A number of practical suggestions have been made as to how to create the most effective INSET course. Though these studies suggest relevant methods for current and future courses, as Veenman et al (1994:304) indicated, reviews of the literature on training have indicated that little empirical attention has been devoted to the issue of training transfer or implementation in the real classroom. In particular, the perception has been that the link between INSET and real practice, through teachers’ implementation of approaches learnt from INSET, has been overlooked in much research. Much of the literature on INSET has been focused on the in-service programme, workshop descriptions, simple statements of participants’ satisfaction, or learning outcomes, without empirical research which may be used to determine the success of a programme. For example, Wolter (2000:312) has suggested a “participant- centred approach” by drawing on participants’ knowledge of the local learning/teaching situation in order to achieve a higher degree of “fit” between
innovation-inherent conditions and the practical restrictions of the local environment, through a participant-centred approach to INSET course design. Schocker and Morrow (1995) have also proposed “process evaluation in an INSET course”, and they report on a course which makes explicit to participants the learning process in which they were engaged and thereby making this awareness accessible for future action.
Cullen (1994) proposes the “incorporation (of) a language improvement component in teacher training programmes” which stresses that teacher training programmes should focus primarily on language improvement and language awareness on courses. To do so, the ‘content’ of the methodology and language awareness components would be derived from the language course which the trainees would undergo, meaning that the language course is the central element (ibid:166). Breen et al (1989) discuss three phases of involvement in an INSET programme through which one particular in-service training programme in Denmark has passed over an eight-year period. They summarise the evolution of their INSET programme making 11 points, but as mentioned there is no description in terms of what happens in the participants’ classroom and how effective the course is after the training. They note that (ibid:134)
in-service training should focus on what is done in the daily life of the language class, the decisions, activities, tasks and learning experience [….] the teachers’ interpretations of what is done in classrooms are as important as the data from the classroom itself. This suggests that any training should be converted to action in practice and the mismatch between INSET and the real classroom should be minimised.
the style, content, and simple success or failure of INSET from the studies above. However, a few studies (e.g. Lamb, 1995; Lamie, 2002; Tomlinson, 1988; and Veenman et al, 1994) systematically address the impact of in-service training programmes or the transfer of training experience into teachers’ real contexts. I discuss three studies in more detail in the following section.
3.8.1. Lamb (1995)
Lamb conducted an evaluation of the INSET course a year after course completion to explore how far the participants had taken up and implemented certain practical ideas in their classrooms. He refers to a clash between the new and the traditional, illustrated by comparing in-service course content in Indonesia with later classroom practice. He also found the original input had simply been lost and what was taken up was reinterpreted by teachers to fit their own beliefs and their own concerns about what was important to them and their pupils (Lamb 1995:78). Thus, he suggested that participants should take part in exercises which would encourage them to reflect on their own teaching style, allowing for a longer-term effect of INSET in real practice.
Before moving on, two areas highlighted by Lamb are worthy of particular consideration. Firstly, I found that there was nothing to address the practical issues of how to implement the new knowledge within a local context and how to deal with the conflicts which might occur during implementation; for example, carrying out group work in large classes. Secondly, the existing local beliefs about teaching and learning were overlooked. In more detail, “memorisation” and “understanding and analytical ability” (Connell, 1987, cited in Yan, 2008) in language learning have been a long tradition in most EFL countries, including South Korea. However these kinds of local
beliefs about learning features were not recognised in Lamb’s study. In addition to the principle that, as Doff (1987:70) mentions, “appropriate content and design of the training material will increase the chances of teachers adopting a new methodology”, there should also be recognition of the need for careful consideration in using imported textbooks from Western countries in Indonesian teaching and learning environments, due to fundamental differences in cultural and educational traditions. In short, as Lamb (1995) states, “teachers’ expanding awareness of their own practice and using it as the basis for formulating individual agendas for change are something which is impossible without an appraisal of the context in which change has to occur”.
3.8.2. Tomlinson (1988)
Tomlinson (1988), in connection with an ELT project in Indonesia, describes how an INSET system was developed which consisted of an initial two-week course-based component, followed by six weeks in-service follow-up training during which the teachers attended weekly meetings with their teacher trainers and were observed and given feedback on their teaching approximately once a week. At the end of this phase of the training, the teachers underwent a second two-week course, followed by another period of six weeks in-service follow-up training. However, according to him, the motivation and stimulus they had gained was negated by the confusion and frustration they had suffered in trying to apply all that they had learnt and the guilt and inadequacy they would have felt as a result of their almost inevitable failure to accommodate a new approach within the existing parameters of syllabus, examinations, materials, official expectations and class size (Tomlinson, 1988:1). However, from my point of view, there is a lack of detailed information concerning statements about ‘inadequacy’ or ‘inevitable failure’ of the course Tomlinson had run or observed. There
is no concrete evidence offered to support this claims that have been made in his study.
Furthermore, as Walters (2006:35) points out, “it (Tomlinson’s study) makes no reference to anybody of theory or programme of research which was used to underpin the development or investigate the workings of the system it describes”; in fact this study does not seem to adopt any approach based on existing models or theories of INSET programmes. For example, in contrast, Lamb (1995) adopted a “rational- empirical” approach (Kennedy, 1987 in ibid:74), that is “people are rational beings and that a change will be adopted once the evidence has been produced to show it will benefit those whom it affects” (ibid: 74), to encourage the teachers to change their practice.
3.8.3. Veenman et al (1994)
Veenman et al (1994), in their own wide-ranging study attempted to examine the outcomes of in-service activities, implementation characteristics, and knowledge utilisation at classroom and school level in the Netherlands. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of in-service activities, the impact ratings of a sample of teachers and principals who participated in individual-based and school-focused INSET, focusing on school characteristics, features of in-service programmes, implementation characteristics, and types of in-service activity.
Noteworthy in this study is that the importance attributed to school-focused INSET is not supported in the impact findings at the school level. One may expect that school- focused INSET would result in higher impacts at this level than individual-based INSET, for example, in more productive school meetings and better working relationships
among teachers. In this respect no differences were found between these two types of in-service activities. However, differences between school-focused INSET and individual-based INSET were found at the classroom level and at the level of knowledge utilisation. At these levels school-focused INSET appeared to have influences on changes in didactic procedures in the classroom and on the actual use of new skills in the staff’s instructional repertoire (ibid:315).
However, this study has not paid attention to useful strategies for managing transfer of training before, during, and after training. Since the ultimate goal of in-service courses for the dissemination of new skills and activities is to achieve an appropriate transfer to real practice, the linkages between INSET courses and actual classroom practice is very important. This implies that at least the three stages of research mentioned above should be made as integral parts of training strategies. Unless there is integration between the in-service course activities and teachers’ classroom practice, the course will serve little purpose in terms of dissemination and implementation of new ideas and knowledge learnt from INSET.
As a research instrument, a written questionnaire for individual-based INSET activities was used in order to include a large amount of different in-service programmes and the interview and questionnaire were both used to obtain not only information about INSET characteristics and appraisals, but also about the embedding of the in-service activities in the daily life of the schools (ibid:306). The questionnaire, however, was not a success for school-focused INSET due to the low return rate of 18% (314:6), so that school-focused INSET is mainly based on the interview part of the study (response rate 65%).
It is surprising that Veenman et al do not attempt to explore the influence of in-service training within the participants’ contextual situation by using observation. They claim that an observation scheme was not used because “... this study is directed at a large- scale evaluation of in-service training activities in the Netherlands” (ibid:305). But if sampled observation of the randomly selected participants’ real English classroom had been conducted (since this research was conducted on a large-scale), it would have made it possible to check directly whether participants’ words in the interview or questionnaire corresponded to their practical experiences, and to identify how much the INSET activities had been effectively implemented in real practice. Robinson and Robinson (1989, cited in Veenman et al 1994:305) state,
to be able to reveal a training’s contribution, one must […] ascertain that the teachers do use on the job what they learned during training (emphasis added).
Accordingly, in-service training activities should take pay due care and attention to contextual features in order to confirm that teachers (trainees) use on the job what they learnt during in-service training. Serious consideration of the transfer process (training input factors, training outcomes, and conditions of transfer described by Baldwin and Ford, 1998, in Veenman et al, 1994) of new knowledge in the real classroom by observation seems absent in this study. Moreover, Veenman et al made only passing quantitative references through tables (ibid:310-312) to factors including features of in-service programmes, implementation characteristics, dependent and independent variables etc. beyond the training courses without quotations from interview data.
conducted research into the design and implementation of INSET systems with an integrated follow-up element. Roberts’s account of this programme provides a well- documented illustration of an ELT INSET system with a built-in follow-up component.
3.9. Summary
This literature review has covered a range of areas beginning with an overview of teacher education and a discussion of the teacher change process. An exploration of the general principles of INSET follows incorporating the impact of INSET on the professional lives of teachers involving the areas of impact and typologies of INSET outcomes, and the impact of INSET courses on practice for the longer term. An investigation of the key studies on the impact of INSET in English language teacher education was also made including the significance of other people to teacher learning and development.
A number of different writers have made an important contribution to impact studies despite the fact that relatively very little empirical research has been conducted. From Lamb (1995) and Tomlinson (1988) I gained the original stimulus to investigate the impact of INSET courses on teaching practice, a overall focus of my study, and from Guskey (2002) and Kennedy (1987, 1988) I have learnt about teachers’ change and innovation processes. Reading Borg (2001) and Phipps (2009) focused on teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about teaching English though those studies focus specifically on teaching grammar. Tsui (2003) has been an invaluable source with regard to various dynamics in EFL classrooms and a number of EFL writers such as Freeman (1989, 1992, and 1994) and Roberts (1998) have provided insights into what teacher education courses should include. With regard to impact, Harland and Kinder’s impact typology
(1997) has provided the inspiration for my choice of categories and some of the interview questions. In addition, some writers who have discussed the impact of professional learning and development including longer-term impact, such as Hayes (1995), Powell et al (2003), Waters (2006), Waters and Vilches (2000) and Yan (2008), have been influential in my delineation of impact and they have provided insights into what further tasks INSET courses should have to ensure longer-term impact.
In the next chapter I report the processes by which I investigated the research questions, providing details of the approach, the research methods, and the actual process.
CHAPTER 4