In-service Training Professional Development Needs of Iranian Teachers of English as Foreign Language: A Qualitative Research Study

Author

Allameh Tabataba'i University

Abstract

Teachers' perceptions of continuing professional development and the activities which they undertake to develop professionally have been investigated in different contexts. This study assessed professional development needs Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers. In so doing a qualitative research method was used. Thirteen EFL teachers were selected through convenience sampling. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews with the participants. Data were analyzed through content analysis techniques. Results showed that EFL teachers need 8 types of professional development activities: teaching methods, assessment, curriculum development, educational psychology, educational technology, communication and management skills, language skills, and linguistics and meta-linguistics awareness. Results can be used by pre-service and in-service training program developers, EFL teachers, and language institutes to assess EFL teachers' needs and develop their profession.

Keywords

References

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
Dicamilla, F., & Lantolf, J. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing.language Science, 16, 347-369.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning. In: J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel. (eds.), Vygostskian approaches to second language research. Ablex Publishing Corporation, N.J., 33-56.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-106.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan. The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-term and long-term effects on written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27, 406–426.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In Lantolf, J. & Poehner, M., Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, (pp. 189-227). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition process in the classroom. London: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Inc.
Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language writing, 10(4), 277-303.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–284.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Students' engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166-185). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, W. (2009). Improving Japanese university students' second language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 81- 90.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction and second language writing revision. Language Learning.1-24.
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2009). Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37, 217-225.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253.
Swain, M. (1995). Three function of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.). Principle and Practice in the Study of Language: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). Output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-83). Mahwah, NL: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.
Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it-through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 112-130). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2011). Cognitive and effective enhancement among older adult: The role of languaging. Australian Review of Applied linguistics, 36(1), 2013, 4-19.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards to second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
Swain, M., (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (ed.) sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging:  University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 5-29.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Van Beunigngen, C., de Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on second language learners' written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistic, 156, 279-196.
Van Beunigngen, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-4.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (14thed.). Harvard University Press.
 
Teaching English Language
Volume 13, Issue 2
Summer and Autumn 2019
Pages 95-115

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 July 2018
  • Revise Date: 18 July 2019
  • Accept Date: 18 September 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics