Moving Forward: Problems of Teacher
Mandatory PD refers to teacher learning programs in the forms of workshops and seminars, which position teachers as passive participants with minimal interaction to support their learning [14]. It has been largely documented that mandatory PD results in little impact on teacher learning [15], [16] because teachers often reported that they felt pressured [17] in activities that were poorly managed [18] that do not fit their learning needs [19].
However, mandatory PD remains implemented in particular regions due to limited resources for teacher learning, and the absence of teacher motivation to develop independently [20]. Study shows that teachers are not interested on PD programs that are not conscripted [21] or not rewarding them with the career advancement opportunity [22]. These are particular cases in Indonesia, especially in underprivileged regions, because teachers are hampered by limited learning resources and support [23]. Moreover, regional authorities did not have the capacity to run local PD program activities [24].
Mandatory PD plays a critical role where teachers can deepen their content knowledge and develop new skills to keep up with the teaching standards set by the government.
In performing its central role, mandatory PD should be highly- structured, while taking into account learning sources that can be accessed by teachers [20]. Among the proposed structures are the five critical features [25] of an effective PD program where it should apply: 1) content focus (offering cognitive and pedagogical content knowledge); 2) active learning (offering opportunities for teacher interaction); 3) coherence (align with teachers’ beliefs and national reforms); 4) duration (delivered over a specific amount of times while equipped with monitoring and evaluation); and 5) collective participation (gathering teachers of the same background). All of these accounts should act as precursors to the sources of efficacy information [26] that include: 1) mastery experiences (teachers’ past accomplishments);
2) vicarious experiences (building confidence by looking after a role model);
3) social persuasion (verbal interaction within supportive environment);
and physiological state (physical and psychological conditions). In an underprivileged region, mandatory PD that incorporates the five key features [25] while responding to four sources of efficacy information [26] is effective to improve teacher self-efficacy beliefs [20]. These beliefs are critical to impact teachers’ classroom behaviours [27], which will ultimately impact student learning as an end-user, aligning with the goals of every PD program.
Problems of teachers in the less privileged region of Indonesia
Indonesian teachers working in underprivileged regions experienced similar problems where they do not receive skills and knowledge that fit their surroundings [10], [23]. The national-scale mandatory PD is designed fol-
lowing teachers’ needs in big cities where the given contents do not adapt to regional teachers’ condition [28], [29]. However, it is noteworthy that edu- cational research needs to take into account teachers’ condition as different contexts and cultural conditions likely require particular solutions. This is im- portant because various cultural and contextual conditions may affect teacher learning and classroom performance [30].
Among the conditions that can be incorporated into the study of man- datory PD are teachers’ gender [31], [32], age [33], academic qualifications [34], years of teaching experience [35], employment status [9], [36], and cer- tification status [37]. In mandatory PD, teacher demography moderates the effectiveness between the program structure and effectiveness. It is document- ed in India [38] and Indonesia [20] that female teachers benefited more than their male peers in mandatory PD. These findings highlight that teachers of similar regional characteristics (e.g. underprivileged regions) report similar experience upon completion of a mandatory PD despite their countries of origin. This should inform mandatory PD facilitators that similar impacts generated from teacher demography, regardless their regions, may serve as the bases for the development of program design.
Moreover, the literature has documented the effectiveness of teacher PD programs that gather teachers of similar background [25]. PD programs’
participants of same subjects, grades, schools, districts, or years of teaching experience [39] will have more meaningful interaction and discourse during a PD program [40]. In this case, mandatory PD that targets participants of similar backgrounds offer more spaces to discuss particular concepts, practic- es, and problems in common, providing teachers with activities that are more authentic and pedagogically relevant to their daily responsibilities [41]–[43].
Teachers can share past experiences and best practices in the environment that accommodates their similarities, which makes it more applicable [44].
Conclusion
This chapter has elaborated that the New Normal Era highly considers online learning as fundamental aspects to build a new, progressive civilization.
Limited physical interaction has enforced people to depend on different ways of living, which are indispensable from technical support, such as electricity and internet access. However, not all people are ready for the full virtual im- plementation as they are living in underprivileged regions. The stakeholders are in charge to craft the implementation of mandatory PD that can be adapt- ed to these regions by taking into account the key features of effective teacher PD programs along with teacher demography.
References
[1] D. Lase, “Education and Industrial Revolution 4.0,” Handayani J. PGSD FIP Unimed, vol. 10, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.24114/jh.v10i1.14138.
[2] Z. Ahmed, S. P. Nathaniel, and M. Shahbaz, “The criticality of in- formation and communication technology and human capital in en- vironmental sustainability: Evidence from Latin American and Ca- ribbean countries,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 286, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.125529.
[3] P. R. Albion, J. Tondeur, A. Forkosh-Baruch, and J. Peeraer, “Teachers’
professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal re- lationship between research and practice,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 655–673, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10639-015-9401-9.
[4] P. Faisal and Z. Kisman, “Information and communication technology utilization effectiveness in distance education systems,” Int. J. Eng. Bus.
Manag., vol. 12, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1847979020911872.
[5] P. Kumar Jena, “Impact of Covid-19 on higher education in India,” Int.
J. Adv. Educ. Res. www.alleducationjournal.com, vol. 5, 2020.
[6] G. A. Kliucharev, “Distance (Remote) Learning: on the issue of its ef- ficiency and accessibility,” Soc. i Gumanit. znania, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, doi: 10.18255/2412-6519-2020-3-274-285.
[7] D. P. Habalo, “SUCCESS LEVEL OF A HYBRID TRAINING IN TEACHER EDUCATION: EXPERIENCES IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY,” 2017.
[8] J. Gillett-Swan, “The Challenges of Online Learning: Supporting and Engaging the Isolated Learner,” J. Learn. Des., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 20, Jan.
2017, doi: 10.5204/jld.v9i3.293.
[9] A. Schleicher, Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world, vol. 9789264113046. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2011.
[10] Y. Azzizah, “Socio-Economic Factors on Indonesia Education Dispar- ity,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 8, no. 12, p. 218, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.5539/
ies.v8n12p218.
[11] C. R. Lotter, S. Thompson, T. S. Dickenson, W. F. Smiley, G. Blue, and M. Rea, “The Impact of a Practice-Teaching Professional Devel- opment Model on Teachers’ Inquiry Instruction and Inquiry Efficacy Beliefs,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 255–273, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9779-x.
[12] J. L. Geldenhuys and L. C. Oosthuizen, “Challenges influencing teach- ers’ involvement in continuous professional development: A South African perspective,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 51, pp. 203–212, Oct.
2015, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.010.
[13] A. Rahman, “Teacher professional development in Indonesia: The in- fluences of learning Teacher professional development in Indonesia:
The influences of learning activities, teacher characteristics and school conditions activities, teacher characteristics and school conditions,”
2016.
[14] G. Gero, “The prospects of lesson study in the US: Teacher support and comfort within a district culture of control,” Int. J. Lesson Learn. Stud., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7–25, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-02-2014-0007.
[15] K. Petrie and C. McGee, “Teacher professional development: Who is the learner?,” Aust. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 58–72, 2012, doi:
10.14221/ajte.2012v37n2.7.
[16] B. Avalos, “Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teach- er Education over ten years,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 27, no. 1, Jan.
2011, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.
[17] S. Janssen, K. Kreijns, T. J. Bastiaens, S. Stijnen, and M. Vermeulen,
“Teachers’ beliefs about using a professional development plan,” Int.
J. Train. Dev., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 260–278, Dec. 2013, doi: 10.1111/
ijtd.12016.
[18] S. Zein, “Factors affecting the professional development of elementary English teachers,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 423–440, May 2016, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2015.1005243.
[19] F. T. Gemeda, M. Fiorucci, and M. Catarci, “Teachers’ professional development in schools: rhetoric versus reality,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol.
40, no. 1, pp. 71–88, 2014, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2012.759988.
[20] R. Asih, “The critical role of sources of efficacy information in a man- datory teacher professional development program: Implementation in a less privileged region of Indonesia,” The University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2020.
[21] U. Abdullah, “Learning through teacher professional training: English teacher certification program in Indonesia ,” The Ohio State Universi- ty, Columbus, 2015.
[22] M. Oliver Heyward et al., “Continuous Professional Development in the Primary School,” Atlantis Press, Paris, France, 2018. doi: 10.2991/
ecpe-18.2018.28.
[23] H. Tanang, M. Djajadi, B. Abu, and M. Mokhtar, “Challenges of Teaching Professionalism Development: A Case Study in Makassar,” 2014.
[24] N. Santoro, J. A. Reid, D. Mayer, and M. Singh, “Teacher knowl- edge: continuing professional learning,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 41, no. 2. pp. 123–125, May 2013, doi:
10.1080/1359866X.2013.777326.
[25] L. M. Desimone, “Improving impact studies of teachers’ profes- sional development: Toward better conceptualizations and mea- sures,” Educ. Res., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 181–199, Apr. 2009, doi:
10.3102/0013189X08331140.
[26] A. B. Dellinger, J. J. Bobbett, D. F. Olivier, and C. D. Ellett, “Measur- ing teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS- Self,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 751–766, Apr. 2008, doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010.
[27] J. Baker, M. Chaseling, W. Boyd, and B. Shipway, “Teachers’ response to a new mandatory professional development process: does it make a difference?,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 570–582, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2017.1378706.
[28] T. C. Sargent and E. Hannum, “Doing More With Less,” J. Teach.
Educ., vol. 60, no. 3, May 2009, doi: 10.1177/0022487109337279.
[29] M. Lu, P. Loyalka, Y. Shi, F. Chang, C. Liu, and S. Rozelle, “The im- pact of teacher professional development programs on student achieve- ment in rural China: evidence from Shaanxi Province,” J. Dev. Eff., vol.
11, no. 2, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1080/19439342.2019.1624594.
[30] R. M. Klassen, V. M. C. Tze, S. M. Betts, and K. A. Gordon, “Teacher Efficacy Research 1998–2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Prom- ise?,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 23, no. 1, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1007/
s10648-010-9141-8.
[31] S. Shaukat, V. R. Vishnumolakala, and G. Al Bustami, “The impact of teachers’ characteristics on their self-efficacy and job satisfaction: a per- spective from teachers engaging students with disabilities,” J. Res. Spec.
Educ. Needs, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 68–76, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1111/1471- 3802.12425.
[32] R. Ağçam, P. Babanoğlu, and E. Journal, “European Journal of Educa- tion Studies EXPLORING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF PRIMA- RY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN TURKEY i EXPLORING SELF-EF- FICACY BELIEFS OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN TURKEY,” vol. 2, no. 11, p. 122, 2016, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.200195.
[33] H. Saleh Mahdi and A. Sa’ad Al-Dera, “The impact of teachers’ age, gender and experience on the use of information and communication technology in EFL teaching,” English Lang. Teach., vol. 6, no. 6, pp.
57–67, May 2013, doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n6p57.
[34] M. Tayyab and A. Head, “Factors Affecting Teachers Motivation,” 2011.
[35] O. Avidov-Ungar, “The professional learning expectations of teachers in different professional development periods,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol.
00, no. 00, pp. 1–12, 2020, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1763435.
[36] M. A. Alwaleedi, “Impact of Demographic Variables in the Develop- ment of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in the Context of Saudi Ara- bia,” Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.5539/ass.
v13n1p1.
[37] H. Hansen-Thomas, L. Grosso Richins, K. Kakkar, and C. Okeyo,
“I do not feel I am properly trained to help them! Rural teachers’
perceptions of challenges and needs with English-language learn- ers,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 308–324, Mar. 2016, doi:
10.1080/19415257.2014.973528.
[38] S. A. Kadir, R. Roustaee, S. A. Kadir, and S. Asimiran, “A Review of Constructivist Teaching Practices,” Middle-East J. Sci. Res., vol. 19, 2014.
[39] K. Main and D. Pendergast, “Evaluating the effectiveness of a large-scale professional development programme,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 749–769, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1241817.
[40] L. M. Desimone, “Deepening our understanding of the processes and effects of different types of learning activities,” Professional Development in Education, vol. 41, no. 3. Routledge, pp. 433–435, May 2015, doi:
10.1080/19415257.2015.1030272.
[41] J. Hunzicker, “Characteristics of Effective Professional Development Characteristics of Effective Professional Development: A Checklist,” 2010.
[42] D. A. Katuuk and L. Kekek Marthina Marentek, “Indonesian Primary School Teacher’s Perception of Professional Development Programs: A Case Study,” 2014.
[43] T. C. Visser, F. G. M. Coenders, J. M. Pieters, and C. Terlouw, “The Learning Effects of a Multidisciplinary Professional Development Programme,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 807–824, Dec.
2013, doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9432-6.
[44] S. Powers, T. Kaniuka, B. Phillips, and B. Cain, “The Impact of Teach- er-Lead Professional Development Programs on the Self-Efficacy of Veteran Teachers,” 2016.