See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372149306

Preservice English Teachers’ Preparedness to Teach: Stakeholders’ Perceptions

in Teaching Practicum

Article in Journal of Teacher Education · July 2023

DOI: 10.1177/00224871231185369

CITATIONS READS

0 248

2 authors:

Handan Çelik Ece Zehir Topkaya

Trabzon University Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
49 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 545 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Handan Çelik on 07 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1185369
research-article2023
JTEXXX10.1177/00224871231185369Journal of Teacher EducationÇelik and Topkaya

Research/Empirical

Journal of Teacher Education

Preservice English Teachers’

1­–15
© 2023 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Preparedness to Teach: Stakeholders’ Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Perceptions in Teaching Practicum DOI: 10.1177/00224871231185369

https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231185369
journals.sagepub.com/home/jte

Handan Çelik1 and Ece Zehir Topkaya2

Abstract
Preservice English language teachers (PSTs) realize and shape their perceptions regarding preparedness to teach during their
education. However, being prepared to teach is complex and multifaceted and requires individual factors and interaction
with context and other people. Therefore, understanding it from stakeholders’ lens is needed. Within a descriptive and
exploratory design, one-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted with 8 faculty advisors (FAs) and 11 cooperating
teachers (CTs) supervising PSTs in primary, secondary, and high schools in a northwestern city in Türkiye. The data
collected in teaching practicum stage of field experience was coded and categorized via constant comparison method of
analysis. The FAs, except for few issues, regarded the PSTs as unprepared to teach, while the CTs did as prepared to teach.
The emergence of a perception gap could show lack of common understanding and mismatch between the stakeholders’
perceptions regarding their standards of and approaches toward high-quality teacher preparation.

Keywords
English teacher education, field experiences, preservice teacher education, qualitative research, supervision

Introduction In the Turkish teacher education context, English lan-

English language teachers are expected to acquire and
develop a wide array of teaching knowledge, skills, and
behaviors and apply them in their own contexts at higher lev-
els of mastery to ensure 21st century learners get equipped
with various skills and competences ranging from critical
thinking to digital literacy (Caena & Redecker, 2019; Kim
et al., 2019). In this vein, the goal of language teacher educa-
tion is to prepare teachers to teach effectively in any school
context. In the Turkish context, preservice English language
teachers’ (PSTs’) faculty education includes teaching practi-
cum (TP) in their senior year to support professional learning
by immersing them into classrooms to be involved in assist-
ing, observing, and teaching alongside mentors (Hamilton &
Margot, 2019). This first exposure to “real” teaching takes
place under the supervision of cooperating teachers (CTs)
and faculty advisors (FAs) (Cohen et al., 2013). It is a “co-
constructed activity between mentor and pre-service teacher”
(Allen et al., 2019, p. 323) through which PSTs get prepared
for teaching and its responsibilities ranging from lesson
planning to assessment and evaluation. However, demon-
strating the knowledge and skills acquired throughout fac-
ulty education is not simple (Cohen et al., 2013). Hence,
understanding if and to what extent PSTs are prepared to
teach, as evaluated by their CTs and FAs, plays an invaluable
role to feedback into the quality of their education.
guage teacher education comprises a 4-year university study
preceded by a year-long preparatory English language edu-
cation that enables PSTs to develop their language skills.
Once they complete it, they continue with their faculty edu-
cation. While they take various courses on content and peda-
gogical content knowledge in the first 3 years of their
education, it is the last two semesters comprising field expe-
rience when PSTs go to practicum schools. There is school
experience in the first semester where PSTs develop knowl-
edge and understanding regarding teaching and school-
related tasks through observations. However, TP in the
second semester provides them with the opportunity to test
and develop their teaching skills through teaching practice.
Field experience, as the final and most important step in
English language teacher education, has been investigated
abundantly in the Turkish context. However, the focus is
mostly on mentoring rather than PSTs’ preparedness to teach,
despite the inseparable link between the two (Aydın, 2016;
1
Trabzon University, Türkiye
2
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Türkiye
Corresponding Author:
Handan Çelik, Department of Foreign Language Education, Fatih Faculty
of Education, Trabzon University, Trabzon 61335, Türkiye.
Email: handancelik@trabzon.edu.tr
2 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)
Aydın & Ok, 2020; Ersin & Atay, 2021; Orsdemir & Yıldırım,
2020; Rakicioglu-Soylemez & Eroz-Tuga, 2014; Yaylı,
2018). Similarly, in the global context, studies exploring
mentoring abound (see Allen et al., 2013; Becker et al., 2019;
Browne Hogan, 2011; Mok & Staub, 2021). However, some
studies exploring preparedness to teach report one group of
stakeholders’ perceptions such as PSTs’ own evaluations
(Brown et al., 2015, 2021; Clark, 2009; Kraut, 2013; Tran,
2011). A recent study examines FAs’ evaluations of PSTs’
teaching skills during field experience to interpret their pre-
paredness to teach (Goldhaber et al., 2022). Research bring-
ing all key stakeholders, that is, PSTs, CTs, and FAs, together
is very rare, and one which did so examined PSTs’ self-eval-
uations and FAs’ and CTs’ evaluations of the PSTs’ teacher
quality in field experience (Tsai & Ku, 2021) rather than
aiming to interpret their preparedness to teach. As seen, both
the national and international literature suggests the need for
a multiperspective exploration and understanding of PSTs’
preparedness to teach. To address this gap in English lan-
guage teacher education in the Turkish context, a small-scale
case study involving FAs and CTs was designed to explore
their perceptions regarding PSTs’ preparedness to teach in
TP and its sources. Moreover, the study aimed to reveal any
potential similarities and differences in their perceptions and
addressed the following questions:
1. What are the stakeholders,’ FAs at faculty and CTs at
practicum schools, evaluations of PSTs’ prepared-
ness to teach in their TP?
a. To which sources do they attach the PSTs’ prepared-
ness to teach?
b. Is any convergence or divergence observed in their
evaluations?
Theoretical Background
In this paper, the concept of preparedness to teach is theoreti-
cally linked to professional readiness or teaching readiness.
Although there are no clear frameworks showing whether the
content properties of these concepts are the same, several
researchers use them interchangeably (see Mohamed et al.,
2016; Straková, 2015). Considering that the theory on pro-
fessional readiness and models offered to explain the con-
struct may give us directionality and guidance in
understanding preparedness to teach, we first explain it, then
present the literature on preparedness to teach.
Professional Readiness. The complexity of the teaching pro-
fession has increased due to various issues such as societal
expectations from schools and teachers, classrooms with
more diverse learners, and changes in knowledge bases of
teaching due to recent educational technology developments
(Snoek et al., 2019) which require teachers to facilitate learn-
ing by creating and using technological resources. These
indicate that PSTs are trained for a constantly changing and
developing profession, which makes the construct of profes-
sional readiness even more difficult to define and
understand.
Beginning with the pioneering research of Housego
(1990) on PSTs’ feelings of preparedness to teach, there has
been a lot of interest in defining professional readiness in
teacher education, but without a unified definition, despite a
strong agreement regarding its complexity and multifaceted-
ness. For instance, Artemenko and Artemenko (2020) regard
professional readiness as “a complex structural formation”
(p. 545). According to Slusareva et al. (2019), this complex
structure is the result of “the formation, development and
improvement of mental processes, states, properties and
qualities of the person necessary for the successful perfor-
mance of professional activities” (p. 404).
Teaching readiness is defined as a process where profes-
sional competences develop and as a result of which PSTs
become prepared for the profession (Mohamed et al., 2016).
Straková (2015) states that it is “the feeling of being ready
for the job with the consideration of all aspects and elements
which contributed to that feeling during pre-service training”
(p. 33).
Some models have been proposed to conceptualize the
constituents of professional readiness. Yıldırım’s (2016)
three-dimensional model comprises cognitive readiness
(professional qualifications and competences), psychologi-
cal readiness (attitudes, concerns, and professional liability),
and physical readiness (physical and mental health), whereas
Fedirchyk and Didukh (2021) explain it in four dimensions
as cognitive, motivational, operational, and personal (see p.
72 for further details).
As this concise review suggests, professional readiness is
a complex construct and is never a mono-dimensional state
to attain. Therefore, in the pursuit of their professional readi-
ness, PSTs need to acquire and develop various qualities
ranging from teaching knowledge, skills, and competences
acquired in faculty education to teaching motivation and
commitment which are developed during PSTs’ faculty edu-
cation and are realized and further developed in the TP.
Besides, the role-played by FAs and CTs is also crucial to
provide PSTs with high-quality TP. Moreover, personality
factors such as conscientiousness, goal-orientedness, and
care are also among those qualities since as Noddings (2012)
stated teaching involves “. . . establishing and maintaining
[personal] relations of care and trust which include listening,
dialogue, critical thinking, reflective response, and making
thoughtful connections among the disciplines and to life
itself” (p. 771).
Preparedness to Teach. Preparedness to teach is defined as a
set of self-perceptions that PSTs have related to the perfor-
mance of a group of tasks that are central to teaching, appli-
cable across grade levels and subject matter, and are likely to
be influential on their ability to perform these tasks (Faez,
2012; Housego, 1990). It is regarded as the power
Çelik and Topkaya
encouraging PSTs to believe that they can handle problems
in class, reach all students, make a difference in their learn-
ing, and ultimately make a difference in their lives (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2002). From a wider perspective,
preparedness to teach includes indicators of teaching effi-
cacy, confidence, knowledge of curriculum and teaching and
professional understanding of it, teaching performance dur-
ing TP, and personality (Alsaleh, 2017, 2019; Alsaleh &
Anthony, 2018; Brown et al., 2021; Çelik, 2017; Clark,
2009). Meeks et al. (2016) reported that preparedness to
teach is mainly determined by the degree of confidence that
PSTs hold toward their ability to teach. However, Darling-
Hammond et al. (2002) argue that those who feel underpre-
pared are more likely to feel unsure about how to teach some
students and believe that some other factors such as peers
and home environment are influential on student achieve-
ment more than themselves as teachers. All in all, there are
various explanations about what constitutes the underlying
sources of preparedness to teach which points out a need for
further research.
However, there has been a consensus regarding the key
role TP plays in educating adequately prepared teachers
(Alsaleh, 2019; Cohen et al., 2013; Mudra, 2018). Goldhaber
et al.’s (2022) study proves the direct link between the qual-
ity of field experience and the extent of growth of teaching
effectiveness during it. As another study revealed, “teachers’
sense of preparedness [is] . . . the strongest predictor of
instructional quality” (Blömeke et al., 2016, p. 2). When the
effect of teaching and instructional quality on the quality of
student learning is considered (Rice, 2003), the significance
of exploring if PSTs possess the necessary skills and knowl-
edge enabling them to perceive themselves as prepared in the
classroom and beyond becomes evident.
However, direct evaluation of PSTs’ preparedness to teach
seems almost impossible since preparedness is a complex
phenomenon shaped by some intellectual, psychological,
and personal factors such as PSTs’ teaching knowledge and
skills, motivation, emotional attachment to the profession,
and personal characteristics, that is, being responsible, car-
ing, and dedicated. Moreover, contextual factors such as TP
process, practicum schools, and significant stakeholders
including advisors, mentors, and even peers are influential
on preparedness to teach (Alsaleh, 2019; Day et al., 2005;
Gray et al., 2019).
In line with this complex web of factors, PSTs’ prepared-
ness to teach has been examined from different perspectives
including curriculum knowledge (Aygün, 2019); teaching
knowledge and skills, such as classroom management and
knowledge of assessment or teaching multicultural students
(İnceçay & Keşli Dollar, 2012; Magogwe & Ketsitlile, 2015;
Xu & He, 2019); integration of technology into teaching
(Batane & Ngwako, 2017; Gill et al., 2015); teaching prac-
tice in TP (Brown et al., 2015, 2021); strengths and weak-
nesses of it (Celen & Akcan, 2017); or type of program being
certified (Kee, 2011). In short, various lenses, contexts, and
3
constructs have been brought together to interpret prepared-
ness to teach. The current study aims to add a novel dimen-
sion to this body of research by uncovering the evaluations
of two pivotal stakeholders, FAs and CTs, regarding PSTs’
preparedness to teach in TP and its likely sources.
The Study
Methodology and Instrumentation. In this study, we adopted a
qualitative, exploratory design and used semistructured
interviews with a preprepared list of questions. To establish
the content validity and credibility of the interview protocol
(see Appendix), we reviewed the initial drafts (Zohrabi,
2013). Based on our feedback and comments, we revised the
questions for clarity and effectiveness. We held frequent
online debriefing sessions (Shenton, 2004) to discuss alter-
native questions and test developing ideas and interpreta-
tions. For instance, the question which initially only asked
the duration that the CT/FA spent in PST supervision was
expanded to include the number of the PST groups that they
had supervised until that time, the number of the PSTs that
they were supervising at the time of this study, and the teach-
ing grade(s) they were supervising the PSTs in. Besides, for
Part B, questions 2 and 3, the second researcher suggested
some follow-up questions to prompt the respondents to elicit
in-depth data (Dörnyei, 2007; Mackey & Gass, 2005). Thus,
we negotiated, improved, and added them to understand
what made the CTs/FAs hold a particular perception.
Context, Participants, and Data Collection. The study took
place at the English language teaching (ELT) program of the
Faculty of Education (School of Education) of a state univer-
sity in northwest Türkiye. At universities in Türkiye, English
language teacher education is carried out by Faculties of
Education and comprises a 4-year study preceded by a year-
long language preparatory program. Those successfully
completing the program graduate with a BA degree. Students
are placed in the ELT programs based on their scores in a
nationwide, centralized exam. A competency-based approach
toward teacher education (Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YOK],
2011) is adopted and the knowledge and skills to be acquired
by PSTs are determined by the Ministry of National Educa-
tion (MoNE) both at generic (Türk Eğitim Derneği, 2009)
and domain-specific levels (Ministry of National Education,
2008). Despite some variations due to contextual factors, a
155-class hour long, standardized ELT program is imple-
mented at universities including 48% of content knowledge,
34% of pedagogical content knowledge, and 18% of general
culture knowledge courses (YOK, 2018). Therefore, in the
Turkish context, successful completion of the program is
interpreted as being prepared to teach. Table 1 shows details
of the participants and the research context.
The study included 8 FAs (5 females and 3 males) and 11
CTs (7 females and 4 males). On average, the FAs had 21
years of teaching experience (range = 12–29). Three were
4 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)
Table 1. Participant and Context Characteristics.
Participant characteristics
Participants Gender Job status
FAs (8) 5F 3 Assistant Professors
3M 5 Lecturers
CTs (11) 7F XX
4M
Context characteristics
Teaching practicum Number of groups Number of schools
Spring term for 14 12 (each with 11 12
weeks or 13 PSTs)
Note. FAs = faculty advisors; CTs = cooperating teachers; PST = preservice English language teacher.
assistant professors with PhD degrees in ELT. Five were lec-
turers two of whom were pursuing their PhD degrees. Three
had MA degrees in ELT. All CTs had BA in ELT. In the
Turkish context, Directorates of Ministry of National
Education in each city organize inservice training programs
for CT training. CTs take a 4-day, 24-hr course based on
clinical supervision model. Those who successfully com-
plete the program can supervise PSTs in their TP. The FAs
were teaching in a more composite structure as they were
members of the Faculty of Education which is responsible
for teacher education at the undergraduate level. However,
the schools where the CTs taught were diverse in terms of the
grades and the students, or their facilities.
Initially, 28 CTs were interviewed, but the sample size
decreased to 11 (7 females and 4 males) through data satura-
tion, details of which are provided below. Nine had at least
12 years of teaching experience, while two had 3 years. Two
CTs (CT1, CT11) were very experienced in PST supervision
with 16 years of experience. Only one was new to supervi-
sion, and eight had between 3 and 7 years of experience.
There were 12 TP schools covering primary, secondary,
and high schools, two of which (School#1/2) were private
schools. The PSTs were divided into 12 practicum groups
each comprising 11 or 13 PSTs. Each school had one practi-
cum group. At the ELT program, four FAs supervised one
group, while the other four supervised two groups. Therefore,
their supervision workload was about 25 PSTs. In five TP
schools (School# 2/5/9/10/11), there were four CTs, while in
the other four, the number changed between five (School#4/6)
and six (School#8/12) for each school. Only two schools
(School#3/7) had three teachers. In other words, each CT
supervised two or three PSTs, except for the private school
(School#1) where there were 12 teachers, each supervising
one PST.
Average teaching Average supervision Supervision load (Group
experience experience = 11 or 12 PSTs)
21 years 11 years 4 FAs: 1 group each
4 FAs: 2 groups each
14 years 6 years A group of 2–3 PSTs for
each CT
School types Number of PSTs each CT supervised
-10 state (5 -3 PST on average for 10 state schools and 1
Secondary/5 High private school
Schools)
-2 Private (Primary/ -1 PST for each CT at the other private school
secondary/High
Schools)
Ethical guidelines were carefully observed during this
study. First, permission was obtained from the Faculty of
Education. Then, the school principals were contacted.
After granting their permission, we prepared a consent
form for FAs and CTs to communicate the purpose, design,
and procedures of the study and to invite them to the study.
With those who consented, the interviews started toward
the end of the TP in the spring term believing that the PSTs
had spent adequate time at schools, and the stakeholders
gained sufficient insight regarding the PSTs’ preparedness
to teach. Depending on their convenience, the first author,
Handan, interviewed the CTs from May 21 to 26 at their
schools and the FAs from May 28 to June 4 at the Faculty.
All interviews, varying between 15 and 45 min, were con-
ducted in Turkish to let the respondents feel more at ease to
express their thoughts. They were audio-recorded upon
receiving consent and complemented by field notes to ease
data analysis.
Data analysis and Saturation. We first transcribed the inter-
views, entered them into electronic word documents, and
read them several times to get a complete sense of them and
assure familiarization (Creswell, 2009). For the analysis of
research questions 1 and 1a, we used the constant compari-
son method in which concepts are called basic units of analy-
sis, while categories are explained as “higher in level and
more abstract than the concepts they represent” (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990, p. 7). We implemented inductive, open, and
axial coding and followed the steps below in Corbin and
Strauss (1990).
•• Identification of concepts in the raw data
•• Open coding to develop concepts from the first round
of data reduction
Çelik and Topkaya 5

Table 2. CTs’ Perceptions Regarding the Sources of the PSTs’ Preparedness to Teach.

Categories/sources Indicators CT code

Faculty education -Good command of teaching (i.e., knowledge of teaching pedagogy) -CT1, CT2, CT3
-Teaching knowledge (i.e., content knowledge) -CT2, CT8
-Preparation and use of teaching materials and instructional -CT2, CT4, CT8
technology
-Ability to handle the class, even when the CT is not there -CT4
-Ability to take learners’ attention and motivate them -CT4, CT11
Positive and higher career -Enthusiasm, motivation, and eagerness to learn -CT4, CT5, CT6, CT11
motivation -Teaching awareness (i.e., an awareness of teaching tasks and -CT1
responsibilities)
-Punctuality -CT4
-Good communication with students -CT8
Personal characteristics -Trying to do their best - CT1
-Positive attitudes -CT2
-Self-confidence -CT8
-Sense of responsibility - CT8, CT9
Ethical and appropriate -Dressing -CT1, CT8
professional behavior -Appropriate in-school behavior (i.e., relations with peers, CTs, and -CT2
administrators)
-Regular attendance -CT8
Observations in practicum schools -Contributory observations -CT2, CT6, CT8
Fulfilled professional & -Maintaining and establishing good communication with CTs -CT4
developmental needs -Preconferencing with CT -CT11
Higher teaching efficacy -Familiarity with teaching context -CT4

Note. CTs = cooperating teachers; PST = preservice English language teacher.

•• Searching for evidence or disevidence for further
recoding within the interview itself and the interviews
in the group
•• Grouping concepts pertaining to the same phenome-
non to form categories
•• Identification of categories to allow possible core cat-
egories to emerge
•• Integrating categories (if necessary)
We “inevitably engage[d] in a progressive focusing to
concentrate [our] efforts on emergent themes” (Olson et al.,
2016, p. 28). As we did so, we were well informed about the
literature which enabled us to catch certain themes. Therefore,
our researcher lens helped us “mak[e] relevant connections
in the data and creat[e] a ‘thickness’ that enhances the value
of qualitative analysis” (Olson et al., 2016, p. 28).
To answer research question 1b, a cross-case analysis
whereby the interviews were compared in terms of patterns
of similarity and difference was used (Khan &
VanWynsberghe, 2008). As for data saturation, as the sample
size of CTs’ interviews was too large (N = 28), we knew that
the data would naturally become repetitive and superfluous.
However, we also knew that qualitative samples need to be
large enough to guarantee that most or all perceptions which
may be diverse and of value are uncovered (Mason, 2010).
Hence, comparing within a single interview and between
other interviews, we continually saturated the data to elimi-
nate the irrelevant and extract the relevant data, thus, to make
it more manageable without significant loss of information
(Creswell, 2009; Namey et al., 2008). Such issues as gender,
teaching experience, and participants’ reflectivity were con-
sidered to assure the representatives of the sample gained
through saturation. The data were kept being coded until no
new themes were found (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Saturation
was reached with 11 participants. To assure confidentiality,
the CTs and FAs were given numbers as FA1, FA2, CT1,
CT2, and so on when the findings were reported.
Findings
1 and 1a: The FAs’ and CTs’ Evaluations of the PSTs’ Preparedness
to Teach and its Sources. The participants were first asked to
make an overall evaluation of the PSTs’ preparedness to
teach. Majority of the CTs (n = 9) regarded them as prepared,
whereas seven out of eight FAs reported limited positive per-
ceptions. The CTs’ data yielded seven major categories as the
sources of the PSTs’ preparedness to teach (Table 2).
Faculty education was regarded as the primary source.
The analysis of the data revealed that it referred to teaching
knowledge and skills including several aspects of PSTs’ edu-
cation including, knowledge of teaching pedagogy,
6 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

Table 3. FAs’ Perceptions Regarding the Sources of the PSTs’ Preparedness to Teach.

Categories/sources Indicators FA code

Teaching practicum -Classroom management -FA3, FA4, FA7
-Addressing students by name -FA1, FA7
-Time management -FA3
-Improved teaching skills - FA4
-Giving proper classroom instructions -FA7
Higher teaching efficacy -Frequent teaching practice in schools -FA3
-Previous teaching experience FA7
-Teaching practice in school experience phase -FA8
Career motivation -Teaching motivation -FA2, FA7
-Enthusiasm -FA5
Personal characteristics -Self-confidence -FA3, FA4
-Calmness -FA1
Fulfilled professional and -Communication with CTs -FA3
developmental needs -CTs’ approaches toward the PSTs -FA8

Note. FAs = faculty advisors; PST = preservice English language teacher; CTs = cooperating teachers.

classroom management and materials preparation, and so on
CT4 stated,
In terms of teaching knowledge and skills, the PSTs are very
well-equipped. They are almost always prepared and make use
of materials such as playing cards. They also know what to do
with the student, which makes me think that they must have had
chances to practice teaching.
Positive and higher career motivation was another equally
emphasized category for which the PSTs’ enthusiasm and
eagerness were the indicators as they made them appear on
time at their schools. Personal characteristics were also
thought to have a role as the CTs believed higher levels of
self-confidence and a sense of responsibility helped. Ethical
and appropriate professional behaviors were regarded as
another source by the CTs (n = 3) manifestations of which
were appropriate dressing and behaviors and regular atten-
dance at TP. Observing the CTs was also considered signifi-
cant by the CTs (n = 3). Fulfilled professional and
developmental needs was seen as another source by two CTs.
For example, CT4 stated,
The PSTs adjusted to the teaching environment better as they
had more dialogue with their CTs. They became more interactive
since they found answers to their questions. This was observable
as they started appearing earlier to pre-conference with the CT.
Higher teaching efficacy resulting from the PSTs’ prior
teaching experience was another source. However, for CT7
and CT10, the PSTs were not prepared to teach due to such
issues as KPSS (State Staff Selection Examination) anxiety
and the time they spent on getting prepared for it, future
career plans, or avoiding (extra) workload. CT1, despite
regarding the PSTs as prepared, stated,
They are not prepared as they are anxious about their future;
mainly about KPSS which is a burden pressurizing them to pass
and be appointed to a (MoNE) school. Therefore, they approach
TP like any other course in the curriculum. There are even
differences between those who carry KPSS anxiety and who do
not.
Contrary to the CTs, the FAs reported limited positive
perceptions and the data analysis revealed fewer categories.
Majority (n = 7) regarded the PSTs as somewhat prepared
(Table 3).
TP was emphasized by several FAs (n = 4). They reported
that the PSTs became better in time and classroom manage-
ment, giving instructions, and addressing students by name
as they practiced more and frequently. Similarly, higher
teaching efficacy was thought (n = 3) to develop through
frequent teaching practice over TP, voluntary teaching, and
previous, one-on-one private tutorials. Moreover, career
motivation was another source as the PSTs preserved their
teaching motivation and enthusiasm. Personal characteris-
tics, that is, self-confidence, were thought to facilitate their
preparedness to teach. Finally, fulfilled professional & devel-
opmental needs were considered by two FAs because of
quality-supervision through communication and dialogue.
Despite these positive perceptions, the FAs mostly held neg-
ative perceptions (Table 4).
For most (n = 7), the PSTs’ maturity which was insuffi-
cient to take the responsibility of TP tasks was a source. Lack
of emotional attachment to teaching and lack of regular
attendance were among the indicators of it. FA2 stated,
Even when I was there to observe, the PST had not prepared the
observation checklist for me and the CT. He did not even provide
me with a copy of his lesson plan. There are even some other
PSTs who think that it will be fine if they only follow the
Çelik and Topkaya 7

Table 4. FAs’ Perceptions Regarding the Sources of the PSTs’ Unpreparedness to Teach.

Categories/sources Indicators FA code

Preservice teachers’ maturity
Unfulfilled professional &
developmental needs
Lack of continuous teaching
practice throughout the teacher
education program
Inadequate faculty education
Decline in the quality of PSTs
Contextual factors
Mismatch between modern and
traditional pedagogy
Lack of coordination between
faculty and practicum schools
-Approaching TP like “any” other course -FA1, FA2, FA4, FA5, FA8
-Lack of preparation even when PSTs are observed -FA2, FA5
-Lack of communication among PSTs -FA2
-Lack of sense of responsibility -FA4, FA8
-Lack of regular attendance -FA6, FA7
-Lack of knowledge of practicum schools *FA7
-CTs don’t want to be observed (feeling insecure about -FA1, FA3, FA4, FA5, FA7
their language skills and teaching skills and abilities)
-Mismatch between number of CTs and PSTs (crowded -FA2, FA4, FA6, FA7
groups to supervise)
-Inadequate supervision/guidance for PSTs’ familiarization -FA2, FA5, FA7
and teaching practice (e.g., use of coursebook as one and
only source, not getting paid)
-CTs’ negative thoughts of PSTs’ teaching skills -FA1, FA2
-Newly graduated CTs’ attitudes toward PSTs -FA2
-Underdeveloped teaching skills (e.g., time and classroom -FA1, FA2, FA3, FA4, FA5, FA8
management, feedback skills, error correction, etc.)
-Underdeveloped language knowledge (e.g., spelling -FA1, FA3
mistakes)
-Inadequate content knowledge and pedagogy (i.e., due to -FA1, FA2, FA5, FA6, FA7
crowded classes)
-Inadequate challenge at faculty -FA6, FA7
-Lack of command of English -FA4, FA6, FA8
-Motivation-competency mismatch -FA2, FA6
-Lack of self-confidence -FA4, FA8
-Continuous drops in PST quality -FA7
-Frequent public holidays -FA2, FA4, FA5
-Not being allowed to use teachers’ lounge at schools -FA4, FA7
-Mismatch between faculty education and classroom -FA1, FA4, FA6
practices (e.g., overuse of L1)
-Lack of supervision guidelines -FA1, FA2
-Inadequate faculty mentoring -FA4

Note. FAs = faculty advisors; PST = preservice English language teacher; TP = teaching practicum; CTs = cooperating teachers.

coursebook to teach, and they will teach as far as they know and
can. However, this is not what we expect them to do.
Similarly, unfulfilled professional & developmental needs
which were mainly attributed to the CTs’ perceptions of the
PSTs’ low teaching skills, their poor engagement with PSTs’
development, and poor mentoring skills were thought to
have a role. Due to their negative perceptions regarding the
PSTs’ teaching skills, the CTs were thought not to create
opportunities for the PSTs to teach and did not want to be
observed as they felt insecure about their language and teach-
ing knowledge and skills. FA1 even claimed that “CTs are
afraid of PSTs.” The mismatch between the number of PSTs
per CT was also seen as a barrier. When the current study
was carried out, PSTs would be assigned to practicum
schools in groups of 10 or 12. However, mostly there were
three or four CTs at schools, sometimes fewer. This created
an extra workload for the CTs who had to continue their
teaching responsibilities. In such cases, the CTs avoided pro-
viding adequate and quality supervision which caused the
PSTs not to fully benefit from CTs’ knowledge and experi-
ences. To highlight its consequence, FA4 stated “There are
some PSTs who haven’t even been observed yet, although the
TP process is about to finish.”
Lack of continuous teaching practice throughout the
teacher education program which resulted in problems with
managing classroom and time, giving feedback, and correct-
ing errors was considered by some FAs (n = 6) as another
source:
There are great deficiencies. . . . problems with classroom
management and giving feedback, correcting mistakes, use of
reinforcement, board work and use, word choice, and even
grammar and spelling mistakes. . .. There are also problems with
material selection and adaptation to the students’ level. The
materials are generally obtained from the internet without
adequate consideration (FA1).
Inadequate faculty education was also suggested by FAs
(n = 5) due to crowded classes causing ineffective assessment
8 Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)

CTs’ perceptions FAs’ perceptions

- Faculty education -Higher teaching efficacy

perceptions - Teaching Practicum

- Ethical & appropriate
professional behavior -Career motivation

-Personal characteristics
- Observations in
practicum schools -Fulfilled professional &

developmental needs

Figure 1. Cross-Case Analysis Regarding the Sources of the PSTs’ Preparedness to Teach.
Note. PST = preservice English language teacher; CTs = cooperating teachers; FAs = faculty advisors.

and evaluation, inadequate language skills education at the
language preparatory year resulting in underdeveloped lan-
guage skills, and the academic departmental staff’s low expec-
tations, particularly in microteachings:
. . . the groups are very crowded, therefore, in courses such as
teaching language skills, even if they underperform in
microteachings, the faculty teachers tend to be too affectionate
towards the PSTs which encourages them to think “I will pass
anyway.” (FA6)
Another indicator for this source emerged to be lack of
challenge at their faculty education. “There is no ‘fail mech-
anism’ at faculty, thus the PSTs underestimate faculty educa-
tion” (FA7).
Decline in the quality of PSTs due to such issues as lack of
self-confidence, competency and motivation mismatch, and
lack of good command of English was another source. Some
(FA5, FA7) thought that the quality of PSTs decreases each
year, and PSTs do not even try to improve themselves. Thus,
they suggested that program entry requirements need to be
revised.
Contextual factors due to frequent public holidays
decreasing the time PSTs spend at practicum schools were
another source. Besides, the PSTs were not offered to use the
teachers’ lounge or were allocated to a different room. This
was regarded as a negative contextual issue. These were
thought to debilitate PSTs’ adequate preparation, discourag-
ing them to develop a sense of belonging to the school
system.
The mismatch between modern language teaching peda-
gogy taught at the faculty and the traditional pedagogy still
employed at schools was another source. In their visits to the
practicum schools, the FAs saw that most classroom practices
included traditional teaching methods and techniques. Overuse
of L1 was one of them which encouraged the PSTs to do the
same as they took the CTs as role models (FA1, FA4).
Lack of collaboration between practicum schools and the
faculty was the final category. FA1 stated that all teacher
education programs used one single guideline and added that
educating language teachers is different from educating pri-
mary school teachers. Therefore, he prepared his own super-
vision pack. Consequently, no matter how both groups
regarded the PSTs, the analysis yielded various sources
explaining their preparedness/unpreparedness to teach.
1b: Diverging and Converging Evaluations of the CTs and FAs
Regarding the PSTs’ Preparedness to Teach
In this section, we bring both parties’ evaluations together to
see if they converge or diverge. To uncover if the FAs’ and
CTs’ evaluations matched, we conducted a cross-case analy-
sis (Figure 1).
The CTs regarded the PSTs as prepared to teach and
thought such sources ranging from faculty education to
observations in practicum schools facilitated their prepared-
ness, while the FAs had limited positive perceptions. Due to
a perception gap between them, the sources that they both
thought facilitated the PSTs’ preparedness to teach were lim-
ited to higher teaching efficacy, career motivation, fulfilled
professional & developmental needs, and personal charac-
teristics. Besides, the FAs differed from the CTs as they
emphasized TP supporting improvement in the PSTs’ teach-
ing knowledge and skills despite being limited in time and
frequency. Finally, we compared the negative evaluations of
both stakeholders (Figure 2).
Çelik and Topkaya 9

CTs’ perceptions FAs’ perceptions

- PSTs' maturity
- Unfulfilled professional and developmental
needs
- Lack of continuous teaching practice
-Miscellaneous issues
throughout the teacher education program
- Inadequate faculty education
(KPSS anxiety,
- Decline in the quality of PSTs
- Contextual factors
avoidance of workload,
- Mismatch between modern and traditional
pedagogy
future career plans)
- Lack of coordination between faculty and
practicum schools

Figure 2. Cross-Case Analysis Regarding the Sources of the PSTs’ Unpreparedness to Teach.
Note. PST = preservice English language teacher; CTs = cooperating teachers; FAs = faculty advisors.

An obvious gap is seen between their perceptions regard-
ing the PSTs’ unpreparedness to teach since only CT10 and
CT7 mentioned some miscellaneous issues, while all FAs
were critical of the PSTs’ preparedness to teach and expressed
negative perceptions resulting from various sources such as
PSTs’ maturity, inadequate faculty education, or lack of
coordination between faculty and practicum schools. Despite
their negative perceptions, some FAs evaluated the deficien-
cies and lacks as a natural part of PSTs’ professional devel-
opment and stated they would disappear in time as PSTs got
more experienced, knowledgeable, and skillful (FA1, FA5).
Discussion
We investigated the FAs’ and CTs’ evaluations regarding the
PSTs’ preparedness to teach and its sources during TP and
explored whether and in what ways their evaluations con-
verged or diverged. The most important finding of the study
is the gap between the FAs’ and CTs’ evaluations as while
most FAs regarded the PSTs as unprepared to teach, only a
few CTs evaluated them as somewhat less prepared to teach.
Some other studies in the Turkish context also show that CTs
and FAs differ in their approaches to PSTs’ evaluation. Aydın
(2016) found that CTs felt insecure about their abilities to
detect PSTs’ weaknesses and to provide feedback. Therefore,
they provided only positive feedback and failed to justify
their grading of PSTs, preferring numerical evaluation rather
than open-ended comments and explanations. Tüfekçi Can
and Baştürk (2018) found similar results as PSTs evaluating
their FAs and CTs in relation to their TP roles and responsi-
bilities reported that CTs were ineffective to provide them
with adequate feedback. In Orsdemir and Yıldırım (2020),
PSTs reported feedback as the least observed mentor
behavior and indicated feedback skills as the most important
area CTs need to improve. These indicate a prevalent prob-
lem in the Turkish teacher education context related to CTs’
skills for evaluating PSTs’ teaching competencies which are
relatable to preparedness to teach. This points out the need
for continuous CT training and the importance of support
from the university, which is not assigned any roles by the
Turkish MoNE in CT training. The existence of such a part-
nership is known to make a significant difference in CTs’
feedback skills (Becker et al., 2019).
Besides, the CTs did not perceive the PSTs as unprepared
to teach but rather referred to such sources as future career
plans or KPSS anxiety as factors debilitating their practicum
performance. The FAs, on the other hand, were more critical
and considered faculty education and specifically the prepara-
tory English language education as sources for the PSTs’
unpreparedness. Few studies on the effectiveness of prepara-
tory English language programs in Türkiye revealed that they
do not respond to students’ needs for productive skills devel-
opment (Sert et al., 2013), and are not effective in preparing
students for their faculty courses (Özkanal & Hakan, 2010).
In a study conducted by the British Council (2015) with 24
Turkish universities’ preparatory language programs, instruc-
tors reported a need to improve their English language profi-
ciency, which is fundamental for the effectiveness of these
programs. These support the FAs’ low perceptions regarding
the preparatory English language program in their own con-
text and the need to increase their effectiveness. Without a
doubt, language teachers need to have a strong knowledge of
the language and well-developed language skills since they
have a direct impact on their teaching efficacy, which is
regarded as one of the most essential constructs of prepared-
ness to teach (Alsaleh, 2019; Alsaleh & Anthony, 2018).
10
The FAs also questioned the effectiveness of the faculty
courses tutored by less experienced faculty members, which
refers to a context-specific factor influencing the quality of
teacher education in Türkiye. Due to the massification of
higher education in the country, several universities with
ELT programs have opened in the last decades, some experi-
encing faculty shortages and recruiting inexperienced teach-
ers who have excessive workloads with very little time for
planning, preparation, and professional development. Policy-
level efforts are needed to overcome this problem. Yet, this
study, being conducted in a similar context provides evi-
dence for the need for quality faculty as a key to quality
teacher education and to PSTs’ preparedness to teach as per-
ceived by the FAs.
One major finding, which contributes to the existing lit-
erature, is the difference between the CTs’ and FAs’ opinions
concerning the context in practicum schools and the quality
of mentoring PSTs received there. The CTs regarded obser-
vations in practicum schools as important for PSTs’ pre-
paredness to teach. Previous research supports that seeing
CTs and peers in action in real classrooms encourages learn-
ing from others’ experiences, and is valuable for PST devel-
opment (Clark, 2009). Yet the FAs thought that observation
alone is inadequate if CTs fail to fulfill their mentoring and
supervision roles. Hence, they identified this as a source of
the PSTs’ unpreparedness to teach. The literature is replete
with studies revealing CTs’ underdeveloped mentoring skills
including communication, providing feedback and guidance
as reported by PSTs (Aydın & Ok, 2020; Celen & Akcan,
2017; Martinez Agudo, 2016; Öztürk & Aydın, 2019; Yaylı,
2018). Moreover, in support of the FAs’ assertion, Sethusha
(2014) reports untrained CTs as a challenge for the fulfill-
ment of mentoring roles, and Smagorinsky et al. (2004) iden-
tify CTs’ failure to provide room for experimentation and
their preference for a “mimetic approach” as a tension for
PST’s identity building (p. 8). Conversely, Goldhaber et al.
(2022) report that when placed to qualified and experienced
mentors, PSTs display higher growth during their field expe-
rience. All in all, the discrepancy between the perceptions of
the two parties underlines the significance of adequate and
quality mentoring and qualified mentors for the education of
well-prepared PSTs.
A perception gap was found between the CTs and FAs
regarding the PSTs’ ethical and appropriate professional
behaviors, which is another unique finding of the study.
While the CTs described the PSTs as being interested, moti-
vated, open to learning, and displaying appropriate profes-
sional behavior, the FAs found them not mature enough to
take the responsibility to teach since they approached TP like
any other faculty course. This corroborates the result of Tsai
and Ku (2021) which showed that FAs rated PSTs’ profes-
sional ethics lower compared to CTs. The researchers
explained it as a result of CTs’ having more time to observe
and communicate with PSTs during their TP and FAs’ limited
opportunities to do so but their higher expectations from
Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)
PSTs. The difference between perceptions of both parties in
this study can be related to contextual factors such as the
quality of teacher education both at universities and practi-
cum schools, the quality of FAs and CTs as competent,
expert, visionary role models, and the personalities of PSTs
and how they develop in teacher education over time. To
uncover the impact of these factors on the development of
PSTs’ ethical and professional behaviors, several issues need
to be addressed. First, university admission requirements for
teacher candidates in Türkiye which is solely based on the
scores students obtain at a nation-wide, standardized, multi-
ple-choice exam need to be revised to become more compre-
hensive of other criteria such as English proficiency at the
entrance or statement of purpose to enter the program.
Second, without a doubt, a system which only invests in
building professional knowledge and skills and fails to
encourage and nurture PSTs’ psychological and personal
development will not educate well-prepared PSTs. Therefore,
room for PSTs’ affective and personal development through-
out their education should be made.
Despite the gap between their evaluations, the CTs and
FAs agreed on several factors, that is, career motivation,
CTs’ mentoring skills, teaching efficacy, and personality,
having a pivotal effect on preparedness to teach. Research
revealed that both FAs and CTs regarded PSTs’ career moti-
vation as a strength (Gürbüz, 2006) and CTs’ effective super-
vision as a factor on PSTs’ decisions to stay in the profession
(Altan & Sağlamel, 2015; Paulson, 2014; Rots et al., 2007;
Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). When supervised well by both FAs
and CTs during TP, PSTs develop and strengthen teaching
efficacy which is linked to teaching competencies
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001, 2007). Finally,
both parties agreed on the role of personality in the PSTs’
preparedness to teach as they regarded being self-confident
and responsible as important factors.
Conclusion
Certain aspects of this study make it different from others
and underscore key conclusions to draw implications from.
First, the results show that preparedness and unpreparedness
to teach are obviously hard to define since various underly-
ing sources interact and intersect. Therefore, this study
emphasizes the multifaceted nature of preparedness to teach
and the complexity of educating well-prepared teachers as
suggested by professional readiness (Artemenko &
Artemenko, 2020; Slusareva et al., 2019). Macro policies
shaping teacher education, high-quality programs, well-
trained FAs and CTs, and entrance requirements for teacher
education seem to be in interplay in determining PSTs’ qual-
ity and their preparedness to teach.
In addition, this study is one of the first attempts to bring
FAs’ and CTs’ evaluations together regarding PSTs’ prepared-
ness to teach during their TP. Studies examine various issues
such as the effectiveness of TP (Allen et al., 2013), its
Çelik and Topkaya 11

evaluation from the perspectives of PSTs, FAs, and graduates in Türkiye and abroad. Therefore, besides soliciting percep-
(Celen & Akcan, 2017), mentoring during TP (Aydın, 2016; tional and evaluative data, observational data relying on
Orsdemir & Yıldırım, 2020), or challenges that PSTs face in rubric assessment could help strengthen stakeholders’
their TP (Gan, 2013; Mudra, 2018). Research directly examin- evaluations.
ing PSTs’ preparedness to teach from stakeholders’ lens is very
rare, although preparedness to teach is co-constructed by mul- Appendix
tiple actors in teacher education. School-based teacher educa-
tion is already a globally accepted model based on Interview Protocol
faculty-school cooperation. This study, by bringing FAs’ and
Part A: Personal and Professional Background
CTs’ perspectives together, sheds light on their espoused theo-
1. Age:
ries regarding PSTs’ preparedness to teach and its sources.
2. Gender:
Considering the perception gap revealed between them, as one
3. Education (Degree/Major):
of the biggest findings and contributions of this study to the
4. Years of teaching experience:
literature, new models of teacher education can be offered on
5. Current level and grade of teaching:
the grounds that not only all stakeholders evaluate PSTs’ pre-
a. Preschool ( )
paredness to teach and how they perform over their TP, but
b. Primary school (K-4) ( )
also explore their understanding of high-quality PST educa-
c. Secondary school (K-8) ( )
tion and standards of it. Hence, the results strongly indicate the
d. High school (K-12) ( )
need for more dialogue between the stakeholders to uncover,
6. Time spent for supervising in field experience:
build, and strengthen such knowledge and practices.
7. How many field experience groups have you super-
However, as the FAs emphasized, to become informed
vised so far?
about faculty-based teacher education, CTs need to engage in
8. How many field experience groups are you currently
project partnerships which could also encourage FAs to
supervising?
become better aware of the realities and challenges of schools
9. In which grade of teaching are you currently super-
and PSTs’ school-based education. Mentor training pro-
vising preservice English teachers?
grams, a neglected area in the Turkish teacher education con-
text, could be a venue for both parties to do so. Thus, the
Part B: Evaluations of Preservice English Teachers’ Preparedness
perception gap can be minimized as both become more
to Teach in TP
aware of their shared roles and responsibilities in teacher
1. Which sources do you think prepare preservice
education and develop stronger empathy and understanding
English teachers to teach, to teaching, and to work-
toward each other.
place throughout their TP?
Since this study was conducted when the PSTs were about
2. Considering the preservice English language teach-
to graduate, the findings may also be regarded as an overall
ers you are currently supervising, what do you think
evaluation of teacher education from different angles such as
about their preparedness concerning the following
the faculty program, preparatory English language educa-
issues?
tion, quality mentoring and supervision provided by FAs and
Follow-up: Can you rationalize what makes you hold that
CTs, the role of feedback in TP. Therefore, the findings high-
evaluation? Can you expand on that? Can you give specific
light the need to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher educa-
examples?
tion programs to respond to PSTs’ needs and help them
become prepared to teach.
3. Evaluating the preservice English language teachers
Another significant conclusion is that PSTs’ personal
for the aforementioned issues, do you think if there is
characteristics as well as professional ones need to be culti-
any difference in their preparedness to teach through-
vated during their education. Goal-orientedness, conscien-
out their TP? If yes, what is/are different? And how?
tiousness, responsibility for self and others with the
motivation to care for and meet the needs of students to Follow up a) What are the issues that you consider the
enable them to succeed (Noddings, 2012), communication PSTs showed growth? How do you know? To what do you
and social skills, professional motivation and commitment attach the growth?
are a few of those that a well-grounded teacher education Follow up b) Are there any issues that you consider the
program should nurture. PSTs did not develop at all? If yes, what? How do you know
Finally, as preparedness to teach, particularly from the that they did not? What makes you think so? What could the
lens of significant others, is a recent area of interest, the dis- reasons be?
cussions, conclusions, and implications are limited to what
has been revealed so far. Therefore, research with thicker and 4. Besides the issues addressed so far, do you have any
richer data of various forms such as stakeholders’ assess- other evaluations and suggestions regarding preser-
ments and evaluations of PSTs’ teaching performance is vice English language teachers’ preparedness to
needed both within the English language teacher education teach? If yes, what? Please explain.
12
Not prepared at all
Preparedness to teach
Preparedness for teaching profession
Preparedness for workplace
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Handan Çelik https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8041-6062
Ece Zehir Topkaya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5364-7551
References
Allen, J. M., Ambrosetti, A., & Turner, D. (2013). How school and
university supervising staff perceive the pre-service teacher
education practicum: A comparative study. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 38(4), 108–128. http://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2013v38n4.9
Allen, J. M., Singh, P., & Rowan, L. (2019). Professional experience
in initial teacher education: Keeping abreast of change in the
21st century. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4),
323–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1637599
Alsaleh, F. I. (2019). Preparedness to teach: The perceptions of
Saudi female pre-service mathematics teachers [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. Massey University.
Alsaleh, F. I., & Anthony, G. (2018). Preparedness to teach: The
perspective of Saudi female pre-service mathematics teachers.
In J. Hunter, P. Perger, & L. Darragh (Eds.), Proceedings of the
41st annual conference of the mathematics education research
group of Australasia (pp. 114–121). Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia.
Altan, M. Z., & Sağlamel, H. (2015). Student teaching from
the perspective of cooperating teachers and the pupils.
Cogent Education, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311
86X.2015.1086291
Artemenko, E. V., & Artemenko, T. G. (2020). Component and
structural analysis of future teachers’ preparedness for scien-
tific research activity. Advances in Economic, Business and
Management Research, 114, 544–550. https://doi.org/10.2991/
aebmr.k.200114.127
Aydın, Ö. (2016). An exploration on mentoring process in ELT
practicum: Perspectives of student teachers, cooperating
teachers, and supervisors [Unpublished Master’s thesis].
Middle East Technical University.
Aydın, Ö., & Ok, A. (2020). Mentoring practices in English lan-
guage teaching practicum: Student teachers’ perspectives on
cooperating teachers’ roles in the Turkish context. The Teacher
Educator, 55(3), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2
019.1701756
Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)
Not prepared Neutral Prepared Very much prepared
Aygün, H. E. (2019). The prediction of the teaching readiness
level of pre-service teachers in terms of curriculum literacy.
Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları
Dergisi, 9(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijo-
cis.2019.009
Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2017). Technology use by pre-service
teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embrac-
ing technology right away in their first year of teaching?
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 48–
61. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2299
Becker, E. S., Waldis, M., & Staub, F. C. (2019). Advancing stu-
dent teachers’ learning in the teaching practicum through
content-focused coaching: A field experiment. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 83, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2019.03.007
Blömeke, S., Olsen, R. V., & Suhl, U. (2016). Relation of student
achievement to the quality of their teachers and instructional
quality. In T. Nilsen & J.-E. Gustafsson (Eds.), Teacher qual-
ity, instructional quality and student outcomes—Relationships
across countries, cohorts and time (pp. 21–50). SpringerOpen.
British Council. (2015). The state of English in higher education
in Turkey.
Brown, A. L., Lee, J., & Collins, D. (2015). Does student teaching
matter? Investigating pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy
and preparedness. Teaching Education, 26(1), 77–93. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.957666
Brown, A. L., Myers, J., & Collins, D. (2021). How pre-service
teachers’ sense of teaching efficacy and preparedness to teach
impact performance during student teaching. Educational
Studies, 47(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019
.1651696
Browne Hogan, A. S. (2011). Preservice teacher prepared-
ness: Deficiencies and strengths (Publication No. 3465883)
[Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence
frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the
European Digital Competence Framework for Educators
(DIGCOMPEDU). European Journal of Education, Research,
Development and Policy, 54(3), 356–369. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ejed.12345
Celen, K. M., & Akcan, S. (2017). Evaluation of an ELT practi-
cum programme from the perspectives of supervisors, student
teachers and graduates. Journal of Teacher Education and
Educators, 6(3), 251–274.
Çelik, H. (2017). Senior pre-service English language teachers’
perceptions of preparedness to teach: Sources and changes
(Publication No. 454365) [Doctoral dissertation, Çanakkale
Onsekiz Mart University]. Council of Higher Education
National Thesis Center.
Clark, S. K. (2009). A comparative analysis of elementary educa-
tion preservice and novice teachers’ perceptions of prepared-
Çelik and Topkaya
ness and teacher efficacy (Publication No. 427) [Doctoral
dissertation, Utah State University]. DigitalCommons@USU.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/427/
Cohen, E., Hoz, R., & Kaplan, H. (2013). The practicum in pre-ser-
vice teacher education: a review of empirical studies. Teaching
Education, 24(4), 345–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.
2012.711815
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research:
Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative
Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). The analysis of qualitative data. In K. F.
Punch (Ed.), Introduction to research methods in education
(pp. 169–205). Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation
in teacher preparation. How well do different pathways pre-
pare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4),
286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053004002
Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards
and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563–577. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.001
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics.
Oxford University Press.
Ersin, P., & Atay, D. (2021). Exploring online mentoring with pre-
service teachers in a pandemic and the need to deliver quality
education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching
in Education, 10(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-
11-2020-0077
Faez, F. (2012). Diverse teachers for diverse students: Internationally
educated and Canadian-born teachers’ preparedness to teach
English language learners. Canadian Journal of Education,
35(3), 64–84.
Fedirchyk, T., & Didukh, V. (2021). Readiness formation of future
elementary school teachers to interact with participants in
the educational process on the partnership pedagogy basis.
Pedagogy and Education Management Review (PEMR), 2(4),
68–78. https://doi.org/10.36690/2733-2039-2021-2-68
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data satu-
ration in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9),
1408–1416. http://tqr.nova.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/
fusch1.pdf
Gan, Z. (2013). Learning to teach English language in the practi-
cum: What challenges do non-native ESL students face?
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 92–108.
Gill, L., Dalgarno, B., & Carlson, L. (2015). How does pre-service
teacher preparedness to use ICTs for learning and teaching
develop through their degree program? Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(1), 36–60.
Goldhaber, D., Ronfeldt, M., Cowan, J., Gratz, T., Bardelli, E., &
Truwit, M. (2022). Room for improvement? Mentor teachers
and the evolution of teacher preservice clinical evaluations.
American Educational Research Journal, 59(5), 1011–1048.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211066867
Gray, C., Wright, P., & Pascoe, R. (2019). “They made me feel
like a teacher rather than a praccie”: Sinking or swimming in
pre-service drama education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 47(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598
66X.2018.1504279
Gürbüz, N. (2006). Different perceptions of the pre-service English
teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in the practicum: A case
13
study in Turkey. English Language Teacher Education and
Development, 9, 39–46.
Hamilton, E. R., & Margot, K. C. (2019). Pre-service teachers’
community-based field experiences. Frontiers in Education, 4,
Article 115. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00115
Housego, B. E. J. (1990). Student teachers’ feelings of preparedness
to teach. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(1), 37–56.
İnceçay, G., & Keşli Dollar, Y. (2012). Classroom management,
self-efficacy and readiness of Turkish pre-service English
teachers. ELT Research Journal, 1(3), 189–198.
Kee, A. N. (2011). Feelings of preparedness among alternatively
certified teachers: What is the role of program features?
Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 23–38. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487111421933
Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-
mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(1), Article 34.
https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/
view/334/729
Kim, S., Raza, M., & Seidman, E. (2019). Improving 21st-century
teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners.
Research in Comparative & International Education, 14(1),
99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214
Kraut, N. J. (2013). What it means to feel prepared to teach: A
mixed methods investigation into preservice English lan-
guage arts teachers’ perceptions of preparedness (Publication
No. 3586147) [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research:
Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Magogwe, J. M., & Ketsitlile, L. E. (2015). Pre-service teach-
ers’ preparedness for teaching multicultural students. Journal
for Multicultural Education, 9(4), 276–288. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JME-11-2014-0040
Martinez Agudo, J. (2016). What type of feedback do student teach-
ers expect from their school mentors during practicum experi-
ence? The case of Spanish EFL student teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 36–51. http://doi.
org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n5.3
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using
qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
11(3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/arti-
cle/view/1428/3027
Meeks, L., Stephenson, J., Kemp, C., & Madelaine, A. (2016). How
well-prepared are pre-service teachers to teach early reading?
A systematic review of the literature. Australian Journal of
Learning Difficulties, 21(2), 69–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
9404158.2017.1287103
Ministry of National Education. (2008) İngilizce öğretmeni
özel alan yeterlikleri [English language teachers’ domain-
specific competencies]. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_
dosyalar/2017_11/06160113_2-YYretmen_Yeterlikleri_
KitabY_ingilizce_YYretmeni_Yzel_alan_yeterlikleri_
ilkYYretim_parYa_5.pdf; https://Ingilizce ögretmeni özel
alan yeterlikleri.pdf
Mohamed, Z., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2016). Are they ready
to teach? Student teachers’ readiness for the job with reference
to teacher competence frameworks. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 43(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2
016.1257509
14
Mok, S. Y., & Staub, F. C. (2021). Does coaching, mentoring, and
supervision matter for pre-service teachers’ planning skills and
clarity of instruction? A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental
studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, Article 103484.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103484
Mudra, H. (2018). Pre-service EFL teachers’ experiences in teaching
practicum in rural schools in Indonesia. The Qualitative Report,
23(2), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3115
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduc-
tion techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest &
K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualita-
tive research 2. (pp. 137–161). https://qualquant.org/wp-
content/uploads/cda/Namey%20and%20Guest%20Data%20
Reduction.pdf
Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford
Review of Education, 38(6), 771–781. http://doi.org/10.1080/
03054985.2012.745047
Olson, J. D., McAllister, C., Grinnell, L. D., Gehrke Walters,
K., & Appunn, F. (2016). Applying constant comparison
method with multiple investigators and inter-coder reli-
ability. The Qualitative Report, 21(1), 26–42. https://doi.
org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2447
Orsdemir, E., & Yıldırım, R. (2020). “I would like her to . . .”: ELT
student-teachers’ reflections on mentoring. PASAA, 59, 48–76.
Özkanal, Ü., & Hakan, A. G. (2010). Effectiveness of university
English preparatory programs: Eskişehir Osmangazi University
foreign languages department English preparatory program.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 295–305.
Öztürk, G., & Aydın, B. (2019). English language teacher education
in Turkey: Why do we fail and what policy reforms are needed?
Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(1),
181–213.
Paulson, D. M. (2014). Perceptions of cooperating teachers con-
cerning the student teaching field experience [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. Illinois State University.
Rakicioglu-Soylemez, A., & Eroz-Tuga, B. (2014). Mentoring
expectations and experiences of prospective and cooperat-
ing teachers during practice teaching. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(10), 146–168. http://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2014v39n10.10
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effective-
ness of teacher attributes. Economic Policy Institute.
Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P., & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher
education, graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into
the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
543–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.012
Sert, N., Saraç, H. S., & Dağdeviren, G. (2013). English preparatory
education from pre-service teachers’ perspectives. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 174–180. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.053
Sethusha, M. J. (2014). Challenges experienced by teaching prac-
tice supervisors in an open and distance learning environment.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(15), 409–413.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in
qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2),
63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2004-22201
Slusareva, E., Dontsov, A., & Popova, M. (2019). Formation of
professional readiness of teachers as a condition of realization
of effective inclusive educational practice—Proceedings of
the international conference on man-power-law-governance:
Journal of Teacher Education 00(0)
Interdisciplinary approaches (MPLG-IA 2019). Advances in
Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 374,
403–408. https://doi.org/10.2991/mplg-ia-19.2019.74
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y.,
& Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach:
Accommodation and the development of a teaching iden-
tity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487103260067
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of
induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover?
American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681
Snoek, M., Dengerink, J., & de Wit, B. (2019). Reframing the
teacher profession as a dynamic multifaceted profession: A
wider perspective on teacher quality and teacher competence
frameworks. European Journal of Education, Research,
Development and Policy, 54(3), 413–425. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ejed.12350
Straková, Z. (2015). The perception of readiness for teaching pro-
fession: A case of pre-service trainees. Journal of Language
and Cultural Education, 3(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/
jolace-2015-0003
Tran, Y. K. (2011). Perceptions of teachers’ preparedness and effi-
cacy beliefs for teaching English language learners (Publication
No. 3572858) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas
at Austin]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Tsai, C., & Ku, H. (2021). Does teacher quality mean the same thing
across teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, and university
supervisors? Educational Studies, 47(6), 716–733. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1729098
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher effi-
cacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17, 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2007). The differ-
ential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and expe-
rienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6),
944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
Tüfekçi Can, D., & Baştürk, M. (2018). Qualitative research: The
pre-service EFL teachers’ opinions on teaching practicum.
Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 187–212.
https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.437672
Türk Eğitim Derneği. (2009)Öğretmen yeterlikleri [Teacher com-
petencies]. Turkish Education Association.
Xu, Y., & He, L. (2019). How pre-service teachers’ conceptions
of assessment change over practicum: Implications for teacher
assessment literacy. Frontiers in Assessment, Testing and
Applied Measurement, 4, Article 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/
feduc.2019.00145
Yaylı, D. (2018). Mentor support to pre-service teachers on the-
ory-practice gap in practicum: An online practice. Erzincan
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(3), 590–601. https://
doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.484594
Yıldırım, N. (2016). Professional readiness level of candidate
teachers: A qualitative evaluation. Journal of Education and
Training Studies, 4(3), 72–81. http://doi.org/10.11114/jets.
v4i3.1232
Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2011). Türkiye yükseköğretim yeter-
lilikler çerçevesi (TYYÇ) [Turkey higher education com-
petencies framework] Temel alan yeterlikleri [Generic
 Çelik and Topkaya
competencies]. http://www.tyyc.sakarya.edu.tr/raporlar/14_
EGITIMBILIMLERI_13_01_2011.pdf
Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2018). Öğretmen yetiştirme lisans
programları [Teacher education undergraduate programs].
https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogre-
tim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/
AA_Sunus_%20Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity,
reliability, and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 3(2), 254–262. http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262
Author Biographies
Handan Çelik is an assistant professor at Trabzon University, Fatih
Faculty of Education, Department of Foreign Languages Teaching,
English Language Teaching Program. She currently teaches at
View publication stats
15
undergraduate level. Her current research interests include preser-
vice and inservice English language teachers’ education, English
for Specific Purposes, and teaching practicum in language teacher
education.
Ece Zehir Topkaya is a full professor at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart
University, Faculty of Education, Department of Foreign
Languages Teaching, English Language Teaching Program. She
currently teaches several courses such as Information
Technologies, Materials Design in ELT at the undergraduate level
and ELT Programs in Turkey and Critical Pedagogy and ELT,
ESP, and EAP, Program Evaluation in ELT, Language Policies
and Planning at the graduate level. She has publications on topics
relevant to language teaching and learning, teacher education, lan-
guage program evaluation, and ESP/EAP with a specific focus on
needs analysis.