Abstract/Summary

This study examines the different practices followed in four different regions’ schoolbased teaching practice programmes in Turkey, which comprised a university environment which is the Department of Education for Intellectually Disabled Students (DEIDS) and the schools to which student teachers (ST) are sent for their teaching practice. It also investigates what differences there are between these two environments and why these differences occur in the system. In order to understand the system clearly, the following main research question is addressed in detail: What are the reasons for the differences and similarities in school-based teacher training programmes in Turkey? The most appropriate way to understand the similarities and differences between the practices of the participants in the programme was to use a case-study approach using qualitative data collection methods, semi-structured interviews and a background information form which helped to keep the interviews short in order to elicit straightforward and apposite answers. The sample was selected from university supervisors and school teachers who conduct the practice programme in the training schools in the four regions. The data were collected from a total of 26 participants: thirteen university tutors (UT) and thirteen cooperating teachers (CT). Four contexts give shape to the study by combining the variety of accessed research data and the findings from previous studies: the Professional Context, the Structural Context, the Material Context and the Partnership Context. Using these four contexts helps to see the main actors` levels of agency by looking at their practices from the individualproxy-collective agency in the programme. The data on what they were practising, their perceptions of their roles, the reasons for their practice in their own ways, their collaboration with their partners and what they knew about the programme’s requirements and their responsibilities were categorised and discussed under these four contexts. The key findings are that most of the participants were not properly aware of the national standards or their own responsibilities. Additionally, their practices were principally based on collective actions geared to suit their own particular environment. Poor partnership between the participants is another significant problem which was identified between the environments. It is suggested that all of these issues were primarily due to the participants’ low level of agency. This study makes a number of recommendations. First, the level of agency of the participants in the programme needs to be developed to ensure a possibly better and standardised environment. Second, inspection on an advisory basis rather than enforcing the participants needs to be established to ensure that common standards are followed by everyone, at least to some level. Finally, inter-participant cooperation and collaboration within the programme needs to be created to a common standard and improved.