The prospective EFL teachers' impressions towards teaching styles: Foresights for their professions

Yıl 2019, , 1236 - 1251, 31.12.2019

Ayfer Su Bergil , Ayşegül Erçevik

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.668394

Öz

The expanding belief based on many researches and evidences across the world is that the teachers’ quality goes beyond the requirements of what the educational system provide for the whole stakeholders. In this sense, the promising quantity of prospective English as a Foreign Language (EFL) deserves to maintain up to date and comprehensive knowledge of pedagogy which would furnish them with high standard teaching skills and competences. Therefore, this study focuses on delving into the teaching styles of 34 prospective EFL teachers, which will present the pedagogical knowledge of their teaching styles and how they will perform them when they are in action. For this purpose, Grasha's teaching style inventory consisting of 40 items in a 5-point likert-type format was used to collect data. The descriptive statistics in addition to the parametric calculations promoting information related to the prospective EFL teachers in specific and general to attain the personal teaching style preferences of them and a prevailing sight about the disposition of the target prospective EFL teachers of Amasya University are taken into account in the data analysis process. The analysis process announces that the courses aimed to provide the prospective EFL teachers with professionalism should be elaborated and handled meticulously during their faculty education. Furthermore, the association between the teaching style preferences that prospective EFL teachers desire to teach and their real teaching style(s) they exhibit and declare professionally should be regarded by policy makers in the employment process of teachers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

teaching English as a foreign language; teaching styles; Grasha's teaching style

Kaynakça

• Amini, M., Samani, S., & Lotfi, F. (2012). Reviewing Grasha teaching methods among faculty members of Shiraz medical school. Res. Dev. Med. Educ., 1(2), 37-43.
• Arıkan, A. (2016). An examination of the EPOSTL’s potential practical use in Turkey. Artuklu Human and Social Science Journal, 1(1), 76-80.
• Arıkan, R. (2013). Araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri. (2nd Edition). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık
• Brekelmans, M., Levy, J., & Rodriguez, R. (1993). A typology of teacher communication style. In T. Wubbels and J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 46 -55). London: The Falmer Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (6th Edition). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
• Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles and teaching styles: Should they can they be matched?. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238-244.
• Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 3-6. Boston, USA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Evans, C. (2004). Exploring the relationship between cognitive style and teaching. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 509 – 531.
• Evans, C., Harkins, M. J., & Young, J. D. (2008). Exploring teaching styles and cognitive styles: evidence from school teachers in Canada. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 567-582.
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Fischer, B. B., & Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 245-254.
• Grasha, A. F. (1983). Learning Styles: Journey from Greenwich observatory (1769) to the college classroom. Improving College and University Teaching Journal, 32(1), 46–53.
• Grasha, A. F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator and delegator, College Teaching, 42(4), 12- 20.
• Grasha, A. F. (1994). A special section discovering your best teaching styles. College Teaching, 42(4), 122-124.
• Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with style: Enchancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburg, PA: Alliance Publishers.
• Grasha, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of one-on-one teaching. College Teaching, 50(4), 139-146.
• Grasha, A. F. (2003). Teaching with Style: The integration of teaching and learning styles in the classroom. Social Studies, 94(4), 179-187.
• Grosse, C. U. (1986). Teaching and learning styles of ESL student teachers. JALT Journal, 8(1), 37-50.
• Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. San Francisco, America: Jossey-Bass.
• Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.
• Kartal, G., & Başol, H. Ç. (2019). Generic teacher competencies and the English language teacher education program in Turkey. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 13(2), 134-155.
• Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2019). Pre-service EFL teachers' conceptions of language proficiency: entry and exit level qualifications. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 484-495. Doi: 10.17263/jlls.586144 Submission Date:02/10/2018
• Levine, G. (1998). Changing anticipated mathematics teaching style and reducing anxiety for teaching mathematics among pre-service elementary school teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 2(4), 37-46.
• Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
• Önal, A., & Alagözlü, N. (2018). A descriptive study on in-service English language teachers’ perceptions of the European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL) in Turkish setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(3), 56-76.
• Quirk, M. E. (1994). How to learn and teach in medical school: A learner-centered approach. New York, America: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
• Reinsmith, W. A. (1992). Archetypal forms in teaching: A continuum. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.
• Reinsmith, W. A. (1994). Archetypal forms in teaching. College Teaching, 42(4), 131-136.
• Sarıçoban, A. (2015). Metacognitive awareness of pre-service English language teachers in terms of various variables. Elsevier ScienceDirect Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences.
• Sarıçoban, A. (2016). Foreign language teaching practicum beliefs of student teachers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 166-176.
• Sarıçoban, A., & Behjoo Bahram M. (2016). Academic self efficacy and prospective ELT teachers achievement. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 55-62.
• Starbuck, G. H. (2003, April). College teaching styles by gender. Paper presented at Western Social Science Association Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
• Ünal, M. (2017). Öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının öğretme stillerinin farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 932-947.
• Yeşilbursa, A. A. (2017). Reflections from the EFL classroom: Classroom interaction and reflective teacher development. Journal of Language Research, 1(1), 19-24.
• Yüce, E. (2019). EPOSTL: Revisiting the roles of language teachers at a recently established ELT department. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(1). 234-243