A Grassroots EFL Teacher Development Group:

A case study of the Korean English Teachers’ Group

Hye-sun Cho

ABSTRACT

Teacher development groups represent one type of professional development strategy that could generate change in teaching practice. Many researchers have emphasized the facilitative role of such groups in the development of teachers’ self-awareness and professionalism (e.g., Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Head & Taylor, 1997; Underhill, 1992). However, this topic has been primarily examined in North American school contexts (e.g., Birchak et al, 1998; Clair, 1998), and relatively little attention has been paid, either conceptually or empirically, to the study of teacher development groups in other cultural contexts.

The present study investigated the practices of a grassroots professional organization for secondary school English teachers in South Korea. The Korean English Teachers’ Group (KETG) is an example of teacher collaboration at the national level. Since it was founded in 1988, the KETG has drawn South Korean English teachers together to explore the implications of changes in their own educational settings, and in turn, to meet the enormous demands of educational reforms in support of effective English teaching.

A case-study design was used to gather in-depth descriptions of working groups of teachers, their relationships to one another, and their beliefs about the KETG. Observations of the qualities and features of the KETG at their meetings and workshops were made during the summer of 2000. In order to gain a more complete picture of the teacher development group, in-depth interviews with teacher participants were conducted, and documents and published materials were examined. This case study of the KETG explores how a nationwide teacher development group takes shape and develops, and what influences it has on teachers’ practices. The present study also reveals that there are considerable constraints that hinder the productivity of the group. The overall findings of the present study suggest long-term implications for the general use of a nationwide teacher development group. They include: (1) to recognize development as a self-directed move; (2) to provide a process for on-going professional growth; (3) to establish study groups and maintaining them; (4) to build community and relationships; and (5) to seek out support from the government.

KETG members still have a great deal to learn about the conditions in which internal and external interventions can take root and thrive. Nevertheless, the KETG appears to be a new paradigm of teacher development, depending as it does on teachers behaving as managers of their own learning in the nationwide context.

Introduction

Educational innovations fail more often than they succeed, and one of the many reasons for this is a lack of support for teachers in implementing the new curriculum, pedagogy or procedures. When national education systems attempt educational change, it is natural for them to try to ameliorate the new situation by providing knowledge and skills, particularly in the form of top-down in-service training. It is less common, indeed extremely rare, for teachers to provide these by themselves, at their own initiative (Bascia, 1999). In South Korea, secondary school English teachers have felt the need for professional development to meet the enormous demands of education reforms in support of effective English teaching in recent years. To this end, the Korean English Teachers’ Group (KETG) was founded by Korean teachers of English to meet the needs of the teachers who wanted to explore issues and challenges in their classrooms. The KETG is an example of teacher collaboration at the national level, drawing secondary school English teachers together to share a common purpose—to improve the quality of teaching for Korean learners of English as a foreign language (EFL).

In this study, I describe and analyze this twelve-year-old teacher development group with a case study method, and draw implications for the larger context of teacher development groups. I first review selected theoretical concepts for teacher development and the roles of a teacher development group as a professional development strategy. Secondly, I discuss English teachers’ working conditions in Korean secondary schools, and my personal assumptions about teacher development groups. Thirdly, in the methodology section, I explain how the target research group was studied, and how the data were analyzed. I then present and discuss my findings. Finally, I conclude the paper with several implications for the general use of teacher development groups.

Theoretical Background

What is teacher development?

Even though the idea of ‘teacher development’ has different meanings in different contexts, and operates from a variety of implicit and explicit beliefs and value bases (Guskey & Huberman, 1994; Head & Taylor, 1997; Kremer-Hayon, Vonk, & Fessler, 1993; Underhill, 1992), the proposition is widely held that teachers should grow throughout their lifetime, personally and professionally. Guskey and Huberman (1994) present a broad definition: professional development as “a personal journey to find appreciation and meaning in one’s work” (p. 4), as influenced by social-psychological and institutional factors. Writing with EFL contexts in mind, Finocchiaro (1988) similarly defines teacher development as teachers’ growing throughout their lifetime. More specifically, she describes four arenas in which EFL teachers might develop themselves: (1) increasing awareness of their own strengths and perhaps weaknesses (which can be overcome); (2) having more positive attitudes toward themselves, their students, their colleagues and supervisors, their communities, the needs of their country and of other countries; (3) deepening knowledge of the social and personality factors of their students that can influence learning, of the content of their discipline as well as of the culture and literature of English-speaking countries; and (4) enhancing skills needed to present, practice, and appreciate the language system, literature, and culture of the target language with enthusiasm and clarity while instilling social, moral, ethical, and cultural values in their learners. (p. 2) (See Freeman, 1989, for further discussions of these four constituents of language teaching.)

In conceptualizations of teacher development, there is a long-standing tradition of distinguishing two facets: teacher training and teacher development (e.g., Edge, 1988; Freeman, 1982, 1989; Head & Taylor, 1997; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Swan, 1993). According to Brock (1997), teacher training occurs when the teacher trainer directly intervenes in the teaching process and directs the trainee toward some specific measurable goal. He states, “the goal of training is to assure that trainees are competent in using these components of teaching in certain observable and quantifiable ways” (Brock, 1997, p. 73). Training is based on an assumption that teachers will improve their effectiveness in teaching through mastering of discrete aspects of skills and knowledge, commonly within a specified period of time (Freeman, 1989). Freeman (1989) also cautioned that an overemphasis on training activities could lead to formulaic teaching, the kind that applies the same teaching strategies, activities, and solutions in every situation. An emphasis on training may also cause the trainees to feel defensive and can even take from them the power to decide how and what to teach.

Teacher development, on the other hand, is a strategy of influence that works on complex, integrated aspects of teaching. It is concerned with assisting teachers in exploring, developing, and reflecting on their teaching (Head & Taylor, 1997, p.4). Its purpose is for the teacher to generate change through increasing or shifting awareness and attitude (Freeman, 1989). Unlike training, development takes a holistic view rather than an analytical view of teaching. It should activate teachers’ awareness, that is, an acute sensitivity to how one’s own teaching affects students and the classroom environment. It is can be summarized that effective features of teacher development include personal growth and the development of attitudes and insights (Guskey & Huberman, 1994); voluntary; part of on-going process (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 1998; Eraut, 1994; Lieberman, 1995); awareness-based (Freeman, 1982, 1989; Pennington, 1992); in an atmosphere of collegial support and professional respect (Guskey, 1994; Little, 1982); which takes place at the point of implementation (Thiessen, 1992); and which involves an approach changing in a gradual and incremental fashion, not expecting too much at one time (Guskey, 1994; Fullan, 1982, 1985; Sparks, 1983).

What is the role of a group in teacher development?

Teacher development takes place in many different forms. It can be initiated and enhanced by a variety of procedures, such as keeping teaching journals (Bailey et al., 1998); videotaping one’s own class (Wallace, 1991); developing teacher portfolios (Johnson, 1996; Wolfe-Quintero & Brown, 1998); peer observation (Silliman & Wilkinson, 1991), and so on. Teacher development groups represent one type of professional development strategy that could generate change in teaching practice. Head and Taylor (1997) define the teacher development groups as “any form of co-operative and ongoing arrangement between two or more teachers to work together on their own personal and professional development” (p. 91).

There are a number of reasons that groups can be more effective than individuals, both in initiating change for growth and in maintaining it. Teachers do not develop their strategies and styles of teaching entirely by themselves. They learn a great deal from contact with other teachers in their own school or beyond. Many researchers have emphasized the facilitative role of groups in the development of teachers’ self-awareness and professionalism (e.g., Guskey & Huberman, 1994; Head & Taylor, 1997; Underhill, 1992). As Crammer (1996) indicates, groups provide an important structure for gaining autonomy and a major means for growing professionally while building communities of teachers and providing avenues for self-actualization. Models of teaching which focus on an inclusive and differentiated pedagogy also involve collaborative working as a key element which interacts with teacher development and the management of change (Clark, Dyson, Millward, & Skidmore, 1997).

The reasons given for organizing teacher development groups generally fall into two categories: professional growth and collegial support. First, teachers can enhance their professional growth in collaboration with their colleagues, both formally and informally, within a school or outside of it. (See Creese, Norwich, & Daniels, 2000.) Teachers need one another in order to stay informed and to remain on the cutting edge of knowledge and practice (Watson & Stevenson, 1989). Groups can provide greater result of efforts, use of diverse expertise, broader perspective and greater visibility (Senge, 1990). They can also involve the teaching of a specific skill, which for Armour’s (1985) teacher network was writing, for instance. Secondly, a group of people with similar ideas and objectives can provide a caring and supportive environment where teachers can build up self-esteem and feel positive about the possibilities for personal and professional development. For many groups that have formed in order to give collegial support to their members, an important issue is teacher burnout (Oliphant, 1995, p.3). Teacher groups can function as a practical and therapeutic tool to minimize teacher burnout. (See Kirk & Walter, 1981.) The feeling of being isolated from other teachers can be overcome by participating in teacher groups and sharing their concerns and problems they encountered in their classrooms.

Such groups are referred by many different names, which often reflect the focus of the group, e.g., teacher development groups (Head & Taylor, 1997; Plumb, 1988); teacher groups (Wolff & Vera, 1989); teacher support groups (Kirk & Walter, 1981; Watson & Bixy, 1994; Watson & Stevenson, 1989); collegial support groups (Paquette, 1987); teacher study groups (Birchak et al., 1998; Boggs, 1996; Clair, 1998; Fishbaugh & Hecimovic, 1994; Joys, Murphy, Showers, & Murphy, 1989; Matlin & Short, 1991; Meyer, 1996); teachers’ network (Armour, 1985); teachers’ support network (Raiser, 1987); teacher support teams (Creese et al., 2000); and critical friends groups (Dunne & Honts, 1998). For the purpose of this paper, the terms teacher development groups and teacher groups will be used interchangeably.

Background to the Research

The context of English teachers’ working conditions in South Korea

Generally speaking, like teachers in other parts of the world, teachers in South Korea have a demanding, high-stress work situation, and do not have favorable working conditions and opportunities for personal and professional growth. Rather, they usually work under conditions of low autonomy, with little influence over strategic decisions including evaluation of students’ performance, few opportunities for collaboration with

colleagues, and minimal positive incentives such as promotion or financial benefits.[1]

In particular, secondary school English teachers in South Korea are have required to have high level of expertise and skills as a result of the recent government policy emphasizing the importance of English teaching. Since the late 1980s, the South Korean government has placed English learning and teaching high on its agenda to ensure that South Korea will play an active and important role in world political and economic activities (Li, 1998). The government, the media and parents blame the poor quality of English language education in Korea for the lack of English proficiency of Koreans. Their criticism has specifically focused on the lack of proficiency of English teachers. Consequently, the pressure and burden on South Korean English teachers have been greatly increasing in recent years.

Personal predisposition for a teacher development group

The original idea for the present study came from my own experiences of professional growth through contact with the KETG. During my four and a half years of teaching at the secondary level in Korea as a full-time English teacher, I benefited from its supplementary materials, books, and newsletters that had a lot of practical tips for my class. When I was struggling with writing supplementary materials on my own, I found the KETG materials greatly helpful for improving my own teaching practice and developing pedagogical ideas to make my classroom an exciting and lively learning environment. Not only was I grateful for their effort, but I also wanted to investigate what factors were involved in keeping this teacher group growing despite the many obvious challenges encountered by teachers in Korean secondary classrooms.

In addition, my participation in a number of in-service programs gave me an opportunity to acknowledge the value of teacher collaboration as a seedbed for teacher effectiveness. I had many chances to talk with other teachers, and found that I was not alone feeling isolated and thus pursuing collaboration to explore the challenges I had encountered in the classroom. My experience has been that the psychological climate that facilitates teacher development is characterized by caring, understanding, trust, and support along with a shared commitment to the process of intentional development (cf. Underhill, 1992). Such an atmosphere helped me to feel secure and to be willing to reciprocate in supporting the developmental efforts of other teachers.

Purpose of the Study

Although interest in teacher development groups has been increasing considerably in recent years, little is known about how such development groups are formed, what they focus on, and how they are sustained. Moreover, while a limited amount of empirical research on teacher development groups has been conducted, this topic has primarily been examined in Northern American school contexts (e.g., Birchak et al., 1998; Boggs, 1996; Clair, 1998, Fishbaugh & Hecimovic, 1994; Meyer, 1996; Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, 1995). Relatively little attention has been paid, either theoretically or empirically, to teacher development groups in other social, cultural contexts. In order to bridge such a gap, it can be worthwhile to examine the nature of a teacher development group in a different context, like South Korea.

In addition, the teacher group in this study is novel in that it is a unique example of a nationwide “bottom-up professional development” (Bascia, 1999, p. 7) organization, designed to give support and assistance to secondary school EFL teachers. As opposed to other professional organizations of Korean English teachers that were originally initiated and maintained by the top-down forces (e.g., the Ministry of Education, district administrators, school administrators), the teacher development group in the present study is an exemplary case of a grassroots professional movement of EFL teachers.

The present study aimed to examine systematically the practices of the Korean EFL secondary teachers’ group so as to contribute to theoretical understandings of the concept of a teacher development group. Not only is this paper a descriptive account of the Korean teachers’ group, but it also hopes to draw some implications for more general use. The research questions for the study included: What are the factors that have made the KETG grow? What influences does the KETG have on Korean EFL teachers? What constraints does the KETG face in the process of developing and sustaining itself? What implications for a nationwide teacher group can be drawn from the examination and analysis of this teacher development group? In this way, the teacher development group being studied addresses a significant but neglected, area of teacher development that has the potential to improve the quality of classroom teaching practice.

Furthermore, through the process of my research on this teacher group, I hoped to empower my research informants (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p.38), by engaging them in dialogue with one another to reflect critically on the pervasive nature of the group and their activities. My belief is that reporting on the teacher development group could help the teacher participants recognize the value of teacher collaboration through this exemplary case and also could draw some implications for other context where teachers expect to encounter similar challenges in their teaching practice.

Method

Based on the ideas of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), the investigative mode of choice was a case study. The case study design allowed for the gathering of in-depth descriptions of working groups of teachers, their relationships to one another, and their beliefs about a teacher development group. The findings of a case study cannot be easily generalized beyond the particular case; rather, they provide a highly contextualized understanding of complex interactions of organizational and individual variables in the given context. By providing ‘thick description’ so necessary for judgements of transferability, hopefully, these insights can, in turn, lead to a deeper understanding of community-building efforts at other sites.[2]

In terms of my role as a researcher, my own status as an insider gave me a head start in understanding the emic contextual features as well as provided an easier point of entry for researching the world of Korean secondary school EFL teachers. Not only was my status greatly beneficial to getting site entrée and to making contacts, but it helped me establish and maintain good rapport with the teacher participants. I believe that this relationship encouraged intimacy and perhaps more “in-depth” data compared to one with a researcher who has little knowledge and insight into the Korean secondary EFL context.

The research site

The Korean English Teachers’ Group (KETG) is a nationwide teacher professional organization for secondary school EFL teachers in South Korea. Founded by eight secondary English teachers in Seoul in the summer of 1988, it originally started as a professional book discussion group. Its first ‘office’ was a small table in the living room of a teacher’s home. The teachers got together over the weekend and discussed professional books or sets of articles mainly focused on educational philosophy and sociology. Not only did this small group of teachers discuss overt ideological content in the textbook (e.g., the social and cultural values, beliefs, knowledge, and understanding coding in the EFL texts), but they also were sensitive to social-political issues, such as democratic movement in South Korea.

All the teachers in the group were teachers’ labor union activists who strongly believed in exerting teachers’ collective power in the decision-making process of educational policy. As a result, the group had to go through difficult times when the South Korean government suppressed teachers’ movement for creating a teacher’s union in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. During this turbulent social educational movement, over 1,500 teachers were fired, and some of them even went to jail. Inevitably, some of the KETG members had to go through those sufferings. (See Ahn 1996, for the Korean teachers’ union’s history.)

With the legalization of the Chonkyojo [3] in July 1999, the KETG has emerged as a national grassroots professional organization of Korean secondary school English teachers. Its membership is estimated at approximately 1,900 as of March 2001.[4] The membership is mainly secondary school English classroom teachers, but also includes a small number of university professors and graduate students. The steering committee consists of five teams—Editing, Internet, Development, Advertisement, and Membership. Eight teachers, who are all practitioners in secondary schools in Seoul, form the steering committee, along with a full-time office worker who helps the administrative and financial management. In July 2001, the office of the KETG—where teachers have weekly steering committee meetings and hold seminars for newly forming teacher study groups—was located in a commercial building in the southern part of Seoul. The KETG does not have an office of their own, but shares a room with other subject-matter teacher groups. The Chonkyojo pays the rent for the office, as the KETG participates in the Chonkyojo. The KETG is not, however, vertically attached to the Chonkyojo. It belongs to the Association of Subject-matter Teachers,[5] which is one of the union’s subgroups.

There are eight local study groups within the KETG. Each study group is

organized on a topic-by-topic basis (e.g., grammar teaching, activities for high school students, teaching reading, teaching listening). As of March 2001, another three new study groups were emerging (Internet team, Group for reading materials development,

and Group for new/novice teachers). Each study group is self-governing, but retains strong ties to the KETG. Those KETG-affiliated groups are focused on their own interest, and the groups’ coordinators work in collaboration with the KETG to prepare for workshops and publications.

The Research Center for English Language Teaching is a brand new organization within the KETG. The Center, launched on July 8, 2000, consists of secondary school teachers as well as university professors. In order to make a bridge between practice and theory, the Center members, mainly former KETG steering committee teachers, busy themselves with a variety of activities that will influence English teaching in Korean secondary schools. Among them are efforts towards promulgation of goals for secondary English teaching, data gathering (studies and surveys of status and practice), curriculum development, and textbook writing. Those activities have been considered to be difficult for the KETG members to perform because of their limited human and material resources. Given the challenges and possibilities facing the KETG, the new research group seemed to come at a propitious time. (See Appendix A, for the structure of the KETG.)

Data collection

Systematic triangulation of the data was conducted to help insure the dependability of the interpretations. Triangulation was accomplished through the use of various data collection methods as follows: (1) observations of the group at the meetings and workshops they held; (2) in-depth interviews with teacher participants about their disposition and belief about teacher development and the KETG; and (3) gathering of documents and publishing materials related to the KETG.

My first observation of a KETG steering committee weekly meeting occurred in mid-May 2000. At the first stage of my investigation, I e-mailed and telephoned some lead teachers in the committee to ask for their permission to conduct the research and solicit their cooperation. One of my college classmates, who was working as a steering committee member, helped me in this process of negotiating entry by informing me of how to approach other teachers in the committee. With the oral consent of the teachers, I started to observe their steering committee weekly meetings. The first day of a site visit was looked upon as ‘getting to know each other,’ with my conferring with each participating teacher about such matters as my personal motivations and goals of the present study, my teaching experiences, confidentiality of participants, and so on. My observations also extended to teacher development sessions and informal get-

togethers among teachers throughout thirteen weeks from May to August 2000.

Observation took different forms at different stages of the inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 p. 275). Early on, the observation was unstructured; a stage of immersion in order to permit me to bring to consciousness, to expand my tacit knowledge, and to develop some sense of what was salient. Later, the observations became more focused as insights and information grew. I took written field notes, but decided not to tape-record the weekly meetings because the teachers would feel intruded upon by the audio taping equipment. I tried to make every effort to observe their meetings in a natural, unobtrusive, and non-threatening manner (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 35). However, I sometimes had a chance to contribute to the group discussions based on my experiences of teaching and studying in my graduate program when they wanted to listen to my perspectives on the topics discussed.

In addition to my observations, I interviewed seven teacher participants (three males and four females) in the committee and their sub-groups about their dispositions and beliefs about the KETG in order to explore their norms and behaviors that had contributed to the formation and maintenance of professional relationships in their group. The interviews were semi-structured, but allowing me as the interviewer sufficient freedom to digress and probe far beyond the answers to the prepared questions (Berg,

1989, p. 17). They mostly lasted one hour to two hours. Asking these individuals to map and explain their attitudes toward and involvement with the KETG provided historical and contextual background of their perspectives for the group. The interviews also helped me identify events, beliefs, practices, norms, and behaviors that had impeded professional growth. I audio-taped all the interviews with the oral consent of the interviewees. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed in full.

More informal gatherings, such as dinners with the committee teachers after the meetings, enabled me to explore deeper layers of information comfortably. These interviews were often like “a conversation between friends” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 94), as in many participant-observation studies,[6] as I knew the participants through interacting with them before interviewing. The interviews began with small talk. Most teachers in the steering committee expressed their strong interest in my background (academic and career) and my graduate studies in an American university. They wanted to know about the possibility of financial aid for studying aboard and a leave from the district.[7] I provided as much information as I could, and at the same time, was able to realize and explore how highly motivated the teachers were for further personal and professional development. Also, I interviewed five English teachers who participated in the KETG summer workshops and three teachers who did not attend the workshops, but subscribed to the KETG publications. These interviews and my observations of the group’s activities served as the primary data sources for the present study.[8]

Data collection oriented to a more macro-perspective mainly involved gathering of their documents (e.g., planning strategies, brochures, newsletters, survey questionnaires, and meeting agendas) related to: the organization and activities of the KETG; efforts to promote collegiality and a sense of community among the members; and plans for revamping the process by which decisions are made.

Data analysis

Data analysis took place throughout the data collection procedure through a recursive process: cycling between refining strategies for data collection and thinking about the data I had already collected. As suggested by Bogdan & Biklen (1998), Ely (1991) and many other qualitative researchers, data analysis began immediately after my first observation of a KETG weekly committee meeting. The first stage of data analysis involved careful coding of all interview data and my field notes. The coding categories developed initially before and during the study, and then were refined for the purpose of the present study. Comprehensive analysis involved an iterative process of reducing, displaying, explaining, and verifying the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.215).

With the strategy of analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Miles & Huberman, 1994), I repeatedly read through the transcripts of the interview data, my field notes, and the KETG related documents during and after the data collection. I then created a visual representation that highlighted patterns or relationships among the codes. This draft of a conceptual map enabled me to identify and note recurrent, salient themes with regard to prospects and problems of the KETG. I also presented a research-in-progress paper at a conference within the university I was attending and an international conference on language teacher education for feedback and critique.

Findings

Factors for the improvement of the KETG

Most of all, what attributes have affected the improvement of this teacher group can be of great interest to other teachers and researchers. Data from my observations and interviews indicate the KETG appears to have both internal and external factors involving in the process of developing teachers’ professionalism.

Internal factors

Sustained improvement of the KETG has been achieved only with the remarkable investment of energy and commitment of core teachers within the KETG. Given that only approximately 40 teachers among 1900 teachers with KETG membership are actively involved in the KETG subgroups as of February 2001 (ER, March 2, 2001),[9] the dedications of those teachers deserve recognition for the maintenance and development of the KETG. Two noticeable phenomena within the group dynamics are close relationships of core teachers and influences of a charismatic head teacher.

Close relationships of core teachers

As indicated in many empirical studies on teacher collaboration in relatively small school-based teacher groups (see e.g., Birchak et al., 1998; Boggs, 1996), the healthy community encourages individual involvement in the pursuit of shared purpose. In other words, positive collegial relationships can play a significant role in fostering teachers’ professional growth (Little, 1982). Avoiding a judgmental, acrimonious relationship among teacher participants and building a strong network of moral support within a group are the keys to the success of teacher development groups (e.g., Birchak et al., 1998; Ceese et al., 2000; Farrell, 1998).

Similarly, my observations of the KETG meetings and interviews with the members reveal that strong personal bonds among the KETG core teachers were crucial factors to keep them together and move forward despite all the challenges faced by the teachers. Most teacher participants were both close friends and mutual informal work collaborators. They shared their concerns about personal as well as professional issues, and some of them have been long-time close friends since their college years. In fact, those personal ties were important springboards for the establishment of the KETG:

“Most of us have already known one another very well since our college days,” Tae-hwan Kim, one of the eight teachers who founded the teacher group said. “We had lots of discussions about a variety of social educational issues. That’s the way we started this group.” (I, June 27)

“In spite of all the difficulties we have had, we’ve made it because of our ‘teamwork’ in the committee.” Hae-young Kang, one of the steering committee members, highly valued that the spirit of congregation and collaboration—often called Jeong in Korean—as a crucial factor in the maintenance of the KETG. She went on to say,

“Without psychological support from one another, we would have dissolved this group a long time ago” (I, June 21). Tae-hwan echoed Hae-young’s comment on the value of close relationships among members:

We are very good friends. We meet at least once a week, formally or informally and share our concerns, feelings, opinions, and whatever. Trust and respect among us is highly valued. I like the teachers and respect them a great deal. They are the ones who went through the good times and bad times. I think this [close relationship] has led us to be where we are now. (June 27)

The teachers’ relationships seemed to be defined less by rights and responsibilities and more by caring and understanding. Thus, it can be said that the supportive nature of the group was essential to its success.

Influences of a charismatic leader

Senge (1990) states that many of the problems organizations face can be traced to leadership or the lack thereof. In the present study of the KETG confirms Senge’s argument of the importance of the role of leadership among core teachers. Jin-sang Choo, in his early forties, was the teacher whose remarkable leadership is recognized and respected by most KETG core members. He had been working in the steering committee for almost ten years and leading every KETG activity including publications, cyber community building, and workshops. I was told by other committee teachers that he did not give up his work in the KETG even when he was seriously ill.

The interview data revealed the following comments by teachers in the steering committee: “Without him, this group would have died years ago. I really admire his incredible dedication to the group,” (I, June 26) and “His ability is outstanding, and high energy is infectious, and motivates other teachers. He is obviously a role model for us as well as a pioneer in the field of Korean teachers’ professional movement. Our group owes him a ton…well, I’d even think if we had another Mr. Choo in our group, we would accomplish a lot more things than now. He is like…more than an ‘ordinary’ teacher, you know. What I mean is that he see things more logically and holistically. He is passionate, persistent, creative, and experienced. It’s very rare to find that a teacher with all those characteristics combined.” (I, July 29)

When asked what made him eagerly participate in the KETG, the head teacher said in a somewhat modest manner:

Well…that’s just because I’ve valued collaboration a great deal since I was in college. I believe discussing interesting issues together with peers have enabled me to grow personally and professionally. Without my involvement in the KETG, I could not have been where I’m now. I’ve found myself become wary of importance of professional development through participation in the teacher group. There has been always something sufficiently broad and significant about which to collaborate here…and I see the difference I’ve made on my students’ faces in my classroom, which makes me feel so rewarded. In a way, I feel a sense of personal empowerment and entitlement by doing this work.

Through his involvement in the teacher group, he affirms himself the educational expert and acknowledges his own professionalism.

External factor

The gradual acknowledgement by the MOE

There is some evidence that structured collaboration between the KETG and the educational government forms significant planks of policies to improve long-term professional development needs. Specifically, acknowledgement and support by the Ministry of Education (MOE) can facilitate an atmosphere in which teachers are more willing to participate in KETG activities. For instance, according to workshop organizers, more teachers participated in the workshops of year 2000 than the last few years because the Ministry of Education decided to give credits to the participants. The district credit given to teachers can be recognized as acknowledgement by MOE administrators for teachers’ commitment to professional growth. This renders a very different perspective on teacher development groups from the findings of previous studies on North American local school-based teacher groups (e.g., Birchak et al., 1998) that typically indicates that it would be better to steer clear of administrative involvement for better communication within the group.

The KETG also received a grant fund for their materials development from the MOE in March 2000. This unprecedented financial support from the MOE seems to be evidence of gradual positive change of the administrative standpoint toward the bottom-up teacher development group. One steering committee member proudly commented:

Their [administrative authorities] acknowledgement for our activities is encouraging. They started offering more support for teacher research than the past. The KETG is now considered as an influential force for English teachers’ professional development. (I, May 30)

Influences

In addition to the above-described factors that have made the KETG an influential force, the extent to which the KETG has succeeded is due to the facts that it provides opportunities for teachers to get together and to exchange ideas and experiences, and defines its own agendas, and most importantly, makes voices for teachers to feel empowered. The influences that the KETG has had on Korean EFL secondary school teachers can be summarized into three main themes: professional growth, collegiality, and empowerment.

Professional growth: Sharing classroom practices and strategies

Much effort of the KETG goes into fostering the growth and development of teachers in all areas of professional concern. The KETG offers a wide array of services to promote teacher effectiveness. (See Appendix B for its activities.)

The major impact that the KETG has on Korean English teachers is probably through workshops and publications. The KETG holds local workshops and national forums on topics such as useful classroom techniques, classroom management, and other English language teaching issues. The focus of workshops is on sharing experiences and ideas derived from practice. For example, during the 2000 summer workshop on ‘Conducting Effective Group Work in the English Classroom,’ teacher participants had a chance to reflect and gain perspectives on the given topic. The annual summer workshop for teachers in mid-Korea area was held in a youth hostel near Mt. Song-ni, located in the middle of South Korea from July 31^st to August 2^nd in 2000. Another workshop for Korean teachers from the southern Korea was held in Kyoung-ju, a small city located in the east southern part of the Korean peninsula. A total number of about 500 secondary English teachers from all over the country, from rural areas to big cities, gathered to participate in either of the workshops. Their ages ranged from mid-twenties to late fifties. My field note on the first day of the workshop indicates the impressive attendance of the teachers:

No matter how old they are, how long they have been teaching, and from what district they are, they are all avid teachers who want to develop professionally to become better teachers. Obviously, all of them are extremely concerned about teaching practice in the Korean EFL classroom so that they were willing to participate in the workshops, giving up their precious vacation at the best time of the year for a family trip or something. Some of married female teachers even brought their children here to the site. I really admire them! (FN, July 31^st)

For some, it was the beginning of real discussion for the first time of important pedagogical concerns in their classroom. For others, it was one aspect of an ongoing process in their exploring the challenges and problems beyond their school. Instead of prescribing specific instructional practices, workshop leaders provided a set of questions

for the teachers to address in planning their own teaching practice. The questions guided the teachers to think about pedagogical issues, such as how to lead class effectively with the use of group-work and how to promote students’ collaborative learning. The workshop organizers encouraged teacher participants to group themselves by their school district and the level of students (junior high or high) they taught, so as to promote discussion about their own specific classroom settings. I noticed that, even after a demanding, all-day long workshop (13 hours per day), more than 100 teacher participants stayed up all night discussing their pedagogical concerns, having snacks and drinks, in their rooms, lounges, halls, and outside the building.

When asked about the effect of KETG work on his teaching practice, one of the concerned teachers, Jin-gu Park, in his late thirties, from a very remote area of Kang-won Province, eagerly responded to the question:

One of the great benefits from this group is definitely the sharing of both teaching resources and knowledge. I’m gaining lots of fruitful examples of successful teaching techniques and learning activities, which really work in my class. For teachers who work in rural areas, like me, where resources are limited, their activities are extremely invaluable. (I, August 1)

This was the most common response from the teachers that I met at the workshops.

Along with workshops, the KETG publishes a variety of practical materials including newsletters, supplementary material handbooks, CD-ROMs, and so on, in order to help teachers expand the repertoire of classroom teaching ideas. These offerings have a steady stream of subscribers with membership. In-house documents from the KETG indicate that over 3,000 secondary school English teachers across the nation are taking advantage of their publications. One participant from the workshop and one study group member, respectively acknowledged the benefits of KETG publications:

I really like the supplementary material books because they are all full of practical tips. I don’t have to spend much time to implement those activities to my own class. The games and activities in the materials work wonderfully in my classroom. My students love those games! (I, July 31)

In my view, one of the reasons that the KETG has been appealing to classroom teachers is that the main purpose of its publications is to promote effective teaching practice. It [the KETG] represents the classroom teachers who prefer a professional organization that does not get involved with radical, political issues not related to the education of our children. Teachers know that its activities benefit both themselves and their students. I think this is the reason that even the teachers who are not union members join our group. (I, May 31)

In addition to workshops and publications, their web page[10] is an important way of disseminating a growing amount of information on teaching practice. With discussion of current educational issues, it contains a variety of pedagogical information for teachers as well as students and parents. Certainly, the KETG assists teachers’ professional growth by providing new knowledge and recent developments in the subject matter, reports of successful practice, critical reviews of the educational policy and interpretations of research through workshops and publication.

Collegiality: Igniting the collective power of teachers

The notion of collegiality [11] in education implies a rejection of direct prescriptive controls (Lawn & Ozga, 1986) in favor of a process that is much more dependent on engineering broad forms of consensus (Smyth, 1994). Teachers value collegial approaches to their work and frequently use them as forms of covert resistance to the prescriptions of national and local educational authorities. (See Nias, Southwork, & Yeomans, 1989.)

In that sense, it can be said that the KETG creates a climate of collegiality among Korean English teachers.[12] The KETG seems to serve as a catalyst to ignite the collective power of teachers when they are challenged by top-down approaches in the implementation of a new educational policy. Again, the summer workshops are a good example that illustrates this role of the KETG. In order to express their objection against the top-down national educational policy of conducting English classes through English only, some teacher participants in the workshops suggested signing a petition form to protest against the policy.

This is a very good chance to show our collective power to the government. They [the educational authorities] think we are a puppet or something that does whatever they ‘order’ us to do. We don’t merely deliver the curriculum. They seem to ignore the fact that it is what teachers think, what they believe, and what they do, at the level of the

classroom that ultimately shapes the kind of learning that our kids get. Look at the policy that all classes must be taught in English only! They don’t consider the current situation in secondary classrooms. How can we change our practice overnight? How can we become bilingual teachers who have no problem speaking English in such a short time

period without attending any appropriate teacher language improvement programs? We should show then how we feel about the policy in a more powerful, collective way than now. (I, August 8)

Through its workshops, the KETG is a vehicle for engaging teachers in self-awareness of collaboration that can be the key to effective collective power. In the interviews of the teacher participants, there was ample evidence of what Josselson (1996, cited in Lima, 1998) calls “ pleasure of connection”, the pleasure of “feeling not alone even if we are not in current or potential need” (p. 59). When asked whether she had had such a chance before, Ji-hyun Lee, in her forties, a veteran of 17 years, said:

No. [laugh] I’m surprised at the atmosphere here. Every teacher looks so enthusiastic for learning and … they are so concerned about the problems in the classroom. This is my first time that I’ve ever had to talk with other teachers about my pedagogical concerns. I feel I’m not alone. I’m so glad to come here not only because I can refresh my teaching skills but also feel kind of “a sense of camaraderie” (I, August 1).

By offering a space for teachers to feel the sense of camaraderie, the KETG provides an environment of unity and rapport for teachers who have been isolated in their own classroom. Shared agendas appears to promote collegiality and gives rise to a sharing of ideas:

The learning at these sessions may not be as important as the stimulation to think, the opportunities to be away from the usual routines and pressure of home and school, and the chance to gain perspectives with new people. I think the action orientation and the sense of purpose are creating a special spirit of collegiality. It seems that living together for several days at the summer workshops contributed to a commonality as soldiers from the trenches. Many teachers seemed to realize how valuable was the opportunity to get together and discuss what they have in their mind. (FN, August 8)

Working cooperatively as peers, sensing commonality, participating voluntarily, and living together for a few days at the workshop contributed to a social conviviality that has some parallels in desirable models of teacher development.

Empowerment: Making teachers’ voices heard

The resource of decision making is obviously one of a few factors that cause KETG activities not to be seen as similar to traditional in-service programs. The KETG is not regimented in a top-down bureaucratic manner. The KETG is a place where classroom teachers explore and develop innovations that come from their own questions and interests, rather than relying on mandates and prescriptive approaches. It is teachers who make decisions about how to plan, organize, and carry out the plans in the KETG. One of the firm beliefs that KETG teachers have in common is that most of the decisions that lie at the heart of teaching should shift to teachers who have been marginalized. “Teachers don’t ordinarily have power because they don’t have access to those who wield it,” said Chang-jun Kim, one participant to a KETG subgroup. “We believe, well… at least, I believe that what we’re doing is making a difference.” (I, August 10) The KETG teachers undertake their activities voluntarily, so there is a sense of ownership and commitment.

Many teachers whom I interviewed during the summer workshops expressed their dissatisfaction, even anger toward the in-service programs led by the MOE, and argued that the KETG should put considerable resources into creating a systematic curriculum for classroom teachers on its own. Kyung-min Hah, a middle school English teacher in Pusan, spoke poignantly about her overriding sense of dissatisfaction toward the government-led in-service programs:

What I really appreciate is that the KETG creates its own professional development sessions that reflect our perspective. I am sick of the current mandatory “hit-and run” in-service programs led by the government. The usual pattern of most teachers has been to get through the staff development, then go back to their classrooms, close the door, and teach very much as they had been. That is because the government-led in-service programs have not reflected on what the teachers wanted to get from it. They (educational administrators) have never shared the evaluation results with us (teachers) that the teachers have done at the end of the courses. There is no teachers’ voice in there! (I, August 1)

One teacher on the steering committee commented on the group’s pivotal role in empowering teachers:

I think the KETG plays a considerable role in getting practitioners involved in the decision-making process for educational policy, curricular, and procedures than the past. One of its primary purposes is to make a voice for classroom teachers who have continually been silenced, bewildered, and left in the dark about educational decisions. The KETG tries to raise awareness of those teachers so that we can make our voice heard beyond school. (I, August 2)

Based on this perspective, it can be said that the KETG contributes to empowering teachers as active agents in the teacher development process. It is certain that the strength of the KETG is its representing classroom teachers’ needs and opinions rather than imposing a top-down educational policy or curriculum.

Constraints

Despite its achievements, two factors appear to inhibit the KETG from moving to a more productive level of work: a lack of time for more involvement by teachers and the passive roles of most members. It seems that these two factors weaken efforts to solve existing problems in practice, and perhaps they also create barriers to genuine educational reforms in the long run.

Lack of time

Research on teacher development often has identified time as an important contextual variable in professional development (e.g., Holly, 1989; Holly & Holly, 1983, Maeroff, 1988). For instance, in her action research of eight teacher study groups created for school improvement in an American suburban elementary school, Boggs (1996) found that the lack of meeting time was a common constraint identified by the teachers in the study groups. Similarly, the teachers in my study consistently referred to the problem of not having adequate time to perform their roles as active participants. This lack of time creates stress and conflict for some teachers as they struggle to fulfill their dual responsibilities of being a classroom teacher and teacher researcher.

I found it (the KETG work as a committee member) exhausting. I do like the work I’m doing here, but feel I am, in a way, neglecting my own classroom. I should admit it is very difficult to do a good job both working in the KETG and teaching my own class, you know. (I, June 20)

Two participants in the summer workshop echoed other teachers’ frustration with the time constraints:

There is no time to interact professionally with my colleagues at school. There is just some bitching about the administrators and everyone talking about how frustrated they are with their work. When school is over, I’m so exhausted and I don’t want to talk to anyone. And I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels that way. (I, July 31)

The worst thing is that there just isn’t enough time. I have 24 class hours to teach per week, and have tons of work to do as a homeroom teacher of 43 junior high school boys. On top of that, I take several different administrative responsibilities. As you can imagine, I’m already stressed out with what I’ve got to do now! (I, August 1)

Passive teachers’ participation

A majority of teachers with KETG membership are not active agents in the professional activities of the KETG. Teachers who attend a workshop are relatively passive recipients of the outcomes produced by the lead members. Teachers then return to their classrooms and implement what they have ‘learned’ with varying degrees of successes:

Usually teachers walk away with a set of classroom activities but little discussion of why they would want to do that activity or sense of how to develop their own classroom engagements. Without active involvement in exploring theoretical considerations, it would be difficult for teachers to foster true change in their practice. (I, June 30)

This problematic phenomenon may be seen in their publications. Although their publications have increasingly striven to become more attractive to teachers, at times, in an attempt to respond to teachers’ needs, printed materials provide answers and recipes. One committee member expressed her concern: “It seems that most teachers with membership settle for being ‘consumers’ of the products made by a small number of lead teachers. They tend to receive passively from the KETG whatever it produces.” (I, June 13) There seems to be a tendency to take on the most telling characteristic of traditional in-service training: didactic teaching.

Another great challenge concerning teachers’ passive roles lies in encouraging substantive group interaction and sustaining the group over time to foster significant changes in teaching practice. One teacher on the steering committee expressed frustration about forming a new teacher study group:

It is extremely difficult to create a new teacher group and sustain it. We make every effort to encourage the teachers to form a study group on their own when we offer workshops by emphasizing the value and importance of teacher collaborative work. But the results are not too satisfactory. I think it’s not just a matter of time constraints that almost all teachers are facing. It’s a lack of awareness and commitment to professional development. Not all teachers feel it is necessary to get together and explore issues that should deserve being studied by teachers. Even given the time for that [professional development], some teachers are reluctant to participate actively in the KETG. How can we deal with this problem? (I, June 29)

Discussions and Implications

As stated previously, the purpose of this study was to examine systematically the practices of the Korean EFL secondary teachers’ development group so as to contribute to theoretical conceptions of teacher development groups. This report on the KETG can contribute to the ongoing construction of a theory of teacher development, because, as Guskey (1994) indicates, efforts to identify the critical elements of successful teacher development begin by gathering evidence from a variety of studies at many sites. Since powerful and dynamic influences of contextual differences show the futility of the search for ‘one right answer’, (Firestone & Corbett, 1987; Fullan, 1985; Guskey, 1994; Huberman & Miles, 1984), the search must focus on finding key characteristics of each specific context at a particular point in time.

The aforementioned descriptions of the influences and problems that the KETG has had in implementing teacher development in the Korean EFL context provide several long-term implications for the improvement efforts of a nationwide teacher development group in the field. Specifically, how would a nationwide EFL teacher development group facilitate teachers’ sustained professional development? What factors should be taken into consideration in order to empower teachers and enable them to become majority shareholders in efforts to push public English language education ahead? Although responses to these questions are dynamic and partial in that they represent the experiences of individual participants and a certain teacher group at points in time, the themes can illustrate potential suggestions for a similar nationwide teacher professional organization in a similar cultural context. Each suggestion can merit discussions about what propositions a teacher development group has for the enhancement of teachers’ professionalism.

Recognize development as a self-directed move

Most important of all, the findings of this study support the idea that it is crucial to involve teachers actively in their own professional development, in contrast to training or retraining, which suggests a top-down approach. For the success of teacher development groups, teachers must see themselves as more than mere recipients of services, more than clients upon whom the administration bestows largesse. In other words, teachers should be more prone than ever to seek information and ideas that will help them figure out for themselves how to deal with their own problems. They should be less compliant and tractable receivers of information and more involved shareholders and partakers in the process of teacher development. Otherwise, teachers are passive users rather than active creators (Common, 1983).

The KETG fosters change as an active creator of teacher development. It gives teachers control over the selection of professional activities and topics on their own. In fact, as many teachers in this study repeatedly mentioned, the KETG functions as an alternative agent for providing continuing teacher development with a sense of ownership. In the Korean EFL context, where there is little coherent infrastructure for teacher development, and so it is not the responsibility of any identifiable groups or agency, this teacher-initiated and directed group seems to play a significant role in involving teachers in the process of professional development. I found that the teacher participants’ expectations of the KETG were considerably high and that they seemed to consider the KETG as the only resource for their professional development. This can lead teachers to engage themselves to self-directed professional activities that foster empowerment of teachers.

Provide a process for ongoing professional growth

Another important lesson learned from the KETG is that we cannot enhance teacher professional growth without providing an opportunity for continuing support and follow-ups. Unlike discrete, limited prepackaged teacher training programs led by the government, the KETG workshops offer more chances for participants to share their knowledge and ideas, and to reflect on what they have learned from one another in the workshops. Since teachers usually bring a wealth of their own ideas and experiences to workshops, the most effective sessions may make use of the interactive, applied, and integrated approaches that teachers would be expected to use with their students. These professional development activities include ample opportunities for participants to experiment with the new concepts and techniques.

It is clear that to be successful, teacher development must be seen as a process, not an event (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 1998; Eraut, 1994; Lieberman, 1995). A teacher development event—a workshop, for example—is not the final step in a long chain of events. Any change that holds great promise for changing individual teachers’ attitudes is likely to be gradual and slow (Huberman & Miles, 1984). It is imperative, therefore, that teacher development be seen as a continuous and ongoing endeavor.

Establish teacher study groups and maintain them

A good way to maximize continuing professional development is related to its effort in helping a new teacher study group get initiated and sustained. The KETG lends expertise to newly forming teacher development groups by providing resources that it has created and collected. By facilitating those local-based groups, the KETG also has teachers engage in action research in which they identify teaching/learning issues of importance, try out new methods and techniques, and reflect on their effect on students’ learning at their own site. In order to strengthen site-based ownership for professional grow, action research should be encouraged at the grass roots, not from the top of the educational structure (Crookes, 1993; 1997). This effort of the KETG is shown in the creation of and collaboration with the Research Center for Korean English teaching of which purpose is to explore and discuss in-depth educational issues critically.

Build community and relationships

In order to sustain those teacher study groups, and make them productive for the long term, a teacher development group should make every attempt to facilitate an

atmosphere in which teachers are willing to build community and relationships. [13] ‘A sense of belong (to a team)’ (Day et al., 1987) can affect teachers’ underlying assumptions about their involvement in development initiatives (Nicholls, 1997). In order to keep teacher-driven professional development going, the teacher network should develop supportive norms providing the extra encouragement that teachers need to return to their schools with renewed energy, vision, and commitment.

Thus, the nature of the activities and the growth of relationships within the group are crucial elements in cementing the commitment of the participants. Activities should be compelling enough to keep people coming back, no matter how meaningful or well-intentioned the purpose of the group. They are not confined to professional activities to improve knowledge and skills. Explicitly community-building experiences, (e.g., social gatherings, organized parties, celebrations, and occasions), whose expressed goals are to have members be more social, could result in an ethos of individual concern and sympathy for colleagues. Those kinds of activities, along with subtle, circumstantial, and covert community-building experiences, can build the supporting atmosphere in which teachers feel secure enough to be honest with themselves and with others.[14] This facilitative atmosphere thus can help them to take the risks and make the efforts required in trying to extend and deepen their awareness of professional development (Underhill, 1992).

Seek out support from the government

Perhaps one of the most important issues addressed in this study of the KETG is that the involvement of the MOE can be the primary component for the growth of a nationwide teacher development group. Particularly in the context where the hierarchical structure of the educational system inevitably exists, and where a central educational policy is a crucial factor for change, like South Korea, the success of a nationwide teacher development group lies in true partnership with the MOE and district administration.[15] Although the KETG may be able to provide the initiatives to reflect on practice and possibly some on-going consolatory support, most of the support offered to individual teachers has to come from within the administration. In other words, in order to support and sustain teachers’ professional development, a system of reward and incentives is necessary.

As considered in the previous section of the theoretical conceptions, teacher development is a career-long or life-long issue involving the growth in personal and professional maturity and competence. MOE and district administration must have a deep understanding of the longer-term process of change, and adopt teacher development as one of the most important priorities. This priority should be reflected in all decisions, including allocation of financial resources and time. For example, special grant funding would give the KETG a chance to focus intensively on what they are doing. Offices, secretarial support, travel funds, and allowance for books and journals can be feasible provisions by the government. Or sending teachers out abroad for their target language development can be an attractive incentive to those who are eager to improve their professional skills. Clearly, the administration’s role is paramount in supporting and enhancing the experience, as well as in encouraging continually the teachers to pursue their developmental goals.

Conclusion

Education reforms have little chance of success unless they involve teachers in exploring the implications of the change of their own educational setting, and finding out how to make any necessary alterations to the routines of their practice. (Altrichter et al., 1993; Bax, 1995; Richardson, 1990). If we believe that complex educational challenges cannot be solved by a mere transmission of information, then we must explore new approaches to teacher development and make their difficulties public (Clair, 1998). As we better understand how and under what circumstances such approaches actually improves teacher practice, we will be able to create more effective models for doing so.

The study of the KETG contributes to our conceptualization of teacher development and a teacher development group by providing significant insights on how a nationwide teacher development group takes shape, develops, and draws the issues that crop up in organizing and maintaining them. The ideas presented in the discussion section may not be totally new and certainly cannot be considered revolutionary. They may, in fact, appear obvious to those who have had extensive experience in the teacher development process. However, as self-evident as they may seem, it is rare to find a secondary school teacher development group that is initiated by a small group of teachers, and has been growing enormously as a nationwide teacher professional organization despite all the existing constraints and challenges faced by teachers in their schools.

KETG members still have a great deal to learn about the conditions in which internal and external interventions can take root and thrive. Nevertheless, it appears to be an example of new paradigm of professional development, depending as it does on teacher behaving as managers of their own learning in the national context. Tensions and limitations may exist, but more importantly, the KETG teachers are developing a language of hope, commitment, and connection. As one teacher member of the steering committee summarized, “I definitely see a teacher development group idea fulfilling the vision and the goals of English teaching in Korea. Although we still have a long way to go, I don’t think we will ever stop.”

References

Ahn, M. (1996). Korean teachers’ labor union movement: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work. London: Routledge.

Armour, M. (1985). Energy RX for writing teachers: Plug into a network. Language Arts, 62, 759-764.

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (1998). Undeniable insights: The collaborative use of three professional development practices. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 546-556.

Bascia, N. (1999). The other side of the equation: Professional development and the organizational capacity of teacher unions. Paper presented for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. April, 1999. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service NO. 434 404).

Bax, S. (1995). Principles for evaluating teacher development activities. ELT Journal. 49(3), 262-271.

Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Birchak, B., Connor, C., Crawford, K., Kahn, L., Kaser, S., Turner, S., & Short, K. (1998). Teacher study groups. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3^rd edition). London: Allyn & Bacon.

Boggs, H. (1996). Launching school change through teacher study groups: An action research project. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 402 286)

Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. (1992). Blended friendships: Friend as work associates. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.

Brock, M. N. (1997). Developing teachers: Some ways to go, some ways to be. TESL Reporter. 73-76.

Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 465-492.

Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Skidmore, D. (1997). New directions in special needs: Innovations in mainstream schools. London: Cassell.

Common, D. (1986). Power: The missing concept in the dominant model of school change. Theory into Practice, 22 (3), 203-210.

Crammer, G. (1996). Teacher study group for professional development. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 406 371)

Creese, A., Norwich, B., & Daniels, H. (2000). Evaluation teacher support teams in secondary schools: Supporting teachers for SEN and other needs. Research Papers in Education, 15(3), 307-324.

Crookes, G. (1989). Grassroots action to improve ESL programs. University of Hawai'i at Manoa Working Papers in ESL, 8 (2), 45-61.

Crookes, G. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. Applied Linguistics, 14 (2), 130-144.

Davis, K. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (3), 427-453.

Day, C., Whitaker, P., & Johnston, D. (1990). Managing primary schools in the 1990s: A professional development approach. London: Chapman.

Dunne, F., & Honts, F. (1998). “That group really makes me think!” Critical friends groups and the development of reflective practitioners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. April 13-17, 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 228)

Edge, J. (1988). Training, education, and development: Worlds apart? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Association for Teaching and Research in Overseas Education, Moray House College, Edinburgh.

Ely, M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: The Falmer Press.

Eraut, M. (1994). The acquisition and use of educational theory by beginning teachers. In G. Harvard, & P. Hodkinson (Eds.), Action and reflection in teacher education (pp. 69-88). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Farrell, T. (1998). Reflective practice in an EFL teacher development group. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 32^nd, Seattle, WA, March 17-21. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 426 615)

Finocchiaro, M. (1988). Teacher development: A continuing process. English Teaching Forum, July, 2-5.

Firestone, W., & Corbett, H. D. (1987). Planned organizational change. In N. Boyand (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 321-340). New York: Longman.

Fishbaugh, M. S., & Hecimovic, T. (1994). Teacher study groups as a means of rural professional development. Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education, 14^th, Austin, Texas, March 23-26. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 600)

Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: Three approaches to in-service training and development. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (1), 21-28.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development and decision-making. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1), 27-45.

Fullan, M. G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85, 391-421.

Goetz , J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.

Guskey, T. (1994). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education. (pp. 114-131). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guskey, T., & Huberman, M. (Eds.) (1994). Professional development in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In Hargreaves, A. & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 216-240). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (Eds.) (1992). Understanding teacher development. New York: Teachers College Press.

Head, K., & Taylor, P. (1997). Readings in teacher development. London: Heinemann.

Holly, M. L. (1989). Teacher professional development: Perceptions and practices in the USA and England. In M. L. Holly, & C. S. McLaughlin (Eds.), Perspectives on teacher professional development. London: The Falmer Press.

Holly, M. L., & Holly, B. P. (1983). Toward an empirically grounded conceptualization of staff development: Reflections on professional development in Cambridge and Liverpool, England, Urban Educator, 7(1), 75-87.

Hornberger, N. (1994). Ethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 688-690.

Huberman, M., & Middlebrookes, S. (2000). The dilution of inquiring: A qualitative study, Qualitative Studies in Education, 13 (3), 281-304.

Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. London: Longman.

Johnson, K. E. (1996). Portfolio assessment in second language education, TESOL Journal, 6 (2), 11-14.

Josselson, R. (1995). The space between us. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B., & Murphy, J. (1989). School renewal as cultural change. Educational Leadership, 47, 70-77.

Kirk, W., & Walter, G. (1981). Teacher support groups serve to minimize teacher burnout: Principles for organizing. Education, 102, 147-150.

Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming power: domination, empowerment, and education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kremer-Hayon, L., Vonk, H.C., & Fessler, R. (Eds.). (1993). Teacher professional development: A multiple perspective approach. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Lawn, M., & Ozga, J. (1986). Unequal partners: Teachers under indirect rule. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 7(2), 225-238.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677-703.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 591-596.

Lieberman, A. (1997). The teacher unions. New York: The Free Press.

Lima, J. A. (1998). Improving the study of teacher collegiality: Methodological issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13-17, 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 419 779)

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.

Maeroff, G. (1988). The empowerment of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Matlin, M., & Short, K. G. (1991). How our teacher study group sparks change? Educational Leadership, 49, 68.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J. W. Little, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ Work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 79-103). New York and London: Teachers College Press.

Meyer, R. J. (1996). Teachers’ study group: Forum for collective thought, meaning-making, and action. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, April 8-13, 1996. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 394 952)

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nias J., Southwork, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school: A study of organizational cultures. London: Cassell.

Nicholls, J. (1997). Collaborative change in education. Stirling: Kogan Page.

Oliphant, K. (1995). Teacher development groups: growth through cooperation. Unpublished manuscript. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Paquette, M. (1987). Voluntary collegial support groups for teachers. Educational Leadership, 45, 36-39.

Pennington, M. C. (1992). Reflecting on teaching and learning: A developmental focus for the second language classroom. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 47-65). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Plumb, K. (1988). Starting a teacher development group. TESOL France News, 8, 17.

Powney, J., & Watts, M. (1987). Interviewing in educational research. London: Routledge.

Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. (1995). Professional dev