{"id":2393,"date":"2012-04-06T10:00:08","date_gmt":"2012-04-06T10:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.eltweekly.com\/elt-newsletter\/?p=2393"},"modified":"2012-04-06T10:00:08","modified_gmt":"2012-04-06T10:00:08","slug":"vol-4-issue-15-research-article-evaluation-of-the-english-language-teacher-education-program-in-turkey-by-ali-karakas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/?p=2393","title":{"rendered":"Vol. 4 Issue 15 \u2013 Research Paper: ‘Evaluation of the English Language Teacher Education Program in Turkey’ by Ali Karakas"},"content":{"rendered":"

ELTWeekly Vol. 4 Issue#15 | April 9, 2012 |\u00a0ISSN 0975-3036<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

This paper is submitted by Ali Karakas of\u00a0Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey.<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The article reports on an evaluative review of the current English Education Program in Turkey by focusing on both strengths and weaknesses identified through the analysis of the program based on the related theories, models and previous empirical research and comparison of the present program with the preceding English language teacher education program. The research paper shows that the program has more weaknesses than the strengths it does. It was seen that pedagogical and theory components are quite well covered. Yet, there are some weaknesses, as well, which can be<\/strong> summarized as being out-of-date, less practically-oriented, and lack of culture specific courses within the program. Consequently, a number of suggestions are offered to the stakeholders in the implications of the critical evaluation. In closing, the study stresses the importance of systematic evaluation for educating and training highly qualified English language teachers and successful foreign language education.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: Program evaluation, English language teacher education, language teaching.<\/em><\/p>\n

****************************************************************************************<\/p>\n

ADVERTISEMENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

We are entering the second year of publishing ELT Voices – India international journal. Subscribe to the journal for just Rs. 500 per you and get access to high quality ELT \/ ESL \/ EFL articles. Also you can get your works published with us.<\/p>\n

Click here to subscribe to\u00a0ELT Voices – India international electronic journal<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

****************************************************************************************<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

1. I<\/strong>ntroduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The starring role of English in the current globalized world has augmented due to being an international and well-recognized language across the world. That being the case, the teaching of English, as a mounting field, has of late come into question. Much emphasis, at this juncture, has been placed on the need to train highly qualified language teachers, with a direct relevance to the evaluation of English language teacher education programs (ELTEPs).<\/p>\n

Although foreign language teacher education was a new area of research in 90s by contrast to other areas in teacher training (Day, 1991) and albeit the dearth of research regarding the appraisal of such teacher training programs (Weir & Roberts, 1994), the evaluation of programs has, from then on, engendered enthusiasm among researchers in the field of ELT. For example, in Turkey alone, many studies were performed to evaluate the various components of the current and previous program from the perspectives of lecturers, student-teachers and alumni (Co\u015fkun & Dalo\u011flu, 2010; Co\u015fgun-Ogeyik, 2009; Salli & \u00c7opur, 2008; Erozan, 2005), and to check the curricula of different universities, and programs of different countries against one another (Sanl\u0131, 2009; Aydo\u011fan & \u00c7ilsal, 2007; Co\u015fkun, 2008).<\/p>\n

A closer look at the aforementioned studies shows that they are all context-specific and concerned with the implementation of ELTEP in their own settings from the stakeholders\u2019 views and pure comparisons of the curricula and programs. However, a full description and critical evaluation of the latest teacher education program introduced in 2006 by the Council of Higher Education (CHE) seem to have hitherto gone untouched. Therefore, this paper attempts to offer an evaluative review of the current program in light of the previous research, related theories and models by focusing both on the strengths and weaknesses given that evaluation is considered as an initial step towards professionalization in the field (Peacock, 2009).<\/p>\n

2. Education Process of English Language Teachers<\/strong><\/p>\n

English language teachers (ELTs) are educated at the education faculties of the universities. The education normally takes four years unless the program entails one-year intensive English preparatory, in this case 1+4 years. In addition to education faculties, students from faculties of arts and science studying English\/American language and literature or English philology may be entitled as English teachers providing that they hold a pedagogic formation certificate since their curricula do not center around teacher-training courses (Tercanl\u0131o\u011flu, 2004; Aydo\u011fan & \u00c7ilsal, 2007). All education faculties pursue a standardized and compulsory curriculum, set by the CHE, while training student English teachers. However, they are bestowed a degree of self-governance regarding how to carry out the program. In other words, selective courses, materials, course-books used and examinations administered might vary from one institution to another.<\/p>\n

2.1 The Current English Language Teacher Education Program (ELTEP)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The program has been in practice since 2006 when the CHE reshaped the curricula of the educations faculties to be responsive to the changing demands and needs of the social, educational and political domains; and local, national and international requirements (OECD, 2005; Kallos, 2003, cited in Grossman et al., 2007; Co\u015fkun, 2008). The new program comprises a great number of obligatory and a few elective courses. The components of the program comprise field knowledge (linguistic competence), teacher education (pedagogic competence), general knowledge (Altunya, 2006) and teaching practice. There seems to be more stress on teaching methodology and practice components in the new program (Sefero\u011flu, 2006) as compared to the preceding one which was in use from 1998 till 2006. The total number of class hours of the courses amounts to 175, of which 143 hours are devoted to the theory-based, and 32 to the practice-based courses including teaching practice, computer skills, special teaching methods and so forth (CHE, 2007).<\/p>\n

The first year is based on the improvement of language specific competencies of the teacher trainees with courses focusing mainly on four language skills. Hence, it might be regarded as the adjustment period for the teacher-students. As they progress towards sophomore, junior and senior levels, the courses they take are varied and more professionally oriented to equip them with general and pedagogic knowledge alongside the linguistic competence. At the senior level, they have to observe classes either in primary or secondary schools and then take the actual teaching practice by planning and teaching the lessons each week as a requirement of the program under the supervision of a teacher trainer and a mentor.<\/p>\n

As Tercanl\u0131o\u011flu (2004) reported, starting from 50s onwards, the notion of competency-based teacher education was widespread in the programs. This education model \u201cdescribes a teacher training program in which there are specific competencies to be acquired, with corresponding explicit criteria for assessing these competencies\u201d (Bowles, 1973, p. 510). It is known as \u201cstandards\u201d based model as well (Wallace, 1991). The Ministry of National Education (MNE) has listed a number of special competencies of English teachers, which embody knowledge, skills and attitudes to help teachers gain professional development. Yet, these competencies have been indeed intended for in-service rather than pre-service teachers.<\/p>\n

A close scrutiny of the program in operation reveals that it is established on the applied-science model (see Wallace, 1991), which Ur (1992) calls \u201cthe rationalist learn-the-theory-and-then-apply-it model\u201d (p. 57) in her own words. This model is \u201cpredicated on research findings and the theory that can inform language teaching\u201d (Bailey, 2006, p.151). It is assumed when trainees are informed about the scientific knowledge, they will absorb it and someway use in their teaching accordingly. Programs of this model extensively offer \u201ctheoretical courses in aspects of linguistics, language-learning theories, psychology, and so on\u201d; and that\u2019s why, practically-oriented courses such as observation and teaching practice remain less notable, with little attention and limited hours allocated (Ur, 1992, p. 56).<\/p>\n

2.2 Essential Characteristics of English Language Teachers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cross (2003, p. 41) notes four types of must-have characteristics that an ideal teacher should possess as follows: general level of education<\/em>, subject competence<\/em> (level of English required), professional competence<\/em> (e.g. planning, management), and positive attitudes and beliefs<\/em>. Additionally, Selvi (2010) considers the cultural competence among the teacher competencies (cited in \u00c7etinavc\u0131 & Yavuz, 2010). Of these competencies, Cross (2003) suggests, subject competencies should be achieved to a higher extent before entering the faculty in order that trainees could spend less time on learning about English, with more weight on the learning how to teach English.<\/p>\n

Day (1991, pp. 1-2) claims that the knowledge base of the teacher education should consist of the following areas of knowledge, which are briefly outlined below (Grenfell, Kelly & Jones, 2003, pp. 31-32):<\/p>\n

1. Content knowledge refers to the subject matter taught (English language e.g. semantics)<\/p>\n

2. General Pedagogic knowledge is concerned with classroom management and strategies.<\/p>\n

3. Pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) is about the way how a subject knowledge is acquired by student-teachers within a pedagogic context and for a pedagogic purpose<\/p>\n

4. Support knowledge is the knowledge of interdisciplinary interactions such as psycholinguistics, research methods, linguistics and so forth.<\/p>\n

In addition to these areas, Shulman (1990) suggests developing three more areas of knowledge, which are respectively knowledge of learners and their characteristics<\/em>, knowledge of educational contexts<\/em> and knowledge of educational ends<\/em> (cited in Glenfell et al., 2003; emphaswis added). Altan (2006) argues for incorporating technology into the program. In this way, teacher-trainees might be aware of the new technologies and their pedagogical uses (Peyton, 1997). Nonetheles, these areas of knowledge are disproportionately covered in the program. Co\u015fkun and Dalo\u011flu\u2019s (2010) statistical calculations of the distribution of the courses in percentages based on their program indicated that pedagogical courses constitute 68% of the program, whereas language courses 32% and courses pertaining to management only 1% with one course named \u201cclassroom management\u201d.<\/p>\n

The general distribution of the courses in the standardized program would be roughly the same with the above figures, for only three elective courses are at the institutions\u2019 own disposals, which could change the distribution between pedagogical and linguistic courses; nevertheless, leave managerial courses unaffected because elective courses principally consist of field-related subjects (Sanl\u0131, 2009).<\/p>\n

3. Critical evaluation of the ELTEP<\/strong><\/p>\n

The evaluation will be based on the existing theories concerning foreign language teacher education and particularly empirical studies putting the current program under investigation from several angles and finally comparison with the preceding program to see the extent to which it has made headway in meeting the expectations. To this end, in what follows, the positive sides, to wit, the strengths of the program will be disclosed first and next, the weaknesses of the program will be pointed out.<\/p>\n

3.1 Strengths of the program\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

The new program includes newly added compulsory courses which were not available in the former one such as \u201clistening and pronunciation\u201d, \u201csecond foreign language\u201d and \u201ccommunity service\u201d. Also, contents and names of the several courses have been changed. To illustrate, \u2018English grammar\u2019 was named as \u2018contextual grammar\u2019, and \u2018English literature\u2019 as \u2018literature and language teaching\u2019. Some integrated courses like listening and speaking were separated from one another and were added into the curriculum as \u2018listening and pronunciation\u2019 and \u2018oral communication skills\u2019. To literature course was added a pedagogic dimension and took the name \u2018Literature and Language Teaching\u2019. These amendments were positively approved by lecturers applying the program (e.g. Co\u015fkun & Dalo\u011flu, 2010) thanks to the heavy emphasis on the pedagogic and linguistic dimensions.<\/p>\n

Another improvement in the present program is the increased cooperation between student-trainees and teachers in schools, which did not take enough precedence before (Grossman et al., 2007). In a study on the new program, it was found that the curriculum was responsive to teacher-students\u2019 expectations in terms of teaching profession, social objectives and profits. They also acknowledged that the courses provided opportunities of application as well as pure theory, unlike the previous curriculum (Co\u015fgun-Ogeyik, 2009).<\/p>\n

The course, Computing 1-2, were not obligatory and some faculties offered it as an elective course till 2006. Now, it has to be taken by teacher-trainees at the first and second terms of their first year. This can enable them to be technology-friendly teachers, who can use information and technology tools for pedagogical goals, and their individual and professional development. Such a step is congruent with skills identified in European Profile for Language Teacher Education (EPLTE, 2004).<\/p>\n

Offering a compulsory \u2018second foreign language\u2019 to teacher-candidates was a milestone in the program. This is because being trained \u201cin the diversity of languages and cultures\u201d consolidates teacher-trainees\u2019 value systems, and informs them of \u201cthe importance of teaching and learning about foreign languages and cultures\u201d (EPLTE, 2004, p. 6).<\/p>\n

It is obvious that reorientation of the program is somewhat centered on contemporary references such as Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL), European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) and EPLTE, which chiefly aim to augment professional and individual development,\u00a0 and foster vocational growth via self-reflection. From these orientations, it might be inferred that the program has come to an appropriate level closer to those of European countries (Kavak et al, 2007; quoted in Co\u015fkun, 2008).<\/p>\n

3.2 Weaknesses of the program<\/strong><\/p>\n

The initial weakness of the program lies in the fact that it is out-of-date, having been in practice for almost five years. During this stretch of time, many changes of direct pertinence to the role and teaching of English along with technological resources and challenges have come into existence. Any program together with its curriculum is supposed to be constantly kept up-to-date and regularly revised (Farris, 1996) and the task of updating should be done at regular intervals to be able to maintain the same rate of the current advances happening around the world in the field of language teacher education (Co\u015fkun, 2008). However, the new status of English as global language is not conveyed to the teacher-trainees. It is their right to be alerted about the varieties of English, the global role of English, as a language they will be teaching in the near future. This hole in the program has been pointed by some heedful researchers, with the following suggestions by Snow et al. (2006; cited in Co\u015fkun, n.d.)<\/p>\n

1. Teacher trainees should experience the varieties of English beyond the Inner Circle;<\/p>\n

2. Methodologies to be of value in the local context and to reflect students\u2019 actual needs and interests should be adapted,<\/p>\n

3. Collaboration between local and outside experts should be supported,<\/p>\n

4. Trainees should be imbued with the value of continuous reflective practice and life-long learning efforts.<\/p>\n

As largely voiced by teacher-trainees in the previous studies, another missing point in the program is the scarcity of culture-based lessons (Co\u015fgun-Ogeyik, 2009). Peacock (2009) quotes his participants\u2019 suggestion that \u201cthe programme needs to \u2018promote the culture of teaching and what it means to be a teacher\u201d (p. 270). In parallel, Cross (2004) promotes the idea that the target cultures should be placed in the program. I, in this context, refer to the target cultures as the cultures of those speaking English all around the world, not only the cultures of native speakers of English.<\/p>\n

Teacher-trainees\u2019 criticisms were at the highest level when it comes to practical aspect of the program. Those who were aware of the previous program argued that classroom observation ought to start at the first year of their education. Lange (1991) suggests a theory-and-practice-from-the-start approach. It maintains that theory and practice combined with each other must be experienced right from the outset of the program instead of taking academic and theoretical courses first, and only then proceeding towards the schoolrooms. In line with this approach, Cangil\u2019s (2000) study revealed that teacher-trainees regarded taking \u2018classroom observation classes at the first grade\u2019 as a positive step that would contribute to their professional life once they started to teach actively, for this is viewed as the first step appropriately taken to understanding the nature of their profession. When the previous program was in use, students had the chance to drop the program at an earlier stage in the event that they deemed \u2018teaching\u2019 inappropriate for themselves as a profession.<\/p>\n

Limited hours apportioned to classroom observation and teaching practice were harshly expressed, too. Enginarlar (1996) called attention to this focal issue by contending that constrained time-allocation to observation with one or two lessons would create professional-related problems in the education of future teachers. Furthermore, there was a general complaint about the lack of opportunities for micro-teaching and teaching practice. This shortcoming was put into words in a number of studies by participants, ranging from trainee-teachers to course instructors (e.g. Sefero\u011flu, 2006; Erozan, 2005; Salli-\u00c7opur, 2008; Co\u015fkun & Dalo\u011flu, 2010). Noticing this deficiency in her comparative study, Sanl\u0131 (2009) suggested increasing the hours allotted to practical lessons. In a different context, Peacock (2009) also insisted that the amount of practice teaching should be reconsidered and increased. This is to be done by equally incorporating theory and practice into the program (Blair, 2001). The reason is that the received (theoretical) and experiential (practical) knowledge within the program should be well balanced with academic and theoretical courses equal in distribution (Ur, 1992).<\/p>\n

The program does not have a clear-cut philosophy of teacher education. Despite its significance, this has been just recently brought to the agenda by Co\u015fkun and Dalo\u011flu (2010), whereas, nearly two decades ago, Wallace (1991) pointed to the importance and necessity of a well-argued philosophy in foreign language teacher education programs. This appears to pass discounted by the program designers. As put by Erk\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 (2008, p.1) \u201can educational system cannot be considered without any philosophical approach\u201d and this correspondingly applies to English language teacher education system, as well. The program designers need to re-examine the philosophy of teacher education and clearly state this in the program. Otherwise, this figuratively invites instructors to \u2018march their own drummers\u2019 while applying the program, which in effect, leads to failure in realizing the goals of the program at countrywide.<\/p>\n

The model, the applied-science or from theory-to-practice, on which ELTEP is grounded, is also problematic. It has received many criticisms from the scholars. For example, Day (1991) considers the separation of research and training in the model from each other a serious defect. This model is also weak in that it sees \u201cknowledge as something external to the teacher\u201d (Clarke, 2008, p. 6). For the solution to the discussion, Day (1991) thinks of a new model which he terms \u2018the integrative model\u2019 in which he aims to bring together all the strong points embraced by the models suggested by Wallace (1991). In Day\u2019s (1991, p. 10) words, the new model proclaims that \u201cthe learner gains pedagogic, content, pedagogic content, and support knowledge through a variety of experiences and activities\u201d. He also warns that sheer exposure of trainees to knowledge types via various know-hows and tasks is insufficient by itself to guarantee the integration of knowledge areas that constitute the knowledge-base. Thus, to achieve this end, a program should embody \u201ca reflective practice component\u201d (p. 10).<\/p>\n

Some changes in the new program were reported to create discontentment among the stakeholders. Courses, reading and writing, separately imparted in the old curriculum at four terms were combined under the course name \u201cAdvanced Reading and Writing\u201d and solely offered at each term of the first year. It is held by some instructors that this change in the program yielded poor linguistic competence in student-teachers, especially in writing competencies (Co\u015fkun & Dalo\u011flu, 2010). The small number of elective courses was seen to exert a negative influence on variability of courses in the curriculum. Sanl\u0131 (2009) recommends that the range of elective courses on offer should be increased. This will give an opportunity to those implementing the program to choose courses addressing the needs of the students, and responding to the necessities of local and national contexts. Lastly, there is only one course addressing student-teachers\u2019 classroom management skills. This is the reason why graduates complain about the issues relating to managing classroom discipline in their teaching. For that reason, the courses on classroom management should occupy more places within the program.<\/p>\n

4. Implications of the Evaluation for ELTEP in Turkey<\/strong><\/p>\n

A great number of implications can be drawn from this evaluative review of the current program of English language teacher education. Here, I use the word \u2018implications\u2019 to refer to the \u2018indirect suggestions\u2019 for the improvement of the program. This is of weight in that qualified language teacher education is believed to be directly proportional to successful foreign language teaching. In the following lines, I put forward a series of suggestions depending on the critical evaluation of the program. The suggestions are summarized in view of the above evaluation as follows:<\/p>\n