İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Hizmet İçi Eğitimlere Yönelik Görüşleri ve İhtiyaçları: Türkiye Bağlamında Bir Durum Çalışması

Öz

Sürekli mesleki gelişim çalışmaları kapsamındaki hizmet içi eğitimler, öğretmenlerin hem alan bilgilerini geliştirmede hem de pratik becerilerini ilerletmede vazgeçilmezdir. Ancak, Türkiye’de yürütülen hizmet içi eğitimlerin etkinliği ve yeterliliği ile ilgili çeşitli kaygılar dile getirilmektedir. Bu düşüncelerin temelinde hizmet içi eğitimlerin sayıca azlığı değil, aksine benzer ve sıkıcı konular üzerinde çokça ve tekrar tekrar yapılan düşük kalitedeki eğitimler yatmaktadır. Bu nedenle, farklı bağlamlarda öğretmenlerin hizmet içi eğitimlere yönelik görüşlerini ve ihtiyaçlarını araştıran veriye dayalı daha fazla çalışmanın yürütülmesine ihtiyaç vardır. Bu kapsamda mevcut çalışma, Türkiye’de bir özel okul zincirinin farklı kampüslerinde çalışan 249 İngilizce öğretmeninin hizmet içi eğitimlere yönelik görüş ve ihtiyaçlarını araştırmaktadır. Karma yöntem çalışması olarak tasarlanmış bu çalışmada, nicel veriler araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen bir anket yoluyla toplanmıştır. Bu veriler, aynı okul zincirinde görev yapan 20 zümre başkanı ile yürütülen odak grup görüşmeleri vasıtasıyla toplanan nitel verilerle desteklenmiştir. Bulgular, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin iyi planlanmış hizmet içi eğitimlerin taşıdığı özellikler hakkındaki görüşlerini ve hizmet içi eğitimlere yönelik ihtiyaçlarını ortaya koymakla beraber hem planlayıcılar hem de öğretmen eğiticilerine yönelik sonuç ve öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngilizce Öğretmenleri,Hizmet içi eğitim,HİE,Eğitim İhtiyaçları

EFL Teachers’ Views and Needs on In-service Training as a Part of Professional Development: A Case Study in Turkish Context

Öz

In-service training (INSET), as one of CPD activities, is an indispensable part of any organized effort to enhance language teachers’ field knowledge as well as their practical skills. However, there are still concerns regarding the effectiveness and sufficiency of INSET programs in Turkey. One of the reasons for any possible inefficiency might be the abundance rather than scarcity in quantity, where content has long been repetitive around similar and currently monotonous topics with limited quality. Therefore, more data-driven research that investigates language teachers’ actual needs and views on in-service training should be conducted in different contexts. Thus, the present study aims to investigate INSET needs and views of 249 private school teachers working at different campuses of the same institution. Designed as a mixed methods research, quantitative data was collected via a questionnaire developed by the researchers which is then followed by focus group interviews of 20 head teachers and team leaders from the same institution. The findings suggest characteristics of a good INSET by underlining teachers’ needs in a training program with implications for teacher trainers and policy makers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• EFL Teachers,In-service training,tranining needs,INSET

Kaynakça

1. Altun, T. (2011). INSET (In-service Education and Training) and professional development of teachers: A comparison of British and Turkish cases. Online Submission. US-China Education Review A6. 846-858.
2. Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139–147.
3. Balbay, S., Pamuk, İ., Temir, T., & Doğan, C. (2018). Issues in pre-service and in-service teacher training programs for university English instructors in Turkey. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 48-60.
4. Bayrakçı, M. (2009). In-service teacher training in Japan and Turkey: A comparative analysis of institutions and practices, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 10-22.
5. Bax, S. (1997). Roles for a teacher educator in context-sensitive teacher education. ELT Journal, 51(3), 232-241.
6. Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. NY: Cambridge University Press.
7. Concannon-Gibney, T. & McCarthy, M. J. (2012). The explicit teaching of reading comprehension in science class: a pilot professional development program. Improving schools, 15(1), 73–88.
8. Çimer, S. O., Çakır, I., & Çimer, A. (2010). Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of in‐service courses on the new curriculum in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 31–41.

9. Daloğlu, A. (2004). A professional development program for primary school English language teachers in Turkey: Designing a materials bank. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 677-690.
10. Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language teaching, 43(2), 182–201.
11. Elyas, T., & Al Grigri, W. H. (2014). Obstacles to teaching English in Saudi Arabia public schools: Teachers’ and supervisors’ perceptions. International Journal of Language Teaching, 2(3), 74-89.
12. Emery, H. (2012). A global study of primary English teachers’ qualifications, training and career development. (ELT Research Paper No.12-08). British Council. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/B487_ELTRP_Emery_ResearchPaper_FINAL_web_V2.pdf
13. Fullan, M. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development in education. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.). Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 253-268). New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. NY: Teachers College Press.
15. Garet, M., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman B. F., & Yoon K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, (38)4, 915–45.
16. Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
17. Gökmenoğlu, T. K. (2012). Teachers’ reports of their in-service training needs and design preferences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
18. Grieve, A. M., & McGinley, B.P. (2010). Enhancing professionalism? Teachers’ voices on continuing professional development in Scotland. Teaching Education, 21(2), 171–184.
19. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, (84)10, 748–50.
20. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, (90)7, 495–500.
21. Hamid, O. (2010). Globalization, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289–310.
22. Hayes, D. (1995). In-service teacher development: Some basic principles. ELT Journal, 49(3), 252–61.
23. Hayes, D. (2000). Cascade training and teachers’ professional development. ELT Journal, 54(2), 135–45.
24. Howell, G. F. & Buck, J. M. (2012). The adult student and course satisfaction: What matters most? Innovative higher education, 37(3), 215–226.
25. Hustler, D., McNamara, O., Jarvis, J., Londra, M., & Campbell, A. (2003). Teachers’ perceptions of continuing professional development (Department of Education and Skills, Research Report No. 429). Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4754/1/16385164-58c6-4f97-b85b-2186b83ede8c.pdf
26. Hockly, N. (2000). Modeling and ‘cognitive apprenticeship’ in teacher education. ELT Journal, 54(2), 118-125.
27. John, P. D. & Gravani, M. N. (2005). Evaluating a ‘new’ in-service professional development programme in Greece: The experiences of tutors and teachers. Journal of In-service Education, 31(1), 105-125.
28. Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving in-service training. Educational leadership, 37(5), 379–385.
29. Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for learning. VA, USA: ASCD.
30. Kiely, R. & Davis, M. (2010). From transmission to transformation: Teacher learning in English for speakers of other languages. Language teaching research, 14(3), 277–295.
31. Kennedy, M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–80.
32. Koç, E. M. (2016). A general investigation of the in-service training of English language teachers at elementary schools in Turkey. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 455–466. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1096582.pdf
33. Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R. (2006). In service training of ELT teachers in Turkey between 1998-2005. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 359-369.
34. Öztürk, G., & Aydın, B. (2019). English Language Teacher Education in Turkey: Why Do We Fail and What Policy Reforms Are Needed? Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(1), 181-213.
35. Paine, L. W. & Fang, Y. P. (2006). Reform as hybrid model of teaching and teacher development in China. International journal of educational research, 45(4–5), 279–289.
36. Rajabi, P., Kiany, G. R., & Maftoon, P. (2012). ESP in-service teacher training programs: Do they change Iranian teachers' beliefs, classroom practices and students' achievements? Ibérica, 24, 261-282.
37. Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Saiti, A., & Saitis, C. (2006). In-service training for teachers who work in full-day schools –evidence from Greece. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(4), 455–470.
39. Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). In-service training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school /university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 815-830.
40. Sokel, F. (2019). The effectiveness of a professional development course: teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal, 73(4), 409–418.
41. Uysal, H. H. (2012). Evaluation of an in-service training program for primary-school language teachers in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(7). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol37/iss7/2
42. Uztosun, M. S. (2018). In-service teacher education in Turkey: English language teachers’ perspectives. Professional Development in Education, 44(4), 557-569, Doi: 10.1080/19415257.2017.1374989
43. Vukelich, C., & Wrenn, L. C. (1999). Quality professional development: What do we think we know? Childhood Education, 75(3), 153-160.
44. Wallace, M. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Waters, A. (2006). Facilitating follow-up in ELT INSET. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 32-52.
46. Waters, A. & Vilches, M. L. C. (2000). Integrating teacher learning: the school-based follow up development activity. ELT Journal, 54(2), 126-134.
47. Wedell, M. (2011). More than just ‘technology’: English language teaching initiatives as complex educational changes. In H. Coleman (Ed). Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English language. London: British Council, 213–234.
48. Wolter, B. (2000). A participant-centered approach to INSET course design. ELT Journal, 54(4), 311-318.
49. Yan, C. (2005). INSET participation and certification: A case study from China. Journal of In-Service Education, 31(3), 471-484.