Why Important is Learning Turkish as a Mother Tongue for Bilingual Students in England?

Year 2018, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 122 - 136, 31.08.2018

Ayşe Çiftci Andrew Townsend

https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.359915

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Learning a mother tongue (L2) is important for bilingual children who live abroad in order to learn the L1 of that society, improve the effectiveness of their communication with members of a family and increase transmission of cultural values and facilitate personal development. This study deploys a qualitative research methodology.  Data were collected from 4 students at 9-12 years old, 4 parents and 3 teachers at the Turkish Community Saturday School, in Nottingham, England. Structured-interviews and observations were used to gather data on learning techniques. The goal is to understand and describe the perceptions of teachers’, students’ and parents’ learning of the mother tongue by bilingual Turkish students between the ages of 9-12. Research findings support that the perceptions of the participants on learning Turkish as mother tongue are critical, as they learn Turkish in order to foster effective communication with their families, by using Turkish effectively and learn Turkish cultural values.

Keywords: bilingualism, mother tongue, learning Turkish, action research, qualitative research

Keywords

bilingualism, mother tongue, learning Turkish, action research, qualitative research

Why Important is Learning Turkish as a Mother Tongue for Bilingual Students in England?

Abstract

ÖZ: Bir anadili öğrenmek (L2), ailenin
üyeleriyle olan iletişimlerinin etkinliğini arttırmak ve kültürel değerlerin
iletimini arttırmak ve kişilik gelişimini kolaylaştırmak için yurt dışında
yaşayıp, yaşadıkları toplumun dilini (L1) kullanan iki dilli çocuklar için
önemlidir. Bu çalışmada nitel araştırma metodolojisi kullanılmaktadır. Veriler
9-12 yaşlarındaki 4 öğrenciden, 4 veli ve 3 öğretmenden, İngiltere’de
Nottingham şehrinde bulunan Türk Topluluğu Cumartesi okulundan toplanmıştır.
Öğrenme teknikleri hakkında veri toplamak için yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve
gözlemler yapılmıştır. Amaç, 9-12 yaşları arasındaki iki dilli Türk
öğrencilerin, öğretmenlerin ve ebeveynlerin Türkçeyi anadili olarak öğrenme
algılarını anlamak ve tanımlamaktır. Araştırma bulguları, Türkçeyi etkili bir
şekilde kullanarak ve Türk kültürel değerlerini öğrenerek, aileleri ile etkili
iletişim kurmak için Türkçe öğrenirken, Türkçeyi anadili olarak öğrenme
konusundaki katılımcıların algılanışlarının kritik olduğunu desteklemektedir

Anahtar sözcükler: iki dillilik, anadil, Türkçe öğrenimi, aksiyon araştırması, nitel
araştırma

Keywords

iki dillilik, anadil, Türkçe öğrenimi, aksiyon araştırması, nitel araştırma

References

• Allman, B., 2005. Vocabulary size and accuracy of monolingual and bilingual preschool children. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 5, 58-77.
• Anderson, G. L, Herr, K. and Nihlen, A. S., 2007. ‘What is Action Research?’ In: Anderson et al. (2007) Studying Your Own School: An Educator’s Guide to Practioner Action Research. California: Corwin Press.
• Babbie, E., 2010. The Practice of Social Research United States of America: Cengage Learning.
• Bell, J., 2005. (Eds). Doing Your Project. A guide to first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Open University Press.
• Blake, B., and Pope, T., 2008. Developmental Psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Theories in Classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59 – 67.
• Briscoe, C. and Wells, E., 2002. Reforming Primary Science Assessment Practices: A Case Study of One Teacher’s Professional Development. Wiley Periodicals inc.
• Burgess, Robert G., 1984. In the Field—an Introduction to Field Research. London: Routledge.
• Burns, A., 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners New York: Routledge.
• Costello, P., 2003. Action Research London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Cummins, J., 2001. Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education? Sprogforum, 7 (19), 15-20.
• Elliot, J., 1995. Action Research: What is good action research? – Some criteria (2) United Kingdom: Hyde Publications.
• Elliott, J., 1991. Action Research for Educational Change, Buckingham, Open University Press.
• Grady, M., 1998. Qualitative and Action Research: A Practitioner Handbook United States of America: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
• Hartas, D., 2010. Chapter 1 Educational Research and Inquiry: Key Issues and Debates in Dimitra Hartas (Ed) Educational Research and Inquiry Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Continuum.
• Hensen, K. T., 1996. Teachers as researchers. In J.Sikula, T.J. Buttery and E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. 53-66. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Hesse-Biber, S and Leavy, P., 2010. The Practice of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed) London: SAGE Publications Inc.
• Hole, S and McEntee, H., 1999. ‘Reflection is at the Heart of Practice’ Educational Leadership56 (8), p34-37.
• Hopkins, P. E., 2007. Positionalities and Knowledge. Negotiating Ethics in Practice. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6, (3) 386-394.
• Izzo, A., 2006. Research and Reflection: Teachers take action for Literacy development United States of America: Information Age Publishing Inc.
• Johnson, B and Christensen, L., 2010. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches (4th Ed) London: SAGE Publications Inc.
• Kemmis, S., 2010. What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action Research, 18(4): 417-427. London: Routledge
• Klenke, K., 2008. Qualitative Research in the Study of Leadership Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Kreuger, R.A., 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
• Labov, W., 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
• Luchtenberg, S., 2002. Bilingualism and bilingual education and their relationship to citizenship from a comparative German–Australian perspective. Intercultural Education, 13, (1).
• Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B., 1995. (2nd Eds). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage: London.
• Martin, D., 1999. Bilingualism and literacy in primary school: implications for professional development.
• Mukherji, P and Albon, D., 2009. Research Methods in Early Childhood: An Introductory Guide London: SAGE Publications Inc.
• Patton, M. Q., 2005. Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Pelton, R., 2010. Action Research for Teacher Candidates: Using Classroom Data to Enhance Instruction United States of America: Association of Teacher Educators.
• Rich, Y., 1990. Ideological impediments to instructional innovation: The case of cooperative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education. 6(1): 81-91.
• Somekh, B., 2006. Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Stevens, D and Cooper, J., 2009. Journal Keeping: How to use reflective writing for learning, teaching, professional insight, and positive change Vigina: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
• Sultana F., 2007. Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork Dilemmas in International Research. ACME: An International E- Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374- 385.
• Townsend, A., 2013. Action Research: The Challenges of Understanding and Researching Practice England: Open University Press: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Verhoeven, L., 1996. Turkish literacy and its acquisition in the Netherlands. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 119, 87-108.
• Waddington, D., 2004. Participant observation. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, 154-164.
• Yazici, Z., and Temel, Z. F., 2012. The Relation between Language Development and Reading-Readiness in Bilingual and Monolingual Children. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University School of Education Journal, 1(22), 145-158.