teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: a case study of turkish preservice english teachers
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 02 November 2014, At: 12:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20
Teaching knowledge and teachercompetencies: a case study of Turkishpreservice English teachersŞevki Kömür a
a ELT Department , Muğla University , Muğla, TurkeyPublished online: 03 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Şevki Kömür (2010) Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: acase study of Turkish preservice English teachers, Teaching Education, 21:3, 279-296, DOI:10.1080/10476210.2010.498579
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2010.498579
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teaching EducationVol. 21, No. 3, September 2010, 279–296
ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/10476210.2010.498579http://www.informaworld.com
Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: a case study of Turkish preservice English teachers
[Scedil] evki Kömür*
ELT Department, Mu[gbreve] la University, Mu[gbreve] la, TurkeyTaylor and FrancisCTED_A_498579.sgm(Received 27 August 2009; final version received 12 April 2010)10.1080/10476210.2010.498579Teaching Education1047-6210 (print)/1470-1286 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis213000000September [email protected]
What is the relationship between preservice teachers’ teaching knowledge andself-rating of competencies and their practicum experience? The participants ofthis study are fourth year students in the Department of English LanguageEducation of the Faculty of Education, Mu[gbreve] la University, Turkey. Three datacollection instruments were used: the Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT), theTeacher Competency Scale, and an open-ended questionnaire based on the sub-dimensions of the TKT test. The questionnaire, given to the student teachers at theend of their teaching practicum, aimed to explore the strengths and weaknessespreservice English teachers perceived during their real classroom experiences. Theresults of the TKT and Teacher Competency Scale showed that student teachersacquired means above the average. However, the qualitative data indicate that thescores obtained were not reflected in their actual classroom teaching.
Keywords: teaching knowledge; teacher competencies; language teachereducation; teaching practicum; Turkish preservice English teacher education
Introduction
It is important that teachers should develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions inorder to be effective in the classroom (e.g., knowledge of classroom management,human development, and curricular goals, context of learning, and pedagogicalcontent knowledge that is specific to teaching a particular subject; see Goodnough &Hung, 2009). There is considerable current policy concern with the improvement ofteacher quality (Clarke, 2001; Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001; Garm & Karlsen, 2004;Korthagen, 2004; Smith, 2008). Parallel to the developments in teacher educationworldwide, Turkey has undergone radical changes in teacher education. Deniz and[Scedil] ahin (2006) investigated the 1997 restructuring process of the teacher trainingsystem in Turkey by highlighting the nature of reforms and restructuring process inthe framework of postgraduate teacher education (PGTE). In a more recent study,Guven (2008) discussed the issues and challenges of Turkish teacher education inconnection with teacher education reform and the global shift towards school-basedmanagement and centralized forms of accountability of teacher competence.
In Turkey, recent research has dealt with preservice English teachers’ needs in prac-tice teaching (Yılmaz, 2003), and problems they face during the practice teaching expe-rience (Ekmekçi, 1984). Seferoglu (2004, 2006) explored alternative English-teacher
*Email: [email protected]
S
g g
g
S
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
280 S. Kömür
certification practices and teacher candidates’ reflections on these education programs.Kırkgöz (2008) studied the implementation of curriculum innovation in Englishlanguage teaching in Turkish primary education and Ba[scedil] yurt-Tuzel and Akcan (2009)examined the challenges that non-native preservice English teachers experience in theirtarget language use when they do their practicum in actual language classrooms.
Although there have been improvements in preservice teacher education, theconnection between theory and practice has not been efficiently established yet. Forthis reason, there is a current focus on helping preservice English teachers connectlearning in the faculty courses with the complexities with actual classroom teaching.This article aims to evaluate Turkish preservice English teachers’ teaching knowl-edge, teacher competencies and their reflections about the practicum by seekinganswers to the following research question: What is the relationship between teacherknowledge and self-rating of competencies and their practicum experience? A cohortof preservice English teachers at Mu[gbreve] la University was rated according to a TeachingKnowledge Test (TKT) and Teacher Competency Scale. They were also surveyed ondifficulties or ease in teaching grammar, language skills, and classroom managementduring the teaching practicum and asked about future preferred strategies. Althoughpreservice English teachers scored acceptable means in the dimensions of the TKTand Teacher Competency Scale, these ratings were not directly reflected in the practi-cum. I conclude that language teacher training programs require a better integration oftheory into practice in actual teaching environments by providing more feedbacksessions for teacher candidates.
Teaching knowledge and competency
What teachers know and the skills they use to apply that information are generallydefined as teaching knowledge (Shulman, 1987; Turner-Bisset, 1999, 2001).Johnson and Goettsch (2000) place the specific knowledge that teachers possessinto three categories: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge oflearners. These three categories are intertwined in complex ways as they are playedout in the classroom and in teacher thinking. Johnston and Goettsch (2000) definethe knowledge that language teachers have about their subject matter as ‘contentknowledge’, Golombek (1998, p. 451) refers to it as ‘subject knowledge’. But, theyuse the same term for ‘knowledge of instruction’ by referring to it as ‘pedagogicalknowledge’. Teacher knowledge implies that what is known is special to teachers asa group, but the term teaching knowledge is a type of knowledge related to theactivities of teaching (Buchmann, 1986). As Freeman (1989) and Tedick andWalker (1995) indicated, the education of an English as a foreign language (EFL)teacher is a specialized case: it tends to focus on theoretical pedagogical knowledgeand on English language skills based in grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax,and lexicon of the language. Without this content knowledge, it is not possible forlanguage teachers to judge themselves competent enough to master language skillssuccessfully.
The English teacher education program, initiated in Turkey in 1997 and thenrevised in accordance with the development in teacher education in 2006, is designedto emphasise teaching methodology and teaching practice (Seferoglu, 2006), and itrequires language teachers to be trained to be communicatively competent to teachthe target language. This program requires the development of base level dailycommunication ability for a learning environment where the classroom situations are
s
g
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 281
established within the context of games and dialogues. The aim is to engage pupilswhile they are learning English (Kırkgöz, 2005, 2008).
Reflection in teacher education
Practicum provides opportunities for student teachers to develop their pedagogicalskills (Leshem & Bar-Hama, 2008). In this context, reflection plays a significant rolein teacher education. Zeichner (1996, as cited in Freese, 2006, p. 102) views reflectionas an essential component for bringing understanding to the complex nature of theclassroom.
In the case of L2 teacher education, Akbari (2007) discusses a variety of activitiesthat can foster reflection and inquiry. Freeman (1989) and Johnson (1992) indicatethat, without a better understanding of how preservice language teachers conceptual-ize their initial teaching experiences and what impact these experiences have on theirprofessional development as teachers, the field of language teacher education willcontinue to operate without a grounded theoretical framework for how to teachstudent teachers to teach.
Method
In order to address the research questions above, a mixed-methods research designwas used. In this study, which involved fourth-year students of the Department ofEnglish Language Education, both quantitative and qualitative data-collection instru-ments were used to evaluate the teaching knowledge and teacher competencies ofTurkish preservice English teachers and their reflections about teaching practicum.
Sampling
The participants were 39 fourth-year Turkish preservice English teachers. Theyranged in age from 21- to 23-years-old. There were 28 female and 11 male partici-pants in the study.
Instruments
The Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT), Teacher Competency Scale, and an open-endedquestionnaire were used to gather data for the study.
The TKT
The TKT was developed by the University of Cambridge English for Speakers ofOther Languages (ESOL) Department for English teachers working with speakers ofother languages. It aims to examine the teacher candidates’ knowledge of conceptsrelated to language, language use, and background and practice of language teachingand learning. The test is organized by dimensions of language understanding andreviews students’ backgrounds in language learning and teaching – such as describinglanguage and language skills. The following 14 dimensions are included: grammaticalterms and structures, lexical categories, phonology, language functions, speakingsubskills, reading and writing subskills, learning styles, teacher’s decisions regarding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
282 S. Kömür
considerations about language learning and coursebook, assessment, presentation,and classroom activities with the main purpose of teaching (Spratt, Pulverness, &Williams, 2005). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the TKT wasfound to be 0.609.
The Scale of Teacher Competencies
A 38-item Teacher Competency Scale (see Appendix A) was used to calculate thestudent teachers’ scores related to their understanding of teaching and learningprocesses. Their responses were categorized into scores of ‘enough’, ‘partiallyenough’, and ‘not enough’. The scale was developed by [Scedil] eker, Deniz, and Gorgen(2004) and took into account the criteria used in the Evaluation Form of TeachingPracticum, developed by the Turkish Higher Education Council (YOK). This scaleanalyzes the extent to which students reflect on their teacher competencies beforebeing assigned to real classrooms. Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the scale was foundto be 0.9169, and the two-split half-reliability score was 0.8783.
The open-ended questionnaire
The questionnaire (see Appendix B), developed by the researcher, was aimed atobtaining the preservice English teachers’ reflections on whether or not they experi-enced difficulties during their practicum in relation to teaching grammar, languageskills, and classroom management (areas targeted on the TKT). When the preserviceEnglish teachers completed their 14-week teaching practicum, they were asked tocomplete and return the open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributedvia email attachment. Of the 39 student teachers, 32 completed the questionnaire.With this questionnaire, the student teachers reflected on their initial teaching experi-ences during the practicum.
Data analysis
For the purposes of this study, the acquired data were analyzed by employing quanti-tative and qualitative methods. The student teachers’ means in TKT Module 1 werecalculated according to four-band descriptors provided by University of CambridgeESOL Examinations and the mean scores for each dimension in TKT Module 1 weregiven (see Table 2). Of the four bands provided, Band 1 ranks the candidate’s basicknowledge of areas on the Module 1 syllabus, i.e., language systems and backgroundto language learning and teaching, as being limited in familiarity with the areastested. A Band 2 score means the student teacher shows familiarity with some of theconcepts, terminology, practices and processes tested in TKT Module 1. If rankedwithin Band 3, the candidate shows familiarity with most of the concepts, terminol-ogy, practices and processes tested. Finally, Band 4 represents a full range of famil-iarity with the concepts, terminology, practices and processes tested in Module 1 ofthe TKT. If ranked in this band, the candidate is able to relate existing knowledgeboth to familiar and unfamiliar classroom situations. The TKT scores of the studentteachers were calculated as 4 (Band 4) if they responded to all the items in eachdimension and then 3, 2 and 1 accordingly. It is also of note that in order to take thistest, it is not essential to have teaching experience. The suggested minimum languagelevel for an individual taking the test is equivalent to Council of Europe B1 and the
S
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 283
teaching-age group for the students of that individual can be primary, secondary oradults.
Total scores on the Teacher Competency Scale were calculated by giving threepoints to the ‘enough’ option; two to the ‘partially enough’ response, and one point to‘not enough’. The lowest number of points obtained from the scale is 38, and the high-est is 114. In so doing, the scores obtained were standardized.
The difficulties and challenges that preservice English teachers experienced duringpracticum and the strategies they intended to apply as solutions to these difficultieswere grouped under the following four themes: (1) teaching grammar terms and struc-tures; (2) language skills; (3) classroom management; and (4) strategies for improve-ment upon actual teaching practices. After coding of the qualitative data was complete,the researcher and an independent rater – a faculty colleague in the EducationalSciences Department – each separately coded the data. The inter-rater reliability forthe classification of the categories was found to be 0.90.
Findings and discussion
What is the relationship between teacher knowledge and self-rating of competenciesand their practicum experience?
The maximum score the student teachers could obtain would be 114 if theyresponded to all the items as ‘enough’. Likewise, if all the items were responded to as‘partially enough’, a score of 76 would be given; and if all responses were ‘notenough’, a score of 38 would be obtained. In this study, the average score of the self-perceived teacher competencies of fourth-year ELT students was 102.72 out of apossible 114 points. When the highest possible score was considered, about 70 % ofthe participants received scores over 100 from the scale and the lowest score was 87.It suggests that the ELT students felt sufficiently equipped in the teacher competencyareas before beginning their practicum.
The average score calculated for the TKT Module 1 was 3.63, which means thatstudent teachers fell very close to Band 4, or full range of familiarity with the subjectarea. Band 4 also suggests that the candidate could deal with describing language andlanguage skills, factors in the language learning process, and the range of methods,tasks and activities available to the language teacher. According to these findings, thescores for teacher competencies and teacher knowledge were high, and thus can beconsidered sufficient for entering the classroom based on current models for languageteacher education.
Table 2 illustrates the student teachers’ average teaching-knowledge means withinthe 14 dimensions found in the TKT. The TKT band means of the student teacherswere obtained by examining their correct answers in each dimension with a referenceto descriptions in the four-band scale provided by the test developer. Numbers ofquestions in each dimension and the standard deviation values of the points obtainedfrom the TKT are also noted.
Table 1. Students’ Teaching Knowledge Test and Teacher Competency Scale scores.
Mean score Standard deviation
TKT (based on four-band ) 3.63 0.19Teacher competency 102.72 6.57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
284 S. Kömür
According to the results, the highest means were obtained in the dimensions of:grammatical terms (4), language functions (4) and speaking subskills (4). They arefollowed by: learning styles (3.96), coursebook activities (3.88), grammatical struc-tures and teacher’s decisions regarding consideration about language learning(3.85), lexical categories and classroom activities with main purpose of teaching(3.77), and assessment activities (3.73). Two dimensions in the test received consid-erably lower means than the other dimensions. They are language learning (2.46) andphonology (2.58). A possible reason for the lower mean scores could be that, althoughthe student teachers had already attended courses such as ‘Linguistics I’ and ‘II’ and‘Learning strategies’, the contents of these courses may not have corresponded to thecontents of the TKT.
On the other hand, this result might serve as feedback for the current syllabi ofthese courses and their need for revision. Seferoglu (2006) goes further to suggestthat the entire preservice teacher education program, including the types of coursesoffered, course contents, teaching learning and teaching processes, be tailoredaccordingly. This is in line with the observation that the theory–practice balance inteacher-training programs was not adequate. The participants had already takenintensive courses in teacher education and they had practiced teaching in method-ology courses in front of their peers. The areas that cover language learning(second language acquisition) and phonology dimensions are mostly theory-basedand might have remained abstract in the student teachers’ minds. These areas oflanguage teaching require more attention by teacher-training programs and teachereducators.
One way of dealing with these issues in language teacher education might be tohighlight what the student teachers think or perceive to be their competencies inthe teaching profession. According to Bandura (1993, 1997), teachers’ perceived
Table 2. Students’ Teaching Knowledge Test results by dimension based on four-banddescriptors.
DimensionsNo. of
questionsMeans
of scoresStandard deviation
of scores
Grammatical terms 5 4.00 0.00Grammatical structures 5 3.85 0.37Lexical categories 6 3.77 0.43Phonology 8 2.58 0.64Language functions 6 4.00 0.00Speaking subskills 5 4.00 0.00Reading and writing subskills 5 3.50 0.98Learning styles 5 3.96 0.20Teacher’s decisions regarding
considerations about language learning5 3.85 0.37
Language learning 5 2.46 0.30Coursebook activities 8 3.88 0.33Assessment activities 6 3.73 0.53Presentation activities 5 3.54 0.86Classroom activities with the main
purpose of teaching6 3.77 0.65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 285
capabilities in teaching appear to have a direct impact on teaching practices (as citedin Chacón, 2005, p. 257).
When the data obtained through the open-ended questionnaire were analyzed, it wasobserved that preservice English teachers had experienced difficulties in teaching gram-mar, language skills, and classroom management during the practicum. This is eventhough they obtained acceptable mean scores on the TKT and Teacher CompetencyScale and did well in courses in the English language teacher training program whentheir faculty grades were examined.
Difficulties in teaching grammar terms
It became clear that nearly all the student teachers answered the questions in thisdimension correctly (corresponding to Band 4). To see if there was a positive correla-tion between the high scores and actual classroom performance, the student teacherswere asked whether they experienced any difficulties in the teaching of grammarterms during the practicum. Twenty-three student teachers out of the 32 surveyedexpressed that they had experienced difficulties. Some of the difficulties they facedwere as follows:
ST1: Students are not familiar with grammar terms. They are accustomed to Turkishterms. It is difficult to give information on rules.
ST8: Students are not familiar with grammar terms. Teaching in English is difficult.ST13: Before practicum, I planned not to teach grammar directly, but unfortunately, I
had to. The education system and teachers make them get used to this situation.ST31: They are so difficult for the students. They do not know them even in Turkish.
The concerns mentioned above show that there was a negative transfer from thenative language into foreign language grammar learning for the primary schoolstudents, causing difficulties for both the student teachers and the classroom students.Moreover, when the difficulties faced in learning and teaching processes are takeninto account, the following observations are made by the preservice English teachers:
ST6: It is difficult to use grammar terms correctly, and it was hard for me to detectstudents’ grammatical mistakes.
ST12: I had difficulty in explaining grammar terms. Students did not understand, andthey needed more examples.
ST14: I had problems in explaining action and stative verbs. The problem was with theexceptions. It took time to finish the topic. Auxiliaries were also a problem.
Student teachers experienced difficulties in correcting grammatical mistakes intheir pupils even though the student teachers tested competently in those areas. Inaddition, some student teachers expressed that their primary school students memo-rized or confused the grammar terms, as they did not have enough background in thetarget language. The concerns regarding this point were cited as follows:
ST10: Students memorize names of the grammar terms, but they do not know theirusages.
ST11: I did not mention grammar terms because students are confused after hearingthem (abstract entities).
ST17: Students do not know grammar terms (e.g., auxiliary verbs).ST24: They are complicated for students. I managed to teach them with the help of the
mother tongue.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
286 S. Kömür
Some student teachers indicated different, more personal problems in teachinggrammar, unlike the aforementioned problems:
ST23: I got bored while teaching grammar.ST20: It is a broad area; we need to read a lot.ST21: They were sometimes confusing for me. I need a check from a grammar book.ST30: I had some difficulties because of my own lack of English.
The student teachers generally expressed that they experienced difficulties inteaching grammar terms. Additionally, they asserted that they experienced difficultiesduring practicum because the students they taught had negative transfers from theirown mother tongue and a lack of background knowledge in the target language. Sincethis is a realistic situation an incoming teacher might face, the teaching knowledge andteacher competencies alone do not seem to be sufficient to face the difficultiesencountered.
Porter and Taylor (2003) think that, although teaching experience is vital as itallows an extended period of time in the classroom, it has its limitations: it often lacksa direct link to a body of knowledge (course content) that preservice teachers arestudying. Furthermore, Johnson (1996) states that theory can inform classroom prac-tice only to the extent that teachers themselves make sense of that theory throughexperiential learning in the language classroom. The result may be, as seen in thesample in this study, future teachers who have studied appropriate language teachingcontent but who have never explicitly connected that knowledge to actual classroomteaching.
Difficulties in teaching grammar structures
Preservice English teachers gave the following reactions regarding teaching grammarstructures and the resulting difficulties with their primary school students because oftheir language preparation:
ST1: … Students want rules. It causes problems to teach structures implicitly,students treat grammar as an end.
ST10: Students memorize the structures and use them easily.ST12: Students are accustomed to learning through formulas; they had difficulty in
inductive learning when there is no formula.
It is observed that students prefer to learn language through grammar rules.However, this learning style is known to hinder the implementation of communicativelanguage teaching – the style of teaching the student teachers are encouraged toadminister. To this end, the comments of preservice English teachers are as follows:
ST15: … I always taught grammar during the practicum… it was sometimes easy,sometimes killing… main problem: how to teach? Inductively? They want tosee the rule first, want to learn deductively… They are afraid of makingmistakes.
ST31: the most difficult job during the practicum… teaching indirectly is impossible.But teaching directly leads to memorization.
ST32: I taught with games and inductively so had no problems.
Although the primary school students favored deductive teaching in grammar,student teachers opted for teaching grammar inductively as integrated into other
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 287
language activities in the classroom. Why the primary school students prefer rote-learning and memorizations can be best accounted for by looking at the followingreflections of the student teachers:
ST 6: It is difficult to give examples for grammar structures… I need preparationbefore the lesson… It is difficult to adjust level according to the students.
ST 25: I explain them with simple examples.ST 30: Getting prepared is very important for teaching grammar structures.
The difficulties and challenges the preservice English teachers experienced inteaching grammar during the practicum might be due to the fact that the primaryschool students were not yet able to form sentences in the target language; thus theypreferred rote-learning. As Borg (2003, p. 86) points out, language teachers need notonly linguistic knowledge but also the ability to utilize and deploy this knowledge forpedagogical purposes. Although student teachers are trained to teach the targetlanguage communicatively, their own knowledge and beliefs in teaching shape theirinstructional decisions (Cheng, Chan, Tang, & Cheng, 2009; Farrell & Kun, 2007;Mattheoudakis, 2007; Peacock, 2001). This is another example of the theory–practicedilemma.
Difficulties in teaching language skills
The student teachers expressed the following thoughts regarding teaching languageskills (listening, reading, speaking and writing):
ST1: … students were accustomed to listening activities… I tried to improve theirunderstanding.
ST2: … I had no chance to do listening activities… only with slowing down the paceof the speech student could get the gist of listening text.
ST8: … big problem in listening. … the students can’t catch up with the pace oflistening material.
ST15: Reading is easier… they don’t like listening, find everything fast…ST17: … they can’t listen to a speech because they are lacking in listening strategies.
They do reading falteringly.ST21: … reading subskill is given some importance but for listening and writing there
are no activities.ST25: … Students have difficulty in working out the sounds…ST32: Difficult to teach listening. Sometimes I lost the control of class in speaking…
Teaching reading and writing is easier.
From the comments, it is clear that the student teachers had difficulties in teachinglistening skills to their students. According to them, the teaching of listening in thelanguage classroom is difficult and this difficulty mostly originates from the lack ofmaterials, classroom management, and the speech rate and slowness of the pupils infollowing listening texts and finding the main idea in the text studied. For thesereasons, the student teachers prefer reading and writing activities instead. Theyexpressed this point by stating:
ST14: … My mentor neglected listening activities. Tried to carry out simple listeningactivities but students made little progress…
ST12: I didn’t focus on listening due to lack of time…
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
288 S. Kömür
In addition, some preservice teachers view listening as a waste of time and did notspare time for listening activities. Thus, their students were left without instructionand experience in this key area of language development.
Unlike the problems in teaching listening, student teachers mention fewer difficul-ties in teaching reading skills. The observations and comments made by the studentteachers are cited below:
ST10: … they like reading… no problem in reading.ST15: reading is easier.ST32: classroom management is easier in reading activities.ST22: Students are bad at these skills as they don’t have enough grammatical
knowledge.
Student teachers present some difficulties in teaching writing skills, though theyare fewer than those of listening skills:
ST1: Due to the lack of time I could not spare time for writing.ST2: … I did not study writing.ST7: Students have difficulties in listening. … But they are good at reading, under-
standing and inferring the message… they have some weaknesses in writing.They need help and support.
ST15: … writing is not problematic in book activities but when you want somethingoriginal it is a problem then.
One can see that the preservice English teachers did not devote much time to writ-ing skills in their practicum. Of the three language skills, they most often spare timefor reading activities. According to student teachers, the source of the difficulties liesin the classroom students themselves. Although student teachers did not reveal anyproblems in coursebook writing activities, they do mention problems in achievingoriginal writings. The reason might lie in the fact that the primary school students donot have the required basic skills in listening and writing and, hence, they cling to thecoursebook reading activities. In teaching listening and writing, the student teachersmight not have put their competencies into performance. Being theoretically knowl-edgeable and competent does not mean it will be directly reflected in coping withproblems in practice.
Difficulties in classroom management
The challenges and problems preservice English teachers experienced during class-room management were also obtained through the open-ended survey questions:
ST1: … so many problems in classroom management. Students didn’t respect eachother. They didn’t see us as teachers… It was difficult to settle the class down.
ST6: It is the problematic area. The students didn’t take us seriously. Providingsilence and presenting activities were not easy. … I had to shout.
ST12: Lots of problems… student didn’t take us seriously as their teacher…
The fact that the primary school students did not take them seriously as regularteachers is the most often-cited problem for the student teachers. Also, teaching youngchildren is given as another challenge in terms of classroom management. Here aresome additional thoughts expressed by the student teachers:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 289
ST16: …students are very young and their attention span is very limited. … They getbored easily… I sometimes felt very inexperienced…
ST27: …a bit problematic with young learners… they were so energetic.
Furthermore, the student teachers reported some specific problems in classroommanagement. The following are some of them:
ST14: Sometimes I gave too much freedom to students… Made jokes… This madethem uncontrollable. … They had discipline problems.
ST21: …they can lose control with game-like activities.ST29: I was afraid of being unsuccessful in controlling the class…
Additionally, some student teachers said that the crowded classroom made class-room management difficult. The following feelings speak to this aspect:
ST3: … since the class was crowded and students are very young it was problematicfor me…
ST12: students do not see a student teacher as a regular teacher… classrooms are toocrowded…
Common problems and obstacles reported in classroom management can besummarized as follows:
● Students did not respect each other.● Classrooms were crowded.● Students did not take student teachers seriously as we were not regular teachers.● Classroom rules should be set beforehand with the participation of the students.● Sometimes, student teachers gave too much freedom to the students. This made
the classroom uncontrollable.● It was difficult to adjust and control voice in the classroom.● Attention span of the students posed a threat to the lesson as they were young
learners.
Contrary to other dimensions, student teachers did not see themselves as compe-tent enough in classroom management. While some of the obstacles presented areoutside of the student teachers’ control, others point to a need for more training andexperience in the area of classroom management. It may be, as Johnson (1992)argued, that novice teachers have not developed a schema for interpreting and copingwith what goes on during instruction, nor do they possess a repertoire of instructionalroutines upon which they can rely.
This insecurity in certain competency areas is also seen in some of the commentsregarding assessment activities:
ST7: …not enough assessment activities in the book… students want to see they haveachieved but can’t…
ST13: process based assessment is better but not easy. Teachers should be educated inthis.
ST14: I did not use assessment activities frequently… limited questions only.ST16: I didn’t have enough opportunity to see how they are assessed.
In connection with presentation activities, the student teachers were queried as towhether or not they experienced any problems. Unlike with teaching grammar and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
290 S. Kömür
language skills, or with classroom management and assessment, no one reported anymajor problems in presentation activities. The following were the student teachers’experiences with presentation activities:
ST1: No problems after planning the teaching process and preparing the materials.ST7: I liked presentation activities most. Created sense of interest and intrinsically
motivated the students…ST12: I followed the course book… presentation activities were good.ST16: …tried to use different materials and gestures effectively to activate students’
all senses.ST20: Thanks to the presentation activities done in faculty education. I had no
difficulty…
Most of the student teachers reported ideas similar to the above statements.Contrary to this, one student teacher expressed that:
ST 17: … sometimes presentation activities did not work because student were unwill-ing to learn English …
When the previous statements are taken into account, it becomes clear that nearlyall student teachers experienced ease in terms of presentation activities. The fact thatthey felt competent in presentation activities can be attributed to the task being doneby the student teachers independent of student-to-teacher interaction. Also, asmentioned earlier, student teachers get experience in teacher training courses bothlearning how to present and conducting presentations in front of their peers prior toentering the language classroom.
From the reflections regarding other dimensions such as grammar, listening andwriting, and, to a lesser extent, reading skills, it can be deduced that student teachersexperienced difficulties in teaching practicum. Many preservice teachers felt that thesource of problems lies in the primary school students themselves. There are twomajor elements in the practicum language classroom: the primary school students andthe student teachers. The former seem to be insufficient in grammar, listening andwriting and are mostly doing coursebook-bound reading activities. The latter, thestudent teachers, do not spare enough time for listening and writing activities and it isobserved that they do not find the students to be ‘good’ in grammar and reading.
In-classroom experience and reflections were vital to the students’ understandingof where their teaching knowledge and competence in theory may not connect withtheir teaching practice. As Brandt (2006) indicates, allowing for practice can providenew teachers with opportunities to experiment and make errors free of the burden anddistraction of assessment, and the possibility for student teachers to begin to developthe capacity and empathy to cope with many problems in different learning and teach-ing environments.
It is worth noting that nearly all the student teachers are aware of their strengthsand weaknesses in teaching. Six student teachers reported that development in theteaching profession is a matter of time and experience. Sample comments regardingthis aspect are as follows:
ST1: There are lots of things to be learnt. I am not good at classroom management. Icannot fix the problems as quickly as needed. Experience and time will solve them.
ST6: I am inexperienced and have difficulties in controlling class. The key isexperience.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 291
ST20: I try to be more experienced because books do not give all the solutions.ST25: I try to be more experienced, read a lot and find different techniques.
Additionally, student teachers suggested referring to journals, magazines andwebsites in order to keep themselves up-to-date with the latest developments inEnglish language teaching (ELT). Some ideas are:
ST5: I had problems in classroom management. I will join ELT forums, read articlesfor that and I will never lose enthusiasm.
ST7: I need more practice. I will read about the latest developments in ELT.ST8: I will follow the newly-published articles in the area.ST11: I will subscribe to the updated website forums to argue the ideas with other
colleagues all around the world. I will participate in online lectures.ST12: I follow the developments in ELT.ST18: I will read a lot about classroom management; I will find different techniques
and choose the most suitable ones for my students.
Well-preparedness and planning are strategies that the student teachers mentionedfor professional development. Some other interesting ideas shared by the studentteachers are as follows:
ST6: I will make plans to make good presentations before classes. Getting to knowstudents is very important.
ST14: I must produce as many examples as possible for the grammar structures andfunctions ready in my pocket.
ST15: I have difficulty in giving examples. Preparing various examples beforehandcan be a good solution.
ST21: Having a B plan will help in case of difficulty.
There are also some student teachers who are thinking to use more pair and groupwork in order to implement communicative language teaching effectively in the class.Other student teachers reported that they need to develop their own teaching strate-gies. Here are their thoughts:
ST10: I am determined to develop my own strategies and new ideas in the class.ST22: I try to be more experienced, by finding different teaching ways, activities.ST24: I am planning to do many listening activities for myself; I will see my mistakes
and correct them.
Nearly half of the student teachers think that they are not proficient enough in thetarget language and are planning to develop their proficiency. They cited creativeways to find solutions to this problem. Some of them are:
ST9: I will watch movies in English to improve my language proficiency.ST11: I am planning to go abroad in order to improve my English.ST23: I will definitely go abroad and try to have as many foreign friends as possible.ST26: I will watch films in English.ST27: I will nourish my English as it is a living creature. I will refresh my language
knowledge in term of vocabulary, grammar and language skills.ST30. I will try to master English language.ST32: I will go abroad and stay for a while there in order to be fluent in the target
language.
Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies are not always directly reflected inactual teaching practices. The reason may be due to the fact that both knowledge and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
292 S. Kömür
practice have not been adequately integrated in language teacher training programs.Problems might arise in teaching language skills and classroom management from thefact that student teachers have these courses in university classrooms, isolated fromreal teaching settings; whereas, implementing them as practical components of teach-ing training courses could provide students with opportunities to compare theory withthe practice and raise their awareness of the different issues involved in teaching(Halbach, 2000). Student teachers, under the model employed in Turkey and teachereducation systems like it, generally practice teaching in front of their peers and areonly confronted with the real classroom during their teaching practicum. For thisreason, practicum can be viewed as critical to the development of student teachers. Itis also their first hands-on experience with their teaching careers. This practice, as alsofound in earlier studies, creates opportunities for them to develop their pedagogicalskills.
However, this study has also shown that experience applying these skills is impor-tant as Mattheoudakis (2007) argues that student teachers’ teaching experiences canexpose them to the classroom reality and help them to test their knowledge andbecome aware of their strengths and weaknesses about learning and teaching.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that the student teachers are often aware of the state of theirsituation in real classroom teaching, and, upon reflection, can develop strategies tocope with the problems and challenges of teaching the target language. As Tin (2006)points out, it is important to help student teachers to look at teaching through multiple-lenses and reflect on their practice from a wider perspective. In so doing, they candevelop an ability and willingness to continue their professional development in theirfuture profession. Once again, the results of this study show that the teaching knowl-edge and practice in teaching dichotomy should be investigated in depth by usingdifferent variables and contexts.
A sound background in teaching knowledge and teacher competencies can consti-tute the fundamentals of becoming a better teacher. Yet as Ba[scedil] yurt-Tuzel and Akcan(2009, p. 282) suggest, the practice teaching experience itself can have an awareness-raising effect on preservice language teachers, helping them to identify their needs andproblems in a more focused way. It is important that student teachers themselvesconsider the practicum experience as the most important element in their professionaldevelopment. Even teachers in action view classroom experience as the most impor-tant source of knowledge about teaching (Tsui, 2003).
Clearly, scores in teaching knowledge and self-perceived teacher competenciescannot be the only determinants of preparation for teaching practices. But, by empha-sizing the importance of integration of theory and practice in language teacher educa-tion programs, they can provide insights and a base for their future teaching practices.To achieve this integration, any language teacher training program should weavetheory and practice together in the real classroom teaching by devoting much moretime to observations, feedback sessions, and reflections during practicum with theparticipation of both mentors and supervisors. They should be guided and encouragedby faculty staff so that they can put their theoretical knowledge into practice, as learn-ing to teach is highly complex and multidimensional (Freese, 2006).
As Freeman (1989) points out, we need to define the content of language-teachereducation – that is, the processes of effective language teaching. Student teachers also
s
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 293
need explicit criteria for effective teaching in order to identify their strengths andweaknesses and use them as guidelines for improvement (Leshem & Bar-Hama,2008). For this reason, further research is required into the varied aspects andcomplexities of teaching and language teacher education in order to fully understandthe processes in teacher education.
ReferencesAkbari, R. (2007). Reflection on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2
teacher education. System, 35, 192–2007.Ba[scedil] yurt-Tuzel, E.A., & Akcan, S. (2009). Raising the language awareness of pre-service English
teachers in an EFL context. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 271–287.Borg, S. (2003). Knowing and doing: Teaching grammar in-service training. In D. Liu and P.
Master (Eds.), Grammar teaching in teacher education: Case studies in TESOL practicesseries (pp. 75–87). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Brandt, C. (2006). Allowing for practice: A critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation. ELTJournal, 60(4), 355–363.
Buchmann, M. (1986, October 13–17). Teaching knowledge: The light that teachers live by. Apaper presented at the Conference of the International Study Association on TeacherThinking, Teacher Thinking and Professional Action, Leuven University, Belgium.
Chacón, T.C. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign languageteachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257–272.
Cheng, M.M.H., Chan, K-W., Tang S.Y.F., & Cheng, A.Y.N. (2009). Pre-service teachereducation students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teachingand Teacher Education, 25, 319–327.
Clarke, A. (2001). The recent landscape of teacher education: Critical points and possibleconjectures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 599–611.
Cochran-Smith M., & Fries, K.M. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse ofreform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3–15.
Deniz, S., & [Scedil] ahin, N. (2006). The restructuring process of teacher training system in Turkey:A model of teacher training based on post-graduate education (PGCE). Journal of SocialSciences, 2(1), 21–26.
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1984). The problems faced by language teachers in Turkey. Journal of theEnglish Language Center, 49, 121–137.
Farrell, S.T., & Kun, K.T.S. (2007). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and class-room practices. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 381–403.
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development and decision-making: A model of teach-ing and related strategies of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27–45.
Freese, A.R. (2006). Reframing one’s teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflec-tion and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 100–119.
Garm, N., & Karlsen, E.G. (2004). Teacher education reform in Europe: The case ofNorway; trends and tensions in a global perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education,20(1), 731–744.
Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOLQuarterly, 32(3), 447–464.
Goodnough, K., & Hung, W. (2009). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elemen-tary science. Teaching Education, 20(3), 229–242.
Guven, I. (2008). Teacher education reform and international globalization hegemony: Issuesand challenges in Turkish teacher education. International Journal of Social Sciences,3(1), 8–17.
Halbach, A. (2000). Trainee change through teacher training: A case study in training Englishlanguage teachers in Spain. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(2), 139–146.
Johnson, F.E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESLteachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 507–537.
Johnson, F.E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: The tensions of the TESOL practicum. InD. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 30–49).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
s
S
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
294 S. Kömür
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching:Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 437–468.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). English language teaching in Turkey: Challenges for the twenty-firstcentury. In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and prac-tice (pp. 159–169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved March 22,2006, from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/mugla/Doc?id=10106621&ppg=180
Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementations of curriculum innovation inEnglish language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education,24, 1859–1875.
Korthagen, J.A.F. (2004). In search of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach inteacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.
Leshem, S., & Bar-Hama, R. (2008). Evaluating teaching practice. ELT Journal, 62(3), 257–265.Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in preservice EFL teacher beliefs in Greece: A
longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1272–1288.Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A
longitudinal study. System, 29, 177–195.Porter, P., & Taylor, P.B. (2003). Experience is the best teacher: Linking the MA pedagogical
grammar course with the ESL grammar classroom. In D. Liu & P. Master (Eds.), Grammarteaching in teacher education: Case studies in TESOL practices series (pp. 75–87).Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Seferoglu, G. (2004). A study of alternative English teacher certification practices in Turkey.Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(2), 151–159.
Seferoglu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-serviceEnglish teacher education programme in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching,32(4), 369–378.
[Scedil] eker, H., Deniz, S., & Gorgen, [Idot ] . (2004). Ö[gbreve] retmen yeterlikleri ölçe[gbreve] i [Teacher CompetencyScale]. Milli E[gbreve] itim Dergisi [The Journal of the Ministry of Education], 32(164), 105–118.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 57(1), 1–21.
Smith, E. (2008). Raising standards in American schools? Problems with improving teacherquality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 610–622.
Spratt, M., Pulverness, A., & Williams M. (2005). The TKT (Teaching Knowledge Test)course. Cambridge: University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.
Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT). Handbook for teachers (Teaching Awards). Cambridge:University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. Retrieved January 16, 2010, from http://www.cambridgeesol.org/assets/pdf/tkt_hb.pdf
Tedick, D.J., & Walker, C. L. (1995). From theory to practice: How do we prepare teachersfor second language classrooms? Foreign Language Annals, 28(4), 499–517.
Tin, B.T. (2006). Looking at teaching through multiple lenses. ELT Journal, 60(3), 253–261.Tsui, M.M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational
Research Journal, 25(1), 39–55.Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession.
London: David Fulton.Yılmaz, C. (2003). A need analysis of Turkish universities within the framework of communi-
cative language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, [Idot
] zmir.
S I g gg
I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teaching Education 295
Appendix A. The Scale of Teacher Competencies
EnoughPartially enough
Not enough
1. Knowing fundamental principles and concepts related to the topic
2. Associating fundamental principles and concepts in the topic with a logical consistency
3. Using the verbal and visual language (figure, schema, graphic, formula, etc) the topic requires in a suitable way
4. Associating the topic with the other topics of the field5. Knowing special teaching approaches, methods, and
techniques6. Making use of teaching technologies7. Identifying wrongly built concepts by students8. Creating convenient and efficient answers to students’
questions9. Providing a safe learning environment
10. Writing clear, comprehensible, and well-organized lesson plans
11. Expressing aims and target behaviors in a clear way12. Identifying suitable methods and techniques for target
behavior13. Choosing and preparing suitable equipment and material14. Identifying suitable assessment ways for the target behavior15. Associating the topic with previous and following classes16. Using various teaching methods and techniques
appropriately17. Using the time efficiently18. Arranging activities providing for active student
participation19. Carrying out the teaching depending on individual
differences20. Using teaching equipment and materials appropriately
according to the class level21. Summarizing and giving suitable feedback22. Associating the topic with real life23. Assessing the extent of reaching the target behavior24. Making a suitable introduction to the lesson25. Attracting student interest and attention to the lesson26. Providing a democratic learning environment27. Providing continuity of interest and motivation to the lesson28. Taking suitable measures for interruptions and barriers29. Complimenting and having an attitude to something30. Revising the lesson31. Giving information and homework for the following lesson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
296 S. Kömür
Appendix B. Open-ended questionnaire
Read the following terms and indicate any strengths and weaknesses you experienced in teach-ing the following areas while you were doing practicum.
Grammar terms
Grammar structures
Speaking subskills
Listening, reading and writing subskills
Coursebook activities
Assessment activities
Presentation activities
Classroom management
Which strategies do you plan to employ in order to cope with your weaknesses in the teachingprofession?
EnoughPartially enough
Not enough
32. Preparing the students for leaving the classroom33. Having effective communication with the students34. Giving comprehensible explanations and directions35. Asking challenging questions related to the topic36. Using voice level effectively37. Listening to the students actively38. Using verbal and body language effectively
Appendix A. (Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:27
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14