Teaching Education

ISSN: 1047-6210 (Print) 1470-1286 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: a

case study of Turkish preservice English teachers

Şevki Kömür

To cite this article: Şevki Kömür (2010) Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: a
case study of Turkish preservice English teachers, Teaching Education, 21:3, 279-296, DOI:
10.1080/10476210.2010.498579

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2010.498579

Published online: 03 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1560

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cted20
Teaching Education
Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2010, 279–296

Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: a case study of

Turkish preservice English teachers
Şevki Kömür*
S
][cledi

ELT Department, Mu ğla University, Mu ğla, Turkey

g[berv] g[berv]

(Received 27 August 2009; final version received 12 April 2010)

Taylor and Francis
CTED_A_498579.sgm

Teaching
10.1080/10476210.2010.498579
1047-6210
Original
Taylor
302010
21
sevki_komur@yahoo.com
SevkiKomur
00000September
&Article
Francis
Education
(print)/1470-1286
2010 (online)

What is the relationship between preservice teachers’ teaching knowledge and

self-rating of competencies and their practicum experience? The participants of
this study are fourth year students in the Department of English Language
Education of the Faculty of Education, Muğla University, Turkey. Three data
geb[vre]

collection instruments were used: the Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT), the
Teacher Competency Scale, and an open-ended questionnaire based on the sub-
dimensions of the TKT test. The questionnaire, given to the student teachers at the
end of their teaching practicum, aimed to explore the strengths and weaknesses
preservice English teachers perceived during their real classroom experiences. The
results of the TKT and Teacher Competency Scale showed that student teachers
acquired means above the average. However, the qualitative data indicate that the
scores obtained were not reflected in their actual classroom teaching.
Keywords: teaching knowledge; teacher competencies; language teacher
education; teaching practicum; Turkish preservice English teacher education

Introduction
It is important that teachers should develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions in
order to be effective in the classroom (e.g., knowledge of classroom management,
human development, and curricular goals, context of learning, and pedagogical
content knowledge that is specific to teaching a particular subject; see Goodnough &
Hung, 2009). There is considerable current policy concern with the improvement of
teacher quality (Clarke, 2001; Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001; Garm & Karlsen, 2004;
Korthagen, 2004; Smith, 2008). Parallel to the developments in teacher education
worldwide, Turkey has undergone radical changes in teacher education. Deniz and
Ş ahin (2006) investigated the 1997 restructuring process of the teacher training
S[]celdi

system in Turkey by highlighting the nature of reforms and restructuring process in

the framework of postgraduate teacher education (PGTE). In a more recent study,
Guven (2008) discussed the issues and challenges of Turkish teacher education in
connection with teacher education reform and the global shift towards school-based
management and centralized forms of accountability of teacher competence.
In Turkey, recent research has dealt with preservice English teachers’ needs in prac-
tice teaching (Yılmaz, 2003), and problems they face during the practice teaching expe-
rience (Ekmekçi, 1984). Seferoglu (2004, 2006) explored alternative English-teacher

*Email: sevki_komur@yahoo.com

ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2010.498579
http://www.informaworld.com
280 Ş. Kömür

certification practices and teacher candidates’ reflections on these education programs.

Kırkgöz (2008) studied the implementation of curriculum innovation in English
language teaching in Turkish primary education and Başyurt-Tuzel and Akcan (2009)
]csel[di

examined the challenges that non-native preservice English teachers experience in their
target language use when they do their practicum in actual language classrooms.
Although there have been improvements in preservice teacher education, the
connection between theory and practice has not been efficiently established yet. For
this reason, there is a current focus on helping preservice English teachers connect
learning in the faculty courses with the complexities with actual classroom teaching.
This article aims to evaluate Turkish preservice English teachers’ teaching knowl-
edge, teacher competencies and their reflections about the practicum by seeking
answers to the following research question: What is the relationship between teacher
knowledge and self-rating of competencies and their practicum experience? A cohort
of preservice English teachers at Muğla University was rated according to a Teaching
geb[vre]

Knowledge Test (TKT) and Teacher Competency Scale. They were also surveyed on
difficulties or ease in teaching grammar, language skills, and classroom management
during the teaching practicum and asked about future preferred strategies. Although
preservice English teachers scored acceptable means in the dimensions of the TKT
and Teacher Competency Scale, these ratings were not directly reflected in the practi-
cum. I conclude that language teacher training programs require a better integration of
theory into practice in actual teaching environments by providing more feedback
sessions for teacher candidates.

Teaching knowledge and competency

What teachers know and the skills they use to apply that information are generally
defined as teaching knowledge (Shulman, 1987; Turner-Bisset, 1999, 2001).
Johnson and Goettsch (2000) place the specific knowledge that teachers possess
into three categories: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of
learners. These three categories are intertwined in complex ways as they are played
out in the classroom and in teacher thinking. Johnston and Goettsch (2000) define
the knowledge that language teachers have about their subject matter as ‘content
knowledge’, Golombek (1998, p. 451) refers to it as ‘subject knowledge’. But, they
use the same term for ‘knowledge of instruction’ by referring to it as ‘pedagogical
knowledge’. Teacher knowledge implies that what is known is special to teachers as
a group, but the term teaching knowledge is a type of knowledge related to the
activities of teaching (Buchmann, 1986). As Freeman (1989) and Tedick and
Walker (1995) indicated, the education of an English as a foreign language (EFL)
teacher is a specialized case: it tends to focus on theoretical pedagogical knowledge
and on English language skills based in grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax,
and lexicon of the language. Without this content knowledge, it is not possible for
language teachers to judge themselves competent enough to master language skills
successfully.
The English teacher education program, initiated in Turkey in 1997 and then
revised in accordance with the development in teacher education in 2006, is designed
to emphasise teaching methodology and teaching practice (Seferoglu, 2006), and it
requires language teachers to be trained to be communicatively competent to teach
the target language. This program requires the development of base level daily
communication ability for a learning environment where the classroom situations are
 Teaching Education 281

established within the context of games and dialogues. The aim is to engage pupils
while they are learning English (Kırkgöz, 2005, 2008).

Reflection in teacher education

Practicum provides opportunities for student teachers to develop their pedagogical
skills (Leshem & Bar-Hama, 2008). In this context, reflection plays a significant role
in teacher education. Zeichner (1996, as cited in Freese, 2006, p. 102) views reflection
as an essential component for bringing understanding to the complex nature of the
classroom.
In the case of L2 teacher education, Akbari (2007) discusses a variety of activities
that can foster reflection and inquiry. Freeman (1989) and Johnson (1992) indicate
that, without a better understanding of how preservice language teachers conceptual-
ize their initial teaching experiences and what impact these experiences have on their
professional development as teachers, the field of language teacher education will
continue to operate without a grounded theoretical framework for how to teach
student teachers to teach.

Method
In order to address the research questions above, a mixed-methods research design
was used. In this study, which involved fourth-year students of the Department of
English Language Education, both quantitative and qualitative data-collection instru-
ments were used to evaluate the teaching knowledge and teacher competencies of
Turkish preservice English teachers and their reflections about teaching practicum.

Sampling
The participants were 39 fourth-year Turkish preservice English teachers. They
ranged in age from 21- to 23-years-old. There were 28 female and 11 male partici-
pants in the study.

Instruments
The Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT), Teacher Competency Scale, and an open-ended
questionnaire were used to gather data for the study.

The TKT
The TKT was developed by the University of Cambridge English for Speakers of
Other Languages (ESOL) Department for English teachers working with speakers of
other languages. It aims to examine the teacher candidates’ knowledge of concepts
related to language, language use, and background and practice of language teaching
and learning. The test is organized by dimensions of language understanding and
reviews students’ backgrounds in language learning and teaching – such as describing
language and language skills. The following 14 dimensions are included: grammatical
terms and structures, lexical categories, phonology, language functions, speaking
subskills, reading and writing subskills, learning styles, teacher’s decisions regarding
282 Ş. Kömür

considerations about language learning and coursebook, assessment, presentation,

and classroom activities with the main purpose of teaching (Spratt, Pulverness, &
Williams, 2005). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the TKT was
found to be 0.609.

The Scale of Teacher Competencies

A 38-item Teacher Competency Scale (see Appendix A) was used to calculate the
student teachers’ scores related to their understanding of teaching and learning
processes. Their responses were categorized into scores of ‘enough’, ‘partially
enough’, and ‘not enough’. The scale was developed by Ş eker, Deniz, and Gorgen
S
][cledi

(2004) and took into account the criteria used in the Evaluation Form of Teaching
Practicum, developed by the Turkish Higher Education Council (YOK). This scale
analyzes the extent to which students reflect on their teacher competencies before
being assigned to real classrooms. Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the scale was found
to be 0.9169, and the two-split half-reliability score was 0.8783.

The open-ended questionnaire

The questionnaire (see Appendix B), developed by the researcher, was aimed at
obtaining the preservice English teachers’ reflections on whether or not they experi-
enced difficulties during their practicum in relation to teaching grammar, language
skills, and classroom management (areas targeted on the TKT). When the preservice
English teachers completed their 14-week teaching practicum, they were asked to
complete and return the open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed
via email attachment. Of the 39 student teachers, 32 completed the questionnaire.
With this questionnaire, the student teachers reflected on their initial teaching experi-
ences during the practicum.

Data analysis
For the purposes of this study, the acquired data were analyzed by employing quanti-
tative and qualitative methods. The student teachers’ means in TKT Module 1 were
calculated according to four-band descriptors provided by University of Cambridge
ESOL Examinations and the mean scores for each dimension in TKT Module 1 were
given (see Table 2). Of the four bands provided, Band 1 ranks the candidate’s basic
knowledge of areas on the Module 1 syllabus, i.e., language systems and background
to language learning and teaching, as being limited in familiarity with the areas
tested. A Band 2 score means the student teacher shows familiarity with some of the
concepts, terminology, practices and processes tested in TKT Module 1. If ranked
within Band 3, the candidate shows familiarity with most of the concepts, terminol-
ogy, practices and processes tested. Finally, Band 4 represents a full range of famil-
iarity with the concepts, terminology, practices and processes tested in Module 1 of
the TKT. If ranked in this band, the candidate is able to relate existing knowledge
both to familiar and unfamiliar classroom situations. The TKT scores of the student
teachers were calculated as 4 (Band 4) if they responded to all the items in each
dimension and then 3, 2 and 1 accordingly. It is also of note that in order to take this
test, it is not essential to have teaching experience. The suggested minimum language
level for an individual taking the test is equivalent to Council of Europe B1 and the
 Teaching Education 283

teaching-age group for the students of that individual can be primary, secondary or
adults.
Total scores on the Teacher Competency Scale were calculated by giving three
points to the ‘enough’ option; two to the ‘partially enough’ response, and one point to
‘not enough’. The lowest number of points obtained from the scale is 38, and the high-
est is 114. In so doing, the scores obtained were standardized.
The difficulties and challenges that preservice English teachers experienced during
practicum and the strategies they intended to apply as solutions to these difficulties
were grouped under the following four themes: (1) teaching grammar terms and struc-
tures; (2) language skills; (3) classroom management; and (4) strategies for improve-
ment upon actual teaching practices. After coding of the qualitative data was complete,
the researcher and an independent rater – a faculty colleague in the Educational
Sciences Department – each separately coded the data. The inter-rater reliability for
the classification of the categories was found to be 0.90.

Findings and discussion

What is the relationship between teacher knowledge and self-rating of competencies
and their practicum experience?
The maximum score the student teachers could obtain would be 114 if they
responded to all the items as ‘enough’. Likewise, if all the items were responded to as
‘partially enough’, a score of 76 would be given; and if all responses were ‘not
enough’, a score of 38 would be obtained. In this study, the average score of the self-
perceived teacher competencies of fourth-year ELT students was 102.72 out of a
possible 114 points. When the highest possible score was considered, about 70 % of
the participants received scores over 100 from the scale and the lowest score was 87.
It suggests that the ELT students felt sufficiently equipped in the teacher competency
areas before beginning their practicum.
The average score calculated for the TKT Module 1 was 3.63, which means that
student teachers fell very close to Band 4, or full range of familiarity with the subject
area. Band 4 also suggests that the candidate could deal with describing language and
language skills, factors in the language learning process, and the range of methods,
tasks and activities available to the language teacher. According to these findings, the
scores for teacher competencies and teacher knowledge were high, and thus can be
considered sufficient for entering the classroom based on current models for language
teacher education.
Table 2 illustrates the student teachers’ average teaching-knowledge means within
the 14 dimensions found in the TKT. The TKT band means of the student teachers
were obtained by examining their correct answers in each dimension with a reference
to descriptions in the four-band scale provided by the test developer. Numbers of
questions in each dimension and the standard deviation values of the points obtained
from the TKT are also noted.

Table 1. Students’ Teaching Knowledge Test and Teacher Competency Scale scores.
Mean score Standard deviation
TKT (based on four-band ) 3.63 0.19
Teacher competency 102.72 6.57
284 Ş. Kömür

Table 2. Students’ Teaching Knowledge Test results by dimension based on four-band

descriptors.
No. of Means Standard deviation
Dimensions questions of scores of scores
Grammatical terms 5 4.00 0.00
Grammatical structures 5 3.85 0.37
Lexical categories 6 3.77 0.43
Phonology 8 2.58 0.64
Language functions 6 4.00 0.00
Speaking subskills 5 4.00 0.00
Reading and writing subskills 5 3.50 0.98
Learning styles 5 3.96 0.20
Teacher’s decisions regarding 5 3.85 0.37
considerations about language learning
Language learning 5 2.46 0.30
Coursebook activities 8 3.88 0.33
Assessment activities 6 3.73 0.53
Presentation activities 5 3.54 0.86
Classroom activities with the main 6 3.77 0.65
purpose of teaching

According to the results, the highest means were obtained in the dimensions of:
grammatical terms (4), language functions (4) and speaking subskills (4). They are
followed by: learning styles (3.96), coursebook activities (3.88), grammatical struc-
tures and teacher’s decisions regarding consideration about language learning
(3.85), lexical categories and classroom activities with main purpose of teaching
(3.77), and assessment activities (3.73). Two dimensions in the test received consid-
erably lower means than the other dimensions. They are language learning (2.46) and
phonology (2.58). A possible reason for the lower mean scores could be that, although
the student teachers had already attended courses such as ‘Linguistics I’ and ‘II’ and
‘Learning strategies’, the contents of these courses may not have corresponded to the
contents of the TKT.
On the other hand, this result might serve as feedback for the current syllabi of
these courses and their need for revision. Seferoglu (2006) goes further to suggest
that the entire preservice teacher education program, including the types of courses
offered, course contents, teaching learning and teaching processes, be tailored
accordingly. This is in line with the observation that the theory–practice balance in
teacher-training programs was not adequate. The participants had already taken
intensive courses in teacher education and they had practiced teaching in method-
ology courses in front of their peers. The areas that cover language learning
(second language acquisition) and phonology dimensions are mostly theory-based
and might have remained abstract in the student teachers’ minds. These areas of
language teaching require more attention by teacher-training programs and teacher
educators.
One way of dealing with these issues in language teacher education might be to
highlight what the student teachers think or perceive to be their competencies in
the teaching profession. According to Bandura (1993, 1997), teachers’ perceived
 Teaching Education 285

capabilities in teaching appear to have a direct impact on teaching practices (as cited
in Chacón, 2005, p. 257).
When the data obtained through the open-ended questionnaire were analyzed, it was
observed that preservice English teachers had experienced difficulties in teaching gram-
mar, language skills, and classroom management during the practicum. This is even
though they obtained acceptable mean scores on the TKT and Teacher Competency
Scale and did well in courses in the English language teacher training program when
their faculty grades were examined.

Difficulties in teaching grammar terms

It became clear that nearly all the student teachers answered the questions in this
dimension correctly (corresponding to Band 4). To see if there was a positive correla-
tion between the high scores and actual classroom performance, the student teachers
were asked whether they experienced any difficulties in the teaching of grammar
terms during the practicum. Twenty-three student teachers out of the 32 surveyed
expressed that they had experienced difficulties. Some of the difficulties they faced
were as follows:

ST1: Students are not familiar with grammar terms. They are accustomed to Turkish
terms. It is difficult to give information on rules.
ST8: Students are not familiar with grammar terms. Teaching in English is difficult.
ST13: Before practicum, I planned not to teach grammar directly, but unfortunately, I
had to. The education system and teachers make them get used to this situation.
ST31: They are so difficult for the students. They do not know them even in Turkish.

The concerns mentioned above show that there was a negative transfer from the
native language into foreign language grammar learning for the primary school
students, causing difficulties for both the student teachers and the classroom students.
Moreover, when the difficulties faced in learning and teaching processes are taken
into account, the following observations are made by the preservice English teachers:

ST6: It is difficult to use grammar terms correctly, and it was hard for me to detect
students’ grammatical mistakes.
ST12: I had difficulty in explaining grammar terms. Students did not understand, and
they needed more examples.
ST14: I had problems in explaining action and stative verbs. The problem was with the
exceptions. It took time to finish the topic. Auxiliaries were also a problem.

Student teachers experienced difficulties in correcting grammatical mistakes in

their pupils even though the student teachers tested competently in those areas. In
addition, some student teachers expressed that their primary school students memo-
rized or confused the grammar terms, as they did not have enough background in the
target language. The concerns regarding this point were cited as follows:

ST10: Students memorize names of the grammar terms, but they do not know their
usages.
ST11: I did not mention grammar terms because students are confused after hearing
them (abstract entities).
ST17: Students do not know grammar terms (e.g., auxiliary verbs).
ST24: They are complicated for students. I managed to teach them with the help of the
mother tongue.
286 Ş. Kömür

Some student teachers indicated different, more personal problems in teaching

grammar, unlike the aforementioned problems:

ST23: I got bored while teaching grammar.

ST20: It is a broad area; we need to read a lot.
ST21: They were sometimes confusing for me. I need a check from a grammar book.
ST30: I had some difficulties because of my own lack of English.

The student teachers generally expressed that they experienced difficulties in

teaching grammar terms. Additionally, they asserted that they experienced difficulties
during practicum because the students they taught had negative transfers from their
own mother tongue and a lack of background knowledge in the target language. Since
this is a realistic situation an incoming teacher might face, the teaching knowledge and
teacher competencies alone do not seem to be sufficient to face the difficulties
encountered.
Porter and Taylor (2003) think that, although teaching experience is vital as it
allows an extended period of time in the classroom, it has its limitations: it often lacks
a direct link to a body of knowledge (course content) that preservice teachers are
studying. Furthermore, Johnson (1996) states that theory can inform classroom prac-
tice only to the extent that teachers themselves make sense of that theory through
experiential learning in the language classroom. The result may be, as seen in the
sample in this study, future teachers who have studied appropriate language teaching
content but who have never explicitly connected that knowledge to actual classroom
teaching.

Difficulties in teaching grammar structures

Preservice English teachers gave the following reactions regarding teaching grammar
structures and the resulting difficulties with their primary school students because of
their language preparation:

ST1: … Students want rules. It causes problems to teach structures implicitly,

students treat grammar as an end.
ST10: Students memorize the structures and use them easily.
ST12: Students are accustomed to learning through formulas; they had difficulty in
inductive learning when there is no formula.

It is observed that students prefer to learn language through grammar rules.

However, this learning style is known to hinder the implementation of communicative
language teaching – the style of teaching the student teachers are encouraged to
administer. To this end, the comments of preservice English teachers are as follows:

ST15: … I always taught grammar during the practicum… it was sometimes easy,
sometimes killing… main problem: how to teach? Inductively? They want to
see the rule first, want to learn deductively… They are afraid of making
mistakes.
ST31: the most difficult job during the practicum… teaching indirectly is impossible.
But teaching directly leads to memorization.
ST32: I taught with games and inductively so had no problems.

Although the primary school students favored deductive teaching in grammar,

student teachers opted for teaching grammar inductively as integrated into other
 Teaching Education 287

language activities in the classroom. Why the primary school students prefer rote-
learning and memorizations can be best accounted for by looking at the following
reflections of the student teachers:

ST 6: It is difficult to give examples for grammar structures… I need preparation

before the lesson… It is difficult to adjust level according to the students.
ST 25: I explain them with simple examples.
ST 30: Getting prepared is very important for teaching grammar structures.

The difficulties and challenges the preservice English teachers experienced in

teaching grammar during the practicum might be due to the fact that the primary
school students were not yet able to form sentences in the target language; thus they
preferred rote-learning. As Borg (2003, p. 86) points out, language teachers need not
only linguistic knowledge but also the ability to utilize and deploy this knowledge for
pedagogical purposes. Although student teachers are trained to teach the target
language communicatively, their own knowledge and beliefs in teaching shape their
instructional decisions (Cheng, Chan, Tang, & Cheng, 2009; Farrell & Kun, 2007;
Mattheoudakis, 2007; Peacock, 2001). This is another example of the theory–practice
dilemma.

Difficulties in teaching language skills

The student teachers expressed the following thoughts regarding teaching language
skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing):

ST1: … students were accustomed to listening activities… I tried to improve their

understanding.
ST2: … I had no chance to do listening activities… only with slowing down the pace
of the speech student could get the gist of listening text.
ST8: … big problem in listening. … the students can’t catch up with the pace of
listening material.
ST15: Reading is easier… they don’t like listening, find everything fast…
ST17: … they can’t listen to a speech because they are lacking in listening strategies.
They do reading falteringly.
ST21: … reading subskill is given some importance but for listening and writing there
are no activities.
ST25: … Students have difficulty in working out the sounds…
ST32: Difficult to teach listening. Sometimes I lost the control of class in speaking…
Teaching reading and writing is easier.

From the comments, it is clear that the student teachers had difficulties in teaching
listening skills to their students. According to them, the teaching of listening in the
language classroom is difficult and this difficulty mostly originates from the lack of
materials, classroom management, and the speech rate and slowness of the pupils in
following listening texts and finding the main idea in the text studied. For these
reasons, the student teachers prefer reading and writing activities instead. They
expressed this point by stating:

ST14: … My mentor neglected listening activities. Tried to carry out simple listening
activities but students made little progress…
ST12: I didn’t focus on listening due to lack of time…
288 Ş. Kömür

In addition, some preservice teachers view listening as a waste of time and did not
spare time for listening activities. Thus, their students were left without instruction
and experience in this key area of language development.
Unlike the problems in teaching listening, student teachers mention fewer difficul-
ties in teaching reading skills. The observations and comments made by the student
teachers are cited below:

ST10: … they like reading… no problem in reading.

ST15: reading is easier.
ST32: classroom management is easier in reading activities.
ST22: Students are bad at these skills as they don’t have enough grammatical
knowledge.

Student teachers present some difficulties in teaching writing skills, though they
are fewer than those of listening skills:

ST1: Due to the lack of time I could not spare time for writing.
ST2: … I did not study writing.
ST7: Students have difficulties in listening. … But they are good at reading, under-
standing and inferring the message… they have some weaknesses in writing.
They need help and support.
ST15: … writing is not problematic in book activities but when you want something
original it is a problem then.

One can see that the preservice English teachers did not devote much time to writ-
ing skills in their practicum. Of the three language skills, they most often spare time
for reading activities. According to student teachers, the source of the difficulties lies
in the classroom students themselves. Although student teachers did not reveal any
problems in coursebook writing activities, they do mention problems in achieving
original writings. The reason might lie in the fact that the primary school students do
not have the required basic skills in listening and writing and, hence, they cling to the
coursebook reading activities. In teaching listening and writing, the student teachers
might not have put their competencies into performance. Being theoretically knowl-
edgeable and competent does not mean it will be directly reflected in coping with
problems in practice.

Difficulties in classroom management

The challenges and problems preservice English teachers experienced during class-
room management were also obtained through the open-ended survey questions:

ST1: … so many problems in classroom management. Students didn’t respect each

other. They didn’t see us as teachers… It was difficult to settle the class down.
ST6: It is the problematic area. The students didn’t take us seriously. Providing
silence and presenting activities were not easy. … I had to shout.
ST12: Lots of problems… student didn’t take us seriously as their teacher…

The fact that the primary school students did not take them seriously as regular
teachers is the most often-cited problem for the student teachers. Also, teaching young
children is given as another challenge in terms of classroom management. Here are
some additional thoughts expressed by the student teachers:
 Teaching Education 289

ST16: …students are very young and their attention span is very limited. … They get
bored easily… I sometimes felt very inexperienced…
ST27: …a bit problematic with young learners… they were so energetic.

Furthermore, the student teachers reported some specific problems in classroom

management. The following are some of them:

ST14: Sometimes I gave too much freedom to students… Made jokes… This made
them uncontrollable. … They had discipline problems.
ST21: …they can lose control with game-like activities.
ST29: I was afraid of being unsuccessful in controlling the class…

Additionally, some student teachers said that the crowded classroom made class-
room management difficult. The following feelings speak to this aspect:

ST3: … since the class was crowded and students are very young it was problematic
for me…
ST12: students do not see a student teacher as a regular teacher… classrooms are too
crowded…

Common problems and obstacles reported in classroom management can be

summarized as follows:

● Students did not respect each other.

● Classrooms were crowded.
● Students did not take student teachers seriously as we were not regular teachers.
● Classroom rules should be set beforehand with the participation of the students.
● Sometimes, student teachers gave too much freedom to the students. This made
the classroom uncontrollable.
● It was difficult to adjust and control voice in the classroom.
● Attention span of the students posed a threat to the lesson as they were young
learners.

Contrary to other dimensions, student teachers did not see themselves as compe-
tent enough in classroom management. While some of the obstacles presented are
outside of the student teachers’ control, others point to a need for more training and
experience in the area of classroom management. It may be, as Johnson (1992)
argued, that novice teachers have not developed a schema for interpreting and coping
with what goes on during instruction, nor do they possess a repertoire of instructional
routines upon which they can rely.
This insecurity in certain competency areas is also seen in some of the comments
regarding assessment activities:

ST7: …not enough assessment activities in the book… students want to see they have
achieved but can’t…
ST13: process based assessment is better but not easy. Teachers should be educated in
this.
ST14: I did not use assessment activities frequently… limited questions only.
ST16: I didn’t have enough opportunity to see how they are assessed.

In connection with presentation activities, the student teachers were queried as to

whether or not they experienced any problems. Unlike with teaching grammar and
290 Ş. Kömür

language skills, or with classroom management and assessment, no one reported any
major problems in presentation activities. The following were the student teachers’
experiences with presentation activities:

ST1: No problems after planning the teaching process and preparing the materials.
ST7: I liked presentation activities most. Created sense of interest and intrinsically
motivated the students…
ST12: I followed the course book… presentation activities were good.
ST16: …tried to use different materials and gestures effectively to activate students’
all senses.
ST20: Thanks to the presentation activities done in faculty education. I had no
difficulty…

Most of the student teachers reported ideas similar to the above statements.
Contrary to this, one student teacher expressed that:

ST 17: … sometimes presentation activities did not work because student were unwill-
ing to learn English …

When the previous statements are taken into account, it becomes clear that nearly
all student teachers experienced ease in terms of presentation activities. The fact that
they felt competent in presentation activities can be attributed to the task being done
by the student teachers independent of student-to-teacher interaction. Also, as
mentioned earlier, student teachers get experience in teacher training courses both
learning how to present and conducting presentations in front of their peers prior to
entering the language classroom.
From the reflections regarding other dimensions such as grammar, listening and
writing, and, to a lesser extent, reading skills, it can be deduced that student teachers
experienced difficulties in teaching practicum. Many preservice teachers felt that the
source of problems lies in the primary school students themselves. There are two
major elements in the practicum language classroom: the primary school students and
the student teachers. The former seem to be insufficient in grammar, listening and
writing and are mostly doing coursebook-bound reading activities. The latter, the
student teachers, do not spare enough time for listening and writing activities and it is
observed that they do not find the students to be ‘good’ in grammar and reading.
In-classroom experience and reflections were vital to the students’ understanding
of where their teaching knowledge and competence in theory may not connect with
their teaching practice. As Brandt (2006) indicates, allowing for practice can provide
new teachers with opportunities to experiment and make errors free of the burden and
distraction of assessment, and the possibility for student teachers to begin to develop
the capacity and empathy to cope with many problems in different learning and teach-
ing environments.
It is worth noting that nearly all the student teachers are aware of their strengths
and weaknesses in teaching. Six student teachers reported that development in the
teaching profession is a matter of time and experience. Sample comments regarding
this aspect are as follows:

ST1: There are lots of things to be learnt. I am not good at classroom management. I
cannot fix the problems as quickly as needed. Experience and time will solve them.
ST6: I am inexperienced and have difficulties in controlling class. The key is
experience.
 Teaching Education 291

ST20: I try to be more experienced because books do not give all the solutions.
ST25: I try to be more experienced, read a lot and find different techniques.

Additionally, student teachers suggested referring to journals, magazines and

websites in order to keep themselves up-to-date with the latest developments in
English language teaching (ELT). Some ideas are:

ST5: I had problems in classroom management. I will join ELT forums, read articles
for that and I will never lose enthusiasm.
ST7: I need more practice. I will read about the latest developments in ELT.
ST8: I will follow the newly-published articles in the area.
ST11: I will subscribe to the updated website forums to argue the ideas with other
colleagues all around the world. I will participate in online lectures.
ST12: I follow the developments in ELT.
ST18: I will read a lot about classroom management; I will find different techniques
and choose the most suitable ones for my students.

Well-preparedness and planning are strategies that the student teachers mentioned
for professional development. Some other interesting ideas shared by the student
teachers are as follows:

ST6: I will make plans to make good presentations before classes. Getting to know
students is very important.
ST14: I must produce as many examples as possible for the grammar structures and
functions ready in my pocket.
ST15: I have difficulty in giving examples. Preparing various examples beforehand
can be a good solution.
ST21: Having a B plan will help in case of difficulty.

There are also some student teachers who are thinking to use more pair and group
work in order to implement communicative language teaching effectively in the class.
Other student teachers reported that they need to develop their own teaching strate-
gies. Here are their thoughts:

ST10: I am determined to develop my own strategies and new ideas in the class.
ST22: I try to be more experienced, by finding different teaching ways, activities.
ST24: I am planning to do many listening activities for myself; I will see my mistakes
and correct them.

Nearly half of the student teachers think that they are not proficient enough in the
target language and are planning to develop their proficiency. They cited creative
ways to find solutions to this problem. Some of them are:

ST9: I will watch movies in English to improve my language proficiency.

ST11: I am planning to go abroad in order to improve my English.
ST23: I will definitely go abroad and try to have as many foreign friends as possible.
ST26: I will watch films in English.
ST27: I will nourish my English as it is a living creature. I will refresh my language
knowledge in term of vocabulary, grammar and language skills.
ST30. I will try to master English language.
ST32: I will go abroad and stay for a while there in order to be fluent in the target
language.

Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies are not always directly reflected in
actual teaching practices. The reason may be due to the fact that both knowledge and
292 Ş. Kömür

practice have not been adequately integrated in language teacher training programs.
Problems might arise in teaching language skills and classroom management from the
fact that student teachers have these courses in university classrooms, isolated from
real teaching settings; whereas, implementing them as practical components of teach-
ing training courses could provide students with opportunities to compare theory with
the practice and raise their awareness of the different issues involved in teaching
(Halbach, 2000). Student teachers, under the model employed in Turkey and teacher
education systems like it, generally practice teaching in front of their peers and are
only confronted with the real classroom during their teaching practicum. For this
reason, practicum can be viewed as critical to the development of student teachers. It
is also their first hands-on experience with their teaching careers. This practice, as also
found in earlier studies, creates opportunities for them to develop their pedagogical
skills.
However, this study has also shown that experience applying these skills is impor-
tant as Mattheoudakis (2007) argues that student teachers’ teaching experiences can
expose them to the classroom reality and help them to test their knowledge and
become aware of their strengths and weaknesses about learning and teaching.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that the student teachers are often aware of the state of their
situation in real classroom teaching, and, upon reflection, can develop strategies to
cope with the problems and challenges of teaching the target language. As Tin (2006)
points out, it is important to help student teachers to look at teaching through multiple-
lenses and reflect on their practice from a wider perspective. In so doing, they can
develop an ability and willingness to continue their professional development in their
future profession. Once again, the results of this study show that the teaching knowl-
edge and practice in teaching dichotomy should be investigated in depth by using
different variables and contexts.
A sound background in teaching knowledge and teacher competencies can consti-
tute the fundamentals of becoming a better teacher. Yet as Ba şyurt-Tuzel and Akcan
sc[e]dli

(2009, p. 282) suggest, the practice teaching experience itself can have an awareness-
raising effect on preservice language teachers, helping them to identify their needs and
problems in a more focused way. It is important that student teachers themselves
consider the practicum experience as the most important element in their professional
development. Even teachers in action view classroom experience as the most impor-
tant source of knowledge about teaching (Tsui, 2003).
Clearly, scores in teaching knowledge and self-perceived teacher competencies
cannot be the only determinants of preparation for teaching practices. But, by empha-
sizing the importance of integration of theory and practice in language teacher educa-
tion programs, they can provide insights and a base for their future teaching practices.
To achieve this integration, any language teacher training program should weave
theory and practice together in the real classroom teaching by devoting much more
time to observations, feedback sessions, and reflections during practicum with the
participation of both mentors and supervisors. They should be guided and encouraged
by faculty staff so that they can put their theoretical knowledge into practice, as learn-
ing to teach is highly complex and multidimensional (Freese, 2006).
As Freeman (1989) points out, we need to define the content of language-teacher
education – that is, the processes of effective language teaching. Student teachers also
 Teaching Education 293

need explicit criteria for effective teaching in order to identify their strengths and
weaknesses and use them as guidelines for improvement (Leshem & Bar-Hama,
2008). For this reason, further research is required into the varied aspects and
complexities of teaching and language teacher education in order to fully understand
the processes in teacher education.

References
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflection on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2
teacher education. System, 35, 192–2007.
Baş yurt-Tuzel, E.A., & Akcan, S. (2009). Raising the language awareness of pre-service English
sc[e]dli

teachers in an EFL context. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 271–287.

Borg, S. (2003). Knowing and doing: Teaching grammar in-service training. In D. Liu and P.
Master (Eds.), Grammar teaching in teacher education: Case studies in TESOL practices
series (pp. 75–87). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Brandt, C. (2006). Allowing for practice: A critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation. ELT
Journal, 60(4), 355–363.
Buchmann, M. (1986, October 13–17). Teaching knowledge: The light that teachers live by. A
paper presented at the Conference of the International Study Association on Teacher
Thinking, Teacher Thinking and Professional Action, Leuven University, Belgium.
Chacón, T.C. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language
teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257–272.
Cheng, M.M.H., Chan, K-W., Tang S.Y.F., & Cheng, A.Y.N. (2009). Pre-service teacher
education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 25, 319–327.
Clarke, A. (2001). The recent landscape of teacher education: Critical points and possible
conjectures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 599–611.
Cochran-Smith M., & Fries, K.M. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of
reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3–15.
Deniz, S., & Şahin, N. (2006). The restructuring process of teacher training system in Turkey:
S[]celdi

A model of teacher training based on post-graduate education (PGCE). Journal of Social

Sciences, 2(1), 21–26.
Ekmekçi, Ö. (1984). The problems faced by language teachers in Turkey. Journal of the
English Language Center, 49, 121–137.
Farrell, S.T., & Kun, K.T.S. (2007). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and class-
room practices. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 381–403.
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development and decision-making: A model of teach-
ing and related strategies of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27–45.
Freese, A.R. (2006). Reframing one’s teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflec-
tion and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 100–119.
Garm, N., & Karlsen, E.G. (2004). Teacher education reform in Europe: The case of
Norway; trends and tensions in a global perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(1), 731–744.
Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464.
Goodnough, K., & Hung, W. (2009). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge in elemen-
tary science. Teaching Education, 20(3), 229–242.
Guven, I. (2008). Teacher education reform and international globalization hegemony: Issues
and challenges in Turkish teacher education. International Journal of Social Sciences,
3(1), 8–17.
Halbach, A. (2000). Trainee change through teacher training: A case study in training English
language teachers in Spain. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(2), 139–146.
Johnson, F.E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL
teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 507–537.
Johnson, F.E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: The tensions of the TESOL practicum. In
D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 30–49).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
294 Ş. Kömür

Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching:
Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 437–468.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). English language teaching in Turkey: Challenges for the twenty-first
century. In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and prac-
tice (pp. 159–169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved March 22,
2006, from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/mugla/Doc?id=10106621&ppg=180
Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementations of curriculum innovation in
English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24, 1859–1875.
Korthagen, J.A.F. (2004). In search of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.
Leshem, S., & Bar-Hama, R. (2008). Evaluating teaching practice. ELT Journal, 62(3), 257–265.
Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in preservice EFL teacher beliefs in Greece: A
longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1272–1288.
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A
longitudinal study. System, 29, 177–195.
Porter, P., & Taylor, P.B. (2003). Experience is the best teacher: Linking the MA pedagogical
grammar course with the ESL grammar classroom. In D. Liu & P. Master (Eds.), Grammar
teaching in teacher education: Case studies in TESOL practices series (pp. 75–87).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Seferoglu, G. (2004). A study of alternative English teacher certification practices in Turkey.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(2), 151–159.
Seferoglu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-service
English teacher education programme in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching,
32(4), 369–378.
Şeker, H., Deniz, S., & Gorgen, İ . (2004). Öğ retmen yeterlikleri ölçeği [Teacher Competency
S[]celdi dI[]ot gevb[r] geb[vre]

Scale]. Milli Eğ itim Dergisi [The Journal of the Ministry of Education], 32(164), 105–118.
g[bev]r

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.
Smith, E. (2008). Raising standards in American schools? Problems with improving teacher
quality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 610–622.
Spratt, M., Pulverness, A., & Williams M. (2005). The TKT (Teaching Knowledge Test)
course. Cambridge: University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.
Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT). Handbook for teachers (Teaching Awards). Cambridge:
University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. Retrieved January 16, 2010, from http://
www.cambridgeesol.org/assets/pdf/tkt_hb.pdf
Tedick, D.J., & Walker, C. L. (1995). From theory to practice: How do we prepare teachers
for second language classrooms? Foreign Language Annals, 28(4), 499–517.
Tin, B.T. (2006). Looking at teaching through multiple lenses. ELT Journal, 60(3), 253–261.
Tsui, M.M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational
Research Journal, 25(1), 39–55.
Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession.
London: David Fulton.
Yılmaz, C. (2003). A need analysis of Turkish universities within the framework of communi-
cative language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, dI[ot

İ zmir.
]
 Teaching Education 295

Appendix A. The Scale of Teacher Competencies

Partially Not
Enough enough enough
1. Knowing fundamental principles and concepts related to
the topic
2. Associating fundamental principles and concepts in the
topic with a logical consistency
3. Using the verbal and visual language (figure, schema,
graphic, formula, etc) the topic requires in a suitable way
4. Associating the topic with the other topics of the field
5. Knowing special teaching approaches, methods, and
techniques
6. Making use of teaching technologies
7. Identifying wrongly built concepts by students
8. Creating convenient and efficient answers to students’
questions
9. Providing a safe learning environment
10. Writing clear, comprehensible, and well-organized lesson
plans
11. Expressing aims and target behaviors in a clear way
12. Identifying suitable methods and techniques for target
behavior
13. Choosing and preparing suitable equipment and material
14. Identifying suitable assessment ways for the target behavior
15. Associating the topic with previous and following classes
16. Using various teaching methods and techniques
appropriately
17. Using the time efficiently
18. Arranging activities providing for active student
participation
19. Carrying out the teaching depending on individual
differences
20. Using teaching equipment and materials appropriately
according to the class level
21. Summarizing and giving suitable feedback
22. Associating the topic with real life
23. Assessing the extent of reaching the target behavior
24. Making a suitable introduction to the lesson
25. Attracting student interest and attention to the lesson
26. Providing a democratic learning environment
27. Providing continuity of interest and motivation to the lesson
28. Taking suitable measures for interruptions and barriers
29. Complimenting and having an attitude to something
30. Revising the lesson
31. Giving information and homework for the following lesson
296 Ş. Kömür

Appendix A. (Continued)

Partially Not
Enough enough enough
32. Preparing the students for leaving the classroom
33. Having effective communication with the students
34. Giving comprehensible explanations and directions
35. Asking challenging questions related to the topic
36. Using voice level effectively
37. Listening to the students actively
38. Using verbal and body language effectively

Appendix B. Open-ended questionnaire

Read the following terms and indicate any strengths and weaknesses you experienced in teach-
ing the following areas while you were doing practicum.
Grammar terms
Grammar structures
Speaking subskills
Listening, reading and writing subskills
Coursebook activities
Assessment activities
Presentation activities
Classroom management
Which strategies do you plan to employ in order to cope with your weaknesses in the teaching
profession?