Exploring Non-Native English Teachers’ Professional Development Practices

Öz

One-shot professional development activities designed and accomplished without considering teachers’ needs are generally reported to fail to lead to long-lasting changes in terms of teacher growth and learning. Therefore, professional development programs need to be based on the immediate needs of teachers, and designed and directed with teachers’ input. In this regard, this study aims to investigate a group of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development practices in Turkey in order to examine their perceived needs, professional development tools they use, and challenges they face. Data were gathered from 98 non-native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) working in Turkish state schools through the survey instrumentation. The results indicate that many of the EFL teachers were currently engaged in PD activities, but these activities were mostly the in-service seminars or workshops which were considered mostly obligatory. Furthermore, the perceived PD needs were found to be related to “improving classroom management skills”, “using technology”, “applying the FL national standards”, and “building awareness of target culture”

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Professional development, EFL, In-service training, Pre-service teacher education

Exploring Non-Native English Teachers’ Professional Development Practices

Öz

One-shot professional development activities designed and accomplished without considering teachers’ needs are generally reported to fail to lead to long-lasting changes in terms of teacher growth and learning. Therefore, professional development programs need to be based on the immediate needs of teachers, and designed and directed with teachers’ input. In this regard, this study aims to investigate a group of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ professional development practices in Turkey in order to examine their perceived needs, professional development tools they use, and challenges they face. Data were gathered from 98 non-native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) working in Turkish state schools through the survey instrumentation. The results indicate that many of the EFL teachers were currently engaged in PD activities, but these activities were mostly the in-service seminars or workshops which were considered mostly obligatory. Furthermore, the perceived PD needs were found to be related to “improving classroom management skills”, “using technology”, “applying the FL national standards”, and “building awareness of target culture”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Professional development,EFL,In-service training,Pre-service teacher education

Kaynakça

1. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
2. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca. London: Continuum.
3. Anderson, C. A. (2008). A quantitative study of the perceived professional development needs of foreign language teachers employed in rural school districts within the state of South Carolina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Capella University
4. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36(2), 81-109.
5. 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.
6. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1-13.
7. Gelter, H. (2003). Why is reflective thinking uncommon. Reflective Practice 4(3), 337-344.
8. Kohl, A. G. (2005).The professional development needs of K-12 ESL and foreign language teachers: a descriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chapel Hill.

9. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48.
10. Mann, S. (2005). The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching, 38, 103-118.
11. McCarthy, J., & Riley, S. (2000). A new vision for teacher professional development. Leadership, 30 (2), 34-36.
12. Mewborn, D. S. (1999). Reflective thinking among preservice elementarymathematics teachers. Journal for Research in MathematicsEducation, 30 (3), 316 – 341.
13. Oliva, P. F., & Pawlas, G. E. (2001). Supervison for today’s schools (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 23(4), 589-618.
15. Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
16. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
17. Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. New York : Cambridge University Press.
18. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates