Fostering pre-service teachers’ perceived ability to implement dialogic teaching in Turkey: Examining the contributing factors of an intensive short-term teacher education program from the teacher-learners’ vantage point
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2025
Fostering pre-service teachers’ perceived ability to implement dialogic teaching in Turkey: Examining the contributing factors of an intensive short-term teacher education program from the teacher-learners’ vantage point
This study reports the design, implementation, and evaluation of a 3-day intensive short-term teacher education program that was specifically designed and implemented with the aims of fostering English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher-learners’ ability to enact dialogic teaching in their teaching practices. Thirty pre-service English teachers from 13 different universities across Turkey participated in the program and their perspectives of the effectiveness of the program in reaching its objectives were investigated to examine: (1) to what extent they felt their ability to implement dialogic teaching practices had improved, and (2) which specific factors from the program they felt specifically contributed to their development. Data were collected over a 4-week period, and included pre/post-course self-evaluation scales, during-course session evaluation forms, post-course evaluation forms, and interviews. Overall, the findings suggest the importance of intensive short-term teacher education programs with similar objectives consisting of: (1) instructors who are both knowledgeable and good models of what they are teaching in the context they are preparing teachers for; (2) content that is up to date, contextually related, and organized in a way that builds up both knowledge and practical skills; and (3) methods and activities in which teacher-learners experience what they are being taught both from a student’s and teacher’s perspective. The findings of this study hold important implications for various stakeholders involved in English teacher education, and teacher education program development, thus, practical suggestions are discussed regarding how future teacher education programs with related objectives may be designed and implemented to better foster attendees’ ability to apply what they learn at the classroom level.
AdlerM.RougleE.KaiserE.CaughlanS. (2004). Closing the gap between concept and practice: Toward more dialogic discussion in the language arts classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47, 312–322. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40014777 (accessed April 2022).
2.
AkcanS. (2016). Novice non-native English teachers’ reflections on their teacher education programmes and their first years of teaching. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18, 55–70.
3.
AkinogluO. (2008). Primary education curriculum reforms in Turkey. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3, 195–199. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503451.pdf (accessed April 2022).
4.
AksitN. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 129–137.
5.
AktekinN.Ç. (2019). Critical friends group (CFG): Inquiry-based professional development model for Turkish EFL teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 81, 1–20. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1217287 (accessed April 2022).
6.
AlexanderR. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33, 561–598.
AtesS.DogmeciY.GurayE.GursoyF.F. (2016). An analysis of speeches of classroom Inside: Is it dialogic or monologic?Kirsehir Faculty of Education Journal, 17, 603–625.
10.
BakhtinM.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
11.
BakhtinM.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.
12.
BartelsN. (2005). Applied linguistics in language teacher education. Springer.
13.
BayrakciM. (2009). In-service teacher training in Japan and Turkey: A comparative analysis of institutions and practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 10–22.
14.
BignellC. (2018). Promoting NQT linguistic awareness of dialogic teaching practices: A dialogic model of professional development. Literacy, 53, 150–159.
15.
BirtL.ScottS.CaversD.CampbellC.WalterF. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1802–1811.
16.
BozbiyikM. (2017). The implementation of VEO in an English language education context: A focus on teacher questioning practices. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Gazi University, Anakara, Turkey.
17.
ButlerY.G.YeumK. (2016). Dialogic competence of primary school English teachers in online peer coaching: A case study in South Korea. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 13, 72–89.
18.
ChenM.FlowerdewJ.AnthonyL. (2019). Introducing in-service English language teachers to data-driven learning for academic writing. System, 87, 1–12.
19.
CimerS.O.Cakırİ.CimerA. (2010). Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of in-service courses on the new curriculum in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 31–41.
20.
CohenJ. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
21.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
22.
CoşkunA.DaloğluA. (2010). Evaluating an English language teacher education program through Peacock’s model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6).
23.
CreswellJ.Plano ClarkV.L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
24.
CreswellJ.W.Plano ClarkV.GutmannM.HansonW. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
25.
DenzinN.K. (2017). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Routledge.
26.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books.
27.
DunneM. (2014). Addressing the Cinderella area: Using masters level study to support secondary English trainee teachers in developing effective teaching and assessment of speaking and listening. English in Education, 48, 93–107.
28.
EarleyP.PorrittV. (2009). Effective practices in continuing professional development. Institute of Education.
29.
Ertenİ.H. (2015). Listening to practising teachers: Implications for teacher training programs. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 581–588.
30.
Esen-AygunH. (2019). Dialogic teaching in Turkish courses: What the teachers say and what they do?Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14, 111–123.
31.
FarrellT.S. (2006). The first year of language teaching: Imposing order. System, 34, 211–221.
32.
FarrellT.S. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher expertise: A case study’. System, 41, 1070–1082.
33.
FreemanD. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem of transfer. In LiD.MahonyD.RichardsJ.C. (Eds.), Exploring second language teacher development (pp. 1–20). City University Press.
34.
FreemanD. (2016). Educating second language teachers. Oxford University Press.
35.
FreemanD.JohnsonK.E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417.
36.
FreireP. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
37.
GaretM.S.AndrewC.P.DesimoneL.BirmanB.F.YoonK.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
38.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
39.
GungorM.N.AkcanS.WerbinskaD.EkiertM. (2019). The early years of teaching: A cross-cultural study of Turkish and Polish novice English teachers. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 287–302.
40.
HelmF.ZelekeA.GuthS. (2013). Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. In: WorldCALL 2013-CALL: Sustainability and computer assisted language learning. University of Ulster.
41.
HennessyS.MercerN.WarwickP. (2011). A dialogic inquiry approach to working with teachers in developing classroom dialogue. Teachers College Record, 113, 1906–1959. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ951079 (accessed April 2022).
42.
HiverP.WhiteheadG.E.K. (2018). Teaching metacognitively: Adaptive inside-out thinking in the L2 classroom. In HaukåsÅ.BjørkeC.DypedahlM. (Eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 243–262). Routledge.
43.
HiverP.SolarteA.C.S.WhitesideZ.KimC.J.WhiteheadG.E. (2021). The role of language teacher metacognition and executive function in exemplary classroom practice.The Modern Language Journal, 105, 484–506.
44.
HollidayA. (1992). Tissue rejection and informal orders in ELT projects: Collecting the right information. Applied Linguistics, 13, 403–424.
45.
JohnsonK.E.FreemanD. (2001). Teacher learning in second language teacher education: A socially-situated perspective. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 1, 53–69.
46.
JuzwikM.M.SherryM.B.CaughlanS.HeintzA.Black-BorsheimC. (2012). Supporting dialogically organized instruction in an English teacher preparation program: A video-based, web 2.0-mediated response and revision pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–42. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ999993 (accessed April 2022).
47.
KarakasA. (2012). Evaluation of the English language teacher education program in Turkey. ELT Weekly, 4, 1–16.
48.
KeoghR. (2015). Long-term impact of teacher training for Mexican English-language teachers Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
49.
KielyR.AskhamJ. (2012). Furnished imagination: The impact of preservice teacher training on early career work in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 496–518.
50.
KilincA.DemiralU.KartalT. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 764–789.
51.
KimT.K.ParkJ.H. (2019). More about the basic assumptions of t-test: Normality and sample size. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 2, 331–335.
52.
KumaravadiveluB. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. Routledge.
53.
Kuru-Gonenİ.AsikA. (2016). Reflectivity through the analysis of teacher talk: The case of pre-service English language teachers. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13, 203–222. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mkusbed/issue/44301/547078 (accessed April 2022).
54.
LyleS. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22, 222–240.
55.
MedeE.IsikM. (2016). The needs of primary English teachers for an in- service teacher training program. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 7, 1–30.
56.
MilesM.B.HubermanA.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd edition.Sage.
57.
MortimerE.F.ScottP.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
58.
MuhonenH.Rasku-PuttonenH.PakarinenE.PoikkeusA.M.LerkkanenM.K. (2016). Scaffolding through dialogic teaching in early school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 143–154.
59.
MusaH.I. (2019). Dialogic vs. formalist teaching in developing argumentative writing discourse and reducing speaking apprehension among EFL majors. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10, 895–905.
60.
NicolaidisK.MattheoudakisM. (2008). Utopia vs. reality: The effectiveness of in-service training course for EFL teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 279–292.
61.
ÖztürkG.AydınB. (2018). English language teacher education in Turkey: Why do we fail and what policy reforms are needed?Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9, 181–213.
62.
ReznitskayaA. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. International Reading Association, 65, 446–456.
63.
ReznitskayaA.WilkinsonI. (2015). Professional development in dialogic teaching: Helping teachers promote argument literacy in their classrooms. In ScottD.HargreavesE. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of learning (pp. 219–232). Sage.
64.
RichardsJ.C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39, 158–177.
65.
RobertsonM.MacDonaldS.StarksD.NicholasH. (2018). Enabling change in EFL teachers’ ideologies about grammar and grammar teaching through alternative pedagogies. System, 72, 75–84.
66.
RodriguezI.S. (2013). The effects of trained teachers’ integration of dialogic reading discourse on Hispanic English language learners’ literacy skills in kindergarten. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.
67.
SaitoM.IikuboS.ShirouzuH. (2019). Exploration of scaffolding in teachers’ dialogue analysis. In LundK.NiccolaiG.P.LavouéE., et al. (Eds.), A wide lens: Combining embodied, enactive, extended, and embedded learning in collaborative settings: Thirteenth International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019: Volume 2 (pp. 873–874). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
68.
SkuseG.E. (2017). The Talk Skills Project: Improving dialogic interaction in the Korean adult foreign language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
69.
SokelF. (2019). The effectiveness of a professional development course: Teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal, 73, 409–418.
70.
SongY.LeiS.HaoT.LanZ.DingY. (2020). Automatic classification of semantic content of classroom dialogue. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59, 496–521.
71.
StemlerS. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 7, 137–146.
72.
ThomasD.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.
73.
Tokoz-GoktepeF.KuntN. (2021). ‘I’ll do it in my own class’: novice language teacher identity construction in Turkey. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41, 472–487.
74.
Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). İngilizce dersi öğretim program [Curriculum for English course]. Turkish Ministry of National Education. Available at: http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342 (accessed April 2022).
75.
UysalH. (2012). Evaluation of an in-service training program for primary-school language teachers in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 14–29.
76.
WhiteheadG.E. (2022). Rethinking pre-service language teacher education in the global era: A focus on teachers’ core competencies at the local level in South Korea. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester, University of Leicester, UK. Available at https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.19336985.v1 (accessed April 2022).
77.
YanC.HeC. (2015). ‘Short courses shouldn’t be short-lived!’ Enhancing longer-term impact of short English as a foreign language INSET initiative in China. Professional Development in Education, 41, 759–776.
78.
YangM.CarlessD. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18, 285–297.
79.
YazanB. (2016). Early career teacher EFL teachers’ instructional challenges. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12, 194–220.
