LANGUAGE TEACHING POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN THE TURKISH EFL

LANGUAGE TEACHING POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN THE TURKISH EFL CONTEXT AND THE EFFECTS ON ENGLISH TEACHERS’ MOTIVATION by EMRE BASOK, B.A. THESIS Presented to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Texas at San Antonio in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Kristen Lindahl, Ph.D., Chair Juliet Langman, Ph.D. Kathryn Henderson, Ph.D. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO College of Education and Human Development Bicultural-Bilingual Studies August 2017 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my dear parents Turhan Basok and Nadime Basok. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the love, support, and encouragement I received from my wife and my family in Turkey, who always supported and encouraged me during my entire graduate school years, and completing this study. I do not have words to adequately describe my deep gratitude for all they have provided me. I would like to extend my first deep gratitude to the chairperson in this study and my academic advisor Dr. Kristen Lindahl for her wholehearted support and continuous assistance during this study and my entire graduate school years as my advisor. I am also profoundly thankful to my committee members, Dr. Juliet Langman and Dr. Kathryn Henderson for their valuable feedback and thoughtful comments for the successful completion of this study. I also extend my gratitude to the participant teachers Sijan, Yeliz, and Ezgi from Turkey, who have spent their valuable time to help me conduct this study; without their help this study would not have been completed. I am also very thankful to my dear wife Liz Basok, for her support, patience, assistance and encouragement during my entire graduate school years and writing my thesis. I also want to extend my sincere and boundless thanks to my parents and siblings, who have wholeheartedly encouraged me with their outstanding support during my study in the U.S. August 2017 iii LANGUAGE TEACHING POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN THE TURKISH EFL CONTEXT AND THE EFFECTS ON ENGLISH TEACHERS’ MOTIVATION Emre Basok, M.A. The University of Texas at San Antonio, 2017 Supervising Professor: Kristen Lindahl, Ph.D. This qualitative study explores Turkish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ perspectives regarding current English Language Teaching (ELT) policies, ELT curriculum, assessment practices, and teacher motivation in the Turkish EFL setting. The data were collected with semi-structured, 30-minute-long FaceTime interviews. The study’s participants were three native Turkish EFL teachers, teaching at elementary, middle school and high school levels. The focus of the study was to explore if teachers observed a gap between the language teaching policies, and actual classroom implementation of these policies in the Turkish EFL context, and if there was a perceived gap, how did this gap affect EFL teachers’ motivation at different grade levels. The interview data were coded with a priori codes, and the data were analyzed with thematic analysis. The results show that teachers perceived a gap between the language teaching policies and their actual teaching practices in the classroom. This perceived gap stemmed from four tensions that are explored in this study: (1) tensions between policy and practice, (2) tensions between the curriculum and assessment practices, (3) tensions between autonomy and centralized policy decisions, and (4) tensions between motivation and external pressure. Teachers feel that it is not realistic to implement Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Turkish classrooms, as the assessment practices put too much emphasis on students’ iv reading comprehension and grammar knowledge in the centralized language examinations. As these exam results play an important role in determining students’ high school and college enrollment, teachers feel obliged to teach in line with the grammar-based language tests. One of the goals of this study was to explore if the imposed language curriculum, emphasizing communicative competence by implementing CLT rather than traditional-grammar based instruction, was more applicable with the elementary level students compared to middle school and high school level teachers, considering that the elementary level students and teachers did not have to face the pressure of centralized exams. The results show that elementary level EFL teachers feel more free to implement the communicative curriculum by implementing the principles of CLT; however, middle school and high school teachers feel that they cannot implement CLT in their classrooms, as they feel pressure to teach to the test. The pressure that teachers faced due to their students’ test scores and external pressure from the administration decreased teachers’ motivation in the Turkish EFL setting. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………viii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………ix Chapter One: Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................1 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................2 Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................4 History of Language Teaching in Turkey……………...…………………………….........4 Language Policies and ELT Curriculum Reforms in Turkey……………………………. 7 Curriculum Reform of 1997……………………………………………………………...10 Teacher Motivation in EFL Contexts……………………………………………………15 Research Questions………………………………………………………………………18 Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................19 Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................25 The Inevitable Gap between Policy and Practice………………………………………. 25 Mismatch Between the Curriculum and Assessment Practices………………………….30 Lack of Teacher Autonomy……………………………………………………………...31 Assessments and Administrative Pressures Effect on Teacher Motivation……………...32 Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………….....37 Tensions between Policy and Practice…………………………………………………...38 Tension between Curriculum and Assessment Practices………………………………...40 vi Tension between Autonomy and Centralized Policy Decisions…………………………44 Tensions between Motivation and External Pressure…………………………………....46 Implications………………………………………………………………………………56 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….58 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….59 Appendix........................................................................................................................................60 References………………………………………………………………………………………..62 Vita vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 The Chronological Change of Foreign Languages in Recent Turkish History…...5 Table 2 Model English Language Curriculum (2nd-8th Grades) ………………………….27 Table 3 Ministry of National Education (2017) High School English Curriculum………48 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 A-priori codes…………………………………………………………………... 22 Figure 2 Coded data……………………………………………………………………….23 Figure 3 Policy-Practice Gap……………………………………………………………...39 Figure 4 LYS/5 Exam……………………………………………………………………...50 Figure 5 8th Grade TEOG Exam…………………………………………………………...51 ix CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Turkey’s foreign language education history dates back to the Ottoman Empire. In the Ottoman Empire, Arabic and Persian languages were taught mainly for religious purposes, and teaching the structural characteristics of these languages were the focus of attention (Solak and Bayar, 2015). The main focus was on the grammatical forms of these two languages, and the aim was to be able to understand and translate texts into Ottoman Turkish (Isık, 2008). The Turks’ initial contact with the English language started with the trade relations between the Ottomans and the Great Britain around the 1530s, but it was not until 1908 that English began to be taught in state schools (Dogancay-Aktuna, 1998). When English was first taught in state schools, traditional form and translation focused teaching methods were applied, and this traditional way of language teaching still has effects on the current English language teaching (ELT) practices in Turkey (Isık, 2008). The major focus of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) of language teaching is on reading and writing, whereas no systematic attention is paid to the speaking and listening domains of language (Richards &Rodgers, 2001). Applying this method to teach English and sticking with it for long years has not helped students to learn English better (Education First English Proficiency Index, 2015). With the latest reforms in English teaching curriculum in Turkey, students start taking English classes in 2nd grade until they graduate from high school (Bayyurt, 2012). Yet, previous research has indicated different views on the benefits of early English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction Cameron (2001), DeKeyser (2013), Rokita (2007), Scheffler (2013). Starting language instruction early does not ensure success, especially in settings where curriculum and materials do not meet the needs of students (DeKeyser, 2013). 1 The English curriculum in Turkey is determined by the Ministry of National Education (MONE) and teachers have to follow the centralized curriculum. The1997 Curriculum Reform is regarded as a landmark in English education history of Turkey, as it introduced communicative language teaching (CLT) into Turkish classrooms (Kirkgoz, 2005). However, most of the students in Turkey, having graduated from high school, are not fluent in English even though they study English for 10 years. Current research (Education first English proficiency index, 2015) indicates that language education is not as effective as it should be in Turkey even though CLT has been implemented for 15 years. Turkey ranked 43rd among 44 countries involved in a study in 2011 exploring the countries’ English proficiency levels, falling behind Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Chile. The same study, implemented in 2015, ranked Turkey at 50, among 70 countries. These results are important hints to explore why Turkey ranked this low in the two latest proficiency analyses. The results show that there is a gap between policy and practice. This gap stems from factors such as, curriculum itself, cultural factors, teacher related factors and contextual factors (Kirkgoz, 2008). Teachers are asked to implement CLT in their classrooms but the standardized exams for high school entrance or college entrance still test students’ reading and grammar abilities. These exams do not test communicative abilities of students and teachers feel obliged to teach in line with these tests. Significance of the Study In this study, the gap between ELT policy and practice had been determined to be a salient problem, causing English teachers to lose their motivation. Therefore, this study sought to examine the perspectives of Turkish EFL teachers about ELT policy implementation in terms of motivation, curriculum and teaching methods, as well as differences in perspectives among 2 Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle and secondary levels. The results of this study were also expected to inform policy makers regarding the language policies and teachers’ actual classroom practices in Turkish EFL context. Hopefully, this study will accomplish identifying the gap between language policy and practice in Turkish EFL context and its effects on English teacher’s motivation and find areas within policies that need improvement regarding EFL teaching conditions in Turkey. 3 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Recent research shows that there are various language teaching policies put into practice in schools around the world but less research exists about the implementation of language policies in the actual classroom contexts, where policy is put into practice (Menken & Garcia, 2010). Foreign language education policy involves macro level policy, concerning the national curriculum and micro level implementation, which is related to language teachers’ actual classroom teaching practices (Wang, 2006). A gap between language policy and practice poses instructional and motivational challenges for language teachers in educational contexts especially in English as a Foreign Language teaching (EFL) contexts. Koksal and Sahin (2012) state that in Turkey, policy makers and authorities theoretically give importance to foreign language education policies and teaching methods, but their decisions show inconsistency while translating language policies in to practice. To better understand the current English teaching practices in Turkey, it is important to first understand the history of English teaching in Turkey starting from the Ottoman Empire. English teaching policies, curriculum changes, and the 1997 English language teaching (ELT) curriculum which is seen as a milestone in the English language teaching history of Turkey due to its introduction of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) into curriculum, will be presented. Finally, teacher attitude and motivation in EFL contexts, specifically in the Turkish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context will be investigated. History of English Language Teaching in Turkey Turkey is located in a geopolitically and strategically important place: the intersection of Europe and Asia. In addition, Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and an associate member to the European Union (EU), which marks its importance not 4 only for the NATO and the EU countries but also for the whole region. Both the strategic and geopolitical status of Turkey and its relations with the western world makes learning of English particularly important for Turkish citizens (Kirkgoz, 2005). The history of English teaching in Turkey dates back to the Ottoman Empire’s Tanzimat period (1839-1876) in the second half of the eighteenth century, which marked the Westernization movements in the education system (Kirkgoz, 2007). As stated by Saricoban (2012), during the Tanzimat period of the Ottoman Empire, missionary schools started to flourish with the changes in the education system. “Early attempts to teach a western language developed as a result of a need to transfer military technology from the west in the eighteenth century” (p. 2644). This first contact with western languages was limited in the military field and English instruction was limited to only the children of ethnic minorities, as the number of the schools was scarce and majority of the Turkish population were illiterate (Dogancay-Aktuna, 1998). The table shows the chronological change in recent Turkish history in terms of priority given to foreign languages (Demircan, 1988). Table 1 The Chronological Change of Foreign Languages in Recent Turkish History Priority given Pre 1773 1773-1923 1923-1950 1950-1980 After 1980s 1 Arabic Arabic French English English 2 Persian Persian English French German 3 Turkish French German German French 4 English Arabic Arabic 5 German 5 As the table shows, during the Ottoman Empire’s period, priority was given to Arabic and Persian languages. These languages were taught mainly for religious reasons in the Ottoman Empire. The main aim was to understand the religious texts written in these languages and analyze them by focusing on the form of these languages (Isik, 2008). 1923 holds a very special place in Turkish history as it marked the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the advent of the new Turkish republic. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic was established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923. After the establishment of the new republic, foreign language trends shifted from Arabic and Persian to modern Western languages. The reason for this shift as stated by Dogancay and Aktuna (1998) was the secularization of education after the establishment of the Turkish republic, and banning teaching Arabic and Farsi in primary and secondary schools. After the establishment of the Republic only 6% of the whole population was literate therefore, “authorities were mostly concerned with bringing widespread literacy to Turkish people” (p. 26). In the early years of the Republic, the focus was on Turkish rather than any foreign languages, but in March 1924 a Western foreign language was made compulsory for anyone attending school to culturally enrich Turkish people (Dogancay and Aktuna, 1998). As is clearly seen in the above table, the spread of English in Turkey started in the 1950s, driven mostly by the need to open up to the western world, both for international communication and technological developments (Dogancay & Aktuna, 1998). After this period, the nation’s desire to modernize and maintain stronger ties with the Western world profoundly influenced foreign language teaching policy, which increased the spread of English Language Teaching (ELT) in Turkey (Kirkgoz, 2005). 6 Language Policies and ELT Curriculum Reforms in Turkey Even though English language teaching started as early as the 1830s during the Ottoman Empire’s time with the American missionary schools, there is not much detail about how English was taught in those schools until the 1940s (Ozsevik, 2010). It was found in Tarhan’s (1998) study that Robert College, which was founded by American missionary Cyrus Hamlin in 1863, implemented the Audiolingual method to teach English between 1945 and 1960 (As cited in, Ozsevik, 2010). The Audiolingual method approaches to language learning as a process of habit formation. It favors using speaking drills rather than written forms to effectively teach the language and extensive oral instruction is required in Audiolingual classrooms where the target language is used. Dialogues, repetition drills, replacement, completion and restatement drills were heavily used in the Audiolingual method. The theory behind the Audiolingual method is behaviorism as it emphasized that language is habit governed and language learning is seen as a habit formation. Even though drilling exercises in target language encourage students and enhance their speaking abilities, it lacks the capacity to build an in depth competency in the target language (Kwambehar et al, 2015). Another issue with the Audiolingual method is the teacher dominance in classrooms. Teachers control the process of learning and correct learners’ performance in Audiolingual classrooms whereas students play an inactive role by responding to stimuli and have little control over the pace and style of learning. The Audiolingual method didn’t meet the expectations as students were unable to transfer skills acquired through the Audiolingual method to real communication outside classrooms and declined all over the world. The Direct Method was implemented in Turkish state schools in 1945-1960. The popularity of this method was mostly because of E.V. Gatenby who was a strong advocate of the 7 direct method and worked as the head of the English department at Gazi Educational Institute in 1944 in Ankara, which was the only Teacher Training College in Turkey at that time (Ozsevik, 2010). The Direct method was developed as a reaction to the Grammar Translation method (GTM). According to the Direct Method, the main goal was to teach how to communicate in the target language. The meaning should be directly connected to the target language instead of translating it into the native language as in GTM. Basically, the Direct method aimed to provide language learners with practical knowledge of language and hypothesized that knowing a language is being able to speak that language. To achieve this goal, language was taught through demonstration instead of teaching about the forms of language by grammar rules. Students were encouraged to use the language naturally and spontaneously and grammar was taught inductively. The learning of second language was seen as parallel to the child’s acquisition of first language. Instead of explicitly teaching the grammar rules, teachers provided students with examples from which students were supposed to figure out the grammar rules (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). In spite of its achievements the Direct method fell short from fulfilling the needs of language teaching in Turkish context. This method required very competent language teachers who were native speakers or had native like fluency in the target language which made its application difficult in Turkish EFL classrooms. The Grammar translation method became the predominant language teaching method in 1960s and it has been implemented in Turkish classrooms for long times. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979, p.3) defined the major characteristics of grammar translation as: 1: Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language. 2: Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words. 8 3: Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given. 4: Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words. 5: Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early. 6: Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis. 7: Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue. 8: Little or no attention is given to pronunciation. Richards and Rodgers (2001) state that the major focus of the Grammar Translation method is on reading and writing, whereas no systematic attention is paid to the speaking and listening. In Turkish classrooms where the Grammar Translation method was implemented, the medium of instruction was Turkish and the ability to communicate in the target language was neglected. Turkey implemented the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) for many years, but as GTM prioritized accuracy over communicative competence and fluency, learning English has been very problematic for Turkish English Language Learners (ELLs) (Isik, 2008; Tilfarlioglu & Ozturk, 2007). Teaching English with GTM for many years in the Turkish EFL context, hasn’t helped students to become communicatively competent speakers of English. Canale and Swain (1980) described communicative competence as consisting of four basic components. Grammatical and linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence are components which enable learners to acquire the target language and become competent speakers of the target language. Hymes (1972) states that speakers of a language have 9 to have more than grammatical competence in order to be able communicate effectively in a language; language learners also need to know how language is used by members of a speech community to accomplish their purposes. In language classrooms where communicative competence was sought it was necessary to create interactive and meaningful activities to enable learners to negotiate meaning in the target language. Language classes taught with GTM failed to serve this purpose as they focused on the form of the language using activities that demanded repetition and memorization of sentences. GTM paid more attention to the written language at the expense of spoken aspect which neglected the listening and speaking skills of the students. As GTM depended on translation, memorization of vocabulary lists with their equivalents in the learners’ mother tongue decontextualized the information and the information was taught out of context which was not related to real life (Brown, 2006). GTM ended up teaching about the language by prioritizing the accuracy over fluency. As teachers focused only on the grammatical forms of the language without paying attention to communication, students in language classrooms taught with GTM did not play an active role and lacked the motivation to learn. Curriculum Reform of 1997 After adhering to the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) to teach English for almost 40 years, the Ministry of National Education (MONE) has introduced new English language teaching policy and reforms in 1997 that brought many fundamental changes regarding English teaching policies and curriculum. The Turkish Ministry of National Education (MONE), in cooperation with the Turkish Higher Education Council, made some drastic changes in the nation’s English language policy in its effort to reform Turkey’s ELT practice. The Ministry of Education Development Project, which was a major curriculum innovation project in ELT, was 10 initiated, aiming to promote the teaching of English in Turkish educational institutions (Kirkgoz, 2007). CLT is different than previously applied language teaching methods such as GTM, Direct method and the Audiolingual method. Brown (2006) defines CLT as “an eclectic blend of the contributions of previous methods into the best of what a teacher can provide in authentic uses of the second language in the classroom” (p, 28). Authentic and meaningful communication is the goal of the classroom activities and the main aim of language learning is to communicate rather than learning about the form of the language. Brown (2001), describes the six key principles of CLT as: 1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) of communicative competence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational aspects of language with the pragmatic. 2. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that enable learner to accomplish those purposes. 3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use. 4. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom. Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for communication in those contexts. 11 5. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning. 6. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with others. (p. 43) According to Kirkgöz (2005), the 1997 curriculum stands as a landmark in Turkish history as the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was introduced into ELT for the first time. “The basic goal of the policy is stated as the development of learners’ communicative capacity to prepare them to use the target language (L2) for communication in classroom activities. The curriculum promotes student-centered learning, to replace the traditional teachercentered view to learning. The role of the teacher is specified as facilitator of the learning process” (Kirkgoz, 2007; p. 221). The 1997 curriculum reform was revolutionary in many ways besides introducing CLT. The new curriculum also extended the length of compulsory primary education from five to eight years, embedding 3-year middle school to primary education. The starting grade to learn English was lowered to 4th grade which used to be offered only at middle school level. Another innovation that this reform has introduced was a Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL) class in the ELT Departments of Faculties of Education to develop prospective teachers’ practical skills to meet the needs of young language learners (Kirkgoz, 2008). In a study by Altmisdort (2016), which was done with 30 prospective English language teachers in English teacher training departments of 15 private and public colleges, teacher trainees stated that their lessons are generally theoretical not practical. When the findings were 12 compared with the university programs there was an analogy between the thought of students and courses but not enough practices. Prospective teachers who participated in this study suggested that, there should be more speaking lessons, more classroom activities and less theory and more practice in English teacher training departments. As the 1997 curriculum reform focused on promoting communicative skills and encouraging active student participation to classroom activities, it called for a major shift in the understandings of Turkish teachers involved in TEYLs. However, as this change was introduced with insufficient consideration of how teachers, as curriculum implementers would experience the process, “the proposed change seemed revolutionary rather than evolutionary for the majority of Turkish teachers, whose previous training was tailored to teach adults, not TEYLs” (Kirkgoz, 2007; p. 1862). Menken and Garcia (2010) state that in schools around the world there is a diverse array of language policies that are put into practice, but there is not much research done about the complex process of implementation of these policies within educational contexts. Kirkgoz (2008) stated that the 1997 curriculum reform which was implemented nationwide, caused some instructional problems and put considerable strain on the system in Turkey as it was not piloted initially. In a study that was done with the participation of 50 English teachers Kirkgoz (2007) aimed to explore what was attained after the 1997 curriculum reform regarding teachers’ classroom practices, methodologies used to facilitate students’ language acquisition and teachers’ perceptions of the innovation. Survey findings in this study showed that CLT proposed by the MONE did not have the expected impact on teachers’ classroom practices since teachers still used traditional methods of language teaching and activities in their classrooms (Kirkgoz, 2007). 13 Another study by Kizildag (2009) in which 20 public primary school English teachers in Turkey participated, aimed to identify the problems encountered by English teachers in Turkish primary schools. Semi-structured interview findings in this study revealed that a busy curriculum, inappropriate textbooks, and unsatisfactory placement tests were the three main instructional challenges that participants described. Regarding the curriculum, participants stated that the learning goals in this new curriculum were unrealistic and there was no flexibility in application either. Inappropriate textbook use in English classrooms was another challenge faced at an instructional level by the teachers. Teachers stated that textbooks were incompatible with the realities of the English learning and teaching in Turkish context. Unsatisfactory placement tests were the last instructional challenge described by teachers. They stated that these tests were mostly grammar-oriented and mechanical (Kizildag, 2009; p.195). Placement tests play a vital role in most EFL contexts. Sometimes, teachers mostly feel obliged to teach in line with the test questions that students will have on the standardized tests, which lead to a narrowing of the curriculum, demoralizes teachers and bores students (Nichols & Berliner, 2008). Teaching in line with standardized tests and having to follow the curriculum pose some instructional problems for language teachers. Inconsistencies between the language policies, standardized testing and actual classroom practices is a common problem in EFL contexts, where CLT constitutes the main language policy yet placement tests are mostly grammar oriented. Standardized high-stakes testing climate sends a message to both students and teachers that the primary purpose of learning is to score well on the tests (Nichols and Berliner, 2008). In a study done by Asassfeh, Khwaileh, Al-Shaboul and Alshboul (2012) in the Jordanian EFL context with 1525 public and private school EFL students, the researchers wanted to 14 address the applicability of CLT in an EFL context and student’s attitudes towards form focused language instruction (FFI) which prioritized GTM or meaning oriented instruction (MOI) focusing more on CLT in the classroom. The results revealed that the preference of FFI by second graders was indicative of the exam oriented instruction. Researchers concluded that even though the Jordanian Ministry of National Education put some efforts to implement CLT and students had positive attitudes towards CLT, ELT in Jordan stressed memorization, grammar and translation to meet the exam requirements (p. 526). A study done with 50 teachers in different public primary schools in Turkey revealed that there is a similar gap between the objectives of the national English teaching curriculum and teachers’ implementation of the curriculum and innovations (Kirkgoz, 2008). Teacher Motivation in EFL Contexts Guillateaux and Dornyei (2008) describe motivation as a primary impetus to initiate second/foreign language learning and then the driving force to maintain the long and tiring learning process. They state that, “without sufficient motivation individuals with the most remarkable abilities cannot accomplish long term goals” (p. 56). Gardner (2010) defines motivation as a construct that is difficult to define, but he identifies some characteristics that motivated individuals have. He states that, individuals who are motivated express effort in attaining a goal, attend to the tasks that are necessary to achieve their goals, enjoy the activities necessary to achieve their goals, show persistence, are aroused in seeking their goals and have expectancies about their failure and success. According to Gardner (2010) when these individuals achieve some degree of success, they demonstrate self-efficacy and they feel confident about their achievements. Gardner (1985) defined second language motivation as: “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal 15 of learning the language plus favorable attitudes toward learning the language” (p. 10). Latchanna and Dagnew (2009) define attitude as a mental state which includes beliefs and feelings. Gardner relates motivation to attitude because he thinks that true motivation must be linked to the effort to learn the language. Studies in EFL\ESL attitude and motivation mainly focus on student and teacher motivation relationships rather than teacher demotivation in EFL teaching contexts. Teacher motivation in EFL\ESL teaching is significantly important as the teacher’s attitude and motivation affects students’ motivation directly. Agcam and Babanoglu (2016) state that a teacher’s beliefs and attitudes directly affect their teaching behaviors. In a study, Guillateaux and Dörnyei (2008) examined the link between language learners’ motivation and teachers’ motivational teaching practice with 27 language teachers and 1300 Korean language learners. The results showed a clear relationship between teacher’s motivational teaching practice and their students’ learning motivation. There are many factors that might affect teachers’ motivation in EFL teaching contexts. A qualitative case study which focused on a Turkish EFL teacher’s de-motivation, in which face to face conversations, messenger (MSN) talks and a diary maintained by the participant teacher were used as data collection tools resulted that the problems faced by the participant, were related to the teaching profession, ELT curriculum, students and their parents, colleagues and school administrators, working conditions, and physical conditions. When instructional challenges were researched in depth in this study, the English teaching curriculum, teaching methods and centralized examinations were the main causes of teacher demotivation in the Turkish EFL teaching context. As it can be seen from this case study, factors causing teacher 16 demotivation range from personal to professional challenges and instructional to physical challenges. A study conducted by Doyle and Kim (1999) on teacher motivation resulted that salary, curriculum, text books, teacher-administrator relationship and heavy workload were among the factors de-motivating teachers. Another study conducted by Connie (2000) in Mexico found that inflexible curriculum, lack of enthusiasm in teaching, lack of teaching materials and heavy workload were the main de-motivating factors for teachers. Hettiarachchi (2010) investigated teacher de-motivating factors in the Sri Lankan EFL context, and his study concluded that the discrepancy between curriculum and learners’ ability, teacher transfers and poor relationships between colleagues were among the factors causing teacher de-motivation. Grammar-oriented English examinations that do not test students’ communicative abilities are one of the biggest factors of teacher de-motivation in Turkish EFL contexts. Testing students with grammar-oriented centralized exams affects both teachers’ and students’ motivation. These centralized tests mainly determine teachers’ teaching methods in classrooms as the students are placed into better schools if they get high scores on these grammar-oriented language tests. Students who get high scores on centralized examinations are able to get into better high schools or colleges in Turkey and this makes centralized exams the biggest challenge for students in shaping their future. Teachers’ tendency toward form focused language teaching in EFL classrooms mainly stems from the grammar dominated language tests. In a study which was done to depict the use of communicative approach and to depict both teachers’ and students’ perspectives on CLT implementation in 9th grade Turkish EFL classes resulted that the classroom was not the ideal communicative and student centered setting depicted in the national ELT curriculum (Akkas & Coker, 2016). 17 A similar study conducted by Philips and Borg (2009) with three teachers of English in Turkey resulted that, English language teachers in Turkey tend to adopt more focus on form approach in their classrooms. The results of Akkas and Coker’s (2016) study revealed that form focused language instruction was implemented by both teachers who participated in their study because of the discrepancy between the curriculum and centralized tests. Researchers also stated that “The tendency on focus on form approach, mainly stems from the common grammar-based discrete point testing methods which confront both teachers and students with a dilemma between the communicative approach and the traditional teaching methods” (p. 81). Research Questions The purpose of the proposed research study was to find out if there is a gap between language policy and actual classroom practices in the Turkish EFL context. If there is a gap, the study will investigate what are the causes and what effects it has on English language teachers’ motivation. Specifically, my research questions were: 1. Is there a perceived gap between the language policy and practice in Turkey? 2. What are the perspectives of Turkish EFL teachers about ELT policy implementation in terms of teaching methods and motivation? 3. Is there a difference in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels? 18 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY This section provides an overview of research methodology along with the research design, participants, instruments, data collection procedures and the analysis of data. Research Design In order to uncover teacher perspectives, qualitative research design was used. Perry (2011) states that “qualitative research works to uncover information from small purposeful samples” (p. 79). In this study, data were collected via semi-structured interviews with three Turkish English teachers, one teaching at the elementary level, one at the middle level and one at the high school level. Interviews were chosen as the data collection instrument for a couple reasons. Firstly, interviews were employed to obtain information on teacher motivation which may otherwise be very difficult to gather (Gass & Mackey, 2011). Secondly, interviews are authentic as spontaneously occurring talk is exchanged between the interviewer and the interviewee (Wei & Moyer, 2008). Thirdly, in this study data is socially constructed between the interviewee and interviewer to represent the attitudes, beliefs and mental states of the participants (Talmy, 2011). Finally, in research interviews, data cannot be contaminated as it is produced collaboratively with interviewer and the participant (Talmy, 2011). Participants The participants in this study were three female Turkish EFL teachers, teaching at elementary, middle and high school levels. The participants were selected from different grade levels to be able to reflect the effects of the current English teaching curriculum on teacher motivation. 19 • Participant number 1 was Ezgi. She taught both elementary (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th through 8th graders), and secondary levels at a public school in Antalya, Turkey. She has been teaching English for 3 years. • Participant number 2 was Yeliz. She taught at a secondary level public school to 6th, 7th, and 8th graders in Mersin, Turkey. She has been teaching English for 4 years. • Participant number 3 was Sijan. She taught at a public high school to 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade high schoolers in Ankara, Turkey. She has been teaching English for 5 years. As a researcher, I was aware that all three participant teachers in this study were females, but in Turkey it is very common that females work as language teachers more than males, so this sample is representative of the larger population. Data Collection Procedures Interviews with participant teachers including questions prepared by the interviewer were used to elicit data. Berg (1998) describes interviews as formal, informal and semi-structured. In this study semi-structured interviews were used, as they give sufficient freedom to interviewers to digress and also allow interviewers to go far beyond the prepared standardized questions (Berg, 1998). Semi-structured interviews also allow to interviewees express their views in their own terms allowing the interviewer to get comparable qualitative data. In this study semi-structured interview questions consisted of background information questions and 11 interview questions. Online FaceTime interviews were used as all the participants in this study lived and worked in Turkey, and the researcher lived in the U.S. at the time when this study was conducted. Each participant was interviewed for 30 minutes and all three interviews were conducted in English. 20 Data Analysis To analyze the findings of the study, first the data were transcribed and a-priori codes were set up. While reading through the findings, data were coded with pre-set codes. As semistructured interviews were used to collect data in this study, any emergent codes during the interviews were added. If necessary, re-coding was applied. During the interviews, anecdotal memos were used to make the coding and data collection procedure easier. Emergent themes of the interviews were identified and findings were framed to analyze the data. Constantcomparative coding was applied for data analysis purposes in this study, where a priori codes were compared to the literature, to see if they matched or not (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As a researcher, my professional teaching experience in Turkey as an EFL teacher helped me empathize with the participants regarding the curriculum, teaching methods and assessment practices’ effect on teacher motivation. My positionality as the researcher is that I am a native of Turkey and a former EFL teacher in Turkey, which was my main motivation to conduct the present study and helped me better empathize with the participants to shed light on the tensions between the language policies and practice and how this tension affected EFL teachers’ motivation in the Turkish EFL setting. A-priori codes based on my literature review consisted of: GTM (+), GTM (-), CLT (+), CLT (-), Assessment (+), Assessment (-), Motivation (+), Motivation (-), Policy & practice gap (+), Policy & practice (-). Plus (+) showed that teachers liked GTM, CLT and had positive views on assessment methods including centralized tests, whereas (-) represented dislike and negative views. Motivation (+) showed that the teacher had high motivation, while (-) showed that the teacher had low motivation. Policy & practice (+) showed that the teacher thought that there was a gap between the language teaching policies and their actual classroom practices, while (-) 21 represented that the teacher did not think that there was a gap between language policies and practice. GTM + GTM - CLT + CLT - Assessment + Assessment - Motivation + Motivation - Policy-Practice Policy-Practice gap + gap - Figure 1. A-priori codes. These were the codes used to analyze the data set. In Figure 2 below, sample coded data is shown. Different colors were used for each apriori code to make the coding process easier. 22 Figure 2. Coded data. These were the samples from the coded data set. As can be seen from the Figure 2, none of the participants in this study had positive views for the current assessment practices or GTM. On the other hand, none of the participants had negative views for CLT. As semi-structured interviews were used as the data collection method in this study, the researcher was able to ask follow up questions to the participants to make their points clear and to make sure that participants revealed their perspectives regarding the ELT policies and practices in the Turkish EFL context. As one of the research questions asked participants how their motivation has changed since they started teaching English in Turkey, interviewees were able to express their views by answering the interview questions in their own 23 terms that allowed the interviewer to get comparable qualitative data via semi structured interviews. 24 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS This study aimed to explore Turkish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ perspectives in Turkey in terms of English language teaching (ELT) policies, curriculum, actual classroom practices, teaching methods, and teacher motivation. The research questions were (1) Is there a gap between the language policy and practice in Turkey? (2) What are the perspectives of Turkish EFL teachers about ELT policy implementation in terms of curriculum, teaching methods and motivation? and (3) Is there a difference in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels? The analyses of the collected data revealed some common themes from all three participant teachers’ interviews in this study. Emergent themes from the data analysis included an inevitable gap between policy and practice, a mismatch between the curriculum and assessment practices, a perceived lack of teacher autonomy, and the impact of assessments and administrative pressures effect on teacher motivation. The Inevitable Gap between Policy and Practice One common theme that emerged from the teachers’ interviews was the inevitable gap between ELT policies and teachers’ reported classroom practices. All three teachers that I interviewed in this study stated that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to implement the imposed language teaching curriculum in their classrooms. Even though Turkey replaced the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in 1997, when they were asked about the role of GTM in the Turkish EFL context, the participants in this study stated that GTM still had a big role in their teaching. For example, Ms. Sijan a high school EFL teacher, stated that, “GTM is a large pie of my classroom teaching… In Turkish EFL context GTM has a great role, although some other 25 approaches can be used as a small part of the class, larger part is constituted by GTM (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). When I asked her the reason for GTM constituting the “large pie” of her teaching and what is the proposed teaching method in the national curriculum for the grade level that she teaches is, she stated that “The suggested teaching method is mostly CLT for the 9th graders that I’m teaching, but it’s not easy to apply in the classroom I think” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). She also added that It’s (CLT) not easy to apply in the classroom I think. Because of many reasons, for instance the class is so crowded and while some students are doing the required activity, it’s hard to control the others. (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). When I asked her the reason for this inconsistency between what she was supposed to teach and what she was actually teaching, she stated that, “Even if you use this method CLT you should return back to GTM before the exams. That’s a big problem. So the suggested method doesn’t work for me, I think” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). The model national English teaching curriculum for the elementary and middle school levels which is shown in Table 2 (Adapted from Kirkgoz et al, 2016), imposes that the teaching focus for the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades should be on listening and speaking skills. 26 Table 2 Model English Language Curriculum (2nd-8th Grades) As shown in the above table, grammar teaching is not even mentioned in the curriculum. However, Ms. Ezgi who teaches middle school stated that, “GTM has a very big role on Turkish education system because our exams are based on mostly grammar and we don’t have enough time to use other methods instead of GTM” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). When I asked her about the suggested teaching method CLT, in the national curriculum, she stated that, “There are many different methods in our curriculum. But initially we are obliged to teach English Grammar. When it comes to speaking or listening, the curriculum is entirely useless” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). 27 In the interview the participants were asked to give their perspectives about which ELT method was the most effective one to teach English for their students. Ms. Ezgi asserted that: I think CLT is the most effective one for our students. But the national curriculum should also be reasonable and useful. We need to make our students understand that English is not a course that causes fear. Moreover, we need to teach everyday speech rather than grammar” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). Ms. Yeliz answered the question about her perspectives about which ELT method was the most effective one to teach English for her students by indicating, “I think CLT is the most effective one because the students are involved in the activities and encouraged to speak English” (Ms. Yeliz, middle school EFL teacher). High school English teacher Ms. Sijan answered the same question by stating: I know that I’m repeating the GTM all the times but I’m sorry. GTM is the most effective one for my students I want to say. Maybe for other teachers this answer might differ. If I were at a primary school maybe my answer would be different but my students are already used to writing [memorizing] the grammar rules and practicing these rules […], for those reasons I feel obliged to continue this routine. Maybe that’s a wrong feeling or style I don’t know, but the reality is this unfortunately. Actually that doesn’t mean that I didn’t try other methods but when I tried especially for the first year of my career, I rather acknowledged negative responses from the students especially during the class or when I see the exam results. So, GTM is my favorite or I should say GTM has to be my favorite (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). Out of all 3 participants, only Ms. Yeliz, elementary school English teacher, stated that she used CLT with her students, as they did not have to take any sort of language tests. Ms. Yeliz 28 was the only participant who stated that she was able to implement CLT with her elementary school students, and when the researcher asked how she teaches her classes to her elementary level students she stated “I try to make meaningful dialogues with them and play fun games” (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). However, as Ms. Yeliz taught both elementary and middle school levels, she expressed the difference in her perspective in teaching these two different levels by stating: Most of the time with my middle school level students, I have to use GTM because of the limited time. Otherwise they don’t have the time to get the knowledges which are questioned in the exam (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). When the researcher asked participants’ perspectives on the current teaching methods that they were implementing in their classroom teachers revealed that, “We need to teach everyday speech rather than grammar” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). Ms. Yeliz responded, “Whenever they (students) try to use the grammar truly in a sentence, this time they forget what to say” (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). Ms. Sijan revealed, “Even if you use this method (CLT) you should return back to GTM before the exams” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). The gap between ELT policies and the reported classroom practices of language teachers was the first recurrent theme in this study. As can be seen from the interview data, the gap between the ELT policies and the reported classroom practices of language teachers was inevitable mostly due to the assessment practices in Turkish EFL context. The main reason for the inconsistency between the policy and practice resulted mostly from the language tests that had very important role in the Turkish EFL context. All three participants stated that, even though the national curriculum suggested CLT in their teaching, they were not able to implement 29 CLT. This gap was inevitable due to the language tests that created too much stress for both the teachers and students. This major theme which emerged from all three teacher interviews also answered the first research question in this study, which was: (1) Is there a gap between the language policy and practice in Turkey? Mismatch Between the Curriculum and Assessment Practices In the interview, teachers were asked what they thought about the centralized English examinations in Turkey and all participants reported their dissatisfaction regarding the current language assessments in Turkish EFL context. Teachers reported that even though the national curriculum stated using CLT for elementary, middle and secondary levels, the contents of the assessments were irrelevant to the national curriculum. These findings from the interview data led to the second major emergent theme in this study. Ms. Sijan stated The assessments require grammatical knowledge rather than writing or speaking. I can say that if you are good at reading and grammar you can get high scores, but I don’t think that these examinations test students’ competencies. However, the necessity of these exams leads students to be experts of grammatical rules, thus you can see lots of students who have high English scores but can’t speak English fluently (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). Ms. Yeliz expressed her dissatisfaction of the assessments by stating “Actually I don’t like them [the assessments], and neither do most of the teachers and students. They just limit you to learn the content of these exams (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). Ms. Ezgi reported that “Each of them [the assessments] focus on detailed grammar. They force you to know English grammar even better than natives (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). 30 Lack of Teacher Autonomy During the interview the participants were asked if they feel obliged to teach in line with the language tests that their students had to take even though the ELT curriculum suggested using CLT in their teaching. All three participants stated that even though CLT was the main language teaching method in the national ELT curriculum for the grade levels that they were teaching, they felt obliged to teach in line with the language tests, which were not testing students’ communicative competency but grammatical knowledge. These findings from the interview data led to the third major emergent theme in this study. Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher answered this question by stating, Of course I feel if I don’t teach in line with these questions it’s inevitable that I’m going to come across with grades that are under 50, besides the complaints of the students also maybe a warning from the principle unfortunately (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). Ms. Yeliz, middle school EFL teacher, answered this question by stating, “Of course I feel so, because my students have to be successful in these exams” (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). When the participants were asked how the language tests made teachers feel obliged to teach in line with the language tests and how this affected their lesson planning, Ms. Ezgi stated that, “There is a national education website you can get the similar questions with these exams. I download them all and provide students with these tests” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). When the researcher asked Ms. Ezgi what her perspective on the curriculum that suggested CLT was, even if she taught her classes by downloading the test questions on the education ministry’s website and planned her lessons in line with those questions, Ms. Ezgi repeated that “the national curriculum should also be reasonable and useful” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). 31 When the researcher asked why teachers weren’t able to implement CLT in their classrooms, Ms. Yeliz, who teaches both in elementary and middle school levels, stated that “If I would have much more time in the class and wouldn’t be obliged to prepare my students to the written exams, I would use this method [CLT]” (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). These findings from the teacher interviews showed that even though the national curriculum stated that teachers should use CLT in their teaching, due to the grammatical language tests teachers felt obliged to teach for language tests rather than providing their students with communicative and authentic language by implementing CLT. Teachers had lack of autonomy in their teaching as they felt like their ultimate goal was enabling their students to get high scores in the tests and get into good high schools or colleges. Assessment and Administrative Pressures’ Effect on Teacher Motivation As shown above with the third theme of this research study, all three participants revealed that they felt they did not have autonomy in their teaching and felt obliged to teach in line with centralized tests. Participants commented in the interviews that, school principals can judge teachers’ teaching skills based on their students’ test results. Since the test results were seen as a measurement of teachers’ teaching skills, they caused stress and demotivation for teachers. When the researcher asked the participants why they had to teach in line with tests even though they all revealed that CLT was the best teaching method, Ms. Sijan revealed what could she or some of her colleagues face by the school principal by stating that, “For example, he says hey my teacher I think you’re a bit bad about teaching why are these grades so low, you can hear these warnings from the principal unfortunately” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). 32 As seen in the above excerpt, school principals who might not know a word of English can judge the teachers teaching skills or English proficiency based solely on the English language assessments. This issue was a recurring theme in all three of the teacher interviews, which they report caused them to lose their motivation in their profession. These language teachers are the graduates of teaching English departments of colleges in Turkey and hearing, “I think you’re a bit bad about teaching; why are these grades so low?” by the school principals revealed why teachers had to teach in line with tests. Ms. Yeliz revealed how she felt about her middle school level students’ centralized test results by stating, My eight grade students came first in an exam TEOG which you have to take to go to a good high school, and it means a good university for us. Now, there is the second of this exam, and we have lots of pressure on us like what if we cannot be first this time. So our manager makes pressure on us, and we do on our students, but we have to do it even if we don’t like it. As I said before it is like a domino effect (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). The pressure that Ms. Yeliz faced by her principal made her stress about her students’ test results and demotivated her in her teaching as she had to care more of her students’ grades rather than their actual language improvement. When the researcher asked the interviewees about how their teaching motivation had changed since they started their job as an EFL teacher, Ms. Sijan revealed “I was more enthusiastic about teaching 4 years ago I think, but now I’m a standard teacher who cares the high grades most; this is a bad result and I’m really sorry about that” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). Ms. Sijan also emphasized that “As a typical EFL teacher I felt really ambitious about my career at first, but the obstacles [teaching to the test, large classroom 33 sizes, pressure from the principal, teaching grammar rules over and over again] actually diminished that feeling” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). As seen from Ms. Sijan’s excerpts, her motivation diminished since she started teaching English, even though she was very motivated when she first started her career as an English teacher. It was noteworthy that Ms. Sijan brought up the term “typical EFL teacher” who she defined as a teacher who cared the high exam results more than students’ actual language development and fluency by including herself in that group. From the interview, it can be said that the term “standard teacher” that Ms. Sijan came up with after teaching English in Turkish public school system for 4 years, can be a representative of a bigger picture as the term reflected her observations in her professional career. When asked about how her motivation had changed after she started teaching English, Ms. Yeliz stated, At the beginning I didn’t like this job, because I didn’t like the system and the students in it. When I started to think emotionally about the students and touch their hearts, I started to love this job (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). Another participant answered the same question about the change in her motivation compared to when she first started her job by stating “It is unfortunately diminished” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). Two of the teachers who were teaching middle school and high school levels stated that their motivation diminished since they started their careers. However, Ms. Yeliz who happened to teach both elementary and middle school levels stated that her motivation increased even though she was not highly motivated in the beginning of her professional career. This could be 34 because Ms. Yeliz was also teaching at the elementary school level, without any stress of preparing her students for tests; she was able to implement CLT by creating a stress-free classroom, which she enjoyed. As seen from the interview data, there was a difference in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels. This conclusion answered the third research question in this study, which was: Is there a difference in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels? Out of all three of my participant teachers, Ms. Yeliz was the only teacher who taught both at an elementary and middle school levels and she was the only teacher who stated that her motivation increased since she started working as an EFL teacher in Turkey. She stated that she was not highly motivated in her job when she first started, but by the time her motivation increased as she revealed: “When I started to think emotionally about the students and touch their hearts, I started to love this job” (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). As it can be seen from the above excerpts from Ms. Yeliz’s interview data, she reports using CLT by creating an atmosphere where her students are actively involved in classroom actives and playing interactive games. Conclusion The interview data brought out four major themes. First, all three participants revealed that they perceived a gap between the policy and practice. They felt this gap was inevitable due to centralized assessments that they felt were irrelevant, which was the second recurring theme out of the interview data. Third, the participants revealed that they felt they did not have any autonomy over what they were teaching, and all three participants’ interview data revealed that teachers felt torn between policy and test demands. Fourth, all three participants expressed that 35 the irrelevant assessments and the subsequent pressures that they faced from the school administrators affected their motivation in their profession. 36 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study examined teacher perspectives in terms of curriculum, language policies, and motivation of elementary, middle and secondary level English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in the Turkish EFL context. This chapter aims to further discuss the data that was gathered in this study, and address each research question with a discussion of the data presented in chapter four. In this section, I discuss the relevant themes that emerged from the teacher interviews in this study. Additionally, I relate the findings of this study to the existing studies on language policies and practices, and teacher motivation in EFL settings. Next, implications of this conducted study are presented in this chapter. Limitations of the study and implications for future research are also discussed. Finally, the chapter presents some recommendations for policy makers and government officials in Turkey who are in charge of English Language Teaching (ELT) curriculum planning. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of Turkish EFL teachers about ELT policy implementation in terms of their reported curriculum, teaching methods and motivation. The study was also expected to inform policy makers regarding the language policies, national curriculum and teachers’ actual classroom practices in Turkish EFL context. The results of this study are expected to inform government officials regarding the reasons why the policy cannot be put into practice successfully, and how teachers’ motivation changes over the time in Turkish public school system. Also, this study aimed to examine the differences in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle and secondary levels. In particular, the main goal of the study was to find out if there was a gap between the proposed national curriculum and teachers’ actual classroom practices and how this gap affected teachers’ motivation in Turkish EFL context. 37 The emergent themes in this study were meant to answer the following research questions in this study: 1. Is there a gap between the language policy and practice in Turkey? 2. What are the perspectives of Turkish EFL teachers about ELT policy implementation in terms of curriculum, teaching methods and motivation? 3. Is there a difference in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels? The tensions found from the interview data in this study were: 1) The tensions between policy and practice 2) Tension between the curriculum and assessment practices 3) Tension between autonomy and centralized policy decisions 4) Tensions between motivation and external pressure Tensions between Policy and Practice The first research question in this study is answered by the first theme “The Inevitable Gap Between Policy and Practice”. All three participants in this study stated that there was a gap between language teaching policies and their reported classroom practices in the Turkish EFL context. This may be due to their perception that a mismatch between curriculum and testing practices exists. As all three participants in this study stated, both students’ language proficiency and teachers’ teaching skills are judged by these test results. To evaluate students’ language improvement, testing and assessment of their learning are necessary; however, in Turkey’s case, even though the national curriculum suggests using more communicative methods to teach 38 English, data analysis revealed that teachers report more frequent use of grammar translation method (GTM). Figure 3: Policy-Practice Gap. Kirkgoz (2007, 2008) conducted studies at the primary level to find out if there was a gap between the idealized official ELT policy recommended by the Ministry of National Education and the teachers’ actual classroom implementation of these policies. This series of studies revealed a gap between policy and practice at the primary level. Drawing from Kirkgoz’ (2007, 2008) findings, the present study also focused on how teachers from different grade levels perceived the curriculum and how their teaching motivation was affected by the perceived gap. This study found similar results with Kirkgoz’s (2007, 2008) studies. In her studies she concluded that most primary level ELT teachers were unable to implement the proposed curriculum by the Ministry of National Education by creating a communicative learning environment, and my participants in this study emphasized the difficulties that they faced in implementing the ELT curriculum in their classrooms. 39 As stated earlier in this study, GTM had been implemented in Turkish schools for a long time but with the 1997 curriculum reform, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was proposed by the Ministry of National Education to teach English in Turkish schools. The 1997 curriculum reform was modified with some other measures to create a better communicative language learning environment needed to facilitate students’ language acquisition in 2005 (Kirkgoz, 2007). Ozsevik’s (2010) study, which was a thorough investigation of CLT implementation in the Turkish EFL context, asserted that the main obstacle to the CLT implementation in Turkey was the grammar-based examination system. Similarly, all three teachers interviewed in this study stated that even though the national curriculum suggested CLT for the grade levels that they were teaching, they expressed that they had to put heavy emphasis on preparing their students for the national examinations in Turkey, which they also felt was grammar-based. Tension between Curriculum and Assessment Practices One of the reasons that participants in this study cited as a reason why they failed to implement CLT in their classrooms was the assessment practices. As revealed by the teacher interviews in this study, teachers had to put heavy emphasis on preparing their students for the grammar-based national exams, which in turn hindered the CLT implementation in their classrooms. Participants in this study expressed that they felt obliged to teach in line with the exam questions, as language tests were regarded as the most important indicator of both students’ success in language learning and teachers’ language teaching skills. The results of this study showed similarities with other studies conducted in different EFL settings regarding CLT implementation in language classrooms. Ellis (1994) conducted a study to find out if the language teachers were able to implement CLT in their classrooms in 40 Vietnamese EFL context and his study indicated that teachers were unable to implement CLT as they were dependent on the traditional language teaching methods. Similarly, participants in the present study also reported that, there was too much emphasis on GTM in Turkish examination system. Another study conducted by Karavas-Doukas (1996) to investigate teachers’ attitudes toward CLT in an EFL setting in Greece discovered that even though the national curriculum suggested CLT in Greek classrooms, teachers carried out traditional language teaching methods such as GTM, and the classrooms were taught with teacher oriented instruction style. Liu’s (2005) study, which investigated whether the language policies were put into actual practice by teachers, indicated that teachers were unable to implement the language policies in their classrooms due to the national examinations in Taiwan. Taiwanese teachers had to put too much emphasis on teaching the grammatical structures as the examinations tested students’ grammatical proficiency rather than communicative abilities. Similarly, in the present study, all three participants revealed that they were unable to implement the curriculum in their classrooms. The reason why teachers were unable to do so was not because they did not like CLT or its principles, but because of the focus on grammar expressed in the national examination system that was also conducted by the Ministry of National Education (MONE). Bamgbose (2003) states that, if the language policies are not backed by the will to actually implement them, these policies will not be effective no matter how desirable they are. In this study participants reported that, even though the language teaching policy imposes CLT principles to implement in the classroom, they cannot put the policy into practice, since they felt that they had to prepare their students for the grammar-based examinations. One of the participants expressed that “If you do not use the method (CLT) in your classroom it only stays 41 on the written materials” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). All three participants had positive views towards CLT and its principles, however they lacked the will to implement the national curriculum in their classrooms, due to the tension between the curriculum and assessment practices. Menken and Garcia (2010) state that among the various important factors affecting successful language policy implementation, language teachers play an important role, in realizing the expectations of the policy-makers. In the present study, participants expressed that, they experience hardships in implementing the current language policy into practice in their classrooms. Chua and Baldauf (2011) state that if the imposed language policies do not take the issues regarding language teachers into consideration, implementing these language policies will not be successful and failure will be inevitable. As seen from teacher interviews in the present study, teachers felt torn in putting the written policies into practice; once they failed to do so they labelled themselves as a “standard EFL” teacher, the term that Ms. Sijan brought up in the present study. Participants in this study expressed the importance of examinations and how they guide teachers’ classroom practices. All three of the participant teachers in this study stated that they had to teach in line with the exam questions in these centralized tests. Apparently, teachers had to cover many grammatical topics in their classrooms so that their students could get higher scores on these exams. The findings in this study showed that, even though the national curriculum has been changed in Turkey 20 years ago, language policies cannot be put into practice, as the tests still focus too much on the structural forms, but not communicative abilities of students. This phenomenon causes policies to stay only on the written materials, but cannot be implemented in the actual classroom setting, as teachers repeatedly expressed in this study. 42 In conclusion, the findings in this study revealed a perceived gap between the language policies and practices in Turkish EFL context. This gap requires the immediate attention of policy makers and government officials if they want English teachers to be able to implement the national curriculum that imposes implementing CLT in language classrooms. As revealed by the three participants in this study, this gap will persist if the assessment practices still require mostly grammatical knowledge without focusing on the communicative domains of the language. The mismatch between the curriculum and assessment practices, which emerged as the second theme of this study, needs to be fixed by changing the grammar based examination system with more communicatively oriented assessment practices. Johnson (2013) defines policies that are based on laws as (de jure), and what actually happens in the classroom as (de facto). He states that (de facto) is the activity that happens in the classroom context, despite what (de jure) policy states. In the present study, as all three participants reported, (de jure) policies are not reflected with (de facto) activities of teachers in language classrooms. As the participants revealed, the main handicap to put the (de jure) language policy into (de facto) practices, is the grammar-based centralized examinations. If this mismatch between the (de jure) policy and the teachers’ (de facto) classroom practices is not fixed by integrating language tests with the imposed national curriculum, creating a communicative language learning environment by implementing CLT will inevitably be impossible and stay only on the written policies. If this mismatch is not fixed by the authorities, teachers’ concept of “standard teacher” that was brought up by one of the participants in this study, defined as teachers caring more about high grades on the assessment more than students’ actual language acquisition, may unfortunately become more teachers’ fate in Turkey. Teachers will also continue to face a 43 dilemma between implementing communicative methods, as suggested in the national curriculum and preparing their students for the language tests that are heavily dominated by grammatical knowledge. Tension between Autonomy and Centralized Policy Decisions The second research question in this study was “What are the perspectives of Turkish EFL teachers about ELT policy implementation in terms of curriculum, teaching methods and motivation?” and it was answered by multiple themes emerged in this study. Test results were regarded by all three participants as an indicator of both students’ language proficiency and teachers’ teaching skills. Participants revealed that if their students score low in these centralized tests, school principals might judge their teaching proficiency. Having said that, teachers do not have any authority to implement the method that they think is the best. Since the examinations are source of huge stress for both students and teachers, they plan their classes in line with the exam questions, even though they are supposed to follow the national curriculum. A study conducted by Hiep (2007) in the Vietnamese EFL context indicated that grammar based-traditional examinations had negative washback on teachers’ actual classroom practices, as centralized public examinations focus on discrete items and do not put too much emphasis on communication. Another study by Wu (2001) in the Chinese EFL context, reported that traditional grammar based large-scale exams found to affect language teaching in a negative way. Similarly, this issue was repeatedly revealed by the participants in this study. The grammarbased exam questions guided teachers’ lesson planning and classroom practices even though all three participants stated that they thought CLT was the best method of language teaching in their interviews. 44 Lack of teacher autonomy was the third emergent theme from the data in this study. One of the participants revealed that, “There is a national education web site you can get the similar questions with these exams. I download them all and provide students with these tests” (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). As seen in the excerpt, even though the national curriculum imposes CLT in the language classrooms, Ms. Ezgi felt obliged to teach in line with the test questions in the centralized exams. Centralized grammar-based exams which had negative washback on her actual classroom practices. In the interviews all three participants revealed that they believed language is best learnt with communicative methods instead of studying the grammatical forms in isolation. Teachers knew the principles of CLT and stated that if they did not have to prepare their students for the exams they would teach with CLT more in their classrooms. This finding shows that even though the language policy imposes CLT in the national curriculum, teachers had to see CLT as a secondary method to implement in their classrooms if they had some extra time left, after covering all the necessary grammar forms for the examinations. The only participant in this study who could implement CLT in her classroom was Ms. Yeliz with her elementary level students. Ms. Yeliz was recruited as the elementary teacher in this study but as she happened to teach both elementary and middle school levels, her interview was mainly about her experiences with middle schoolers. Ms. Yeliz stated that with her elementary level students she tries to make meaningful dialogues and play fun games in her classroom (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). The reason why Ms. Yeliz was able to implement CLT was that her students (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders) did not have to take any centralized examinations, and she did not feel any pressure regarding her students’ test results or pressure from the administration. 45 As she did not have to prepare her elementary level students Ms. Yeliz was the only teacher who was able to implement the imposed curriculum by the Ministry of national Education. This finding revealed that, if teachers did not have to stress about preparing their students for grammarbased centralized exams, they could implement the language policies in their classroom practices. Tensions between Motivation and External Pressure Interview data revealed that teachers’ motivation is affected by some factors in THE Turkish EFL context. The third research question in this study, “Is there a difference in perspectives among Turkish EFL teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels?” is answered by the theme (4) Irrelevant Assessments’ and administrative pressures’ effect on teacher motivation. The main pressure that teachers felt was due to the grammar-based centralized exams. In Turkey, middle school-age students have to take Transition from Primary to Secondary Education Examination (TEOG) exam to get into high school, and high schoolers have to take Transition to Higher Education Examination (YGS), Student Placement Examination (LYS) to get into college. If students are not going to study language departments of the universities, such as English Literature or teaching English Departments, they do not have to take the foreign languages test on LYS. However, the students who want to study other majors except language related majors, have to take YGS/LYS exams which test students Turkish Language, Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography and History. As these tests are huge sources of stress for the students, if they are not going to take English test on LYS exam, they do not put too much emphasis on English classes during high school. However, students who want to study language majors in colleges have to take both YGS and LYS 5 (Foreign language Test) 46 exams, and their English classes are comprised mainly of learning about test techniques to score high in the LYS 5 examination. As stated by Sarier (2010), selection examinations have always existed due to the desire for better education and also the inability of covering the demands for education completely. Kazan et al (2015) state that, Turkey has held numerous centralized examinations under the name of transition to secondary education in the past 30 years. However, these exams did not yield the desired result in Turkish education system and Turkey could not reach the desired success in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries student levels are assessed. Middle school students have to take TEOG in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades respectively by answering 20 multiple-choice questions from 6 basic courses in the examinations, and students’ year end success points in the 6th, 7th and 8th grades with their score on the central examination determined students’ high school placement (Kazan, et al 2015). In TEOG exam, students are tested in Turkish, Mathematics, Science and Technology, Religion and Ethics, Republic of Turkey Revolution History and Kemalism, and Foreign Language (Kazan et al, 2015). All three participants in the present study stated that English tests in these tests only test students’ grammar, and reading abilities even though the curriculum suggests CLT students are not being tested on their listening and speaking skills. This mismatch between the curriculum and the assessment practices reported by the participants has been found a salient problem in this study, causing stress and demotivation for EFL teachers in Turkish EFL setting. 47 Table 3 Ministry of National Education (2017) High School English Curriculum Teachers Students • • • Communicate in English in the classroom at all times. classroom at all times and act as Are active participants who also good role models for students. • provide input to each other during • (individual work, pair work, group Constantly practice real-life English work, whole class) during the in various contexts to become lessons. • by building on what is familiar for an integrated way and parallel to students. • Allow learners to discover meaning from context and/or given clues. Are viewed as creative individuals • who can produce language materials • Present unfamiliar topics in English Practice all four language skills in first language acquisition process. • Use a variety of interaction types communicative activities. effective communicators in English. • Communicate in English in the Overlook students’ mistakes or slips and tasks with the guidance of their of the tongue during speaking teachers. activities and model the correct use Are encouraged to be autonomous of language instead or take notes to in their own language learning work on the mistakes later on as a inside and outside the classroom. whole class without referring to students’ identities. 48 As can be seen from the above table for high school English curriculum, using more communicative language teaching methods, by providing real-life learning situations is suggested by the Ministry of National Education (MONE). However, when the researcher asked all three participants about which L2 (Second Language) teaching methods that they were most familiar with, high school English teacher Ms. Sijan revealed, I’m most familiar with GTM, of course. I think if you ask this question to Turkish teachers you can hear mostly GTM. Actually the other methods not being applicable caused to this, because if you don’t use the method in the curriculum in your classroom it only stays on the written materials (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). Ms. Yeliz answered the same question by stating “Grammar-Translation Method, Direct Method, Audiolingual Method and the Communicative Approach” (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). Ms. Ezgi revealed “I am familiar with CLT and Total Physical Response (TPR) (Ms. Ezgi, middle school EFL teacher). The test questions below are taken from a part of LYS-5 English test, which was administered by the Student Selection and Placement Center (OSYM) in 2016. As it can clearly be seen in these questions, they test students’ grammar knowledge. 49 Figure 4: LYS/5 Exam. These were the sample questions from the LYS/5 exam. The test consisted of 80 multiple choice questions and 25% of these questions were grammar and vocabulary questions, while 35% were reading comprehension, 6.25% were dialogue completion, 6.25% were finding the closest meaning to a sentence, 12.5% were sentence completion, and 15% were Turkish to English and English to Turkish translation questions. TEOG, which middle school students have to take in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades respectively, consisted of 20 multiple choice questions, where 30% were reading comprehension and 70% were mostly reading comprehension, and dialogue completion questions. The sample test questions below are taken from 8th grade TEOG exam, which was administered in April 28, 2016. 50 Figure 5: 8th Grade TEOG Exam. These were the sample questions from the TEOG exam. When the participants in the present study were asked if they felt obliged to teach in line with these tests, all three participants in this study stated that they had to teach in line with the exam questions in these grammar-based examinations. The factors affecting teachers’ motivation were the complaints from students and school administration when their students score low in 51 these exams. High school teacher Ms. Sijan’s statement revealed how much importance these tests had in her teaching and the problems that she might face regarding the exam results, by stating: For example, he (school principal) says, “Hey my teacher! I think you’re a bit bad about teaching, why are these grades so low?” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). School principals who might not know a word of English or English pedagogy can judge the teachers’ teaching skills or English proficiency by solely evaluating exam results. For teachers, hearing “I think you’re a bit bad about teaching” is a demotivating complaint to hear from someone who might not know any English or English pedagogy. The grammar-based examinations create an atmosphere where both students and teachers feel like it is a race between students themselves and schools in the same district. Principals do not want their schools to score low in these tests and rank low in their region, so they pressure teachers to prepare their students well for these tests. Nichols and Berliner (2008) state that under pressure to prepare students for the tests, teachers teach the same subjects repetitiously by leaving little time to engage in creative activities for students, as they are pressured to cover all the isolated information for the test. All three participants in the present study reported that they felt the pressure to teach to the test, since these tests determine their students’ future and also their teaching skills. High school teacher, Ms. Sijan revealed that “I have to give these (grammar) rules for the exam. Towards the exam week I review the rules as much as possible and give students all the necessary information for the exam” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). Another example in this study regarding the pressure of the grammar-based examinations on teachers, was Ms. Yeliz’s statement: My students have to be successful in these exams. Otherwise I will be questioned by my manager about why they are unsuccessful or under the average level. I cannot be angry 52 with my manager because he is questioned by his superiors as well, so there is a domino effect (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). This excerpt from the interview summarizes what English teachers have to go through in teaching English. As these tests are very crucial in determining the future of students, and teachers are evaluated by their principals according to their students’ exam results, teachers did not have any other choice but to teach in line with the test questions. As stated by Ms. Yeliz, schools’ success is assessed with grammar-based tests, and if students cannot score well on these exams, teachers face criticism from school principals, and principals face the same criticism from their superiors in the District National Education Directorate, as their schools are evaluated by the exam results in these grammar-based tests. Another example from the interview emphasizes the pressure that teachers face in Turkey: My eight grade students came first in an exam, TEOG, which you have to take to go to a good high school, and it means a good university for us. Now, there is the second exam, and we have lots of pressure on us like what if we cannot be first this time. So our manager put pressure on us, and we do on our students, but we have to do it even if we don’t like it. As I said before it is like a domino effect (Ms. Yeliz, elementary school EFL teacher). This issue of teaching for the tests and putting too much emphasis on the results of these tests were recurring themes in all three of teacher interviews, causing stress for teachers and demotivation in their profession. There are many studies conducted to find out student motivation or how teachers’ can help for motivating students to learn English in EFL settings like Chen (2005) in the Chinese EFL context, Lasagabaster (2011) in Spain, Warden and Lin (2000) in Taiwan, and Ozturk and Ok (2014) in Turkey. However, there are not that many studies done regarding teacher motivation or demotivation in EFL settings. As stated by Aydin 53 (2012) motivation studies in EFL settings have mainly focused on either strategy to motivate language learners, Cheng and Dörnyei (2007), Peacock (1997), Sugita and Takeuchi (2010), or the relationship between student and teacher motivation (Vahdany, Sabouri, and Ghafarnian 2015), rather than policies with regard to teacher demotivation in the EFL teaching process. The third research question in this study aimed to shed light on how teachers’ motivation from elementary, middle and secondary levels has changed since they started their profession in Turkish EFL setting. Doyle and Kim (1999, p.46) listed the factors listed below causing dissatisfaction and demotivation among ESL and EFL teachers: • Lack of respect from administration • Lack of advancement opportunities • Lack of long term employment and job security • Overly heavy work loads • Separation and alienation of teachers • Lack of rewards for creativity • The malfunctioning of the educational system • Lack of funding for projects • Lack of autonomy in the teaching and evaluation • Lack of appropriate teaching environment • Over-commercializing textbooks • Discrepancies in teaching philosophies • Lack of teacher training • Institution of team teaching and foreign assistant teacher Similarly, in the present study participants reported, lack of autonomy in the teaching and evaluation, the reported gap between policy and practice, mismatch between the assessment practices and the curriculum, and pressure from administration as dissatisfying and demotivating factors in their profession. 54 To answer the research question regarding teachers’ motivation, one of the interview questions asked teachers about how their motivation has changed since they started teaching English in Turkish public schools. As it is shown in the previous chapter, middle school English teacher, Ms. Ezgi responded that her motivation has “Unfortunately diminished” since she started her career, similarly Ms. Sijan, high school English teacher stated that “As a typical EFL teacher I felt really ambitious about my career but the obstacles actually diminished that feeling.” Therefore, even though they were motivated when they first began their careers as English teachers, they became demotivated in their profession. Since teachers faced pressure from the grammar based examinations and from their principals regarding the results of these tests, their motivation in teaching English has decreased. As it is explored with this study, teachers report not having autonomy in their classes and they feel obliged to teach in line with the grammar based language examinations, even though both the national curriculum suggested implementing more communicative teaching methods in classrooms, and teachers themselves believed that CLT is the most effective method in English teaching. The only participant teacher whose motivation level increased since she began teaching English was Ms. Yeliz, who was recruited as the elementary level English teacher in this study. Ms. Yeliz was teaching both elementary and middle school levels and she expressed the same concerns regarding the teaching methods and assessment practices with the other two participants in this study. However, teaching elementary school students by implementing the principles of CLT, and not facing any test or administrative pressures, her motivation has increased, even though she wasn’t a motivated English teacher when she started her career. As a researcher, before conducting this study, I envisaged that the elementary level English teacher would be more motivated than the middle school and high school teachers. The 55 results of this study have confirmed my anticipation, regarding teacher motivation in different grade levels. Since Ms. Yeliz taught her elementary level students without any pressure to prepare them for examinations, she was able to implement the national curriculum by creating a communicative learning environment and this had a positive impact on her motivation. Implications of the Study This study identified a perceived gap between language policy and practice in the Turkish EFL context and its effects on English teacher’s motivation. This study also found areas within policies that need improvement regarding EFL teaching conditions in Turkey. For example, the national curriculum imposes teaching English with more communicative methods and implementing CLT in language classrooms but teachers report difficulty in implementing CLT due to the mismatch between the national curriculum and the assessment practices. Thus, the first implication of this study is that policy makers should replace the written, grammar-based language tests with assessment tools that are more in line with the national curriculum and assess students’ communicative competence. Current assessment practices only test students’ grammar and reading abilities, but more attention should be given to listening, speaking and writing skills of students to be in line with the policies and curriculum. All three participants in this study expressed that current language tests only assess the grammatical competence of students even though the national curriculum imposes teaching English with more communicative methods in the classrooms. Teachers face a dilemma between following the curriculum and preparing their students for centralized grammar-based examinations. Due to the lack of feasibility, teachers cannot put too much emphasis on implementing the language policies in their classrooms. 56 Teachers feel stressed about their students’ scores in these national exams as they are being evaluated or sometimes criticized by their school principals regarding their students’ success in these exams. As all three teachers stated in this study, they felt obliged to teach in line with the exam questions and the assessment practice itself does not allow teachers to implement the curriculum in their classrooms. Thus, the second implication in this study is that teachers should be more involved in the language planning process since they know the struggles that they face in implementing the current language policies in the classroom. It is found out in this study that teacher motivation in Turkish EFL setting is not seen as important as students’ test scores in the grammar-based examinations. Since teachers’ feel stressed about the grades more than their students’ actual language improvement, students cannot develop communicative competence even if they take English classes for over ten years. Another implication of the study is that the crowded classrooms make it difficult for teacher to implement CLT in their classrooms. One of the participants in the present study revealed that, “It is not easy to apply (CLT) in the classroom I think. Because of many reasons, for instance the class is so crowded and while some students are doing the required activity, it is hard to control the others” (Ms. Sijan, high school EFL teacher). As some classrooms are overcrowded teachers cannot manage the classroom and involve everyone in the classroom activities, which makes using traditional grammar-based language teaching unavoidable for teachers. The assessment practices were found to be the main obstacle in implementing the national curriculum by the participant teachers in this study. The main remedy for this issue is a reform in the assessment practices in the Turkish EFL context. Middle school students take TEOG test in the 6th, 7th and 9th grades respectively, and their cumulative test score in these tests 57 determines the high school in which students will be enrolled. Since students are being tested for three years, in the 6th grade, they can be tested on reading comprehension, including grammar and writing. In the 7th grade, listening proficiencies of the students can be tested, and in the 8th grade, students can be tested on their speaking proficiency. If classroom teachers are involved in the evaluation of their students, they can assess their students with more formative assessments during the entire year. High school students take the college entrance exam in the 12th grade before they graduate from high school. The format of the English test in the college entrance exam can be changed with a format like TEOG, where students are tested in the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades. In each grade students can be tested on different language skills. The LYS/5 exam can also be changed with a computer-based test, which tests four different language skills of the students. Administering a computer-based centralized test for all the students taking the YGS and LYS tests might not be practical, but the number of students taking the English test is relatively low compared to the total number of students taking the college entrance exam. Limitations There are several limitations of this study and the sample size is the first limitation. This study may have yielded more reliable results if more teachers were interviewed. It should be noted that the sample size consisted of a very small number of participants in this study. As only three teachers were interviewed the results are not generalizable for all the EFL teachers in Turkey. However, the themes that emerged in this study can be tested with larger sample sizes to draw more generalizable conclusions regarding teacher motivation, curriculum implementation, ELT methods utilized, and the assessment practices in Turkish EFL setting. 58 Another limitation in this study was the data collection process, and the duration of interviews. Thirty-minute long FaceTime interviews were used to collect data in this study as the researcher lived in the U.S. and the participants lived in Turkey during the data collection process. The present study may have yielded more reliable results regarding the gap between the language policies and the classroom implementation of these policies if other data collection sources were used. Classroom observations, surveys, interviews with school principals, and the curriculum planners in the Ministry of National Education (MONE) would help to collect more reliable results. Conclusion The present study explored that even though grammar-based traditional language teaching methods were replaced with more communicative teaching methods with the 1997 curriculum reform, there is still a perceived gap between the language policies and teachers’ reported classroom practices in the Turkish EFL setting. The participants in this study revealed the difficulties that they faced in implementing the national curriculum, and the possible outcomes of not teaching to the language tests in Turkish EFL setting. Participants also expressed the factors causing them to lose their motivation in their profession. Studies in EFL/ESL settings should put more emphasis on teacher motivation and demotivation. Dôrnyei and Ushioda (2010) state that the relationship between teacher and student motivation is “interwoven, and interactive” (p.180). They also state that teachers’ attitude, motivation, values and beliefs directly affect students’ language learning motivation. Also, future studies should focus on how CLT can be better put into practice in EFL settings, where grammar-based traditional assessment practices are still used to assess students’ language proficiency. 59 APPENDIX: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Greeting & Background Information Check (5-10 min) • • Introduce myself Background on the study: I am doing a research on the effects of current Turkish ELT curriculum on teacher motivation in Turkish EFL context. The main focus of the study is to find out if there is a gap between macro level policies and micro level classroom practices, if yes how does this gap affect EFL teachers’ motivation in Turkey? Background information questions: • • • • Tell me about what you do? What is your education background? How long have you been teaching English? Which grade/s do you currently teach or work with? Tell me about your student population? Interview questions 1. What motivated you to become an English teacher? 2. Which teaching method/s are you implementing in your classroom? 3. What is the suggested teaching method in the national curriculum for the grade that you are teaching and do you think it is applicable in the classroom? 4. With which L2 teaching methods are you most familiar with? 5. What do you know about Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)? Can you tell me what that means to you? 6. What is the role, if any, of GTM in Turkish EFL context? How do you believe grammar is most effectively taught? 7. Which method do you think is the most effective to teach English for your students? Why? 60 8. What do you think about the centralized English examinations in Turkey? 9. Do you feel obliged to teach in line with exam questions in these exams? How so? 10. How do you balance the testing requirements with what you know to be best practice? (If you do) 11. How has your motivation for teaching English changed since you started your job as an EFL teacher? (Diminished, increased, stayed the same) 61 REFERENCES Agcam, Reyhan. Babanoglu, Muzaffer Pinar (2016). An investigation of EFL teachers’ attitude toward teaching profession. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 6(3), 21-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n3p21 Aydin, S. (2012). Factors causing demotivation in EFL teaching process: A case study. The Qualitative Report, 17(51), 1. Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2013). Applying communicative approach in teaching English as a foreign language: a case study of Pakistaner. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional de Didáctica de Las Lenguas Extranjeras, (20), 187–203. Altmisdort, G. (2016). An analysis of language teacher education programs: A comparative study of Turkey and other European countries. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 213. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p213 Bamgbo, A. (2003). A recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning. World Englishes, 22(4), 419–431. Bayyurt, Y. (2012). 4+ 4+ 4 eğitim sisteminde erken yaşta yabancı dil eğitimi. 1. Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Çalıştayı, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara. (12-13 Kasım 2012). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yasemin_Bayyurt/publication/258112407_444_Eiti m_Sisteminde_Erken_Yata_Yabanc_Dil_Eitimi/links/00463527010abe5800000000.pdf Bayyurt, Y. (2013). Current perspectives on sociolinguistics and English language education. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 69–78. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An Interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 62 Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Cheng, H.-F., & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt048.0 Connie, R. J. (2000). Factors influencing motivation and de-motivation of Mexican EFL teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Vancouver, BC, Canada. DeKeyser, R. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63(1), 52-67. Denkci Akkas, F., & Coker, B. (2016). The use of communicative approach in 9th grade EFL classes. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(65), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.65.05 Department of English Language Teaching, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey, Solak, E., Bayar, A., & Department of Educational Sciences, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey. (2015). Current challenges in English language learning in Turkish EFL context. Participatory Educational Research, 2(1), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.09.2.1 63 Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666340 Dôrnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching motivation. New York, USA: Pearson. Doyle, T., & Kim, M. Y. (1999). Teacher motivation and satisfaction in the United States and Korea. MEXTESOL Journal, 23(2), 35-48. Ellis, Gregory. (1994). The Appropriateness of the Communicative Approach in Vietnam: An Interview Study in Intercultural Communication (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED378839.pdf First, E. (2015). EF English proficiency index – a comprehensive ranking of countries. www.ef.edu. Retrieved from http://www.ef.edu/epi/ Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publishers. Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition. The socioeducational model. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Guillauteaux, M. J. & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating Language Learners: A ClassroomOriented Investigation of the Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, (1): 55-77. Hettiarachchi, S. (2010). ESL teacher motivation in Sri Lankan public schools. Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 316. Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/theses/316. 64 Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. doi:10:10.1093/elt/ccm026 Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd. Isik, A. (2008). Yabanci dil egitimimizdeki yanlislar nereden kaynaklaniyor? Journal of Language and linguistic studies. Johnson, D. (2013). Language policy. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50(3), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.187 Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). English language teaching in Turkey: Challenges for the 21st century. In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice (pp. 159175). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English Language Teaching in Turkey: Policy Changes and their Implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079696 Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1859–1875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.007 Kırkgöz, Y., Çelik, S., & Arikan, A. (2016). Laying the theoretical and practical foundations for a new elementary English curriculum in Turkey: A procedural analysis. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(3), 1199–1212. 65 Kizildag, A. (2009). Teaching English in Turkey: Dialogues with teachers about the challenges in public primary schools. International Electronic Journal Environmental Education, 1(3). Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/iejeegreen/article/download/5000133239/5000122073 Koksal, D., & Şahin, C. A. (2012). Macro-level foreign language education policy of Turkey: A content analysis of national education councils. ELT Research Journal, 1(3), 149–158. Kwambehar, S., & others. (2015). LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS: A CRITIQUE. Journal of Advances in Social Science and Humanities, 1(1). Retrieved from http://jassh.in/index.php/jassh/article/view/5 Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030 Latchanna, G. & Dagnew, A. (2009). Attitude of teachers towards the use of active learning methods. E-journal of All India Association for Educational Research, 21(1), http://www.ejournal.aiaer.net/vol21109/12.%20Latchana%20&%20Dagnew.pdf Liu, M. S. (2005). EFL student teachers in Taiwan: Exploring their learning to teach in a junior high school context PhD Thesis, School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, The University of Queensland. Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: educators as policymakers. New York: Routledge. Miles, M. B., & M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. 2d edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 66 Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (n.d.). Testing. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.430.4818&rep=rep1&type=pdf Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers' perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/16211 Öztürk, E. Ö., & Ok, S. (2014). Motivational behaviors of teachers in Turkish EFL classes: Perception of students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 120–133. Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.2.144 Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002 Prator, C., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). An outline of language teaching approaches. In M. Celce-Murcia, & L. McIntosh, Eds. Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 3-5). New York: Newbury House. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rokita, J. (2007) Lexical development in early L2 acquisition. Kraków: Pedagogical University Press. Saricoban, G. (2012). Foreign Language Education Policies in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2643–2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.539 Scheffler, P. (2013). Introducing very young children to English as a foreign language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/ijal12035.pdf 67 Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). What can teachers do to motivate their students? A classroom research on motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802450470 Talmy, S. (2010). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied linguistics, amq027. Tarhan, N. (1998). A critical examination of Imperialism and language teaching in Turkey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. Tılfarlıoğlu, F. Y., & Öztürk, A. R. (2007). An Analysis of ELT Teachers’ Perceptions of Some Problems Concerning the Implementation of English Language Teaching Curricula in Elementary. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/47 Chua, C. S. K., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). New York, NY: Routledge. Vahdany, F., Sabouri, N. B., & Ghafarnian, S. (2015). The relationship among EFL teachers, students’ attitudes & their teaching-learning achievements in English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(12), 2625. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.26 Wang, H. (2006). An implementation study of the English as a foreign language curriculum policies in the Chinese tertiary context. Queen’s University. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/31596485 68 Warden, C. A. and Lin, H. J. (2000), Existence of Integrative Motivation in an Asian EFL Setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33: 535–545. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720. 2000.tb01997.x 69 VITA Emre Basok is from Turkey. He studied English Language and Literature and earned a Bachelor’s degree from Cankaya University in Ankara, Turkey. He taught Oral Communication Skills courses to adults at one of the colleges in Istanbul Turkey for two years. After his teaching experience at a college level he decided to pursue a master’s degree in the U.S. and earned a Master’s degree in Teaching English as a Second Language from The University of Texas at San Antonio. His future plans include attending a graduate program in Translation Studies and a Ph.D. program.