• Sonuç bulunamadı

İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Genel ve Özel Alan Öğretmen Yeterlilik Seviyeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Genel ve Özel Alan Öğretmen Yeterlilik Seviyeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma"

Copied!
520
0
0

Yükleniyor.... (view fulltext now)

Tam metin

(1)
(2)
(3)

A STUDY ON GENERIC AND FIELD-SPECIFIC TEACHER

COMPETENCY LEVELS OF ENGLISH TEACHERS

Çağla Atmaca

Ph.D. DISSERTATION

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING PROGRAMME

GAZI UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

(4)

i

TELİF HAKKI VE TEZ FOTOKOPİ İZİN FORMU

Bu tezin tüm hakları saklıdır. Kaynak göstermek koşuluyla tezin teslim tarihinden itibaren 12 (oniki) ay sonra tezden fotokopi çekilebilir.

YAZARIN

Adı: Çağla Soyadı: Atmaca

Bölümü: İngiliz Dili Eğitimi A.B.D. İmza:

Teslim Tarihi:

TEZİN

Türkçe Adı: İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Genel ve Özel Alan Öğretmen Yeterlilik Seviyeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

İngilizce Adı: A Study on Generic and Field-Specific Teacher Competency Levels of English Teachers

(5)

ii

ETİK İLKELRE UYGUNLUK BEYANI

Tez yazma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyduğumu, yararlandığım tüm kaynakları kaynak gösterme ilkelerine uygun olarak kaynakçada belirttiğimi ve bu bölümler dışındaki tüm ifadelerin şahsıma ait olduğunu beyan ederim.

Yazar Adı Soyadı: Çağla ATMACA İmza:

(6)

iii Prof. Dr. Tahir ATICI

(7)

iv

(8)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the following people and institution whose support and encouragement helped me finish this study. First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Abdulvahit ÇAKIR, who encouraged me at every stage of the study and was always ready to offer help when needed. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey), which supported me financially for about three years under the National Scholarship Programme for MSc Students and encouraged me to continue my academic studies. Secondly, I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Gülsev Pakkan, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nurdan ÖZBEK GÜRBÜZ, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Paşa Tevfik CEPHE and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gonca YANGIN EKŞİ for their invaluable help in giving the study its final shape. I am grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kemalettin DENİZ, who always guided me whenever I needed help. I am also grateful to my dear friends Fatıma Nur FİŞNE, Merve ÖKSÜZ, Jale ERCAN and Batuhan SELVİ for their invaluable assistance and I am especially grateful to Serkan YILDIRIM, who always supported me whenever I needed help. In addition, I would like to thank to Songül KOÇAŞ, Halil İbrahim KELEŞ, Hülya TÜLEK and Gülhan ÖZMEN, who all allowed me to make observation in their classes and shared their experiences and course materials with me. My final thanks go to my family for their endless moral support.

(9)

vi

A STUDY ON GENERIC AND FIELD-SPECIFIC TEACHER

COMPETENCY LEVELS OF ENGLISH TEACHERS

(Ph.D. Dissertation)

Çağla ATMACA

GAZI UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

May 2016

ABSTRACT

To better English language teaching practices in Turkey, pre-service teaching programs have the responsibility to prepare prospective teachers well-equipped and qualified to serve student needs and meet educational goals. Thus, there is need to question the effectiveness of ELT programs and in-service teacher training in Turkey. In order to detect current state of ELT programs in Turkey and assess their effectiveness to contribute to student teachers’ teaching competencies, this study aims to find out how English language teacher education programmes in Turkey reflect the teacher competences set by Ministry of National Education (MoNE), and how competent pre-service and in-service English teachers find themselves based on the field-specific and generic teacher competences set by MoNE. Thus, this study employs an explanatory research design. The universe of the study includes pre-service English teachers (seniors) and in-service English teachers at different levels of schools with different teaching experience in Turkey. This study aimed to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon in question and increase the generalisability of the findings. Thus, methodological triangulation was adopted to interrelate both numerical and non-numerical data. There were two types of survey to collect data from pre-service English teachers and in-service English teachers as well as an observation form for the 16-week observations

(10)

vii

conducted at a state primary school, secondary school and high school. The survey consists of a cover page and four parts. The first parts deals with the personal details of the participants, the second parts consists of a self-assessment form about the generic teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE, the third part includes another self-assessment form about the English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE, and finally the last part includes written interview protocol (WIP) with nine questions. SPSS 16 was utilized to code and analyse the quantitative findings while content analysis was used for the analysis of qualitative findings. It was found that high majority of the participants do not know the generic teacher competencies or English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE whereas a small number of them know these competencies. In addition, it was seen that the long nature of the competencies was regarded to be unnecessary or unrealistic by some participants. In addition, there were both positive and negative opinions about these competencies in that the competencies were not thought to reflect the realities of educational context by some participants while they were thought to be comprehensive by some other participants. It was concluded that both pre-service and in-service English teachers need to be informed about these competencies and they should be guided to improve their professional skills in light of these competencies. Therefore, pre-service teacher education programs need to include a separate course devoted to introduction and improvement of these competencies and in-service teachers should receive training and feedback in light of these competencies.

Keywords: Teacher education, teacher induction, teacher competencies, pre-service English teachers, in-service English teachers.

Page Number: 492

(11)

viii

İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN GENEL VE ÖZEL ALAN

ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİLİK SEVİYELERİ ÜZERİNE BİR

ARAŞTIRMA

(Doktora Tezi)

Çağla ATMACA

GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ

EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ

Mayıs 2016

ÖZ

Türkiye’deki İngilizce öğretimi uygulamalarını iyileştirmek amacıyla hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitim programlarının, öğrenci ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak ve eğitimsel amaçlara ulaşmak için geleceğin öğretmenlerini iyi donanımlı ve kaliteli yetiştirme sorumluluğu vardır. Bu yüzden Türkiye’deki İngilizce öğretmenliği programlarının ve hizmet içi öğretmen eğitiminin etkililiğinin sorgulanması gerekmektedir. Türkiye’deki İngilizce öğretmenliği programlarının güncel durumunu belirlemek ve öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik yeterliklerine katkısının etkililiğini değerlendirmek amacıyla, bu çalışma Türkiye’deki İngilizce öğretmenliği programlarının Türk Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından belirlenen öğretmenlik yeterliklerini ne derece yansıttığını, hizmet öncesi ve hizmet içi İngilizce öğretmenlerinin, genel ve özel alan öğretmenlik yeterlikleri açısından kendilerini ne derece yeterli gördüklerini bulmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu yüzden bu çalışmada tanımlayıcı araştırma modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini Türkiye’deki hizmet öncesi İngilizce öğretmenleri (son sınıf öğrencileri) ve farklı öğretmenlik deneyimleri olan ve farklı okul türlerinde çalışan hizmet içi İngilizce öğretmenleri oluşturmaktadır. Söz

(12)

ix

konusu olgunun daha derin anlaşılmasını sağlamak ve bulguların genellenebilirliğini artırmak amacıyla, çalışma nitel ve nicel veriyi birleştirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu yüzden hem sayısal olan hem de sayısal olmayan verileri ilişkilendirmek amacıyla yöntemsel üçgenleme benimsenmiştir. İlkokul, ortaokul ve lise düzeyindeki devlet okullarında 16 haftalık gözlemler için kullanılan gözlem formunun yanı sıra hizmet öncesi ve hizmet içi İngilizce öğretmenlerinden veri toplamak için iki tür anket kullanılmıştır. Bu anket önsöz ve 4 bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk kısım katılımcıların kişisel bilgilerini içermektedir, ikinci kısım genel öğretmen yeterliklerini içermektedir, üçüncü kısım İngilizce öğretmenliği yeterliklerini içermektedir ve son kısım dokuz sorulu yazılı mülakat protokolünden oluşmaktadır. Nicel bulguları kodlamak ve analiz etmek için SPSS 16 kullanılırken nitel bulguların analizi için içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Hem hizmet öncesi İngilizce öğretmenlerinin hem de hizmet içi İngilizce öğretmenlerinin büyük çoğunluğunun bu yeterlikler hakkında bilgi sahibi olmadığı bulunmuştur. Ayrıca yeterlilik maddelerinin sayısın çok olması bazı katılımcılar tarafından olumlu algılanırken bazı katılımcılar tarafından olumsuz algılanmıştır ve madde sayısı bazı katılımcılarca gereksiz veya gerçek dışı olarak yorumlanmıştır. Ayrıca yeterlilik maddeleriyle ilgili olumlu ve olumsuz görüşler bulunmaktadır. Bazı katılımcılar bu yeterliklerin eğitimsel bağlamın gerçekleri yansıtmadığını düşünürken bazı katılımcılarsa nu yeterliklerin kapsamlı olduğunu düşünmektedirler. Hem hizmet öncesi hem de hizmet içi İngilizce öğretmenlerinin bu yeterlikler hakkında bilgilendirilmesi gerektiği ve bu yeterlikler çerçevesinde mesleki becerilerini geliştirmek için yönlendirilmeleri gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu nedenle hizmet öncesi öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının bu yeterliklerin tanıtımı ve geliştirilmesine yönelik olan ayrı bir ders içermesi gerekmektedir ve hizmet içi öğretmenler bu yeterlikler ışığında eğitim ve dönüt almalıdırlar.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Öğretmen eğitimi, öğretmen yetiştirilmesi, öğretmen yeterlikleri, hizmet öncesi İngilizce öğretmenleri, hizmet içi İngilizce öğretmenleri.

Sayfa Adedi: 492

(13)

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TELİF HAKKI VE TEZ FOTOKOPİ İZİN FORMU………...i

ETİK İLKELRE UYGUNLUK BEYANI………..ii

JÜRİ ONAY SAYFASI………iii

DEDICATION………...………..iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

S………..………...v

ABSTRACT ……….…………...vi

ÖZ………..viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………...x

LIST OF TABLES………..…………...xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………..………...xxiii

1. INTRODUCTION...1

1.0 Presentation...1

1.1 Statement of the Problem...2

1.2 Aim of the Study………...3

1.3 Significance of the Study………..…..…4

(14)

xi

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……….………..….7

2.0 Presentation...7

2.1 Teacher Training ………...…8

2.2 Teacher Induction………20

2.2.1 In-service Teacher Induction ………...25

2.2.2 Pre-service Teacher Induction ………..…...30

2.3 Mentoring……….……….35

2.4 Pre-service Teacher Training………..37

2.4.1 Micro-teaching and Pre-service Teachers ………...43

2.4.2 Reflection and Pre-service Teachers ...46

2.5 In-service Teacher Training ………...………47

2.6 The EP and EPOSTL ...49

2.7 Teacher Training and Teacher Competencies in Turkey...57

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………...63

3.0 Presentation...63

3.1 Research Design………...…………...……..63

3.2 Universe and Participants………...66

3.2.1 Demographic Features of the Participant Pre-service English Teachers...67

3.2.2 Demographic Features of the Participant In-service English Teachers………...…...69

3.3 Data Collection Tools………..……….75

3.4 Data Analysis Tools………..………...………...…………..78

(15)

xii

4. RESULTS

……….………..…………...….83

4.0 Presentation...83

4.1 Results on the Generic Teacher Competencies ……….83

4.2 Results on the English Teacher Competencies……….147

4.3 Results on the WIP items………..……….182

4.3.1 Information about the Generic and English Teacher Competencies...182

4.3.2 Participant Opinions about Teacher Competencies...188

4.3.2.1 Replies to the Third WIP Question...189

4.3.2.2 Replies to the Fourth WIP Question...196

4.3.2.3 Replies to the Fifth WIP Question...205

4.3.2.4 Replies to the Ninth WIP Question...213

4.3.3 Participant Opinions about Shareholder Role in Teacher Competencies...218

4.3.4 Participant Opinions about the Role of Inspection in Teacher Competencies...227

4.3.5 Participant Opinions about the Closure of Faculty of Education in Teacher Competencies...236 4.4 Results of Observation...244 4.4.1 Observation Week 1: 07.10.2015...245 4.4.2 Observation Week 2: 12.10.2015...249 4.4.3 Observation Week 3: 20.10.2015...254 4.4.4 Observation Week 4: 27.10.2015...257 4.4.5 Observation Week 5: 03.11.2015...260 4.4.6 Observation Week 6: 10.11.2015...263 4.4.7 Observation Week 7: 17.11.2015...266 4.4.8 Observation Week 8: 24.11.2015...269 4.4.9 Observation Week 9: 01.12.2015...272 4.4.10 Observation Week 10: 08.12.2015...277

(16)

xiii 4.4.11 Observation Week 11: 15.12.2015...282 4.4.12 Observation Week 12: 22.12.2015...286 4.4.13 Observation Week 13: 29.12.2015...290 4.4.14 Observation Week 14: 05.01.2016...293 4.4.15 Observation Week 15: 12.01.2016...296 4.4.16 Observation Week 16: 19.01.2016...299

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION………..….….…...303

5.0 Presentation...303

5.1 Discussion and Conclusion of the Generic Teacher Competencies …...303

5.2 Discussion and Conclusion of the English Teacher Competencies...314

5.3 Discussion and Conclusion of the WIP Questions ...323

5.4 Discussion and Conclusion of the Observations...334

5.5 Implications and Suggestions………...………….………340

REFERENCES………...………...…...347

(17)

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Gender of Pre-service English Teachers………..…....….67

Table 2. Age of Pre-service English Teachers………...67

Table 3. Marital Status of Pre-service English Teachers………...….67

Table 4. GPA of Pre-service English Teachers……….…………. 68

Table 5. High School Types of Pre-service English Teachers…...……….………… 68

Table 6. Teaching Experience of Pre-service English Teachers..………...……… 69

Table 7. Cities of the In-service Participants………..……...…..70

Table 8. Gender of In-service English Teachers………..……...… 71

Table 9. Age of the Participant In-service English Teachers……….……..71

Table 10. Marital Status of In-service English Teachers………..……...……71

Table 11. Major of In-service English Teachers………..72

Table 12. Teaching Experience of In-service English Teachers………..72

Table 13. Educational Status of In-service English Teachers……….…….73

Table 14. Current Institution of In-service English Teachers………...73

Table 15. Previous Institution of In-service English Teachers………73

Table 16. Teaching Hours of In-service English Teachers………..…....73

Table 17. In-service English Teachers’ Experience in the Same Institution…………...…74

(18)

xv

Table 19. GENA1 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...84

Table 20. GENA1 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...84

Table 21. GENA2 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..……...85

Table 22. GENA2 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...85

Table 23. GENA3 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………..…...86

Table 24. GENA3 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..86

Table 25. GENA4 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………....87

Table 26. GENA4 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...88

Table 27. GENA5 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…....88

Table 28. GENA5 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..89

Table 29. GENA6 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….89

Table 30. GENA6 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...90

Table 31. GENA7 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...90

Table 32. GENA7 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..91

Table 33. GENA8 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…....91

Table 34. GENA8 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..92

Table 35. GENA9 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...92

Table 36. GENA9 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..93

Table 37. GENA10 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…..93

Table 38. GENA10 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…94

Table 39. GENA11 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………..….95

Table 40. GENA11 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…....95

Table 41. GENA12 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..…96

Table 42. GENA12 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………..…...96

Table 43. GENA13 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..…97

(19)

xvi

Table 45. GENA14 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………....….98

Table 46. GENA14 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...99

Table 47. GENA15 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..…...99

Table 48. GENA15 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...100

Table 49. GENA16 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…101

Table 50. GENA16 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...101

Table 51. GENA17 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…102

Table 52. GENA17 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...…102

Table 53. GENA18 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…103

Table 54. GENA18 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...104

Table 55. GENA19 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….……104

Table 56. GENA19 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..105

Table 57. GENA20 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….……105

Table 58. GENA20 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..106

Table 59. GENA21 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….……107

Table 60. GENA21 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...107

Table 61. GENA22 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…108

Table 62. GENA22 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..108

Table 63. GENA23 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…....109

Table 64. GENA23 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..110

Table 65. GENA24 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…....110

Table 66. GENA24 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..111

Table 67. GENA25 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...112

Table 68. GENA25 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..112

Table 69. GENA26 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….….…...113

(20)

xvii

Table 71. GENA27 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..…...114

Table 72. GENA27 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..114

Table 73. GENA28 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….115

Table 74. GENA28 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..115

Table 75. GENA29 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...116

Table 76. GENA29 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..116

Table 77. GENA30 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..…...117

Table 78. GENA30 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..118

Table 79. GENA31 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..…...118

Table 80. GENA31 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..119

Table 81. GENA32 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...119

Table 82. GENA32 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...120

Table 83. GENA33 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...120

Table 84. GENA33 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..121

Table 85. GENA34 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…....122

Table 86. GENA34 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..122

Table 87. GENA35 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…....123

Table 88. GENA35 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..123

Table 89. GENA36 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...124

Table 90. GENA36 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..124

Table 91. GENA37 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...125

Table 92. GENA37 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..125

Table 93. GENA38 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...126

Table 94. GENA38 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..126

Table 95. GENA39 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….……....127

(21)

xviii

Table 97. GENA40 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….128 Table 98. GENA40 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...129 Table 99. GENA41 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...129 Table 100. GENA41 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers…..…………...130 Table 101. GENA42 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….131 Table 102. GENA42 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers…………...…..131 Table 103. GENA43 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….132 Table 104. GENA43 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…132 Table 105. GENA44 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….133 Table 106. GENA44 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….……133 Table 107. GENA45 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………...…134 Table 108. GENA45 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…135 Table 109. GENA46 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….135 Table 110. GENA46 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…...136 Table 111. GENA47 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….136 Table 112. GENA47 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….……137 Table 113. GENA48 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….137 Table 114. GENA48 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...138 Table 115. GENA49 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...139 Table 116. GENA49 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...139 Table 117. GENA50 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..….140 Table 118. GENA50 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...140 Table 119. GENA51 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..141 Table 120. GENA51 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...142 Table 121. GENA52 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..142 Table 122. GENA52 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...143

(22)

xix

Table 123. GENA53 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..143 Table 124. GENA53 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...144 Table 125. GENA54 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..145 Table 126. GENA54 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...145 Table 127. GENA55 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...146 Table 128. GENA55 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...146 Table 129. ENG1.1 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………....148 Table 130. ENG1.1 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..149 Table 131. ENG1.2 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………....149 Table 132. ENG1.2 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..150 Table 133. ENG1.3 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...150 Table 134. ENG1.3 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..151 Table 135. ENG1.4 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…....152 Table 136. ENG1.4 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…...152 Table 137. ENG1.5 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…153 Table 138. ENG1.5 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…...153 Table 139. ENG1.6 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...154 Table 140. ENG1.6 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...….155 Table 141. ENG1.7 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...155 Table 142. ENG1.7 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…...156 Table 143. ENG1.8 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...157 Table 144. ENG1.8 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…...157 Table 145. ENG1.9 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...158 Table 146. ENG1.9 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…...159 Table 147. ENG1.10 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..159 Table 148. ENG1.10 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….…....160

(23)

xx

Table 149. ENG1.11 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..160 Table 150. ENG1.11 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….…....161 Table 151. ENG1.12 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….……..162 Table 152. ENG1.12 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….…....162 Table 153. ENG1.13 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..163 Table 154. ENG1.13 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….…....163 Table 155. ENG1.14 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..164 Table 156. ENG1.14 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...165 Table 157. ENG1.15 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..165 Table 158. ENG1.15 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….….166 Table 159. ENG1.16 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...166 Table 160. ENG1.16 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers…………...…...167 Table 161. ENG1.17 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...……168 Table 162. ENG1.17 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...168 Table 163. ENG1.18 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………...169 Table 164. ENG1.18 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...170 Table 165. ENG1.19 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….….….170 Table 166. ENG1.19 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...171 Table 167. ENG1.20 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers……….…...171 Table 168. ENG1.20 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…172 Table 169. ENG1.21 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………...173 Table 170. ENG1.21 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….….173 Table 171. ENG1.22 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..…..174 Table 172. ENG1.22 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...175 Table 173. ENG1.23 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers…………..…..175 Table 174. ENG1.23 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers…………..…...176

(24)

xxi

Table 175. ENG1.24 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…..177 Table 176. ENG1.24 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...177 Table 177. ENG1.25 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………....178 Table 178. ENG1.25 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………...178 Table 179. ENG1.26 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………….…...179 Table 180. ENG1.26 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers………….…...180 Table 181. ENG1.27 Competency Levels of Pre-service English Teachers………....180 Table 182. ENG1.27 Competency Levels of In-service English Teachers……….…..181 Table 183. Pre-service Answers to the First WIP Item……….182 Table 184. Pre-service Participants’ Information about Generic Teacher Competencies183 Table 185. Pre-service Participants’ Information about English Teacher Competencies183 Table 186. Pre-service Answers to the Second WIP Item………...….183 Table 187. In-service Answers to the First WIP Item………..………….185 Table 188. In-service Participants’ Information about Generic Teacher Competencies..186 Table 189. In-service Participants’ Information about English Teacher Competencies...186 Table 190. In-service Answers to the Second WIP Item………..…….187 Table 191. Pre-service Answers to the Third WIP Item………..…….189 Table 192. In-service Answers to the Third WIP Item……….…….193 Table 193. Pre-service Answers to the Fourth WIP Item……….196 Table 194. In-service Answers to the Fourth WIP Item………..….202 Table 195. Pre-service Answers to the Fifth WIP Item……….205 Table 196. In-service Answers to the Fifth WIP Item………..….210 Table 197. Pre-service Answers to the Ninth WIP Item………..……….214 Table 198. In-service Answers to the Ninth WIP Item……….….216 Table 199. Pre-service Answers to the Sixth WIP Item………..……….….219 Table 200. In-service Answers to the Sixth WIP Item………..….224

(25)

xxii

Table 201. Pre-service Answers to the Seventh WIP Item………..……….228 Table 202. In-service Answers to the Seventh WIP Item………..232 Table 203. Pre-service Answers to the Eighth WIP Item………..………..….236 Table 204. In-service Answers to the Eighth WIP Item………....241

(26)

xxiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CEF Common European Framework

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages ECML European Centre of Modern Languages

ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System EFL English as Foreign Language

ELP European Language Portfolio ELT English Language Teaching EP European Profile

EPOSTL European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages

EU European Union

GPA Grade Point Average

ICT Information and Communication Technology ITKS Importance of Teaching Knowledge Scale

KPSS Kamu Personeli Seçme Sınavı (Public Personnel Selection Exam) LYS Lisans Yerleştirme Sınavı

METU Middle East Technical University MoNE Ministry of National Education

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ÖABT Öğretmenlik Alan Bilgisi Testi (Teaching Field Knowledge Test)

(27)

xxiv

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment SPSS Statistical Programme for Social Sciences STE Student Teacher (Pre-service Teacher) T In-service Teachers

TABS Teaching Ability Belief Scale

TEOG Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş

TEPAV Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour

TRB Teachers Registration Board TTK Talim Terbiye Kurulu

TÜİK Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (Turkish Statistical Institute) WIP Written Interview Protocol

YDS Yabancı Dil Sınavı

YEĞİTEK Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü YÖK Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu (Higher Education Council) ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

(28)

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Presentation

The importance of teaching profession is emphasized compared to other jobs. For example, it is said that just as a tailor gives shapes a piece of fabric with his/her magic hands; teachers shape their students’ attitudes, skills and knowledge with their instructional strategies as well as professional and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers should pay more attention on what they do and how they do it because the material in education is a human being and any move could result in crucial changes in the student’s future life and academic career. No longer are teachers seen as transmitter of knowledge and nor are students regarded as passive observers or listeners, which means teaching profession is a dynamic job with on-going changes and improvements. Therefore, we need to consider teacher competencies.

Being a hot issue, foreign language instruction may display differences in terms of application and teacher education in different countries depending upon the educational aims and policies. In a similar vein, English teaching policies and implications could vary from country to country depending upon the status of English in these countries with contexts like English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Included in EFL context, Turkey comes across certain problems and faces criticism for its English teaching policies and teacher education. Therefore, English teacher competencies and problems encountered in English teacher training need to be questioned in line with the nationally set teaching standards by the national bodies in order to improve teacher quality and contribute to success in English language education in Turkey.

(29)

2

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Only examining the views or applications of student teachers may not give the complete picture of the needs of teachers. Then what if we look at teachers who are at different stages of their career and in need of induction? The answer comes from Aitken and Harford (2011) who conducted a study on the induction needs of 44 teachers who include student teachers, newly qualified teachers and experienced teachers returning to the school after an extended career break or new to the school in Ireland. We can think of novice teachers who may find it challenging to survive in their first teaching years especially in some areas like discipline, motivating students, dealing with individual student differences or assessing students’ work, all of which are stressed in the related studies (Veenman, 1984, as cited in Aitken & Harford, 2011) but what about the schools that are found in disadvantaged areas and face certain socioeconomic problems (Aitken & Harford, 2011). It is stressed that teacher induction is not satisfied at a desirable level in spite of the high social regard that the teaching profession has (Aitken & Harford, 2011). We can also touch upon the inadequacy of teacher education programmes in Turkey and question their effectiveness for preparing them for their future careers. How well-equipped are English teacher candidates in Turkey? How competent they find themselves in line with the teaching competencies set by Ministry of National Education in Turkey? If we would like to see the complete picture, then we should consider the contribution of some other stakeholders that share similar duties and possess similar concerns and responsibilities regarding foreign language teaching. In that case we should see the perceptions of student teachers and English teachers teaching at state schools to see how the bridge is built between universities and real teaching contexts and how competent student teachers and English teachers teaching at state schools find themselves in line with the competencies set by Ministry of National Education. In this way we can get a clear idea about what is expected at the level of national standards, what is happening in teacher education programmes in Turkey and what is possessed by English teachers actively working. What kind of discrepancies exist between the teaching competencies set by Ministry of National Education and teacher education programmes in Turkey and what sort of challenges are faced in reality should be investigated deeply in order to prepare pre-service teachers better for the complexities of different teaching contexts, help them to keep up with the national expectancies and bring about long-lasting solutions for foreign language education in Turkey.

(30)

3

Because each country sets specific objectives for teacher training, countries differ from each other in the way they educate their future teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2005) and even regions in the same country might differ from each other in their requirements and expectances due to the changes resulting from socio-economic structure of the region. Therefore, teacher trainers are expected to have a large repertoire of knowledge, skills and experiences to facilitate their students’ teaching identity (Gallagher, Griffin, Parker, Kitchen, & Figg, 2011) and make adaptation process easier when they are appointed as teachers in real classrooms (Zeichner, 2005). Raising well-equipped teacher candidates may not be enough for long-term success. Thus in-service teachers should also be given importance to continue their profession, feel contentment and to demolish signs of teacher burnout. Otherwise, educational policies may not be sustained or objectives may not be fulfilled effectively. The same prerequisites also go for foreign language teachers. Pre-service teacher education may create awareness but how to cope with the realities in the teaching contexts mainly depends on the in-service training they take. If student teachers graduate with the feelings of inadequacy or in-service teachers feel dissatisfaction about their professional skills and knowledge, then we cannot expect them to be successful or happy in their jobs and subsequently we can’t hope that the students they teach will succeed, either. First of all, we should be aware of teacher competences, what they lack, what they need and how we can overcome the difficulties to provide the needed guidance and help them set more realistic goals for personal and professional improvement.

1.2 Aim of the Study

To better English language teaching practices in Turkey, pre-service teaching programmes have the responsibility to prepare prospective teachers as well-equipped and qualified to serve student needs and meet educational goals. Thus, there is need to question the role of English Language Teaching (ELT) programmes and in-service teacher training in Turkey. In order to detect current state of ELT programs in Turkey and assess their role to contribute to student teachers’ teaching competencies, this study aims to find out competency levels of both pre-service and in-service English teachers in terms of generic teacher competences and field-specific teacher competencies set by MoNE. The following research questions will be investigated in the study:

(31)

4

1- What are the perceived competency levels of pre-service English teachers and in-service English teachers in terms of generic teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE, and what are the similarities and differences between the two groups in terms of the related competencies?

2- What are the perceived competency levels of pre-service English teachers and in-service English teachers in terms of English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE, and what are the similarities and differences between the two groups in terms of the related competencies?

3- What is the knowledge level and opinions of the participants about the generic and English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE, and what do the participants think about improvement of their professional identity, the participation of related stakeholders, the role of inspection in Turkey, and the effect of the closure of educational faculties in terms of the related competencies?

4- What are the teaching practices of observed in-service English teachers in line with the generic and English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE?

1.3 Significance of the Study

Like learning, teaching has also a dynamic structure because teacher perceptions about teaching and learning may display changes in the course of time in line with their experiences at various school contexts. Whether novice or experienced, teachers are expected to have a certain body of knowledge and skills to cope with their learner needs and working conditions.

As is known, we can come across various cultural structures and social norms in the western and eastern parts of Turkey and it is only natural that newly recruited teachers who come from a different culture and part of the country may experience a sense of culture shock (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2005) and have certain difficulties in adapting to their new environment. These teachers could be the ones who are new graduates with little or no teaching experience as well as those who are new to the school environment with changing

(32)

5

years of experience. Regardless of their experience and age, all teachers need on-going support and feedback for their professional development throughout their career. If we examine other countries’ educational policies and teacher training services we can get a better idea about ours but is it possible to draw healthy conclusions for a more effective system without investigating how much the desired abilities, skills and knowledge is achieved or possessed by our teachers? Is internationalization possible without nationalization or localization? It seems that there are some steps to be followed or taken before reaching the expected or desired results at international level. If local needs are not met how can we expect to compete at an international market in terms of education and teacher training respectively? Therefore, it will be useful to analyse both pre-service and in-service teacher training programs in Turkey in terms of the teaching competences set by Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in order to see whether ELT programs in Turkey cover these competences, what student teachers and in-service teachers think about their competences. In light of their views, we can assess the effectiveness of ELT programmes, and detect the deficiencies in teacher training programs felt by the participants and problems teachers encounter as well as their solutions for problems and suggestions for professional development.

In sum, this study sheds light on an overlooked area in English language teacher training by including both generic and English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE with the participation of both pre-service and in-service English teachers. In addition, it is the first time that pre-service teachers and in-service teachers were involved in assessing the related teaching competencies and their opinions were compared to each another to detect any possible mismatches. Moreover, mismatches between the perceived and actual teaching practices and competencies of English teachers were investigated through observation and suggestions were made for the improvement of ELT programs and foreign language policies in Turkey.

1.4 Limitations of the Study

This study is limited to the first parts of the generic and English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE due to their comprehensive nature with the number of items and sub-categories included. Thus the other 5 parts of the generic teacher competencies and the rest 4 parts of the English teacher competencies were excluded from the scope of the study in

(33)

6

order to narrow down the focus of the study. Therefore, 2 parts were included in data analyses instead of 11 parts.

Another limitation of the study is the sample of the universe since three universities in Ankara and one university in Denizli were taken as sample to conduct the study on pre-service English teachers in Turkey. Besides, in-pre-service English teachers from 21 cities in Turkey participated in the study.

The researcher had to choose some schools to make observation and this study is limited to the observation of three state schools in Ankara.

Finally, unequal distribution of the pre-service and in-service English teachers is another limitation for this study because there were 366 pre-service English teachers while 84 in-service English teachers, which made running statistical procedures to compare the competency levels of both groups of participants inappropriate. Therefore, the researcher had to rely on frequency and percentage tables in data analyses and comparisons. However, another factor which made the researcher refer to frequency and percentage tables instead of statistical procedures such as mean scores, standard deviations or independent-samples t-test for comparing competency levels of pre-service and in-service English teachers was the fact that the data collection tools were not questionnaires but self-assessment forms.

(34)

7

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 Presentation

Turkey faces criticism due to low level of student success in some areas like mathematics and English courses. We can get a clear idea about the success level of Turkish students in two problematic domains with the help of some large-scale international research results like those of PISA and British Council reports to identify the place of Turkey among other countries.

There were both positive and negative evaluations about the success of Turkish students in mathematics according to 2012 PISA results in that it was found that students in Turkey performed significantly worse in problem solving, on average, than students in other countries who show similar performance in mathematics, reading and science. Besides, with a mean score of 454 points, the Turkish students performed below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average in problem solving (500 score points). However, Turkey was found to have achieved major improvements from previously low levels of performance because it improved both its mathematics performance and its levels of equity in education between 2003 and 2012 (OECD, 2013). As for foreign language instruction, the British Council and the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV) published a report in November in 2013 about English language instruction in Turkey and they came up with important outcomes that could be very beneficial to shed light upon the current state of English language teaching, the developments and the lacking aspects that need improving in Turkey. The British Council Report about English language teaching in Turkey was conducted in 80 language classrooms with the participation of approximately 20.000 stakeholders like students, parents and English teachers. The infra-structure of the schools was found to be good in

(35)

8

general. Besides, the students were found to respond to innovative teaching methods and the teachers were found to be willing to enhance language level of students by using their professional development opportunities. There were some other important findings in that the parents were found to have relatively low level of English knowledge, which prevented them from helping their children in their English homework and which could be attributed to the EFL structure of English in Turkish context. Another striking finding was that the participant students became less motivated as they passed to a higher grade because they found English lessons difficult or boring. As to teachers, they were found to suffer from the lack of in-service training on teaching English to young learners. Another important finding was about the low level of awareness about Dyned by students and parents.

As is seen, Turkey seems to be in need of more improvement in both mathematics and English language education. Especially foreign language education in Turkey is thought to be insufficient in terms of improving linguistic and communicative competence of Turkish learners owing to their failure in national and international language examinations. Due to the scope of the study, the studies related to English language education in Turkey will be given in detail in terms of teacher education with regard to teacher competencies.

In this part, the related review literature will be presented under the themes of teacher training, teacher induction, in-service teacher induction, pre-service teacher induction, mentoring, pre-service teacher training, micro-teaching and pre-service teachers, reflection of pre-service teachers, in-service teacher training, The European Profile (EP) and European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL), teacher training and competencies in Turkey covering the generic and English teacher competencies set by Turkish MoNE.

2.1 Teacher Training

Teaching involves the participation of more than one party. As to student teachers who are in-between being a student and a teacher candidate; they need guidance, scaffolding and induction in their training throughout their career for professional development. Thus a multifaceted approach could help us to see how the interaction of a number of factors or involvement of stakeholders affect teacher training and direct the route of teacher development as we can see in the theory of planned behaviour suggested by Ajzen (1991).

(36)

9

The importance of teacher training programmes is stressed for their facilitative role in terms of preparing teacher candidates for the complex realities of their future classroom. Whether they undergo any cognitive change during their education or more specially teaching practicum, where they are provided with the opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills, gains importance in this regard. Socio-constructivist views have an important influence on teacher training so it will be useful to examine the underlying social and cultural factors that are deeply felt in by the individuals in different countries. Since each person is unique, the change they undergo will also differ from each other based on their experience and worldview. The cumulative aspect of teacher belief changes is also stressed by Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000) in that student teachers are thought to arrive at a conclusion and synthesis not only with their individual meaning-making but also the learning environment embedded in their teaching circumstances.

There has been a change towards socio-cultural theories in teacher training (Johnson, 2009) because in real school contexts expert teachers with high-level of knowledge and skills interact with novice teachers who are new to teaching and teaching context (Lantolf, 2000). Novice teachers arrive at their schools with a certain level of knowledge, skills and experiences but they can improve their existing competency levels with the zone of proximal development (ZPD) help of expert colleagues in the form of feedback or guidance (Warford, 2011). The teacher is both an independent individual and a member of the society s/he lives in so it is natural that they will become aware of their own “self” Vygotsky (1978; 1986) but at the same time they will need to have sense of belonging to the society (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev, & Miller, 2003).

Teacher training practices around the world can be compared so as to reach a more sound synthesis and draw conclusions about individual country’s teacher training programs and better training conditions and policies. Likewise, we can benefit from some common frameworks like Common European Framework (CEF) and European Language Portfolio (ELP) to assess teacher education programs and to keep up with the internationally established standards. Such a comparative approach can also yield important outcomes for sharing experiences in this highly globalized world. Since students from different types of high school can meet in ELT departments, this can affect their current and desired competencies. In a similar vein, Kani (2011) found that student teachers coming from Anatolian Teacher Training high schools were more competent than those from Anatolian high schools according to CEF and ELP competencies because student background could

(37)

10

also impact their current and desired teaching competencies. In this regard, teacher training programs could diminish these differences with the courses and practices they offer and have student teachers with similar learning experiences and teaching competencies. These competencies remind us the issue of teacher qualifications because the qualities of teachers should be considered as much as their quantity (Akyüz, 2003, as cited in Kani, 2011). There exist different criteria for student teachers in different countries but what about the competencies formed by Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE) for teachers in different fields in primary and secondary education? Are these competencies known and possessed by both pre-service teachers and in-service teachers? Are English teachers trained in accordance with these competencies? I think we should first look at the actualization of goals and possession of teaching standards at national and local level before reaching out for the international ones. Otherwise, discrepancies with regard to teacher qualifications may emerge and a consensus may not be reached about what a teacher should be equipped with before working at schools. There are MoNE competencies at one hand and those of CEF and ELP on the other hand. If MoNE competencies and those of CEF and ELP are in harmony with one another, then it can be acceptable for pre-service teacher training programs to follow any of them but if they do not complement each other, then some confusion and deviations could be deeply felt. In this regard, Turkish MoNE makes efforts to catch up with international standards. In 2005 MoNE established the generic teacher competencies with various knowledge, skills and attitudes in such areas as personal and professional values, knowing the student, learning and teaching process, monitoring and evaluation of learning and development, school-family-society relationship and finally knowledge of curriculum and content. As is seen, having content knowledge is not enough to be a teacher on its own, and a teacher is expected to teach the content effectively and meaningfully and to cooperate with the stakeholders in the education system. Besides, there are field-specific teacher competences that cover subject-matter specific knowledge, skills and attitudes for teachers. If these competencies are regarded as the main framework by teacher training institutions, they can guide both pre-service and in-service teachers for their professional development (MoNE 2006a, as cited in Kani, 2011). Gaining desired competencies do not take place overnight but takes time. Thus teachers are in need of long-term guidance, feedback and support both in their pre-service and in-service training programs. Student teachers at different grades in ELT programmes were found to have quite positive perceptions about their teaching competencies according

(38)

11

to the competencies found in the CEF and ELP. Their views on the current and desired competencies in the future were also positively related to each other (Kani, 2011).

If we are to analyse the complex structure of the relationship between the teacher training programmes and real-life teaching contexts, then we should regard the participants who shape teaching-learning experiences, which means not isolating student teachers and in-service teachers but means including both of them. Only by combining these different groups can we get the multifaceted aspect of effectiveness instructional policies. Likewise, this study aims to reveal the competency level of pre-service and in-service English teachers in line with the generic and field-specific teacher competencies and their views on these competencies in terms of the participation of stakeholders, the role of inspection, effectiveness of pre-service and in-service teacher training for promoting these competencies, and the role of closure of educational faculties. The framework consisting of the generic and field-specific teacher competences set by MoNE could be used to evaluate the ELT programmes in Turkey and perceptions of English teachers could be gathered about the afore-mentioned competences to see whether any mismatch among English teachers exists, what kind of problems could affect enhancement of these teaching competencies and what can be done to remove the challenges to reach national standards. In this way, more realistic solutions can be offered for the problems, teacher training programmes can be improved in order to foresee the potential problems student teachers may have and equip them with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience they need. By preparing student teachers for the probable challenging situations and complexities they might face in their future classes in advance, teacher trainers can create awareness among student teachers about the fact that not all teaching contexts have the same requirements, socio-economic level and expectations, and that they will not be the only one who will be struggling with the unexpected events, student misbehaviours, undesired parental behaviour or mismanagement. If student teachers feel that they are not alone in the system and do not step into their future school with high expectances, their adaptation duration to the school climate can be facilitated beforehand. However, only considering pre-service teacher needs is not enough for their professional development throughout their career since they also need guidance, help and feedback when they have become teachers. Thus in-service teachers should also be involved in certain activities like participating in seminars, reading journals related to their field and asking for mentoring and guidance from colleagues and administrators as well as cooperating with parents and students. With

(39)

12

the help of the other stakeholders like teacher trainers, parents, administrators and colleagues, teachers’ cognitive processing can be bettered via discussion and reflection (Wolff, van den Bogert, Jarodzka, & Boshuizen, 2014).

Teacher trainers play a crucial role both for both pre-service and in-service teachers and in return, learners at different grades and ages. This poses the question of the vision and creativity of teacher trainers (Smith, 2005). Though what is expected from teacher training institutions is clearly stated in the legislations and curriculum, these may change in the course of history due to some political, economic, technological and social influences. In order to keep up with the changing requirements of the era, teacher training programmes also undergo certain changes. Such flexibility charges teacher trainers responsible for following the changes in educational moves, revising the content of their teaching agenda and modifying their teaching materials (Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennen, 2007).

To attract the attention to what combination of elements could form a better teacher training; Simon (2013) takes different combinations of elements in teacher training programmes as tapestry weaving with regard to the 4 main components of revising the programmes in question namely transformative and informed practice, social justice and inclusion, a future orientation and community capacity building. The data which were used to reach the elements of the related tapestry were gathered with the help of opinions and suggestions of students, staff and the wider education community. Here the complex structure of the factors in teacher training programmes, their cross-relationship and different results of different combinations are stressed.

To respond to the changing needs of society and technology, schools and universities have the responsibility to provide opportunities for novice teachers for creating a better learning atmosphere with appropriate methodology, classroom management skills and assessment knowledge to improve student teachers and help them adapt to the school environment more easily (Choy, Wong, Lim, & Chong, 2013). It was found that there were significant increases in pedagogical knowledge and skills of the participating teachers in the first three years of their career, especially in classroom management aspect at the end of the third year. What is striking is the significant increases in the knowledge and skills of the participants between the first and third year (Choy, Wong, Lim, & Chong, 2013), which shows us the dynamic structure of being a teacher and that teachers can contribute to their professional identity after their teaching practicum experiences during pre-service training.

(40)

13

Comparison of different countries may yield important findings for the success of certain applications such as teacher training programmes. For example, Turkey employs a concurrent model while some European countries prefer consecutive models for preparing teachers. For example the use of concurrent or consecutive models where in the former the professional component (covering field-related the theoretical and practical skills) is provided at the same time with the general component (covering general education) while in the latter former the professional component is provided after the general component. While most of European countries use concurrent models in primary-school teaching France and the UK use consecutive models. But the variety is much greater in secondary school teacher education with the dominance of consecutive models. Although differences are seen among countries, France employs consecutive model for all levels of teaching profession. When it comes to pre-primary teacher education, again there is variability according to the model followed but the time for training pre-primary teacher education varies between three to five years. In Turkey we have the concurrent model (Eurydice, 2009). Examining differences could give us clues on the effectiveness and productivity of the implications at hand. Thus, it will be very useful to compare Turkish teacher training programmes with some other countries.

As teachers begin to teach actively in their real classrooms when they become in-service teachers, they need on-going feedback and support for their professional development from different people who are also involved in the educational system. However, in-service training may not always reach its goals due to some shortcomings. It could be regarded as ineffective in improving teacher qualities and fulfilling the expectations so some teachers may oppose participating in in-service training activities (Yan, 2005, as cited in Bayrakcı, 2013). Turkey employs in-service training for teachers with the help of seminars or workshops but how useful and realistic are they? The lack of professional staff at the national and local level for in-service training in Turkey (Bayrakcı, 2013) is worth criticizing because an unclear system without knowledgeable, experienced and professional staff may be counter-productive in that the system may not provide effective solutions to the problems teachers face, support them with the needed feedback or help them set realistic goals in their teaching context, which eventually can result in undesired outcomes. For example, in Japan in-service training is divided into various categories like basic and specialized according to years of experience, subject specific courses as well as needs and interest with free participation. The facilities provided for teachers range from

Şekil

Table 3 shows the marital status of the participant pre-service English teachers. Out of 366  100%)  participants,  351  (95.9%)  were  single  and  15  (4.1%)  were  married
Table 11 shows the major of the in-service English teachers. It is seen that most of the in- in-service participants (N: 66, 78.6%) are graduates of English Language Teaching
Table 13 demonstrates the educational status of the in-service participants. High majority  of  the  participants  (N:  72,  85.7%)  have  B.A
Table 16 provides the information about the teaching hours of the in-service participants
+7

Referanslar

Benzer Belgeler

Uneven bars: an apparatus that consists of two horizontal bars of different heights, on which gymnasts perform acrobatic moves.. Rope: a strong,

True, but when the game was invented there were real baskets?. People started by using peach baskets but it was too difficult to get the ball back so

You score a hit when the tip or edge of your sword touches your opponent anywhere above the waist except her hands or the back of her head5.  In epée both fencers can score at

o Medley which means swimmers or relay teams swim a combination of backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly and freestylea.  In most races swimmers begin by diving into the water

Off-side rule: a law in football which states that a player cannot be actively involved in the play if he is closer to the opponent's goal line than both the ball and

To experiment with the model as detailed in section “6.3 Things to explore with the logistic equations” of Dynamic Ecology you need to change values of the

While Turkish woman directors were seeking for emancipation from sexual taboos and trying to show that this freedom is one of the most significant ones as feminism were ringing

Yozgat ve Çorum illerinde yaşayan bireysel yatırımcılar arasında araştırma bulgularından biri ise her iki gruptaki yatırımcıların yatırım aracı