Vol 16 No 9 - September 2017

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.16 No.9

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 16 NUMBER 9 September 2017
Table of Contents
Technology to the Rescue: Appropriate Curriculum for Gifted Students.......................................................................1
Dr. Susan L. Zimlich
Perceptions of ESL Program Management in Canadian Higher Education: A Qualitative Case Study .................. 13
Sarah Elaine Eaton
Korean University Students‟ Perceptions of Teacher Motivational Strategies............................................................. 29
Michael Heinz and Chris Kobylinski
Visualising the Doctoral Research Process: An Exploration into Empirical Research Processes of Emerging
Researchers ............................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Kwong Nui Sim and Russell Butson
Student Experiences of a Blended Learning Environment.............................................................................................. 60
Jase Moussa-Inaty
“We Need to Give the Profession Something that No One Else Can”: Swedish Student Teachers‟ Perceptions and
Experiences of their Preschool Teacher Training Programme........................................................................................ 73
Birgitte Malm
Impact of Language Input on Comprehensiveness of Reading Material among Students in Saudi Arabia ............ 88
Mohammed Abdulmalik Ali
Teacher Conduct: A Survey on Professional Ethics among Chinese Kindergarten Teachers .................................... 98
Zhaolin Ji
Nursing Students‟ Experiences of Using Adobe Connect in a First-year Professional Nursing Course ............... 114
Liz Ditzel (RN, PhD) and Anna Wheeler (RN)

1
© 2017 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 16, No. 9, pp. 1-12, September 2017
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.9.1
Technology to the Rescue: Appropriate
Curriculum for Gifted Students
Dr. Susan L. Zimlich
Southeastern Louisiana University
Hammond, Louisiana
Abstract. An appropriate curriculum for students who are gifted will
meet their learning needs and motivate them to stay engaged in the
learning process. In an effort to provide an appropriate curriculum for
gifted students, one possibility is to provide a behavior trap. Behavior
traps are learning activities that entice students to engage due to interest
in the content or activity itself. Behavior traps motivate because they are
easy to do at first and then reinforce motivation later to encourage
continued engagement (Albert & Heward, 1996). Technology can be both
a tool to provide a behavior trap and also a behavior trap in and of itself.
Students who are gifted benefit when curriculum provides practice with
complex topics, critical thinking, self-reflection, creativity, and access to
mentors for scaffolding. This is essential for helping students who are
gifted to reach their potential. Technology and what can be done with
technology in educational settings can provide complexity in
differentiated or individualized learning. Students’ critical thinking skills
and metacognition can be built through problem solving, projects, and
simulations enhanced or provided by technology. Students can compare
their work with peers in other locations or have access to mentors who
might not otherwise be available. Specialized software and equipment
can be used to help build academic skills and also develop creativity.
Technology can help teachers meet the standards for gifted education
programs, but only if teachers choose to implement technology in
meaningful ways that meet the needs of students who are gifted.
Keywords: Motivating gifted students; educational technology; gifted
curriculum; thinking skills.
Introduction
Technology has taken a firm hold in education. Technology can be taught as a
stand-alone topic or embedded within a lesson (Henriksen, Mishra, & Fisser, 2016;
International Society for Technology in Education, 2007). Schools have not only
labs, but also computers or tablets in classrooms, interactive white boards, digital
cameras, video cameras, computer projectors, and other digital equipment
(Lanahan & Boysen, 2005). Additionally, applications run the gambit from game-
style formats that use high- tech virtual interactions to teach children an
assortment of subjects and thinking skills (Siegle, 2015; Tünzün, 2007; Williams,

2
Ma, Feist, Richard, & Prejean, 2007) to traditional word processing and
presentation software. Teachers recognize that technology motivates many
students to produce high quality work (Clausen, 2007), and students themselves
report that it motivates them to engage with a variety of subject areas and topics
of interest (Clausen, 2007; “Digital Imaging,” 2001; Johnsen, Witte, & Robins, 2006;
Wighting, 2006). Teachers direct student use of technology in school and can use
their decision making power to purposefully plan to use technology in ways that
motivate students (Siegle, 2015).
Motivation is shaped by both personal and situational influences (Clinkenbeard,
2012; Little, 2012). Particular attention to the preservation and development of
motivation should inform programming for gifted students (Gottfried, Gottfried,
Cook, & Morris, 2005). Teachers should create a setting that encourages students
to achieve their full potential. Two key factors in developing potential are
motivation and challenge in the learning environment (Little, 2012; National
Association for Gifted Children, 2010). Gifted students are motivated by a
curriculum that matches their interests and levels of cognitive development
(Colangelo & Davis, 2003; VanTassel-Baska, 2015). When students’ goals match
their learning environment, they are more likely to stay engaged in school-
directed learning tasks (Kilian, Hofer, & Kahnle, 2013; Little, 2012). Thus, access to
an appropriate curriculum for students who are gifted could have lifelong
ramifications.
One possible way to increase students’ motivation is through the use of behavior
traps. In education, a behavior trap is a learning activity for students that a
teacher has created to entice students to be engaged in learning. The behavior
trap:
1. is irresistibly attractive to the students,
2. has an easy entry point that is already mastered,
3. reinforces and motivates the students, and
4. uses an activity that sustains the students’ interest over time (Albert &
Heward, 1996).
Technology can act as a behavior trap for students who are gifted. It could be that
the use of the technology is the behavior trap, or that the technology is a tool for
access to content or products that are behavior traps. Today’s students have
grown up with technology. They experience it in all areas of their lives. The
students expect technology to be everywhere, including school. Technology fits
the requirements for creating a behavior trap because:
1. it provides access to any topic that might be of interest to students,
2. fluency and expertise with technology are either already mastered or easily
mastered by students,
3. access to quick feedback and audiences with similar interests reinforces and
motivates students, and
4. access to Web 2.0 capabilities and almost limitless materials about topics can
sustain students’ interest over time.

3
Appropriate Curriculum
Curriculum plays a large role in determining the context in which teaching and
learning occur. All teachers, whether in resource rooms or in general education
classrooms, need to provide an appropriate curriculum to meet individual
student needs (Kaplan, 2016; Sak, 2004; Smith & Wietz, 2003; Zentall, Moon, Hall
& Grskovich, 2001). Although in every class there exist differences in the ability,
interest, and motivation of students, the flexibility and motivating nature of
technology can help create life-giving learning environments (Baule, 2007) by
providing students with the opportunity for differentiated instruction or tasks.
Differentiation to meet academic needs may come readily to mind; however, it is
also important to provide differentiation in terms of creativity. There are many
definitions of creativity, but in general students who are creatively gifted are
characterized by original thinking that comes from examining a variety of
perspectives, using divergent thinking, and thinking in nonlinear ways
(Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Sak, 2004). Some of the most creative students struggle
to function within the framework of specialized classes for gifted students where
their needs inform instructional planning for the class. How much more do they
struggle in the setting of the general education classroom where their needs are
often ignored (Sak, 2004)? Teachers who differentiate instruction honor and
recognize student strengths, interests, and abilities by providing choices that offer
different levels of support for learning. Differentiation of instruction may provide
the only opportunities that some gifted students receive to meet their particular
learning needs (Bain, Bliss, Choate, & Brown, 2007; Kaplan, 2016).
Technology can direct and organize student learning (Rosenfeld, 2008).
Technology can be used to differentiate lessons when students, rather than
teachers, are the ones using it (Garcia & Rose, 2007; Ysseldyke & Bolt, 2007).
Projects that require technology can engage collaborative groups (Donovan,
Hartley, & Strudler, 2007; Garcia & Rose, 2007; Wolsey & Grisham, 2007; Yang,
Chang, Cheng, & Chan, 2016). While some students are working more closely
with the teacher, other students can work independently, researching different
topics and using a variety of tools to produce distinct products (Smith & Wietz,
2003). Differentiation of subject matter, topic complexity, and products are all
possible natural side effects of assigning projects that use technology.
The role of the teacher is to compact the required curriculum to provide time for a
curriculum that better matches students’ academic and creative abilities and
growth. Technology helps teachers to provide an appropriate curriculum in terms
of complexity, higher order thinking skills, and specialized resources, including
the use of special software and access to mentors.
Complexity
Differentiating the levels or types of complexity benefits gifted students, who are
more engaged in learning when they encounter tasks that emphasize challenge
(Betts, Tardrew, & Ysseldyke, 2004; Harrison, 2004; Kimball, 2001), complexity
(“Digital Imaging,” 2001; Harrison, 2004), and high levels of learning (Kimball,
2001; Wighting, 2006). Technology can offer access to materials at all levels of
complexity, so students can find information at the level they prefer. Gifted

4
students move relatively quickly from concrete ideas to more abstract ideas
compared to other students (Harrison, 2004; Smith & Wietz, 2003). Advanced
software can allow students to process all kinds of information and transform it to
suit their purposes. Gifted students not only seek out complex ideas, but also
want to express their own complex ideas in unique and elaborate ways.
Gifted students rapidly master basic information in a discipline and quickly move
to abstract thinking across levels. Technology facilitates making connections
among ideas that originate in a variety of materials (Sak, 2004). These new
connections give students who are gifted ideas about what to research or how to
treat theories (Harrison, 2004).
Students build greater complexity in their products as they gain skill in using
technology. The more they appear competent and the more sophisticated the
technology they use it, the more exposure to technology they have (Dove &
Zitkovich, 2003). Teachers can model the use of advanced software in lessons that
introduce it at basic skill levels. As students acquire skills with the software,
teachers can assign projects that require greater complexity (“Digital Imaging,”
2001). Teachers can scaffold students’ skills in gathering data, editing written
work, and publishing products. Because gifted students seek out complexity not
just in the way their ideas are expressed, but also in the process of developing the
products that demonstrate what they have learned, teachers can encourage
student collaboration in initial stages of projects and then gradually let students
work on their own.
Critical Thinking Skills
Thinking skills are another focus of differentiated curriculum for gifted students.
All students benefit from developing higher order thinking skills, and good
teachers include as many higher order thinking tasks as possible in the regular
curriculum (International Society for Technology in Education, 2007; Siegle, 2004).
For gifted students, however, higher order thinking skills are the sine qua non of
education (Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Kimball, 2001). Successful use of technology
can increase students’ confidence and skill levels in critical thinking (Reid &
Roberts, 2006). Furthermore, the stimulation of higher order thinking skills may
keep gifted students engaged in school tasks.
Among the most common approaches to the development of critical thinking
skills instructions are problem-based learning and project creation, both of which
benefit from the infusion of technology. Students who spend more time online
show greater skill levels in evaluation and writing (Ba, Tally, & Tsikalas, 2002).
Some software applications are designed to use problem-based learning to teach
students specific critical thinking skills (Tünzün, 2007; Williams et al., 2007).
Teachers encourage critical thinking by promoting inquiry, by asking questions to
help students troubleshoot technology problems, and by limiting the number of
questions they answer directly (Ba et al., 2002; “Digital Imaging,” 2001; Clausen,
2007; Wong, Quek, Divaharan, Liu, Peer, & Williams, 2006; Smith & Weitz, 2003).
Reviewing Internet content for reliability is an essential technology skill that also
promotes critical thinking (Abelman, 2007). Evaluating the technology with which

5
they are interacting (Abelman, 2007; Siegle, 2004), determining the most suitable
piece of equipment, program, or tool (“Digital Imaging,” 2001), and learning how
to balance schoolwork and recreation time on the computer all call for higher
order thinking (Ba et al., 2002; Tünzün, 2007).
Technology can change the ways students think about and organize information
(Zentall et al., 2001). The development of concepts and connections within and
between diverse subject areas, to which Internet access greatly contributes,
depends on higher order thinking (Boon, Fore, & Rasheed, 2007). In the course of
working on almost any complex project, students will organize computer files
into folders, which helps them understand both how concepts are connected
within subject areas and the structure of particular branches of knowledge (Ba et
al., 2002; Boon et al., 2007). Technology’s ability to have multiple program
windows open at the same time eases side-by-side comparisons, facilitating
analysis and synthesis of ideas (Sak, 2004). Some problem-based virtual learning
environments develop analogical thinking using side-by-side analogies (Tünzün,
2007; Williams et al., 2007).
Technology can also create a context for problem solving particularly suited to
creatively gifted students. These students typically examine concepts from a
variety of perspectives (Sak, 2004) and often think about them in unusual ways
(Fleith, 2000; Russo, 2004). Computer simulations designed to help students
practice perspective-taking often present problems from a variety of viewpoints
(Tünzün, 2007). Hyperlinks or multi-nodal simulations stimulate nonlinear
thinking, which in turn fosters sensitivity toward and appreciation of unusual,
creative, and divergent approaches to problem solving by academically and
creatively gifted students, who use more cognitive strategies while problem
solving than average students (Hong & Aqui, 2004).
Gifted students are not necessarily highly able in all subject areas (Colangelo, &
Davis, 2003; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2000). Although, many of them read
above grade level, not all do (Smith & Weitz, 2003). Most report that they are
bored by standard classroom reading activities, regardless of their actual reading
ability (Hettinger & Knapp, 2001), since the vast majority of such tasks focus on
lower-order thinking skills (Moon, Callahan, & Tomlinson, 2003). Many find it
more motivating to access material that would otherwise be unavailable
(Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004), or to collaborate on a common project with
students geographically distant from their school (Wong et al., 2006, Yang et al.,
2016) on topics that interest them (Zentall et al., 2001). Reading advanced, highly
interesting material online may benefit gifted students, even those who have
learning disabilities in reading, more than reading yet another story from a basal
reader (Zentall et al., 2001). Collaborating with an online group gives students
access to others far distant from their localities who share their interests. Some
may have greater ability or more expertise and thus able to scaffold learning of
knowledge or skills (Yang et al., 2016). Furthermore, the possibility of
collaboration online gives students a choice about working independently or in a
group (Wong et al., 2006).

6
Technology may also aid in the development of metacognition, as it can be a
resource for reflection and feedback as well as for investigation (Harrison, 2004).
Training in metacognition is an important part of gifted curriculum, as it
stimulates creativity, problem solving fluency, and self-regulation (Colangelo &
Davis, 2003). Metacognition and self-reflection are enhanced when students are
made aware of available strategies, and then are given open-ended meaningful
tasks in which to use the strategies (Kinnebrew, Segedy, & Biswas, 2014; Paris &
Paris, 2001). Web 2.0 technologies allow students plentiful options for tasks that
can be shared beyond the classroom walls, such as publishing a blog,
collaborating on research, and exploring opportunities for service learning.
Additionally, technology can allow for independence and choice in learning tasks,
characteristics that enhance the development of self-regulation in students (Paris
& Paris, 2001). Overestimation or underestimation of skills are improved through
feedback on work (Callender, Franco-Watkins, & Roberts, 2015). Technology can
provide immediate feedback to students, as well as give students access to
feedback sources beyond their classroom teacher. Students who are gifted have a
better sense of their own skills when they can compare their work to peers or
experts.
Mentors
Mentoring is an aspect of gifted education (Colangelo & Davis, 2003) that is
greatly enhanced through technology. Gifted students seek out mentors
(Colangelo & Davis, 2003). Technology allows a student access to a mentor no
matter what the subject area, level of expertise, or geographical constraint. Expert
mentors are available from all over the world via the Internet (Housand &
Housand, 2012; Mammadov & Topcu, 2014; Olthouse & Miller, 2012). Email,
webcams, blogs, wikis, and instant messaging make communication fast and easy.
Through such technologies, students can function as research aides alongside
scientists, historical writers, or mathematicians. Such opportunities help them
develop an understanding of what experts do in the field.
Creatively gifted students’ ratings of creativity have high correlation with those of
experts, but as novices, they need mentoring to learn how to provide and receive
feedback about how to improve their products. Mentors teach them ways to
express why one product is more creative than another (Dove & Zitkovich, 2003;
Mammadov & Topcu, 2014). Communication with mentors can help students
develop understandings of their own creativity by modeling and providing
meaningful creative feedback (Kaufman, Gentile, & Baer, 2005).
Mentors are a good resource for acceleration, guiding work when students’ zones
of proximal development are beyond the classroom teachers’ competence.
Mentors can help academically able learners advance to higher levels of skill
through discussions of hands-on learning and independent projects (Dove &
Zitkovich, 2003; Wong et al., 2006).
Specialized Software and Equipment
The curriculum for gifted students should include opportunities to learn about
and use specialized software or equipment to reflect their thinking patterns.
Instruction can have technology skill as an end in itself, but it can also be a tool for
motivating students to engage in high levels of academic work (“Digital

7
Imaging,” 2001; Johnsen et al., 2006; Wighting, 2006). The multimedia aspects of
software can help students express ideas using sounds, pictures, diagrams, text,
and combinations of those media. The motivation can come from using software
features (Boon et al., 2007) or from using specialized equipment (Dove &
Zitkovich, 2003).
The ways in which technology is used can reflect the areas of giftedness, whether
academic or creative (Zentall et al., 2001). Students who are more academically
gifted typically produce fewer original materials than creatively gifted students,
but they demonstrate a greater aptitude for managing information and academic
achievement (Sak, 2004). They often use software in ways that reflect linear
thinking. In some software, part of the design structure of the program is to
scaffold student learning (Williams et al., 2007). Learning is enhanced when
software facilitates study and/or provides course-related materials (Betts et al.,
2004; Boon et al., 2007; Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004; Siegle & Foster, 2001).
Software has even been written with the aim of increasing levels of metacognition
by students (Kinnebrew et al., 2014).
Creative students display originality, curiosity (Fleith, 2000; Harrison, 2004; Sak,
2004), and nonconformity, both in their classroom interactions and in their
thinking patterns. Such students easily take on other viewpoints (Zentall et al.,
2001), a skill which can be encouraged using technology. Hyperlinks and multiple
windows reflect their nonlinear thinking. For example, gifted student writers
make extensive use of software functions that find synonyms to experiment with
how particular words change the meaning of a sentence (Sak, 2004).
Games may be tied to standards and sometimes may directly teach or reinforce
skills when students answer questions and get immediate feedback (Siegle 2015).
Interactive games are a form of specialized game software that can offer virtual
learning environments with content that appeals to academically gifted students.
They often have an overarching, linear storyline, but feature game play that is
multi-nodal in nature, attracting creatively gifted students. The self-selected
quests and the multiple ways to explore the gaming environment promote the
kinds of higher order thinking privileged by gifted and talented curriculum
(Tünzün, 2007; Williams et al., 2007).
Software can also individualize the educational experience. Programs paired with
paper and pencil assignments, such as those created by Accelerated Math, track
student progress and offer learning activities for specific levels of performance
(Betts et al., 2004; Ysseldyke & Bolt, 2007). In immersive educational computer
games, student choice produces avatars and results in individualized experiences
of tasks and levels of game play (Tünzün, 2007; Williams et al., 2007).
Computer simulations are an especially helpful kind of software. They are
immersive virtual learning environments that mimic real life, feature real-time
interactions, and provide immediate feedback (Mohide, Matthey-Maich, & Cross,
2006; Tünzün, 2007; Williams et al., 2007). They facilitate problem-based learning
by helping students collaborate to solve the problems encountered in the

8
simulation. They provide a contextualization of the problems presented within
the content-laden storyline of the game (Mohide et al., 2006; Tünzün, 2007). For
example, they can help students explore the technologies, occupations,
governments, or lifestyles of different historical periods. Finally, they stimulate
students’ imaginations and show the depth of detailed knowledge needed to plan
an invention or create a fictional country.
In addition to specialized software, there are numerous pieces of specialized
equipment that use computer processing. Using Global Positioning Systems or
other equipment that adults use can excite and motivate students (Dove &
Zitkovich, 2003).
In summary, the full development of gifted students’ potential requires an
appropriate curriculum. Technology can help teachers offer a curriculum
differentiated by complexity, a focus on thinking skills, and opportunities to learn
about and use specialized software and equipment or access to mentors.
Conclusion
It is fitting that teachers of the gifted use technology in delivery of content for
their students (National Association for Gifted Children, 2013). Technology can
help teachers foster the motivation of high-end learners. Both digital literacy and
gifted education emphasize creativity, innovation, collaboration, critical thinking,
problem solving, and decision making. This overlap allows teachers to help
students develop in both areas simultaneously through strategic use of
technology in the classroom (Henriksen et al., 2016; International Society for
Technology in Education, 2007; Siegle, 2004). Differentiating lessons by
complexity, critical thinking, and challenge (Kaplan, 2016) will highly motivate
gifted students to better meet their needs and help them to achieve to their full
potential (Little, 2012).
In particular, using technology to structure the learning environment in ways that
ensure an appropriate curriculum can act as a behavior trap (Albert & Heward,
1996) to motivate high-end learners. The ways that technology can aid students in
accessing materials within their zone of proximal development and in allowing
students to create increasingly complex products means that technology facilitates
the behavior trap requirement of an easily mastered entry point. Additionally,
teaching strategies such as problem-based learning, inquiry methods, and
development of students’ conceptual skills in organization and metacognition,
require critical thinking and are supported by technology. Critical thinking
provides challenge that is irresistibly attractive for gifted students, another
requirement of a behavior trap. Mentors, who are readily accessible using
technology, can help meet the behavior trap requirement of providing
reinforcement and motivation for gifted students. In addition to easy access to
volumes of materials online, the specialized equipment and specialized software
that allow students to demonstrate varying levels of expertise, display creativity,
or experience alternate realities meets the final behavior trap requirement of
sustaining student interest over time. Teachers can use technology as a tool to
help meet the needs of students who are gifted.

9
References
Abelman, R. (2007). Fighting the war on indecency: Mediating TV, internet, and
videogame usage among achieving and underachieving gifted children. Roeper
Review, 29, 100-112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554393
Albert, S. R., & Heward, W. L. (1996). Gotcha! Twenty-five behavior traps guaranteed to
extend your students’ academic and social skills. Intervention in School & Clinic, 31,
285-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129603100505
Ba, H., Tally, W., & Tsikalas, K. (2002). Investigating children’s emerging digital literacies.
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1(4). Retrieved from
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1670/1510
Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Brown, K. S. (2007). Serving children who are
gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-478.
https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-506
Baule, S. M. (2007). The components of successful technology. Teacher Librarian, 34 (5), 16-
18.
Betts, J., Tardrew, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to
enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Journal of Education of the
Gifted, 27, 293-310. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2004-319
Boon, R. T., Fore, C., & Rasheed, S. (2007). Students' attitudes and perceptions toward
technology-based applications and guided notes instruction in high school world
history classrooms. Reading Improvement, 4(1), 23-31.
Callendar, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Roberts, A. S. (2015). Improving metacognition
in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition
Learning 11, 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9142-6
Clausen, J. M. (2007). Beginning teachers’ technology use: First-year teacher development
and the institutional context’s affect on new teachers’ technology use with
students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 245-261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782482
Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and
research. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 622-630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21628
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Digital imaging supplement- shape: Adobe After Effects, Adobe Photoshop and Adobe
Premier used in Savannah R-III Elementary School. (2001). T.H.E. Journal, 29 (3),
66.
Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial
implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 263-286.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782483
Dove, M. K., & Zitkovich, J. A. (2003). Technology driven group investigations for gifted
elementary students. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 2003(1), 223-
241.
Fleith, D. d. F. (2000). Teacher and students’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom
environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554022
Garcia, P., & Rose, S. (2007). The influence of technocentric collaboration on preservice
teachers’ attitudes about technology’s role in powerful learning and teaching.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 247-266.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Cook, C. R., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational
characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A

10
longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900206
Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early childhood: The search for complexity and
connection. Roeper Review, 26, 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554246
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st
century education: A systematic view for change. Educational Technology & Society,
19(3), 27-37.
Hettinger, H. R., & Knapp, N. F., (2001). Potential, performance, and paradox: A case
study of J. P., a verbally gifted struggling reader. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 24, 248-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320102400303
Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents
gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191- 201.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800304
Housand, B. C., & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students’
motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 706-715.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21629
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Education Technology
Standards for Students. Retrieved from
http://www.cnets.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students
Johnsen, S. K., Witte, M., & Robins, J. (2006). Through their eyes: Students’ perspectives of
a university-based enrichment program – The University for Young People
Project. Gifted Child Today, 29 (3), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2006-5
Kaplan, S. N. (2016). Challenge vs. differentiation: Why, what and how. Gifted Child Today
39(2), 114-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628916
Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative
writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260-265.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900307
Kilian, B., Hofer, M., & Kahnle, C. (2013). Conflicts between on-task and off-task behaviors
in the classroom: The influences of parental monitoring, peer value orientations,
students’ goals, and their value orientations. Social Psychology of Education, 16(1),
77-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9198-y
Kimball, K. L. B. (2001). Interpretative stories from school careers of gifted students. Retrieved
from ProQuest database. (AAT 3032075)
Kinnebrew, J. S., Segedy, J. R., & Biswas, G. (2014). Analyzing the temporal evolution of
students’ behavior in open-ended learning environments. Metacognition &
Learning 9(2), 187-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9112-4
Lanahan, L., & Boysen, J. (2005). Computer technology in the public school classroom:
Teacher perspectives. (NCES 2005-083). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005083.pdf
Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the schools,
49, 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621
Mammadov, S. & Topcu, A. (2014). The role of e-mentoring in mathematically gifted
students’ academic life: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3),
220-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214540824
Mohide, E. A., Matthew-Maich, N., & Cross, H. (2006). Using electronic gaming to
promote evidence-based practice in nursing education. Journal of Nursing
Education, 45, 384.
Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Effects of state testing program
on elementary schools with high concentration of student poverty- Good news or
bad news? Current Issues in Education, 6(8). Retrieved from
http://cie.asu.edu/volume6/number8/
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). 2010 pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming

11
standards. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/K-
12%20programming%20standards.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). NAGC-CEC teacher preparation
standards in gifted and talented education. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/NAGC-
%20CEC%20CAEP%20standards%20(2013%20final).pdf
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. Y. (2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development
through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 7-35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320402800102
Olthouse, J. M., & Miller, M. T. (2012). Teaching talented writers with web 2.0 tools.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 6-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204500201
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist 36(2), 89-101.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3602_4
Reid, P. T., & Roberts, S. K. (2006). Gaining Options: A Mathematics Program for
Potentially Talented At-risk Adolescent Girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 288-
304. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0019
Rosenfeld, B. (2008). The challenges of teaching with technology: From computer idiocy to
computer competence. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35, 157-166.
Russo, C. F. (2004). A comparative study of creativity and cognitive problem-solving
strategies of high-IQ and average students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 179-190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800303
Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the
classroom. Roeper Review, 26, 216-222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554272
Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century: A bonus for
gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32-35.
https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2004-129
Siegle, D. (2015). Technology. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 192-197.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583744
Siegle, D., & Foster, (2001). Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation software:
Their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 29-37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782331
Smith, K. & Weitz, M. (2003). Problem Solving Education and Gifted Education: A
Differentiated Fifth-Grade Fantasy Unit. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 56-60.
https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2003-108
Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Sholik, A. (2000). Gender differences in academic attitudes
among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23,
360-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320002300403
Tünzün, H. (2007). Blending video games with learning: Issues and challenges with
classroom implementations in the Turkish context. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 38, 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00710.x
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Curriculum issues: Error analysis in thinking about curriculum
for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 198-199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583746
Wighting, M. J. (2006). Effects of Computer Use on High School Students' Sense of
Community. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 371-379.
https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.99.6.371-380
Williams, D., Ma, Y., Feist, S., Richard, C. E., & Prejean, L. (2007). The design of an
analogical encoding tool for game-based virtual learning environments. British

12
Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 429-437.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00707.x
Wolsey, T. D., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Adolescents and the new literacies: Writing
engagement. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 29-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2007.10463446
Wong, A. F. L., Quek, C. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W. C., Peer, J., & Williams, M. D. (2006).
Singapore Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Computer-Supported Project
Work Classroom Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 38, 449-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782469
Yang, E. F. Y., Chang, B., Cheng, H. N. H., & Chan, T. (2016). Improving pupils’
mathematical communication abilities through computer-supported reciprocal
peer tutoring. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 157-169.
Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress
monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453-467.
Zentall, S. S., Moon, S. M., Hall, A. M., & Grskovich, J. A. (2001). Learning and
motivational characteristics of boys with AD/HD and/or giftedness. Exceptional
Children, 67(4), 499-519. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700405

13
Perceptions of ESL Program Management in
Canadian Higher Education: A Qualitative Case
Study
Sarah Elaine Eaton
University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada
Abstract. ESL programs at post-secondary institutions must often
generate revenue in addition to teaching students English. Institutions
often impose explicit expectations on these programs to generate profit,
creating unique challenges for those who administer them. This
qualitative case study investigated challenges faced by ESL program
directors at one university in Canada. Semistructured interviews were
used to collect data from program directors (N = 3) on topics relating to
administration, marketing, the mandate to generate revenue, and the
complexities of ESL program legitimacy and marginalization in higher
education contexts. Five key themes emerged from the data: (a) the
necessity for directors to be highly qualified and multilingual, as well as
have international experience; (b) a general lack of training, support,
and resources for program directors; (c) institutional barriers such as
working with marketers and recruiters with little knowledge of ESL
contexts; (d) program fragmentation and marginalization on campus;
and (e) reluctance to share information and program protectionism.
Findings point to the need for increased training and support for ESL
program directors, along with the need for institutions to elevate the
profile of these programs so they are not viewed as having less value
than other academic programs on campus.
Keywords: TESOL; language program management; administration;
profit; revenue
Introduction
Directors of English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in higher education
face different professional challenges than those of their administrative
colleagues from other disciplines. ESL programs differ from other disciplines in
fundamental ways (Rowe, 2012). First, students take ESL either as a form of
skills training or to bridge into degree programs. They do not graduate with a
major or minor specialization in ESL (Panferov, 2012; Staczek & Carkin, 1984;
Stoller & Christison, 1994), and they often study English full-time and
exclusively (Szasz, 2009/2010). In addition, ESL programs in post-secondary

14
institutions exist, at least in part, to generate revenue (Eskey, 1997; Panferov,
2012; Pennington & Hoejke, 2014; Staczek & Carkin, 1984). As such, they often
have separate tuition structures, admissions policies, and budgets (Pennington
& Hoekje, 2014), meaning that administrative approaches to ESL programs differ
from others on a post-secondary campus. This creates a situation in which ESL
programs are obliged to generate revenue for the very institutions in which they
struggle to be regarded as legitimate contributors to the academic community.
This qualitative case study investigates the experiences of three ESL program
directors working in a Canadian higher education context, using semistructured
interviews to gather data. Findings point to the need for further training for
program directors, as well as increased institutional support, to ensure ESL
programs are viewed as legitimate contributors to the campus community.
Literature Review
The challenges faced by ESL administrators are linked to the unique nature of
their roles. The literature points to specific traits and training that an ESL
program director is likely to have. In addition to the characteristics ESL program
directors possess as individuals, two additional key topics emerged about the
nature of ESL programs in higher education: the aspect of having to generate
revenue while simultaneously being marginalized on campus. Each of these key
topics inform a collective understanding of how ESL programs in higher
education exist and are managed.
Characteristics of an ESL Program Manager
A typical ESL program manager has professional expertise in language learning
and global education, and likely has international work experience (Rawley,
1997). Three separate survey studies, each surveying over 100 participants,
found that over 90% of ESL program administrators held advanced degrees
(Matthies, 1984; Panferov, 2012; Reasor, 1986). Reasor (1986) also found that ESL
program managers are more likely to be ―cautious, careful, conservative and
orderly‖ (p. 341). A typical ESL program director has a combination of
international experience, advanced degrees, and a conscientious and intentional
approach to professional practice.
ESL directors are less likely to be tenured, less likely to hold a tenure-track
professorship, and less likely to have time available for teaching or research
when compared to academic administrators of other departments (Pennington &
Xiao, 1990). ESL directors may also have high levels of compassion, with a deep
desire to help others (Rowe-Henry, 1997; Soppelsa, 1997). Despite professional
expertise, academic qualifications, and altruistic intentions, the typical ESL
director is likely to be regarded as less authoritative or influential than
colleagues of similar academic rank in comparable roles.
To compound the issue further, ESL program directors are often ill-prepared to
take on management roles and lack training in administration and business
(Murdock, 1997; Nolan, 2001; Panferov, 2012; Pennington & Xiao, 1990; Reasor,
1986; Rowe, 2012). Hussein (1995) found that over three-quarters of Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) program graduates had
received no training in management during their degrees. The result is that ESL
program administrators often start out their careers as language teachers, thus

15
having a strong knowledge of language acquisition and language teaching
methodologies, leaving them only common sense and good intentions to guide
them when they take on management roles (Stoller & Christison, 1994). Only
through practice and experience do most ESL program directors develop
managerial competence (Hussein, 1995); therefore, their career development is
neither systematic, nor extensive. The result is that ESL program directors often
learn how to do their jobs by trial and error, fueled by a combination of common
sense, good will, and grit.
ESL Programs as Revenue Generators
The notion of ESL programs as money-makers has a history reaching back
almost half a century, when ―a great many new [ESL programs] were
established in the 1970s‖ (Eskey, 1997, p. 25), leading to the ―widespread
perception, probably accurate at the time, that such programs were sure-fire
money makers‖ (Eskey, 1997, p. 25). The 1970s proved to be a pivotal point in
the history of ESL at the post-secondary level, marking the first time
international students began to populate ESL programs (Staczek & Carkin,
1984). Eskey (1997) noted, ―In any given year, larger numbers come from certain
parts of the world (the Middle East in the 1970s, the Far East in the 1990s),
mainly as a consequence of economic and political factors‖ (p. 22).
By the 1990s, ESL enrollments were booming, and simultaneously institutions
began withdrawing centralized support from these programs, making
institutional support conditional on enrollment and revenue generation
(Staczek, 1997). Starting in the 1990s, financial solvency became a precondition
for the existence of ESL programs in higher education.
That precondition continues to be a reality well into the 21st century (Rowe,
2012). But solvency was merely the beginning. The commodification of English
language programs has become the norm in higher education (Pennington &
Hoejke, 2014), as they continue to be perceived as a ―cash cow‖ for universities
(Bista, 2011, p. 10; Eskey, 1997, p. 25; Kaplan, 1997, p. 7) and there is little
indication that the situation of ESL programs as institutional revenue generators
is going to change any time soon.
ESL Program Marginalization and Struggle for Legitimacy
ESL program directors struggle for legitimacy as professionals in an academic
context (Breshears, 2004; Jenks, 1997; Jenks & Kennell, 2012; MacDonald, 2016;
MacPherson et al., 2005; McGee, Haworth, & MacIntyre, 2014). Not only do
program directors struggle for recognition as individuals, ESL programs as a
whole remain marginalized and under-resourced (Eaton, 2013; Dvorack, 1986;
MacDonald, 2016; Norris, 2016; Rowe-Henry, 1997; Soppelsa, 1997). Although
ESL programs can bring significant value to an institution in terms of income
generated, they continue to be regarded as ―second-class‖ (Pennington &
Hoekje, 2014, p. 167) or ―questionable‖ (Stoller & Christison, 1994, p. 17). Unlike
other academic administrators on campus, the work of the ESL program director
includes helping the program achieve legitimacy (Jenks, 1997; Jenks & Kennell,
2012).
To summarize, the literature presents a picture of the ESL director who is a
highly qualified language teacher, has likely earned an advanced degree, has

16
international experience, and has demonstrated diligence, intentionality, and
conscientiousness. These individuals often lack management training but are
given the task, by their institutions, of leading ESL programs that have evolved
to be de facto cash cows. Concurrent to the responsibility of continually
generating revenue, ESL program directors must also advocate to have their
programs recognized as legitimate contributors to the academic communities
they serve. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to declare that the role of the
ESL program director is both complex and formidable.
Present Study
The available literature on the administration of ESL programs has identified a
number of concerns with program mandates, institutional support, and director
capacity and skills. There is an identifiable gap in the research involving the
collection of primary data in the area of ESL program administration,
particularly in the last 25 years. Much of the literature is based on authors’
personal experiences, scholarly observations of the field, and literature reviews.
This study aimed to examine the issue from the perspective of ESL directors
within a Canadian context. The following research question was investigated: (1)
What do ESL program directors perceive to be the challenges and benefits of
leading a revenue-generating program in a university? Two additional questions
included: (2) What barriers do ESL program directors face in their roles?; and (2)
What qualities or experience are necessary for an ESL program director to lead a
revenue-generating ESL program in higher education?
Theoretical framework
There is a general lack of leadership literature within the TESOL field (Curtis,
2013; McGee et al., 2014). Greenier and Whitehead (2016) proposed a leadership
model for English language teaching, which covered the notion of authentic
leadership in the ESL classroom for teachers, but their work did not examine the
role of administrators. Pennington and Hoekje (2010) presented a leadership
model of language programs as an organizational ecology, noting the
dependencies of various interconnected components and how they are affected
by the larger context in which they exist (p. 214). Prior to that, only two edited
volumes touched upon the topic of leadership in language program
administration (Christison & Murray, 2009; Coombe, McCloskey, Stephenson, &
Anderson, 2008).
The current study is framed within the context of Heifetz’s notion of adaptive
leadership (Heifetz, 1994, 2006, 2010; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Heifetz
& Laurie, 1997; Heifetz & Linsky, 2004). Adaptive leadership is relevant to the
current study as it speaks to ―work [that] is required when our deeply held
beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become less
relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge‖ (Heifetz &
Laurie, 1997, p. 124). For ESL program administrators, the need to generate
revenue as a necessary element of program management may deeply challenge
their belief that the motives for education should be altruistic. The values,
experiences, and expertise relating to second language teaching and language
acquisition that made them successful as classroom teachers become
significantly less relevant when they take on leadership roles.

17
Heifetz et al. (2009) have contended that adaptive leadership needs to address
current realities in which ―urgency, high stakes, and uncertainty will continue as
the norm‖ (p. 62). They specifically discussed the notion of leading adaptively in
a situation of ―permanent crisis‖ (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 62). Although their
study applies to leadership in a business context, it is equally relevant to ESL
programs in higher education, because as Rowe (2012) pointed out, many ESL
programs operate through ―perpetual crisis management‖ (p. 109). The wording
may differ slightly, but the notion of leading in conditions of unceasing crisis is a
common denominator between them. What is compelling about this theory is
that although it emerged from a business context, it applies equally well to ESL
program managers, who are mandated to think and act as though they are
running a business.
Crises in ESL can arise for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to those
involving a single student, a program-wide issue, and factors internal and
external to the program (Rowe, 2012). Hence, Heifetz et al.’s (2009) notion of
leading in a permanent crisis was particularly relevant for the current study, as
participants consistently indicated the need to adapt to a variety of uncertainties
(e.g., institutional demands, market conditions, program enrollments) for their
programs to survive.
Research Method
This study examines the professional reality of three ESL program directors
whose experience parallels what the literature shows.
Research Design
Qualitative case study (Merriam, 1988; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) provided the
overarching research design to address the research problem. Chapelle and Duff
(2003) pointed out that a university or a program is among the kinds of cases
typically studied in the TESOL field. The bounded case was a higher education
institution in a large urban Canadian city, with a combined enrollment of over
30,000 full- and part-time degree students. The institution was of particular
interest as it housed three distinct ESL programs operating on one campus, all of
which were administratively independent of one another. Two programs were
housed within the same faculty, but their directors reported to different senior
administrators. The third was housed in an entirely different unit on campus.
All three programs were mandated to generate revenue. None of the three
program directors were required to interact with one another as part of their
daily job functions.
It is worth adding that the number of students registered in these ESL programs
was neither disclosed nor publicly available through institutional documents. As
I have pointed out elsewhere (Eaton, 2009), ESL programs in higher education
institutions are often not required to release enrolment data. Thus, the total
enrollment of ESL students in the various programs studied remained unknown
throughout the research.
Participant selection
Directors of each of these revenue-generating ESL programs on campus gave
their written consent to participate, with the option of withdrawing at any time

18
during the process (N = 3). Participants are referred to by their chosen
pseudonyms (Lynn, Uma, and Ornelle). I used nonrandom purposive sampling
(Blackstone, 2017; Merriam, 1998) to recruit participants because gaining access
to individuals who were deeply informed about the various programs was key
to collecting appropriate data (Saunders, 2012).
Procedures
This study, and related components including data collection instruments,
participant recruitment plan, and consent form, were approved by the
institutional ethics review board. Data were gathered through 60- to 90-minute
semistructured interviews (Fylan, 2005; Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Luo &
Wildemuth, 2009). I transcribed the audio recordings, and the participants then
member checked the transcriptions for accuracy. Data were analyzed manually,
following a systematic codifying and categorizing of the data into themes
(Saldaña, 2009). In addition, I wrote analytic memos (Saldaña, 2009) to document
my reflections about coding choices and emergent patterns resulting from the
analysis.
Findings and Discussion
Five key themes emerged from the data codification process: (a) the need for
directors to be highly qualified and multilingual, with international experience;
(b) the general lack of training, support, and resources for program directors; (c)
institutional barriers; (d) program fragmentation and marginalization; and (e)
program protectionism. Each of these key findings is discussed in detail.
Theme 1: Highly Qualified, Multilingual Professionals with International
Experience
All three participants agreed that having a minimum of a master’s degree gave
them credibility among their peers, both internal and external to the university.
This finding aligned with previous studies that showed over 90% of ESL
program directors in the United States held either a master’s or a doctorate
degree (Matthies, 1984; Panferov, 2012; Reasor, 1986). All participants spoke at
least one additional language and had lived and worked in other countries.
Table 1 offers a high-level overview of participants’ qualifications and
experience.

19
Table 1: Profile of ESL Program Directors as Study Participants
Variable
Participant
Ornelle Uma Lynn
Gender Male Female Female
Length of time in
the profession
16 years 9 years
(including
graduate school)
33 years
Higher education MEd, TESL, some
business courses
PhD Master’s degree,
TESOL
International
experience
Japan U.S. UK, Spain, Italy,
Saudi Arabia,
China, Oman
Other languages
spoken
Fluent in Japanese Fluent in Bengali;
functional skills
in Hindi;
knowledge of
French and
Spanish
Fluent in Spanish;
knowledge of
French and Italian
Job classification Administrative Academic
(tenure-track)
Administrative
Theme 2: General Lack of Training, Support, and Resources
Ornelle had taken business courses during his master’s degree, noting that his
decision to do so was purposeful:
The tools that I needed to serve my students, I felt, would be better
served by improving operations, by improving my understanding of
what it was that my students needed as customers, what was the best
way of reaching the students, the best way of ensuring the deliverables.
So those courses I took were . . . very valuable.
Ornelle further reflected that his customized combination of graduate-level
training in both TESL and business prepared him well for his role, but he noted
that his experience was not the norm: ―I think the combination of the two was
very beneficial. . . . I haven’t really heard of other ESL program directors or
managers who . . . have formal training in marketing or who have a specific
interest in following a marketing directive.‖ Ornelle’s language reflected his

20
training in business. During the one-hour interview, he referred to students as
―customers‖ 26 times.
Lynn also referred to students as ―customers,‖ though she noted her training in
business was ―little to none‖. She remarked, ―You’re expected to do an awful lot
without any professional knowledge, which is quite extraordinary, really, when
you think about it. It does not happen in the business world.‖ Lynn expressed
frustration about institutional expectations for high performance as a manager,
coupled with a lack of training and support:
I think there’s a certain expectation that because of your knowledge or
intelligence base, you will somehow pick it up like osmosis, you know?
You are expected to know or learn how to do these things and in fact,
you don’t and can’t without training. And if you don’t, you are in a . . .
situation whereby you’re made to feel that . . . [you shouldn’t] talk about
it. . . . Go off and do it on your own.
Lynn later observed that being more educated about management would have
not only increased her confidence, but also connected her with others who had
an interest in same subject.
Both Lynn and Ornelle held jobs with administrative job classifications, rather
than faculty positions, and hence their jobs were dependent on student
enrollment. This finding aligned with the literature, which showed that staffing
for ESL programs often depends on program enrolments (Mickelson, 1997;
Staczek, 1997). Uma, on the other hand, held both a doctoral degree and a
tenure-track faculty position. With regards to her training in business, she was
emphatic about her lack of training: ―Absolutely nothing. . . . Zero. Zilch. If it
could be a negative integer, that’s what it would be,‖ noting that she was
―trained to be an academic.‖
Both Lynn and Uma stated that they would have benefitted from business
training. They observed that they had to learn necessary skills on the job,
making mistakes as they went. Uma explained, ―Because this is an academic
program, you really need someone who understands all of the . . . key
components to running this program [including] marketing, which is the one
place I have a complete deficit in knowledge.‖ As Uma continued to reflect on
her experience, she noted that she had developed expertise through practice and
experience: ―[I have] grown. Maybe I’m not at zero any more. And I’ve learned
quite a bit on the fly.‖
All participants agreed that training in business would be an asset for language
program directors. These comments echo what was found in the work of Kaplan
(1997), Nolan (2001), and Pennington and Xiao (1990), all of whom noted that
ESL administrators are generally poorly prepared to undertake essential
management functions. Moreover, unless they make a point to seek out courses
independently, they have few professional development opportunities.
Lynn noted a cause-and-effect relationship between her lack of training and
making mistakes: ―There’s not a lot of that kind of professional development
support that I have seen or that has been offered. So of course, you make
mistakes. You make some very big mistakes.‖ Lynn seemed to be indicating that
a lack of training led to negative consequences in terms how well she has
performed her job.

21
Theme 3: Institutional Barriers
The participants encountered other barriers as a result of working in a large
organization. These included a requirement to work with internal marketing
teams who did not understand the ESL market. Ornelle explained that ―working
in international education is far more complicated because . . . you’re working at
an international level.‖ He went on to explain that his own international work
experience contributed to his understanding of some of the complexities of
marketing to global audiences.
Lynn spoke about the time she lost working with colleagues from other units on
campus to develop brochures for her program. Similarly, Uma noted that
printed marketing materials produced by the institution sometimes lacked an
understanding of what might appeal to international audiences. She remarked:
I think people in the unit know what the needs of the unit are, and I
think it’s really not good when the marketing is done externally by
another unit . . . that has no understanding of how the language unit
functions, what their demographics are. I think usually someone will
come in and ask for stats and say, ―How many students do you have?
What languages do they speak?‖ And then they’re off making marketing
materials. But they don’t ask the right questions, as to who’s your
audience, who’s making the decisions? Parents? Is it the students? What
socioeconomic background are your students? ’Cause that is huge.
In addition to barriers related to marketing, one additional challenge
noted by both Uma and Lynn was that their programs had undergone extensive
changes in the previous few years, and even as recently as a few months prior.
This included changes to the program name, curriculum, structure, and staffing.
Uma talked about ―a total revision and restructuring, not only of faculty and
staff, but in curriculum‖ and then, two years later, the program ―went through
another revision and a massive overhaul to curriculum.‖ Uma noted that in her
program’s nine-year existence, it had undergone three name changes, finally
settling on ―English for Academic Purposes.‖ Lynn had also faced the task of
redesigning and reconceptualizing her programs, under the direction of her
superiors. She, too, noted that her program had undergone three name changes
over a five-year period, each time requiring a complete overhaul of the
marketing materials to match the name changes. She was happy with the
transformations her program had undergone, noting: ―We’re now a centre.
We’re in a position to create a brochure for the centre, which represents
everything we do.‖
Both Lynn and Uma observed that these administrative and operational changes
were, to a large extent, imposed on them by their institutional superiors. These
monumental changes were largely beyond their control, even though they were
the directors of their respective programs.
Theme 4: Program Fragmentation and Marginalization
Although Lynn and Uma both commented on the changes their programs had
undergone in the previous few years, they also expressed a desire to
differentiate their programs from other English language programs on campus.
Lynn commented that the target market of her program in its early days ―was
immigrant professionals, as well as international professionals, all of whom are

22
[learning] English as an additional language. And that . . . distinguished us from
ESL.‖ She further noted, ―We have been avoiding any undergraduate student
work because that’s very much covered by other programs in the university.‖
Both Lynn and Uma noted that the changes to their programs (including the
name changes) were partially intended to differentiate their programs from
others on campus and to prevent confusion among prospective students.
Ornelle commented on how his program was marginalized even within the
larger unit in which he worked. He commented that others perceived his
program as follows:
ESL is special. ESL always wants something. ESL always has needs that
seem to go . . . beyond what anybody else requires, and its expectations
are too high or they’re too low or this, that, or the other. . . . English
instruction is always seen as second class, or maybe fifth or sixth class.
This perception may be due to the fact that although the ESL program
―exists within the culture of the university at large, [its] culture contrasts sharply
with the institution of higher education, and as a university entity it is often
misunderstood‖ (Rowe-Henry, 1997, p. 77). Perhaps because they differ from
other academic courses, ESL programs are marginalized within the institution,
isolated from other disciplines, and often viewed as being remedial (Carkin,
1997; Stoller, 1997).
Stoller (1997) suggested that the physical placement of a program on campus is
indicative of the importance the administration places upon it. If it is relegated
to some distant space that is not easily accessible, then it is likely that the
program struggles to claim a legitimate place in the academy. Stoller (1997)
observed, ―That language programs are viewed as marginal—physically and
educationally—by our home institutions represents a major hindrance‖ (p. 40).
One cause of job dissatisfaction among ESL teachers is poor facilities (Jenks &
Kennell, 2012; Pennington, 1991).
In this study, all programs were situated in locations that were awkward to
access or away from centralized administrative support. One program was
housed in the basement of a building with no exterior windows. A second was
located on the 14th floor of a building with convoluted access, as the elevator
reached only the 13th floor. After that, people were required to exit the elevator
and take stairs to the next floor up. The third program was housed in a small
and cramped office, away from central administrative support. Jenks and
Kennell (2012) suggested that advocating for enhanced facilities is one of the
many job tasks of the ESL program administrator in higher education. They
noted that if ESL learners in higher education are viewed as degree-seeking
students, often ―universities decide to improve or update . . . facilities and
rethink poor policies regarding classroom space arrangements‖ (Jenks &
Kennell, 2012, p. 183).
Theme 5: Program Competition and Protectionism
It is noteworthy that none of the program directors interviewed indicated any
desire to cooperate with other ESL programs on campus. Lynn observed that
―everyone’s working in silos and there’s no . . . team approach.‖ Each program
director undertook his or her own marketing and recruitment efforts, with no

23
discernible collaboration. This lack of cooperation may have been a function of
each program being housed within a larger administrative unit.
Although some distinctions existed as to what type of students were eligible for
each program, there was also some overlap, creating a situation in which
programs might compete for the same prospective students. There was little
evidence to suggest that there was a strategic institutional approach to
delineating and differentiating these programs. Program directors commented
on how they tried not to duplicate one another’s programs, but this was more of
an ad hoc approach rather than a result of an institutional strategy.
For Lynn, revamping the program’s website was the impetus for doing market
research and, in particular, surveying what other ESL providers (who were also
potential competitors) were doing. She said that the process of redesigning the
website:
forced us to look out and see what everyone was doing, so that we didn’t
duplicate the services of the other programs on campus particularly, and
we didn’t duplicate what was being done really well elsewhere, outside
of campus by other groups in the city.
Participants in this study offered comments that indicated a sense of
protectionism over their own programs and a reluctance to share information
deemed to be proprietary. The result was a notable lack of communication
between the three program directors, with a veritable sense of competition
among them. Impey and Underhill (1994) explained that ―for all language
programs, there is the constant threat that our competitors will get an edge over
us, will find out how to exploit that lead successfully, and will take business
away from us‖ (p. 8). In the case of this study, competition came not only from
outside the institution, but also from within it.
Directions for Future Research
The reasons why a university would fail to develop a unified institutional
strategy for ESL remain unanswered, which may be a topic for future
investigation. In addition, this study points to the need for further investigation
of how higher education ESL programs are managed, particularly in revenue-
generating contexts. There is a need to advocate for better support from
institutional administration in terms of working conditions, resources, and
support for program directors. Finally, there is a need to further understand the
needs, perceptions, and experiences of TESOL administrators in order to
develop better training programs for graduate students who may well serve in a
leadership capacity at some point in their career, and also to develop better
professional development opportunities for those currently in leadership roles.
Conclusion
This study has presented a unique and complex case of multiple revenue-
generating ESL programs existing within a single post-secondary institution. Its
significance lies in the new insights it offers into the realities of ESL language
program directors working in within the context of this bounded case study.
Generative Modest Extrapolations
Although case studies are often deemed to lack generalizability, Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) have argued that the concept of generalizability applied to

24
quantitative studies can be misplaced in qualitative research contexts, and
instead researchers can point towards a ―working hypothesis‖ or ―modest
extrapolation‖ (p. 255) generated as a theoretical outcome of a qualitative
investigation. Given that the body of literature that exists on ESL program
management corroborated the findings of this small-scale study, it would not be
an overestimation to offer a generative working hypothesis that ESL programs
in higher education require a specific kind of director or manager. Furthermore,
the job the ESL program director differs from their counterparts in other
academic disciplines.
ESL program directors must not only have subject matter expertise in TESOL,
possess a graduate degree, speak at least one additional language, and have
international work experience to carry credibility in the field, but in addition
understand educational administration and possess the business acumen
necessary to generate the robust revenue needed to sustain their programs. This
is an exacting combination cultivated through the trajectory of a career, not
merely a set of skills a junior TESOL professional would likely have. In other
words, TESOL skills alone are insufficient to run an ESL program in higher
education. Similarly, transplanting a manager from a different discipline or
business background would be unsuccessful, given that a professional TESOL
background is needed for the manager to be viewed as credible by colleagues
and partners.
Panferov (2012) pointed out that language program administration as a
profession, distinct from that of an ESL teacher, is beginning to emerge. It is
worth acknowledging that those who lead ESL programs post-secondary
contexts are highly competent professionals who have developed substantial
leadership skills and business acumen through on-the-job experience. Those
who hold these leadership roles today could play a part in training and coaching
those who may follow in their footsteps in the future.
Recommendations
A primary recommendation emerging from this study is that TESOL graduate
programs must include a leadership component to provide more training and
support for those in the profession. Management skills have not typically been
included in the types of degree programs taken by TESL professionals, such as
an MA or MEd (Hussein, 1995; Reasor, 1986). Hussein (1995) suggested that
TESOL and applied linguistics programs should either include administrative
training or require students take such courses through a complementary
department, such as educational administration.
Not only do current ESL program administrators, as a body of professionals
with deep expertise and experience, have the opportunity to train the next
generation of ESL program administrators, we must provide professional
development opportunities for those currently serving in administrative roles
(McGee et al., 2014). Hussein (1995) suggested that professional associations can
facilitate further development those in administrative roles through workshops
and presentations at their annual conferences.
Leaders rely on their own first-hand experience as well as on their interactions
with professional peers with whom they work in similar contexts (McGee et al.,
2014; Sergiovanni, 1991). By incorporating components of leadership and

25
educational administration into graduate-level TESOL programs and
complementing that with professional development for those who already serve
in leadership roles, current TESOL professionals would cultivate the next
generation of program directors who could lead programs with skills and
confidence, while also having a network of peers with similar administrative
training upon whom they could rely for consultation and advice.
In addition, there is a need for a candid dialogue about the value ESL programs
bring to higher education not merely for their monetary contributions, but for
the much-needed support and services they provide to international students.
Institutions themselves carry substantial responsibility when it comes to
elevating the profile and prestige of ESL programs on campus. Only when these
programs receive considerable institutional support will they be legitimized as
authentic contributors to the academic community. Acknowledging the
emergence of language program administration as a profession distinct from
that of teaching is a valuable first step in elevating and empowering ESL
program directors, who serve the dual, if often competing, purpose of producing
revenue for their institutions while simultaneously preparing English language
learners for academic and professional success.
References
Eaton, S. E. (2009). Marketing of Revenue-generating ESL Programs at the University of
Calgary: A qualitative study. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Calgary,
Calgary. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet
?accno=ED508999
Eaton, S. E. (2013). The Administration of English as a Second Language (ESL) Programs
in Higher Education: Striking the Balance Between Generating Revenue and
Serving Students. In Y. Hébert & A. A. Abdi (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on
International Education (pp. 165-180). Rotterdam: Sense. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-906-0_10
Bista, K. (2011). How to create a learning-centered ESL program. English for Specific
Purposes World, 31(10). Retrieved from http://www.esp-
world.info/Articles_31/Ring-centered_Program.pdf
Blackstone, A. (2017). Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative
methods, v. 1.0. Retrieved from
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/catalog/editions/blackstone-
principles-of-sociological-inquiry-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods-1-0
Breshears, S. (2004). Professionalization and exclusion in ESL teaching [special issue].
TESL Canada Journal, 4, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v0i0.1038.
Carkin, S. (1997). Language program leadership as intercultural management. In M. A.
Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators
(pp. 49-60). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers.
Chapelle, C. A., & Duff, P. A. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and
qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 157–178.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588471. Retrieved from https://www.tesol.org/read-
and-publish/journals/tesol-quarterly
Christison, M., & Murray, D. E. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English language education:
Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203077009

26
Coombe, C., McCloskey, M., Stephenson, L., & Anderson, N. (Eds.). (2008). Leadership in
English language teaching and learning. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2041-272x(2010)0000002020
Curtis, A. (2013). A gap in our field: Leadership in language education. MultiBriefs.
Retrieved from http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/a-gap-in-our-field-
leadership-in-language-education
Eskey, D. E. (1997). The IEP as a nontraditional entity. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller
(Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 21–30). Burlingame,
CA: Alta Book Center.
Fylan, F. (2005). Semi-structured interviewing. In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A handbook
of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 65–77). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198527565.001.0001
Greenier, V. T., & Whitehead, G. E. K. (2016). Towards a model of teacher leadership in
ELT: Authentic leadership in classroom practice. RELC Journal, 47(1), 79–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631203. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/rel
Harrell, M. C., & Bradley, M. A. (2009). Training manual: Data collection methods: Semi-
structured interviews and focus groups. Retrieved from
http://www.mbamedicine.activemoodle.com/mod/resource/view.php?id=486
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press
of Harvard UP.
Heifetz, R. A. (2006). Educational leadership: Beyond a focus on instruction. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 87(7), 512–513. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/pdk doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608700709
Heifetz, R. A. (2010, Spring). Adaptive work. The Journal of the Kansas Leadership Center,
72–77. Retrieved from https://klcjournal.com/
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009, July–August). Leadership in a
(permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review, 62–69. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2009/07/leadership-in-a-permanent-crisis
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review,
124-134.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger. Educational
Leadership, 61(7), 33. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Hussein, A. A. (1995). Preparation for administration of English as a second language
programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English as a
Second Language (TESOL) Association, Long Beach, CA. Retrieved from
https://ia601308.us.archive.org/23/items/ERIC_ED392258/ERIC_ED392258.p
df
Impey, G., & Underhill, N. (1994). The ELT manager’s handbook: Practical advice on
managing a successful language school. Oxford, UK: Heineman English
Language Teaching.
Jenks, F. L. (1997). The quest for academic legitimacy: Building for language program
entry into institutional and community infrastructures. In M. A. Christison & F.
L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 107–122).
Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.
Jenks, F. L., & Kennell, P. (2012). The quest for academic legitimacy. In M. Christison &
F. L. Stoller (Eds.), Handbook for language program administrators (2nd. ed., pp.
177–196). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.
Kaplan, R. B. (1997). An IEP is a many-splendored thing. In M. A. Christison & F. L.
Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 3–20).

27
Luo, L., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Semistructured interviews. In B. M. Wildemuth
(Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library
science (pp. 222–231). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
MacDonald, J. (2016) The margins as third space: EAP teacher professionalism in
Canadian universities. TESL Canada Journal, 34(1), 106–116.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i1.1258. Retrieved from
http://teslcanadajournal.ca/tesl/index.php/tesl/article/view/1258
Matthies, B. F. (1984). The director’s job skills in intensive English programs. The
American Language Journal, 2(1), 5–16. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED248691.pdf
McGee, A., Haworth, P., & MacIntyre, L. (2014). Leadership practices to support
teaching and learning for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 92–
114. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.162. Retrieved from
https://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/journals/tesol-quarterly
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mickelson, C. (1997). Grants and projects (as if you don’t have enough to do already). In
M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program
administrators (pp. 275–294). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.
Murdock, R. S. (1997). Outreach on and off campus. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller
(Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 161–174). Burlingame,
Nolan, R. E. (2001). The power of theory in the administration of ESL programs. Adult
Basic Education, 11(1), 3–17. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/j/ISSN-1052-231X
Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1),
169–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12307. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-4781
Panferov, S. K. (2012). Transitioning from teacher to language program administrator. In
M. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), Handbook for language program administrators
(2nd ed., pp. 3–18). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.
Pennington, M. C. (1991). Work satisfaction and the ESL profession. Language, Culture,
and Curriculum, 4(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319109525094.
Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20
Pennington, M. C., & Hoekje, B. J. (2010). Language program as ecology: A perspective
for leadership. RELC Journal, 41(3), 213–228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210380556. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/rel
Pennington, M. C., & Hoekje, B. J. (2014). Framing English language teaching. System, 46,
163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.08.005. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X14001316
Pennington, M. C., & Xiao, Y. (1990). Defining the job of the ESL program director:
Results of a national survey. University Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 9(2), 1–30.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/38623
Rawley, L. A. (1997). The language program administrator and policy formation at
institutions of higher learning. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A
handbook for language program administrators (pp. 91–104). Burlingame, CA: Alta
Book Center.
Reasor, A. W. (1986). Dominant administrative styles of ESL administrators. TESOL
Quarterly, 20(2), 338–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586550. Retrieved from

28
https://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/journals/tesol-quarterly
Rowe, J. A. (2012). Decision maker and negotiator. In M. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.),
Handbook for language program administrators (2nd. ed., pp. 99–116). Burlingame,
Rowe-Henry, A. (1997). The decision maker and negotiator. In M. A. Christison & F. L.
Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 77–90).
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saunders, M. N. K. (2012). Choosing research participants. In G. Symon & C. Cassell
(Eds.), Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges (pp.
35–54). London, UK: SAGE.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). Constructing and changing theories of practice: The key to
preparing school administrators. The Urban Review, 23(1), 39–49.
https://doi.org/10.1007 /BF01120237. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/journal/11256
Soppelsa, E. F. (1997). Empowerment of faculty. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.),
A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 123–142). Burlingame, CA:
Alta Book Center.
Staczek, J. J. (1997). The language program budget: Financial planning and management
of resources. In M. A. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language
program administrators (pp. 219–234). Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center.
Staczek, J. J., & Carkin, S. J. (1984). Intensive English program fit in traditional academic
settings: Practices and promise. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual
Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL),
Houston, TX. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED274166.pdf
Stoller, F. L. (1997). The catalyst for change and innovation. In M. A. Christison & F. L.
Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 33-48).
Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers.
Stoller, F. L., & Christison, M. (1994). Challenges for IEP administrators: Liaison with
senior-level administrators and faculty development. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 16–20.
Retrieved from https://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/journals/tesol-
journal
Szasz, P. (2009/2010). State of the profession: Intensive English programs. CATESOL
Journal, 21(1), 194–201. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112266.pdf

29
© 2017 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Korean University Students‟ Perceptions of
Teacher Motivational Strategies
Michael Heinz
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Chris Kobylinski
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Abstract. ELT (English Language Teaching) is a significant component
of the Korean Education system from elementary school to university.
The ELT industry is comprised of two distinct types of teachers: Native
English speakers and Native Korean speakers. While both groups share
similar educational goals, there is often very little interaction between
the two groups. Both groups spend considerable time with students and
have considerable influence on students studying English in South
Korea. The goal of this research was to see what students thought of the
motivational strategies employed by each group, in hopes of being able
to see how both groups could learn from each other. Motivation is one
of the most important elements of language learning and this research
hoped to find how each group of teachers motivated students. The focal
point of this research was a survey focusing on a set of motivational
strategies identified by Dornyei. This survey adapted Dornyei‟s survey
to focus on how the students perceived the strategies, rather than how
teachers assessed their own motivational strategies. The survey was
given to two groups, students in an undergraduate level Practical
English course and to students in a graduate level interpretation and
translation department to see how the students perceived the
motivational strategies of each group. The survey revealed a few clear
cut differences among each group. The surveys showed that Native
English teachers provided instinct motivation through various tasks and
by creating a positive classroom environment. Native Korean speakers
excelled in creating extrinsic motivation, by providing realistic goals and
by stressing the importance of English in the working world.
Keywords: ELT, South Korea, motivation, EFL, motivational strategies,
Donryei

30
Introduction
Given the complexity inherent in learning a foreign language, it is not
surprising that motivating students has been identified as being one of the most
difficult aspects of teaching ELT; outranking even the selection of teaching
methodology, subject matter proficiency, and textbook and curriculum guide
usage (Veenman, 1984). Indeed, a lack of motivation is often a recurrent problem
in EFL classrooms (Dornyei & Kubanyiova, 2014; Ushioda, 2013). Given its
importance, this paper seeks to further research on motivational strategies and
chose the South Korean context as its focal point.
The South Korean ELT industry is massive in scale with ELT-based
institutions dotting the landscape in every conceivable direction. While the
industry is comprised primarily of domestic, ethnically Korean English teachers
for whom English is a second language, a considerable number of native English
speakers from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom
also teach in the ELT industry at all levels and age ranges. These two groups:
Native Korean speaking English teachers (hereafter referred to as NKS teachers)
and Native English speaking English teachers (hereafter referred to as NES
teachers) have limited interactions with one another despite the common goals
they pursue within the same educational environment.
The researchers themselves being NES teachers who have worked in the
Korean ELT industry for over a decade became accustomed to Korean students
remarking with great frequency on the differences between NKS and NES
teachers. As such these anecdotal comments made by Korean students about the
differences between NKS and NES teachers led the researchers to ponder a
number of research questions:
1. How do the motivational strategies of NKS and NES teachers differ?
2. How do students feel about the differences between these
motivational strategies?
Literature Review
There are a great many articles written about student motivation and
language learning with no small number of models having been created in an
attempt to understand the subject (eg., Clement, 1980; and MacIntrye, Clement &
Noels, 1998). Within the field two figures stand out as being relative authorities
on motivation and second language acquisition: Robert C. Gardner and Zoltan
Dornyei.
Gardner established his „Socio-educational model‟ as a model for
understanding motivation the 1960‟s and has been actively refining it ever since
(Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lalonde, 1985). His model
is broadly divided into two types of motivation: instrumental and integrative
motivation. Instrumental motivation relates to things such as test scores, college
admissions, and job acquisition. Alternatively, integrative motivation concerns a
learner‟s desire to embrace the target language‟s culture and community, which

31
Gardner singles out as being a more significant determiner of motivation for
students.
Additionally Gardner (2007) emphasizes the unique nature of motivation
as regards the acquisition of a second language. Whereas for most scholastic
subjects the educational context is a given in terms of understanding the roots of
motivation, second language acquisition requires examination of the cultural
context related to the second language. Common scholastic subjects are taught
almost entirely within the student‟s native culture while language study requires
the taking on of cultural traits such as pronunciation or vocabulary to
successfully acquire the new language. Thus educationally relevant variables are
as significant as culturally relevant variables.
On the other hand, Dornyei‟s model, the L2 Motivational Self System,
consists of three components: the Ideal L2 self, the Ought-to L2 self, and the L2
learning experience (2009). Dornyei defines those components in the following
manner: the Ideal L2 self is “the L2 specific facet of one‟s ideal self;” Ought-to L2
is “he attributes that one believes one ought to possess in order to avoid possible
negative outcomes;” and the L2 experience is “situation-specific motives related
to the immediate learning environment and experience (2009).”
Motivation in various models is seen as a quality predictor of student
achievements. Dornyei asserts that, “Motivation is one of the main determinants
of second/foreign language achievement (Dornyei 1994, p. 273). Gardner and
Bernaus (2008) found that motivation is a significant positive predictor of
language learning achievements.
While that finding has a ring of intuitiveness, other studies have found
that the motivational strategies adopted by language teachers influence student
motivation (Dornyei, 1994; Dornyei, 1998; Dornyei, 2001a; Dornyei, 2001b;
Bravo, Intriago, Holguin, Garzon & Arcia, 2017). Within the South Korean
context, Guillautaux and Dornyei (2008) explored the connection between the
language learning motivation of students and the motivational teaching
practices of teachers. The motivation orientation of language teaching (MOLT), a
classroom observation instrument was created to augment self-report
questionnaires for the study of 40 classroom that included 27 teachers and more
than 1,300 students. In the end, the study demonstrated a clear relationship
between the use of teacher‟s motivational strategies and the language learning
motivation of the students. Papi and Abdollahzadeh (2012) replicated the study
carried out by Guillautaux and Dornyei and reached similar conclusions but
added a need to focus more studies on motivation in tertiary settings due to the
unique context of those settings.
However, it is important to note that some discrepancy can exist between
the self-reporting of the motivational strategies implemented by teachers and the
perspectives of students. For example, Jacques (2001) examined the motivation
and preferences for teaching activities of both teachers and students.
Relationships were found related to motivational characteristics and perceptions
of strategy use within both the teacher and the student sample. Yet, the study
found that teachers had a tendency to rate activities more highly than the
students did.

Vol 16 No 9 - September 2017

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Vol 16 No 9 - September 2017

Similaire à Vol 16 No 9 - September 2017 (20)

Plus de ijlterorg

Plus de ijlterorg (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Vol 16 No 9 - September 2017