PEN Academic Publishing-   |  ISSN: 1308 - 951X

Original article | International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 2019, Vol. 10(1) 19-30

Why centralize teacher professional development? Limitations of centralized teacher professional development based on a review of TALIS 2013 results of South Korea

Ju Hur

pp. 19 - 30   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1901-28-0003

Published online: March 15, 2019  |   Number of Views: 69  |  Number of Download: 571


Abstract

It is well known that teachers are the core for improving quality of education, and many countries and international organizations are emphasizing teacher profession development. Teacher professional development has positive influence on students’ academic achievement, school effectiveness, and hence many countries are implementing policies to promote teacher quality. On the one hand, centralized teacher professional development, because it is direct, relative to educational policy at central level, and sometimes obligated, could contribute to effective teacher development. On the other hand; however, because centralized system neglects what teachers want and need at the school level, centralized teachers professional development has limitations. The purpose of this study is to identify the limitations of centralized teacher professional development through an analysis of OECD TALIS 2013 results of South Korea. While South Korea is known for strong teaching force, it is also identified to have a centralized teacher professional development system, and this may be deduced to centralized teacher professional development could result in strong teaching force. However, the analytical review of TALIS 2013 results show that while Korean teachers’ participation in various professional development activities is high, their perceptions on the activities are negative (i.e., perceive as administrative tasks and very little impact on improving teaching and learning). In addition, Korean teachers’ self-efficacy was found the lowest among the TALIS participating countries, which could be an indication that professional development is not functioning. Based on the findings, this study suggests first, governments need to re-think their top-down teacher professional development policies; second, teachers need to be more active in their professional development, meaning that teachers need to perceive professional development as their right not as obligation; and finally, a balanced approach is needed, that is a centralized and school-based, in teacher profession development.

Keywords: teacher professional development, teacher policy, TALIS 2013


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Hur, J. (2019). Why centralize teacher professional development? Limitations of centralized teacher professional development based on a review of TALIS 2013 results of South Korea . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 10(1), 19-30.

Harvard
Hur, J. (2019). Why centralize teacher professional development? Limitations of centralized teacher professional development based on a review of TALIS 2013 results of South Korea . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 10(1), pp. 19-30.

Chicago 16th edition
Hur, Ju (2019). "Why centralize teacher professional development? Limitations of centralized teacher professional development based on a review of TALIS 2013 results of South Korea ". International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 10 (1):19-30.

References
  1. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development, in T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional Development in Education. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Caena, F. (2014). Teacher competence frameworks in Europe: policy-as-discourse and policy-as-practice. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 311-331.  [Google Scholar]
  3. Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity  for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752-761. [Google Scholar]
  4. Darling-Hammond, L. & Rothman, R. (Eds.) (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness in high-performing education systems. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education and Stanford, CA: Stanford Centre for Opportunity Policy in Education.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. [Google Scholar]
  6. Evetts(2009). The management of professionalism, in Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward: 19-30. New York: Routledge.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Fullan, M. & Hargreves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers’ Colleges Press.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers Colleges, Columbia University. [Google Scholar]
  9. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: the third logic. London: Polity Press.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Gewirtz, S., Mahony. P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. (2009). Changing Teacher Professionalism. New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  11. Gordon, J., Halasz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., Michel, A., Pepper, D., Putkiewicz, E., & Wisniewski, J. (2009). Key competences in Europe: Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education. CASE Network Report, 87.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press and Toronto, ON: Ontario Principals’ Council.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Hargreaves, A. & Moore, S. (2002). Voice, nostalgia, and teachers’ experience of change, in Bodone, F. (Ed.) (2002) What Difference Does Research Make and for Whom? (pp.129-140). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Hattie, J. Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? Paper Presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality, Melbourne, October 21, 2003.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoy, W., K. & Miskel, C., G. (2001). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and  Practice, 6th ed. Quebecor Printing Book Group, PA: Mcgraw Hill.  [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1-29. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jeon, J., S. (2010). Analysis on the in-service training system of teachers according to teacher  expertise development evaluation. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 27(4), 369-394.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, J., H. (2001). Effect of teacher in-service training in elementary English education. Elementary English Education, 7(1), 103-132.  [Google Scholar]
  19. Kang, K., S. & Kang, H., K. (2010). The effects of principals’ autonomy, accountability, and teachers’ empowerment on school organizational effectiveness. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 27(3), 531-558.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, A., Y. (2012). Teacher educator’s reflective teaching. The Journal of Korean Educational Idea, 26(3), 85-105.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim, K., S. (2014). Study of teachers’ perception on purposefulness of teacher appraisal for professional development. Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 30(4), 39-57.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Lasch, C. (1991). True and only heaven: Progress and its critics. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, Y., S., Yoo, H., S., & Choi, S., G. (1993). Improving Teacher Development System. Seoul: Korean Education Development Institute.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee, S., H. (2014). A Study of primary teachers’ perception on policy implementation of teacher appraisal for professional development. Ph.D. dissertation. Graduate school of Ehwa Women’s University.  [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, S. (2017). The challenges and implications of teacher agency for professional learning community. Inter disciplinary Journal of Adult & Continuing Education, 20(2), 1-27.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1999). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and students engagement with school. Paper presented the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Quebec, Canada, April 18-23, 1999.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Michlin, M., Mascall, B., Gordon, M., Strauss, T., Thomas, E., & Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of research. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, the Wallace Foundation, New York, NY.  [Google Scholar]
  28. Ministry of Education (2008). Teacher Appraisal for Professional Development: A new start for education. Ministry of Education, Seoul.  [Google Scholar]
  29. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299. [Google Scholar]
  30. OECD (1982). In-service education and training of teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  31. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  32. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environment: First results from  TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  33. (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An international perspective on teaching and learning.  Paris: OECD Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  34. RAND (2012). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/corporate_pubs/2012/RAND_CP693z1- 2012-09.pdf on April, 06. 2016.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Ryu, M., Y. & Jung, S., S. (2015). The influence of the amount of secondary teacher’s on-the-job training on the change of student’s achievement. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 32(3), 45-65.  [Google Scholar]
  36. Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356. [Google Scholar]
  37. UNESCO (2014). Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all (EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4). Paris: UNESCO.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2003). Human resources administration: Personnel issues and needs in education. London: Prentice Hall.  [Google Scholar]
  39. Youngs, P. (2001). District and state policy influences on professional development and school capacity. Educational Policy, 15(2), 278-301.  [Google Scholar]
  40. Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670. [Google Scholar]