AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE
INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS AND
THE BARRIERS TO ITS USE
A Case Study of Seven Teachers in Three Schools
in Ordu; Turkey
by
Ercan TOMAKIN
This thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the School of Education and Professional Development,
University of East Anglia
Norwich
June 2001
© Ercan Tomakin. This copy of the thesis has been supplied on the condition that anyone who
consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no
quotation from the thesis, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the
author’s prior, written consent. [etomakin@hotmail.com].

I hereby declare that
this thesis has not been
submitted, either in the same
or different form, to this or
any other university for a degree.

D E D I C A T I O N
To my wife, Filiz,
For her patience and help during my study.
To my beloved son, Omer Muhtar,
For being a centre of joke and inspiration during this study.
And to others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to my supervisors; Dr. Rob
McBride and Prof. Maggie MacLure. Without their teaching, guidance and help, it
would have been impossible to complete this study. I wish to express my special thanks
to Dr. McBride for his continuous support and encouragement. His critical questioning
of ‘issues’ and professional feedback after reading each chapter have been a real
motivation for me. I will always cherish his tolerance, patience for my being late, and
interruptions during supervisions.
On the same note, I owe many special thanks to Prof. Maggie MacLure for her special
help and guidance while doing corrections to bring this study to a successful end. Her
availability, without being subject to time constraint, particularly is a great cushion for
research students, which I luckily obtained.
Many thanks are due to Prof. Nigel Norris, Prof. Maggie MacLure and Dr. Saville
Kushner for running methodology and data analysis seminars, during which time, I had
the opportunity to benefit from their experience and critical questioning. Much of my
understanding of qualitative research was and developed during these seminars.
On the same note, thanks to the late Lawrence Stenhouse whose idea of ‘teachers as
researchers’ has been an effective concern in my career, to Prof. John Elliott for
polishing the idea of educational action research and for giving me appointments and
advice before I implemented the second cycle of my research; to Prof. Barry MacDonald
for his priceless view of ‘democratic evaluation’ which greatly affected my
understanding of the examination system in Turkey.
I should like to thank the Turkish government and Yuzuncu Yil Univeristy for providing
me with the opportunity of undertaking postgraduate study, without which I would never
have been able to accomplish my MA and Ph.D. studies in the UK.
I would like to thank the Norwich City Council and University of East Anglia for their
generous help during this study.
I would also like to thank J. S. Stuart for permission to quote from her Ph.D. thesis.
Many thanks my friends, Paul, Puva, Chow, Lawrence, Musonda, Teresa, Sofi, Tan and
others for sharing their ideas with me, to Terresa, Shan and Fiona for doing proof
reading and to Cemalettin for typesetting the thesis.
And last, but not the least, my parents, my brothers and sister, thank you very much for
being so supportive and considerate. Thank you for your prayers and best wishes.

Contents i
CONTENTS
A GLOSSORY OF TERMS ..........................................................................................VI
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF PICTURES..................................................................................................VIII
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................IX
PART ONE....................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION .....................................................1
1.1.STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..........................................................................1
1.2. GENERAL RATIONALE.......................................................................................2
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ..............................................................................3
1.4. FURTHER RATIONALE: THE IMPROVEMENT OF LANGUAGE TEACHING.............5
1.5. EVALUATING THE STUDY ..................................................................................6
1.6. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..............................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO: MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY ............................................................11
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................11
2.1. MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY......................................................................................11
2.1.1. A brief Life History..................................................................................11
2.1.2. Some Reflections about Language Learning...........................................12
2.1.3. Some Reflections about Teacher Training..............................................15
2.1.4. Some Reflections about Language Teaching ..........................................16
2.2. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................19
PART TWO.................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER THREE: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXT........21
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................21
3.1. THE STATE (TURKEY) .....................................................................................21
3.1.1. The Political System...............................................................................21
3.2. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF TURKEY.............................................23
3.2.1. Background of the National Educational System....................................23
3.2.2. Present Structure of National Educational System................................23
3.2.3. National Curriculum (NC) .....................................................................25
3.2.4. Present Structure of Schools..................................................................27
3.2.5. The Higher education Council (HEC) ...................................................29
3.2.6. Initial Teacher Training and Education (I T T).....................................31
3.2.7. In-service Education and Training (INSET)..........................................33
3.2.8. A Brief Review of the Terms Used in Educational Activities.................37
3.3. ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TURKEY ................................................42
3.3.1. Background to Foreign Language Teaching .........................................42

Contents ii
3.3.2. The Use of English in Turkey.................................................................44
3.3.3. The Place of English in Schools in Turkey.............................................45
3.3.4. The Topics Taught in Schools................................................................47
3.3.5. How Language Courses are Taught .......................................................49
3.3.6. How the English Lessons are Assessed:..................................................50
3.3.7. Professional and Non-professional Language Teachers.......................53
3.4. REMEDIAL SUGGESTIONS TO SOLVE EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS.................55
3.4.1. Teachers’ and Head teachers’ Suggestions to Improve Education &
Training.............................................................................................................56
3.4.2. Teachers’ and Head Teachers’ Suggestions to Improve School
Management......................................................................................................57
3.5. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................58
CHAPTER FOUR: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AR LITERATURE ....................60
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................60
4.1. CONTEST OF TERMS ........................................................................................60
4.2. ORIGIN OF ACTION RESEARCH .......................................................................63
4.3. DEFINITION OF ACTION RESEARCH................................................................66
4.4. OBJECTIVES OF AR STUDIES ..........................................................................71
4.4.1. The Views in the 1st
Group......................................................................71
4.4.2. The Views in the 2nd
Group.....................................................................72
4.5. THE STARTING POINT OF AR.........................................................................74
4.6. TYPES OF ACTION RESEARCH.........................................................................77
4.6.1. Diagnostic AR .........................................................................................77
4.6.2. Participant AR.........................................................................................77
4.6.3. Empirical AR...........................................................................................78
4.6.4. Experimental AR .....................................................................................78
4.6.5. Other Types of AR ...................................................................................78
4.6.6. Technical AR ...........................................................................................79
4.6.7. Practical AR ............................................................................................79
4.6.8. Emancipatory AR ....................................................................................79
4.6.9. The CRASP Model...................................................................................80
4.6.10. Generative AR .......................................................................................80
4.7. MODELS OF ACTION RESEARCH.....................................................................81
4.8. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ............................................................................83
4.9. EVALUATION OF ACTION RESEARCH STUDIES ..............................................84
4.9.1. What is/are evaluated in AR studies?......................................................84
4.9.2. How is the evaluation of AR studies reported/represented?...................87
4.10. CRITIQUE OF ACTION RESEARCH ................................................................89
4.11. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................91
CHAPTER FIVE: ACTION RESEARCH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING ...........................................................................................................97
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................97
5.1. RATIONALE......................................................................................................97
5.2. A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS AR STUDIES ON LANGUAGE TEACHING................98
5.2.1. AR Studies from the BEI........................................................................100
5.2.2. AR Studies from the Journal of Educational Action Research..............100
5.2.3. The Other AR Studies............................................................................101

Contents iii
5.3. A REVIEW OF KEY TERMS IN LANGUAGE STUDIES ....................................101
5.3.1. Language Teaching/Language Learning..............................................101
5.3.2. Language Learning/Language Acquisition...........................................105
5.3.3. First Language Acquisition (FLA) or (L1)............................................106
5.3.4. Second Language (L2) or Foreign Language (FL)...............................106
5.3.5. How Children Acquire/Learn Language...............................................107
5.4. A REVIEW OF MAJOR APPROACHES AND METHODS ...................................110
5.4.1. The Structural Approach.......................................................................111
5.4.2. The Functional Approach .....................................................................112
5.4.3. The Interactional Approach..................................................................113
5.5. COMMON POINTS BETWEEN AR AND LANGUAGE TEACHING THEORIES ...114
5.5.1. AR-based language teaching places values on individual learners......116
5.5.2. AR-based language teaching addresses learners’ needs......................118
5.5.3. AR-based language teaching uses qualitative approaches for
development.....................................................................................................119
5.5.4. AR-based language teaching does not rely upon prescriptive rules.....120
5.5.5. AR-based language teaching always consults learners.......................121
5.5.6. AR-based language teaching is a democratic approach.......................121
5.6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................122
PART THREE..........................................................................................................124
CHAPTER SIX: INTRODUCTION OF ACTION MODELS AND ACTION
CYCLES...............................................................................................................125
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................125
6.1. STARTING POINT OF ACTION CYCLES ..........................................................125
6.2. ACTION CYCLES AND ACTION PLANS (1997) ...............................................127
6.3. ACTION CYCLES AND ACTION PLANS (1998) ...............................................142
6.4. ACTION CYCLES AND ACTION PLANS IN 1999..............................................153
6.5. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES WHICH EMERGED FROM THE FIELD STUDIES...........162
6.6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................168
CHAPTER SEVEN: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY................................169
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................169
7.1. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RATIONALE ..................................................169
7.2. NATURE OF THIS STUDY................................................................................170
7.3. GAINING ACCESS ...........................................................................................171
7.4. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................173
7.5. ETHICAL PROCEDURES OF THIS STUDY .......................................................177
7.6. DATA COLLECTION METHODS......................................................................180
7.6.1. Diary .....................................................................................................181
7.6.2. Interviews..............................................................................................183
7.6.3. Observations .........................................................................................185
7.6.4. Audio-tape Recording ...........................................................................187
7.6.5. Questionnaires ......................................................................................188
7.6.6. Documents.............................................................................................189
7.7. MAKING SENSE OF THE COLLECTED DATA..................................................190
7.7.1. Among the options; how I analysed the collected data........................192

Contents iv
7.7.2. How I reported or represented the analysis of data..............................194
7.7.3. Negotiation of Analysis and Reports.....................................................198
7.7.4. The Cases in Theory..............................................................................200
7.7.5. Defining the Boundary of a Case..........................................................203
7.7.6. The Cases in This Study ........................................................................205
7.8. RELIABILITY..................................................................................................207
7.9. VALIDITY .......................................................................................................208
7.10. GENERALISATION OF CASE STUDIES ..........................................................209
7.11. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................211
PART FOUR.............................................................................................................212
CHAPTER EIGHT: ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ARISING FROM THE
CLASSROOM STUDY ......................................................................................213
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................213
8.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION BEFORE THE AR STUDY .........................214
8.1.1. General Introduction to School Contexts.............................................215
8.1.2. A ‘Foreword’ about the Language Teaching Situations before the AR
Study................................................................................................................217
8.1.3. Identification of Common Patterns of Classroom Observations ..........217
8.1.4. Further Classification of Language Teaching Patterns........................222
8.1.5. The Frequency of Patterns....................................................................224
8.1.6. Evidence From Written Notes...............................................................225
8.1.7. Other Clues about Language Teaching Situations before my SOAR....227
8.1.8. General Findings of the Classroom Observations before the Study....228
8.2. MORE REFLECTIONS FROM LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS DURING THE AR
STUDY....................................................................................................................229
8.2.1. Some Extracts as Evidence of Practice in Language Classrooms........229
8.2.2. Summary of Observations.....................................................................233
8.2.3. Teachers’ Views of ‘Time’ When Using Action Plans..........................233
8.3. PARTICIPANT TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTION RESEARCH...........................234
Introduction.....................................................................................................234
8.3.1. Teachers’ Perception of AR ..................................................................235
8.3.2. Discussion.............................................................................................236
8.3.3. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Objectives of AR.....................................238
8.3.4. Discussion.............................................................................................239
8.3.5. How Teachers see the Stages of AR ......................................................240
8.3.6. Discussion.............................................................................................241
8.3.7. Teachers’ View of Implementing AR.....................................................241
8.3.8. Discussion.............................................................................................242
8.3.9. Teachers’ View of Data Collection Tools.............................................242
8.3.10. Discussion...........................................................................................243
8.4. PARTICIPANT TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF 'ACTION PLANS' (1998 & 1999).......244
Introduction.....................................................................................................244
8.4.1. Teachers’ Views of Action Plans...........................................................244
8.4.2. Discussion.............................................................................................249
8.5. PUPILS’ EXPERIENCES OF ACTION PLANS (1998 & 1999)...........................251

Contents v
Introduction.....................................................................................................251
8.5.1. Pupils’ Views of Action Plans...............................................................252
8.5.2. Discussion.............................................................................................255
8.6. TEACHERS’ OVERALL VIEWS OF AR ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 258
Introduction.....................................................................................................258
8.6.1. Teachers’ Overall Views of Action Research........................................258
8.6.2. Discussion.............................................................................................260
8.7. HEAD TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTION RESEARCH........................................261
Introduction.....................................................................................................261
8.7.1. Head teachers’ views from the extracts................................................261
8.7.2. Discussion.............................................................................................263
8.8. THE LEA’S VIEWS OF ACTION RESEARCH. .................................................264
Introduction.....................................................................................................264
8.8.1. The Deputy Manager’s View of AR.......................................................264
8.8.2. Discussion.............................................................................................265
8.9. THE CONCEPTUALISATION OF BARRIERS ARISING DURING THE STUDY .....265
Introduction.....................................................................................................265
8.9.1. Teacher-Based Reasons........................................................................266
8.9.2 School-Based Reasons (SBR).................................................................271
8.10. PARTICIPANT TEACHERS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER AR STUDIES ......278
Introduction.....................................................................................................278
8.11. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................283
8.11.1. Before the Study ..................................................................................283
8.11.2. During the Study .................................................................................283
8.11.3. After the Study.....................................................................................283
CHAPTER NINE: IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................285
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................285
9.1. REVIEW OF THE OBJECTIVES ........................................................................285
9.2. THE STUDY PROCESS.....................................................................................286
9.3. REVIEW OF THE SITUATION BEFORE THE STUDY.........................................286
9.4. REVIEW OF THE ISSUES THAT EMERGED FROM THE STUDY........................287
9.4.1. Legal (political) Issues..........................................................................287
9.4.2. Educational Issues ................................................................................288
9.4.3. Governmental Issues.............................................................................289
9.4.4. Social, Cultural and Personal Issues..................................................289
9.5. SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL FINDINGS........................................................289
9.6. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY...............................................................294
9.6.1. Introduction of AR in Turkey.................................................................294
9.6.2. Initiation of Change in the Context.......................................................295
9.6.3. Teachers’ Professional Development....................................................296
9.6.4. Improvement of Language Teaching.....................................................299
9.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.........................................................................300
9.8. FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR UNDERTAKING AR IN TURKEY.....................301
9.9. SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS .................................................................302
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................304
APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................330

Abbreviations vi
A GLOSSORY OF TERMS
AL Action Learning
ALM The Audio-Lingual Method
AR Action Research
AS Action Science
Assist. Prof. Assistant Professor
Assoc. Prof. Associate Professor
BEL Basic Education Law
CARE Centre for Applied Research in Education
CARN Classroom Action Research Network
CLT Communicative Language Teaching
CR Case Report
CS Case Study
DfEE Department for Education and Employment
DM The Direct Method
EAR Educational Action Research
ELT English Language Teaching
ERIC Educational Resource Information Centre
ESL English as a Second Language
FFW First Field Work
FL Foreign Language
FOAR First Order Action Research
FTP The Ford Teaching Project
GB Great Britain
GTM The Grammar Translation Method
HCP The Humanities Curriculum Project
HEC The Higher Education Council
ILL Inter Library Lending
INSET In-service Education and Training
INSET In-service Teacher Education and Training
ITT Initial Teacher Training
L1 First Language (mother tongue)
L2 Second Language
LAD Language Acquisition Device

Abbreviations vii
LEA Local Education Authority
M.Phil. Philosophy of Master
MA Master of Arts
MOE Ministry of Education
NC National Curriculum
NEBL National Education Basic Law
NES The National Educational System
PF Pedagogic Formation
Ph.D. Philosophy of Doctor
PSS Phonetic Semantic and Scriptural [similarity]
RIA Reflection in Action
ROA Reflection on Action
RP Reflective Practice
SBR School Based Reasons
SFW Second Field Work
SL Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
SLT Second Language Teaching
SOAR Second Order Action Research
T Teacher [T1, T2, etc.]
TBR Teacher Based Reasons
TGNA The Turkish Grand National Assembly
CARN Classroom Action Research Network
the UK United Kingdom
the US the United States
TL Turkish Lira
TPR The Total Physical Response
TR Teacher Researcher
UEA University of East Anglia
UG Universal Grammar

List of Tables and Pictures viii
LIST OF TABLES
No Page
1 The Structure of Education and Training 24
2 Number of Single and Double Session Schools in Turkey 28
3 Transported Centres and Schools in Turkey 28
4 Teachers Teach in Crowded and United Classrooms 28 - 29
5 The Ratio of Available Places in Present Universities 30
6 An Example about Behaviour Change 38
7 An Analysis of AR on Language Teaching 99
8 Some Findings of the SFW 139
9 Frequently-& Infrequently Used Patterns by Teachers 224 - 225
10 Display of Teachers’ Theoretical Answers on AR 244
LIST OF PICTURES
No Page
1 The Primary School I attended 13
2 The Secondary School I attended 13
3 T4’s Classroom 29
8 A Picture about Vocabulary Teaching by Drawing 253

Abstract ix
ABSTRACT
The thesis explores the possibilities and problems of introducing action research within the
context of English Language teaching in Turkey. It critically reviews the literature on theory
and practice in action research, and attempts to answer the question of how such an approach
might be implemented in Turkey, given that action research originated in countries and context
with very different educational and political cultures. At the heart of the thesis is small-scale
action research which involved seven English lAnguage teachers in three schools in Ordu,
Turkey. In collobaration with the author, as ‘external’ researcher/facilitator, these teachers
attempted to introduce innovations in one aspect of their practice - ie vocabulary teaching.
While this clasroom study is of some interest in its own right, the thesis focuses on the insights
which it offers into the possibilities and barriers to the implementation of action research in the
Turkish context.
The thesis therefore contains one action research project ‘embedded’ in another. Following the
distinction made in the action research literature, it can be considered as an instance both of ‘first
order action research’ (FOAR), and ‘second order action research’ (SOAR). It is a first order
study in that I was a reflective researcher-practitioner, working through the cycles of an action
model in order to address general questions concerning the possibilities of introducing action
research in Turkey. Thus I progressed through the stages of an action cycle - formulating
problems, trying out solutions, evaluating outcomes etc. However, since one of my solutions
was itself an action research study - ie the classroom study of vocabulary teaching - this latter
study can be considered an instance of second order research (SOAR), since I analyse and
comment upon the innovations carried out by other practioners.
The thesis is organised into four major parts. Part One is introductory and introduces the study,
its objectives, the rationale and the self-reflection of myself as author. Part Two is primarily
theoretical. It provides a critical review and comparison of different models of action research,
and attempts to reconcile these with contemporary theories of language teaching. The cultural
and contextual conditions of education in Turkey are also discussed. Part Three is
implementational and illustrates the procedures and strategies involved in implementing the
classroom study, involving the action cycles and action plans followed by the teachers. Part
Four is analytical. It provides an analysis of the empirical data collected during the classroom
study and a discussion of the issues which emerged. The final part of Part Four discusses the
general implications of the study for the future develepment of action research in Turkey.

1
PART ONE
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER TWO

Chapter One 1
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1.Statement of the Problem
The history of language teaching and learning studies is old in Turkey, as will be seen in
Chapter 3, and the findings of all academic studies became available after the
establishment of the Documentation Centre (diary, 6/4/1999, p.83) in the Higher
Education Council (HEC)1
in 1987. My review of the Dissertation Catalogues produced
by the HEC indicates that language studies are assembled under 6 headings in these
catalogues as follows:
- American Language and Literature,
- English Language and Literature,
- French Language and Literature,
- German Language and Literature,
- Education and Training,
- Linguistics.
The review of these studies indicates that there are currently a few [three] Action
Research (AR) studies and two of them are at MA level (Tomakin 1996, Atikler 1997).
The former investigated the feasibility of using an AR study in Turkey and explored 16
teachers’ views of AR. Although no conclusive results were found about the feasibility,
all of the teachers’ views of AR were positive. The latter investigated whether the use of
AR by an English teacher contributed to his/her self-development. It was found that the
teacher experienced self-development in terms of knowledge, skills and awareness of
teaching practices.
The AR study at Ph.D. level (Onel 1998) aimed to see whether or not the use of an AR
approach helped teachers become reflective and collaborative in their teaching and if AR
influenced teachers’ attitudes towards professional development and their being open to
student feedback. It was found that teachers benefited from being engaged in AR and
frequently gave feedback to students. In addition, teachers’ attitudes towards
collaboration and professional development changed positively.
1
Note that the HEC provides an index of the all-academic studies finished in 1987 and onwards.

Chapter One 2
However, the AR studies at MA level did not produce/use any action plans and were
small-scale research. The AR study at Ph.D. level did not explore a) the contextual
obstacles [social, cultural, legal etc.] and b) the views about the initiation and
introduction of AR studies to various contexts [for the first time] sufficiently. It did not
also explore the potential relationships of AR and language teaching theories.
My review of the Dissertation Catalogues also indicated that the focus of the particular
action research study -vocabulary teaching - chosen by participant teachers and me- had
not been taught before by the use of an AR approach [(e.g. Karaaslan 1996, Dogan 1996,
Tum 1995, Kurt 1992, Daloglu 1991, Tokmakcioglu 1990, Mogol 1990, Sahinel 1988,
Kiziltan 1988, etc.)]. Consequently, it can be argued that either far less attention was
given to the use of AR studies or the notion of AR was not widely known by teachers,
researchers and academics in Turkey.
1.2. General Rationale
So the rationale for undertaking this Ph.D. study can be stated as follows. Although there
are several AR studies in the research context, we know that using the AR approach in a
context, not only for the first time, maybe many times, may give us clearer ideas about
its usability in that context. So the repetition of AR studies in a research context may
contribute to the development of AR theories about that context.
This study shows that the previous AR studies undertaken in other contexts (e.g.
England, France, etc.) may produce both positive and negative outcomes about English
language teaching, but these studies do not provide many pointers about how the AR
study should be undertaken in Turkey. Likewise, these studies do not give many clues
about potential outcomes of the AR study that would be undertaken in Turkey. This is
because social and cultural conditions of the research contexts are different and each
research context needs to be explored individually (Cohen & Manion 1996).
The study also shows that undertaking AR studies in various contexts and cultures all
over the word may give us a global understanding of the conditions of contexts that
facilitate or constrain the AR studies. In this way, action researchers can produce some
general guidelines by looking at cross-cultural issues and problems. Similarly, action
researchers can also generate some hypotheses by analysing the positive and negative
outcomes of those AR studies.

Chapter One 3
This study further stresses the necessity and importance of conducting AR studies in
Turkey to develop teaching and teacher development; to quote Elliott (1985):
In my view, the institutionalization of collaborative reflection
about the practice of teaching (action research) within the
educational system is a necessary condition for the development
of teaching as a profession. (Elliott 1985, p.259)
Since AR, as we shall read in Chapter 4, is a teacher-based research approach in schools
(Elliott 1995), its use by the participant teachers in Turkey could initiate a number of
innovations. It was hoped that participant teachers in this study might increase their self-
awareness by employing an inquiry-based approach and this would contribute to their
professional development. Similarly, the use of AR by teachers may assist them to
question theoretical rules, methods and theories. In this way they may have a critical eye
on materials and learners and assess their pros and cons. It was also hoped that the
endowment of teachers with the knowledge of AR might enable teachers to know their
students/pupils individually and to understand their needs. This would also give teachers
an opportunity to produce and use appropriate action plans in line with learners’ needs
and wants. Overall, the above noted expectations could, it was envisaged, improve
English language teaching in Turkey if they were put into the practice.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
In order to explore these expectations, this AR study undertaken in Turkey has
investigated the following ‘objectives’. Here the terms ‘research questions and
objectives’ are interchangeably used. In this sense, the study investigated one specific
and some general objectives. This was because the general objectives of the study were
primarily investigated by the researcher himself, but the specific objective of the study
was investigated by the researcher and participant teachers together.
The general objectives, as will be seen below, refer to the investigation of the 1st
, 2nd
, 3rd
,
5th
and 6th
research questions, whereas the specific objective refers to the investigation of
the 4th
research question and its elements. The focus of the 4th
question, as will be seen
in Chapter 6, was vocabulary teaching.
The derivation of these questions is set out in Chapter 7 [see 7.7.1.]. The general and
specific objectives of this study are:

Chapter One 4
Q 1-) What are the contextual elements [factors] that might support or prevent AR
studies in Turkey?
1) to explore legal, educational, etc. obstacles from the literature.
Q 2-) What does the literature of AR say about the ‘introduction and initiation’ of AR
studies in various contexts for the first time?
1) to explore these views from the literature of AR.
Q 3-) Can we reconcile AR and language teaching theories in order to teach
English more successfully?
1) to review the previous AR studies on language teaching to see if any of these
studies has done so or not,
2) to explore some common points between AR and language teaching theories.
Q 4-) How do those involved in this study view the influence of ‘AR and action plans’
on English language teaching and the selected topic?
1) to explore five participant teachers’ view of AR,
2) to explore five participant teachers’ views of action plans,
3) to explore consulted pupils’ views of action plans,
4) to understand five participant teachers’ overall views of AR,
5) to discover three head teachers’ views of AR,
6) to find out the local educational authority’s view of AR.
Q 5-) How do those involved in this study conceptualise the obstacles to the
implementation of the study in Turkey?
1) to explore various views about the barriers [legal, social, etc.].
Q 6-) How do the participant teachers see the necessary conditions for further AR
studies in Turkey?
1) to explore the participant teachers’ suggestions.
These objectives can be brought under the following general statement of purpose:
To explore the possibilities and problems of implementing an AR
study and to generate suggestions for further AR studies within
the context of English Language Teaching (ELT) in Turkey.
Although the above stated general and specific objectives were considered as unique and
interrelated phenomena, these objectives were investigated by the use of two different
AR models. This was because the general objectives were investigated by me and
exploration of these objectives formed my first order AR (FOAR) (Elliott 1991). Since

Chapter One 5
the specific objective of the study was investigated by the participant teachers and me
together, the exploration of this objective formed my second order AR (SOAR) (Elliott
1991). In doing so the general objectives were investigated/explored by the use of
Whitehead’s (1989) theory and model of AR, whereas the specific objective was
investigated by the use of Somekh’s (1989) and McBride’s (1995) models of AR.
In this sense those who read the design of the study may interpret the study in many
ways. For instance, this study can be named as being an AR in AR (Stuart 1987). The
study can also be seen an AR on AR (Marchel & Gaddis 1998) or a mixture of FOAR
and SOAR. This is because this study uses two models of AR at the same time.
Therefore, the SOAR was embedded in the FOAR and the following figure reflects the
embedded action cycles.The big cycle refers to the FOAR and the small cycle refers to
SOAR.
The above-illustrated figure is an example of action cycles used in 1998 [see Chapter 6
for more information about action cycles and action plans].
1.4. Further Rationale: The Improvement of Language Teaching
The author believes that the use of prescriptive rules about language teaching is rarely
helpful. For instance, the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) aims to teach the target
language through ‘translations’ and mainly uses written materials. The Audio-Lingual
1. Problem
2. Imagining
Solutions
3. Acting
Solutions
5.Reflecting and
Re-planning
4. Evaluating
Actions
1st
cycle
of the
SOAR

Chapter One 6
Method (ALM) stresses the importance of ‘memorisation, drills and structure’. The
Direct Method (DM) aims to teach the target language through ‘imperatives’ and
actions. The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) gives importance to
‘conversation’ in language studies.
Although each method has, at least, several advantages in general, all views posed by
language teaching methods or techniques are ‘prescriptive’ (Aitchison 1993). These
views are theoretical and language teachers cannot speculate much about them in
advance unless they are put into practice in classrooms. All of these methods and
theories also employ pre-decided exercises and techniques consistent with each method
or approach. In addition, these methods do not consider the learning context and the
needs of language learners.
The use of the AR approach unites teaching and researching as a unique phenomenon
(Elliott 1991) and enables the participant teachers to explore ‘which methods,
techniques, etc. are more useful, and to what extent the used methods and techniques are
useful in language classrooms. In other words, the use of the AR approach by language
teachers unites ‘theory and practice’ (Elliott 1991). This can give clearer ideas to
language teachers in Turkey about the effectiveness of methods, techniques, materials
and exercises. With these hopes the study was undertaken from 1997 to 1999, actively
involving teachers in the research. So the use of the AR approach was a methodological
innovation to English language teaching on the selected topic of vocabulary teaching; in
both the participant teachers’ lives and the schools (the cases) where they teach. The
implementation process of the study took place during the following dates:
Registration with UEA 01/01/1997.
1st
cycle of FOAR The First Field Work 25/03/1997 - 27/04/1997.
The Second Field Work 10/11/1997 - 15/12/1997.
2nd
Cycle of FOAR [ see Chapter 6 ]………. 07/03/1998 - 31/12/1998.
3rd
Cycle of FOAR [ see Chapter 6 ] ……… 11/03/1999 - 31/12/1999.
1.5. Evaluating the Study
Special attention was paid to evaluating the study. In order to do this the above
mentioned research questions were produced and used to jointly evaluate the process
and product of the study (Elliott 1991). That is, the research questions aimed at
evaluating process, product and those who were involved in the study. A further note is

Chapter One 7
that the study critically reviews the literature of AR and analyses the collected data in
terms of the teachers as researchers’ movement and AR studies undertaken in schools.
Although Elliott (1991, p.55) states that teachers who neglect curriculum development
“reduce action research to a form of technical rationality”, this study does not consider
separately the professional development of teachers and curriculum development.
However, the study did not ignore the issues of curriculum development and the
assessment of participant teachers. For instance, As Broker et al. (1998) argue, teachers’
professional development can be achieved by using AR-based innovations. In this
perception teachers learn to use their own context to produce solutions to problems and
issues. Similarly, this study attempted to support participant teachers’ professional
development with the help of an external researcher (the author) and their involvement
in an AR study.
1.6. Structure of the Thesis
I started writing the chapters of this study after the first field work (FFW), but the final
construction and order of the chapters began to emerge towards the end of the study.
There are four main parts in the study. The first part is introductory and introduces the
study, its objectives, rationale and the self-reflection of the author. The second part is
theoretical and addresses inter-related issues from one chapter to another. The third part
is implementational and illustrates the procedures and strategies of implementing the
study, action cycles and action plans. The fourth part is analytical and is an account of
data analysis and issues. The following is a brief description of each of these parts.
Part One
Part one consists of the first two chapters of the thesis. Chapter 1 introduces the problem
statement, rationale and objectives of the study, together with expectations from the
outcome of the study.
Chapter 2 is part of my autobiography. This chapter explains three areas of my
autobiography. The first part introduces my language learning experience at primary,
secondary, high school and universities. It raises the issues of language teaching by non-
professionals and the assessment of pupils’ wrong answers, the lack of oral practice, the
traditional way of teaching - memorisation of prescriptive grammatical rules, and rote
learning -, among others. The second part is a self-critique of my English language

Chapter One 8
teaching sessions that took place at a high school and at a state university [Yuzuncu Yil].
The last part presents how I met the notions of reflective teaching during my master’s
study. This autobiography not only revisits my previous experience, therefore, but also
explains how my understanding of language teaching and professional development
grew through this Ph.D. study.
Part Two
Part two covers the next three chapters of the study. Chapter 3 aims to introduce the
research context and its conditions to the reader. The rationale for its inclusion is that
researchers must know the research context and the conditions that prevail before
undertaking any AR study. To that end Chapter 3 briefly introduces the State and
political systems of Turkey, and the National Educational System of Turkey, including
the national curriculum, structure of schools, the higher educational council, initial and
in-service teacher training activities. This chapter also explains how some of the
educational terms are used in the research context. Background information is provided
about language teaching sessions and the current place of English in schools. The
chapter also illustrates the contents of language textbooks, and language teaching by
professionals and non-professionals. Also included are teachers’ and head-teachers’
suggestions to improve education, training and school management. The whole chapter
is devoted to illustrating whether the research context and conditions in Turkey
exemplify top-down or bottom-up relationships. The chapter ends by raising some issues
that need to be individually addressed in the following chapters.
Chapter 4 aims to provide a critical review of the literature of AR while addressing the
issues about the ‘introduction and initiation of AR studies’. The aim of this review is
twofold. One is to introduce the notion of AR to a context [Turkey] where this notion is
either less known or has been less used in language studies. The first section defines the
meaning of key terms, such as action learning, action science, reflective practice and
teacher research. It then introduces the notion of educational AR and its elements -
origin, definition, starting point, objectives, features, stages, data collection tools,
evaluation, and reportage of AR data. Having given an overview of AR, the last part of
this chapter addresses two of the issues highlighted at the end of the previous chapter,
but one of these issues remains unanswered. This issue is about the relationships
between AR and language teaching theories and is addressed in the following chapter.

Chapter One 9
Chapter 5 has one main objective. This chapter attempts to reconcile AR and language
teaching theories in order to explore some common points (patterns). The aim of this is
to teach English more successfully. To that end, the chapter first reviews the previous
AR studies undertaken into language teaching and learning to see whether or not any
research or researcher has made such an attempt. The second part of this chapter makes
another attempt to find the potential common points by comparing and adapting the
features of AR in terms of language teaching theories (approaches, methods and
techniques). In the course of the discussion the chapter introduces several key terms that
are much used in language teaching and learning studies to set the scene.
Part Three
This part consists of two chapters of the thesis. Chapter 6 aims to introduce the action
models and action plans used while undertaking the FOAR and SOAR. To that end, it
first describes how the starting points of two different action cycles were identified. It
then introduces the action models and action plans used in 1997, 1998 and 1999. In the
last section the chapter evaluates the outcomes of the FOAR and SOAR. This chapter
concludes that not only action plans themselves, but also the researcher's efforts to
introduce and initiate AR in various contexts can be included within an action cycle.
Apart from the above-mentioned objectives, this chapter also provides some
methodological information about the design of the study [AR].
Chapter 7 provides further information on the methodological procedures, strategies and
design of the study. Its main objective is to reveal how AR and case study approaches
were used as one unique method while planning and conducting the study. It starts with
a review of literature and an explication of the objectives of the study. It then explains
the procedures of gaining access, selection of participants and identification of ethical
rules. The next part explains the data collection and analysis procedures. In doing so it
explores the notion of cases, both in theory and the cases in my particular study. In
addition, this chapter offers some critical views about the reliability, validity and
generalisability.
Part Four
This part consists of two chapters. Chapter 8 has two basic goals. One is to offer some
descriptive information about language teaching situations, schools and classroom

Chapter One 10
contexts before the actual initiation of the SOAR. The aim is to give readers an
opportunity to compare the situations before and after the initiation of an actual AR. The
remainder of chapter 8 provides a broad descriptive analysis of the implemented study.
In doing so it first provides teachers’, pupils’, head teachers’, etc. views of action
research, action plans, etc. It then offers an overall discussion and interpretation of those
views. This part raises several important issues in the course of analysing data and
answering research questions. That is, this part mainly aims to answer the 4th
, 5th
and 6th
research questions.
Chapter 9 is a summary of outcomes, issues and implications of the study. It first
reviews the objectives, the study process and language teaching situations before the
initiation of the study. It then provides an overall view of the issues that emerged and the
overall findings. The chapter concludes with an account of implications, possible
criticism and further suggestions.

Chapter Two 11
CHAPTER TWO
MY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
A true understanding starts and develops from reflection on one’s
own experience. Theory therefore develops from practice and, as
a result, is owned by all who are involved in delivering this
service. (Hollingsworth, S. et al. 1997, p. 315)
Introduction
The use of autobiography to bring personal perspective is common in qualitative
research. Hence it was assumed that including some of my previous language
teaching/learning experiences would provide some background information about the
research context and my self-reflection during this study. As Clandinin & Connelly
(1994) state the experience I will explain here is my story and part of my life. They also
state this story has “starting and stopping points” (p. 414). So my story explains only
three aspects of my experience. These are; my language learning experience, my
language teaching experience and finally my self-reflection after discovering the notion
of educational action research. In doing so, I use two types of reflections namely;
“backward and forward” (p.417). Backward reflections refer to my past language
teaching and learning experiences. Forward reflections refer to a change in my
understanding about language teaching and learning in the rest of my teaching career. So
the following is the story of these past and future reflections.
2.1. My Autobiography
A bunch of flowers never represents all the flowers in the world, but that bunch may
mean a lot for the person who bought it. By the same token, this life story which briefly
describes me and explains several examples from my language learning and teaching
experience, has a special purpose in that it highlights some issues related to this study
and language teaching cases in Turkey. These examples are only a few from twenty
years of learning and three years teaching experience.
2.1.1. A brief Life History
I was born in a village in Ordu, (Turkey) in 1965. After finishing primary and secondary
schools there, 10 miles away from Ordu, I finished vocational high school in that city in

Chapter Two 12
1983. After passing an entrance examination that is compulsory for those who want to
go to university, I won a place in the school of tourism, where we were trained to be
receptionists. After graduating from that school in 1985, I did military service that is
compulsory for every healthy man over twenty. During this service I took a university
exam again and won a place at the Foreign Language Department of Ataturk University.
After 18 months military service, I registered with that department in 1988 and
graduated in 1992. Seven months after my graduation I was appointed as a language
teacher to a high school in Van. While teaching there, I took exams to become a member
at my current university [Yuzuncu Yil] and I was offered a place at the Faculty of
Education, in March of 1994. I taught English to undergraduates of history, science,
geography, art, and music, among others, for more than one year. Through my success
in KPDS2
[the proficiency exam in languages in Turkey like IELTS3
or TOEFL]4
, I was
given the right to do postgraduate study abroad. I then did my masters study in Applied
Linguistics at Essex University. The module ‘Research Methods for English Language
Teachers’ has affected my ideas about language teaching. Eventually I did my MA and
Ph.D. studies based on these ideas. As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, the
impacts of my previous language teaching, language learning experiences and issues
related to these experiences are still ‘pervasive’ in the research context. It then seems
necessary to explain a few of them in order to illuminate issues concerning this thesis.
2.1.2. Some Reflections about Language Learning
A foreign language was not among the compulsory lessons at primary schools in Turkey
until September 1997, but I started to learn English as a personal interest. When I was
in year 5, I remember borrowing my elder sister’s notebook and jotting down a few
pages of English words. For example, the names of the days, months, seasons, subject
pronouns [ I, You, He, etc.], the name of family members [mother, father, brother, etc.],
some other words such as ‘this, that, these, those, they, rubber, duster, blackboard,
notebook, book, pen, pencil etc’. While learning these words, I had neither the idea of
becoming a language teacher, nor the intention of serving as a university lecturer.
2- KPDS stands for Kamu Personeli Dil Sinavi. It is a proficiency exam in foreign languages and those
who work, or serve at governmental offices and pass this exam get some extra salary.
3
- IELTS stands for International English Language Testing System.
4
- TOEFL stands for Testing of English as a Foreign Language.

Chapter Two 13
The Primary School I attended.
The secondary school I attended after primary education was at the same village.
Indeed, an old building converted into a school in the 1975s by the government had
served as a secondary school for 25 years. As the school was newly opened, we suffered
from lack of teaching materials and qualified teachers. We had sometimes two,
sometimes three qualified teachers at the school. Primary school teachers taught the rest
of the lessons. For example, we did not have any qualified English language teacher
during secondary education. Instead, a primary school teacher tried to teach English. So
the language lessons took the form of question and answer, reading the text, doing
home-work in our notebooks. It is not a surprise that I could not learn basic English to
the necessary level at the second school.
The Secondary School I attended.

Chapter Two 14
My visits to two primary schools (int. 22/4/1999) indicate that there are no English
language teachers at these schools. Primary school teachers teach Turkish instead of
English during English lessons (int. 22/4/1999). My visit to the LEA in Ordu also
indicates that schools in the city centre still suffer from a shortage of English language
teachers (12/5/1999, diary, p. 135). The issue of teaching language by non-qualified
teachers is explained in the following chapter in detail [see 3.3.7. in Chapter 3].
After my secondary education, a vocational high school was my choice because nobody
in my area had managed to pass the university entrance exam. I then over estimated the
difficulty of passing the university entrance exam and went to that school with the hope
that I could get a job and earn my living.
Although there were qualified English teachers there, I could not understand the English
lessons. I still remember, for example, one event that left an unwanted impression on me.
It was in the first year of the high school. The language teacher [NA] asked me a
question about either ‘the present perfect tense’ or ‘the present perfect continuous
tense’. I could not answer it and he said these words angrily “sit down, sit down, you [ I
] are sitting like a sack over there”. I felt so shy in the classroom and I lost my
motivation for the lesson.
To me teachers should not reprimand or discourage learners even if their answers are
wrong. That teacher could have identified what the students knew and did not know. In
this way, the teacher could re-explain identified topics by using different methods or
techniques.
I took the university entrance exam in the final year of high school and managed to win
a place at the tourism department of a school in the 19 May University. We took eight
hours of English and three hours of German lessons weekly, but English lessons were
not split into reading, writing or speaking. The lessons passed in the form of question
and answer, reading texts, writing exercises and homework in our notebooks. We were
expected to answer questions in the written form during the examination of those
lessons. I can say that no time was spent to improve students’ oral practice. In those
days I assumed that if I knew grammar, I could speak and express myself properly.
At the end of school the language teacher [RA] gave the name of two books:
‘Proficiency in English’ and ‘A Practical English Grammar’ and stated that “if you

Chapter Two 15
(students) buy and study these books” it would mean that “you would have learnt
English”. After finishing the school I did work-experience at a hotel in Kusadasi, a
favourite place with tourists, and completed the degree.
After buying the recommended books and studying them at home, I realised there were
many new topics to be learnt about English grammar. Meanwhile, as I was over twenty,
I served in the army. While doing this service I decided to sit a university exam again
and took the books with me to study. I took the exam in 1987 and won a place at Ataturk
University, as already mentioned. Since it was the middle of military service when I won
it, I registered with that department one year later in 1988 and graduated from there in
1992. When the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced a vacancy in the field of
English, I applied for it and went on to a high school in Van, a city in the east of Turkey.
2.1.3. Some Reflections about Teacher Training
Now I will illuminate, with a few examples from my undergraduate education, how we
were taught and trained in the university. My intentions here are not to blame the
current system or to patronise the teaching staff in the department, but to clarify the
traditional ways of teacher training in the cultural context of this AR study in the 1990s.
For example, we studied the book ‘English Grammar in Use’ by Murphy in year one.
That book includes about a hundred units and each unit refers to a new topic. This book
offers a great number of descriptive rules about how language should or should not be
used. Some examples are; use ‘if' to make a conditional sentence, use ‘does’ with the
third person singular in making a question sentence etc. The academic year including
first and second terms is about thirty weeks and we had to finish three new units each
week.
The grammar teacher (FA) explained lessons in this way: he read rules from the book
one by one. Sometimes he uttered a sentence and asked us to translate it from English to
Turkish or vice-a versa. We were expected to memorise grammatical rules and answer
the questions during sit down exams. These rules are theoretical and can be forgotten
easily unless they are practised or used in a context. In my view, teaching grammar can
be taught in other ways such as games, discussion, activities etc., but this depends on
grammar teachers’ undergraduate training and conventional practice.

Chapter Two 16
The other memory included here is about the History of English Literature module. We
took this module in years 2, 3 and 4. The following topics were taught by various
lecturers; oral and written literature, the Roman invasion, the Norman invasion, the
influence of French, re-establishment of English, the Renaissance, the Elizabethan Age,
the Victorian Age, ‘Vanity Fair’, ‘Tom Jones’, Becket’s ‘Waiting For Godot’, among
others.
Each lesson takes 50 minutes in universities. When the lesson started, the course
lecturer would read summary information, sentence by sentence, from his/her written
notes about that day’s topic and we (students) would try to write down that information
in our notebooks. That is, we had to catch/understand what they spelled out. During the
exams, we were expected to answer the topical questions.
The third example is about the Speaking [Conversation] module. By name it suggests
that learners’ communication ability should be improved, and exercises and dialogues
should be based on oral practice and live speech in the classroom. Exams for this
module could have been based on oral practice [face to face conversation] with the
module teacher rather than sitting for written exams.
2.1.4. Some Reflections about Language Teaching
Up to now, I have provided a few examples from my learning experience. Now I will
explain a few examples from my language teaching experience. Actual teaching practice
in the classroom in 1992 made me realise the difficulty of language teaching and dealing
with students. Because there were many techniques and methods in the literature, and I
had no idea of which one was better than another. Although I had much motivation to
teach, some students showed negative reactions to lessons and me. They would ask me
‘why do we learn English?’, ‘we will finish school this year and where do we use it?’,
‘why do you teach us English?’ etc. Sometimes, they did not say a single word during a
lesson or participate in lessons at all. When they did not engage in the lessons, I
sometimes felt as if I was teaching or talking to the walls of the classroom. Once, they
[class T] left the classroom during a lesson; I took disciplinary action and eventually
they were punished and kept away from school, for three days.
Similar difficulties occurred again while teaching English at my current university
[Yuzuncu Yil]. There, foreign languages [English, German, etc.] are taught only in year

Chapter Two 17
one. I remember some of the undergraduates were saying that ‘we will be science, art,
history, primary school teachers etc., we will not teach English, so why do we learn it?’
In general, I was unaware of the notion of researching and teaching at the same time
when I taught English at the high school and my current university. My undergraduate
transcript indicates that the departmental curriculum did not include any module on
‘research’ [see appendix A]. Hence it seems understandable for one not to be reflective
upon students’ dislikes and prejudices. If I had had the knowledge of research, it is
possible that I could have learnt students’ likes and dislikes.
The emphasis was on grammatical rules of English in my language classrooms at those
schools because of publicly held exams [KPDS and university entrance exams]. The
KPDS is a proficiency exam in foreign languages and is still used in Turkey. Unlike the
ILETS and TOEFL exams, the questions asked in the KPDS exams are mostly about
‘grammar rules’. Although it includes some questions related to ‘comprehension and
translation’, this exam never asks questions which measure examinees’ listening and
writing abilities. For that reason, examinees give priority to grammatical rules to pass
this exam. Hence I paid more attention to teaching grammatical rules. As a result, when
I arrived in Britain in 1995 for the first time, I could not express my needs and myself
properly because of my poor spoken English. It was then that I realised that written and
spoken languages are different and people in the UK do not always use grammatically
correct sentences in their daily life.
If I had known that grammar-based teaching was not much used or reflective practice
was better than rote learning, it is likely that I would not have used it while teaching. If I
had known that researching gives teachers some idea about teaching materials and
methods, I could have identified the impacts of my teaching.
Although I now criticise my manner of teaching English through grammatical rules in
the past, I have only come to this conclusion after doing postgraduate study in Britain.
As Chomsky’s ideas of universal and generative grammar impressed me during my
undergraduate study in Turkey, I did my master’s study in Applied Linguistics at the
Essex University. However, I found linguistic theories mostly ‘pure’ and prescriptive
and my ideas of language teaching gradually changed during this study. Here the
module on Research Methods for English Language Teachers affected me. This module
is about research, reflection, action, reflective practice, classroom observation,

Chapter Two 18
interview etc. Briefly, this master’s study was an important turning point that changed
my ideas of language teaching from grammar-based teaching and the communicative
approach to ‘teaching and researching’ at the same time.
I had not heard about First Language Acquisition (L1), Second Language Acquisition
(L2), Action Research (AR), Reflective Practice (RF), Qualitative Research, Case Study
(CS), Research Methods in Language Learning/Teaching, Curriculum Change, Data
Analysis Methods and so forth in Turkey. After having a chance to do a Ph.D. in the UK,
the articles and books I read have enriched my understanding of language teaching. For
example, I used Hopkins’ (1996) book in doing practical classroom observations.
Elliott’s (1991) book helped me to use practical guidelines during my research project
in Turkey. With Fullan (1991) I learned the importance of addressing participants’
needs. In addition, Richards & Lockhart’s (1996) book on reflective teaching in second
language classrooms provided a solid example of AR case study at the end of each
chapter.
These are only a few of the books that have enlightened me. The total outcome of my
reading helped me to question my undergraduate education and enabled me to cast a
critical eye on my previous teaching sessions at the high school and university. Now I
realise that most of how I taught, what I taught and how I approached learners in the
past were very questionable. I frequently told my students ‘this is how I teach, you need
to learn it if you want to pass’. That is, I was forcing them to memorise or parrot the
rules, etc. Having reading the literature of AR, I now understand that agreement through
bottom-up decision-making in teaching activities is fairly important (Elliott 1991).
These issues pervade this research context. Obviously, languages can be taught by using
various types of methods, techniques and approaches. The important thing is that
language teachers must know what is happening in their classrooms, which method is
better, which technique is not working etc. In order to find out what happens, teachers
need to ask questions, make observations, have a critical eye, make changes if
necessary, and all of these activities can be summarized, for me, under the notion of
action research or reflective practice.
Through reflection, teachers can try different methods and techniques in order to teach
well. They can discover learners’ attitudes and views about their teaching sessions. This
then enables them to revise or change their style. They can trial the teaching materials

Chapter Two 19
too. Through reflection, they can do something different rather than doing routine things
every day. Through reflection, teachers can make collaborative decisions. This suggests
the inclusion of individuals in choosing, planning, deciding, and this process improves
the social relations among the participants.
2.2. Conclusion
It can be seen that critical reflection on my previous language learning and teaching
experiences changed my understanding of language teaching. It can be claimed that any
critical reflection depends on one’s self-understanding and self-awareness.
Having briefly explained some aspects of my previous experiences, I now turn to
consider the undertaking of this study. This raised several questions: ‘do I (we) need to
know the context?, can I (we) undertake an AR study without knowing the context? or
what do I (we) need to know about the research context before initiating the study?, etc.
In this context Cohen & Manion (1996), while explaining the possible occasions to use
AR in education, state the significance of knowing the research context as follows:
Of course, it would be naive of us simply to select a problem area
in vacuo, so to speak. We have also to consider the context in
which the project is to be undertaken. More specifically this
means bringing in mind factors that will directly affect the
outcomes. One of these concerns the teachers themselves. ...
Another important factor concerns the organisational aspects of
school... (p. 194). One further factor concerns resources: are there
enough sufficiently competent researchers at hand?
(Cohen & Manion 1996, p. 195)
This reference means that researchers need to know the research context prior to the
study and this is the subject of the next chapter.

20
PART TWO
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER FOUR
CHAPTER FIVE

Chapter Three 21
CHAPTER THREE
INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXT
State control of education, especially when it is arbitrarily
centralised and highly bureaucratic, has detrimental effects on
education;... (Avalos-Bevan 1996, p.74)
Introduction
The aims of this chapter are to introduce the research context and to explore the
elements that might support or prevent the AR studies there. To that end, the first part of
the chapter briefly defines the state system of Turkey and its task and responsibilities in
relation to education. In explaining the legal system some articles of the Constitution and
educational acts are included and translated into English. The second part briefly
explains the historical background, presents the structure of the national educational
system (NES), national curriculum (NC), structure of schools and the HEC, initial
teacher training (ITT), in-service education and training (Inset) and a review of some
terms used in education. The third part explains the historical background of language
teaching and current policy and practices of English language teaching at schools. The
last part reveals teachers’ and head teachers’ suggestions to improve education, training
and school management. Consequently, this chapter is mainly intended for those who are
not familiar with the Turkish State, its education system and language teaching practices
in its schools.
3.1. The State (Turkey)
3.1.1. The Political System
The events which took place from World War One during the 1920s and onwards, led to
the establishment of a new state (Turkey), after the decline of the Ottoman Empire,
based on Western principles.
Ataturk and his friends, after winning the war of independence and opening the new
parliament [the Turkish Grand National Assembly] (TGNA) in Ankara in 1920,
undertook to develop some changes in the legal, educational, social and cultural life of

Chapter Three 22
the people (Kiratli 1988). We begin with constitutional and social changes. Educational
changes are explained in the following heading [see 3.2.].
Since the TGNA abolished the Sultane (authority) of rulers of the Ottoman State in 1922
and the Caliphate in 1924, which refers to the leader of all Muslims, these changes
meant the end of the Ottomans and their rules (Velidedeoglu 1989, & Kara 1998). The
TGNA also changed some articles of the constitution accepted in 1921 and declared in
1923 that the new state was a Republic. The constitution accepted in 1921 was revised in
1924, 1961 and 1982. The last two changes took place because of military coups and the
related articles of the 1982 Constitution define the political system as follows:
Article 1: The Turkish State is a Republic.
Article 2: The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and
social state governed by the rule of law, bearing in mind the
concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice;
respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Ataturk, and
based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.
Although the newly established state made two attempts to enact a democratic system
between years of 1923 and 1950, those who supported the Ottomans, the Sultanate and
the Caliphate became members of opposition parties during that time. As a result those
parties were banned from political activities, and only one political party (Republican
Populist Party) ruled Turkey till 1950 (Kara 1998).
In order to westernise the legal system of Turkey civil law, contract law, criminal law (in
1926) and commercial law (in 1928) were taken from Europe (Adem 1995). In another
change the article relating to religion (Islam) was abolished in the Constitution in 1928
(Adem 1995) and from then on the state policy has been based on a ‘secular system’
which refers to keeping religion and religious values/beliefs separate from legal, political
and educational activities.
As has been seen, the first article of the Constitution declares the political regime as a
‘republic’, the second article defines Turkey as a ‘democratic, secular and social state’.
Here the words ‘republic and democracy’ are used interchangeably and refer to the free
election of mukhtars, mayors, and deputies by citizens and the election of Presidents by
the TGNA. In this context the tenth article is also important. It says:

Chapter Three 23
Article 10: All individuals are equal without any discrimination
before the law, irrespective of language, race, colour, sex,
political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect or any
such consideration...
This is the general framework of the state, its tasks and responsibilities. I turn now to the
educational system of Turkey and major educational acts.
3.2. National Educational System of Turkey
3.2.1. Background of the National Educational System
Similar to the state policy explained above, the emergence of the NES starts with t
he
establishment of the new state in the 1920s. After the declaration of the Republic in
October 1923, religious schools (tekke and madrasah)5
which existed under the
Ottomans were closed in March 1924 (act no. 430) and this law also annexed all schools
to the MOE (Basaran 1994 & Arslanoglu 1997). Hence there was a transition from a
religious system to a secular one.
The other crucial change was brought about in November 1928, during which year the
use of the ‘Latin alphabet’ in written and spoken languages instead of Arabic was
accepted (Mumcu et al. 1986, Adem 1995). This change also took place in order to
westernise the education system. In general, the process of change in the education
system went on through acts of 1943, 1958, 1961, 1964, 1973, 1978, 1981, 1992, 1997
and 1999. Among these the National Education Basic Law (NEBL) accepted in 1973
and the Basic Education Law (BEL) accepted in 1997 are still important and determine
the principles of the current education system (Arslanoglu 1997).
3.2.2. Present Structure of National Educational System
According to the Constitution, the state takes major responsibility to provide educational
opportunities for its citizens. In this respect the Constitution identifies the principles of
the national education system, together with the rules, and regulations about education
and training activities. Thus the rules and regulations are the reflection of the political
system. The constitution has several articles that define the responsibility of the state as
follows. For instance, according to article 27 “everybody has the right to study and teach
freely and explain and disseminate science and arts...”. In addition, article 42 defines
educational rights of the citizens in Turkey as follows:

Chapter Three 24
- No one shall be deprived of the rights of learning and education... -
Training and education shall be conducted along the lines of the
principles and reforms of Ataturk...,
- The freedom of training and education does not relieve the
individuals from loyalty to the Constitution. ...,
- Primary education is compulsory for all citizens of both sexes
and free of charge in state schools. ...,
- No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother
tongue....
- Foreign languages to be taught in training and education
institutions of training and education and, ...
Two institutions -the MOE and HEC- are mainly responsible for running educational
and training activities in Turkey. The MOE is a part of the Council of Ministers and the
Parliament, whereas the HEC carries its tasks on the basis of several acts (act no. 2547
and decree no. 124, 301, etc.) (Basaran 1996). The following figure briefly indicates the
structure of the MOE, HEC and their sub-departments (Arslanoglu).
Education
& Training
Ministry of Education Higher Education Council
Council of Education General Council
Permanent Councils Inter-universities Council
Main Service Departments Examination Council
Supply Departments Inspection Council
Consultant and Supervision Dept. Management Council
LEA
Foreign Affairs
Youth Dormitory Services
As stated-above the (NEBL) and (BEL) determine the current teaching and learning
activities at schools as follows. The NEBL splits the education system into ‘formal and
non-formal’ (Hesapcioglu 1994, p. 37), (Koc et al. 1996, p. 62). ‘Formal education’
incorporates the school system, regular attendance, teaching and learning at Pre-schools,
Primary Education Schools, High Schools and Higher Education Institutions, whereas
5
- These schools were used to teach religious education during the Ottomans.

Chapter Three 25
‘non-formal education’ covers education, training, counselling and practical activities
provided for those who never entered formal education, or who have left formal
education schools at any time (Arslanoglu 1997).
The NEBL also classifies the objectives of the national education policy as ‘general and
specific’ ones. The general objectives have three articles and the goal of the first article
is to raise all citizens in Turkey in line with Ataturk’s principles and reforms explained
in the Constitution of 1982 (Basaran 1994 & Arslanoglu 1997). Raising the people in
Turkey in terms of Ataturk’s principles and reforms is the first task of the MOE (Adem
1995). Here Ataturk’s principles refer to ‘Republicanism, Nationalism, Secularism,
Populism, Reformism and Statism’. The word ‘reforms’ refers to changes undertaken
after the 1920s and every citizen is legally obliged to accept or preserve those reforms.
The specific objectives of the NEBL have fourteen articles and some of them can be
summarised as follows:
-Education without considering race, sex, religion and language
discrimination among citizens is open to everybody (p. 60),
-Male and female have equal rights and opportunities (p. 60),
-Education system is based on Ataturk’ principles (p. 60),
-Education system is secular, democratic and co-education (p. 61).
(Koc et al. 1996)
As a result, it is seen that the teaching and learning activities, schooling, educational
objectives, etc. are centrally identified and controlled in Turkey. Then the question arises
about whether or not, pupils, students, parents, teachers, head-teachers, and the LEA are
consulted or involved in decision-making about educational issues.
3.2.3. National Curriculum (NC)
Turkey, like the UK, is the among the countries that has a NC for schools. In general the
national curriculum is theoretical and teachers put it into practice as annual plans. In
other words, the annual plans are the practical applications of theoretical propositions at
schools [see Appendix B]. The importance of knowing the ‘policy and practices’ about
the NC of a particular research context (e.g. Turkey) is that preparing annual plans at the
beginning of the school year is a requirement and teachers are required to teach all the
topics included in these plans.

Chapter Three 26
In this context the questions arises as to ‘can action researchers delay or ignore the
national curriculum while undertaking AR research? That is, if teachers themselves
undertake an AR study in their classrooms, what must be the priority of those teachers;
to apply action plans, or to teach the contents of the annual plans per week?
These points were investigated by me to learn about the possibility of ignoring and
delaying the NC in schools in order to apply action plans. Participant teachers stated that
they have to follow the requirement of the annual plans in theory, but they also stated the
cases in which they could use action plans (T2, 25/3/1999 int), (T4, 26/3/1999, int. etc.),
[see sections 8.2.3., 8.9.1. and 8.9.2. in Chapter 8 to read about other barriers].
The following interviews about curriculum development study and a new syllabus
design at some schools in Ordu also provide some clues about undertaking AR studies in
Turkey. These interviews were conducted during the FFW in 1997 to elicit head-
teachers’ views and indicate the possibility of using AR as follows:
ET: ... if I want to carry out a curriculum study for one term on a
trial basis....would it be all right?
MI: although it is considered on the basis of trial, you (I) have to
get permission from the MOE, we never use any book or booklet as
a course book which has not been approved by the Ministry...
(int. 7/4/1997)
ET: ... if I want to carry out a curriculum development study for one
term on a trial basis...?
SK: as to book or booklet trial you have to get legal permission
from the MOE... (int. 24/4/1997)
In addition, to explore the relationships of the NC and the selection of text-books by
schools, one head teacher (CZ, 12/5/1999), one deputy head of the LEA (HC 14/5/1999)
and four participant teachers (T2 14/5/1999, T4 12/5/1999, T5 13/5/1999, T6 14/5/1999)
were interviewed. The excerpt below reflects the general view.
ET: ...how do you choose course books?
T4: they must be published in tebligler dergisi (TD)6
and approved
by the Ministry. The MOE also publishes the names of the
writers,...if books have no approval of the board of education, we
do not use those them... (int. 12/5/1999)
Briefly it can be stated that a) the names of the ‘lessons’ to be taught at schools, b) the
types of the ‘books’ to be used at schools and c) the ‘contents of the books’ are

Chapter Three 27
determined by the concept of the NC in Turkey. The question that remains to be
unanswered is ‘how can teachers cope with national curriculum and AR or action plans
at the same time? [see section 8.9.2. in Chapter 8].
3.2.4. Present Structure of Schools
The current structure of schools in Turkey outlined by the NEBL was accepted in 1973.
In addition, the BEL accepted in August 1997 combined the previous primary and
secondary schools into one school. Prior to this change, primary schooling used to take
five years, but now this basic education, (still compulsory and free of charge at state
schools) takes eight years. According to this new system, the final structure of schools
has been set out as follows:
3.2.4.1. Pre-School Education: This period is not compulsory and covers the education
of children who have not yet reached the age of primary education. Its main aim is to
prepare children for basic education.
3.2.4.2. Primary Education Schools: After the unification of the previous primary and
secondary schools, this new system takes eight years. These schools provide children
with basic knowledge and ensure their physical, mental and moral development. This
education is compulsory for all citizens and is free of charge at public schools. Foreign
language teaching starts in year 4 at these schools now.
3.2.4.3. High Schools: These are general, vocational and technical high schools that
provide a three-year education and prepare students for either higher education or for a
profession.
3.2.4.4. Higher Education: The education period is set at 2 years for undergraduate
studies and 4 years for graduate studies except Veterinary and Medicine Faculties.
Although higher education takes place in several types of institutions (university,
military schools, etc.), this education is more common at universities in Turkey. So
universities consist of implementation and research centres, institutes, colleges,
conservatories, faculties, two-year vocational and technical schools (Basaran 1994).
On the basis of these categories this AR [SOAR] study was undertaken in three types of
schools in Ordu (Turkey). The schools included in this study are disguised by the use of
6
- TD stands for Tebligler Dergisi that is an official circular/newspaper.

Chapter Three 28
acronyms. One is a primary school (OHSTIO), another is a vocational high school
(OATML) and the other is a language-based high school (OAL).
The unification of primary and secondary schools caused some problems. The following
statistical information about schools, single and double sessions helps us to understand
the schools in the research context a little more.
The Number of Single and Double Session Schools in Turkey
City Centres Rural Areas
Single Session Double Session Single session Double Session
Pre-school 3,435 2,736 2,028 137
Primary 6,079 4,674 30,821 2,951
Second 4,716 429 541 22
N. H. School 1,886 337 373 15
VTHS 2,830 7,479 33,390 3,110
(MOE 1999, p. 10)
After the unification of previous primary and secondary schools as one school, some
schools were closed down and the pupils of these schools are transported by buses or
minibuses to the schools in the nearby villages, towns and city centres. The following
figures show the number of such schools and pupils for Ordu and Turkey.
1998-99 Academic Year, Transported Centres and Pupils
Transported Transported Number of Transported Pupils
Centres Schools Year 1,2,3,4,5 Year 6,7,8
Ordu 125 459 5,441 5,447
Turkey 5,649 22,555 263,845 229,130
(MOE 1999, pp. 60-61)
The situations of some schools in the research context are difficult to believe. One is the
crowded classrooms where 40 to 60 pupils sit in each classroom. The other is the ‘united
classrooms’ where pupils from, for example years 1, 2, 3 and 4 sit in one classroom due
to a shortage of school buildings or teachers. Hence one teacher teaches all four years
together, in one classroom. The following figures display the cases in Ordu and Turkey.
1998-1999 Academic Year
Teachers Teach Different Classes At The Same Time
1 teacher 1 teacher 1 teacher 1 teacher
teaches 5 teaches 4 teaches 3 teaches 2
classrooms classrooms classrooms classrooms
Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils
Ordu 304 10,533 22 381 4 48 0 0
Turkey 7,103 281,639 1,235 28,017 527 15,140 357 16,340

Chapter Three 29
2 teachers 2 teachers 2 teachers 3 teachers
teach 5 teach 4 teach 3 teach 5
classrooms classrooms classrooms classrooms
Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils Schools Pupils
Ordu 156 9,564 3 75 1 6 61 5,754
Turkey 4,500 265,439 266 13,520 93 4,644 1,752 132,532
(MOE 1999, p.66, 67, 68)
The following picture shows a crowded classroom that had about 45 pupils in 1998.
If classrooms are crowded and one teacher teaches different classes of pupils at the same
time, there are several issues to be raised. First, how can external researchers undertake
an AR study under these conditions? The other question is ‘can we involve a teacher
who teaches a united classroom in an AR study? Other points that can be considered are
that ‘is it that crowded or united classrooms are not the best places to undertake AR
study? Are crowded classrooms a barrier to the implementation of AR studies? If so, in
what ways? These were some of the problems for this study.
3.2.5. The Higher education Council (HEC)
Universities in Turkey were annexed t
o the MOE in 1933 and united under the HEC in
1981. The HEC serve as the head of all higher education institutions and the title HEC
presently covers about 70 public and 30 private and foundation universities (see
http//www.yok.gov.tr)
Access to Universities: universities accept students in line with the results of the
examination organised by the Student Selection and Placement Centre, but there are not
sufficient places for all applicants who want to do a university degree (Adem 1995). The

Chapter Three 30
following statistical information indicates the difficulty of getting a place at a university
in Turkey
Year Total Number of Applicants Available Places
1998 1.359.585 290.000
(MOE 1999, p.144)
The diary note I wrote after seeing the outcome of questionnaires used at the OAL and
displayed on the notice board of this school may reveal some idea about students’ views
of university exams.
One of the findings of a questionnaire applied in a high school, in
which T6 and T7 teach, and displayed on the notice board of the
Staff Room caught my attention. The questionnaire answered by
only students in year two of high school and investigated WHY
pupils cut classes. It has several findings, but I was interested in
one of the findings:
Section Four:
Finding 2: 35.9 % of the students fear university exams.
(diary, 21/4/1999, p.99)
The news in the press for 1999 and 2000 years’ university exams is not promising for
applicants. For example, the newspaper (Sabah 7/6/1999) states that about 1, 500, 000
applications were made in 1999, but the quota for 1999 was 267,169 places. This means
that about 80 % of the applicants will be unsuccessful. In 2000 the newspapers (Milliyet
18/6/2000, Sabah 13/7/2000) stated that the number of applications is about 1,450,000
and available places were 295,000. In general, the current available facilities in Turkey
enable only one fifth of applicants go to university.
As a result it can be said that the State, the Constitution and the NEBL state the
importance of equality and equal opportunity in education, but there are not sufficient
places for all the applicants who want to do a university degree in Turkey. Since the
MOE and the HEC take major responsibility for education and training activities, these
institutions must provide more places for those students who want to do a university
degree.

Chapter Three 31
3.2.6. Initial Teacher Training and Education (I T T)
Teacher education and training policies have shown many changes since 1923. The main
changes derive from constitutional reforms in 1921, 1924, 1961 and 1982. Other legal
adjustments and adaptations were made by the MOE and HEC in 1926, 1927, 1930,
1935,... 1982, 1983, 1992, 1999 among others (Arslanoglu 1997). Explaining these
changes individually would occupy too much space. That is why I will explain only the
recent and important changes of the I T T programme, together with two terms
(education and training). First, the distinction between education and training is
explained as follows. According to Demirel (1996, p.3);
Turkish: Egitim… bireyde davranis degisikligi meydana getirme
sureci, ogretim ise bu davranis degisikliginin okulda planli ve
programli bir sekilde yapilmasi surecidir. Egitim her yerde, ancak
ogretim daha cok okulda yapilmaktadir (p. 3).
English: Education... is a process of bringing about change in
individuals’ behaviour, whereas training is the process of
implementation of the above mentioned change according to plans
and programmes in schools. Education is possible everywhere, but
training is generally done in schools.
This view is shared by other such as Varis (1978), Hesapcioglu (1994) and Arslanoglu
(1997) and seems to be pervasive in Turkey. Briefly, the term ‘teacher education’ refers
to theoretical views, whereas the term ‘teacher training’ refers to the four-year period for
student teachers’ undergraduate study at faculties and schools.
Some of the important changes related to teacher training were made in 1973, 1981 and
1997. In the first case the NEBL required all candidate teachers to have a university
degree. It meant that those who finished some types of secondary and high schools used
to serve as primary and secondary school teachers until 1973. In 1981 all higher
education institutions were annexed to the HEC and the training period for teachers was
fixed at 4 years (Adem 1995). In 1997 the programmes of Education Faculties were re-
organised to address the needs of eight-year basic education. This last change also
required those who will teach in years 6, 7, and 8 of primary schools to do a master’s
degree in their subject area. That is, this is compulsory for student teachers. This
programme also gives authority only to Education Faculties to run teacher training
programmes and to train student-teachers (see www.yok.gov.tr). So the following

Chapter Three 32
institutions are entitled to train and prepare student teachers for teaching posts
(Arslanoglu 1997).
a) Education Faculty.
b) Technical Education Faculty.
c) Vocational Education Faculty.
d) Trade and Tourism Education Faculties.
e) Industrial Arts Education Faculties.
f) Theology Faculties.
g) ……………………
As a result, the policy for teacher training requires all student teachers to take modules in
the following areas (Hesapcioglu 1994, p.269) and Basaran 1996, p.78).
i) Subject Area, Subject Area
ii) Pedagogic Formation, Student
iii) General Culture. Teachers
Ped. Form Gen. Cult.
For example, the modules Grammar, Speaking, Writing, Reading, English Literature,
etc. are the subject area of students who are registered with the Department of English
Language. In addition, all candidate teachers have to take some modules under the
heading of pedagogic formation (PF). A separate section is devoted to explaining the
meaning of the PF [see section 3.2.8.4. in this chapter].
As a result of the above-mentioned new I T T programme initiated in 1997, some of the
previous modules taught at the (English) Language Teaching Departments of
universities in Turkey were replaced by new ones. It seems that this new programme
also includes a module translated into English as ‘Research Skills’.
The aim of this module is defined as follows: a) to teach scientific research methods and
techniques with examples, b) to get student teachers to undertake a small scale research
in their subject area [www.yok.gov.tr]. This point needs further attention and I can
explain it as my previous undergraduate experience and an observation. It came to my
attention while reviewing the MA and Ph.D. studies at the HEC. First, the notion of
‘research’ is usually conceptualised as the use of the quantitative approach to study in
Turkey. Hence researchers design and apply questionnaires, produce and test
hypotheses, calculate the standard deviation and present the findings as statistically and

Chapter Three 33
as percentages. Second, although students-teachers study/learn some of the ELT
methods, these are the GTM, the ALM, the DM, CLT, etc.
Considering the fact that there are few AR studies in Turkey, few people are
knowledgeable about AR. It implies that most of the lecturers who teach the above noted
module (Research Skills) cannot teach the notion of AR. Then the question arises about
the introduction of AR studies at different places [schools, faculties, training centres,
etc.] in Turkey. It also seems necessary to explore what sort of topics (qualitative,
quantitative, approaches, methods and techniques) are taught to student teachers by
lecturers during the Research Skills module.
3.2.7. In-service Education and Training (INSET)
Inset studies started in 1960 and the formation of the department as a separate unit in the
Ministry underwent some changes in 1960, 1966, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1982, 1986 among
others (Ekinci et al. 1988). The Ministry currently defines INSET as:
Turkish: Kamu veya ozel kurum veya kuruluslarinda calisan her
seviyeden personele, ise basladiklarindan emekli oluncaya kadar;
ise intibak, iste verimliliklerini artirmak, bilgi ve gorgulerini
tazelemek, yeni durumlara intibaklarini ve ileri gorevlere
hazirlamalarini saglamak maksadiyla yaptirilan egitime, ‘Hizmetici
Egitim’ denilmektedir. (Ekinci et al. 1988, p.31)
English: The activities for people, either in public or state
departments, from the first steps to work until their retirement, to
adapt themselves to the job, to increase efficiency and productivity,
to refresh their knowledge and experience, to adapt to new
conditions and to get prepared for new tasks are called Inset.
The main reason for including this part comes from the findings of the field work studies
undertaken in Turkey in 1997. One of the findings of the field studies indicated that ‘the
teachers who wanted to join in this study were unaware of AR’ [see section 6.2. in
Chapter 6 to read field studies]. Hence it was assumed that running either a short-term [a
few days] Inset activity or some workshop to introduce the notion of AR to teachers and
to prepare them for the study could be useful
3.2.7.1. Goals of Inset

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN

Similar to AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN (20)

More from Sarah Pollard

More from Sarah Pollard (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION RESEARCH IN