A Quantitative Look at The Perceived Effectiness of Online Profesional Development

A Quantitative Look at the Perceived Effectiveness of
Online Professional Development in English Language Teaching
By Sarah Sahr
B.S. in Communications, December 1995, Eastern Michigan University

M.A. in ESOL Leadership, May 2005, Notre Dame of Maryland University
A Dissertation submitted to
The Faculty at
the Graduate School of Education and Human Development
of The George Washington University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Education
May 15, 2016
Dissertation directed by
Abebayehu Tekleselassie
Associate Professor Education Administration
ProQuest Number: 10076367
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10076367
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington
University certifies that Sarah Sahr has passed the Final Examination for the degree of
Doctor of Education as of March 7, 2016. This is the final and approved form of the
dissertation.

Dissertation Research Committee:
Abebayehu Tekleselassie, Associate Professor Education Administration,

Dissertation Director
Joel Gomez, Associate Professor Educational Leadership, Committee Member
William Dardick, Assistant Professor Educational Research, Committee Member
ii
© Copyright 2016 by Sarah Sahr
All rights reserved
iii
Dedication
To Matt Sahr.
When I told you I was thinking of going back to school, you said, "Okay." Thanks.
iv
Acknowledgments
To Dr. Abebayehu Tekleselassie, for being the right chair at the right time and
helping me "enjoy the process." To Dr. Joel Gomez, for dedicating a career to the
betterment of English language teaching. And, to Dr. William Dardick, for keeping me
grounded and sane, not to mention teaching me a thing or two about data analysis.
To my family, some of whom are still wondering why I am doing this. Thank you
for understanding my family neglect over the last 4 years. To my mom, for listening to
me ramble on and on about polychoric correlation on a cold December morning. To my
dad, for sending me small, meaningful messages every morning. And to my brother, for
always being so proud of everything I've ever done. I cannot do anything without the
people from 6022 South Miami Avenue.
To the many friends who had to endure my unpredictable cancellations and
desertions. I am so grateful for your understanding and patience throughout this whole
process. Each of you were an indispensable part of this journey.
To the amazing staff at TESOL International Association. I know I have been
absolutely crazy at times because of stress and deadlines. Thank you for checking in on
me and taking care of me when I thought, for sure, all things were falling apart.
And last, it is hard to imagine what this process would have been like without the
support and encouragement of Dr. Rosa Aronson. When I asked her advice on pursuing a
doctorate, her kind words put me on the right path and, from that moment, I knew I could
finish. Dr. Aronson is more than my supervisor. She is my mentor, my confidant, and my
friend. Rosa, there are no words in French or English that even come close to expressing
my gratitude. Je vous remercie de tout coeur.
v
Abstract of Dissertation

At the turn of the 21st century, researchers quickly recognized the lack of online
professional development (OPD) research in English language teaching (ELT) and started
asking for more inquiry into the effectiveness of online professional learning. This study
adds quantitative data analysis to the body of research regarding OPD and strengthens the
claim that proper use of OPD in the ELT community mirrors traditional face-to-face
professional development effectiveness in classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
This study examines ELT educators' perceived effectiveness of professional
development, identifies their preference between online and face-to-face professional
development, and explores the possible differences that exist in perceived effectiveness
and preferred professional development modality choice. A variety of statistical tests will
be used to answer the research questions including exploratory factor analysis using a
polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression, independent-sample t-test, and two-
and four-way analysis of variance. Although this study includes both online and face-to-
face professional development data, the main focus was on the effectiveness and use of
OPD.
The results of this study enhance Desimone's (2009) core competence framework
and Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory by: (a) reaffirming past research that
professional development does positively influence classroom instruction and teaching
confidence; (b) claiming that geographic location is the best predictor of professional
development modality preference while age still has its place as a viable predictor, but is
just not as strong; and (c) upholding the findings that there are no statistically significant
vi
differences when perceived effectiveness is compared to OPD and face-to-face
professional development models.
With the continuing reach of the World Wide Web and the growing number of
people wanting to learn English, OPD has become a necessary training tool for the ELT
professional. This study strengthens the literature addressing the similarities between
online and face-to-face professional development, reinforces the belief that OPD
improves classroom instruction and teacher confidence, and supports national and
international policies that call for the use of OPD in English language teacher education.
vii
Table of Contents
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. v
Abstract of Dissertation ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Context of the Problem................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 6
Purpose and Research Questions .................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 10
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 12
Core conceptual framework. ................................................................................. 13
Self-efficacy theory. .............................................................................................. 14
The activity model. ............................................................................................... 15
Summary of Methodology............................................................................................ 15
Research Outline .......................................................................................................... 17
Delimitations ................................................................................................................ 18
Limitations.................................................................................................................... 19
Preliminary Assumptions ............................................................................................. 21
Definition of Key Terms .............................................................................................. 22
Organization of the Study............................................................................................. 24
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 26
viii
Face-to-Face and Online Professional Development ................................................... 28
An Overview of Online Professional Development ..................................................... 31
Structure. ............................................................................................................... 32
Evolution. .............................................................................................................. 34
Social..................................................................................................................... 37
Social Media and Online Professional Development Platforms .................................. 40
Demonstrating Online Professional Development Significance .................................. 47
Challenges of International Online Professional Development ................................... 51
Professional Overlap .................................................................................................... 55
The health sector. .................................................................................................. 55
The business sector. .............................................................................................. 56
Geography, Age, and Level of Education in Online Professional Development ......... 59
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 62
Research Design ........................................................................................................... 62
TESOL Survey and Data Collection ............................................................................ 64
The 2009 survey. ................................................................................................... 64
The 2012 surveys. ................................................................................................. 65
The 2014 survey. ................................................................................................... 65
Participants ................................................................................................................... 69
Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Statistical Treatment of Data ........................... 70
ix
Research Question 1. ............................................................................................ 70
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 78
Dependent variables. ............................................................................................. 78
Independent variables ........................................................................................... 79
Demographic variables. ........................................................................................ 81
Data Preparation ........................................................................................................... 85
Human Participation and Ethics Precautions ............................................................... 85
Intellectual Property ..................................................................................................... 86
Summary of Methods ................................................................................................... 87
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 88
Survey Participants and Responses .............................................................................. 90
Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................... 92
Test results. ........................................................................................................... 93
Summary of findings............................................................................................. 97
Validity and reliability. ......................................................................................... 97
Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................... 98
Test results. ........................................................................................................... 98
Summary of findings........................................................................................... 104
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................... 105
Test results. ......................................................................................................... 105
Summary of findings........................................................................................... 111
x
Summary .................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 5: Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................. 113
Key Findings and Discussion ..................................................................................... 114
Finding 1: Affirming perceived effectiveness on professional development ..... 115
Finding 2: Geographic location is the best predictor for professional
development modality preference ....................................................................... 117
Finding 3: Perceived effectiveness is the same regardless of professional
development modality preference. ...................................................................... 118
A Revised Conceptual Framework............................................................................. 120
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 123
Implication for Participants ........................................................................................ 126
Implications for Professional Practice ........................................................................ 127
Connections to Current Literature .............................................................................. 129
Connections to Policy................................................................................................. 130
An Alternative Analysis ............................................................................................. 132
References .................................................................................................................. 135
Appendix A: Countries Represented in the Survey Arranged in Kachru’s Circles ... 156
Appendix B: Data Permissions from TESOL International Association ................... 157
Appendix C: Determination - Not Human Subject Research..................................... 158
Appendix D: TESOL Online Professional Development Importance and
Satisfaction Raw Data ................................................................................................ 159
Appendix E: Reliability and Validity response from McKinley Advisors ................ 160
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 13
Figure 2. Core Conceptual Framework (Desimone, 2009) ............................................... 44
Figure 3. List of Participants’ Job Placements.................................................................. 69
Figure 4. Data Analysis Flow Chart ................................................................................. 77
Figure 5. Scree Plot ........................................................................................................... 95
Figure 6. Conceptual Framework Anew ......................................................................... 121
xii
List of Tables
Table 1. Variables for Logistic Regression Analysis........................................................ 74
Table 2. Perceived Effectiveness of Professional Development ...................................... 79
Table 3. Professional Development Preferences .............................................................. 80
Table 4. Geographic Location of Participants .................................................................. 83
Table 5. Age of Participants.............................................................................................. 83
Table 6. Level of Education of Participants...................................................................... 85
Table 7. Perceived Effectiveness of Professional Development Response Rates ............ 91
Table 8. Professional Development Preferences Response Rate ...................................... 91
Table 9. Additional Variable Response Rates .................................................................. 92
Table 10. Perceived Effectiveness Descriptive Statistics ................................................. 94
Table 11. Eigenvalues ....................................................................................................... 95
Table 12. Polychoric Correlation Matrix .......................................................................... 96
Table 13. Factor Pattern for One Factor Solution ............................................................. 97
Table 14. Cross-Tab Analysis ........................................................................................... 99
Table 15. Bivariate Correlations ..................................................................................... 100
Table 16. Logistic Regression Model Fitted With Geographic Location as the
Predictor Variable ........................................................................................................... 101
Table 17. Logistic Regression Model Fitted With Age as the Predictor Variable ......... 102
Table 18. Logistic Regression Model Fitted With Level of Education as the
Predictor Variable ........................................................................................................... 103
Table 19. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances ................................................. 107
xiii
Table 20. Between Subject Effects: Professional Development Modality Preference
and Geographic Location ................................................................................................ 108
and Age ........................................................................................................................... 108
and Levels of Education.................................................................................................. 109
Table 23. Between Subject Effects: Professional Development Modality Preference,
Geographic Location, Age, and Levels of Education ..................................................... 110
xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction
With the recent increased use of English around the world, there is a growing
need for professional development in English language teaching (ELT). Graddol found in
his 2006 study that the international number of English language students should reach 2
billion in the following 10–15 years. As Graddol’s study is now 10 years old, the number
of English language students is currently peaking. Evident with an increase of these
students, an increase of well-trained ELT professionals is also required. In order to
produce the vital number of qualified educators required to meet this demand, there is a
growing global need for adequate training for ELT professionals. Because face-to-face
training is not always available to professionals due to geographic constrains (Hudson,
Hudson, & Steel, 2006), many English language professionals are looking to online
professional development (OPD) as a viable delivery modality to help fill this gap in ELT
training (Bickel, Shin, Taylor, Faust, & Penniston, 2013; Sari, 2012; Simpson, 2005).
Context of the Problem
English is the language of choice at a global level. The English language is
utilized in international trade, multimedia entertainment, and economic and political
discourse (Crystal, 1998; Raley, 2003; Smith, 2005; TESOL, 2008; Warschauer, 2000).
The British Council currently lists 60 sovereign and 28 nonsovereign nations where
English is an official language. In their Graduate Student Handbook, North Carolina State
University (n.d.) cites 54 countries using English as the language of instruction in higher
education.
English as a global language has created a unique opportunity for ELT
professionals around the world. With each passing year, the world continues to create
1
global communication networks through tourism, business, scientific exchange, and
media (Warschauer, 2000). As a result, countries such as China, South Korea, and Japan
are ELT employment hotspots, with a growing need in Central and South America and
the Middle East (Ferdinandt, 2011). Today, it would be a challenge to find a country that
lacks an interest in having more ELT professionals in order to become a more English
language proficient nation.
There has also been significant growth in the U.S. English language student
population. States such as Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, and the Carolinas have
experienced 300% increases in the numbers of these students from 1995–2005 (Payán &
Nettles, 2008). In 2010, 55 million school-aged students were projected to enroll during
the 2009–2010 school year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). An estimated 4,606,319 students
were identified as students with limited English proficiency (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010), which means roughly 12% of primary and secondary students require
English language services. Overall, this population has grown 63.54% since 1995 with
the actual number of school-aged children only increasing by 4.44% in the same
timeframe (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2011).
The National Education Association predicts that one in four school-aged students will be
identified as an English language learner by 2025 (Van Roekel, 2010). In addition to
these figures, the United States is experiencing an English language teacher shortage in
both the primary and secondary classrooms (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b).
Being a native English speaker does not necessarily present an advantage when it
comes to understanding English as a global language. One reason for this might stem
from the lack of a common English language culture (Colarusso, 2010; Warschauer,
2
2000). Countries such as India and Singapore use English extensively and have great
influence on how English as a global language is being developed (Graddol, 2006). As a
result, English is being taught with a variety of world cultures and not necessarily the
primary cultures found in Kachru’s (1983) inner language circle (i.e., Australia, Canada,
Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States).
A traditional practice in second language acquisition is to teach the culture of a
language alongside the language (Vernier, Barbuzza, Del Giusti, & del Moral, 2008). For
decades, ELT educators have presented English language and culture together, using
Kachru's (1983) inner circle countries as the English language culture foundation.
Parceling language and culture in a unit of instruction may no longer be necessary. The
lack of a specific culture in global English will force ELT practitioners to adjust their
way of teaching (Warschauer, 2000) and disaggregate culture from any English language
classroom outcomes. In order to accommodate for this pragmatic shift, a great deal of
training will be needed not only for new teachers entering the ELT profession but also for
seasoned teachers who are used to teaching a specific English culture alongside the
English language.
Graddol (2006) claims that once the international apex of English language
students is reached, it will soon thereafter begin to decline. There are two important
factors to identify in this claim: 1) It was made 8 years ago, meaning we should reach 2
billion students sometime between 2016 and 2021, and 2) access to digital tools continues
to follow Moore’s Law1 (Moore, 1965), meaning technology today is significantly faster
and more affordable than the technology of 2006. As the world reaches its peak number
1
Moore’s Law predicted in 1965 that computer processor speeds would double every 2 years and that, as
the computer industry develops faster processors, the cost of computer hardware would benefit from a great
reduction. To date, his prediction has proved accurate.
3
of English language students, it will need more ELT professionals. To meet the consistent
and increasing need for qualified English language teachers, more ELT training needs to
take place. One way this can happen is through OPD.
OPD is not new to ELT. There are several studies that show success when
implementing ELT professional development via the Internet (Bickel et al., 2013;
Herman, 2012; Kibler & Roman, 2013; Kulavuz-Onal & Vásquez, 2013; Sari, 2012;
Simpson, 2005). International education associations such as the International
Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL) and TESOL
International Association (TESOL) currently have multiple ways for members and
nonmembers to participate in OPD. Both organizations have several professional learning
networks, sometimes referred to as online communities of practice (oCOPs), ranging
from classroom instruction to computer-assisted language learning to material
development. Participants share insights and solicit guidance on ELT education issues
that arise daily. Beyond their oCOPs, IATEFL and TESOL offer online courses,
certificate programs, conferences, and virtual seminars as forms of continuing digital
professional development. Both of these associations foster transnational
communications and garner ELT content for their respective memberships as seen in their
mission statements and strategic plans. These professional associations represent just one
small piece of the OPD offerings available to the global ELT professional audience.
As the Internet reaches more geographically isolated areas of the globe, new
online avenues for the international teaching community to share pedagogical resources
and participate in peer-to-peer professional development are moving to the forefront.
oCOPs provide an opportunity for teachers to learn from each other and build new
4
knowledge together (Johnson, 2001). As participants try to understand and apply new
concepts, OPD is able to break down the walls of teacher isolation (King, 2011; Lock,
2006; Schlager & Fusco, 2003). Digital venues are being used as a way to increase
communication and collaboration across borders (Herman, 2012; Vavasseur &
MacGregor, 2008). The Internet has created opportunities for ELT professionals to learn
from their transnational neighbors.
Additionally, international borders and time zones are no longer an issue when it
comes to professional development in the ELT community. People from all over the
world can participate in OPD as long as the bandwidth and hardware are available. Sari’s
(2012) examination of English teachers in Indonesia discusses how location does not
have to be a deciding factor for which teachers receive ELT professional development.
Hodgkinson-Williams and Mostert (2005) make the same claim for teachers in U.S. rural
communities. Asynchronous participation makes OPD desirable when teachers cannot
find time to plan face-to-face professional development or log onto synchronous online
events (Byington, 2011; Roessingh & Johnson, 2005). OPD also avails as much time as
needed for participants to reflect on the content that is being discussed. Participants are
able to reply thoughtfully instead of providing spontaneous, ill-conceived reactions that
might come from face-to-face meetings (Wang & Chen, 2010).
OPD presents an efficient and logical place to train ELT professionals. However,
a pedagogical professional development shift would need to take place if educators are to
allow technology to replace face-to-face professional development interactions (Carr &
Chambers, 2006a; Lock, 2006). When professional development can happen anywhere at
any time (Liu, Chen, Sun, Wible, & Kuo, 2010), educators can create sustainable
5
resources that can lead to a quality teaching practice (Schlager & Fusco, 2003), and face-
to-face trainings may no longer be necessary. This will become increasingly important
because there is a consistent increase in the English language population and,
consequently, a rising need for more ELT educators.
Statement of the Problem
There is an unprecedented demand for ELT worldwide (Ferdinandt, 2011;
Warschauer, 2000). With the increasing need for ELT professionals, there is an
increasing need for new teachers to be trained and seasoned teachers to learn about the
changing trends in the ELT world. Historically, geographic location of ELT professionals
made it difficult for collaboration and face-to-face meetings (Hudson et al., 2006).
Current research shows that geographic location is becoming less and less the problem
(Johnson, 2001; Ke & Hoadley, 2009). Because of digital technologies, more platforms
for delivering ELT training are becoming prevalent. With both face-to-face and digital
trainings available, this study identifies any differences in an ELT professional’s
perceived effectiveness of professional development based on that professional’s
preferred modality of receiving such training. The professional’s geographic location,
age, and level of education are used as predictors and indicators when comparing
perceived effectiveness and preferred choice in professional development modality.
There is a lack of research to support the effectiveness of OPD as a means for
improving teaching and learning. Schlager and Fusco (2003) claim that many
organizations are “putting the cart before the horse” when it comes to implementing
professional development via online platforms without performing the necessary
scholarly research to support the claim that OPD is effective (p. 203). Many teachers
6
have been receiving OPD before qualitative or quantitative research has been completed
(Hutchison & Colwell, 2011). Moreover, there is little research surrounding the
effectiveness of such OPD in actual ELT classroom instruction and in building teacher
confidence.
Purpose and Research Questions
In evaluating the current research, OPD is being utilized to a great extent in the
international ELT community. Much of this research has been conducted through
qualitative means, giving a rich foundation to the reasons why OPD is growing in ELT
training. However, there are gaps in the research when it comes to quantitative data
analysis and the type of impact online ELT training might have on classroom instruction
and teacher confidence. This study adds quantitative data analysis to the body of research
regarding OPD and supports the use of OPD in the ELT community by measuring its
perceived effectiveness on classroom instruction and teacher confidence while showing
how geographic location, age, and level of education of participants might contribute to
the perceived effectiveness and professional development modality choice.
The purpose of this study was to examine ELT educators' perceived effectiveness
of professional development in classroom instruction and teacher confidence, identify
their professional development modality preferences, and explore the possible differences
that exist in perceived effectiveness and preferred choice in professional development
modality by pairing modality choice with a participant’s geographic location, age, and
level of education. Although this study includes both online and face-to-face professional
development data, the main focus was on the effectiveness and use of OPD. To develop
appropriate findings in the study, the following research questions were developed:
7
Q1: When measuring perceived effectiveness of professional development, what
are the underlying factor structures found when examining the following
five variables:
 A teacher's ability to understand the needs of English language students
 The quality of a teacher's classroom teaching
 The quality of a teacher's curriculum and course materials
 A teacher's ability to help students achieve their learning outcomes
 A teacher's ability to effectively manage the classroom
This first question provided the quantitative foundation of this study. Finding the
underlying factor structures in these data gave rise to the correlations that exist among the
variables. In addition, this question aligns with Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory.
Self-efficacy is the judgment an individual makes about his or her ability to execute a
particular behavior. Epstein & Whillhite (2015) builds on this definition by connecting
teachers specifically to self-efficacy by saying teacher-efficacy is the belief that teachers
can impact student learning. These terms are used interchangeably in this study.
Q2: What is the likelihood that ELT educators have a preference in receiving
OPD versus face-to-face professional development when analyzing the
following demographic characteristics: geographic location, age, and level
of education?
Researchers have started to compare how OPD is similar to face-to-face
professional development theories and findings (Chitanana, 2012; Fishman et al., 2013;
McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). When looking specifically at self-efficacy, online and
face-to-face professional development still have some opposing conclusions. Kao, Tsai,
8
and Shih (2014) find self-efficacy works the same when making comparisons, whereas
Kissau and Algozzine (2015) reports participants having lower self-efficacy in OPD. The
findings from this question support the rationale behind using geographic location, age,
and level of education as additional variables paired with modality preference for the
final research question.
Q3: Do the differences in perceived effectiveness based on an educator's
preferred modality of receiving professional development vary as a function
when examining geographic location, age, or level of education? Does one
variable or a combination of variables (i.e. educator's preferred modality of
receiving the professional development, geographic location, age, or level of
education) prove greater impact when compared to the perceived
effectiveness of professional development?
Similar to Research Question 2, this question continues to compare online and
face-to-face professional development. Desimone (2009) created a core conceptual
framework (CCF) for studying both online and face-to-face teacher professional
development. She compels others to use this CCF when measuring the effectiveness of a
professional development on student outcomes through four steps: 1) participating in
professional development, 2) increasing a teacher's knowledge and skills, 3) change in
instruction, and 4) improved student learning. Although this research question does not
address these steps explicitly, the findings surrounding this question add to her
operational theory on how a particular professional development modality affects student
outcomes.
9
The overarching hypothesis guiding this study is that there are no differences in
an ELT educator’s perceived effectiveness based on his or her preferred modality of
receiving professional development regardless of his or her geographic location, age, and
level of education. The findings of the three research questions will help future ELT
researchers who are looking for support using CCF and measuring online and face-to-
face self-efficacy correlations surrounding professional development.
Significance of the Study
This study adds quantitative evidence to the literature by showing how an ELT
educator's perceived effectiveness when receiving OPD can influence classroom
instruction and teaching confidence. Conflicting research claims that OPD creates an ebb
and flow of teacher confidence as they engage with the content (Manner & Rodriguez,
2012) while other research shows that teaching confidence heightens when participating
in OPD (Verster & ICT4 Champions, 2009). Kibler and Roman (2013) and Fishman et al.
(2013) start making a case for OPD effectiveness on classroom instruction but fall short
by not looking for the direct link. This study adds quantitative evidence citing a direct
relationship between OPD and classroom instruction as well as between OPD and the
improving of teaching confidence by analyzing participants' self-reports.
When looking at comparisons of preferred professional development modalities
and the effect these modalities have in classroom instruction and teaching confidence,
school leaders will be able to customize a variety of professional development types for
the ELT teacher audience all around the world. Building more research around OPD
creates the opportunity to influence policy documents and improve communication from
researchers to decision makers (Verster & ICT4 Champions, 2009; Bogdanou, Starr,
10
Weatherall, & Leslie, 2013). The U.S. Department of Education is already building
initiatives around a school’s adaptation of OPD (Fishman et al., 2013). The motivation
behind this plan was to increase educational professional development availability and
scalability. As noted in the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, currently known as the Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA;
2015), professional development remains a pressing issue for educators working with
English as a second language students. The findings of this study could potentially
influence decision makers as they build professional development policy for ELT
professionals, their schools, and their school districts.
Researchers agree that OPD can improve professional practice (Hew & Hara,
2007; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008; Ward & Parr, 2006). As outlined in Chapter 2,
qualitative research has examined the use of OPD and its impact on ELT teacher training
programs (Bickel et al., 2013; Herman, 2012; Kibler & Roman, 2013; Kulavuz-Onal &
Vásquez, 2013; Sari, 2012; Simpson, 2005. This study adds quantitative evidence from
more than 100 countries to these claims and lessens the current gap in the literature when
it comes to the amount of quantitative research asking similar questions. By examining
professional development modality preference and measuring ELT professional
development effectiveness in a classroom setting, school administrators and ministries of
education might be able to recommend a certain delivery method for ELT professional
development over others.
Although several studies have shown participant preference in professional
development modality (Donavant, 2009; Slotte & Herbert, 2006; Stewart & Abidi, 2012),
there is a gap in the literature identifying which demographic characteristics might be the
11
best predictors. This study examines how geographic location, age, and levels of
education influence ELT professional development delivery preference. In analyzing
specific types of ELT professional development modalities (i.e., face-to-face conferences,
seminars and workshops, peer-to-peer exchanges, online courses and programs, virtual
seminars, and on-demand resources), the study contributes to the literature by
establishing modality norms or patterns surrounding the training of ELT educators.
Participants benefit from OPD (Bickel et al., 2013; Herman, 2012; Kibler, &
Roman, 2013; Kulavuz-Onal & Vásquez, 2013; Sari, 2012; Simpson, 2005). What makes
this study unique is that it quantifies the perceived effectiveness of OPD on classroom
instruction and teacher confidence in an ELT environment. The findings of this study
show the OPD consumers what professional development modality might influence their
continuing education path. Depending on their geographic location, age, or level of
education, the ELT participants in this study might be able to compare the findings with
their own OPD experience or take a first step in joining an OPD.
Finally, this study could influence all levels of ELT teacher trainers (e.g primary,
secondary, and tertiary). Teacher trainers around the world are currently creating online
certificate programs, training courses, virtual seminars, and oCOPs. Teacher trainers have
been facilitating OPD without having a clear understanding if this type of professional
development is truly effective; these findings could influence ELT teacher trainers in all
parts of the world.
Conceptual Framework
As the research shows, more ELT educators are looking to OPD as a way to meet
the needs of the growing ELT professional population. Although some of the literature
12
recognizes there are a number of teachers who prefer face-to-face professional
development (Baek, 2006; Hall & Herrington, 2010; Hutchison & Colwell, 2011;
Kingsley, 2009), this study's literature review focuses on OPD in order to show if
geographic location, age, and level of education are appropriate indicators to predict an
ELT training preference and how OPD training may differ in the effects of classroom
instruction and teacher confidence. Because there is adequate research regarding face-to-
face professional development effectiveness, Chapter 2 starts with a brief comparison of
online and face-to-face professional development then discusses the theories that support
OPD as a useful mode of training. The main theory and concept that frame this study's
research questions can be found in self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) and the CCF
(Desimone, 2009). The literature also shows how the activity theory promotes the
effectiveness of professional development implementation (Baran & Cagiltay, 2010).
These models build on and strengthen each other to create a solid foundation for this
study, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Self-Efficacy
• Four steps to framework • Requires participants
• PD should have five • Grounded in "locus of to take action
components • Recognizes culture
control"
• Higher self-efficacy, higher
Core Conceptual impact on student learning The Activity
Framework Model
Core conceptual framework. Presented in 2009, Desimone’s work aggregates
hundreds of professional development studies to develop a CCF that can be used to
measure effective professional development. In aggregating, she posits that five
13
characteristics must be addressed when building professional development: content focus,
active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. In addition, the
framework has four elements of action: teacher experiences quality professional
development (see five characteristics), the professional development increases a teacher's
knowledge and skills, the teacher uses the new knowledge in the classroom, and student
learning increases. In moving forward, if all professional development studies use the
five characteristics and four elements of action, researchers will take great strides in
solidifying the current body of knowledge surrounding professional development.
Desimone (2009) cites that most data pertaining to professional development's
impact on student outcomes are teacher self-reported data. If participants are self-
reporting, they may be giving a clearer indication of their self-efficacy. This study uses
self-reporting data from ELT educators and could potentially strengthen the increase in
the student learning component of her framework.
Self-efficacy theory. This study looks at how ELT educators evaluate the
effectiveness of implementing OPD into their professional practice. It is in student
outcomes participants truly see the benefit of professional development. When looking at
how self-efficacy theory is used in education, teacher replaces self and teacher-efficacy is
the belief that teachers can impact student learning (Epstein & Whillhite, 2015). Teacher-
efficacy is grounded within Rotter's "locus of control" and Bandura's social cognitive
theory, (as cited in Labone, 2004). High levels of teacher-efficacy beget high levels of
student success and vice-versa. Low levels of teacher-efficacy beget low levels of student
success.
14
With this being said, it behooves ELT professionals to act on the new knowledge
and skills presented in OPD. As an educator increases his or her confidence, he or she is
positioned to generate greater student outcomes. These concepts gain support when
examined next to Baran and Cagiltay's (2010) activity model analysis.
The activity model. When looking at OPD, it is important to include the activity
model, a cornerstone of oCOPs, in this study's framework. The activity model is
sociocultural (Baran & Cagiltay, 2010) and fits with the self-efficacy theory because of
the actions OPD participants take when implementing knowledge or skills acquired.
oCOPs force participants to be cognizant of their own knowledge management and put it
into action. Participants are expected to transform noncodified, tacit knowledge into
explicit, codified knowledge. By voluntarily participating in OPD, groups are able to put
theory into practice by sharing and shaping the documented body of knowledge. As
participants continue to collaborate, they can be large, social activity systems that
encourage interaction regardless of participant location. This opportunity allows
participants to create a vast network of knowledge that can be shared with anyone who
has Internet access.
Summary of Methodology
Data for this study come from the October 2014 TESOL International Association
Member Needs Survey. With the assistance of TESOL staff, this survey was developed
by McKinley Advisors (McKinley), a Washington, DC, and Chicago based consulting
firm focusing on the membership experience for professional associations. The survey
was made available to the public from September 12–24, 2014. Participants of this survey
were ELT professionals from 106 countries (Appendix A) that had some connection with
15
TESOL via an online interaction. The true number of ELT professionals around the world
is unknown. Therefore, the sample used in this study may not be a representative sample
of the ELT global population. Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) argue that this can often be
the case and, in order to move forward, the number of participants reached in this study
can be used as a representative population.
The TESOL Member Needs Survey asks more than 50 questions of the
participants. For this study, six questions will be used to answer the study's research
questions, and two additional questions will be used to show employment status of the
participants. The demographic questions used in this study pertain to a participant's
geographic location, his/her age, and his/her highest level of education. The other survey
questions used to answer the research questions pertain to a participant's preferred
method for participating in professional development (i.e., online and face-to-face), and
how perceived effectiveness of professional development may have on his/her classroom
instruction and teaching confidence.
This study attempts to make direct connections between OPD and its perceived
effectiveness on classroom instruction and teacher confidence by using geographic
location, age, and level of education as indicators. A variety of statistical tests will be
used to answer the research questions, including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using
a polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression, independent-sample t-test, and two-
and four-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). With the results from the polychoric
correlation matrix, a single factor-component will be used to create the necessary factor
score for the ANOVA tests in the third research question.
16
Research Outline
At the beginning of this study an extensive review of the literature was completed.
In developing an exhaustive list of possible literature, ERIC (EBSCO), Education Source,
JSTOR, and Dissertations and Theses Online search engines were used. Key words
included online professional development, core conceptual framework, face-to-face
professional development, international teaching, English language teacher, online
learning community, community of practice, professional development, participants,
behaviors, self-efficacy, and social media. In using these keywords, the literature review
looks at how the pervasiveness of the Internet can contribute to educational professional
development for ELT professionals anywhere and at any time around the world.
Permission to use the data set has been obtained from TESOL International
Association (Appendix B) in September 2014. Permission to conduct this study has been
obtained from the George Washington University’s Office of Human Research,
Institutional Review Board (IRB; Appendix C) in the following year. The participants in
the data set were unidentifiable and untraceable.
The participants of this study were English language professionals from around
the world. Participants will include primary, secondary, adult, and higher education
teachers; curriculum developers; administrators; councilors and advisors; and materials
developers all from the ELT field. The latest versions of statistical analysis system, SAS,
and statistical package for social sciences, SPSS, will be used to analyze the data and test
the hypotheses. For most tests, significance levels will be set at the 0.05 level. In two of
the ANOVA tests, significance levels were set at 0.01 because the variables violated the
homogeneity of variance test.
17
Upon completion of the full data analysis in Chapter 4, a general discussion
answers the research questions and highlights any significant findings. In analyzing
geographic location, age, and level of education, some predications correlate between the
variables and a participant’s preferred method of receiving professional development. In
addition, connections between variables and the effectiveness of professional
development on classroom instruction and teacher confidence might offer avenues for
administrators to take when planning ELT professional development. These findings are
compared to the literature review. Similarities and differences will be pointed out.
Recommended future studies are also suggested.
Delimitations
Although many content-area educators participate in OPD, this study focused on
ELT professionals and their perceived effectiveness of how the OPD assists in classroom
instruction and teacher confidence. The data came from ELT professionals’ self-reports.
Data analysis of the survey leads to the findings and do not include any direct classroom
observation nor artifact examination.
In looking at the variety of questions available in the TESOL Member Needs
Survey, a total of 10 questions are used in this study, eight for data analysis and raw data
from two questions are found in Appendix D. TESOL has a great deal of data in this
survey that could use a more sophisticated analysis. A variety of TESOL products were
surveyed (e.g. books, journals, the career center, and advocacy efforts). This study was
not interested in examining TESOL as a professional association. By extracting the
survey questions dealing with this study's research questions, the study maintained its
18
focus on the effectiveness of OPD and how this training might impact student outcomes
in English language teaching.
Having chosen to organize the data into Kachru’s (1983) language circles, an
uneven balance of participants is presented with each geographic location group. This
study's extended circle had representation from 93 countries and 466 participants; 8
countries and 35 participants were represented in the outer circle, and 5 countries and
1,109 participants were part of the inner circle. Even though the majority of countries
were represented in the extended circle, the majority of participants were found in the
inner circle and, more specifically, in the United States. Recently, Park and Wee (2009)
have criticized Kachru's (1983) language circles and called for a more inclusive World
Englishes model.
Last, survey participants were able to show their preference of online and face-to-
face professional development in responding to seven different modality types. To
streamline the data analysis, the four online types were grouped together and the three
face-to-face types were grouped together. By combining these data, two new categories
for professional development were developed to perform the necessary analyses. After
combining all the modality types into two categories, online and face-to-face, 85
participants chose all eight professional development options yielding no online and face-
to-face modality preference. These cases were omitted from the logistic regression and
ANOVA tests.
Limitations
The largest limitation to this study is the initial survey parameters. These
constraints stem from TESOL’s global reach via its membership, nonmembership, and
19
affiliate populations of TESOL with access to the Internet, which by no means covers the
entire international ELT population. Participants who received access to the survey could
choose to answer the questions or not. This means that the sample was self-selected.
Consequently, of the 27,828 potential survey participants, only 2,395 participants, or
8.6%, completed enough of the survey to be considered in data analysis. This low number
of participation may lend itself to a myriad of complications when trying to generalize
any claims to the greater ELT and possibly subject-area population. This percentage is so
low, those who were able to respond may not be a representative match of the global ELT
professional population.
Because TESOL is an international association that primarily communicates with
its members through virtual means, paper surveys were not sent nor were they collected.
Because this study's main focus is OPD, this possible limitation is somewhat extraneous.
Nonetheless, there may have been people without Internet access who could have replied
to the survey but were incapable. Connectivity and broadband issues may have been a
concern for potential participants in nations with lesser Internet capabilities. In addition,
because the participants all had access to the Internet, the data could be from people in a
high socioeconomic class.
Another limitation comes from the language the survey was written in and the
degree of the participants’ reading comprehension. The survey was written in English by
native English speakers who live and work in the United States. There is the possibility of
cultural bias, U.S.-specific vocabulary, and influences in the questions that might not
translate to other cultures. There may have also been opportunity for misunderstanding of
the survey and, as a result, misleading answers. TESOL works very hard to be all
20
inclusive in its research and takes these kinds of considerations very seriously. TESOL
supports multilingualism, home/native/first languages, and nonnative English speakers’
rights to receive materials in home/native/first languages (TESOL, 2004). However,
McKinley has limited experience in writing transnational education surveys of this
nature. TESOL was very aware and revised offensive or misleading questions that could
interfere with the data collection several times before the final draft was approved.
Finally, although the survey was geared to take only 25 minute to complete, the English
language proficiencies of possible participants might have required more time. This
particular limitation may account for some of the missing data in the survey.
The last limitation stems from the survey not being piloted. Although McKinley
has a long history of membership analysis, such as this survey, the questions were not
piloted with ELT professionals, nor were they tested with other potential educators. In
addition, gender and socioeconomic status is not collected.
Preliminary Assumptions
Because this study worked with ELT professionals, some unknown perceptions
and interpretations may alter the findings. Data analysis will be based on the following
assumptions:
1. The main assumption being addressed in this study is that an effectiveness
measure can be taken when looking at OPD outcomes in ELT classroom
instruction and teacher confidence. Because so many people are currently using
OPD as a viable alternative to face-to-face teacher training, this study seeks direct
links to its effectiveness. It also assumes that geographic location, age, and level
of education can be key predictors of this effectiveness.
21
2. The OPD content being referred to in this study is of high quality. This
assumption must hold true because of the conceptual framework this study is built
on and the plausibility of OPD having a broader positive impact on classroom
instruction and teacher confidence. Appendix D shows the raw data from the 2014
TESOL Member Needs Survey and satisfies the first part of Desimore's (2009)
CCF, that all professional development exhibit the same features: content focused,
active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation.
3. I have truthfully and thoughtfully analyzed the literature presented in Chapter 2
and made connections that are understandable, accurate, and reliable.
4. This is a small snapshot of what ELT professionals in October 2014 think of face-
to-face and online professional development. As McKinley points out in its
findings, it is currently impossible to reach all ELT professionals around the
world. The people participating in this survey may be from a higher
socioeconomic status because of their Internet access, and it is possible that the
survey may not represent ELT participants that come from a lower socioeconomic
status.
5. The participants of the survey answered the questions accurately and truthfully
based on their current ELT situation.
Definition of Key Terms
Researchers have struggled to create consensus when trying to define OPD. Some
OPD definitions are very simple, such as professional development having a World Wide
Web component (Reese, 2010). Others are more complex, such as instructional materials
transmitted via digital means to participants in a different location than the instructor's
22
(Donavant, 2009). There are also very general definitions such as that online learning
must have three parts: technical, managerial, and social (Ernest et al., 2013). In some
cases, researchers believe that OPD activities do not have to be collaborative in nature
(e.g., online reading, independent emails, curated resources, and content summaries can
be sufficient; Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004).
In this study, OPD is defined as any digital professional development that takes
place over the Internet (Fishman et al., 2013). Platforms include but are not limited to
oCOPs/online learning communities (OLCs), online courses, certificate programs, virtual
seminars, discussion forums, on-demand resources, and peer-to-peer exchanges (Dash,
Magidin de Kramer, O’Dwyer, Masters, & Russell, 2012; Wu, Gao, & Zhang, 2014).
Other key terms include:
 Active user: a recognizable name or avatar in an OPD
 English language teaching (ELT): a global term used in relation to the teaching of
English as an additional, a foreign, or a second language
 Face-to-face: a professional development event that takes place in real time and in
person
 Facilitator: sometimes referred to as a mentor or moderator; usually a subject
matter expert leading an online or face-to-face professional development
 Kachru's (1983) circles: three concentric circles outlining English language
groups around the world: the inner circle includes countries where English is the
traditional language, the outer circle includes countries that have used English in
historical contexts or lists English as an official language, and the extended circle
23
includes countries that have no real ties to English but are using English as a way
of professional advancement or communication
 Lurker: a silent participant in an OPD activity; often considered inactive
 Social media: interaction within the Internet where participants share views,
opinions, and resources; not considered formal presentation
 TESOL International Association (TESOL): a global education organization
dedicated to advancing the expertise of English language teaching and learning
worldwide
 Transnational: a group comprising people and/or organizations from around the
world
Organization of the Study
The study is organized into five chapters including an introduction, a review of
the related literature, the methodology used to examine the data, a presentation of the
results, and some closing remarks to include a summary, implications, and
recommendations.
Chapter 1 presents the context of the study, a statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, the study’s significance, conceptual framework, an
introduction to the methodology, a research outline, delimitations and limitations of the
study, definition of the key terms, and organization of the proposal.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature related to the study’s statement of the
problem and includes the parameters involved in formulation of the research questions
and research hypotheses. The chapter is organized into an introduction, a comparison of
online and face-to-face professional development, an overview of social media's
24
influence on international OPD, the supportive learning theories and conceptual
framework, a demonstration of OPD significance in the ELT community, some
professional OPD overlap, and a rationale for using geographic location, age, and level of
education as variables.
Chapter 3 describes the methods and procedures in this study, and includes a
description of the research design, identification of the data sets and study samples,
explanation of the research questions and descriptions of the dependent and independent
variables, and an explanation of the procedures for data collection and treatment of the
data. A summary of the methods and procedures is presented at the end of the chapter.
Chapter 4 presents the result of the quantitative analysis of research questions
including EFA using a polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression, independent-
sample t-tests and ANOVA tests. Statements of the null hypotheses are presented in this
chapter.
Chapter 5 presents broader discussions surrounding the research questions and
looks at how this study could contribute to professional ELT literature, policy, practice,
and practitioners in a significant way.
25
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The ubiquity of the World Wide Web has produced a variety of OPD platforms
for the international teaching community. Research is beginning to show that OPD
modalities are comparable to traditional face-to-face methods of professional
development (Chitanana, 2012; Fishman, et al., 2013; Slotte & Herbert, 2006). As
professional development evolves from traditional face-to-face events, these types of
OPD are becoming a common way for teachers to meet and collaborate (Murugaiah,
Azman, Thang, & Krish, 2012). The purpose of this study was to examine ELT
educators' perceived effectiveness of professional development in classroom instruction
and teacher confidence, identify their professional development modality preference, and
explore the possible differences that exist in perceived effectiveness and preferred choice
in professional development modality by pairing modality choice with a participant’s
geographic location, age, and level of education. Although this study includes both online
and face-to-face professional development data, the main focus is on the effectiveness
and use of OPD.
This chapter brings together insight from the literature to connect an educators'
perceived effectiveness of OPD to the ELT classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
As the review will show, research already claims an indirect OPD link to improved
classroom outcomes (Kibler & Roman, 2013; Fishman et al., 2013). This study seeks to
build on this indirect link and provide a direct OPD link to a teacher's classroom
effectiveness. This study also plans to show if geographic location, age, and level of
education have an influence in how significant the connection between OPD and
perceived effectiveness might be.
26
This literature review is the foundation of the research questions presented in
Chapter 3, the statistical analysis in Chapter 4, and the concluding discussion in Chapter
5. It was organized to reveal the significant growth of OPD and why this quantitative
study is necessary. The chapter's first section compares online and face-to-face
professional development modalities and their probable effectiveness. The next section
presents a comprehensive overview of OPD by presenting a summary of the different
OPD platforms currently being used, how the structures of OPD are being developed, an
evolution of the characteristics surrounding OPD, and how participants value online
participation through social interactions and the content they may or may not share. This
initial analysis leads to an understanding of what OPD can do and how professionals are
using them for continuing education. Next, this literature review illustrates how social
media has catapulted OPD into the mainstream world of career training. These
introductory sections lay the underpinnings for this study's conceptual framework. The
theories presented in the conceptual framework look at how people use what they have
learned in a particular professional development and implement it in the classroom. This
study has the potential to strengthen these theories by showing a direct connection
between the learning that takes place in OPD and perceived improvements in classroom
instruction. This literature review closes with a demonstration of OPD significance and
challenges found in an ELT environment; a brief examination of commonalities with the
professional health and business sector; how the geographic location, age, and levels of
education are relevant variables in this study; and a concluding synthesis that connects
key insights from the literature to this study.
27
Throughout this study, OPD refers to a large array of online platforms including
professional learning networks (PLNs), oCOPs/OLCs, online courses and certificate
programs, virtual seminars, discussion forums, peer-to-peer exchanges, and on-demand
resources. With this assortment of platforms, educators are now able to share pedagogical
resources and participate in OPD anytime, anyplace (Hara & Hew, 2007). Because this
study focuses on the increase of ELT around the world (Manner & Rodriguez, 2012;
Warschauer, 2000; Yano, 2009), this chapter analyzes the OPD literature through a
second-language (L2) teaching lens.
Face-to-Face and Online Professional Development
For the past few decades, educational professional development has included a
wide variety of online alternatives (McConnell, Parker, Eberhardt, Koehler, &
Lundeberg, 2013). At the turn of the 21st century, researchers recognized the lack of
OPD research and asked for more research to be performed on online professional
learning (Manner & Rodriguez, 2012; Moon, Passmore, Reiser, & Michaels, 2013;
Schlager & Fusco, 2003). These researchers questioned the quality of OPD and suggested
comparisons be made with face-to-face professional development. Since then, research
has not only looked at the quality of OPD, but also how OPD might help or hinder the
feeling of teacher isolation, the time commitment participants have to make to OPD, and
the types of indicators used to decide between participating in online or face-to-face
professional development.
First, to examine the quality of OPD when compared to face-to-face professional
development, more and more, researchers have found no difference. Roessingh and
Johnson (2005) found that the quality of learning in OPD matched that of similar face-to-
28
face professional development. Slotte and Herbert (2006) claimed participants receiving
OPD gained similar or slightly better learning outcomes when compared to learning from
traditional print materials. Aligning with the these studies, other research began surfacing
claiming that there is no significant difference in outcomes when comparing online and
face-to-face professional development (Chitanana, 2012; Fishman et al., 2013), including
a study looking at the professional development of police officers (Donavant, 2009).
Slotte and Herbert (2006) say that using the same materials and outcomes produces
similar results, regardless of the professional development delivery method.
Second, OPD research also counters Dreeben’s (2005) and Little’s (1990) views
of teacher isolation. Recent studies have found participants engaging in OPD can break
down these feelings of isolation (Dieleman & Duncan, 2013; Duncan-Howell, 2010),
even though McInnerney and Roberts (2004) have claimed that OPD can be cold and
isolating when compared to the immediate feedback participants receive when attending
a face-to-face professional development. OPD can break down walls of geographic
isolation through virtual connections such as online forums, video conferencing, and
social media (Sari, 2012). OPD offers teachers a place to speak to and learn from other
teachers (Lock, 2006). In McInnerney’s and Roberts's (2004) comparative online and
face-to-face professional development study, participant relationship building focuses
more and more on content-specific tasks than geographic specific locations. Educators
are able to create a digital sense of self (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004) and build
mentor/mentee relationships online (Tsai, 2012) all within a digital community (Marrero,
Riccio, Woodruff, & Schuster, 2010; Ostashewski, Reid, & Moisey, 2011). OPD is also a
way to link national educators together (Reese, 2010).
29
Third, time commitment of OPD participants varies. Studies have shown that
OPD can be completed faster (Ostashewski, Reid, & Moisey, 2011; Slotte & Herbert,
2006) because participants do not have to move with the class from activity to activity
and any in-class "break time" can be ignored (Fishman et al., 2013). Depending on the
platform, participants may be able to finish tasks quickly because of the asynchronous
interaction with peers (Carr & Chambers, 2006b). Schools need to allow time for
participation in the school day. Teachers also need time to sit quietly, think, reflect, and
plan using the newly acquired content. Teachers also need time to understand the basic
workings of a computer.
Fourth and last, it is also important to recognize the challenges that come with
OPD (Ernest et al., 2013). By simply adding OPD into the mix of professional
development options, choosing the proper delivery method becomes more challenging
(Fishman et al., 2013). Factors such as cost, development, implementation, and the U.S.
Department of Education recent push for more educational OPD in its National Education
Technology Plan (Fishman et al., 2013) and the recent passing of ESSA (2015) put
decision makers in an awkward situation. These obstacles show that choosing the right
modality for professional development is still very difficult even with strong
recommendations from government offices.
For the purpose of this study, the positives outweigh the negatives when it comes
to implementing OPD. Maintaining high quality professional development, breaking
down walls of isolation, and allowing for participants to vary the time needed to complete
tasks all create a user-friendly learning environment. All of these characteristics come
from a slow and steady OPD evolution.
30
An Overview of Online Professional Development
OPD is defined as any digital professional development that takes place partially
or completely over the Internet (Fishman, et al., 2013). OPD options are emerging with a
variety of purposes, audiences, and digital platforms (Liu, 2012). Platforms include
professional learning communities, facilitated courses, self-pace courses, massive online
open courses (MOOCs), certificate programs, virtual seminars, video conferencing,
discussion forums, listservs, and on-demand resources (Dash, et al., 2012; Hew & Hara,
2007; Marrero, Riccio, Woodruff, & Schuster, 2010; Reese, 2010; Smith, 2014; Vivian,
Falkner, & Falkner, 2014; Wu, Gao, & Zhang, 2014). The TESOL International
Association Member Needs Survey identifies online modalities as online seminars,
courses or programs, on-demand resources, and peer-to-peer exchanges. Wu, Gao, and
Zhang (2014) claim that no matter the OPD platform, its true purpose is to promote
oCOPs.
To understand oCOPs, we need to start with the traditional understanding of face-
to-face communities of practice (COPs). Several researchers base their interpretation of
COPs on Lave and Wenger’s 1991 definition (Andrew, 2011; Baek, 2006; Holmes, 2013;
Ke & Hoadley, 2009; King, 2011; Liu, 2012; Mackey & Evans, 2011; Murugaiah et al.,
2012; Olofsson, 2007; Palincsar, 1998; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Sari, 2012; Schlager &
Fusco, 2003; Simpson, 2005; Thoms, Garrett, Soffer, & Ryan, 2008; Wang, Sierra, &
Folger, 2003). To summarize this definition, COPs are a collection of people with similar
problems or passions, grouped together to deepen their knowledge, and find solutions.
COPs are able to promote best practices and develop professional skills.
31
oCOPs expand the COPs framework outlined above by existing on the Internet
and being structured with a clear understanding of domain, community, and practice
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). As cited in Sherer, Shea, and Kristensen (2003),
an oCOP's domain is its area of focus, the community is where the participants are
learning together, and the practice is how they share knowledge. Mirroring these
characteristics, OPD platform activities focus on improving professional knowledge
(Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2004), create and build community (Chitanana, 2012; Teles &
Coutinho, 2011; Vivian et al., 2014), use technology mediated learning (Brooks &
Gibson, 2012), and are a good place to share identities, artifacts, and tacit knowledge (So,
Lossman, Lim, & Jacobson, 2009).
Structure. Researchers have found the Wenger et al. (2002) domain, community,
practice framework a viable structure for studying oCOPs (Byington, 2011; Dubé,
Bourhis, & Jacob, 2006; Gray, 2004; Gunawardena et al., 2009; Lin & Lin, 2006;
Rosenbaum & Shachaf, 2010; Stewart & Abidi, 2012). By maintaining a common
domain, communities create content that is more concrete when placed within that
domain (Baker-Eveleth, Sarker, & Eveleth, 2005) and therefore has the potential to
improve the practice.
The general structure for OPD is Internet-based learning (Vivian et al., 2014).
Technology is inherently embedded into OPD structures and plays a huge role in the
organization of content (Orlikowski, 2000). OPD is flexible and convenient (Donavant,
2009; Smith, 2014), participants can work at their own pace (Ostashewski, Reid, &
Moisey, 2011), and communication can be ongoing (Reese, 2010). When OPD uses an
asynchronous structure, participants are automatically given equal time to respond to
32
activities (Cho & Rathbun, 2013) and instructional wait times are redefining (Roessingh
& Johnson, 2005). Even though these characteristics can be seen as a solid foundation for
OPD structures, the structure of an OPD varies within the type of platform being used.
Hew and Hara (2007) collected data from an active listserv’s postings and asked
20 open-ended questions to various participants regarding membership in an oCOP.
Using the same 2004 domain, community, practice framework from Snyder, Wenger, and
Briggs (as cited in Hew & Hara, 2007), Hew and Hara found that participants openly
shared knowledge to advance the teaching and learning field as well as to improve their
own personal teaching practice. A participant's motivation comes from being a part of the
collective online structure. Although this is a critical piece of an online framework, the
Wenger et al. (2002) framework alone might not be enough.
Researchers continue to build on the Wenger et al. (2002) framework. Dubé et al.
(2006) work with oCOPs took the domain, community, practice framework a bit further
and created a typology of 21 additional characteristics. They categorize the characteristics
under four themes: demographics, organization context, membership characteristics, and
technology environment. These researchers are not claiming an oCOP needs to actualize
all 21 characteristics to be considered active. They are merely building on the Wegner et
al. (2002) framework. Hara, Shachaf, and Stoerger (2009) continued working with oCOP
and added three more characteristics under the organizational context theme, which
brings the complete list to 24 characteristics. Although identifying all these
characteristics in an OPD can be challenging, actualizing these characteristics will allow
teacher trainers to strengthen the structure of all OPD and allow participants to achieve
common goals.
33
Setting and achieving common goals are some other ways to structure and keep
OPD active (De Jong, 2012; Johnson, 2001). De Jong (2012) states that participants
should hold similar views on teaching and learning. This makes sense because, as a
group, oCOPs/OLCs have to reach their goals to feel successful. If oCOPs struggle to
reach their goals, they break down and become inactive (Johnson, 2001). When members
of oCOPs/OLCs have common, clear goals, classroom practice improves (McConnell et
al., 2013). It is unclear how goals should be set and who sets them. Because there may be
a gray line between who leads and who follows in OPD, any participant engaging in OPD
can set a goal and share it with the group. OPD can exist to support these types of
structures.
Evolution. While conducting his own literature review of oCOPs in 2001,
Johnson cites that a community’s body of knowledge is always changing. Unlike with
face-to-face professional development, OPD participants are able to expand their
knowledge, generate new knowledge, and discuss innovative ways to use that knowledge
with or without a facilitator. As knowledge increases, the online platform has an
opportunity to transform and create a dynamic learning environment (Lock, 2006). Lin
and Lin (2006) equate this to a natural ecosystem model having nutrients and energy for
development and sustainability maintenance. If communities have a codified body of
knowledge that participants have agreed upon, evolution happens naturally. Gardner,
Bridges, and Walmsley (2012) have studied dynamic online peer interaction that
constantly reconstructs because of the continuous knowledge being shared.
The Internet’s inherent and constant growth provides a great platform for OPD
communities to evolve (Reese, 2010). As professional development moves from
34
traditional face-to-face delivery to online structures, all levels of OPD participation
evolve. Participants have to make adjustments as this evolutionary process takes place.
One of the larger OPD adjustments comes from activities that are being led with or
without an assigned facilitator.
Unlike with face-to-face professional development where participants are
physically present and others can see their interaction, OPD participants do not
experience that luxury. Cho and Rathbun (2013) claim that a facilitator plays a significant
role in OPD. Feger and Zibit (2005) add that the facilitator of an OPD should know the
content and processes of teaching the content, steer peer-to-peer interactions in an
instructive way, and maintain a sense of community. However, these claims do not
always stand true. Donavant (2009) posits that online facilitators are not the same and
cannot replace the functionality of a face-to-face professional development facilitator.
This challenge may impact not only the evolution of an OPD platform, but its structure as
well.
Newcomers to OPD may not like a traditional hierarchical structure (i.e.,
facilitator leading the overarching OPD structure and conversation). OPD structures are
evolving from a vertical top-down structure to a more horizontal, or flat, structure (Wu et
al., 2014). This kind of change will have an impact on how community is formed and
maintained, even in an international context. Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, and Triandis,
(2002) created an integrative framework called the cross-border transfer of organizational
knowledge. It follows four cultural patterns: 1) Vertical individualist (e.g., United States,
United Kingdom), 2) Vertical collectivist (e.g., India, Nigeria), 3) Horizontal
individualist (e.g., Australia, Sweden), and 4) Horizontal collectivist (e.g., Israel, Japan).
35
With the possibility of OPD structure still being evolved, newcomers and seasoned
professionals alike can find an online place for professional development.
There are a lot of OPD opportunities on the Internet. Gunawardena et al. (2009)
outlines how the Wenger et al. (2002) domain, community, practice framework relates to
all oCOPs, regardless of professional focus. The domain of an oCOP needs to have
common ground, personal meaning, and strategic relevance. An oCOP community must
have belonging and commitment. The practice targets specific knowledge that can be
developed, shared, and maintained. With a growing number of mobile technologies (e.g.,
phones and tablets) in the international community, how information is pushed out to
OPD has to be part of the conversation, as well as the potential for instantaneous
responses, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (Bogdanou, Starr, Weatherall, & Leslie, 2013).
Participants take on a particular role when and how often they choose to interact
with an online community: active members, infrequent members, and lurkers (Hur &
Brush, 2009). Yeh (2010) supports this finding but labels participants as active
collaborator, passive collaborator, individualized participant, and indifferent. Simply
labeling the preserved levels of a participant’s online interaction, however, might not
directly correlate to how much they are gaining by being a member of the online
platform. Baker-Eveleth et al. (2005) states that “regulars” generate a feeling of invitation
and community (p. 7). Regulars may unintentionally evolve into the role of facilitator.
Regulars may maintain open lines of communication while striving for participant
reciprocity. If members of a community contribute content, participants look for ways to
contribute to the conversation or for other members to post again (Cheung, Lee, & Lee,
2013). One-way communication in OPD is not healthy; reciprocity is healthy and
36
important (Dieleman & Duncan, 2013). In OPD, participation is a must (Marrero et al.,
2010). Participants usually contribute for individual cognition, interpersonal interaction,
and advancement of an organizational or professional field (Cheung et al., 2013).
Nonparticipants, or lurkers, can be considered problematic by other participants.
Conversely, core contributors who post all the time might scare others from posting and,
possibly, take over the conversations (Dieleman & Duncan, 2013). Based on this
research, participants who regularly contribute content could indirectly be scaring off
people who might be interested in contributing. Lurkers could be lurkers because they
feel like their ideas are going to be ignored.
OPD needs participants who are active. Online communities need participants
who love sharing their knowledge, are able to motivate other people to share, and not
only share for fun, but for the betterment of the community (Jeppesen & Laursen, 2009).
Holmes (2013) adds that the participants within communities practice social
interdependence. This type of interaction, sometimes called collectivism, can lead to
dependence and, with a healthy dose of reciprocity, can lead to personal gain (Hew &
Hara, 2007). An effective OPD platform has to identify key participants. By allowing
some participants to lead, the conversation can not only get going but continue to evolve.
This type of evolution will direct participants to a healthy community of professionals.
Social. Dating back to Aristotle, it is known that humans are social animals. A
key part of a successful OPD is its social component (Ernest et al., 2013). Developing a
social presence in an OLC needs to come first for the participants (Ryman, Burrell,
Hardham, Richardson, & Ross, 2009). There is a social aggregation that happens
naturally in an OPD (Liu, 2012). As participants become more comfortable with each
37
other, they naturally share personal experiences and other nonwork related anecdotal
information (Baker-Eveleth et al., 2005). Liu (2012) paraphrases Barbab et al. (2006) by
saying
persistent, sustained social network of individuals who, by using various forms of
technologically mediated communications, share and develop an overlapping
knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history, and experiences focused on a
common practice and/or mutual enterprise. (p. 703)
These things help build a strong OPD experience.
To have effective virtual-mediated communication, Garrison, Anderson, and
Archer (2000) put forth three essential elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and
teaching presence. Cognitive presence can trigger events, exploration, integrity, and
resolution. Social presence comes from collaboration emotional expression within the
community. Teaching presence looks at instructional management, building
understanding, and direct instruction. Social presence can take more time because
developing relationships can be unwieldy (Garrison et al., 2000). Developing social
protocols or structures might be the best way to build relationships in an OPD.
An important feature of maintaining camaraderie in an online community is to
have some form of leadership (Johnson, 2001; Farooq, Schank, Harris, Fusco, &
Schlager, 2007; Ryman et al., 2009; Schlager & Fusco, 2003; Ward & Parr, 2006). Often,
participants look to the group’s experts to be the leaders. However, the term “expert”
could have a negative connotation due to an assumed level of professional clout. Teacher-
leaders, who may not refer to themselves as experts, can make a large impact in the
development of leadership in an OPD (Ward & Parr, 2006). In order to share online
38
space, Bickel et al. (2013) claim that experts should remove their expert hat and become
more of a facilitator. In doing so, the OPD's structure could flatten and become more
horizontal in nature. Participants might rather communicate with each other on a more
natural peer/coach level (Ryman et al., 2009). Contributing to the OPD's collection of
content is not the only way to be seen as an online leader. Emergent leaders occur all the
time as professional development is delivered in oCOPs (Vavasseur & MacGregor,
2008). In addition, a participant that has the computer know-how to assist people in
navigating the online platform can be viewed as an essential type of OPD leader (Ward &
Parr, 2006). However, leaders do not have to work alone.
People using an online platform might also consider forming a leadership team to
establish and maintain professional development momentum (Byington, 2011).
Leadership teams might be able to deal with social protocols and procedures to make a
more collaborative, horizontal learning community. Because a different set of social
skills is needed when interacting with others online, a group of leaders automatically has
more human capital to sort out potential communication breakdowns and possibly has all
the social skills needed to navigate such situations. The ability for participants to interact
socially online might be what deems online interaction successful or not (Tsai, 2012).
Leaders may need to consider setting up virtual mentorships as a way for increasing
activity in an oCOP.
Peer-to-peer mentorship is another way to build relationships and community
engagement in OPD platforms (Herman, 2012; Hutchison & Colwell, 2011). Cheung et
al. (2013) surveyed 124 individuals in a well-established oCOP in Hong Kong. Their
findings suggest that participants enjoy helping their peers. Through helping one another
39
and knowing they are being successful, participants are more likely to participate and
contribute. These types of mentor/mentee interactions create social patterns and help
participants not feel the pains of isolation (Tsai, 2012). It is possible for mentors to have
more than one mentee (Hutchison & Colwell, 2011). An easy way to facilitate multiple
mentor relationships comes when participants are familiar with the platform being used
and are with technology as a whole. That way, a mentor can focus on building
relationships, not assisting with the technical know-how needed to navigate within the
online platform.
This history of OPD supports this study's second research question regarding
professional development modality preference. The structure, evolution, and social
aspects of OPD continue to support the idea of OPD effectiveness on ELT training.
Participants find a professional voice, learn from each other, and build relationships
aligned to like interests in an OPD. The more people participant in the variety of OPD
platforms, the stronger the international ELT community will get. This is evident with the
rise of online social media.
Social Media and Online Professional Development Platforms
With the rise of free social media platforms, it is easier for OPD to take place.
Depending on what a group of participants might be looking for, a variety of options are
out there: Yahoo Groups for listservs, Moodle for professional development courses,
Weeby for websites, Diigo for public bookmarking, and Flickr for photos (Verster &
ICT4 Champions, 2009; Gunawardena et al., 2009). This short list of possible online
platforms allows for participants to upload and share content as well as have
conversations about said content. Most of these platforms allow for asynchronous
40
conversations, and some allow participants to stay anonymous. With these capabilities,
participants can be more critical and direct; collaboration might move faster (Hutchison
& Colwell, 2011).
Kim, Miller, Herbert, Pedersen, and Loving, (2011) collected data regarding wikis
from 47 science teachers, using a quasi experimental survey. Their research points out
that wikis are quick to put up, easy to maintain, and a great tool for supporting
collaboration, managing knowledge, and sharing content. Without much training,
participants and groups can upload projects with interactive links, graphics, and
discussions. Wikis allow for nonlinear display of content, meaning information can be
presented via multiple avenues and pages. Wikis innately are able to be more interactive
than a static webpage (Kim et al., 2011). Also, with built-in tracking capabilities, a wiki
can show participants who posted, edited, and deleted content.
Because there is a great amount of editing that goes on within a wiki, Zhao and
Bishop (2011) claim wikis are never finished products. In order to examine this
phenomenon, they constructed a Delphi study for data collected from Europe, the United
States, Canada, Asia, and the Pacific Islands to identify the factors that lead to a
successful oCOP. In traditional Delphi fashion, there were three rounds of data collection
from 35 international participants. They found that people edit wiki pages because it is
self-gratifying, cognitively stimulating, affective, and social. They discovered that there
are two types of editors: editors who simply want to edit for the sake of editing and
editors who are more parenthetical editors, adding something here and there. In this
study, both types of editors are critical. Overall, participants like the openness of a wiki
platform. Wikis are inherently social. However, it is easier for people to participate when
41
they understand the wiki culture they are participating in. Wikis rely on crowd control for
quality control (Zhao & Bishop, 2011). Although it is not a direct translation of the
Wenger et al. (2002) domain, community, practice framework, Zhao and Bishop (2011)
posit technology is a tool that needs participants, content, interactions, and practice to
make the community thrive. Participants can see this type of interactions in blogs.
Blogs have a unique way of focusing on the Wenger et al. (2002) domain,
community, and practice framework. Blogs are meant to have a single focus point (the
domain), a group of followers (the community), and suggestions or a call to action (the
practice). Blogs can be viewed as circular (Byington, 2011); as participants interact with
each other and share resources, domain becomes clearer and the community becomes
stronger. However, to be a part of a successful blog, posts must come regularly and from
trusted authors. When writing a blog, technical skills and content skills are equally
important (Byington, 2011). There also needs to be a community in place so that after
each post, feedback can happen instantaneously.
Similar to blogs, but with quicker conversation threads, are question and answer
sites such as ask.com, mathoverflow.net, and quora.com. These sites are great places for
OPD exchanges (Rosenbaum & Shachaf, 2010). At these sites, even lurkers are able to
contribute to the conversation by rating the answers to questions asked (Rosenbaum &
Shachaf, 2010). The participants who frequent these sites naturally build consensus. Pino-
Silva and Mayora (2010) suggest several ways of making sure question and answer sites
turn into oCOP professional conversations. They suggest having a moderator ask a
question and ask a second moderator to follow up with a suggested answer, merely to
start the conversation. They also propose planning a third moderator in order for a
42
counterpoint answer to the question to spark interest in the conversation. These planned
responses can come from a leadership team member or a lurker who seems ready to start
participating but needs a bit more support.
Even though many social media platforms are free, it does not mean they are easy
to operate. Some people may say that some platforms are complicated to learn. For
example, blogs are easier to navigate and maintain than wikis (Hutchison & Colwell,
2011). In addition, if a site is more inviting or has a “positive” look or feel, participants
may be willing to take the extra time needed to understand the layout. Hutchison and
Colwell (2011) still warn that even though an oCOP is on a known social media site,
participants might not have enough time to get involved and contribute. Social media
sites can still be viewed as just one more thing a teacher has to attend to. Some teachers
simply prefer talking face-to-face with their local peers (Hutchison & Colwell, 2011).
Plus, with the nature of social media platforms, some teaching professionals argue that
these types of sites are reserved more for social, informal activities and do not contain the
kind of professional content they are looking for (Gardner et al., 2012).
The main focus on this study is to show that OPD can influence classroom
instruction and teacher confidence. To make this happen, the data collected examines
professional development perceived effectiveness and preferred professional
development modality from ELT educators. This study uses the core conceptual
framework (Desimone, 2009), self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), and the activity
model theory (Baran & Cagiltay, 2010) as its foundation while adding an OPD
43
perspective that can be used in further research. These concepts build on one another to
create the proper foundation for this study.
When developing and studying professional development, a researcher has to
utilize the proper framework. Relying on data that came from participant self-reports,
Desimone (2009) examined hundreds of professional development studies to find a
comprehensive framework to be used for all studies moving forward. Her argument is
that if researchers start using the same framework in their research, researchers might
actually be able to start influencing educational policy and the local, state, and national
level. The CCF is a systematic approach to analyzing professional development in all
contexts and contents, as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Core Conceptual Framework (Desimone, 2009)
The CCF is applicable to both qualitative and quantitative research, online and
face-to-face professional development. Outside researchers such as Johnson and Fargo
(2014), Saylor and Johnson (2014), and Westrick (2012) have also seen positive results
when working with CCF and measuring student learner outcomes. The TESOL Member
Needs Survey was able to collect data from participants regarding the importance and
satisfaction of TESOL's OPD. The data reflect positive scores in the five-point Likert
scale questions and can be seen in Appendix D. This feedback, along with question 18 of
44
the survey measuring perceived effectiveness of professional development, acts as input
for the first two components of the CCF. For this study, the self-efficacy theory and the
Action Model theory complete the remaining components of the CCF.
Defined as personal beliefs and expectations regarding a person's capability to
accomplish something (Bandura, 1977), the self-efficacy theory can be used to analyze
how professional development influences classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
Self-efficacy has four distant factors: performance accomplishments, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). When looking at
the perceived effectiveness of professional development, the variables in this study being
used to measure effectiveness align mostly with performance accomplishments and
verbal persuasion.
OPD is a great place to test self-efficacy because of the collaborative nature of
these programs (Horvitz & Beach, 2011; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008). Moreover,
participants with a high Internet self-efficacy not only perform better when participating
in the OPD but also can have a greater influence on the consequent student outcomes
(Kao et al., 2014; Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1999; Wu & Wang, 2015).
In a recent study, researchers have made the direct transition from self-efficacy
theory to a teacher-efficacy model (Epstein & Willhite, 2015). Teacher-efficacy and
organization support can significantly predict levels of professional development impact.
The subsets of teacher-efficacy can be seen when looking at the teacher, the learning
environment, and the subsequent learners. Teachers with strong efficacy can pass their
confidence down to their students. High teacher-efficacy reveals a high level of impact
after receiving high quality professional development (Eun & Heining-Boynton, 2004).
45
High teacher-efficacy also plays a role in job satisfaction, ability to cope with stress,
reducing feelings of isolation (Staples et al., 1999) and teacher retention (Valeo & Faez,
2013). Self-efficacy also has influence on how people choose and act, both personally
and collaboratively, during particular professional tasks (Bandura, 1977).
Based on the data collected from the TESOL Member Needs Survey, TESOL
OPD was able to have a positive impact on classroom instruction and teacher confidence,
as seen in the raw data from question 18 (see Table 2, page 79). Because the choices
participants were able to comment on in question 18 require a participant's self-report, the
choices should be viewed as efficacy defining statements.
In taking the conceptual framework one step further, self-efficacy is enhanced
when looking at the activity model. The activity model is sociocultural by examining
individual participation in a large activity system (Baran & Cagiltay, 2010). The activity
model transforms noncodified, tacit knowledge into explicit, codified terms. By
voluntarily participating in an OPD, groups are able to put theory into practice by sharing
and shaping a documented body of knowledge. As participants continue to collaborate,
they can build large, social activity systems that encourage interaction regardless of
participant location.
Active theory also contributes to collaboration. The implicit knowledge found in
oCOPs embodies teacher experience (Baker-Eveleth et al., 2005). Once participants start
sharing that knowledge, it gets catalogued and becomes a part of an online archive
(Byington, 2011; Jeppesen & Laursen, 2009). Searching for past tacit knowledge is a
very active process. If you can get others assisting with your search, collaboration comes
naturally. “Development of collaborative practices occurs through the different
46
participant dialogues describing information (knowledge) in their own terms, sharing the
meaning, and developing new practices based on that knowledge” (Baker-Eveleth et al.,
2005, p. 6).
This conceptual framework lays the foundation for the findings of this study.
Although this study does not look directly at the content of OPD and how participants
interact with it, this study does look at how preserved effectiveness of OPD influences
classroom instruction and teacher confidence. Because TESOL's OPD receives high
marks in importance, satisfaction, and impact, it makes sense to build on the CCF
(Desimore, 2009) and situate the study's findings in self-efficacy and action model
theories.
Demonstrating Online Professional Development Significance
OPD demonstrates significance with five key points: 1) building a community
based on trust, 2) breaking down the walls of teacher isolation, 3) bringing like-minded
professionals together, 4) the intuitiveness of the technology being used on the platforms,
and 5) getting the research ahead of the software development. Points 1, 2, and 3 seem
the easiest of the five to accomplish.
Much of the literature looks at the importance of building participant trust in
online platforms (Fishman et al., 2013; Hur & Brush, 2009; Ke & Hoadley, 2009;
Johnson, 2001; Lock, 2006). Johnson (2001) warns that if an oCOP has a lack of trust
among its members, attrition follows. It takes great dedication, time, and commitment for
trust to develop in OPD opportunities (Baker-Eveleth et al., 2005; Lock, 2006).
Asynchronous interactions help elongate conversations and essentially build in more time
for trust to build (Dede, Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & MacCloskey, 2008; Duncan-
47
Howell, 2010). In the international training that takes place with ELT professional
development, a participant can post a comment in the evening and by morning have a
slew of replies to read through, consequently validating participation and building trust.
Another key factor in building trust is making sure the community is generated from the
bottom up, by participants who volunteer their time (Hur & Brush, 2009). These trust
factors can be met in OPD because of the virtual makeup, but might take a great deal
more time due to its international nature. Trust among participants may also help break
down the walls of teacher isolation.
Teaching has been viewed as a profession of isolation (King, 2011; Vavasseur &
MacGregor, 2008). However, online platforms are able to reduce feelings of isolation
(Duncan-Howell, 2010) and break away from isolation practices (Schlager & Fusco,
2003). OPD gives teachers a place to speak to other teachers. Lock (2006) found that
teachers are more interested in listening to each other, and OPD creates an excellent
avenue for these types of exchanges. Sari (2012) gives an Indonesian community as a
great example of a successful oCOP. Because there are too many islands for teachers to
physically get together, virtual connections are the best location for teacher professional
development. More than 1,000 participants were able to interact via online portal, Skype,
and Facebook. Taking it one step further, it is important to examine how these types of
virtual structures can give teachers a productive place to interact with, listen to, and learn
from each other. Studying OPD that enrolls an international audience creates new
avenues to battle teacher isolation, especially with the ELT audience.
Over time, a strong online community can be developed without face-to-face
meetings or a physical location (Ryman et al., 2009). From a 25-question survey
48
completed by 98 teachers, Duncan-Howell (2010) claims that participants experience
more one-on-one attention in OPD because there is the potential for all posts to be read,
comprehended, and answered by all participants. This counters some face-to-face
classroom interactions when a participant attends class, sits in the back, takes some notes,
leaves, and never interacts with other students (Maddix, 2013). In an OPD, more time can
be spent on discussion because more people are able to voice their opinions in written
format. If all voices (i.e., posts) are heard (i.e., read), communities gain strength because
all participants have equal value (Sari, 2012).
Like face-to-face professional development, an overarching goal of OPD is to
bring together people of like minds to learn and break down professional fragmentation
and isolation. Professional development is an educational tradition. OPD merely provides
a new way of deliverance (Lock, 2006; Reese, 2010; Vivian et al., 2014). Because
teachers are becoming more and more responsible for finding their own professional
development, they are seeking more OPD opportunities (Marrero et al., 2010).
Kindergarten through Grade 12, ELT teachers are turning to OPD more and more (Smith,
2014). Manner and Rodriquez (2012) cite that English language teachers are not getting
enough ELT training in their university programs. Once university graduates are in the
classroom, OPD seems like a natural fit.
Challenges arise when the technology being used is not compatible with the
participant’s computer literacy skills. When participating in an OPD, participants are
improving their technical computer skills and gaining digital confidence. The more
teachers engage in OPD, the more they improve their computer literacy skills (Doering,
Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; Vivian et al., 2014;
49
Marrero et al., 2010). In addition, working with complex computer navigation structures
enhances participants’ exploration of topics (Knabe, 2004). In a mixed-methods
comprehensive case study, Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008) cite increased proficiencies
in technology use after participating in the study’s platform. However, Schlager and
Fusco (2003) caution that some participants stay away from OPD because of their lack of
computer comfort. They posit that the pace of which OPD is developing might be putting
“the cart before the horse” (p. 207) and further research needs to be developed to
recognize all training avenues the Internet has to offer (Moon et al., 2013). However, this
does not mean that community relationships and cultures are not being developed.
Having a virtual community alone does not make a successful OPD program
(Farooq et al., 2007; Gardner et al., 2012; Johnson, 2001). Ke and Hoadley (2009) state
that research regarding OPD fails to do a proper needs assessment and, for the most part,
the findings of this dissertation cannot be generalized. When it comes to computer usage
as a whole, a number of “outstanding and perplexing issues still need to be resolved”
(Cheung et al., 2013, p. 1364) before we label OPD as an all encompassing solution to
educational professional development. Technicians have accomplished a great deal in
such a short period of time (Cheung et al., 2013). Gunawardena et al. (2009) shows that
software is being developed so much faster than theory can support. Best practices are
being adopted without looking at the overarching implementation of new software
integration. They argue that a spiral conceptual framework should be exercised including
context, discourse, action, reflection, reorganization, and an awareness of social media
metacognition.
50
There are additional reasons why OPD is effective. Participants improve their
computer literacy (Brooks & Gibson, 2012; Olofsson & Lindberg, 2011) and feel
empowered to voice concerns, share resources, and collaborate (Vavasseur &
MacGregor, 2008). OPD has the potential to erase visual bias and assumptions
(Roessingh & Johnson, 2005), gives teachers a safe place to sort out workplace issues
(Murugaiah et al., 2012), and helps build professional identity (Baek & Schwen, 2006).
This study hopes to add a direct relationship between OPD and perceived effectiveness
on classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
Challenges of International Online Professional Development
If nothing else, OPD tries to improve teaching practice (Bogdanou et al., 2013;
Gardner et al., 2012; Gunawardena et al., 2009; Land et al., 2009; Stewart & Abidi,
2012). Defining teaching practice is challenging (Sherer et al., 2003; Schlager & Fusco,
2003). Classroom structure and class size vary around the world. Some countries have
national curriculum; some do not. Looking though a second language lens, English
language teaching is implemented differently around the world (e.g., English as a second
language versus English as a foreign language, business English versus conversational
English, and developed nations versus developing nations). By proving that OPD can
make improvement in classroom practice, international OPD should be able to help
countries with fewer resources for professional development.
When looking at OPD, a one-size-fits-all measurement is not available. Ke and
Hoadley (2009) looked at 42 oCOP studies and codified the evaluation processes based
on the instruments and findings. The taxonomy they created found that most studies
lacked a needs assessment, and trying to find a measurement standard is not possible.
51
With the fast pace of the Internet and a lack of standardization of oCOPs, by the time
someone from the international teaching community finds the right oCOP, the resource
may be outdated or participants might have moved on to something new. Schlager and
Fusco (2003) talk of the importance of putting new knowledge into practice, but when a
teacher’s practice is somewhat behind due to the developing nature of the nation, many
international participants are struggling to catch up.
Another challenge is finding the right balance with a face-to-face component in
order to build strong relationships for OPD participants (De Jong, 2012; Hall &
Herrington, 2010; Liu, 2012; McConnell et al., 2013). If full group face-to-face
interaction is not possible, OPD participants who are in the same vicinity should be able
to help each other out and build small pockets of face-to-face interaction (Kingsley,
2009). This alternative is really helpful for those who can find location-specific
participants. For those who cannot, it can be problematic. In a case study looking at
Arabic OLC participants, Hall and Herrington (2010) found Arabic participants prefer
face-to-face interactions and are not as participatory online. Baek (2006) also found that
some people simply prefer face-to-face and are not interested in trying something new.
Building on these claims, Hudson et al. (2006) worries that without face-to-face
interaction, participants might miss out on nonverbal cues needed for complete
understanding of messages. However, OPD helps participants with computer literacy.
Just as OPD helps enhance computer skills (Olofsson & Lindberg, 2011; Sari,
2012), a lack of computer literacy can keep people away (Schlager & Fusco, 2003; Sherer
et al., 2003). An OLC pilot project by Carr and Chambers (2006a) found that
international participants shied away from participating due to their lack of comfort
52
working with a computer. This lack of computer skills can be a distraction for novice
teachers (Baek, 2006) and computer users. Liu et al. (2010) solicited 436 Taiwanese high
school students to complete a questionnaire regarding an OLC. They found that
audiences need to be comfortable with the machines before participating in the online
activities, and this only works if computers are actually available. While collecting and
coding data from 47 participants working with an OPD, Chang (2012) found that as
connectivity reaches all parts of the world, this perspective will change.
Several studies have examined participants’ level of activeness (Andrews, 2011;
Baran & Cagiltay, 2010; Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert, 2005; Hur & Brush, 2009;
Liu et al., 2010; Thomas, Fried, Johnson, & Stilwell, 2010; Yeh, 2010). Teachers, for the
most part, enjoy learning from and listening to each other (Lock, 2006). Carr and
Chambers (2006b) studied 106 teachers from 46 schools as they participated in an OLC
program. 64% of posts were made by the teacher participants while the other posts came
from the program team. Of that 64%, only 27 participants were actually posting, meaning
79 participants said nothing. Thomas et al. (2010) presented an 81-person case study
where 18% of oCOP participants stayed silent. So, when few speak, are the others still
participating? When performing a literature review, Ke and Hoadley (2009) comment on
how hard it is to study what is happening off line. It could be that nonparticipants, or
lurkers, are faithfully reading posts just as those participants who post. Moreover, the
lurkers could be implementing everything they have learned and, ergo, benefiting greatly
from OPD. Gray (2004) claims that lurkers, even though quiet for the most part, exercise
a form of learning and participation unique to online platforms.
53
Counter to the necessity of face-to-face interactions, several researchers have
looked at the importance of geographic location. In Indonesia, Sari (2012) claims that
face-to-face time can slow down teacher professional development. In support of this
argument, McConnell et al. (2013) studied 54 teachers and how OPD participation
directly affected their teaching practice. They state that online interactions tend to focus
more on content and not an atypical school culture of gossip as face-to-face interactions
sometimes lead to.
A few studies took the time to look at how multiculturalism and multilingualism
might affect OPD. Hudson et al. (2006) read through and coded 10 OLC participant
journals and found that a difference in language makes participation more challenging,
but does not deter from people wanting to participate. For the most part, once norms are
established, native culture dissipates and the online culture pervades (Kulavuz-Onal
&Vásquez, 2013). This allows for participants to speak freely and take ownership of their
sharing and learning.
The teaching culture is beginning to experience an incredible shift; computer
reliance can help make this happen (Carr & Chambers, 2006b). Participants from around
the world can bring their own culture, language, and gender to the OPD table
(Gunawardena et al., 2009). The experience participants have when interacting online
will transform the overall computer culture and meld western cultures, Asian cultures,
and other cultures together to meet the need of the online professional learning (Li,
Ardichvili, Maurer, Wentling, & Stuedemann, 2007). There will be no need for Chinese
participants to worry about saving face. There will be no need for Russian participants to
tone down their directness. As Internet users age, the culture surrounding an OPD will
54
become more and more homogeneous. Online participants will use what they want, gain
the information they need, and, if they are not happy with the environment they have
found, they will move on (Cheung et al., 2013).
Professional Overlap
The seminal findings of the Lave & Wenger (1991) study on COP started in the
health field with a group of Mayan midwives. Today, there are numerous international
OPD programs in the health, business, and education professions. The findings of this
1991 study may be able to assist other professions in OPD and training. Here is a brief
examination of OPD in the heath and business sectors. Using noneducation examples
could lead to possible generalization of this study's findings.
The health sector. Health OPD tends to have the same types of research
questions as educational OPD. Over the past years, there has been a huge increase in
Yahoo Groups of health professionals dedicated to helping each other out (Stewart &
Abidi, 2012). These groups tend to have the same participant issues that educators have
and use the same Wenger et al. (2002) domain, community, practice framework. Stewart
and Abidi (2012) analyzed data from 31 discussion groups and found, similar to
education, that changes in health practices are not necessarily evidence driven. These
communities tend to implement best practices based on consensus. OPD in the health
sector creates new avenues for collaboration without geographic hindrances or hierarchy
issues. Stewart and Abidi (2012) also found that it is important to monitor the OPD
conversation patterns. That way, participants can get the most out of the online health
community.
55
Here are two recent examples of health OPD to demonstrate similarities to
educational OPD. The first is a 5-year longitudinal study of international dental students
looking for ways to better reflect and share practice (Gardner et al., 2012). By creating a
grassroots oCOP, students were able to stay up-to-date on best practices and create
empathy for each others’ plights, and they claimed to highly value peer interactions over
other avenues of interaction. The oCOP allowed a place for students to reflect and share
ideas regarding their practice. The second is an occupational therapy case study by
Dieleman and Duncan (2013). The main topics of interaction for this case study are very
similar to educational OPD: Participants want to ask for advice, share resources, network,
define professional roles, and learn new things. The participants in this case study worry
about platform sustainability while trying to increase networking capabilities. These
participants also believed that belonging to an online community decreases isolation and
encourages sharing (Dieleman & Duncan, 2013).
The business sector. OPD is very strong in the business sector (Carr & Chambers
2006a, Baker-Eveleth et al., 2005). Recruitment relies on word of mouth and “newness”
factors (Koch, Hutter, Decarli, Hilgers, & Fuller, 2013). Yu, Lang, and Kuman (2009)
studied 54 international business listservs and noticed that the closer to the country
demographics the listervs represented, the more successful the OPD. If cultural distance
or economic influence was too great, participants would not interact effectively. The
Koch et al. (2013) study reinforces this finding by stating that a business OPD needs to
reflect society, so there had to be a certain distribution of roles including idea generators,
motivators, attention getters, communicators, masters, chit-chatters, socializers, and
passive users.
56
Ardichvili, Maurer, Li, Wentling, and Stuedemann (2006) analyzed 36 in-depth
interviews with managers and employees from Caterpillar, Inc. Participants in this study
worked at Caterpillar offices in China, Brazil, and Russia. They found that culture was a
huge hindrance, and collaboration was not evident. Each interaction was viewed through
the participants’ cultural lens. If we look back to Bhagat et al. (2002) to frameworks of
cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge, we can see why these cultures might
not work well together. Ardichvili et al. (2006) found that participants would hoard
resources and some higher executives refused to participate because they viewed
participation as grunt work. As a community, they were not able to create a unique online
culture.
However, not all business OPD is the same. Land et al. (2009) piloted a Moodle
online course for 38 Subaru employees. The main purpose of the Moodle was to build
communities by learning new skills, sharing knowledge, and cultivating individuals’
practice to create best practice. Participants were encouraged to give anecdotal evidence
of their learning from employee stories and daily work activities. This business OPD was
able to create culture by building their collective knowledge. Another example of a
business OPD program working well was found with the small forestry industry in the
United Kingdom (Bogdanou et al., 2013). Because this industry does not have a lot of
financial resources to work with, social media was the resource they utilized to reach
employees and outside individuals who wanted to interact and contribute to their cause.
Incidentally, this OPD looked to the health and education professions for best practice.
The researchers distributed two surveys, via LinkedIn, with over 425 replies. With the
57
data collected from the surveys, the forestry group was able to find avenues to further
develop professionally and network informally. These projects were huge successes.
The last business OPD to look at is a question and answer site for people in the
technology industry: Slashdot. Slashdot believes that its participants are the “life blood of
the community” (Liu, Wagner, & Chen, 2012, p. 723). It is able to find and fill gaps in
the computer industry’s body of knowledge. Liu et al. (2012) put out a survey to the
Slashdot community and received 144 usable replies. Based on the data collected,
Slashdot has three true assets: the community itself, the content and knowledge it creates,
and the technology needed for participants to interact. This research proves that even
lurkers are important to an OPD. Using the analytics available on any given website, it
can be seen that lurkers leave a footprint. If lurkers go from webpage to webpage,
something about the site is appealing and makes them want to stay. If a lurker rates a
post, they are indeed contributing to the longevity of that post and consequently the
community. Liu et al. (2012) make the following general claims based on their research:
OPD must have 1) ease of use, knowledge of the critical mass; 2) good governance and
pro-sharing norms; and 3) perceived value. If these things are present, an oCOP will have
a positive impact on participants.
In sum, Hara and Hew (2007) put it best, OPD is useful to participants if they can
share practice and learn though other participants’ experiences, build identity, and
advance the field. Although anecdotal sharing is common and best practice can come
from consensus, not data-driven results, participants should break down posts into
opinion, suggestion, and practice. For the most part, regardless of health, business, or
58
educational OPD, people join these groups to share knowledge and ask for help (Hara &
Hew, 2007).
Geography, Age, and Level of Education in Online Professional Development
This study looks closely at a participant's geographic location, age, and level of
education as demographic variables for choosing a professional development modality
preference. In addition, this study uses the same demographics and professional
development modality preference to measure professional development perceived
effectiveness on classroom instruction and teacher confidence. Geographic location is
organized into Kachru's (1983) inner, outer, and extended language circles; age is broken
down into six categories; and level of education has six categories.
A positive aspect of OPD in the ELT community is its innate ability to remove the
roadblocks of physical location and actual geographic borders. For online interactions,
geographic location is not a concern (Johnson, 2001); people no longer have to meet
face-to-face to build a community (Sari, 2012). Physical geography can create difficulties
when trying to collaborate (Hudson et al., 2006) but virtual geography breaks physical
boundaries (Ke & Hoadley, 2009) and has the potential for more opportunities. In ELT
environments, OPD came at the most opportune time. Formally homogenous school
populations are changing rapidly and these schools lack the resources to provide
professional development for their teachers (Manner & Rodriguez, 2012). Kao et al.
(2014) express a need to look at self-efficacy in various geographic locations and, if
possible, perform the same study in multiple places. And, although the theory around
world Englishes is beginning to replace the idea of Kachru's (1983) circles (Park & Wee,
59
2009), the geographic data is organized using Kachru's circles due to the large number of
nations represented in the survey.
Few studies have looked at age as a variable in OPD participation. Donavant’s
(2009) quasi-experimental study looked at a group of police officers utilizing online
education for professional development and divided participants by age. In this study,
Donavant (2009) found that there was no statistically significant relationship of online
learning success when age was singled out as a variable. In the 2015 study by Liu and
Kleinsasser looking at ELT high school teachers, there was a significantly negative
correlation between age and technological pedagogical content knowledge. Age does not
have to be a confounding factor. In Liu and Kleinsasser (2015), older participants did
much better with the online resource.
Similar to age, participants’ level of education has not been widely examined in
OPD. Donavant (2009), in the same study mentioned above, did find a statistically
significant relationship of online learning success when participants’ level of education
was singled out as a variable. As participants may look for horizontal online structures
(Wu, Gao, & Zhang, 2014), a person's level of education when participating in an OPD
should not matter. Wu, Gao, and Zhang (2014) also noted that newcomers prefer
interacting with experts in the OPD, and communities consequently develop a
hierarchical order based on levels of education. These findings build on Donavant's
(2009) study.
Summary
This literature review presented an overview of OPD; a comparison of online and
face-to-face professional development; a conceptual framework rooted in the CCF, self-
60
efficacy, and the action model; the significance of OPD in the education sector; and how
geographic location, age, and level of education are appropriate indicators for measuring
perceived effectiveness and professional development modality preference.
In creating this literature review, two distinctive research gaps appeared: 1) the
lack of quantitative data analysis and 2) measuring a possible direct connection between
OPD and perceived effectiveness on classroom practice. This study will examine ELT
educators' perceived effectiveness of professional development in classroom instruction
and teacher confidence, identify their professional development modality preference, and
explore the possible differences that exist in perceived effectiveness and preferred choice
in professional development modality by pairing modality choice with a participant’s
geographic location, age, and level of education.
Designing professional development for ELT educators is challenging because of
the multi-dimensional skills needed to teach English language students (Collins & Liang,
2013). A well designed OPD program can make a content-area teacher better equipped
with materials to address the needs of these students. Additionally, OPD inherently
archives content and comments for participants to read, reread, and retain (Roessingh &
Johnson, 2005). As connectivity reaches more corners of the world, it is plausible that
more and more educators will join OPD platforms to better themselves as ELT
professionals.
61
Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this study is to examine ELT educators' perceived effectiveness of
professional development in classroom instruction and teacher confidence, identify their
professional development modality preference, and explore the possible differences that
exist in perceived effectiveness and preferred choice in professional development
modality by pairing modality choice with a participants’ geographic location, age, and
level of education. Although this study includes both online and face-to-face professional
development data, the main focus is on the perceived effectiveness and use of OPD. In
order to achieve a deeper understanding of the findings, the study conducts a quantitative
analysis on data collected from a 2014 international survey. This study attempts to fill
two specific gaps in the ELT OPD research and adds the findings of a quantitative data
analysis to the current ELT OPD body of research. Second, while other ELT studies have
shown an indirect connection between OPD and classroom impact, this study makes
direct connections between professional development perceived effectiveness and OPD
while seeing if geographic location, age, and level of education strengthen these
connections.
Research Design
This study presents a secondary analysis of the 2014 TESOL International
Association Member Needs Survey. With assistance from TESOL’s full-time staff, this
survey was written, administered, interpreted, and presented by McKinley Advisors
(McKinley), a Washington DC and Chicago based consulting firm able to analyze data
focusing on the membership experience for professional associations. TESOL’s purpose
for conducting the survey was to gain a better understanding of the needs and
62
expectations of ELT professionals in the field, identify areas where TESOL is performing
well, uncover gaps in program offerings, and discover opportunities to increase value and
satisfaction for key member and nonmember audiences. Participants potentially answered
52 questions, including nine open-ended responses. Questions were customized for
participants based on their TESOL member or nonmember status. In order to tailor the
questions based on membership status, each participant identified their membership
position by checking one of the following options in question 2 on the survey: “current
member,” ”past member,” “never been a member,” or “don’t know.”
The findings of this study add to the conceptual framework presented in Chapter
2. This study builds on the conceptual foundation of the CCF, the self-efficacy theory,
and the activity model. The CCF asks people to consider specific stages in professional
development and follow a four-step path to professional development improvement. The
professional development examined in this study follows CCF. The self-efficacy theory
promotes the participants interpretation of efficacy is mirrored in their students'
performance outcomes. High self-efficacy begets high influence in student learning; low
self-efficacy begets low influence in student learning. The action model requires
participants to take action similar to the actions taken by participants in all professional
development programs. These actions have a direct effect on teacher-efficacy. This study
aims to show the effectiveness of OPD learning to practical classroom implementation
through these foundational practices and quantitative statistical analysis.
63
TESOL Survey and Data Collection
TESOL International Association is an international association of professionals
advancing the quality of English language teaching through professional development,
research, standards, and advocacy. Representing a multifaceted academic discipline and
profession, TESOL offers everyone involved in English language teaching and learning
an opportunity to be part of a dynamic community, where professionals connect with
each other through a variety of online and face-to-face professional development,
including an annual convention. Encompassing a network of approximately 60,000
educators worldwide, consisting of more than 12,000 individual members and 100-plus
affiliate associations, TESOL offers a wide variety of serial publications, books, and
electronic resources on current issues, ideas, and opportunities in the field of ELT.
Periodically, TESOL surveys its membership to capture a snapshot of current
educational trends, workplace conditions, and professional development needs. These
types of assessments aid TESOL in developing a better membership model, diversifying
professional development opportunities, and identifying new research opportunities. In
order to have a clearer understanding of the 2014 data set, this study reviewed past
TESOL surveys from 2009 and 2012 with the hope of finding comparable data for the
2014 survey.
The 2009 survey. TESOL’s Employment Issues Standing Committee (EISC)
collected data regarding TESOL professional salaries, employment opportunities, career
and retirement planning, and professional development opportunities. This survey had 48
questions and multiple opportunities for open-answer responses. Just fewer than 1,100
participants completed the survey. The EISC submitted a comprehensive report and the
64
raw data to the TESOL Board of Directors. The demographic data collected in this survey
were comparable to the variables used in this study (i.e., geographic location, age, and
level of education). However, in order to make a useful comparison, there would have
had to have been questions aligned to OPD and its effect on classroom teaching. The
2009 study did not have such questions; a valid data comparison could not be performed.
The 2012 surveys. TESOL performed three professional learning surveys
assessing English as a second language professional development needs in U.S. higher
education, adult education, and Pre-K–12 contexts, and one primary/secondary English as
a foreign language professional development needs survey for its international audiences.
The survey instruments were built and written by TESOL staff and distributed only to
TESOL members for data collection. Reports were written by a TESOL intern and posted
on the TESOL Blog in April of that year. These surveys attempted to take the
temperature of current ELT professional climates and asked questions regarding work
challenges and successes, procuring resources and building capacity, comfort levels of
teaching English language students, and the like. These surveys did not collect
comparable demographic information nor did they address OPD use and effect on
classroom teaching. Because of this, useful data comparisons could not be performed.
The 2014 survey. The most recent TESOL Member Needs Survey took a
different approach to collecting data from ELT worldwide professionals. For the first
time, TESOL hired an outside consulting firm, McKinley, to conduct this survey. At the
conclusion of their work, McKinley provided TESOL with 1) a survey summary report
that included detailed cross-tab evaluation and a thorough review of the open-ended
responses, 2) two separate PowerPoint presentations to be shared with the TESOL Board
65
of Directors and staff, and 3) two different data sets: an Excel workbook with multiple
sheets and open-ended responses, and an SPSS dataset with all the quantitative data.
McKinley confidence levels for analysis were set at 95% and margin of error for
members and nonmembers at 2.52% and 3.44% respectively.
Survey development. The development of the TESOL Member Needs Survey was
a three-part process. Part 1 took place in August 2014 and included an immersion
meeting between key TESOL staff and several McKinley advisors, the delivery of the
project work plan, and a detailed list of desired topics for the 2014 survey. Part 2 took
place in September 2014 and included the development and execution of the survey.
Development included finalizing outreach correspondence via email, survey drafts and
revisions, and identifying incentives for people to want to participate. For part 3,
McKinley delivered an initial analysis and top-line findings in October 2014 to TESOL
senior staff and Board of Directors.
The TESOL Member Needs Survey collected information on a large range of
topics. The survey first asked participants about their relationship, or lack thereof, with
TESOL. The subsequent questions measured participants’ professional challenges and
needs, their desire and ability to join this membership association, and their satisfaction
with the association. The survey continued with direct questions about the professional
development participants received from TESOL and how well TESOL communicates
information to them regarding available professional development options. The survey
ends with several demographic questions including how a participant's employer might
support his or her professional development, location of residency, age, level of
education, and job title.
66
The purpose of the TESOL Member Needs Survey was not to answer a particular
research question or disprove certain hypotheses. Its main function was to gather data that
would then guide TESOL’s strategic direction. In presenting the initial report, McKinley
kept the same classification headers as the survey and presented descriptive and
frequency statistics. Neither independent nor dependent variables were identified. The
data did not go through any complex data analysis. Questions were a variety of
dichotomous choice, multiple choice, Likert scale, reordering, and open-ended responses.
Survey implementation. TESOL provided McKinley with 27,828 current and
past, U.S. and internationally-based member email addresses. McKinley, in turn, sent the
survey. Email addresses were generated from TESOL’s membership database, various
listserv and worldwide affiliates, and its online store where people buy books, journals,
and registrations for online courses, such as the TESOL Core Certificate Program, or
face-to-face events, such as the TESOL International Convention & English Language
Expo. Participants outside of TESOL’s reach may have participated in the survey through
one of TESOL’s social media outlets (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instragram).
There was no randomization process in developing the sample. At best, this original
sample would be considered haphazard, ad hoc, or a sample of convenience (Hinkle,
Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003). In addition, because TESOL’s reach is limited and the entire
population of international English language professionals is unknown, participants who
received the survey were encouraged to send the link to other potential participants.
Preview, invitation, and reminder emails were sent to potential participants from
McKinley. The survey ran from September 12 until September 24, 2014. A total of 2,395
people attempted to complete the survey, yielding an 8.6% response rate.
67
There were 1,655 complete responses and 740 partial responses; 404 of these
responses came from the link shared on social media. The survey also gathered data from
803 non-TESOL members and 1,346 TESOL members. An overall concern is that the
response rate is low. A more detailed response to this can be found in Chapter 5.
Participant demographics included age, level of education, number of years participating
in an ELT career, current job title, and country of residency. For this study, the
demographics measuring geographic location, age, and level of education will be used as
variables for two of the research questions.
Survey analysis. McKinley presented their data and findings via Power Point to
TESOL staff and its Board of Directors on October 17, 2014. Their analysis presented
basic data: cross tab tables and descriptive statistics. McKinley did not attempt any
complex statistical analyses to analyze the data. McKinley has assured TESOL that the
data collected is stored in a secure online platform and participants of the study are
unidentifiable. A random sampling technique was used when looking for survey
participants. When asked what steps were taken to ensure validity and reliability of the
TESOL Member Needs Survey, McKinley provided a one-page response regarding their
validity and reliability practices (see Appendix E). There is limited information in this
document addressing validity and reliability. Most information in this document regarded
collecting the sample and sample size. When presenting data to TESOL, McKinley did
not include any validity nor reliability measures in their slides. The lack of validity and
reliability checks are addressed in the first research question of this study by running a
factor analysis.
68
McKinley's findings did meet the original TESOL goals for conducting the
survey. It also provided sufficient data to analyze the research questions in this study. The
survey data used in this study works to uncover statistically significant patterns regarding
OPD and its influence on classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
Participants
The participants of this study are anonymous English language professionals from
around the world. Most of the participants in this survey are connected to TESOL
International Association through a past form of online interaction, (e.g., professional
development or networking opportunity). Participants are primary, secondary, adult, and
higher education teachers; curriculum developers; administrators; councilors and
advisors; and materials developers from the global ELT field. Participants were able to
choose as many of the following job titles in Figure 3 as needed to match their current
employment status.
Figure 3. List of Participants’ Job Placements

Curriculum development 943
Training other teachers 862
Planning course curriculum with other instructors 814
Consulting with other instructors 803
Higher education (4 or more year institution) 668
Advising 612
Administration 538
Other, please specify: 453
Scheduling 419
Adult education 336
Counseling 285
Secondary education 232
Elementary/primary education 199
Community/ 2-year college 158
At the time of the survey, participants were current TESOL members, past-
members, and nonmembers residing in more than 100 nations.
69
Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Statistical Treatment of Data
This study examines an ELT educator's preferred choice in professional
development modality and how it may influence his or her perceived effectiveness in
classroom instruction and teacher confidence by pairing modality choice with a
participant's geographic location, age, and level of education. The following research
questions have been developed to guide this study:
Research Question 1. When measuring perceived effectiveness of professional
development, what are the underlying factor structures found when examining the
following five variables:
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is often used at the beginning of data analysis (Pallant,
2013) to reduce a large amount of data into smaller sets of components without imposing
any preconceived structures (Suhr, 2006). Traditionally, the role of EFA is to generate
hypotheses based on the data being analyzed (Hancock & Mueller, 2010). Because of
this, a hypothesis was not written for this research question.
Rationale. This first question provides the basis for a quantitative analysis of the
survey data. Finding one underlying factor structure in these data gives rise to the
correlations that exist among the five perceived effectiveness variables and relevant
relationship patterns. In addition, the variables found in this question align with the CCF
70
(Desimore, 2009). The first and third choices align with an increase in teacher knowledge
and skills; the second and fifth choices align with the change in instruction, and; the
fourth choice is an improvement in learner outcomes. This study does not consider the
need to justify the first part of the CCF, core features of professional development,
because the survey data itself proves that TESOL provides quality professional
development (see Appendix D). Moreover, these variables align with Bandura's (1977)
self-efficacy theory as the judgment an individual makes about his or her ability to
execute a particular behavior. Epstein and Whillhite (2015) modify Bandura's definition
and how it relates to teachers by saying teacher-efficacy is the belief that teachers can
impact student learning. The five perceived effectiveness variables are used as the
measures of a participant's perceived teacher-efficacy while aligning to the CCF.
Exploratory factor analysis using a polychoric correlation matrix. What makes
this particular survey question unique is the use of ordinal options for the measurement of
perceived effectiveness. This immediately limits the types of data analyses that can be
used. For example, item response theory is a possible choice, but it works best with
Likert scale data. In addition, a Pearson correlation is usually used to identify the factor
structure. Again, because these data are ordinal, Pearson was not the best test to run due
to the lack of continuous data (Han, Neilands, & Dolcini, n.d.). To create the appropriate
factor analysis, EFA and polychoric correlation matrix make for a better fit in producing
the correct correlation matrix. Principal axis factoring was used to decompose the
correlation diagonal and find the least number of factors, consequently reducing data
distractions. No factor rotation was performed because one factor-component was
extracted. The results of the EFA were used for the following purposes: 1) to explore the
71
number and nature of factors that arise from the underlying relationships, and 2) the
squared factor loadings can be interpreted in the same way as alpha and the squared
individual loadings can be similar to the item’s total correlation coefficients
demonstrating the strength of relationship between each item and its factor. One factor
did emerge that gives rise to an unobserved perceived effectiveness variable. This will be
evaluated as a measure of evidence for reliability, and the new factor structure may be the
evidence needed to show validity of the five items in Chapter 4. Finally, in performing
this analysis, a factor score was generated to be used in the third research question.
In running an EFA using a polychoric correlation matrix with these five variables,
the data set assumptions, reliability, and validity can be verified. Even though we can use
the entire sample as the undefined population (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), there are
concerns that the data collected do not match population norms and therefore the findings
cannot be generalizable. One limitation to the polychoric correlation procedure is the
iterative process and possibility not produce a solution (Uebersax, 2006). For this study,
the polychoric correlation matrix produced the necessary outputs for this study, and these
findings are reported in Chapter 4.
Research Question 2. What is the likelihood that ELT educators have a
preference in receiving OPD versus face-to-face professional development when
analyzing the following demographic characteristics: geographic location, age, and level
of education?
H0: The likelihood that ELT professionals prefer online versus face-to-face
professional development is not related to their geographic location, age, and
level of education.
72
Rationale. Researchers have started to compare OPD to similar face-to-face
conceptual frameworks and findings (Chitanana, 2012; Fishman et al., 2013; McInnerney
& Roberts, 2004). Geographic location, age, and level of education have been used as
predictor variables in past OPD research (Donavant, 2009; Johnson, 2001; Sari, 2012).
The findings from this question provide additional support and confirmation of these
three variables when compared to these past studies. The results of this research question
do not necessarily contribute to making changes in the study's conceptual framework.
They do, however, assist in supporting the claims found in this study's third research
question.
Logistic regression. Logistic regression is the appropriate statistical test for this
research question, which addresses the likelihood that ELT educators have a preference
between OPD and face-to-face professional development, using geographic location, age,
and level of education as the predicting variables. This analysis permits predictions of
group membership when dependent variables are dichotomous and evaluation of the odds
of participant membership in a particular group (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Preference
is defined as an affirmative response to each option in question 22. If the correct model is
found, logistic regression can predict the probability of a dependent or criterion variable
outcome. Based on the correlation test, interactions and a higher order of predictor
variables may need to be taken into consideration when performing a logistic regression
(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013). When using logistic regression, there is no need
to meet distribution assumptions, but multivariate normalcy and linearity are necessary to
enhance the test’s power (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The variables being used in this
analysis are shown in Table 1.
73
Table 1. Variables for Logistic Regression Analysis
Variables N
Geographic Location 1610
Predictor Variables Age 1640
Level of education 1644
Face-to-face conferences 1312
Face-to-face seminars or workshops 1190
Face-to-face peer exchanges 833
Criterion Variables Online seminars 830
Online courses or programs 687
Online on-demand resources 596
Online peer exchanges 468
Research Question 3. Do the differences in perceived effectiveness based on an
educator's preferred modality of receiving professional development vary as a function
when examining geographic location, age, or level of education? Does one variable or a
combination of variables (i.e., educator's preferred modality of receiving the professional
development, geographic location, age, or level of education) prove greater impact when
compared to the perceived effectiveness of professional development?
H0: There are no differences in perceived effectiveness when compared to the
preferred modality of receiving professional development and geographic
location, age, and level of education. No one variable, or combination thereof,
proves to have greater impact when compared to the perceived effectiveness of
Rationale. Similar to Research Question 2, Research Question 3 continues to
compare online and face-to-face professional development. This research question
determines if there is a difference in perceived effectiveness of professional development,
based on a participant's modality preference. Desimone (2009) created the CCF for
studying both online and face-to-face teacher professional development. She compels
74
others to use CCF when measuring teachers’ effectiveness of professional development
through four steps: 1) participating in professional development, 2) increasing a teacher's
knowledge and skills, 3) change in instruction, and 4) improved student learning.
Although this question does not address these steps explicitly, the findings surrounding
this question could add to her operational theory on how a particular professional
development modality affects a teachers' self-efficacy and his or her student outcomes.
To make sure we are using all variables available in this study, the demographic
variables, geographic location, age, and level of education will also be used to see if there
is any possible influence on perceived effectiveness.
Independent-sample t-test and analysis of variance. The factor scores produced
from the polychoric correlation matrix in the first research question were the dependent
variable used to answer this question. The independent variables for modality come from
the seven types of professional development, both online and face-to-face, found in
question number 22 of the TESOL Member Needs Survey. These seven modalities were
reduced to one variable with two categories: OPD preference and face-to-face
professional development preference (the participants who have no preference in
professional development modality will be discarded from this analysis). This question
also uses geographic location, age, and level of education to see if these demographics
can influence the perceived effectiveness of professional development and a participants'
modality preference.
First, because question 18 in the TESOL Member Needs Survey does not
differentiate online and face-to-face professional development, an independent-sample t-
test between a participant’s perceived effectiveness of professional development and his
75
or her professional development modality preference was performed. This first test will
show whether online and face-to-face professional development modality preference
differs in terms of professional development perceived effectiveness in classroom
instruction and teacher confidence.
Once this is established, two-way ANOVA tests are used to pair modality
preference and the three demographic variables, geographic location, age, and level of
education, to see if there is a difference in perceived effectiveness of professional
development. This test is used to show the effects of the study's paired independent
variables on the dependent variable as well as identify any interaction effect (Lomax &
Hahs-Vaughn, 2012; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). To evaluate all possible combinations
of variables, a four-way ANOVA was conducted to explore the perceived effectiveness
of professional development based on the differences of an educators' preferred modality
of receiving the professional development, and the demographic characteristics of
geographic location, age, and level of education. The purpose of running this unique
ANOVA was to determine if any one independent variable, or a combination of
variables, has greater impact when compared to the perceived effectiveness of
professional development. If there is no variable or combination of variables that shows
difference, one can assume that online and face-to-face professional development have
the same impact on a participant's perceived effectiveness and would consequently have
the same impact on classroom instruction and teacher confidence. If geographic location,
age, and level of education had been continuous variables, MANCOVA could have been
a better statistical analysis.
76
Figure 4 shows a flow chart of how the three research questions work with each
other to investigate the proposed hypotheses. Statistical analysis for Research Questions 1
and 2 were run independently of each other while the statistical analysis for Research
Question 3 could not be run until factor scores from the first research question were
produced.
Figure 4. Data Analysis Flow Chart
RQ 1. Determine underlying RQ 2. Determine online vs face-

factor structures to-face professional development
preference
Polychoric
correlation
matrix Logistic
Regression
Address research question No. 1

Report results
and summarize
Use factor score(s) as DV for

research question No. 3
Address RQ 2
RQ 3. Determine any
differences in perceived
effectiveness based on a
teacher’s preferred modality of
receiving professional
development
Interpret results
from RQs 2 and 3
Independent-sample t-test
and ANOVA
Report results
and summarize
Address RQ 3
77
Data Analysis
Although the TESOL Member Needs Survey provides a vast variety of survey
questions regarding the current state of the ELT profession, only eight of the survey
questions were used in the statistical analysis of this study; the raw data of two questions
are found in the appendix. The survey questions chosen for this study were best suited for
addressing the study's research questions and the conceptual framework. In order to
organize the data in a sophisticated fashion, this study performed an EFA using a
polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression, an independent-sample t-test, and
several ANOVA to answer the research questions using the latest versions of two
statistical analysis systems, SAS version 9.3, and statistical package for social sciences,
SPSS version 20.
Dependent variables. Question 18 of the TESOL Member Needs Study
addresses the perceived effectiveness of overall professional development. It is important
to note that McKinley may have led the participants to a positive response by specifically
asking for "positive impact" in this question. Although this question does not ask
participants to differentiate between OPD and face-to-face professional development, the
question provides variables that can assist in interpreting the findings of the first and third
research questions. Directly from the survey, the question asks:
How much of a positive impact did the professional development/education that
you received from TESOL International Association have on:
 Your ability to understand the needs of English language students
 The quality of your classroom teaching
 The quality of your curriculum and course materials
78
 Your ability to help the students achieve their learning outcomes
 Your ability to effectively manage the classroom
Participants were provided ordinal options, "Major impact," "Minor impact," "No
impact," or "Don't know," as their responses. Over 80% of survey participant identified
four of the five perceived effectiveness categories as having a major or minor impact.
The fifth category still received well over a majority of major and minor impact scores, as
can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Perceived Effectiveness of Professional Development
Major Minor No Don't

Items impact impact impact know Count
Your ability to understand student needs 673 637 157 67 1,534
The quality of your classroom teaching 643 647 124 116 1,530
The quality of your curriculum and course materials 620 655 167 95 1,537
Your ability to help students achieve their learning
outcomes 587 705 130 107 1,529
Your ability to effectively manage the classroom 338 658 395 136 1,527
The five items in Table 2 were used in the EFA using a polychoric correlation
matrix to create factor scores, the continuous dependent variable needed for the third
research question.
Independent variables. The independent variables identified for this study focus
on a participant's preferred method of professional development. Question 22 of the
TESOL Member Needs survey serves as the basis for addressing these variables and
provides participants with the following options:
What is your preferred method for participating in professional development?
Select all that apply.
a. In-person seminar/workshop (e.g., multiple day, seminar-style courses
focused on a specific topic)
79
b. In-person professional conference (e.g., multiple day conference to learn
about trends and cutting-edge research)
c. In-person peer-to-peer professional exchange
d. On-demand online course (e.g., self-directed study without an instructor)
e. Online education course (e.g., multi-week online training program)
f. Virtual seminar (e.g., online presentation delivered by a subject matter
expert on a topic of interest)
g. Online peer-to-peer professional exchange
h. Other, please specify:
In responding to these options, participants could click "preferred" or nothing for
each of the options a through g, thus creating the seven dichotomous dependent variables.
These options yield three face-to-face options and four online options. For the purpose of
this study, the "Other, please specify" option will be disregarded because many of the
responses did not address the question specifically.
Table 3. Professional Development Preferences
Items Affirmative Count

In-person professional conference 1,312
In-person seminar/workshop 1,190
In-person peer-to-peer professional exchange 833
Virtual seminar 830
Online education course 687
On-demand online course 596
Online peer-to-peer professional exchange 468
Other, please specify 62
Based on these data in Table Three, 1,280 participants prefer face-to-face
professional development modalities while 534 participants prefer online. Several
participants chose all seven professional development options. Those 85 cases were
80
omitted from this study. Regardless of predictors, an overwhelming majority of
participants prefer face-to-face professional development
Demographic variables. The TESOL Member Needs Survey gathered data from
school administrators, curriculum developers, teacher trainers, school councilors,
academic advisors, and primary, secondary, adult, and higher education classroom
teachers in more than 100 countries. Participants in this study vary in age, 18 to 65+
years, and levels of education ranging from less than a high school diploma to doctoral
graduates. Participants in the survey answered the following questions to identify these
demographics:
 For geographic location, questions 48 and 50 were used: Q48, In what country do
you currently teach? Q50, In what country do you currently reside? It was
important to have both questions because not all participants of this survey are
teachers. Participants answered this question by choosing the correct country from
a drop-down menu. It is important to note that participants were choosing
residency for their geographic location, not nationality.
 For age, question 52 was used: Please indicate your age group. Choices included
18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65 or older.
 For level of education, question 51 was used: What is the highest level of
education you have completed? Choices included “No post-secondary degree or
certificate,” “Short-term Certificate (Example: TESOL/TEFL/CELTA),”
“Associate’s Degree,” “Bachelor’s Degree,” “K-12 ESL Certification,”
“Primary/Secondary Licensure,” “Graduate Certificate,” “Master’s in
TESOL/TEFL/Applied Linguistics/Education or similar,” “Master's in another
81
field,” “Education Specialist,” “Doctorate in an ELT related field,” or “Doctorate
in another field.”
Geographic location, age, and level of education are used as predictor variables in the
second research question and additional independent variables for the third research
question in this study.
The literature review presented in Chapter 2 confirms that geographic location has
a great effect on OPD participation (Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert, 2005; Hudson et
al., 2006; Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Sari, 2012). The TESOL Member Needs Survey
collected data from 106 nations around the world. A majority of participants surveyed
were from the United States and some regions and municipalities were kept separate,
based on how the United States views them. For example, China, Hong Kong, and
Taiwan were three separate choices.
In order to create a better international balance for the geographic predictor in this
study, countries will be organized into Kachru’s (1983) inner, outer, and extended
language circles based on definitions found in Yano’s (2009) and Low's (2010) studies.
The inner language circle includes countries that would consider English as its traditional
language. Countries in the inner circle are the Australia, anglophone Canada, Ireland,
New Zealand, United Kingdom, the United States, and some of the Caribbean territories.
The outer language circle includes countries that have used English in historical contexts
or list English as an official language. Countries in this study’s outer circle include
Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri
Lanka. The extended language circle includes countries that have no historical or
governmental ties to English but are using English widely as a foreign language, such as
82
Brazil, China, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea, and several European countries. The
number of participants from each language circle are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Geographic Location of Participants
Items Count Percent

Kachru’s Inner Circle 1109 68.9
Kachru’s Outer Circle 35 2.2
Kachru’s Extended Circle 466 28.9
An inventory of countries represented in this study and their Kachru circle assignments
are listed in Appendix A.
The literature review presented in Chapter 2 also identified age as an influential
factor when it comes to OPD and therefore supports the need to have age as a predictor in
this study. Older educators and faculty may be leery of new technologies that take the
place of traditional face-to-face training (DeJong, 2012; Reilly, Vandenhouten,
Gallagher-Lepak, & Ralston-Berg, 2012). However, Dubé, Bourhis, and Jacob (2006)
claim that age does not dictate an individual's preference for OPD over other options,
including face-to-face. The TESOL Member Needs Survey distributes the participants’
age into six categories. Although six categories may be considered too many, Eun and
Heining-Boynton (2007) used eight categories for age while Valeo and Faez (2013) used
four. Evidence exists to support using six age categories for this study.
Table 5. Age of Participants

Items Count Percent
18–24 32 2.0
25–34 294 17.8
35–44 359 21.9
45–54 393 24.0
55–64 426 26.0
65 or older 136 8.3
83
The last control variable for this study is a participant’s level of education.
Because of the multifaceted field of ELT, a variety of educational training is available to
people interested in pursuing this profession. However, research that addresses how a
professional’s level of education coincides with OPD is limited. Nevertheless, there does
exist research surrounding the roles of content-experts in OPD and how these particular
participants might influence the conversation. For example, some researchers have found
that experts should participate as a facilitator (Bickel et al., 2013) while other research
has found that self-identify experts generate a negative connotation from other
participants (Ryman et al., 2009). In this study's data set, participants are not able to
identify themselves as experts. They are, however, able to identify their level of
education. This study uses a participant's level of education as justification for being an
expert in the field. Accordingly, a participant's level of education is the third predictor
examined in this study. Qualifications from the survey range from no postsecondary
education to those with doctorial degrees. For ease of analysis, the 11 choices for level of
education has been reduced to five categories. No postsecondary degree or certificate,
Short-term Certificate, and Associate’s Degree were listed as "Pre-university Education";
Bachelor’s Degree remained the same; K–12 ESL Certification or Licensure, Graduate
Certificate, and Education Specialists were listed as "Post-baccalaureate Credential"; the
two master’s degree categories were grouped together, as were the two doctorate degree
categories.
84
Table 6. Level of Education of Participants
Items Count Percent

Pre-university Education 33 2.1
Bachelor’s Degree 136 8.7
Post-baccalaureate Credential 69 4.4
Master’s Degree 995 63.6
Doctorate Degree 332 21.2
Data Preparation
The quantitative data needed for this study are from the TESOL Member Needs
SPSS files. First, the eight survey questions being used for this study were extracted into
a clean SPSS data file. In order to perform the EFA using a polychoric correlation matrix,
the data from the five items listed in question 18 of the survey were transferred to an SAS
data file. In the latest version of SPSS, polychoric correlation matrix is not an analysis
that can be easily used. SPSS makes this easy by allowing files to be saved as a variety of
files including .sas7bdat, .cvs, and .elxs. The factor scores resulting from the polychoric
correlation matrix are used as the dependent variable in the third research question. The
geographic location variables will be recoded to fall neatly into Kachru's (1983) three
language circles. The seven preferred methods of professional development modality will
be reduced to three categories: 1) online professional development preference, 2) face-to-
face professional development preference, and 3) equal modality preference, although the
equal modality preference choice will be excluded from the statistical testing.
Human Participation and Ethics Precautions
A Human Subjects Research Determination worksheet was shared with the Office
of Human Resources (OHR) in August 2015. This worksheet determined that this study
did not have to undergo the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. In this worksheet,
the content of the data being used in this study was outlined. The data contained no
85
participant names, affiliations, or identifiable characteristics. The anonymity of all
participants is guarded by McKinley's secure online platform. No participant can be
traced in regard to the questions asked and the answers given. OHR determined that this
study does not meet the definition of human subject research (see Appendix C) and did
not have to go through the complete IRB process.
In addressing a possible conflict of interest, I self-reported that I am the Director
of Professional Learning and Research at TESOL International Association and might
hold bias toward the findings. In this role, I lead a majority of TESOL's face-to-face
professional development and all of its OPD activities. As senior staff at this
organization, I was privy to the development of the TESOL Member Needs survey and
its data before IRB approval.
I made every effort to approach this research as a doctoral candidate from the
George Washington University and not as an employee of TESOL International
Association. Although I may have preconceived expectations, I have made every effort to
curb all attempts to make unjustified assumptions based on my professional and personal
experiences.
Intellectual Property
The author of this study will share the completed dissertation with TESOL staff
and Board of Directors. The author will not attempt to publish, present, or disseminate
results of the study without TESOL permission. In addition, TESOL agrees to not
publish, present, or disseminate the findings of this dissertation without the permission of
the author.
86
Summary of Methods
This chapter has outlined the process that was used to perform the secondary
analysis of the TESOL Member Needs Survey data for the purpose this study. Three
research questions were identified and hypotheses were given. Variables were defined.
Using SAS and SPSS, EFA using a polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression,
independent-sample t-tests, and a variety of ANOVA tests were proposed as tests to
answer the research questions. The survey instrument, data collection, and data analysis
were outlined. The IRB process, ethical precautions, and how intellectual property were
presented. This chapter provides the basis for completing this study.
87
Chapter 4: Results
This study examined ELT educators' perceived effectiveness of professional
development in classroom instruction and teacher confidence. It does this by first
presenting participants’ self-reports on perceived effectiveness, identifying the best
predictors for professional development modality preference, and exploring the possible
differences that exist in perceived effectiveness and preferred choice in professional
development modality by pairing modality choice with a participant’s geographic
location, age, and level of education. This was accomplished by conducting a secondary
analysis of the 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey and a variety of statistical analyses.
This study used EFA using a polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression,
independent-sample t-tests, and ANOVA to test the study's research hypotheses.
Although this study includes both online and face-to-face professional development data,
the main focus is on the effectiveness and use of OPD.
The dependent variables for this study were five distinct measures of perceived
effectiveness as listed in the 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey (i.e., a teacher's ability
to understand the needs of English language students, the quality of a teacher's classroom
teaching, the quality of a teacher's curriculum and course materials, a teacher's ability to
help students achieve their learning outcomes, and a teacher's ability to effectively
manage the classroom). Participants from the survey were able to identify the appropriate
level of impact on classroom instruction and teacher confidence. Levels of impact were
identified as "Major impact," "Minor impact," "No impact," or "Don't know," creating
ordinal variables.
88
The independent variables for this study were a variety online and face-to-face
professional development modalities an ELT educator might prefer. These modalities
included three face-to-face options (i.e., professional conference, seminar/workshop, and
peer-to-peer professional exchange), and four online options (i.e., virtual seminar,
education course, on-demand course, and peer-to-peer professional exchange).
Participants in the 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey were able to choose as many
modality options as they liked by checking "preferred" next to the appropriate option. If a
participant did not like the modality, the answer was left blank. This created a
dichotomous variable structure. If a participant chose "preferred," the choice was coded
1. If a participant left the option blank, the nonchoice was coded 0.
The final variables used in this study come from the participants' geographic
location, age, and level of education. Participants in the survey identified their country of
residence from a drop-down menu. In order to attempt balance for the geographic
variable in this study, countries were organized into Kachru’s (1983) inner, outer, and
expanding language circles, based on definitions found in former studies by Yano (2009)
and Low (2010). Participants identified their age from six options ranging from 18 to
65+, and the 11 levels of education were reduced to five ranging from pre-university
education to doctorate degrees. These three variables were used when analyzing the
second and final research questions. All of these demographic variables are categorical.
This chapter presents the statistical findings as related to the research hypotheses
and is organized in the following way. First, there is a brief summary of how the
participants were selected for the survey and of the data that the participants provided.
Second, response rates for each variable are presented as well as a discussion on how the
89
findings could be generalized to the entire ELT population. And last, the analysis of each
research question, hypothesis, statistical result, and interpretation are presented and
summarized.
Survey Participants and Responses
In August 2014, TESOL International Association commissioned a member needs
survey to gain a better understanding of the needs and expectations of ELT professionals
in the field, identify areas where TESOL performs well, uncover gaps in program
offerings, and discover opportunities to increase value and satisfaction for key member
and nonmember audiences. A 52-question survey was developed and sent to more than
27,000 potential participants. The survey ran from September 12 until September 24,
2014. Preview, invitation, and reminder emails were sent to potential participants. A total
of 2,395 people attempted to complete the survey.
Because an exact population of ELT professionals is hard to estimate, the data
collected from this survey may not represent an appropriate sample to match the entire
ELT population. "In reality, however, populations are frequently best defined in terms of
samples" (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013, p. 7). This study was able to pull data from a wide
range of ELT professionals (see Figure 3, p. 69). If the number of participants receiving
the initial survey email (N=27,585) is viewed as the population this study examines,
sufficient data exist to make generalizations. By using a sample size calculator and based
on this survey's response rate just below 10%, the sample size collected (n=2,395) will
produce findings with 95% confidence level and a 2% margin of error. Generalization
statements, based on this study's findings, can be made.
90
Response rates for each question vary based on the number of participants who
responded. For this study's dependent variables, not all participants replied to each of the
five items measuring perceived effectiveness. Responses ranged from 1,527 to 1,537 with
missing data ranging from 858 to 868. See Table 7 for the disaggregated results.
Table 7. Perceived Effectiveness of Professional Development Response Rates
Missing
Items Responses Data
Your ability to understand student needs 1534 861
The quality of your classroom teaching 1537 858
The quality of your curriculum and course materials 1529 866
Your ability to help students achieve their learning outcomes 1527 868
Your ability to effectively manage the classroom 1530 865
For the independent variables, a consistent 1,899 participants responded to each of the
seven types of professional modality options, leaving 496 participants with missing data.
Table 8 depicts these results.
Table 8. Professional Development Preferences Response Rate
Items Responses Missing Data

In-person professional conference 1,899 496
In-person seminar/workshop 1,899 496
In-person peer-to-peer professional exchange 1,899 496
Virtual seminar 1,899 496
Online education course 1,899 496
On-demand online course 1,899 496
Online peer-to-peer professional exchange 1,899 496
For the additional demographic variables needed to complete some of the statistical
analyses, responses varied again. Table 9 shows the response rates and missing data for
participants' geographic location, age, and level of education. Response rates and missing
data do add up to 2,310 participants for each category.
91
Table 9. Additional Variable Response Rates
Items Responses Missing Data

Geographic Location 1,610 785
Age 1,640 755
Level of Education 1,565 745
Although each set of variables provides a different sample of data, the missing
data do not pollute the results of these findings. Seeing the limitations of the survey
participants’ language, broadband access, and potential survey question cultural bias,
most of the missing data can be considered missing completely at random and missing at
random by Rubin's missing data classification system and should not bias the results of
this study (McKnight, McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007). In addition, based on a
person's job, a participant may not have answered a question because it might not have
pertained to him or her.
Research Question 1
When measuring perceived effectiveness of professional development, what are
the underlying factor structures found when examining the following five variables:
EFA is often used at the beginning of data analysis (Pallant, 2013) to reduce a large
amount of data into smaller sets of components without imposing any preconceived
structures (Suhr, 2006). Traditionally, the role of EFA is to generate hypotheses based on
92
the data being analyzed (Hancock & Mueller, 2010). Because of this, a hypothesis was
not written for this research question.
Test results. An EFA test was used to answer this first research question given
that this question is looking for the underlying factor structures found in these five
perceived effectiveness identifiers. Pearson product-moment correlation matrix is
commonly used for performing factor analysis when the variables being examined are
continuous (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Because the data for this research question were
ordinal, polychoric correlation was used as the matrix for this EFA (Hancock & Mueller,
2010).
Using the wrong factor analysis may lead to an incorrect number of factors and
skew estimates in factor loading (Hancock & Mueller, 2010; Olsson, 1979). For this
study, a polychoric correlation matrix was used to identify the underlying factor
structures in perceived effectiveness of professional development because polychoric
correlation is the measure of association for ordinal variables (Olsson, 1979; Ekström,
2011). Polychoric correlation assumes that there are continuous variables beneath the
number of observed cases in the data (Hipp & Bollen, 2003) and that these variables have
a normal distribution (Cho, Li, & Bandalos, 2009).
First, the 2,395 cases pertaining to the five perceived effectiveness items were
uploaded to the 9.3 version of the SAS. Regarding these five items, not all 2,395 cases
are reported. Based on Rubin's missing data classification system, we can still run the
analysis if the missing data does not create bias results (McKnight et al., 2007). In this
data set, the missing data does not impact the number of underlying factor structures and
therefore, cases with missing data will not be removed.
93
The scores of the means and standard deviations of each perceived effectiveness
item were very close to one another as shown in Table 10. Hancock and Mueller (2010)
posit that when working with five or more ordered categories, minimal bias occurs,
regardless of which factor analysis is used. These statistics are acutely aligned with each
other and suggest for a single loading factor.
Table 10. Perceived Effectiveness Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std Dev Median Minimum Maximum

Your ability to understand
1534 10197 0.80882 10197 10196 10199
student needs
The quality of your
1537 10197 0.85467 10197 10196 10199
classroom teaching
The quality of your
curriculum and course 1529 10197 0.85092 10197 10196 10199
materials
Your ability to help
students achieve their 1527 10197 0.88903 10197 10196 10199
learning outcomes
Your ability to effectively
1530 10197 0.87743 10197 10196 10199
manage the classroom
In order to get an estimate of the number of factors loading for this variable and
taking into consideration the ordinal variables, principal axis factoring is used as the
factor extraction method for this analysis. If ordinal data is computed through Pearson
Correlation, the magnitude of the possible correlation might shrink (Han et al., n.d.). By
using principal axis factoring, SAS takes into consideration the possible bias of running
ordinal data through factor analysis.
In addition, the five perceived effectiveness items were subjected to the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO; Kaiser, 1974), Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954), and
scree test of eigenvalues (Cattell, 1966). The KMO value was 0.876, exceeding the
recommended level of 0.5, and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity was statistically significant,
94
therefore reporting the factorability of the polychoric correlation matrix. The scree plot in
Figure 5 shows that there is only one eigenvalue above 1, which supports the descriptive
statistics in suggesting this study is a single loading factor model. This one component
accounts for 67.25% of the model's variance (see Table 11). Because much of the data
supports a one-component solution, a rotation of the data was not performed.
Figure 5. Scree Plot
Table 11. Eigenvalues
Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 3.363 67.252 67.252
2 .493 9.859 77.111
3 .448 8.964 86.075
4 .367 7.344 93.419
5 .329 6.581 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
95
Table 12. Polychoric Correlation Matrix
Your ability to The quality of Your ability to Your ability to

understand the your curriculum help the students effectively The quality of
needs of English and course achieve their manage the your classroom
language students materials learning outcomes classroom teaching
Polychoric
Your ability to
Correlation 1
understand the
Wald Test
needs of English
Sig.
language students
N
Polychoric
The quality of your Correlation .639 1
curriculum and Wald Test 937.64
course materials Sig. .0001
N 1523
Polychoric
Your ability to
Correlation .708 .699 1
help the students
Wald Test 1546.86 1486.92
achieve their
Sig. .0001 .0001
learning outcomes
N 1520 1521
Polychoric
Your ability to Correlation .630 .627 . 685 1
effectively manage Wald Test 975.67 989.26 1434.81
the classroom Sig. .0001 .0001 .0001
N 1518 1523 1522
Polychoric
Correlation .685 .716 .757 .749 1
The quality of your
Wald Test 1305.14 1682.74 2244.31 2309.45
classroom teaching
Sig. .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001
N 1519 1522 1517 1518
96
In the polychoric correlation matrix found in Table 12, strong correlations
between each variable suggests that they load together as one factor. The Wald Test
proves each correlation is statistically significant and supports the factorability of these
data.
Summary of findings. The loadings of variables on factor pattern coefficients are
found in Table 13. Variables were rearranged based on the size of the coefficient. It is
clear from the closely ranged coefficients and no real outliers that one-component did rise
through the EFA using a polychoric correlation matrix, as shown by all five perceived
effectiveness items grouping together. When EFA produces a one-component outcome,
structure and pattern coefficients are equivocate (Hancock & Mueller, 2010) and no
rotation is needed. This finding demonstrates that professional development can impact
classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
Table 13. Factor Pattern for One Factor Solution

Coefficients
Factor 1
The quality of your classroom teaching 0.81483
Your ability to help students achieve their learning outcomes 0.81165
The quality of your curriculum and course materials 0.74550
Your ability to effectively manage the classroom 0.74332
Your ability to understand student needs 0.72688
Validity and reliability. As shown in Chapter 3, McKinley did not provide much
information when it came to the survey's validity and reliability. However, in performing
a polychoric correlation matrix analysis, construct validity and reliability can be verified
in the outputs. Starting with the coefficient factors in Table 13, the high correlation in
these scores show that the validity of the factor analysis is also strong. In addition,
Cronbach's alpha is .878 when loading all five variables, proving the rising factor has
97
internal consistency (DeVellis, 2003) and showing a strong reality measure. The
overarching construct being tested in this question is that professional development as it
is perceived effective by an ELT educator can impact classroom instruction and teaching
confidence. In doing this secondary analysis, these tests prove that there is validity and
reliability in the 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey.
As presented in the findings of the first research question, all five perceived
effectiveness items group together to create one, very strong, factor component. This
output can be viewed as a measure of evidence regarding the survey's reliability. The new
one factor component structure created by this output is evidence for the validity of the
data collected.
Research Question 2
What is the likelihood that ELT educators have a preference in receiving online
professional development versus face-to-face professional development when analyzing
the following demographic characteristics: geographic location, age, and level of
education?
H0: The likelihood that ELT professionals prefer online versus face-to-face
professional development is not related to their geographic location, age, and
level of education.
Test results. In answering this research question, binary logistic regression
analysis was used to determine a likelihood of professional development preference when
using geographic location, age, and level of education as the predictor variables. Because
the predictor variables each represent a different likelihood of preference, three one-
98
predictor binary logistic regression analyses were fitted to the data to address this
research question.
The criteria variable for this research question stems from the seven types of
professional development choices found in the 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey. The
seven choices were consolidated into two modality preferences, online and face-to-face.
Some participants had no online and face-to-face modality preference. These 85 cases
were omitted from the regression analysis. Participants with an OPD preference were
coded as 1 because this study aims to predict the odds participants would choose OPD as
their preference. In the application of a binary logistic regression, if participants prefer
OPD, that choice is recognized as a success. Participants with a face-to-face preference
were coded as 0. Consequently, face-to-face professional development preference is
recognized as a failure. In consolidating the seven types of professional development
choices, 1,280 participants preferred face-to-face professional development while 534
participants preferred online. SPSS Version 20 performed the data analysis for this
research question.
The first step needed in addressing this research question is to establish a
relationship between the criterion and predictive variables. To do this, a Pearson χ2
analysis was performed for each predictor against the criterion variable yielding
significant relationships, with p < 0.05, between each set as show in Table 14.
Table 14. Cross-Tab Analysis
Predictor Variables χ2 df p-value

Geographic Location 22.981 2 0.000
Age 19.314 5 0.002
Level of Education 20.527 4 0.000
99
Next, a bivariate correlation test was performed to understand the strength of the
correlations between variables. Although each correlation has a significant p-value less
than 0.05, the strength of the correlations are not as strong as expected, with the strongest
correlation being a 0.117 between geographic location and professional development
modality preference. These findings are shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Bivariate Correlations
Geographic Age Level of

Location Education
Sig. Sig. Sig
Professional Development 0.117 -0.080 -0.086
Modality Preference 0.000 0.002 0.001
Geographic location. The first binary logistic regression analysis looked at the
likelihood of a participant’s professional development modality preference based on his
or her geographic location. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test demonstrated that this model
was a good model for the data collected and predicted the exact same number of cases as
observed in the data, 173. Overall, this model correctly classified 70.8% of cases. In
using the Omnibus tests of model coefficients, this model was found to be statistically
significant, χ2(2, N = 1515) = 22.347, p < 0.000, indicating that the model was able to
distinguish participants' professional development preference when controlling for
geographic location. A low variance in outcomes was predicted as shown in Nagelkerke
r2 = 0.021. This statistics show that there are other factors that might contribute to a
participant’s professional development modality preference.
Because this variable is categorical, SPSS Version 20 created the necessary
dummy variables needed for running the analysis. In this binary logistic regression test,
Kachru's (1983) Inner Circle group has been removed from the equation so that a
baseline comparison can be made against the remaining groups. The data in Table 16
100
represent the likelihood of a participant’s professional development modality preference
based on his or her geographic location.
Table 16. Logistic Regression Model Fitted With Geographic Location as the
Predictor Variable
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Kachru Circles 22.670 2 .000
Outer Circle -.816 .363 5.045 1 .025 2.261
Extended Circle -.541 .122 19.565 1 .000 1.719
Constant 1.067 .071 228.835 1 .000 .344
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Kachru_Circles.
b. Baseline variable: Inner Circle
As shown in this table, geographic location has a statistically significant
contribution to this model with nominal variance between locations. In addition, the odds
ratio, as shown in Exp(B), is greater than 1. When compared to the model where
geographic location is removed from the analysis, the odds of a participant choosing OPD
is 0.413 less than a participant choosing face-to-face professional development. This
increase in odds ratio to greater than 1 indicated that geographic location is a strong
predictor for identifying an ELT educator's professional development modality
preference.
Age. The second binary logistic regression analysis looked at the likelihood of a
participant’s professional development modality preference based on his or her age.
Although age can be used as a continuous variable, for this study, age was grouped into
six categories and was therefore a nominal variable. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test
showed that this model was a good model for the data collected and predicted the exact
same number of cases as observed in the data, 132. Overall, this model correctly
classified 70.9% of cases. The Omnibus tests of model coefficients of this model was
found to be statistically significant, χ2 (5, N=1545) = 18.661, p = 0.002, indicating that
the model was able to distinguish participants' professional development preference when
101
controlling for age. A low variance in outcomes is predicted as shown in Nagelkerke r2 =
0.017. This statistic shows that there are other factors that might contribute to a
participant's professional development modality preference.
dummy variables need for running the analysis. In this binary logistic regression test, the
age range from 18–24 has been removed from the equation so that a baseline comparison
can be made against the remaining ranges. The data in Table 17 represent the likelihood
of a participant's professional development modality preference based on his or her age.
Table 17. Logistic Regression Model Fitted With Age as the Predictor Variable

Age 18.463 5 .002
25–34 -1.018 .379 7.236 1 .007 .361
35–44 -.774 .372 4.317 1 .038 .461
45–54 -1.043 .373 7.842 1 .005 .352
55–64 -1.144 .371 9.489 1 .002 .328
64 + -1.482 .417 12.636 1 .000 .227
Constant -.125 .354 .125 1 .724 1.133
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Age.
b. Baseline variable: Age 18–24
As shown in this table, age is statistically significant in each range of ages in this
model at all levels. However, this tables shows that the odds ratio, as shown in Exp(B), is
less than 1. This indicates that age has a lower level of predication when compared to
geographic location for identifying an ELT educator's professional development modality
preference.
Level of education. The third binary logistic regression analysis ran looked at the
likelihood of a participant’s professional development modality preference based on his
or her level of education. For the sake of this test, levels of education were combined into
five categories: Pre-university Education, Bachelor’s Degree, Post-baccalaureate
102
Credential, Master’s Degree, and Doctorate Degree. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test
indicated that this model was a good model for the data collected and predicted the exact
same number of cases as observed in the data, 60. Overall, this model correctly classified
70.9% of cases. In using the Omnibus tests of model coefficients, this model was found
to be statistically significant, χ2 (4, N=1549) = 19.461, p = 0.001, indicating that the
model was able to distinguish participants' professional development preference when
controlling for level of education. A low variance in outcomes is predicted as shown in
Nagelkerke r2 = 0.018. This statistic shows that there are other factors that might
contribute to a participant’s professional development modality preference.
dummy variables needed for running the analysis. In this binary logistic regression test,
the "Pre-university Education" group has been removed from the equation so that a
baseline comparison can be made against the remaining groups. The data in Table 18
represent the likelihood of a participant’s professional development modality preference
based on his or her level of education.
Table 18. Logistic Regression Model Fitted With Level of Education as the
Predictor Variable
Education 19.939 4 .001
Bachelor’s Degree .194 .396 .241 1 .623 1.215
Post-baccalaureate Credential -.445 .445 1.000 1 .317 .641
Master’s Degree -.500 .363 1.893 1 .169 .607
Doctorate Degree -.705 .379 3.462 1 .063 .494
Constant -.431 .356 1.462 1 .227 .650
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Education.
b. Baseline variable: Pre-university Education
As shown in this table, a participant's level of education is not a statistically
significant predictor for online and face-to-face professional development modality
103
preference. Moreover, there are low levels of predictability in the odds ratio, Exp(B),
with all of the education choices except for those who hold a bachelor’s degree. This may
elude to bachelor’s degrees being a predictor of modality preference, but because the
choice is not statistically significant, it's more likely that level of education is a low
predictor for identifying an ELT educator's professional development modality
preference.
Summary of findings. For this research question, three binary logistic regression
models were used to determine a likelihood of professional development preference when
using geographic location, age, and level of education as the predictor variables. These
models had many similar findings. The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test for each model
presented a statistical significant score greater than 0.05, proving that all three of the
models were acceptable for this data analysis. All three of the models were able to predict
70.8–70.9% of the cases. When using the Omnibus test of model coefficients, all models
were found to be statistically significant. Finally, all models had a low variance in
outcomes as predicted by Negelkerke R-square, meaning other factors contribute to a
participant's preference.
When taking a close look at each predictor's odds ratio, geographic location had a
statistically significant fit and a high odds ratio when predicting OPD preference. Age
had a statistically significant fit, but low predictor levels for all age groups. This does
follow other researcher findings as age can predict a participant’s online and face-to-face
professional development modality preference, but because of the low odd ratio statistics,
age is not as good a predictor as geographic location. The level of a participant's
education did not have a statistically significant fit and had low levels of predictability.
104
Research Question 3
Do the differences in perceived effectiveness based on an educator's preferred
modality of receiving professional development vary as a function when examining
geographic location, age, or level of education? Does one variable or a combination of
variables (i.e., educator's preferred modality of receiving the professional development,
geographic location, age, or level of education), prove greater impact when compared to
the perceived effectiveness of professional development?
H0: There are no differences in perceived effectiveness when compared to the
preferred modality of receiving professional development and geographic
location, age, and level of education. No one variable, or combination thereof,
proves to have greater impact when compared to the perceived effectiveness of
Test results. To start the analysis of this last research question, an independent-
sample t-test was used to determine if there is significant difference in the mean of a
participant's perceived effectiveness of professional development and his or her
professional development modality preference (Pallant, 2013). First, the Levene's Test for
Equality of Variance is greater than 0.05, proving that the sample does not violate
homogeneity of variance. In performing the independent-sample t-test, there was no
significant difference in the scores of OPD preference (M = -0.404, SD = 0.947) and
face-to-face professional development (M = 0.024, SD = 0.922; t(1395) = -1.140, p =
0.26, two-tailed). The magnitude of the difference in the means (means difference = 0.38,
95% CI: -0.174 to 0.046) was very small (η2 = .0.001). Therefore, when comparing a
105
participant’s professional development preference, there is no statistical difference in the
professional development's perceived effectiveness.
Building on the independent-sample t-test findings, three separate two-way
between group ANOVA were performed to explore the differences in pairing geographic
location, age, and level of education with a participant’s professional development
modality preference changes the results when compared to the perceived effectiveness of
professional development. In addition, a four-way ANOVA test was run to see if using all
four independent variables (i.e., professional development modality preference,
geographic location, age, and level of education) proved statistically significant when
compared to perceived effectiveness. ANOVA is able to consider the effects of two or
more independent variables on a dependent variable (Lomax & Hahs-Vaughn, 2012). The
dependent variable for all the ANOVA tests was the perceived effectiveness of
professional development on classroom instruction and teacher confidence factor scores
taken from the polychoric correlation analysis performed in the first research question.
In conducting two-way ANOVA tests, Levene test for equality of variance was
conducted first to test homogeneity of variance between variables. Next, the differences
in independent variables were analyzed and effect size was reported. Last, a four-way
ANOVA was conducted to see if there is difference between perceived effectiveness and
the four independent variables (preferred modality of receiving professional
development, geographic location, age, and level of education) or any combination
thereof. SPSS Version 20 performed the data analysis for this research question.
Statistical significance was not found in Levene's Test of Equality of Error for
two of the independent variable parings. This means that professional development
106
modality preference does not violate homogeneity of variance for geographic location
and age. In the test examining professional development modality preference and level of
education, homogeneity of variance is violated as well as when the four independent
variables were grouped together. These violations were taken into consideration when
analyzing the two-way ANOVA test dealing with level of education and the four-way
ANOVA test examining all four independent variables. The statistics presenting these
results are found in Table 19.
Table 19. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

n df sig.
PD Preference * Geographic Location 1213 5 .181
PD Preference * Age 1228 11 .213
PD Preference * Level of Education 1232 9 .014
PD Preference * Geographic Location
1101 105 .007
* Age * Level of Education
Dependent Variable: perceived effectiveness of professional development (PD)
Professional development modality preference and geographic location. A two-
way ANOVA was conducted to explore the perceived effectiveness of professional
development based on the differences of an educators' preferred modality of receiving the
professional development and his or her geographic location. Participants were divided
into three groups based on Kachru’s (1983) inner, outer, and extended language circles
and significant levels were set at p < 0.05. The interaction between professional
development modality preference and geographic location is not statistically significant,
F (2, 1213) = 0.40, p = 0.67, partial η2 = .001, nor are the two main effects as seen in
Table 20, signifying that the magnitude of the difference is not equal across all levels of
perceived effectiveness of professional development. Effect size for all models was less
than 1%, meaning each of these variables accounts for less than 1% of the perceived
effectiveness of professional development.
107
and Geographic Location
SS Df MS F Sig. Partial η2
PD Preference .015 1 .015 .018 .893 .000
Geographic location 4.312 2 2.156 2.564 .077 .004
PD Preference *
.669 2 .335 .398 .672 .001
Geographic Location
Dependent Variable: perceived effectiveness of professional development
Professional development modality preference and age. A two-way ANOVA
was conducted to explore the perceived effectiveness of professional development based
on the differences of an educators' preferred modality of receiving the professional
development and their age. Participants were divided into six different age ranges and
significant levels are set at p < 0.05. The interaction between professional development
modality preference and age is not statistically significant, F (5, 1228) = 1.492, p = 0.19,
partial η2 = .006, nor are the two main effects as seen in Table 21, signifying that the
magnitude of the difference is not equal across all levels of perceived effectiveness of
professional development. Effect size for all models was less than 1%, meaning each of
these variables accounts for less than 1% of the perceived effectiveness of professional
development.

and Age
PD preference .013 1 .013 .016 .901 .000
Age 4.994 5 .999 1.170 .322 .005
PD Preference * Age 6.366 5 1.273 1.492 .190 .006
Professional development modality preference and level of education. A two-
way ANOVA was conducted to explore the perceived effectiveness of professional
development based on the differences of an educators' preferred modality of receiving the
professional development and their level of education. Participants were able to choose
108
from 11 different types of certificate or degree programs, but, for this analysis categories
were reduced to five levels of education. As presented in the Levene Test of Equality of
Error Variance, this interaction did prove to have homogeneity of variance. To account
for this violation, p-values for this particular interaction were set at p < 0.01 to show
statistical significance. The interaction between professional development modality
preference and level of education is not statistically significant, F (4, 1232) = 0.149, p =
0.96, partial η2 < 0.000, nor are the two main effects as seen in Table 22, signifying that
the magnitude of the difference is not equal across all levels of perceived effectiveness of
professional development. Effect size for all models was less than 1%, meaning each of
these variables accounts for less than 1% of the perceived effectiveness of professional
development.

and Levels of Education
PD preference .030 1 .030 .034 .853 .000
Level of Education 3.129 4 .782 .902 .462 .003
PD Preference * Level
.517 4 .129 .149 .963 .000
of Education
Professional development modality preference, geographic location, age, and
level of education. A four-way ANOVA was conducted to explore the perceived
effectiveness of professional development based on the differences of an educators'
preferred modality of receiving the professional development, his or her geographic
location, age, and level of education. The purpose of running this unique ANOVA is to
determine if any one independent variable, or a combination of variables, has greater
impact when compared to the perceived effectiveness of professional development. As
presented in Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variance, this interaction did prove to be
109
significant and therefore have homogeneity of variance. To account for this violation, p-
values in this particular interaction were set at p < 0.01 to show statistical significance.
The interaction between professional development modality preference, geographic
location, age, and level of education is also not statistically significant, F (7, 1101) =
0.867, p = 0.53, partial η2 = .005, nor are any of the main effects as seen in Table 23,
signifying that the magnitude of the difference is not equal across all levels of perceived
effectiveness of professional development. Effect size for all models was less than 0.05,
meaning each of these variables accounts for less than 5% of the perceived effectiveness
of professional development.
Table 23. Between Subject Effects: Professional Development Modality Preference,

Geographic Location, Age, and Levels of Education
PD preference .829 1 .829 .993 .319 .001
Geographic Location 2.406 2 1.203 1.442 .237 .003
Age 4.617 5 .923 1.107 .355 .005
Level of Education 3.170 4 .793 .950 .434 .003
PD preference * Geographic
2.333 2 1.167 1.398 .247 .003
Location
PD preference * Age 2.093 5 .419 .502 .775 .002
PD preference * Level of
1.312 4 .328 .393 .814 .001
Education
Geographic Location * Age 7.145 9 .794 .952 .479 .008
Geographic Location * Level
2.040 7 .291 .349 .931 .002
of Education
Age * Level of Education 12.354 18 .686 .823 .675 .013
10.098 7 1.443 1.729 .098 .011
Location * Age
Location * Level of .641 4 .160 .192 .943 .001
Education
PD preference * Age *
10.043 14 .717 .860 .603 .011
Education
Geographic Location * Age *
18.107 15 1.207 1.447 .118 .019
Level of Education
Location * Age * Level of 5.065 7 .724 .867 .532 .005
Education
110
Summary of findings. The focus of this research question was to determine if
perceived effectiveness based on an educator's preferred modality of receiving
professional development may vary as a function when examining geographic location,
age, and level of education. Moreover, does combining these variables prove greater
impact when compared to the same perceived effectiveness of professional development?
In running the three two-way ANOVAs, the findings show that there is no significance
difference on an educator's professional development modality preference when paired
with geographic location, age, or level of education and his or her perceived effectiveness
of professional development on classroom instruction and teacher confidence. These
findings fail to reject the first null hypothesis of this research question.
The second part of this research question's hypothesis claims that no variable, or
combination thereof, proves to have greater impact when compared to the perceived
effectiveness of professional development, the variables being an educator's professional
development modality preference, geographic location, age, and level of education. A
four-way ANOVA was run using all four variables simultaneously. Although this
interaction did prove to have homogeneity of variance, causing the p-value to be less than
0.01 when analyzing the data, the findings show that there is no significance for any
pairing of variables. These findings also fail to reject the null hypothesis of this research
question.
Summary
This study used secondary data from the 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey and
presented the results from the necessary statistical analyses to answer this study's
research questions and test the hypotheses in this chapter. The first research question
111
found one underlying structure in the five types of perceived effectiveness in professional
development though a polychoric correlation matrix. The polychoric correlation matrix
also provided the necessary values to develop the dependent factor scores needed for the
ANOVA tests in the third research question. In the second research question, geographic
location was determined to be the best predictor in professional development modality
preference. Age did show as a significant fit for predicting professional development
modality preference, but not with the same degree as geographic location. Because of
this, the findings produced by this data were able to partially reject the second null
hypothesis. Geographic location, and to some extent age, can predict professional
development modality preference; level of education cannot. The last research question
was broken down into two parts. First, no statistical significance was found on perceived
effectiveness of professional development when combining preferred professional
development modality with geographic location, age, or level of education. In addition,
there is no statistical significance on perceived effectiveness of professional development
when simultaneously examining all found independent variables (i.e., preferred
professional development modality, geographic location, age, and level of education).
The findings fail to reject the null hypotheses for the third research question leading this
researcher to believe that perceived effectiveness of professional development does not
vary based on professional development modality preference, geographic location, age,
and level of education or any combination thereof.
112
Chapter 5: Findings and Conclusions
With the increase of English language students around the world (Graddol, 2006;
NCELA, 2011 November), attention has been given to the various types of professional
development educators are engaged in; this includes the growing number of professionals
seeking OPD. In the past years, researchers have asked for and executed various studies
in order to document the relevance and possible effectiveness of OPD. Much of this
research has been qualitative in nature. This study adds quantitative data analysis to the
body of research regarding OPD and supports the use of OPD in the ELT community by
measuring its perceived effectiveness on classroom instruction and teacher confidence
while showing how the geographic location, age, and level of education of participants
might contribute to the perceived effectiveness of the professional development and
professional development modality choice. The following research questions guided this
inquiry:
1. When measuring perceived effectiveness of professional development,
what are the underlying factor structures found when examining the
following five variables: A teacher's ability to understand the needs of
English language students, the quality of a teacher's classroom teaching,
the quality of a teacher's curriculum and course materials, a teacher's
ability to help students achieve their learning outcomes, and a teacher's
ability to effectively manage the classroom?
2. What is the likelihood that ELT educators have a preference in receiving
OPD versus face-to-face professional development when analyzing the
113
following demographic characteristics: geographic location, age, and level
of education?
3. Do the differences in perceived effectiveness based on an educator's
preferred modality of receiving professional development vary as a
function when examining geographic location, age, or level of education?
Does one variable or a combination of variables (i.e. educator's preferred
modality of receiving the professional development, geographic location,
age, or level of education), prove greater impact when compared to the
perceived effectiveness of professional development?
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize major findings, discuss the extent to
which the research hypotheses were met, and make connections to current research by
measuring the findings against the conceptual framework of this study. This chapter
contains some additional limitations that became apparent in the analysis of the data and
a few potential implications for the ELT profession. The chapter concludes with how this
study may relate to the survey participants and ELT educators, current publications,
classroom practice, and education policy with some final thoughts on possible next steps.
Key Findings and Discussion
The 2014 TESOL Member Needs Survey provided the necessary data to answer
this study's research questions. The data collected quantify participants' perceived
effectiveness of professional development on classroom instruction and teacher
confidence; professional development modality preference with geographic location, age,
and level of education as predictors; and compare perceived effectiveness with
114
professional development modality preference. These types of measures have not been
done before.
The data were analyzed in two statistical software systems. First, the participants'
perceived effectiveness of professional development was uploaded into the SAS for the
purpose of performing the EFA and polychoric correlation for the first research question.
This analysis gave rise to a single factor-component and the factor scores necessary for
the third research question. The SPSS was used for the analysis of the second and third
research questions. The factor scores generated in SAS from the first research question
were uploaded to SPSS for analysis of the third research question. These two statistical
software packages work very well with each other in transferring data.
The figures collected for this study consisted of participant self-reported data.
Direct classroom observation and artifact examination were not a part of this study's data
analysis. Classroom observations and artifact examination is suggested as a future
recommendation in research later in this chapter.
Finding 1: Affirming perceived effectiveness on professional development.
Through examining the self-reported data from ELT professionals, this study affirmed
past research that professional development does influence classroom instruction and
teaching confidence (Chitanana, 2012; Fishman et al., 2013; Stolle & Herbert, 2016). The
first research question produced a single underlying factor when examining the following
five variables: 1) a teacher's ability to understand the needs of English language students,
2) the quality of a teacher's classroom teaching, 3) the quality of a teacher's curriculum
and course materials, 4) a teacher's ability to help students achieve their learning
outcomes, and 5) a teacher's ability to effectively manage the classroom. The one
115
underlying factor confirms that each variable has the same relationship with an
unobserved latent variable. Based on the actual question in the TESOL survey, the new
latent variable could be labeled as a variable that has impact on classroom instruction and
teacher confidence. The strong loading of these variables also produced evidence that the
data produced from this study has construct validity and reliability.
If this finding is compared to the raw data collected in question 18 of the survey,
all five measures of perceived effectiveness also scored high in positive impact. Over
80% of survey participants identified four of the five the perceived effectiveness
categories as having a major or minor impact. The fifth category still received well over a
majority of major and minor impact scores (see Table 2, page 79). The findings of this
research question (i.e., the single unifying latent variable) strongly suggest that
professional development can have a positive impact on classroom instruction and
teacher confidence.
The five measures of perceived effectiveness from the TESOL Member Needs
Survey align with last three elements of the four CCF elements (Desimore, 2009). A
teacher's ability to understand the needs of English language students and the quality of a
teacher's curriculum and course materials match CCF's Increase a Teacher's Knowledge
and Skills. The quality of a teacher's classroom teaching, and a teacher's ability to
effectively manage the classroom align with the CCF’s Change of Instruction. The final
measure from the survey, a teacher's ability to help students achieve their learning
outcomes, aligns directly with CCF's Improved Student Learning.
The high score represented in major and minor impact in question 18 suggests
that the participants in this study have high self-efficacy (Wu & Wang, 2015). Moreover,
116
regardless of the modality of professional development, teacher-efficacy works the same
(Kao et al., 2014). Kissau and Algozzine (2015) claim that teachers who apply what they
have learned from professional development to their classrooms strengthen teacher
confidence and teacher-efficacy. This type of confidence is perceived by the student and
can have a great effect on the students’ motivation and academic performance (Epstein &
Willhite, 2015).
Finding 2: Geographic location is the best predictor for professional
development modality preference. The findings of the second research question affirm
that geographic location, age, and level of education are good models for predicting if
someone prefers online or face-to-face professional development. The findings of the
second research question also show geographic location is the best predictor of
professional development modality preference. Age is also able to predict professional
development modality preference, but is not as strong.
Geographic location is the best variable to predict an ELT educator’s preferred
professional development modality preference when participants choose between online
and face-to-face options. The other predicting variables vary in their findings. Age was
found to be a statistically significant model, but had a low odds ratio score that indicates
age is able to predict professional development modality preference, but that the capacity
for predicting is very low. A participant's level of education did not have statistical
significance in predicting a participant's professional development modality preference
and a low odds ratio score that indicates level of education is not able to predict a
participant's professional development modality preference.
117
When looking at Desimone's (2009) CCF, predictors of preferred professional
development do not change her findings and, therefore, this study does not influence her
results. However, several demographics have been looked at when researching self-
efficacy. Although the Kao, Tsai, and Shih (2015) research took place in Taiwan, they
suggest that various geographic locations may influence a teacher's self-efficacy and
request that more such research be conducted. In addition, though age was found to be a
weak predictor in this study, a teacher's self-efficacy can be influenced by their age or
years of teaching experience (Eun & Heining-Boynton, 2007). Other research shows that
a combination of age and self-efficacy can determine teacher retention rates (Valeo &
Faez, 2013).
Finding 3: Perceived effectiveness is the same regardless of professional
development modality preference. The findings of the third research question found no
statistical significance in perceived effectiveness of classroom instruction and teacher
confidence based on the different types of professional development ELT professionals
can take. Because geographic location, age, and level of education were found to be good
models for predicting professional development preference in the second findings, these
predictors were tested to see if they could influence the current findings of the third
research question. Concomitantly, the findings are the same. These findings strongly
suggest that OPD and face-to-face professional development do not differ when it comes
to an ELT professional's perceived effectiveness of professional development influence
on classroom instruction and teacher confidence adding to the claims of other studies
have shown OPD improves classroom outcomes (Kibler & Roman, 2013; Fishman et al.,
2013).
118
This final research question adds to claims found in other studies that there is no
difference in a teacher's self-efficacy experiences when comparing the relationship of
online or face-to-face professional development to perceived effectiveness in classroom
instruction and teacher confidence (Kao et al., 2014; Kissau & Algozzine, 2015). The
findings of this last research question fail to reject the null hypothesis by showing there is
no difference in an educator's perceived effectiveness when compared to the preferred
modality of receiving professional development. In addition, no combination of
independent variables (i.e., professional development modality preference, geographic
location, age, and level of education) proves to have greater impact on an educator's
perceived effectiveness of said professional development on classroom instruction and
teacher confidence.
These findings support Desimone's (2009) CCF model, even though this
dissertation does not evaluate the content of the professional development. Because there
is no difference in perceived effectiveness and professional development modality
preference, OPD can improve classroom practice and teacher confidence. OPD should
follow the CCF's four elements of analyzing professional development: 1) professional
development should have content features that focus on active learning, coherence, and
collective participation; 2) professional development increases teacher knowledge; 3)
teachers change instruction based on the new knowledge; and 4) student learning
increases (Westrick, 2012). Just as Desimone (2009) predicts that student achievement
improves when teacher trainers follow her operational theory regardless of professional
development modality type, the findings from the first research question support the
notion that professional development influences classroom instruction and teacher
119
confidence, and that the findings of the third research question suggest that there is no
difference between online and face-to-face professional development. Therefore, student
achievement should improve with educators participating in OPD.
A Revised Conceptual Framework
Based on the findings of this study, self-efficacy has become the cornerstone of its
conceptual framework. An ELT educator's self-efficacy can grow and be supported by
OPD (Horvitz & Beach, 2011; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008). Originally, the CCF,
(Desimone, 2009), self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), and the activity model theory
(Baran & Cagiltay, 2010) were situated in a linear pattern claiming if participants used
CCF, self-efficacy and activity theory would follow (see Figure 1, page 13). Based on the
findings of this study's three research questions, a reorganization of the initial conceptual
framework is introduced. These findings include: (a) reaffirming past research that
professional development does positively influence classroom instruction and teaching
confidence; (b) geographic location is the best predictor of professional development
modality preference, and that age also predicts professional development modality
preference, but is not as strong; and (c) there are no differences in perceived effectiveness
when compared to the preferred modality of receiving professional development and
geographic location, age, and level of education or combination thereof. Figure 6
synthesizes these findings and makes an attempt at revising the original conceptual
framework.
120
Figure 6. Conceptual Framework Anew
Grounded in the findings that CCF should be the backbone of all professional
development studies (Desimone, 2009; Westrick, 2012), the four green boxes in the
center of this figure represent the CCF. As Desimone suggests, improving student
learning should be the result of all professional development. The self-efficacy also
provides the same effect when it comes to improve student learning (Labone, 2004).
Activity theory then becomes a part of a teacher's self-efficacy. When looking at
121
Bandura's (1977) claim that self-efficacy informs activity choices and the more recent
claim that online groups are able to help individuals put theory into practice (Baran &
Cagiltay, 2010), activity theory becomes a part of a teacher’s self-efficacy based on the
findings of this study's three research questions. The synergy of the five measures of
effective professional development (i.e., understanding the needs of English language
students, quality classroom teaching, quality curriculum and course materials, the ability
to help students achieve their learning outcomes, and the ability to effectively manage the
classroom) and the last three parts of Desimone's CCF (i.e. increase knowledge and
skills, change in instruction, and improved student learning) are what unifies this new
conceptual framework.
Although not examined in this study, TESOL International Association's OPD
options are rooted in the CCF's Core Features of Professional Development, as seen in
the raw data presented in Appendix D. The five measures of professional development
found in the first research question align next to the subsequent three features of the CCF:
Increase Teacher Knowledge and Skills, Change in Instruction, and Improve Student
Learning. Because these five measures factor together as a perceived effectiveness or
positive impact on classroom instruction and teaching confidence, they directly improve a
person's self-efficacy (Horvitz & Beach, 2011; Kao et al., 2014; Vavasseur &
MacGregor, 2008). In making this connection and in building on Bandura's (1977) claim
that self-efficacy has influence on activity choices and coping efforts once initiated, self-
efficacy works with the activity model theory to change instruction and student learning
outcomes (Labone, 2004).
122
Conclusion
Schlager and Fusco (2003), who claim that more research needs to be conducted
before organizations implement OPD into their training structures, may no longer need to
worry. More and more studies are making claims that OPD has beneficial means for
providing professionals the necessary skills to maintain current in their field of practice
(Bickel et al., 2013; Herman, 2012; Kibler, & Roman, 2013; Kulavuz-Onal & Vásquez,
2013; Sari, 2012; Simpson, 2005). Adding this study's findings to the research
demonstrates that people are beginning to recognize that OPD can offer the same
opportunities for learning as face-to-face professional development. Geographic location
should no longer be a hindrance for ELT educators wanting professional development.
This provides an avenue for people who are looking to continue their personal
professional development when they may not be able to reach a physical training center.
Finding that geographic location is the best predictor for knowing an ELT
educator's professional development modality preference supports the structure,
evolution, and social aspects of OPD. As technology is playing a bigger role in
professional learning, OPD allows for a more flexible learning environment where
participants can work at their own pace and work with each other as needed (Orlikowski,
2000; Ostashewski et al., 2011; Smith, 2014). OPD can not only break down geographic
constraints (Ke & Hoadley, 2009) but also break down walls of teacher isolation (King,
2011; Lock, 2006; Schlager & Fusco, 2003). Several researchers have shown that OPD
participants are able to find the time to participate, whereas a face-to-face event might
present a travel and child care obstacle (Fishman et al., 2013; Reese, 2010; Rossingh &
Johnson, 2005). It is becoming more and more apparent that OPD is a viable option for
123
continued professional growth, regardless, and in some way because of, geographic
location.
In regards to age being a minimal predictor for professional development
modality preference, these findings support Donavant’s (2009) research that stipulates
age does not make a likely predictor. Based on the findings of this study's second
research question, age is unlikely as an ELT educator's professional development
modality predictor. Not necessarily contradicting the findings of Liu and Kleinsasser
(2015), who say age has a negative relationship with online professional training, this
study shows that age is able to predict a participant’s professional development modality
preference, but might not be worth considering when looking at other ELT educators’
preferred preferences.
In regards to a participant's level of education being a possible predictor for
professional development modality preference, these findings are similar to Wu, Gao, and
Zhang's (2014) claim that people are looking for more horizontal structures when it
comes to professional development. Top-down strategies do not promote the same kinds
of interactions as a flat structure. Once people start identifying their level of expertise or
education, other participants in the OPD might stop participating (Bickel et al., 2013).
This finding also chips away at the validity of Donavant's (2009) claim that people with
high levels of education and access to remote education prefer face-to-face professional
development. Maybe that was true in 2009, but as participants start using OPD more and
more, these types of significant findings might be proven moot in years to come.
The findings of the third research question affirm past studies in that there is no
difference between OPD and face-to-face professional development impact on classroom
124
instruction and teacher confidence (Chitanana, 2012; Donavant, 2009; Fishman et al.,
2013; Roessingh & Johnson, 2005; Slotte & Herbert, 2006), and the use of geographic
location, age, and level of education does not alter this finding. This finding is a key
contribution to the literature because it is looking at the perceived effectiveness of OPD
in English language teaching through a quantitative lens. Other studies cannot make the
same claim. This study claims that professional development has a positive impact on
classroom instruction and teacher confidence based on the findings of the first research
question. The third research question shows no difference in OPD and face-to-face
professional development when it comes to perceived effectiveness. In agreement with
Kibler and Roman (2013), it finds that OPD can strengthen an ELT professional’s self-
efficacy and consequently improve student learning.
As an additional finding, the second research question points to the best ELT
professional demographic to predict professional development modality preference,
geographic location. Because this study found that there is no statistically significant
difference in OPD and face-to-face professional development, it might not matter which
demographic helps predict an ELT professional’s professional development modality
preference. This finding might be useful to those who develop policy or those who want
to participate in some form of professional development. This finding does not change
the conceptual framework of this study; however, it may influence other studies looking
to find the likelihood that ELT educators have a preference in receiving online or face-to-
face professional development.
A final note for moving forward with OPD research: It is necessary to identify the
constraints of a nation's technological infrastructure when looking at OPD reaching all
125
ELT educators. Research into OPD can only go as far as the digital infrastructure of a
nation. As mentioned in this study's limitations, people receiving OPD may be a part of
the higher class of socioeconomic status than those not receiving it. OPD may currently
be a luxury some people simply cannot obtain. This is troubling for researchers and
practitioners trying to reach the thousands of people looking for ELT teacher training. As
the body of research continues to grow around OPD, researchers and practitioners alike
should inform policy-makers of the physical and financial challenge the Internet brings to
ELT educators. Only when researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers work together
can online professional development be a reality for all ELT professionals.
Implication for Participants
The findings of this study help ELT professionals understand that there are no
differences in receiving online and face-to-face professional development. Potential
effectiveness in classroom instruction and teacher confidence is the same regardless of
where an educator gains his or her professional development. Even if a practitioner
prefers face-to-face professional development, this study suggests that he or she can be
confident that OPD will be just as useful if it is the only option available. As more and
more people build OPD, and OPD is able to reach rural corners of the Earth
(Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert, 2005; Sari 2012), it makes sense that geographic
location is becoming a viable predictor in OPD preference.
Although finding geographic location as the best predictor for OPD preference,
gender and socioeconomic status were not predictor variables in this study. If these
variables had been included, the findings could have been different. Gender introduces an
interesting dichotomy and might be an interesting variable to research. A majority of
126
educators are female, while males tend to populate tech jobs and be more comfortable
with computers. In addition, socioeconomic status might change the findings as a key
indicator. One can assume those with more income have greater access to computers and
the Internet.
In addition to additional predictor variables, new theories are developing around
OPD that could be explored. An online environment is the critical vehicle for
professional development growth (Boitshwarelo, 2011). The findings from this study can
further strengthen support for connectivism as an emerging learning theory still not
accepted by all modern-day researchers (Bell, 2011; Kop & Hill, 2008). Connectivism
comes from linking a series of online pieces of knowledge, or nodes, to create greater
meaning (Kropf, 2013). Inherently, connectivism is built in the digital world (Downes,
2005) and is not normally found in face-to-face interactions (Boitshwarelo, 2011). Once
connections are made, patterns are discovered, and participants are able to connect their
personal knowledge to a larger whole. Connectivism explains that the capacity to know is
greater than actually knowing (Siemans, 2005). OPD can exploit that by retaining
information educators might need to know at one particular time in their practice.
Implications for Professional Practice
There are two types of practice that should be explored in this section: classroom
practice and continuing education practice. Classroom practice refers to how educators
take what they have learned and implement it with their students. Using the findings of
this study, classroom practice is touched on briefly because not all participants in the
TESOL Member Needs Survey work directly in classroom instruction. A majority of this
127
section focuses on continuing education practice and how it contributes to an educator's
knowledge, skills, and abilities found in his or her professional toolkit.
As seen in the self-efficacy research, if a teacher has strong self-efficacy, students
perform at higher levels of achievement (Bandura, 1977; Epstein & Willhite, 2015; Kao
et al., 2014; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008). This study reinforces the belief that
professional development improves classroom instruction by asking ELT educators about
their ability to understand the needs of English language students, the quality of their
classroom teaching, and their ability to help the students achieve their learning outcomes.
This study shows that as these variables correlate, they impact classroom instruction in a
positive way. Because this study also claims there is no difference between online and
face-to-face professional development, perceived effectiveness impacts classroom
practice regardless of how that professional development is received.
In order to learn more about how OPD affects classroom practice, an examination
of an ELT educator in the classroom straight after participating in OPD might prove
useful to the current OPD body of knowledge. If a researcher were to observe the
educator putting what he or she has learned into practice and examine any artifacts as
additional data, a more holistic vision of how OPD impacts on student learning could be
developed. As pointed out in current literature (Manner & Rodriguez, 2012; Moon et al.,
2013; Schlager & Fusco, 2003), OPD needs more empirical evidence if it is going to be
fully accepted as a face-to-face professional development alternative. Performing
observations and examining artifacts would support this cause.
ELT professionals need to participate in continuous education to stay up-to-date
in current professional trends. As with most school-related content, second language
128
acquisition structures change from decade to decade. For example, a traditional practice
in second language acquisition is to teach the culture of a language alongside the
language (Vernier et al., 2008). As researchers look more at World Englishes, teaching a
specific western culture with English may not be necessary (Bokor, 2011; Lok, 2012). As
a professional working with English language students, administratively or otherwise,
knowing the changes in research can immediately affect a school's approach to ELT. This
study adds to the research that there is no difference between how this ever-changing
knowledge is received. As seen in the first and third research questions, OPD and similar
face-to-face trainings have the same impact.
This study showed that geographic location is the strongest predicator of
professional development modality preference. As administrators and teacher trainers
plan professional development, they should take into consideration the geographic
location of the participants. If participants have to travel far, it might be worth
considering organizing a training OPD sessions.
Connections to Current Literature
This study is able to add strength to the research surrounding the similarities
found in online and face-to-face professional development comparisons (Chitanana,
2012; Donavant, 2009; Fishman et al., 2013; Roessingh & Johnson, 2005; Slotte &
Herbert, 2006). All of the findings in this study proved to have no statistical significance
when comparing effectiveness of online and face-to-face professional development in
terms of classroom instruction and teacher confidence. Regardless of the particular
professional development modality type an ELT educator may prefer, self-efficacy can
improve using all forms of professional development delivery systems.
129
Another significant contribution to the literature found in this study comes from
finding that geographic location is the best indicator for predicating professional
development modality preference (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Johnson, 2001; Sari, 2012). This
is very useful for schools that need to find ways to train teachers in geographically
remote areas. As the reach of the Internet increases and reaches all corners of the world,
schools in underresourced areas will be able to receive up-to-the-minute professional
development, including improvements in the latest ELT methodologies, pedagogies, and
administrative structures.
Connections to Policy
Especially in the United States, OPD has become a focus of government policy in
training teachers. Since the implementation of the U.S. Department of Education National
Education Technology Plan, OPD has grown in national school districts. With the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, now known as
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the principles and examples outlined in the
National Education Technology Plan align to the technology initiatives found in Title
IVof ESSA.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education cited 12% of students were learners of
English. This number is increasing each year. This population is the fastest growing
student population in the United States (NCELA, 2011; Van Roekel, 2010). On
December 10, 2015, when President Barack Obama signed ESSA into law, the U.S.
Government recognized the needs of these students in Title I, which supports
disadvantaged students, including English language learners, and in Title III. In turn, the
U.S. government maintains its commitment to English language instruction and
130
immigrant student issues. The federal government reaffirmation of the needs of these
students strengthens the case that all educators participate in additional ELT training.
Combining this legislation with the U.S. Department of Education's dedication found in
the National Technology Education Plan proves that OPD is an excellent avenue to take
for the betterment of ELT.
Looking through the international ELT lens, the British Council has a myriad of
resources to cite English language growth around the world. It works to build better
English language policy and practice by partnering with more than 900,000 policy-
makers, government ministers, school administrators, teachers, and learners (British
Council, 2014). Its 2013–2014 annual report documents an online community network of
8.6 million. Evidence exists that there is an international call for English language policy.
As this study shows that there is no difference in online and face-to-face professional
development, OPD could take a prominent place in ELT professional development with
the international audience where such pedagogical training is not always available.
Providing this kind of training for rural communities and the international
audience may not be easy. More research should be done in countries where less
infrastructure makes it difficult to support OPD. Studies could also be conducted about
how to improve computer literacy and include computer usage training in such oCOPs.
As the number of English language students continues to grow, teachers and
administrators may need to participate in more professional development pertaining to
this unique population. As seen in the literature, OPD is a practical option to satisfy this
need. OPD saves time (Fishman et al., 2013; Murugaiah et al., 2012), breaks down walls
131
of teacher isolation (Duncan-Howell, 2010; Schlager & Fusco, 2003), and is cost
effective (Reese, 2010; Smith, 2014).
ELT educators and policy-makers can begin to feel more comfortable using OPD
as a viable replacement for similar face-to-face trainings. This study presented multiple
ways in which there are no differences in online and face-to-face professional
development. When it comes to how both types of professional development impacts
classroom instruction and teacher confidence, this study finds no notable differences. In
addition, this study suggests is that geographic location is the best predictor for
professional development modality preference. These findings might be useful
information to those who develop policy around ELT educators’ professional
development.
An Alternative Analysis
When looking at the original data set from the TESOL Member Needs Survey, a
few research processes were not conducted: 1) the survey items were not piloted, 2) no
comparison or baseline validity check were conducted, 3) it may not be possible to reach
the same survey participants in order to check reliability, and 4) this survey was the first
ELT survey for an international, non-U.S.-based audience the outside vender had ever
produced. Because this was the first survey of its kind, performing similar follow-up
studies may be challenging. After running the data analysis, new limitations have become
apparent and should be addressed in an additional analysis.
The limited reach of TESOL International Association makes it difficult to collect
a representative sample of the global ELT population. Although Tabachnick and Fidell
(2013) discuss the relevance in using the sample to define the population, as researchers,
132
this claim may not work for this sample. All attempts of TESOL International
Association to count the number of ELT professionals in the world today have failed, and
the association has found that such a count is close to impossible to complete.
Consequently, using the sample created for this study may have skewed the findings of
this study not only because of sample size, but also because of participants' cultural
biases and second language comprehension skills. Based on these challenges, the claims
made in this study may not be generalizable to other education populations.
Comparable of that with sample size, comes from the process of the TESOL
Members Needs Survey data collection. The data came from ELT professionals with
Internet access and a valid email address. This suggests that the participants who
completed this survey are of a higher socioeconomic demographic and not a true
representation of ELT professionals. In addition, data came from participant self-reports,
meaning the answers are perceptions and opinions and not direct observation nor
experimentation. Data were not collected by the researcher nor were the participants
divided into experimental and control groups; this was not an empirical research study.
Although conclusions can be made with these findings, they should be followed up with
further research.
A final limitation can be recognized in the lack of observation, and lack of artifact
and student achievement data collection for this study. Being able to observe ELT
educators applying OPC to their practice would have added to the richness of the
findings. This data could have added another layer of understanding of how OPD is
impacting classroom instruction and teacher confidence.
133
If a new study were to be built around the same research questions and taking into
consideration these recommendations, a mixed-methods approach would be utilized in
order to find actual effectiveness of OPD in an English language classroom. First, in
formulating an original survey which collects continuous data and complete participant
demographics, the proper data can be collected and analyzed. These quantitative findings
would then shape the face-to-face interview proposal and classroom observations. Pilots
for all data collections would be run with an English as a second language sample.
Validity and reliability measure would be a part of the overall study's structure. Student
artifacts, such as class work, group work, homework, and assessments would be
considered and included in the study's analysis. Moreover, a 6-month follow-up, both
survey and interview, with the ELT educators and students would be completed to
measure impact. I believe this kind of research would present a more holistic approach to
the impact of OPD in the ELT profession.
134
References
Andrew, M. (2011). Reshaping educational experience by volunteering in the
community: Language learners in the real world. Journal of Intercultural
Communication, (27).
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural
influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.
Baek, E. & Schwen, T. M., (2006). How to Build a Better Online Community: Cultural
Perspectives. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(2), 51-68.
Baker-Eveleth, L., Sarker, S., & Eveleth, D. M. (2005, January). Formation of an online
community of practice: An inductive study unearthing key elements. InSystem
Sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on (pp. 254b-254b). IEEE.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The Dynamics of Online Communities in the Activity
Theory Framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 155-166.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various χ2 Approximations.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (methodological), 16(2), 296–
298. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/2984057
Bell, F. (2010). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in
technology-enabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-118.
135
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural
variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative
framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.
Bickel, B., Shin, J. K., Taylor, J., Faust, H., & Penniston, T. (2013). Learning English
Internationally While Engaging Communities Locally: Online EFL Supporting
Community Learning for Young Leaders. TESOL Journal, 4(3), 439-462.
Bogdanou, T., Starr, C. B., Weatherall, A., & Leslie, A. D. (2013). Use of the Internet
and Social Media in the Forestry Profession in the United Kingdom. International
Forestry Review, 15(2), 147-159.
Boitshwarelo, B. (2011). Proposing an Integrated Research Framework for Connectivism:
Utilising Theoretical Synergies. International Review Of Research In Open And
Distance Learning, 12(3), 161-179.
Bokor, M. J. K. (2011). Moving international technical communication forward: A World
Englishes approach. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 41(2),
113-138.
British Council (2014). 2013-2014 annual report of the British Council. Retrieved from
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/d554_annual_report_final.pdf
Brooks, C., & Gibson, S. (2012). Professional Learning in a Digital Age. Canadian
Journal of Learning and technology, 38(2), n2.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014a, 8 January). Occupational outlook handbook: High
school teachers. Retrieved from Job Outlook: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-
training-and-library/high-school-teachers.htm#tab-6
136
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014b, 8 January). Occupational outlook handbook:
Kindergarten and elementary teachers. Retrieved from Job Outlook:
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/kindergarten-and-
elementary-school-teachers.htm#tab-6
Byington, T. A. (2011). Communities of practice: Using blogs to increase collaboration.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 280-291.
Carr, N. & Chambers, D. P. (2006a). Culture and organizational issues facing online
learning communities of teachers. Educational Information Technology, 11, 269-
282.
Carr, N. & Chambers, D. P. (2006b). Teacher professional learning in an online
community: The experiences of the National Quality Schooling Framework Pilot
Project. Educational Information Technology, 15(2), 143-157.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate behavioral
research, 1(2), 245-276.
Chang, H. (2012). The development of a learning community in an e-learning
environment. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2), 154-161.
Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Lee, Z. W. (2013). Understanding the continuance
intention of knowledge sharing in online communities of practice through the
post‐knowledge‐sharing evaluation processes. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology.
Chitanana, L. (2012). A Constructivist Approach to the Design and Delivery of an Online
Professional Development Course: A Case of the iEARN Online Course. Online
Submission, 5(1), 23-48.
137
Cho, M. H., & Rathbun, G. (2013). Implementing teacher-centred online teacher
professional development (oTPD) programme in higher education: A case study.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 144-156.
Cho, S. J., Li, F., & Bandalos, D. (2009). Accuracy of the parallel analysis procedure
with polychoric correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5),
748-759.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Colarusso, D. M. (2010). Teaching English in a Multicultural Society: Three Models of
Reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(2), 432-458.
Collins, L. J., & Liang, X. (2013). Task relevance in the design of online professional
development for teachers of ELLs: a Q Methodology study. Professional
Development in Education, 39(3), 441-443.
Crystal, D. (1998). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
Dash, S., Magidin de Kramer, R., O’Dwyer, L. M., Masters, J., & Russell, M. (2012).
Impact of Online Professional Development or Teacher Quality and Student
Achievement in Fifth Grade Mathematics. Journal of research on technology in
education, 45(1), 1-26.
De Jong, O. (2012). Empowering teachers for innovations: The case of online teacher
learning communities. Scientific Research, 3, 125-129.
138
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2008). A
research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60(1), 8-19.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional
development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational
researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd edn). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.
Dieleman, C., & Duncan, E. A. (2013). Investigating the purpose of an online discussion
group for health professionals: a case example from forensic occupational
therapy. BMC health services research, 13(1), 253.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning
environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 41(3), 319-346.
Donavant, B. W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education online instruction
in a continuing professional education setting. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3),
227-245.
Downes, S. (2005, December 22). An introduction to connective knowledge. Stephen’s
Web. http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034
Dreeben, R.D. (2005). Teaching and the Competence of Occupations. In Hedges and
Schneider (Eds.) The Social Organization of Schooling. (pp. 51-71) New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
139
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R., (2006). Towards a Typology of Virtual Communities
of Practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge &
Management, 1.
Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: Online communities as a
source of professional learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2),
324-340.
Ekström, J. (2011). A generalized definition of the polychoric correlation
coefficient. Department of Statistics, UCLA.
Epstein, A., & Willhite, G. L. (2015). Teacher efficacy in an early childhood professional
development school. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 7(2), 189.
Ernest, P., Guitert Catasús, M., Hampel, R., Heiser, S., Hopkins, J., Murphy, L., &
Stickler, U. (2013). Online teacher development: collaborating in a virtual
learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 311-333.
Eun, B., & Heining-Boynton, A. L. (2007). Impact of an English-as-a-second-language
professional development program. The journal of educational research, 101(1),
36-49.
Every Student Succeeds Act, The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (2015, November 30).
Farooq, U., Schank, P., Harris, A., Fusco, J., & Schlager, M. (2007). Sustaining a
community computing infrastructure for online teacher professional development:
A case study of designing Tapped In. Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW), 16(4-5), 397-429.
140
Feger, S., & Zibit, M. (2005). The role of facilitation in online professional development:
Engendering co-construction of knowledge. Education Alliance, Brown
University.
Ferdinandt, N. (09/01/2011). Hotspots for Teaching English. Language magazine (Los
Angeles, Calif.). , 11 (1), p. 39 - 40. (ISSN: 1542-5576)
Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., &
Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face
professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of
Teacher Education, 64(5), 426-438.
Gardner, K., Bridges, S., & Walmsley, D. (2012). International peer review in
undergraduate dentistry: enhancing reflective practice in an online community of
practice. European Journal of Dental Education, 16(4), 208-212.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000) Critical Inquiry in a text-based
Environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-107.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). London, England: British Council.
Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. The Journal of
Distance Education/Revue de l'Éducation à Distance, 19(1).
Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle,
R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice
with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16.
141
Hall, A., & Herrington, J. (2010). The development of social presence in online Arabic
learning communities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,26(7),
1012-1027.
Han, L., Neilands, T. B., & Dolcini, M. M. (n.d.) Factor Analysis of Categorical Data in
SAS. University of California, San Francisco.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2010). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods
in the social sciences. Routledge.
Hara, N., & Hew, K. F. (2007). Knowledge-sharing in an online community of health-
care professionals. Information Technology & People, 20(3), 235-261.
Hara, N., Shachaf, P., & Stoerger, S. (2009). Online communities of practice typology
revisited. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 740-757.
Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty Development Programs: The Frequency and Variety of
Professional Development Programs Available to Online Instructors. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 87-106.
Hew, K. F. & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher
online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research Development, 55,
573-595.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral
sciences. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, MA.
Hipp, J. R., & Bollen, K. A. (2003). Model fit in structural equation models with
censored, ordinal, and dichotomous variables: Testing vanishing
tetrads.Sociological Methodology, 33(1), 267-305.
142
Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Mostert, M. (2005). Online debating to encourage student
participation in online learning environments: a qualitative case study at a South
African university. International Journal of Education and Development using
ICT, 1(2).
Holmes, B. (2013). School teachers' continuous professional development in an online
learning community: lessons from a case study of an eTwinning Learning Event.
European Journal of Education, 48(1), 97-112.
Horvitz, B., & Beach, A. (2011). Professional development to support online
teaching. The Journal of Faculty Development, 25(2), 24-32.
Hudson, B., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2006). Orchestrating interdependence in an
international online learning community. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 37(5), 733-748.
Hur, J. W. & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do
teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12
teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279-303.
Hutchison, A. & Colwell, J. (2011). Using a wiki to facilitate on online professional
learning community for induction and mentoring teachers. Educational
Information Technology, 17, 273-289.
Jeppesen, L. B., & Laursen, K. (2009). The role of lead users in knowledge
sharing. Research Policy, 38(10), 1582-1589.
Johnson, C. C., & Fargo, J. D. (2014). A Study of the Impact of Transformative
Professional Development on Hispanic Student Performance on State Mandated
143
Assessments of Science in Elementary School. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 25(7), 845-859.
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice.
The Internet and Higher Education, 4: 45-60.
Kachru, B. B. (1983). (1992) The Other Tongue. English Across Cultures (2nd ed.).
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 35: 31-36.
Kao, C. P., Tsai, C. C., & Shih, M. (2014). Development of a Survey to Measure Self-
efficacy and Attitudes toward Web-based Professional Development among
Elementary School Teachers. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 17(4), 302-315.
Ke, F. & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Education
Technology Research Development, 57, 487-510.
Kibler, A. K., & Roman, D. (2013). Insights into Professional Development for Teachers
of English Language Learners: A Focus on Using Students' Native Languages in
the Classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 187-207.
Kim, H. J., Miller, H. R., Herbert, B., Pedersen, S., & Loving, C. (2011). Using a Wiki in
scientist-teacher professional learning community: Impact on teacher perception
changes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 440-452.
King, K. P. (2011). Professional Learning in Unlikely Spaces: Social Media and Virtual
Communities as Professional Development. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 6(4).
144
Kingsley, J. (2009). Teacher Educators and the New Technologies: Maximizing Theory-
Practice Connections Made by Pre-Service Teachers in a Practicum. International
Journal of Learning, 16(11).
Kissau, S., & Algozzine, B. (2015). The impact of mode of instructional delivery on
second language teacher self-efficacy. ReCALL, 27(02), 239-256.
Knabe, A. P. (2004). Constructivist learning perspectives in online public relations
classrooms. PRism, 2(1).
Koch, G., Hutter, K., Decarli, P., Hilgers, D., & Fuller, J. (2013, January). Identifying
Participants' Roles in Open Government Platforms and Its Impact on Community
Growth. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference
on (pp. 1900-1910). IEEE.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the
past?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
9(3).
Kropf, D. C. (2013). Connectivism: 21st Century’s New Learning Theory. European
Journal Of Open, Distance And E-Learning, 16(2), 13-24. Retrieved from:
http://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=2013&halfyear=2&article=579
Kulavuz-Onal, D., & Vásquez, C. (2013). Reconceptualising fieldwork in a netnography
of an online community of English language teachers. Ethnography and
Education, 8(2), 224-238.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in
alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 341-359.
145
Land, S. M., Draper, D. C., Ma, Z., Hsieh, H. W., Smith, B. K., & Jordan, R. (2009). An
investigation of knowledge‐building activities in an online community of practice
at Subaru of America. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(3), 23-36.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge university press.
Li, W., Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2007). Impact of
Chinese culture values on knowledge sharing through online communities of
practice. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 3(3), 46-59.
Lin, S. C., & Lin, F. R. (2006, January). Towards an ecological perspective on the
evolution of online communities of practice. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS'06.
Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference (Vol. 6, pp.
134a-134a).
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers'
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536.
Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM
model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning
Community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600-610.
Liu, K. Y. (2012). A design framework for online teacher professional development
communities. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(4), 701-711.
Liu, L., Wagner, C., & Chen, H. (2012, January). Determining the Value of a Virtual
Community to Its Participants. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii
International Conference on (pp. 723-732). IEEE.
146
Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers' CALL knowledge and
competencies: In-service program perspectives. Announcements & Call for
Papers, 119.
Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional
development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663-678.
Lok, I. M. C. (2012). World Englishes and postcolonialism: Reading Kachru and
Said. World Englishes, 31(4), 419-433.
Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). Statistical concepts: a second course. (4th
edn.) Routledge.
Low, E. L. (2010). The acoustic reality of the Kachruvian circles: A rhythmic
perspective. World Englishes, 29(3), 394-405.
Mackey, J., & Evans, T. (2011). Interconnecting networks of practice for professional
learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 12(3), 1-18.
Maddix, M. A. (2013). Developing online learning communities, Christian Education
Journal, 10(1), 139-148.
Manner, J. C., & Rodriguez, D. (2012). Rural Redesign: Delivering Online Professional
Development for Rural Teachers of ESL. Online Submission.
Marrero, M. E., Riccio, J. F., Woodruff, K. A., & Schuster, G. S. (2010). Live, online
short-courses: A case study of innovative teacher professional development. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 81-
95.
147
McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., Eberhardt, J., Koehler, M. J., & Lundeberg, M. A.
(2013). Virtual Professional Learning Communities: Teachers’ Perceptions of
Virtual Versus Face-to-Face Professional Development. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 1-11.
McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the
creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73-
81.
McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Missing data:
A gentle introduction. Guilford Press.
Moon, J., Passmore, C., Reiser, B. J., & Michaels, S. (2013). Beyond Comparisons of
Online Versus Face-to-Face PD Commentary in Response to Fishman et
al.,“Comparing the Impact of Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development
in the Context of Curriculum Implementation”. Journal of teacher education,
0022487113511497.
Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components into integrated circuits. Electronics,
38(8), 114-117.
Murugaiah, P., Azman, H., Thang, S. M., & Krish, P. (2012). Teacher learning via
communities of practice: A Malaysian case study. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2), 162-174.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011, November). The
growing number of English learner students. Retrieved
http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf
148
North Carolina State University. (n.d.). The Graduate Handbook: Countries with English
as an Official Language and the Language of Instruction in Higher Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/grad/handbook/official_language_english.htm
Olofsson, A. D. (2007). Participation in an Educational Online Learning
Community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4).
Olofsson, A. D., & Lindberg, J. O. (2011). On the Issue of TPD (Teachers’ Professional
Development) in an OLC (Online Learning Community) as TEL (Technology
Enhanced Learning). US-China Education Review, 1(7), 128-134.
Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation
coefficient. Psychometrika, 44(4), 443-460.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens
for studying technology in organizations. Organization science,11(4), 404-428.
Ostashewski, N. M., Reid, D., & Moisey, S. (2011). Applying constructionist principles
to online teacher professional development. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 143-156.
Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Park, J. S. Y., & Wee, L. (2009). The three circles redux: A market–theoretic perspective
on World Englishes. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 389-406.
Payán, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2008). Current state of English-language learners in the
US K-12 student population. Retrieved from
149
http://www.ets.org/Media/Conferences_and_Events/pdf/ELLsympsium/ELL_fact
sheet.pdf
Pino-Silva, J., & Mayora, C. A. (2010). English teachers' moderating and participating in
OCPs. System, 38(2), 262-271.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning?. Educational researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Raley, R. (2003). Machine translation and global English. The Yale Journal of
Criticism, 16(2), 291-313.
Reese, S. (2010). Bringing Effective Professional Development to Educators.
Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J1), 85(6), 38-43.
Reilly, J., Vandenhouten, C., Gallagher-Lepak, S., & Ralston-Berg, P. (2012). Faculty
Development for E-Learning: A Multi-Campus Community of Practice (COP)
Approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 99-110.
Roessingh, H., & Johnson, C. (2005). Online teaching and learning in TESL professional
development. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 107-115.
Rosenbaum, H., & Shachaf, P. (2010). A structuration approach to online communities of
practice: The case of Q&A communities. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1933-1944.
Ryman, S., Burrell, L., Hardham, G., Richardson, B., & Ross, J. (2009). Creating and
Sustaining Online Learning Communities: Designing for Transformative
Learning. International Journal Of Pedagogies & Learning, 5(3), 32-45.
Sari, E. R. (2012) Online learning community: a case study of teacher professional
development in Indonesia, Intercultural Education, 23(1), 63-72.
150
Saylor, L. L., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). The Role of Reflection in Elementary
Mathematics and Science Teachers' Training and Development: A
Meta‐Synthesis. School Science and Mathematics, 114(1), 30-39.
Schlager, M. S. & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and
communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The
Information Society, 19, 203-220.
Sherer, P. D., Shea, T. P., & Kristensen, E. (2003). Online communities of practice: A
catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 183-194.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Simpson, J. (2005). Learning electronic literacy skills in an online language learning
community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 327-345.
Slotte, V., & Herbert, A. (2006). Putting professional development online: integrating
learning as productive activity. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(4), 235-247.
Smith, R. (2005). Global English: gift or curse?. English Today, 21(02), 56-62.
Smith, S. U. (2014). Frameworks Shaping an Online Professional Development Program
for K–12 Teachers of ELLs: Toward Supporting the Sharing of Ideas for
Empowering Classroom Teachers Online. TESOL Journal, 5(3), 444-464.
So, H. J., Lossman, H., Lim, W. Y., & Jacobson, M. J. (2009). Designing an online video
based platform for teacher learning in Singapore. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 25(3), 440-457.
151
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self‐efficacy theory explanation
for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations.Journal of
Computer‐Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0-0.
Stewart, S. A., & Abidi, S. S. R. (2012). Applying social network analysis to understand
the knowledge sharing behaviour of practitioners in a clinical online discussion
forum. Journal of medical Internet research, 14(6), e170.
Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? (pp. 1-17). Cary: SAS
Institute.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Teles, L., & Coutinho, L. M. (2011). Teacher Professional Development in the Amazon
Region: Strategies to Create Successful Learning Communities. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(3), 81-92.
TESOL International Association. (2004). Position Statement on Multilingualism.
Alexandria, VA: Board of Directors.
TESOL International Association. (2008). Position Statement on English as a Global
Language. Alexandria, VA: Board of Directors.
Thomas, A. U., Fried, G. P., Johnson, P., & Stilwell, B. J. (2010). Sharing best practices
through online communities of practice: A case study. Human Resources for
Health, 8, 1-8.
Thoms, B., Garrett, N., Soffer, M., & Ryan, T. (2008). Resurrecting graduate
conversation through an online learning community. International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 4(3), 59-68.
152
Tsai, I. (2012). Understanding social nature of an online community of practice for
learning to teach. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 271-285.
Uebersax, J. S. (2006). Introduction to the tetrachoric and polychoric correlation
coefficients. Rev. 8 September 2015. Retrieved from http://john-
uebersax.com/stat/tetra.htm.
United States Census Bureau. (2009). Facts for features: Back to school: 2009-2010.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb09-ff14.pdf
United States Department of Education (2010). 2009-2010 National and State Estimates.
Retrieved from
http://ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Projections_2009_10
Valeo, A., & Faez, F. (2013). Career Development and Professional Attrition of Novice
ESL Teachers of Adults. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 1-19.
Van Roekel, N. P. D. (2010). English language learners face unique challenges. National
Education Association. Retrieved
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/ELL_Policy_Brief_Fall_08_(2).pdf
Vavasseur, C. B. & MacGregor S. K. (2008). Extending content-focused professional
develop through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40(4), 517-536.
Vernier, S., Barbuzza, S., Del Giusti, S., & del Moral, G. (2008). The five language skills
in the EFL classroom. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Retrieved from
http://bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/objetos_digitales/2647/vernieryotrosfivelanguageskills.
pdf.
153
Verster, M., & ICT4 Champions, J. (2009). Creating an online learning ecology in
support of mathematical literacy teachers. International Journal of Education and
Development using ICT, 5(5).
Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2014). Addressing the challenges of a new digital
technologies curriculum: MOOCs as a scalable solution for teacher professional
development. Research in Learning Technology, 22.
Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2004). Online professional development: Lessons from
the field. Education+ Training, 46(6/7), 326-334.
Wang, Y. M., & Chen, D. T. (2010). Promoting spontaneous facilitation in online
discussions: designing object and ground rules. Educational Media
International, 47(3), 247-262.
Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning
community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 49-
62.
Ward, L., & Parr, J. (2006). Authority, volunteerism, and sustainability: Creating and
sustaining an online community through teacher leadership. Leadership and
policy in schools, 5(2), 109-129.
Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
154
Westrick, J. (2012). Transforming early literacy instruction: an effectiveness study of the
Local Literacy Provider Training program in Macedonia. European
Education, 43(4), 62-87.
Wu, H., Gao, J. & Zhang, W. (2014). Chinese EFL teachers' social interactionand socio-
cognitive presence in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language
Learning & Technology, 18(3), 228–254.
Wu, Y. T., & Wang, L. J. (2015). The Exploration of Elementary School Teachers'
Internet Self-Efficacy and Information Commitments: A Study in
Taiwan. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 211-222.
Yano, Y. (2009). English as an international lingua franca: from societal to
individual. World Englishes, 28(2), 246-255.
Yeh, Y.-C. (2010). Analyzing online behaviors, roles, and learning communities via
online discussions. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 140–151.
Yu, M. Y., Lang, K., & Kuman, N. (2009). Internationalization of Online Professional
Communities: An Empirical Investigation of AIS-ISWorld. International Journal
of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 5(1), 13-31.
Zhao, X. & Bishop, M. J. (2011). Understanding and supporting online communities of
practice: lessons learned from Wikipedia. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59(5), 711-735.
155
Appendix A: Countries Represented in the Survey Arranged in Kachru’s Circles
Inner Circle Outer Circle

1. Australia 1. Bangladesh
2. Canada 2. India
3. New Zealand 3. Malaysia
4. United Kingdom 4. Nigeria
5. United States 5. Pakistan
6. Philippines
7. Singapore
8. Sri Lanka
Extended Circle
1. Afghanistan 25. El Salvador 49. Libya 73. Serbia
2. Albania 26. Ethiopia 50. Lithuania 74. Sierra Leone
3. Algeria 27. Finland 51. Macau 75. Slovakia
4. Argentina 28. France 52. Macedonia 76. South Korea
5. Armenia 29. Georgia 53. Madagascar 77. Spain
6. Bahrain 30. Germany 54. Mexico 78. Suriname
7. Belarus 31. Greece 55. Moldova 79. Sweden
8. Benin 32. Grenada 56. Mongolia 80. Switzerland
9. Bolivia 33. Guatemala 57. Morocco 81. Syria
10. Brazil 34. Haiti 58. Nepal 82. Taiwan
11. Burundi 35. Honduras 59. Netherlands 83. Thailand
12. Bulgaria 36. Hong Kong 60. Oman 84. Tunisia
61. Palestinian
13. Burma 37. Hungry 85. Turkey
Territories
14. Cameroon 38. Iceland 62. Panama 86. Ukraine
87. United Arab
15. Chile 39. Indonesia 63. Paraguay
Emeritus
16. China 40. Iran 64. Peru 88. Uruguay
17. Columbia 41. Iraq 65. Poland 89. Uzbekistan
18. Congo 42. Israel 66. Portugal 90. Venezuela
19. Costa Rica 43. Italy 67. Qatar 91. Vietnam
20. Croatia 44. Japan 68. Romania 92. Yemen
21. Czech Republic 45. Jordan 69. Russia 93. Zambia
22. Dominican
46. Kazakhstan 70. Rwanda
Republic
23. Ecuador 47. Kosovo 71. Saudi Arabia
24. Egypt 48. Lebanon 72. Senegal
156
Appendix B: Data Permissions from TESOL International Association
1 September 2014
Dr. Rosa Aronson

TESOL International Association
1925 Ballenger Avenue, Suite 550
Alexandria, VA 22314
United States
Dear Dr. Aronson,

I am a doctoral student from The George Washington University writing my dissertation
tentatively titled Online Versus Face-to-Face Professional Development Preference: An
International English Language Teaching Analysis under the direction of my dissertation
committee chaired by Dr Abebayehu Tekleselassie, Assistant Professor Educational
Administration.
I would like your permission to use the data collected from the 2014 TESOL
International Association Member Needs Survey in my research study. I would like to
use the data, which belongs to the TESOL International Association, under the following
conditions:
• I will use this data only for my doctoral dissertation, and it will not be used for
any other purpose, of any kind.
• I will include any TESOL International Association copyright statements in any
print materials, as needed.
• I will share the completed dissertation with TESOL International Association
Staff and Board of Directors.
• I will seek additional permissions if I intend to further publish, present, or
disseminate results of the study.
• TESOL International Association agrees to not publish, present, or disseminate
the findings of this dissertation without the written permission of the author.
If these are acceptable terms and conditions, please indicate so by signing this letter and
returning it to me via email.
Kind regards,
Sarah Sahr
Doctoral Candidate
I, Rosa Aronson, give Sarah Sahr permission to use the 2014 TESOL International
Association Member Needs Survey data in her doctoral dissertation.
Signature: ___________________________________________________
Rosa Aronson, PhD
Executive Director, TESOL International Association
157
Appendix C: Determination - Not Human Subject Research
158
Appendix D: TESOL Online Professional Development Importance and Satisfaction
Raw Data
How would you rate the importance of the following TESOL International Association
(TESOL) benefits, services and programs? Please rate them on a scale of 1, not at all
important, to 5, extremely important.
1 2 3 4 5 Unsure N
Network and connect with 21 47 145 306 674 33 1,226
professionals in the field 1.7% 3.8% 11.8% 25.0% 55.0% 2.7%
News and updates (e.g., newsletters, 16 86 184 398 516 28 1,228
blogs, professional papers and 1.3% 7.0% 15.0% 32.4% 42.0% 2.3%
briefs)
Online career center 74 128 220 279 419 102 1,222
6.1% 10.5% 18.0% 22.8% 34.3% 8.3%
Online courses 85 150 261 285 326 118 1,225
6.9% 12.2% 21.3% 23.3% 26.6% 9.6%
Online TESOL Resource Center 39 94 230 315 425 118 1,221
3.2% 7.7% 18.8% 25.8% 34.8% 9.7%
TESOL Interest Sections 22 105 218 380 423 74 1,222
1.8% 8.6% 17.8% 31.1% 34.6% 6.1%
TESOL Online Community 68 138 302 328 291 96 1,223
5.6% 11.3% 24.7% 26.8% 23.8% 7.8%
Virtual seminars 67 122 249 340 348 100 1,226
5.5% 10.0% 20.3% 27.7% 28.4% 8.2%
How would you rate your satisfaction with these same benefits, services and programs?
Please rate them on a scale of 1, not at all satisfied, to 5, extremely satisfied.
1 2 3 4 5 Unsure N
Network and connect with 25 77 223 373 325 142 1,165
professionals in the field 2.1% 6.6% 19.1% 32.0% 27.9% 12.2%
News and updates (e.g., newsletters, 22 61 221 431 331 95 1,161
blogs, professional papers and briefs) 1.9% 5.3% 19.0% 37.1% 28.5% 8.2%
Online career center 28 68 194 272 198 392 1,152
2.4% 5.9% 16.8% 23.6% 17.2% 34.0%
Online courses 20 68 183 194 152 535 1,152
1.7% 5.9% 15.9% 16.8% 13.2% 46.4%
Online TESOL Resource Center 30 71 236 293 193 339 1,162
2.6% 6.1% 20.3% 25.2% 16.6% 29.2%
TESOL Interest Sections 42 77 253 346 247 193 1,158
3.6% 6.6% 21.8% 29.9% 21.3% 16.7%
TESOL Online Community 31 91 254 283 157 336 1,152
2.7% 7.9% 22.0% 24.6% 13.6% 29.2%
Virtual seminars 29 83 190 234 189 431 1,156
2.5% 7.2% 16.4% 20.2% 16.3% 37.3%
159
Appendix E: Reliability and Validity response from McKinley Advisors
Measurement:
The survey instrument was tailored to meet specific information objectives

determined by TESOL. Questionnaire items were developed by McKinley Advisors
consulting and methodologist staff using survey and opinion research standards and
conventions (e.g., appropriate randomization of response options, conscious placement of
survey questions). They were further vetted by TESOL staff (subject matter experts).
Survey Fielding Protocols:
The survey was programmed into a secure online data collection platform. Survey
respondents received an initial pre-notification from TESOL, followed by an initial
invitation sent directly by McKinley Advisors. Non-respondents were provided an
additional survey reminder in order to encourage participation.
McKinley used three primary lists to drive participation: the entire TESOL
member list, the association’s list of lapsed/inactive members dating back to 2010, and a
list of nonmember customers/ program participants dating back to 2010. Excluding email
addresses that bounced, 27,828 individuals were invited to participate in the survey and a
total of 1,991 complete and partial responses were collected. This calculates to a 7.2%
response rate, which is in line with the typical response rate for an association electronic
survey, based on McKinley’s experience. No margin of error was calculated since no
sampling techniques were employed (the survey constitutes a census).
In addition, a common link to the survey was posted on TESOL’s Facebook page
in order to find other non-members in the field of English language teaching to
participate in the survey, which resulted in an addition 404 survey responses. If the
responses completed through this sampling method were included along with those
completed by respondents with contact information, the overall response rate would be
8.6% (2,395 completed/partially completed surveys out of the grand total of 27,828).
160

A Quantitative Look at The Perceived Effectiness of Online Profesional Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Quantitative Look at The Perceived Effectiness of Online Profesional Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Quantitative Look at the Perceived Effectiveness of

Online Professional Development in English Language Teaching

B.S. in Communications, December 1995, Eastern Michigan University

May 15, 2016

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

A Quantitative Look at the Perceived Effectiveness of

Dissertation Research Committee:

Abebayehu Tekleselassie, Associate Professor Education Administration,

Joel Gomez, Associate Professor Educational Leadership, Committee Member

William Dardick, Assistant Professor Educational Research, Committee Member

me ramble on and on about polychoric correlation on a cold December morning. To my

people from 6022 South Miami Avenue.

To the many friends who had to endure my unpredictable cancellations and

process. Each of you were an indispensable part of this journey.

To the amazing staff at TESOL International Association. I know I have been

my gratitude. Je vous remercie de tout coeur.

A Quantitative Look at the Perceived Effectiveness of

professional development effectiveness in classroom instruction and teacher confidence.

This study examines ELT educators' perceived effectiveness of professional

development, identifies their preference between online and face-to-face professional

polychoric correlation matrix, logistic regression, independent-sample t-test, and two-

professional development does positively influence classroom instruction and teaching

professional development models.

Abstract of Dissertation ..................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Context of the Problem................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 6

Purpose and Research Questions .................................................................................... 7

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 10

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 12

Core conceptual framework. ................................................................................. 13

Self-efficacy theory. .............................................................................................. 14

The activity model. ............................................................................................... 15

Research Outline .......................................................................................................... 17

Preliminary Assumptions ............................................................................................. 21

Definition of Key Terms .............................................................................................. 22

Organization of the Study............................................................................................. 24

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 26

An Overview of Online Professional Development ..................................................... 31

Social Media and Online Professional Development Platforms .................................. 40

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 43

Demonstrating Online Professional Development Significance .................................. 47

Challenges of International Online Professional Development ................................... 51

Professional Overlap .................................................................................................... 55

The health sector. .................................................................................................. 55

The business sector. .............................................................................................. 56

Geography, Age, and Level of Education in Online Professional Development ......... 59

Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 62

Research Design ........................................................................................................... 62

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 63

TESOL Survey and Data Collection ............................................................................ 64

The 2009 survey. ................................................................................................... 64

The 2012 surveys. ................................................................................................. 65

The 2014 survey. ................................................................................................... 65

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Statistical Treatment of Data ........................... 70

Research Question 2. ............................................................................................ 72

Research Question 3. ............................................................................................ 74

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 78

Dependent variables. ............................................................................................. 78