Tracking the pre-service teachers’ development of communicative skills and their beliefs towards communicative approach
Yıldıray Kurnaz 1, Ali Şükrü Özbay 2 *
More Detail
1 Department of Foreign Languages, Bayburt University, Turkey
2 Department of Western Languages and Literature, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey
* Corresponding Author


Concerns about the purpose of developing communicative skills in English teaching and approaches to overcome these concerns have always had an important place in language teaching. In this context, besides the fact that teachers’ roles are important, their beliefs about the approach have a profound influence on their professional achievement. In this regard, the aim of the present study was to determine Turkish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student teachers’ beliefs about developing their communicative skills with the communicative approach in Turkish context. The data obtained through Pre-Service Teacher Beliefs Questionnaire, in which 445 participants took part, and focus group interviews with 28 participants at several times and places were analysed by quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods respectively. As a result of the analysis, it was found that EFL student teachers generally had positive attitudes towards improving communicative skills of their prospective students with communicative approach; however, it was difficult for this approach to work properly in Turkey and in Turkish education system due to various reasons. In addition, it was found that EFL student teachers' self- efficacy beliefs were correlated with their attitudes towards the approach, and that many sub-factors such as second language proficiency also had an influence on the attitudes. Lastly, these findings were found to be significantly different according to the departments (ELL, ELT) rather than age and gender.



  • Akpınar, B., & Aydın, K. (2010). Çok duyulu (multi sensory) yabancı dil öğretimi. Tübav Bilim Dergisi, 2(1), 99-106.
  • Aktimur, D. (2007). İletişimci yaklaşımda konuşma ve okuma becerileri: İletişimci yaklaşımla konuşma ve okuma becerilerinin birleştirilerek genç öğreniciler için ikili etkinlik ve grup etkinlikleriyle pekiştirilmesi (Unpublished Ma Thesis). Ankara University, Institute of Social Sciences. Ankara, Turkey.
  • Akyel, A. (2015). Research engagement in the EFL pre-service practicum. Language in Focus, 1(1), 1-14.
  • Aliş, E. (2008). The effect of professional experiences and English self-efficacy beliefs of Yıldız Technical University School of Foreign Languages Department of Basic English Instructors on their communicative language teaching attitudes (Published MA Thesis). Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Altan, M. Z. (2010). ELT major university students’ beliefs on the role of English, Globalization and Global English. In Gagliardi, C, Maley, A. (Eds), EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues (pp. 321-340). Bern: Peter Lang AG.
  • Altan, M. Z. (2017a). Globalization, English language teaching and Turkey. International Journal of Languages' Education and Teaching, 5, 764-776.
  • Altan, M. Z. (2017b). Yabancı Dil: Neden Öğretemiyoruz. Neden Öğrenemiyoruz. Eğitime Bakış, 39(1), 12-24.
  • Altınuç, Z. (2012). English teachers' perception of communicative language teaching-a qualitative research (Unpublished Ma Thesis). Yeditepe University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Arıbaş, S., & Tok, H. (2004, July). Evaluating the problems encountered in foreign languages ınstruction in the first level of elemantary school. Paper presented at XIII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı, İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Malatya, Turkey.
  • Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bağçeci, B. (2004, July). Ortaöğretim kurumlarında İngilizce öğretimine ilişkin öğrenci tutumlari (Gaziantep ili örneği). Paper presented at XIII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı, İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Malatya, Turkey.
  • Bağçeci, B. & Yaşar, M. (2007). Opinions of students attending high schools in Gaziantep about the teaching of English. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 9-16.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  • Bauch, P. A. (1982). Relationships between a typology of teacher educational beliefs and three domains of the elementary classroom curriculum. A Study of Schooling Technical Report No. 34. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED269346).
  • Beck, U. (2002). The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory, culture & society, 19(1-2), 17-44.
  • Bottery, M. (2000). Education, policy and ethics. London: A&C Black.
  • Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied linguistics, 1(2), 89-112.
  • Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of educational research, 62(1), 37-60.
  • Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (Vol. 4). New York: Longman.
  • Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in teacher education and teaching. American Journal of Education, 92(4), 421-439.
  • Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
  • Celce-Murcia, D., & Dornyei, Z. (2014). Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
  • Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (2020). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th edition). Heinla Cengage Learning.
  • Chang, J. (2006). Globalization and English in Chinese higher education. World Englishes, 25(3‐4), 513-525.
  • Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5-12.
  • Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
  • Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Çimen, C. (2008). The comparison of senior and junior language teachers’ awareness of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) background theory, in Turkey (Unpublished MA Thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey.
  • Deckert, G. (1987). The communicative approach: Helping students adjust. In English Teaching Forum 25(3), 17-20.
  • Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Diler, U. (2013). The communicative approach in English language classes: How communicative are they? (Doctoral Dissertation). Istanbul Aydın University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
  • administration, and processing. Routledge.
  • Emeli, D. (1999). The Communicative approach and its implications to grammar teaching and learning (Unpublished Ma Thesis). Çukurova University, Institute of Social Sciences, Adana, Turkey.
  • Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–712.
  • Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational research, 38(1), 47-65.
  • Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching and teacher education, 4(2), 121-137.
  • Gültekin, M., Çubukçu, Z., & Dal, S. (2010). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin eğitim öğretimle ilgili hizmetiçi eğitim gereksinimleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 131-152.
  • Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of science teacher education, 13(3), 171-187.
  • Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333-340.
  • Hui, L.,& Jin, G. (2010). Communicative method in language teaching. US-China Foreign Language, 8(5), 33-37.
  • Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. CA: Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks.
  • Hymes, D. (1971). On linguistic theory, communicative competence, and the education of disadvantaged children. In M. L. Wax, S. Diamon. and F. O. Gearing (Eds.). Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 51-66), New York: Basic Books.
  • Hymes, D. (1972). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. Language acquisition: Models and methods, 1, 3-28.
  • İnceçay, G., & İnceçay, V. (2009). Turkish university students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 618-622.
  • Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon and Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Karapirinler, E. (2006). Özel ilköğretim okullarinda ikinci yabanci dil ögretimi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara University, Turkey.
  • Kırkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. RELC journal, 38(2), 216-228.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,14(3), 281-307.
  • Liao, X. (1997). A brief ıntroduction to the communicative language teaching. Technical report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404863).
  • Littlewood, W. T. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mak, S. H. Y. (2011). Tensions between conflicting beliefs of an EFL teacher in teaching practice. RELC Journal, 42(1), 53-67.
  • Nishino, T. (2012). Modeling teacher beliefs and practices in context: A multimethods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 96(3), 380-399.
  • Oral, Y. (2003). Reflections of the global English in Turkey (An intercultural approach and a critical Approach) (Unpublished MA Thesis), İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Özoğlu, M. (2010). Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirme sisteminin sorunları. Seta Analiz, 17(26), 131-155.
  • Özşevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Illinois, The USA.
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
  • Raoofi, S., Tan, B. H., & Chan, S. H. (2012). Self-efficacy in second/foreign language learning contexts. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 60-73.
  • Richards, J. C. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd edition). Longman.
  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  • Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Soğuksu, A. F. (2013). Reflection of the communicative approach adopted in the secondary curriculum for English in the classroom (Unpublished MA Thesis). Ankara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Swales, J. (1997). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
  • Şeker, E., & Aydın, İ. (2011). İngilizce dil öğretim yöntemi olarak iletişimsel yaklaşım: Van Atatürk Anadolu Lisesi örneği. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 1(1), 39-49.
  • Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tayhani-Temizgöl, T. (2013). The effects of grammar translation method and communicative language teaching on vocabulary teaching (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Izmir, Turkey.
  • Temizöz, H. (2008). Yabancı dil öğretiminde dilbilgisi çeviri yöntemi ve iletişimci yaklaşım uygulamalarının öğrencilerin öğrenme becerisi üzerindeki etkisi (Unpublished MA Thesis). Inönü University, Institute of Social Sciences, Malatya, Turkey.
  • Weir, C. J. (1998). Communicative language testing. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
  • Wilson, S. M. (1990). The secret garden of teacher education. Michigan: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
  • Woolley, S. L., Benjamin, W. J. J., & Woolley, A. W. (2004). Construct validity of a self-report measure of teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 319-331.
  • Yıldırım, F., & İlhan, İ. Ö. (2010). Genel öz yeterlilik ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 21(4), 301-308.
  • Yılmaz, C. (2005). İngilizce öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin yabancı dili iletişim aracı olarak kullanabilme yeterlilikleri. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 15-23.
  • Zheng, H. (2009). A review of research on EFL pre-Service teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 73.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.