Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
By
1.0 Introduction
This article discusses some issues and concerns over the professional development
of the ESL teachers in the three primary schools in Malaysia. Primarily, it
emphasises the roles that primary schools can play to develop teachers. It
establishes that teachers can play their roles more effective in an ecology, which
treats them as learning and reflective professionals rather than just implementers
of mandated curriculum strictly adhering to a well-established external assessment
system. Professional development of teachers should be empowered to the school,
the panel and ESL teachers. The ESL teachers should be seen as the designers and
implementers of their own professional development in schools. (Clark, 1992)
1
The study was conducted over a period of three months at three primary schools in
Kelantan. Using the case study methodology, the study explored the roles of English
language panels on professional development of ESL teachers in the primary schools.
This article therefore portrays the findings of the study.
43
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
The continuing demand for these new skills indicated there was an urgent need for
a professional development programme of ESL teachers in the primary schools.
At the policy level, the urgency for professional development of teachers could be
seen in a report of a group of twenty educational personnel from the Teacher
Education Division (TED) on `Programme on Effective In-service Training’. In
the introduction, the group reported:
44
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
2
The committee, headed by the former Education Director General of Malaysia, was set up in 1995. It
studied issues and problems in the teaching profession. Known as Abdul Rahman Arshad report, it
provided recommendations to improve the teaching profession in Malaysia. As the report was
classified as confidential, the information described here has been gathered (bits and pieces) from the
media, discussion with some personnel, and the writer was present at one of the meetings with the
committee in 1996.
45
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
In fact, most of them had developed their teaching skills and competence through
their initial education at teacher training colleges, an informal apprenticeship, and
years of teaching experience in the school. Aptly, as it was observed, methodology
came with the ESL teachers. They learned about their professional roles and
related skills `intuitively’ (Hargreaves & Goodson, 1996), and by talking to
colleagues (through informal talks and chats along the classroom corridor, at the
canteen, and in the staff room), and working with other teachers. They also
developed their classroom competence on past experience as students and by
emulating their former teachers as role models.
Taking over a new responsibility, post or duty, as head of panel for instance, was a
matter of ‘trial and error’ using traditional-based models. Once appointed as the
head, for instance, she manages the panel through the experience she receives
from her previous panel heads or from the panel heads of her former schools. It
was a self-discovery and a slow process through the teachers’ experience in the
workplace.
46
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
The most common `planned’ approach to ESL teacher development in the primary
schools was in fact through a centralised professional development programme
initiated by the Ministry of Education and its professional divisions, namely,
through in-service courses. It was `generally’ expected that it was the
responsibility of the Ministry of Education to plan and implement courses (e.g.,
English Language for non-optioned ESL teachers, thinking skills, courses on
curricular changes) for the teachers. In the process, teachers were taken out of the
school, placed in a seminar room for a certain period (a day, a week, a month or a
year) for a course of a certain nature. This was essentially to `help’ teachers to
enhance their existing qualification, to further develop their existing skills (top-up)
or to help teachers in areas which they perceived to be experiencing difficulty.
On returning to their respective schools, the ESL teachers were expected to pass
on the information to their colleagues in the schools in the form of in-house
training sessions. This was as a part of the cascading professional model of the
Ministry of Education, helped to train other ESL teachers in the school. There was
indeed a clear in-house policy at the three case study primary schools.
47
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
teachers are pretty much alike”. The limitations could be clearly seen in my three
case study schools.
• It emphasised the role played by experts outside the schools; the ESL
teachers did not see themselves or their peers in the school as experts.
There was, to some extent, mistrust among the ESL teachers for
internal teacher experts. They believed that the external experts would
be able to perform better than the internal experts; i.e., the ESL
teachers themselves.
• Only a limited number of ESL teachers were able to attend those
courses. The number of places available depended on the allocation of
funds for the course. It was impeded by “a relatively small funding
base” with “ small (number) agencies are attempting to provide
services to an enormous number of teachers working in a very large
number of schools” (Joyce, 1980, p.23). As the allocation for
professional development of teachers was greatly reduced in 1998,
less external courses were organised.
• There was also a mismatch between the needs of teachers and/or their
schools and the content of the courses. To them, some courses were
irrelevant, impractical and redundant. State and districts were
authorised “to bring attention to specific curriculum areas” and “a
large proportion of the authorised funds be used to educate teachers in
the area of concern” (Joyce, 1980, p.23). Teachers were therefore left
without choice. Often they were available at courses as passive
audience.
• Courses were too theoretical, that they would not have any practical
application in the classroom, especially in a foreign language context.
As an ESL teacher in one of the primary schools indicated, the
`theory’ had not been tested for its effectiveness at the school level.
• The provision of the course was unsystematic and unplanned as the
providers (district, state and Ministry of Education) determined
choices. Often the priorities of the course organisers and providers of
in-service courses dominated the provision of in-service activities for
the ESL teachers. Teachers were left without much choice in
determining their own professional development. The locus of control
of teachers’ professional development still remained with the Ministry
of Education.
• The cascading model of in-service activities (as envisaged by Ministry
of Education, Malaysia) explicitly encouraged dissemination of
information through various means. One was through in-house
training sessions at the school level (KPM, 1994b). This initiative,
however, in the first place diluted the information received by the
teachers. A three-day input, for instance, was delivered to the teachers
in half an hour (the extreme case, a five-minute briefing at the panel
meeting). Secondly it was seldom implemented at the school due to
48
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
What could have possibly been antagonistic to the development of ESL teachers’
professionalism in the primary schools? I could see several factors at play in
determining the implementation effectiveness of professional development
programmes of ESL teachers. Workplace professional culture, teachers’ isolation,
individualism, collegiality and shared technical culture, funding and support
structures could be some of the variables contributing to the failure of the process
of teachers’ professional development.
However tests and examinations have become the over-riding concern in most
primary schools, this organisational priority has become dominant over teacher
development. Professional development of teachers has been relegated to a lower
49
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
The district and state education authorities want to ensure that their priorities are
given prominence while the Ministry of Education (through its professional
divisions) sets and resources its own national priorities for the development of
teachers. These different perceptions, as Bell (1991) argued, determine the nature
of support and assistance that have been provided for teachers to create a
framework within which choices about professional development are made. Such
choices depend upon and, at the same time reflect sets of assumptions about the
appropriate nature of and provision for teacher development.
The nature of the teaching profession and how teachers see themselves and their
work in the school determine their relationship with others and how they see
others in the schools. It also determines the nature of collegiality in the school, as
well as their attitudes towards a networking or, for that matter, the panel.
Nias (1989, p.18) has argued that primary teaching is “an activity which for
psychological, philosophical and historical reasons can be regarded as
individualistic, solitary and personal, inviting and in some senses requiring high
level of self-expenditure”. The manner in which each teacher behaves is unique.
“The minute-by-minute decisions made within the shifting,
unpredictable, capricious world of the classroom and judgement
teachers reach when they are reflecting on their work depends
upon how they perceive particular events, behaviours, materials
and persons” (ibid, 1989, p.13)
Nias (1989) has contributed to several factors inviting primary teachers to be self-
referential in the ways in which they conceptualise and carry out their jobs in the
schools. They are the historical, financial and philosophical traditions of primary
teaching, the culture and physical context of the school.
“As a result, teachers expect the job to make extensive calls upon
the personality, experience, preferences, talents, skills, ideas,
attitudes, values, and belief of each individual. Equally, they
50
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
expect the freedom to ensure that the ways in which, and still to
some extent what, they teach are consistent with the values
which are most salient to them. Primary teaching as an
occupation makes heavy demands upon the self.” (Nias, 1989,
p.26)
In fact Lortie (1975) established that personal pre-dispositions are not only
relevant, but in fact stand at the core of becoming a teacher. Hence, the heavily
personal and private nature of primary school teaching tends to result in
individualism, isolation and contrived collegiality (Hargreaves, 1998), which
influence pupil-teacher, and teacher - teacher interactions. Hence it explains:
3
At present, MOEM has three promotion systems for teachers: through seniority and
qualification, time-based promotion and promotion as expert teachers. The present form
51
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
It was apparent in the study that the primary ESL teachers were concerned about
their status. They saw themselves as ‘support’ staff rather than ‘professionals’ in
the field. To them, the professionals (i.e., graduate teachers) led, and they, as the
support staff, supported the programmes or innovations. They did not plan; they
were mere technicians. They would be the ones who would implement
programmes at the school level.
The career cycle, that is, how the teaching career unfolds, is another concern for
the teachers. Huberman (1988, 1991) described the career path for the teachers:
teachers go from survival to discovery (the first three years), to focusing down
(Years 4 – 6), to experimentation and diversity (Years 7-8), to focusing down (19
or more years). In the latter group, Huberman (1988) found three further sub-
patterns in the latter group, which he labels “positive focusing” (doing my own
things), “defensive focusing (withdrawn and critical), and disenchantment
(withdrawn and bitter)”.
Nias (1989) claimed that teachers are also concerned about their own career and
especially about their long term prospects for promotion.
“Teachers spoke with anxiety ‘good people get stuck’, of ‘those
who haven’t got promotion, being bitter and frustrated and worse
teachers because of it’, of ‘good teachers losing heart because
they have nowhere to go…For these teachers diminished career
prospect appeared to relate much closely to an expressed dread
of professional stagnation than they did to material incentives.”
(Nias, 1989, p.125)
In Malaysia, for instance, career promotion among teachers has been a slow
process. For instance, as the study revealed, a teacher who has been teaching since
1976 is still on a DG6 scale. Similarly another retired from the profession at the
age of 55 on DG 6 scale, the lowest on the primary teacher’s salary scale. The
heads of panel, as indicated in the study, were also on DG6.
however, though a positive attempt, is far from adequate to cater for teachers’
development, vis-à-vis career promotion, in the country.
52
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
As such, the ESL teachers’ greatest reward would only be the “psychic rewards”
(Lortie, 1975); that is, their students have learned, and “respect from others,” (that
is, teaching is a noble profession, which is now diminishing, too). Success stories
are a predominant source of pride for teachers. Teaching has been labelled as a
noble profession, but ironically the profession has not been able to recruit the best
brains.
ESL primary school teachers encounter excessive workload and work stress in
implementing their daily chores. Wigginton (1986), cited in Fullan (1991),
observed secondary teachers’ routines:
“Teachers routinely have to teach over 140 students daily. On
top of that, we have lunch duty, bus duty, home room duty …
We go to parents’ meetings, teachers’ meetings, in-service
meetings, curriculum meetings, department meetings, county
wide teachers’ meetings, school board meetings, and state
teachers’ conferences. We staff the ticket booths and concessions
stands at football and basketball games. We supervise the
production of school plays, annuals, newspapers, dances, sports
events, debates, chess tournaments, graduation ceremonies. We
go on senior trips .. We go on field trips to capital buildings,
prisons, nature centers, zoos …We supervise fire drills… We
write hall passes, notes to the principals, the assistant principals,
parents and ourselves. We counsel. We wake up every morning
to the realization that the majority of our students would far
rather be some place else. On top of that everybody’s yelling at
us – state legislators, parents, and SAT scores … To add injury
to insult, colleges and universities are getting all huffed up and
grumpy and indignant over the increasingly poor preparation of
the students we’re sending to them. Well, just who do they think
taught us how to teach? How much support and prestige do they
accord their own schools of education?” (Wigginton, 1986,
p.191)
Primary school teachers face the same ‘unattractive’ scenario in their workplace.
Apparently there were “bewildering arrays of social needs and academic
expectations for the classrooms,” (Fullan, 1991, p.119), from achievements in
53
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
tests, and examinations (the league tables, UPSR) and the mastery of basic
language skills as advocated in the syllabus.
On top of that, the National Education Philosophy warrants that the pupils as well
balanced emotionally, intellectually and socially. The state expresses the needs for
intellectual development, citizenship participation, moral and ethical character
development, emotional and physical well being, creativity and aesthetic self-
expression and self-realisation. The inclusion of smart school concepts further
demands all round effort from teachers – thinking skills, innovation and creativity
and technology literacy. As Goodlad (1984) says, “We want it all.”
Fullan (1991) argued that the circumstances of teaching, then, ask a lot of teachers
in terms of daily maintenance and student accountability, and give back little in
the time needed for planning, constructive discussion, thinking and just plain
reward and time for composure. The central tendency of these conditions is
decidedly negative in its consequences.
Lortie (1975) described the dilemmas the teachers faced in the school:
• Initial teacher training of teachers did not equip teachers for the
realities of the classroom.
• Due to the cellular organisation of schools , where teachers spent most
of their time physically apart form their colleagues, forced the
teachers to struggle with their problems and anxieties privately,
• Partly because of the physical isolation and partly because of norms of
not sharing, observing and discussing each other’s work, teachers did
not develop a common technical culture. The teacher’s craft “ is
marked by the absence of concrete models for emulation, unclear lines
of influence, multiple and controversial criteria, ambiguity about
assessment timing, and instability in the product” (ibid, 1975, p.136)
The centrally initiated professional development through the external course based
professional development led to a crucial question on professional development of
teachers: Who controls professional development of the ESL teachers? Was it the
54
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
In such a context, Clark (1992) raised an interesting issue on the locus of control
of teachers’ professional development:
“As a teacher, how eager would you feel about co-operating in a
process in which you are presumed to be passive, resistant,
deficient, and one of faceless, homogenous herd? This is hardly
an ideal set of conditions for adult learning, support and
development.” (Clark, 1992, p.75)
Imposed development as indicated by external locus of control has
“an effect, but the results may not be those intended … Without consent,
imposed development will be re-interpreted, and at its best subverted, or
mostly ignored or refused. At the worst, it will have unintended
consequences that both sides agree are detrimental to pupils’ learning”.
(Higgins and Leat , 1997, p.313)
In the school context in Malaysia, the Professional Circular #4/86, and the
Special Committee Report on Teachers Professionalization were government
attempts to recognise the growing importance of professional development of
(ESL) teachers in order to improve the learning of pupils in the schools (primary
and secondary). In particular the Professional Circular #4/86 recognises
55
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
When the Education Vision was introduced, as a response to the nation’s Vision
2020 (Lim, 1997), empowerment was a hit. All schools, inclusive of Delima,
Mahligai and Pengkalan, were plunged into a heated debate about implementing
empowerment at the school level. Everybody talked about empowering the
teachers, the panel heads for school improvement. Empowerment became the tool;
it was a part of the School Development Plan, and it was a part of the school’s
Client’s Charter. It was short-lived, and empowerment is still an unfinished
agenda in Malaysia.
Within the primary schools, the school administrators claimed that empowerment
has been widely practised. Management of English language panels, in particular
the management of pupils’ language activities, has been empowered to the ESL
teachers to a certain extent. They however have no control over their own
professional development and the curriculum.
Blasé and Blasé (2000), for example, advocated six strategies for, how effective
instructional leaders could promote professional development of teachers in the
schools:
• Emphasising the study of teaching and learning
• Supporting collaboration efforts among educators
• Developing coaching relationships among educators
• Encouraging and supporting the redesign of programmes
• Applying the principles of adult learning, growth and development at
all phases of staff development; and
• Implementing action research to inform instructional decision making
(Blasé and Blasé, 2000, p.135)
The headmasters (and headmistresses) are, undoubtedly, middle managers; that is,
in the middle of the relationship between teachers and external ideas and people
(Fullan, 1991, Hussein Mahmood, 1993). Their role is central to promoting or
inhibiting change, especially to the culture of the school ( Fullan, 1991). However,
their roles have becoming more complicated. Fullan (1991) asserted:
56
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
While recognising the key role of the headmasters and headmistresses in the
school culture, the “site council”, a networking of educational experts and
community at the school level, undeniably important in developing supportive
collegiality for the development of teacher’s professionalism.
Elliott (1993) argued that wise professional judgements and decisions rest on the
quality of the situational understandings they manifest. Situational understanding
involved discriminating and then synthesising the practical significant elements to
57
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
a situation into a unified and coherent picture of the whole. To him, there was no
value-free understanding of the concrete and complex situations, which confronted
professional practitioners.
Day (1997) argued that teachers have not generally taken an active part in the
production of knowledge about their own teaching. They have been
disenfranchised and they have been perceived as basing their practice on their
professional practical knowledge and experience. Day (1993) also raised
important issues on how teachers could reflect on their practice and by what
means the teachers might be supported over time to developing reflective teaching
practice at different levels.
“It is equally important to recognise that, to date, much learning through
reflection has been private. Conditions of service, and the organisational
cultures in many schools do not allow for regular professional dialogue
about teaching which goes much beyond anecdotal exchange and the
trading of techniques.”
“In reflecting about the situation (s)he does not dissociate his or he own
agency and influence. The form of reflection involved is reflexive.
Secondly, there is a problematic dimension opened up by this reflexive
stance. The practitioner calls into question his/her own actions and
responses within the situation, in the light of evidence which suggests they
are more inconsistent with professional values than (s)he originally
assumed. This in turn opens up a third critical dimension in which the
practitioner reflects about the taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions
which underpin his/her practical interpretations of professional values and
their origins in his/her life experiences and history. S(he) begins to
reconstruct his/her constructs of value and discovers that this opens up new
understandings of the situation and new possibilities for intelligent action
within it.” (Elliott,1993, p.68-69)
58
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
6.0 Conclusion
59
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY
60
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
HIGGINS, S & LEAT, D. (1997) ‘Horses for Courses or Courses for Horses:
What is Effective Teacher Development?’ British Journal of In-service,
Vol. 23, (3) pp. 303 – 314.
HOYLE, E. (1980) `Professionalization and deprofessionalization in education’
in HOYLE, E., AND MEGGARY, E. eds. Professional Development of
Teachers. World Yearbook of Education 1980. London: Kogan Page pp.
42-54.
HOYLE, E & JOHN, P.D. (1995) Professional Knowledge and Professional
Practice. London: Cassell.
HUBERMAN, M. (1988) `Teacher Careers and School Improvement’ Journal of
Curriculum Studies, Vol.20, (2) pp. 119-132.
HUBERMAN, M. (1991) `Teacher Development and Instructional Mastery’ in
HARGREAVES, A., & FULLAN, M.G. eds. Understanding Teacher
Development. London: Cassell.
HUSSEIN MAHMOOD (1993) Kepimpinan dan Keberkesanan Sekolah. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
INGAVARSON, L (2000) `Teacher Control and the Reform of Professional
Development’ in ALTRICHTER, H & ELLIOTT, J. eds. Images of
Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press pp. 159 – 172.
JOYCE, B. (1980) ‘The Ecology of Professional Development.” in HOYLE, E.,
AND MEGGARY, E. eds. Professional Development of Teachers. World
Yearbook of Education 1980. London: Kogan Page pp. 19-43.
KELCHTERMANS, G. (1998) Teachers’ Professional Development through their
Life Histories. Paper Presented at CARE Bag Lunch Seminar. Norwich:
University of East Anglia.
KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA (1994) Latihan Dalaman. Kuala
Lumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum.
LIM. CHONG HIN. (1997) Mathematics Education in Rural Malaysia: A Case
Study of the Impact of rapid Industrialisation in Malaysia. Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis. CARE: UEA.
LORTIE, D. (1975) School Teacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
LOUIS, K.S, MARKS, H.M., & DRUSE, S. (1994) Teachers’ Professional
Community in Restructuring Schools, Paper prepared for the American
Educational Research Association, New Orlean.
NIAS. J. (1989) Primary Teachers Talking – A study of Teaching as Work.
London: Routledge.
RATNAVADIVEL, N. (1999) Teacher Education: interface between practices and
policies. The Malaysian experience 1979 – 1997. Teacher and Education
15. Pergamon pp 193-213.
SCHON, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
SISSLINGS, S. (1991). Research in Teacher Development: A question of Context.
Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis. Norwich: UEA.
SITI HAWA AHAMD (1995) Teacher Education for Teacher Development.
Paper Presented at the English Language Convention 23-25 November
1995 in Port Dickson.
61
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN IPBA 2002 JILID 2: BIL. 5
62