Effective teacher development is central to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education, as teachers’ professional identity significantly shapes instructional quality and learner outcomes. Hence, this study explores innovative professional development approaches that strengthen teachers’ professional identity. Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), with its emphasis on self-awareness, communication, and behavioral change, offers potential in this regard but remains underexplored in EFL teacher education. Adopting an explanatory mixed-methods design, the study investigated the impact of NLP training on in-service EFL teachers’ professional identity. Participants included 52 non-native Iranian EFL instructors that attended a ten-session NLP training workshop. Quantitative data were collected through pretests and posttests assessing teachers’ professional identity, while qualitative data were obtained via semi-structured interviews to capture teachers’ experiences and perceptions following the intervention. Quantitative results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in teachers’ professional identity after the NLP training. Qualitative findings further revealed that NLP training enhanced teachers’ sense of purpose, self-awareness, adaptability, and engagement in reflective practice. Participants also reported strengthened collegial collaboration, fostering more supportive and interactive professional environments. Thematic analysis indicated a shift from a predominantly instructional role toward a more holistic, mentorship-oriented teaching approach, as well as the promotion of a growth mindset among learners. Research findings underscore the importance of sustained professional development and suggest that NLP may function as a transformative pedagogical model in EFL contexts. Accordingly, the study recommends integrating selected NLP techniques into teacher education programs to enhance teacher effectiveness, professional identity development, and responsiveness to learners’ needs, with implications for both practitioners and policymakers.
Nezhadmehr et al. (Sun,) studied this question.