ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ... · ABSTRACT YOUNG LEARNER ENGLISH TEACHER...

ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY

THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

YOUNG LEARNER ENGLISH TEACHER PROFILE FROM TEACHERS’ AND

STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES

Yeşim DOĞAN

MASTER OF ARTS

ADANA, 2009

ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY

THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING



Yeşim DOĞAN

Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

MASTER OF ARTS

ADANA, 2009

To Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences

We certify that this thesis is satisfactory for the award of the degree of Master of Arts in

the Department of English Language Teaching.

Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

Member of Examining Committee: Assoc Prof. Dr. Ergün SERİNDAĞ

Member of Examining Committee: Assist. Prof. Dr. Gülden İLİN

I certify that this thesis conforms to the formal standards of the Institute of Social

Sciences.

…./…./….

Doç. Dr. Azmi YALÇIN

Director of Institute

PS: The uncited usage of reports, charts, figures, and photographs in this thesis, whether or original

quoted from other sources, is subject to the Laws of Works of Art and Thought NO:5846.

Not: Bu tezde kullanılan özgün ve başka kaynaktan yapılan bildirilerin, çizelge, şekil ve fotoğrafların

kaynak gösterilmeden kullanımı, 5846 Sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserler Kanunu‘ndaki hükümlere tabidir.

i

Consciously, we teach what we know; unconsciously, we teach who we are.

Hamachek (1999, p. 209).

ii

ÖZET

ÖĞRETMEN VE ÖĞRENCİ GÖZÜYLE ÇOCUKLARA İNGİLİZCE

ÖĞRETEN ÖĞRETMEN PROFİLİ

Yeşim DOĞAN

Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı

Danışman: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

Ağustos 2009, 157 sayfa

Bu çalışmada, öğretmen ve öğrenci gözünden çocuklara yabancı dil öğreten

öğretmen profili araştırılmıştır. Çocukların karakterleri ve yabancı dil öğretmeninin

özellikleri düşünülerek, çocuklara dil öğreten öğretmenin mesleki profili ( konu ve

müfredat bilgisi, materyal kullanımı, eğitimsel aktiviteler, sınıf yönetimi, öğretmenin

sınıfta kullandığı dil, öğretmenin iletişimsel becerileri ve yöntemleri vs.) ve öğretmenin

kişisel özellikleri, öğrenci ve öğretmen gözüyle incelenmiştir. Veriler, Nevşehir il

merkezinde bulunan toplam 22 okuldaki, yaşları 10–11 arasında değişen 544 dördüncü

sınıf öğrencisinden ve bu çocuklara İngilizce öğreten 26 öğretmenden elde edilmiştir.

Ayrıca, veri toplama aracı olarak, gözlem, anket ve görüşme kullanılmıştır. Bulgular,

öğretmenlerin, genel olarak çocukların ihtiyaçlarının farkında olduğunu, ancak

öğretmenlerin yarıdan fazlasının, ‘’Küçük Çocuklara İngilizce Öğretimi’’ eğitimini

lisans döneminde görmelerine ve bu konuda hizmet içi eğitim almalarına rağmen,

teoride bildiklerini uygulayamadıklarını göstermiştir. Buna ek olarak, ankette bulunan

altmış beş maddenin otuz sekizinde, öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri arasında istatiksel

açıdan önemli fark olduğu görülmüştür. Ankette bulunan bölümler; planlama ve

organizasyon, İngilizcede yeterlilik-mesleğe karşı tutum, yöntem, öğretmen iletişim

becerileri-öğrencilere karşı uygun olabilme, sınıf yönetimi, dönüt, ölçme değerlendirme

ve öğretmenin kişisel özellikleridir. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, öğretmen

yetiştirme programlarını iyileştirme çalışmalarında ve çocuklara dil öğretiminde,

öğretmen performansını geliştirmek amacıyla kullanılabilir.

Anahtar kelimeler: İngilizce Öğrenen Küçük Çocuklar, İngilizcenin Yabancı Dil

Olarak Öğretimi, Çocuklara İngilizce öğreten öğretmen profili, Küçük Çocuklara Dil

Öğretimi

iii

ABSTRACT



Yeşim DOĞAN

Master of Arts, English Language Teaching

Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM

August 2009, 157 pages

In this study, a young learner (YL) English Teacher Profile from students’ and

teachers’ perspectives was investigated. Considering the qualities of foreign language

teachers as well as the characteristics of young learners (YLs) of English, this study

aimed to find out students’ and teachers’ perceptions of a YL English teacher in terms

of qualities related to his/her professional profile (subject matter, curricula, materials,

instructional activities, classroom management, teacher language used in the class,

teacher’s interaction skills and techniques, etc) as well as his/her individual profile

(personal traits). Data were collected from a total of 544 fourth grade students aged 10-

11 and 26 YLs English Teachers in all the 22 primary schools in the city center of

Nevşehir in Turkey. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire which

consisted of teacher qualities that the students and their English teachers were required

to grade. Additionally, for the purposes of this study, data were collected also by

employing observation, interview, and field notes. Overall, the data collection tools; the

questionnaire and interview reveal that the teachers are aware of the needs of YLs.

Contrarily, observation and field notes show the teachers do not put what they know

into practice. The findings also revealed statistically significant differences between the

perceptions of students and their teachers in thirty-eight items included and grouped in

the questionnaire under the headings; planning and organization, competence in

English, attitude towards job, materials and activities, method, teacher interaction

skills, availability to students, classroom management, feedback, assessment and YLs

English teachers’ personal traits. The findings of this study provided invaluable

implications for the process of developing teacher education programs and evaluating

teacher performance in TEYL.

iv

Keywords: Young Language Learners, Teaching English as a Foreign Language, The

Profile of a Young Learner English Teacher, Teaching English to Young Learners

(TEYL).

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank all of those who supported and assisted me during this journey of

discovery and learning. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor,

Asst. Prof. Dr. Rana YILDIRIM for her endless support, constructive feedback, and

wonderful guidance even in hard times.

I would like to express my gratitude to Asst. Prof. Dr. Gülden İLİN for being in

the jury and for her valuable remarks and support.

I would also like to express very special thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ergün

SERİNDAĞ for admitting to be in the jury and for his valuable comments and support.

I would like to send my very sincere thanks to Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahmet

DOĞANAY for his help and valuable suggestions on the statistical analysis.

I am also grateful to Asst. Prof. Dr. Faruk YILDIRIM for his valuable

suggestions and comments during the preparation of the questionnaires.

I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Ayşe KIZILDAĞ for the

suggestions she has given to me as well as for her valuable academic expertise and

generous heart that allowed me to move on during the hardest time of this journey.

I am especially indebted to my headmaster Mustafa KILINÇ, Mihriban Emin

Günel Primary School, for arranging my schedule according to my MA program.

Thanks to him, I had to chance to complete my degree from Nevşehir.

I am particularly indebted to my dearest friend Duygu İŞPINAR AKÇAYOĞLU

(MA, PhD Candidate) who has had a huge impact on my academic life. Her strong

support and selfless help have led me to a successful path in my MA program. You are

the best teacher ever. Thank you for your infectious enthusiasm, for your

encouragement, and for your friendship.

vi

I would also like to thank to Instructor Laura OLSON ŞAKIRGİL and for the

proofreading of this thesis and her valuable suggestions.

I would like to give deeply felt thanks to the Statisticians Gökhan Tepe and

Hakan Gören (MA Candidate) for their assistance in data analysis and Mehmet GİRİŞ

for the design of the thesis.

I also owe much thanks to all of my participants. Without them, this research

would not have seen the light. Thank you for welcoming me into your lives and

allowing me to impose on your time.

Lastly and most importantly, I am eternally grateful to my brothers (Tan

DOĞAN and Can DOĞAN), for supporting me in every sense, for always being there

for me, and for their prayers.

I also thank to the Çukurova University Research Fund, No: EF2008YL5 for

supporting me financially throughout the thesis.

vii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my wonderful father and mother (Hasan Ferit

DOĞAN & Mürüvvet DOĞAN) who always thought I was capable of doing more than

I believed I could do. I can only be grateful that I had the opportunity to be tutored so

closely about life from people as caring as my mummy and daddy. I am thankful for

your high expectations. This thesis proofs that you have always been right in whatever

you have told me.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ÖZET …………………………………………………………………………………...ii

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………..…….v

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………...………………..xi

LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………………..xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Study........................................................................................... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................... 3

1.3. Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................6

1.4. Research Questions.....................................................................................................6

1.5. Operational Definitions…………………………………………………..…………7

1.6. Limitations .................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 8

2.2. How Children think and learn ...................................................................................8

2.2.1. Characteristics of Young English Language Learners………………….…..11

2.2.3. Young Learner English Teachers’ Qualities………………………………..15

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................22

ix

3.2. Research Design…………………………………………………………...………22

3.3. Participants......................................................................................... …….………23

3.4. The context of the study………………………………………………...…………23

3.5. Data Collection Tools and Procedures.....................................................................24

3.5.1. Questionnaires................................................................................................24

3.5.1.1. Student questionnaire…………..………………………….…….....25

3.5.1.2. Teacher questionnaire………………..………….………………….26

3.5.2. Piloting…………………………………………………..…………………..26

3.5.3. Observation.................................................................................................... 27

3.5.4.Interviews………………………………………....……………...………….28

3.6. Data Collection.........................................................................................................29

3.7. Data Analysis………………………………….…………………………………...29

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

4.0. Introduction………………..…………………………………………….………..31

4.1. Statistical Analysis………….……………………………………………......……31

4.2. Findings from the Teachers’ data……………….……………….…………..……31

4.3. Summary of the Findings from the Teachers’ Questionnaires, Interviews,

and Observations …………………..…………………………………………......60

4.4. Findings from the Student Questionnaire ……………………...………………….61

4.5. Summary of the Findings from Students’ Questionnaire……...............…………..75

4.6. Comparison between Students’ and Teachers’ Views: Statistical Analysis…..…..76

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION

5.1. What are the YLs’ perception of the qualities of their current English Teachers?..91

5.2. What are the YL English teachers’ perceptions of their own Qualities?..................94

x

5.3. Are there any statistically significant differences between YLs’ and their

teachers ‘perceptions?..............................................................................................97

5.4. Implication for Practice……………………………………………………….….102

5.5. Recommendation for Further Research……………………………………...…...104

5.6. Personal Reflection……………………………………………………………….104

REFERENCES…………………..…………………………………………………..106

APPENDICES……………………..…………………………………………………116

CIRRICULUM VITAE……………………………………..……………………….156

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Ages of the Teacher Participants……………………….……… …... ………31

Table 2. Graduation Year……………..………………………………….……………31

Table 3. Years of Experience in TEYL …………………………………..…………..33

Table 4. Graduation Faculties………………………………………………..………...33

Table 5. In-service training for TEYL ……………………………………..………….33

Table 6. Teachers’ Views about their Classroom Practice (Planning and Organization)

……………………………………………………………………...….……..34

Table 7. Teachers’ views about their Classroom Practice (The use of L1 and L2/

Competence in English-Attitude towards job)…………………...…..……...36

Table 8. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Materials and Activities) ……37

Table 9. Teachers Views about Classroom Practice (Methods) ……….....…….…….41

Table 10. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Teacher Interaction Skills and

Availability to students) ……………………………………………….……43

Table 11. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Classroom Management)…….46

Table 12. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Assessment)……………...…. 48

Table 13. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Feedback)……………...…....51

Table 14. Teachers Views about Their Personal Traits …………………...…………..52

Table 15. Teachers’ Views about Their Five Most Important Qualities ……………...56

Table 16. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Planning and

Organization) …………………………………...……………….……….…61

Table 17. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ use of L1 and

L2/ Competence in English/Attitude towards job)…………………….……62

Table 18. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Use of Materials

and Activities)…………………..……………………………….…….…….63

Table 19. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (The Methods used by their

Teachers)…….…………………………...…………………………….….. 65

Table 20. Students’ View about Classroom Practice (Their Teacher’ Interaction Skills

and Availability to Students)…………………………………………..……66

Table 21. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Classroom

Management)………………………………………………………………. 67

Table 22. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Assessment).. 68

xii

Table 23. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Feedback)…. 68

Table 24. Students’ Views about Personal Traits (Their Teachers’ personal traits)…. 69

Table 25. Students’ Views about the five most important Qualities of a YL English

Teacher…………………...…………………………………………………71

Table 26. Scale Table………………………………………………………….……… 76

Table 27. Statistical Difference between Students’ and Teachers’ Views about

Classroom Practice (Planning and Organization)…………….……….….... 77

Table 28. Statistical Differences between Students’ and Teachers’ Views about

Classroom Practice (Competence in English)………………………...…….78


Classroom Practice (Materials and Activities)……………………….….….79


Classroom Practice (Methods) …………………...…………………….….. 81


Classroom Practice (Teacher Interaction Skills and Availability to

Students)…………………………………………………………...….…… 82


Classroom Practice (Classroom Management)……………………….……. 83


Classroom Practice (Assessment)……………….…………………………..85


Classroom Practice (Feedback)………………...……………………….…. 85


Personal Traits……………………………………………………………....86

xiii

APPENDICIES

Appendix I : Questionnaires (English Version)………………...…….……………..115

Appendix II : Questionnaires (Turkish Version)……………...……..………………126

Appendix III : Observation Checklist …………………………………….…………138

Appendix IV : “Describe Your English Teacher In Your Own Words”.………....….140

Appendix V: Data from the Student Participants……………….....……………..…..143

Appendix VI : 1: The Names of the Schools in which Data were collected…......….154

Appendix VII: Consent from Ministry of Education District Offices……….........…155

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Study

Over the past decade, English Language has gained importance in all countries

in all aspects of life. The demand for English “has increased exponentially with

economic globalization” (Nunan, 2001, p. 605). Owing to this great spread, not only

educators but also parents have become more aware of the importance of learning

English and many people have become concerned about having their children get the

most effective language learning at the earliest ages.

Similarly, the general belief, “younger equals better”, has caused the teaching of

English to expand into primary school settings all around the world (Yıldırım & Şeker,

2004).Rixon (1999) suggests that two of the main reasons why countries make this

decision are firstly to take advantage of benefits that are connected with the importance

of English and secondly, to take advantage of benefits that derive from the nature and

needs of children. Educators and parents have begun to be aware of the fact that early

foreign language teaching is advantageous because it has been found (Brumfit, 1991;

Moon, 2000) that the brain is more adaptable before puberty, at an early age acquisition

of language is possible without being self-conscious, and children have fewer negative

attitudes toward foreign languages and cultures than adults do. Thus, it seems that YLs

have great potential to learn English due to the advantages of their age. Likewise,

Brumfit et al. (1991) describe some of the reasons for teaching English at a primary

level as follows; first, the need to encourage children from an early age to an

understanding of foreign cultures so that they grow up tolerant and sympathetic to

others; second, the need to link communication to the understanding of new concepts;

and last, the need for maximum learning time for important languages; namely, the

earlier you start the more time you get.

As a result, in English Language Teaching (ELT) settings, the issue of TEYL

has become especially crucial and in the same way, interest in the research on TEYL

has rapidly grown in recent years (Brumfit, 1991; Wood, 1998; Cameron, 2001). İşpınar

2

(2005) states that educationalists and researchers have recently become more interested

in the way YLs learn because the things YLs bring into the language classroom have

caused changes in teaching attitudes and as a result of this, methods, techniques and

materials to be used for YLs have to be different from teaching adolescents, as applying

the same teaching approach might hinder learning and discourage YLs. Hence, these

reasons bring a need to enhance the teaching skills of the both in-service and pre-service

teachers and to adjust the existing teaching methods to YLs classrooms (Damar, 2004).

When we look at the research conducted in other countries, it can be seen that

the educators, administrators and policy makers have shown great effort to develop

different aspects of foreign language learning and teaching in primary schools. The first

introduction of foreign language education at primary level was in the middle of 1960s

by UNESCO (Mersinligil, 2002).Then, in time, the number of countries that introduced

a foreign language at primary level increased and English began to take an important

educational role in education in such countries as France, Germany, Hungary, England,

Poland and Italy (Stern, 1991). Tucker (2001) exemplifies many countries such as Costa

Rica, Korea, Japan and Thailand, which have taken steps lately to begin teaching

English at earlier grades in their schools.

In Greece and Taiwan, parents’ wishes have created a rapid growth in schools

for English at primary level (Brewster et al, 2003). A similar situation occurred in

Russia, where foreign language education began two years before state schools

(Mersinligil, 2002).

In Turkey, teaching English at the primary level first started in private schools in

1985 (Mersinligil, 2002). In public schools, however, the compulsory age to be

introduced to English as a foreign language (EFL) was lowered to grade four (with 10

year olds) in 1997, with the introduction of the Eight-year Obligatory Primary

Education Program (Tebligler Dergisi, 1997). Accordingly, this reform brought a

renewal in the teaching of English in state primary schools. As a result; YLs and their

needs, effective teaching as well as teacher qualities to support their learning have

recently gained importance in ELT.

3

On the basis of the above findings, it is clear that in order for YLs English

teachers to be the most effective in using the advantages of YLs in language learning, it

is important that the teachers understand what they and their students perceive about the

classroom activities and teachers’ characteristics, due to the fact that perceptions can

assist teachers by showing how students think, which is useful for teaching (Schunk &

Zimmerman, 1997). In light of this relevant literature, this study basically investigates

the actual qualities of YLs English Teachers from the teachers’ and students’

perspectives.

1.2. Statement of the problem

The real contribution of foreign language teaching in state primary schools to

national education in Turkey began with educational reforms increasing compulsory

primary education from five to eight years, as defined by the Turkish Ministry of

National Education in 1997 (Tebliğler Dergisi). Conversely, the implementation of the

new primary English as a EFL curriculum in Turkish state primary schools has initiated

many problems as Turkey faced a very fast change in its organization, unlike other

countries such as England, Italy, Poland, and Hungary where foreign language

education for YLs was first applied in pilot schools (Mersinligil, 2002). With the

immediate implementation of the primary EFL curriculum, English lessons which were

given two hours a week, were added to the curriculum of the 4th and 5th grades in state

primary schools and the teachers teaching higher grades have had to start teaching in 4th

and 5th grade students (Damar, 2004).Furthermore; until 1998, the pre-service teacher

education for foreign language teachers provided by the education faculties did not

include courses specific to teaching YLs.

A number of studies carried out in primary EFL contexts in Turkish public

schools point out that there have been problems in TEYL in a range of areas, including

syllabus, course material, physical conditions teacher training and methods and

strategies used for YL language instruction (Mersinliğil, 2002; Damar, 2004; Yıldırım&

Şeker, 2004; İşpınar, 2005; Aküzel, 2006; Torun, 2008).

Additionally, Damar (2004) claims that in-service language teachers in primary

schools have not been well trained for this level, as the age of the target group they are

4

supposed to teach has been lowered after their training process. Additionally, Yıldırım

and Şeker (2004) found that even though the teachers have a positive attitude towards

YLs, the teaching practices of a majority of the teachers were not appropriate for

children.

Mersinligil’s (2002) study has revealed that inappropriate classroom size, lack of

qualified teachers, lack of materials, and shortcomings of the curriculum make the

application of English language teaching objectives impossible. Aküzel (2006) found

that even though teachers believe that language lessons of YLs should be supported

with audio-visual aids, these aids are not usually employed in TEYL. Likewise, Torun

(2008) claims that there has to be alternative methods and materials appropriate for YLs

to support the language instruction in primary schools, considering the shortcomings in

TEYL.

Sofu and Okan (1998) conducted a study to define the situation from the

educators’ perspective. The interviews of school administrators and English teachers

from 20 public schools reveal some of the problems experienced in schools. According

to the school administrators and English teachers, one of the problem was public

primary schools were not prepared for foreign language teaching at this level. Another

problem was that English teachers were not specifically trained for this level, thus, they

face many difficulties in teaching. It was also stated by the participants that English

teachers for this level needed urgent teacher training support. They also claimed that

there was a need for reform in programs of Education Faculties in order to provide

qualified English teachers into the market to overcome the challenges faced at this level

of foreign language teaching.

Considering the mentioned problems in the implementation of the primary level

EFL curriculum, the Ministry of Education has been holding many in-service training

programs for the teachers of YLs in almost every region of Turkey. However, as the

study conducted by Yıldırım and Şeker (2004) indicates, teachers who have attended

such programs find them boring and time-consuming instead of useful (Şeker, 2007).

According to the data results of Şeker’s study; only 16 out of 82 teachers had the

opportunity to take special education related to YLs at either pre-service or in-service

level. While 36 stated a need for training, 30 were found not to be so willing to

5

participate in such training. The reasons they claimed were the density of theoretical

knowledge at in-service trainings the difference between the theory and the practice

given at the trainings and perceiving that the in-service training was obligatory rather

than a voluntary task for professional development (Şeker, 2007).

Considering the characteristics YLs naturally bring when they are provided with

the appropriate classroom atmosphere, YLs are ready to like the language, and their

interest, by the help of maximized learning accelerates (Krashen, 1992). It is the teacher

who can create and promote this atmosphere. Therefore, YLs English teachers should

be able to understand the needs of their students. They should have a thorough

understanding of YLs development. Only then, can teachers prepare effective lessons to

meet their students’ needs (Echevarria, 1998). In addition to being able to use the

advantages of YLs characteristics, the qualities of the teacher have gained importance.

The qualities of teachers of YLs in a TEYL setting is very important than it was

thought because YLs English teachers have numerous influences on their students, as

YLs tend to like English provided that they like their teachers and the teaching methods

( Moon, 2000). Contrarily, as explained above the current situation of Turkey lacks

effective teacher education for primary EFL context as there most of English teachers

do not have much knowledge about experience in teaching English to YLs and they are

not much knowledgeable about their own qualities.

As derived from these findings, it is required that some studies be conducted

related to YLs English teachers’ professional proficiency and personal identities, as

these directly affect YLs language learning. A need for research on teaching English to

YLs in the state primary schools in Turkey is inevitable to improve teacher qualities in

TEYL. The research can also be helpful to enhance the quality of pre-service courses in

ELT departments of education faculties in which TEYL courses are currently being

given. Additionally, gaining insight into students’ and teachers’ perceptions about the

profile of a YL English Teacher will allow educators to deepen their understanding of

what students and teachers are looking for in TEYL.

6

1.3. Purpose of the Study

As stated above, there are certainly many problems related to TEYL. However,

it would be unrealistic to find solutions to all of the problems within a single study. For

this reason, this study aims to explore the actual qualities of YLs English teachers both

from students’ and teachers’ perspectives. In this study, the participants’ views on

actual teacher types in the EFL context (in state primary schools) will be investigated in

reference to the teachers’ quality in activities, language skills, classroom language,

evaluation and assessment, materials and YLs language learning in general, as well as

the YLs English teachers’ personal qualities.

This study aims to (1) identify the qualities of YLs English Teacher profile, (2)

find out how the teachers reflect their personal qualities into the classroom atmosphere

(3) investigate the YLs perceptions of the qualities of their current English Teacher and

find out the YLs English Teachers’ perceptions of their own qualities. To accomplish

these aims: (a) the related literature will be reviewed about YLs and qualities of YLs

English Teachers, (b) a questionnaire will be submitted to find out the views of teachers

and students, (c) observations and interviews will be administered to support the data

collected from the questionnaire.

1.4. Research Questions

This study primarily aims to find out the YLs English teacher profile from students’

and teachers’ perspectives in the city center of Nevşehir in the Cappadocia region of

Turkey.

The following research questions constitute the basis of the study:

1. What are YLs’ perceptions of the qualities of their current English teacher?

2. What are the YLs English teachers’ perceptions of their own qualities?

3. Are there any statistically significant differences between YLs’ perceptions

and their teachers’ perceptions?

7

1.5.Operational Definitions

In this study, the following terms should be considered in their meanings below:

Young Learners (YLs): Young learners are between 7-12 years old (Slatterly & Willis,

2001). YLs participated in this study were those who are 10 years old at the 4th grade of

their primary education.

YLs English Teachers: Teachers of English teaching 4th grade in State Primary

Schools.

The abbreviations used in the study are as follows:

ELT: English Language Teaching

EFL: English as a foreign language

TEYL: Teaching English to Young Learners

1.6. Limitations

At the beginning of the study, the teacher questionnaire was administered to 35

YLs English teachers. Of all the teachers, however, nine did not want to participate;

hence, the data was limited to 26 teachers working in 22 different schools. Additionally,

student questionnaire was administered to 544 YLs and from such limited population

we can not provide generalizations out of this piece of research.

Although, this study is limited to data collected through qualitative research

tools such as interview, observation and quantitative design instrument such as

questionnaire, not all the teachers who were given questionnaire were observed or

interviewed since the voluntarily participation was prioritised.

Additionally, there is a strong possibility that the participating young learners

were influenced by the researcher while expressing their views on their actual English

Teacher profile. Although, the researcher tried her best convincing them that their

opinions and statements will be kept confidential; there is still a small possibility that

they might have not been open in their expressions mistakenly believing the researcher

may inform their teachers.

8

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter mainly contains and presents the summary report of some basic

relevant literature that will support the study. First, it begins with a review of how

children think and learn; then, the characteristics of YLs, and finally, the implications of

these characteristic for YLs English Teachers.

2.2. How Children Think and Learn

English Teachers of YLs should be aware of certain capabilities of their students

at each level in order to understand how they think and learn. In this respect, three

prominent psychologists; namely, Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky have laid the

foundations for scientific understanding of how children's knowledge of the world

develops and they have shed light into the issue of who YLs are and what they can do at

certain ages. Hence, the following section gives ideas about the theories of these three

psychologists.

The famous Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget provided an explanation of the

development of thinking from infancy to adulthood by categorizing children into

developmental stages. He was mainly concerned with how children function in the

environment surrounding them and its influences on their mental development, forming

the conception that thought is internalized action (Piaget, 1972). In his view, children

keep interacting with the world around them and solve the problems they come across.

According to Piaget, children are active sense makers and construct their knowledge

from working with objects and ideas. Learning occurs through taking actions while

constructing their knowledge to solve problems. In this respect, in contrast to

behaviorists who see children as a “blank slate” who learn by reacting passively to

different kinds of stimuli and positive and negative feedback, Piaget theorized a child as

“actively constructing his or her own thinking in interaction with physical and social

environment” (Brewster et al., 2003, p.29).

9

According to Piaget (1971), a child’s gradual growth is marked with certain

fundamental changes that cause a child to pass through a series of stages. Piaget alleged

the three stages – ‘sensorimotor’ (birth to 18 months approximately), ‘concrete

operational’ (18 months to 11years approximately), and ‘formal operational’ (11 years

and onwards). The stage in which primary school students belong to is called the

operational stage and the main characteristics of this stage are the recognition of the

logical stability of the physical world, the realization that elements can be changed, or

transformed and still conserve many of their characteristics, and the understanding that

these changes can be reserved (Woodfolk, 1998).

Piaget’s work can enlighten teachers on what students are able to learn and

think; Piaget’s ideas can also become a guide for teachers as Cameron (2001)

emphasizes, realizing that children are active sense-makers, but their sense-making

abilities are limited by their experience. This is one of the keys understanding how

children respond to tasks and activities carried out in the classrooms. Along with these,

teachers can see whether their students are having trouble because they lack the

necessary thinking skills and abilities by means of observation thanks to Piaget’s the

learning theory (Woodfolk, 1998).

Lev Vygotsky is another noted psychologist in the theory of learning. While

Piaget was mainly interested in the child’s own cognitive development and described

the child as understanding the world largely alone, Vygotsky stressed the role of social

interaction as Cameron (2001) supports that language learning takes place in social

context.

Vygotsky (1978) contributed to education and psychology with his term Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) which is “the distance between the actual developments

as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development

as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with

more capable peers” (p. 86).

Vygotsky agreed with Piaget that the concepts used by children are not similar to

those of adults. However, Piaget saw the child as developing through her own activities,

while Vygotsky insisted that the child functioned in a world in which she was

10

surrounded by adults who would comment and help her in her tasks; namely, the child's

knowledge is socially constructed in interaction with adults. In this case, language plays

the major role as Cameron suggests, “The development of the child’s first language in

the second year of life is held to generate a fundamental shift in cognitive development.

Language provides the child with a new tool, opens up new opportunities for doing

things and for organizing information through the use of words as symbols (Cameron,

2001, p.5). Vygoysky believed that cognitive development occurs through child’s

conversation with more capable adults and peers (Woolfolk, 1998).

The implication of this theory for teachers is that through interaction with others,

children’s knowledge, ideas, attitudes, and values can develop and with the help of their

peers, children can do much more than they can do on their own. Hence, in a classroom

where students are provided with explanations, demonstrations and group-pair works,

students can be more successful and teaching can be more effective.

Influenced by Vygotsky, Bruner is another prominent psychologist who

contributed to learning theory. His main focus was on how adults use language to

mediate the world for children and help them solve problems (Cameron, 2001).

Supporting Vygotsky, he observes that the process of constructing knowledge of the

world is not done in isolation but rather within a social context. The child is a social

being and through social life, acquires a framework for interpreting experiences (Bruner

& Haste, 1987). Bruner (1966) also notes that "there is no unique sequence for all

learners, and the optimum in any particular case will depend upon a variety of factors,

including past learning, stage of development, nature of the material, and individual

differences" (p. 49).

Scaffolding’ is the term introduced by Bruner (1986) to refer to the help given to

a child by an adult, usually a speech that supports a child in carrying out an activity. The

notion of scaffolding consolidates the idea of adult support and guidance in instruction.

For example, in classrooms teachers scaffold children’s learning by breaking it into

stages such as helping children to attend to what is important while making connections

to the whole picture at the same time (Cameron, 2001). Teachers can use scaffolding

during teaching by simplifying the task, by encouraging learners, or by suggesting and

modeling.

11

Bruner’s (1983) main focus was on the notions of “formats and routines”.

According to Cameron (2001), in the course of scaffolding, formats and routines

combine “the security of the familiar with the excitement of the new” (p. 9). Parents’

reading stories to their children from babyhood and onwards might be a good example

for this (Cameron, 2001). For language classroom implications, on the other hand,

adapting routines can provide language development allowing children new space for

language growth by helping students make sense of the new language.

In summary, the theories above can provide essential implications for TEYL.

Hence, teachers of YLs are to be aware of the theories as well as the characteristics of

YLs. The following section will give information about the characteristics of YLs and

the implications for teachers.

2.2.1. Characteristics of Young English Language Learners

The term “Young Learners” is defined by Phillips (1999) as children from the

first year of schooling (five or six years old) to eleven or twelve years of age (p.3).

According to Torun (2008) at the primary school level, YLs are in a stage of their lives

in which they experience continuous physical and cognitive change. Additionally, at

their primary years, they are still trying to develop social skills to cope with the society

they live in. When taken in this respect, YLs exhibit full range of emotions and

cognitive abilities in order to grasp meaning (Pollard, 1996).

Besides, it is also necessary to elaborate on the basic cognitive and social

features of YLs as well as their stages of growth in this study. Scott and Ytreberg (1991)

differentiate that what children of five can do and what children of ten can do are not

the same. As for the five to seven year olds;

• They can talk about what they are doing.

• They can tell you about what they have done or heard.

• They can plan and do activities.

• They can argue for something and tell you why they think and what they

think.

• They can use logical reasoning.

12

• They can use their vivid imaginations.

• They can use a wide range of intonation patterns in their mother tongue.

• They can understand direct human interactions (p.1).

Children at this age can talk about what they are doing or what they have done.

However, it is not easy for them to talk about the language, in other words their meta-

language is not as advanced as adult learners (Cameron, 2001, p.5). As Chomsky (1969)

demonstrated, children between 5 and 10 years old are still acquiring the structures of

their first language. For children younger than 5, many aspects of their first language

have not yet fully developed. So while older learners have the foundation of a fully

developed first language when they begin acquiring a new language, YLs of English are

working toward two milestones at the same time: the full development of their native

language and the acquisition of English (Coltrane, 2003). Supporting this idea, De

Houwer (1999) claims that educators must keep in mind YLs do not have a fully

developed native language on which to base the learning of a second. In other words,

YLs may not know certain vocabulary words, grammatical structures, or other language

features in their native language before they learn them in English, in which case merely

translating a word or phrase may be of little help to them. As for the eight to ten year

olds;

• Their basic concepts are formed. They have very decided views of the world.

• They can tell the difference between fact and fiction.

• They ask questions all the time.

• They rely on the spoken world as well as the physical world to convey and

understand meaning.

• They are able to make decisions about their own learning.

• They have definite views about what they like and do not like doing.

• They have a developed sense of fairness about what happens in the

classroom and begin to question the teacher’s decisions.

• They are able to work with others and learn from others.

When we analyze the YLs in terms of language learning, according to many

researchers and educators, children seem to be better language learners than adults

13

(Halliwell, 1992, Pollard, 1996, Brumfit, 1991) .As stated by Brumfit (1991), the main

reasons are that the brain is more adaptable before puberty than after, and that

acquisition of languages is possible without self-consciousness at an early age. From

these angles, it is important to note that the age factor undeniably affects language

learning positively. As it is in Moyer’s (1999) study challenging the Critical Period

Hypothesis (CPH), which claims the appropriate age for learning, with special reference

to phonological performance, early age is not a single factor, but a helping factor for

phonological performance to be easily developed.

Similarly, YLs’ affective and socio-cultural resilience makes them feel the

integrative motivation more demandingly than adults who have already gone through a

process of acceptance of cultural models and prejudices. In that sense, language

teaching to YLs can serve as an instrument of intercultural construction if focused on

the attitudinal component (Schumann, 1978; Brown, 1980; Krashen, 1982).

Furthermore, according to Halliwell (1992) YLs do not come to the language classroom

empty-handed. They bring an already well-established set of instincts, skills and

characteristics which will help them to learn another language and they have ready

imagination and great skill in using limited language creatively. Besides, they are good

at interpreting meaning without necessarily understanding the individual words and they

take great delight in talking. (Halliwell, 1992).Lastly, Freudenstein (1990) additionally

states that children who begin a foreign language at an early level seem to benefit

intellectually and to be more culturally aware.

Similarly, Brumfit (1991) further explains the characteristics of children when

learning in general:

“YLs are only just beginning their schooling. As a group they are

potentially more differentiated than secondary or adult learners, for they are

closer to their varied home cultures, and new to the conformity increasingly

imposed across cultural groupings by the scope. They tend to be keen and

enthusiastic learners, without the inhibitions which older children

sometimes bring to their schooling. Their learning can be closely linked

with their development of ideas and concepts, because it is so close to their

initial experience of formal schooling. They need physical movement and

14

activity as much as stimulation for their thinking, and the closer together

these can be the better. (p. 5)”

Drawing on this, teaching English to YLs has got many advantages when we

consider their unique characteristics compared to adult learners of English. Generally

speaking, the question of why a foreign language should be taught in the primary school

setting can be explained by the age factor which enables YLs to comprehend the

language better. With this point of view, the spread of English into the primary

curriculum has been advantageous in many respects. In relation to this, Pantaleoni

(1988) supports this point stating many benefits of introducing foreign language

learning into the primary curriculum (p.70). In her article, first of all, she mentions that

primary students’ capacities to imitate and simulate and to reproduce sounds almost

flawlessly are very high, as their vocal organs are still flexible. Secondly, she adds that

YLs are uneasy and not constrained in their relationships with the teacher and the group

and they lack shyness which inhibit them from participating in the lesson. Additionally,

in a study in relation to the benefits of introducing the foreign language teaching into

the primary curriculum early, Krause (1997) also supports that YLs come to the

classrooms because they want to talk to foreigners, their parents want them to learn

another language and learning a new language is fun.

To add to this, the learning atmosphere is the other key factor in teaching

English. Creating a psychologically secure setting in the classroom enhances learning

no matter how difficult the subject or what level of the student is. For this reason, the

teacher’s role plays an important factor when dealing with YLs. A teacher who

considers the feelings of the students as well as their motivation and attitudes in foreign

language learning will be more likely to be successful in teaching. If the students feel at

home, they will participate in to the lesson more (Çakır, 2004).

Moving away from these findings discussed above, knowing the characteristics

of YLs, such as moral, physical, emotional, social and mental development as well as

their individual differences will help YLs’ English Teachers in terms of choosing

materials and adapting their teaching (Pinter, 2006). Additionally, Çakır (2004)

suggests that it needs to be addressed that the role of foreign language teachers in class

15

is far bigger than that of those teaching other subjects. In designing and implementing

activities, foreign language teachers should consider the facts mentioned above.

In brief, given the characteristics of YLs’, it is crucial to note the role of their

effects upon the qualities of YLs’ English Teachers. The following section provides

necessary information about the YL English Teacher qualifications and their

implications for classroom activities and teaching.

2.2.3. Young Learner English Teachers Qualities

An increasing amount of research has established that teachers with a good,

professional outlook can make a significant difference in students’ learning (Darling-

Hammond, 2002; Haycock 1998; Sanders & Horn; 1995, Sanders and Rivers, 1996).

Whatever roles they assume, whatever they teach, as Stronge (2003) states, teachers

have a powerful, long-lasting influence on their students. They directly affect how

students learn, what they learn, how much they learn, and the ways they interact with

one another and the world around them with their professional as well as personal

identities.

When taken in this respect, the qualities of teachers related to their professional

profile (subject matter, curricula, materials, instructional activities, classroom

management, teacher’s language use in the class, teacher’s interaction skills and

techniques) as well as their personal traits (warm, friendly, helpful, relationship with

students, etc.) carry a certain vitality in educational settings as these qualities directly

affect how students learn.

Politzer and Weiss (1971) support this notion by emphasizing upon the

personality of the teacher by suggesting the hypothesis that the efficiency of the

individual teacher increases with the amount of his/her personal stake. In the same way,

Penner (1992) further claims that a teacher who teaches effectively not only teaches the

subject; but his/her personality is part of the teacher and it affects every learning

situation (p.45).

16

As stated above, the teacher’s personality traits are vital as they affect the

classroom atmosphere in which teaching takes place. In relation to its importance, the

study made by the School Standards Ministry in England prepared a 234- paged report

in 2000 (see BBC homepage). According to this detailed report which lasted

approximately 10 months including 1200 students and 172 teachers; the most striking

teacher characteristics were found to be kindness, generosity, listening to students,

encouraging them, having faith in them, enjoying teaching and enjoying the subjects,

taking time to explain things, helping students when they are stuck, giving feedback,

allowing students to state their opinions, making students feel clever, treating students

equally, telling the truth and being forgiving. Namely, teachers having positive attitudes

towards their students by inspiring them with their enthusiastic approaches are the most

preferred by their students. In short, teachers should not only have a sound of

knowledge of their subject but also a sense of their own personal qualities, as these

qualities have a direct affect on their teaching/learning atmosphere.

As for the research carried out in Turkey; Okçabol, Akpınar, Caner, Erktin &

Ünlühisarcıklı (2003) did a study in 15 cities in Turkey with 5800 students. According

to this study, the students were requested to write three important qualities a good

teacher should have. The result showed that 40% of the students want their teachers to

hold a positive attitude toward them. In the same way, 37% want teachers to be

successful in their fields and 12 % want their teachers to have positive personality traits.

Additionally, 7% want their teachers to love and respect their profession.

In order to maximize learning, it is essential for teachers to develop a good

relationship with their students, because the rapport established between teachers and

students, in part, determines the interest and performance level of the students

(Campbell, 1972). Likewise, in order to teach effectively, establishing a climate of

warmth, understanding, and caring within the classroom is of the utmost importance

(Teven, 1998).

Based on the findings about the qualities of the teachers in general, despite an

increasingly body of research that addresses the qualities of teachers in general (Davies,

1957; Brophy & Evertson, 1974; Turley, 1995; Brosh, 1996; Mollica & Nuessel, 1997;

Glasser, 1998; Curran, 2001; Okçabol, Akpınar, Caner, Erktin & Ünlühisarcıklı; 2003,

17

Saban, 2003; Stronge, 2003; Wayne & Youngs, 2003; Eide, Goldhaber, Brewer, 2004;

Korthagen, 2004; Luschei, 2005; Açıkgöz, 2005;Pyne, 2006; Brown, 2006; Borg, 2006;

Harris, 2006; Richards, 2006), there is a gap in relation to the studies pertaining to YLs

English teachers perceived classroom practice and personal qualities. Therefore, this

study is considered as unique to fill this gap in the field of TEYL as teaching and

learning English at younger ages have become a more prominent issue.

This specific training stems from the fact that children bring to language

learning their curiosity and eagerness to make sense of the world. In a way, they tackle

the most demanding tasks with enthusiasm and willingness (Cameron, 2001). As a

result, the classroom activities and classroom behavior of a YL English Teacher are

crucial to maximize the positive impact on learning, especially considering the general

traits of the YLs characteristics as were mentioned in the previous section. What YLs

bring to classrooms has also changed the teaching and learning strategies that have been

applied to adult learners of English. Vale and Feunteun (1995) further claim that the

teaching approach for children is necessarily different, and thus, teachers of children

should know that many of the techniques and attitudes for children seem to conflict with

general EFL methodology.

YLs of English try to “make sense” to find and construct meaning and purpose

from what adults say to them or ask of them, and they are able to understand from their

limited world knowledge (Vygotsky, 1967). For this reason, teachers of YLs need to

examine the classroom activities from a child’s point of view in order to assess whether

the pupils will understand what to do or will be able to do to make sense of the new

language (Cameron, 2001).

In line with this notion, while entering the classroom, teachers of YLs are

required to have special skills by being alert and well equipped in employing methods

and techniques as well as choosing activities according to the cognitive and social

development of their students in order to refrain from failure and fear. Supporting this

point, Çakır (2004) states “It needs to be addressed that teaching young learners brings a

lot of responsibilities on the shoulders of the teachers in the classroom from designing

the materials to implementing them appropriately”. In this way, they are to provide a

variety of activities to cater for the interests of YLs.

18

To begin with, as stated in the previous line, a variety of the activities is very

crucial in TEYL, as YLs concentration and attention spans are short and limited

(Holden, 1980, Scott & Ytberg, 1991; Wood, 1998; Slattery & Willis, 2001; Cameron,

2001; Brewster et al., 2002). In this respect, to prevent loss of interest and attention,

teachers of YLs should make use of variety in their classrooms. Classroom activities

can include a number of cognitive skills like describing, identifying, recognizing,

making connections, comparing, remembering, and solving problems (Holderness, in

Brumfit et al., 1991). For this reason, teachers of YLs should be well aware of their

students’ physical needs by allocating enough movement activities. Total Physical

Response (TPR) activities and songs, games and miming can help the physical needs of

YLs (Keedle, 1997). According to Brewster et al. (2003), comprehensible input creates

contexts where learners can easily understand what is being said. Total Physical

Response (TPR) can be a good example of this because it provides the necessary

contexts where children perform physical actions in response to spoken statements.

Due to the eagerness of YLs in exploring the new language, in addition to TPR

activities, teachers of YLs can provide their students with activity-based teaching,

which tries to make language learning real and challenging, and offers learning

experiences beyond purely linguistic (Gika & Superfine, 1998). As YLs learn by doing

(Holderness, in Brumfit et al., 1991; Scott & Ytberg, 1991; Keddle, 1997; Slattery &

Willis 2001), teachers of YLs should provide their students with activities that involve

tasks and activities. Some examples of these activities are making things,

playing/inventing games, doing projects, doing puzzles, writing and solving riddles,

using maps, measuring and weighing things, conducting surveys, growing plants,

following and writing recipes, doing drama and studying the local environment (e.g.

plants, birds, buildings). These kinds of activities will enable them to learn the language

effectively and at the same time, through these activities, YLs of English can revise the

topics and vocabularies meaningfully as they reinforce the structures to retain the

language (Williams, in Brumfit et al., 1991; Philips, 1999; Thornton, 2001; Çakır, 2004;

Graham, 2006). Additionally, in teaching grammar to YLs, it is crucial to note that they

learn indirectly rather than directly (Halliwell, 1992; Keddle, 1997; Cameron, 2001;

Slatterly & Willis, 2001). So, while designing activities, instead of teaching in isolated

chunks or breaking the language into its grammatical components, (in other words,

making use of rigorous grammatical analysis) it is necessary to present and use the

19

language meaningfully and within a context that mirrors the real world discourse

(Rixon,in Brumfit et al., 1991; Halliwell, 1992; Keddle 1997; Cameron 2001; Shin,

2007).

By the same token, teachers of YLs can make use of visuals in designing the

activities as children learn best by seeing and doing. Çakır (2004) supports this notion,

stating that the frequent use of visual materials in the classroom leads learners to guess

meanings from contexts by the help of visual clues, which prevents them from getting

used to spoon feeding. In the same way, he also adds that the use visuals in the

classroom make learning more memorable.

Additionally, by using visual aids and materials, learners can be introduced to

real language as it is used by its native speakers. Authentic listening and reading texts,

films, movies, as well as objects peculiar to the target culture bring the target culture

and its language inside schools. Materials such as; pictures, realia, maps, charts/grids,

diagrams, tables, recorded dialogues, stories, songs, sounds of nature and animal sound,

can give teachers opportunities to bring the outer world into the classroom ( Torun,

2008).

Sufficient emphases need to be placed upon the use of fun and games in TEYL.

According to Halliwell (1992) games are more than a fun extra but effective opportunity

for indirect learning. Along with Halliwell, Cameron (2001) supports this point, stating

a “non-linear and interconnected growth” of language instead of “the piling up” of

discrete blocks of knowledge (p.106).

In the same way, As Toth (1998) supports the roles of games, stating:

“Children bring a wealth of knowledge about games to the classroom. They

are familiar with the rules that govern games, and the roles that are expected

of them. They know that games have a final outcome, that in some, co-

operation is necessary in order to complete the activity, and that there is

usually an element of challenging world.”(p.6)

20

According to Vygotsky (1962), children learn the language automatically and

unconsciously. For this reason, teachers of YLs should be aware of activities that will

provide comprehensible input through songs, games, chants, and TPR activities, as

mentioned in the previous lines. According to Brewster et al. (2003) comprehensible

input creates contexts where learners can easily understand what is being said. As Reilly

and Ward (1997) state, it is important for the language teacher to remember that YLs

may spend a long time absorbing language before they actually produce anything (p.7).

For this reason, it is not a good idea for them to speak in the target language as this

might create stress. By doing numerous repetitions and playing games, YLs will be able

to produce language through comprehensive input in which the students constantly

recycle the new language, without the stress of having to speak in English.

In light of these principles, another important point should be emphasized

regarding the assessment of YLs. While assessing YLs, it should be based upon each

child’s progress. In other words, taking note of the progress of each child, rather than

applying formal written exams requiring children to do grammar analysis, should be the

type of assessment used for YLs. Whenever possible, teachers should avoid giving low

marks so as not to cause discouragement and loss of interest. Teachers of YLs should be

sensitive to children’s struggles (Atiles & Allexsaht, 2002).

As for the personality traits of teachers of YLs, it is important to note that TEYL

requires good teaching skills, creativity, thorough preparation, and patience. Similarly,

as Larkin (2002) emphasizes, teachers of YLs should be positive, patient, and caring as

personal relationships are important. Teachers of young English learners must have all

these attributes in order to keep YLs motivated through the above mentioned activities.

Slattery & Willis (2001) also suggest that teachers of YLs are to make learning English

enjoyable and fun through interesting tasks.

Another important quality that YLs English teachers should possess is

appropriate the body language; intonation, facial expression, tone of voice, gesture,

actions, circumstances and the social context itself are the non-verbal clues that help

YLs to understand the language (Brewster et al., 2002; Halliwell, 1992; Slattery &

Willis 2001). YLs English teachers also benefit from contextualization as YLs make use

of contextual clues in order to grasp meanings (Brewster et al., 2002). Teachers of YLs

21

should provide YLs with authentic listening materials and opportunities to play with the

sounds and language for a natural language development (Scott & Ytberg, 1991;

Slattery & Willis, 2001).

Vickery (1999) draws attention to YLs English teacher’s importance by

suggesting that young pupils will reflect the teacher’s attitude toward the class just as

clearly as a thermometer reflects the temperature of the classroom. If the teacher is

tense, the students will be as well. Behavioral problems will ensue. A relaxed teacher,

however, contributes significantly to warm, supportive classroom atmosphere.

Creating a secure atmosphere, making the students to feel comfortable and

helping them love English are more important than teaching English (Vale & Feunteun

1995). When they feel confident and when they enjoy themselves, learning is

maximized. In the same way, as it is stated by Krashen (1992), language learning is

maximized when students feel relaxed and confident. Furthermore, Çakır (2004) argues

that creating a psychologically secure setting in the classroom enhances learning. For

this reason, when students feel at home and secure, they are more likely to participate in

the classroom activities and take risks.

To conclude, when teaching English to YLs, it is vital for teachers be aware of

their own qualities as well the classroom implications of these qualities to facilitate

learning and to make students eager by raising their curiosity and enthusiasm. This

chapter mainly provided related literature on YLs English teacher qualities and their

implications for classroom activities and teaching. The following chapter will deal with

the research design, participants, and the context of the study, data collection tools, and

data analysis.

22

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Introduction

This chapter provides information about the description of the research design.

The overall plan of the data collection procedure is presented as well as the participants

and data collection instruments.

3.2. Research Design

The present study is a combination of qualitative and quantitative in design. The

qualitative design method is utilized because the profile of YLs English Teachers from

the teachers’ and students’ perspectives was elicited via questionnaires, observation,

field notes and a series of interviews. As supported by Miles and Huberman (1994)

there are some advantages of utilizing a qualitative research design in educational

settings. First of all, quantitative studies focus on “...naturally occurring ordinary events

in natural settings, so that we have a strong handle on what ‘real life’ is like (p. 10). On

the basis of this, the method of the present study is naturalistic in the sense that “the

researcher does not attempt to manipulate the research setting” (Patton, 1990). The main

reason in adopting a naturalistic research method is that the researcher tries to

understand “naturally occurring phenomena in their naturally occurring states” (p.39).

Secondly; qualitative designs are rich and holistic “...with strong potential for revealing

complexity; such data provide ‘thick descriptions’ that are vivid, nested in a real

context, and have a ring of truth that has strong impact on the reader.” Lastly; the

flexibility of qualitative research in data collection tools and methods enables the

researcher to understand deeply what really has been going on.

In line with the study, in order to describe the basic features of the data, the

study also exhibits quantitative analysis as numerical values through descriptive

statistics. With the help of the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)

program, which is used to facilitate the manipulation of the data, this study aimed to

investigate if there is a statistically significant difference between YLs’ and teachers’

23

perspective. Briefly, this investigation compared the differences and similarities in the

respondents.

To support the findings of the study with different data collection tools, the

triangulation technique was employed in this study. Triangulation is another technique

to make the readers of qualitative studies convinced of the quality of the data and the

results. The triangulation technique generally seeks unity in results of quantitative

studies; the main aim in qualitative ones, on the other hand, is to enrich the data as

much as possible (Mason, 1996; Patton, 2002).There can be five types of triangulation,

such as triangulation by data source (including persons, times, places), by method

(observation, interview document), by researcher (investigator A, B), by theory and by

data type (qualitative text, recordings, quantitative) (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Among these types, triangulation by data source is used in this study. Namely,

observation and interview were used as qualitative data type and questionnaire was used

as quantitative data type. As Carney (1990) suggests, moving from uncontrolled to more

controlled data types was faced with triangulation. Through a triangulated approach, the

data collected from the questionnaires were supported by observations and interviews so

that the validity of the research could be enhanced.

3.3. Participants

The participants of the study were 544 fourth grade YLs of English aged 10 to

11 and 26 teachers who were at the time of the study, attending and teaching EFL

classrooms of 4th grade in the Nevşehir city center. The educational backgrounds of

teachers, gender or years of experience, or the age or gender of students were not taken

as variables in the study as they were not related to the purpose of the research. Further

data was collected through interviews regarding what teachers as well as students’

believe render a profile of a YL English teacher. Additionally, the questionnaires were

administered to both students and teachers.

3.4. The Context of the Study

It is vital to present the context of the study to comprehend how the researcher

interpreted collected data in the field of the study in which participants were.

24

As the aim of the study is to explore the profile of YL English teachers from students’

and teachers’ perspectives; the researcher visited all of the 22 primary schools in the

Nevşehir city center to conduct the study. Hence, the data presented in this study was

obtained from the fourth graders and their English teachers who were teaching in these

primary schools at the time of the study. At this grade, YLs of English receive 3 hours

of compulsory English language instruction.

3.5. Data Collection Tools and Procedures

In qualitative designs, the main data collection tools and procedures are

interviews, observations and documents (Merriam, 2002). Generally, one data collection

tool is supported with another in such designs. Similarly, Frankel & Wallen (1993)

claim that when a conclusion is supported by data collected from a number of different

instruments, its validity is thereby enhanced. To collect more reliable data, interviews,

observations, as well as questionnaires have been employed in an attempt to gain as rich

a picture as possible about the profile of YLs English teachers from students’ and

teachers’ perspectives. The section below gives further information concerning the data

collection tools employed in this study.

3.5.1. Questionnaires

A questionnaire is among the most utilized data collection tools in which data

from large groups are collected. It investigates respondents’ experiences on a specific

topic (Ekmekci, 1999). In the same way, in qualitative approaches, the researcher seeks

to establish the meaning of a phenomenon from the views of participants through

questionnaires (Creswell, 2003). Namely, in order to get reliable data, a researcher can

collect it directly by asking rather than observing the behaviors with less time consumed

which can be an advantage for the researcher.

Given the scope and the objectives of this study, the questionnaires utilized in

the research were a three-point Likert-like scale in which the participants were asked to

rate items as “Always”, “Sometimes”, or “Never”. As a format, the closed-response was

chosen as the preferred method of data collection primarily due to the ability of

quantitative data to facilitate direct teacher-student comparisons on a large scale. The

25

researcher employed the same questionnaires with both teachers and students to see the

differences between their perspectives.

The questionnaire consisted of 65 questions in which there were two parts. In the

first part, there were teacher qualities related to a teacher’s professional identity, such as

teacher’s classroom behavior, the techniques and the methods of the teacher, classroom

management skills and the materials teachers of YLs use in teaching. In the second part

of the questionnaire, there were teacher qualities regarding to YLs English teachers’

personal identities. Finally, the participants were requested to choose items which they

perceive a YL English teacher should possess. Additionally, in the teacher

questionnaire, before the first section, there were also questions seeking to find out the

educational background of the teachers, their years of experience with YLs and whether

they had any training for TEYL. For the content validity of the questionnaires, pilot

studies were administered. Likewise, for the language validity, an expert in Turkish

language proofread the questionnaire items.

The questionnaires’ elements were composed after reading the relevant

extensive literature by Piaget, J., (1971); Vygotsky, (1978); (1980); Bruner, J.S, (1983);

Scott W.A & Ytreberg,L.H, (1991); Rixon, S., (1991); Brumfit, C., Moon, J., &

Tongue, R., (1991) Halliwell, (1992); Vale & Faunteun ,(1995); Wood, (1998); Philips,

S., (1999); Keddle, Moon, (2000); Cameron, (2001); Slattery & Willis, (2001);

Brewster, J., Ellis G., & Girard, D., (2003) etc.

More specific information regarding the process by which questionnaires were

administrated to both students and teachers are described below.

3.5.1.1. Student Questionnaire

A total of 65 statements were addressed to 544 fourth grade students studying in

the primary schools in the Nevşehir city center. There were two sections under the

headings as Classroom Activities of a YL English teacher and Individual

Characteristics of a YLs English teacher. Students were requested to rank their answers

with a three-scale likert, ranging from “Always”, “Sometimes”, and “Never”. The

student questionnaire was administered in Turkish (See Appendix II for the Turkish

26

Version of the Questionnaire), as the students are in their first year in English language

instruction. The language used in the questionnaire was very simple in order not to

provide them with complicated expressions.

3.5.1.2. Teacher Questionnaire

In order to provide consistency in the language, the 26 teachers were also

administered the questionnaire in Turkish. In line with the student questionnaire, the

teacher questionnaire was also composed of 65 questions. The same three likert-like and

the same headings explained in the student questionnaire above were administered. To

enable parallelism and consistency, the teacher questionnaire was also translated into

Turkish (see Appendix II for the Turkish Version of the Questionnaire).

3.5.2. Piloting

Pilot trials are important tools which can sharpen the procedures, identify the

approvals needed, and check the feasibility of the research under investigation. In

addition to these, researchers can gain more reliable data and enhance the quality by

minimizing the likelihood of unexpected delays and possible failure (Mauch & Park,

2003).

In this study, the target of the piloting was to assess the quality of data collection

instruments before the actual administration.

To begin with the questionnaire, the original version of the student questionnaire

on the profile of a YL English teacher was piloted with 58 students who were not a part

of the primary study. In addition to this, the teacher questionnaire was piloted with five

teachers of English who were also not the part of the study. The teachers and the

students were requested to grade the items carefully and they were asked to offer any

comments or feedback regarding the formatting of the questionnaire and the wording of

instructions as well as the items. The first version of the questionnaire contained 54

items. After receiving feedback from the participating teachers and students and

analyzing the response patterns, revisions were made and the 54 items were increased to

65. In addition to these, the formation of the questionnaire and necessary wording were

altered or deleted in order to provide more valuable, interpretable responses. Likewise,

27

the researcher analyzed the students and the teachers written comments on the

questionnaire and revisions were made again to the questionnaire. Additionally, the

researcher kept time while the participants were responding and this provided necessary

information about the time to administer the questionnaire before the actual trial. In

essence, piloting the questionnaire assisted the researcher to understand whether the

items were clear enough and relevant to the purpose of the study.

In relation to interviews, two teachers and ten student participants volunteered to

be chosen. They were asked to give comments and feedback regarding the interview

questions. Additionally, the researcher requested the participants to share their feelings

about the way the researcher asked questions and about her presence in the course of the

interview. Accordingly, the researcher realized her strengths and weaknesses and took

the necessary precautions before the primary data collection procedure.

3.5.3. Observation

According to Patton (2002), observation is used to describe the setting that was

observed, the activities that took place in that setting, the people who participated in

those activities, and the meanings of what was observed from the perspective of those

observed. In other words, by observation, the inquirer is better able to understand and

capture the context within which people interact with each other. To gain a deeper

understanding about participants and to support the data collected from the

questionnaires, the researcher observed 10 teachers for an hour of lesson time without

informing them about the exact day of observation to provide a natural atmosphere.

As for the development of the observation checklist, the researcher analyzed the

observable behavioral qualities of YL English teacher from the questionnaire and

accordingly the checklist in which 59 items about the classroom behaviors and personal

traits of a teacher was composed. (See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist).

In addition to filling in the checklist, the researcher also took field notes on the

activity types, teacher’s language use and activities utilized and further questions were

asked in an interview session, which can be found below explained in details.

28

3.5.4. Interviews

Interviews are conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the personal views of

the participants about the investigation. In the same way, interviews are used to find out

what is on someone else’s mind and to learn things we can not directly observe (Patton,

1990). Through interviews, researchers can access more in-depth information than other

methods of data collection tools. Furthermore, Ekmekçi (1999) states that interviews

can give more comprehensive data if they are conducted properly. She further adds that

all the misconceptions can be resolved since the researchers have the opportunity to ask

for “elaboration or clarification” for questions that seem ambiguous in the results of the

questionnaire (p.29).

In this present study, the researcher conducted interviews to elicit the personal

opinions of the participants. With this aim in mind, a semi-structured interview format

was employed as this type can allow the researcher to ask probing questions while at the

same time changing the order of pre-set interview questions. In order to better

understand the students and the teachers’ perspectives about the profile of a YLs’

English teacher, the researcher asked the student participants questions about their

current English teachers and they explained how they regard their teachers.

Furthermore, the teacher participants whose lessons were observed interviewed

immediately after the observation. They were asked questions regarding their behaviors

in teaching which the researcher observed during the observations. Having the

advantage of a semi-structured interview format, the researcher, depending on the flow

of questions with the participants, changed the wording and the formation of the

interview. The interview questions were developed from the observable items of the

questionnaire. The interview guide, which was previously prepared as a checklist from

questionnaire items by the researcher, ensured that the basic lines of inquiry were

pursued. Additionally, in the course of interview, the interviewer focused on the reasons

and the objectives of the specific behaviors the participants demonstrated during the

observations.

Data collected through the interviews were transcribed; the content was analyzed

and grouped in order to find out the participants’ perceptions about the profile of a YL

English teacher.

29

3.6. Data Collection

In this present study, the researcher utilized questionnaire, observation, and

interview as data collection tools and followed the necessary data collection procedure

essential for obtaining data in an appropriate way.

In accordance with this notion for administering the questionnaires, the

researcher initially visited all 25 of the schools in the Nevşehir city center. The

principals or vice-principals allocated one lesson hour in each school for the researcher.

Then, 545 fourth grade students and their 26 English Teachers were requested to fill out

the questionnaires. Due to the fact that the study is descriptive in nature, SPSS, a

Statistical Programme for Social Sciences was employed to report both teachers’ and

students’ viewpoints in numerical data. Two months later, having negotiated with the

volunteer teachers, the researcher visited the ten teachers in ten different schools for

observation without informing them of the exact time as the researcher requested to

observe the lessons in natural settings to collect more reliable data for the purpose of the

study. In the course of observation, the researcher placed herself in one of the back rows

and took notes according to the observation checklist previously prepared. As the

researcher could not get permission on the usage of any type of recording, she could not

record however detailed notes were taken during the lessons and the interviews were

conducted after the observation.

3.7. Data Analysis

Data analysis of qualitative approaches requires creating codes and themes

qualitatively, then counting the number of times they occur in the text data (Creswell,

2003). Hence, the researcher, first, computed the questionnaire items according to

scales, and then they were described in the form of percentages and then shown on

graphs. The students’ rating for the first five important qualities of a YL teacher was

also evaluated and analyzed.

As for the data analysis of the observation checklist, the researcher identified the

specific observed behaviors of the teachers. In the same way, the interview questions

and frequency of specific answers were analyzed and the reasons and the objections

underlying in the answer were evaluated.

30

In this chapter; research design, participants, the context of the study, data

collection tools, and data analysis were described. The results of the study are presented

in the following chapter.

31

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

4.0. Introduction

This chapter presents the statistical analyses that were carried out on the data and

the findings which aim to find out YLs English Teacher Profile from teachers’ and

students’ perspective. The chapter also describes the results acquired from the

questionnaires, interviews, and observations.

4.1. Findings from the Teachers’ Data

In accordance with the purpose of the study, 4th grade YLs English teachers in

all state primary schools in the Nevşehir city center were administered a questionnaire.

To support the data collected from the questionnaires, 10 YLs English teachers were

observed during their lessons with 4th graders. In order to gather better and more

accurate insight into how they perceive themselves, the researcher interviewed those

teachers who participated in the observation voluntarily. The observation checklist was

designed from the observable items of the questionnaire. With the aim of enhancing the

validity of the conclusions, the interview questions were administered to understand the

reasons for the teachers’ specific classroom behaviors and their personal traits. In the

following sections, teachers’ responses to the questionnaires are reported. Furthermore,

extracts from the classroom observations and interviews will be reported to support the

data.

4.2. Findings from the Teacher Questionnaire, Interviews and Observation

The teacher questionnaire utilized in this particular study consisted of 65

items.26 YLs English teachers, seventeen male and nine female, responded to the

teachers’ questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of personal

information about the teachers. Table 1 demonstrates the age of the participating

teachers.

32

Table 1. Ages of the Teacher Participants Age Range f %

20-25 5 19

26-30 11 42

31-35 9 35

36-40 - -

41-44 1 4

n: 26

As it is presented in Table 1, the age range of the teachers is between 20 and 44.

The percentage of teachers who are over 25 is 11 (42%) in total (%35 between 31 and

35, % 4 between 41 and 44). Due to the fact that YLs needs lot of energy from their

teachers, it can be regarded as advantage being in the early years of teaching.

Table 2 below displays the graduation year of the participating YLs English

teachers.

Table 2. Graduation Year

n:26

TEYL was incorporated into the curriculum of ELT departments in 1998. Thus,

the first group of students who received the course TEYL in ELT departments

graduated in 2002. Therefore, the teachers were asked when they graduated and Table 2

displays that nearly half of the teachers (46 %) graduated after 2002. Namely, 46 % of

the teachers involved in the study had the opportunity to receive training about YLs

during their university years on the condition that they graduated from Education

Faculties. In addition to this, Table 2 presents that 42% of the teachers were trained for

adult learners of English.

As seen in Table 3 below, the teachers were further asked about their teaching

experience with YLs.

Graduatio

n Year

f

%

1981-1985 1 4

1991-1995 2 7

1996-2001 11 42

2002-…… 12 46

33

Table 3. Years of Experience in TEYL

Years of Teaching Experience in TEYL

f

%

Less than a year 1 4

1-5 17 65

6-10 8 31

n: 26

In Table 3, 65% of the teachers have been teaching YLs for less than five years

and 31% of them have been teaching between six and eight years.

The following Table 4 demonstrates details about the teachers’ graduation

faculties which affects their teaching to a certain degree.

Table 4. Graduation Faculties

n:26

As it is displayed in Table 4, 61 % of the participants graduated from Education

Faculties and these teachers were trained to teach English to YLs. Likewise, out of 16

English teachers, ten teachers claimed to receive TEYL training in their bachelor

studies. On the contrarily, 39% graduated from other faculties, which can be regarded as

having difficulties while teaching English to as they were not trained to teach English to

YLs in their bachelor studies.

Table 5 below inquires of whether the teachers who participated in this study

received any previous in-service training in TEYL.

Table 5. In-service training for TEYL

n:26

Faculty f %

Education Faculties 16 61

Others 10 39

Views f %

Yes 16 61

No 9

34

34

As Table 5 indicated, many of the teachers (61 %) stated to have taken in-

service training for TEYL. Moreover, 9 of the teachers (50 %) stated to have received

the one week in-service training course for TEYL. One of the teachers further stated to

have received in service training for TEYL in different parts of Turkey for a one-week

period of time for each course. Of the 16 teachers who received in-service training for

TEYL, eight teachers (50%) pointed out that they had received training for TEYL in

their bachelor studies.

The second part of the teachers’ questionnaire was divided into two main

sections. The first section consisted of Classroom Practice and the second section

consisted of Personal Traits of the teachers.

Table 6 below shows the frequencies and the percentages of the teachers’

responses given for Planning and Organization under the heading of Classroom

Practice.

Table 6. Teachers’ Views about their Classroom Practice (Planning and Organization)

n: 26

Item Classroom

Practice

(Planning and Organization)

Always Sometimes Never

f % f % f %

1. I am prepared for the

lesson ( Q1)

16 61 9 35 1 4

2. I am energetic in the

lesson (Q2)

18 70 8 30 0 0.0

3. I teach the lesson in an

organized way(Q3)

20 77 6 23 0 0.0

4. I explain the instructions

clearly (Q4)

26 100 0 0.0 0 0.0

5. I consider my students’

interests while planning the

lesson (Q13)

14 54 12 46 0 0.0

35

In Table 6, for Item 1 of the teachers’ questionnaire, 61% of the teachers say that

they always come to class prepared, %35 of them say they sometimes come to class

prepared and 4% of them responded “ never”. The following excerpt was taken from an

interview, conducted with one of the 4th grade YLs English teachers, to deepen the

understanding of being prepared for the lesson:

Y: What do you think about the importance of coming to the classroom prepared?

Interviewee: Well, during my first years of teaching, I was always entering to my

classroom prepared. On the other hand, as I got experienced in time, I do not think I

have to be prepared as I know what I will do in the classroom. Now, I do everything

automatically.

(Excerpt 1)

As for item 2 of the teachers’ questionnaire, the majority (70%) of the teachers

say they are energetic in the lesson, which can be regarded as an advantage as teaching

YLs requires a lot energy considering the characteristics of YLs. Moreover, 8% of the

teachers stated “sometimes” for this item.

As for item 3, %77 of the teachers teaches their lessons in an organized way and

they seem quite satisfied with their teaching. Similarly, in item 4, it seems that all of the

teachers (100 %) believe that they explain the instructions clearly. Lastly in item 5,

more than half of the teacher (% 54) considers their students’ interests while planning

the lesson.

Another set of statements in the questionnaire related to Classroom Practice

investigated the teachers’ views about the use of L1 and L2 in the classroom, the

teachers’ competence in English and their attitudes toward their profession in Table 7

below.

36

Table 7. Teachers’ views about their Classroom Practice ( The use of L1 and L2/

Competence in English/ Attitude towards job)

Item Classroom Practice

(The use of L1 and L2 /Competence in English / Attitude towards job)


f % f % f %

6. I speak English in the lesson (Q5) 1 4 23 88 2 8

7. I revert into Turkish when students

have difficulty in understanding

(Q8)

17 65 9 35 0 0.0

8. I am competent in English (Q6) 26 100 0 00.0 0 0.0

9. I love teaching English (Q10) 25 96 1 4 0 0.0

n : 26

As can be seen in Table 7, only 4 % of the teachers claimed to use “always”

English in the classroom, whereas, the majority of the teachers (%88) opted for

“sometimes” for this item. In the following section, parts of the interviews are given in

relation to the use of L1 in English lessons:

I: I hardly use English in lessons as the levels of my students are not sufficient to

understand what I mean in English. If I say something in English, even a very simple

word, I know they will not comprehend, so I have to switch to Turkish. To prevent

losing time, I always use Turkish.

(Excerpt 2)

I: It is crucial for students to be exposed to English as much as possible during lessons.

However, I know that they can not understand everything I say. For this, I use simple

instructions in English such as “Sit down, Stand up, and Open the door...”

(Excerpt 3)

When the teachers were asked whether they revert into Turkish when students

have difficulty in understanding, a majority of them (65 %) reported “always”, and 35

% of them stated “sometimes” for this item. Of the 10 teachers observed, all of them (n:

37

10) utilized Turkish when their students did not understand instructions in English (See

Appendix III for the Observation Checklist).

In light of the values given for the item 8 (language competence), all of the

teachers (100%) claim that they are competent in English and in item 9, 25 teachers

responded that they love teaching English. The following excerpt stated in an

interview, is an example of such a high positive ranking:

Y: Do you think it is important for a teacher to love his/her job?

Interviewee: Yes, I personally think it is very important for a teacher to love his/her job

because without having job satisfaction, or let’s say passion towards your job, you can

not be beneficial to your students. Ok, there are many things that hinder you e.g. lazy

students, the lower status of a teacher etc. On the other hand, but teaching comes from

inside and I feel lucky as I love my job and teaching.

(Excerpt 4)

When it comes to using materials and activities in the classrooms, the findings

presented in Table 8 below indicate in item 10 and item 17 that more than 50 % of the

teachers claim they utilize songs and drawings in their lessons.

Table 8. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Materials and Activities)


( Materials and Activities)


f % f % f %

10. I use songs (Q 14) 14 54 12 46 0 0.0

11. I use story (Q 15) 1 4 18 69 7 27

12. I use riddles (Q 16) 1 4 17 65 8 31

13. I use games (Q17) 7 27 19 73 0 0.0

14. I use drama (Q18) 5 19 21 81 0 0.0

15. I use coloring activities (Q19) 6 23 18 69 2 8

16. I use art and craft activities (Q 20) 3 11 18 70 5 19

17. I use drawing (Q 21) 15 58 10 38 1 4

18. I use technology (computer,vcd,OHP) (Q

22)

9 35 17 65 0 0.0

38

Table 8. (Continue) 19. I use visuals(picture, flashcards,poster) (Q

23)

9 35 16 61 1 4

20. I bring realia to the classroom (Q 24) 6 23 16 61 4 15

21. I use sources other than the course book (Q

25)

5 19 21 81 0 0.0

n: 26

In relation to item 10, one teacher out of ten who was observed used a song in

the lesson (See Appendix 3 for the Observation Checklist). The issues related to using

songs and drawings in the lessons were pointed out by some of the interviewees below;

Y: While observing your lesson, I realized that you had your students sing an English

song and they sang perfectly. Why did you utilize a song in your teaching?

Interviewee: Students around 10-11 years old can easily distract from learning. They

can loose their attention and for this reason there should always be variety in the

lessons. Additionally, they can be stimulated with songs and I can gain them back to

lesson.

Y: While observing your lesson, I realized that you did not use any songs. Why did not

you do that?

Interviewee: Well, I have to catch up with the curriculum because the students are going

to take SBS (Proficiency Test) at sixth grade. Hence, they are supposed to begin

preparing from 4th grade through SBS exams-like questions which are mainly based on

multiple choice exam types. I hardly find time to do other activities e.g. teaching songs,

playing games etc. The students are required to know certain grammatical patterns in

English for the proficiency exam. So, I have to include such patterns in my lessons.

They are not going to be assessed on their listening, writing, or speaking skills. For this

reason, I do not see the point in utilizing songs. Besides, the students are to take

monthly practice tests in which they have to answer the grammar questions in English

to prepare for the proficiency test at 6th grade. The parents and the school authority

really put pressure on us when the students do poor in these practice tests.

(Excerpt 5)

39

Y: I realized that you attempted to draw something on the board but later on you erased

it and had one of the students draw it instead. Why do you think it is important to use

drawing?

Interviewee: Well, I wish I could draw well but I do not have this ability though I know

that it is important to have such skills. This is because YLs love to draw on their

notebooks as I guess they find it enjoyable. I personally think that you can tell

thousands of words without translating to Turkish with drawings.

(Excerpt 6)

According to other figures shown for the other items in Table 9, the use of

technology (item 18) and the use of visuals (item 19) are rated higher (35 %) than the

other items.73 % of the teachers claim they “sometimes” use games in item 13 and

additionally in item 15 and 16 they “sometimes” use coloring as well as art and craft

activities. As for using technology, the researcher realized that 23 schools out of 25 that

she visited for research purposes had technological facilities in their classrooms and

could easily access to internet. Conversely, the researcher observed only one teacher

using a computer during the lesson. The information below presents the viewpoints of

three interviewees with regard to this issue;

Y: You had computer, projector and internet facility in your classroom. However I did

not see that you used them in your teaching. May I learn the reasons?

Interviewee: Well, I occasionally use computer but today I have not used it. This is

because I can not catch up with my schedule and using computer can be time

consuming for me. Although I know that using technology can be attention grabbing

especially for young children and they can take pleasure while doing something on the

screen but I have problems with my own schedule. So, I do not always use it.

(Excerpt 7)

Y: Your school is using the DYNED Program in your English lessons. Why do you

prefer it and when do you take your students to language lab?

40

Interviewee: 4th graders have three hours of English lessons and I take my students to

the computer lab for one hour to have them study on the Dyned Programme. This is a

very useful interactive language learning programme and students really enjoy

themselves while working on it. However, on some occasions, there can be problems

with internet connection. So, this discourages me to some extent.

(Excerpt 8)

Y: I observed that you used computer whilst the students were singing. Do you find

using technology beneficial in teaching English to YLs?

Interviewee: As using computer in the lesson is something visual, I believe that this can

grab the attention of the students and they can participate in the lessons actively. Along

with this, the kids can be motivated through technological facilities.

(Excerpt 9)

With regard to using stories (item 11) in English lessons, only one teacher out of

26 stated utilizing stories (4 %). 69 % of the teachers claim they “sometimes” use

stories in their lessons. As for using drama (item 14), 81 % of the teachers rated

“sometimes” for this activity. During observation, none of the teachers was observed

using stories in teaching English. The following excerpt stated in an interview

demonstrates an example for this item;

Y: Do you make use of storytelling in your lessons?

Interviewee: I think using storytelling can be stimulating and fun for students. However,

it can be time consuming and it requires some skills to tell a story in English. For this

reason I do not use it as often as I should.

(Excerpt 10)

Regarding using riddles, in item 12, only 4% of the teachers use them “always”

while 65% of the teachers use riddles “sometimes”. Findings from item 20 uncover that

only 23 % of the teachers bring realia to their classrooms and 61 % of them rate they

“sometimes” bring them. Additionally, 81 % of the teachers use sources other than the

course book in item 21.

41

Y: What do you think about bringing realia to classroom?

Interviewee: Well, yes, it will be great if I take some real objects to the classroom.

However, I have to follow the curriculum using the course book chosen by the Ministry

of Education. As I have to catch up with the curriculum, I basically have no time for

using realia due to limited hours of teaching.

Table 9 below presents the results concerning the teachers’ views about the methods

they use in the classroom.

Table 9. Teachers Views about Classroom Practice (Methods)


( Methods)


f % f % f %

22. I act out while teaching

(Q 27)

8 31 16 61 2 8

23. I use mime and gestures

(Q 28)

26 100 0 0.0 0 0.0

24. I have my students

work in groups (Q 30)

4 15 20 85 0 0.0

25. I have my students

work in pairs (Q 31)

4 15 20 77 2 8

26. I revise the learnt topics

(Q 32)

21 81 5 19 0 0.0

n: 26

As can be seen in Table 10 above, for item 22 “I act out while teaching”, only 31

% of the teachers rated “always”, and more than half the teachers, 61 % of them stated

“sometimes”. Concerning item 23, all of the teachers, 100 %, claim to use mime and

gestures in their classrooms. However, only 1 out of 10 teachers were observed using

mime and gestures as well as acting out in the classroom. The following viewpoint

claimed by one of the interviewees is an example of such a high positive ranking which

can be regarded as a contrast, as most of the observed teachers did not actually use their

mimes and gestures although they stated in the questionnaire that they are using:

42

Y: I have realized that you used mime and gestures while you were practicing “I am

tired, I am happy...” sentences. Besides, you acted out while you were teaching “Ok,

now, I am a doctor” and you wore your white apron. Why did you make use of them?

Do you think it is important?

Interviewee: Well, yes, I use mime and gestures and most of the time I act out. This is

because first of all I do not like translating what I mean in English into Turkish. So,

basically, I use my facial expressions when I want to convey my message and the

students can grasp easily and they also enjoy seeing their teachers while acting. They

also want to do the same and I also give this chance to them.

(Excerpt 11)

Asking this item to another teacher who was not observed acting out or using

his/her mimes and gestures, the following excerpt demonstrates the reasons behind it:

Y: I observed that you translated into Turkish in same cases and you did not use your

mimes and gestures. Why did not you use them instead of translating? Do you think it is

difficult?

Interviewee: I agree with the fact that I have to use mimes and gestures but acting out or

using mimes and gestures require some skills. So, I guess I lack these qualities.

Hopefully, I will improve myself and utilize them more often.

(Excerpt 12)

In connection with pair and group work activities in the classroom, only 15% of

the teachers in item 24 and item 25 stated that they “always” have their students work in

pairs and groups. Additionally, a majority of them claimed to use pair work (85%) and

groups (77%). Contrarily, the researcher observed only one teacher using pair works

and groups (See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist). Asking this item to one of

the observed teachers who did not use pairs and groups, the following reasons

underlines the reason:

Y: I did not observe that you had your students work in pairs or groups. What do you

think of using them?

43

Interviewee: Well, as you have realized the classes are sized 30-35. How can you

imagine having them do such activities? I guess I would be chaotic.

(Excerpt 13)

As for Item 26, for the statement “I revise the learnt topics”, the majority of the

teachers (81 %) claim that they do revisions. Besides, this item was observed in every

classroom that the researcher attended. In respect to this, the following question was

directed;

Y: In your classroom, I observed that you revised the learnt topics. Why do you do that?

Interviewee: I think it is vital for YLs to remember what is done previously because

they tend to forget everything quickly. So, I revise often and I believe it is important.

(Excerpt 14)

Another set of statements in the questionnaire related to Classroom Practice

investigated the teachers’ views about the teacher interaction skills and availability to

students in Table 10 below.

Table 10. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Teacher Interaction Skills and

Availability to students)

n: 26

Item Classroom Practice (Teacher Interaction Skills and Availability to Students)


f % f % f % 27. I promote my students’ thinking skills (Q 7) 15 58 11 42 0 0.0

28. I help my students when they have difficulty (Q 9) 22 85 4 15 0 0.0

29. I encourage my students to ask questions (Q 11) 14 54 12 46 0 0.0

30. I teach the lesson in an entertaining way (Q 33) 18 69 8 31 0 0.0

31. I encourage my students in lessons (Q 34) 24 92 2 8 0 0.0

32. I walk around in the classroom to assist my students (Q 35) 26 100

0 0.0 0 0.0

33. I encourage my students to do research (Q 36) 7 27 19 73 0 0.0

34. I give examples from my life ( Q 45) 9 35 16 61 1 4

35. I want my student to give examples from their lives (Q 46) 4 15 22 85 0 0.0

44

As for item 27, more than half (58%) of the teachers state they “always”

encourage their students’ thinking skills while 42 % say “sometimes” for this item. For

item 28, 85% of the teachers state they “always” help their students when they have

difficulty and 15% of them “sometimes” help their students. Regarding this item, in the

following excerpt, it is pointed out by one of the teachers who claim to help the students

when they have difficulty;

Y: Do you help your students when they have difficulty?

Interviewee: I try my best when I feel that my students are having problems related to

the lessons. As I am aware that this is their first experience with learning a new

language, they might face some problems. They need to feel secure and I guess the

teacher plays an important role here in terms of being on good terms with students. We

have to be sensitive to their problems related to the lesson.

(Excerpt 15)

As for item 29, “I encourage my students to ask questions”, 22 of the teachers

(54 %) claim that they always encourage their students to ask questions, while four of

them (15 %) reported “sometimes” for this item. None of the teachers reported “never”

for item 29. In the same way, the majority of the teachers (69 %) mentioned that they

teach the lessons in an entertaining way, and 31 % of them stated “sometimes” for this

item. As for teaching the lessons in an entertaining way, one responded was asked the

following question by the researcher;

Y: Do you think that the students are entertained during the lessons?

Interviewee: Yes. Unless otherwise, the lessons can be boring and the students can not

catch up with the activities as their attention spans are limited. Fun oriented activities

should be included.

(Excerpt 16)

When the respondents were asked to identify whether they encourage their students in

lessons, 24 of the teachers (92 %) reported “always”, and eight of them (31%)

45

mentioned “sometimes”. There were no responses to “never” and all of the teachers

seemed positive about their answers to this item.

26 of the teachers (100 %) claimed that they walk around in the classroom to

assist their students in item 32. Believing that the teachers of YL should be active in the

classroom, the following excerpt demonstrates the reasons by an interviewee;

Y: What do you think about walking around in the classroom to help the students in

lessons?

Interviewee: Well, it is beneficial for students to see their teachers help them in the

classroom. Thanks to this, they can feel that their teacher is interested in them and they

can be motivated and they want to participate in lessons more.

(Excerpt 17)

In Item 33, the teachers were asked about whether they encourage their students

to do research. Only seven of them (27 %) chose “always”, 19 of the teachers (73 %)

mentioned “sometimes”, and none of them stated “never” for this item. In item 34, as

for giving examples from their lives in the classroom, nine of them (35 %) reported

“always”, 16 of them ( 61 %) said “ sometimes” and only one teacher ( 4 %) claimed

s/he “never” gives examples from his/her life in lessons.

When the teachers were asked to identify whether they want their students to

give examples from their lives in item 35, the majority of the teachers (85 %) chose

“sometimes” for this item.

Table 11 below shows the findings regarding teachers’ views as to their

classroom management.

46

Table 11. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice ( Classroom Management)

n: 26

In item 36, a majority of the teachers claimed that they “always” create a relaxed

classroom atmosphere. Likewise, eight teachers our of ten were observed creating a

relaxed atmosphere in lessons ( See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist) which

can be advantageous for YLs considering their needs of feeling secure.

With regard to Item 37, all of the teachers reported they always want their

students’ participation in lessons. By the same token, six observed teachers out of 10

wanted their students to actively participate in lessons (See Appendix III for the

Observation Checklist). In relation to this, the following excerpt was pointed out by

one of the interviewees;

Y: I have observed that you wanted your students to participate in lessons actively. Why

do you do that?

Interviewee: Active participation is vital in lessons. If you do not include the students in

your lessons, then they can not learn much and they can lose their motivation easily.

(Excerpt 18)

In Item 38, 25 teachers (96 %) reported that they always use wait time after

asking questions to their students. By the same token, eight observed teachers out of 10

used wait time in observations made by the researcher (See Appendix III for the


( Classroom Management)


f % f % f %

36. I create a relaxed classroom atmosphere ( Q

26)

23 89 11 0 0 0.0

37. I want my students to participate in the

lessons (Q 29)

26 100 0 0.0. 0 0.0

38. I use wait time after probing question (Q 12) 25 96 1 4 0 0.0

39. I maintain discipline (Q 44) 21 81 5 19 0 0.0

40. I use my voice effectively (Q 47) 22 85 4 15 0 0.0

41. My handwriting is legible (Q 48) 15 58 9 35 2 8

47

Observation Checklist). Below, the teacher stated the reason why she utilized wait

time;

Y: You asked questions to your students and you wanted to wait for some time even

though there were students who wished to answer your questions. Why did you make

use of wait-time after asking questions?

Interviewee: I pay attention to waiting for some time after asking questions because

younger learners can learn fast but at the same time they forget fast. So, to remember

what has been covered, they need some time to recall. For this reason, I prefer to wait.

(Excerpt19)

As for Item 39, 21 of the teachers (81 %) reported they “always” maintain

discipline in lessons, while five of them (19 %) claimed they “sometimes” maintain

discipline. Seven observed teachers out of 10 were observed maintaining discipline in

their classrooms (See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist). Similarly, 22 of the

teachers (85%) said they “always” use their voice effectively in Item 40, while four of

them (15 %) mentioned “sometimes”. Six teachers out of 10 were observed using their

voices effectively in lessons (See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist).

The Item 41, “My handwriting is legible”, 15 of the teachers (58 %) mentioned

“always”, nine (35%) claimed “sometimes”, and only two (8 %) reported “never” for

this item. The handwriting of 10 observed teachers were legible.

Table 12 below exhibits the findings concerning assessment.

48

Table 12. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Assessment)

n: 26

When the respondents were asked about performance tasks in Item 42, 13 of the

teachers (50 %) claim that they “always” assign performance tasks. Similarly, 13 of

them (50 %) stated they “sometimes” utilize performance tasks. According to the

Turkish Ministry of Education regulations, the students are required to prepare a

performance task for every lesson in every semester (Primary Institutions

Promulgations, Official Newspaper: 02.05.2006, No: 2584). Additionally, the head of

primary institutions did some renovations in relation to the assessment. Accordingly, the

projects and performance tasks are to be prepared in the supervision of teachers in

classes and the teachers have to give feedback on the process of preparation of these

tasks (Primary Institutions Promulgations, Problems related to Assessment: 08.10.2007,

No: 6251)

The following excerpt illuminates this rating;

Y: What do you think of assigning performance tasks? Do you assist or supervise your

students while they are working on them? Are you aware of the new regulations in

relation to the assessment of performance/project tasks?

Interviewee: I think they can be useful on the condition that the students or the parents

do not copy them from the internet. Last year, I assigned many tasks. However, I

realized that the objectives did not really satisfy me as most of the students got their

tasks done by their parents or they got them from the internet. As I do not have time in


( Assessment)


f % f % f %

42. I assign performance task ( Q 37) 13 50 13 50 0 0.0

43. I want my students to evaluate themselves on

an evaluation form ( Q 38)

0 0.0 12 46 14 54

44. I want my students compile their tasks in a

portfolio (Q 39)

11 42 8 31 7 27

45. I assign project tasks (Q 40) 6 23 19 73 1 4

49

lessons, I assign take home tasks. Unfortunately, I can not assist them and I have not

heard about the new regulations.

(Excerpt 20)

According to the results in Item 43, surprisingly, none of the teachers want to

“always” evaluate their students on an evaluation form and 46 % of them stated

“sometimes”. More than half of the teachers (54 %) claimed they “never” use student

evaluation forms. In relation to this item, according to the Turkish Ministry of

Education regulations, the teachers are to evaluate their students on the bases of their

classroom performance on an evaluation form (Primary Institutions Promulgations,

Official Newspaper: 02.05.2006, No: 2584). The following comment obtained during

an interview belongs to one of the teachers;

Y: What do you think about evaluating the students on an evaluation form?

Interviewee: Honestly speaking, I have not heard about the evaluation form beforehand.

I evaluate my students according to their grades, class performance, and the tasks that I

have assigned.

(Excerpt 21)

Item 44 presents the inclusions of portfolio issues. Accordingly, 42 % of the

teachers want their students to compile their work in a portfolio. Eight of the teachers

(31 %) rated “sometimes” and seven of teachers (27 %), though to a weaker extent,

have expressed “never” for this item. Similar to performance tasks and evaluation form,

as the Turkish Ministry of Education regulations stated, the students may compile their

tasks in a portfolio for at least one lesson on their willingness and the teachers are to

evaluate these portfolios.(Primary Institutions Promulgations, Official Newspaper:

02.05.2006, No: 2584). The following excerpt taken from the verbatim of interviews

serves as an example which supports this item;

Y: Do you want your students to compile their works in a portfolio? How do you

perceive using portfolio in your lessons?

50

Interviewee: Well, I believe that students can see their progress through portfolios. At

the beginning of the semester, I asked my students to keep a portfolio in which they will

keep their paper work. Additionally, I informed them that I am going to grade their

portfolios in forthcoming times. I know they are keeping their portfolios; on the other

hand, I have not had the chance to control it as I promised. I think I have to pay

attention to this more.

(Excerpt 22)

In relation to item 45 related to assigning project tasks, six of the teachers (23

%) rated “always”, the majority of the teachers (73 %) claimed “sometimes” and only

one teacher (4 %) mentioned “never” for project task. According to the Turkish

Ministry of Education regulations, the students are required to prepare a project task for

at least for one lesson they like (Primary Institutions Promulgations, Official

Newspaper: 02.05.2006, No: 2584).

Accordingly, the students can select a project task for one of the lessons on their

request. In the excerpt below, an interviewee seems to shed some illuminating light on

this item;

Y: Do you assign project tasks to your students?

Interviewee: Yes, I assign projects tasks for the students on their requests. For example,

this semester I asked one of my students to make a wall poster about clothes. I am going

to hang the poster on the wall.

(Excerpt 23)

Table 13 exhibits the perceptions of the teachers about feedback.

51

Table 13. Teachers’ Views about Classroom Practice (Feedback)

n: 26

For Item 46 about checking the homework on regular basis, 65 % of the teachers

claim that they “always” check homework regularly and nine of the teachers (35%)

stated they “sometimes” do this and none of the teachers reported “never” for this item.

On the other hand, none of the observed teachers neither checked the homework nor

asked one of the students to check the homework (See Appendix III for the Observation

Checklist). The following interview transcription reveals the rationale lying behind

this:

Y: In your lessons, I have realized that you have not checked the homework although

the students asked for it. How do you handle their demand for checking homework?

Interviewee: Well, I am supposed to check the homework or I have to give

responsibilities to some student for checking the homework. However, I think it is

sometimes time-consuming to do this. For this reason, I assign homework however I

can not check it.

(Excerpt 24)

The Item 47, “I underline the mistakes on homework” which is related to the

previous Item 46, the majority of the teachers (85 %) rated “always”, and four of the

teachers (15 %) stated “sometimes” for underlining the mistakes on the homework.

None of the teachers chose “never” for this item. Nonetheless, as it was the case in Item


( Feedback )


f % f

%

f %

46. I check homework regularly (Q 41)

17 65 9 35 0 0.0

47. I underline the mistakes on homework (Q

42)

22 85 4 15 0 0.0

48.

I check whether students understand the

tasks or not (Q 43)

24 92 2 8 0 0.0

52

46, the researcher did not observe any teacher underlining the mistakes on students’

homework (See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist).

As for checking whether the students have understood the tasks or not, item 48

tried to identify the teachers’ opinions about this issue. A great majority of the teachers

(92 %) claim that they check the comprehension of the tasks. Only two of the teachers

(8 %) reported “sometimes” for this item. In contrast to this, only two teachers out of

ten were observed checking whether the students understood to task or not. (See

Appendix III for the Observation Checklist).

Table 14 demonstrates the views of the teachers in connection to their

personality traits.

Table 14. Teachers Views about Their Personal Traits

n:26

Item Personal Traits Always Sometimes Never

f % f % f %

49 I love my students (Q 49) 25 96 1 4 0 0.0

50 I know the name of my students (Q 50) 18 69 8 31 0 0.0

51 I listen to my students (Q 51) 24 92 2 8 0 0.0

52 I have good relations with my students (Q 52) 24 92 2 8 0 0.0

53 I am punctual (Q 53) 24 92 2 8 0 0.0

54 I do not get angry if my students make mistakes (Q

54)

15 58 11 42 0 0.0

55 I am patient (Q 55) 15 58 11 42 0 0.0

56 I make jokes in the lessons (Q 56) 15 58 11 42 0 0.0

57 I respect to my students (Q 57) 25 96 1 4 0 0.0

58 I give time to my students ( 58) 22 85 4 15 0 0.0

59 I know my students’ interests (Q 59) 12 46 14 54 0 0.0

60 I help students outside class (Q 60) 15 58 11 42 0 0.0

61 I am fair(Q 61) 22 85 4 15 0 0.0

62 I am honest (Q 62) 26 100 0 0.0 0 0.0

63 I smile(Q 63) 20 77 6 23 0 0.0

64 I show appreciation for good work with my behavior

and words. (Q 64)

25 96 1 4 0 0.0

65 I am tolerant (Q 65) 19 73 7 27 0 0.0

53

In Item 49 which states “I love my students”, the majority of the teachers (96 %)

are positive about this item. By the same token, nine teachers out of 10 were observed

that they love their students. In connection to this, the following excerpt illuminates this

rating;

Y: Do you think it is important for you to love your students?

Interviewee: Yes, if you do not love your students, they might feel alone and they do

not want to participate in the lessons. Likewise, if I do not love my students, I can not

concentrate on my job and I might be unsuccessful.

(Excerpt 25)

Generally speaking, the teachers were quite positive about their personal traits as

it was observed in the lessons by the researcher. The teacher was acting normally and

there were not any teachers who had negative personalities. In item 50, “I know my

students’ names”, 92 % of the teachers rated “always” and only two of the teachers (8

%) stated they sometimes know their students’ names. Similarly, all of the observed

teachers addressed the students by name.

Similarly, in item 51, 24 teachers (92 %) claim that they “always” listen to their

students. In contrast, only two (8 %) of them reported they “sometimes” listen to their

students. Eight teachers out of 10 were observed listening to their students if they had

any questions or any kind of problems. Besides, in item 52, which is about having good

relations with students, 24 of the teachers (92 %) stated “always” for this item.

Additionally, nine teachers were observed on good terms with their students. Below, the

excerpt presents a viewpoint with regard to this issue;

Y: I have realized that you had good relations with your students. They seemed eager to

learn English. What do you think about being on good terms with students?

Interviewee: Yes, having good relations with the students is vital. Only if they love their

teachers then they can love studying English.

(Excerpt 26)

54

In Item 53, as for being punctual, 24 of the teachers (92 %) claimed “always”,

while two of the teachers (8 %) reported they are “sometimes” punctual. In Item 54, 15

of the teachers (58 %) reported they do not get angry if their students make mistakes,

whilst 11 of them (42 %) mentioned that they “sometimes” get angry if their students

make mistakes.

As for Item 55, a majority of the teachers (58 %) reported that they are “always”

patient; while 11 of them (42 %) are “sometimes” patient. Eight teachers out of 10

observed that they were patient towards their students. The teachers rated in the same

way for the Item 56 which is about making jokes in lessons. 15 (of the) teachers (58 %)

stated they “always” make jokes, while 11 of them (42 %) said they “sometimes” make

jokes. Contrarily, only three teachers were observed making jokes in the lessons.

The Item 57, “I respect my students”, 92 % of the teachers claimed they

“always” respect their students, while only one (4 %) of the teachers said “sometimes”

for this item. Similarly, as for giving time to students, 22 of the teachers reported that

they always give time to their students, while four of the teachers (15 %) mentioned that

they “sometimes” give time for their students.

The finding related to Item 59, “I know my students’ interests”, less than half of

the teachers (46 %) believe that they “always” know their students’ interests, while the

more than half of the teachers (54 %) have claimed “sometimes” for this item. The

following excerpt reveals the appreciation of the teachers upon the question;

Y: What do you think about being aware of students’ interests?

Interviewee: This can aid the teacher in terms of being well equipped for the lesson. If

s/he is aware of the students’ interests, then the lessons can be planned accordingly. In

the same way, students can enjoy the lesson more.

(Excerpt 27)

Item 60 tried to find out whether the teachers help their students outside class. It

was rated “always” by 15 (58 %) teachers, whilst 11 of the teachers (42 %) stated

“sometimes” for this question.

55

As for Item 61, “I am fair” was rated “always” by 22 students (85 %).

Additionally, four teachers (15 %) stated “sometimes” for this item. Nine of the teachers

out of 10 were observed being fair by the researcher (See Appendix III for the

Observation Checklist). Concerning the 63rd item about being honest, all of the teachers

(100%) claimed that they are honest. In accordance with Item 63, 20 of the teachers (77

%) reported that they are smiling, whereas six of the teachers (23 %) of them stated they

were “sometimes” smiling. Eight of the teachers out of 10 were observed having

smiling faces as well as being positive in the lesson by the researcher (See Appendix III

for the Observation Checklist).

With regard to Item 64, “I show appreciation for good works with my behaviors

and words”, the majority of the teachers 96 % stated “always”, while only one teacher

(4 %) mentioned “sometimes” for this question. The researcher observed five out of 10

teachers who showed appreciation for students’ works with their behaviors and words

(See Appendix III for the Observation Checklist).

As for the final item (Item 65) about being tolerant, the responses of 19 teachers

(73 %) have constituted “always”, while the responses from seven teachers (27 %)

declared “sometimes”.

In brief, the majority of the teachers have attached positive values for this

statement.

The teachers were also asked to choose from the qualities included in the

questionnaire the five most important qualities that a YL teacher should possess. Table

15 below presents their responses.

56

Table 15. Teachers’ Views about Their Five Most Important Qualities Rate Item % Item % Item % Item % Item % 1. I use visuals.

( Q 23)

28

I use games (Q 17)

22

I love teaching English ( Q 10)

13

I speak English in the lesson ( Q 5)

6

I am energetic in the lesson ( Q 2)

3

I use technology (Q 22)

28

2. I want my students to participate in the lessons ( Q 29)

13 I encourage my students’ thinking skills ( Q 7)

8 - - - - - -

I love my students ( Q 49)

13

I consider my students’ interests while planning the lesson ( Q 13)

8

I create a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom ( Q 26)

8

I encourage my students in the lessons ( Q 34)

8

3. I repeat the learnt subjects ( Q 32)

17 I want my students participate in lessons ( Q 29)

8 - - - - - -

I appreciate the good works with my behaviours and gestures. ( Q 64)

8

4. I encourage my students in the lessons ( Q 34)

13 I repeat the learnt subjects ( Q 32)

8

- - - - - -

I do not get angry if my students make mistakes ( Q 54)

13

5. I am fair ( Q 61)

13 I come to the class prepared (Q 1)

8 - - - - - -

I encourage my students in the lessons ( Q 34)

8

I appreciate the good works with my behaviors and gestures ( Q 64)

13 I love my students ( Q 49)

8

I know my students’ interests (Q 59)

8

- -

57

With regard to the most frequently cited items that the teachers give importance

to, the item are, “I use visuals” (Q 23) and “I use technology “(Q 22) rank first (28 %)

in the teachers’ choices in the first column. As for the teachers’ reasons for citing these

items;

Teacher 1: “Using visuals has a positive effect on teaching English”. (Q 22)

Teacher 2: “The students should not only hear the language but at the same time they

should see and live it through visuals.”(Q 22)

Teacher 3: “I believe that through using technology, the learning is more enjoyable”.

(Q 23)

Q 17, “I use games” was ranked the second with 22% in the first column on the

“teachers’ mostly frequently cited items” table. The reasons stated by the teachers are;

Teacher 4: “The use of games is an essential part of the lesson while teaching English to

Young Learners.”

Teacher 5: “Games can take the attention of the children”

Teacher 6: “Games can aid the teachers in terms of using variety in the classroom”.

Teacher 7: “The children between the ages of 9-12 are in the game period. So, the

English teacher can benefit from this”.

To continue with the first column, the Q 10 “I love teaching English” was rated

third with 13 %. Five teachers out of 26 mentioned that without having aspiration for

the profession, a person can not go further in his/her career. In addition to this, Q 5, “I

speak English in class” was rated fourth with 6 %. In relation to using English in the

classroom, two of the teachers reported in the following excerpts that;

Teacher 8: If the students had the proper English language level, speaking English in the

classroom would be best way of learning English.”

Teacher 9: “The students are required to experience the differences with the use of

English in lessons”.

The last item in the first column Q 2, “I am energetic in the lesson” was rated

fifth. In relation to this item, teachers believe that students are affected by their teachers

58

and for this reason, if the teachers are energetic, then the students can be energetic in the

lessons.

In relation to the most frequently cited reasons for the teachers to give

importance to their personal and professional qualities; the item “I want my students to

participate in lessons” (Q 29) was rated the first in the second column with 13%.

Likewise, the item “I love my students (Q 49)” was also rated first with 13 % and at the

same time it was rated second with 8% in the column 5. As for the Q 29, basically, the

teachers reported that;

Teacher 10: “In order to have a student-centered lesson, participation by the students is

a required part of the course”.

As for the Q 49, “I love my students”, one of the teachers mentioned the

following excerpts;

Teacher 11: “Teaching is such a profession that you can not manage without loving

your job and your students”.

By the same token, with regard to the second column, the items, “I encourage

my students’ thinking skills (Q 7), “I consider my students’ interests while planning the

lesson” (Q 13), “I create a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom” (Q 26), and “ I

encourage my students in the lessons” (Q 34) were rated second with 8 %. The Q 34

was also rated first in the fourth column with 13% and second in the fifth column with

8%. The following reasons for these items are maintained by the teachers;

Teacher 12: “For the students’ cognitive developments, it is important to encourage

their thinking skills” (Q 7).

Teacher 13: “The students are inclined to have more fun in the activities that they are

interested in.” (Q 13)

Teacher 14: “The students can learn better in a relaxed atmosphere” (Q 26).

Teacher 15: “Encouragement is necessary for motivation and for a quality of teaching”

(Q 34)

59

As for the third column, Q 32 “I repeat the learnt subjects” was rated first with

17%.The respondent teachers highlighted the importance of repetition for YLs by

stating that;

Teacher 16: “Without repeating the learnt subjects, the young learners can forget

easily”.

Teacher 17: “The key of learning English is repetition.”

The Question 29 “I want my students to participate in lessons” and question 64

“I appreciate good work with my behaviors and gestures” were rated second in the third

column with 8%. In the same way, Q 64 was also rated the first in the fifth column with

13 %. In relation to this item:

Teacher 18: “I can give feedback through my behaviors and gestures and only then they

can know what to do.”

With regard to the fourth column on the teachers’ most frequently cited items,

the Q 54, “I do not get angry if my students make mistakes” was rated first with 13%. In

relation to this question, the teachers mentioned the following statements;

Teacher 19: “If the mistakes of the children are not tolerated, then they can lose their

motivation to learn English”.

Item “I am fair” (Q 61) was rated first on the fifth column with 13 %. The

following excerpt underlines the reasons for this question;

Teacher 20: “There should not be any discrimination in lessons in order to have the

students feel psychologically comfortable”.

As for the items, “I come to the class prepared” (Q 1), “I know my students’

interests” (Q 59) and “I help my students outside class” (Q 60) they were rated second

on the fifth column with 8 %. The reasons stated by the teachers are below;

60

Teacher 21: “When a teacher comes to the classroom prepared, then the learning and

teaching processes can be easier” (Q 1)

Teacher 22: “The teacher can plan the lessons according to the students’ interests” (Q

59)

Teacher 23: “When the teachers help the children outside class, then the students can

feel appreciated and this can raise their self-esteem”.

4.3. Summary of the Findings from the Teachers’ Questionnaire, Interviews and

Observations

In the light of the findings acquired through this study, the following conclusions

can be drawn from the teacher questionnaire, interviews, and observation.

From the perceptions of the teachers about classroom practice and personal

traits, the rationale of affirmative statements both from the questionnaire results and the

interviews is relatively high. The teachers appreciate their skills to a certain degree.

The teachers’ responses have got a tendency toward the “sometimes” rating in

the items related to materials and activities in the sub category of Classroom Practice.

The Majority of the teachers reported that they utilize songs, stories, riddles, games,

drama, coloring activities, art and craft activities, drawing and technology at certain

times. Additionally, their rate about bringing realia to the classroom and using sources

other than the course book were also rated “sometimes”. Likewise, they are aware of the

reasons for using such activities and their students’ needs upon being asked in

interviews. However, the researcher observed only few teachers making use of the

activities and materials that the teachers claim to use in their lessons (See Appendix III

for the Observation Checklist). Contrarily, the researcher observed that the personality

traits of the teachers were quite affirmative during the observations. With regard to the

part in relation to the teachers’ views about the most important qualities a YL teacher

should possess, the items pertaining to classroom practice; namely, using visuals,

technology and games are rated the highest by the participating teachers.

61

4.4. Findings from the Student Questionnaire

Table 16 represents the students’ perceptions about their English teachers’

classroom practice skills in the subheading of Planning and Organization.

Table 16. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Planning and

Organization)

n: 544

In the first item, the student respondents were asked whether their English

teacher is planned for the lessons. 483 of the students (89 %) claimed “always”, 56 (10

%) reported “sometimes”, and five (1 %) of the students stated “never” for this item. It

is obviously clear that the students are positive about their teachers’ coming to the

classes prepared. However, when the students were asked if their teachers are energetic

in the lesson in the 2nd Item, 330 (61 %) of them selected “always”, 200 (37 %) reported

“sometimes”, and 13 (2%) of the students rated “never” for this question.

Item 3 “My English Teacher teaches the lesson in an organized way”, 438 (81

%) of the students claimed “always”, 89 (16 %) of them stated “sometimes” and 15 (3

%) of the students mentioned “never” for this item. In addition to this, 458 (84 %) of the

students reported that their English teachers “always” explain the instructions clearly,

and 305 ( 56 %) of them mentioned that their English Teachers “always” consider the

students’ interests while planning the lesson.

Table 17 demonstrates the perceptions of students in relation to their teachers’

use of L1 and L2, their competence in English and their attitude towards their job.

Item

Classroom Practice

(Planning and Organization)

My English Teacher (is)….


f % f % F %

1. planned for the lesson (Q 1) 483 89 56 10 5 1

2. energetic in the lesson (Q 2) 330 61 200 37 13 2

3. teaches the lesson in an organized way (Q3 ) 438 81 89 16 15 3

4. explains the instructions clearly (Q4 ) 458 84 73 13 11 2

5. considers students’ interests while

planning the lesson ( Q 13)

305 56 195 36 41 8

62

Table 17. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ use of L1 and

L2/ Competence in English/ Attitude towards job)

n: 544

In Item 6, only 83 (15 %) of the students reported that their English teachers

“always” speak English in the lesson. In relation to this item, a majority of the students

(78%) stated that their English Teachers “sometimes” speak English. As for item 7,

using Turkish when the students have difficulty in understanding, a great majority, 390

(72%) of the students claimed that their teachers “always” revert into Turkish.

Item 8 inquired of the perceptions about the teachers’ competency in English.

Accordingly, 475 (87 %) of the students claimed “always” while 47 (9 %) of the

students stated “sometimes” for this item. Item 9 which is about the attitudes of the

English teachers towards their jobs, a majority of the students (89 %) reported that their

English teachers “always” love teaching English. From these points of views of the

students, it is obvious that they have got positive attitudes towards their English

teachers.

In Table 18 below reports the student respondents’ views about asked their

English teachers’ use of materials and activities in the classrooms.

Item

Classroom Practice

(The use of L1 and L2 /Competence in

English / Attitude towards job)

My English Teacher (is)..


f % f % f %

6. speaks English in the lesson ( Q 5) 83 15 427 78 33 6

7. reverts into Turkish when students have

difficulty in understanding ( Q8)

390 72 136 25 17 3

8. competent in English (Q 6) 475 87 47 9 16 3

9. loves teaching English (Q 10) 483 89 50 9 8 15

63

Table 18. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Use of Materials

and Activities)

n: 544

According to this table, in Item 10, a majority of the students (44 %) reported

that their teachers “sometimes” use songs, while 220 (40 %) of them stated “never” for

this item. As for using stories in Item 11, a majority of the students (72 %) mentioned

“never” while 124 (23 %) of them rated “sometimes” for this item. Item 12 inquired of

the students perceptions about their teachers’ use of riddles in the classroom and 343

(63%) of the students stated “never” for this item while 151 (28%) of them reported

“sometimes”.

As for using games in the classroom in Item 13, 324 (60 %) of the students

claimed their English teachers “sometimes” use games whereas 112 (21 %) of them

mentioned that their teachers “never” use games in the classrooms. Similarly, the Item

related to the use of drama (Item 14), nearly half of the students (47 %) stated

“sometimes”, and 178 (33 %) of them rated “never” for this item. In Item 15, the

respondents were asked about their teachers’ use of coloring activities in the classroom.


( Materials and Activities)



f % f % f %

10. uses songs ( Q 14) 81 15 237 44 220 40

11. uses story ( Q 15) 26 5 124 23 390 72

12. uses riddles (Q 16) 47 9 151 28 343 63

13. uses games ( Q 17) 106 19 324 60 112 21

14. uses drama (Q 18) 107 19 257 47 178 33

15. uses coloring activities ( Q 19) 60 11 287 53 193 36

16. uses art and craft activities (Q 20) 38 7 160 29 341 63

17. uses drawing (Q 21) 266 49 212 39 61 11

18. uses technology (computer,vcd,OHP)

(Q 22)

109 20 233 43 197 36

19. uses visuals(picture, flashcards,poster)

(Q 23)

92 17 240 44 207 38

20 brings realia to classroom (Q 24) 44 8 152 28 343 63

21. uses sources other than the course book

(Q 25)

144 26 250 46 146 27

64

Accordingly, more than half of the students (53 %) claimed “sometimes” while 196 (36

%) of them stated “never” for this item.

Item 16 inquired of the perceptions of the students about the use of art and craft

activities in lessons. 341 (63 %) of the students expressed that their English teachers

“never” use such activities and 160 (29 %) of them claimed their teachers “sometimes”

use these activities in lessons. Regarding the use of drawing in Item 17, almost half of

the students (49%) responded “always” while 212 (39 %) of the students reported

“sometimes” for this item.

When the students were asked about the use of technology by their teachers in

lessons in Item 18, nearly half of them ( 43 %) responded that their teachers

“sometimes” use it and 197 ( 36 %) of them claimed their teachers “never” utilize

technological equipment in the classroom. Item 19 inquired of the perceptions about

the English teachers’ use of visuals. Accordingly, 44 % stated “sometimes” and 38 % of

them claimed “never” for this item.

In Item 20, the students were inquired about their teachers’ bringing realia to the

classroom. 343 (63 %) of the respondents indicated “never” while 152 (28 %) of them

queried “sometimes” for this item. As for Item 21, 250 (46 %) of the students reported

that their English teachers “sometimes” use sources other than the course book while

146 (27 %) of them stated “never” for this item.

Table 19 inquires of the perceptions of the students about their English teachers’

methods used in classrooms.

65

Table 19. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (The Methods used by their

Teachers)

n: 544

In Item 22, about half of the students (48 %) agree that their teachers

“sometimes” act out while teaching and similarly in Item 23, 40% of the students think

that their teachers “sometimes” use mimes and gestures in lessons.

As for having group and pair work activities in lessons, more than half of the

participating students (52 %) indicated that their teachers “sometimes” have them work

in groups. By the same token, 249 (46 %) of the students responded that their teachers

“sometimes” have them work in pairs. A majority of the students (70 %) reported in

Item 26 that their teachers “always” revise the learnt topics.

Examining the findings from Table 20 below which inquires of the Teacher

Interaction Skills and the teachers’ availability to their students, in Item 27, 357 ( 66 %)

of the students claimed that their teachers “always” promote their thinking skills.

Likewise, 436 (80 %) of them think that their teachers “always” help them when they

have difficulty.


( Methods)



f % f % f %

22. acts out while teaching ( Q 27) 186 34 263 48 89 16

23. uses mime and gestures (Q 28) 239 44 215 40 87 16

24. has us work in groups (Q 30) 151 28 285 52 105 19

25. has us work in pairs (Q 31) 110 20 249 46 183 34

26. revises the learnt topics (Q 32) 380 70 141 26 18 3

66

Table 20. Students’ View about Classroom Practice (Their Teacher’ Interaction Skills

and Availability to Students)

n: 544

As for the Item 29, more than half of the students ( 60 %) maintained that their

English teachers “always” encourage them to ask questions while 204 ( 38 %) of them

stated “sometimes” for this item. Item 30 inquired of the English teachers’ teaching the

lessons in an entertaining way. Accordingly, 53 % of the students reported “always” for

this question. By the same token, 332 (61 %) of the participants indicated that their

teachers “always” encourage them in lessons in Item 31 while 152 (28 %) of them

stated “sometimes” for this.

In Item 32, the respondents were asked about whether their English teachers

walk around in the classroom to assist them. It was found that a majority of the students

(70 %) believed their teachers “always” walk around while 136 (25%) of them stated

“sometimes” for this item. Item 33, “My English teacher encourages us to do research”

was rated sometimes by 254 (47 %) students while it was chosen “never” by 108 (20 %)

students.


(Teacher Interaction Skills and

Availability to students)

My English Teacher (is)...


f % f % f %

27. promotes our thinking skills ( Q 7) 357 66 164 30 21 4

28. helps us when we have difficulty (Q 9) 436 80 99 18 8 2

29. encourages us to ask questions ( Q 11) 325 60 204 38 15 3

30. teaches in an entertaining way (Q 33) 287 53 199 37 55 10

31. encourages us in lessons (Q 34) 332 61 152 28 56 10

32. walks around in the classroom to assist us

(Q 35)

379 70 136 25 26 5

33. encourages us to do research (Q 36) 176 32 254 47 108 20

34. gives examples from his/her life (Q 45) 141 26 259 48 140 26

35. wants us to give examples from our lives (

Q 46)

141 26 260 48 141 26

67

In Item 34, out of the responding student, 48 % reported that their teacher

“sometimes” give examples from his/her life. Similarly, 260 (48 %) of the students

rated “sometimes” in Item 35 which is related to teachers’ giving examples from their

lives.

Table 21 presents the data pertaining to the students’ views about their teachers’

classroom management skills.

Table 21. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Classroom

Management)

n: 544

According to Item 36, 62 % believe that their teachers “always” create a relaxed

classroom atmosphere. By the same token, a majority of the students (91 %) rated

“always” for their teachers’ promoting active participation in the classrooms. As for

Item 38 which is about teachers’ use of wait time after probing questions, 347 (64 %) of

the students claimed “always” while 151 (28 %) of the students mentioned

“sometimes”. In relation to the maintenance of discipline in the classroom in Item 39,

334 (61 %) of the students rated “always” while 146 (27 %) of them claimed

“sometimes”. Item 40, “My English Teacher uses his/her voice effectively” was

reported “always” by 286 (53%) students.

Table 22 reports interesting findings of the students’ perceptions in relation to

their English teachers’ assessment.


( Classroom Management)

My English Teacher (’s) (is)…


f % f % f %

36 creates a relaxed classroom atmosphere (Q

26)

336 62 161 30 38 7

37 promotes active participation (Q 29) 496 91 30 6 16 3

38 uses wait time after probing question (Q

12)

347 64 151 28 45 8

39 maintains discipline (Q 44) 334 61 146 27 63 12

40 uses his/her voice effectively (Q 47) 286 53 209 38 37 7

41 handwriting is legible (Q 48) 250 46 163 30 107 20

68

Table 22. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Assessment)

n: 544

According to Item 42, 226 (49 %) of the students claimed that their teachers

“sometimes” assign performance tasks. 241 (44 %) of the students reported that their

English teachers “sometimes” want them evaluate themselves while 175 (32 %) of the

students rated “never” for this question in item 44. Less than half of the students (41%)

reported that their teachers “always” want them to compile their tasks in a portfolio.

Additionally, 51 % are “sometimes” assigned project tasks in Item 45.

The table 23 demonstrates the findings of the students’ perceptions about the

feedback by their teachers.

Table 23. Students’ Views about Classroom Practice (Their Teachers’ Feedback)

n: 544

In Item 46, 310 (57 %) of the students mentioned that their teachers “always”

check homework on regular basis while 174 (32 %) said “sometimes”. A majority of the

students (77%) indicated that their teachers “always” underline the mistakes on their


( Assigning tasks)

My English Teacher…


f % f % f %

42 assigns performance task ( Q 37) 225 41 266 49 49 9

43 wants us to evaluate ourselves on an

evaluation form ( Q 38)

126 33 241 44 175 32

44 wants us compile our tasks in a portfolio

(Q 39)

224 41 177 33 141 26

45 assigns project tasks (Q 40) 179 33 275 51 89 16

Em Classroom Practice

( Feedback and Assessment)



f % f % f %

46 checks homework regularly (Q 41) 310 57 174 32 57 11

47 underlines the mistakes on homework ( Q

42)

417 77 101 19 24 4

48 Checks whether we understand the tasks or

not (Q 43)

358 66 154 28 30 6

69

homework and similarly, 358 (66 %) of the students claimed that their teachers

“always” check whether the students understand the tasks or not.

Table 24 exhibits the results about students’ perceptions about their English

teachers’ personality.

Table 24. Students’ Views about Personal Traits (Their Teachers’ personal traits)

n:544

Item

Personal Traits

My English Teacher (is)…


f % f % f %

49 loves us (Q 49) 382 70 137 25 19 3

50 knows our names (Q 50) 417 77 110 20 13 2

51 listens to us (Q 51) 430 79 98 18 14 3

52 Has good relations with us (Q 52) 365 67 154 28 21 4

53 Punctual (Q 53) 387 71 136 25 18 3

54 does not get angry if we make mistakes

(Q 54)

252 46 236 43 52 10

55 patient (Q 55) 317 58 179 33 46 9

56 makes joke in lessons (Q 56) 161 30 243 45 137 25

57 respects us (Q 57) 391 72 125 23 25 5

58 gives time (Q 58) 355 65 154 28 32 6

59 knows our interests (Q 59) 124 23 217 40 195 36

60 helps us outside class (Q 60) 184 34 246 45 110 20

61 equal (Q 61) 354 65 147 27 39 7

62 honest (Q 62) 470 86 59 11 12 2

63 smiling (Q 63) 317 58 192 35 24 5

64 shows appreciation for good works with

behaviors and words. (Q 64)

332 61 173 32 27 5

65 tolerant (Q 65) 407 75 106 20 21 4

70

Item 49 “My English teacher loves us” was rated “always” by 382 (70 %)

students, “sometimes” by 137 (25 %) students and “never” by 19 (3 %) students.

Similarly, in the 50th Item, a majority of the students (77 %) reported that their English

teacher “always” knows their names.

As for the Item 51, “My English Teacher listens to us”, 430 (79 %) of the

students responded “always”, while only 13 (2 %) students out of 544 mentioned

“never”. Additionally, in Item 52, 365 (67 %) students indicated that their English

teachers “always” have good relations with them. In Item 53 in relation to being

punctual, 387 (71 %) students stated “always”, and 136 (25 %) of the students

mentioned “sometimes”.

Looking at Item 54, 252 (46 %) of the students believe that their English

teachers do not get angry if the students make mistakes and 236 (43 %) of the

respondents stated “sometimes” for this item. Similarly, a great majority of the students

(58 %) expressed in Item 55 that their English teachers are “always” patient while 179

(33 %) of them mentioned “sometimes” for this item. As for Item 56, “My English

Teacher makes jokes” “sometimes” was rated by less than half of the students (45 %).

In Item 57, a great majority of the students (72%) believe that their English

teachers are “always” respectful while 125 (23 %) stated “sometimes” for this item. In

the same way, 355 (65 %) of the students queried that their English teachers give time

for them in Item 58 and they ( 65 %) also believe that their English teachers are fair in

Item 61.

According to the students in Item 59, 124 (23 %) believe that their English

teachers know their interests while 47 % stated “sometimes” for this item. Item 60, “My

English Teacher helps outside the class”, was rated “sometimes” by % 45 of the

students and 110 (20 %) of the students reported “never” for this item.

A considerable number of the students (86%) believe that their English teachers

are “always” honest in Item 62 and a great number of the respondents (58 %)

maintained that their English teachers are “always” smiling in Item 63. As for showing

appreciation for good works with behaviors and words in Item 64, many of the students

71

(61%) responded “always” in Item 64, and of the respondents (75 %) think that their

English teachers are “always” tolerant.

To reiterate, through the questionnaire the students’ views about the five most

important qualities that a YL English teacher should possess were also elicited. The

following Table 25 illustrates the results concerning this.

Table 25. Students’ Views about the five most important Qualities of a YL English

Teacher Rate

Item % Item % Item % Item % Item %

1. My English Teacher comes to class prepared ( Q 1)

13 My English Teacher loves me (Q 49)

11 My English Teacher is tolerant (Q 65)

10 My English Teacher is smiling (Q 63)

9 My English Teacher knows our names (Q 50)

3

2. My English Teacher loves me ( Q 49)

7 My English Teacher is smiling ( Q 63)

7 My English Teacher is tolerant ( Q 65)

6 My English Teacher knows our names ( Q 50)

5 My English Teacher is honest ( Q 62)

4

My English Teacher uses Turkish when we do not understand ( Q 8)

3. - 6 My English Teacher loves me ( Q 49)

6 My English Teacher is tolerant ( Q 65)

5 My English Teacher comes to class prepared (Q 1)


5

4. - 11 My English Teacher is tolerant (Q 65)

5 My English Teacher is smiling ( Q 63)

4 My Englih Teacher is fair (Q 61)

3 My English Teacher gives time for us (Q 58)

3

My English Teacher is honest ( Q 62)

My English Teacher loves me (Q 49)

My English Teacher knows our names (Q 50)

5. - 14 My English Teacher is tolerant (Q 65)

6 My English Teacher is honest (Q 62)


4 My English Teacher encourages us to ask questions(Q34)

4

72

With regard to the most frequently cited item by the students regarding the most

important qualities of a YL English teacher should possess, item 1, “My English teacher

comes to classroom prepared”. It ranks the first (13 %) in students’ choices in the first

column and in the same way; it ranks fourth in the third column with 5%. As for the

students’ reasons for their teachers’ coming to classroom prepared, they believe that it is

a need for productive lessons (cited 28 times). Secondly, five of the students reported

that they want their teachers to use the time efficiently by being prepared. In relation to

this item, four of the students mentioned that they want to have accurate knowledge and

one student claimed that the teacher can be a good example when s/he comes to the

classroom prepared. In the following part, the researcher demonstrated some excerpts

from the participating students’ notes in the questionnaire;

Student 1: If my English teacher does not come to classroom prepared, then we can not

learn everything properly.

Student 2: If my English teacher does not come to classroom prepared, s/he can not

transfer accurate knowledge.

Student 3: My teacher can be a good example upon being prepared.

Student 4: I can not concentrate on my lesson when my teacher jumps from one subject

to another. So, being prepared is important to prevent this.

In relation to the most frequently cited items for the students giving importance

to their current English teachers’ qualities; the item “My English teacher loves me” ( Q

49) ranks second in the first column with 11 %, second in the third column with 6% and

second in the fourth column with 4%. The main reasons that the students reported stem

from the fact that they want their teachers to love them (cited 12 times). Five students

mentioned that they need to concentrate on the lesson and they lose their attention when

their teachers do not love them. The second reason is that they want to be on good terms

with their teachers (cited four times) and they want to love English lessons (cited three

times). Lastly, one student stated that s/he wants to come to lessons on regular basis

when s/he gets affection from the teacher. The excerpts below demonstrated students’

voices;

Student 5: I wish My English Teacher would love me equally.

73

Student 6: If my English Teacher does not show any affection, then I can not be

interested.

Student 7: My Teacher sometimes says that s/he loves me very much. I love to hear it.

The most frequently cited item for the first column, “My English Teacher is

tolerant” (Q 65) is ranked third with 10 %, third in the second column with 6%, third in

the third column with 5%, second in the fourth column with 5%, and second in the fifth

column with 6%. The reasons stated by the students are that their teachers get angry if

s/he is not tolerant (cited eight times). In addition to this, six of them mentioned that

they like this quality while five of them stated they love their teachers more if they are

tolerant. By the same token, five students want productive lessons and they want their

teachers to understand them (cited two times). One student reports that s/he want to

learn this quality and in the same way, s/he can be more respectful if the teacher is

tolerant (cited once). The students below maintained;

Student 8: My English Teacher shouts a lot when s/he is not tolerant.

Student 9: My English Teacher is not tolerant. So, I want her/him to be.

Student 10: Nobody would love the lessons.

Student 11: This shows his/her respect to us.

Student 12: I would be scared.

“My English Teacher is smiling” ( Q 63) ranks fourth in the first column with

9 %, second in the second column with 7%, fifth in the third column with 5%, third in

the fourth column with 4% and lastly it is fourth in the fifth column with 4%. The

students reported that they would like to see their teachers smiling (cited seven times)

and they need to have productive lessons (cited six times). Additionally, they want to

see affection from their teachers (cited three times) and they feel happy if their teacher

is smiling (cited three times). Two students reported that they feel secure with the

smiling faces of the teachers. The sentences below support the reasons;

Student 12: My English Teacher looks more beautiful when she smiles.

Student 13: The people who are smiling all the time are loved the most.

Student 14: We learn better.

Student 15: I would be scared otherwise.

74

Student 16: I feel secure if my English teacher smiles.

The item, “My English Teacher knows our names” (Q 50) ranks fifth in the first

column with 3%, fourth in the second column with 5%, fifth in the fourth column with

3%. As for the reasons why the students feel this item is important for them, they

reported that (cited six times) they need affinity from their teachers. Additionally, they

stated that they would like their teachers to remember them (cited four times). In

accordance with this, they claimed that they do not want their teachers to ask their

names continuously (cited three times). For this reason, they want their teachers to learn

their names by heart. Lastly, the students mentioned that they need this for productive

lessons (cited two times) and this can happen on the condition that their English

teachers know their names. The students below mentioned that;

Student 17: I enjoy being called by my name.

Student 18: I feel special.

Student 19: If s/he does not know the names, then s/he calls us “you” which is quite

impersonal.

The item, “My English teacher uses Turkish when we do not understand” (Q 8)

is ranked the fifth in the second column with 4%. The reasons stated by the students

mainly stem from the fact that they need better understanding in English (cited 14

times). Some excerpts below illuminate this issue;

Student 20: We have recently started learning English. So, we can not understand much

of it. For this, my teacher should use Turkish.

The Item, “My English teacher is fair” (Q 61) is ranked the fourth in the fourth

column with 3%. The reasons stated by the students are mainly related to their need for

justice in the classroom (cited eighth times). The voices of the students are;

Student 21: If my English teacher treats us equally in the classroom, only then we do

not feel any jealousy.

Student 22: I feel that I am part of the class when my teacher is fair.

75

In relation the item about giving time to the students (Q 58), the students ranked

fifth in the fourth column with 3%. They cited the importance of this item mainly

claiming that they need for productive lessons (cited four times) and they need to feel

special (cited once).

The last item, “My English teacher encourages us to ask questions” (Q 34) is

ranked fifth in the fifth column with 4 %. Likewise, the students need for productive

lessons (cited seven times) and they added they can learn better on condition that their

teachers encourage them to ask questions in the classroom.

In response to the question “Describe your English teacher in your own words”,

the students produced 85 different teacher qualities (See Appendix IV for “Describe

your English Teacher in Your Own Words”).Accordingly, 84 Students claimed that

their English teachers are “good” in terms of classroom practice and personal traits. In

the same way, 81 of the students stated that their English teachers are “tolerant”. 67

students reported that their teachers love them, and 65 Students say their teachers are

“honest people”. 56 of the students mentioned that they have got smiling teachers. In

the same way, 41 students stated that their teachers are funny. On the other hand, 41

Students said that their teachers are “angry”. 33 students claimed that their teachers’

lessons are “productive”. As it can be seen by the students’ choices, when the students

were asked to describe their teachers, the qualities related to the teachers’ personal

qualities are tend to be opted more rather than the teachers’ classroom practice qualities.

4.5. Summary of the Findings from the Student Questionnaire

According to the student questionnaire results, the ratings of the participants

vary among “always”, “sometimes”, and “never” scales. The responses of the students

were rated “sometimes” for the items related to the teachers’ use of English in the

classroom and teachers’ reverting into Turkish when the students had difficulty in

understanding. By the same token, similar to the results of the teacher questionnaire, the

students’ responses had a tendency toward the “sometimes” scale in the items related to

materials and activities. Contrarily, a considerable majority of the students stated

“never” for their teachers’ use of story, riddles, art and craft activities and realia.

Likewise, the students stated that they were “sometimes” assigned performance, project

76

tasks and they “sometimes” evaluated themselves on evaluation forms. Similarly, the

students “sometimes” had pair and group work activities. As it was the same in the

teacher questionnaire, majority of the teacher personality trait items were rated

“always”, however, the items related to teachers’ not getting angry when the students

made mistakes, teachers’ knowing the interests of the students, and teachers’ helping

outside class were rated “sometimes” by the participating students. With regard to the

part in relation to the students’ views about the most important qualities a YL teacher

should possess, unlike teachers, the items pertaining to teacher personality traits were

rated the highest by the students. By the same token, when the students were asked to

describe their English teachers in their own words, majority of the answers were in

relation to their teachers’ personal traits.

4.6. Comparison Between Students’ and Teachers’ Views: Statistical Analysis

The main aim of this study is identify the perspectives of teachers and students,

on the issue of a profile of a YL English teacher. The study also looks into whether or

not there are any differences between the views of both groups. In the process of finding

out the profile of a YL English teacher, two-tailed t-tests were used to compare the

perspectives of teachers and students. Data of investigation were examined according to

scale presented in Table 26.

Table 26. Scale Table Alternatives Points Point space

always 1 1.00-1.49

sometimes 2 1.50-2.49

never 3 2.50-3.00

The third question of this research is to investigate whether there is any

statistically significant difference between the perceptions of YLs’ and their teachers.

To answer the third question, a quantitative approach was used to survey and solicit

teachers’ and students’ perceptions. After data were collected, percentages were

77

calculated and raw scores were determined for each completed questionnaire and an

independent t-test was conducted using SPSS (Version 11.0) to see if there was a

significant difference in students’ and teachers’ perception of a profile of an English

teacher teaching English to YLs. The eight tables below demonstrate the statistically

significant differences for planning and organization, competence in English-attitude

toward job, materials and activities, method, teacher interaction skills-availability to

students, classroom management, and feedback-assessment and teacher personal traits.

544 fourth grade YLs’ of English and 26 YL English teachers were asked to

describe the teacher preparation and organization in connection to Classroom Practice in

Table 27 below.

Table 27. Statistical Difference between Students’ and Teachers’ Views about

Classroom Practice (Planning and Organization)

Item

Always Sometimes Never Mean SD t

P

f

%

f

%

f

%

T

S

T

S

-2.6394

0.0139

T S T S T S T S T S T S

1. 16 483 61 89 9 56 35 10 1 5 4 1 1.4231 1.1213 0.3539 0.5778

2. 26 458 100 84

0 73 0 13 0 11 0 2 1.0000 1.1710 0.0000 0.4357 9.1506 0.0000

P < 0.05

n: Students: 544

Teachers: 26

Item 1 (Q1): T: I come to class prepared, S: My English Teacher comes to class

prepared Item 2 (Q 4): T: I explain the instructions clearly, S: My English teacher

explains the instructions clearly

Accordingly, the t-test analysis in Item 1 demonstrates that there is a statistically

significant difference between the teachers’ and students’ views in relation to teachers

coming to the classroom prepared (P < 0.05). The teachers’ mean value (1, 42) is

significantly higher than students’ mean (1, 12) and the students’ answers are slightly

more toward the “always” scale than the teachers’ answers. Similarly, in Item 2, as for

78

explaining the instructions clearly, there is also a statistically significant difference

between the students’ and teachers’ responses on the questionnaires (P < 0.05).

Table 28 below displays the statistical differences between the students’ and teachers’

views about classroom practice.


Classroom Practice (Competence in English)

Item


P

F

%

f

%

f

%

T

S

T

S

7.0440

0.0000


3. 26 475 100 87 0 47 0 9 0 16 0 3 1.0000 1.1342 0.0000 0.4443

P < 0.05

n: Students: 544

Teachers: 26

Item 3 (Q 6): T: I am competent in English, S: My English Teacher is competent in

English

According to the responses given to the third statement regarding the teacher’s

competency in English, both groups, students(87 %), and teachers ( 100 %) were agreed

on the statement. On the other hand, analyzing the mean scores of the two groups, it is

clearly seen that the teachers are more inclined to the “ always” scale. As a result, there

is a statistically significant difference in their views (P < 0.05).

Table 29 below represents the statistically significant differences for the items in

the category “materials and activities” by each group.

79


Classroom Practice (Materials and Activities)

Item


P

f

%

F

%

f

%

T

S

T

S

2.7602

0.0093


4. 14 81 54 15 12 237 46 44 0 220 0 40 2.0000 2.2335 0.4000 0.7375

5. 1 26 4 5 18 124 69 23 7 390 27 72 2.2308 2.6544 0.5144 0.6054 3.5072 0.0005

6. 1 47 4 9 17 151 65 28 8 390 31 72 2.2692 2.5331 0.5335 0.6750 2.4306 0.0215

7. 7 106 27 19 19 324 73 60 0 112 0 21 1.7308 2.0074 0.4523 0.6400 2.1771 0.0299

8. 5 107 19 19 21 257 81 47 0 178 0 33 1.8077 2.1232 0.4019 0.7242 3.7238 0.0007

9.

6

60

23

11

18

287

69

53

2

193

8

36

1.8462

2.2298

0.5435 0.6652

3.4768 0.0016

10.

3 38 11

7

18

160 70

29 5

341 19 63 2.0769

2.5386

0.5602

0.6665

4.0668

0.0003

11.

9

109 35 20 17

233 65 43 0

197 0

36

1.6538

2.1434

0.4852 0.7614 3.2453 0.0012

12.

9 92 35 1

7

16 240 61 44 1 207 4 3

8

1.6923 2.1930 0.5491 0.7417 3.3967 0.0007

13.

6 44 23 8 16 152 61

28 4

343

15

63 1.9231 2.5453 0.6276 0.6585 4.9268 0.0000

14. 5 144 19 26 21 250 81 46 0 146 0 27 1.8077 1.9890 0.4019 0.7506

2.1292

0.0406

P < 0.05

n: Students: 544, Teachers: 26

Item 4(Q 14): T: I use songs. S: My English Teacher uses songs

Item 5(Q 15): T: I use story S: My English Teacher uses story

Item 6 (Q 16): T: I use riddles S: My English Teacher uses riddles

Item 7 (Q 17): T: I use games S: My English Teacher uses game

Item 8( Q 18): T: I use drama S: My English Teacher uses drama

Item 9(Q 19): T: I use coloring activities S: My English Teacher uses coloring activities

Item 10 (Q 20): T: I use art and craft activities S: My English Teacher uses art and

craft activities

Item 11(Q 22): T: I use technology S: My English Teacher uses technology

Item 12(Q 23): T: I use visuals. S: My English Teacher uses technology

Item 13(Q 24): T: I use realia S: My English Teacher uses realia

80

Item 14(Q 25): T: I use sources other than the course book S: My English Teacher

uses source other than the course book

When the individual items were combined into Classroom Practice, all the group

comparisons reached a significant level, as seen in Table 39. The largest group

differences between the teachers and the students were in Item 5 (using story), Item 6

(using riddles), Item 10 (using art and craft activities), Item 11 (using technology), and

Item 13 (using realia). As for comparing, students’ and teachers’ views on the use of

story, only one teacher out of 26 claims to “always” use stories in lessons. Additionally,

26 students out of 544 states that their teacher use story in lessons and 390 (72 %) claim

that their teachers “never” use this activity. The other largest difference was found in

using riddles similar to using stories, 390 of the students (72 %) mention that their

teacher do not use any riddles.

In connection with the activities related to Art and Craft, Item 10 demonstrates

that only three of the teachers out of 26 state “always” and 19 of them say “never” for

this item. It is obviously seen in the score mean of teachers 2.0769 and students 2.5386

on a 3 point (1-3) Likert Scale.

Regarding the use of technology in Item 11, teachers are in greater disagreement

than their students overall. More concretely, only 35% of the teachers say that they

utilize technology in their lessons. However, a total of 43 % of the teachers use

technology. In the case of students, 20% of them said that their English teachers use

technology and 36% of them state “never” for this item.

In Item 13, only 8% of the teachers claim to bring realia to classrooms and 63%

of the students believe that their teachers “never” bring realia to classrooms.

Table 30 below displays the results in relation to the statistical difference

between two groups about teachers’ use of methods in classroom.

81


Classroom Practice (Methods)

Item


P

f

%

f

%

F

%

T

S

T

S

5.3233

0.0000


15. 26 239 100 44 0 215 0 40 0 87 0 16 1.2308 1.7096 0.4297 0.7335

P < 0.05

n: Students: 544

Teachers: 26

Item 15(Q 28): T: I use mime and gestures while teaching S: My English uses mime

and gestures while teaching

In Table 30, 239 students, totaling almost half, 44 %, of the respondents,

maintained that their English teachers “always” use mimes and gesture while they were

teaching. 215 (40%) students reported that their teachers “sometimes” use them. 87

(16%) respondents stated “never”, while 26 (100 %) of the teachers claim to use mimes

and gestures “always”. By the same token, the mean score of students is 1.7095; the

teachers’ is 1.2308 on 3 point (1-3) Liket Scale.

Table 31 below displays the results in relation to the statistical difference

between two groups about teachers’ interaction skills and availability to students.

82


Classroom Practice (Teacher Interaction Skills and Availability to Students)

Item


P

f

%

f

%

F

%

T

S

T

S

2.6328 0.0132


16. 18 287 69 53 8 199 31 37 0 55 0 10 1.3077 1.5625 0.4707 0.6784

17. 24 332 92 61 2 152 8 28 0 56 0 10 1.0769 1.4779 0.2717 0.6863 6.5874 0.0000

18. 26

379 100 70 0 136 0 25 0 26 0 5 1.0000 1.3401 0.0000 0.5759 13.7731 0.0000

19. 9

141 35 26 16 259 61 48 1 140 4 1.6923 1.9835 0.5491 0.7394 1.9812 0.0481

P < 0.05


Item 16(Q 33): T: I teach in an entertaining way S: My English Teacher teaches in an

entertaining way

Item 17(Q 34): T: I encourage my students in lessons S: My English Teacher

encourages us in lessons

Item 18(Q 35): T: I walk around in classroom to assist S: My English Teacher walks

around to assist

Item 19(Q 45): T: I give examples from my life S: My English Teacher gives examples

from his/her life

In Table 31, when the students and the teachers were asked whether the teachers

teach in an entertaining way in Item 16, 287 (53 %) of the students stated “always”, 199

(37 %) responded “sometimes” and 55(10 %) of them claimed “never”. In contrast,

more than half of the teachers (69 %) maintained “always” for this item. For this reason,

there is a statistically significant difference between students’ and teachers’ rates.

With regard to Item 17, “I encourage my students in lessons”, 332 (61%)

surveyed students think that their teachers “always” encourage them, 152 (28) of them

chose “sometimes”, and 56 (10 %) of the students responded “never”. As for the

teachers, 24 (92 %) of them stated that they “always” encourage their students in

83

lessons. The statistically significant difference between teachers and students groups

stems from the fact that the teachers mean value (1, 08) is significantly lower than

students’ mean (1,48 ) (p<0,05) This difference comes between “never” and

“sometimes” answers.

In Item 18, respondents were asked whether the English teachers walk around in

the classroom to assist. The students maintained that 379 (70 %) of them think their

teacher always walks around in classroom to assist, 136 (25 %) chose sometimes, and

26 (5 %) reported never. All of the teachers (100 %), on the other hand, stated that they

always walk around in classroom to assist their students. When the means of the

teachers (1.00) and the students’ (1, 34) are compared it is clearly seen that there is a

statistically significant difference between teachers and students (p<0, 05).

Table 32 below shows the description of the YL English teachers’ classroom

management by both groups.


Classroom Practice (Classroom Management)

Item


P

f

%

f

%

f

%

T

S

T

S

8.4999

0.0000 T S T S T S T S T S T S

20. 25 347 96 64 1 151 4 28 0 45 0 8 1.0385 1.4412 0.1961 0.6453

21. 23 336 89 62 1 161 11 30 0 38 0 7 1.1154 1.4191 0.3258 0.6458 4.3616 0.0001

22. 21

334 81 61 5 146 19 27 0 63 0 12 1.1923 1.4982 0.4019 0.6973 3.6281 0.0010

23. 22

286 85 53 4 209 15 38 0 37 0 7 1.1538 1.4982 0.3679 0.6565 4.4454 0.0001

P < 0.05

n: Students: 544,Teachers: 26

Item 20 (Q 12): T: I use wait time after probing questions. S: My English teacher uses

wait time after probing questions

Item 21(Q 26): T: I create a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom. S: My English

Teacher creates a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom

84

Item 22(Q 44): T: I maintain discipline in classroom. S: My English Teacher creates a

relaxed atmosphere in classroom

Item 23(Q 48): T: I use my voice effectively. S: My English Teacher uses his/her voice

effectively

When the teachers and the students were asked to reflect on the teacher’s use of

wait time after probing question in Item 20, the comparison of all students’ and

teachers’ mean scores demonstrates slight differences. Mean Scores on the 3-point

Likert scale were 1.0385 for teachers and 1.4412 for students. Namely, the students and

the teachers expressed similar opinions with the teachers’ greater tendency toward the

scale regarding the use of wait time in the sub-heading of Classroom Management. As

for creating a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom in Item 21, students’ responses

resulted in a statistically significant difference from teachers’ with the teachers’ greater

agreement with 89 %.

Item 22 required students and teachers to reflect on the maintenance of

discipline in the classroom by the teacher and significant difference resulted overall

between teachers and students in that only one teacher (11) reported “sometimes”, while

161 students (30%) rated “sometimes” while reflecting on the frequency of maintaining

discipline.

When students’ and teachers’ responses were compared in Item 23 on teacher’s

effective use of voice, 85 % of teachers responded “always” while 53 % of students

reported “always” for this item. This difference resulted in a statistically significant

difference between teachers and students. The average difference between individual

teachers and their students was 0.0001 with 22/26 of them expressing greater agreement

than their students on the item.

Table 33 below illustrates the results of the comparison of two groups in relation

to YL English teachers’ assessment.

85


Classroom Practice (Assessment)

Item


P

f

%

F

%

f

%

T

S

T

S

-3.0644

0.0023


24. 0 126 0 23 12 241 46 44 14 175 54 32 2.5385 2.0827 0.5084 0.7498

P < 0.05

n: Students: 544

Teachers: 26

Item24 (Q 38): T: I want my students evaluate themselves on an evaluation form S: My

English Teacher wants us to evaluate us on an evaluation form

In regard to the students’ evaluating themselves on an evaluation form (Item 24)

teachers’ and students’ responses overall resulted in significant differences with the

mean scores of teachers 2.5385 and students 2.0827. An overwhelming majority of

teachers, 14 (54%) claimed “never”, while 175 (32%) of the students maintained

“never” for this item.

Table 34 below displays the results of the comparison of two groups in relation

to YL English teachers’ feedback.


Classroom Practice (Feedback)

Item


P

f

%

F

%

F

%

T

S

T

S

5.2909

0.0000 T S T S T S T S T S T S

25. 24 358 92 66 2 154 8 28 0 30 0 6 1.0769 1.3897 0.2717 0.5968

P < 0.05 n: Students: 544, Teachers: 26

Item 25 (Q 43): T: I check whether students understand the tasks or not S: My English

Teacher checks whether we understand the tasks or not.

86

When students and teachers responded to Item 25, “I check whether students

understand the tasks or not”, the teachers agreed more strongly than students, with the

difference resulting statistically significant. Most of the teachers were in greater

agreement than their students with 24/26 reporting greater agreement than students that

they check whether their students understand the tasks or not. The average individual

teacher-student difference was 0.0000 (P< 0.05) on the 3-point scale.

Table 35 below shows the statistically significant differences for the items in the

category of English teachers’ personal traits by each group.


Personal Traits Item Always Sometimes Never Mean SD t

P

f

%

f

%

f

%

T

S

T

S

6.0223

0.0000


26. 25 382 96 70 1 137 4 25 0 19 0 3 1.0385 1.3107 0.1961 0.5537

27. 24 430 92 79 2 98 8 18 0 14 0 3 1.0769 1.2279 0.2717 0.4850 2.6398 0.0125

28. 24

365 92 67 2 154 8 28 0 21 0 4 1.0769 1.3529 0.2717 0.5665 4.7129 0.0000

29. 24 387 92 71 2 136 8 25 0 18 0 3 1.0769 1.3107 0.2717 0.5403 4.0223 0.0003

30. 15 161 58 30 11 243 42 45 0 137 0 25 1.4231 1.9449 0.5038 0.7536 3.4919 0.0005

31. 25

391

96

72

1

125

4

23

0

25

0

3

1.0385

1.3162

0.1961

0.5655

6.1084 0.0000

32. 22

355

85

65

4 154

15 28

0

32

0 6

1.1538

1.3952 0.3679 0.6069

3.1466

0.0036

33. 12 124 46 23 14 217 54 40 0 195 0 36 1.5385 2.1011

0.5084

0.7976

3.5608 0.0004

34. 15 184 58 34 11 246 42 45 0 110 0 20 1.4231 1.8493 0.5038 0.7404 2.9020 0.0039

35. 22

354

85

65

4

147

15 27

0

39 0 7 1.1538 1.4063 0.3679 0.6325 3.2743 0.0025

36.

26 470 10

0 86 0 59 0 11 0 12 0 2 1.0000 1.1471 0.0000 0.4253 8.0641 0.0000

37.

20

317

77

58

6

192

23

35

0

24

0

5

1.2308

1.4210

0.4297

0.6108

2.1553

0.0393

38.

25 332 96 61

1

173 4 32 0 27 0 5 1.0385 1.3952 0.1961 0.6190 7.6348 0.0000

P < 0.05


87

Item 26 (Q 49): T: I love my students S: My English Teacher loves us

Item 27 (Q 51): T: I listen to my students S: My English Teacher listens to us

Item 28(Q 52): T: I have good relations with my students S: My English Teacher has

good relations with us

Item 29(Q 53): T: I am punctual S: My English Teacher is punctual

Item 30(Q 56): T: I make jokes in lessons S: My English Teacher makes jokes in lessons

Item 31(Q 57): I respect to my students S: My English Teacher respects us

Item 32(Q 58): T: I give time to my students S: My English Teacher gives time for us

Item 33(Q 59): T: I know my students’ interests S: My English Teacher knows our

interests

Item 34(Q60): T: I help my students outside class S: My English Teacher helps us

outside class

Item 35(Q61): T: I am equal S: My English Teacher is equal

Item 36(Q62): T: I am honest S: My English Teacher is honest

Item 37(Q 63): T: I am smiling S: My English Teacher is smiling

Item 38(Q 64): T. I show appreciation for good work with my behaviors and gestures S:

My English Teacher shows appreciation for good work with behaviors and gestures

Accordingly, there is a statistically significant difference between teachers’ and

students’ views in item 26. Teachers’ mean value (1, 03) is significantly lower than

students’ mean (1, 31) (p<0, 05) .This difference stems from the “always” and

“sometimes” answers given by each group. Similarly, it was found out that there is a

statistically significant difference between students’ and teachers’ answers in Item 27,

“I listen to my students”. The mean value of the teachers’ (1, 0) tends more towards the

“always” scale than the students (1, 2).

By the same token, as for Item 28, there is a statistically significant difference

between teachers and students groups. The teachers’ mean value (1, 07) is significantly

lower than students’ mean (1, 3) (p<0, 05). This difference comes between “always”

and “sometimes” answers by each group.

Item 29 demonstrates the statistically significant difference among students’ and

teachers’ perceptions in relation to English Teachers’ being punctual for the classroom

practices. Accordingly, it was found that there is a statistically significant difference

88

between the teachers and students groups. Teachers’ mean value (1, 07) is significantly

lower than students’ mean (1, 3) (p<0, 05). Additionally, according to 3 likert-like scale,

the mean score of the teachers’ (1, 07) is more inclined to the “always” scale.

For Item 30, the responses given to “I make jokes in lessons” was found

statistically significantly different by each group, as teachers’ mean values ( 1,4) is

significantly lower than students’ means (1,9) (p<0,05). Teachers’ scales are between

“never” and “sometimes” answers while the students’ scales are between “always” and

“never” answers.

There is also a statistically significant difference between teachers and students

groups in Item 31 which is related to English teachers being respectful to their students.

Accordingly, the teachers mean value (1, 03) is significantly lower than students’ mean

(1, 3) (p<0, 05). There). This difference comes between “always” and “sometimes”

stated by each group.

Another statistically significant difference was found out in the Item 32 in

relation to giving time to students by their English teachers. According to the mean

score results, teachers’ mean value (1, 1) is significantly lower than students’ mean (1,

3) (p<0, 05).

In the same way, there is also a statistically significant difference between

teachers and students groups in Item 33, “I know my students’ interests”. As for this

item, teachers’ mean value (1, 5) is significantly lower than students’ mean (2, 1) (p<0,

05). 195 (36 %) of the students reported that their English teachers “never” know their

interests while 14 of the teachers stated that they “sometimes” know the interests of

their students.

When the students and teachers were inquired about Item 34, “I help my

students outside the class”, a statistically significant difference was found between the

groups. On the bases of the mean scores of respondents, the teacher mean value (1, 42)

is significantly lower than students’ mean (1, 8) (p<0, 05). The difference stems from

the fact that while 110 (20 %) of the students respondents responded that their English

89

teachers “never” help outside the class, none of the teacher participants stated “never”

for this item.

In the same manner, there is also a statistically significant difference between

teachers and students respondents in Item 35 in relation to the English teachers’ being

equal as a personal trait. When the mean scores of each group were compared, the

teachers mean value (1, 1) is significantly lower than students’ mean (1, 4) (p<0, 05).

Namely, according to 3 likert-like point scales, the rates of the teachers have got a

slightly higher tendency to the “always” scale.

The other statistically significant difference was found in Item 36 which is

related to the English teachers’ honesty as a personal trait. According to the mean score

results, the mean value of the teachers’ (1, 0) is slightly lower than the students’ (1.1)

(p<0, 05). The rates of the teachers on a 3 likert-like scale have got slightly a higher

tendency to the “always” scale than the students.

For Item 37, there is also a statistically significant difference between the teacher

and student respondents’ answer in relation to YLs English teachers’ smiling in the

classroom. When the mean scores of each group were compared, it was realized that the

mean values of the teacher (1, 2) is significantly lower than students’ mean (1, 4) (p<0,

05).

A for last Item 38, when the teachers were asked whether they show

appreciation for good works with their behavior and gestures, the mean scores of each

group ( teachers: 1, 03 ; students : 1.3) (p<0,05), showed a statistically significant

difference between teachers’ and students’. This difference stems from the responses

given to “always” and “sometimes” scales by the students and the teachers.

90

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents a discussion of the findings, conclusions drawn from the

study, and suggests implications for further research and practice.

This study represented two sets of perceptions regarding the profile of a YL

English teacher from the students’ and teachers’ perspectives in two main areas:

teachers’ classroom practice and teachers’ personality traits. The main aim of the

investigation was to find out what students thought about their current English teachers’

classroom practices and their personality traits. Likewise, the teachers’ of YLs were

targeted to evaluate themselves on their classroom practices and personality traits. The

main data collection instrument, the questionnaire, has got two main sections;

classroom practice and personal traits. Section one, classroom practice, involves nine

sub-headings: planning and organization, competence in English, materials and

activities, method, teacher interaction skills-availability to students, classroom

management, assessment, and feedback. The second part of the questionnaire only

consisted of personal traits of a YL English teacher. Below, Research Questions 1 and

2 provide an overview of the teachers’ and students’ independent perceptions of the

teaching issues examined and, thus, required only descriptive statistics. Research

Question 3 compared the two groups overall, teachers and students, on the same

questionnaire and allowed for a means comparison analysis to be conducted via a t-test

for each item.The questions are;

1. What are YLs’ perceptions of the qualities of their current English teacher?

2. What are the YL English teachers’ perceptions of their own qualities?

3. Are there any statistically significant differences between YLs’

perceptions and their teachers’ perceptions?

In terms of quality and function, teaching English to YLs is a vital job because

teachers have major roles in children’s social development and they can give a great

contribution to their students’ abilities. Thus, the issues derived from this particular

91

study set the stage for the arguments of whether the student and teacher participants

agree or disagree in relation to the teacher classroom practice and personal traits.

Conclusions drawn from the findings are discussed on the basis of the research questions

presented below.

5.1. What are YLs’ Perceptions of the Qualities of Their Current English teacher?

Research Question 1 investigates the perceptions of the YLs in terms of their

English teachers’ qualities in relation to their classroom practice and personal traits.

According to the results obtained from a 3-item Likert scale, the viewpoints of students

vary within the categories of the students’ questionnaire. In other words, overall results

of the study indicate that the perceptions of the students about their current English

teachers’ classroom practice and personal traits varied among the “always”,

“sometimes”, and “never” scales according to the items in the student questionnaire. In

addition to the student questionnaire, the perceptions of the students about their current

English teachers were elicited through the most frequently cited items, giving

importance to their teachers’ qualities. By the same token, a deeper understanding was

gained in relation to the perceptions of the students through their own words while

being asked to describe their current English teachers.

The majority of the students claimed that their English teachers were planned for

the lesson and the teachers taught the lessons in an organized way. Although the age of

nearly half of the teachers changed between 26-30 and the teachers were regarded

young, when the students were asked about whether their teachers were energetic in the

lesson and whether the teachers considered the students’ interests while planning the

lesson, nearly half of the students stated “sometimes” for both items. Considering the

fact that teaching YLs requires a lot of energy and enthusiasm (Çakır, 2004; Vale &

Feunteun, 1995), being unenergetic in lessons can not be advantageous while teaching

YLs. Similarly, being aware of YLs’ needs and interests can enrich the quality of

teaching in YLs’ classes (Carmen, 1992).

Concerning the use of L1 and L2 in the classroom, the findings revealed that a

considerable majority of the respondent students maintained that their English teachers

“sometimes” speak English. The teachers’ of the participating students “always” revert

92

into Turkish when the students had difficulty in understanding. Likewise, the findings

from the observations seem to support the idea that “the use of English in the classroom

can increase the motivation of the students” (Moon, 2000.p.62).

With regard to the YLs English teachers’ use of materials and activities in the

classroom, the respondent students described their teachers as people who sometimes use

songs, drama, and coloring activities. By the same token, a considerable majority of the

students stated that their English teachers “never” use stories, riddles, or realia in the

classroom although it is vital that YLs’ should be provided with a variety of activities and

tasks (Dunn, 1989). Similarly, nearly half of the students mentioned that their English

teachers “sometimes” use visuals (e.g. pictures, flashcards, and posters,) and the teachers

“sometimes” use technological tools in classrooms. The learning can be more meaningful,

memorable and more motivating as well as interesting when teachers of YLs’ utilize

visual aids in classrooms (Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988).

Concerning the perceptions of participating YLs’ in relation to the methods their

English teachers’ use, nearly half of the students stated “sometimes” for their teachers’

acting while teaching. In this respect, Brumfit (1984) said that pair work and group

work are the most effective techniques of classroom organization which combine

aspects of communication learning and natural interaction in a stress free environment

(p. 78). In line with this notion, “Most people learn a foreign language better with

others than on their own,"(Norman, 1986. p.11), which underlines the role of interaction

through pair work and groups in classrooms.

With regard to the participating students’ views about their English teachers’

interaction skills and their availability to the students, more than half of the students

agreed that their English teachers “always” promoted their thinking skills , encouraged

them to ask questions, taught in an entertaining way, and encouraged them in lessons.

This can be advantageous for students as they are motivated to learn and be more

involved in the learning process when they ask themselves questions (Greene, 2001). On

the other hand, nearly half of the students claimed “sometimes” for the items related to

the teacher encouraging the students to do research, giving examples from his/her life,

and wanting examples from the students’ lives. In relation to encouraging the students to

do research, Moon (2005) stated that “children have a strong instinct from birth to explore

93

their environment”. In this respect, she also adds that children are different from adults

who can learn both analytically and also experientially. For this reason, teachers of YLs

should be aware of their students’ needs for learning things through exploring; namely,

having them to do research in relation to their assigned tasks.

With regard to the teachers’ classroom management skills, a considerable

majority of the students were positive that their teachers’ promote active participation,

which is extremely vital because YLs need to have feelings of security and belonging in

the classroom.

In terms of the personality traits of the English teachers, the participating

students valued most of the items positively. However, nearly half of the students

mentioned “sometimes” for their teachers’ not getting angry when the students made

mistakes. By the same token, the students claimed “sometimes” for their teachers’

helping outside class.

With respect to the items the students gave importance to regarding their current

English teachers’, it is obvious that the students gave more importance to the teachers’

personal traits than the other qualities related to classroom practice. Although a

considerable majority of the students claimed that their English teachers should come to

the classroom prepared, many of them wanted English teachers who loved them.

Analyzing the statements given by the students, obviously many of the students would

like to see affection from their teachers. Correspondingly, the participating YLs

reported that their English teachers should be tolerant, smiling, honest, fair and

encouraging. As for YL English teachers’ being tolerant, which was rated highly by the

participating students, the statements given by the students are in relation to their

demand for respect from their teachers. Similarly, the students would like to have

smiling teachers as they feel more secure, and they think they will learn better. The

participating students would like their teachers to know their names because of the fact

that they would feel special. By the same token, the student asked for “fair” teachers to

be part of the class. Likewise, the students stated that they would like teachers who are

funny as well as teachers who give time to them. The main reasons why the students

valued the personality traits may be due to YLs’ tendency to be influenced by their

teachers’ feelings and attitudes towards them. In respect to this, Nikolav stated that “the

94

main reason for YLs liking English in the early stages is based on whether they like the

teacher or the learning activities” (1999). As a result, if the student loves the teacher,

seemingly, s/he will enjoy the tasks. In other words, the personal traits of YLs English

teacher constitute an important role in teaching.

In response to the question “Describe your English teacher in your own words”,

the students produced 85 different teacher qualities. Similar to the most frequently

cited items for the students giving importance to their current English teachers’

qualities in the above part, a considerable majority of the participating students stated

their current teachers’ personality traits while describing their English teachers. In

relation to this, a majority of the students claimed that their English teachers are good,

tolerant, honest, and smiling and the teachers love their students according to the

description of the participating students. By the same token, nearly half of the students

mentioned that their English teachers are respectful, funny, and angry as well as the

teachers have a productive lesson. Less than half of the participants further claimed that

their English teachers are kind, patient, punctual and equal. In respect to this, the

participating students demonstrate that they give importance to their English teachers’

personal traits.

5.2. What are the YLs English Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Own Qualities?

Research Question 2 attempted to find out the perceptions of the YL English

teachers in terms of their own qualities in relation to their classroom practice and

personal traits. In accordance with the student questionnaire, the results were also

obtained from a 3-item Likert scale. In addition to the teacher questionnaire; the

observation notes, the interviews, and the teachers’ statements about the five most

important qualities of a YL English teacher were the other data collection tools in which

the conclusions were drawn.

Results obtained from data collection tools demonstrated that a considerable

majority of the participating teachers were aged 26-30, and nearly half of the teachers

graduated after 2002. Likewise, many of the teachers had 1-5 years of experience in

TEYL. Lastly, more than half of the teachers were graduates of education faculties,

which can be regarded as advantageous on condition that they had received TEYL

95

training in their bachelor studies. In notion with this, more than half of the teachers who

graduated from education faculties mentioned receiving TEYL courses in their bachelor

studies. With respect to the teachers’ having any in-service training for TEYL, more

than half of the teachers claimed to have had training, demonstrating that the

participating teachers were aware of the needs and the characteristics of YLs’. From the

perceptions of the teachers about classroom practice and personal traits, the rationale of

affirmative statements from the teacher questionnaire resulted relatively highly. In other

words, the attitudes of the majority of the teachers gathered through the teacher

questionnaire indicated that the teachers had positive perceptions about their classroom

practice and personality traits. Namely, the teachers appreciate their skills to a certain

degree and the majority of the respondent teachers rated “always”.

In order to determine whether the teachers reflect their awareness into the

classroom practice, the researcher observed these teachers on a willing basis within their

actual classes. In this respect, it was realized that the attitudes of the majority of the

teachers gathered through the teacher questionnaire did not match with the observation;

namely, the teachers did not put their knowledge that they claimed in the teacher

questionnaire into practice, although stating that they used it. Likewise, the researcher

did not observe any teachers using realia, stories, riddles, drama, or visuals, which are

vital in TEYL. Using activities that are interesting and stimulating will be motivating

for children (Slattery, 2009).

Similarly, only one teacher was observed using songs, coloring activities, pair

works/groups and surprisingly only one YL English teacher spoke English in the

English lesson, although a considerable majority of the teachers mentioned

“sometimes” for speaking English in the lesson. A few teachers were observed using

games and technology. By the same token, a few teachers used sources other than the

course book. However, none of the teachers were observed checking the homework. On

the other hand, when the teachers were observed on the basis of their personality traits,

the teachers demonstrated positive qualities. Namely, the teachers were observed

having good relations with their students and nearly half of the teachers stated that they

helped their students outside class. According to Evan (2002) and Brosh (1996),

teachers who help the students to learn and who are available to their students after the

class is the rationale that distinguishes between effective and ineffective teachers.

96

In addition to observations, the researcher interviewed the teachers regarding the

observable items of the questionnaire right after the observation to provide a more detailed

understanding about the reasons regarding their behaviors and qualities. Interview results

demonstrated that a majority of the teachers are having constraints with having to catch up

with the curriculum, a lack of materials, large classes, and limited hours of teaching (three

hours per week). In addition to these, the teachers also mentioned that the students needed

to be prepared for SBS (level determination exam) for the sixth grade and the students will

be assessed on their grammar knowledge in English with multiple choice questions. For

this reason, the teachers are to prepare the students for the proficiency exam and they can

not catch up with drama or any other speaking activities, which are not required for the

time being. Additionally, in order to prepare for the exam, the students take monthly

practice tests in which they have to answer grammar based questions for the English

section. According to the teachers, these practice tests constrain the amount of activity

types, as they have to catch up with the curriculum in limited hours of teaching. In the same

way, the teachers feel pressure by the parents and the school authorities when the students

do poorly in these monthly practice tests for SBS.

The teachers were also asked in the questionnaire to choose the five most important

qualities that a YL teacher should possess. Accordingly, using visuals and technology were

ranked first in the first column. Even though none of the teachers was observed using

visuals, they stated that using visuals affected teaching English positively, they also further

added that the students should not only hear the language but at the same time they should

see it through visuals. By the same token, only a few teachers observed were using

technology although some teachers maintained that learning could be more enjoyable when

technology was used in classrooms. The item “I use games” was one of the items that the

teachers gave importance to. Knowing the role and effect of using games in TEYL, the

teachers gave positive statements in relation to this item, although only three teachers were

observed using games.

To continue with the items that the teachers gave importance; “I love teaching

English” was also highly ranked by the teachers. They believed that unless they had an

aspiration for their jobs, they could not continue their careers. Similarly, “I speak English

in class” was chosen by the teachers, although only one teacher was observed speaking

97

English in the observation. Additionally, being energetic is also vital for teachers, as they

felt that they could affect their students on condition that they were energetic.

The teachers also valued the items “I want my students to participate in lessons”

and “I love my students”. In the same way, a considerable majority of the teachers were

observed loving their students. Surprisingly, less than half of the teachers did not consider

the teachers’ age or their graduation years. The other items related to encouraging the

students’ thinking skills (considering the students’ interests while planning the lesson,

creating a relaxed atmosphere and encouraging the students in lessons) were given

importance by the participating teachers. However, only a few teachers were observed

considering the students’ interests while planning the lesson. At the same time, though, a

considerable majority of the teachers were observed creating a relaxed atmosphere in the

classroom. One teacher mentioned that the students can learn better in a relaxed

atmosphere, as Read (2005) proposed that a warm and relaxed learning atmosphere can

provide the optimal conditions for YLs to learn English.

Similarly, a considerable majority of the teachers were observed giving importance

to repeating the learnt topics. The teachers highlighted that the students were prone to

forget on condition that the revisions were not done well. Obviously, unlike the

participating students who gave importance to the qualities in relation to personality traits

of a YL English teacher, the participant teachers valued the items in relation to the

classroom practice of a YL English teacher.

5.3. Are There Any Statistically Significant Differences Between YLs’ And Their

Teachers’ Perceptions?

Another crucial objective of this study is to compare the students’ and teachers’

perceptions of teachers’ classroom practice and their personality traits. This question looks

at students’ and teachers’ reflections on the performance of teachers’ classroom practice as

well as their personality traits. The comparison is between all teachers’ and students’

responses on the questionnaire, with the accompanying t-test value, indicating whether they

are statistically significant different from each other.

98

There were statistically significant differences among thirty-eight items by the

participating teachers and students. Overall, the teachers perceived significantly

different characteristics from the students in all of the eight headings; namely, planning

and organization, competence in English-attitude towards job, materials and activities,

method, teacher interaction skills-availability to students, classroom management,

feedback, assessment and teacher personaityl traits.

With respect to the students’ and the teachers’ views about the teachers’

planning and organization, there was statistically significant differences found regarding

two items: the teachers’ coming to classroom prepared and the teachers’ explaining the

instructions clearly. When the mean scores of both groups are compared for coming to

classroom prepared, the students’ answers tended towards the “always” scale, and the

teachers’ tended toward the “sometimes” scale, although the most important teacher

characteristic is being prepared and organized in the lesson (Brosh, 1996). By the same

token, Glasser (1998) stated being prepared for the lesson is one of the unique qualities

of a teacher.

With respect to the teachers’ competence in English, all of the teachers stated

“always”, with a mean score tending towards the “always” scale, compared to the

students. For this reason, there is a statistically significant difference between both

groups.

According to Cameron (2001) the use of a variety of activities is very important,

as YLs have very short attention spans. Accordingly, it is very important to avoid

boredom in YLs’ classes because when student are bored, they can become disruptive

and other classroom management problems might arise. On the other hand, the most

striking differences overall between students’ and teachers’ perceptions on both

questionnaires are regarding the usage of materials and activities, as well as methods

applied by the teachers. In relation to materials and activities, the statistically significant

differences were found mostly in the use of songs, stories, riddles, games, drama,

coloring activities, art and craft activities, technology, realia, and sources other than the

course book. The statistically significant difference is relatively high in the teachers’ use

of art and craft activities, with the teachers’ tendency to “sometimes” scale and

students’ to “never” scale. Although making and creating new things, e.g. a fortune

99

telling toy, a jointed puppet and art and craft activities, through English, will make the

language alive and make it satisfying for YLs, while also making it fun (Holderness and

Hughes, 1998). Similarly, a considerable majority of the students mentioned “never” for

their teachers’ use of realia, while the teacher’ tended to the “always” scale, considering

the motivational role of using realia in TEYL.

As for using songs by the teachers, when the mean scores are compared, it is

obvious that the students’ answers had a tendency to the “never” scale and the teachers’

were to the “sometimes” scale. Additionally, with regard to use of stories and using

riddles, only one teacher stated “always”, while a considerable majority of the students

mentioned “never.” Although listening to stories and using songs are suitable activities

for YLs (Williams, in Brumfit et.al.,1991, p.209). In the same way, believing that YLs

learn best through listening and repeating (Çakır, 2004), utilizing riddles can be

advantageous in a YL classroom due to the fact that with riddles, chants, and motivating

activities, YLs can learn the language unconsciously.

Regarding the teachers’ use of methods, all of the teachers mentioned “always”

while nearly half of the students claimed “sometimes” for the teachers’ use of mimes

and gestures, although using activities enabling movement, facial expression and

involving senses can get message across and, as a result, children enjoy them. Some of

the items in relation to teacher interaction skills and availability to students were also

found to have a statistically significant difference between both groups. These are

teaching in an entertaining way, encouraging the students, walking around in classroom

to assist, and giving examples from the teacher’s life. The mean scores of the teachers’

had more tendency to “always” scale while the students’ were to “sometimes” scale.

With regard to the teachers’ classroom management, which is one of the

important areas for teaching YLs considering the children’s poor ability of self control,

the item in relation to the teachers’ use of wait time was found to have a statistically

significant difference between students’ and teachers’ perceptions, with teachers’

tending to “always” more than the students’. In relation to this, Nunan (2001) says “the

issue of wait time is obviously important in a language classroom because of the greater

processing time required to comprehend and interpret questions in a second or foreign

language” (p.193). Similarly, believing that wait time is linked with teachers’ patience,

100

the issue of being patient gains importance and is vital for TEYL as it is one of the YLs’

teachers’ qualities (Vickery, 1999). The teachers’ creating a relaxed atmosphere was

also found to be statistically different, as the students’ options were closer to the

“sometimes” scale, and the teachers’ were to “always” scale although the goal of

classroom management is to “ provide a climate that encourages learning” (Alberto and

Troutman, 1995). As for maintaining discipline, which is one of the challenges for YLs’

English teachers, the statistically significant difference was found in the item in relation

to maintaining discipline, with students’ tending to “sometimes” and the teachers’ to

“always”. In regard to this, Kounin (1970) says inappropriate learner behavior increases

when the lesson becomes boring. For this reason, using topics and activities can make

the lessons more enjoyable and interesting. The item, “I use my voice effectively” was

also found statistically different between the students and the teachers.

With regard to assessment, the participating teachers’ use of evaluation forms in

which the students are to evaluate themselves, there was found a statistically significant

difference between both groups with a considerable majority of teachers’ inclining to

the “never” scale though using evaluation form is one of the requirements of YL

English teachers in their classroom (Primary Institutions Promulgations, Official

Newspaper: 02.05.2006, No: 2584). According to Cameron (2001), through self-

assessment learners can understand more about the learning process, their special

strengths, and the areas of need and difficulty, and learners will be prepared well in

order to carry on their learning process. However, surprisingly, one of the teachers

claimed that she had not heard about such an assessment or evaluation form. To

underline the importance of assessment of YLs, Bouma (2005) stated;

“Since children are growing at different rates (mentally, emotionally, and

physically), the potential of each child needs to be measured individually.

The youngest children should not be formally tested and graded; in an

activity mode they can frequently be assessed as to understanding and

production”.

The other statistically significant difference was found in the item related to

feedback, “I check whether students understand the tasks or not”, with the teachers

tending more to the “always” scale than the students. In the same way, only two

101

teachers were observed checking the understanding through questions, e.g. “Did you

understand? or “Anyone who did not understand?” even though Cameron (2001) stated

that checking that children have understood explanations and instructions can assist

teachers to understand what the students are getting and what they need to work on

more.

As for the last table which is related to the participating teachers’ personal traits,

there were found statistically significant differences in the item related to loving the

students, with the teachers’ inclining to the “always” scale and students to the

“sometimes” scale. Accordingly, Bassett (2003) claimed that being a good teacher

involves not only a degree of the discipline being taught but also a passion for the subject

and a love of children. The other statistically significant differences were found in the

items pertaining to listening to the students and having good relations with them. Since

teachers play an important role in the classroom environment, they must love students in

order to pass on enthusiasm and to create a warm environment for the students (Stronge,

2003). The other statistically significant difference was found in the participating

teachers’ joke making in lessons, with the students rating on the “sometimes” scale and

teachers to the “always” scale. According to Dvorak (2009), in a classroom in which a

pleasurable learning experience takes place, even the most disinterested student can pay

attention.

With regard to the item related to teachers’ giving time to the students, another

statistically significant difference was found with the students’ more inclining to the

“sometimes” scale than the teachers’. In this respect, Baker, Terry, Bridger, and Windsor

(1997) posited that a caring relationship between the teacher and the student is highly

linked to effective teaching. Research, over several decades, supports this assertion

(Brophy & Good, 1986; Collinson, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 1999). Another striking

statistically significant difference was found in the item related to the teachers’ knowing

the interests of the students which is related to caring about the students, as it was in the

previous question. Similarly, teachers’ helping the students outside class was also found

to be statistically different. As for teachers’ being fair, a statistically significant

difference was found, even though it is vital to be fair, as children have a keen sense of

fairness and they need to feel that their teachers like them (Vickery, 1999). For this

reason, YL English teachers are to behave equally towards their students. The items

102

related to being honest, smiling and showing appreciation for good work with teachers’

behaviors and gestures were also found to have a significant statistical difference,

although studies conducted by Brophy and Good (1986) suggested that teachers who

were supportive of their students and who communicated enthusiasm for what they were

teaching were most likely to motivate students, thus improving student achievement.

5.4. Implications for Practice

The main objective of this study is to make specific, direct comparisons between

teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ classroom practices and their personal

traits. In other words, the students and the teachers were required to make reflections

about what was actually happening in the classrooms, how the teachers were

implementing their practices and how the students perceived their English teachers’

personal traits. Although the items on each questionnaire were carefully worded, piloted

with intact classes, and revised several times to ensure intelligibility, some of the items

may have been too specific, vague, or difficult for individual participants to provide an

accurate representation of their perspectives.

Despite such limitations, this present study has provided many implications for English

teachers, schools authorities, ELT departments, teacher trainers, and curriculum

designers in order to understand the perceptions and the expectations of YLs and their

English teachers. Additionally, the Ministry of Education can benefit from the results of

the students and the teachers of this study for its recent developments in relation to the

teacher competencies and school-based professional development in which teachers are

evaluated on the basis of their performances (Primary Institutions Teacher Training

Promulgations, Teacher Competencies, June 44, 2008, no: 1835). The competencies for

teachers are expected to be used in:

• The personal and professional development of teachers,

• Identifying teacher training policies,

• The selection of newly assigned teachers,

• Preparation for pre-service teacher training,

• Programmes of higher education; institutions training teachers,

• In-service training of teachers,

103

• Evaluation of teacher performances and achievements,

The Directorate -General for Education and Culture, of European Commission

(2005) also stresses this issue in their work as following:

“…teachers should also be able to reflect on the processes of the learning and teaching

through an ongoing engagement with subject knowledge, curriculum, content,

pedagogy, innovation, research, and the social and cultural dimensions of education… ”

(p.2). In this respect, the authorities can take the views of while evaluating knowledge,

skills, and abilities of teachers from students’ views.

This descriptive study has also revealed that a considerable majority of the

teachers do not use certain methods, techniques, materials as well as assessment tools

that pertain to YL classes. By the same token, the teachers also do not utilize certain

activities (songs, stories, games, riddles, etc.) in the classrooms although they are aware

of the benefits of such activities while teaching to YLs according to the interview

results. Considering the role of a variety of materials, and activities to increase the

interest of YLs, teachers of YLs should be enlightened about the practical application of

using them in their classrooms rather than sticking merely to the course books.

Additionally, even though more than half of the participating teachers received in-

service trainings about TEYL, the content and the amount of these trainings should be

revised and follow-ups as well as necessary changes should be made to increase the

quality, as TEYL is one of the most developing issues of EFL in-service.

In addition, the Ministry of National Education should pay attention to the

content of the SBS exam in which students are to answer grammar based questions for

the English section. Due to the fact that SBS exam does not assess the speaking skills of

the students, some of the participating teachers claimed that they did not see the point in

using activities (songs, games, stories, riddles, drama, etc.) to improve the speaking

skills of the students. By the same token, the teachers also claimed that they had to catch

up with the curriculum and the course books as the school authorities and the parents

got the teachers into trouble when the students were not successful in monthly tests for

preparing the students for the SBS exam. Namely, the assessment of English lessons in

primary schools should be revised and necessary precautions should be taken to provide

better quality of teaching for YLs.

104

5.5. Recommendation for Further Research

In this study, YL English teacher profile from the students’ and teachers’

perspectives was investigated. It is recommended that further studies be conducted with

more teacher and student participants and that classroom activities should be videotaped

in order to have a clear picture of a profile of YL English teachers. In the same way, the

YL English teacher profile from the parents’ and school authorities’ perceptions could

also be taken into account for other studies.

In this study, the age, gender, and years of experience of the YL English teachers

were not explored. Further studies including these variables can be done to contribute to

the field of TEYL.

Additionally, even though more than half of the teachers received in service

training about TEYL, only few teachers were observed using certain methods, and

materials. Further studies including the amount and the quality of in-service training

about TEYL and their effects on YLs English Teachers should also be done. Moreover,

further research for the reasons why teachers do not put their skills into practice in their

classrooms can also be taken account for other studies.

5.6. Personal Reflection

This study has contributed much to my personal and professional development

of understanding the phases of conducting research in the field of ELT. As being the

researcher of this study, I have gained a lot of skills in relation to conducting interviews

which made me reflective listener and patient towards my job as a teacher.

Understanding the perceptions of YLs and their expectations as it is one of the

most important things before stepping into classroom. In this respect, I have had the

chance to understand the feelings of YLs through empathy and started thinking more

critically and reflectively by being aware of their needs and wants.

105

REFERENCES

Açıkgöz, F. (2005), “A study on Teacher Characteristics and Their Effects on Students’

Attitudes”, The Reading Matrix Vol. 5, No. 2.

Aküzel G. ( 2006), “ İlköğretim 4-8. Sınıflarda Yabancı Dil Öğretimindeki Başarısızlık

Nedenlerinin İncelenmesi”, Master Thesis, Çukurova Univesity, The

Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.

Alberto, P. A., & Trautman, A. C. (1995), Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers (4th

ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Atiles, J. R & Allexsaht, S. M. (2002), Effective Approaches to Teaching Young

Mexican Immigrant Children, Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Rural Education and Small Schools.

Baker, J. A., Terry, T., Bridger, R., & Winsor, A. (1997), “Schools As Caring

Communities: A Relationship Approach to School Reform”, School

Psychology Review, 26 (4), 586-602.

Bassett, P.F. (2003), “Searching for great teachers”, Education Week, 22, 26, 28.

BBC Homepage (2000), “What Makes the Ideal Teacher”, Retrieved July 15, 2008 from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/793594.stm

Brewster, J., Ellis, G. and Girard, D. (2003), The Primary English Teacher's Guide,

London: Penguin Books.

Borg, S. (2006), “The Distinctive Characteristics of Foreign Language Teachers”,

Language Teaching Research 10,1 (2006); pp. 3–31.

Bouma, E. (2005), “Practical Advice for Teachers of Young Learners from the

Experts”, Retrieved October 10, 2008 from

http://eng.1september.ru/2005/03/3.htm

Brophy, J. & Evertson, C. (1974), “Process-Product Correlations in The Texaz

Teacher’s Effectiveness Study: Final Report”, Austin, TX: University of

Texas, R &D Center for Teacher Education, (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED091094).

Brophy, J. & Good,T.L. (1986), “Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement”, In M.C.

Wittock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.), (pp.328-

371), New York: Machmillan.

Brosh, H. (1996), “Perceived Characteristics of the Effective Language Teacher”,

Foreign Language Annals, 29/2:125-138.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/793594.stm

http://eng.1september.ru/2005/03/3.htm

106

Brown, H.D. (1980), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, A. V. (2006), “Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Effective Teaching in

the Foreign Language Classroom: A Comparison of Ideals and Ratings”,

PhD Thesis, University of Arizona, Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertation Theses (UMI 3215656).

Brumfit, C. (1984), Communicative methodology in language teaching, CUP.

Brumfit C. (1991), “Young Learners: Young Language. In C. Kennedy and J.Jarvis

(Eds.), Ideas and Issues in Primary ELT, Hong Kong: Thomas Nelson

and Sons Ltd. p.9-18.

Brumfit, C., Moon, J., & Tongue, R. (1991), Teaching English to children, London:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Bruner, J. S. (1966), Towards a theory of instruction, Cambridge Mass: Harvard

University Press.

Bruner, J. (1983), Child’s Talk: Learning to use Language, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Bruner, J. (1986), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bruner, J.S., & Haste, H. (Ed.). (1987), Making sense: The Child's Construction of the

World, New York: Methuen.

Cameron, L. (2001), Teaching Languages to Young Learners, Cambridge: CUP.

Campbell, J.R (1972), In Touch with Students: A Philosophy for Teachers, Columbia,

Missouri: Educational Affairs Publishers.

Carmen, A. (1992), Children in Action: A Resource Book for Language Teachers of

Young Learners, Prentice Hall.

Carney, T. F. (1990), Collaborative Inquiry Methodology, Windsor, Ontario, Canada:

University of Windsor, Division for Instructional Development.

Celce-Murcia, M&Hilles, S. (1988), Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1969), The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10, Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Collinson, V., Killeavy, M., & Stephenson, H.J. (1999), Exemplary Teacher: Practicing

An Eth of Care in England, Ireland, and the United States, Paper

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

107

Association, San Dieogo, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED23217).

Coltrane, B. (2003), Working With Young English Language Learners: Some

Consideration, Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages

and Linguistics.

Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curran, J. M. ( 2001), “What is the Profile of An Outstanding Teacher?”, PhD Thesis

the University of Prince Edward Island, Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertation Theses (UMI0612708152).

Çakır, İ. (2004), “Designing Activities for Young Learners in EFL Classrooms”,

Retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/son/6.pdf.

Davies, R. M. (1957), “The Effective Teacher”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol.

28, No. 5, pp. 239–245+293.

Damar, E. (2004), “A Study on Teaching English to Young Learners in EFL Context”,

Master Thesis, Uludağ University, The Institute of Social Sciences,

Social Sciences Institute, Bursa.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002), Learning to teach for social justice, New York, NY:

Teacher's College Press.

De Andres,R. (2003), “Guidelines for Teaching English to Young Children”, Retrieved,

August 22, 2007 from

http://web.educastur.princast.es/proyectos/keltic/documentos/cong/robin.pdf. De Houwer, A. (1999), “Two or More Languages in Early Childhood: Some General

Points and Practical Recommendations”, (ERIC Digest), Washington,

DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Retrieved June

11, 2007 from

http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/earlychild.html.

Dunn, O. (1989), Developing English with Young Learners, London: Macmillan

Publishers Ltd.

Dvorak, D. (2009), “How a Motivational Humorous Speaker can Help Teachers

Motivate Students with Humor”, Retrieved July, 20, 2009 from

http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/communication/how-a-

motivational- humorous-speaker-can-help-teachers-motivate-students-

with-humor.html

http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/son/6.pdf

http://web.educastur.princast.es/proyectos/keltic/documentos/cong/robin.pdf

http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/earlychild.html

http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/communication/how-a

108

Eide, E., Goldhaber, E., Brewer, D. (2004), “The Teacher Labour Market and Teacher

Quality”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20, No.2.

Echevarria, J. (1998), “Teaching Language Minority Students in Elementary Schools”,

(Research Brief No. 1), Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center

for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved May 14,

2007 from http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/ResBrief1.htm.

Ekmekçi, F.Ö. (1999), Research Manual for social sciences (Vol. 2), Selt

Publishing:Turkey.

European Commision (EC) (2005), Common European Principles for Teacher

Competencies and Qualifications. Brussels: European Commission.

Foley, J., & Thompson, L. (2003), Language Learning: A lifelong process, London:

Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group.

Frankel J.R. & Wallen, N.E (1993), How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education, New York: McGraw Hill Inc.

Freudstein, R. (1990), “Issues and Problems in Primary Education. In C. Kennedy and J.

Jarvis”, (Eds.), Ideas and Issues in Primary ELT, Hong Kong: Thomas

Nelson and Sons Ltd. p. 18-22.

Gika, A.S. and Superfine, W. (Eds.) (1998), “Young Learners: Creating a Positive and

Practical Learning Environment”, Papers from the joint conference held

in Madrid, February 1998, IATEFL.

Glasser, W. ( 1998), The quality school teacher, New York: Collins Publisher.

Graham, C. (2006), Creating Chants and Songs, OUP.

Greene, M. (2001), “Reflections on teaching”, In Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of

Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 82-89), Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.

Hamachek, D. (1999), “Effective Teachers: What They Do, How They Do it, and the

Importance of Self-Knowledge”, In R. P. Lipka, & T. M. Brinthaupt

(Eds.), The Role of Self in Teacher Development (pp. 189–224), Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Halliwell, S. (1992), Teaching English in the Primary Classroom, England: Longman

Group UK Limited.

http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/ResBrief1.htm

109

Harris, D.J. (2006), “The Effects of Teachers’ Perceptions in Action Research on

Teacher Efficacy”, PhD Thesis the University of Wayne, Detroid,

Michigan, Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation Theses (UMI3244132).

Haycock, K. (1998), Good Teaching Matters, Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Holden, S. (1980), Teaching Children, London: Modern English Publications.

Holderess, J. (1991), “Activity-Based Teaching: Approaches to Topic-Centred Work”,

in C.Brumfit, J. Moon, and R. Tongue ( Eds.), Teaching English to

children: From practice to principle, (pp.18-32), London: Collins ELT.

Holderness T. and Hughes, A. (1997), 100+ Ideas for Children, Oxford: Macmillan

Heinemann, Hopper, R. (1972), Overgeneralization.

Ilukena, A. (2006), “Qualities and Competencies of the professional Teacher”,

Retrieved June 15, 2007 from

http://www.nied.edu.na/publications/journals/journal7/Journal%207%20

Article%206.pdf.

İşpınar, D. (2005), “A Study on Teachers’ Awareness of Teaching English to Young

Learners”, Master Thesis, Çukurova University The Institute of Social

Sciences, Adana.

Klein, K. (1993), “Teaching Young Learners”, English Language Teaching Forum,

vol.31:14.

Keedle, J. (1997), “The Inbetweens”, Teaching English Spring (5), OUP.15-19.

Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004), “In Search of the Essence of A Good Teacher: Towards A

More Holistic Approach in Teacher Education”, Teaching and Teacher

Education 20 , 77–97.

Kounin, J. S. (1970), Discipline and Group Management in Classroom, New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Krashen, S. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Learning, Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S.D. (1992), Fundamentals of language education, Torrance, CA: Laredo

Publishing.

Krause, A. (1997), “Developing A Personal Philosophy in EFL for Children”, The

Language Teacher, Vol.15, No.2.

Larkin, M. (2002), “Using scaffolded Instruction to Optimize Learning”, Retrieved

August 26, 2007 from

http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed474301.html.

http://www.nied.edu.na/publications/journals/journal7/Journal%207%20

http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed474301.html

110

Luschei, T. F. (2005), “In Search of Good Teachers: Patterns of Teacher Quality in Two

Mexican States”, PhD Thesis,University of Standford, Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertation Theses ( UMI3197474).

Mason, J. (1996), Qualitative researching, London: Sage.

Mason, L. (2009), “Teacher Preparation and Development-Some Key Roles”, Retrieved

May, 2009 from http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/guyana-

review/08/20/teacher-preparation-and-development-some-key-roles

Mauch, J. E. & Park, N. (2003), Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: a

handbook for students and faculty, New York: M. Dekker.

Merriam, S. (2002), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and

Analysis, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Mersinligil, G. (2002), “Evaluation of the English Language Curriculum for the Fourth

and Fifth Grade Students in Elementary Education: ( A Sample of Adana

province)”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Fırat University, The Institute of

Social Sciences, Elazığ.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis (second

edition),USA: Sage.

Moon, J. (2000), Children Learning English, Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

Moon, J. (2005), “Teaching English to Young Learners: the Challenges and the

Benefits”,Retrieved June, 2007 from

http://www.britishcouncil.org/ie2005w30-jayne- moon.pdf.

Mollica, A., & Nuessel, F. (1997), “The Good Language Learner and the Good

Language Teacher”, A Review of the Literature, Mosaic, 4, 1-16.

Moyer, A. (1999), “Ultimate Attainment in L2 Phonology. The critical Factors of Age

Motivation, and Instruction”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

21: 8-108.

Nikolov, M. (1999), ‘Why Do You Learn English? Because the Teacher is Short’, A

Study of Hungarian Children’s Foreign Language”, Language Teaching

Research, Vol 3/1, 33-56.

Nunan, D. (2001), English as a global language, TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 605-606.

Norman, D. (1986), Communicative ideas, Oxford: Language Teaching Publication.

Okçabol, R., Akpınar, Y.,Caner, A., Erktin, E., Gök, F. ve Ünlühisarcıklı, Ö. (2003),

Öğretmen Yetistirme Araştırması, Eğitim Sen Yayınları, Ankara.

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/guyana

http://www.britishcouncil.org/ie2005w30-jayne

111

Pantaleoni, L. (1988), A Sea of Troubles?, In Byrne, D (ed.), Modern English

Teacher: TEYL, Longman, London, 1988.

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative evaluation and research methods, (2nd ed.), London:

Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods, (3rd ed.), London:

Sage.

Philips, S. (1999), Young Learners, Oxford University Press.

Piaget, J. (1971), Structuralism, London: Routedge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Piaget, J. (1972), The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, New York: Basic Books.

Pinter, A. (2006), Teaching young language learners, Oxford University Press.

Penner, J. G. (1992), Why Many College Teachers can not lecture, Illinois: Charles C.

Thomas.

Politzer, R.L. and L. Weiss (1971), The Successful Foreign Language Teacher,

Philadelphia, PA: The Center for Curriculum Development.

Pollard, A. (1996), An Introduction to Primary Education, London: Cassell.Primary

Institutions Promulgations, Official Newspaper: 02.05.2006, No: 2584.

Primary Institutions Promulgations, Problems related to Assessment: 08.10.2007, No:

6251

Primary Institutions Teacher Training Promulgations, Teacher Competencies, June 44,

2008, no: 1835.

Pyne, K. B. (2006), “Good Teachers” Require “Better Students”: Identity Crisis in the

Search for Empowering Pedagogy”, PhD Thesis, The University of

North Carolina, Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

(UMI3219471).

Read, C (2005), “Managing Children Positively'”, English Teaching Professional, Issue

38, Modern English Publishing.

Reilly, V. & Ward, S.H. (1997), Very Young Learners, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Richards, K. (2006), Being the Teacher’: Identity and Classroom Conversation,

Applied Linguistics 27/1: 51–77, Oxford University Press.

Rixon, S. (1991), “The role of fun and games activities in teaching young learners”, In

C. Brumfit, J. Moon, and R. Tongue (Eds.), Teaching English to

children: From practice to principle, (pp. 33-48), London: Collins ELT.

112

Rixon, S. (1999), “Optimum Age or Optimum Conditions? Issues Related to the

Teaching of Languages to Primary Age Children”, Retrieved December,

2006 from

http://www.britishcouncil.org/english/eyl/article01.htm.

Saban, A. (2003), “Turkish Profile of Prospective Elementary school Teachers and

Their Views of Teaching”, Teaching and Teacher Education 19, 829–

846.

Sanders, W. L. & Horn, S. P. (1995), “The Usefulness of Standardized and Alternative

Measures of Student Achievement as Indicators for the Assessment of

Educational Outcomes”, Retrieved November, 2007 from

http//www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html.

Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996), “Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on

Future Student Academic Achievement”, (Research progress report), In

University of Tennessee Value-Added Assessment Center, Knoxville,

TN, Retrieved December 1, 2008 from

http://mdk12.org/practices/ensure/tva/tva2.html.

Schumann, J. (1978), “The Acculturation Model for Second-Language Acqusition”, In

R.C. Ginras (Ed.), Second Language Acqusition and Foreign Language

Teaching, Washigton, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 27-50.

Schunk D.H. & Zimmerman B.J. (1997), Self-regulates learning & Academic

Achievement, Theoretical Perspectives. Routledge. UK.

Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L. H. (1991), Teaching English to children, New York:

Longman Inc.

Shin, J. K., (2007), “Developing Dynamic Units for EFL”.,FORUM. 45 (2), 2-8,

Slatterly, M., & Willis, J. ( 2001), English for primary teachers, Hong Kong: Oxford

University Pres.

Slattery, M (2009), “Teaching English to Young Learners: Motivating Moments”,

Retrieved 10 August, 2009 from

htttp/www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/3/Usrn/tea/team1/30.pdf.

Sofu, H. & Okan, Z. (1998), “Temel Eğitimin Birinci Kademesi İçin Yabancı Dil

Öğretmeni Yetiştirme Sorununa Bir Bakış”, Sekiz Yıllık

Bütünleştirilmemiş Zorunlu Temel Eğitim ve Yabancı Dil Öğretimi

Semineri’ne sunulan bildiri, İstanbul University Literature Faculty,

February 20-21.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/english/eyl/article01.htm

http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html

http://mdk12.org/practices/ensure/tva/tva2.html

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/3/Usrn/tea/team1/30.pdf

113

Stern, H. (1991), Fundemental Concepts of Language Teaching, OUP: Hong Kong.

Stronge, J. H. (2003), Effective Teachers, New York: ASCD Publications.

Şeker, M. (2007), “Exploring Effects of Collaborative Learning in Enhancing Teachers’

Development in Teaching English to Young Learners”, PhD Thesis,

Çukurova University, The Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.

Tebliğler Dergisi, 2481/ 1997, National Ministry of Education, Turkey.

Thornton, B. (2001), Advising and Supporting Teachers, Cambrige: CUP.

Torun, F.P. (2008), “Contextualized Language Instruction: Exploring the Role of

Authentic Animated Stories on the Attitudes of Young EFL Learners

Towards Learning English”, Master Thesis, Çukurova University, The

Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.

Toth, M. (1998), Children’s Games, Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language

Teaching.

Tucker, G.R. (2001), Age of Beginning Instruction, Tesol Quarterly, Vol. 35, No 4.

Turley,H. S. (1995), “Perceptions of Effective Teaching: the Student Voice on

Classroom Practice”, PhD Thesis, University of Columbia, Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI9539877).

Vale, D. & A. Feunteun. ( 1995), Teching Children English, A Training Course for

Teachers of English to Children, Cambridge: CUP.

Vickery, J. (1999), “Tips for Teaching Young Language Learners”, Retrieved June15,

2007 from http://members.tripod.com/~ESL4Kids/tips.html.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962), Thought and language, ( E.Hanfmann & G. Vakar Trans.),

Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1967), Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child,

Soviet Psychology, 12, 6-18.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological

Processes, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wayne, A. J. & Youngs, P. (2003), “Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement

Gains: A Review”, Review of Educational Research Spring Vol, 73, No.

1, pp. 89–122.

Williams, M. (1991), A Framework for Teaching English to Young Learners In C.

Brumfit, J. Moon & R. Tongue (Eds.), Teaching English to children:

From practice to principle, (pp. 203-212). London: Collins ELT.

Wood, David (1998), How Children Think and Learn, Oxford: Blackwell.

http://members.tripod.com/~ESL4Kids/tips.html

114

Woolfolk, A. (1998), Educational Psychology, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Yıldırım, R. & Şeker, M. (2004), “An Investigation into Turkish Teachers’ Awareness

of Teaching English to Young Learners”, Proceedings of the First

Introduction Language Learning Conference (pp. 565-576), Universiti

Sains, Malaysia.

115

APPENDIX I

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Students,

This questionnaire aims to find out the profile of Young Learner English Teacher.

Consider your current English Teacher’s qualities while answering the questions. Thank

you very much for your cooperation.

Yeşim DOĞAN

Name of the School:

Class:

Date of birth:

Gender:

PART I

Please evaluate your English Teacher on the basis of his/her classroom practice

1. My English Teacher comes to classroom prepared.

a) Always b) Sometimes c) Never

2. My English Teacher is energetic in the lesson


3. My English Teacher teaches in an organized way.


4. My English Teacher explains the instructions clearly.


5. My English Teacher speaks English in the lesson.


6. My English Teacher is competent in English.


7. My English Teacher promotes our thinking skills.


116

8. My English Teacher reverts into Turkish when we do not understand.


9. My English Teacher helps us when we have difficulty.


10. My English Teacher loves teaching English.


11. My English Teacher encourages us to ask questions.


12. My English Teacher uses wait time after asking questions.


13. My English Teacher considers our interests while planning the lesson.


14. My English Teacher uses songs.


15. My English Teacher uses story.


16. My English Teacher uses riddles.


17. My English Teacher uses games.


18. My English Teacher uses drama.


19. My English Teacher uses coloring activities.


20. My English Teacher uses art and craft activities.


21. My English Teacher uses drawing.


22. My English Teacher uses technology (computer, OHP, VCD).


23. My English Teacher uses visuals (pictures, flashcards, and posters).


24. My English Teacher brings realia (puppets, toys, fruit) to the classroom.


117

25. My English Teacher uses sources other than the course book.


26. My English Teacher creates a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom.


27. My English Teacher acts out while teaching.


28. My English Teacher uses mimes and gestures.


29. My English Teacher wants us to participate in lessons.


30. My English Teacher has us work in groups.


31. My English Teacher has us work in pairs.


32. My English Teacher revises the learnt topics.


33. My English Teacher teaches the lesson in an entertaining way.


34. My English Teacher encourages us.


35. My English Teacher walks around in the classroom to assist us.


36. My English Teacher encourages us to do research.


37. My English Teacher assigns performance tasks.


38. My English Teacher wants us to evaluate ourselves on an evaluation form.


39. My English Teacher wants us to compile our tasks in a portfolio.


40. My English Teacher assigns project tasks.


41. My English Teacher checks our homework regularly.


118

42. My English Teacher underlines the mistakes on our homework.


43. My English Teacher checks whether we understand the task or not.


44. My English Teachers maintains discipline.


45. My English Teacher gives examples from his/her life.


46. My English Teacher wants us to give examples from our lives.


47. My English Teacher uses his/her voice effectively.


48. My English Teacher’s handwriting is legible.


PART 2

Please evaluate your English Teacher on the basis of his/her personal traits.

49. My English Teacher loves me.


50. My English Teacher knows our names.


51. My English Teacher listens to us.


52. My English Teacher has good relations with us.


53. My English Teacher is punctual.


54. My English Teacher does not get angry if we make mistakes.


55. My English Teacher is patient.


56. My English Teacher makes jokes in lessons.


119

57. My English Teacher is respectful to us.


58. My English Teacher gives time to us.


59. My English Teacher knows our interests.


60. My English Teacher helps us outside class.


61. My English Teacher is fair.


62. My English Teacher is honest.


63. My English Teacher is smiling.


64. My English Teacher shows appreciation for good work with his/her behavior and

words.


65. My English Teacher is tolerant.


Please write down the number of the five items that you consider important in this

questionnaire and please give your reasons for the choices.

Number Why?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

120

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Colleague,

This questionnaire aims to find out the profile of a Young Learner English Teacher.

Consider your classroom activities for 4th graders and your personal traits while

answering the questions. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Researcher

Yeşim DOĞAN

1. The name of the school:

2. Gender: a) Male b) Female

3. Age:

4. BA Degree: Faculty: ___________________

Department: ____________________

5. Do you hold MA degree? a) Yes, department: b) No

6. Do you hold PhD degree? ) Yes, department: b) No

7. Did you take a “Teaching English to Young Learners” course at university? a) Yes

b) No

8. How long have you been teaching English to Young Learners (9-12 year olds)?

8. Have you taken any in-service training for TEYL?

a) Yes b) No

If yes;

When:__________________ Where:________________ Duration:____________

121

PART I

Please evaluate yourself on your 4th grade classes’ classroom practice

1. I come to classroom prepared.


2. I am energetic in the lesson


3. I teach in an organized way.


4. I explain the instructions clearly.


5. I speak English in the lesson.


6. I am component in English.


7. I promote my students’ thinking skills.


8. I revert into Turkish when my students do not understand.


9. I help my students when they have difficulty.


10. I love teaching English.


11. I encourage my students to ask questions.


12. I use wait time after asking questions.


13. I consider my students’ interests while planning the lesson.


14. I use songs.


15.I use story.


122

16. I use riddles.


17. I use games.


18. I use drama.


19. I use coloring activities.


20. I use art and craft activities.


21. I use drawing.


22. I use technology (computer, OHP, VCD).


23. I use visuals (pictures, flashcards, and posters).


24. I bring realia (puppets, toys, fruit) to the classroom.


25. I use sources other than the course book.


26. I create a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom.


27. I act out while teaching.


28. I use mimes and gestures.


29. I want my students to participate in lessons.


30. I have my students work in groups.


31. I have my students work in pairs.


32. I revise the learnt topics.


123

33. I teach the lesson in an entertaining way.


34. I encourage my students.


35. I walk around in the classroom to assist my students.


36. I encourage my students to do research.


37. I assign performance tasks.


38. I want my students to evaluate themselves on an evaluation form.


39. I want my students to compile their tasks in a portfolio.


40. I assign project tasks.


41. I check my students’ homework regularly.


42. I underline the mistakes on my students’ homework.


43. I check whether my students understand the task or not.


44. I maintain discipline.


45. I give examples from my life.


46. I want my students to give examples from their lives.


47. I use my voice effectively.


48. My handwriting is legible.


124

PART 2

Please evaluate yourself on the basis of your personal traits.

49. I love my students.


50. I know my students’ names.


51. I listen to my students.


52. I have good relations with my students.


53. I am punctual.


54. I do not get angry if my students make mistakes.


55. I am patient.


56. I make jokes in the lessons.


57. I am respectful to my students.


58. I give time to my students.


59. I know my students’ interests.


60. I help my students outside class.


61. I am fair.


62. I am honest.


63. I smile.


125

64. I show appreciation for good works with my behaviors and words.


65. I am tolerant.


Please write down the number of the five items that you consider important in this

questionnaire and please give your reasons for the choices.

Number Why?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

126

APPENDIX II

ÖĞRENCİ ANKETİ

Değerli öğrenciler;

Bu anket, İngilizce öğretmeninin profilini ortaya çıkarmayı hedefleyen bir araştırmaya

veri toplamak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Anketi, şu anki İngilizce öğretmeninizi göz

önünde bulundurarak yanıtlayınız. Yardımlarınızdan dolayı teşekkür ederim.

Yeşim DOĞAN

Okulunuz:

Sınıfınız:

Doğum yılınız:

Cinsiyetiz:

BÖLÜM 1

İngilizce öğretmeninizi sınıf içi etkinliklerine göre değerlendiriniz.

1. İngilizce öğretmenim derse hazırlıklı gelir.

a. Her zaman b. Bazen c. Asla

2. İngilizce öğretmenim derste enerji doludur.


3. İngilizce öğretmenim dersi planlı bir şekilde işler.


4. İngilizce öğretmenim çalışmalarımızda ne yapacağımızı açık bir şekilde söyler.


5. İngilizce öğretmenimin derste İngilizce konuşur.


6. İngilizce öğretmenimin İngilizce bilgisi yeterlidir.


7. İngilizce öğretmenim, derste bizi düşünmeye yönlendirir.


127

8. İngilizce öğretmenim, anlamadığımız zaman Türkçe kullanır.


9. İngilizce öğretmenim, zorlandığımız zaman bize yardımcı olur.


10. İngilizce öğretmenim, İngilizce öğretmeyi sever.


11.İngilizce öğretmenim bizi soru sormaya yönlendirir.


12. İngilizce öğretmenim bize soru sorduktan sonra cevaplamamız için süre verip

bekler.


13. İngilizce öğretmenim dersi planlarken bizim ilgi alanlarımızı göz önünde

bulundurur.


14. İngilizce öğretmenim şarkı kullanarak ders yapar.


15.İngilizce öğretmenim hikâye kullanarak ders yapar.


16. İngilizce öğretmenim derste İngilizce tekerleme kullanır.


17. İngilizce öğretmenim derste bize İngilizce oyunlar oynatır.


18.İngilizce öğretmenim, bize roller vererek çalışma (drama-canlandırma) yaptırır.


19.İngilizce öğretmenim bize resim ve boyama çalışması yaptırır.


20. İngilizce öğretmenim derste bize resim el işi uygulaması yaptırır.


21. İngilizce öğretmenim ders anlatırken tahtaya şekiller çizer.


22.İngilizce öğretmenim derste teknolojik araçlar ( bilgisayar, vcd, tepegöz gibi)

kullanır.


128

23. İngilizce öğretmenim derste görsel araçlar( resim, poster, fotoğraf gibi) kullanır.


24.İngilizce öğretmenim sınıfta gerçek eşyalar ( kukla, oyuncak, meyve gibi) getirir.


25. İngilizce öğretmenim ders kitabının dışında başka kaynaklar kullanır.


26. İngilizce öğretmenim dersinde bize rahat bir ortam sağlar.


27.İngilizce öğretmenim ders anlatırken canlandırma yapar.


28. İngilizce öğretmenim ders anlatırken, el-kol hareketleri ve yüz ifadeleri kullanır.


29. İngilizce öğretmenim bizim derse katılmamızı ister.


30. İngilizce öğretmenim bize grup çalışması yaptırır.


31. İngilizce öğretmenim bana sınıftan başka bir arkadaşımla ikili çalışma yaptırır.


32. İngilizce öğretmenim öğrenilen konuları tekrar eder.


33. İngilizce öğretmenim eğlenceli bir şekilde ders anlatır.


34. İngilizce öğretmenim derste bizi cesaretlendirir.


35.İngilizce öğretmenim sınıfta hep aynı yerde durmaz, bize yardımcı olmak için

sıraların arasında gezinir.


36.İngilizce öğretmenim bizi araştırma yapmaya yönlendirir.


37. İngilizce öğretmenim bize performans görevi verir.


38.İngilizce öğretmenim yaptığımız çalışmalarda bize form vererek kendimizi

değerlendirmemizi ister.


129

39.İngilizce öğretmenim yaptığımız çalışmaları bir dosyada (ürün dosyası) toplamamızı

ister.


40. İngilizce öğretmenim bize proje çalışması verir.


41. İngilizce öğretmenim ödevlerimizi düzenli kontrol eder.


42.İngilizce öğretmenim ödevlerimizdeki yanlışları bize gösterir.


43.İngilizce öğretmenim dersteki çalışmalarda ne yapacağımızı anlayıp anlamadığımızı

kontrol eder.


44.İngilizce öğretmenim derste disiplini sağlar.


45. İngilizce öğretmenim kendi yaşantısından örnekler verir.


46. İngilizce öğretmenim kendi yaşantımızdan örnekleri vermemizi ister.


47. İngilizce öğretmenim derste sesini etkili kullanır.


48. İngilizce öğretmenimin el yazısı okunaklıdır.


130

BÖLÜM 2

Lütfen İngilizce öğretmeninizin kişisel özelliklerini göz önünde bulundurarak

yanıtlayınız.

49. İngilizce öğretmenim beni sever.


50. İngilizce öğretmenim ismimizi bilir.


51. İngilizce öğretmenim bizi dinler.


52. İngilizce öğretmenimin bizimle ilişkileri iyidir.


53. İngilizce öğretmenim derse zamanında gelir.


54. İngilizce öğretmenim yanlış yaptığımız zaman bize kızmaz.


55. İngilizce öğretmenim sabırlıdır.


56. İngilizce öğretmenim derste şaka yapar.


57. İngilizce öğretmenim bize saygılıdır.


58. İngilizce öğretmenim bize zaman ayırır.


59. İngilizce öğretmenim neyi sevdiğimizi bilir.


60. İngilizce öğretmenim ders dışında da bizimle ilgilenir.


61. İngilizce öğretmenim sınıfta herkese eşit davranır.


62. İngilizce öğretmenim dürüst biridir.


131

63. İngilizce öğretmenim güler yüzlüdür.


64. İngilizce öğretmenim çalışmalarımızı beğendiğini söz ve davranışlarıyla gösterir.


65. İngilizce öğretmenim hoşgörülüdür.


Bu ankette yer alan maddelerden sizce en önemli olan 5 tanesinin numarasını lütfen

yazınız ve neden bu maddeyi seçtiğinizi belirtiniz.

NO: NEDEN?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

132

ÖĞRETMEN ANKETİ

Değerli meslektaşım,

Bu anket, Çocuklara İngilizce öğreten öğretmenin profilini ortaya çıkarmayı hedefleyen

bir araştırmaya veri toplamak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Anketi, 4. sınıflardaki sınıf içi

etkinliklerinizi ve kişisel özelliklerinizi göz önünde bulundurarak yanıtlayınız.

Yardımlarınızdan dolayı teşekkür ederim.

Araştırmacı

Yeşim DOĞAN

1.Çalıştığınız okulun adı:

2. Cinsiyet: a ) Bay b) Bayan

3. Yaş:

4. Lisans derecenizi aldığınız fakülte:___________________

Bölüm:____________________

5. Yüksek Lisans eğitimi aldınız mı? a) Evet, hangi bölüm:………….. b)

Hayır

6. Doktora eğitimi aldınız mı? a ) Evet, hangi bölüm:……… b)

Hayır

7. Lisans eğitimi boyunca, çocuklara yabancı dil eğitimi aldınız mı? a) Evet b) Hayır

7. Kaç yıldır çocuklara (9-12 yaş gurubu) İngilizce öğretiyorsunuz?

8. Çocuklara yabancı dil eğitimi ile ilgili herhangi bir hizmet içi eğitim aldınız mı?

a) Evet b) Hayır

Yanıtınız evet ise;

Ne zaman:__________________ Nerede:________________ Ne kadar

süre:___________

133

BÖLÜM 1

4. sınıflarlardaki sınıf içi etkinliklerinizi göz önünde bulundurarak kendinizi

değerlendiriniz.

1. Derse hazırlıklı gelirim.

a) Her zaman b) Bazen c) Asla

2. Derste enerji doluyum.


3. Dersi planlı bir şekilde işlerim.


4. Derste öğrencilerime çalışmalarında ne yapacaklarını açık bir şekilde söylerim.


5. Derste İngilizce konuşurum.


6. İngilizce bilgim yeterlidir.


7. Derste, öğrencilerimi düşünmeye yönlendiririm.


8. Derste, öğrencilerim anlamadığı zaman Türkçe kullanırım.


9. Öğrencilerim zorlandığı zaman onlara yardımcı olurum.


10. İngilizce öğretmeyi severim.


11. Öğrencilerimi soru sormaya yönlendiririm.


12. Öğrencilerime soru sorduktan sonra, cevaplamaları için süre verip beklerim.


13. Dersi planlarken öğrencilerimin ilgi alanlarını göz önünde bulundururum.

a ) Her zaman b) Bazen c) Asla

14. Şarkı kullanarak ders yaparım.


134

15. Hikâye kullanarak ders yaparım.


16. Derste, İngilizce tekerleme kullanırım.


17. Derste öğrencilerime İngilizce oyunlar oynatırım.


18. Derste, öğrencilerime roller vererek çalışma (drama-canlandırma) yaptırırım.


19. Derste, öğrencilerime resim ve boyama çalışması yaptırırım.


20. Derste, öğrencilerime resim el işi uygulaması yaptırırım.


21. Ders anlatırken tahtaya şekiller çizerim.


22. Derste, teknolojik araçlar (bilgisayar, vcd, tepegöz gibi) kullanırım.


23. Derste, görsel araçlar ( resim, poster, fotoğraf) kullanırım.


24. Sınıfa gerçek eşyalar (kukla, oyuncak, meyve gibi) getiririm.


25. Ders kitabı dışında, başka kaynaklar kullanırım.


26. Derste öğrencilerime rahat bir ortam sağlarım.


27. Ders anlatırken canlandırma yaparım.


28. Ders anlatırken, el-kol hareketleri ve yüz ifadeleri kullanırım.


29. Derse, öğrencilerimin katılmasını isterim.


30. Öğrencilerime, grup çalışması yaptırırım.


31. Derste, öğrencilerime sınıftan başka arkadaşlarıyla ikili çalışma yaptırırım.


135

32. Öğrenilen konuları tekrar ederim.


33. Eğlenceli bir şekilde ders anlatırım.


34. Derste, öğrencilerimi cesaretlendiririm.


35. Derste hep aynı yerde durmam, öğrencilerime yardımcı olmak için sıraların

arasında gezinirim.


36. Öğrencilerimi araştırma yapmaya yönlendiririm.


37. Öğrencilerime, performans görevi veririm.


38. Öğrencilerime, yaptığı çalışmalarda form vererek, kendilerini değerlendirmelerini

isterim.


39. Öğrencilerimin yaptıkları çalışmaları bir dosyada (ürün dosyası) toplamasını

isterim.


40. Öğrencilerime, proje çalışması veririm.


41. Öğrencilerimin ödevlerini düzenli kontrol ederim.


42. Öğrencilerimin ödevlerindeki yanlışları onlara gösteririm.


43. Dersteki çalışmalarda, öğrencilerin ne yapacaklarını anlayıp anlamadıklarını

kontrol ederim.


44. Derste disiplini sağlarım.


45. Derste kendi yaşantımdan örnekler veririm.


46. Derste öğrencilerimin kendi yaşantılarından örnekler vermesini isterim.


136

47. Derste sesimi etkili kullanırım.


48. El yazım okunaklıdır.


BÖLÜM 2

Lütfen kişisel özelliklerinizi göz önünde bulundurarak yanıtlayınız.

49. Öğrencilerimi severim.


50. Öğrencilerimin ismini bilirim.


51. Öğrencilerimi dinlerim.


52. Öğrencilerimle ilişkilerim iyidir.


53. Derse zamanında gelirim.


54. Yanlış yaptıkları zaman öğrencilerime kızmam.


55. Sabırlıyım.


56. Derste şaka yaparım.


57. Öğrencilerime saygılıyım.


58. Öğrencilerime zaman ayırırım.


59. Öğrencilerimin neyi sevdiğini bilirim.


137

60. Öğrencilerimle, ders dışında da ilgilenirim.


61. Sınıfta herkese eşit davranırım.


62. Dürüstüm.


63. Güler yüzlüyüm.


64. Öğrencilerimin çalışmalarını beğendiğimi, söz ve davranışlarımla gösteririm.


65. Hoşgörülüyüm.


Bu ankette yer alan maddelerden sizce en önemli olan 5 tanesinin numarasını

lütfen yazınız ve neden bu maddeyi seçtiğinizi belirtiniz.

NO: NEDEN?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

138

APPENDIX III

OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

1.The teacher is energetic (Q 2). 4 6

2.The teacher teaches in an organized way (Q 3). 3 7

3.The teacher explains the instructions clearly (Q 4). 5 5

4.The teacher speaks English in the lesson (Q 5). 1 9

5.The Teacher reverts into Turkish when students do not understand (Q 8). 10 0

6. The teacher helps the students when they have difficulty (Q 9). 8 2

7. The teacher encourages the students to ask questions (Q 11). 10 0

8. The teacher uses wait time after asking questions (Q 12). 8 2

9. The teacher considers the students’ interests while planning the lesson (Q 13). 3 7

10. The teacher uses songs (Q 14). 1 9

11. The teacher uses story (Q 15). 0 10

12. The teacher uses riddles (Q 16). 0 10

13.The teacher uses games (Q 17). 3 7

14. The teacher uses drama (Q 18). 0 10

15. The teacher uses coloring activities (Q 19). 1 9

16. The teacher uses art and craft activities (Q 20). 1 9

17. The teacher uses drawing ( Q 21). 6 4

18. The teacher uses technology (computer, OHP, VCD) (Q 22). 4 6

19. The teacher uses visuals (pictures, flashcards, and posters) (Q 23). 0 10

20. The teacher brings realia (puppets, toys, fruit) to the classroom (Q24). 0 10

21. The teacher uses sources other than the course book (Q 25). 2 8

22. The teacher creates a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom (Q 26). 8 2

23. The teacher acts out while teaching (Q 27). 1 9

24. The teacher uses mimes and gestures (Q 28). 1 9

25. The teacher wants the students to participate in lessons (Q29). 6 4

26. The teacher has the students work in groups (Q 30). 1 9

27. The teacher has the students work in pairs (Q 31). 1 9

28. The teacher revises the learnt topics (Q 32). 10 0

29.The teacher encourages the students (Q 34). 5 5

30.The teacher walks around in the classroom to assist the students (Q 35). 1 9

31.The teacher checks the homework (Q 41). 0 10

32.The teacher underlines the mistakes on the homework (Q42). 0 10

33.The teacher checks whether students understand the task or not (Q 43). 2 8

34. The teacher maintains discipline (Q 44). 7 3

35.The teacher gives examples from his/her life (Q 45). 10 0

139

36. The teacher wants the students to give examples from their lives (Q 46). 0 10

37. The teacher uses his/her voice effectively (Q 47). 6 4

38.The teacher’s handwriting is legible (Q 48). 10 0

39. The teacher loves the students (Q 49). 9 1

40. The teacher knows the students’ names (Q 50). 10 0

41. The teacher has good relations with the students (Q52). 9 1

42. The teacher is punctual (Q 53). 10 1

43. The teacher does not get angry if the students make mistakes (Q 54). 9 1

44. The teacher is patient (Q 55). 8 2

45. The teacher makes jokes in lesson (Q 56). 3 7

46. The teacher is respectful (Q 57). 10 0

47. The teacher is fair (Q 61). 9 1

48. The teacher is smiling (Q 63). 8 2

49. The teacher shows appreciation for good work with his/her behavior and words ( Q 64) 5

5

140

APPENDIX IV

“DESCRIBE YOUR ENGLISH TEACHER IN YOUR OWN WORDS”

My English Teacher (is) f

1. good 84

2. tolerant 81

3. loves us 67

4. honest 65

5. smiling 56 6.respectful 51

7.funny 41

8. angry 41

9. has a productive lesson 33 10.kind 24

11.patient 22 12.punctual 18 13.fair 17

14. tells us jokes 15

15.not angry

13

16.well mannered 13

17.beautiful 12

18.helpful 12

19. uses games 10

20.disciplined 10

21.checks homework 9

22.revises the subjects 9

23.shouts 8 24.cultured 7 25.calm 7 26.mean 6

27.comes prepared 6

28. loves his/her job 6

29.undersanding

6

30. corrects our mistakes 5

31. beats us 5

32.speaks English 5

141

33.handsome 5

34.cute 4

35.energetic 4

36.uses technology 4

37.has good relations with children 3

38. neat 3

39.positive 3

40. cares about us 3

41. not equal 3

42.encourages 3 43.does not beat 3

44.does not shout 2

45. smokes 2

46.serious 2 47.assigns homework 2

48.uses group work 2 49. impatient 2 50.condemns us 2

51. does not care about us 2

52.hardworking 2

53.uses songs 2

54.assigns project tasks 2

55. uses drawing 2

56.uses gestures 2

57.smart 2

58.easygoing 2

59.relaxed 2 60.happy 2 61.checks understanding 1 62 loves hardworking students 1

63.gives too much homework 1

64. uses Turkish 1

65. threaten us 1

66. has a nice voice 1

67.has nice handwriting 1

68.does not know English 1

69.loves girls as they are hardworking 1

70. uses wait time 1

71.selfish 1

72.rude 2

142

73.warns us 1

74.does not keep his/her promise 1

75.does not check homework 1

76.assigns enjoyable homework 1

77.not smiling 2

78.uses puppets 1 79.brave 1

80.asks questions 1

81.has a boring lesson 1

82.clean 1 83.wants us actively participate 1

84.trusts us 1

85.skillful 1

143

APPENDIX V

DATA FROM THE STUDENT PARTICIPANTS

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

APPENDIX VI

THE NAMES OF THE SCHOOLS IN WHICH DATA WERE COLLECTED

1. Mihriban Emin Günel Primary School

2. Atatürk Primary School

3. Damat İbrahim Paşa Primary School

4. Ersular Primary School

5. Gazi Primary School

6. Güzelyurt Turgut Akdeveli Primary School

7. Lütfü Pamukçu Primary School

8. H. A. İncekaralar Primary School

9. İstiklal Primary School

10. Mehmet Gülen Primary School

11. Örnek Evler Primary School

12. Rauf Nail Akman Primary School

13. Toki 125. yıl Primary School

14. Yeniçeşme Primary School

15. Yunus Emre Primary School

16. 19 Mayıs Primary School

17. 20 Temmuz Primary School

18. 23 Nisan Primary School

19. 20 Ağustos Primary School

20. 75.Yıl Primary School

21. 100. Yıl Ülfet Başer Primary School

22. Cumhuriyet Primary School

155

APPENDIX VII

Consent from Ministry of Education District Offices

156

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name : Yeşim DOĞAN

Place and Date of Birth: Adana- 23 March 1983

E-mail : [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

2006–2009 : Master of Arts, Çukurova University, Institute of Social Sciences

English Language Teaching Department

2001–2005 : Bachelor of Arts,Çukurova University, Faculty of Education, English

Language Teaching Department

2004–2005 : Bachelor of Arts, Kodolányi János Foiskola University, Faculty of

Education, English Language Teaching Department Erasmus Studies,

Hungary

EXPERIENCE

2008- : Mihriban Emin Günel Primary School, NEVŞEHİR (English Teacher)

2006-2008 : Derinkuyu Yazıhöyük Primary School, NEVŞEHİR (English Teacher)

2005–2006 : Nar Primary School, NEVŞEHİR (English Teacher)

2005-2006 : Damat İbrahim Paşa Primary School, NEVŞEHİR (English Teacher)

2005 : Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Crude Oil Pipeline Project, Ceyhan, ADANA

(Translator)

2004–2005 : Gündoğdu College, ADANA (Student Teacher)

2004–2005 : Hetvezer Primary School, HUNGARY (Student Teacher)

2004–2005 : Kodolanyi Janos High School, HUNGARY (Student Teacher)

2004 : Summer Camp, Suluca Village, ADANA (English Teacher)

2003 : Organization of a Turkish Language Course for foreigners, Magusa,

CYPRUS (Teacher)

2002-2004 : Working as babysitter for an American family, İncirlik, ADANA

2002 : Organization of Student Cultural Exchange Programs, Bukuresti-

ROMANIA (Coordinator)

mailto:[email protected]

157

2002-2005 : Working for an online international language project, “European Day of

Languages (EDL) (Coordinator).

2002-2004 : Working as a board member for a student organization, AEGEE

(Association des Etats Généraux des Etudiants de l’Europe / European

Students’ Forum)

COURSES ATTENDED

2009 : Two- month Online Course for English Teachers, ETTO, British

Council

2008 : Providing Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in Primary and Pre-

Primary Education, Çukurova University, ADANA

2006 : Current Trends in ELT, Maltepe University ELT Lecturers,

NEVŞEHİR, INGED

Date post:	04-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

ÇUKUROVA UNIVERSITY THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ... · ABSTRACT YOUNG LEARNER ENGLISH TEACHER...

Documents