Perceptions of prospective Turkish Teachers regarding Literature Circles

Abstract

The fact that the prospective Turkish teachers’ having a command of different methods and techniques as being Turkish teachers of the future is important in terms of its positive effects on the comprehension and expression skills of the middle school students. This study used the case study design and the qualitative approach. The aim of the research was to test the effectiveness of literature circle method and contribute to the field in theoretical and practical context. Fourty-six prospective Turkish teachers were conveniently sampled from the state university in Istanbul, to participate in the study. During six weeks, the opinions of prospective Turkish teachers who applied literature circle method were collected through unstructured interview forms. The data collected were subjected to a content analysis. It was concluded that prospective Turkish teachers found the method of literature circle favorible, in terms of cooperation, solidarity, gaining different perspectives, revealing hidden talents, developing self-confidence, aesthetic pleasure, enriching vocabulary and catching the details.

Keywords

• Prospective Turkish teachers,literature circle,methods,cooperation

References

1. Akyol, H. (2010). Yeni programa uygun Turkce ogretim yontemleri [The methods of teaching Turkish corresponding to the new program]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayinlari.
2. Arici, A. F. (2012). Okuma egitimi [Education of reading]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayinlari.
3. Arslan, S., & Yigit, M. F. (2016). Investigation of the impact of emotional intelligence efficacy on teachers' multicultural attitudes. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11), 147-157.
4. Avci, S., Yuksel, A., & Akinci, T. (2010). Okuma aliskanligi kazandirmada etkili bir yontem: “Okuma Cemberi” [An effective method in making reading a habit: “Reading Circle”]. M.U. Ataturk Egitim Fakultesi Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 32, 5- 24.
5. Avci, S., & Yuksel, A. (2011). Okuma cemberi yontemine gore kitap okumanin ogrencilere bilissel ve duyussal katkilari [Cognitive and affective contributions to the students according to the method of reading circle]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 3(11), 1285-1300.
6. Avci, S., Baysal, N., Gul, M., & Yuksel, A. (2013). The effect of literature circles on reading comprehension skills. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 6(4), 535-550.
7. Aydin, H. (2013). A literature-based approaches on multicultural education. The Anthropologist, 16(1-2), 31-44.
8. Aytas, G. (2005). Okuma egitimi [Education of reading], Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(4), 461 - 470.

9. Balantekin, M. & Pilav, S. (2017). Okuma cemberi yonteminin okudugunu anlama becerisine etkisi [The impact of the method of reading circle on the ability of comprehending what you read], Kirikkale Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 149-170.
10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
11. Bernadowski, C., & Morgano, K. (2011). Teaching historical fiction with ready-made literature circles for secondary readers. California: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
12. Brownlie, F. (2005). Grand conversations, thoughtful responses: a unique approach to literature circles. Manitoba: Portage & Main Press.
13. Buyukozturk, S. (2017). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi istatistik, arastirma deseni spss uygulamalari ve yorum [Guidebook of data analysis in social sciences: statistics, research design spss applications and comment]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayincilik.
14. Camp, C. S. (2006). The effect of literature circles vs. sustained silent reading (SSR) among eleventh grade English students. Masters Abstracts International, 46(03), 41-1219.
15. Carothers, D., & Parfitt, C. (2017). Disability or language difference: How do we decide? American Journal of Qualitative Research, 1(1), 1-12.
16. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
17. Citamak, Y., & Yigit, I. (2012). From student's table to teacher's desk. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 1(2), 1-7.
18. Clarke, L. W. (2006). Power through voicing others: Girls’ positioning of boys in literature circle discussions. Journal of Literacy Reseach, 38(1), 53-79.
19. Culli, L. M. (2002). Investigation of literature circles in the middle school language art classroom (Unpublished master’s thesis). California: Chapman University, Orange.
20. Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles- voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
21. Damgaci, F. K., & Aydin, H. (2013). Turkiye’deki egitim fakultelerinde gorev yapan akademisyenlerin cok kulturlu egitime iliskin gorusleri [Remarks of the academicians working in the faculties of education in Turkey concerning multicultural education]. Dicle Universitesi Ziya Gokalp Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 21(2), 314-331.
22. Deniz, M., & Ersoy, E. (2016). Examining the relationship of social skills, problem solving and bullying in adolescents. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 1 -7.
23. Epcacan, C., & Erzen, M. (2008). Ilkogretim Turkce dersi ogretim programinin degerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the teaching program of primary school Turkish courses]. Uluslararasi Sosyal Arastirmalar Dergisi, 1 (4), 182-202.
24. Ersoy, E., & Ugur, H. (2015). The Relationship between students’ self-esteem and parental attitudes in Turkish society. The Anthropologist, 21(1-2), 112-119.
25. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research an introduction (6th ed.). USA: Longman Publisher.
26. Gocer, A. (2009). Turkce egitiminde ogrencilerin soz varligini gelistirme etkinlikleri ve sozluk kullanimi [The activities of developing vocabulary and dictionary use of the students in Turkish education]. Turkish Studies, 4(4), 1025-1055.
27. Gunay, R., & Aydin, H. (2015). The inclinations in studies on multicultural education in Turkey: A content analysis study (2005-2014). Education and Science, 40(178), 1-22.
28. Gunes, F. (2014). Turkce ogretimi yaklasimlar ve modeller [Turkish education: approaches and models], Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
29. Inceli, O. (2015). The perceptions of English teachers to the SIOP® model and its impact on limited English proficiency. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 15.
30. Iscan, A. (2004). Ilkogretim ikinci kademe sekizinci sinif Turkce ders kitaplarindaki metinlerin ogrencilere estetik zevk kazandirmadaki rolu [The role of the texts of Turkish course books on bringing primary school secondary level eight class students aestehetical pleasure] (Yayimlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi). Ataturk Universitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Erzurum, Turkey.
31. Houdyshellm, M. (2017). Academic integrity in an emerging democracy: How university students in a former Soviet Republic balance achievement and success in education. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 4(1), 1-14.
32. Karadag, O. (2013). Kelime ogretimi [Teaching vocabulary]. Istanbul: Kriter Yayinevi.
33. Karatay, H. (2007). Kelime ogretimi [Teaching vocabulary]. Gazi Universitesi Gazi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 27(1), 141-153.
34. Karatay, H. (2014). Okuma egitimi [Reading education]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
35. Karatay, H. (2015). Elestirel dusunme ve okuma aliskanligi becerilerinin gelistirilmesi icin edebiyat halkasi: Kitap elestirisi modeli [Literature circle to develop critical thinking and reading habitual abilities: the model of book review]. Millî Egitim, 208,1-17.
36. Karatay, H. (2017). The effect of literature circles on text analysis and reading desire. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 65-75.
37. Kardas, M. N. (2013) Isbirlikli ogrenme yonteminin sinif ogretmeni adaylarinin yazili anlatim becerilerine etkisi [The effect of cooperative learning method on written expression skills of class teacher candidates]. Turkish Studies, 8(9), 1781-1799.
38. Kirbas, A. (2010). Isbirlikli ogrenme yonteminin ilkogretim sekizinci sinif ogrencilerinin dinleme becerilerini gelistirmesine etkisi [The effect of collaborative learning method in improving the listening skills of primary school 8th class students] (Yayimlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi). Ataturk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Erzurum, Turkey.
39. Knowles, E., & Smith, M. (2003). Talk about books! A guide for book clubs, literature circles, and discussion groups, grades 4-8. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
40. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Lafer, S. (2014). Democratic design for the humanization of education. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 6-12.
42. Maden, S. (2011). Birlikte ogrenme tekniginin yazili anlatim basarisi uzerine etkisi [The effect of co-learning method on the success of writing expression]. Ataturk Universitesi Kâzim Karabekir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 22, 163-180.
43. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: A Willey Brand.
44. Mizerka, P. M. (1999). The impact of teacher directed literature circles versus student directed literature circles on reading comprehension at the sixth-grade level (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, IL, USA.
45. Neamen, M., & Strong, M. (2001). More literature circles: cooperative learning for grades 3–8. libraries unlimited (Teacher ideas press). Colorado: Englewood.
46. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Heck, M. J. (1993). Using small groups for response to and thinking about literature. English Journal, 82, 14–22.
47. Ogurlu, U., & Sevim, M. N. (2017). The opinions of gifted students about leadership training. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 4(2), 41-52.
48. Okur Akcay, N. (2014). Zit kavramlarin ogretilmesinde birlikte ogrenme yonteminin etkisi [The effect of co-learning in teaching antonym concepts]. Egitim ve Ogretim Arastirmalari Dergisi, 3(1), 398-405.
49. Okur, A. & Dagtas, A. (2014). Ortaokula yonelik kelime ogretimi calismalari [Vocabulary teaching attempts for secondary schools]. Ana Dili Egitimi Dergisi, 2(4), 66-84.
50. Olsen, A. S. W. (2007). Literature circles and ninth grade students: A student-centered approach to reading. Unpublished master’s thesis. Southwest Minnesota State University, Marshall, MN.
51. Osgood, C. (1959). The representational model and relevant research methods. In I. de Sola Pool (Ed.), Trends in content analysis (pp. 33–88). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
52. Ozbay, M., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The effect of reading circle technique on the critical reading selfefficacy perception of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 3(2), 222-234.
53. Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
54. Simons, H. (1980). Towards a science of the singular. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
55. Stabile, C. (2009). Are literature circles an effective reading strategy for struggling readers. Unpublished master’s thesis). Ohio University, Athens, OH.
56. Stien, D., & Beed, P. L. (2004). Bringing the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the literature circle setting. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510-518.
57. Susar Kirmizi, F. (2010). Ilkogretim 4. sinif Turkce ogretiminde coklu zekâ kuramina dayali isbirlikli ogrenme yonteminin ozetleme stratejisi uzerindeki etkisi [The effect of collaborative learning method based on multiple intelligence theory on summarization strategy for primary school 4th class students]. Pamukkale Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 6, 99-108.
58. Sahin, A. (2010). Effects of Jigsaw II technique on academic achievement and attitudes to writen expression course, Educational Research and Reviews, 5(12), 777-787.
59. Yigit, I. H., & Tatch, A. (2017). Syrian refugees and americans: Perceptions, attitudes and insights. Am. J. Qual. Res, 1(1), 13-31.
60. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. California USA: Sage Publications.
61. Weber, R. (1984). Computer-aided content analysis: A short primer. Qualitative Sociology, 7(1/2), 126–147.