An Introductory Note to the Reader      I am not directly involved in teacher training or supervision, but as a curriculum designer and language teacher, I often wonder what can be done for novice teachers who lack what in Spanish we call horas vuelo — literally “flight hours,” as if we teachers were pilots learning through accumulated practice.      After reading another article by Karan Hotwani, I began to see how his ideas on agile learning can be meaningfully applied to the language teaching industry, especially in professional development for teachers working in higher education or cultural centers.

Agile Professional Development in ELT: Toward a Dynamic Model

	Abstract This white paper explores the application of agile professional development (PD) models to the field of English Language Teaching (ELT), focusing on their potential to support novice teachers who may lack extensive classroom experience. Borrowing insights from Hotwani’s (2023) work on agile learning, the paper argues that modular, iterative, and responsive PD can provide teachers with rapid, relevant, and sustainable growth opportunities. The discussion emphasizes the adaptability of agile PD to institutional contexts, including universities and cultural centers with American Spaces, where teaching practices intersect with broader cultural programming. By shifting from static, one-size-fits-all PD to agile, feedback-driven cycles, institutions can foster teacher agency, innovation, and improved learning outcomes.	Keywords: Agile Professional Development, English Language Teaching (ELT), Novice Teachers, Modular Learning, Teacher Agency, Cultural Centers
	Resumen Este documento analiza la aplicación de modelos de desarrollo profesional ágil (PD, por sus siglas en inglés) al campo de la enseñanza del inglés, con énfasis en su potencial para apoyar a docentes novatos que aún carecen de suficientes “horas vuelo” en el aula. Retomando las ideas de Hotwani (2023) sobre el aprendizaje ágil, se plantea que un desarrollo profesional modular, iterativo y flexible puede ofrecer a los docentes oportunidades de crecimiento rápido, pertinente y sostenible. Asimismo, se destaca la utilidad de este enfoque en instituciones de educación superior y centros culturales con American Spaces, donde la enseñanza de idiomas se entrelaza con objetivos culturales más amplios. Al reemplazar la capacitación estática y uniforme por ciclos ágiles y basados en retroalimentación, las instituciones pueden fomentar la agencia docente, la innovación y mejores resultados de aprendizaje.
	Resumo Este documento examina a aplicação de modelos de desenvolvimento profissional ágil (PD) no campo do ensino de inglês, destacando seu potencial para apoiar professores iniciantes que ainda não possuem muitas “horas de voo” em sala de aula. Com base nas ideias de Hotwani (2023) sobre aprendizagem ágil, argumenta-se que um desenvolvimento profissional modular, iterativo e flexível pode oferecer aos docentes oportunidades de crescimento rápido, relevante e sustentável. Além disso, ressalta-se a pertinência desse enfoque em instituições de ensino superior e centros culturais com American Spaces, onde o ensino de línguas se articula a objetivos culturais mais amplos. Ao substituir uma capacitação estática e padronizada por ciclos ágeis e fundamentados em feedback, as instituições podem fortalecer a agência docente, a inovação e os resultados de aprendizagem.

Introduction

In English Language Teaching (ELT), professional development (PD) has long been recognized as a cornerstone of effective language instruction and the correct achievement of communication goals. Yet, traditional PD models often fall short: they tend to be top-down, rigid, and disconnected from the classroom realities teachers face (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017). In contrast, agile professional development offers a more flexible, iterative, and teacher-centered approach. By borrowing principles from agile project management, educators can engage in continuous cycles of teaching reflection, in-class task experimentation, and adaptation of communication objectives. This white paper explores agile PD within ELT, underscoring its potential to make teacher learning more responsive, contextual, and impactful.

The Case for Agile PD in ELT

Traditional teacher PD often consists of one-off workshops, certification programs, or annual conferences that provide limited opportunities for follow-up or real-world application (Avalos, 2011). Such models risk becoming performative rather than transformative. In contrast, agile PD emphasizes ongoing, collaborative, and experiential learning. In this agile context, language professionals actively shape their professional growth by setting small, achievable goals, testing strategies in the classroom, and reflecting on outcomes. As Hotwani (2023) argues in his work on agile learning, static systems quickly become outdated, while agile models “allow educators to constantly adapt to rapidly changing environments” (para. 5). In this way, agile PD empowers educators to remain flexible in the face of shifting curricula, diverse learner populations, and evolving digital tools.

Principles of Agile PD

Agile PD rests on several key principles. First, this type of development prioritizes teacher agency. Rather than receiving prepackaged knowledge, teachers co-construct their learning journey, often through peer collaboration or coaching cycles (Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2019). Second, agile PD values iteration: teachers can experiment with new techniques, reflect on their efficacy, and refine their practice and classroom execution. Third, it encourages responsiveness, adapting PD content to institutional contexts and demands and cultural needs or idiosyncrasies. Hotwani (2023) emphasizes modular design and rapid-update cycles, noting that agility “creates a feedback-rich environment where participants are active in shaping outcomes” (para. 8). These principles resonate strongly with ELT, where local contexts and learner diversity demand adaptable pedagogical strategies for the sake of language learning.

Designing Agile PD for ELT

Building agile PD requires blending instructional design models with learning science. The ADDIE framework provides a structured foundation: analyzing institutional and classroom needs, designing modular and flexible learning units, and embedding iterative cycles of implementation and evaluation. For example, dividing PD into smaller modules reduces cognitive load and enables rapid updates, echoing Hotwani’s (2023) call for Lego-like modularity. Incorporating experiential learning strategies, such as lesson simulations, role plays, and case studies, helps teachers contextualize new practices. Embedding microlearning elements ensures content is digestible and update-ready, while spaced repetition and nudges reinforce adoption over time (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014). Finally, applying Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation allows institutions to assess both teacher learning and its impact on student outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation in ELT

Kirkpatrick Level	Focus	Examples in ELT
Level 1: Reaction	Teachers’ immediate response to PD (e.g., relevance, engagement, satisfaction).	Post-PD surveys on the usefulness of a workshop on communicative teaching.
Level 2: Learning	What teachers actually learned (knowledge, skills, strategies in ELT).	Pre- and post-tests of teachers’ knowledge of task-based learning principles.
Level 3: Behavior	How teachers apply learning in their classrooms (lesson planning, methodology, interaction).	Observation of teachers integrating microlearning or flipped classroom strategies.
Level 4: Results	Impact on student outcomes (language proficiency, engagement, cultural competence).	Improved student exam scores, greater participation, or higher retention in courses.

Motivation and Engagement

A central challenge in PD is sustaining teacher motivation. Keller’s ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction) provides a framework to keep PD engaging and meaningful (Keller, 2010). Attention can be captured through interactive tasks to be carried out in the classroom; relevance ensured by linking PD to immediate classroom challenges the teacher may be facing with certain CEFR levels; confidence built through scaffolded practice where a tutor guides the teacher; and satisfaction fostered by celebrating incremental successes included in “progress logs.” Hotwani (2023) cautions against designing PD as mere compliance or “box-checking activity,” emphasizing instead the importance of adaptability and authentic engagement. By integrating motivational strategies, agile PD can inspire teachers to embrace continuous professional learning.

Applications in ELT Contexts

Agile PD can be applied across various ELT contexts, from primary education to higher education and cultural centers. In blended, virtual, or flipped  learning programs, agile PD equips teachers with strategies to integrate technology effectively, experimenting with digital platforms while maintaining learner engagement (Trust, Krutka, & Carpenter, 2016). In bilingual education, agile PD supports teachers in navigating shifting linguistic and cultural demands, creating opportunities for iterative lesson design and reflective practice to help them consolidate “best classroom practices” endorsed by the institutions. In international cultural centers and American Spaces, agile PD ensures that teacher learning aligns with broader institutional goals, including intercultural dialogue and community engagement. By treating PD as dynamic and adaptive, institutions can better serve diverse learner populations.

Challenges and Opportunities

While promising, agile PD is not without challenges when being implemented. Institutions and teachers accustomed to traditional models may resist change, perceiving agile approaches as less structured or harder to evaluate or achieve. Instructors, too, may initially feel overwhelmed by the responsibility for self-directed learning taken directly into their classrooms. However, these challenges can be mitigated through supervisors’ scaffolding, institutional support, and the creation of professional learning communities through a CoP (Community of Practice). As Darling-Hammond, Hyler & Gardner (2017) argue, effective PD must be sustained, collaborative, and contextually relevant. Agile PD fulfills these criteria while adding the benefit of adaptability and responsiveness.

Conclusion

Agile professional development represents a paradigm shift in ELT, moving from static, top-down training toward dynamic, teacher-driven growth in their teaching practice. By embedding iterative cycles of reflection and experimentation, agile PD equips language instructors to respond effectively to the complexities of contemporary classrooms. It not only fosters teacher agency but also aligns professional learning with learner success. As Hotwani (2023) reminds us, agility in learning and teaching is no longer optional; it is essential. In this light, one might recall Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall (1979), a cultural critique of rigid, dehumanizing education systems. Traditional PD risks making teachers “just another brick in the wall,” constrained by outdated methods and lack of agency. Agile PD, however, offers a way to dismantle that wall, empowering teachers to build more creative, responsive, and humane learning environments for themselves and their students.

📚 References

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report

Hotwani, K. (2023). Agile compliance: Keeping pace with changing regulations using rapid-update custom eLearning modules. Upside Learning. https://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/agile-compliance-keeping-pace-with-changing-regulations-using-rapid-update-custom-elearning-modules/

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development.

Pink Floyd. (1979). Another brick in the wall (Part 2). On The wall [Album]. Harvest Records.

Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2019). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102922

Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007

Discussion Questions for Supervisors

Instructions:
Read the white paper carefully. Then, as a supervisory team, discuss the following questions and propose at least one actionable step per question. Be prepared to share your conclusions with the larger group.

1.    In what ways could agile professional development address the needs of novice teachers in your institution?

2.    What current PD practices in your context feel most “static” or outdated? How might they be reimagined by using agile principles?

3.    How could modular, microlearning-based PD be adapted to the realities of your institution (e.g., scheduling, teacher workload, or available technology)?

4.    What mechanisms can be created to ensure iterative feedback loops between teachers, supervisors, and curriculum designers?

5.    How could supervisors measure the impact of agile PD not only on teacher growth but also on student outcomes?

6.    What challenges might arise when transitioning from traditional PD models to agile ones, and how can institutions anticipate and mitigate them?

7.    How can cultural programming in American Spaces be integrated into agile PD cycles to enrich both teacher training and student learning?

 

📝 Introductory Note to the Reader      I am not a theologian, nor do I pretend to be one. Yet there are mysteries within our inherited beliefs that I feel compelled to explore in order to understand the foundations of the tradition in which many of us were raised—Christian and Catholic.      The first time I encountered the provocative idea that Jehovah was originally part of a cohort of other gods was through a former partner and friend, Javier Fernández, who studied theology. My curiosity deepened when I read Moncure Daniel Conway’s Demonology and Devil-Lore (1879), a book that captivated me by the way it dissected myths and exposed how churches have systematically demonized earlier beliefs.      What follows is not the work of a professional theologian, but of a scholar in search of understanding, connecting Conway’s insights with broader historical and mythological patterns.

Divine Plurality, Early Trinities, and the Elevation of Jehovah: Revisiting Moncure Daniel Conway’s Demonology and Devil-Lore

	Abstract Christianity’s doctrine of the Trinity is traditionally perceived as a unique theological innovation. However, Moncure Daniel Conway’s Demonology and Devil-Lore (1879) reveals that trinitarian structures predate Christianity and appear across diverse ancient civilizations. This paper examines Conway’s thesis that Jehovah originated as one among the Elohim, situates this claim within modern biblical scholarship, and compares the Christian Trinity with analogous triads in Hinduism, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Arabia. The argument highlights that Christianity’s Trinity is less an isolated revelation than a crystallization of a universal religious archetype: the reconciliation of unity and plurality in the divine.	Keywords: Moncure Daniel Conway, Demonology and Devil-Lore, Elohim, Trinity, Comparative Religion, Mythological Archetypes
	Resumen La doctrina cristiana de la Trinidad suele entenderse como una innovación única. Sin embargo, Demonology and Devil-Lore (1879) de Moncure Daniel Conway demuestra que las estructuras trinitarias existen desde mucho antes del cristianismo y se encuentran en diversas civilizaciones antiguas. Este artículo examina la tesis de Conway según la cual Jehová fue originalmente uno de los Elohim, la relaciona con la investigación bíblica moderna y compara la Trinidad cristiana con tríadas análogas en el hinduismo, Egipto, Mesopotamia, Grecia y Arabia. El argumento resalta que la Trinidad cristiana no es una revelación aislada, sino la cristalización de un arquetipo religioso universal: la reconciliación entre unidad y pluralidad en lo divino.
	Resumo A doutrina cristã da Trindade é frequentemente vista como uma inovação exclusiva. No entanto, Demonology and Devil-Lore (1879) de Moncure Daniel Conway mostra que as estruturas trinitárias existiam muito antes do cristianismo e estavam presentes em várias civilizações antigas. Este artigo examina a tese de Conway de que Jeová foi originalmente um dos Elohim, relaciona essa ideia com estudos bíblicos modernos e compara a Trindade cristã com tríades análogas no hinduísmo, Egito, Mesopotâmia, Grécia e Arábia. O argumento enfatiza que a Trindade cristã não é uma revelação isolada, mas a cristalização de um arquétipo religioso universal: a busca por conciliar unidade e pluralidade no divino.

Introduction

Christianity’s doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is often regarded as a defining theological innovation and prescribed to those of us who were raised in this tradition. Yet the idea of a divine plurality, and specifically triadic configurations of divinity, appears across many ancient religions; the concept of a trinity is not a new, nor is it an innovative belief. This suggests that the Christian Trinity may be less an isolated revelation and more a refinement of an archetypal human attempt to reconcile unity and multiplicity in the divine (Eliade, 1996).

Moncure Daniel Conway’s book Demonology and Devil-Lore (1879) was one of the earliest works in the Anglophone world to systematically compare Judeo-Christian traditions with global mythologies. Conway’s thesis, though framed within nineteenth-century comparative philology and rationalism, was provocative: Jehovah, far from being a timeless singular deity, emerged historically from a pantheon of Elohim, who are not exclusively linked to Hebrew-Jewish tradition, but spread across Asian primeval societies and cultures. Furthermore, Based on Moncure Conway (1879), the Christian Trinity itself reflects older mythological triads found in India, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and elsewhere.

The purpose of this article is threefold: (a) to examine Conway’s argument about Jehovah among the Elohim, (b) to explore ancient examples of divine triads, and (c) to analyze the implications of these findings for understanding the Christian Trinity as part of a larger religious pattern.

Jehovah Among the Elohim

Conway highlights a critical textual feature of the Hebrew Bible: the plural noun Elohim, often rendered as “God,” is frequently used with singular verbs. Conway thus explains:

This observation situates Israelite religion within the broader context of ancient Near Eastern polytheism. Early texts such as Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (in its older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls versions, not the biblical version we can now read) appear to describe Yahweh as receiving Israel as his allotted people, while other nations were assigned to other deities (Day, 2002; Smith, 2001). In this reading, Yahweh was initially one member of a divine family, later elevated to exclusive sovereignty over the Israelites.

Conway underscores this point by remarking on the “concentration which resulted in the enthronement of one supreme sovereign, Jehovah” (1879/Vol. I, p. 46). According to Dever (2005), this shift from polytheism to monolatry and eventually monotheism represents not a rupture but an evolutionary process. Archeological evidence, including inscriptions referring to “Yahweh and his Asherah,” (goddess of fertility or spouse) further supports the view that Israelite religion once acknowledged multiple divine figures (Hadley, 2000), an idea that is simply unheard of in this moment of religious evolution. Thus, Conway’s nineteenth-century insight aligns with later scholarship: Israelite monotheism was a product of gradual theological consolidation, and Jehovah’s “siblings” were once worshipped as fellow members of a divine council.

Trinitarian Structures in Ancient Religions

Conway’s (1879) comparative analysis shows that Christianity’s Trinity belongs to a broader human tendency: the structuring of divine powers in threes. The following examples illustrate this archetypal pattern, and these are found in Demonology and Devil-Lore (1879).

Hinduism: The Trimurti

The Hindu Trimurti (Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), and Shiva (destroyer)) encapsulates the cosmic cycle of existence based on this mythology. These functions correspond broadly to phases of birth, life, and death, suggesting that triads provide a symbolic structure for understanding totality. Conway noted the shifting meanings of divine terms in Indian religion (1879/Vol. I, p. 46), emphasizing that semantic and theological evolution parallels Hebrew developments. It needs to be noted that Hebrew religion was born in Central Asia probably allowing many cultures to be in contact with Hindi religious tradition.

Egypt: Divine Triads of Family and Cosmos

Egyptian theology revolved around triadic families, such as Osiris, Isis, and Horus, or Amun, Mut, and Khonsu. These units emphasized generational continuity, fertility, and cosmic balance (Frankfort, 1948). The death and resurrection of Osiris, mediated through Isis and embodied in Horus, provided a narrative echo to later Christian themes of divine sonship and renewal. Conway explicitly connected these Egyptian triads to Christianity’s later formulations in his studies of comparative theology (1879/Vol. I, p. 88).

Figure 2 - Egyptian Divine Triad

 

Mesopotamia: Cosmic Division

The Mesopotamian pantheon structured the universe into three domains: Anu (heaven), Enlil (air/command), and Ea/Enki (water/wisdom). Later, Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar formed a lunar-solar-planetary triad governing cosmic order (Kramer, 1961). Conway observed that the Hebrews inherited much of their mythic structure from their Mesopotamian neighbors (1879/Vol. II, p. 132). And it also needs to be borne in mind that Abraham came out of Ur, a Chaldean city in the heart of Mesopotamia, and he did not leave his religious ideas behind but took them with him.

Figure 3 - Mesopotamian Cosmic Structure

 

Greco-Roman and Celtic Patterns

Greek religion produced numerous triads: Hecate as triple goddess of maiden, mother, and crone; the Moirai (Fates); and Platonic philosophy’s triad of The One, Nous, and Psyche. Celtic traditions likewise emphasized triple goddesses, such as Brigid in her threefold functions (Graves, 1948/1997). Conway (1879/Vol. I, p. 122) regarded these as evidence of a recurring “instinct to symbolize phases of power and personhood in threes.”

Figure 4 - Hecate: Triple Goddess of Maiden, Mother, and Cron

 

Figure 5 - Platonic Triad: The One, Nous, and Psych

 

Figure 6 - The Threefold Functions of Brigid

 

Arabia: The Daughters of Allah

Pre-Islamic Arabian religion, based on Conway’s (1879) studies, featured a female triad (Al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manāt) worshiped as the “daughters of Allah” (Wellhausen, 1978). Conway (1879) did not cover this tradition in depth, but it exemplifies the widespread appeal of triadic structures across the Near East.

Figure 7 - Pre-Islamic Arabian Triad: Al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manā

 

Discussion: Archetype and Theological Evolution

What unites these examples is the perception that triads express completeness. Whether in creation-preservation-destruction, heaven-earth-underworld, or father-mother-son, divine threes embody wholeness. Eliade (1996) argued that such patterns represent a “metaphysical craving for unity-in-diversity.” Conway anticipated this by writing:

Modern theology often emphasizes the distinctiveness of the Christian Trinity. Yet placing it within the comparative framework shows it as a cultural crystallization of a universal motif, not a historical anomaly as some may believe. This recognition need not diminish the uniqueness of Christian theology but enriches it by demonstrating continuity with humanity’s broader symbolic imagination.

Conclusion

Conway’s Demonology and Devil-Lore remains a pioneering comparative study, remarkable for its recognition of divine plurality in Israelite religion and its tracing of trinitarian archetypes across civilizations. Subsequent research in biblical studies and archaeology has validated his central intuition: monotheism emerged through a process of theological consolidation, and triadic forms of divinity are universal.

By situating Jehovah among the Elohim and linking the Christian Trinity to older mythological patterns, Conway invites us to see Christian theology not as an isolated revelation but as part of humanity’s long quest to reconcile unity and diversity in the divine.

📚 References

Conway, M. D. (1879). Demonology and Devil-Lore (Vols. I & II). London: Chatto & Windus. (Reprint edition consulted, 2001).

Day, J. (2002). Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Dever, W. G. (2005). Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Eliade, M. (1996). Patterns in Comparative Religion (R. Sheed, Trans.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1958).

Frankfort, H. (1948). Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Graves, R. (1997). The White Goddess: A Historical Grammar of Poetic Myth (Rev. ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Original work published 1948).

Hadley, J. M. (2000). The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kramer, S. N. (1961). Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Smith, M. S. (2001). The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wellhausen, J. (1978). Reste arabischen Heidentums (R. C. Ostle & S. M. El-Said, Trans.). New York: AMS Press. (Original work published 1887).

Divine Plurality, Early Trinities, And the Elevation of Jehovah - Revisiting Moncure Daniel Conway’s Demono... by Jonathan Acuña

 

📝 Introductory Note to the Reader      I have always been curious as to how my planning can have a long-lasting learning effect on my students. As stated in the olden tune by The Beatles, “Yes, tomorrow may rain, so I’ll follow the sun,” I follow my way of planning to feel satisfied with my students’ performance while in class and when working on their summative evaluations.      I do not believe there is one fixed way of planning but rather a process that each teacher must experience before finding the most suitable steps to follow when designing lessons. And, as the song by Fleetwood Mac reminds us, sometimes you simply have to “go your own way.” This manifesto captures the way I go mine.

My Lesson-Design Manifesto