Objectives

The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding about the online teacher professional development experiences of EFL instructors working at foundational universities during the emergency remote teaching (ERT) period. 

Theoretical Framework 

This study is grounded on the studies conducted in the field of teacher professional development (PD) and online teacher professional development (OTPD). Effective professional development is expected to include some specific features such as being content focused, active, collaborative, exemplary for effective teaching, continuous, and supportive for including external experts and mentoring (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Similarly, effective OTPD is required to provide compatible learning experiences and materials; an inquisitive, engaging, and reflective learning environment theoretically and pedagogically; accessible and flexible learning opportunities, profitable and continual online professional learning (Duffy et al., 2006). 

Apart from effective OTPD features, advantages and challenges of OTPD were benefited to construct this study as well. Access to flexible, cost-effective, high-quality PD without the constraints of time and place is the most significant asset of OTPD (Dede, 2006; Elliot, 2017; Magidin de Kramer et al., 2012; Powell & Bodur, 2019). Thanks to OTPD, teachers have access to PD activities that they may not have the chance of attending in face-to-face PD settings (Treacy et al., 2002) since OTPD can eliminate various financial and geographical restraints (Duffy et al., 2006; Wynants & Dennis, 2018).

The drawbacks of the OTPD, on the other hand, are listed as lack of social presence (Juárez-Díaz & Perales, 2021; Powell & Bodur, 2019; Wynants & Dennis, 2018) and late replies to questions on online platforms, limited interaction, inadequate feedback (Johar et al., 2021). In addition, technology-related problems such as disconnection, poor internet infrastructure, power cuts, slow technical support, and damaged hardware devices are some challenges of OTPD (Atmojo, 2021, Baran & Cagıltay, 2006; Johar et al., 2021; Sezer et al., 2017). 

Even if there might have been a tendency to consider OTPD as a simple transition of teaching materials on digital environments in the past (Stevens-Long & Crowell, 2002), with the outburst of the pandemic OTPD immediately became a solution in order to support the instructors during the emergency remote teaching period. Until the pandemic, OTPD was an option as a mode of PD delivery, yet during the ERT, OTPD turned into an urgent solution monopoly to support the teachers (Atmojo, 2021). Teacher educators had to take immediate actions on pre-service and in-service levels (Bragg et al., 2021; Hartshorne et al., 2020). 

This sudden transition to ERT came up with some difficulties (Bond, 2020; Hodges et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2020) such as content developing, brand-new instructional tools, integrating parents into ERT process, students’ psychological well-being (Hartshorne et al., 2020). Outcomes of the OTPD and perception towards OTPD became the second highly asked instructor-related questions (Leary et al., 2020) and it was indicated whether OTPD practices support instructors for ERT and future use of what is learnt during the ERT in professional development should be an object of interest for researchers (Hodges et al., 2020). 

Phenomenology was determined as the research design of this study. Purposive sampling is essential for phenomenological studies as only these purposively selected participants can guide the researcher to reach an understanding about a particular experience (Smith et al., 2009). Six EFL instructors from six different foundation universities participated the study voluntarily. Data was collected with semi-structured interviews allow to get a deeper understanding of the experiences of participants (Smith et al., 2009; Van Manen, 2016). To this end, all the participants were asked about the pre-pandemic PD activities at their institutions, OTPD activities during the ERT period, comparison of face-to-face and online PD activities, advantages and disadvantages of OTPD participants experienced, and possible future of OTPD. The study is approved by the Human Subject Ethics Committee of Middle East Technical University. Data analysis of this study was grounded on the flexible steps created by Smith et al. (2009). In the analysis process, MAXQDA 22 program was used. Trustworthiness of this study was provided depending on the four criteria as of confirmability, dependability, credibility and transferability as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Intervention of researchers’ biases is unavoidable (Patton, 2014) but confirmability ensures that the experiences of the participants are conveyed in the study, not the biases of the researcher about participants’ experiences (Shenton, 2004). In order to promote confirmability, Shenton (2004) suggests three different strategies. All these three strategies suggested by Shenton (2004) were adopted in this study. Firstly, researcher’s possible biases and assumptions were acknowledged at the beginning of the study. These assumptions were listed in researcher’s role part. Secondly, possible limitations and weaknesses of the study design were presented in limitations part. Lastly, methodology of the study was provided in detail to provide audit trail for the readers. Audit trail permits the reader to observe the methodological stages of a study step by step (Shenton, 2004). This phenomenological study was conducted in order to seek answers for the question below: 1. How did EFL instructors working at preparatory schools experience online teacher professional development during emergency remote teaching period?

The results of the semi-structured interviews conducted with the instructors revealed that emergency OTPD was a) agile, b) needs-driven, c) unsuccessful to promote teachers’ and students’ overall well-being and motivation, d) lack of differentiation in terms of considering the experience and educational background of the instructors, e) lack of hands-on practice, and f) flexible. The interviews conducted with the instructors revealed that institutions had to be agile in order to support the instructors in such crisis. ‘‘What was very fast, frankly, was that we grouped ourselves into that system. Here we were divided into units, a teacher was appointed to the head of the units, and a system was established in which small groups and coordinators came together…’’ It was also expressed that the nature of OTPD during the ERT was needs-driven. OTPD activities were designed depending on the needs of the instructors. ‘‘We can say that these videos followed the online classes later. In other words, these asynchronous videos for OTPD accompanied the process. We can say that the needs in the process developed in parallel with the needs of the instructors or the problems they experienced.’’ Despite the advantages of OTPD, it was also indicated that OTPD activities failed to provide support for teachers’ and students’ well-being. ‘‘…everything in face-to-face was transferred to online, and teachers and students were worn out in this process. I wish PD had supported our motivation and mental health in such overloaded workload.’’ Significance Even if there are numerous OTPD program evaluations, OTPD activities during the pandemic is a current gap in the literature. There is still a need for structured and robust research in the literature (Lay et al., 2020). For a similar future scenario, the study has a great value to contribute to the practices in the field of education.

Atmojo, A. E. P. (2021). EFL teachers’ online teacher professional development experiences amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: Practices and perceptions. Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2006). Teachers' experiences in online professional development environment. Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid systematic review. Bragg, L., Walsh, C., & Heyeres, M. (2021). Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: A systematic review of the literature. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?. Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods. Duffy, T. M., Kirkley, J. R., del Valle, R., Malopinsky, L. V., Scholten, C. M., Neely, G. R., et al. (2006). Online teacher professional development: A learning architecture. Elliott, J. C. (2017). The evolution from traditional to online professional development: A review. Hartshorne, R., Baumgartner, E., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Mouza, C., & Ferdig, R. E. (2020). Special issue editorial: Preservice and in-service professional development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Johar, et al., (2021). The challenges experienced by teachers in online workshop during the COVID-19 pandemic. Juárez-Díaz, C., & Perales, M. (2021). Language Teachers’ Emergency Remote Teaching Experiences During the COVID-19 Confinement. Lay, et al., (2020). Examining a Decade of Research in Online Teacher Professional Development. Leary, et. Al, (2020). Professional Development for Online Teaching: A Literature Review. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Magidin de Kramer et al., (2012). Relationship of online teacher professional development to seventh-gradete teachers’ and students’ knowledge and practices in English language arts. Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. Powell, C. G., & Bodur, Y. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of an online Professional development experience: Implications for a design and implementation framework Sezer, B., Yilmaz, F. G. K., & Yilmaz, R. (2017). Comparison of online and traditional face-to-face in-service training practices: an experimental study. Smith, J. A., Flowers P., & Larkin M., (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. Stevens-Long, J., & Crowell, C. (2002). The design and delivery of interactive online graduate education. Treacy, B., Kleiman, G., & Peterson, K. (2002). Successful online professional development