You are here:

Blended Learning for In-service Teachers’ Professional Development: A Preliminary Look at Perspectives of Two Singapore Chinese Language Teachers PROCEEDINGS

, , Singapore Centre for Chinese Language, Singapore

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Kona, Hawaii, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Attending traditional face-to-face professional development (PD) workshops is a dominant mode of PD for in-service Chinese Language teachers in Singapore. Research has shown that such workshops may offer little impact on changing teachers’ practice and students’ achievement. The purpose of the study is to investigate the outcomes of a blended learning approach to teachers’ PD aimed at addressing existing gaps. The blended PD workshops combined traditional physical classes, and online e-learning in its design. The “blend” in this study is interaction-focused based on a social constructivist approach to learning (Vygotsky, 1978). This paper discusses preliminary findings of the outcomes based on two teacher participants. Their satisfaction of the workshop, changes in cognition, practices, and beliefs are explored.


Tan, Y.N. & Tan, Y.H. (2015). Blended Learning for In-service Teachers’ Professional Development: A Preliminary Look at Perspectives of Two Singapore Chinese Language Teachers. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 670-675). Kona, Hawaii, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 16, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
  2. Collopy, R., & Arnold, J.M. (2009). To Blend or Not to Blend: Online and Blended Learning Environments in Undergraduate Teacher Education. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85-101.
  3. Dass, P.M. (1999). Evaluation of a district-wide in-service professional development program for teaching science: Challenges faced and lessons learned. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(2), 2-12.
  4. Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face ‐to‐face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351-365.
  5. Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72.
  6. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38(4), 915-945.
  7. Garrison, D.R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
  8. Graham, C.R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C.J., Bonk, & C.R., Graham (Eds.). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local design (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  9. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
  10. Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (Eds.) (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Klein, H.J., Noe, R.A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 665-702.
  12. Kriek, J., & Grayson, D. (2009). A holistic professional development model for South African physical science teachers. South African Journal of Education, 29(2), 185-203.
  13. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P.W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press.
  14. Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers' professional development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison. Computers& Education, 60(1), 40-51.
  15. Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  16. Ministry of Education. (2012). Teacher growth model. Retrieved from Motteram, G. (2006). ‘Blended’ education and the transformation of teachers: a long ‐term case study in postgraduate UK Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17-30.
  17. Pitsoe, V.J., & Maila, W.M. (2012). Towards constructivist teacher professional development. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 318-324.
  18. Schlager, M.S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse?. The Information Society, 19(3), 203-220.
  19. Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.
  20. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  21. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman., Eds.) (A.R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas & M. Cole [with J.V. Wertsch], Trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original manuscripts [ca. 1930-1934]).
  22. Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues& Answers, 2007(033). Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact


Slides w/Audio View