ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum

innovation in English language teaching in Turkish
primary education
Yasemin Kırkgöz
- ukurova University, 01330 Balcali-Adana, Turkey
Department of ELT, Faculty of Education, C
Received 2 August 2007; received in revised form 15 January 2008; accepted 12 February 2008

Abstract

This article reports a 2-year case study (2003–2005) on teachers’ instructional practices, and the impact of teacher
understandings and training upon the teachers’ implementation of the Communicative Oriented Curriculum (COC)
initiative in the context of a major curriculum innovation in teaching English to young learners in Turkish state schools.
Using multidimensional qualitative research procedures, comprising classroom observations, teacher interviews and lesson
transcripts, a picture is developed of how 32 teachers implemented COC. Results showed that teachers’ instructional
practices ranged along the transmission and interpretation teaching continuum, and teachers’ understandings and their
prior training had an impact on the extent of their implementation of the curriculum initiative. The study highlights the
need to provide continuous teacher training and teacher development opportunities, particularly during the critical first few
years of the innovation process to promote the implementation of curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Communicative Oriented Curriculum (COC); Curriculum innovation; Primary education; Teaching English to young learners
(TEYLs) in Turkey

1. Introduction early introduction of English has prompted the need

Turkey, as in many other countries, e.g., China,
Malaysia, and Japan, has taken the decision to
lower the starting age at which children learn
English as a compulsory subject in primary educa-
tion in response to the global impact of English as
the language of international communication, the
language of business, technology, and science. The
Tel.: +90 532 610 3299; fax: +90 322 338 6526.
E-mail addresses: ykirkgoz@cu.edu.tr, ykirkgoz@yahoo.com
(Y. Kırkgöz).
to revise the foreign language curriculum, and
introduce communicative language teaching (CLT)
as part of a curriculum innovation process.
Attempts to introduce CLT have lead to a shift in
pedagogy from the teacher-centred transmission-
oriented paradigm to student-centred communica-
tive teaching with a view to promoting commu-
nicative language proficiency of the learners
(Kırkgöz, 2007).
Despite the widespread adoption of the commu-
nicative approach by Turkey and many other
countries, one frequent effect of such nationally

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1860 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
initiated curriculum innovation projects is the
difficulties experienced by local non-native speaker
English teachers when trying to implement unfami-
liar classroom practices, which has resulted in a gap
between the official rhetoric and the actual class-
room practices of teachers (Carless, 1998; Holliday,
1994; Hui, 1997; Karavas-Doukas, 1995, 1996;
Kırkgöz, 2006, 2007; Nunan, 2003; Wedell, 2003).
This might largely be attributed to the fact that the
underlying ideas and hopes for outcomes of
curriculum innovation projects in many cases have
been borrowed from ‘Western’ approaches to
English language teaching (ELT) with little or no
attempt to adjust them to the local context
(Dushku, 1998; Wedell, 2003). Another common
theme in curriculum innovation literature highlights
a number of factors that impact upon the applica-
tion of proposed curriculum objectives (Fullan,
1991; Markee, 1997). Among the factors most
frequently cited making it difficult to implement
curriculum innovation in the classroom are tea-
chers’ understandings, their background training,
lack of guidance, the influence of textbooks, as well
as other variables, i.e., large class size and insuffi-
cient resources. Studies exploring such factors are
reported by researchers working in different cultural
contexts, including Turkey (see Kırkgöz, 2006,
2007), China (Hu, 2002), Hong Kong (Carless,
1998, 2001, 2003), various countries in the Asia-
Pacific region (Nunan, 2003), and the South Korean
context (see Li, 1998).
While acknowledging the fact that all the above-
mentioned factors may have a potential impact on
the extent of teachers’ implementation of CLT, this
study examines two selected factors, namely,
teachers’ understandings of an innovation and
teacher training, that arguably have particular
importance to the adoption of CLT of foreign
origin in Turkish primary classrooms, as in many
other countries (see Karavas-Doukas, 1995 for
Greece). Section 2 of the paper presents a short
review of the relevant literature on the role of such
factors on teachers’ implementation of curriculum
innovation. Section 3 discusses the main elements of
Turkey’s Communicative Oriented Curriculum
(COC), and challenges posed by the 1997 curricu-
lum innovation. While Section 4 delineates a multi-
ple case-study research design, which involves the
analysis of qualitative data, comprising classroom
observation, interviews, and sample lesson tran-
scripts, Section 5 is devoted to a discussion of the
research findings. The conclusion offers suggestions
for enhancing the current practices of Turkish
primary-level ELT.
2. Teachers’ understandings and their background
training
Teachers’ understandings of the principles of an
innovation and their background training play a
significant role in the degree of implementation of a
curriculum innovation. Carless (1998) suggests that
if teachers are to implement an innovation success-
fully, it is essential that they understand both the
theoretical principles and classroom applications of
the proposed change. He argues that of the two, the
latter tends to prove most essential, especially in
contexts where teachers are not well trained and/or
lack sound knowledge of innovation. Within the
context of curriculum innovation, Kennedy (1988,
p. 329) points out that ‘‘teachers may be required to
change the way they think about certain issues,
which is a deeper and more complex change’’. In
other words, a change in teachers’ beliefs and
understandings is an essential part of any educa-
tional innovation. As maintained by Wagner (1991)
if the philosophy of an innovation and teachers’
theories are out of balance, teachers will tend to
interpret innovative ideas in light of their own
theories to conform to their own teaching style,
which means that new ideas will not be implemen-
ted, as intended by the curriculum planners. At the
management level of the curriculum innovation, a
modification of the teachers’ teaching behaviour
accompanied by a fundamental change in their
beliefs is needed. Teachers, therefore, need to be
supported to help them adapt and accommodate
new ideas into their instructional practices.
Teacher training and support also play an
important role in how teachers implement curricu-
lum innovation, influencing teachers’ understand-
ings and their classroom practices (Carless, 1998;
Kırkgöz, 2007; Vandenberghe, 2002). Vanden-
berghe (2002), emphasizing the role of support
needed for teachers’ professional developments
during reform, argues that an innovation cannot
be enacted unless teachers are given opportunities to
learn new concepts, new ways of presenting content,
and new ways of interacting with students. Since
many innovations tend to be of Western origin,
developed in a different cultural and educational
context, a major issue that needs to be considered in
designing training courses is to account for con-
textual realities by recognizing the values of ‘host
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
culture’ for a given teacher and classroom situation.
Trainers, therefore, need to identify the extent of
cultural shift that the proposed changes may require
for most teachers in practice so that trainers may
provide meaningful bridges between the culture of the
innovation and the existing local professional culture
in order to achieve ‘cultural continuity’ (Holliday,
2001, p. 169), and help teachers make the transition.
It is true to point out that to achieve this aim,
trainers need to receive a ‘trainer-training pro-
gramme’ in order to update their knowledge and
increase their awareness of what innovation repre-
sents for the practising teachers. Also, in the
provision of such a programme, trainers need to
be encouraged to give sufficient consideration to
teachers’ existing beliefs, behaviours, and the class-
room context in order to achieve harmony between
these and new ideas to be introduced.
3. An overview of Turkey’s COC
In Turkish primary education, CLT to teaching
English was introduced as part of the Ministry of
Education Development Project, a major curricu-
lum innovation project in ELT in 1997. The 1997
curriculum innovation resulted in several impacts in
primary education: First, it extended the duration of
primary education from the previous 5 to 8 years by
integrating primary and secondary education into a
single stream. Second, English was introduced for
grade 4 and grade 5 students (aged 9–11) as a
standard compulsory school subject. The COC
curriculum framework was devised by a team of
experts from different units of the Education
Department, and teachers of English language
who were assisted by national and international
consultants. The team produced a curriculum
document including guidelines on ELT, and this
document was disseminated to primary schools to
be implemented throughout the nation (Kırkgöz,
2007). Major proposals of the COC document for
the teaching of English in primary grades 4 and 5
are specified as follows:
 to raise pupils’ awareness of a foreign language;
 to promote a positive attitude towards the
learning of English language; and
 to increase pupils’ interest and motivation
towards the English language.
The curriculum proposes that the pupils’ acquisi-
tion of basic communicative abilities for daily
1861
communication at a basic level can be developed
through the establishment of classroom situations in
the context of games and dialogues so that pupils
can entertain while learning English (Kocaoluk &
Kocaoluk, 2001).
Another major premise of COC concerns the
roles of students and teachers in foreign language
classrooms. New curriculum guidelines make it
clear that the ELT curriculum should promote
student-centred learning, encouraging Turkish tea-
chers to develop learners’ communicative perfor-
mance in English. Pupils should take an active part
in the learning process through various pair and
group-work activities. The role of the teacher is
specified as that of a guider or facilitator of the
learning process, rather than a transmitter of
knowledge addressing variations in pupils’ learning
styles. According to COC guidelines, assessment
should be performed in an indirect manner.
Following the curriculum reform, textbooks em-
bodying the principles of communicative approach
were issues by the Turkish Ministry of National
Education (MNE) (see Kırkgöz, 2006, 2007 for
details).
A further innovation of the curriculum reform
was the restructuring of the pre-service departments
of the Faculties of Education. After the 1997
educational reform, teacher education departments
of ELT were redesigned to increase the number of
methodology courses, and extend the duration of
teaching practice periods in primary schools to give
trainees a hands-on experience in schools (Kirkgöz,
2005). In addition, a new course ‘Teaching English
to Young Learners’ (TEYLs) was introduced into
the curriculum of the ELT Departments of the
Faculties of Education in order to help prospective
teachers to develop their understanding and prac-
tical skills to meet the demands of young learners,
which seemed to put graduates into a more
favourable position regarding how to teach English
to this particular group of learners. Teacher
educators offering TEYLs courses were encouraged
to participate in various seminars and conferences
to help trainees by providing the required support.
3.1. Challenges posed by the COC curriculum
The speed of nationwide implementation of the
1997 curriculum innovation without piloting initi-
ally presented complex problems across the country,
putting considerable strain on the system (Kırkgöz,
2005, 2007). The curriculum planners could not
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1862 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
anticipate in advance several potential problems
and factors that would influence how teachers
experience proposed changes in order to formulate
strategies for tackling them appropriately. This
section examines factors that had a potential effect
on curriculum innovation under three sections:
cultural factors, teacher-related factors, and con-
textual factors.
3.1.1. Cultural factors
The first potential problem was that the culture of
the Turkish teachers and realities of the state
primary classroom context was not adequately
considered by the COC proposal; there seemed to
be a considerable gap between current practices of
most Turkish teachers and those proposals recom-
mended in the COC framework. Teacher culture,
defined as ‘‘the culture of those within the teaching
community, encompassing their values, beliefs and
attitudes, which are apparent in their classroom
behaviour’’ (Carless, 2001, p. 264), plays an
important role in implementing an innovation.
Young and Lee (1985), quoted in Wedell (2003,
p. 442) conceptualize teachers’ educational culture
as being positioned along a ‘transmission-based’
and an ‘interpretation-based’ continuum. Charac-
teristics common to Turkish teachers of English
tend to display some common features through their
teaching culture, which tends to be mainly transmis-
sion oriented.
The introduction of TEYLs created challenges for
the teachers. The problem lay in the fact that
teachers were confronted with having to cope with a
new reality—teaching young learners—even though
they were not specifically trained for this level. A
vast majority of the existing teachers had been
teaching adults, with students aged 12–18; as a
result, they were not familiar with teaching techni-
ques at primary grades 4 and 5 classes. As also
stated by Krashen, Scarcella, and Long (1982), and
Cameron (2001), language learning in young lear-
ners is accomplished differently from that of adults.
The 1997 curriculum, with its focus on promoting
communicative skills and encouraging active stu-
dent participation in the learning process, called for
a major shift in the conceptions of Turkish teachers
involved in TEYLs. The curriculum change rhetoric
implied that teachers be familiar with classroom
practices deriving mainly from the interpretation-
based culture, a different Western-borrowed educa-
tional culture, developed in a totally different
cultural milieu. Teachers were also expected to
make the professional adjustments to enable stated
curriculum objectives to be achieved. Change was
introduced with insufficient consideration of how
teachers as key players in the curriculum imple-
mentation experience the process, and planners
seemed to be unaware of the extent of cultural shift
they were requiring teachers to make. Thus, the
proposed change seemed revolutionary rather than
evolutionary for the majority of Turkish teachers
whose previous training was tailored to teaching
adults, not TEYLs. As acknowledged by Kennedy
(1996, p. 78), ‘‘to cope with change puts teachers
under strain where the changes involved present a
major shift in beliefs and practices’’. Therefore, the
shift from teaching adults to teaching young
learners was considered a major shift for teachers
who felt rather unprepared to undertake the
responsibility of preparing, in a short period of
time, to implement COC. Teachers were expected to
adjust their views on the role of a teacher and the
learner. For example, most teachers who were
previously using a teacher-centred traditional style
to teaching English to adults (aged 12–15) were
required to adopt a student-centred approach, as
practised in games, songs, and pair and group-work
activities to teach English to young learners (aged
9–11).
3.1.2. Teacher-related factors
The next unforeseeable problem was related to a
shortage of teachers. During the initial years of the
curriculum reform, the MNE was compelled to
resort to a makeshift staffing measure to recruit all
available potential teaching staff to meet an urgent
need for qualified teachers ready to teach in the
expanding primary programmes particularly grades
4 and 5. In the Turkish educational system, ELT is a
graduate profession with qualifications acquired
mainly through a 4-year pre-service teacher educa-
tion. However, following the introduction of
TEYLs, many teachers found themselves teaching
in primary schools even though they had not been
trained for this level.
At the level of curriculum management, to
support teachers’ efforts to implement the curricu-
lum innovation, the MNE set up In-Service Teacher
Training (INSET) initiatives, aiming primarily at
teachers already involved in teaching young learners
in state primary schools who may not previously
have taught a foreign language, i.e., classroom
teachers, to provide the special expertise necessary
to help young learners of English. Many shorter
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
courses were established to encourage former adult-
only EFL teachers to provide them with appropriate
training in TEYLs. In addition, non-ELT teachers
(those who are specialists in another subject area
such as biology, but can also teach the foreign
language with some proficiency in English), and
graduates of the departments of Western Lan-
guages, e.g., French and German, with a certain
level of English, were provided with professional
development in language teaching methodology
with the goal of TEYLs in primary schools.
As an important part of the MNE’s teacher
development policy, attempts were made to facil-
itate the implementation process of COC through
various teacher-training institutions. Collaborating
with the MNE, the English Language Teachers’
Association in Turkey, a local association, and
foreign associations, the British Council and the
United States Information Agency, acting as a
‘change agent’ (Rogers, 1995), organized various
intensive seminars and conducted in-service training
workshops, in different provinces, focusing on
updating the teaching methodology for teachers
employed at state primary schools (Kırkgöz, 2007).
Despite such teacher development facilities, the
initial implementation schedule was largely unrea-
listic in that teacher training was not sufficient, and
implementation timelines were short. It has been
well documented in the curriculum innovation
literature that this kind of one-off training, as
practised in the Turkish context, is insufficient for
on-going teacher developmental processes (Brindley
& Hood, 1990; Fullan, 1991). As acknowledged by
Wedell (2003, p. 447)
It is clear that where the curriculum changes do
represent a significant cultural shift, the embed-
ding of new practices in teachers’ existing
professional culture will not be completed solely
by the provision of a single brief in-service
programme. Nor any changes be embedded
without appropriate readjustment to the pro-
cesses and content of initial language teacher
training.
Time is important for changes to spread through-
out the educational system (Fullan, 1991, 1993;
Kennedy, 1996). Curriculum planners could not
anticipate the time span involved in the degree of
cultural shift that the practices implied by the
proposed changes may represent for most teachers,
and the innovation timeframe was not planned
according to the preparedness of teachers and
1863
schools. The time span for such a nationwide
curriculum innovation must necessarily be long
and extensive rather than intensive to allow teachers
to take on new ideas and have enough time to try
them out and adapt them to their situation.
A further potential problem was that training
provision was not made available to as many
teachers as possible to ensure full implementation
of the new curriculum initiative. Short intensive
courses were encouraged by school principles and
were attended by teachers on a voluntary basis; thus
the courses were not catered for the whole practising
teachers of English to young learners. As also
pointed out by Carless (1997), this led to an
undesirable consequence that untrained teachers,
particularly those with previous experiences of
teaching adults only, may fall back on their
outdated experiences as pupils, and also tend to be
heavily reliant on the textbook, with little regard to
the learning ability of the students, which has also
been the case in the Turkish context.
3.1.3. Contextual factors
While acknowledging the fact that innovation
does not require huge resource inputs, still some
sort of adequate teaching and learning resources is
needed to implement it successfully. However, the
analysis of the impact of contextual variables on
implementation was not considered by curriculum
planners. Many Turkish state primary schools were
not equipped with the necessary infrastructure
facilities to enable the use of communicative
activities required by COC. It would therefore be
desirable to improve the present conditions in
schools before the full implementation of COC.
An additional factor with respect to school setting is
the classroom environment, which also plays a
significant role in the degree to which the innovation
is modified by users in the process of adoption and
implementation (Rogers, 1995). Owing to Turkey’s
high student population, class size has been around
35–40 although with recent government initiative
the class size of most primary schools reduced to
around 25 pupils. Large class size and lack of
facilities also inhibited the kind of pair/group-work
activities envisioned in the COC curriculum.
Another aspect of infrastructure that posed as
potential problem was teaching materials. As noted
by Carless (1997, p. 361), the preparation and
dissemination of published materials may also have
a positive effect on the innovation process in that it
can transform an innovation from a conceptual to a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1864 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
tangible level. An examination of textbooks for
grades 4 and 5 revealed that textbooks could not
capture the spirit of COC, i.e., the listening and
speaking components of CLT were not adequately
catered for (Kırkgöz, 2007). Additionally, teachers
require information about the thinking behind
designing the textbooks, explicit guidelines for
learning content, as well as on how to make use of
the textbooks. However, the MNE textbooks did
not provide any suggestions concerning the use of
communicative activities for the teachers. Thus,
textbooks could have provided detailed guidelines
on methodology expected from teachers.
A final factor not adequately considered by
curriculum planners was the intensity of teaching
hours learners are exposed to the target language
(L2). In order for measurable progress to be seen in
L2, learners need adequate exposure to L2; at least
200 h per year instruction is suggested (Nunan,
2003). With the present teaching hours in Turkish
state primary schools, students in early years
(grades 4 and 5) receive an average of 76 h of
instruction per year (two lessons per week are
allocated to the teaching of English for primary
grades 4 and 5), which is far below the minimum
number of hours needed for significant progress in
English.
As pointed out by Vandenberghe (2002, p. 653),
‘‘in many cases, policy makers seem to believe that
policy is normative and practice should follow suit.
They write mostly from the perspective of policy,
trying to explain why practice has gone awry’’.
Given the complexity and unpredictability of the
innovation process, an initial piloting followed by a
progressive implementation schedule of COC might
have helped policy makers to identify the number of
above-mentioned factors that would influence how
teachers would likely to experience the desired
changes. Policy makers would then consider what
these factors imply for the kind of support that
teachers, as key players in the curriculum innova-
tion process, would need in the further planning
process of the curriculum innovation on a larger
scale. This might eventually help to counterbalance
some of the unforeseen difficulties, mentioned
above.
4. Method
This study involved case studies of 32 Turkish
teachers of English, teaching primary grade 4 and
grade 5 classrooms, with pupils aged 9–11 years old
in 22 different state primary schools for a period of
2 years (2003–2005). The case-study approach is
considered suitable to investigate the curriculum
innovation because as stated by Carless (1998); case
studies enable information to be collected from a
number of sources and over a period of time. The
case approach also allows adopting an ‘ecological
perspective’ (Tudor, 2003; Van Lier, 1997) to
explore actual realities of teachers’ behaviours
within the classroom context in connection with
TEYLs, which is crucial to understand because
teachers are the key elements in the curriculum
implementation process (Fullan, 1993; Kennedy,
1996; Kırkgöz, 2006).
The study aims to address the following research
questions:
1. What are the teachers’ familiarity with the COC
principles, and the extent to which they were
actually implementing those principles in
TEYLs?
2. What are the teachers’ understandings towards
COC and TEYLs?
3. What role does teachers’ prior training experi-
ence play in their implementation of COC and
TEYLs?
4.1. Participants
The six male and 26 female participant teachers
ranged from 26 to 50 years in age, with the majority
of them 32. Their experience in teaching English
varied from 5 to 24 years, with an average of over 12
years. Twenty-five of them had completed a
teaching certificate as an English major from an
ELT Department. Three of the teachers were not
subject trained; in other words, they had B.Sc.
degrees in economics and biology, but had received
some local in-service training for 2–4 weeks. The
remaining five teachers were graduates of the
Departments of Western Languages (French or
German).
Twenty-six of the participants had previously
taught adults, as secondary school teachers but with
the introduction of English to young learners, they
were transferred to primary schools. Therefore, they
had no prior teaching experience in TEYLs and had
been teaching in primary classes during the last 6
years. Six of the participants who were novice
teachers had started their teaching career at primary
schools. Half of the participants were teaching in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
urban schools while the remaining teachers in rural
primary schools.
The selection of the teachers, all Turkish native
speakers, was based on the following criteria: they
were willing to have their class observed on a
longitudinal basis; they were considered to be open-
minded in discussing issues arising from the TEYLs
with the researcher; and they were cooperative with
the researcher in providing easy access to their
classroom.
4.2. Instruments
Two ethnographic data collection tools used for
the study comprise classroom observation and
interviews in order to have an emic perspective
(Bailey & Nunan, 1996). In this way, more attention
has been accorded to exploring subjective realities
of teaching (Richards, 1996), that is, understanding
the phenomenon in connection with COC and
TEYLs from the teachers’ own perspectives, as
insiders, as opposed to studying these issues from an
outsider’s perspective.
Rea-Dickins and Germaine (1992) point out that
classroom observation gives us the opportunity to
have direct access into teachers’ actual instructional
practices, maintaining that ‘‘we need to observe
teachers in action using their knowledge in the real
setting of the classroom’’ (p. 258). Kennedy and
Kennedy (1996) suggest including observation of
classrooms in any evaluation of implementation of
change. The interviews were semi-structured con-
ducted in a systematic manner but allowing me as
the interviewer sufficient freedom to probe beyond
the answers to the questions addressed. The purpose
of the in-depth interviews I conducted with each of
the 32 teachers was to probe into their under-
standing of what TEYLs requires, the nature of
Pre-observation Pre-observation
Interview Interview
Lesson observation Lesson observation
Post-observation Post-observation
interview interview
1st-cycle 2nd-cycle
Fig. 1. The research schedule.
1865
COC, and impact of their training on effective ways
of TEYLs. Prior to the first classroom observation,
a baseline interview collected relevant demographic
data, e.g., information on the age, gender, years of
teaching experience, and previous teacher-training
experiences of the teachers in order to be informed
about the background of the teachers. This infor-
mation was thought to be useful. For example, it
was possible to explore what new ideas teachers
were using in their lessons in TEYLs, and relate
these to the impact of training they received.
4.3. Procedures
Classes of all 32 teachers were observed during
the 2-year data collection period: 2003–2005, in
teachers’ own primary grade 4 and grade 5 classes.
Seventeen teachers were observed in the 2003–2004
teaching year while the remaining 15 teachers
during the 2004–2005 teaching year.
The research schedule was as follows: Each
observation constituted one link in a 4-part
observation cycle. In each link, as indicated in
Fig. 1, classroom observations were conducted for
two consecutive lessons, as scheduled in the
teacher’s programme, (each lesson lasting 40 min),
totalling eight audio-taped lessons per teacher in
four separate cycles of observation during the
school year. The rationale for observing successive
lessons at different stages of the academic year was
‘‘to minimise the dangers of observer paradox or
one-off display lessons not typical of regular
teaching’’ (Carless, 2003, pp. 487–488).
Each cycle of observation was scheduled in three
phases: pre-observation interviews, observation,
and post-observation interviews. Prior to lesson
observation, teachers’ written lesson plans were
examined, and objectives of the lesson and activities
Pre-observation Pre-observation
Interview Interview
Lesson observation Lesson observation
Post-observation Post-observation
interview interview
3rd-cycle 4th-cycle
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1866 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
the teacher was planning to use were discussed in
order to be informed about the ensuing lesson. The
interviews took place generally in a staff-room.
An observation schedule (19 items), adapted from
O’Sullivan (2004) and Lee, Lam, and Li (2003) and
developed in light of the research on TEYLs
(Slattery & Willis, 2001), and a COC curriculum
framework were used to guide the systematic
collection of data. In the designing of the observa-
tion schedule, some relevant items, i.e., ‘teacher can
arouse student interest’ and ‘use of voice’, were
adapted from Lee et al. (2003). Likewise, some
items, i.e., ‘introduction’, ‘use of chalkboard’, and
‘conclusion’, were integrated from the questionnaire
developed by O’Sullivan (2004). I added the
remaining items, e.g., ‘use of pair and group
work’ and ‘use of variety’, based on the framework
of the COC curriculum, and considering those
features expected in the effective instructional
practices of a teacher involved in TEYLs. The
observation schedule sought to access details under
three broad categories: management, instruction,
and climate, and each area was further subdivided
to provide more specific sub-items to capture
important aspects of the classroom practice (see
Appendix A).
The recording of lesson observations has to be
carefully considered. A review of the literature on
observation schedules has demonstrated that most
observation schedules are generally based on a
Likert scale (see Lee et al., 2003), some comple-
mented with observation notes (O’Sullivan, 2004).
As the main purpose of the lesson observation was
to obtain qualitative data, using a quantified
observation schedule was not considered to reveal
potentially useful data on the instructional practices
of teachers. Instead, during the observation, the
researcher wrote a more qualitative account of the
classroom observation collecting observation notes,
related to each item on the observation schedule in
as much detail as possible to form the database for
analysis, and lesson recordings. Patton (1990)
confirms the importance of systematic observer as
‘‘learning how to write descriptively; practising the
disciplined recording of filed notes; knowing how to
separate detail from triviay and using rigorous
methods to validate observations’’ (p. 201).
Post-observation interviews, carried out at the
end of each cycle of observation, lasting 10–15 min,
focussed primarily on particular issues arising from
the observation, and from questions related to the
notes made in the observation schedule. Besides,
interviews enabled the researcher to find out the
depth of teachers’ knowledge concerning TEYLs
and how they integrated COC into their classroom
routines. At the end of the 8-h observation schedule,
summative interviews were held with each teacher to
discuss further the main issues arising from the
classroom observation. The qualitative data ob-
tained became the database for the subsequent
analysis.
4.4. Data analysis
Wiersma and Jurs (2005, p. 206) point out that
analysis in qualitative research is ‘‘a process of
successive approximation towards an accurate
description and interpretation of the phenomenon’’.
In the present multiple case study, the process of
qualitative data analysis involved organization of
information, categorization, and obtaining data
reduction by means of coding, description, and
synthesis. Initially, a large volume of data was
generated, and a complete record was kept of all
aspects of the research.
Data were analyzed concurrently while being
collected. Before proceeding with the formal analy-
sis, a preliminary analysis was made at the end of
the first cycle of observation. Several different
methods of data retention were used. The interviews
were taped and transcribed by the researcher to
ensure that an accurate and comprehensive record
of the discussions was available for future reference.
When transcribing the recorded interviews into
written text, care was taken to listen to each of the
taped interviews and typing the verbatim state-
ments. When this process was complete, each tape
was listened to again checking for possible errors in
the transcribed text. Following the strategy of
analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984), I
repeatedly read through the completed interview
transcripts. In this process, I identified and noted
salient comments with regard to Turkish EFL
teachers’ understandings of TEYLs and that of
COC, and the role their training played in this
process. As part of the data analysis, ‘member
checking’ (Brown & Rodgers, 2003, p. 245) was
used at various points in the study with the
participant teachers themselves (the first at the end
of the 4th cycle of observation, and the second at
the end of the final observation) to confirm the data
analyses, and check interpretations as they emerged.
A similar process was adopted in analysing ob-
servation data.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
The data from lesson transcripts and field notes
were read a number of times ‘‘to have a sense of the
scope and holistic nature of the data’’ (Wiersma &
Jurs, 2005, p. 259). At the end of this process of
reading, some preliminary ideas for developing a
coding system emerged, which provided a mean-
ingful separation of the information, and was used
to develop the starting description of categories.
Based on the qualitative analysis of the completed
lesson observation form, data reduction was
achieved through a one-page classroom observation
summary for each teacher, following each cycle of
observation (see Appendix B for a sample). This
process involved an interpretive summary of each of
the participant teacher’s orientation towards
TEYLs, thus capturing relevant instructional char-
acteristics of each teacher. The subsequent data
were coded according to major categories identified.
In the present study, a two-stage data analysis
was performed: In the first stage, each teacher was
treated as a comprehensive case in itself, building a
general explanation that fits each of the individual
cases. The initial findings are presented as portraits
of individual case studies. A separate file that
included a transcript of the interview, observation
notes, and lesson transcripts for each participant
teacher was maintained. Once the analysis of each
case was completed, a cross-case analysis was done
leading to generalizations about the instructional
practices of the teachers, their understandings and
impact of their training on their teaching behaviours
‘‘to see orientation occurring across many cases to
develop more sophisticated descriptions’’ (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 172). Data from observation
and lesson transcripts were used to triangulate
emerging findings from interviews to substantiate
findings. In addition, extracts from interviews were
used to support the findings and allow the teachers’
voices to be heard.
At the end of this process of analysis of the
qualitative data, three categories were identified
according to typical features the teachers displayed
in their instructional practices. Such an analysis
placed the participant teachers along the continuum
from the transmission (least oriented towards COC)
Transmission-Oriented
Teachers
(N=16)
Fig. 2. Teachers’ orientation towards the COC.
1867
to the interpretation oriented (most oriented),
demonstrating the overall orientation of each
teacher towards COC and TEYLs.
The following section illustrates characteristics
common to each category of teachers.
5. Findings and discussion
5.1. What are the teachers’ familiarity with the COC
principles, and the extent to which they were actually
implementing those principles in TEYLs?
In the previous section, it has been illustrated that
response to the curriculum innovation from differ-
ent teachers has been varied. As shown in Fig. 2,
majority of the teachers (16) tended to be situated
towards the transmission end of the continuum, six
teachers tended to be positioned towards the
interpretation end, and the remaining 10 eclectic-
oriented teachers in between.
5.1.1. Transmission-oriented teachers
Observation of the 16 transmission-oriented
teachers revealed that teachers’ classroom practices
deviated considerably from the principles of CLT.
The major characterizing feature of these teachers
was their tendency to put greater emphasis on the
delivery of knowledge about the language, less
emphasis on encouraging pupils’ active participa-
tion in the lesson, and the development of their
communicative abilities.
In a typical lesson sequence of a transmission-
oriented teacher, the teacher generally opened the
lesson greeting and taking pupils’ attendance, usually
followed by a revision of the previous lesson. The
teacher then continued with a warm-up activity,
which generally consisted of asking questions to get
the students’ attention. Some teachers had a habit of
checking students’ homework. While the use of
question and answer seemed to be an important
technique used by the teachers to arouse the pupils’
curiosity and enhance their motivation, with regard
to classroom climate, teachers are characterized by a
close tendency to maintaining strong teacher control
in order to establish discipline.
Eclectic-Oriented Interpretation-Oriented
Teachers Teachers
(N=10) (N=6)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1868 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
The prevalent class organization involved whole
class teaching and individual student practice with
teacher-centred instruction. The teacher’s rationale
for this was that ‘‘students learn better in this way’’.
The use of pair work was comparatively rare.
Slattery and Willis (2001), in describing the char-
acteristics of young learners, state that ‘‘they are not
able to understand grammatical rules and explana-
tions about language; they love to play and use their
imagination and they have a short attention span so
need variety’’ (p. 4). These features were not
sufficiently taken into account in the lessons of
transmission-oriented teachers.
The following lesson transcript (Table 1) gives an
excerpt from one of the lessons observed to provide
a picture of how a typical transmission-oriented
teacher carries out COC in his/her classroom.
Bilge (a pseudonym) has a 15-year teaching
experience with teaching adults. With the introduc-
tion of TEYLs he moved to teaching young learners
for the last 3 years in a school located in an urban
area. He teaches in a class of 36 students. In his
lessons, he maintains a traditional language teach-
ing style, using a combination of grammar-transla-
tion and audio-lingual method, dominated by a
teacher-centred and book-centred approach. He
puts greater emphasis on restricted form-focused
teaching and textbook exercises than on promoting
pupils’ communicative proficiency as proposed by
COC. The main teaching resources were textbooks,
the board, and the workbook.
As seen in Table 1, he emphasized explicit
grammar instruction (lines 14–16), examples of
non-communicative activities (lines 1–3, 34–36),
and formal correctness including workbook type
drill and practice exercises. The traditional ap-
proach to learning (chalk and talk) appears to
be a more effective way of TEYLs, and for
ensuring good performance on examinations than
activity-oriented approaches. Students were learn-
ing but without being actively involved in the
lesson. Below are some observation notes from his
lessons:
The teacher does not make much effort to make
the lesson enjoyable and entertaining. He writes
the names of body parts directly on the board
with corresponding meanings in Turkish. He
could have used a picture, instead. Teacher
talking time is very high; teacher has difficulty
in classroom management as the class gets noisy
(Observation 3).
Table 1
Excerpt from a lesson transcript of a transmission-oriented
teacher
Line
no.
1 T: Today, we are going to learn body parts. (He
introduces the topic in L1. Then he writes the names of
body parts on the board with their corresponding Turkish
meanings. He then asks students to copy the board into
5 their notebooks.)
Now please repeat after me (he invites the whole class to
do repetition).
Nose (points to his nose)
LLL: nose (in chorus)
10 T: ear (points to his ear)
LLL: ear (in chorus)
T. Ear again please (he focuses on accuracy)
LLL: eye (he continues until all body parts have been
practised as a whole class, in chorus. After that he points to
15 the board, such as ‘ear’ and calls individual student(s) to
pronounce the word. He continues until he gets them
pronounce the words properly).
T: Okay now look at the board please. Everyone. I have
got two eyes. (He then moves on to have got+body parts.
20 First he explains the rule on the board as I have got+eyes.)
Repeat after me.
LLL: I have got two eyes (in chorus). Repeat after me all
together please.
T: Ali please make a sentence using mouth
25 L: I .. two mouth
T: No I have got a MOUTH
S: I have a mouth
T: Good.., yes Ayliny (calling another student) you
please (students, one by one, try to say sentences like this
30 for oral practice. He then directs students to the notebook).
Open page 30 in your notebook. (He wants the pupils to
write names of the body parts under the pictures in their
workbooks for further practice. He then checks the
answers, gives students homework, which is to write each
35 word of the body parts five times in their notebooks, and
memorize them.)
The target vocabularies for this lesson are the ‘words of body
part’ and the target language structure is ‘I have got+body
parts’.
Transcription conventions: T ¼ teacher; L1, L2 ¼ identified
learner; LLL ¼ whole class choral; (in italics) ¼ commentary;
y ¼ pause; CAPITALIZATION ¼ emphasis.
The common method employed by the teacher is
explaining, questioning, giving examples, and
using the board. A greater part of the lesson
has been devoted to teaching the rules of the
language, drilling, and repetition. Lesson lacks
variety. The teacher uses body language quite
effectively. The teaching of English is textbook-
based and is not supplemented by any other
materials (Observation 5).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
Slattery and Willis (2001) recommend using
English in class as the main language for commu-
nication, and the mother tongue for support when
the teacher does a new activity or if no one
understands. As in other transmission-oriented
teachers, the main language of instruction used by
Bilge was Turkish, which he articulated to be more
effective: ‘‘we need to use Turkish due to the low
level of language skills of the pupils’’.
5.1.2. Interpretation-oriented teachers
Six of the interpretation-oriented teachers tended
to adopt a more flexible style in teaching, such as
putting greater emphasis on the development of
pupils’ communicative abilities, applying principles
of CLT, and adopting different approaches to
address the varied learning needs of pupils. An
analysis of the observation notes taken during the
lessons of these teachers has demonstrated that their
teaching style represents an innovative approach
consistent with the COC principles, and also
innovative in the Turkish context, with the activities
exemplifying a number of key principles of CLT.
The general instructional routine of interpreta-
tion-oriented teachers displayed the following style.
These teachers introduced a variety of different
techniques as a starter, such as a joke, a puzzle, or
walked into the lesson singing. They emphasized
communicative activities, games, songs, puzzles,
and used various visual aids (puppets, pictures) to
make the learning of English a pleasant and an
enjoyable experience for the pupils. Unlike trans-
mission-oriented teachers, they had moderate tea-
cher control, and their goal oriented tended to be
student-based learning. Pair and group work were
preferred and practised as a frequent activity on the
belief that such activities are more like real life, and
they promote cooperation. Role playing was used
very frequently, particularly in dialogue perfor-
mance to enhance pronunciation and pupils’ speak-
ing skills. Students were more attentive and engaged
in the lessons due to a variety of activities practised
by the teachers. Unfortunately, many schools
observed did not have sufficient visuals (see
Kırkgöz, 2007). The teachers tried hard to make
up for this deficiency by bringing real pictures,
objects, visuals, CDs, and tape recorders, feeling
that utilizing a variety of techniques can help
increase student motivation (Table 2).
There are many key features associated with
CLT, and that of the COC, which are manifested
in the instructional practices of Ziya (pseudonym).
1869
He introduces new language items with enjoyable
activities. Pupils are being exposed to comprehensible
input and the use of techniques such as repetition
(line 8), short simple sentences (e.g., lines 8, 30), and
visual support (the use of flashcards, pictures,
puppets, real classroom objects). The activities he
does in class (games and songs as the most valuable
resources) help pupils practice the language more
effectively. It is suggested that in CLT, meaning is
given primacy over the form (Brown, 2001; Richards
& Rodgers, 1986). Likewise, Ziya introduces useful
phrases and words in the context of games and
activities within familiar topics to facilitate pupils’
understanding of the new structure rather than
teaching or explaining it directly, creating a positive
environment. As suggested by COC, he puts greater
emphasis on promoting pupils’ communicative pro-
ficiency rather than more restricted form-focused
textbook exercises. Taking into account pupils’ short
attention span, he introduces a variety of activities to
maintain the interest and involvement of pupils, e.g.,
the use of puppets. Examples chosen to illustrate a
particular item are appropriate to pupils’ age, level of
interest, and real-life experiences.
Despite pupils’ own limited knowledge of the
language, Ziya is able to maintain fluent and confident
use of English with very little mixed code when he
wants to ensure that the pupils have understood
instructions. As suggested by Slattery and Willis
(2001), young children will only acquire the language
when they hear around them, and need to hear a lot of
English since the teacher is the main source of input.
An extract from the author’s observation notes
describes learner interest, motivation, and partici-
pation in his lesson:
Pupils are exposed to the target language through
rich input and they are actively involved in using
the target language through games, songs and
short dialogues. The teacher uses clear and
simple English supported by many visuals to
facilitate pupils’ understanding. The learners are
enjoying the lesson while at the same time
acquiring English. They also feel confident and
attentive (Observation 6).
It has been found that Ziya, as many of his inter-
pretation-oriented counterparts, is aware of teaching
style to young learners. He believes that young
learners need to be taught indirectly through games,
songs, and activities as the most favourable way to
promote their acquisition of English. In other words,
he has a clear rationale for exposing the pupils to L2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1870 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
Table 2
Excerpt from a lesson transcript of an Interpretive-oriented
teacher
Line
no.
1 (The teacher, having greeted the pupils, asks those learners
who are late for the lesson to raise pupils’ curiosity. This is
a new structure for the learners.)
T: Where is Ali? (Pupils look inquisitive trying to
5 understand the question. The teacher repeats the question
many times, and while asking, he acts, closing his eyes as if
he is looking for someone.)
T: Where is Ali? Where is Ali? (This is repeated by the
teacher many times until learners develop familiarity with
10 it. The teacher, then, without any explanation about the
new structure, plays a song related to the new target
structure. He starts to sing it, putting an emphasis on
prepositions.)
Cat! Cat! Where is the cat?
15 Cat! Cat! It is ON the mat.
Cat! Cat! Where is the cat?
Cat! Cat! It is UNDER the bed.
Cat! Cat! Where is the cat?
Cat! Cat! It is IN the hat.
20 Cat! Cat! Where is the cat?
Cat! Cat! It is NEXT TO the rat. (The students sing it
with the demonstration of the teacher that supports the
meaning of the song, and the structures in it. Later, he
directly uses the question with familiar classroom objects.)
25 T: Where is the ball? (Pupils hesitate about the meaning of
the ball. The teacher, being aware of that, shows a
flashcard of a ball. And, he wants learners to repeat.)
T: Okay.. This is a ball a bally Please repeat after me.
Bally
30 LLL: This is a ballyball (Students later begin to shout)
T: The ball is UNDER the desk. (Putting the ball under
the desk, he has the learners repeat for many times. He
then substitutes the ball with other classroom objects for
further practice.)
35 T: Where is the book? (The students comprehend the
question, and answer it like that with code-switching
between English and Turkish.)
L: The book is on the table. (He presents the remaining
prepositions in the same way, yet, this time, he only guides
40 the learners. Whenever they make errors, he just shows
them with his fingers that there is a problem. If the students
don’t know the meaning of the objects, he has a pack of
flashcards, from which he shows the objects.
Further demonstration and practice: The teacher continues
45 with a ‘‘Listen and Do’’ activity, using a puppet.)
T: This is SweetyySweety. Say Hello to Sweety. (He
wants pupils to listen to the puppet; that is, him, and
following the directions, put the objects in the right places.)
T: Can you see these objects? Okay. Good. Sweety will
50 tell you where the objects are. Listen, and put them in
their right places. (He gives the instruction also in Turkish
to help learners understand fully. He then chooses one
student to try to put the objects in their places.)
T: (Sweety): Hello Burak! Can you see the table in the
55 middle? The chair is NEXT TO that table. Take this
Table 2 (continued )
Line
no.
book and put it ON the chair. Now please put it
UNDER the chair, you can see my shoes. Thank you.’’
(He calls out another student and many students take part
in this activity.)
60 (As a post-listening part of the activity, he chooses two
students; one is to give direction and the other to perform
it, as the puppet did in the previous activity.)
T: I need two students. One will say the places of these
objects, and the other will put them in their places. (Pairs
65 are chosen to carry out the activity.)
The target language structures for the lesson are prepositions and
‘‘Where is/are y?,’’
Transcription conventions: T ¼ teacher; L1, L2 ¼ identified
learner; LLL ¼ whole class choral; (in italics) ¼ commentary;
y ¼ pause; CAPITALIZATION ¼ emphasis.
5.1.3. An eclectic methodology: combining the ‘new’
with the ‘old’
Ten of the teachers tended to follow an eclectic
approach, exhibiting features of both traditional
and communicative approaches in their classroom
practices, with the former featuring more frequently
than the latter. These teachers had a tendency to
‘‘combine the ‘‘new’’ with the ‘‘old’’ to align the
communicative approach with traditional teaching
structures’’ (Rao, 2002, p. 85) with the belief that
students benefit more from it. Most lessons were
teacher-centred and exhibited an explicit focus on
form; pair work activities were used in some
classrooms whereas group-work activities were
never implemented.
A typical classroom instructional routine exem-
plifying this methodology usually structured in the
following routine: A general way of opening the
lesson for an eclectic-oriented teacher was by
greeting and taking pupils’ attendance, usually
followed by presenting new language on the board
and explaining the rules of the language and the
grammar directly in L1. Then, s/he directed ques-
tions to many pupils, encouraging students to
answer and participate in the lesson. The teacher
usually continued with an activity, and finally s/he
gave students homework (Table 3).
Salih (pseudonym) has 13 years of teaching
experience with teaching adults, and like Bilge, he
has moved to teach English to young learners
during the last five years. He teaches in a school
located in a suburban area. In his instructional style,
he uses a combination of both traditional language
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
teaching style: chalk and talk language learning,
explicit grammar instruction, formal correctness
(line 19), translation, and some communicative
activities: songs and dialogues. In his lessons, he
puts greater emphasis on restricted form-focused
teaching and textbook exercises than on promoting
pupils’ communicative proficiency. The main lan-
guage of communication was in Turkish, as in other
eclectic-oriented teachers. He teaches vocabulary
explicitly by giving Turkish meaning (lines 10,34).
Table 3
Excerpt from a lesson transcript of a teacher with an eclectic
orientation
Line
no.
1 T: Good afternoon class. (Having greeted pupils, Salih
(pseudonym) introduces the topic in Turkish ‘‘Today we
will learn parts of our body.’’ (To arouse their attention,
he shows a picture and asks pupils to say the body parts in
5 Turkish.)
T: Now look at the board please. (He draws picture of a
man on the board and writes the parts of the body on the
picture in English. Then, both showing on the picture and
pointing at different parts of the body, he says the
10 corresponding words in English. He then gets students
repeat each of the words after him for pronunciation
practice.)
T: Repeat after me, please, nosey.
LLL: nose
15 T: Goody now say nose nose
LLL: nose
T: eyes
S: eye
T: noy noy eyes eyesy eyes.
20 T: Zeynep, come to the board please. (He calls a student
to come to the board and tells him.)
Show me your ear
Show me your eyes
Show me your nose
25 Show me your leg, etc. (This continues until he has
practiced this with as many students as possible. He gives
these commands to the whole class, which they do
altogether.)
Further practice:
30 (The teacher sticks some body part pictures on the board
with their English names, students match them on the
board. He asks them to copy the board into their
notebooks. He then keeps the body part pictures on board
and writes the Turkish equivalents in scrambled order. He
35 calls students to the board to match them. He asks students
to copy the board into their notebooks.)
Then, he uses the same pictures and gives them to pairs one
by one. One of the pairs selects a picture and asks the other
one ‘‘What is this?’’ The pair answers such as: ‘‘It is an
40 eye.’’
Students are then taught head and shoulders song, as
follows:
1871
Table 3 (continued )
Line
no.
Head and shoulders knees and toes knees and toes (2)
Eyes and ears and mouth and nose
45 Head and shoulders knees and toes knees and toes
(The song is written on the board. While singing, he also
points to body parts. The song is repeated until students
sing it properly. Students get out of their seats in groups of
five, and they sing it together. At the end of the lesson, he
50 directs students to complete exercises in their notebook. He
gives students homework, which is to write each word of
the body parts five times in their notebooks and to
memorize them.)
The target vocabularies for this lesson are the body part words,
and the target language structure is ‘‘I have got+body parts’’.
Transcription conventions: T ¼ teacher; L1, L2 ¼ identified
learner; LLL ¼ whole class choral; (in italics) ¼ commentary;
y ¼ pause; CAPITALIZATION ¼ emphasis.
He considers his role, as a teacher, to impart
knowledge through explanation, writing examples,
and later to consolidating it with an activity. An
interview held with him indicated that he preferred
teaching students the basic form of grammar so that
‘‘pupils acquire basics of English to be able to
express themselves sufficiently’’ and support it with
some activities, games, songs, etc’’.
Below are some observation notes from his lessons:
The teacher spends a good deal of time explain-
ing the meaning of body part words in L1. The
lesson becomes more enjoyable when he has
introduced the song (Observation 2).
Interview data with him demonstrated a general,
though not full, understanding of COC:
I believe that the pupils should be explained the
rules of the language such as the grammar first
and later they should be given activities. I try to
balance teaching grammar with some activities
(interview, p. 4).
Having looked at the extent to which teachers
carry out COC in their classroom, I will now proceed
to discuss how two factors, namely teachers’ under-
standing and their prior training, impact upon the
teachers’ implementation of the COC.
5.2. Teachers’ understandings of COC and TEYLs
As illustrated in the previous section, teachers
had various levels of understandings of COC and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1872 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
that of TEYLs. Transmission-oriented teachers had
a low degree of understanding the principles of
COC and that of TEYLs, leading to a low degree of
implementation of COC. This lack of understanding
was verified in interviews held with them, where
teachers either did not understand or were unable to
see the practical implications of many of the
principles of the communicative approach. Most
transmission-oriented teachers articulated their un-
derstanding of TEYLs in terms of helping pupils
become familiar with the elementary linguistic
structure as a preparation for upper grades. Inter-
views revealed that transmission and eclectic-or-
iented teachers had previously been teaching adults;
with the introduction of TEYLs they moved to
teaching young learners. Most of them were
unfamiliar with teaching techniques at a primary
level. As a result, they experienced several difficul-
ties, as identified in the previous study (see Kırkgöz,
2007).
Although the official rhetoric of the curriculum
stresses the promotion of practical communicative
skills, this is rarely reflected at the classroom level of
these teachers, where the emphasis was found to be
on the development of basic grammatical skills. At
the instructional level, transmission-oriented tea-
chers, like Bilge, remained unable to be ‘commu-
nicative’ and teach English through games and
contextualized activities, as proposed by COC. It
was not surprising that they had some reservations
about using communicative activities as they were
not specifically trained for this level, and were
unfamiliar with teaching techniques involved in
TEYLs, which was not taken into consideration by
the policy makers. Thus, they preferred to use the
more unidirectional mode of ‘chalk and talk’
teaching (Lee et al., 2003). The major source of
visuals was the use of textbooks, the board, body
movement, and gestures. Teachers preferred indivi-
dual work thinking that this would enable each
student to learn the subject more effectively.
Most eclectic-oriented teachers’ understanding of
TEYLs included helping pupils become familiar
with the elementary linguistic structure and increase
their interest towards learning English. The follow-
ing sample extract is quoted to illustrate the
perception of an eclectic-oriented teacher regarding
the purpose of TEYLs:
To give direct instruction in the rules and
vocabulary of language is essential if students
are to learn the language effectively, and it is also
timesaving. Later, when they play a game or sing
a song the language learning becomes more
meaningful for them (a 45-year-old female
teacher).
An interview held with the only interpretation-
oriented teacher who previously taught adults, yet
was able to make an appropriate transition to teach
English to young learners demonstrated that she
was aware of cognitive differences involved in
TEYLs, as indicated below:
Having taught adult learners for 15 years, I
found it difficult to teach young learners. It was
really difficult for me to accept that many
children’s attention would be short-lived. I soon
realized that my classroom management skills
needed to take on a new dimension to meet the
needs of these children (a 42-year-old female
teacher).
In fact, this teacher was unique in that she was
interested in, and willing to take charge of, her own
self-development in a teaching training programme
offered by a local training course.
Slattery and Willis (2001) recognize that teaching
can be more effective and less stressful if teachers
have a wide variety of activities that are both fun for
young learners and rich in natural language
opportunities. Such an atmosphere was established
mainly by the interpretation-oriented teachers.
An understanding of the differences between teach-
ing adults and young learners seemed to help
these teachers gain the flexibility that TEYLs
require. This flexibility was reflected in the instruc-
tional practices of the interpretation-oriented tea-
chers. The following sample extract illustrates
conception of an interpretation-oriented teacher
towards COC:
The purpose of TEYLs is to give them the idea
that language learning is not learning a lesson but
an enjoyable experience. That is in fact the way
TEYLs should be. Pupils have shorter attention
span, and their attention easily gets distracted,
therefore they need to be given engaging activ-
ities. They need activities that appeal and make
sense to them giving examples games, songs,
riddles, puzzles, jokes (a 26-year-old male tea-
cher).
Taken as a whole, lessons observed seemed to
indicate that the transmission-oriented teachers had
a low degree of implementation of COC, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
instructional practices of the interpretation-oriented
teachers were highly conducive to COC, as they
were able to put into practice a number of main
features of COC, and eclectic-oriented teachers had
a medium degree of implementation of the COC.
5.3. The impact of training
It has been found that both pre-service and in-
service training teachers received have played an
important role in teachers’ effective TEYLs. Of the
32 teachers, only six had received in-service training.
Sixteen of the transmission-oriented teachers re-
ported that their previous university training did not
include TEYLs and they had not practised it at all
until they were required to teach this particular age
group, whereas five of the 10 eclectic-oriented
teachers reported to have attended English teaching
conferences and read about it on English teaching
journals. Five interpretation-oriented teachers re-
ported that they had learned TEYLs in the
university teacher education methodology course,
and when they started teaching this age level, they
did not experience much difficulty, as illustrated
below:
I learned TEYLs when I was studying at
university. It was taught as part of my teacher
education course. I observed a primary school
class and I was required to give a micro teaching.
Besides, I actually practiced it in a nursery
observed by my mentor teacher (a 29-year-old
female teacher).
Those transmission and eclectic-oriented teachers
were all found to be qualified teachers of English,
with pedagogical competence tailored mainly to the
needs of adults, yet they had not been equipped with
the appropriate methodology needed to teach
English to young learners. As a result, they lacked
practical experience on how to apply COC into their
teaching. This lack of systematic training usually led
to a fragmentary understanding of CLT and that of
TEYLs, making it difficult for most teachers to
leave the security of the traditional methods and
take the risk of trying new methods.
Most teachers, in this category, mentioned that
after teaching English to adult learners at a much
higher level, they found it difficult to teach English
at a much lower level. According to the teachers,
TEYLs require certain abilities on the part of the
teacher. Teachers admitted that to be able to teach
this age group, training tailored mainly towards
1873
teaching young learners, and a teacher’s familiarity
with child psychology, physical, cognitive and
developmental features of learners is essential so
that s/he can use appropriate methods in his/her
instructional practices. This is illustrated in the
following interview extract:
I am experiencing difficulty in teaching English
to this age group. To be able to teach this level, it
is essential to have a special training so that I can
keep students engaged and motivated. It is
essential that the training programme include
child psychology, characteristics of this age
group and the use teaching methods appropriate
to this level (a 49-year-old female teacher).
After the initiation of TEYLs, in-service teacher
education courses specifically related to the new
policy, intended to introduce teachers to ways of
applying the appropriate methodology advocated in
COC, were offered by the Turkish MNE. However,
as these courses were offered on a voluntary basis,
not all teachers were able to take advantage of
them.
6. Conclusion
In this study, an illustration of ELT in teachers’
instructional practices in TEYLs, and the impact of
teachers’ understandings and prior training experi-
ences upon their implementation of COC in Turkish
state primary schools, was given through a multiple
case-study research design. Research findings sug-
gest that there is considerable variation among the
instructional practices of teachers involved in
TEYLs, teachers’ understandings towards what
constitutes an effective way of TEYLs, and teachers’
prior training experiences.
These findings highlight the need to expand
INSET and teacher development opportunities for
teachers engaged in TEYLs, particularly those in
the transmission and eclectic-oriented paradigms to
ensure the adequate implementation of CLT. It is
also suggested that trainers receive a ‘trainer-
training programme’ to increase their awareness of
the implementation of the innovation in practice for
the practising teachers, and to maximize the chances
of curriculum objectives being implemented in
classrooms. As a crucial component of such a
programme, trainers need to be encouraged to take
teachers’ existing beliefs and classroom practices
into account in introducing new ideas to help
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1874 Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
facilitate the professional and cultural adjustments
that curriculum change requires of the teachers.
In addition, training needs to be continuous and
developmental, particularly during the first critical
years of curriculum innovation (Brindley & Hood,
1990; Malderez & Wedell, 2007), rather than one-off
in nature (Carless, 1997) in order to provide
teachers with the necessary support, and help
teachers update their knowledge about emerging
practices to ensure full implementation of COC.
With the realization of the above suggestions, it is
likely to see the evidence of large numbers of
teachers engaging in new practices, and that a
complex, costly, and time-consuming curriculum
innovation process has ultimately been worthwhile.
While the data in this case study have focussed on
Turkish teachers, it has wider implications to many
researchers, curriculum planners, teacher educators,
and practitioners who are involved in the imple-
mentation of communicative curricula in the intro-
duction of English in primary schools.
Appendix A
See Table A1 for the lesson observation schedule.
Table A1
Lesson observation schedule
Grade/class no:
Teacher:
Lesson no: Date:
Observation items
(A) Instruction
I1. Introduction
I2. Revision
I3. Questioning/answering questions
I4. Use of variety
I5. Use of audio-visual aids (games, songs, pictures,
etc.)
I6. Opportunities for all students to be involved
I7. Use of textbook
I8. Use of chalkboard
I9. Use of translation
I10. Use of voice
I11. Lesson structure
I12. Closure
(B) Management
M1. Maintaining an orderly discipline
M2. Feedback (error correction and praise)
M3. Use of pair and group work
M4. Monitoring the class
Table A1 (continued )
(C) Climate
C1. Teacher can arouse students’ interest and
motivation
C2. Enthusiasm in class
C3. Physical characteristics of the room
Appendix B. Classroom observation summary of an
interpretation-oriented teacher
Fikret (pseudonym) starts the lesson with a song,
game, or using puppets as a warm-up activity. He
then summarizes the previous lesson, giving some
clues about the day’s topic.
He supplements the textbook, using a variety of
activities. He uses games, e.g., find your partner,
hangman; songs, visuals, e.g., pictures from news-
papers, magazines; colourful and amazing flash-
cards in teaching jobs, house objects, adjectives etc.,
realia, puppets, etc., while presenting a new topic,
vocabulary, and for pronunciation. He sometimes
uses games and songs as a reward for the students,
following an activity that the students have success-
fully completed. Colourful and amazing flashcards
capture students’ attention easily. He often brings in
his own CDs, e.g., English adventure and Welcome
Plus, to complement the topics in his lessons. He
also uses the board effectively.
He makes very little use of L1, mainly when there
is a need for it. He tries to answer students’
questions in L2 even when they ask in L1 to expose
the students to English as much as possible. His way
of error correction is by repeating the correct
Comments structure, vocabulary, or pronunciation. Both at
the beginning of the lesson and during the lesson, he
uses different ice-breakers like lazy eight, cross
crawl etc., which students enjoy a lot.
He has good relations with his students. He tends
to praise students by providing positive feedback,
such as very good, well done, perfect, etc. He uses
his tone of voice effectively to convey the meaning
of his messages, and to capture their attention. He
manages his lessons very effectively. Students are
observed to feel safe and comfortable, actively
involving in pair and group-work activities, and
enjoying the lessons. Student participation has been
observed to be high in all the activities set up by the
teacher.
He always closes the lessons with a brief summary,
followed by a funny joke, a game, or a story to create
wonder at students for the next lesson.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kırkgöz / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1859–1875
References
Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1996). Voices from the
language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G., & Hood, S. (1990). Curriculum innovation in adult
ESL. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The second language curriculum in
action. Sydney: National Centre for English Language
Teaching and Research.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive
approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2003). Doing second language
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carless, D. R. (1997). Managing systematic curriculum change: A
critical analysis of Hong Kong’s target-oriented curriculum
initiative. International Review of Education, 43(4), 349–366.
Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum innovation in
Hong Kong. System, 26, 353–368.
Carless, D. R. (2001). A case study of curriculum innovation in
Hong Kong. In D. R. Hall, & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innova-
tion in English language teaching (pp. 263–274). London:
Routledge.
Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-
based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485–500.
Dushku, S. (1998). ELT in Albania: Project evaluation and
change. System, 26, 369–388.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.
London: Cassells.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depth of educational
reform. London: Palmer Press.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative
design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holliday, A. (2001). Achieving cultural continuity in curriculum
innovation. In D. R. Hall, & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in
English language teaching (pp. 169–177). London: Routledge.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical
imports: The case of communicative language teaching in
China. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105.
Hui, L. (1997). New bottles, old wine: Communicative language
teaching in China. English Teaching Forum, 35(4), 38–41.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identified factors affecting
the implementation of a curriculum innovation in Greek
public secondary schools. Language Culture and Curriculum,
8(1), 53–68.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate
teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT
Journal, 50(3), 187–200.
Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in
ELT projects. Applied Linguistics, 9(4), 329–342.
Kennedy, C. (1996). Teacher roles in curriculum reform. English
Language Teacher Education and Development, 2(1), 77–88.
Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change
implementation. System, 24(3), 351–360.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). English language teaching in Turkey:
Challenges for the 21st century. In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching
English to the world: History, curriculum and practice
(pp. 159–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2006). Teaching English as a Foreign Language at
the primary level in Turkey: An exploratory school-based case
1875
study. In M. McCloskey, M. Dolitsky, & J. Orr (Eds.),
Teaching English as a foreign language in primary school
(pp. 85–99). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2007). Language planning and implementation in
Turkish primary schools. Current Issues in Language Plan-
ning, 8(2), 174–191.
Kocaoluk, F., & Kocaoluk, M. S- . (2001). İlköğretim okulu
programı 1999– 2000 [Primary education curriculum
1999– 2000]. İstanbul: Kocaoluk Publishers.
Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, P. C., & Long, M. (Eds.). (1982).
Child– adult differences in second language acquisition. Row-
ley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Lee, J. C. K., Lam, W. P., & Li, Y. Y. (2003). Teacher evaluation
and effectiveness in Hong Kong: Issues and challenges.
Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 41–65.
Li, D. (1998). ‘‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and
imagine’’. Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the
communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly,
32, 677–697.
Malderez, A., & Wedell, M. (2007). Teaching teachers: Processes
and practices. London: Continuum.
Markee, N. (1997). Managing curriculum innovation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on
educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613.
O’Sullivan, Marco C. (2004). The usefulness of lesson observa-
tion in a primary teachers’ INSET programme in Namibia.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(1).
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative
and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System,
30, 85–105.
Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. (Eds.). (1992). Evaluation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 30, 281–296.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods
in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. New York: The
Free Press.
Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an
ecological perspective on language teaching. System, 31(1), 2–17.
Van Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 783–787.
Vandenberghe, R. (2002). Teachers’ professional development as
the core of school improvement. International Journal of
Educational Research, 37(8), 653–659.
Wagner, J. (1991). Innovation in foreign language teaching. In R.
Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, &
M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Wedell, M. (2003). Giving TESOL change a chance: Supporting key
players in the curriculum change process. System, 31, 439–456.
Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2005). Research methods in
education. London: Pearson Publishers.