Seher BALBAY, İlknur PAMUK, Tuğçe TEMİR, Cemile DOĞAN

Issues in pre-service and in-service teacher-training programs for university English instructors in Turkey

Öz Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt. Issues in pre-service and in-service teacher-training programs for university English instructors in Turkey English language teaching programs in Turkish universities do not have uniform standards. The quality of education given to teachers in their undergraduate programs varies as does the teacher training provided during employment. The factors affecting the teacher training policies are numerous, such as the needs of the institution, the funding, time, technology and especially the importance attached to an ongoing development process. Particularly in higher education, lip service is paid to English language teacher training policies. To investigate the shortcomings of these teacher training policies, this research study was conducted by interviewing instructors from twenty different universities in Turkey. The study conducted has revealed the fact that there is a gap in specific language learning management policies concerning preservice and in-service language teacher training for university instructors in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Teacher education, in-service training, English preparatory school

PDF

___

Ahmadi, S. S., & Keshavarzi, A. (2013). A Survey of in-service training programs effectiveness in teaching skills development from the viewpoint of students, teachers and principals of guidance schools in Shiraz. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 920-925.

Bayrakcı, M. (2009). In-Service Teacher Training in Japan and Turkey: A Comparative Analysis of Institutions and Practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1). htt://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n1.2

Bunker, R. M., (1977). Beyond in-service: Toward staff renewal. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 00-100.

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. (2007). Research methods in education. 6th ed. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200-1214). Springer US.

Cruickshank, D. R., Lorish, & Thompson, L. (1979). What we think we know about in-service education. Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 2, 27-30.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (10), 1-15. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962.

Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press.

Demirel, O. (1991). Türkiye’de yabancı dil öğretmeni yetiştirmede karşılaşılan güçlükler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 6 (25-39).

Edge, J. (2003). Teacher development. Birmingham, UK: Aston University.

Foord, D. (2009). Delta teacher development: developing teacher: Practical Activities for Professional Development. Peaslake: DTDS.

Gabršek, S., & Roeders, P. & Klic, G. (2013). Improving the Quality of In-Service Teacher Training System.

Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of the research literature. Unpublished manuscript, Brigham Young University at Provo, UT.

Hanks, J. (1999). Enthusiasm, puzzlement, and Exploratory Practice. The International House Journal of Education and Development (London, International House) 7, April/May: 14–16.

Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (2002). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Küçükoğlu, B. (2013). The history of foreign language policies in Turkey. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 70 (1090-1094).

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. 35 (4), 537-560. doi: 10.2307/3588427

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.

O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: SAGE Publications.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions and

directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–234

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.

Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 43(6), 51-54.

Tillis, C. R. (1974). Teacher teaching teacher’s in-service training in environmental education. Journal of Teacher Education, 25, 2, 160-162.

Wyatt, M. & Dikilitaş, K. (2015): English language teachers becoming more efficacious through research engagement at their Turkish university, Educational Action Research. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2015.1076731