Teacher Representations of English as a Foreign Language: Case Study of Two Teachers in Turkey

Abstract

In a developing nation like Turkey, the English language plays a significant role in educational and socioeconomic mobility. English is acquired and taught as a foreign language (EFL) primarily in the classrooms. However, the ways in which English language is represented in classroom instruction have been hardly examined and understood. With that, this paper aims to depict two teachers’ representations of the English language as influenced by a university entrance English language test administered in 2008 in Turkey. The two teachers’ representations of the English language are projected from a 12th grade classroom at an Anatolian Lycee located in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Doyle's task framework is employed, specifically in order to map what content representations emerged out of the teachers' classroom practices. Data sources include biweekly teacher logs, biweekly interviews, and biweekly classroom observations. The paper highlights that the two teachers' classroom representations of English were entrenched with the idea of highstakes test preparation for university admissions as they deemed test preparation as a major part of their classroom instruction. That is, representations of the English language were contracted to tested structures and items. The paper illustrates the teachers’ representations of reading and grammar with the insight that division of labour, though not in the form of collaboration, made it possible for the teachers to cope with the contraction effect of test preparation.

Keywords

• Teacher content representations
• English as a foreign language (EFL)
• test impact
• content contraction

References

1. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-129.
2. Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved July 29, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.
3. Au, W. (2007). High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-67.
4. Doyle, W. (1986). Content representations in teachers’ definitions of academic work. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 18,365-79.
5. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in Mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist. 23(2). 167-180.
6. Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy in P. W. Jackson (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
7. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In Van den Branden, Kris; Martin Bygate; and John M. Norris (Eds.) Task-based language teaching: A reader (Pp. ix, 512). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

9. Ferman, I. (2004). The washback of an EFL National Oral Matriculation Test to teaching and learning. In L. Cheng & Y. Watanabe (with A. Curtis) (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 191-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
10. Gorsuch, G. J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: influences on teachers' approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 675- 710.
11. Kang, S. (2004). Using visual organizers to enhance EFL instruction. ELT Journal, 58(1), 58-57.
12. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic.
13. Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
14. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: Routledge Falmer.
15. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
16. McNeil, L. M., & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 127–150). New York: Century Foundation Press.
17. Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Co-constructing representations of culture in ESL and EFL classrooms: Discursive faultlines in Chile and California. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 30-45.
18. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2005, March). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing (No. EPSL- 0503-101-EPRU). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0503-101-EPRU-exec.pdf.
20. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., and Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 105 (1), 75-102.
21. Shepard, L. A., & Doughterty, K. C. (1991). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper for American Educational Research Association AnnualMeeting, Chicago, IL.
22. Shohamy, E. (1998) Critical language testing and beyond, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(4), 331-345.
23. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
24. Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied linguistics, 18, 268-286.
25. Watanabe, M. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a highstakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311–368.
26. Wu, Y.A. (2001). English language teaching in China: Trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 191–94.