Reflections Paper

A Reflection on Implementing

Professional Development Activities
Mary Hillis
Ritsumeikan University
I was pleased to attend Jennie Roloff Rothman’s plenary, “Understanding andImplementing Professional Development” at the 2020 JALT CUE Conference.
Rothman is the Principal Lecturer of Professional Development–Teacher
Development at the English Language Institute at Kanda University ofInternational Studies (KUIS). Her presentation included an overview of research
related to professional development (PD) and a brief outline of how PD activities
are conducted at KUIS.
Faculty development (FD) is a commonly heard phrase in the hallways ofJapanese colleges and universities, and Rothman used it to refer specifically toPD for instructors at the college and university level in Japan, including anythingfrom conducting in-class observations to providing training for new teachingfaculty. Beginning in the 1980s, the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT)
began promoting FD in order to internationalize universities and to provide
more innovative and higher quality education at the tertiary level (MEXT,
2019, as cited in Rothman, 2020b). Since then, FD has become increasingly
organized and context specific; for instance, in 2005, the Japan Central Council
for Education (as cited in Rothman, 2020b) acknowledged that FD activities
should be conducted systematically, not as onetime occurrences. Althoughinitiatives vary by institution, in my experience at private universities some of theoptions available include visiting colleagues’ undergraduate classes, participating
in workshops to learn about educational technology, attending symposia on
research and practice, and writing articles for university publications (e.g., FD122

Implementing Professional Development Activities, OCJSI 3, pages 122-129

newsletters or university journals).
Professional development, according to Rothman (2020a), is a broaderterm than faculty development; it is used to “refer to both the development ofclassroom skills as well as those which might involve joining a larger academiccommunity” (p. 304). She outlined characteristics of effective PD in the West:developing teacher expertise in content and practice, providing sufficient timeand resources for teachers, and supporting collaboration among colleagues(Gusky, 2003, as cited in Rothman, 2020b). She emphasized designing PD
initiatives that are flexible and context specific; teachers have different needs
depending on the situation and culture. In 2020, for example, those in charge ofproviding PD needed to pivot quickly and provide support to instructors who
suddenly found themselves teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rothman has based the PD program at KUIS on the learning oriented
model (Drago-Stevenson, 2009, as cited in Rothman, 2020b), which supports
adult learning while encouraging growth through four main points: teaming(e.g., joining groups which self-determine goals), leadership roles (e.g., providing
leadership training and opportunities), collegial inquiry (e.g., engaging inreflective practice or participating in research communities), and mentoring (e.g.,
supporting first-time authors or presenters or entering into formal mentoring
relationships).
As a result, a variety of PD opportunities is offered at KUIS for the English
language instructors (Rothman 2020b). They can gain team and leadershipexperience by participating in or heading committees, task groups, andcurriculum panels. In addition, to promote collegial inquiry, teachers can work
together in research communities focused on topics of mutual interest, such asreflective practice, conducting research, or sharing teaching ideas. Workshops
are conducted by invited guests or peers on assorted topics. Mentoring is alsoavailable through a structured program, and mentees can receive support
for specific areas, for example, identifying publishing opportunities, drafting
manuscripts, or reviewing abstracts. These are just a few examples.
During the discussion section of the plenary, Rothman posed three mainquestions for participants: (1) What FD is happening in your context? (2) What123

Broderick

FD would be most useful in your context? (3) What are the challenges and how
might you overcome them? These questions prompted me to reflect on the PD
activities carried out by the PD committee at my previous workplace.

What FD is happening in your context?

At the private university where I began working in 2016, there were several
established PD activities for part-time and full-time teachers within the English
program: evaluations, observations, and curriculum groups. At the end of eachsemester, students complete course evaluation forms which include general andcourse-specific questions. In principle, part-time teachers are observed once ayear, and new full-time teachers are observed during their first semester. Fulltime teachers belong to small working groups for curriculum development where
they discuss course changes and improvements. New full-time teachers receive
mentoring from experienced colleagues throughout their first semester and on an
as-needed basis thereafter. Participation is required by the director and provides
structured support for becoming familiar with all aspects of the English program.
In 2018, the program director asked for volunteers to establish a PD
committee to support faculty who wanted to take part in more PD activities.
Three teachers including myself stepped forward, and we worked together tocoordinate and plan PD for the 2018-2019 academic year. I continued serving inthis role during the following year with two new committee members.

What FD would be most useful in your context?

During the spring semester, the committee began with one simple task: creating aspace on the staff room bulletin board to share PD information. We posted flyers
for conferences, calls for papers, and other relevant information, and we invitedothers to do the same. Although these were small actions, Rothman (2020b)
stated that these are a form of informal mentoring, with more established teachers
helping others to identify opportunities to become more involved in academic
communities. In addition, we asked teachers to complete researcher profiles with
their research interests, recent presentations, and current or future projects. These
were also displayed.
124

Implementing Professional Development Activities, OCJSI 3, pages 122-129

After some initial discussion, the PD committee members realized that we
did not know what other types of activities would be useful and interesting inthis context. One characteristic of effective PD mentioned by Rothman (2020b)
is to “prioritize or incorporate teacher voices” and “not [to] assume that teachers
need fixing” (plenary quotes). In this regard, we decided to conduct a survey
based on the PD section of the Teaching and Learning International Survey(TALIS) (OECD, 2018). Our survey had approximately 15 questions and wasconducted via Google Forms.
We asked teachers to identify their perceived PD needs, for instance, if theywanted more support for issues related to pedagogy, assessment, technology,or classroom management. Curtis (2008) states that PD begins with “…anawareness of what might be thought of simply as a gap in one’s knowledge,
skills, or understanding” (p. 120). Therefore, completing the survey was a formof teacher self-reflection. We also asked them how much interest they had inparticipating in PD activities, such as workshops, research groups, or online
discussions and how much time per month they would be willing to invest inthese activities. In addition, comments could be written at the end of the survey.
Although workshops and seminars are the most common forms of FD at
Japanese universities (Suzuki, 2013), they were not often conducted within theEnglish program at that particular university. Based on this and the survey results,
the committee decided to plan a one-day PD conference for the fall semester.
After some discussion, we established three main aims of the conference:• “To provide a platform for teachers, practitioners, and researchers toshare and present knowledge about the teaching and learning of English;• To foster the exchange of information, ideas, and experiences fromresearch in language teaching;• To provide a platform for teachers, practitioners, and educators toexplore possibilities within the university community” (ProfessionalDevelopment Committee, 2018).
We applied for and received a grant from the department to fund theevent. This allowed us to offer honorariums to plenary speakers and to provide
incentives for participants: free lunch at a nearby restaurant and conference125

Broderick

goods, such as notebooks, pens, nametags, and professionally printed programs.
We invited not only English teachers in our department but also the English
instructors from other departments to attend as either presenters or participants.
The conference was held during the fall semester on a Saturday from10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and the schedule included both presentations andcollaborative research meetings. Approximately 25 instructors attended, andthere were a variety of presentations addressing both pedagogical and academicareas, for example, using technology, implementing extensive reading, teachingcollocations, and assessing oral presentations. The presenters were scheduled
into four blocks, with two to three presentations conducted concurrently, soattendees could choose the topics that were most relevant or interesting forthem.
After the presentations finished, we held 30-minute collaborative researchgroup meetings on topics such as motivating learners and content and language
integrated learning. The main purpose was to connect people who are interested
in similar topics. Participants chose one meeting to participate in, and they
discussed ideas, initiated partnerships, and made plans to work together
after the conference. This is a form of collegial inquiry, much like the researchcommunities Rothman (2020b) described. Unlike our post-conference sessions,the research community meetings at KUIS are held during a specific 90-minuteperiod during the day, and teachers are free to change groups and participate in
two to three different discussions (Rothman 2020b); therefore, it is convenient
for them to attend the meetings and pursue multiple topics.

What are the challenges? How might you
overcome them?

Rothman (2020b) used surveys to gather feedback from teachers on the PD
activities conducted each year at KUIS. Although most optional activities receive
positive ratings, the invited speaker events are usually rated on the negative side.
Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the topics were perceived
as not particularly useful or relevant, which underscores the need to develop
context-specific PD and involve teachers in the decision-making process.
126

Implementing Professional Development Activities, OCJSI 3, pages 122-129

We also distributed a survey to ask participants about their satisfaction withthe PD conference. The results were used to make improvements for subsequentconferences. Although our survey was sufficient for this purpose, in order tomeasure perceived learning, behavioral changes, or impacts to teaching, a higher
level of evaluation would be necessary (California Community College Council,2003). Unlike the Language Institute at KUIS, which has institutional support
for the PD program and a dedicated PD faculty position, the PD committee atthis university is comprised of volunteers, and events are supported through adepartmental grant. As such, measuring these aspects could become increasingly
important in the future to justify continued funding.
The reactions to the conference were positive, but we noticed one major
challenge: time. After the conference, sustaining the work started in thecollaborative research meetings was difficult. At this university, the schedule
was quite busy, so collaborating and scheduling meetings with partners during
the work week was inconvenient. As Murphey and Brogan (2008) explain,
one reason for that hesitancy may be because while professional development,
relationship building, and identifying new opportunities are important, they
are not usually perceived as urgent tasks. In other words, people are more
likely to prioritize time-sensitive and important tasks, and for teachers thatmeans teaching classes and meeting administrative deadlines. Self-care, family
time, or part-time work may understandably take precedence over professional
development meetings and events that are not required.
This is only the beginning of the PD committee’s journey, however. As Curtis(2008) pointed out, “Creating a sustainable professional development programfor yourself and for others can take years to establish …” (p. 125). Although
the original members of the committee no longer work at the university, newmembers now serve on the committee. They organized an online conference
during the 2020 academic year, and in the future, the PD committee willcontinue to develop the offering of available activities. It is a long-term endeavor,and Rothman (2020a) emphasized that it is important to strive for “… acommitment to ongoing, systematic improvement over one-shot or intermittent
FD activities” (p. 308). Her plenary provided listeners with a foundational guide127Broderick

to carrying out effective PD programs at the university level in Japan.

Conclusion

Implementing a PD program is a complex process that involves reviewing current
initiatives, assessing teachers’ needs, and consistently evaluating the effectivenessof PD activities. I commend the work of Rothman and her colleagues at KUIS
for enacting a systematic approach to PD that addresses a wide variety of teacher
needs from classroom pedagogy to writing for publication.

References

California Community College Council for Staff & Organizational
Development and Community College League of California. (2003).
Evaluating staff and organizational development. https://4csd.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/4CSD_evaluating_sod.pdf
Curtis. A. (2008). The seven principles of professional development: From
A to G. In C. Coombe, M. L. McCloskey, M. L., Stephenson, and N. J.
Anderson (Eds.) Leadership in English language teaching and learning. (pp.
117–127). The University of Michigan Press.
Murphey, T. and Brogan, J. (2008). The active professional’s balancing act: Timeand self-management. In Coombe, C., McCloskey, M.L., Stephenson, L.,
and Anderson, N.J. (Eds.) Leadership in English language teaching andlearning (pp. 79–89). The University of Michigan Press.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Teachingand learning international survey (TALIS): Teacher questionnaire.
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2018-MS-TeacherQuestionnaire-ENG.pdf
Professional Development Committee. (2018, October). First annual
professional development conference program. Unpublished conference
program. Kwansei Gakuin University.
Rothman, J. R. (2020a). Faculty development in Japan: MEXT expectations
and the reality at internationalizing universities. The Journal ofKanda University of International Studies, 32, 301–321. http://id.nii.
128Implementing Professional Development Activities, OCJSI 3, pages 122-129

ac.jp/1092/00001645
Rothman, J. R. (2020b, September 12). Understanding and implementing
professional development. [Plenary session]. 2020 JALT CUE Conference,Online. https://youtu.be/bkMvplMpDtg
Suzuki, K. (2013, October 30-November 1). University faculty development
in Japanese context. [Invited keynote]. International conference on
Faculty/Educational Development, Qingdao, China. https://www2.gsis.
kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~idportal/wp-content/uploads/ICFD2013suzuki2.pdf

Author bio

Mary Hillis teaches English in the Law Department and Beyond Borders Plaza
at Ritsumeikan University, Kinugasa Campus. She also volunteers for Asymptote,
an online journal of world literature in translation, as an Educational Arm
Assistant. Her interests are literature, writing centers, and professional development.
maryehillis@gmail.com
Received: September 17, 2020
Accepted: November 2, 2021

129