Descripciones de la teoría matemática del método Boundary Element Method

Among the main challenges, I have faced in my job as a teacher trainer, and in this current study is how to design effective INSET and how to motivate participants. The first two cycles in this study contributed to the understanding of the trainer’s role as perceived among ELT teachers in Qatar. This cycle helped me verify my conclusions on how this role must be performed. I have learned that to engage participants, it must be visible to those teacher participants what they can take back to their classrooms and how. As seen in the findings in section 8.5, the third cycle was successful in its design and delivery. When I first embarked on this study, my prime objective was to improve my own practice as a teacher trainer. The results of this study impacted on my training offerings and informed my outlook on INSET. This cycle was a good opportunity for me to reflect further on my training practices and gain insights from multiple sources to guide the design and delivery of my future INSET. The lessons learned from this study will hopefully contribute to the literature on INSET and AR, and will be beneficial to future practitioners.

The previous four chapters provided a narrative summary of the entire research process and a brief chronological history of its progress from needs analysis to conclusion. They outlined the structure of the cycles, including data collection instruments in each stage and their results. Table 8.6 below provides an overview of the three cycles in this study.

Table 8.6: Comparison between the three AR cycles in the implementation stage

First (pilot) cycle Second cycle Third cycle

- Focused on how to deliver INSET effectively.

- Focused on the role of the trainer

- Focused on the content, how to deliver INSET, and the role of the trainer

- Used a common programme design set by the Supreme Education Council (SEC) for all teachers in the country

- Used a modified design that had been informed by the first-cycle participants’ input

- Used a modified design that had been informed by the participants’ input and findings obtained from the previous cycles

- One trainer - Two trainers - One trainer - 12 weekly sessions without a

follow-up

- One month with 28 different INSET activities

- One month (3 workshops, 1 demo lesson, and an online forum)

- No impact assessment - Used alternative

assessments, such as class observations, to evaluate impact

- Used an assignment, journals, a survey, class observations, and a focus group to evaluate impact - No contact between trainers

and trainees’ students -

Several demo lessons delivered by the trainers

- One demo lesson delivered by the trainer

- Compulsory attendance - Optional attendance - Optional attendance - No online forum - No online forum - An online forum was

employed to maintain communication between trainees and the trainer outside the training

Chapter Nine: Reflective Discussion

The previous chapters presented the story of this study as well as an analysis of its findings. This chapter presents answers to the research questions, study limitations, contributions and suggestions for possible future research.

9.1 Introduction

As stated in chapter 1, the overarching purpose of this study was to improve my practice as a teacher trainer. In doing so, it was necessary to investigate the effectiveness of INSET in Qatar. Prior to the three cycles of AR, an initial needs analysis was carried out, which sought to describe the status, identify the perceived good practice, and diagnose the preferences relevant to topics, assessment, and delivery style. The three cycles constituted the implementation stage and involved several actions and significant data analysis, which provided insights on several emerging themes.

The study employed multiple data collection methods to better understand and inform the developments in its different stages and cycles. Chapter 4 presented a summary of all the different tools I used throughout the study (see table 4.1) while chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 presented the results of this study. These tools yielded a significant amount of data. On certain occasions, the analysis had to be conducted within a short period or even immediately after running the instrument. For example, training sessions started with a short activity about the participants’ expectations. I had to act promptly to observe if the results corresponded to my predetermined agenda. If they did not, I needed to make whatever modifications deemed necessary and move to plan B immediately.

This chapter presents answers to the research questions that guided my

investigation, to see to what extent I could answer them. Below is a recap of the questions:

Stage one (needs analysis)

RQ1: What do teachers perceive as advantages and problems of the INSET offered to them?

RQ2: What are perceived by teachers as the main factors affecting the success and impact of INSET in Qatar?

RQ3: What training themes do teachers recommend for future INSET?

Stage two (AR cycles)

RQ4: From the perspectives of those involved in the AR cycles:

a) To what extent are the INSET programmes in these cycles successful?

b) Which training strategies are more effective than others?

RQ5: What does the feedback by participants reveal about the role of the trainer in the success of the INSET?

RQ6: As a teacher trainer, how can I measure the impact of the changes I introduced in the different cycles on teachers’ classroom practices? RQ7: How has my AR journey helped me improve my practice as a teacher

trainer in Qatar?

The study sought to employ these questions to examine the INSET practices in Qatar in terms of attitudes, perceived values, trainer role, and current issues. The findings helped me identify possible success factors and INSET themes to improve my INSET planning and delivery in the implementation stage, and outline key principles for good INSET within the Qatari context. The discussion below will be in the same order of the questions above.