As schools and educational institutions increasingly adopt online training, questions arise regarding its efficacy in fostering teacher motivation compared to traditional face-to-face training. The limited number of empirical evidence about how training modes affect motivation creates a gap in understanding how to best structure professional development programs to maximize teacher participation. So, this study puts the hypothesis that there is a significant difference in teachers' motivation to participate in professional development based on the mode of training delivery (online vs. face-to-face) and asks the question “How does the mode of training delivery influence teachers’ motivation to participate in professional development?”. By analysing quantitative data from surveys the study aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for designing professional development programs that effectively motivate teachers. This study addresses a critical aspect of professional development by investigating how training delivery modes impact teacher motivation. Its findings are expected to contribute to the educators, policymakers, administrators and academic community.

This study utilized a quantitative, causal-comparative research design to examine the relationship between the mode of training delivery (online vs. face-to-face) and teachers' motivation to participate in professional development. The participants consisted of 54 teachers working in the state schools and selected through convenience sampling, who had experience with either online or face-to-face professional development programs. Data were collected using a structured survey, which included Likert-scale items to measure motivation level. The independent variable was the mode of training delivery, categorized as online or face-to-face, while the dependent variable was the motivation score derived from the survey responses. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, independent samples t-test was conducted to compare motivation scores between the two groups One-way ANOVA analysis was carried out to find out about whether teachers' graduation levels and type pf training effect the motivational situation of the teachers. Data for this study were collected using a structured survey designed to measure teachers' motivation to participate in professional development programs delivered either online or face-to-face. The survey consisted of items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 5 ("Strongly Agree"). These items assessed various aspects of motivation, such as engagement, perceived benefits, and preferences related to the mode of training delivery. The survey also included a section for demographic information, such as age, years of teaching experience, and prior participation in professional development programs. The data analysis was carried out for three sub-scales of the survey as "Motivation to Participation", “Efficiency and Effectiveness” and “Quality and Content” Scales.

This study explored the impact of different training delivery modes—online and face-to-face—on teachers' motivation to participate in professional development. The findings indicate that while both modes offer unique advantages, teachers’ motivation varies based on factors such as engagement, perceived effectiveness, and content quality. The results suggest that face-to-face training fosters stronger interpersonal interactions and engagement, whereas online training offers flexibility and accessibility. Significant differences in motivation levels between the two groups highlight the importance of designing professional development programs that balance the strengths of both modalities. These insights contribute to the broader discourse on optimizing teacher training by recommending a blended approach that integrates interactive, high-quality content with flexible learning opportunities. Future research could further explore contextual factors, such as institutional support and technological resources, to refine strategies for enhancing teacher motivation in professional development initiatives.

Ayvaz-Tuncel, Z., & Çobanoğlu, F. (2018). In-service teacher training: Problems of the teachers as learners. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 159-174. Bayrakcı, M. (2009). In-Service Teacher Training in Japan and Turkey: a Comparative Analysis of Institutions and Practices, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 10-22. Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351-365. Horzum, M. B., Albayrak, F. G. K., & Ayvaz, A. (2012). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi eğitimde uzaktan eğitime yönelik inançları. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 13(1), 56–72. Kavak, N., Yamak, H., Bilici, S. C., Bozkurt, E., Darici, O., & Ozkaya, Y. (2012). The evaluation of primary and secondary teachers' opinions about in-service teacher training. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3507–3511. Koç, E. M. (2016). A General Investigation of the In-Service Training of English Language Teachers at Elementary Schools in Turkey. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 455-466. Sabah, S., & Çekin, R. (2016). BEDEN EĞİTİMİ ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN HİZMET İÇİ EĞİTİM ETKİNLİKLERİNE KATILIMLARINI ETKİLEYEN ETMENLER. Spor Ve Performans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.17155/spd.49494 Sefer, A., & Demirel, M. V. (2022). Online in-service teacher training: Perspectives of Turkish L2 lecturers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(2), 419–431. Sezer, B., Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G., & Yılmaz, R. (2017). Comparison of online and traditional face-to-face in-service training practices: An experimental study. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(1), 264–288. Taşlıbeyaz, E., Karaman, S., & Göktaş, Y. (2014). Öğretmenlerin uzaktan hizmet içi eğitim deneyimlerinin incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 139–160. Yolcu, H. & Kartal, S. (2017). Evaluating of In-service Training Activities for Teachers in Turkey: A Critical Analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(6): 918-926, 2017.