Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Teaching Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waters, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Facilitating follow-up in ELT INSET

Alan Waters

Lancaster University, UK, a.waters{at}lancaster.ac.uk

There is evidence that ELT INSET does not always result in the desired level of ‘follow-up’, i.e. impact on teachers’ classroom practices. Nevertheless, little research appears to have been carried out concerning how the design of INSET systems affects such outcomes. This paper therefore attempts to throw light on some of the factors involved, using data derived from research into the operation of the Philippines English Language Teaching (PELT) Project INSET system. In order to attempt to facilitate follow-up, this programme took the form of a hybrid, joint course- and school-based model. Trainees’ views on the functioning of the model were elicited via questionnaires and structured discussions. The findings show that the following variables are among those which are important in determining how effectively such an INSET system operates: 1) the nature of its course- based component; 2) the interface between trainees, trainers and school- based ‘ELT managers’; and 3) the form of school-based follow-up activity employed. The data also indicates how these elements might be configured so as to optimize the potential for INSET follow-up to occur.

Language Teaching Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 32-52 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/1362168806lr183oa
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RELC JournalHome page
A. Waters and Ma. L. C. Vilches
Factors Affecting ELT Reforms: The Case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum
RELC Journal, April 1, 2008; 39(1): 5 - 24.
[Abstract] [PDF]