Expanding normative ways of reflective thinking and enthusiastic behaviors towards teaching profession

Abstract

Performing reflective procedures is among the attempts to improve the quality of professional development in teacher training process. Reflective procedures are assumed to be functional for increasing normative ways of thinking and for encouraging student teachers to develop more enthusiastic attitudes towards teaching profession. Action research, among such procedures, is used to employ numerous teaching drills and to reflect on the teaching practice. Therefore, this study discusses the importance of action research in teacher training process for developing reflective thinking skills of student teachers and for fostering their enthusiastic attitudes towards professional development. In the study, action research was designed with the participation of the student teachers attending English Language Teaching Department at a Turkish university. The results of this small scaled study demonstrated that action research reasonably contributed to professional innovation and renovation of the student teachers, helped them reflect on their inner thoughts about the process, and increased their enthusiastic behaviors towards teaching practices.

Keywords

• action research,
• reflective thinking,
• enthusiasm,
• teacher training,
• professional development

References

1. Ado, K., (2013). Action research: Professional development to help support and retain early career teachers. Educational Action Research, 21(2), 131-146.
2. Bailey, K. M. (2001). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
3. Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
4. Borg, S., & Sanchez, H. S. (2014). Key issues in doing and supporting language teacher research. In S. Borg & H. S. Sanchez (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher research (pp. 1-13). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, New York: Pearson Education.
6. Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
7. Burns, A. (2013).Innovation through action research and teacher-initiated change. In K. Hyland and L. L. C.Wong (eds.). Innovation and Change in English Language Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
8. Burns, A. (2014). Professional learning in Australian ELICOS: An action research orientation. English Australia Journal, 29(2), 3-20.

9. Burns, A., & Westmacott, A. (2018). Teacher to researcher: Reflections on a new action research program for university EFL teachers. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(1), 15–23.
10. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education for better or for worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3-17.
11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
13. Davis, J., Clayton, C. & Broome, B. (2018). Thinking like researchers: action research and its impact on novice teachers’ thinking. Educational Action Research, 26(1), 59-74.
14. Dikilitaş, K. & Yaylı, D. (2018). Teachers’ professional identity development through action research. ELT Journal, 72 (4), 415-424.
15. Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing language teacher autonomy through action research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2012). Teaching and researching motivation. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
17. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Jayakumar, R., (2016). Opinion of the university teachers towards educational television programmes. American Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1), 45-52.
19. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education. New York: Routledge.
20. Kemmis, S. & McTaggert, R. (1998). The action research planner. Victoria: Deakin University.
21. Kiss, T., (2016). School-based teacher learning: A reflective approach. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 1(2), 50-62.
22. Kostaris, C., Sergis, S., Sampson, D. G., Giannakos, M. Ν., & Pelliccione, L. (2017). Investigating the potential of the flipped classroom model in K-12 ICT teaching and learning: An action research study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 261–273.
23. Marcosa, J., Miguela, E., & Tillemab, H. (2009). Teacher reflection on action: what is said (in research) and what is done (in teaching). Reflective Practice, 10(2), 191-204.
24. Mirzajani, H., B. M. Delaviz, K.M. Rajaby, R. Rezaee, S. Safoora, A.A. Kamalifar and S.H. Razaghi, (2016). Smart schools an innovation in education: Malaysian's experience. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2(1), 11-15.
25. Mitits, L., (2018). Multilingual students in Greek schools: Teachers' views and teaching practices. Journal of Education and eLearning Research, 5(1), 28-36.
26. Nunan, D. & K.Bailey (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. Boston: Heinle.
27. Ryan, T. G. (2016). The pre-service educator as action researcher and leader. Action Researcher in Education, 7, 1–13.
28. Senior, R. M. (2006). The experience of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Stringer, E.T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Vo, T. K. A., V. Pang & L. Kean Wah, (2018). Teaching practicum of an English teacher education program in Vietnam: From expectations to reality. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 3(2), 32-40.