. 22. 13. 11. 19. 20. 14. 17. 1. 4. 15.

a better understanding of instructional practices opportunities for professional development activities positive changes in your job satisfaction more successful teaching becoming a more confident teacher enhancing student educational achievements public recognition from the principal and/or colleagues increasing student engagement in the learning process learning about how others teach better handling of student discipline and behaviour problems developing skills to plan lessons more effective learner autonomy development changes in your job security developing computer skills developing time management skills changes in your work responsibilities that make the job more attractive role in school development initiatives (e.g., curriculum development group, development of school objectives) a change in salary a change in the likelihood of career development improved language skills more effective teaching of students with special learning needs a financial bonus or another kind of monetary reward

1.62 1.62 1.02 0.9 0.9 0.88 0.88 0.68 0.68 0.54 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.52 0.68 0.68 0.72 0.96 1.16

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

9

corresponds to conceptualisations in other contexts such as the USA (Adams, 2014) and Iran (Goudarz & Najibeh, 2015). On closer inspection, however, the current findings indicate that the majority of EFL teachers in Indonesia define professional development with reference to engaging in work-related learning, and educational undertakings such as completing university-based MA programmes. The first, corresponding to the definition proffered by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2008, p. 2), reads as a carefully planned activity that includes “learning through work, learning about work, and learning for work by developing skills and understanding of work.” The definition cogently illustrates Indonesian teachers’ perceptions and their firm assertion that “the purpose of work-related learning is learning from action in real situations” (FG2, T1) where “teachers, [among other things], observe how students work in the classroom, how they communicate with peers, and how they perceive the teaching learning process” (FG1, T2), “including the role and performance of the teacher in it” (FG1, T4). They “value this type of CPD because it enables them to participate in a continuous process that is grounded in school experience” (FG6, T3). The latter agrees with the viewpoints expressed by Buck and Francis (2011) and Crandall and Christison (2016). The other common perception relates to pursuing MA programmes in English language education which guarantee teachers good jobs and enhance promotion prospects. These programmes, offering nationally recognised teaching qualifications, enable student teachers not only to learn how to combine theory, research and practice, but also involve ELT practicum which exposes them to the aforementioned school-based learning. This is one of the reasons Lee (2013, p. 180) considers such MA programmes as instances of “strategies or approaches” to formalised training which universities adopt to promote CPD among student teachers. Fewer Indonesian teachers perceive CPD as professional pursuits outside school. Their engagement is somewhat restricted to the ELT conferences, workshops and seminars they report attending regularly. The teachers especially value training delivered by international experts. They believe these experts, unlike local teacher educators, promote interesting ways of teaching which are frequently “non-coursebook- and exam-based” (FG3, T2), “encourage cooperative learning where students [not only] work together in teams, [but also] help one another succeed” (FG3, T6), and teach English with fun, for example, “using vocabulary games, songs and warm-up speaking activities” (FG6, T4). All these activities “change the dynamics of the classroom [as well as] classroom seating arrangement” (FG6, T1) and “make students active participants who often have no choice [but to] use English” (FG3, T5). In contrast, for local experts, it is sufficient that “as long as students attend lessons … sit quietly in rows” (FG3, T2) and “do coursebook activities and follow what teachers say” (FG3, T7). Teachers also feel local trainers “do not pay [sufficient] attention to developing speaking skills” (FG3, T3) or “using English in the classroom” (FG6, T2). Strangely enough, CPD training for EFL teachers “is very often conducted in Bahasa Indonesia” (FG3, T1). Teachers are often told what must be done in the classroom, yet “no demonstration is provided” (FG6, T6), which leaves teachers baffled. The use of technology in the classroom is one such example. Teachers are constantly encouraged to integrate technology in the classroom, yet “are not shown exactly what to do, when and how” (FG3, T5). They would like to know more about the available “software, free apps and downloadable materials” (FG5, T1) that could be used. Their expectations are limited to basic tools as, generally, secondary schools “are not well-equipped with new technological devices” (FG4, T4). Mobile technology could be a workable solution as each student seems to have a mobile phone, yet in many schools using “mobile phones during classes [is] forbidden” (FG1, T5). The ban resembles the situation in some American schools (Baker, 2009; Torres, 2009), where restrictions were introduced because of cheating, cyberbullying and distraction (eSchool News Staff, 2008). The other activities in this category e professional pursuits outside schools e should include, for example, teachers' involvement in formal, government-approved associations or informal associations comprising several schools. The latter ideas seem to concur with Husbands (2011), who states that effective CPD rests on collaboration with external partners as well as other schools. External expertise is vital (Cordingley, Bell, Isham, Evans, & Firth, 2007; Timperley, Wilson, Barr, & Fung, 2008; Torres Jaramillo & Mongui Sanchez, 2008) as it is the source of critical friendships providing continuing support and challenge. The support and challenge can be offered through controversial questioning, new perspectives and prompting critical reflection, and frequently result in helping teachers or school administrators to make sound decisions or alert schools to issues usually given scant attention. Such collaborations allow teachers to engage in collaborative empirical projects (GTC, CUREE, & LSIS, 2011), critically examine individual teachers' practices (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006) and find innovative ways to improve the teaching-learning process (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). In other words, as Lee’s (2011, p. 38) findings show, “teachers need a community” to sustain high-quality learning and steady growth that improve the school's development. Despite all the advantages, collaborative work between schools may be challenging to implement in the Indonesian context. Collaborative research and communities of practice are the least favoured activities among teachers. However, this does not mean that they will always be so. The solution lies in transforming teachers' mindsets and, consequently, school cultures. It is vital that teacher education programmes place heavy emphasis on the role of communities of practice and encourage teachers to participate. It is important that teachers' awareness be enhanced so that they perceive communities of practice in Wenger, McDermott and Snyder's (2002, p. 7) terms and define them as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.” Additionally, they should demonstrate a clear understanding of Lorino’s (2015, p. 162) characteristic features of communities of practice, which read as follows:

10

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

1. The relationship between the members of the community is based on a common practice; they have a similar task to accomplish and can discuss it together. 2. The relationship builds up from peer to peer; even if some participants have more experience than others, they are equal in the relationship. 3. The participants learn by doing and by imitating or criticising other participants' practices. The least common perception of CPD is self-directed learning, whereby teachers develop professionally in areas they individually identify as important, pursue them with a self-designed plan of action, and raise their own awareness as to when, where and how pedagogical skills can be learnt (Hacker & Barkhuizen, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2001). The limited level of teacher autonomy observed among Indonesian teachers supports the idea that they assume the roles of obedient civil servants dutifully following directives from senior officials, regardless of their personal beliefs. This top-down approach may have resulted in many teachers demonstrating low self-esteem and low self-efficacy, and thus excessive dependence on others. Self-directed learning as CPD needs to be promoted on a large scale in Indonesia so that teachers openly voice their opinions and take full responsibility for their professional development (Biesta, 2009; Hoyle & Wallace, 2009; MacBeath, 2012). The second research question sought to identify what professional development activities Indonesian EFL teachers participate in. As the data revealed, the activities available are fairly wide-ranging and include the two aforementioned categories of formal and informal CPD such as, among others, informal conversations, workshops, conferences and collaborative research. However, offering a huge variety of CPD events is not optimum. What needs to be monitored is whether the teachers make use of this wide range and, if not, what precludes their involvement. For example, in Indonesia, “high fees often prevent teachers from attending CPD events” (FG4, T1). Financial factors impeding engagement have also been mentioned by teachers in Hungary, Mexico and Poland (OECD, 2009). A very positive observation, however, is that Indonesian school principals try to provide funding whenever possible and involve teachers in choosing CPD events. Although the present study shows that Indonesian EFL teachers enjoy attending conferences, workshops and seminars, they seem to keep professional activity outside the school environment relatively limited. For example, the teachers do not participate in CPD teacher networks, lesson observations of teachers in other schools or collaborative research to sustain inter-school endeavours. The latter seems to run counter to the current requirement that Indonesian teachers should be involved in action research. This lack of activity appears to contradict the current debates in the literature. For example, research has indicated that lesson observations are useful in providing opportunities to share ideas for activities, strategies, methods and solutions to shared problems (Farrell, 2018), and offering constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Collaborative research, in turn, leads to classroom change by empowering teachers to take the initiative, and demonstrate responsibility, criticality and creativity. For instance, Banegas, Pavese, Velazquez and Velez (2013) presented an interesting empirical project conducted in Argentina, wherein a group of secondary school EFL teachers investigated their own teaching practices through collaborative action research. They sought to improve their students' learning opportunities and refresh English language instruction. The teacher-researchers implemented and evaluated the integration of content and language learning in their classrooms, and supported their project with self-designed materials. The study reported growth in their professional development and showed how their greater motivation and autonomy improved their students’ motivation and language development. Finally, the current project investigated Indonesian EFL practitioners' perceptions of how CPD activities affected their development as teachers. As mentioned earlier, the evaluation of any impact should be systematic and thorough and, ideally, be looked at from different angles so that teachers, students and schools are all included. The Indonesian findings suggest that the most impactful activities relate directly to school-based learning and professional pursuits outside of school. For example, the teachers find “informal dialogues with fellow teachers extremely beneficial” (FG2, T4) because “through these chats, sort of informal learning, advice on teaching and the use of technology is swapped” (FG1, T7) and “materials and tips on lesson plans are exchanged” (FG3, T3). These observations correspond with those of Okano and Tsuchiya (1999) in Japan, who asserted that Japanese teachers engage in systematic informal interactions as they believe sharing experience is the most effective way of enhancing individual professional development. The Japanese and Indonesian observations, unfortunately, contradict research findings from Vietnam (Canh, 2007; Ha, 2003; Pham, 2001), some of which indicated that teacher collaboration and sharing was rather uncommon. Vietnamese teachers are reported to work in isolation from one another, which may pose challenges in bringing about change and innovation to the school context in general and classroom context in particular (Ash & D'Auria, 2013; Gargiulo & Metcalf, 2017; Slater & Ravid, 2010). Indonesian EFL teachers reported that they find external professional pursuits, such as workshops or conferences, impactful. Such events “benefit teachers, personally and professionally, and students and schools” (FG5, T2) and “contribute to the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom” (FG5, T2). These findings are paralleled in other studies conducted in Norway and the USA (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010; Coburn, 2016). They are also “beneficial for teachers’ career progression and advancement, especially in Indonesia” (FG5, T2). Systematic participation in “ELT workshops and conferences accelerate[s] [their] promotion at work (FG6, T5). The weakness must be noted, however, that “such events usually regard teachers as knowledge receivers” (FG3, T1) rather than agents of change, that is individuals who make a difference in classrooms and positive changes in their own professional lives.

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

11

The participating teachers also identified activities with very little impact, including reading professional literature. Indonesian teachers are not interested in reading, which corroborates comments from the focus groups that Indonesia lacks a reading culture. These findings mirror large-scale projects conducted by the United Nation's education agency in 2012 (The Jakarta Post, 2017), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2015, and Central Connecticut State University in 2016. The first project revealed that only 1 in 1,000 Indonesians is a regular reader. The second study found that a mean performance of top readers falls below the OECD average, preceding such countries as Tunisia and the Dominican Republic. According to Central Connecticut State University's World's Most Literate Nations (WMLN) study, Indonesia ranks 60th out of 61 nations for interest in reading. Overall, however, the future looks fairly positive; the current project's results indicate that CPD is gaining traction in the EFL context in Indonesia. However, to continue strengthening this trend, it is advisable that school principals and superintendents from regional and provincial education departments liaise in order to: 1. Emphasise CPD's importance so all teachers feel the need to learn and recognise the long-term benefits for them personally and their students and schools in general. Teachers must realise that successful teaching depends on highquality, ongoing professional development which includes a lot of training, practice and feedback. 2. Promote high-quality CPD training in and outside schools. Such training is situated in a subject-specific context; it must be relevant to the immediate needs of teachers at different career stages and their specific groups of students, and be supported by robust evidence and expertise. This encourages teachers to evaluate and improve student learning outcomes. The learning outcomes then guide teachers accordingly both in their instructional activities as well as in their assessment procedure. 3. Provide funding so teachers can attend CPD events. With low salaries, teachers cannot be expected to cover the cost of CPD training as their monthly salary is very low. Regional departments must work closely with the Ministry of Education to secure funding so teachers can attend CPD events for free. 4. Ensure that CPD events offer practical pedagogical training. Many Indonesian teachers are familiar with recent trends in EFL teaching, yet their pedagogical knowledge seems to exist only at the theoretical level, making it hard to put into practice. Practical workshops would demonstrate what to do and how. The latter would satisfy the empirical findings that reveal that teachers value practical approaches to CPD, as observed by Bryant et al. (2000) or Yumru (2015). 5. Plan CDP events which combine both pedagogical training and language enhancement. Indonesian teachers need to become confident users of the target language. Some need to increase their English proficiency, but all need to realise that confident use of English stems from regular practice. For this reason, L1 must be reduced to a minimum. Additionally, the concept of English as a lingua franca should be promoted more among teachers, to raise awareness that the native speaker in the English language classroom has lost the privilege of the target language model. Understanding this is likely to boost the teachers' self-esteem. It is important that they realise that in certain aspects non-native EFL teachers surpass native instructors. For example, non-native teachers appear to supply a better learner model, providing more detailed information about the English language, and foreseeing and preventing language issues. 6. Organise CPD workshops focusing on action research. Since Indonesian EFL teachers are expected to conduct action research in their classrooms e a requirement for promotion e well-designed workshops focusing on research methodology, including formulating research questions, designing instruments (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, observation schedules) and analysing data should be offered. 7. Guide teachers in establishing collaborative communities of practice to design lesson plans, teaching materials or assessment tools together, and discuss classroom-based research and professional literature. By working together, they will save time, improving work-life balance. Establishing successful communities of practice is not easy, but not impossible. For instance, fine examples are discussed in Gotto, Turnbull, Summers, and Blue-Banning (2008), and Fraga-Canadas (2011). It is important that the collaborative communities feature Wenger's (1998) three dimensions: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire. The first dimension is related to shared pursuits that contribute to constructing a collective identity among participants. The second is the community of practitioners itself, and how its members initiate and sustain the process of collaborative learning. Thirdly, the last dimension e a shared repertoire e deals with the shared practices which community members construct through negotiation and social interaction. Additionally, such communities would be a useful way of promoting mentoring culture in the Indonesian education system where more experienced individuals, be they school principals, teacher educators or CPD coordinators, share their knowledge and skills with less experienced practitioners. In terms of individual teacher perspectives, this study's results indicate that Indonesian EFL teachers can strengthen their own individualised CPD. For instance, following Farrell (2015), it is important that teachers: 1. Consider their beliefs, values and assumptions for teaching by looking at their goals for personal and professional development, and examining their classroom practices in light of these. They can then make adjustments if they are perceived to run counter to their beliefs and values or, if they think their practices are effective, consider restating their beliefs to match these practices. In order to enhance self-reflection, it is vital that teachers are encouraged to use a teaching portfolio. This could be “a factual description of a [teacher's] major strengths and teaching achievements, [as well as] …

12

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

documents … materials [and any other forms of evidence] which collectively suggest the scope and quality of teaching performance” (Seldin, 1991, p. 3). While the process of implementing portfolios varies from context to context (Dermirli & Gürol, 2007), it can be summarised in five stages: (1) introduction (i.e., familiarising teachers with the aim, format (print or electronic) and structure of the portfolio, as well as portfolio assessment criteria), (2) collection (i.e., systematically gathering samples of work and documents), (3) selection (i.e., choosing exemplary work providing rationale for their decisions), (4) reflection (i.e., deep reflection on the portfolio content and its organisation for logic, meaning and coherence), and (5) presentation (i.e., presenting/submitting the portfolio content with a critical and reflective commentary). 2. Include their students when engaging in CPD, by observing how students learn, and communicate and interact with each other, and what they think about their teachers. Students have preferred learning styles and strategies, and lessons will be more effective if teachers discover students' likes and dislikes. 3. Involve colleagues by enquiring about their teaching. During this step, teachers can consider entering into peer observations, coaching/mentoring or team-teaching situations with colleagues to further knowledge of practice (Cirocki & Farrell, 2017; Farrell, 2015). Teachers can set up teacher development groups within a school, or with like-minded colleagues in other regions, to reflect on professional practice. When teachers include colleagues in their CPD, they increase exchange of resources, collaboration and expertise to mutual benefit. 4. Involve professional organisations in their professional development, that is their Regional Office of Education and Indonesia's Association for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language (TEFLIN). Outside Indonesia, the big two organisations are TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) International Association, based in the US, and IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) in the UK. Teachers should also seek CPD opportunities offered in the wider ASEAN context, for example, the Regional Language Centre (RELC) in Singapore, Pearson Hong Kong and the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA).

6. Conclusion The findings of the research presented in this article suggest that active CPD involvement provides the necessary foundation through which EFL teachers can mediate their teaching activity and constructively respond to their students’ needs and the challenges of the Indonesian teaching context. The findings reveal that Indonesian EFL teachers define CPD in terms of school-based learning, an academic undertaking, a professional pursuit outside school, self-directed learning, and a government scheme. It is important to stress that while teachers are engaged in various such activities, only some are reported to have a positive impact on their professional lives. It is recommended that educational researchers continue researching various aspects of CPD in the Indonesian EFL context. It would be particularly useful if future studies took into account some of the limitations of the current project. For instance, future research should be based on larger samples and involve teachers from a range of islands in the Indonesian archipelago to ensure more generalisable findings. Future studies could also include more instruments to gather more comprehensive data, not only about what motivates EFL teachers to engage in CPD, but also what their attitudes, expectations, actual preparedness, and responses to such activities are, let alone possible personal or contextual obstacles. Another interesting aspect for investigation is the existence and effectiveness of mentoring culture, in which competent practitioners help novice teachers to become more experienced. Lastly, it is advisable that teacher training experts be invited to participate in research to present their own perspectives on CPD, its importance and ways of development in and outside school. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Adams, L. T. (2014). Teacher and policy alignment: A phenomenological study highlighting high school teachers' professional development experiences. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(2), 117e138. Adekola, O. A. (2007). Language, literacy and learning in primary schools. Implications for teacher development programs in Nigeria. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Ash, P. B., & D'Auria, J. (2013). Blueprint for a learning system: Create one larger, more flexible team that encourages collaboration in all directions. JSD eThe Learning Forward Journal, 34(3), 42e46. Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139e147. Baker, J. (2009). New school cell phone policy. Retrieved from http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/53165407.html. zquez, A., & Ve lez, S. M. (2013). Teacher professional development through collaborative action research: Impact on foreign Banegas, D. L., Pavese, A., Vela English language teaching and learning. Educational Action Research, 39(2), 185e201. Bennett, E. E. (2012). A four-part model of informal learning: Extending Schugurensky's conceptual model. Retrieved from http://www.adulterc.org/ Proceedings/2012/papers/bennett.pdf. Biesta, G. (2009). Values and ideals in teachers' professional judgement. In S. Gerwirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Crib (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 184e193). London: Routledge. Bold, C. (2012). Using narrative in research. London: Sage. Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 238e252. Buck, A., & Francis, L. (2011). Teaching schools: Time for schools to take the lead. Professional Development Today, 14(2), 64e68.

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

13

Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 599e607. Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model to professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 499e514. Canh, L. V. (2007). A historical review of English language education in Vietnam. In Y. H. Choi, & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies (pp. 167e179). Seoul: Asia TEFL. Cavazos, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Ortiz, A. (2018). Job-embedded professional development for teachers of English learners: Preventing literacy difficulties through effective core instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 1e12. Central Connecticut State University. (2016). CCSU news release: World's most literate nations ranked. Retrieved from https://webcapp.ccsu.edu/? news¼1767&data. Chan, C. (2016). School-university partnerships in English language teacher education. Tensions, complexities, and the politics of collaboration. Cham: Springer. Cirocki, A., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2017). Reflective practice in the ELT classroom [Special issue]. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 6(2). Coburn, J. (2016). The professional development of English language teachers: Investigating the design and impact of a national in-service EFL teacher education course. Retrieved from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2420139/FINAL%20James%20Coburn%20dissertation.pdf? sequence¼4. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Isham, C., Evans, D., & Firth, A. (2007). What do specialists do in CPD programmes for which there is evidence of positive outcomes for pupils and teachers? Report in research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. Review: How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect teaching and learning?. Retrieved from www. eppi.ioe.ac.uk. Crandall, J., & Christison, M. (2016). Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dalin, P. (2005). School development. Theories and strategies. An international handbook. London and New York: Continuum. Dermirli, C., & Gürol, M. (2007). An overview of the electronic portfolio process. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 2(3), 254e271. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181e199. Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflecting on classroom communication in Asia. Singapore: Longman. Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T. S. C. (2019). Reflection as action in ELT. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Publications. Fraga-Canadas, C. P. (2011). Building communities of practice for foreign language teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 296e300. Friedman, A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Leaping the CPD hurdle: A study of the barriers and drivers to participation in continuing professional development. In Paper presented at the British educational research association annual conference, university of leeds, 13-15 september 2001. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ documents/00001892.htm. Retrieved from. Gabriel, R., Day, J. P., & Allington, R. (2011). Exemplary teacher voices on their own development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 37e41. Gargiulo, R., & Metcalf, D. (2017). Teaching in today's inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Gotto, G. S. I. V., Turnbull, A., Summers, J. A., & Blue-Banning, M. (2008). Community of practice development manual: A step-by-step guide for designing and developing a community of practice. Lawrence, KS: Beach Center on Disability. Goudarz, A., & Najibeh, D. (2015). EFL teachers' perceptions of continuing professional development: A case of Iranian high school teachers. Profile - Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 29(2), 29e42. Griffith, P. L., Ruan, J., Stepp, J., & Kimmel, S. (2014). The design and implementation of effective professional development in elementary and early childhood settings. In S. Kragler, L. Martin, K. L. Bauserman, & D. J. Quatroche (Eds.), The handbook of professional development, RK-12: Successful models and practices (pp. 189e204). New York, NY: Guildford Publishing. GTC, CUREE, & LSIS. (2011). Report of professional practitioner use of research review: Practitioner engagement in and/or with research. London: General Teaching Council for England. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ha, V. S. (2003). Improving the self-monitoring capabilities of teacher trainees. Teacher’s Edition, 11, 28e35. Hacker, P., & Barkhuizen, G. (2002). Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition. Developing personal theories through reflection in language teacher education. In T. Lamb, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and response (pp. 161e183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hashimoto, K., & Nguyen, V.-T. (2018). Professional development of English language teachers in asia: Lessons from Japan and Vietnam. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2009). Leadership for professional practice. In S. Gerwirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Crib (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 204e214). London: Routledge. Husbands, C. (2011). Towards a framework for professional learning. Professional Development Today, 14(2), 6e11. Kerr, N. L., Aronoff, J., & Messe, L. A. (2000). Methods of small group research. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 160e189). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Towards a postmethod pedagogy. Tesol Quarterly, 35(4), 537e560. Lee, I. (2011). Teachers as presenters at continuing professional development seminars in the English-as-a-foreignlanguage context: ‘I find it more convincing’. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 30e42. Lee, J. C. K. (2013). Teacher education in Hong Kong: Status, contemporary issues and prospects. In X. Zhu, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century. New frontiers of educational research (pp. 171e188). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 83e101. Lorino, P. (2015). Learning as transforming collective activity through dialogical inquiries. In L. Filliettaz, & S. Billett (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work: Conceptions, traditions and practices (pp. 145e168). Cham: Springer. MacBeath, J. (2012). Future of teaching profession. Brussels: Education International Research Institute. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Motallebzadeh, K., Hosseinnia, M., Domsky, J. G. H., & Popescu, M. (2017). Peer observation: A key factor to improve Iranian EFL teachers' professional development. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1e12. Murphy, J. M. (2014). Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 613e629). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning. eSchool News Staff. (2008). Court upholds New York City's cell-phone ban in schools. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/05/29/courtupholds-new-york-city’s-cell-phone-ban-in-schools. OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/berlin/43541636.pdf. OECD. (2010a). Improving schools. Strategies for action in Mexico. Paris: OECD Publishing.

14

A. Cirocki, T.S.C. Farrell / System 85 (2019) 102111

OECD. (2010b). TALIS 2008 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2015). Programme for international student assessment (PISA). Results from PISA 2015. Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA2015-Indonesia.pdf. Okano, K., & Tsuchiya, M. (1999). Education in contemporary Japan: Inequality and diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921e958. Pham, H. H. (2001). Teacher development: A real need for English departments in Vietnam. English Teaching Forum, 39(4). Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2008). Career work-related learning and enterprise 11-19: A framework to support economic well-being. London: QCA. Rahman, A. (2016). Teacher professional development in Indonesia: The influences of learning activities, teacher characteristics and school conditions. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4721. Raihani, R., & Sumintono, B. (2010). Teacher education in Indonesia: Development and challenges. In K. G. Karras, & C. C. Wolhuter (Eds.), International handbook on teacher education worldwide (pp. 181e197). Athens: Atrapos. Rodriguez, A. G., & McKay, S. (2010). Professional development for experienced teachers working with adult English language learners. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540598.pdf. Schütz, A. (1962). Collected papers 1: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Seldin, P. (1991). The teaching portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Shukri, N. (2014). Exploring female teachers' perceptions toward peer observation: Issues and challenges in the Arab context. Arab World English Journal, 5(2), 153e166. Slater, J. J., & Ravid, R. (2010). Collaboration in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Smaller, H. (2012). Overview of teachers' work and learning. In R. Clark, D. W. Livingstone, & H. Smaller (Eds.), Teacher learning and power in the knowledge society (pp. 69e86). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Stevenson, H. (2014). Teacher leadership as intellectual leadership: Creating spaces for alternative voices in the English school system. In A. Alexandrou, & S. Swaffield (Eds.), Teacher leadership and professional development (pp. 199e214). London and New York: Routledge. Tabatabaee-Yazdi, M., Motallebzadeh, K., Ashraf, H., & Baghaei, P. (2018). Development and validation of a teacher success questionnaire using the Rasch model. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 129e144. Tarc, P. (2012). Full-time teachers' learning: Engagements and challenges. In R. Clark, D. W. Livingstone, & H. Smaller (Eds.), Teacher learning and power in the knowledge society (pp. 87e108). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. TESL Ontario. (2011). Framework for Post TESL certificate training project (Research Report/Fieldtest Report. Unpublished manuscript). The Jakarta Post. (2017). Books: The case of reading and preserving Indonesian literature. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2017/01/04/ the-case-of-reading-and-preserving-indonesian-literature.html. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barr, H., & Fung, I. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education and University of Auckland. Torres, K. (2009). Schools get tougher on student cellphone use. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/schools-get-tougher-on-112478.html. nchez, R. (2008). Professional development schools: Establishing alliances to bridge the gap between universities and Torres Jaramillo, C., & Monguí Sa schools. Profile - Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 10(1), 181e194. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teacher and Teaching Evaluation: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 80e91. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. The professional development of primary EFL teachers. In Wilden, E., & Porsch, R. (Eds.), National and international research, (2017). Münster and New York: Waxmann. Wood, F. H., & Killian, J. E. (1998). Job-embedded learning makes the difference in school improvement. Journal of Staff Development, 19(1), 52e54. Yumru, H. (2015). EFL teachers' preferences for teacher learning activities in a professional development course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 178e183.