\nHanoi University, Vietnam
\n<thi-my.truong
![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
hdr.mq.edu.au><\/p>\nJill Murray<\/strong> Online teacher professional development (oTPD) for English language teachers is of increasing interest, and so is research into teacher motivation as one potential success determinant of oTPD courses. Situated in an oTPD programme for English as a foreign language (EFL) instructors in Vietnam, this study aims to explore motivation for oTPD in a context where development is obligatory for in-service teachers, and online options appear to work best for them. Responses to semi-structured interviews were analyzed to understand nineteen participants\u2019 initial and sustaining motivations for the programme. The results showed an important role of technology in driving teachers to both start and remain in the course; a strong influence of second language motivation on teachers\u2019 learning experiences, and a challenge to the established value of collaborative learning in virtual environments. Online training programmes for EFL teachers have recently emerged as a promising professional development option because of their relatively low cost, high flexibility, and ease of access (England, 2012). The outcome of an online training course, however, is believed to depend on participants\u2019 motivation to a large extent (Day, 1999). However well-intentioned a program may be, it is primarily the teachers themselves who determine whether or not they receive its full benefits (Schieb & Karabenick, 2011).<\/p>\n The study reported in this article investigated teachers\u2019 motivation for an online teacher professional development (oTPD) course, namely English Discovery Online (EDO), which was a component of the National Project 2020 run by Vietnam\u2019s Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) to upgrade the English language proficiency of in-service English teachers to a new national standard. Teachers identified as having below-standard English language were required to attend face-to-face English language classes while maintaining their normal working schedule. The online component, EDO, was therefore intended to significantly increase the number of available learning hours for participants without affecting their work commitments. EDO is also distinct from other traditional TPD models in its strong focus on English language competence rather than pedagogical knowledge. As such, teachers joining EDO are not only developing EFL professionals but also continuing EFL learners.<\/p>\n We became interested in the motivation changes teachers experienced in this dual role and in the factors that caused the changes. Applying a dynamic and process-oriented view of motivation (D\u00f6rnyei, 2005; Ushioda, 2009), we sought to gain insights into EDO participants\u2019 initial motivations as well as the factors that sustained or eroded their engagement. Locally, our findings reveal the difficulties facing teachers in a specific oTPD program that involves language training, and thus indicate course areas that need adjustment to be more responsive to participants\u2019 needs in that context. On a wider scale, our study uncovers new facets of EFL teacher motivation that may be useful for designers of oTPD courses in general.<\/p>\n Human motivation, generally defined simply as the reasons \u201cwhy individuals [\u2026] behave as they do\u201d (Graham & Weiner, 2012, p.367), has long been a focus of research across various disciplines. Since the literature on motivation in general is vast and addressing all of it is beyond the scope of the study, we will focus on motivation in the fields of second language (L2) acquisition and teacher professional development to situate our argument.<\/p>\n Having long been recognized as a significant predictor of L2 achievement, L2 motivation has been rigorously researched over the last five decades, commencing with the social-psychological approach proposed by Gardner and Lambert (1972). They theorized that it was primarily learners\u2019 attitudes<\/em> towards the L2 native speakers and culture that shaped their L2 learning and that differentiated L2 motivation from the motivation to learn any other subjects. Two kinds of L2 motivation were suggested as a result: the \u201cintegrative\u201d type referring to a genuine desire to resemble the targeted ethnolinguistic group, and the \u201cinstrumental\u201d one denoting a wish to obtain practical advantages through L2 proficiency (Gardner & Lambert, 1972).<\/p>\n This perspective was considered radically ahead of its time since it was the first one to introduce the social-psychological angle (attitudes, learning orientations) into the view of the motivational construct, thus distinguishing L2 motivation research from the mainstream motivational psychology (D\u00f6rnyei, 2005). The notion of integrativeness in the model, however, is difficult to apply to the L2 learners who demonstrate very little or no genuine interest in the target culture due to limited contact with native speakers. The model has also been criticized as being too deterministic and static (Ellis, 2008). Considering motivation as an obvious determinant of learner\u2019s L2 success, it seems to ignore the fact that motivation is dynamic and continually changes over different learning experiences.<\/p>\n Such limitations led to the subsequent emergence of the cognitive-situated approach, which viewed motivation in a particular learning situation through the lens of mainstream psychology (D\u00f6rnyei, 2005).Examples of the cognitive concepts included \u201cself-determination\u201d, relating to the proposition that higher motivation is engendered when learners are more self-determined in their learning process (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), and \u201cself-efficacy\u201d, the stronger one believes in his\/her ability to succeed in L2 learning, the more motivated s\/he is supposed to become (Cl\u00e9ment, D\u00f6rnyei & Noels, 1994).This shift in L2 motivational research was said to mark one significant development in L2 motivation study: acknowledging the dynamic nature of the motivational construct (Ellis, 2008). The cognitive-situated approach, however, still has not sufficiently addressed the longitudinal instability of motivation (Ushioda & D\u00f6rnyei, 2012).<\/p>\n The process-oriented approach was therefore introduced at the turn of the 20th<\/sup>century to capture the temporal aspect of motivation. Exemplifying this approach was D\u00f6rnyei and Ottos\u2019 (1998) process model, which described L2 learning motivation as experiencing three distinct stages: \u201cpre-actional\u201d, featuring choice motivation, \u201cactional\u201d, concerning executive motivation, and \u201cpost-actional\u201d, involving learners\u2019 evaluation of past learning experiences. Such a flexible model was argued to be superior to the static antecedents in its ability to conceptually distinguish the choice<\/em> motivations (reasons, goals) from the executive <\/em>ones that sustain the engagement during the learning process (on-going reactions to learning environment) (Ushioda & D\u00f6rnyei, 2012). The model also successfully incorporates other motivational concepts, for example, instrumental motivation in the pre-actional, or self-efficacy in the actional stage (Ellis, 2008). The procedural approach, however, exhibits two shortcomings: (i) assuming a precise definition of the starting and ending point of a learning process; and (ii) not acknowledging the possible interference from other motivational processes which a learner may be simultaneously experiencing (Ushioda & D\u00f6rnyei, 2012).<\/p>\n Most recently, L2 motivation research has shifted to a more context-specific perspective in analysing motivation, the socio-dynamic approach, which no longer treated motivation as an independent variable, but rather, as an integral part of organic dynamic systems which evolve non-linearly under the influence of multiple personal, social and contextual factors (D\u00f6rnyei, 2009; Ushioda, 2009). D\u00f6rnyei\u2019s (2009) \u201cL2 Motivational Self System\u201d is one noteworthy illustration of the approach. Central in the model is the concept of the \u201cideal self\u201d, representing all the attributes that a person ideally wishes<\/em> to possess, and the \u201cought-to self\u201d, signifying the attributes that a person feels necessary<\/em> to hold. A key principle is that one\u2019s psychological desire to bridge the gap between the \u201ccurrent actual selves\u201d and the \u201cfuture selves\u201d will serve as motivation for one to learn. An investigation into the selves must also contemplate \u201cthe situation-specific motives related to the immediate learning environment\u201d (D\u00f6rnyei, 2005, p. 106), such as instruction quality, delivery mode, or the dynamics of the learner group.<\/p>\n D\u00f6rnyei\u2019s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System demonstrates several advantages. It offers the most comprehensive framework for motivation research so far (Ellis, 2008), and has laid an important foundation for research into practical strategies to initiate, sustain, and enhance learners\u2019 motivation throughout a learning process (e.g., Hadfield & D\u00f6rnyei, 2013). A challenging question, however, remains about how to operationalize the versatile relationships between the learner, the L2 and the learning environment in measurable terms (Ushioda & D\u00f6rnyei, 2012).<\/p>\n Overall, the motivation concept with its full complexity has been gradually revealed by the increasing sophistication of the available theoretical models, despite their weaknesses. It should be noted, however, that most L2 motivation research has mainly focused on learner motivation in conventional L2 learning contexts. The application of the above theoretical framework in the teacher development domain has been found, to the best of our knowledge, in only one study, which will be reviewed in the following section.<\/p>\n Teachers have been found to pursue TPD for various reasons.<\/p>\n Scribner (1998) reported two distinct groups of motivations: the intrinsic<\/em> factors extending from \u201ca sense of moral obligation\u201d to \u201cthe felt need to enhance subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills\u201d; and the extrinsic<\/em> group comprising \u201ctop-down requirements\u201d, \u201cfinancial remuneration\u201d, \u201cdistrict policy reforms\u201d, and an urge to solve \u201cclassroom problems\u201d. In another empirical study, Hildebrandt and Eom (2011) quantitatively identified five significant reasons for teachers\u2019 PD engagement: (i) improved teaching;<\/em> (ii) financial gain<\/em>; (iii) collaboration <\/em>(referring to the opportunities to interact with others); (iv) internal validation <\/em>(when benefits of PD engagements agree with personal goals and values); and (v) external validation<\/em> (when PD is pursued to avoid bad consequences or to gain a reward). Among these, collaboration resembles what Dzubay (2001) labelled \u201cteachers\u2019 psychological needs for relatedness\u201d; and internal validation is comparable to what in Fernet et al. (2008) termed \u201cidentified regulation\u201d. Findings of more recent studies largely echo Hildebrandt and Eom\u2019s (2011) list (Bigsby & Firestone, 2017; Durksen, Klassen & Daniels, 2017), with the addition of only one more motivator, namely career advancement (Heystek & Terhoven, 2015, McMillan et al., 2016).<\/p>\n Offering an apparently comprehensive list of teacher motivations for PD as such, the above literature, nevertheless, is limited in the purely quantitative nature of almost all available studies and the consequent lack of individual contextualised insights into the motivation process. In the only qualitative one which offers rich data, Heystek and Terhoven (2015) acknowledged the biased choice of highly-motivated staff as research participants, making the findings less able to reflect the motivation picture in the reality of an average teacher.<\/p>\n The study that offers the most open-ended answer to why teachers embrace or reject TPD may be Kubanyiova\u2019s (2012). Adopting D\u00f6rnyei\u2019s (2009) L2 Motivation Self System, the qualitative study found that teachers welcome a development opportunity if it benefits their future self-<\/em>images and tend to ignore the TPD course content that does otherwise. Specifically, the reasons eight participating teachers gave for joining a TPD course were consistent with the future self-images they were pursuing, being for example a competent English user, or a linguistically influential model for learners (Kubanyiova, 2012). The first to successfully apply an L2 motivation model to explore teacher motivation, the study was unfortunately restricted to the initial motives; longitudinal changes of the construct were not explored.<\/p>\n In the online teacher education literature, teachers\u2019 participation in technology-mediated learning has been reportedly driven by four major inter-related factors, namely online interaction<\/em>, web tools<\/em>, autonomy,<\/em> and accessibility<\/em>. The first motivational force, interaction<\/em>, which was mainly investigated through the qualitative approach (Xiao, 2012), and mixed methods (Murphy, Shelly, White, & Baumann, 2011) included two main aspects: i) the tutors\u2019 motivating roles as facilitators, and ii) the tutor\u2019s positive characteristics, such as being approachable. Tutors\u2019 personalized feedback was also reported to be motivating, even when it was not instant (Nunan, 2012). Ellis and Phelps (2000) also observed that online learning environments were motivating because they enabled teachers to seek support and advice from almost anyone: colleagues, peers, and even strangers. Regarding the use of web tools as a means to motivate teachers in oTPD, Bonadeo (2013) and Stockwell (2013) warned that their effectiveness depended on teachers\u2019 tool-using skills and technology availability. Regarding accessibility <\/em>and autonomy<\/em>, authors agreed that online courses were attractive mainly because their time and space flexibility allowed trainees to maintain their regular work commitments (England, 2012; Young & Lewis, 2008). According to Simpson (2012), accessibility was also beneficial psychologically and socially. He suggested that online learning might create a certain level of \u201cisolation\u201d that may positively reduce the anxiety of direct communication and the fear of losing face when asking questions – the negative psychological states that are visible in less confident learners attending face-to-face classes. This claim, however, was challenged by Nunan (2012), and O\u2019Bannon, Lubke, and Brit (2013), who actually found isolation a threat to learning. In fact, participants in O\u2019Bannon and colleagues\u2019 study appreciated the collaborative value of their technology-enhanced course, and attributed their poor participation to a lack of a face-to-face element. Other sources of motivation in online teacher education include trainees\u2019 achievement of mastering online tools (Hung, 2012), the close connection between online members (Tseng & Kuo, 2013), and quality course materials (Nunan, 2012).<\/p>\n The most recent research in online teacher education that reviews, enriches, and even challenges these findings is a mixed-method study conducted by Banegas and Busleiman (2014). Utilizing a mixed method research approach, the authors found that \u201cobtaining a formal teaching degree\u201d, and \u201caccessibility\u201d were the initial drivers for teachers to enrol in an online course (p.139). What later sustained their engagement was \u201cautonomy\u201d, \u201ccourse status\u201d, and \u201cpersonal feelings of accomplishment\u201d while \u201ccollaboration\u201d was surprisingly reported as a demotivating factor for trainees in the learning process. Such findings have successfully captured the temporal and dynamic characteristic of the motivational construct, and moreover challenged the value of collaborative learning assumed by many authors in both TPD (e.g. Hildebrandt & Eom, 2011) and online teacher education (e.g. Xiao, 2012). A valuable concern that Banegas and Busleiman (2014) raised was that the value of collaborative learning, although long anchored in a socio-cultural view of education, should not be automatically considered as a motivating factor in online environments. The study, however, did not consider teachers\u2019 language motivation as one possible reason for their maintained participation in the course.<\/p>\n In the only study based on a fully online TPD setting that we were able to locate, Kao, Wu, and Tsai (2011) employed an intrinsic\/extrinsic framework to construct a six-factor model of teacher motivation:<\/p>\n This model, while appearing comprehensive and having furthermore been empirically supported, still has not included teachers\u2019 motivation for the course content, which, as mentioned above, can be an important driver of teachers\u2019 engagement in an oTPD course.<\/p>\n In summary, the existing literature has named different types of teacher motivations for professional development in general, and therefore laid an initial foundation for the understanding of EFL teacher\u2019s motivation for the online-only variants in particular. There remain, however, several limitations that prompted this present research. Firstly, there have been no motivation studies targeting oTPD programs that incorporate a language enhancement component for EFL teachers. Second, the quantitative nature of most available research indicates a neglect of teachers\u2019 insights and concerns in the whole motivation process. Finally, the available literature appears to demonstrate inadequacies in the way it depicts the hugely complex nature of motivation. Most studies framed the construct in the simple intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy. In the only one study that employed a dynamic view of motivation (Banegas & Busleiman, 2014), intrinsic interest in the language as one potential incentive for EFL teachers to engage in oTPD was not discussed.<\/p>\n This qualitative study, which adheres primarily to the dynamic and process-oriented approach to motivation, which views EFL teachers also as L2 learners, and which is situated in a specific oTPD context that emphasizes teachers\u2019 L2 development, was therefore a timely and necessary response to this gap.<\/p>\n As briefly introduced earlier, English Discovery Online (EDO) is the \u201cvirtual\u201d component of a broader English language training programme offered by Project 2020 for teachers whose English proficiency has not met Vietnam MoET\u2019s new language requirement.<\/p>\n Originally a computer-assisted language learning programme designed to develop users\u2019 English proficiency (Edusoft, 2012), EDO was adopted in Project 2020 as a purely online TPD intervention. Structurally, EDO consists of 10 courses encompassing different language levels. The course content is delivered entirely online with the assistance of various educational resources such as radio broadcasts, discussion forums and self-assessment tools. Participating teachers are required, in their own time and over three months, to complete at least 80% of the EDO course content at a level determined by their existing English ability. They can also choose to participate in optional interactive \u201cextra-curricular\u201d activities such as joining a discussion forum in an area of interest. All these activities would add approximately 150 flexible e-learning hours to the main face-to-face English language training programme, which was expected to address the common issue of time constraints facing Project 2020 participants due to their work commitments and the fixed schedule of face-to-face classes (Parks, 2011; Pham, 2012).<\/p>\n In view of the above literature and context, and adhering to a dynamic and process-oriented view of motivation (D\u00f6rnyei, 2005; Ushioda, 2009), the present study sought to answer two research questions:<\/p>\n
\nMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia
\n<jill.murraymq.edu.au><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
\nKeywords: teacher education; teacher motivation; English language learning; L2 motivation; technology-mediated learning<\/p>\nIntroduction<\/h3>\n
Conceptual Framework and Literature Review<\/h4>\n
Motivation in second language acquisition<\/h4>\n
Teacher motivation in teacher professional development (TPD)<\/h4>\n
EFL teacher motivation in online teacher education<\/h4>\n
\n
Context<\/h4>\n
Research questions<\/h4>\n
![\"A](\"http:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej91\/a1pix\/image1.png\")