An investigation into english teachers practices of using individual development plan as a tool for their professional development at tien giang university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES NGUYEN THI ANH THU AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PRACTICES OF USING INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS A TOOL FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT TIEN GIANG UNIVERSITY MA THESIS IN EDUCATION SUPERVISOR: HUE, 2013 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES NGUYEN THI ANH THU AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PRACTICES OF USING INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS A TOOL FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT TIEN GIANG UNIVERSITY FIELD OF STUDY: THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING CODE: 60.14.10 MA THESIS IN EDUCATION SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF DR TRUONG VIEN HUE, 2013 i BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ NGUYEN THI ANH THU NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC TẾ SỬ DỤNG KẾ HOẠCH PHÁT TRIỂN CÁ NHÂN NHƯ LÀ MỘT CÔNG CỤ PHÁT TRIỂN NGHIỆP VỤ CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TIẾNG ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC TIỀN GIANG CHUYÊN NGÀNH: LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY - HỌC MÔN TIẾNG ANH MÃ SỐ: 60.14.10 LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ GIÁO DỤC HỌC NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC: PGS TS TRUONG VIEN HUẾ, 2013 ii STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby acknowledge that this study is mine The data and the findings discussed in the thesis are true, and have not been published elsewhere Author Nguyen Thi Anh Thu iii ABSTRACT In the Vietnam EFL context, there are various activities English teachers may consider for their professional development Each teacher has his/her own tools to improve their professional competence and to pursue their lifelong professional development The Individual development plan (IDP) may be considered as one of the most effective, practical tools for teachers‟ professional development among the others such as action research, reflective teaching, teaching portfolios, workshops, collaborative work and classroom observation, etc., This thesis aims to explore the perceptions and reality of employing the IDP as a professional development tool of teachers of English at Tien Giang University The participants are twenty-five teachers of English at Tien Giang University To conduct this investigation, Questionnaire and Interviews were used The received data was converted into percentage and analyzed by SPSS program (Version 17.0) The results indicated that most English teachers feel the IDP in fact a useful tool They held positive perceptions and highly appreciated the significance of using the IDP as a professional development tool However, there still existed some difficulties hindering their growth such as time constraint due to excessive workload and demanding teacher life Based on the findings, suggestions are drawn out not only for teachers to carry out the IDP effectively but also for administrators as a concrete support for the progress of fulfilling the teachers‟ plans iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been completed without the supports and encouragements of a number of people I would like to express my first debt of deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Truong Vien, from Hue University College of Foreign Languages whose devotion, stimulating suggestions and encouragement helped me in all the time of research for and writing of this thesis Additionally, the useful references he provided a long with his enthusiastic instruction and valuable feedback throughout the entire work helped raise my thesis to its present standard Second, I am particularly grateful for the assistance given by Dr Annie Priest for spending her valuable time giving comments and editing my writing Third, I would like to offer my special thanks to Assoc Prof Dr Tran Van Phuoc, Assoc Prof Dr Le Pham Hoai Huong, Dr Pham Hoa Hiep, Dr Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Dr Truong Bach Le, and Dr Ton Nu Nhu Huong for their devotion during the post-graduate course in the academic year 2011-2013 My colleagues from Tien Giang University participated in my research I want to thank them for all their help, support, interest and valuable hints I wish to send my last expression of greatest gratitude to my husband who shared me all the difficulties and housework to create me the most favorable conditions to take the MA course as well as to fulfill this thesis v TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Contents SUB COVER PAGE i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP iii ABSTRACT iv ACKOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi CHAPTER - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Rationale 1.3 Research aims 1.4 Research questions 1.5 Research Significance 1.6 Research Scope 1.7 Thesis Structure CHAPTER - LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Teacher Professional Development (PD) 2.1.1 Definition of Professional Development 2.1.2 The importance of Teacher Professional Development 2.2 Individual Development Plan (IDP) as an effective tool for PD 2.2.1 Definition of Individual Development Plan 2.2.2 Purpose of Individual Development Plan 11 vi 2.2.3 Common PD tools/activities for teachers to employ in their IDP 12 2.2.3.1 IDP as a general personal professional development tools 13 2.2.3.1.1 Knowledge 13 2.2.3.1.2 Conference/Workshop 13 2.2.3.1.3 Action research 14 2.2.3.1.4 Diaries /Journals 14 2.2.3.1.5 Field notes 14 2.2.3.1.6 Portfolios 15 2.2.3.1.7 Reflective Teaching 15 2.2.3.1.8 Individual Development Plan 15 2.2.3.2 Group Professional Development tools 15 2.2.3.2.1 Collaborative Study Groups 16 2.2.3.2.2 Class Observation 16 2.2.3.2.3 Mentoring 17 2.2.3.2.4 Collaborative or Team Teaching 17 2.3 Previous studies 18 2.4 Conducting IDP at Tien Giang University 22 2.5 Summary 23 CHAPTER - METHODOLOGY 24 3.1 Research design: 24 3.2 Participants and research site 24 3.3 Method of data analysis 25 3.4 Research Procedures 25 3.5 The research instrument for data collection 26 3.5.1 Questionnaires 26 vii 3.5.2 Interviews 27 3.6 Conclusion 28 CHAPTER - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 30 4.1 English teachers‟ perceptions and reality of adopting individual development plan for their professional development 31 4.1.1 General perceptions of English teachers about professional development 32 4.1.2 English teachers‟ perceptions about individual development plan 34 4.1.3 The IDP activities that English teachers find beneficial to their career 36 4.1.4 The IDP activities that English teachers frequently use 38 4.2 The advantages and disadvantages of using IDP for PD 44 4.2.1 The advantages of using IDP for professional development 44 4.2.2 The disadvantages of using IDP for professional development 45 4.3 The suggestions of the English teachers for effective IDP practice 48 4.3.1 The suggestions for section of English 48 4.3.2 The suggestions for Tien Giang University 48 4.3.3 The suggestions for Tien Giang Department of Education and Training 49 4.4 Summary of the findings 49 4.5 Discussion on the findings 50 4.5.1 Teachers‟ perceptions of professional development and IDP tool 50 4.5.2 Teachers‟ perceptions and their actual use of some most common IDP activities 51 4.5.3 The advantages and disadvantages that the teachers face in IDP implementation 52 CHAPTER - CONCLUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 54 5.1 Summary of the findings 54 viii 5.1.1 Findings on the teachers‟ perceptions about doing IDP for PD 54 5.1.2 Findings on the reality of adopting individual development plan by EFL teachers for professional development 55 5.2 Pedagogical implications 55 5.2.1 Implications for teachers 55 5.2.2 Implications for administrators 57 5.3 Limitation of the study 59 5.4 Suggestion for further research 59 REFERENCES 60 APPENDICES 68 APPENDIX 1: Individual Development Plan Form 68 APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire 69 APPENDIX 3: Interview questions 74 APPENDIX 4: Raw calculations of the questionnaire 75 ix APPENDIX RAW CALCULATIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Reliability of pilot questionnaire Cronbach's Alpha = 872 N of Cases = 10 N of Items = 27 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted Q1 53.90 129.433 490 866 Q2 53.80 134.400 181 873 Q3 53.30 122.678 437 868 Q4 53.40 128.711 384 869 Q5 53.60 130.711 360 869 Q6 53.80 134.178 282 871 Q7 53.40 130.933 333 870 Q8 53.40 122.933 529 864 Q9 53.50 123.611 531 864 Q10a 54.00 127.778 604 864 Q10b 52.70 131.344 389 869 Q10c 53.60 134.489 200 872 Q10d 53.50 130.056 261 873 Q10e 53.10 121.211 664 860 Q11a 54.20 132.400 540 868 Q11b 51.80 133.511 339 870 Q11c 52.90 132.989 210 873 75 Q11d 53.20 118.400 734 857 Q11e 53.10 121.433 741 858 Q12a 53.10 127.878 422 867 Q12b 53.50 126.500 462 866 Q12c 53.30 128.233 445 867 Q12d 53.50 129.167 646 865 Q13a 53.60 124.711 598 863 Q13b 53.10 125.878 407 868 Q13c 53.00 137.111 -.018 881 Q13d 53.10 126.989 465 866 Reliability of the questionnaire Cronbach's Alpha = 886 N of Cases = 25 N of items = 27 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Item Deleted Q1 104.04 113.957 409 888 Q2 104.12 112.527 459 887 Q3 104.52 107.593 452 887 Q4 104.60 110.833 397 888 Q5 104.36 110.740 517 885 Q6 104.32 116.310 198 891 Q7 104.68 109.227 573 884 Q8 104.48 110.760 396 888 76 Q9 104.76 108.940 481 886 Q10a 104.20 115.083 252 890 Q10b 105.20 109.500 528 885 Q10c 104.44 113.673 371 888 Q10d 104.52 111.760 376 888 Q10e 104.68 106.560 699 881 Q11a 104.08 115.577 212 891 Q11b 105.68 106.893 530 884 Q11c 104.84 110.473 404 888 Q11d 104.80 104.000 752 879 Q11e 104.56 107.173 597 883 Q12a 104.80 108.333 476 886 Q12b 104.72 111.377 413 887 Q12c 104.80 109.083 573 884 Q12d 104.40 111.167 560 885 Q13a 104.32 108.810 590 883 Q13b 104.88 109.693 337 891 Q13c 104.96 114.290 180 893 Q13d 104.88 106.943 597 883 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation MEANQUS 25 3.22 4.81 4.0356 38319 Valid N (listwise) 25 77 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Q1 25 4.60 500 Q2 25 4.52 586 Q3 25 4.12 1.054 Q4 25 4.04 841 Q5 25 4.28 678 Q6 25 4.32 476 Q7 25 3.96 735 Q8 25 4.24 723 Q9 25 3.88 881 Q10a 25 4.44 583 Q10b 25 3.44 768 Q10c 25 4.20 577 Q10d 25 4.20 645 Q10e 25 3.96 790 Q11a 25 4.56 583 Q11b 25 2.96 978 Q11c 25 3.80 866 Q11d 25 3.84 898 Q11e 25 4.08 862 Q12a 25 3.84 943 Q12b 25 3.92 759 78 Q12c 25 3.84 746 Q12d 25 4.24 597 Q13a 25 4.32 748 Q13b 25 3.76 1.091 Q13c 25 3.68 900 Q13d 25 3.76 879 79 T-TEST The Questionnaire One-Sample Statistics MEAN QUS N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean 25 4.0356 38319 07664 Valid N (listwise) One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference MEAN QUS t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper 52.658 24 000 4.03556 3.8774 4.1937 Cluster One-Sample Statistics MEAN cluster4 N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean 25 3.8480 53317 10663 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference MEAN cluster4 t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper 36.086 24 000 3.84800 3.6279 4.0681 80 FREQUENCIES TABLE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Q1 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent agree 10 40.0 40.0 40.0 strongly agree 15 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q2 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 4.0 4.0 4.0 agree 10 40.0 40.0 44.0 strongly agree 14 56.0 56.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q3 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 12.0 12.0 12.0 neutral 12.0 12.0 24.0 agree 28.0 28.0 52.0 strongly agree 12 48.0 48.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 81 Q4 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 neutral 20.0 20.0 24.0 agree 11 44.0 44.0 68.0 strongly agree 32.0 32.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q5 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 12.0 12.0 12.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 60.0 strongly agree 10 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q6 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent agree 17 68.0 68.0 68.0 strongly agree 32.0 32.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 82 Q7 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 28.0 28.0 28.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 76.0 strongly agree 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q8 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 16.0 16.0 16.0 agree 11 44.0 44.0 60.0 strongly agree 10 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q9 Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 8.0 8.0 8.0 neutral 20.0 20.0 28.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 76.0 strongly agree 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 83 Q10a Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 4.0 4.0 4.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 52.0 strongly agree 12 48.0 48.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q10b Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 12.0 12.0 12.0 neutral 36.0 36.0 48.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 96.0 strongly agree 4.0 4.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q10c Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 8.0 8.0 8.0 agree 16 64.0 64.0 72.0 strongly agree 28.0 28.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 84 Q10d Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 12.0 12.0 12.0 agree 14 56.0 56.0 68.0 strongly agree 32.0 32.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q10e Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 8.0 8.0 8.0 neutral 8.0 8.0 16.0 agree 16 64.0 64.0 80.0 strongly agree 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q11a Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 4.0 4.0 4.0 agree 36.0 36.0 40.0 strongly agree 15 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 85 Q11b Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 disagree 32.0 32.0 36.0 neutral 32.0 32.0 68.0 agree 28.0 28.0 96.0 strongly agree 4.0 4.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q11c Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 8.0 8.0 8.0 neutral 24.0 24.0 32.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 80.0 strongly agree 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q11d Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 12.0 12.0 12.0 neutral 12.0 12.0 24.0 agree 14 56.0 56.0 80.0 strongly agree 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 86 Q11e Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 8.0 8.0 8.0 neutral 8.0 8.0 16.0 agree 13 52.0 52.0 68.0 strongly agree 32.0 32.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q12a Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 12.0 12.0 12.0 neutral 16.0 16.0 28.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 76.0 strongly agree 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q12b Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 neutral 20.0 20.0 24.0 agree 14 56.0 56.0 80.0 strongly agree 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 87 Q12c Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 neutral 24.0 24.0 28.0 agree 14 56.0 56.0 84.0 strongly agree 16.0 16.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q12d Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent neutral 8.0 8.0 8.0 agree 15 60.0 60.0 68.0 strongly agree 32.0 32.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q13a Cumulative Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 neutral 4.0 4.0 8.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 56.0 strongly agree 11 44.0 44.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 88 Q13b Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 disagree 12.0 12.0 16.0 neutral 12.0 12.0 28.0 agree 12 48.0 48.0 76.0 strongly agree 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 disagree 4.0 4.0 8.0 neutral 24.0 24.0 32.0 agree 14 56.0 56.0 88.0 strongly agree 12.0 12.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 12.0 12.0 12.0 neutral 16.0 16.0 28.0 agree 14 56.0 56.0 84.0 strongly agree 16.0 16.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 Q13c Valid Q13d Valid 89