PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THEIR USE OF KNOWLEDGE By Yeoreum Lee A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education - Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT K PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THEIR USE OF KNOWLEDGE By Yeoreum Lee This study explor es how teachers think about the effectiveness of PD depending on the contents, types, and schedules as well as their motivations for PD participation and reasons of non - participation . In addition, whether teachers use, modify, and discard the information and knowledge they obtain from PD as well as reasons of non - use. The author surveyed 97 elementary Korean EFL teachers with experience of PD and interviewed eight focal teachers among survey participants . survey and interview suggested that teachers prefer and value PD offers active participation , such as providing hands - on activities, interaction with other EFL teachers, language practice, and activities that can be used in teaching practice. Si nce the ultimate goal of PD is the improvement of teaching practice, it is important to note that information and ideas of PD are more likely to be implemented if the resources provided are for immediate use with directions for modification provided. Teachers mainly look for the information from PD for immediate use and treat the information for potential use as not practical. Moreover, one type of PD that is designed for a teacher group may not work for another teacher group since teachers have various yet different needs, expectations, and motivations for PD depending on their background s, such as teaching experience and type of qualification. This study confirmed that t he location of the schools also plays an important role on their perspectives about PD and the motivation to PD participat ion for Korean EFL teachers . There are so many competing demands that teachers consider for PD participation and they try to balance them in order to get the best outcomes of PD. iii To God who gives me strength To my family who have always been there for me iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank the teachers who participated in my research. I could never even start and complete this dissertation study without their help . I am heartily thankful to my advisor, Cheryl Rosaen who gives me inspiration and the best guidance through difficult times . There is no doubt in my mind that, she is the best teacher I have ever met and gives me the support not only academically but also emotionally. It has been a huge honor to have her as my advisor. Thanks also to the rest of my committee, Randi Stanulis, Avener Segall , and Sandra Crespo . They have generously given their time and expertise to help me to complete this research . I thank them for their contribution and their support. I also thank to Jeff Bale and Peter Youngs , who have previously been in my committee and supported me at their best. Thanks to my family for their endless love and support, especially, my parents, Kwanghee Lee and Heasuk Kim , along with my sister Bom Lee, and my fiancé - Younsuk Dong. Last, thanks to my church members who have prayed for me , especially Pas tor, Youngho Cho, and his wife Hyunshim Cho, Deacon, Sangheop Jeong, and his wife Keumyoung Kim. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ vii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... x Chapter1: Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 2 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4 Chapter2: Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 6 Ef fectiveness of Professional Development ................................ ................................ ................ 6 Important Features of Professional Development ................................ ................................ ....... 9 Motivation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14 Teacher Perspectives on Professional Development ................................ ................................ . 15 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 Chapter 3: Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 Participants and Settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 21 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Background information questionnaire. ................................ ................................ ................ 28 Surveys. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 28 Interviews. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 Contributions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 35 Chapter 4: ................................ .......................... 38 Survey Results: Effectiveness of PD ................................ ................................ ......................... 38 .............................. 38 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 48 Helpfulness of PD regarding different types of PD. ................................ .............................. 57 ................................ ........... 70 Types of participation. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 70 PD quality. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 74 Types of PD. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 78 Self - efficacy an d self - esteem. ................................ ................................ ................................ 83 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 86 ................................ ................... 89 Survey Results: Motivations for PD Participation and Reasons for non - Participation ............. 89 vi Motivations for PD participation. ................................ ................................ .......................... 89 Influential factors for PD participation. ................................ ................................ ............... 102 Reasons for non - participation in PD. ................................ ................................ ................. 110 Interview Results: Motivation for Participation and Reasons for non - Participation .............. 114 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 114 Psychological and physical barriers. ................................ ................................ ................... 117 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 120 Chapter 6: Usage, modification, and non - usage of Knowledge from Professional Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 126 Survey Results: Usage of PD Information ................................ ................................ .............. 127 Interview Result: ......... 129 Ready to use. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 130 Practicality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 133 Theory and practice. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 134 Ideality and reality. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 136 Cultur al gap. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 140 Possibilities of modification. ................................ ................................ ............................... 143 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 146 Chapter 7: Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 148 Social Nature of PD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 148 One Size Does Not Fit All ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 151 Practicality of PD Information ................................ ................................ ................................ 156 Competing Balance Demands ................................ ................................ ................................ . 157 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 162 Fu ture Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 163 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 165 Appendix A : Background information ................................ ................................ ................... 166 Appendix B: Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 169 Appendix C: Interview Question ................................ ................................ ............................. 178 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 181 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Background Information of Interviewers ................................ ................................ ....... 26 Table 2: Effectiveness Regarding the Contents of the PD ................................ ............................ 39 Table 3: Effectiveness Regarding Approach to PD ................................ ................................ ...... 40 ........................ 43 ........................ 44 Table 6: Significant Difference of Teaching Experienc ........................ 46 ................................ .... 47 ................................ ................................ ..... 48 51 Tab ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 sponses .................... 55 Table 12: Helpfulness of PD with Different Schedule ................................ ................................ . 59 ................................ ....... 63 ................................ . 64 ................................ . 65 viii Table 1 ................................ ....... 66 ................................ .......................... 68 Table 18: Motivations for PD Participation ................................ ................................ .................. 90 Table 19: Motivation for PD Participation: Effort to Stay Current in EFL Field ......................... 92 Table 20: Motiv ation for PD Participation: Promotion ................................ ................................ 94 Table 21: Motivation for PD Participation: Practical and Pedagogical Knowledge Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 96 Table 22: Motivation for PD Participation: Acquiring Teaching resources ................................ . 97 Table 23: Motivation for PD Participation: Language Proficiency Development ....................... 98 Table 24: Motivation for PD Participation: Improvement of Teaching in General ...................... 99 Table 25: Motivation for PD Participation: Requirement of School or Government ................. 100 Table 26: Motivation for PD Participation: Social Networks ................................ ..................... 102 Table 27: Influential Factors for PD Participation ................................ ................................ ...... 103 Table 28 : Influential Factors of PD Participation: Personal Schedules ................................ ...... 105 Table 29 : Influential Factors of PD Participation: PD Location ................................ ................. 108 Table 30: Influential Factors o f PD Participation: Cost and Budget of the School .................... 109 Table 31: Reasons for non - PD Participation ................................ ................................ .............. 111 Table 32: Reasons of non - Participation of PD: Busy School Schedule ................................ ..... 113 ix Table 33: Implementation of PD Information ................................ ................................ ............ 127 Table 34: Self - reflect of Implementation of PD Info rmation ................................ ..................... 128 x KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Full Word PD Professional D evelopment EFL English as a F oreign L anguage 1 Chapter1: Introduction knowledge and practices have direct effects on students motivations for learning and their academic achievement. Therefore, teacher quality has become important and teacher education provides professional development (PD) for various aspects of teaching as a way of supporting the improvement of teacher quality . Wu (1999) emphasized the importance of PD, stating that any improvement in education must start with improving the teachers already in the classroom. It has also been suggested that a continual deepening of knowledge and skills is a fundamental part of t eaching (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1989; Shulman & Sparks, 1992). The importance of PD can never be overemphasized as Gallitano and Jackson (2011) advocated that much effort and sufficient resources must be put into professional - development programs for educators. Therefore, continuous, ongoing, high - quality, and effective professional - - to - date on new research on how students learn, emergin g technology tools for the classroom, new stay current and enhance their teaching, but also to positively enhance their attitudes toward various aspects of their t 342). Since knowledge, thoughts, and bel iefs about the PD programs and how they affect their teaching practice. Therefore, in order to maximize the effect of professional development, Fishman, Marx, Best and Tal (2003) suggested that program creators should build an empirical knowledge base 2 that perspectives on professional development, motivation to participate in professional development, and reasons for not participating in professional development, to provide insights for professional - development providers and policy makers. Also, a close examination of how PD affects teacher learning will inform school and dist rict organizational change and policy PD (Gallucci, 2008; Nielsen, Barry, & Staab, 2008). Therefore, thoughts and beliefs about PD that is offered in So uth Korea. In addition to how teachers perceive the usefulness of PD participating the PD . This study also explores how and why teachers use, modify, or do not use knowledge that they receive from the PD program. The research questions are as follows. Research Questions 1. How do EFL teachers think about the effectiveness of EFL PD? 2. reasons for not participating in PD programs ? 3. Do EFL teachers use or modify information from PD and if so, what types of information they use or modify? If not, why not? Problem Statement According to the Korean Times, English skill is the first thing you need to have in order to enter a university, get a job, and get promotion in Korea whether the job description requires English skills or not. English education became more important sinc e the government of 3 President Lee announced the new policy about English education focusing on communicative English education in 2008. As a result, there are strong demands for effective and high quality English instruction, and not only has the quantity of EFL teachers been in increasing demand , but also the quality of EFL teachers have been illuminated. EFL teachers in South Korea are expected to have a high level of expertise and skills according to the recent government policy emphasizing the importanc e of English teaching. Traditionally and officially , teacher candidates become eligible to take the teacher is automatically given when people either graduate from the college of educ ation or take some educational courses from their university, in order to be a teacher in Korea in general. However, especially for the EFL teacher, the problem is that not only is the teacher certification examination difficult, but also it is even more d ifficult to find teachers who are fluent in English among teachers with certification. As a result, the shortage phenomenon of EFL teachers became a big problem (Kang, 2010). In order to resolve this, the department of English education sought to expand op portunities for people who did not pass the teacher certification examination. As a part of an effort, there is a new phenomenon in education of South Korea that people with a certain qualifications can have an opportunity to be fixed - term or intern EFL te achers without passing the teacher certification examination. Usually, regular EFL teachers who are registered and belong to the ministry of education in South Korea are required to take 90 hours of PD courses every third year and in addition to that the y are also eligible to enroll in a 5 - week (180 hours) PD program in order to acquire an advanced certificate (Kang & Hong, 2008). However, not all the teachers take full advantage of these government provided PD programs since many are fixed - term teachers. It is difficult for 4 the ministry of education to administrate these opportunities for fixed - term teachers and supervise them to take an adequate number of PD programs. F ixed - term teachers voluntarily and actively look for the opportunities of participati on in PD programs for their professional growth. Due to the shift in educational policy for hiring fixed - term teachers, there are teachers with various qualifications and various circumstances who might have different motivations, perspectives, and ne eds. In addition to that, there are many different kinds of PD from different organizations other than those officially required programs provided by the ministry of education. There are more PD opportunities for teachers from various organizations that te achers can choose to participate in according to their individual interest, needs, and situations. Therefore, considering these complex pictures of new growing populations of Korean EFL teachers and various opportunities for PD, it is a good time to re - illuminate and pay attention to the (a) motivations of teachers who participate in PD, (b) how teacher s perceive the PD, (c) and whether and how they implement lessons, activities, and theories into their practice. Purpose of the Study fundamentally be about teacher learning: chan ges in the knowledge, beliefs, and attitude of teachers that lead to the acquisition of new skills, new concepts, and new process related to the Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003, p. 645 ). As it was advocated that research in teacher educa tion should continue to make progress toward a linkage between PD and teacher learning which has proved to be a difficult relationship to establish ( Loucks - Horsley & - report. 5 s learning by using a bottom - up approach. In order for effective learning to occur, there should be effective tea ching, which can be achieved through effective professional development programs. In order to provide eff ective professional development , s , motivations to participate in PD, and usage of information from PD should be identified and consi dered. However, as teachers are individual learners, their set of needs and interests are various yet different. Even though their individual difference s caused by personal characteristics can not be controlled, difference s caused by their background, such as teaching experience, qualification, and location of the school can be looked at in detail and analyzed. In addition to that, t motivation to participate in PD from other countries; however, many studies simply focus on making comparison between external and internal motivation of learning to teach, or how tion of PD has an effect on application of acquired knowledge from PD. In addition to that, information about Korean EFL teachers is not sufficient since little attention has considering the fever for English education in Korea. Therefore, this study can possibly provide the information about what Korean EFL teachers want to get from PD, what makes or does not make them participate in PD, and what they actually learn through PD and use them in classroom. 6 Chapter2: Literature Review A wide range of studies will be reviewed to provide a better understanding of PD, perspectives. Studi es are chosen to include different perspectives, different types of methods, different samples, and different focuses, because the purpose of this review is to build a background for PD overall. Also, this review section will provide a critical evaluation of the studies based on their provenance, objectives, persuasiveness, and value. Effectiveness of Professional Development Studies regarding the effectiveness of professional development (PD) prove its explores how PD has affected different aspects of teacher development. For example, researchers topics have changed after the PD ( C herubini et al., 2002; Ermeling, 2010; Frey & Fisher, 2009; Kennedy, 1998; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Morais et al., 2005; Seymour & Osana, 2003), how PD 2002; G aret et al., 2001; Hughes, 2005 ; Loucks - Horsley et al., 1998 ) , an d how PD has influence on Day & Sachs, 2004; Lessing & De Witt, 2007). a professional - development program improved their confidence and helped them to become more effective and efficient (Elmore, 2002; Farrel, Kerry, & Kerry, 1995; Pennell & Firestone, 1996; Guskey, 2000; Oldroyd, Elsner, & Poster, 1996) . On the other hand, some researchers explored how PD improvement. For example, studies have focused on how PD for teachers has resulted changes in 7 student performance and achieve ment ( Borko, 2004; Darling - Hammond, 1998, 2000; Darling - Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Elmore & Burney, 1997; Killion, 2002a; Wilson, Darling - Hammond, & Berry, 2001; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997) and some explored how PD has influenced student behavior (Baker - Henningham & Walker, 2009; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Mikami, Gregory, Allen, Pianta, & Lun, 2011; Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008). Even though these studies have reported different results of effectiveness of PD on student improvement such as positive effects, little effects, or no effects depending on the variables, participants, and settings, it is worth noting that PD has the potential to effect changes for not only teachers but also students. There is a premise that the improvement of s tudents only occurs through the improvement of teachers from PD . Kubitskey and Fishman (2007) stated PD PD should be determined based on student outcomes. As the purpos e of PD is to provide the teacher with quality learning, which connects to quality teaching, which, in turn, eventually affects improvement and student achievement. Schmo would result from a focus on effective teaching. Therefore, implementing effective PD for teachers, students will have higher achievement (Elmore, 2002; Odden, & Archibald, 2009). Stronge (2002) claimed that student achievement ultimately proves teacher effectiveness. Based on this claim, Darling - Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) emphasized the effectiveness of PD by stating that PD helps teachers to develop thei r capacity and transform it into teaching practice, which helps to improve student achievement. In addition, 8 well as in meeting standardized - test and Adequate Year ly Progress (AYP) goals, and this pressure requires ongoing professional development. However, r esearch indicates that there are complexities and challenges for research connecting PD to student learning (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Knapp, 2003; Nielsen et al. , 2008). Even though student outcomes can be a good indicator of which PD strategies have the biggest , a direct relationship between the effectiveness of PD ficult to measure as there are Guskey and Sparks (1996) criticized PD , stating that the relationship between PD and overvalued, and there is little known professional practice. For that reason, there are studies that examine how PD has affected both teacher improvement and student achievement ( Cohen & Hill, 2001; Higgins & Parsons, 2009 ; Wenglinsky, 2002; Zetlin, Macleod, & Michener , 1998 ). These studies are in agreement that PD it was reported that PD contributed to a reduction in disparities in the achievements of different ethnic r and learning motivation by accelerating learning, increasing social skills, and improving motivation for learning. However, the limitations of these studies are that objective measures of improvement for ovement was self - reported through interviews 9 - efficacy and self - evaluation are somewhat related to the actual performance of teaching practice, because if teachers feel that their teaching practices have been improv ed after the PD , it helps teachers to be confident about what they are teaching. Moreover, the authors of the studies also confirmed that the PD However, although PD generally delivers overall improvement for teachers, some argue that not all PD leads to effective professional learning, despite its intent (Easton, 2008; Fullan, 2007). Fullan (2007) argued that existing PD enough, or s Studies have proved that only high quality PD achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, & Gallaghe r, 2002) Because there are many factors that affect PD and teacher learning, in the next section, studies on the important features of PD , or those that make it more effective, will be reviewed. Important Features of Professional Development Considering o f the fact that various features affect PD, and research directions and findings may vary greatly depending on the focus of the study, research regarding various features, such as length of the program, intensiveness, and content, will be examined in order to see from various perspectives. Previous studies have shown that providing PD over a longer time period is more with 80 or more hours of PD had more inquiry - or iented teaching practice than teachers with 79 hours or fewer of PD . Brinkerhoff (2006) concluded that teachers who participated in 90 hours of 10 a PD program on technology skills through direct instruction and projects had increases in self - assessed technology skills, as it was found that significant differences were only found between the second and third terms. Furthermore, there is a study that a longer time period of PD has a significant effect on - week PD session had a significant effect on attitudes toward the use of technology in the mathematics classroom as compared with mathe matics teachers who had a one - day PD session. The studies are in agreement that professional learning occurs with an extended length of time in professional - development programs, and some studies have suggested that shorter PD programs do not result in tea cher improvement. However, it is not valid to conclude that longer period of PD has greater effect since the amount of the input provided through PD was not controlled. Therefore, there is a possibility that teachers gain more skills, knowledge and confide nce as they cumulatively participated for a longer period. In contrast to the recent studies supporting the effectiveness of a longer duration of a PD program, earlier studies have paid attention to the intensity rather the duration. The f ollowing studies advocate that the intensity of the PD program is more crucial than the duration. Kennedy (1998) suggested that shorter programs with more intensity sometimes result in a greater effect on teacher improvement than longer programs. In her literature review , Kennedy (1998) looked over many studies that deal with student math and science outcomes from PD in various aspects such as subjects, content focus, forms, skill level, and intensity. She found no relationship between the duration of a program and high - qua lity program content. Cohen and Hill (2001) 11 observed that teachers with intensive, curriculum - based PD were much more likely to have changed their teaching practice to align with what they learned from the programs than teachers who participated in a conve ntional professional - development program, and these changes positively affected student performance. Banilower (2002) also studied the relationship between the intensiveness of the PD teac PD - based instruction. Intensity of the professional - development not only des toward instructional reforms. Supovitz, Mayer, and Kahle (2000) found that teachers who participated in the intensive professional - development program had a more positive attitude toward instructional reforms and had more chances to use the inquiry - bas ed instruction they learned about in the PD program . This particular study suggested that intensive PD therefore, PD can also be used not only for the improvement of teaching practice, but also for changing tea reforms and so on. Based on the findings from these studies, it can be summarized that the studies supporting a longer period of PD duration, and their intensity was not put into consideration. Therefore, these studies tells us simply that a program over a longer period is more effective than a program over a shorter period when it is of same intensity, and an intensive program is more effective than a less intensive program when it has same duration. Ideally, an intensive program over a longer period might have a greater effect on teaching practice and student achievement; however, this might not be realistic due to budget and lack of time. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if further studies comparing improvements 12 in teaching practice and student achievement between an intensive program of a shorter duration and a less intensive program of a longer duration would clearly outlin e what is more effective when the amount of input provided are controlled. In addition to duration and intensity, content is also considered an important feature of PD , and several studies have shown that program content is a crucial factor that defines the effectiveness of PD . Kennedy (1998) compared program content with other variables such as contact hours, distribution of contact hours, in - class visits, and coaching, using a meta - analysis of 93 studies. Results indicated that PD programs that concent rated on subject - matter knowledge and student learning of particular subject matter had the largest effects on student performance. Kennedy concluded that the content relevance of PD has the highest relative influence on teacher effectiveness in the classr oom, which eventually has influence on student achievement, and found little relationship between other variables and student achievement. Saxe, Gearhart, and Nasir (2001) found that student achievement was most improved when teachers participated in con tinuous, cooperative PD that focused on content knowledge and instructional practice. They also found that students taught by teachers who participated in an integrated mathematics assessment (IMA) program performed the best in testing conceptual understan ding, as compared with those who participated in a traditional professional - development workshop or a professional, community - based activity. IMA provided teachers with direct engagement in learning mathematics in the new curriculum and engaged them in dis cussions on pedagogical content knowledge, while professional, community - based programs generally only provide instructional skills for new curriculum units. Among many studies regarding the content of the PD , there are studies that compare the 13 relative effectiveness of different types of PD , such as those of Cohen and Hill (1998) and Kennedy (1998). Both studies found that PD focused on specific content for mathematics and science is more effective than PD focused on general content. These studies sugges ted that PD that focused on subject matters and content is more effective on teacher performance and student achievement than general PD . More specifically, there are studies that focus on narrower topics and specific content or skills of the PD . Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, & Cary ( 1988) found that teachers participating in the program focused on a specific approach to teaching mathematics had more emphasis on problem solving, listened more to students, encouraged students to use multiple strateg teacher participating in the program showed higher - level problem - solving abilities and a greater recall of number facts than students taught by the control - group teachers. M or eover, Suh (1996) found that teachers reported PD focusing on English conversation and teaching skills were especially effective for elementary EFL teachers in Korea. Garet et al. (2001) found that PD focused on subject matter (content) helps teachers en courage active learning through hands - on activities and produces enhanced knowledge and skills among students. They concluded that the duration, collective participation, content, active learning, and coherence of professional - development activities are mo re important than the type of professional - development program. In agreement with the results of Kennedy (1998), the teachers reported that a sustained, intensive professional - development program that focuses on a specific academic subject matter and is pr ovided over a longer period had the strongest impact on their learning. 14 Motivation Motivation has been considered an important factor for effective PD , and many studies indicate that PD should be aware of and address the specific needs of teachers (Bredeso n, 2003; Muijs, Day, Harris, & Lindsay, 2004) . A technical definition of motivation is the psychological (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Huse & Bowditch, 1 977; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979; Korman, 1974). Motivation is a crucial factor for achievement, so teachers must have a striving force (Johri, 2005) as they participate in PD since education is considered as a lifelong process. It was suggested that if teachers are motivated, it makes a difference in their learning and teaching practices (Bobrowsky, Marx, & Fishman, 2001; Supovitz & Zeif, 2000). Skelton (2005) summarized the motivat ion of teachers participating in PD as stemming from the requirement that teachers submit themselves to a process of continuous improvement from pervading cultures of excellence. Studies investigating the direct motivations of teachers who participated in professional development programs (Bradley, 1991; Craft, 2000; Sybouts & Wendel, 1994) have shown that teachers have various reasons to undertake PD , such as improving their job performance skills, extending their experience as a teacher for career develop ment or promotion purposes, developing professional knowledge and understanding, fulfilling teacher responsibilities, extending education, increasing job satisfaction, developing an enhanced view of the job, preparing for change, and making a positive cont ribution to the school. Giavrimis, Giossi, and Papastamatis (2011) found that the majority of teachers were motivated to participate in the PD program for internal and professional reasons, such as using it for course preparation and teaching issues; faci litating professional growth; and communicating with, becoming acquainted with, and developing closer relationships with other colleagues. Few 15 teachers participated in the ICT program for external reasons, such as escaping from the school for the particula r time period, enriching their CV, meeting the mandatory participation requirements of their institution, and obtaining a salary increase. Mestry, Hendricks, and Bisschoff (2009) conducted a study with primary and secondary professional - development programs was to improve their teaching techniques and performance, engage in cooperative work with other teachers, establish social networks, and contribute to the school development. Other motivations included improvement of self - efficacy and competence, and promotion to higher position. There has been a limited number of stud PD compared to the extensive studies conducted on the effectiveness of PD and how it affects to Elliott, Kratochwill, Cook, and Travers (2000) that more mot ivated people have greater achievements, it would be relevant to study the PD . There is a possibility that studies on the effectiveness of PD participating in PD . Teacher Perspectives on Professional Development PD professional development are also import ant aspects to consider, because they may show how teachers feel about PD PD , and how they apply the knowledge they learn from PD perspectives on PD will i nform whether or not PD was effective and actually applied to teaching 16 (Jones & Eick, 2007). Due to pre - existing beliefs, participants in PD may reject th e rationales underlying the pedagogical strategies of the PD , according to practical theory (Holt - Reynold, 1992 ). Therefore, it is important to find out what pedagogical moves were most likely to engage participants in surfacing and reframing their beliefs , which would help them to find the content of the course learned in a PD t thought to play an important role in in determining what they learn from professional - ctives on PD are somewhat similar. Gibson and Brooks (2012) revealed 93% of the teachers reported that they became more familiar with the new curriculum and more knowledgeable about content, but they were overwhelmed and concerned about their teaching abil ity because so much information was delivered over such a short time. Also, most of the participants struggled to find the appropriate related resources after the PD .It k of focus on assessments, and lack of follow up are the biggest challenges to PD programs, and makes them less effective. This study discovered that none of these concerns were anticipated by the PD coordinators, so they were not adequately addressed. This may be the reason why pedagogy and content learned from PD is not reflected in classroom observation. 17 overwhelmed with the increasing overflow of new things to learn and to practice, because the PD was mainly focused on adding new thinking and skills without helping teachers to reorganize and reject or transform their previous thinking and beliefs. Moreover, Kim (2008) found that modification of instructional strategies occur after they participated in PD as they gained enhanced knowledge from the workshops and courses. Teachers insisted that PD needs. Also, regarding tea PD , Torff and Session (2008) claimed that PD . They found that beliefs Theoretical Framework motivation s and perspectives on PD . First of all , the theory of constructiv ism will help to understand how teachers as learners are involved in learning processes. Constructivism has been discussed as the best method of learning (Powell & Kalina, 2009) and it basically offers an explanation that learners construct or create new understandings using what they already know (based on their prior knowledge) , learners actively participate in learning process , and instructor s take a role of facilitators instead of knowledge deliverer s ( Applefield, Huber, & Moallem , 2000 ; Dewey, 1961 ; Piaget, 1973 ) . Constructivists consider knowledge as acquired through active involvement with content th rough problem - solving skills (Kroll & LaBoskey, 1996). While constructivist such as Dewey (1961) and Piaget (1973) discuss the process of learning for individual sense - making , s ocial constructivists (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978 ; Bruner, 1996 ) added social 18 aspect s of learning into the constructivism and view learning as a result of interaction, reflection, and experience while they are engaged in a community and social interaction s (Howard et al, 2000). Therefore, social constructivist s view k nowledge as constructed through social interaction with other p eople. Therefore , constructivism can explain how teachers construct new information they acquire from the PD upon their previous knowledge of content and pedagogy . Moreover, even their previous experience of PD affect s the judgment of PD participation and knowledge use of PD information , where social constructivism can help to explain how social interaction plays an important role for teachers who participate in PD. Secondly , self - determination theory can help to under - determined, they are motivated to take an action and their regulatory process is a choice, but when it is controlled, their regulatory process is either in compliance or defiance ( Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). This theory made a distinction between being self - determined and controlled with locus of causality (deCharms, 1968; Ryan, & Connell, 1989). It explains that if the behavior is self - determined, the locus of causality is internal to his or her self, whereas the locus of causality is external to the self when it is controlled. Even though both self - determined and controlled behaviors are motivated or intentional, they eventually lead to certain actions, but the qualities of their experiential and behavioral c omponents are different in terms of willingness, creativeness, and demonstration of conceptual or intuitive understanding ( Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Therefore, by looking at intrinsic and extrinsic motivations PD , it can explain the relationship between teacher perspectives on PD and how they implement acquired knowledge from PD into their practice. Finally , social capital theory first proposed by Bourdieu (1985) and followed by many researchers (e.g Loury , 19 77 ; Coleman , 1988 19 perspectives and motivations about PD are influenced by other teachers who are in their close act ual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less . Even though ( Grootaert et al,, 2004 mo st frequently defined in terms of the group (p. 3). In addition to the gene rally accepted definition, it continued to make a distinction s refers to people who do not share many of same characteristics, have a more or less equal social standing in horizontal nature such as a more experienced teac refers to people who are in a power differential position, in other words, people with more authority such as principals, political parties like government, department of education and so on ( Grootaert et al, 2004 ). The refore, with the help of this social capital theory, the reasons why understood and explained. 20 Chapter 3: Method The research questions of this study were designed to examine how EFL teachers in Korea think about the effectiveness of PD , their motivations to participate and reasons to not participate in the PD program, and in what ways teachers report that they use o r modify knowledge from PD and why. For these purposes, a mixed design of quantitative and qualitative was adopted and used in this study since biases inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methods (Creswell, 2009). The results form one method can help develop or inform the other method ( Greene , Caracelli, & Graham, 1989), and mixed method research design can not only counterbalance strength and weakness from each method but also, comprehensive empirical documentation illuminates a set of common principles (Axinn, & Pearce, 2006). Since collecting diverse types of data sets best provides a more complete and deeper understanding about the study (Creswell, 2009), a mixed methods design is useful to capture the best of both quantitative and qualit ative approaches when a researcher wants to both generalize the findings in a population and develop a detailed view of the meaning of a phenomenon or concept for individuals (Creswell, 2009). Therefore, a quantitative study design will briefly inform what general thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives are about the PD . Moreover, a qualitative study eveal both the processes by which people 21 Therefore, this study first began with a survey in order to generalize results to a population and then conducted ope n - ended interviews to collect more detailed information about be missing. Case studies are known not only to have importance in qualitative educational resear ch (Stake, 2000), but also allow in - depth study in a holistic manner about the real - life ives (Gall, Borg, and Gall , 1996 ; Chapelle and Duff, 2003; Yin, 2006 ). A quantitative research design with more qualitative resea rch design is particularly reference and the meaning people have constru cted of their experiences (Eisner, 1991; Hull, 1997; Lee, Mitchell, and Sablynski, 1999; Merriam, 2002 ; Nasser, 2001). Therefore, the survey and follow - up interviews were collected to answer three research questions in this study. Participants and Settin gs perceptions about PD and how and why teachers say they use, modify, or discard the knowledge from the PD program, elementary EFL teachers in Korea who have previously par ticipated in a PD program participated in the survey. With the help of teachers and schools, 120 EFL teachers who previously had PD related to EFL were contacted by the researcher aiming for 100 participants and asked to participate in the study. Since the goal of the elementary EFL curriculum is more focused on communicative language use than middle and high school, where 22 the focus is grammar, reading, and writing, participants were limited to elementary EFL teachers who have experience in PD in order to h ave a common focus . Although 120 teachers were contacted and asked to participate in this study, 108 teachers responded to participate, and 97 teachers actually completed the survey and returned them to the researcher. Among teachers who participated and completed surveys, eight teachers, were asked to participate for the in - depth case study in order to maximize the comparability of each case and to ensure rich data for the study. The weakness of the case study has been criticized of selecting particip degree to which casual relationships evidenced by that single unit may be assumed to be true for In order t o avoid the criticism, the eight focal teachers in this study have different of EFL teachers in Korea, but also makes good cases for understanding the complexit ies of teacher motivation and perspectives of PD programs. Four fixed - term teachers from different local contexts with different teaching experience, and different educational background and four regular EFL teachers from different local contexts with dif ferent teaching experience and different educational background were interviewed for qualitative data . It is worth noting that the eight focal teachers not only have different backgrounds, but also have different characteristics as people . Some of the personal characteristics may or may not be related with the backgrounds they have. Pseudonyms were used to conceal their identity. Participants were asked to specify the location of the ir school in b oth survey and interview. Specific school locati on will be used to identify the educational environment of the school, which can be categorized as good school district in Seoul, average (and below average) school 23 district in Seoul, and suburban school. Due to the environmental uniqueness, invisible divi ding lines between school districts exist in Korea . D ifferences in terms of placement test scores, reputation of the sc hools, level of curriculum, level nu mber of teacher student ratio exist not only between suburban and urban schools, but also among schools within urban cities. School districts i n urban cities can be divided into district s . T here are visual differences depending on the location of the school, which is originated from invisible divi di ng lines. Therefore, by categorizing the location of the school s , the explanation for better understanding about the differences in PD motivation, and perspectives about PD will be provided between teachers from different location s of the school s du e to their different environment s . Lee is a fixed term teacher with 10 years of teaching experience who works in a school just out side of Seoul. She used to work at a private school until she became 34 years old . But since her school has closed, she got laid - off for eight years , and she came back to school two years ago as a fixed term teacher. She raised her children while she was laid - off, then she started working again since her children entered elementary school. Since she was out of the field, ever ything such as education al policy, trends, expectations of parents, and even characteristics of students have changed and she has been trying to catch up to the environmental changes. Overall, she is satisfied with her current school and she was happy that she was back. Kim is a fixed term teacher with four years of teaching experience who works in a school that is in a good district of Seoul. She has been trying to pass the teaching placement test for four years and she was too stressed out as she failed her fourth try. So she chose a n alternative way to become a teacher. She first became a fixed term teacher in school just out side of Seoul that is close to a good school district of Seoul . So when her contract ended, she was recommended for 24 the posi tion by a former fixed term teacher of her current school , and i t was during her first year of teaching in her current school when she was interviewed . S he was very proud to be a teacher in a school in a good district of Seoul as she talked about how she s tarted working in current school . She loves her job, her school, and her students although she has a heavier workload and extra after - school activities when compare d to her previous school in the suburb s . She mentioned it was worth working in a good school district of Seoul since there is a big difference on and the attitude toward teachers , which make s her more motivated to teach in a good s chool district of Seoul. Park is also a fixed term teacher with two years of teaching experience who works in a school that is an hour from Seoul. She did not pass the teaching placement test, and she did not want to wait for another year to try again, from a graduate school of education , and she did not want to waste her time. S he started looking to be a fixed term teacher, and there was a job opening in a suburb an area. She moved to the city where her current school is , since she wanted to be a teacher so badly. However, she had hard time adjusting to the new environment, and most of her friends passed the teaching placement test and had beco me teacher s in Seoul , causing her to be a little depressed. However, she was pa ssionate about teaching and she wanted to motivate students to learn English. There fore, she came up with several events and after - school activities to try new things in her current school. Jeon g is a fixed term teacher with six years of teaching experie nce who works in a school in an average district of Seoul. She has a long history of education. First of all, she went to community college for an associate degree in child development. After she graduated from community college, she transferred her credit s to a university for a bachelor degree in English. While she was in the u niversity, she went to Australia for the language program for a year. After 25 she graduated from the university, she went to the graduate school of education. After her second try of the teaching placement test, she decided she could not wait any lo nger since she felt like she had spent enough years in school and studying for the test. That is when she became a fixed term teacher. Her original plan was to take the teaching placement te st every year while she wa s working as a fixed term teacher, but it was not possible with all of the work she has in her school. Ch a is a regular teacher with eight years of teaching experience who works in a private school in a good school district of S eoul. She graduated as an English major in Korea and went to school in the USA for the TESOL master program. Since her school is in a good district and is private, the pressure of proving excellence in English proficiency has influenced her PD participatio n. She mentioned that students in her school have a higher English proficiency level than other school s . M ore than half of the students graduated from English immersion preschool and there are number of students who have lived in English speaking countries . Kwon is a regular teacher with 20 years of teaching experi ence who works in a school in an average school district of Seoul. She i s the most experienced and oldest teacher of the eight focal teachers who were interview ed . Since she is the head of the English department in her school, she teaches fewer class es than other teachers , but work s more on administrative tasks such as attending meeting s , English related event s , participates in decision - making and etc. Since she has both roles of teacher and administrator, she seems to know a great deal about the the PD organizer. Son is a regular teacher with one year of teaching experience who works in a private school just out side of Seoul . She has the most unique background of all e ight focal teachers. She originally graduated from the university as an airline flight attendant and became a f l ight 26 attendant for Korean Airline, which is the largest airline company in Korea. After two years of working as a f l ight attendant for Korean A irline, she decided to be a teacher. So she went to Since she decided to work in private school, she did not have to take a teaching placement test, so she started working at the current school. As the second yea r of her teaching just started, she was very passionate about teaching and her will to teach was the highest of all the teachers in the interview . She explained how she actively participate s in PD and even asks if there is anything she can do to help make the PD environment better. Yoon is a regular teacher with 12 years of teaching experience who works in a school that is an hour and a half away from Seoul. She was the only EFL teacher in her school, so she has a heavier duty than other subject teachers in this study. She has to take care of lesson plan s , class preparation, evaluation s , the English camp, and PD participation. She wished that they had more EFL teacher s in her school who can share her responsibility and work as a team. Focal teach ers backgrounds are displayed below with a table in order to provide a clearer distinction between their backgrounds (see Table 1 ). Table 1 : Background Information of Interviewers Name Character istic Lee Kim Park Jeong Cha Kwon Son Yoon Qualifica tion type Fixed term Fixed term Fixed term Fixed term Regular Regul ar Regul ar Regul ar 27 and teacher qualification may provide interesting comparisons and contrasts among them. motivation and perspectives of PD programs. Data Collection Three different sources of da ta are used for data triangulation ( Guion, Diehl, and McDonald, 2011 ): background information questionnaires, surveys, and interviews. The benefits of triangulation is that it provides a clearer and in - depth understanding of the issues, and increasing con fidence in research data and in the findings of qualitative studies (Thurmond, 2001). Therefore, data triangulation using background information, surveys, and interviews contributed to the diversity of data collection, which gave validity for data analysis and utility of School location Suburba n Urban (good) Suburba n Urban Urban Urba n Subur ban Subur ban Age 44 32 28 36 34 53 29 46 Teaching Experien ce 10yrs 4yrs 2yrs 6yrs 8yrs 20yrs 1yrs 12yrs Job title Homero om teacher Homero om teacher Homero om teacher Homero om teacher Homero om teacher Subje ct teach er Subje ct teach er Subje ct teach er 28 the findings that would not have been possible using a single - strategy study (Guion, Diehl, and McDonald, 2002). B ackground i nfor mation q uestionnaire . All participating teachers were asked to co mplete questionnaires (Appendix A ) to collect the background information about them. It consists of 3 parts: (a) teaching experience, (b) contextual factors including location of the school, resources, time, support from administrators, school policy, and (c) previous experience of PD in terms of quantity and quality. This questionnaire helped to reveal the relationship between (a) contextual factors and motivation of PD participation, (b) teaching experience and PD participation, (c) previous experience and perceptions of PD, and (d) how all these factors affected the modification of PD knowledge into practice. Surveys . After participants completed questionnaires about their background informati on, survey questions (Appendix B ) were provided for them to complete. Commonly used types of were used to ask their perspectives about PD programs. Likert - type scale is usually presented with statements or questions that can be responded in terms of an agreement or preference continuum ranged between extreme such as strongly agree and strongly disagree ( Adelson and McCoach, 2010). In this study, a was used instead of a 5 point scale, which is more common, because providing odd numbers possibly allows respondents to choose a neutral response and avoid their decision making, but even numbers allow them to be more thoughtful and make definite decisions (Reid, 1990; Garland, 1991; Busch, 1993). This is especially pertinent to the research context since a lot of people in Korea tend to prefer midpoint and are hesitant to express their attitude either positive 29 among those ethnic groups whose cultures value i Survey questions included the sections asking the importance (e.g. Is EFL PD important for effective teaching?) , effectiveness (e.g. Is current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are effective?) , motiv ation (e.g. Is practical and pedagogical knowledge development your motivation to PD participation?) , beliefs (e.g . Should professional development programs be only for novice teachers?) , important factors (Is length of the PD important factor to your parti cipation?) , preferences ( What types of PD do you prefer? ) , and their experience of implementing PD information ( Have you tried to implement the knowledge, research result, pedagogy, or activities that you learned about or acquired in your classroom?) . However, participants were not specifically informed regarding what each question was targeting to ask. Basically web - based background information questionnaire and surveys were used to collect quantitative data but a hard copy was provided if partici pants preferred or needed alternatives due to web accessibility. A web - based survey has several benefits: (a) fast and convenient, (b) low - cost, (c) enables immediate and accurate accumulation of survey results, (d) available any time in any location, (e) respondents are required to answer all the questions without missing or passing (Perkins, 2004; Bonometti and Tang, 2006). However, a hard copy survey was prepared for the desired participants since web - based survey has a weakness of accessibility due to economic or age reason (Perkins, 2004) in order to ensure a high rate of response. - contact approach was modified as four - step approach and used. First of all, an e - mail that introdu ced the 30 study and asked for participation was sent to 120 Korean EFL teachers . Secondly, an e - mail with a link to the electronic survey with background questionnaire was sent to those 108 teachers who agreed to participate and 82 participants completed the survey . Then, a third e - mail to complete the survey was sent to 26 remained participants . Lastly, a hard copy of the survey was sent for 18 teachers who had not yet completed their survey . Between each contact there was a 7 - day interval to remind them and encourage them to participate. In addition to that, a prize of a coffee coupon was sent for those who completed the survey questions. This was informed in the initial email and at the top of the electronic and hard copy surveys. I believe that all these e fforts of providing a hard copy survey, robust participant - recruitment methods (Dillman, 2007) , and offering a coupon were helpful to achieve a response rate of 80% and above. Interviews . After completion of survey questionnaires, in - depth interviews were conducted with 8 about professional development (e.g., Groth and Bergner, 2007; Gore and Gitlin, 2004; Joram, 2007). Focal teachers were selected from each group of teacher qual ification according to their survey and background questionnaires with the purpose of including participants who are representative [of various contexts, type of position, and individual characteristics] (see Table 1) . They were interviewed with a semi - structur e interview protocol (Appendix C ). For example, participants were asked to describe their best and worst PD experience, if they have tried to implement any knowledge, activities, resources, pedagogies that they learned from professional develo pment, and if there were any difficulties of implementing PD information, and etc. This protocol served as guidelines but did not have a limitation within it. Each interview was allowed to take its own direction once it started and each interview was numbe red and transcribed. The benefit of in - depth interview is that researchers more possibly gain true responses from 31 participants since it helps participants clarify and articulate their thoughts and beliefs about PD that they may not recognize until they thi nk about them and say them out loud. However, observation was not an approach taken in this study since this study is only concerned with the focus of the st from the PD. There might be a risk of being subjective when includ ing the observations of actual practice and it is difficult to evaluate whether a teacher actually modified and imp lemented particular information from the PD or not. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. After the interview transcriptions, member checking was used crucial technique for establis make sure their intentions, correct errors, and add more information. Interview transcriptions were sent to the participants through email, fax, or in person according to their preferen ce and participants made changes and assessed documents to verify accuracy when it was necessary. Data Analysis For the quantitative data set, a Microsoft Excel software program was used to analyze the answers from teachers. The percentage of each answer for the questions was calculated and simple statistics will be presented for the comparison. It shows how teachers thought and beliefs are distributed and ranks of the motivations to participate in professional development. In addition to Microsoft Excel software program for simple comparison of survey responses, IBM such as teaching experience, qualification and school location was a significant factor for incl ination for certain questions. The multinomial logistics regression model in SPSS was tested 32 in order to find out significant factors and which participant backgrounds had an effect on their responses. During the qualitative data analysis process, an articulation of two of the best known general strategies in qualitative research were involved: analytic induction and grounded theory. During and after data was collected and interviews were transcribed, data was carefully looked at repeatedly with a stra tegy of analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994), as it was defined , A logic of qualitative research which employs a systematic and (Marshall, 1998). With the guidance of grounded theory, key issues were identified and grouped for per ceptions, motivations and use of knowledge about PD initial (Charmaz examining, comparing, . For example, in tea explanations of effectiveness of PD in Korea, whenever the interview contained terms related to physical or psychological status such as tired, burned out , exhausted , and so on, then the physical or psychological barrier was marked by the excerpts b y using Nvivo. Another example would be types of participation; whenever the interview contained terms related to force/spontaneity of the act such as requirement, have to participate, dragged to participate, choose to participate and so on, then either th e mandatory or voluntary participation was marked by the excerpts. Then, representation of highlighted patterns or relationships among codes were categorized and grouped . For example, types of participation, teachers psychological b arrier were categorized and grouped as internal factors that have an effect on the Charmaz (2000) stated that data can be defined 33 and categorized through coding and codes are created through grounded theory coding. A number of comparisons in data analysis took place. First, comparison between effectiveness of the PD was analyzed. For example, ses and their background information category such as teacher qualification, teaching experience, local context, and so on. These categories were used to see if there is a relationship or pattern between their background information and their perceptions a bout the effectiveness of PD, motivation of participation, and the usage of acquired knowledge. Throughout this process, patterns in which participants with certain types of qualifications tend to think or respond in a certain way can be found. Second, com parison among interview data was looked at to find out if there is a explaining their perceptions about the PD can be compared with how teachers said it had an e ffect on their knowledge use in their teaching practice. This way, I sought to detect the factors perspectives. Stake (2000) stated that by using multiple perceptions, clarification of meaning and validation of repeatability of an interpretation would be accomplished. While analyzing data, theoretical framework s that were explained in C hapter 2 help ed me to understand the qualitative data. First of all , constructivism (e.g Dewey, 1961; Piaget, 1973) has a notion that new knowledge is constructed based up on their prior knowledge . W hich means , in other words, that these previous knowledge and experience may have an effect on new knowledge construction . This concept helped me to see the patterns of responses that their previous experience (constructed knowledge) about certain types, contents, and schedules of PD help ed to establish prejudice (either positively or negatively) , which work ed with or against their 34 new constructions of experience. Moreover, it also applied to the usage of PD information that t eachers construct knowledge from their practice through an active dialogue with materials , which constitut e their field of action (Scho n, 1987). In other words, teachers not only take raw knowledge as it is from PD, but they work with the material and modify it on some level with their previous field experience and use. Therefore, whether teachers discard, use, or modify the information from PD, the process of doing so can be viewed as work ing and interact ing with the knowledge and materials from PD. Through these process es , professional development can be viewed as a process of personal growth (Stenhouse, 1975) , and it is also in line with the not take the role of delivering the information but takes the role of facilitator , which provide s the opportunities of learning and growing as a teacher through problem solvi ng and decision making . Secondly, social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1996 ) claims that learning occurs as a result of the interactions, reflections, and experience (Howard et al, 2000) that teachers have as they are actively involve d in communication with others . Social constructivist theory helped me to make a link between what teachers reported in the surveys and interviews about their preference f or more interactive PD, such as hands on activities, discussion forums with other EFL teachers, and language practices rather than lecture types of PD. Also, it helped me to understand that one of the strongest motivations for teachers to participate in PD was participating in a social network. In addition to the social constructivism, soc ial capital theory (e.g Loury , 1977 ; Coleman , 1988 ; Baker, 1990) helped me to make a connection to why teachers prefer social interaction with other EFL teachers rather than EFL experts , as it was found in the survey. Among three types of social capital, teachers prefer bonding and bridging rather than linking as found in their 35 preference to communicate with EFL teachers who have experience and share the same concerns , rather than EFL exp erts . Finally , self - determination theory (e.g Deci , Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991, deCharms, 1968; Ryan, & Connell, 1989) explain s why the voluntary versus mandatory type of PD participation is considered an important factor of effectiveness of PD. As was found in the survey and confirmed in the interview , voluntary and mandatory participation holds the key to the effectiveness of PD. I t provides better quality of learning for teachers and also gives them a n opportunity to choose what they need , which is directly related to the learning outcomes of PD . Some t heories are interconnected with each other and develop one another to create a theme, which is that learning is a complicat ed process for teachers and PD should reflect that . Therefore, this study also tries to identify factors that make PD participation complicated. Contributions As it was stated earlier, not only has there been a limited amount of research about the motivations of participating in the PD and little is known about how teachers perceive the knowledge from the professional development in Korea (Kim, 2008), but also there is a new phenomenon of hiring short - term EFL teachers with different qualifications. Therefore, this study has its signifi cance to the field of language teacher education in Korea in a number of ways. development. It is important to know how teachers feel about professional development in terms of effectiveness, content, terms, frequency and so on. The reason why I focus on teacher PD may be 36 rs. perspectives about professional development, specific needs of foreign language teachers will be learning and their classroom instruct ion. Also, are related to the motivation of participation in PD . Second, this study provides information about participation in PD . It is important to know what teac hers need from the professional development to provide better outlooks for PD providers and policy makers . By examining what information about what needs to be impleme nted for more successful and effective professional development. effectiveness of PD of both the quantity and quality of PD to help teachers to improve their practice. It can help us to PD . High quality professional development can help teachers to have higher confi dence, more content and practical knowledge and a willingness to change their practices. process of professional development, this study may also shed light on the field of foreign language teacher education in general and provide further direction. For example, this study has potential to inform other countries that may have similar circumstances for providing EFL PD where different types of teacher such as regular teachers or contract teachers exist. 37 In the next 3 chapters, the main findings of the study will be presented, and they are organized according to the three research questions. Chapter 4 focuses on how Korean EFL teachers think about the effectiveness of PD, chapte PD participation, and chapter 6 focuses on the characteristics of use or non - use information acquired from PD. Chapter 7 will include conclusion for the key findings with limitation of the study and future study suggestion. 38 about the various formats of PD including the effectiveness of PD for EFL teachers in Korea. Fi rst, I report the survey results that show what teachers think and believe about the PD for EFL teachers in Korea. Then, I describe more in depth why teachers believe PD for Korean EFL teachers is effective or ineffective and how these PD experiences are h elpful or not helpful in interviews. Survey Results: Effectiveness of PD As described earlier, when surveying EFL teachers in Korea, I collected their thoughts on PD and the effectiveness of various PD formats, along with their background information. The survey mainly had 3 sets of questions. The first set addressed their thoughts on the helpfulness of PD in regards to its content. The second set addressed their thoughts about PD in general. The third set addressed the helpfulness of PD regarding the types of PD and consisted of questions on whether different types of PD had different levels of effectiveness. In addition, the survey asked their preference regardi ng the duration, time period and intensity, as well as their perspectives on qualities of PD being effective or ineffective. t houghts on h elpfulness of PD c ontents and a pproach to PD . Table 2 and 3 approaches used in the PD. Questions 1 to 3 in Table 2 ask about their thoughts whether specific contents of PD are helpful or not helpful, whereas questions 4 to 9 in Table 3 ask about their thoughts whether specific approaches to PD are helpful or not helpful. 39 Table 2 : Effectiveness Regarding the Contents of the PD Not helpful at all Not helpful Helpful Very helpful Mean SD 1 PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL 56.70% 24.74% 13.40% 5.15% 1.67 0.89 2 PD introducing new ideas about pedagogy 0.00% 6.18% 43.29% 50.51% 3.44 0.61 3 PD introducing new teaching resources such as software programs, books, etc. 8.24% 6.18% 42.26% 43.29% 3.21 0.88 As Table 2 indicates, most of the teachers responded positively about the effectiveness of PD content when PD introduces new ideas about pedagogy and new teaching resources, except when PD introduces ne w research findings or theories about EFL. 81.44% of participants found PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL is either not helpful or not helpful at all whereas 93.81% of participants and 85.57% of participants responded PD introducin g new ideas about pedagogy and PD introducing new teaching resources is either helpful or very helpful. It is obvious that the mean of PD introducing new research fi ndings or theories about EFL i s much lower than other 2 questions, which shows how teachers feel about the helpfulness of PD depending on the contents. As it was found, the majority of teachers think PD introducing new ideas of pedagogy and new teaching resources are more helpful than PD introducing research and theories. Each standard deviation shows most of the responses for question 1 - 3 are clustered around the mean. 40 Questions 4 to 9 in Table 3 are more focused on forms of PD and types of approaches used for PD. Teachers responded whether they thought certain approaches of PD were helpful or not helpful. Table 3 : Effectiveness Regarding Approach to PD Not helpful at all Not helpful Helpful Very helpful Mean SD 4 PD providing discussion forums with other EFL teachers 4.12% 18.55% 60.82% 16.49% 2.90 0.80 5 PD in the form of formal mentoring 0% 34.02% 36.08% 29.89% 2.96 0.80 6 PD in the form of lecture sessions from EFL experts 23.71% 24.74% 26.80% 24.74% 2.53 1.10 7 PD providing discussion forums with EFL experts 7.21% 45.36% 40.20% 7.21% 2.47 0.73 8 PD providing hands - on activities 5.15% 4.12% 47.42% 43.29% 3.29 0.77 9 PD providing English language practice experience 1.03% 23.71% 49.48% 25.77% 3.00 0.73 As Table 3 indicates, the majority of participants thought 4) PD providing discussion forum with other EFL teachers (77.32%) , 5) PD providing formal mentoring (65.98%), 8) PD providing hands - on activities (90.07%), and 9) PD providing language practice experience (75.26%) are either helpful or very helpful. 41 On the other hand, responses for question 6) PD in the form of lecture sessions from EFL experts were almost evenly distributed through the chi - square test (p - value=0.9783) with 5% significant level. This means that a quarter of the participants thought PD in the form of lecture sessions from EFL experts were very helpful, a quarter of the participant teachers thought it was helpful, a quarter of the participant teachers thought it was not helpful, and a quarter of the participant teachers thought it was not helpful at all. The reason that responses for question 6 are consistent is th at everyone felt differently about the lecture forms of PD. How they conceive lecture PD as effective and as favorable is a different matter, will be explained later with discussion of the interview data. Although it seems like there is no clear overall pr eference for lecture session PD, it was found that qualification has an effect on the responses for this question, which will be explained in a later section. It is worth noting that forms of PD that provide practical experience such as PD introducing new ideas about pedagogy, PD introducing new teaching resources, PD providing discussion forums with other EFL teachers, PD providing hands - on activities, and PD providing English language practice experience have higher means than forms of PD that provide the oretical experience such as PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL and PD in the form of lecture sessions from EFL experts and discussion forums. PD providing discussion forum with EFL experts tend to be gathered in the middle of the spectrum as either not helpful or helpful rather than spread out at the end of the spectrum for extreme scales such as not helpful at all or very helpful (mean=2.47, SD =0.73). Possible explanation can be that the effectiveness of a discussion forum in PD can be varied depending on the contents, discussion participants, topics, length, and flow of discussion. 42 From these survey results, it can be inferred that participant s for this study tend to have a stronger preference for the following; 2) PD introducing new ideas about pedagogy (mean= 3.44, sd=0.61), 3) PD introducing new teaching resources such as software programs, books, etc (mean= 3.21, sd=0.88), 4) PD providing d iscussion forums with other EFL teachers (mean= 2.90, sd=0.80), 5) PD in the form of formal mentoring (mean= 2.96, sd=0.80), 8) PD providing hands - on activities (mean= 3.29, sd=0.77), and 9) PD providing English language practice experience (mean= 3.00, s d=0.73). However, they have stronger reluctance for 1) PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL (mean= 1.67, sd=0.89). Moreover, participants have no strong preference or reluctance for 6) PD in the form of lecture sessions from EFL expe rts (mean= 2.53, sd=1.10) , and 7) PD providing discussion forums with EFL experts (mean= 2.47, sd=0,73). background factors. The multinomial logistics regression model was used to find out if there is that teaching experience has an effect on 3 responses for survey questions, and qualification has an effect on 1 survey contents and approach to PD (question 1 to 9). Surveys questions with significance (p - value < 0.005) will be only listed below and explained; any survey questions not listed below have no significance (p - value > 0.05). As it was reported, teaching experience was the most important significant factor on the questions of 1) helpfulness of PD introduc ing new research findings or theories about EFL, 5) 43 PD providing formal mentoring, and 8) PD providing hands - on activities. Each question will be presented below with tables and explanation. gnificant factor on about EFL (p - value=0.001). As Table 4 indicates, participants with less teaching experience tend to think PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL are not helpful at all while participants with more teaching exp erience tend to think PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL are helpful. Table 4 Do you think PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL is helpful? Responses Teaching experience Not helpful at all Not helpful Helpful Very helpful 1 - 5yrs 64.8% 27.9% 6.4% 1.0% 6 - 10yrs 60.6% 26.4% 10.7% 2.3% 11 - 15yrs 53.9% 23.8% 17.1% 5.2% 16 - 20yrs 44.2% 19.8% 25.1% 10.8% 21 - 25yrs 32.3% 14.7% 32.8% 20.1% 26 - 30yrs 20.6% 9.5% 37.4% 32.6% 31 - 35yrs 11.4% 5.3% 37.2% 46.0% 44 A possible explanation of why participants with less experience tend to think of PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL as not helpful is that they recently have graduated from college, which allows them to be familiar with new research findings or theories about EFL. On the other hand, as participants gain more experiences, they need to update knowledge and information about the research findings and theory. Moreover, it can also be assumed that as teachers have more experience, they may start seeing teaching as more complex work and have better understanding of how theory corporate, blend, and support in their teaching practice. In other words, teachers with more experience possibly see teaching as collaboration of theory and practice rather than separate work. Therefore, participants with more experience seem to feel PD providing new research findings or theories about EFL are he lpful, whereas participants with less experience may find them repetitive. - value=0.000) for the responses about helpfulness of PD in the form of formal mentoring. The majority of participants w ith 1 - 5 years teaching experience tend to think PD in the form of mentoring is very helpful whereas responses of participants with more teaching experience find it less helpful as presented in Table 5 . Table 5 Do you think PD in the form of formal mentoring is helpful? Responses Teaching experience Not helpful at all Not helpful Helpful Very helpful 1 - 5yrs 0.0% 11.2% 10.4% 78.4% 45 6 - 10yrs 0.0% 49.9% 50.1% 0.0% 11 - 15yrs 0.0% 48.2% 51.8% 0.0% 16 - 20yrs 0.0% 46.4% 53.6% 0.0% 21 - 25yrs 0.0% 44.6% 55.4% 0.0% 26 - 30yrs 0.0% 42.9% 57.1% 0.0% 31 - 35yrs 0.0% 41.2% 58.5% 0.0% When teachers have teaching experience of 5 or less years, they tend look for the help from more experienced teachers or experts and they found PD providing formal mentoring is very helpful in terms of building a mentoring relationship. However, as they gain more experience, either they become one of the more experienced teachers and experts, so they may feel PD providing formal mentoring is not helpful, or perhaps they can find a mentor for That might be why teachers with more experience found PD providing formal mentoring less helpful than relatively newer teachers. Also, teaching experience was a significant factor in responses about the helpfulness of PD providing hands - on activities (p - value=0.000). Teachers with less teaching experience responded PD providing hands - on activities as helpful or very helpful whereas teachers with more experience responded not helpful or not helpful at all. 46 Table 6 : Significant Do you think PD providing hands - on activities is helpful? Responses Teaching experience 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 0.1% 1.0% 46.3% 52.6% 6 - 10yrs 0.6% 2.3% 50.7% 46.4% 11 - 15yrs 2.4% 5.1% 53.2% 39.3% 16 - 20yrs 9.3% 10.3% 50.4% 30.0% 21 - 25yrs 27.9% 16.4% 37.6% 18.1% 26 - 30yrs 56.2% 17.6% 18.9% 7.3% 31 - 35yrs 78.3% 13.1% 6.5% 2.0% As Table 6 indicates, the result shows that teachers considered PD providing hands - on activities less helpful as their teaching experience increases. It may be because when teachers have less experience , they tend to try out new things and learn through doing them. As was found in the interview (to be discussed below), that is why teachers with less experience work through trial and error. They have to experience whether something will work or not. Howev er, when teachers have more teaching experience, they learn quickly without experiencing and can learn by just listening to them. That might be why teachers with more experience think that PD providing hands - on activities is not helpful since it takes more time for less information. 47 Also, qualification has an effect on response about the helpfulness of PD in the form of lecture (p - value=0.000). A majority of regular teachers responded that PD in the form of lecture is not helpful (36.7%) or not helpful at all (35.0%) whereas a majority of contract teachers responded that it is helpful (43.2%) or very helpful (45.9%) as presented in Table 7 . Table 7 Do you think PD in the form of lecture is helpful? Responses Qualificat ion 1 2 3 4 Regular teachers 35.0% 36.7% 16.7% 11.7% Contract teachers 5.4% 5.4% 43.2% 45.9% The reason contract teachers tend to favor the lecture types of PD might be that they have weaker background knowledge about EFL education than regular teachers. Contract teachers in Korea are usually the people who have teacher qualification (either gradu ated teachers college or graduated with completion of course in education) but do not pass or do not take the teacher certification exam for some reasons. Since the teacher certification exam is very challenging and requires extensive and profound knowledg e for theory and practice, teachers who have passed the exam may have stronger background knowledge than teachers who have not. That might be the reason that contract teachers feel that lecture types of PD helps them to have background knowledge they need. By looking at the survey results, this study provides how teachers feel about the helpfulness of PD regarding its contents and approaches. Also, possible explanation of response 48 tendency on helpfulness of PD regarding teaching experiences and qualifica tion has been beliefs about PD will be presented and explained in the next section. b eliefs about PD . Question 10 to 14 asked teachers to agree or disagree with about PD, most of the teachers responded positively about the importance of PD, except for the sta tement asking about the effectiveness and sufficiency of current PD in Korea (13,14). Table 8 Strongly disagree disagree agree Strongly agree Mean SD 10 Professional development programs should be only for novice teachers. 55.67% 26.80% 9.27% 8.24% 1.70 0.94 11 All EFL teachers should make an effort to stay current in the EFL field by participating in PD. 2.06% 7.21% 40.20% 50.51% 3.39 0.71 12 EFL PD is important for effective teaching. 0% 11.34% 45.36% 43.29% 3.32 0.66 13 Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are sufficient. 17.52% 19.58% 27.83% 35.05% 2.80 1.10 49 14 Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are effective. 23.71% 21.64% 29.89% 24.74% 2.56 1.10 As Table 8 indicates, a majority of participants either disagree or strongly disagree with 10) PD should be only for novice teachers (82.47%), which means that they think PD should be for teachers in al l stages of their careers. And teachers either agree or strongly agree with 11 ) All EFL teachers should make an effort to stay current in the EFL field by participating in PD (90.72%), and 12) EFL PD is important for effective teaching (88.66%). These res ults suggest that most of the teachers are well aware of the necessity of PD in all stages of their career in order to stay current in the EFL field and to have effective teaching. However, through the chi - square test, it was found that responses for qu estion 13) Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are sufficient (p - value= 0.056) and 14) Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are effective (p - value=0.697) were not rejected, which means that res ponses were almost evenly distributed and a fair number of participants responded on each scale almost equally. Unlike responses for other survey questions, responses for these questions are only consistent because responses for these particular questions are individualized for different participants. The possible reason that responses for question 13 and 14 are consistent is that participants might have various opinions about the effectiveness and sufficiency depending on situations they are in. For exampl e, if the participants are in urban school contexts, their opportunities for PD participation 50 are different than participants in rural school contexts. Also, they might have different perspectives about effectiveness of PD as they gain more experience. How teachers feel about the effectiveness and sufficiency might be different and polarized depending on the situation they are in. Although it seems like there is no clear overall agreement or disagreement for sufficiency and effectiveness of PD in Korea, it was found that teaching experience and school location have an effect on the responses for this question, which will be explained later in this chapter. It is worth noting that the majority of participants are aware of t he importance of PD in order to sta y current in the EFL field (mean=3.39) and effectiveness of PD on teachin g (mean= 3.32), which seems to lead them to disagree that Professional development programs should only be for novice teachers (mean=1.70). Also, the even distribution of responses for question 13 and 14 tells us that current EFL PD in Korea is effective and sufficient for some teachers and not effective and sufficient for other teachers, depending on the situation they are in. As stated earlier, in order to find out a more specific relationship between background factors and responses for questions, a multinomial logistics regression m odel was used. It was found that teaching experience in company with school location is a significant factor for 2 survey questions and teaching experience was a significant factor for 1 survey question. Although the majority of the participants either di sagree or strongly disagree with the little different when we take a close look at the responses regarding their school location and teaching experience. First of all, teachers in good urban school districts tend to disagree with the statement and there is a little decrease in responses as they have more experience. However, 51 participants with less teaching experience from average urban school districts disagree but there majority of teachers with more experience in suburban schools strongly agree that Professional development programs should be only for novice teachers, as Table 9 presents. N/a indicates that there are no participants with those specific teaching experiences who work at a school location. Table 9 Professional development programs should be only for novice teachers. Location Experience Urban ( Good school district ) Urban ( Average school district ) Suburban 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 63.5 29.2 7.3 0.0 74.5 22.5 2.7 0.3 73.3 15.2 9.7 1.9 6 - 10yrs 55.1 34.6 10.2 0.1 67.0 27.7 3.8 1.4 61.4 17.4 13.0 8.3 11 - 15yrs 46.3 39.8 13.6 0.3 56.5 31.9 5.2 6.4 41.2 15.9 13.9 28.9 16 - 20yrs 37.4 43.9 17.5 1.2 39.9 30.8 5.8 23.5 17.5 9.2 9.4 64.0 21 - 25yrs 28.4 45.6 21.2 4.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.6 3.3 3.9 88.1 52 26 - 30yrs 19.0 41.6 22.5 17.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.0 1.0 1.3 96.8 31 - 35yrs 9.5 28.4 17.9 44.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a This result tells us that as teaching experience increases, responses for disagreement decrease and responses for agreement increase overall. That means that as teachers have more experience they tend to think that PD is only for novice teachers. More spec ifically, there is not much difference for teachers with 15 or less years of teaching experience across the school location, but there is a difference for teachers with 16 or more years of teaching experience regarding their school location. On the other h and, a majority of participants with 11 - 25 years of teaching experience from urban schools (good and average school districts) tend to favor for disagree or strongly disagree, whereas only participants with 11 - 15 years of teaching experience from suburban schools disagree or strongly disagree, and participants with 16 - 25 years of teaching experience from suburban school agree or strongly agree with the statement. Moreover, responses are extremely skewed for participants with 21 - 30 years of teaching experien ce from suburban schools as almost of all participants strongly agree with the statement, whereas responses for participants with 21 or more years of teaching experience are in the middle of the scale, such as agree or disagree instead of the extreme ends of the scale such as strongly disagree or strongly agree. It can be interpreted that teachers with 15 or less years of teaching experience from all school locations, teachers with 16 - 30 years of teaching experience from urban good school 53 districts, and teachers with 16 - 20 years of teaching experience from urban average school districts think they still need PD throughout all their careers. However, teachers with 31 or more years of teaching experience from good urban district schools and t eachers with 16 or more years of teaching experience from suburban schools do not think they need PD through all stages of their career. The possible reason that teachers from urban schools and teachers with less experience agree more with the statement is pressure of being excellent are heavier for those teachers. Therefore either they actually feel the necessity of PD throughout their careers because PD helps them to be effective teachers or they feel like participating in PD proves their improvement of e fficacy and shows they are trying to be an effective teacher. However, as urban school teachers have longer experience, either they have less pressures with higher positions or they found PD is not helpful for them to be an effective teacher. Also, part factor (p - ool districts) agree or strongly agree with the statement and it is consistent with teaching experience. Even though the result of the multinomial logistics regression model says that experience was one of the significant factors for this question, no dist inctive difference is found regarding experience, except with teachers from suburban schools. As Table 10 presents, a majority of suburban teachers disagree with the statement and show an increase of responses for strongly disagree as teaching experience increases. 54 Table 10 Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are sufficient Location Experience Urban (Good school district) Urban (Average school distric t) Suburban 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 1.5 11.8 24.0 62.7 0.0 27.9 31.6 40.5 44.2 42.2 0.0 13.6 6 - 10yrs 2.1 10.0 32.7 55.2 0.0 23.1 42.0 34.9 55.4 33.4 0.0 11.2 11 - 15yrs 2.7 8.1 42.6 46.6 0.0 18.2 53.3 28.5 66.0 25.2 0.0 8.8 16 - 20yrs 3.3 6.3 53.0 37.4 0.0 13.6 64.2 22.2 75.3 18.2 0.0 6.6 21 - 25yrs 3.8 4.6 62.9 28.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 82.7 12.6 0.0 4.7 26 - 30yrs 4.3 3.3 71.4 21.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 88.2 8.5 0.0 3.3 31 - 35yrs 4.6 2.2 78.3 14.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a The reason for distinctive differences between teachers from urban schools and suburban schools may be the difference between being given an opportunity for PD. Urban school teachers have more opportunities regarding location, frequency, and school support than teachers from suburban schools. Even though a majority of teachers from suburban schools responded that current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are not sufficient, there are higher numbers of responses from less experience d teachers about current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea being sufficient. Regardless of fewer 55 opportunities for PD for suburban schools, teachers with less experience from suburban schools may be motivated enough to search for PD and participate. So those who have been given opportunities to participate may feel that current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are sufficient and those who have not may feel the opposite. Also, it may be the difference betw een expectation and actualities. Those who expected to have more PD opportunities in terms of quantity and quality may feel current PD is not sufficient. Moreover, responses about the sufficiency for current PD programs in Korea can also be related to thei r thoughts on the effectiveness of PD. Existing PD programs may not be sufficient for those who believe in PD being effective, so they may search actively for more opportunities, and participate. However those who think PD is not effective may be hesitant to participate in PD and feel that existing programs are enough and sometimes too many already. Furthermore, teaching experience is a significant factor (p - value=0.009) for the statement Table 11 presents, teachers with more teaching experience tend to respond that they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. Table 11 Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are effective. Responses Teaching experience 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 21.6 11.7 30.7 36.0 6 - 10yrs 24.7 18.3 31.8 25.1 56 11 - 15yrs 26.3 26.8 30.7 16.3 16 - 20yrs 26.0 36.5 27.6 9.8 21 - 25yrs 24.2 46.8 23.4 5.6 26 - 30yrs 21.4 56.8 18.8 3.0 31 - 35yrs 18.1 66.0 14.4 1.6 A majority of participants with 1 - 10 years of teaching experience tend to respond that they agree or strongly agree that current PD in Korea is effective, whereas it became evenly split with the participants with 11 - 15 years of teaching experience. On the other hand, a majority of participants with 1 6 - 35 years of teaching experience responded that they disagree or strongly disagree that current PD in Korea is effective. The possible explanations why teachers with more experience tend to respond that current PD in Korea is not effective are 1) teachers with more experience may think PD repeats information that they are well aware of, or 2) PD organization and instructors have low credibility from more experienced teachers through previous PD experience as was found from interview data and other survey q uestions. looked at, it is important to investigate their actual experience with PD programs. Since teachers can have different experiences with different kinds of PD regard ing its schedules, each category 57 analyzed. Helpfu lness of PD r egarding d ifferent t ypes of PD . The second set of survey questions was asked to see whether teachers have different experience and thoughts with different PD schedules or types, such as PD on weekdays, PD during weekend, PD during summer/winter vacation, or PD through online. Since not all the participants experienced PD held in different times, they were asked to only answer the PD they have experience with. Different PD schedules do not simply mean that PD is held in different time periods, but it includes more complex matters such as locations that PD is held at, whether it provides accommodation or not , intensities, duration, and so on. Strengths and weaknesses that are related with these complexities will be discussed later with interview data. Since teachers were allowed to answer multiple sections as long as they participate in certain types of PD, p the total numbers of participants of the study. Results are displayed in Table 12 . First of all, 52 teachers, making up 53.61% of p articipants, had experience of PD during weekdays. As Table 12 presents, a majority of participants disagree or strongly disagree PD during weekdays has helped them to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching (90.38%) and knowledge about EFL learners (98.08%), provided too much information, but does not make them overwhelmed (71.15 %), and provided too much information and makes them overwhelmed (78.85 %). The majority of participants either agree or strongly agree that PD duri ng weekdays has helped them to gain practical knowledge (82.69%), has helped them to have greater self - confidence and 58 and is applicable to their teaching practice (90.38 %). Secondly, none of the participants had experience of PD during weekends. However, this participation in PD on weekends. It is just the participants participate in PD during weekends for some reason, which will be explained later. Third, 64 teachers making up 65.98% of participants had experience of PD during vacation. Different from PD during weekdays, there are more positive responses from participants. The majority of participants either agree or strongly agree that PD during vacation has helped them to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching (87.5%) and practical knowledge (71.88%), has helped them to have gr eater self - confidence and higher efficacy their teaching practice (82.81%), and provided too much information but does not make them overwhelmed (59.38%). On the other hand, the majority of participants either disagrees or strongly disagree that PD during vacation has helped them to gain knowledge about EFL learners (87.5%), and provided too much information and makes them overwhelmed (59.38%). Lastly, 35 te achers making up 36.08% of participants had experience of online PD. The majority of participants do not believe in the helpfulness of online PD. Most of the participants either disagree or strongly disagree that online PD has helped them to gain theoretic al knowledge about EFL teaching (94.29 %), practical knowledge (91.43%), and knowledge about EFL learners (100%), has helped them to have greater self - confidence and , is 59 applicable to their teaching practice (97.14 %), and provided too much information but does not make them overwhelmed (97.13 %). Table 12 : Helpfulness of PD with Different Schedule Types of PD Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Mean SD W E E K D A Y S has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 44.23% 46.15% 9.61% 0% 1.65 0.65 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 0% 17.30% 48.07% 34.61% 3.17 0.70 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 55.76% 42.30% 1.92% 0% 1.46 0.54 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 3.84% 15.38% 48.07% 32.69% 3.07 0.79 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 0% 26.92% 69.23% 3.84% 2.77 0.50 is applicable to my teaching practice. 0% 9.61% 75.0% 15.38% 3.06 0.50 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 1.92% 69.23% 28.84% 0% 2.27 0.48 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 11.53% 67.30% 17.30% 3.84% 2.13 0.65 60 V A C A T I O N has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 6.25% 6.25% 71.87% 15.62% 2.97 0.68 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 6.25% 21.87% 62.50% 9.37% 2.75 0.71 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 40.62% 46.87% 12.5% 0% 1.72 0.67 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 0% 10.93% 45.31% 43.75% 3.33 0.66 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 0% 9.37% 73.43% 17.18% 3.08 0.51 is applicable to my teaching practice. 0% 17.18% 82.81% 0% 2.83 0.38 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 12.5% 28.12% 59.37% 0% 2.47 0.70 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 0% 59.37% 28.12% 12.5% 2.53 0.70 61 that the majority of teachers reported they did not gain knowledge about EFL students from any types of PD. Moreover, the majority of participants responded that both P D during weekdays and O N L I N E has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 20.0% 74.28% 5.71% 0% 1.86 0.48 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 37.14% 54.28% 8.57% 0% 1.71 0.61 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 82.85% 17.14% 0% 0% 1.17 0.37 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 14.28% 68.57% 14.28% 2.85% 2.06 0.63 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 20.0% 71.42% 5.71% 2.85% 1.91 0.60 is applicable to my teaching practice. 20.0% 77.14% 0% 2.85% 1.86 0.54 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 82.85% 14.28% 2.85% 0% 1.20 0.47 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 0% 2.85% 37.14% 60.00% 3.57 0.55 62 during vacation have helped them to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching, have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, will eventually have an affect on student achievement, and is applicable to their teaching practic e. However, the majority of teachers neither reported gains of theoretical and practical knowledge about EFL teaching, gains of knowledge about EFL learners, have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, nor believe that it will eventually have a n effect on student achievement from online PD. Also, they believe that online PD provided too much information and makes them overwhelmed. Also, when the survey asked participants to respond about the effectiveness of specific types of PD programs, there are few questions that show a significant factor such as location of the school, qualification, and teaching experience, from the participants who have experiences of PD during vacation and PD through online. As Table 13 indicates, location is a significant factor (p - value=0.018) for the question asking if PD during vacation helped them to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, and all the par ticipants from good urban school districts responded agree (48.4%) or strongly agree (51.6%). On the other hand, a majority of the participants from average urban school districts responded agree (43.8%) or strongly agree (43.7%), and a few participants di sagree (12.5%) whereas participants from suburban schools responded disagree (29.4%), agree (41.2%), and strongly agree (29.4%). 63 Table 13 PD during vacation has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. Responses Location 1 2 3 4 Urban (Good school district) 0.0% 0.0% 48.4% 51.6% Urban (Average school district) 0.0% 12.5% 43.8% 43.7% Suburban 0.0% 29.4% 41.2% 29.4% Whereas all of the participants from good school districts and a majority of participants from average school districts in urban schools responded that PD during vacation helped them to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, some teachers f rom suburban schools responded that PD during vacation was not helpful to improve their self - confidence and self - efficacy. A possible explanation can be that self - confidence and self - efficacy is based on their relative performance compared to other tea chers whom they meet at PD as was found through interview data. Therefore, urban teachers who meet suburban teachers who think that they are doing good job as a teacher will have higher confidence and self - efficacy, whereas suburban teachers who meet urban school teachers and think they are doing lesser than urban school teachers will have relatively lower self - confidence and self - efficacy. It is also consistent with urban school teachers that teachers from good district schools show a higher rate of agreem ent 64 with improvement in self - confidence and self - efficacy than teachers from average school districts. Also, qualification is a significant factor (p - value= 0.006) when participants responded to Ta ble 14 agree, where as 13.8% of contract teachers strongly agree with the statement, 65.5% of contract teachers agree, and 20.7% of contract teachers d isagree as presented in Ta ble 14 . Ta ble 14 PD during vacation will eventually have an affect on student achievement. Responses Qualification 1 2 3 4 regular 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% contracted 0.0% 20.7% 65.5% 13.8% between PD during weekdays, PD during vacation, and PD through online for this particular question. Although it requires furthe r investigation to find out why qualification is a significant factor for responses on effectiveness of PD during vacation in student achievement, a possible explanation for this result may be that contract teachers usually stay in the same school for 1 ye ar for the maximum, so if they participate in PD during vacation, they may be at a different school 65 teaching a different grade with different curriculum the next semester. Therefore, they have fewer chances to practice information that they acquire from PD during vacation. Also, qualification in combination with location of the school is a significant factor (p - Table 15 presents, responses for the most contract teachers and regular teachers from urban and suburban schools were concentrated in the agree category and there are less response s in the disagree category. However, one interesting result was found that a majority of contract teachers from suburban schools disagree (70.6%) with the contract te achers agree. Table 15 PD during vacation is applicable to my teaching practice. location Qualification Urban (good school district) Urban (average school district) Suburban 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Regular 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 97.4 0.0 0.0 20.5 79.5 0.0 Contracted 0.0 7.5 92.5 0.0 0.0 20.2 79.8 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 0.0 - term contracts. As indicated earlier, contract teachers often move to another school after one year of contracted work, but teachers from urban schools tend to stay in the same district and area where the level of the students and school curriculums are similar. However, contract teachers from suburban schools have less of a 66 chance to stay in the same district since there are not many vacant positions for EFL teachers. Therefore, they tend to move aroun d a lot schools with very different environments in terms of level of students, school curriculums, grade of the students, and support from schools. Therefore, if contract teachers participate in PD targeting students in their current school during winter vacation, and their contract ends the next year before March, information from PD during Three out of 8 questions asked about the helpfulness of PD provided online were found to be significant. As presented in Table 16 , responses of teachers with less teaching experience (1 - 25) were concentrated in strongly disagree or disagree about the statement provided online has helped me to gain theoretical knowle with more teaching experience (26 - 35) responded more toward agreeing with the statement and less participants responded they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Table 16 PD provided online has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. Responses Teaching experience 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 25.5 74.5 0.0 0.0 6 - 10yrs 22.1 77.8 0.1 0.0 11 - 15yrs 18.9 80.4 0.7 0.0 16 - 20yrs 15.7 80.5 3.8 0.0 21 - 25yrs 11.4 70.5 18.1 0.0 67 26 - 30yrs 5.3 39.5 55.1 0.0 31 - 35yrs 1.3 11.5 87.2 0.0 Contrary to both researcher and popular expectation that teachers with less experience would benefit more from PD provided online since teachers with more experience could have problems working through software, however, teachers with 31 - 35 years of teaching experience reported that the y benefited the most, and teachers with 26 - 30 years of teaching experience reported that they benefited the next highest degree. Numbers continue to decrease until almost none of the teachers with 1 - 15 years of teaching experience think PD provided online did not help them to gain theoretical knowledge. This is consistent with the previous explanation that teachers with less experience may have fresher memories about the theory. Location was a significant factor (p - value=0.025) when participants answered t he - confidence and higher self - either strongly disagreed or disagreed where as a majority of participants from good urban school districts and suburban schools responded that they disagree (60.0%, 90.9%). Also 6.7% of participants from good urban school districts responded that they strongly disagree, 26.7% of participants agree, and 6.7% of part icipants strongly agree, whereas only 9.1% of participants from suburban schools agree as Table 17 presents. 68 Table 17 : Significant of PD provided online has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. Responses Location 1 2 3 4 urban(good school district) 6.7% 60.0% 26.7% 6.7% Urban(average school district) 44.4% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% suburban 0.0% 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% Attention should be paid to this result because previous results, with support of interview data, on self - efficacy and self - confidence found that self - efficacy and self - confidence for teach ers is in relation to the colleagues that they meet at the PD programs. Whether they have higher or lower self - efficacy and self confidence is rather relative, which is affected through the comparison with how other teachers are doing. However, despite th e fact that PD through online does not provide an opportunity to meet other teachers, location is still a significant factor of teacher responses. A possible explanation for this result would be that contents of PD (what teachers are learning from PD) stil - efficacy and self - confidence. Therefore, some of the teachers from good urban school districts feel that PD provided online has helped them to gain greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy since what th ey learn from PD provided online makes them feel confident and more effective. However, almost all participants from average school districts and suburban schools do not agree that PD provided online has helped them to gain greater self - confidence and hig her self - 69 efficacy because either they did not learn much from online PD, or self - efficacy and self - confidence are not something that teachers gain from PD. duratio n, period, and types were asked. Teachers mostly prefer PD provided after school during weekdays for less than an hour (32.47%), PD provided during vacation for less than a week (26.28%) whereas PD provided during weekends for 6 - 8 hours (0%) and PD provide d online for over an hour (1.03%) were the least preferred. It is consistent with the previous survey result of this study about the effectiveness of PD regarding different PD schedules ( Table 12 on page 53). knowledge about EFL teaching, greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, student achievement, and applicability to t heir teaching practice in comparison to PD during vacation and PD provided online. PD during vacation and PD provided online were the least preferred by the participants of this study; as was mentioned earlier, none of the participants of this study have e xperience for PD during weekend. It turned out that participants of this study do not prefer PD during weekend. Moreover, participants were very skeptical about the effectiveness of PD provided online. Also, teachers listed the following terms as qualities of effective PD: practical (63.33%), various resources (10.00%), authentic (10.00%), interactive (5.0%), consulting (3.33%), changes (3.33%), voluntary (1.66%), review (1.66%), and appropriate (1.66%). However, teachers list the following terms for qualit ies of ineffective PD; theoretical (50.84%), boring (15.25%), superficial (15.25%), cliché or repetitive (6.77%), mandatory (3.38%), result (3.38%), lecture (1.69%), workshop (1.69%), and networking (1.69%). Some of the listed qualities are somewhat overla pped with the findings reported earlier. It was found that teachers prefer practical 70 information rather than theoretical, think PD providing teaching resources is helpful, and prefer interactive PD such as PD providing discussion forum and PD providing lan guage practice rather than lecture types. Moreover, even though these qualities are not explicitly or directly overlapped with results earlier reported, some of them are implied through their interview data, which will be reported later. By looking at the survey results and multinomial logistics regression model, information about how teachers think about the effectiveness and helpfulness of PD and what factors have an re detailed information After the teachers completed surveys, eight focal teachers were interviewed to find out their thoughts on the effectiveness of PD, three teachers had a negative s tance about PD for EFL teachers in general, three teachers had a positive stance about PD for EFL teachers, and two teachers had half positive half negative responses, depending on types of PD, context of PD, etc. types of participation, PD quality, and types of PD. - efficacy and self - confidence will be explained. T ypes of p articipation . Teachers were asked about the effectiveness of PD according to types of participation. Roughly, these can be categorized as voluntary or mandatory. For voluntary, there are two ways to participate. One way is that teachers search for the PD programs they want to participate in, they submit the document to the school, and get approval from t he principal and funding from the school if necessary. Another way is that the official document 71 with the list of PD programs from the Department of Education is delivered to the school principal and teachers can choose from programs on the list. In that c ase, teachers do not have to - approved and funded by the Department of Education. By contrast, mandatory PD programs work differently. When the official documents are announced and de livered to a school principal, teachers are drafted who are qualified for a particular PD, who are less experienced, or who are not homeroom teachers, to participate and to fill in the number of teacher participants requirement. Since teachers are often dr afted to participate, they may have less motivation, and they may tend to find PD less effective as well. that type of participation has an influence on the effectiveness of PD, as indicated by Lee and Son. Well, I think it is all about the school requirement and government requirement. When the PD for EFL teacher is held by the ministry of the education, an official document is sent to the school principal with how many teachers are needed to fill the seats. Then, teache good for teachers. [Lee] Sometimes I participated in PD because of the requirement, but PD that I chose to go to and a PD that I was obligated to go to. [Son] When Lee and Son explained about the effectiveness of PD, both of them us ed the compulsory which shows their perspectives about the forcibleness of PD participation. Since Lee has 10 72 years of teaching experience, she knows a gr eat deal about how mandatory PD works and has a lot of experience with mandatory PD. She stated that mandatory PD participation does not have any positive effect on teachers. say there are useful resources in certain PDs, but if I decided not to l earn because I was there just for the requirement, it is huge waste of time, money, and energy. [Son] Son indicated that the types of participation hold an important key for the effectiveness of PD because if she is there just for the requirement, and not learning anything, this makes that PD ineffective no matter whether that particular PD has a high quality, or is effective for other participants. but also, provides same information repeatedly, as Son stated. only 3 EFL teachers in our school. So for the schools that have many EFL teachers, they can take turns participating in PD until all of them participate, but for the small schools like ours, all the EFL teachers have to go to every EFL PD requirement and take similar kinds of PD every year. For example, an EFL classroom management PD is held and each school is supposed to send two EFL teachers every year. We send Teacher A and Teacher B this year and Teacher B and C or Teacher A and C next year, which means one of the teachers is taking same PD two years in a row. Well, sometimes we pick up and learn something that we did n ot learn last year, but most of the time, we are just 73 thing interesting for us. [Son] Son also mentioned the problem of mandatory PD held by the government or ministry of education. It indicate inconsideration of their circumstances. It is worth noting that both Son and Lee are from suburban schools. As compare d to urban schools, there are fewer EFL teachers in suburban schools, so there is more pressure on mandatory PD participation for teachers from suburban schools as was stated in S a long break, and Son had just started her second year of teachin g. Therefore, it is hard to consider the period of lassitude since both teachers were highly motiva ted and happy to be a teacher; i t was just the types of participation in PD that they did not prefer. when it deals with the types of participation indicated that teachers do not have a positive attitude toward the PDs they are forced to participate in. Lee thought that required PDs do not help teachers learn, since teachers are forced to participate regar dless of their opinions or their situations. Son saw a difference in terms of effectiveness between PDs that have voluntary participation and PDs that have forced participation. Also, Son pointed out that mandatory PD has the weakness of assigning the same teachers every year for the school where there is small number of EFL teachers. ted as PD. 74 Self - determination theory (e.g Deci , Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; deCharms, 1968; Ryan, & Connell, 1989) previously explained the differences between self - determined behavior and controlled behavior. This result s show that voluntary participation brings more effective outcomes in terms of effectiveness of PD and increasing motivation. Teachers who v oluntarily participate in P D, learn better and are more motivated about what they are learning, which can be connected to the usage of information and improvement in teaching. Moreover, voluntary participation is closely connected with the interest and needs as well. When they are allowed to choose in what they participate, they make their decisions based on their interests, concerns, and previous experience , which allow s them to have a meaningful experience and possibly more effective outcomes. PD q uality . D is effective or not is closely related with who is the PD presenter. There is a conflict between having an instructor who is a native speaker of English and does not have deep understanding or knowledge about EFL teaching, and an instructor who does not have fluent English skills but has greater knowledge and experience of EFL.[Kim] Kim talked about difficulties of choosing a PD presenter between a person with English fluency and a person with greater knowledge about EFL. Since Kim is working in a good school district of Seoul where and attitude toward teachers is better when compare d to schools in the suburbs , she cannot ignore 75 the reputation of PD that she participated in . Since parents of good school districts are extremely s are expected to have n ative like language proficiency, which a PD presenter with higher level of proficienc y can provide in PD . For a PD developer, the first type of instructor will make the PD look good and may have benefits of providing language practice, but teachers may not learn what they expect to learn. However, the latter type of instructor can present high quality information but PD communication skills. [Kim] The dilemma Kim mentioned above can also be considered a gap between ideal and reality, since a perso n with both high English proficiency and great knowledge about EFL would be perfect, but it is not always available in reality. Even if a person with both qualities is available, a high budget for inviting presenters can be another problem. Therefore, PD o rganizations have to choose between a person with more teaching experience and a person with higher language fluency, however it was found that teachers prefer the person with more experience over the person with language proficiency. Moreover, Yoon brou ght up another quality for the presenter. She stated that a person who is an expert of research is not helpful for effective PD. for those PD presented by the perso n who does not have teaching experience. Experts are maybe good for the research and writing, so when they are up there, they are busy presenting what they have done, and how successful they were with their research. 76 However, former or present teachers are the real experts of teaching, so we learn a lot and what works and what does not for those reasons. I really learn from them. [Yoon] Yoon explained that a PD presenter should be a person who has teaching experience in order to understand the EFL teaching in the Korean context. It can also be considered a gap between practice and theory, since the presenter who has a great research background may well know about the EFL t heory and may not be knowledgeable about the practice in classroom where there are too many variables. Yoon has 12 y ears of teaching experience, and has a lot of experience with PD , which was offered by a presen t er with various background s and career s. S he shared not only her thoughts about the represent s other teachers by d It was confirmed from survey results, since teachers responded that PD providing a discussion forum with other EFL teachers is more helpful than PD providing a discussion forum with EFL experts. This means that teachers have higher credibility for teachers than EFL experts who do not have classroom teaching experience. Additi onally, Yoon is no t only a more experienced teacher but also, the only EFL teacher in her school, so practical ity is the one of the most important issues for her for effective PD. Therefore, she prefer s the PD presenter who talks about real world quoting , In addition to quality of PD regarding the presenter, Jeong and Lee mentioned the quality of the PD organization. tain topic has higher quality than those provided for free from the government. Private 77 organizations tend to keep updating their topics according to EFL educational trends, and tend to get feedback from participants and use them to improve the quality of PD they are providing; otherwise, people are not going to pay for it. However, PD provided by government sometimes outdated and tend to repeat topics over and over due to budgets and other reasons. They also have kind of feedback, which they hand out evalu ation forms at the end of the PD sessions, but I have not seen the much improvement since I have participated. [Jeong] Jeong explained that usually PD provided by the government tends to be less effective than PD provided by a private organization since effectiveness is directly related to the profits private organizations make. Jeong discredited the PD provided by the government by saying it is Since she is working i n an urban school, there might be more chances of participating in PD that was held by different organizations, which makes her able to compare the qualities and effectiveness of different PD programs. However, Lee especially pointed out the lack of long - t erm plan for PD and PD being a one - time event. It is always a problem that there is no long - term plan for PD for EFL teachers. There are so many mini workshops and short - term PD targeting one time slot. There are topics that are enough for one - time PD, bu t sometimes I wish all the PDs were connected as a series for long - term effect for specific purposes. In order to do that I guess PD organization should have long - term plan for providing PD for teachers in different stage. [Lee] As Lee mentioned, teachers expected that PD would result in changes in their teaching practice, but sometimes one time PD is not powerful enough to change their teaching practice. Therefore, 78 Lee insisted that PD organization should have a long term plan to connect the PD as series, which will lead to long - term effect for teachers. It is worth noting that Lee has relatively more teaching experience of 10 years , which allows her to see the problem of PD be ing a one time event rather than promoting professional growth for teachers in the long term . It was a problem back then when she worked for the private school eight years ago, and has not impro ved after she came back from being laid - off. interviews tell us that the PD presenter and PD organization are the important ele ments that decide the quality of PD and teachers value PD presenters who have teaching experience more than people who have better language proficiency or greater knowledge about the research. T ypes of PD . Teachers also mentioned types of PD are an important key to determine its effectiveness. Even though they were not asked to answer which types of PD are more effective in the interviews, teachers mentioned this while they talked about the effectiveness of PD. Comparison between different types of PD is not possible since teachers have not participated in all kinds of PD and have neither rubrics nor standards for reliable comparison. However, ork effectively for them from but some used confusing language. For example, using a positive term but implying something else. Kim and Jeong talked about the ad vantages of lecture types of PD and online PD. Sometimes I feel lecture - type PD is more comfortable and works better for me. Usually PD programs are really interactive and so intensive, which makes me really exhausted. 79 So I sometimes need time to listen t o the lecture. That is like a break for me. And I sometimes learn from the lecture as well. [Kim] Teachers love online PD since it is effortless. We sometimes take online PD during class when students are doing in - class activity sheets or something. But I am not sure about the effectiveness of online PD though. It is very hard to say. Some people who are doing online PD because of his or her own needs and situation will find it effective, and those who are just choosing online PD to fulfill the requirement will not. I am more like the latter one, so I do not usually take advantage of online PD. [Jeong] As was mentioned earlier, it is worth noting that some teachers seem to use positive language about certain types of PD, but the contents do not talk about th e helpfulness or effectiveness but rather personal preference such as convenience. For example, excerpts from Kim and Jeong they really think those are effective o r helpful since preference and effectiveness are different matters. It is worth noting that both Kim and Jeong are fixed term teachers and have previous experience of taking the teaching placement test more than tw ice . Both of them mentioned that they cho se to become fixed term teachers since they failed to pass the teaching placement test. The teaching placement test consist s of theoretical materials, which is delivered mostly in the form of lectures. Therefore, when Kim ment ions ble and works it may actually mean s the opposite . T he latter part of her quote tells us it may be easier and s from lecture, which implies she does not learn from it for the most of time . 80 Unlike the first two quote s from participants which seem to be positive but are actually negative, Lee and Kwon straightforwardly stated that lecture type PD and online PD are not very helpful for effective learning regardless of its benefits. Lecture - type PD is students would feel about my lecture in the class. Teachers especially hate to sit and listen. They learn through hands - on activity. Even though we learn something from lecture - type PD, we eas ily forget unless we do activities related to that lecture. So I would say lecture - type PD is not really effective in that sense. [Lee] Online PD is very over - rated in education I think. Of course, it has pros of being convenient for time, long - distance, a nd expenses. However, it sometimes is just good for fulfilling the time requirement for teachers. Some teachers are required to take or participate in 60 cumulative hours of PD each year. However, if we have online PD, we nally we were supposed to read and answer the questions and we just passed the reading materials without reading, and we cheat on the questions like students. If there is a teacher who took that online PD before, she or he has all the right answers for us. So it can take a shorter time for us. Online PD is convenient and helps us to fulfill the time requirement, but in terms of learning and outcomes, it is pointless and useless. [Kwon] Although Lee and Kwon acknowledged the benefits of lecture type of PD and online PD, they sit and . It is worth noting that b oth Lee and Kwon have relatively 81 more teaching experience than other teachers. Kwon works in an urban school as a head teacher of the English department, so she knows theoretically about the benefits of online PD being convenient for te achers in long distance and pro vi di ng them opportunities to participate in same quality PD that urban school teachers are given. How ever, she may not experience the se benefits since she is working in an urban school where there are more opportunitie s than for teachers in suburban schools . Also as she has more experience , she may have seen a lot of teachers not taking online PD seriously. On the other hand, Cha, Son, and Park mentioned certain types of PD are effective for s focused on the location where PD was held. It was not only about the convenience regarding the location, and it also implies familiarity of environment and able to use resources that are already there. Once there was PD in our school site. Our principa l invited an expert to our school to have kind of mentoring sessions and teaching demonstrations in our own classrooms. We found them very helpful since it happened in our own classrooms where we actually teach, so we could use the environment and resource s that we are familiar with. Also, it happened during school days, so we were able to use learned activities the next day. It worked well. It has benefits of saving time and it is convenient for teachers. [Son] Son particularly mentioned about this PD tha t was provided in her schools with her colleagues. Therefore, there is a high possibility that it was not open to the public nor officially held. However, she shows a positive attitude toward it since it has advantages of saving time, is convenient for tea chers, and having available and familiar resources. As was described earlier, Son has the most unique background as she was a flight attendant for years and went to graduate 82 school for TESOL degree; she has the least teaching experience of all the interview participants. Also, she was very passionate about teaching and PD . W hen she talked about the most effective PD that occurs in her school site, she seems to be very excited talking about how good it was and worked. I t is worth noting that this typ e of PD may only be possible because she works in a private school. On the other hand, Cha and Park seemed to talk about the place of PD was held, but what they really focused on is the content of PD. One of the most effective PD for my entire teaching e xperience was when I went to the U.S and observed the actual class there. It gave me an idea not only how activities are taught in the US but also how classes are organized. It was very interesting and I was able to see the difference and made me to think about the modification in my class. I saw many positive changes from my colleagues from that experience as well. [Cha] Once, I participated in international PD, in which I went to countries using English, and visited the classroom and schools. I observed the classes, looked around the classroom environments, and had conversations with teachers. It was very helpful and gave me a lot of ideas of teaching EFL students. Also, it fulfilled the language practice at the same time. Sometimes, looking is much bette r than hearing. [Park] It was not found that both of them participated in the same types of PD, but it was confirmed that teachers with certain qualifications are given the opportunities to go abroad for experience of schools in other countries. And it was also confirmed that almost of all international PD has the same format such as classroom observation, school tour, and conversation with teachers, and sometimes language practice. Since all the participants of this study are EFL teachers, they have 83 a high er interest about how other teachers in English - speaking countries practice their teaching. Especially, Cha has earned her TESOL degree in the USA, and is familiar with the education al environment i n the USA, which may make her positive about the experienc e of abroad PD. Also, participating in abroad PD may become a reminder of her field experience in the USA and provide language practices because it has been eight years since she graduated from school. Moreover, this type of PD will provide a language practice for her since she is working in a good district school that pressure s her to show excellent English proficiency . Also, partic ipation in international PD would give Park inspiration to try new things that are implemented in another country and gives her a lot of ideas about English acti vities since she is passionate to motivate her students. effectiveness of PD is more related to their individual preferences. Depending on their situation, characters, locations, and other factors, teachers have different opinions about the effectiveness of PD depending on its type. These interview results go with survey results as teache responses for the survey show online PD was not effective overall, PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL is not helpful, PD providing hands - on activities is helpful, and PD providing English language practice experience is helpful. S elf - efficacy and s elf - esteem . were asked how PD affects their self - efficacy and self - esteem as a teacher. Some said PD helps them to have higher self - efficacy and some said it make them feel worse about themselves as a teachers. Kim and Lee said they gained higher self - efficacy and greater self - confidence after PD. Both of them received what they wanted from PD and good quality of PD content had a positive effect on their self - efficacy and self - c onfidence. 84 my classroom. And I am sharing information with other teachers in school and modify activities. All these procedures help me to grow up as a teacher and make me to become a better teacher, I believe. [Kim] There are times when I got answers to the questions I had and everything made sense. I had that experience with the mentoring session provided by PD. After that I became confident as a teacher and rea lized that did not happen because of my mistakes or my poor classroom management skills. The mentoring session with EFL experts made me understand about EFL teaching and how to deal with different proficiency level students. [Lee] Kim mentioned that she le arned a lot from PD and gaining knowledge about the field she is in made her confident. Also, sharing gained knowledge with other teachers made her have higher efficacy. Lee mentioned that she got what she wanted from PD. She got answers and better underst anding about the EFL teaching and also she got consolation from the mentors, which made her feel better about the situation she was having problems with. Lee admitted that she is confident to deal with different proficiency levels of students. Although Kim is from a good school district of Seoul and Lee is from a suburban school, b oth Kim and Lee have higher self - efficacy after PD participation because they believe PD has helped them to i m prove in many ways regardless of whom they meet in PD . Unlike two teachers who became confident and had higher efficacy through PD programs, there are two teachers who were affected by other teachers they met in a PD program. 85 Jeong is the case of having lower self - confidence and lesser self - efficacy and Kwon i s the case of having higher self - confidence and greater self - efficacy. Whenever I go to PD, I feel like I am a horrible teacher. PD experts present so many things and urge us to try those. But when it is not possible to use or modify those, I feel like I am a bad teacher and feel sorry for the students. Also I lost my confidence about my English skills and teaching quality. [Jeong] I feel good after I see many teachers at PD. I always think that I am not good enough for to be interested in English and I had a problem with my classroom management. But when I see a lot of teachers who are having the same kinds of problems, I feel I am not alone and not too bad as a teacher compare to others. Also, there are some teachers w - confidence that I am [Kwon] important role in te - efficacy, but colleagues who participate in the same PD also play a critical role for determining level of self - efficacy. Teachers tend to make comparisons between themselves and other teachers in similar situations. So when they see teachers who are doing a better job, they feel they are bad teachers; whereas they feel good about themselves when they see teachers who are doing similar or lesser job than themselves. Therefore, it can be stated that PD also sometimes provides emotional comfort a - efficacy and self - esteem. It might not be the direct effect of PD, but PD provides it in terms of a social - efficacy and self - esteem. 86 It is worth noting that both Jeong and Kwon work in a school that is in average school district of Seoul . Difference s in self - efficacy affected by other teachers may or may not be caused by their location of the school but may be from their different teacher qualification s . Jeong is a fixed - term teacher and Kwon is a regular teacher . The fact that Jeong has failed a teaching placement test twice and was planning to take the test s every year while working as a fixed term teacher shows how she has lower self - confidence due to two failures of test s without satisfaction of being a fixed - term teacher. On the other hand, Kwon is the most experienced and the oldest of all the interview participants, and she has a higher level of self - efficacy after PD . Kwon is considered to be a m otivated teacher since she is still trying hard to make her students learn by participating in PD , even though she does not teach many classes due to her position in her school as the head of English department . Therefore, self efficacy and self confidence may not only be related with the qualification s of the teacher, but also related with motivation and personalities as well. Summary and Discussion In sum, Korean EFL teachers are well aware of the importan ce and effectiveness of PD for their teaching practice and their professional growth, however, they are not satisfied with the effectiveness and sufficiency of current EFL PD in Korea. They thought PD for most of the content is helpful except introducing n ew research findings and theories, in the form of lecture, and providing discussion forums. Also, different types of PD have a different level of effectiveness on gaining theoretical and practical knowledge about EFL teaching, gaining knowledge about EFL s tudents, greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, effect on or not overwhelmed, and applicability to their teaching practice. 87 The majority of teacher partic ipants did not gain knowledge about EFL students from any type of PD. On the other hand, the majority of participants responded that both PD during weekdays and during vacation have helped them to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching, have greater s elf - confidence and higher self - efficacy, will eventually have an effect on student achievement, and is applicable to their teaching practice. However, the majority of teachers responded that online PD does not help them gain any of the knowledge listed abo ve and provided too much information and makes them overwhelmed. PD includes various features such as circumstances, types of PD, and PD quality. Reasons behind the teac they are not interested in that topic, their workload is very high so they are tired and cannot concentrate, information from PD is not practical in terms of being too theore tical, too idealistic PD presenters are qualified. Also, teachers have concerns about the immediate use of information from PD. They mentioned that they d immediate use. Therefore, they treat information from PD for potential use as ineffective. It seems like EFL is a very specific contex t, and EFL trends, policy, and instruction change very quickly which might have influenced teachers thought about the usefulness of information . Ever since the National English Curriculum Policy (NECP) came into effect there have been 7 revisions of NECP from 1954 to 2008 and the English Immersion Plan (EIP) was developed and implemented in 2008 to present (Ahn, 2013). Therefore, EFL teachers may feel that all the information teachers are looking for from PD should be up to date and ready for immediate use. 88 nd experience about PD is constructed by their experience when they actively engaged in PD. In that sense, their previous experience about certain types of PD creates information and makes connections among constructed knowledge in order to make decision s about effectiveness of PD and PD participation . In the next chapter, and the factors that influence teachers PD participation . 89 Influential Factors participating and their reasons for not participating in PD programs . In this chapter, I first report n for participating in PD and the factors they motivations for not participating in PD. Survey questions have a scale of 1through 4, with 1 being weakest influ ence and 4 being strongest influence. The survey ha s 3 sets of questions. One set addressed their motivations of PD participation. The second set addressed the factors that have influence on their PD participation. The third set addressed the reasons for n ot participating in PD. Survey Results: Motivations for PD Participation and Reasons for non - Participation Motivations for PD p articipation . Table 18 motivations to participate in PD. The first set of questions for motivation of PD participation was asked to find the factors that have influence on PD participation and are more focused on whether it is voluntary or mandatory, and internal or external. Most of the questions obviously belong to one category, but there are some questions that can be both regarding their circumstances. For example, sc hool or government requirement is mandatory and external motivation, but promotion can be mandatory or voluntary and external motivation for some teachers. As Table 18 presents, 97 participants responded to questions for motivation to participate in PD. Through the chi - square test, it was found that responses for question 2) School or government requirement (p - value= 0.13) is not rejected which means that responses w ere almost 90 evenly distributed and a fair number of participants responded on each scale almost equally. Unlike responses for other survey questions, responses for this question are only consistent because this particular motivator is individualized for dif ferent participants. Requirements for each schools district are independent, so PD requirements are also different depending on each school district. First of all, a majority of participants responded that acquiring practical information such as 6) pract ical and pedagogical knowledge development (78.35% ), 9) acquiring teaching resources (91.75%), and 10) improvement of teaching in general (91.75%) as having some influence or strongest influence on PD participation. Secondly, a majority of participants ten d to respond that external motivations such as 3) promotion (87.63%) and 4) salary raise (86.60%) have the weakest or least influence in participating in PD. Third, a majority of participants tend to respond that trends or educational movement such as 1) a s an effort to stay current in EFL field (74.23%), or 8) getting information about a particular reform/educational policy/test (72.16%) as the weakest or less influence on PD participation. In addition, participants responded that 7) social network (69.07% ) and 5) language proficiency development (52.58%) are the weakest influence or less influence in PD participation. Table 18 : Motivations for PD Participation Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence Mean SD 1 As an effort to stay current in EFL field 45.56% 28.87% 11.34% 14.43% 1.95 1.07 91 2 Requirement of school or government 26.80% 20.62% 34.02% 18.56% 2.44 1.07 3 Promotion 51.55% 36.08% 10.31% 2.06% 1.63 0.75 4 Salary raise 51.55% 35.05% 10.31% 3.09% 1.65 0.79 5 Language proficiency development 22.68% 29.90 % 34.02% 13.40% 2.38 0.98 6 Practical and pedagogical knowledge development 10.31% 11.34% 26.80% 51.55% 3.20 1.00 7 Social network 38.14% 30.93% 10.31% 20.62% 2.13 1.14 8 Getting information about a particular reform/ educational policy/ test 47.42% 24.74% 18.56% 9.28% 1.90 1.01 9 Acquiring teaching resources 2.06% 6.19% 43.40% 48.45% 3.38 0.70 10 Improvement of teaching in general 2.06% 6.19% 36.08% 55.67% 3.45 0.70 It is worth noting that participants tend to favor the improvement of teaching in general (mean=3.45), acquiring teaching resources (mean=3.38), and practical/ pedagogical knowledge development (mean=3.20) as the motivation for PD participation since it is the above the mean 92 of the responses. On the other hand, the following are less favorable influences on their motivation for PD participation: requirement of school or government (mean= 2.44), language proficiency (mean=2.38), social network (mean= 2.13), as an effort to stay in current EFL field (mean=1.95), getting information about a particular reform/ educational policy/ test (mean =1.90), salary raise (mean=1.65), and promotion (mean=1.63). bac kground factors. The multinomial logistics regression model is used to find out if there is motivation (question 1 , 3, 6, 9) ( see Table 19 through 2 2), qualification has an effect on one item (question 5) (see Table 23 ), and location has an effect on one ite m (question 10) (see Table 2 4). These findings are discussed below. Table 19 shows that as participants strongest influence. Teachers with experience of 1 - 5 years hardly participate in PD in order to stay current in EFL field (3.5%). It slightly increases for partici pants with 6 - 10 years and 11 - 15 years of teaching experience. It rapidly increases after 16 or more years of teaching experience (71.8%). Then, when teaching experience reaches 21 or more years, a majority of participants Table 19 : Motivation for PD Participation: Effort to Stay Current in EFL Field Responses Teaching experience Weakest influence Less influence So me influence Strongest influence 93 1 - 5yrs 65.0% 31.4% 1.5% 2 .0% 6 - 10yrs 50. 9 % 35.6% 5.9% 7.7 % 11 - 15yrs 30.3% 30.6% 17.1% 22% 16 - 20yrs 11.5% 16.7% 31.6% 40.2% 21 - 25yrs 3.0 % 6.3% 40.3% 50.4% 26 - 30yrs 0.7% 2.0% 43.6% 53.7% 31 - 35yrs 0.1% 0.6% 44.8% 54.4% From this model, it can be considered that as participants have longer teaching experience, they tend to search for current EFL trends and want to stay current in the EFL field by participating in PD. Since EFL education in Korea has been rapidly changing from time to time, it is important for teachers to keep up with current educational trends. Basically all teachers try to keep up with current educational trends but teachers with longer experience tend to look for updates on current educational trends es pecially from PD and it became one of the important reasons to PD participation. Possible supposition for this result can be because of accumulation of PD information and knowledge originating from PD experience. Teachers with longer experience may think that they have learned enough from their previous experience about knowledge and information about EFL except current EFL education trends, they seem to focus 94 on current educational trends from PD when it was compared to the teachers with less experience. Table 20 shows that as participants that promotion is a strong influence on PD participation. A majority of participants responded that promotion is weakest influence or less influence of PD participation until 16 - 20 years of teaching expe rience, and then the percentage between weakest influence or less influence and some influence or strongest influence is almost even for participants with 21 - 25 years of experiences. Then, responses for some influence or strongest influence increase for 26 or more years of teaching experiences. Table 20 : Motivation for PD Participation: Promotion Responses Teaching experience Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence 1 - 5yrs 60.1% 37.6% 2.1% 0.2% 6 - 10yrs 55.5% 38.8% 5.1% 0.7% 11 - 15yrs 48.6% 38.0% 11.5% 1.8% 16 - 20yrs 38.4% 33.6% 23.5% 4.5% 21 - 25yrs 25.5% 24.9% 40.4% 9.2% 26 - 30yrs 13.7% 15.0% 56.1% 15.3% 31 - 35yrs 6.2% 7.5% 65.1% 21.2% 95 The result was totally divergent from expectations since it was expected to find that the teachers with less experience would have higher motivation of being promoted by PD participation. However, it may be because of the educational system in Korea. Teach ers with less experience have less opportunities of being promoted unless they have more education degrees or studying abroad experience. No matter how many times they participated in PD programs or how much quality the programs had, teachers with less exp eriences in Korea have very little or no chance of being promoted just with PD experiences. Teaching experience is very important in Korean education system to be in a higher position. However, teachers with more teaching experience have wider possibility to be promoted if they can prove that they have achieved all the requirements and extras. Therefore, having more PD would help them to be promoted as a vice - principal and finally as a principal. Considering this circumstance, teachers with less teaching ex perience tend to respond that promotion is the weakest influence or less influence for motivation to participate in PD whereas teachers with more experience tend to respond promotion as some or strongest influence. Teaching experience was also a signi participation for getting practical and pedagogical k nowledge development. As Table 21 presents, the responses of some influence or strongest influence were greater for teachers with less experience of 1 - 15years. Despite this, there is a slight decrease in the rate of responses for practical and pedagogical knowledge development as some or strongest influence within 5 year increments. Then the percentage between negative influence and positive influence became almost even for teachers with 16 - 20 years of experiences. Finally, t eachers with experience of 26 or more years responded that getting practical and pedagogical knowledge development is the weakest or has less influence on PD participation. 96 Table 21 : Motivation for PD Participation: Practical and Pe dagogical Knowledge Development Responses Teaching experience Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence 1 - 5yrs 2.4% 3.7% 34.1% 59.8% 6 - 10yrs 5.9% 7.9% 29.2% 57.0% 11 - 15yrs 12.8% 15.2% 22.7% 49.3% 16 - 20yrs 23.8% 25.0% 15.0% 36.2% 21 - 25yrs 36.3% 33.7% 8.1% 21.9% 26 - 30yrs 46.8% 38.3% 3.7% 11.1% 31 - 35yrs 54.2% 39.1% 1.5% 5.1% This study found that teachers with less experience have higher motivation to challenge themselves with the new practical and pedagogical knowledge by trying many different things. However, as teachers have more experiences, they either tend to settle for appropriate pedagogy for themselves, or they have different resources for their practical and pedagogical knowledge develo pment other than PD participation. motivation to participate in PD in order to acquir e teaching resources. As Table 22 presents, a some or the strongest influence on PD participation. It almost has the same patte rn for up to 25 97 years of teaching experience and then it became almost even between the rate of positive influence and negative influence for teachers with 26 - 30 years of teaching experience. Table 22 : Motivation for PD Participatio n: Acquiring Teaching resources Responses Teaching experience Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence 1 - 5yrs 0% 3.4% 46.5% 50.1% 6 - 10yrs 0% 5.1% 44.8% 50.0% 11 - 15yrs 0.2% 7.6% 42.8% 49.4% 16 - 20yrs 1.3% 11.0% 40.0% 47.7% 21 - 25yrs 7.0% 14.8% 35.0% 43.2% 26 - 30yrs 29.0% 15.9% 24.2% 30.9% 31 - 35yrs 68.3% 9.6% 9.5% 12.6% From this model, it can be considered that teachers with more experience tend to have their own teaching resources through teacher networks and their teaching experiences. It is worth increase s. However, unlike the first two items, the rate of positive influence (some or strongest influence) responses for practical/pedagogical knowledge development and acquiring teaching ses. 98 response for the question about language proficiency development. As Table 23 presents, fewer regular teachers responded that they participated in PD in order to have language proficiency development whereas more contract teachers responded that they participated in PD in order to have language proficiency development. Table 23 : Motivation for PD Participation: Language Proficiency Development QUALIFICATION Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence Regular teachers 31.7% 26.7% 30.0% 11.7% Contract teachers 8.1% 35.1% 40.5% 16.2% From this model, it was found that contract teachers are in more need of, or they value language proficiency has more advantages for them. It is easier to get a contract extension since proficiency has little or no external benefit except higher self - efficacy. of teaching in general. As Table 24 presents, 90.7% of teachers from urban good districts participate in PD, whereas 76.9% of teachers from urban average school districts and 75% of 99 suburban teachers r influence on PD participation. Table 24 : Motivation for PD Participation: Improvement of Teaching in General Responses Location Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence Urban ( Good school districts ) 7.0% 2.3% 62.8% 27.9% Urban ( Average school district ) 7.7% 15.4% 34.6% 42.3% Suburban 10.7% 14.3% 25.0% 50.0% Although there are slight differences between numbers of responses, the patterns of responses tells us teachers from all locations value improvement of teaching in general as a motivation for PD participation. responses for motiva tion of PD participation. On the other hand, there are 2 items that more than one background factor has an influence on. Experience and location correlatively have an effect on the responses for requirement of school or government, and qualification and lo cation have an effect on the responses for social networks. This means that either experience or location alone 100 As Table 25 presents, r esponses for teachers with 21 or more years of teaching experience from urban average school districts and teachers with 31 or more years of teaching experience from suburban schools did not have significant difference between location of the school/teaching experience and their motivation of PD participation as a requirement of school or government. Although it seems like there is a significan t difference in response of teachers regarding their teaching experience and their location for the school, teachers with less teaching experience tend to respond that requirement of school or government is stronger motivation. That would mean either teach ers with more experience have less requirement about PD participation or they care less about the requirement of school or government as their teaching experience increases. Table 25 : Motivation for PD Participation: Requirement of School or Government Locatio n Experie nce Urban ( Good school districts ) Urban ( Average school districts ) Suburban 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 6.8 14.5 28.2 50.4 1.7 17.1 68.8 12.4 3.3 15.9 56.0 24.8 6 - 10yrs 26.7 23.6 22.6 27.1 6.9 28.9 57.2 7.0 13.5 26.6 46.1 13.8 11 - 15yrs 59.7 21.8 10.2 8.3 22.0 38.1 36.9 3.0 37.8 30.8 26.2 5.3 16 - 20yrs 83.0 12.5 2.9 1.6 48.1 34.5 16.4 6.9 66.8 22.5 9.4 1.3 21 - 25yrs 93.3 5.8 0.7 0.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 85.4 11.9 2.4 0.2 26 - 30yrs 97.3 2.5 0.1 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 94.0 5.4 0.5 0.0 101 31 - 35yrs 98.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a * 1= least influence, 2=less influence, 3=some in fluence, 4=strongest influence However, taking a closer look at the teachers with 11 - 15 year of teaching experience, it was found that the response were varied based on location of the school. A greater number of teachers with 11 - 15 years of teaching experience from urban good district school tend to respond that requirement of school or government is less motivation to PD participation than teachers with 11 - 15 years of teaching experience from urban average school and suburban school. Moreover, distinctively fewer teachers with 16 - 20 years of teaching experience from urban good on PD participation when it is compared to teachers with 16 - 20 years of teaching experience from urban average schoo l districts and suburban schools. Also, qualification and location of the school have a significant effect on responses for As Table 26 presents, regular teachers and contract teachers from suburban schools responded that social network is less or the weakest motivator of PD participation. However, half of regular teachers and a majority of contract teachers from s uburban schools responded that social network is some or the strongest influence of PD participation. Larger numbers of EFL teachers in urban areas have more of a chance to t by PD participation. Also, regular teachers from suburban schools have better chances of building social networks between teachers within the same district than contract teachers, since contract teachers but are on their own. 102 Table 26 : Motivation for PD Participation: Social Networks Locatio n Qualific ation Urban ( Good school districts ) Urban ( Average school districts ) Suburban 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Regular teachers 57.8 35.0 4.6 2.5 51.9 32.9 14.5 0.8 22.2 31.0 20.6 26.3 Contrac t teachers 33.6 34.6 4.7 27.1 35.3 37.9 17.1 9.7 3.7 8.7 5.9 81.7 * 1=weakest influence, 2=less influence, 3=some influence, 4=strongest influence Also, it is worth noting that there is a difference between regular teachers and contract teachers from suburban schools. Responses from regular teachers of suburban schools are evenly distributed for each scale, but responses from contract teachers are di stinctively inclined toward social network as the strongest influence in PD participation. It can be considered that contract teachers from suburban areas have less human resources to build a network and social networks can be an important motivation for P D participation. Influential f actors for PD p articipation . because they may be directly related to the motivation of PD participation. Since these factors have the potential t understand what is b ehind the motivation. As Table 27 presents, 10 features that may have inf participants responded that length (82.47%), intensity (89.70%), both school schedule (93.82%) 103 and personal schedule (61.86%), contents (98.96%), location (76.28%), other recommendation (91.22%), and popularity (64.95%) have some or strongest influences when they make a decision to participate in PD . On the other hand, more than half of participants responded that cost/school budget (64.95%) and instructors (76 .29%) are the weakest or have less influence on PD participation. Table 27 : Influential Factors for PD Participation Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence Mean SD 1 Length (duration) 8.25% 9.28% 44.33% 38.14% 3.12 0.89 2 Intensity 5.15% 5.15% 52.58% 37.12% 3.21 0.76 3 Schedule (school calendar) 1.03% 5.15% 42.27% 51.55% 3.44 0.64 4 Schedule (personal) 15.46% 22.68% 30.93% 30.93% 2.77 1.05 5 Content (specific topic) 0% 1.04% 49.48% 49.48% 3.48 0.52 6 Location (distance) 6.19% 17.53% 25.77% 50.51% 3.20 0.94 7 Cost/school budget 22.68% 42.27% 28.87% 6.18% 2.19 0.85 8 Other recommendation, review 3.09% 6.18% 41.24% 49.48% 3.37 0.74 9 Instructors 29.90% 46.39% 19.59% 4.12% 1.98 0.81 10 Popularity 2.06% 32.99% 43.30% 21.65% 2.85 0.78 10 4 It is worth noting that participants tend to favor the contents (mean=3.48), school schedule (mean=3.44), (mean=3.37), intensity (mean=3.21), location (mean=3.20), length (mean=3.12), popularity (mean=2.85), and personal schedule (mean=2.77) as the influential factors of PD participation since it is the above the mean of the response scales. On the other hand, cost/budget of the school (mean=2.19), and instructor (mean=1.98) were less favorable factors when teachers consider their PD participation. Considering that 80 % of the means are higher than the average mean, it was found that teachers consider those fea tures as important when they decide to participate in PD. Through the chi - square test, it was found that the only response that was not rejected was 4) personal schedule (p - value= 0.0911), which means that responses were almost evenly distributed and a fa ir number of participants responded on each scale almost equally. Unlike responses for other survey questions, responses for this question are only consistent because this particular motivator is individualized for different participants. Personal schedule as a motivator of non - PD participation is more connected with individual difference, which cannot be explained with trends or tendency. There are teachers who value their professional life over their personal life or vice versa. Moreover, when teachers re sponded to this survey question and thought about their personal schedule, different levels of urgency came up in their thoughts such as casual get together with friends, family health issues, family event, leisure , and so on. The multinomial logistics reg ression model was used to find out if there is significance the ir participation. These results are discussed below. 105 As Table 28 presents, location of the schools, qualification, and their teaching experiences significantly affect responses for the influential factor of personal schedules. None of the factors have a significant effect on contract teachers from urban good school districts with 11 or more years of teaching experiences, regular teachers from urban average schools dist ricts with 21 or more years of teaching experience, contract teachers from urban average schools districts with 11 or more years of teaching experiences, regular teachers from suburban with 31 - 35 years of teaching experience, and contract teachers from sub urban with 11 or more years of teaching experiences. Table 28 : Influential Factors of PD Participation: Personal Schedules Qualification Experience Responses 1 - 5yrs 6 - 10yrs 11 - 15yrs 16 - 20yrs 21 - 25yrs 26 - 30yrs 31 - 35yrs Urban ( Good school districts ) Regular teacher Weakest influence 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.8 6.1 6.0 Less influence 0.1 0.4 1.2 3.8 11.0 27.5 53.2 Some influence 46.4 40.1 33.8 27.5 20.8 13.5 6.8 Strongest influence 52.8 58.3 63.0 65.5 63.5 52.9 34.0 Contract teacher Weakest influence 14.9 13.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Less influence 33.3 59.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Some influence 22.5 29.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Strongest influence 29.3 17.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 106 Urban ( Good school districts ) Contract teacher Less influence 33.3 59.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Some influence 22.5 29.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Strongest influence 29.3 17.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Urban ( Average school districts ) Regular teacher Weakest influence 0.7 1.4 2.4 3.7 n/a n/a n/a Less influence 0.4 1.5 5.0 15.5 n/a n/a n/a Some influence 77.4 71.7 63.7 51.1 n/a n/a n/a Strongest influence 21.5 25.5 28.9 29.7 n/a n/a n/a Contract teacher Weakest influence 8.2 5.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Less influence 65.5 85.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Some influence 20.0 6.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Strongest influence 6.3 2.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a suburban Regular teacher Weakest influence 16.4 25.1 35.1 42.9 44.0 36.9 n/a Less influence 0.8 2.3 6.2 15.0 30.2 49.9 n/a Some influence 48.1 37.7 26.9 16.8 8.8 3.8 n/a Strongest influence 34.7 34.8 31.8 25.4 17.0 9.3 n/a Contract teacher Weakest influence 55.7 41.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 107 suburban Contract teacher Less influence 37.2 55.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Some influence 23.9 1.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Strongest influence 3.2 1.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a It is worth noting that regular teachers from all locations tend to consider personal schedule as some or strongest influence as compared with contract teachers. There is a significant percentage difference between contract teachers and regular teachers wh o consider personal schedule when they choose PD participation. As it was mentioned earlier, contract teachers tend to value things that make their contract extend and career better. Also, both trongest influence of personal schedule decreases as their teaching experiences increases. As Table 29 presents, there are different patterns across location of the school and their teaching experiences when teachers responded that location of the PD was an influential factor for PD participat ion. It was found that there are no significant differences in responding of PD location as important factor for t eachers with 21 or more years of teaching experience from urban average school districts and teachers with 31 or more years of teaching experi ences from suburban schools . However, there are significant differences in responding of PD location as important factor regarding their location of the school and their teaching experience for the rest of the teachers . First of all, a majority of teachers from urban schools with 1 - 15 years of teaching experience tend to respond that the location where PD is held is some or strongest influence 108 when they consider PD participation, whereas a majority of teachers from suburban schools with 1 - 15 years of teachi ng experience think the location where PD is held is less or weakest influence when they consider PD participation. Secondly, half of the teachers with 16 - 20 years of teaching experiences think PD location is some or strongest influence and half of them th ink it is less or weakest influence for PD participation. Interestingly, none of the teachers from urban schools thinks PD location is the weakest influential factor for PD participation. It could mean one of the following: more PD opportunities and other resources are provided in urban areas than - distance location, or EFL teachers in urban districts have more duties and school work so they are not able to participate in PD held in a long distance location, or individual preference not to take PD from long distance location for many reasons. Table 29 : Influential Factors of PD Participation: PD Location Locatio n Teachin g experie nce Urban ( Good school district ) Urban ( Average school district ) Suburban 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 - 5yrs 0.0 0.2 36.6 63.1 0.0 0.0 37.0 63.0 46.4 38.2 13.1 2.3 6 - 10yrs 0.0 0.7 34.4 64.9 0.0 0.0 20.5 79.5 11.4 60.4 21.3 6.9 11 - 15yrs 0.0 1.9 32.0 66.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 89.8 1.8 62.1 22.5 13.6 16 - 20yrs 0.0 50.0 2.4 47.6 0.0 50.0 2.4 47.6 0.3 55.7 20.8 23.2 109 21 - 25yrs 0.0 13.6 24.8 61.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 45.9 17.6 36.5 26 - 30yrs 0.0 31.2 18.5 50.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 34.4 13.5 52.1 31 - 35yrs 0.0 56.5 10.9 32.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a * 1=weakest influence, 2=less influence, 3=some i nfluence, 4=strongest influence Interestingly, the responses of teachers in urban good school districts reported PD location as the strongest influence, and these responses decreased as their experience increased, except for teachers with 16 - 20 years of teaching experience. However, the responses of suburban teachers in all stages for location as the strongest influence increased as their teaching experience increases. A majority of participants with up to 15 years of teaching majority of teachers with 21 - 35 years of teaching experiences responded some or strongest influence. Table 30 : Influential Factors of PD Participation: Cost and Budget of the School Responses Teaching experience Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence 1 - 5yrs 29.3% 47.7% 22.0% 1.0% 110 6 - 10yrs 23.9% 45.1% 28.5% 2.5% 11 - 15yrs 18.5% 40.6% 35.1% 5.9% 16 - 20yrs 13.2% 33.9% 40.1% 12.8% 21 - 25yrs 8.5% 25.3% 41.0% 25.1% 26 - 30yrs 4.7% 16.4% 36.4% 42.5% 31 - 35yrs 2.2% 9.0% 27.4% 61.3% experience increases, there is more possibility for teachers to be in higher positions such as senior teachers, or chairperson of the department. Higher positions seem to make them care more about the cost and the budget of the school/ department since the y are in charge. Thus far, motivation of PD participation and influential factors of PD participation have Reasons for n on - p articipation in PD . In addition to motivation of PD and influencing factors, the reasons of non - participa tion were examined (see Table 31 ). Out of 12 reasons, a majority of participants responded that previous professional development was not effective (83.5%), PD was theoretical rather than practical (80.41%), school schedule was too busy (86.6%), no follow - up programs were provided (82.47%), not transferable to my classroom (81.44%), low quality of PD (77.32%), and lack of information about PD (69.41%). These factors have some or the strongest influence on non - participation. On the other hand, a majority of participants responded that they had too many professional development experiences (69.08%), gave them an overwhelmed feeling after PD because of too much information 111 (67.01%), low budget from the school (80.85%), school not supporting the participation (88.66%), and complicated process for submitting documents after PD (64.94%) as weakest or less influence on non - PD part icipation. Table 31 : Reasons for non - PD Participation Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence Mean SD 1 Too many professional development experiences 8.25% 60.83% 25.77% 5.15% 2.28 0.68 2 Previous professional development was not effective 6.19% 10.31% 36.08% 47.42% 3.25 0.87 3 Theoretical rather than practical 10.31% 9.28% 31.96% 48.45% 3.19 0.98 4 School schedule too busy 4.12% 9.28% 34.02% 52.58% 3.35 0.81 5 No follow - up programs (one time event) 4.12% 13.40% 26.80% 55.67% 3.34 0.86 6 Overwhelmed feeling after PD (too much information) 3.09% 63.92% 29.90% 3.09% 2.33 0.59 7 Not transferable to my classroom 6.19% 12.37% 34.02% 47.42% 3.23 0.89 8 Low budget from the school 8.25% 72.16% 15.46% 4.12% 2.15 0.62 112 9 School not supporting my participation 18.56% 70.10% 9.28% 2.06% 1.94 0.60 10 Complicated process for submitting documents after PD 15.46% 49.48% 27.84% 7.22% 2.27 0.80 11 Low quality of PD 7.22% 15.46% 49.48% 27.84% 2.98 0.85 12 Lack of information about PD 11.34% 18.56% 40.21% 29.90% 2.89 0.96 These reasons can be organized into 5 categories; personal historical reasons (had too many professional development experiences, previous professional development was not effective ), practicality ( theoretical rather than practical, not transferable to my classroom) , effectiveness of PD program ( no follow - up programs, low quality of PD, lack of information about PD), personal reason (school schedule busy, overwhelmed feeling after PD due to too much information), and school support ( low budget from the school, school not supporting the participation, complicated process for submitting doc uments after PD). When the mean of each category is compared, it was found that practicality (mean=3.21), personal reason (mean=2.84), personal historical reason (mean=2.77), and effectiveness of PD program (mean=2.73) play important roles for non - PD parti cipation since the mean of each category is above the mean of responses. However, o nly school support (mean=2.12) is below the mean of the average, which suppo rt. 113 Moreover, qualification and location are a significant factor for non - PD participation for teachers ( Table 32 ). First of all, a majority of contract teachers responded that the strongest influence of non - participation and n one of them responded it is the weakest influence. On the other hand, some of the regular teachers think it is some influence and some think it is the strongest influence. One PD because their school schedule is too busy is that contract teachers actually have more duties than regular teachers. Most of the contract teachers are homeroom teachers and in charge of other administrative work depending on school circumstance and thei r contract. Therefore, they have heavier workload that makes them busier with schoolwork and may influence whether they are able to participate in PD. Table 32 : Reasons of non - Participation of PD: Busy School Schedule QUALIFICATION Weakest influence Less influence Some influence Strongest influence Regular teachers 6.7% 6.7% 41.7% 45.0% Contract teachers 0.0% 13.5% 21.6% 64.9% This study expected to find out differences between regular teachers and contract teachers since contract teachers do more work than regular teachers. Also, school schedule is closely related to the teaching experience, so it was expected that teachers with less experience have more workload. However, teaching experience did not have a significant eff ect on the responses for busy schedule for school; that means they are randomly distributed regardless of their background factors. 114 Interview Results: Motivation for Participation and Reasons for non - Participation When teachers were interviewed, they discussed what makes them want to participate in barriers play an important role in PD participation. i nterests . it is assumed that if teachers participate in PD that they are interested in, they have higher motivation, and therefore, they may learn from the PD and it may make teachers feel those p articular PD programs are effective. However, if teachers participate in PD that they are not interested in, they may think the information is not helpful, which could affect their learning. In und. As has been reviewed by many studies, individual interest and situational interest are different levels in terms of arousal or with the subjectivity sid e of the person - (p.25, Krapp, 1999). These interests are very closely connected with types of participation. Both situational and individual interest can only exist with voluntary type of participation. However, it is difficult to categorize and distinguish between indivi dual interest and situational interest. Sometimes teachers are not aware of the difference between the two levels of interest and use the term interchangeably as they talk about their preferences and experiences. When interest and situational interest at first; 115 By looking at my teaching years, my interest changed every semester, every year, rends, various topics and contents for PD from time to time. I think it is important to give teachers a chance to choose the PD regarding their interest, their situation a nd their needs However, when she gave an example at the end, she mostly referred to situational interest rather than individual interest. in the classroom a nd then you feel that spending hours to participate in PD was useless But if your principal does not believe in cooperative learning or student centered learning, or is too short for some reason, you will never use them while you are in that school. Maybe it will be useful later in another school with other students, but after some time per iod, educational trends change, and it will be useless again. [Yoon] regarding their interest is important for effective PD. Since situations they are in make tea chers interested in a topic and move to different topics, being sensitive about what they want from PD at that time and providing what they need may be the key to an effective PD program. Since Yoon has 12 years of teaching experience, she has experienced her personal interests change depending on the school she works for and the students she teaches. S he also has witnessed the 116 changing educational trends , which allows her to know a great deal about the interest in PD participation. Also, she did have a positive attitude toward the potential use of PD information ; not only she is the only EFL teacher and did not have time for that, but also she knows educational trends change and information for potential use will be useless if she cannot use it right away. She gave an example of how her belief is reflected in her interest and is also connected to active learning. Even though I am an EFL teacher, I am not interested in every single topic of EFL PD. But there are times that I have to participate in PD because of some kind of situation. Then I will neither be interested nor motivated, so I am not learning from that particular PD. It is so obvious. Fo r example, if I participate in PD that teaches how to use phonics in classroom teaching, I will sit there and listen anyway, but I will remember nothing since I am not interested in phonics and not going to use it in my classroom anyway. proficiency. Then I would evaluate that PD as ineffective unless it is extremely beneficial or interesting for some reason. [Son] her interest is closely related to participate in PD in the future. As was describe d earlier , she has one year of teaching experien ce at a private school in the suburbs and is . S he has her educational philosophy and her own beliefs about EFL education and tries to reflect it in her 117 teaching and PD participation as well. Therefore, personal interest, which is closely conn ected with personal belief and philosophy , plays an important role in motivation to PD participation in in the interview with Kim. If I am not interested in th e topics of the PD, it is very hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the PD. I got totally lost in there and do not know what is going on. So it is not reliable to evaluate the effectiveness of PD when I am not interested in the topic. [Kim] It seems that Kim did not care if it was individual or situational interest. Kim said no matter the type of interest, it is not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of PD when the teacher does not have any interest. She has doubts about the reliability of PD being eff ective or ineffective when teachers are not interested in topic of the PD. In other words, a participant who is not interested in the particular PD may evaluate that PD as ineffective, whereas a participant who is interested in the particular PD may evalua motivation of PD participation, which is vicious circle of ineffectiveness in PD. Psychological and p hysical b arriers . Teachers have concerns about heavy workload as one of the difficulties in participating in PD effectively. Teachers stated that these psychological and physical barriers become one of the reasons of not participating in learning from PD. Insufficient time or being exhausted can be a physical barrier toward effective learning for teachers, since teach ers are even more tired and busy when the PD is added to their 118 workload. No matter the type of PD, online or offline, teachers have to spend extra work time to Psychological barriers could be a burden for class preparation and other work. When teachers treat PD as extra work, it is difficult to participate or learn from PD with passion or conditions r esult in PD being ineffective. teaching and other stuff at school, and forcing us to participate in PD means less time and more work. [Lee] I sometimes bring schoolwork, such as grading, lesson plans, etc., to the PD site and do them during the PD session. There are too many things to do at the same time so we have to do whatever is hurried or whatever is more important. Most of the time schoolwork is more important and it is m ore hurried for me than PD. [Yoon] Being a teacher is a job in which lifelong learning is required. In that sense, all teachers should keep learning and PD is where teachers can learn from experts, other teachers, and so on. However, when teachers have so many things to do already, PD is treated as additional work that teachers are pushed to do. Sometimes we enjoy our work, but sometimes we just do it because we are required to do it. PD is the same. [Kwon] mention physical or psychological burden or implies a shortage of physical time. On the other hand, Yoon explicitly mentioned shortage of 119 It should be pointed out that sometimes there are distinctive differences between physical and psychological barriers, but sometime it is blended and indistinguishable. For example, the people can be psychologically exhausted an d tired. It is difficult to separate the two conditions The PD req uirement is heavier on junior teachers, including novice teachers, than senior teachers since they have less power in school. However, junior teachers already have so much work in school other than teaching, such as administrative work, summer camp, PTA, a nd so on. That is the problem of PD being ineffective. Teachers are already exhausted with their load in school, so even if they go to PDs that are helpful and On ce I participated in PD after school on weekdays. I was already tired with lots of activities in the classroom. The PD was very interesting and activities seemed to be helpful for my classroom, but I could not remember anything after I was done. When I don it as ineffective, right? [Park] 120 teaching practice, which is the ultimate purpose of PD. Unlike Kim and Park, Son more clearly indicated psychological barriers. Sometimes PDs are held when we are really busy. For example, there was PD during summer vacation, but the week after was English camp and I was in charge of organizing it. So I was participating in that PD, which was interesting, by the way, but there was tons of work waiting for me at the school, and it was hanging over my head all the time. Moreover, I had to communicate with other teachers about the English camp over the phone so I was not able to concentrate and take valuable information from the PD. [Son] Son indicated that psychological conditions, and preoccupatio n with other school - related work , It i s worth noting that no matter the teaching qualification s , the location of the school, teaching experience, and responsibilities as a homeroom teacher or a subject teacher, psychological or physical reason s certainly become barrier s to PD participation. Six out of eight interview participants express ed their concerns of physical and psychological reasons regardless of their background. Summary and Discussion ticipation, influential factors of PD participating decisions, and reasons of non - participation were examined. First of all, it was found that a majority of participants pointed out practical information acquisition for PD participation, such as practical and pedagogical knowledge, teaching resources, and improvement of teaching 121 in general for PD participation are some or strongest motivation for PD participation. However, a majority of participants did not select external motivations (such as promotion and salary raise), and trends/educational movement (effort to stay current in EFL field, information about a particular reform/educational policy/test) as influential factors for PD participation. Moreover, participants responded that social network, and lang uage proficiency development were not strong motivations for PD participation. This does not mean that the above factors are less valuable to teachers, it is just simply that these are not the features teachers seek to gain through PD. Secondly, it was fou nd that participants tend to consider format (contents, intensity, time availability (personal and school schedule) as influential factors of PD participation. On the other hand, cost/budget of the school, and PD instructor were less influential factors when teachers consider their PD participation. Third, it was found that a majority of participants responded that the following have some or strongest influence on non - participation: previous professional development was not effective, the PD was theoretical rather than practical, school schedule was too busy, no follow - up programs, it was not transferable to my classroom, PD was low quality, and lack of informati on about PD . These reasons can be categorized as the following: personal historical reasons ( too many professional development experiences, previous professional development was not effective ), practicality ( theoretical rather than practical, not transfera ble to my classroom) , effectiveness of the PD program ( no follow - up programs, low quality of PD, lack of information about PD), personal reason (school schedule busy, overwhelmed feeling after PD due to too much information), and school support ( low budget from the school, school not supporting the 122 participation, complicated process for submitting documents after PD). It is worth noting that by comparing the mean of each category, it was found that practicality, personal reasons, personal historical reasons , and effectiveness of PD program play important roles for non - PD participation. However, o nly school support is below the mean of the average. That can be school support. Moreover, the multinomial logistics regression allows us to find several patterns that teaching experiences, location of the school, and teacher qualification have a significant effect on tors, and reasons of non - participation. First of all, as participants experience, they t end to search for current EFL trends and want to stay current in the EFL field by participating in PD. As participants promotion is a strong influence on PD participation. Also, as teaching experiences increase, decreased. Sec ondly, qualification also has a significant effect on language development as a motivation for PD participation. Contract teachers have higher motivation for language proficiency development since it gives them more benefits than for regular teachers. Loca tion of the school has a significant effect on improvement of teaching in general. Responses from teachers for motivation in regards to requirement of school or government tend to decrease as their teaching experience increases, except teachers with 21 or more years of teaching experience 123 from urban average school districts and teachers with 31 or more years of teaching experience from suburban schools. Third, location and qualification have a significant effect on social network. The rate of teachers from urban schools responding that social networks are weakest or have less influence on PD participation is much lower than teachers from suburban schools overall. Suburban teachers may have less opportunities of having strong network due to less EFL teachers within school district and distances between schools than teachers from urban district . Therefore, it is obvious they may look for social network from PD since it gives an opportunity for teachers get together from all areas. Then, there is a difference b etween regular teachers and contract teachers from suburban schools. Responses from regular teachers of suburban schools are evenly distributed for each scale, but responses from contract teachers distinctively inclined toward social network as the stronge st influence in PD participation . Contract teachers are not belong in the school or any types of associations, so contract teachers are relatively have less sense of belonging, so they may look for one from PD. Also, location of the schools, qualificatio n, and teaching experiences significantly affect responses for the influential factor of personal schedules. Regular teachers from all locations tend to consider personal schedule as some or strongest influence as compared with contract teachers. Both cont personal schedule decreases as their teaching experiences increases. PD location is also a significant influential factor when participants decide to participate in PD. Teacher s from urban areas tend to think location of PD is a stronger influence than teachers from suburban areas. Also, teachers with more experience tend to think location of PD has less influence for their PD participation. 124 Moreover, as teaching experience inc reases, participants tend to care more about cost and school budget for PD. It can be interpreted either as one of following; 1) there are more possibilities for teachers with more experience to be in a higher positions, or important positions, such as who is in charge of all the documentation of school budgets, or 2) teachers are willing to pay their own money for PD when they have less experience, but they are not as they gain more experience. on busy school schedule for non - teachers because contract teachers have more duties in school. Since motivation, influential factors, and reasons of non - participa tion are the important the school is important in this study beca use Korea has a unique circumstance for centralization of good school districts for elementary schools. Unlike other countries, all of the good elementary school districts are located in the southern part of Seoul, and their curriculum, passion for educati on, especially pa ssion for English education, has been widely and generally known to be much greater than any other school districts. According to the Seoul Newspaper (Song, Lee, & You, 2015), children for English immersion preschool take test every week f or reading and writing. English immersion preschool in southern part of the Seoul costs from $1500.00~$1800.00 per month and they even get English private tutor before they go to elementary school. 125 psychological/physical barriers play important roles in motivation of PD participation and reasons of non - PD participation. Teachers explained that if they are not interested in topics of PD, this seems to be connected with the effectiveness of PD, resulting in non - PD participation. Moreover, teachers explained how psychological/ physical situations hinder teachers to participate in PD. Due to the heavy workload and being exhaust ed from busy schedules, n either teachers are able to participat e in PD nor do they learn from PD effectively. Social capital theory has informed us that the social network of teachers has a critical effect on teacher learning and PD participation . M oreover, it further explains how teachers bring their social capital into their PD experience . Teachers also acquire new and additional social capital through PD as they construct social networking which becomes one of the highest motivation s for PD partic ipation. parti cipation were examined, it is important to investigate whether they use the information and knowledge that they learn from PD. Therefore, the next chapter will be about the application of PD knowledge. This includes whether they use the information and knowledge including activities they learn from PD, and how the experience of implementation goes. Additionally findings from teacher surveys and interviews will ex plain reasons of poor implementation or non - trial of implementation. 126 Chapter 6: Usage, modification, and non - usage of Knowledge from Professional Development motivations to participate in PD were investigated. Through surveys and interviews, how teachers think about the effectiveness of PD in general, regarding its content, approach es, and different schedules as well as what their motivations of PD participation are looked at and explained. Now we know what makes effective PD and what makes teachers want to participate or not participate in PD. If thoughts and motivation about PD oc cur before teachers participate in PD during the Pre - PD stage, applying what they learn from PD to their teaching practice is something that occurs after PD participation during the post - PD stage. According to the intentions of those who offer the PD, teac instruction, etc. should be affected by the information they acquired from PD if they participate in effective PD properly. However, they have their choice to use, modify, or discard the knowledge that they learn from PD. Therefore, this study aims to find out how many teacher participants say they try to use the information from PD. We will also look at how it went, and from PD. Unlike the first two research questions, this section only has a few survey questions listed for participants, which asked if they have ever tried to use the information they obtained from PD, and if so, how the activities, lesson, and class went . If they answered either it went perfectly or well, they were not further prompted. However, those who answered that they have never tried to use the information obtained from PD and those who answered the activities, lesson, and class using information o btained from PD went not well or poorly were directed to list the reasons for not trying the information or having an unsuccessful experience. 127 Therefore, I first report the survey results that show how many participants have tried to use the knowledge and information obtained from PD with the list of reasons for not using of successful and unsuccessful activities, lessons, and class in depth. Survey Results: Usage of PD Information First of all, the results of the survey question asking if participants have tried to use the information including ideas of activities, instruction, resources, etc. learned from PD will be displayed and explained. Then, as was in the previous chapter, if there are significant factors regarding background information such as qualification, experience, or location of the school they will be looked at and explained. As Table 33 presents, 53% of participants have tried to use the information acquired from PD and 47% have not tried to use the information acquired from PD. Table 33 : Implementation of PD Information Have you tried to implement the knowledge, research result, pedagogy, or activities that you learned about or acquired in your classroom? YES NO Mean SD 53% 47% 1.47 0.50 Through the chi - square test ( p - value=0.968), this result was not rejected with 5% significant level, which means that responses were almost evenly distributed and a fair number of participants responded on each scale almost equally. Therefore, half of the participants have tried to use information acquired from PD and half of them have not tried. 128 And for those who have tried to implement information acquired from PD, a majority of participants responded that the activity, lesson, and class went well (78.43%) or perfectly (5.88%) whereas only a few participants responded it went not well or poorly. Considering the mean (mean=2.86) of this question, the interpretation can be made that most of the participants said they had a positive experience with an implementation of information acquired from PD. Table 34 : Self - re flect of Implementation of PD Information If you have tried to implement the knowledge, research result, pedagogy, or activities that you learned about or acquired in your classroom, how did it go? Poorly Not Good Good Perfectly Mean SD 3.92% 11.76% 78.43% 5.88% 2.86 0.56 Those who have not tried to use the information from PD (n=46) and who reported that the activities, lesson, and class went not well or poorly (n=8) were asked to mark all the possible reasons for the implementation not working well. Since participants were allowed to make multiple selections, the number reported does not reflect the percentage of the total number. The just did not kn Acquired information that did rmation that The reasons selected by less than half of the participants - to - date or current (n=4) 129 on (about research, pedagogy, or activities) that was too broad and were not Through the multinomial logistics regression model, it was found that none of the background factors have significance on these questions. Whether they have tried to use t he information from PD or not was only attributed to individual differences. Out of 8 interviewees, only 3 teachers have tried to implement information from PD. It is not f easible to conclude whether they had positive, successful experiences or not since 1) implementation of information from PD has too many variables, 2) teachers have various experiences with different types of activities, lessons, and class with the informa tion, and 3) their definition of being successful is rather relative. Also, survey responses are inherently self - report. Follow up classroom observations are needed in order to know for sure . However, this study provides a good picture of what hinders thei r implementation of PD and what helps them to implement the PD information. Teachers interviews will be analyzed excerpt by excerpt with the interpretation of how they said their implementation experience went without evaluating if their whole experience o f implementation was successful or not. three categories; usage, modification, and non - usage. However, this study did not use these categories because it is ambiguou s to distinguish between what has been used and what has been modified with the level of detail reported in the interviews. Additionally the focus of this study is 130 dis tinction between usage and modification is mostly due to the variability of teaching (level of students, school environment, styles of teachers and so on) and usage always requires some level of modification. This study did not focus on whether teachers us e, modify, and discard information from PD; rather this resear explores the reasons of usage and non - usage of information. Therefore, data presented in this study will be categorized by the priority of teachers when they consider implementation of PD information; ready to use, practicality, and possibility of modification. Not distinguishing the categories of usage and non - us age, allows for data presented in this chapter to identify clearly which types of information can be used in the classroom and which cannot be used through teachers perceptions of it. Ready to u se . It is clear that one of the important features of informa tion obtained from PD is whether the information is ready to use or not. The most frequently selected reason of not Teachers in interviews on the reasons of not using information from PD mentioned repeatedly their lack of time and overwhelming work situation, these concerns also arose in interviews on motivation. Kwon and Lee sh ared their experience of using ready to use worksheets from PD and how it is feasible for preparation, without a lot of effort and time. I have used some of the activity sheets that I got from a PD session. It was not only easy and convenient, but also it was really interesting for my students. These kinds of resources from PD are really helpful and make us to want to use them in the class. 131 Because teaches are overwhelmed with what they have to do already, so if there are any materials out there that are r ight for the students, we are going to use it. [Kwon] actually have enough time to prepare for the classes, so we tend to discard the activities that require a lot of preparation time even if it is a really good activity. [Lee] The experience of Kim and Kwon tells us that teachers prefer materials and resources that are ready to use since not only do they have not enough time to prepare for the material, but also it i s not effective to put a lot of efforts and time for the short activities when there are resources available that students are interested in. It is worth noting that Kwon spend s more time on a dministrative work and teaches fewer classes, so she must have a lot of things to take care of and did not have much time on class preparation. Therefore, it makes sense that she prefers the materials that are ready to use right away wi thout extra preparation time . Kwon added more on the effectiveness of ready to use m aterials. Sometimes it works better than an activity sheet that I created myself. Whenever that happens, I always realize that being original in terms of creating class material is not always the best choice I can make in order to motivate students and ha ve better outcomes. Instead of that, I can have time for myself [ Kwon] In comparison between original material s of her own and ready to use material, she explained that ready to use material actually works better since it is created by educational experts through multiple trials and revisions. remark about self - efficacy revealed that she has difficulties in classroom management a nd she prefers materials that are ready to use in her class since students in her class are motiv ated by the materials that are already designed to use. 132 In contrast, Kim shared her experience with PD materials that take too long time to prepare. Once, there was an activity I learned from PD that was suitable for my classes. That seems interesting and I thought my students would love it. But preparation for the activity was just not possible. I had to cut colored paper for an hour for 15 minutes of activity, I neither had a time for it nor was I going to do it. If I am teaching five classes, that means I have to cut colored papers for five hours. It is just not realistic. [Kim] y have little time and have so many tasks, preparation for materials and activities whether it is from PD or original is a burden for them. As was described earlier, Kim has a heavier workload since she is a homeroom teacher who works in a school in a good urban district. Also, in her previous quote about the physical or psychological barriers, she expressed how much work junior teachers have besides the teaching. Therefore, Kim tend s to dis card the materials that require long preparation time due to constr ains of physical and psychological reasons. Lee mentioned ideal ready to use materials for teachers. Sometimes we have different textbooks every year (especially if you are a fixed - term teacher and move around the school each academic year), and it took so much time to get adjusted with the new textbook and curriculum. So sometimes it feels like we are te aching materials we are not familiar with. So we spend most of preparation on textbook material and cannot think of additional activities which students love by the way. So if there is PD providing multiple additional activities, for each chapter, for diff erent 133 textbook and teachers can choose among the activities to teach, it will save us a lot of curriculum is already so muc h work and demands much time for teachers. So even though teachers are willing to prepare for the additional activities for students, it is not possible. s background, she already spent so much time adjusting to the new environmental chang es as she came back to work after eight years of lay - off. That can explain to us why she prefer s materials that are ready to use. As we can see from teachers interviews, implementation of PD can occur more easily when ready to use materials, or at least easy to prepare materials, are provided for teachers. information obtained from PD. Practicality . Teachers pointed out one of the characteristics of effective P D as came up from teachers in interview. When teachers pick practicality as a reason of usage or non - usage of information obtained from PD, it becomes clea r that there are different levels of practicality. The first level is between theory and practice. For example, teachers think that practice is not always a reflection of theory, so theory is sometimes not very useful and practical for teaching practice. T eachers think PD that only focuses on theory does not consider variability of practice. The second level is ideal and reality. For example, instruction and activities that work in an ideal environment sometimes might not work in a real classroom. The last level is 134 between different cultures. For example, characteristics of students, objective s of class, and Theory and practice . at there is a premise that practice and theory are both important, and only good practice can be built upon good theory. However, sometimes they feel PD only focuses on theory and does not consider variability of practice. Kwon shared her experience that E FL teachers have different positions and authority for the class so the method they are using for classroom management is different from As much as theory is important, we see a lot of cases tha t practice is another world from us. So what we are dealing with now are more practical issues, and not the theoretical issues. For example, if we, EFL teachers are dealing with classroom management, it is ment skill, since subject teachers focus on theoretical backgrounds and pedagogy for classroom management skills; we need skills that work right away and move onto the lesso n for the day. Theory is only good for teachers to understand why a certain situation is happening but not really resolve the problem that we are having. [Kwon] Kwon says theory can explain why a certain thing happens and possibly provide theoretical so lutions, but it does not work right away since theory does not consider the variability of real classroom situations. As Kwon teaches fewer class es as a subject teacher and has difficulties of classroom management, she mostly focuses on what really works i n the class. As the most 135 experienced teacher who has the highest position of all the interview participants, she must have enough theoretical backgrounds, which does not work right away in real classroom. Also, Jeong mentioned that no matter how theory is valuable, there is a no chance to use them in her teaching practice. Most of the PDs are repetitions of what I already know and have heard hundreds of times: theory and research that I am well aware of already, but never have a chance to use in my teaching practice. I agree that practice can be stronger on the foundation of theory, but if we never use them what a waste of time. [Jeong] Jeong also pointed out theory gets wearisome because it is too much repetition and a pointless of waste of time if it never gets to be used in the classroom. As Jeong not only has the longest length of education background, but also took the teaching placement tests twice, she must have studied educational theories more than enough time. This can explain that Jeong feels that there is a gap between theory and practice regardless of the impor tance of theory . Cha also mentioned theory being old and over - generalizing. I am ok with the PD refreshing my memories about a certain theory. However, some of the theories are r are changing constantly. Also, theory always has a weakness of being an over - generalization, so I have my doubts when I think about the theory. Because when you become more experienced, it is your previous experience that you most rely on not the theory. [Cha] Cha pointed out that since the educational environments are changing rapidly, theory that is not up to date does not support practice these days. Also, because of the weakness of t heory being 136 over - generalized, it is not applicable for every situation teachers face. It is worth noting that Cha is in a school where students have high levels of En gl ish proficiency since most of the students graduated from English immersion preschool an d some of the students have lived in English speaking countries. This can explain that C ha feels most of the educational theory came from several decades ago, which does not apply in the modern classrooms that consist of newer types of students. theory is useful for their teaching practice. They tend to think theory does not resolve the problem they are having, it is old, repetitive, and over - generalizing. It became clear that theoretical information they obtained from PD tended to be discarded when teachers thought about implementation. Therefore, information obtained from PD being theoretical or practical is the key to whether teachers use it or not in their teachi ng practice. Ideality and reality. Many teachers mentioned a second level, the gap between ideal and - class of from 15 to 90 students with one teacher can never be adequately replicated by a teaching machine, a co mputer, interactive video, or Teachers suggested that there are so many variables in cl assrooms that activities and lessons presented in PDs are sometimes too idealistic for real life classroom situations. Kwon, Son, Yoon, Lee, and Jeong mentioned school environmental differences such as size of the class, location of the classroom, and limited school re sources. For example, Kwon shared, 137 Sometimes there are lessons only good for small groups. However, we have a lot of they are not going to work from our previous experie activities targeting large groups like we have in classes in Korea. [Kwon] Kwon claimed activities provided in PD were designed to work with small groups, which is not realistic in classrooms in Korea since the classroom size of Korean EFL class is usually large. So from her previous experience of PD information not working due to class size differences, she no longer attempts to implement activities that would only work for small groups. Son and Yoon talked about the classroom se ttings and difficulties and impossibilities they experienced, while they implemented the activity obtained from PD. Once, there was an interesting activity that I learned from PD using overhead projector. Using overhead projector, vocabularies appeared in ceiling, sidewall, and the floor in the classroom and students were supposed to jump and run to touch to connect the vocabularies with their meanings. I knew my students would love this activity, but in order to have this activity in the classroom, all the desks and chairs should be removed, chairs and desks in the hall way and still remaining desks and chairs were in the classroom. So we have line them up along the sid ewalls, but it was not really fun as much as it would be if all the desks and chairs would have been removed. [Son] There is a dance activity with English songs that I want to use from PD. Students are supposed to jump around and express the alphabet with their bodies, and it might be possible for some classrooms that are far from other classrooms. But for some schools, 138 It will bother other classes. [Yoon] Son and Yoo n mentioned the constraint of the school environment, more specifically classroom settings in their school. It was classroom settings that hindered the implementation of activity obtained from PD even though Son tried anyway, but Yoon did not. It is inter esting that both of the activities that were difficult to implement were physical activities that require movements. In discussion of physical environment constraints, Lee and Jeong talked about their experience of lack of resources and school support. Also there are PD instructors who do not know the real classroom situation. They may have been in a preschool lab where they have observed and experimented some kind of activities with a lot of resources, but most of the school teachers who are participat ing in with a different level of students. [Lee] Once I participated in a PD introducing how to use smart boards with an EFL class. Everything was interesting and I thought we could make a good use of it. However, teachers submitted official documents to get a smart board for the EFL class, and it was rejected because of budget reasons. [Jeong] Lee stated there is a difference in support of resources between school la b (including private schools) and public schools. She indicated these are the difficulties of implementing information provided from PD. Jeong discussed her experience of requesting a resource for the class, which she was introduced from PD, and it was dec lined because of her school budget. Moreover, Cha and Jeong mentioned expectation and unexpected outcome. 139 are going to be interested in these activities because motivation is the key for learning. interested in certain contexts, it is not al moods, weather, school schedule and everything. So sometimes activities from PD may seem to work and be interesting but does not work and is really boring in reality. [Cha] Cha talked about activities from PD sometimes does not get students attention as expected. It can be explained with variability of teaching. Everything Cha mentioned and more things that construct a class can be a variable and it can either work along or work against the lesson. Therefore, More specifically is high , if students are participate. Jeong also claimed the uncertainty of activities from PD as well. Sometimes, students do not learn what they are supposed to le arn from certain activities. For instance, PD introduced a card game to teach vocabulary, which was proven to work great in school with kids who are motivated and eager to learn English for some reason. However, students in some schools, such as mine, may only focus on pictures in the cards and do not care about the vocabulary. All they want to do is get more cards. In that case, I 140 Jeong shared her experience of implemen tation of activities from PD and how it did not achieve the original objectives of the activity. The reason of could be level of the students, types of class students had before, the way activity was presented, and so on. Anything can be a variable of the class that day. What Cha and Jeong shared were outcomes that are never anticipated until it is experimented. Therefore, it is not actually a reason of non - usage but it is more a reason why implementation of information from PD did not work well. As it environment, resources, or unexpected outcomes due to variability) are one of the factors for PD information is not used, or used but failed. Participants have experienc ed these gaps between reality and ideality. Cultural gap. There are teachers who mentioned cultural differences between activities/class in Western countries and activities/class in Korea. Cultural differences also appear as environmental differences in the classroom, which is one of the considerations about the activities and lessons for the teachers. One activity or lesson that works perfectly in one culture or ethnic group may not work in another culture or ethnic group. Lee mentioned cultural There are act ivities that will only work for students who are actively participating in class and expressing their opinions. That will only work for students who speak their opinions. If we use those kinds of activities in our classroom, no one is going to speak out an d there will be silence for an hour. Korean students are usually shy and trained to be quiet until teacher picks them to speak out even though they know the answer. Also, they are afraid of being incorrect. So until they are picked by teachers to answer, t hey almost never 141 choose the group leader, presenter, etc. The object of doing this was to teach them how to negotiate and share the roles in the group through interaction. I t took forever, and no one never even started the main activities. So from then on, I randomly pick the group leader, presenter; that is against the purpose of cooperat ive group work, but class should go on. [Lee] Lee shared her experience of failure of impl ementation of cooperative work that might work in a culture where students share their opinion freely and not being afraid of speaking out. Therefore it was a common reaction of Korean students being afraid of volunteering because students in Korea are educated not to stick out and being ordinary is considered as a virtue. On the other hand, Park mentioned PD presenters from different cultures. PD organizer and minis try of education loves to hire professionals who are foreigners since it will make their PD program look good, high quality, professional and attractive. Unless they teach class in Korea, they do not know what will work or not. They have to learn that what works for one culture and country does not apply to another culture and country. [Park] Park criticizes the PD presenter from a different culture who do es not know actual conditions of EFL classes in Korea. If the presenter seems not to know about the actual conditions of EFL 142 possible to expect teachers to us e information obtained from PD. Son also realized the cultural differences while she was trying to make a good use of information obtained from PD. and cooperation with education, I realiz does not understand these specific cultural situations can often misguide and do not know how to modify for the appropriate situation. [Son] As Son shared, there is a cultural differences not only in different cultures and countries, but also within same ethnic groups. As a matter fact, cultural differences exist within the same ethnic groups due to the differences in generation, location, and economic status. Therefore, if the PD instructor does not understand these features and provides information that is not related with the circumstance teachers are in, there is no possibility that teachers are even going to try to use the information obtained from PD. between cultures hinder the implementation of information obtained from PD. Teachers who have experienced PDs with these gaps begin to have lower expectations about PD and there is less usage of information from PD. It is worth noting that issues of differences between reality and the ideal were brought up the most from the practicalities category. Considerin g six teachers shared their experiences with reality constraints from their practice, it can be assumed that PD 143 information deals with the ideal situation and targets the ideal situation in the classroom. Park esenters bragging about their successful implementation stories because there are too many variables and success is not always guaranteed in real classroom because we have different students, resources, and so on. Therefore, we learn more from the failure Possibilities of modification . When teachers talk about usage of information obtained from PD, modification was an important issue. As many teachers (n=31) responded in the survey the reason they do no t try to use information, or used it but failed, was, resolve the concerns teachers have. Jeong mentioned the differences in proficiency level between classes and students. Within same grade, each class has different proficiency level. So when I use information PD that is too easy, higher proficiency level students gets bored whereas intermediate and beginner students get bored if I use advanced activities. So it is always my concern how to satisfy both of them without providing totally different activity, which causes too much work for me. [Jeong] Activitie s that are too rigid to one level of proficiency are difficult for teachers to implement in different activities. Providing activities that can be easily modified fo r different proficiency levels would benefit teachers. Son also claimed that teachers spend much time on planning activities. 144 It is the creating activities that we spend most of our time for the preparation. Since we are teaching different grade each yea r, it feels like activities from last year are useless for this year. However, we came up with the idea that with the same topic and same activity, we can change the level such as changing vocabularies and contents. It will save us much time and since we k now which types of activities work in previous year, it will lower the risk of failing. [Son] Son pointed out the benefits of modification of activities such as saving time and the lower risk of failing. Kwon supported the benefits of modification of acti vities by valuing the possibility of modification for information obtained from PD. When I learn new ideas and activities from PD, the first thing I can ask myself or to the I are very few activity from PD we can directly use because we have different environment, different level of students, and different resources. [Kwon] As it was br ought up with the issue of the gap between the ideal and reality earlier in this chapter, variability of teaching requires some kind of modification depending on the situation of school. Kwon is well aware of this and a possibility of modification is one o f the aspects that interview on the possibility of modification for PD information, Kim shared her experience on modification from her own teaching experience. 145 I feel s orry to the class that I try new activities from PD for the first time because something always goes wrong for the first time. Then it gets better second time because I change little bit that cause flaw in the previous class. But if it does not go well for the second or third class, usually I think of that activity as not working properly so I discard it. [Kim] As was mentioned in her interview, Kim modifies and adjusts activities as she implements class after class. It was not the immediate modification from information obtained from PD, but she found the way to work with the information acquired from PD and make a good use of it. However, if the modification does not work, information from PD is di scarded. Lee shared an insightful opinion regarding modification. The most interesting PD experience so far was PD demonstrating how to modify immediate use but it provi des the general rules and instruction of how to modify any types of worksheet. Therefore, it works well for long - term use, and I became confident since I can modify and transform activities for my students in different proficiency level, and grade. [Lee] and capacity. However, Lee has experienced PD providing fundamental and practical information for teachers in any stage. interview, the possibility of modification is one of the important features influencing whether teachers use or do not use the information from PD. 146 Summary and Discussion In sum, half of the participants have tried to use the information from PD and mo st of them responded that the activity/lesson/class went well. However, those who have not tried or have tried but the class did not go well have selected the reasons of non - usage or failure of implementation as 1) I just did not know how to implement in m y classroom (n= 34), 2) Acquired information that did not seem to be relevant or interesting for my students (n=31), 3) Acquired information that was not developmentally appropriate for the students in my class (n=31), 4) Acquired information that was aime work in my classroom(n=29), 5) My school does not have enough resources for me to implement the new ideas in my class (n=27), 6) Acquired information that was not consistent with my class objectives (n=19), 7) PD about certain topics was effective but it happened a long time ago (n= 8), and 8) Acquired information that was not up - to - date or current (n=4). Survey results tell us that teachers who have tried to use information have positive experiences with i mplementation. However, the reasons of non - usage, which were selected by more than half of participants, were related and supported by the interview data. These reasons included: 1) Not knowing about implementation is related with readiness to use, 2) info rmation being irrelevant or uninteresting for my students and 5) not enough resources is related with the relationship between the ideal and reality, and practicality , 3 ) information being developmentally inappropriate for the students, and 4) information aimed for very specific students are related Moreover, interview data tells us that teachers value information that is ready to use, practical, and possible to modify. Also, p racticality has three levels: theory and practice, the ideal 147 and reality, and cultural gaps. Teachers have shared their experience with these aspects, which promote or hinder usage of information. Since implementation of PD information is one of the impor tant outcomes of PD, the reasons of usage/non - usage of information obtained from PD provided insights for requirements of implementation. Understanding these features will help us to think about the nature of successful implementation and how information p rovided in PD should be. The next chapter will be about the conclusion of this study. The research findings, the limitations and the implications of the study, and the future study directions will be presented. 148 Chapter 7: Conclusion In this chapter, the research findings will be presented, the limitations and the implications of this study will be addressed, and the future study directions will be suggested. Through the surveys of 97 elementary EFL teachers in Korea and the interviews of 8 participants wh o have completed the survey, four major findings contribute to the previous research. First of all, it was found that Korean EFL teachers consider the social nature of PD as an important aspect, and social interaction plays an important role in PD partic ipation. Secondly, - usage of PD information differ, depending on various variables such as the contents of the PD, approaches to PD, different types of PD, and part qualifications. The location of the schools also plays an important role on their perspectives about PD. Third, since the ultimate goal of PD is improvement of teaching practice, it is important to note that information and ideas of PD are more likely to be implemented if the resources provided are for immediate use with directions for modification provided. Finally, there are so many competing variables for teachers to balance when the PD participation is in consideratio n. Therefore, teachers consider all these competing demands and try to balance them in order to get the best outcomes of PD. These broad themes will be discussed more fully below. Social Nature of PD Previous research such as Giavrimis, Giossi, and Papast amatis (2011) found that the majority of teachers were motivated to participate in the PD program to communicate with, become acquainted with, and develop closer relationships with other colleagues. C urrent study tells us that especially teachers from subu rban schools have stronger motivation to participate in PD for social network th an teachers from urban schools. Due to the existence of more number of 149 EFL teachers within school, district, and other closer location, teachers in urban district seems to have better social network building than suburban school district. Therefore, social network is not as stronger motivation for urban teachers as suburban teachers strive for more information and resources. It was not investigated in this study whether sub urban teachers seek for social network with teachers who are sharing similar demographical characteristics such as teacher co lleagues within the same school and district or with teachers who do not share many of same chara cteristics, have a more or less equal social standing in capital theory ( Grootaert et al, 2004 ). Because depending on the types of social network they are see king, their needs for social network become clearer whether they need to have resources and information sharing from teachers in other area or they need counsel and mentors from more experienced teachers. her suburban school has a smaller number of EFL teachers in school to share information and resources. As was found in the survey of this study, teachers prefer PD where they can work with other EFL teachers (PD providing discussion forums with other EFL t eachers, PD in the form of formal mentoring with EFL teachers) rather than EFL experts. As previous research supported (e.g. Hollins et al., 2004; Hord, 1997; Killion, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, Loucks - Horsleyet al., 2003), teachers value sharing their concerns, teaching ideas, lesson plans, engaging in discussions to solve problems, supporting each other in individual learning, evaluating one another, and giving feedback with others. However, despite the benefits of having a social network, teachers from suburban schools are having difficult times to establish social networks compared to teachers from urban schools where many EFL teachers work within schools and distances between schools are closer due to 150 the limitation of suburban schools (e.g. distance between s chools are greater, number of EFL teachers within school are less). Also, this study adds a new aspect of social interaction in self - efficacy and self - confidence. As was found in the interviews, self - efficacy and self confidence of participants in this s tudy seems to be a relative sense of superiority or inferiority of their performance in comparison with other teachers. Suburban teachers relatively feel they are doing worse than teachers from urban schools where resources and curriculums are well provide d and shared by other teachers and vise versa. This is also supported by the survey results of this study that teachers from suburban schools have significantly lower self - efficacy and self - confidence, especially for PD during vacation, whereas teachers f rom urban schools have a higher self - efficacy and self - confidence when it is compared to PD during weekdays and PD through online. Interpretation for this phenomenon - relationship between self - efficacy and PD schedule - might be that PD during vacation sol ely provides the opportunities for suburban and urban teachers to meet together which allows urban teachers to have higher self - efficacy and suburban teachers to have lower self - efficacy. Relatively, there was not much polarization regarding the school l ocation for PD during weekends and online PD. In addition to that, this study found that social interaction plays an important role when influential factors of PD participation. This study found that teachers care about popularity of the program, PD are influenced by other teachers who are in their close network (Bourdie u,1985; Loury,1977; Coleman,1988; Baker, 1990) 151 since review play an important role as influential factors in PD participation. Finally, it was found that teachers pref erred having on - site PD in their school and receive additional benefit of having their colleague EFL teachers as a team, which was proved to improve curriculums and overall performance of the school. Previous research emphasized the importance of improving human resource continuously, and many researchers insisted that teachers working together in professional development as a community has a stronger impact on improvement of teaching practice. (e.g. Crow, 2009; Danaher, Price, & Kluth, 2009;Drago - Severson & Pinto, 2006; Engstrom & Danielson, 2006; Fullan, 2000; Lauer & Matthews, 2007; Lowden, 2006; Nelson & Slavit, 2008; Richardson, 2003; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009; Tienken & Stonaker, 2007). Also Killion (1999) supported this professional deve lopment as a team idea, by looking at the 27 successful staff development programs and found that teachers become a powerful team when they participate in a professional development program along with peer teachers from their school because this allows the m to work together to deal with issues related to content and instructional processes. Moreover, many researchers also have shown that collaborative professional development has a greater effect on school change, providing a coherent educational environmen t for students and a way for teachers to support each other in improving their teaching practices (Hord, 1997; Joyce & Calhoun, 1996; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Newman & Wehlage, 1997; Perez et al., 2007). One Size Does Not Fi t All Even though s ome researchers such as Giavrimis et. al.(2011) and Mestry et al. (2009) found specific motivation to 152 participate in PD, it can simply be categorized motivation as internal or external. It was not surprising to see teachers have various yet different thoughts and needs for PD depending on their geographic, demographic, and in dividual characteristics such as teaching experience, qualification, and location of the school in this study. As Knowles (1980) explains in adult order for lea rning to occur. Teachers who participated in in this study have different needs - which motivates teachers ready to learn. Therefore, this study assures that PD des igned for one particular group might not work for another group. And their reaction to existing PD might be different depending on their situation. For example, teachers with more teaching experience tended to think EFL PD in Korea is not effective. This may or may not be about the quality of PD offered in Korea since there are some positive responses for the effectiveness of PD from teachers with less teaching experience. It may only mean that PD offered in Korea does not have influence on teachers with more teaching experience. Questions may be raised if teachers with more teaching experience had been offered a different kind of PD, then they might have valued it. However, this study also investigated the effectiveness of different kinds of PD, and a s ignificant difference regarding respond that online PD helped them to gain theoretical knowledge. The above two results seem to be contradictory, however, previous questions only asked their overall thoughts about general experience of PD and later questions asked more detailed information about the effectiveness of PD r egarding different types of PD so participants can compare these aspects according to types 153 of PD. Moreover, multinomial logistics regression only provides the relative value and limited information for the selected responses since a relatively fewer numbe r of teachers with more teaching experience participated in this study. For example, teachers with 1 - 15 years of teaching experience include 82% of the participants whereas teachers with 16 - 35 only include 17% of the participants. Therefore, further invest igation could be useful in order to find out more detailed information about different needs regarding teaching experience with larger samples. Moreover, the negative responses about the effectiveness of PD in Korea may have influence on the respo nses of teachers with more teaching experience who tend to think PD is only for novice teachers. Possible suppositions for teachers with more experience are that teachers may tend to think that PD is only for novice teachers. In addition, that may think 1) teachers with more experience feel there is nothing new to learn since PDs are repetitive, 2) they have learned enough PD experience, 3) their teaching practice is fossilized due to long teaching not done well enough to help them to learn, or 5) PD programs are mostly targeted for novice experience increases. This is somewhat similar to the findings from Torff and Session (2008) irst 10 years of teaching, but no significant effect thereafter. As teaching experience increased, participants of this study may have experienced that there were no effects or changes on their teaching practice. Even though teachers with more experience tend to think PD is only for novice teachers and PD is not effective for them, teachers with more teaching experiences are still required to 154 participate in PD. Considering the fact that teachers with more teaching experience think they already have enough PD experience, this study found that they tend to participate in PD for the external and lighter motivations such as promotion and as an effort to stay current in EFL field, however pedagogical and practical resources development is not as important for th eir motivation to PD participation as teachers with less teaching experience. Given the fact that teachers with more teaching experience only qualify for a promotion, it was self - explanatory that teachers with more experience have stronger motivation for p romotion than teachers with less experience. the motivation, which is originated from a unique educational environment in Korea. Location of school and qualification o may not be found in other contexts. Teachers from different locations have different needs, thoughts, and motivation for PD participation. Due to the environmental uniqueness, invisible dividing lines between school districts exist. Unlike other countries, there is one mega urban city in Korea among other smaller urban cities. E verything such as education, business, government wo rk, and medical facilities are located around the mega city Seoul. This creates the uniqueness in educational circumstance in Korea, and differences in terms of placement test scores, teacher student ratio, and the se differences exist not only between suburban and urban schools, but also among schools within urban cities. School districts in urban cities can be divided as officially admit this difference in order to prevent the further students concentration phenomenon, it has been avowedly exited as a unique environment. Therefore, there are visual 155 differences depending on the location of the school, which is originated f rom invisible diving lines. For example, teachers from suburban schools feel that current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are not sufficient whereas teachers from urban schools feel the opposite. It may be due to the PD opportun ities provided. Most of the PD opportunities are conveniently provided for the teachers in urban school. Therefore, teachers in suburban schools have difficult times of participating in PD. In addition to the PD opportunities, teachers from urban schools p ointed out PD location as an important factor for PD participation whereas teachers from suburban schools did not. It may be also related with the PD opportunities since a long - distance location. On the other hand, PD location does not seem to be an factor for teachers from suburban schools in PD participation due to lack of PD opportunities in close location for teachers in suburban. Also, regular teachers and contract teachers have different perspectives about PD as was reported in this study due to the unique phenomenon of an increase in contract teachers in Korea. It was found that contract teachers have higher motivation for language proficiency development than reg ular teachers. Also, a majority of contract teachers think the form of lecture PD is helpful whereas regular teachers tend to think PD in the form of a lecture is not helpful. Contract teachers are up for anything that might improve their qualification and CV to establish a good reputation in order to be re - contracted. Therefore, this may explain why contract teachers tend to have positive perspectives toward most of the types of PD. On the other hand, contract teachers responded that PD during vacation wou ld not eventually have an effect on student achievement, whereas regular teachers think PD during vacation will eventually have an effect on student 156 teachers, espe cially contract teachers, search for immediate use of information from PD since contract teachers tend to move to other schools after their contract, which is 1 year for the maximum. So moving to another school changes teaching circumstances such as level of when they change schools. From these results, it can be co that are seeking PD more focused on certain contents such ideas about pedagogy, researches and theories, and resources or seeking PD in different kinds of forms such as mentoring, lecture, discu ssion forum and so on perspectives, the location of the school has an effect on the opportunities of PD, and qualification of teachers has an effect on the preferred contents and types of PD. Pra cticality of PD Information Interestingly, practical has multiple meanings in this study. Practicality was a big issue in both explicitly and implicitly mentioned through characteristic of high quality PD. Also, a majority of participants pointed out practical information acquisition as an important motivation for PD participation, such as for acquisition of practical and pedagogical knowledge, acquisition of teaching resources, and improvement of however, it was found that teachers in this study tended to treat informati on or resources for immediate use as practical when teachers talked about the effectiveness of PD, PD quality, and implementation of PD whereas participants think potential use as not practical. 157 Therefore, ideas from PD are more likely to be implemented i f the resources are for immediate use with directions for modification provided. The survey data from this study found that the main reasons of not using PD information were mostly related with the implementation process, not because of the quality of PD i nformation. Teachers both who have tried to implement PD information or have not tried to implement the information expressed concerned that they did not know how to implement PD information in their classroom, provided information was not developmentally appropriate for their students, provided information aimed for very specific students and did not seem to work for their classroom, and their school does not have enough resources for implementation. It is worth noting that teachers benefit from PD that is provided with the possibilities of modification for effective implem entation. Also, this study revealed that teachers valued resources from PD that are for immediate use. Seeking information for immediate use derived from the work environment in Korea. As was also found in the interviews, considering the lack of preparatio n time for the classes and rapidly changing EFL educational trends, resources for immediate use seems to be more useful than resources for potential use. Competing Balance Demands Previous research has concentrated on the intensity, duration, and contents of the PD as important features of effective PD. However, this study found it is much more complex for teachers to consider PD as effective. The PD presenter, PD organization, types of PD participation, PD formats, location of PD and schedules are the c ritical factors and all these 158 that teachers preferred onsite PD and abroad PD experience. Only by looking at the location of the PD, it seems like two totall y different types of PD were selected which also means that teachers did not select on site PD based on their convenience. In this case, where PD is offered is not solely an issue with this data because it is also related with the formats and contents rega rding both on - site and abroad PD experience. However, onsite PD offers a new perspective of how it can benefit teachers to be in a circumstance where they are familiar and have easy cal PD participation that psychological comfort and give them authority of being active in learning by using resources that they are familiar with. In addition to the abo schedules and found that teachers mostly prefer PD provided after school during weekdays for less than an hour, or during vacation for less than a week, whereas PD provided during weekend s for 6 - 8 hours or online PD for over an hour were least preferred. Their responses reflect that teachers not only consider convenience, but also consider the efficiency. If the convenience was the only considerable factor, teachers would not have chosen a longer period of PD, which more likely would be held in long distance location such as during vacation. Also, online PD is potentially the most convenient PD for teachers but least preferred. It can be assumed that the teachers think about so many variabl es competitively and try to find optimal balance among duration, immediate use of information, investment of hours, feasibility, efficiency, and want to avoid being overwhelmed when they consider PD preference. As was resulted in their responses, PD during weekdays most positively affected teachers on practical knowledge about EFL teaching, greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy, 159 student achievement, and applicability to their teaching practice in comparison to PD during vacation and online PD. O nline PD and the PD during the weekend were the least preferred by the participants of this study; as was mentioned earlier, none of the participants of this study has experience for PD during weekend. It turned out that the participants of this study do n ot prefer PD during weekend. It can be assumed that the reason teachers do not prefer PD during the weekend may not be related to its effectiveness or weakness of the PD program itself, because ore related with balancing factors such as personal or school schedules, capabilities, location of PD, or physiological needs of break from work. Moreover, participants were very skeptical about the effectiveness of online PD as was found that teachers were not benefitted from online PD bu t it only makes them to be mainly for convenience reason such as, in order to just fulfill the requirements hour of PD, doing it while they are on a different task, too k shorter times, they can do it anywhere and etc. Therefore, teachers admit the limitations and weakness of online PD, but some teachers still selection of PD partici pation since teachers construct new understandings using what they already know according to constructivism theory. Moreover, motivation to PD participation was also found to create challenge for teachers to balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivat ions . As was reviewed in literature, the re were two types of motivation that are internal (intrinsic) or external (extrinsic) motivation . It was found that the majority of teachers participated in PD with various motivation both internal and external ( Bradley, 1991; Craft, 2000; Sybouts & Wendel, 1994) and mostly for internal motivation (Giavrimis, Giossi, and Papastamatis, 2011; Mestry, Hendricks, and Bisschoff, 2009 ). 160 It seems like studies focus on the types of motivation usually otivation simply fall into the one of the categories either internal or external. And most of the time internal motivation is treated as higher and better motivation that result higher outcomes and being professional whereas external motivation is treated as lower level of motivation . According to the self - determination theory, it cannot overlooked that the qualities of their experiential and behavioral components are different in terms of willingness, creativeness, and demonstration of conceptual or intui tive understanding ( Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). However, it should be noting that teachers are struggle to balance both internal and external motivation and they are kind of cohered while they consider motivation to participation. For example, it was discovered that teachers who chose external motivation such as promotion, salary, requirement of the school, and etc. as a strong influence also chose internal motivation such as improvement i n teaching, language development, and etc. It shows that motivation is not the matter of valuing one type of motivation over the other type, but teachers mostly have both types of motivation and try to balance meeting both of them. As was looked at the fac tors that have an effect on PD participation, this study found that there are many factors when teachers consider PD participation. Therefore, it is actually the matter of balancing competing demands for teachers to combine and PD participation is much mor e complicated process for teachers depending on their conditions and values. Previous literature investigated the effectiveness of PD for improvement of teachers in general that was too broad. For example, this literature describe d how ar knowledge and understanding about subjects or certain topics have changed after the PD ( Cherubini et al., 2002; Ermeling, 2010; Frey & Fisher, 2009; Kennedy, 1998; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Morais et al., 2005; Seymour & Osana, 2003), how PD has resulted in instructional 161 Garet et al., 2001; Hughes, 2005 ; Loucks - Horsley et al., 1998 ) , an d how PD has influence on toward students learning (Benton & Richardson, 1993; Day & Sachs, 2004; Lessing & De Witt, 2007). However, this literature did not investigate what specific knowledge and understandings were changed, what types of changes occur in teachers teachers use of practi ce increased, and so on. However, this study found that the effectiveness of PD has many aspects depending on the types of PD, more specific knowledge, and additional aspect s when teacher s make decision s about the effectiveness of PD. B y providing the resu lt in improvement or acquisition of specific knowledge or information for each type of PD, it allow s us to know , which types of PD are more effective on certain types of knowledge a cquisition and teaching improvement . Moreover, many - development program improved their confidence and helped them to become more effective and efficient (Elmore, 2002; Farrel, Kerry, & Kerry, 1995; Pennell & Firestone, 1996; Guskey, 2000; Oldroyd, Elsner, & Poster, 1996) , but did not discover that there is more complicated process involve d in self - efficacy and self - esteem. This study added that social interaction plays an important role in self - efficacy and self - esteem and how it decreases or increase s self - efficacy and self - esteem. Then this study added more inf ormation to existing literature about the important features of PD. No single feature of PD is considered as the most important, but also teachers struggle to maintain their many competing demands while they participate in PD . Moreover, not only is content an important aspect as was found in the literature, but also formats of information delivery and types of partic ipation are important. 162 Therefore, this study provide s additional findings rather than confirmation or disconfirmation of the existing literature for the effectiveness of PD, motivation s , and PD information use by adding new aspects of PD. Limitations of the Study about the effectiveness of PD, motivation, and PD information use, the main concern with this stud - report. As it has been pointed out, teacher self - reports can be subject to bias, and there are possibilities that teachers are reporting socially desirable responses (Schwartz 1999; Schwartz and Oyserman 2001 ). In relation to that, the data from this study does not follow up with the observation in PD site and classroom. Longitudinal studies may allow researchers to observe and evaluate how teachers use, modify or non - use information from PD more in depth. M oreover, observation may provide the objective evaluation whether teachers use, modify, and discard the information from PD, but it is still difficult to investigate how teachers use, modify, and discard the information from PD since every classroom is uni que and the process of implementation decision will be based on many variables in the classroom. So without extensive investigation of the decision making process of teachers, providing meaningful analysis and clear pictures for implementation of PD inform ation are not guaranteed. Second, this study deals with types of PD that were diverse in terms of schedule, duration, approaches, contents, formats, and other accommodations. That allows us to have a nd motivation about PD in general, yet it did not provide detailed information about specific types of PD. Studies focused more 163 specifically on the types of PD would provide more accurate and detailed information about teachers thoughts and motivation. A third important limitation is that teachers have participated in a series of PD through their long career, so it was not feasible to recall all their PD experience and which information was useful or they have implemented. Therefore, providing equivalent PD evaluation forms ahead of the time and collecting these after PD would resolve this limitation. Finally, this study only focused on teachers like many studies of PD, which leaves out the effect on student achievement. It was based on the assumption tha t improvement of teaching will improvement of teaching and student achievement as was stated earlier. Future Study Despite the fact that this study has limita tions, the results of this study have several implications for future research. A useful next step would be to study what kinds of help teachers need to use information from PD more effectively after PD participation. Since most of the reasons of non - usag e of PD information were related to the modification, future studies could investigate what specific needs teachers seek for the PD information implementation. Another useful direction would be to investigate if there are other factors that influence teach would be the roles of the teachers (whether they are homeroom teacher or subject teachers), the positions of the teachers (head teacher of the English or grade), education background s (studying abroad, having TESOL certificate, and so on). 164 In addition, as many teachers addressed in this study, teachers look for immediate use of information from PD rather than future use. It is clear that teachers look for instant use of PD informat ion and one of the urgent motivations to participate in PD is to obtain worksheets and 2008). However, more detailed and long - termed investigation on change knowledge development through PD, we need to investigate the PD participation from a perspective of teacher development. Finally, efforts to investigate th e effect of PD on students should be made. Even though there were efforts to connect the impact of PD on student achievement, connection between due to effective many variables. However, whether students have positive or negative reaction to the changes in teaching practice due to PD experience can tells us whether it is effective or not. 165 APPENDICES 166 Appendix A : Background information This survey is part of a Michigan State University research study on 100 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in Korea. As part of this study, we are surveying teachers about their experiences with professional development. We want you to know t hat: 1. We are asking you these questions to better understand how teachers perceive professional development (PD), their motivations for participating in PD, and how they use information acquired through PD. 2. Your name, the name of your school, the name of your district, and your responses to the questions in this survey will be kept strictly confidential among members of the research team at Michigan State. 3. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer; however, we hope that you will answer as many q uestions as you can. Please put your full name on this line: ___________________________________________________________ If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Yeoreum Lee or Dr. Jeff Bale, study director, at (517)353 - 0750 or jbale@ms u.edu. 1 . Gender: 2. Age: 20 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50 51 - 55 56 - 60 60 - 65 3. E ducation: Undergraduate Ph. D Male Female 167 4. Teaching Experience: 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 5. Teaching grade: 6. School location ________________________________ 7. List all the EFL professional development programs you participated Elementary Middle High 168 8. Teacher qualification Full time teacher type A (Graduate college of education and pass teacher qualifying exam) Short - term teacher type A Graduate college with completion of course for teacher training and pass teacher qualifying exam) Full time teacher type B (Graduate college with completion of course for teacher tr aining and work in private school) Short - term teacher type B (Graduate college and receive TESOL certificate) 169 Appendix B: Survey A - 1. Please indicate the extent to which you believe that each of the following kinds of PD is helpful on a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being very helpful. Not helpful at all Very helpful PD introducing new research findings or theories about EFL 1 2 3 4 PD introducing new ideas about pedagogy 1 2 3 4 PD introducing new teaching resources such as software programs, books, etc. 1 2 3 4 PD providing discussion forums with other EFL teachers 1 2 3 4 PD in the form of formal mentoring 1 2 3 4 PD in the form of lecture sessions from EFL experts 1 2 3 4 PD providing discussion forums with EFL experts 1 2 3 4 PD providing hands - on activities 1 2 3 4 PD providing English language practice experience 1 2 3 4 A - 2. What types of PD do you prefer? Please rank up to 2 of the following that you prefer: ___PD provided after school for 1 hour or less ___PD provided after school for more than 1 hour ___PD provided over the weekend for half day or less (3 - 4 hours) ___PD pro vided over the weekend for 1 full day (6 - 8 hours) ___PD provided during summer/ winter vacation for 1 week or less ___PD provided during summer/ winter vacation for more than 1 week 170 ___PD provided online for 1 hour or less ___PD provided online for more th an 1 hour A - 3. Which of the following do you prefer? (Mark only one) ___ PD provided for a shorter period with higher intensity (eg., for 2 full days) ___ PD provided for a longer period with lower intensity (eg., 1 - 2 hours for 10 days or more) A - 4. Plea se indicate your agreement on a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being strongly agree. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Professional development programs should be only for novice teachers. 1 2 3 4 All EFL teachers should make an effort to stay current in the EFL field by participating in PD. 1 2 3 4 EFL PD is important for effective teaching. 1 2 3 4 Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are sufficient. 1 2 3 4 Current professional development programs for EFL teachers in Korea are effective. 1 2 3 4 A - 5. If you have participated in PD provided after school on weekdays , please indicate your agreement on a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being strongly agree. If you have not participated PD provided after school on weekdays , then please go to A - 6. PD provided after school on weekdays .. 171 Strongly disagree Strongly agree has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 1 2 3 4 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 1 2 3 4 is applicable to my teaching practice. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 A - 6. If you have participated in PD provided over the weekend , indicate your agreement on a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being strongly agree. If you have not participated PD provided over the weekend , then go to A - 7. PD provided over the weekend .. Strongly disagree Strongly agree has h elped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 1 2 3 4 172 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 1 2 3 4 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 1 2 3 4 is applicable to my teaching practice. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 A - 7. If you have participated in PD provided during summer/ winter vacation , indicate your agreement on a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being strongly agree. If you have not participated PD provided during summer/ winter vacation, then go to A - 8. PD provided during summer/ winter vacation . Strongly disagree Strongly agree has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 1 2 3 4 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 1 2 3 4 is applicable to my teaching practice. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 173 A - 8. If you have participated in PD provided online , please indicate your agreement on a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being strongly agree. If you have not participated PD provided online, then go to A - 9. PD provided PD provided online . Strongly disagree Strongly agree has helped me to gain theoretical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain practical knowledge about EFL teaching. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to gain knowledge about EFL learners. 1 2 3 4 has helped me to have greater self - confidence and higher self - efficacy. 1 2 3 4 will eventually have an affect on student achievement. 1 2 3 4 is applicable to my teaching practice. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information but does not make me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 provided too much information and makes me overwhelmed. 1 2 3 4 A - 9. What is one (1) word or phrase that describes the most effective professional development program? A - 10. What is one (1) word or phrase that describes the least effective professional development program? B - 1. On a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being the strongest influence, please rate the following factors as to their likelihood of motivating you to participate in a professional development programs. 174 Weakest influence Strongest influence As an effort to stay current in EFL field 1 2 3 4 Requirement of school or government 1 2 3 4 Promotion 1 2 3 4 Salary raise 1 2 3 4 Language proficiency development 1 2 3 4 Practical and pedagogical knowledge development 1 2 3 4 B - 2. On a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being the strongest influence, please rate the following factors as to their likelihood of motivating you to participate in a professional development program. Weakest influence Strongest influence Social network 1 2 3 4 Getting information about a particular reform/ educational policy/ test 1 2 3 4 Acquiring teaching resources 1 2 3 4 Improvement of teaching in general 1 2 3 4 Others (please specify) _______________________________ 1 2 3 4 B - 3. On a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being the strongest influence, please rate the following factors as to whether you consider them in deciding whether to participate in a professional development program Weakest influence Strongest influence Length (duration) 1 2 3 4 Intensity 1 2 3 4 Schedule (school calendar) 1 2 3 4 Schedule (personal) 1 2 3 4 175 Content (specific topic) 1 2 3 4 Location (distance) 1 2 3 4 B - 4.On a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being the strongest influence, please rate the following factors as to whether you consider them in deciding whether to participate in a professional development program. Weakest influence Strongest influence Cost/ school budget 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Instructors 1 2 3 4 Popularity 1 2 3 4 Others (please specify)________________________________ 1 2 3 4 B - 5. On a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being the strongest influence, please rate the following factors as to whether you consider them in deciding whether to participate in a professional development program. Weakest influence Strongest influence Too many professional development experiences 1 2 3 4 Previous professional development was not effective 1 2 3 4 Theoretical rather than practical 1 2 3 4 School schedule too busy 1 2 3 4 No follow - up programs (one time event) 1 2 3 4 176 Overwhelmed feeling after PD (too much information) 1 2 3 4 Not transferable to my classroom 1 2 3 4 B - 6. On a scale of 1 - 4 with 4 being the strongest influence, please rate the following factors as to whether you consider them in deciding whether to participate in a professional development program. Weakest influence Strongest influence Low budget from the school 1 2 3 4 School not supporting my participation 1 2 3 4 Complicated process for submitting documents after PD 1 2 3 4 Low quality of PD 1 2 3 4 Lack of information about PD 1 2 3 4 Other(please specify) ________________ 1 2 3 4 C. Try to recall your most recent EFL PD experiences. Think about the most helpful recent PD experience, and answer the following questions. C - 1. Have you tried to implement the knowledge, research result, pedagogy, or activities that you learned about or acquired in your classroom? Yes _________ (if yes, please go to C - 2) No _________ (if no, please go to C - 3) C - 2. If yes, how did it go? Poor perfect 1 2 3 4 C - 3. If no, why not? (Please check all that apply) ___ Acquired information( about research, pedagogy, or acti seem to work in my classroom. 177 my classroom. ___ Acquired information that was not up - to - date or current. ___ My school d oes not have enough resources for me to implement the new ideas in my class. ___ PD about certain topics was effective but it happened a long time ago. ___ Acquired information that was not consistent with my class objectives. ___ Acquired information that was not developmentally appropriate for the students in my class. ___ Acquired information that did not seem to be relevant or interesting for my students. ___ I just did not know how to implement in my classroom 178 App endix C: Interview Question 1. Do you believe that EFL professional development programs are helpful or useful for teachers overall? 1 .1 (If you think they are useful,) in what ways are PD programs useful or helpful to your teaching? 1.2. (If you do not t hink they are useful,) why do you think so? What would make professional development more useful and helpful ? 2. In what ways have the EFL PD programs influenced your teaching in terms of understandings about 2.1 EFL teaching, 2.2 teaching philosophy, 2.3 understanding about EFL students (attitudes about learning English, motivations of students and etc.)? If No, Why? 3. Try to recall your EFL PD exper ience across the past 3 years. 3.1 Describe your best professional development experience. 3.2 Des cribe your worst professional development experience. 3.3 What are the qualities that determine best PD and worst PD experience? 179 3.4 What is the most useful information or activities you learned from the PD? and the least useful information or activities that you remember from the PD? And why? 4. In what ways has the PD you participated in help you improve your teaching? 4.1 Give me specific examples of how can professional development program helped you to overcome a weak ness and develop your strength? 4. 2 In what ways has the PD programs you participated in help you to increase your self - efficacy and confidence? 5. Have you tried to implement any knowledge, activities, resources, and pedagogies that you learned from professional development? 5.1 Can you t ell me about lesson plan/activities you've designed recently that used something you learned in a PD program? 5.2 What did you learn from using an activity that you learned in a PD program? 5.3 Were there any difficulties in trying to implement ideas from the PD program? 5.5 For better implementation of the professional development , what can be improved? 6. Have you ever modified added /deleted/changed somet hing acquired information from a PD program? Could you give me some examples? 180 useful? (if yes) How? 181 REFERENCES 182 REFERENCES Adelson, J. L., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Measuring mathematical attitudes of elementary students: T he effects of a 4 - point or 5 - point likert - type scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 70, 796 807. Adey, P., with Hewitt, G., Hewitt, J. and Landau, N. (2004) Th e p rofessional pevelopment of t eachers: Practice and Theory . Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ahn, H. (2013). English policy in South Korea: A role in attaining global competitiveness or a vehicle of social mobility? Journal of English as an International Language , 8 (1),1 - 20. Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. The High School Journal , 35 - 53. Anderson, J. (2008). Teachers' motivation to attend voluntary professional development in K - 10 mathematics: 31st Annual Conferen ce of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA31) . Brisbane, Australia: MERGA. Axinn, W . G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. Press . Baker , W.(1990). Market networks and corporate behavior . American Journal of Sociology, 96 , 589 625 . Baker - of an intervention to prevent conduct problems in Jamaican pre - schools. Child Care Health and Development , 35(5), 632 - 642. Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What do we think we know and what do we need to learn? Phi Delta Kappan , 77(7), 500 - 508. Banilower, E. R. (2002). Results of the 2001 2002 study of the impact of the local systemic change initiative on student achievement in science . Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Benton , G. J. , & Richardson , G. D. ( 1993). A professional development school's impact on student teachers ' attitudes. Washington, D.C : Eric Clearing House. Bobrowsky, W., Marx, R. W., & Fishman, B. (2001). The empirical base for professional development in science education: Moving beyond volunteers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri . 183 Bonometti, R. J., & Tang , J. (2006) . A dynamic techniq ue for conducting online survey based research . Competitiveness Review , 16 (2), 9 7 105 . Bourdieu, P . ( 1985 ). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (E d.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education ( pp. 241 258 ) . New York: Greenwood Press. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher , 33 (8), 3 - 15. Bradly, H. (1991). Staff development . London: Falmer Press. Bredeson, P. (2003). Designs for learning: A new architecture for professional development in schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long - duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self - efficacy, and technology integra tion beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39 (1), 22 - 43. Busch, M. (1993). Using Likert scales in L2 research. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 733 - 736. Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness . New York: McGraw - Hill. Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L. & Cary, D.A. (1988). Teachers pedagogical . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 19(4) , 345 - 357. Chapelle, C., & Duff, P. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative resea rch in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37 , 157 - 178. Charmaz, K . (1983) . The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. I n R. M. Emerson (E d .) , Contemporary field Research: A Collection of Readings (pp. 109 - 128). Bo ston: Little, Brown and Company. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist m ethods. In N. K. Denzin , & Y.S. Lincoln ( 2 nd ed .), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.509 - 535). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Cherubini, G.,Zambelli, F.,& Boscolo, P. (2002). Student motivation: A n experience of in - service education as a context for professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (3), (2002), 273 288. Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California . CPRE Policy Briefs (RB 23,1 - 16). Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001 ). Learning policy: When state education reform works . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 184 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology , S95 - S 120. Corner, M. (2000). How adults learn. Retrieved from http://www. learnativity.com /adultlearning.html Craft, A. (2000). Continuing professional development. London: Routledge Falmer. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crow, G. M. (2009). The development of school leaders' professional identities: Challenges and implications for interprofessional practice. In J. Forbes, & C. Watson (Eds.), Research into professional identities: Theorizing social and institutional identities (pp. 41 - 52). Aberdeen, Scotland :University of Aberdeen, School of Education. Danaher, S., Price, J., & Kluth, P. (2009). Come to the fair. Educational Leadership, 66(5). 70 - 72. Darling - Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports stud ent learning. Educational Leadership , 55 (5), 6 - 11. Darling - Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 8(1), 1 44. Darling - Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass. Darling - Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the learning profession: A sta tus report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuin g professional development. In C. Day, & J. Sachs (Eds). International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3 32). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002). Does - year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24(2), 81 112. Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self - determination perspective. The Educational Psychologist , 26, 325 - 346 . de Charms, R. ( 1968 ). Personal c ausation. New York: Academic Press. Dewey, J.(1916). Democracy and education . New York: The Free Press. Dillman, A.D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 185 Drago - Severson, E., & Pinto, K. (2006). School leadership for reducing teacher isolation: Drawing from the well of human resources. The International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice , 9(2), 129 - 155. Easton, L. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan , 89 (10), 755 - 759. Edutopia Staff. (2008). Why is teacher development important?: Because students deserve the best . Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/teacher - development - introduction. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice . New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in community school district #2, New York City . New York: National Commission Research in Education. Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Cook, J.L., & Travers,J.F. (2000). Educational ps ychol - ogy: Effective teaching, effective learning (3 rd ed.). McGraw Hill: Boston. Engstrom, M., & Danielson, L. (2006). Teachers' perceptions of an on - site staff development model. Clearing House , 79(4), 170 - 173. Ermeling, B.A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education , 26 (3), 377 388. Farrel, M., Kerry, T., & Kerry, C. (1995). The blackwell handbook of e ducation . Oxford: Blackwell. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best. S., & Tal, R. T. (2003) . Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19 , 643 658. Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2009). Using common formative assessments as a source of professional development in an u rban American elementary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (5), 674 680. Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large - scale reform. Journal of Educational Change , 1(1), 5 28. Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Dev elopment, 28(3), 35 - 36. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction . 186 White Plains, NY, England: Longman Publishing. Garland R (1991). The mid - point of a rating scale: I s it desirable? Marketing Bulletin , 2, 66 - 70. Gallitano, G.M., & Jackson, K. (2011) . The c ontent and f ormat of a p rofessional d evelopment p rogram and i ts a ttitudinal e ffect on t eachers of m athematics . International journal of education and information technologies . 3(5), 336 - 343. Gallucci, C. (2008). District wide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education , 114(4), 541 - 581. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoo n, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915 945. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American P olitical Science R eview , 98 (02), 341 - 354. Giavrimis, P., Giossi, S., & Papastamatis, A. (2011). Teachers' attitudes towards training in ICT: A critical approach. Quality Assurance in Education , 19(3), 283 - 296. ves on the effectiveness of a locally planned professional development program for implementing new curriculum. Teacher Development: An International Journal of T eac hers' Professional D evelopment , 16(1), 1 - 23. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Pr. Gore , J. M ., & Gitlin, A. D. (2004). Visionin g the academic teacher divide: P ower and knowledge in the educational community. Teachers and T eaching , 1 0 (1), 35 - 58. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed - method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy A nalysis , 11 (3), 255 - 274. Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Nyhan Jones, V., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring social capital : An integrated questionnai re. Washington DC : The World Bank. education research reports. Teaching and Teacher Education , 23 (6), 809 - 825. Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. University of Florida: IFAS Extension. Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 187 Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development , 17(4), 34 - 38. Guskey , T. R., & Yoon , K. S. ( 2009 ). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan , 90(7), 495 - 500. Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education , 32 (4), 455 - 465. Higgins, J., & Parsons, R. (2009). A successful professional development model in mathematics: A system - wide New Zealand case. Journal of Teacher E ducation , 60 (3), 231 - 242. Hollins, E.R., McIntyre, L.R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K.S., & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self - sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 17(2), 247 - 264. Holt - Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history - based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal , 29(2), 325 - 49 Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they important? Issues about Change , 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/ change/issues/issues61.htm l. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology - integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 13 (2), 277 - 302. Hull, G. (1997). Research with words: Qualitative inquiry. Focus on Basics , 1 (1), 13 - 16. Huse, E. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1977). Behavior in organizations . Massachusetts: Addison Wesley. Johri, P. K. (2005). Foundations of Education . New Delhi: Armol Publications. Jones, M., & Eick, C. (2007). Providing bottom - up support to mid dle school science - based kits. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 18, 913 934. Joram , E. (2007). esearch in education . Tea ching and Teacher Education , 23, 123 135 Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). School renewal: An inquiry, not a prescription. In E. Calhoun & B. Joyce (Eds.), Learning experiences in school renewal: An exploration of five successful programs (pp. 175 - 190). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. 188 Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psycholo - gist , 27(1), 65 - 90. Kang, N., & Hong, M. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workfo rce and equity in learnin g opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher , 37(4), 200 - 207. Kast, E.F., & Rogenzweig, E. J. (1979). Organization and management : A systems and Contingency Approach. Auckland: McGraw - Hill. Kennedy, M.M. (1998). Form and substance in in - service teacher education . Madison : National Institute for Science Education. Killion, J. (1999). What works in the middle: Results - based staff development . Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Killion, J. (2002a). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development . Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Killion, J. (2002b). What works in the elementary school: Results - based staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Kim, Y. (2008). The Effects of Integrated Language Based Instruction in Elementary ESL Learning. The Modern Language Journal , 92 (3), 431 - 451. Knapp, M.S. (2003). Professional development as policy pathway. Review of Research in Education , 27(1), 109 - 157. Knowles, M., (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy . New York: The Adult Education Company. Korman, M. (1974). National conference on levels and patterns of professional training in psychology: Major themes. American P sychologist , 29, 301 - 313. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational - psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 14 (1), 23 - 40 . Kubitsky, B., & Fishman, B. (2007). A design for using long - term face - to - fa ce workshops to support systemic reform. Retrieved from http://hi - ce.org/presentations/documents/Kubitskey_Fishman_AERA07.pdf Lauer, D., & Matthews, M. (2007). Teachers steer their own learning. Journal of Professional Development , 28(2), 36 - 41. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizat ional and vocational psychology. Journal of vocational behavior , 55 (2), 161 - 187. Lessing, A., & De Witt, M., (2007). The value of continuous professional development: South African Journal of E ducation , 27 (1), 53 67. 189 collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning, Teaching and Teacher Education , 26 (3), 389 398. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalist inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage . Loucks - Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998 ). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Loucks - Horsely, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Loucks Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School science and mathematics , 99 (5), 258 - 271. Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Marks, H. M. (1996). School wide professional development. In F. Newmann (Ed.). Associates, Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality (pp.170 203). San Francisco: Jossey - Bass . Walla ce and Annette M. LaMond ( Eds .). Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. Lexington , MA and Toronto: Lexington Books. Lowden, C. (2006). Reality check. Journal of Staff Development , 27(1), 61 - 64. M arshall . G. (1998). Analytic induction. A Dictionary of S ociology . Retrieved from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88 - analyticinduction.html Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research , 79(1), 327 - 365. McLaughlin, M., & Oberman, I. (1996). Teacher learning: New policies, new practices . New York: Teachers College Press. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis . Jossey - Bass Inc Pub. Mestry, R., Hendricks, I., & Bisschoff, T. (2009). Perceptions of teachers on the benefits of teacher development programmes in one province of South Africa. South African Journal of Education. 29(4), 475 - 490. Mikami, A., Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C. & Lun. J. (2011). Effects of a teacher professional development intervention on peer relationships in secondary classrooms. School Psychology Review . 40, 367 - 385. 190 Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). companion . Thousand Oaks . Mokhtari, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Edwards, P. A. (2007). Making instructional decisions based on data: What, how, and why. Reading Teacher , 61(4), 354 - 359. Morais, A.M., Neves, I.F, & competence : A sociological study in the primary school, Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (4), 415 437. Muijs, D., Day, C., Harris, A., & Lindsay, G. (2004). Evaluating CPD: An over view. In C . Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 291 310). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Nasser, F. M. (2001). Selecting an appropriate research design. Research P athways: Writing Professional P apers, theses, and dissertations in workforce education , 91 - 106. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards .(1989). Toward high and rig - orous standards for the teaching profession. Washington , DC: Author. Nelson, T. H., & Slavit, D. (2008). Supported teacher collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly , 35(1), 99 116. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1997). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: Document Service, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Staab, P. T. (2008). Teachers reflections of professional change during a literacy - reform initiative. Teaching & Teacher Education , 24(5), 128 8 - 1303. Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2009 ). Doubling student performance: And finding the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance , 28(1), 51 74. Oldroyd, D., Elsner, D., & Poster, C. (1996). Educational management today: A concise dictionary and guide . London: P Chapman. l research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research , 62(3), 307 - 333. Pennell, J. R., & Firestone,W. A. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record , 98, 46 - 76. Perkins, G. H. (2004). Will libraries' web - based survey methods replace existing non - electronic survey methods?. Information technology and libraries , 23 (3), 123. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent . Grossman Pubs.. 191 Pianta, R.C., Mashburn, A.J., Downer, J.T., Hamre, B.K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web - mediated professional development resources on teacher - child interacti ons in pre - kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 23, 431 - 451. Perez, M., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Parrish, T., Esra, P., Socias, M., & Gubbins, P. (2007). Successful California schools in the context of educational adequacy . Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Reese, S. (2010). Bring effective professional development to educator. Online education and distance learning. 6(3). 39 - 43. Reid, J. (1990). The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly , 24, 323 - 338. Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan , 84 (5), 401 - 406. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57, 749 761. Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N. , & Gallimore, R.(2009) Increasing achievement by focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: a prospective, quasi - experimental study of Title 1 schools. American Educational Research Journal , 46 (4), 1006 - 1033. mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal for Research in Teacher Education . 4, 55 - 79. Schmoker, M. (2002). The real causes of higher achievement. SEDL Letter , 14(2), 3 7. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self - reports: how the questions shape the answers. American P sychologist , 54 (2), 93. Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation , 22 (2), 127 - 160. Seymour, J.R., & Osana, H.P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two teach Teaching and Teacher Education , 19 (3), 325 - 344. Shulman, L., & Sparks, D. (1992). Merging content knowledge and pedagogy: An interview with Lee Shulman. Journal of Staff Development, 13(1), 14 - 16. Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education towards a critical approach . USA: Routledge. Song, S., Lee, D., & You, D.(2015). Private education report . Seoul Newspaper. 192 Retrieved from http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20150112003001 S trauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Sage Publications, Inc . Stake, R. E.(2000). Case studies. Handbook of qualitative research , 435 - 454. Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Suh, J. S. (1996). A study of the design of an in service teacher training program in P rimary English education. Elementary English Education , Vol.2. Supovitz, J.A., Mayer, D.P., & Kahle, J.B. (2000). Promoting inquiry - based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963 - 980. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science T eaching , 37 (9), 963 - 980. Supovitz, J. A., & Zeif, S. G. (2000). Why they stay away. Journal of Staff Development , 21(4), 24 - 28. Sybouts, W.,& Wendel, F. C. (1994). The training and development of school principals: A handbook . Westport: Greenwood Press. Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing S cholarship , 33 (3), 253 - 258. Tienken, C. H., & Stonaker, L. (2007). When every day is professional development day. Journal of Professional Development , 28(2), 24 - 29. Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2008). Factors associated professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 123 - 133. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard university press. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Educational Policy Analysis Archives . Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/ Wilson, M. S., Darling - Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2001 ). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut's long - term efforts to improve teaching and learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation . Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education , 1(1), 57 - 67. 193 Wu, H. (1999). Professional development of mathematics teachers. Notices of the AMS , 46(5), 535 - 542. Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel. Research in the Schools , 13 (1), 41 - 47. Zetlin, A. G., MacLeod, E., & Michener, D., (1998). Professional development of teachers of language minority students throug h University - School Partnership. Teacher Education and Special Education , 21(2), 109 - 120.