LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,226
تعداد مقالات11,165
تعداد مشاهده مقاله77,036,594
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله101,220,525
SHOKPOUR, NASRIN, ESLAMPANAH, NEDA, ASADI, VAHID, O’NEILL, SHIRLEY, DANN, CHRISTOPHER, WANG, JENNY. (1403). Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development needs in educational contexts: Exploring the challenge of reflective practice. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 12(4), 261-271. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2024.103180.1995
NASRIN SHOKPOUR; NEDA ESLAMPANAH; VAHID ASADI; SHIRLEY O’NEILL; CHRISTOPHER DANN; JENNY WANG. "Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development needs in educational contexts: Exploring the challenge of reflective practice". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 12, 4, 1403, 261-271. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2024.103180.1995
SHOKPOUR, NASRIN, ESLAMPANAH, NEDA, ASADI, VAHID, O’NEILL, SHIRLEY, DANN, CHRISTOPHER, WANG, JENNY. (1403). 'Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development needs in educational contexts: Exploring the challenge of reflective practice', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 12(4), pp. 261-271. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2024.103180.1995
SHOKPOUR, NASRIN, ESLAMPANAH, NEDA, ASADI, VAHID, O’NEILL, SHIRLEY, DANN, CHRISTOPHER, WANG, JENNY. Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development needs in educational contexts: Exploring the challenge of reflective practice. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 12(4): 261-271. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2024.103180.1995

Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development needs in educational contexts: Exploring the challenge of reflective practice

Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism
دوره 12، شماره 4، دی 2024، صفحه 261-271    اصل مقاله (640.63 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jamp.2024.103180.1995
نویسندگان
NASRIN SHOKPOUR* 1؛ NEDA ESLAMPANAH2؛ VAHID ASADI3؛ SHIRLEY O’NEILL4؛ CHRISTOPHER DANN4؛ JENNY WANG5
1Department of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2Freelance
3School of Applied Languages and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
4School of Education, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia
5School of Education, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
چکیده
Introduction: This study investigated Iranian, English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ attitudes toward reflective teaching compared with their classroom assessment preferences and up-take of strategy based instruction. It compared their views in the two key higher education provider contexts of the university and institute.
Methods: In this cross-sectional correlational study, a total of 90 teachers, half drawn from each university in a major city in Iran, were selected using controlled quota sampling. Data were collected through a four-part survey. Besides gathering demographic data (Part A), the survey drew upon three established instruments that used a Likert Scale format. Part B comprised the Teacher Reflectivity questionnaire, and Part C focused on the Classroom Assessment Preferences Survey Questionnaire for Language Teachers. Also, part D administered the Teachers’ Beliefs Inventory for Strategy Instruction. The reliability of this and the CAPSQ-LT was confirmed by the researchers using Cronbach’s alpha at 0.842 and 0.951, respectively. A total of 90 questionnaires were distributed, with 72 fully completed (80%) and returned. the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed to analyze the data, using the independent sample t-test and ANOVA. Also, Pearson productmoment correlations were used to measure the association between the variables. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered as significant.
Results: As shown in Table 2, a statistically significant and positive correlation was found between the teachers’ reflective teaching scores and classroom assessment preference scores (r=0.473, P=0.001). This correlation was moderately high and positive, thus supporting that higher teacher reflective practices reflect a broader application of classroom assessment. The Table also shows that there was no significant correlation between the teachers’ attitudes toward reflective teaching and their uptake of strategy-based instruction (r=0.094; P=0.434). Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between the teachers’ attitudes toward classroom assessment preferences and their beliefs about strategy-based instruction (r=0.038, P=0.752). As shown, no statistically significant difference was observed between the teachers’ attitudes toward reflective
teaching and their uptake of strategy-based instruction (P<0.05).
Conclusion: This study draws attention to the need for teachers in EFL contexts, such as this, to have access to professional development opportunities that deeply engage and guide them to be reflective practitioners who can make the connections between assessment techniques, strategy-based instruction, and students’ improved language learning outcomes.

تازه های تحقیق
کلیدواژه‌ها
Educational measurement؛ Education؛ Decision making؛ Reflective practice
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Saberi L, Amiri F. A qualitative study of Iranian EFL university teachers’ attitude towards professional development. Journal of Language Teaching & Research. 2016;7(3):591.
  2. Campion GC. ‘The learning never ends’: Exploring teachers’ views on the transition from general English to EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2016;23:59-70.
  3. Giroux HA. Teachers as intellectuals. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey; 1988.
  4. Kurosh S, Yousefi MH, Kashef SH. Iranian teachers’ reflective teaching practice in relation to self-efficacy perceptions: Investigating teachers’ discipline. Reflective Practice. 2020;21(3):356–70.
  5. Sancar R, Atal D, Deryakulu D. A new framework for teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021;101:103305.
  6. Darling-Hammond L, Flook L, Cook-Harvey C, Barron B, Osher D. Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science. 2020;24(2)9:7-140.
  7. Morris D. Student voice and teacher professional development: knowledge exchange and transformational learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan; 2019.
  8. Farrokhi F, Rahimpour M, Papi Z. Incidental focus on form techniques in Iranian EFL classrooms: A comparison between expert and novice teachers. World Journal of Education. 2011;1(1):150-7.
  9. Richards JC, Farrel TSC. Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. NY: Cambridge Uni Press; 2005.
  10. Consoli S, Dikilitaş K. Research engagement in language education. Educational Action Research. 2021;29(3):347-57.
  11. Priestley M, Edwards R, Priestley A, Miller K. Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry. 2012;42(2):191–214.
  12. Boylan M, Caldwell M, Maxwell B, Jordan J. Rethinking models of professional learning as tools: A conceptual analysis to inform research practice. Professional Development in Education. 2018;44(1):120-39.
  13. Bonner SM, Diehl K, Trachtman R. Teacher belief and agency development in bringing change to scale. Journal of Educational Change. 2020;21(2):363-84.
  14. Mathew NG. Reflective classroom practice for effective classroom instruction. International Education Studies. 2012;5(3):205-11.
  15. Lashgari M, Jamali F, Yousofi N. Investigating EFL teachers’ attitudes toward CLT. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. 2014;3(3):160-4.
  16. Belmekki L. Teachers’ attitudes towards reflective teaching and professional development. International Journal of English Literature & Social Sciences. 2018;3(4):600–4.
  17. Razi N, Kargar AA. Evaluation of in-service foreign language teacher education program in Iran. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 2014;5(1):221-36.
  18. Darling-Hammond L, Hyler ME, Gardner M. Effective teacher professional development; Research brief. Learning Policy Institute. CA: Palo Alto; 2017.
  19. Tabatabaee-Yazdi M, Motallebzadeh K, Ashraf H, Baghaei P. Development and validation of a teacher success questionnaire using the Rasch model. International Journal of Instruction. 2018;11(2):129–44.
  20. Afshar HS, Fazelimanie HS, Doostie M. Developing an Inventory to investigate the current professional development needs of Iranian EFL teachers. Teaching English Language. 2017;11(2):161-94.
  21. Schön D. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1984.
  22. Uştuk Ö, De Costa PI. Reflection as meta‐action: Lesson study and EFL teacher professional development. TESOL Journal. 2021;12(1):e00531.
  23. Gao Y, Zhou Y. Exploring language teachers' beliefs about the medium of instruction and actual practices using complex dynamic system theory. Frontiers in Education. 2021;6:1-12.
  24. Kheirabadi R, Alavi Moghaddam SB. New horizons in teaching English in Iran: A transition from reading-based methods to communicative ones by ‘English for schools’ series. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 2014;5(4):225–32.
  25. Afzali K, Kianpoor G. Teachers’ strategies used to foster teacher-student and student-student interactions in EFL conversation classrooms: A conversation analysis approach. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature; Dynamics and Advances. 2020;8(2):119-40.
  26. Alzahrani MA, Nor FM. EFL teachers’ attitudes towards professional development programs. International Journal of Education and Practice. 2021;9(4):729-39.
  27. Black P, Wiliam D. Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2018;25(1):1-25.
  28. Pang NSK. Teachers’ reflective practices in implementing assessment for learning skills in classroom teaching. ECNU Review of Education. 2020;5(2):209653112093629.
  29. Fontaine S. Becoming a reflective practitioner. Education. 2018;9(4):180-7.
  30. Ayoobiyan H, Rashidi N. Can reflective teaching promote resilience among Iranian EFL teachers?: A mixed-method design. Reflective Practice. 2021;22(3):1-13.
  31. Hartmann U, Kindlinger M, Trempler K. Integrating information from multiple texts relates to pre-service teachers’ epistemic products for reflective teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021;97:103205.
  32. Farrell TSC. Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. New York, NY: Routledge; 2015.
  33. Oo TZ, Magyar A, Habók A. Effectiveness of the reflection-based reciprocal teaching approach for reading comprehension achievement in upper secondary school in Myanmar. Asia Pacific Educuational Review.2021;13(1):127-38.
  34. Kurosh S, Yousefi MH, Kashef SH. Iranian teachers’ reflective teaching practice in relation to self-efficacy perceptions: investigating teachers’ discipline. International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives. 2020;21(3):1-15.
  35. Roohani A, Avendi MM. Effect of self-evaluation techniques on Iranian EFL teachers' reflective teaching. Applied Research on English Language. 2019;8(1):27-50.
  36. Karimi M, Vaez-Dalili M. Comparative effect of collaborative and prescriptive models of observation on Iranian novice/experienced EFL teachers’ reflective practice. Curriculum Psychology. 2021;41:4981–996.
  37. Farrell TSC, Kennedy B. Reflective practice framework for TESOL teachers: One teacher’s reflective journey. Reflective Practice. 2019;20(1):1-12.
  38. Gholaminejad R. When evil pops in: Exploring the unheard voices of teachers working in private language schools in Iran concerning supervisory observation. International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2020;26(1):1-24.
  39. Fathi J, Greenier V, Derakhshan A. Teacher self-efficacy, reflection, and burnout among Iranian EFL teachers: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 2021;9(2):13-37.
  40. Salashour F, Esmaeili F. The causes of burnout among Iranian academics: A case study. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 2021;9(1):123-37.
  41. Mirhosseini SA, Tajik L, Pasha AB. Policies of English teacher recruitment in Iran and a glimpse of their implementation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 2023;31(1):1-12.
  42. Derakhshan A. Should textbook images be merely decorative?: Cultural representations in the Iranian national textbook from the semiotic approach perspective. Language Teaching Research. 2021;28(1):1-35.
  43. Derakhshan A, Kruk M, Mehdizadeh M, Pawlak M. Boredom in online classes in the Iranian EFL context: Sources and solutions. System. 2021;101:102556.
  44. Ashraf H, Zolfaghari S. EFL Teachers’ assessment literacy and their reflective teaching. International Journal of Instruction. 2018;11(1):425-36.
  45. Fard ZR, Tabatabaei O. Investigating assessment literacy of EFL teachers in Iran. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research. 2018;5(3):91-100.
  46. Firoozi T, Razavipour K, Ahmadi A. The language assessment literacy needs of Iranian EFL teachers with a focus on reformed assessment policies. Language Testing in Asia. 2019;9(2):10.
  47. Dann C, O'Neill S. Are you feeding back or is it taking students forward? Changing the traditional narrative to ensure a dialogic approach in formative assessment. In C. Dann & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Technology-enhanced formative assessment practices in higher education: Advances in higher education and professional development Hershey. USA: IGI Global; 2020. pp. 275-96.
  48. Jan-nesar MQ, Khodabakhshzadeh H, Motallebzadeh K. Assessment literacy of Iranian EFL teachers: A review of recent studies. Journal of Asia. 2020;17(2):689-98.
  49. Azin N, Biria R, Ameri Golestan A. The effect of strategy-based instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ learner autonomy: Learners’ perceptions. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 2021;9(38):237-50.
  50. Amiryousefi M. Iranian EFL teachers and learners' beliefs about vocabulary learning and teaching. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning. 2015;4(4):29-40.
  51. Namaziandost E, Imani A, Ziafar M. An investigation of Iranian EFL teachers and learners’ attitudes towards using language learning strategies. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 2020;10(1):065-071.
  52. El Soufi N, See BH. Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2019;60:140-62.
  53. Ghabeli N, Tajadini M, Fatehi Rad N. Impact of online setting collaboration through strategy-based instruction on EFL learners’ self-efficacy and oral skills. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 2021;9(34):191-202.
54.Ghavamnia M. Improving Iranian graduate students’ performance in reading scientific articles in English through explicit strategy instruction. Reading Psychology. 2019;40(7):612-37.

  1. Dastgahian ES, Scull J. Implementing English language teaching reforms through professional learning, Education Inquiry. USA: Taylor & Francis; 2021.
  2. Akbari R, Behzadpoor F, Dadvand B. Development of English language teaching reflection inventory. System. 2010;38(2):211-27.
  3. Gonzales R, Aliponga J. Classroom assessment preferences of Japanese language teachers in the Philippines and English language teachers in Japan. MEXTESOL Journal. 2011;36(1):67-80.
  4. Oxford R. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. NY: Newbury House Publishers; 1990.
  5. Bedir H. Teachers’ beliefs on strategies-based instruction in EFL classes of young learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;2(2):5208-11.
  6. Farrell TSC. Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research. 2016;20(2):223-47.
  7. Han T, Kaya Hİ. Turkish EFL teachers’ assessment preferences and practices in the context of constructivist instruction. Journal of Studies in Education. 2014;4(1):77-93.
  8. Sahragard R, Saberi L. The knowledge-base of pre-service and in-service Iranian EFL teachers in teacher education programs.  International Journal of Instruction. 2018;11(4):445–66.
  9. Machost H, Stains M. Reflective practices in education: A primer for practitioners. Life Sci Educ.2023;22(2):es2.
  10. Asamoah D, Shahrill M, Abdul Latif SN. Towards developing classroom assessment literacy: Exploring teachers’ approaches to assessment across cultures. Cogent Education. 2023;10(2):23-34.
  11. Mashhadlou H, Izadpanah S. Assessing Iranian EFL teachers’ educational performance based on gender and years of teaching experience. Language Testing in Asia. 2021;11:23.
  12. Baluchzada S. Effectiveness of reflective teaching on professional development of English as Foreign Language (EFL) Teachers. MEXTESOL Journal. 2023;47(3):1.
67.Tahimash SG, Khani R, Shoja L. Evaluation of English Language Teacher Professional Development Programs in an EFL context: A mixed method study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. 2024;16(33):194-213.

  1. Wei RC, Darling-Hammond LAA, Richardson N, Orphanos S. Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S and abroad: Technical report. Stanford University Calif: National Staff Development Council; 2009.
  2. Mansouri Nejad A, Pakdel F, Khansir AA. Interaction between language testing research and classroom testing practice. Educational Process;International Journal. 2019;8(1):59-71.
  3. Teacher training and education trends for 2024-2025: Tips for success. Kalibri education [Internet]. 2024 [Cited 2 Jun 2024]. Retrieved from: http://inkedin.com/pulse/teacher-training-education-trends-2024-2025-tips-success-iby0f.
  4. Alinejad Z, Nemati M, Ghaemi F. Exploring Iranian EFL teachers’ critical thinking dispositions and reflective teaching. TESLQ. 2023;43(2):133-67.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 646
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 320


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب