Creating a Teacher Development Program Linked to

Curriculum Renewal
redalyc.org/jatsRepo/1692/169255824016/html/index.html

Issues Based on Reflections and Innovations

Creating a Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

Creación de un programa de desarrollo profesoral para una renovación curricular

Erica Ferrer Ariza * eferrer@uninorte.edu.co

Universidad del Norte, Colombia

Paige M. Poole ** ppoole@uninorte.edu.co

Universidad del Norte, Colombia

Creating a Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, vol. 20, no. 2, 2018

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

You are authorized to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format as long
as you give appropriate credit to the authors of the articles and to Profile: Issues in
Teachers' Professional Development as original source of publication. The use of the
material for commercial purposes is not allowed. If you remix, transform, or build upon
the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Authors retain the intellectual
property of their manuscripts with the following restriction: first publication is granted to
Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development.

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar

4.0 Internacional.
Received: 25 September 2017

Accepted: 12 March 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67937

Abstract: This paper presents one Colombian university English as a foreign language
program’s in-house teacher development program for curriculum renewal. This program
is an innovative attempt to prepare teachers for implementing a new curriculum and,
simultaneously, engages them in professional development activities. The program is a
response to the lack of existing teacher and professional development models that fit
certain specific contextual needs, including preparation for implementing new curriculum
as well as emphases in the updating of particular teaching practices. In addition to

1/21
presenting the program, the article also describes the integration of key aspects of various
existing models of teacher and professional development into one program that meets
contextual needs while encouraging positive change among faculty and students.

Keywords: Curriculum renewal, English as a foreign language, professional development,

teacher development.

Resumen: Este artículo presenta un programa de desarrollo profesoral de una universidad

colombiana para acompañar una renovación curricular. Este modelo se presenta como
una iniciativa innovadora para preparar profesores en implementar un nuevo currículo y,
simultáneamente, involucrarlos en actividades de desarrollo profesional. El modelo se da
en respuesta a la carencia de modelos existentes de desarrollo profesoral que respondan a
las necesidades particulares de un contexto, que incluyan preparación para la
implementación de un nuevo currículo, así como un énfasis en la actualización de las
prácticas de enseñanza. Adicionalmente, el artículo describe la integración de aspectos
clave de modelos existentes en un solo modelo que responda a las necesidades
contextuales y al mismo tiempo promueva cambios positivos en los docentes, estudiantes
y programas.

Palabras clave: desarrollo profesional, desarrollo profesoral, inglés como lengua

extranjera, renovación curricular.

Introduction

Teachers engage in development for various reasons (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 2001).
Sometimes it happens as a consequence of teachers’ intrinsic motivation to improve the
quality of their teaching practices, gain respect and recognition, become a more effective
educator, or to increase individual satisfaction in pursuit of a successful teaching career.
In other cases, it comes about as a consequence of extrinsic motivation from a teacher
brought on by factors such as maintaining a job or position, obtaining a better salary,
accessing higher quality jobs in the field, or getting a promotion. Heystek and Terhoven
(2015) explain that both types of motivation can be important for sustainable and
participative teacher development, especially connected to curriculum. In the same way,
teacher development can be motivated by institutional needs such as increased teacher
awareness, updating of teacher knowledge, and adoption of new teaching practices,
among many others. In this way, the institution can play a key role in transforming
teacher development into a “process of ‘we are developing’ rather than a process of ‘you
must develop’ because you are underperforming” (Heystek & Terhoven, 2015, p. 629). In
this paper, we reflect on the process of building and implementing a teacher development
program (TDP) linked to curriculum renewal in a university English as a foreign language
(EFL) program on the Caribbean coast of Colombia. In detailing the process, we explain
how university and program faculty were involved in reflecting, analyzing, and making
informed decisions about their teaching practices within the framework in order to better
design and implement the new curriculum.

Contextual Background

2/21
The specific context in which this TPD was designed is that of an eight-level,
undergraduate EFL program that serves around 12,000 students annually and relies on
approximately 60 teachers, most of whom are Colombian. Students in the program belong
to a variety of majors ranging from graphic design or engineering to psychology or social
communication. Throughout the program, teachers are expected to help students develop
a B2 level of language proficiency according to the Common European Framework of
Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001).

Based on systematic classroom observations at all levels of the program, we found

students were not developing their language proficiency at the expected level. Careful
analysis of students’ grades and exit exam results corroborated these observations and
showed that more than 50% of the students were not achieving a B2 level. In order to
address this situation, the language institute initiated a curriculum development project
(CDP) based on backwards design, using desired learning outcomes to guide the
construction of a new curriculum (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). The CDP aimed to identify
needs in the program as well as propose a new curriculum that would take into account
aspects such as: course goals and outcomes, course materials, student performance,
teacher performance, and assessment in a more comprehensive and structured way than
before. After a needs analysis was carried out, a preliminary design created, and new
course materials chosen, a major challenge arose: working with teachers to reflect on,
evaluate, and implement the new curriculum in the classroom.

To respond to this challenge, a TPD was designed to prepare teachers for and involve
them in curriculum implementation through taking into account their perceptions and
making corresponding adjustments.

Creating a Program for Teacher Development

When creating a teacher development program, several aspects must be clear, including
the objectives it aims to achieve in terms of institutional and professional needs. In regard
to the TPD in question, the time frame desired for its execution was also important,
bearing in mind that the curriculum implementation had fixed dates.

Institutional Needs

In the EFL program in question, there were several institutional needs that motivated the
CDP and the TPD. These needs included: fewer and more succinct objectives in course
syllabi, a clear progression of student learning outcomes (SLOs), increased awareness
among teachers of the content of each level, as well as a need to standardize assessment
practices.

Professional Needs

The TPD also took into account varied professional needs of the teachers within the EFL
program who would be implementing the new curriculum, the most important of which
were: teaching practice update, especially regarding skills instructions, sharing of good
classroom practices with their colleagues, and reflection as a professional tool.

3/21
General Program Objectives

In an attempt to address all of the abovementioned needs, the following general objectives
were formulated for the TPD:

To involve teachers in the process of evaluating designed curriculum and making

suggestions for improvements.

To improve teacher receptiveness and openness to curricular ideas pre, during, and
post-curriculum implementation.

To provide teachers with spaces to learn about and practice using tools for
implementing the new curriculum effectively.

To facilitate spaces for voicing and addressing teachers’ concerns.

To facilitate spaces for reflecting on curriculum implementation.

To promote problem-solving and critical thinking teamwork among teachers.

It is important to clarify that while the program had clear general objectives, it was not a
fixed program from the start. As new needs arose or established needs changed during
curriculum implementation, the planned activities were evaluated and adjusted to assure
they continued meeting the needs identified.

Teacher Development

It is important to note that there is a distinction between teacher training and teacher
development. Richards and Farrell (2005) define teacher training as involving “activities
directly focused on a teacher’s present responsibilities and . . . aimed at short-term
immediate goals” (p. 3) in order to prepare the teacher to accept new responsibilities or
positions in their unique context. Teacher development, on the other hand, tends to focus
on “general growth not focused on a specific job [and] serves a longer-term goal” (p. 4)
that involves a teacher reflecting on their teaching practice. Both concepts are critical for
understanding a teacher’s continued growth in and outside the classroom.

More specifically, teacher development is regarded as “the process whereby teachers’

professionalism and/or professionality may be considered to be enhanced” (Evans, 2002,
p. 131). Evans (2002) identifies two key elements of teacher development: attitudinal
development and functional development. Whereas the former is concerned with the
process through which teachers modify their attitudes towards their work, the latter is
concerned with the process through which teachers’ professional work may be improved.
From this perspective, teachers may experience changes either in their intellectual or
motivational development and/or in their general teaching practice.

Impact on Institutions

4/21
While most definitions of teacher development focus on the teacher, ongoing professional
development and teacher education is not only important for teachers, but also have a
significant impact on the success of the programs and institutions they work in and with
(Richards & Farrell, 2005). According to a review of studies related to elementary school
teachers carried out by REL Southwest (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007),
teachers that receive approximately 50 hours of teacher development were shown to
increase their students’ scores on achievement tests by 21 percentile points. Likewise,
Hanbury, Prosser, and Rickinson (2008) conclude from their study of the impact of
professional development programs in higher education that benefits at a departmental
level were related to: developments in educational practices, enhanced profile for teaching
and learning, inter-departmental links, staff induction and mentoring. In the same way,
Chalmers and Gardiner (2015) claim, based on their extensive review of studies
concerning the impact of teacher development on teaching and learning, that “it is
possible to evidence changes in teacher understanding, knowledge, skills and practices,
and the consequential effect of these on student engagement and approaches to learning”
(p. 83).

Impact on Professors

In regard to the impact on professors, Richards and Farrell (2005) explain that

The need for ongoing renewal of professional skills and knowledge is not a reflection of
inadequate training but simply a response to the fact that not everything teachers need to
know can be provided at pre-service level, as well as the fact that the knowledge base of
teaching constantly changes. (p. 1)

Therefore, teacher development not only serves to update theoretical and practical
knowledge among educators, but it also serves as an expansion of the learning that took
place in their formal, pre-service training and education (Mizell, 2010). Hanbury et al.
(2008) also confirm, through a review of several empirical and investigative studies, that
teacher development can have positive benefits on teachers’ approaches to learning,
especially regarding a move away from teacher-centered approaches and a move towards
student-centered approaches.

Characteristics of Good Professional Development

In general, the following characteristics are considered as some of the most important for
successful, good, quality, and effective teacher and professional development.

It is connected to the particular context of the institution or program where it is

implemented.

It involves collaboration and cooperation among teachers as well as the specific

educational community.

It promotes the construction of a support system among teachers and the learning
community.

5/21
 It is planned and carried out over time in a sustainable way.

It places emphasis on the teacher as an active and reflective learner throughout the
process.

It involves active learning connected to program objectives and student learning.

(Cohen & Hill, 2001; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Diaz-
Maggioli, 2004; Generation Ready, 2013; SEDL, 1997; UNESCO, 2015)

Ultimately, “effective professional development should be understood as a job-embedded

commitment that teachers make in order to further the purposes of the profession while
addressing their own particular needs” (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004, p. 5). Teachers should,
therefore, be placed at the center of their own professional development, perceived as life-
long learners involved in activities that emphasize growth that will impact both their
short-term and long-term teaching in the classroom and overall development as
educators.

Based on the aforementioned needs and characteristics, the TPD designed was a hybrid
model that incorporated elements of both teacher development as well as teacher
training. As a hybrid model, it aimed to incorporate all the characteristics of quality
teacher development. By doing so, it worked to ensure teachers were exposed to activities
and opportunities that were directly relevant to their role as teachers in the EFL program
who were implementing the new curriculum. Likewise, the model connected with their
role as always evolving teachers in the field of education. In this way, teachers were able
to receive and share knowledge, tools, and experiences to prepare them for and involve
them in curriculum implementation while at the same time developing skills and
acquiring knowledge that would serve them in future educational contexts.

Teacher Development Models

Aiming to best incorporate the previously mentioned characteristics, teacher professional

development has, over the last 20 years, gained a lot of momentum. As Villegas-Reimers
(2003) argues: “for years, the only form of ‘professional development’ available to
teachers was ‘staff development’ or ‘in-service training,’ usually consisting of workshops
or short-term courses that would offer teachers new information on a particular aspect of
their work” (p. 11). Today, teacher professional development is rather understood as
extended and continuous improvement in which teachers should engage as they advance
in their career. It is not a one-day, one-time learning unrelated experience, but the
combination of progressive, diversified, and relevant learning that teachers gather
throughout their work in teaching contexts. Different authors have proposed models or
frameworks to guide institutions, programs, policy makers, and teachers to undertake
teacher development aimed at improving teachers’ pedagogical foundations and practices
and, therefore, improving students’ learning.

One of these authors is Guskey (2002), who places changes in students learning at the
center of effective teacher development (p. 383). In this way, student change is a
triggering factor for actual teacher change as represented by Figure 1.

6/21
Figure 1
Guskey’s Model of Teacher Change (2002, p. 383)
Guskey (2002) argues that “significant change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs occurs
primarily after they gain evidence of improvements in student learning (p. 383).”
Regardless of the nature of the teacher development process carried out, this will be
internalized by teachers when they observe evidence that their adjustments or
implementations have worked and can be observed through changes in students’ learning.
According to Guskey, without observation of these changes, teachers will make no use of
the opportunities.

Likewise, Kennedy (2005) argues that since the purpose of continuing professional
development is to empower teachers with the necessary foundations to become critical
individuals who shape their own practice, who make informed decisions in the classroom,
and who interpret policies with a critical eye, models for teacher development should be
progressively selected and implemented depending on the needs and characteristics of the
context. According to these ideas, teachers should be given the opportunity to increase
their professional autonomy moving from controlling models to more constructive-
creative ones as demonstrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Spectrum of CPD Models (Kennedy, 2005, p. 248)
The models in Figure 2 can be summarized in the following way (Kennedy, 2005, pp. 236-
237):

Transmission: The first two models in this category emphasize the teacher as being
a passive receiver of information whether it is through training carried out by an
expert (training model) or the completion of a course offered by an external
institution (award-bearing model). The last two models place more responsibility on
the teacher by asking the teacher to work on particular identified weaknesses
(deficit model) or by participating in a professional development activity and
sharing what was learned with fellow colleagues (cascade model).

7/21
 Transitional: The transitional models move away from focusing only on the teacher
and begin to involve students as well as the teaching community. The standards-
based model places importance on making empirical connections between teacher
professional development (TPD) and students’ achievement. A bit different, the
coaching/mentoring model and the community of practice model both stress
teachers’ roles in their professional community as key. In the first, more
experienced teachers are placed as mentors with less-experienced teachers. In the
second, the entire teaching community works together to achieve a common TPD
goal set by the community or institution.

Transformational: The last two models mentioned by Kennedy push teachers to

become researchers in their contexts (action-research model) and to transform
themselves as teachers (transformative model). Both models require teachers to be
aware of their practices and the conditions of their teaching-learning contexts and to
use these aspects to better themselves as teachers.

Another model for teacher development is the one proposed by Diaz-Maggioli (2004)
where teacher development is understood as a collaborative and continuous process in
which teachers are expected to enrich and strengthen their practices by analyzing
students’ needs and adjusting their teaching styles accordingly. What makes this model
different from those previously mentioned is the conscious identification of teacher’s
awareness of needs and lack of knowledge in establishing a teacher development
framework. In other words, the more aware teachers are of their lacks in knowledge and
their needs in improving teaching effectiveness, the more targeted and defined the
professional development plan can be to meet these specific needs and lacks. Figure 3
represents “the Four Quadrants of the Teacher’s Choice Framework” which guides the
design of a teacher development plan based on this model (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004).

8/21
Figure 3
The Four Quadrants of the Teacher’s Choice Framework (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004, p. 15)
According to Figure 3, there are four levels at which teachers can be placed depending on
their own analysis and reflections on their strengths and areas of improvement. For
instance, more experienced teachers, aware of their teaching foundations and context, can
mentor less experienced colleagues, or they can prepare in-house training workshops or
document their successful experiences as a point of reference for other teachers. The
experienced teachers would classify at level one while less experienced teachers, not
aware of their lacks and needs, would place at level four, with professional development
consisting of participation in in-house workshops or processes of mentoring (Diaz-
Maggioli, 2004).

In the same way, two of the most relevant factors that characterize this model are the
expected willingness teachers should have for continuous improvement and the high
value placed on collaborative work in the form of learning communities. For this model to
be successful, teachers should demonstrate an intrinsic commitment and willingness to
engage in development activities as well as a positive disposition towards collaborative
work with peers in their context.

Teacher Development and Curriculum

According to UNESCO (2015),

9/21
Curriculum change is a dynamic and challenging process, and its success depends on all
stakeholders having the capacity to develop or adopt a shared vision, positive attitudes
and commitment. Moreover, they need to develop the necessary professional
competencies in the various aspects of curriculum change. (para. 6)

Even so, there is sufficient evidence to argue that, when a new curriculum is
implemented, few teachers actually change the way they are teaching to match what the
curriculum calls for in terms of teaching practices in the classroom (Cohen & Hill, 2001;
Cuban, 1990; Hardman & A-Rahman, 2014; Sargent, 2011; Yan, 2012), whether it be due
to insufficient knowledge of the curriculum, lack of few professional development or
training opportunities (Nunan, 2003), effects of poor leadership (Brooks & Gibson, 2012),
or other contextual factors. Sargent (2011) reports on a study in China that looked at the
effects of curriculum renewal on teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices, educational
structures, and learning outcomes. Although teachers were utilizing some of the teaching
methods required for the new curriculum to be effectively implemented, in the analysis of
classroom practices post-curriculum implementation, data showed that there was still
frequent use of traditional teaching methods such as memorization and recitation and
lecture style teaching. Consequentially, professional development and training
opportunities, such as peer observations, local trainings and workshops, research
activities, and learning communities, for teachers were considered prerequisites to a
successful implementation of the new curriculum proposed.

In order to reduce teacher resistance and better prepare teachers to implement a new
curriculum, UNESCO (2015) focuses on the idea of capacity building: “The process of
assisting an individual or group to gain insights, knowledge and experiences needed to
solve problems and implement change” (para. 7). Capacity building activities, then, work
to both inform all parties involved of the curriculum to be implemented through the
improvement and development of necessary competencies and also to change the
attitudes and perceptions of those teachers who may oppose the curriculum change.
Through capacity building activities, teachers and teacher educators should be able to:

understand their changing roles as curriculum changes;

comprehend curriculum objectives and national curriculum standards;

master subject matter and pedagogical skills to deliver subject-specific content;

have a positive attitude to curriculum change and be an agent of change;

break down isolation and develop team spirit;

engage in continued professional learning and development. (UNESCO, 2015, para.

10)

Capacity building activities can include: training sessions, workshops, follow-up activities,
and observations on which feedback is received, and so on, which in the best case scenario
make up part of a customized teacher development program that meets the contextual

10/21
needs of the educational institution and its community (teachers, learners,
administrators, local community, etc.) (UNESCO, 2015).

In a study carried out with teachers in California, Cohen and Hill (2001) found that
teacher development related to new curriculum and policy implementation was more
effective when it focused on activities aimed at developing pedagogical strategies directly
related to the curriculum and involved materials that could be used with the curriculum in
question rather than activities that focused on generalized pedagogical strategies or
materials. In the same way, according to a study in Canada, teachers involved in the
implementation of a new curriculum acknowledge the importance and the positive impact
curriculum-linked professional development can have (Brooks & Gibson, 2012).

Similarly, when incorporating elements of the new curriculum into teacher development
activities, Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007) highlight the advantages of
having teachers work collaboratively and participate as a group to foster a system of trust
and support as they navigate the new curriculum together. Teachers in Brooks and
Gibson’s (2012) study also highlighted the importance of having this support system and
collegial community as they engaged in professional development for new curriculum
implementation.

Throughout the process of designing and implementing the TPD for the EFL program in
question, capacity building was a key element in designing and carrying out activities and
affording experiences to participating teachers. Likewise, the curriculum design team was
conscious of engaging teachers in collaborative activities as well as using elements of the
newly designed curriculum in as many of the teacher development activities as possible.
This aimed to ensure teacher exposure to and experience with the curriculum before and
during its implementation in order to provide teachers with more personalized and
relevant skills and tools together with a network of peer support.

Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

Bearing in mind the various models of teacher development in existence, one can see that
the model of teacher development program for curriculum renewal designed here does
not limit itself to any one model, but rather incorporates elements of various models such
as the training and coaching/mentoring models mentioned by Kennedy (2005), Guskey’s
(2002) student centered model, and Diaz-Maggioli’s (2004) teacher-centered model in
order to create a model that could more effectively meet the needs of the institution,
program, teachers, and students. It is a curriculum renewal-linked professional
development program that focuses on “how to enact pedagogical strategies, use materials,
and administer assessments associated with particular curricula” (Penuel et al., 2007, p.
928).

In this way, the model being described here combines and integrates elements of various
models and aims to find an adequate balance between teacher-centered and context-
specific teacher development in such a way that teachers are able to expand their formal
knowledge, engage in job-embedded learning opportunities, participate in reflective

11/21
teaching activities, and carry out transformative practice, all of which address both the
immediate needs related to the new curriculum as well as the short and long-term
professional needs of teachers.

Process of Designing Teacher Development Program

In designing the curriculum renewal linked teacher development program, the following
steps were followed:

1. 1. Execution of a two-pronged needs analysis with teachers and students

2. 2. Exploration of existing frameworks for curriculum implementation
3. 3. Creation of objectives for the teacher development framework
4. 4. Choice and design of teacher development activities
5. 5. Confirmation of final program design
6. 6. Implementation of TPD

Structure of Teacher Development Program

In order to achieve the general objectives set forth, the teacher development for
curriculum renewal program included a variety of capacity building activities:

EFL program meetings with all teachers in the program

Introductory curriculum open houses

Teacher-led meetings

In-house workshops

Teacher presentations of their best practices

Workshops by textbook authors

Workshops by international experts

Reflective article discussions

Teacher observations and feedback sessions

Overall, the program was organized in such a way that every semester began and ended
with a general, but tailored activity for all teachers as well as in a way that allowed for
constant and individualized activities throughout the semester.

Types of Activities Used in the Program

In order to provide teachers with as many opportunities as possible to prepare them for
and guide them through curriculum implementation, a variety of activities were included
in the TPD including both teacher-led as well as expert-led activities.

12/21
First, information sessions were included in the program at several moments, used
principally to share important and succinct information with teachers and the
institutional community. These sessions were mostly occupied with presenters explaining
and presenting information to teachers with some time allotted for short question and
answer sessions.

Likewise, there were many workshops included throughout the teacher development
program. Richards and Farrell (2005) describe workshops as “one of the most powerful
and effective forms of teacher-development activity” (p. 25) as they allow and create ideal
spaces for receiving input from expert, exploring practical classroom applications,
increasing teachers’ motivation, developing collegiality, supporting innovation, being
flexible in terms of organization, and functioning in short-term time frames. Aware of
these benefits, the program implemented several types of workshops, designed both
internally and externally. Internally designed workshops included those that were:
institutional led, teacher led, and curriculum design team led, while externally designed
workshops included those that were led by invited textbook authors, skills experts, and
teacher development experts in the EFL field.

At the same time, there were several reflective type sessions incorporated into the teacher
development program as spaces for teachers to be exposed to learning moments that
focused on reflection and discussion with colleagues guided by an internal colleague
and/or an external expert where reflection was seen as “the process through which
teachers comprehend and learn from their teaching experiences and assign significance to
their teaching practices” (Zhao, 2012, p. 57). All of these sessions aimed to encourage
teachers to reflect critically on their practices in the classroom both during and after the
curriculum implementation.

In the same way, several opportunities for both individual teacher observations as well as
peer observations were included in the program. Individual teachers were observed by
curriculum design team members and also by their level coordinators in the program, not
to evaluate their teaching, but to observe how the new curriculum was being implemented
and identify any areas that might need attention. These observations helped to assure that
the needs of teachers in the early stages of curriculum implementation were continued to
be met within the TPD.

Peer observations are

collaborative, developmental activit[ies] in which professionals offer mutual support by

observing each other teach; explaining and discussing what was observed; sharing ideas
about teaching; gathering student feedback on teaching effectiveness; reflecting on
understandings, feelings, actions and feedback and trying out new ideas. (Bell as cited in
Bell & Mladenovic, 2008, p. 736)

They can help create a sense of community among teachers by allowing them to give and
receive support from their colleagues, which is important for teachers involved in new
curriculum implementation (Brooks & Gibson, 2012). All of the peer observations carried
out in this TPD were designed for developmental purposes rather than evaluative, just as

13/21
the individual teacher observations, which were to try and lower resistance to
observations as well as avoid any possible negative perceptions of this process (Lomas &
Nicholls, 2005). Likewise, peer observations were used in a way similar to those in Bell
and Mladenovic’s study (2008), which allowed teachers to discuss the observations and
any challenges related to them in a collaborative and supportive environment.

Overall, the activities included in the TPD were based on the curriculum to be
implemented as this connection makes the professional development more meaningful
and helpful (Brooks & Gibson, 2012).

Table 1 shows the TPD designed and implemented with activities and objectives according
to the phase during which they were carried out: pre-implementation, implementation, or
post-curriculum implementation.

Table 1

Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

Table 1 (Cont.)

Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

14/21
Table 1 (Cont.)

Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

Table 1 (Cont.)

Teacher Development Program Linked to Curriculum Renewal

15/21
Impact in the EFL Program

In many cases, institutions and programs bring in external experts to implement TPDs or
activities (Kennedy, 2005). However, in the case of this TPD, the institution created the
framework internally, relying primarily on local teachers and staff to design and
implement development activities and counted on external experts on very few occasions.

With the use of this model, the institution was not only able to directly prepare its
professors for the curriculum renewal, but was also able to observe a variety of positive
effects related to the implementation of the teacher development program linked to
curriculum renewal.

The major positive effects of the TPD observed were: increased consistency in curriculum
implementation by teachers, increased understanding of new professional and practical
roles of teachers within the new curriculum, and a new vision of coordination meetings
within the program.

In terms of the impact on teachers, one of the most important effects observed was the
alignment of teachers’ understanding and implementation of the new curriculum. At the
same time, and perhaps more importantly, teachers’ conceptualization and practice of
their role within said curriculum also became clearer. Both of these effects were noted in
the observations carried out as part of the framework as well as in formal and informal
feedback sessions with teachers. Not only did teachers feel they better understood how to
teach within the new curriculum, but they also felt more comfortable in their role as
teachers. Below are a few comments from teachers on a questionnaire administered in the
curriculum feedback sessions that reflect the impact the TPD had on them:

I am getting familiar with this new methodology and I find it an enriching

experience.

16/21
 It’s good when as a teacher your teaching practice is enriching and have wonderful
opportunity to share ideas and opinions from your coordinator and colleagues
teaching the same level.

I learned new strategies to isolate the skills.

I think this is a worthwhile experience that has contributed enormously to my

professional development.

This was a great semester of growth for me as a teacher.

Similarly, through the implementation of this model, teachers became more conscious of
the local and contextual curricular and teacher development needs that had been
identified together with those needs that were being met through the new curriculum
itself. This awareness of needs was generated specifically through the involvement of
professors in the construction of the TPD and the activities that it involved. In a focus
group at the end of the first semester of curriculum implementation, teachers concluded:

This approach [to curriculum implementation] considers different learning styles,

highlighting areas that one is most experienced in and challenging you to work on
those areas where you have difficulty.

The curriculum implementation has represented a challenge for teachers in that it

obligates them to rethink their teaching methodology and strengthen their own
weaknesses in the skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) to better favor an
integral learning experience for students.

Likewise, in the end of semester program evaluation focus groups, informal feedback
sessions with coordinators, and wrap-up questionnaires after the implementation of the
development framework, teachers expressed the feeling that one of the strengths of the
program had become the professional development activities and support for teachers
offered by the program. Professors also commented that, due to the program, they were
exposed to a constant process of evaluation and self-evaluation focused on improvement
in their teaching practice. These comments demonstrate the positive effects the
framework had on teachers’ perceptions of the program they work in as well as the
program’s concern for their professional growth.

In the same way, the TPD developed initiated positive changes in the overall structure of
the coordination and faculty meetings carried out not only for the EFL program, but for
the language institute as well. Thanks to the changes within the TPD, level coordination
meetings were strengthened and took on a more practical, collaborative, and reflective
focus where coordinators and teachers not only discussed important information but also
shared ideas and challenges, reflected on ways to improve the level, and worked on
collaborative projects.

Conclusions

17/21
The teacher development program linked to curriculum renewal designed and presented
in this paper represents one EFL program’s attempt to prepare teachers for implementing
a new curriculum, make the implementation more successful, and, at the same time,
engage teachers in professional development activities and opportunities. While no TPD
is perfect and can cover everything, through the careful combination and integration of
key aspects of various models of teacher and professional development, institutions and
programs can design and implement models that best meet their local and contextual
needs to generate positive change among faculty, students, programs, and even the
institution at large.

References

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., Nunan, D., & Fan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development:
The self as source. Beijing, CN: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor
development. Higher Education, 55(6), 735-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-
9093-1.

Brooks, C., & Gibson, S. E. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on the effectiveness of a locally
planned professional development program for implementing new curriculum. Teacher
Development, 16(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2012.667953.

Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the
effectiveness and impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 46, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.002.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.
New Haven, US: Yale University Press.
https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300089479.001.0001.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019001003.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081.

Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria, US:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Evans, L. (2002). What is teacher development? Oxford Review of Education, 28(1), 123-
137. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980120113670.

18/21
Generation Ready. (2013). Raising student achievement through professional
development [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.generationready.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/PD-White-Paper.pdf.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and

Teaching, 8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.

Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M. (2008). The differential impact of UK
accredited teaching development programmes on academics’ approaches to teaching.
Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469-483.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211844.

Hardman, J., & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English
curriculum in Malaysia. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 27(3), 260-277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.980826.

Heystek, J., & Terhoven, R. (2015). Motivation as critical factor for teacher development
in contextually challenging underperforming schools in South Africa. Professional
Development in Education, 41(4), 624-639.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.940628.

Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for

analysis. Journal of In-service Education, 31(2), 235-250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580500200277.

Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of
teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137-149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500175118.

Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Oxford, US: Learning Forward.
Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web.pdf.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and
practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588214.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, A., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221.

Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers:
Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667237.

Sargent, T. C. (2011). New curriculum reform implementation and the transformation of

educational beliefs, practices, and structures: A case study of Gansu Province. Chinese
Education and Society, 44(6), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932440604.

19/21
SEDL. (1997). Professional development for language teachers implementing the Texas
essential knowledge and skills for languages other than English. Austin, US: Texas
Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/loteced/products/profdev.pdf.

UNESCO. (2015). Training tools for curriculum development: A resource pack (Module
6). Retrieved from
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/COPs/Pages_documents/Resource_
Packs/TTCD/sitemap/Module_6/Module_6.html.

Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review

of the literature. Paris, FR: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Yan, C. (2012). “We can only change in a small way”: A study of secondary English
teachers’ implementation of curriculum reform in China. Journal of Educational Change,
13(4), 431-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9186-1.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2007 - No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Zhao, M. (2012). Teachers’ professional development from the perspective of teaching

reflection levels. Chinese Education and Society, 45(4), 56-67.
https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932450404.

Author notes

* Erica Ferrer Ariza is a teacher-coordinator of the MA in English language teaching

program at the Universidad del Norte. Her research interests include curriculum
development and discourse analysis. She holds a BA in Education (Universidad de
Atlántico, Colombia) and an MA in language teaching and learning (University of
Liverpool, UK).

** Paige M. Poole holds an MA in TESOL studies (University of Leeds, England). She

currently works as the coordinator of the specialized English programs and is a teacher in
the English for international relations program at Universidad del Norte.

Additional information

How to cite this article (APA, 6th ed.): Ferrer Ariza, E., & Poole, P. M. (2018). Creating a
teacher development program linked to curriculum renewal. Profile: Issues in Teachers’
Professional Development, 20(2), 249-266.
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67937.

20/21
21/21