Continuing professional development process: English language teachers’ views on the role of teacher research

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Continuing professional development process: English language teachers’ views on the role of teacher research
The changing needs of learners drive teachers to improve themselves in terms of professional development (PD). To achieve that, teachers apply to programs such as in-service training (INSET) programs. However, these programs may sometimes fail to respond to the needs of teachers; therefore, “teacher research” (TR) gains importance. A researcher teacher is expected to both engage IN (doing) TR as well as engage WITH (reading) it. Although TR contributes to teachers’ PD, only few studies are available in the Turkish context. Therefore, the current study aimed to reveal English language teachers’ views and practices on TR in the PD process. Twenty-seven English language teachers (19 females, 8 males) working in state schools were interviewed. Data collected through semi-structured interviews were analyzed via content analysis. From Richards and Farrell’s (2009) list of eleven tools for PD, only workshop was mentioned to be applied for their PD, meaning that teachers adopted input transfer activities although they saw themselves responsible for their PD. Additionally, although the majority of teachers favored the benefits of TR, none of them was found to do research, justifying Borg’s (2006) ten conditions for TR. The findings of the study have implications for English teachers, teacher trainers, curriculum developers, and policy-makers.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Yeşilçınar, Sabahattin
Affiliated institution (University)	Gazi University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	Foreign Language Education
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Çakır, Abdülvahit
Affiliated institution (University)	Gazi University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	Foreign Language Education
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	No
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• Teacher Research,Professional Development,Teachers' Research Engagement,INSET

Kaynakça

1. Allison, D. & Carey, J. (2007). What do university language teachers say about language teaching research? TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 61 81.
2. Atay, D. (2007). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139-147.
3. Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top, McKinsey & Co.
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. Borg, S. (2006). Conditions for teacher research. English Teaching Forum, 44(4), 22-27.
6. Borg, S. (2007). Research engagement in English language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 731–747.
7. Borg, S. (2008). English language teachers‟ beliefs about research: Perspectives from the Netherlands. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 9(3), 3-13.
8. Borg, S. (2009). English Language Teachers‟ Conceptions of Research. Applied Linguistics 30(3), 358–388. doi:10.1093/applin/amp007.

9. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Craig, D.V. (2009). Action Research Essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
12. Çelik, S., & Dikilitaş, K. (2015). Action research as a professional development strategy. In International perspectives on teacher research (pp. 125-138). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
13. Farrell, T.S.C. & Jacobs, G (2010). Essentials in Language Teaching. London: Continuum Press.
14. Francis, S., Hirsh, S., & Rowland, E. (1994). Improving school culture through study groups. Journal of Staff Development, 15, 12-12.
15. Furlong, J., & Salisbury, J. (2005). Best practice research scholarships: An evaluation. Research Papers in Education, 20(1), 45–83.
16. Genç, G. (2010). İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Mesleki Gelişim Sürecinin Önünde Algıladıkları Başlıca Engeller: Malatya İli Örneği. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(31), 103-117.
17. Ganz, J. (2008). Self-monitoring across age and ability levels: Teaching students to implement their own positive behavioral interventions. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 39–48.
18. Gu, L. & Wang, J. (2006). School-based research and professional learning: An innovative model to promote teacher professional development in China. Teaching Education, 17, 59-73.
19. Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. & Yanowitz, C. L. (2009). Who is conducting teacher research? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 415-424.
20. Hiep, P. H. (2006). Researching the research culture in English language education in Vietnam. TESLEJ, 10(2), 1-20.
21. Kartal, G., & Simşek, H. (2011). Teachers' Professional Development Tools: Importance and Usage. In Akbarov, A. (2011). Languages for Specific Purposes in Theory and Practice. (pp. 246-258) Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge & Scholar Publishing
22. Kaya, A., Çepni, S., Küçük, M., (2004). Fizik Öğretmenleri için Üniversite Destekli Bir Hizmet İçi Eğitim Model Önerisi, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1).
23. Kirkwood, M. & Christie, D. (2006). The Role of Teacher Research in Contınuıng Professıonal Development. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54: 429–448.
24. Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R. (2006). In service Training of ELT Teachers in Turkey Between 1998-2005. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 359-369.
25. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26. Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. McAlpine, L. & Saroyan, A. (2004). Toward a Comprehensive Framework of Faculty Development. In A. Sorayan & C. Amundsen (Eds.). Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
28. McBee, M. (2004) The classroom as laboratory: An exploration of teacher research, Roeper Review, 27(1), 52-58, DOI: 10.1080/02783190409554288.
29. MoNE (2006). Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü Retrieved on December 19, 2015 from: http://otmg.meb.gov.tr.
30. MoNE (2008). Okul Temelli Bireysel ve Mesleki Gelişim Programının Verimliliğinin Belirlenmesi, Ankara. Retrieved on November, 24, 2015 from: http://otmg.meb.gov.tr/belgeler/otmg/2008_otmg_raporson.pdf
31. MoNE (2014). 2013 yılı hizmetiçi eğitim faaliyet raporu. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, Türkiye. Retrieved on December 02, 2015 from: http://oyegm.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/FaaliyetRaporu_2013.pdf
32. Mete, Y.A. (2013) Güney Kore, Japonya, Yeni Zelanda ve Finlandiya‟da Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Atama Politikalari. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(12).
33. Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle.
34. Odabașı-Çimer, S., Çakır, İ. & 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.
35. OECD (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Retrieved on December 23, 2015 from: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/34990905.pdf
36. OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD: Paris.
37. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
38. Price, J. N., & Valli, L. (2005). Preservice teachers becoming agents of change: Pedagogical implications for action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 57–72.
39. Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to social research–quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
40. Rhodes, C., Stokes, M., Hampton, G. (2004). A Practical Guide to Mentoring, Coaching and PeerNetworking, London: Routledge Falmer
41. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave, MAcmillan.
42. Richards, K. 2009. „Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000,‟ Language Teaching 42: 147–80.
43. Richards, Jack C., and Farrell, T. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
44. Richards, J., & Farrell, T. (2009). Professional Development for Language Techers, New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Rosiek, J., & Atkinson, B. (2005). Bridging the divides: The need for a pragmatic semiotics of teacher knowledge research. Educational Theory, 55, 421–442.
46. Ruthven, K. (2005). Improving the development and warranting of good practice in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 407–426.
47. Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). In-service training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership, Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 815-830.
48. Seferoğlu, S. S. (2003). Öğretmenlerin hizmet içi eğitiminde yeni yaklaşımlar, Çağdaş Eğitim Sistemlerinde Öğretmen Yetiştirme Ulusal Sempozyumu, Eğitimde Yansımalar: VII, s. 149-167.
49. Seferoğlu, S. S. (2012). Dijital yerliler, dijital göçmenler ve FATİH projesine yansımalar. Geleneksel Bilişim Günleri (Çağrılı Konuşmacı), 7-12 Mayıs 2012, Çankaya Halk Eğitim Merkezi ve Akşam Sanat Okulu, Ankara.
50. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Trochim, W. & Donnelly., J. P. (2007). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, (3rd Edition). Cincinnati, OH, Atomic Dog Publishing.
52. 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), 14-31.
53. Yağcı, E. (2003). Türkiye‟de öğretmenlerin hizmet içi eğitimi uygulamaları, sorunları ve öneriler, Eğitimde yansımalar:VII Çağdaş Eğitim Sistemlerinde Öğretmen Yetiştirme Sempozyumu, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Kültür Merkezi, ss.10-12.
54. Zeichner, M. K., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 293-330). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
55. Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-326.