Thinley Gyeltshen* and Tshewang Sither
Ministry of Education, Royal Government of Bhutan, Bhutan
*Corresponding Author: Thinley Gyeltshen, Ministry of Education, Royal Government of Bhutan, Bhutan.
Received: August 24, 2022; Published: March 29. 2023
Citation: Thinley Gyeltshen and Tshewang Sither. “The Impact of Teachers’ Professional Development on their Instructional Practices in the Classroom at the Primary Level”. Acta Scientific Paediatrics 6.4 (2023): 29-44.
The objectives of this research are to study the impact of professional development programmes on teachers’ lesson structuring practices in the class, engagement of students within and outside the class, and the teachers’ overall classroom practices in primary schools in Trashiyangtse district. The study used a structured questionnaire data set. A census survey was conducted for 158 teachers of 25 primary schools in the district. The descriptive and inferential statistics (t-test) were utilized to answer the research questions. The findings showed that there is not much impact of PD programmes on teachers’ instructional practices. However, the perception result showed a need for PD programmes.
Keywords: Teacher Training Programme; Coaching; Mentoring; Induction Programme; Instructional Practices; Student-Oriented Practices.
Professional development is also known as in-service, staff development, ongoing education, training, and self- improvement [1]. The term is used to describe formal and informal learning and support activities in both external and workplace settings [2,3]. It is defined as proactive participation by competent professional teachers, administrators, and other school leaders alone or with others, for the benefit of the teacher, school, and nation [2,4].
Professional development (PD) is defined as “organized learning that alters teacher knowledge and practices and improves student learning outcomes” [5].
In Bhutan education has played a crucial role at the heart of its progress in socio-economic development and improvement of the health, welfare, and the livelihood of its people [6]. The Ministry of Education (MoE) has taken several initiatives to reform the education systems. According to the Policy and Planning Division of MoE, one of the critical factors toward quality improvement hinges on the competencies, motivations, and commitment of the teachers [7]. Accordingly, the ministry has declared 2nd May as Teacher Development Year in 2016 coinciding with Teachers’ Day. The PD should improve teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter that they are teaching and it should enhance their understanding of students’ thinking in that subject matter and class practices [8]. To unearth its impact on the teaching-learning practices, PD assessment in Bhutan is also inevitable. Thus, this study aims to explore the impact of teachers’ PD programmes on their instructional practices in the primary schools of Trashiyangtse District.
In Bhutan, researchers have noticed major problems such as the low quality of teacher training programs, and lack of research and innovations [9]. Rinzin points out that teachers of primary schools in Bhutan have inadequate skills to deal with a child at the primary level [10]. It is also suggested that investing in teachers’ PD may enhance their instructional practices and better the students’ performance. Hence, the need for studying the impact teachers with or without the PD has on their instructional practices is found necessary for schools.
Therefore, this study will investigate the impact of teachers’ PD (which includes teacher learning, mentoring, and induction) on their instructional practices in the classroom at the primary level in the Trashiyangtse District.
The research method adopted in the present research is carefully designed, considering the types of respondents. All of the respondents of this research were the primary teachers of Trashiyangtse District. Besides, extra care was taken in designing the method, which went well with the place of inquiry. As the study was in the rural part of the eastern district, cooperation and information from the respondents were essential for the researchers to draw actual inferences about PD and its impact on their instructional practices in the classroom. Hence, the primary teachers’ valuable participation played a pivotal role in drawing research inferences. These findings further acted as a significant outcome and substantial references for the concerned stakeholders of the schools themselves and the MoE.
Research design is the overall strategy for collecting, measuring, and analyzing data. To achieve the objective of this study, the qualitative research approach was adopted. This approach sought to answer the question of how teachers’ PD programmes impacted their instructional practices in the classroom.
It found out how the primary teachers of Trashiyangtse District showed impact from either receiving or not receiving PD. The study was highly structured, and data was gathered through an online survey questionnaire. The data was collected from all the primary teachers in Trashiyangtse District.
In this study, descriptive research was used to determine the relationship between the variables. Since this research described the impact of PD programmes on teachers’ instructional practices in the classroom, it specifically looked into PD’s independent variables such as teacher learning, induction, and mentoring impacting the dependent variables such as instructional practices and student-oriented practices [6].
The quantitative study considered all the primary teachers in the Trashiyangtse District as the target population. Hence, a census survey was adopted. The reason for using the census survey was convenience owing to the online data collection method. The survey accounted for 158 teachers as respondents from 25 primary schools in Trashiyangtse District per data provided by Dzongkhag Education Officer. All the required data were collected from the respective survey areas within the last week of September 2020.
The research used primary data. The basic data for this study came from a survey of Trashiyangtse District elementary teachers utilizing a Likert Scale-based questionnaire. Due to the current situation of COVID 19, online questionnaires were made. The questionnaires were circulated through Google forms so that the respondents could fill in their response. The online survey was the best option for the research because the target population was scattered, and the participants were all literate and had easy access to the study. Therefore, the study could easily collect the required data at minimum cost.
The primary data were analyzed using SPSS software. As the collected primary data was quantitative, descriptive statistics were used to describe the data. Regression correlation was used to figure out how independent variables were related to the dependent variables. The Chi-Square value was used to test the hypotheses to identify the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Table 1 gives the detail of the respondents for the study. The total number of respondents selected for the study was 71, out of which 43 were male and 28 were female. The table also depicts respondents’ employment status where 50 respondents were having regular employment, and 21 were on contract. Further, the table shows that out of 71 respondents, six respondents held PgDE, 64 respondents held a degree, and one respondent is other than the mentioned level of education. In addition, the table provides the details on respondents’ years of experience. Out of 71 respondents, 14 respondents had experienced less than one year, 45 respondents had 1-10 years, eight respondents had 11-20 years, and four respondents had 20 and above years of experience in the teaching profession.
Table 1: Demographic Result of Respondent.
The above table 2 describes the mean of instructional practices for those who attended long-term professional development programs versus those who did not. According to the statistical results, out of 15 items to measure the teachers’ instructional approaches, the means of 13 items for the teachers who attended the long-term PDPs were more significant than those who did not participate in any long-term PDPs. The sample included 16 respondents who did not participate in any long-term PDP and 55 who attended such programs. However, one response was found missing on the question related to instructional practices. Moreover, the independent sample t-test was used to assess the significance of the difference in the usage of teachers’ instructional techniques in the classroom by the teacher training.
As shown in the above table (Table 3), each item’s significant level is insignificant in most the things because the P-value is less than 0.05. However, item numbers 5, 7, and 10 only show significant P-values 0.005, 0.011, and 0.003, respectively. Item number 5 describes the ability of the teachers in students’ engagement in learning the subjects. Item number 7 represents the teachers’ ability to use various teaching aids in the classroom, and item 10 describes the teachers’ knowledge in terms of assigning different tasks to different learners. In addition, when the mean scores of these three items are compared between teachers who have attended the long-term PDPs and those who did not, the mean scores who participated in the programs are greater than those who did not, with the mean value of 4.58, 4.51 and 4.31 respectively. Therefore, from this analysis, it can be concluded that the long-term PDPs influence the teachers’ instructional practices in terms of students’ engagement in-class activities, usage of different teaching aid in the class by teachers, and assignment of various tasks to the students by teachers.
Table 2: Mean score for the use of teachers’ instructional practices in terms of long-term PDPs.
Table 3: P-Value for the Use of Teachers’ Instructional Practice in Term of Long-term PDP.
Table 4: Mean score for students-oriented practices in terms of long-term PDPs.
The above table 4 describes the means of student-oriented practices for those teachers who have attended the long-term PDPs and who have not. According to the statistical results, the mean scores of all the items for the teachers who have attended the longterm PDPs are greater than those who did not. The sample included 16 respondents who did not attend any long-term PDP and 55 who attended such programmes. However, one response was found missing on the question related to instructional practices. To be more specific, the independent sample t-test was employed to assess whether the teacher training had a significant impact on teachers’ classroom teaching techniques.
As shown in the above table 5, the significant level of each item is insignificant in most of the items because the P-value is less than 0.05. However, items 3 and 10 only show significance with the P-value 0.044 and 0.01, respectively. Item number 3 describes the ability of the teachers to let students do similar tasks to make everyone understand, and item 10 describes the teachers’ knowledge in letting students recollect what they have learned in the previous lesson. In addition, when the mean scores of these two items are compared between teachers who have attended the long term PDPs and those who did not, the mean scores who attended the programs are greater than those who did not, with the mean value 4.58 and 4.53, respectively. Therefore, from this analysis, it can be concluded that the long-term PDPs influence the teachers in structuring students-oriented practices to make every student understand the lesson and make students revisit the lesson learned from the previous session.
Table 5: t-Value for the Use of Student Oriented Practices in Terms of Long-term PDPs.
Table 6: t-value for the use of Teachers’ Instructional Practice and Students Oriented Practices in terms of Long-term PDPs.
Table 6 reveals that instructors who have received long-term PD or teacher training are not substantially different from teachers who have not received training in classroom instructional techniques (p = 0.066, p = 0.055). Statistically, teachers took advantage of teacher training programs or had no impact on classroom instructional and student-centered practices.
Table 7: Mean Score for Use of Instructional Practices of Teachers in Terms of Mentoring from Senior Colleagues.
The table 7 describes instructional practices for those who received mentoring from seniors versus those who did not. According to the statistical results, out of 15 items to measure the teachers’ instructional practices, the means of 11 items for the teachers who received mentoring from seniors are greater than those who did not. The remaining four items’ mean scores are greater than those who have not received mentoring. The sample included eight respondents who did not receive mentoring from seniors and 63 who have received mentoring from seniors. However, one response was missing on a question related to instructional practices. To be more specific, the independent sample t-test was employed to assess the difference between teachers who had mentors and those who did not.
Table 8: t-Value for the Use of Teachers’ Instructional Practice in Terms of Mentoring.
As shown in above table-8, the significant level of each item is insignificant in most of the items because the P-value is less than 0.05. However, item numbers 2, 5, 7, and 10 only show significance with the P- value 0.022, 0.005, 0.011, and 0.003, respectively. Item number 2 describes the ability of the teachers to define the diverse needs of the learners. Item number 5 describes the teachers’ ability in students’ engagement in the learning activities in the classroom. Item 7 describes the teachers’ ability to use various teaching aids in the classroom, and item 10 describes the teachers’ ability to assign different tasks to different learners.
In addition, when the mean scores of these four items are compared between teachers who have received the mentoring from seniors and who have not, the mean scores who have received the mentoring from seniors show greater than those who do not, with the mean value of 4.33, 4.49, 4.43 and 4.21 respectively. Therefore, from this analysis, it can be concluded that the mentoring from seniors influence the teachers’ instructional practices in defining diverse needs of learners, students’ engagement in-class activities, usages of different teaching aids in the class, and assigning different tasks to students by teachers.
Table 9: t-value for the Use of Teachers’ Instructional Practices and Students Oriented Practices in Terms of Mentoring from Senior colleagues.
A relevant comparison is made between teachers who got mentoring from senior colleagues and those who did not. Moreover, the independent sample t-test is utilized to assess the significance of the difference in the usage of instructors’ instructional approaches in the classroom by the mentorship.
The table 9 shows that the teachers who have received mentoring from seniors collogue are not significantly different from the teachers who have not received mentoring on their use of instructional practices in the classroom, at p = .0.565, p = 0.482 level respectively, which are more than 0.05. Therefore, as per the statistical result, the mentoring program does not make any difference for the teachers in structuring the classroom’s instructional practices.
Individual PDP does not impact teachers in designing classroom instructional techniques, as illustrated in table 10. A one-way ANOVA test is used to see if different PDP combinations have an impact on teachers’ classroom instruction. Comparing mean differences of Instructional and Student Oriented Practices for groups that got varying PDP combinations is the test. Statistically, different PDP combinations had no effect on teachers’ instructional methods in the classroom at significant values greater than 0.05.
The table 11 shows the descriptive analysis of the respondent’s perception of the need for PDPs for the primary teacher. From the 71 respondents, all the respondents have the same perception of the need for PD for the primary teacher. As per the statistical result through frequency analysis, all the respondents perceived that the PD is essential for the primary teacher in structuring the instructional practices in the classroom.
Table 10: One-way ANOVA for Different Combinations of PDP.
Table 11: Descriptive Analysis of the Respondents’ Perception on Need of PDPs.
As per the statistical result shown in table 12, 98.6% of the total respondents perceived that the PD effectively structures instructional practices in the classroom.
Table 12: Respondents Perception on PDPs.
The overall finding indicates no significant impact on the teachers’ performance despite attending the PDPs. However, some item analyses show a positive impact from the PDPs on the teachers’ instructional and student- oriented practices. For instance, the longterm PDPs influence the teachers’ instructional practices regarding students’ engagement in-class activities, using different teaching aids, and assigning different tasks to the students [11]. Likewise, the mentoring from seniors also influenced the teachers’ instructional practices in defining diverse needs of learners, students’ engagement in-class activities, and usages of different teaching aid in the class. Therefore, it can be concluded and recommended that the ineffectiveness of overall PDPs on teachers could be due to the low quality of teacher training programmes, lack of research and innovations [12]. Thus, reassessing and restructuring the training curriculum of educational colleges might be looked into. Besides, timely monitoring and implementation of PDPs and assessing technology and the teachers’ operating competencies are deemed necessary. The key findings, recommendations, conclusions, and limitations are discussed elaborately.
The P-value for the difference in ‘structuring instructional techniques’ between teachers who went and did not attend PDPs is 0.066. Similarly, there is no statistically significant difference between teachers who participated and did not attend the program. P = 0.55. The influence of PD on classroom practices appears to be uneven, with data suggesting that it may not directly benefit instructors in gaining crucial instructional abilities. Another conclusion by Ingersoll and Strong is that adequate training and induction programs help teachers to maintain their jobs and boost student learning [13].
However, as per the item analysis, the long-term PDPs influenced the teachers’ instructional practices regarding students’ engagement in-class activities, usages of different teaching aids in the class by teachers, and assignment of different tasks to the students by teachers. Similarly, the PDPs also impacted the student-oriented practices to make every student understand the lesson and make students revisit the lesson learned from the previous session.
There is no significant difference between the ‘use of instructional practices’ and ‘student-oriented practices’ for teachers who received and did not receive the mentoring. The statistical result shows the P values at 0.565 and 0.482, respectively. Mentoring may be considered a critical tool to enhance teachers’ performance in their profession [14]. However, this result is in line with Everton and Smitheys’ findings, which argues that having limited evidence on this is inconclusive and it rather affects teacher’s classroom management skills, time, and workload management skills [15].
However, as per the item analysis, the mentoring from seniors influences the teachers’ instructional practices in defining diverse needs of learners, students’ engagement in-class activities, usages of different teaching aids in the class, and assigning different tasks to students by teachers.
The impact could not be compared between teachers who received induction and those who did not, as all respondents received induction. However, the descriptive result indicates that the mean value for the induction program is slightly higher than the mean value for the other two programs. This finding demonstrated unequivocally that the induction program had a greater influence on rookie instructors’ teaching methods in the classroom than mentorship and long-term PDPs. This finding is consistent with Munshi, who asserts that induction programs are critical for providing immediate assistance to novice teachers, preventing burnout, shifting their mindsets toward lifelong learning, and assisting instructors in focusing on their job around student outcomes [16]. Additionally, as Gless states, an investment in teacher quality begins early in a teacher’s career and continues throughout their professional lifetime [17]. Thus, effective induction programs contribute to the transformation of school culture and the advancement of the teaching profession.
This paper has considered some of the critical determining factors on the impact of PDPs on the instructional practices of primary teachers of the Trashiyangtse District. Overall, PDPs had little impact on teachers’ instructional approaches. The results showed no significant differences in instructional or studentfocused practices between teachers who attended the program and those who did not. Even the different PDP combinations had little effect on teachers’ classroom methods. The perception results suggested that teachers prefer PDPs.
Further, the item analysis in some areas showed that there was an impact on the teachers’ instructional practices and the studentoriented practices. To make the PDPs impactful and more relevant, the MoE, in collaboration with the Royal University of Bhutan, may revisit/restructure the teacher training curriculum and its relevancy in the field. Timely monitoring of PDPs may help assess the implementation of the programmes. The teachers falling into the trap of old habits of teaching style despite the PDPs may need a higher level of motivation.
I would like to acknowledge all the people who have contributed to this study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Copyright: © 2023 Thinley Gyeltshen and Tshewang Sither. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Open Access by
Acta Scientific is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Based on a work at https://actascientific.com
ff
ff
© 2024 Acta Scientific, All rights reserved.