This week, a small but highly interested group was ready to find some answers to the critical question that was also the name of Hülya’s session: Is Artificial Intelligence the New Teacher?

Hülya opened the session with a candid observation that resonated with all the attendees: "AI is improving at a pace we don’t seem to be able to keep up with."  

The Discussion: Written Corrective Feedback; Challenges, Experiences

Before providing the details of her dissertation, Hülya asked us to share our opinions and experiences regarding our practices: Do we use AI to give feedback? Do we teach our students how to use it? 

We shared our experiences, commenting on the benefits of paid and standard versions. There was also a consensus on how complicated -writing- assessment can be and that AI adds a new dimension. 

Hülya then moved on to feedback, and why and how it was critically instrumental. We reminisced our Portfolio days, and naturally a discussion on the number of drafts and the amount of time we invested followed. 

Having experienced similar challenges herself, in her dissertation, Hülya set out to find out if AI could be an effective feedback provider. 

The Study: 

She did 6-week study comparing direct feedback from ChatGPT-4 against an experienced instructor for 71 B2-level students writing argumentative essays.

The Findings: 

• Overall Proficiency & Writing Development: Both groups improved significantly. The AI feedback was as effective as the teacher feedback. In the end, feedback, regardless of where it came from, made a difference. 

• Focus of the Feedback: Unsurprisingly, ChatGPT distributed feedback perfectly across grammar, content, organization, and vocabulary. 

• Engagement: Despite AI's efficiency, 72% of students read all of the human teacher's feedback, compared to only 35% for ChatGPT. Students craved the social context that only humans could provide. 

The Verdict

AI is not the new writing teacher? Not yet, anyway. However, it can be the ultimate assistant. By letting AI handle the initial grammar checks and typos outside the classroom, we can save our limited time for deep contextual feedback and emotional support inside the classroom.

We would like to thank Hülya Sezer for sharing her research and leading such an engaging, and reassuring discussion! For more information on her study, please contact her directly at hulyasezer@anadolu.edu.tr

This week’s session, led by Steve O'Farrell, offered a realistic take on lesson planning to a small but highly appreciated cohort. 

The Reality Check 

The session started with some eye-opening statistics about the level of lesson planning globally. While workload and time keep many of us from planning as much as we'd like, the reality is: only 10% of teachers prepare detailed plans, while 60% rely on their textbooks. Steve reminded us that a textbook's "Content" page, while useful, is not a replacement for a lesson plan.

This led to a commonly-raised question: Are we teaching the book, or are we teaching the students? Steve then shared with us some student feedback about grammar-heavy and predictable lessons, which meant: we need to introduce more novelty. His example was an adopted activity and it was a demonstration of how students would respond to more personalised activities. 

Lesson Shapes: We briefly talked about traditional lesson shapes like PPP (Present, Practice, Produce) when overused, lessons might be predictable, less engaging, and students often cannot use the target language right away. To keep things fresh, we explored alternatives like:

• TTT (Test, Teach, Test)

• ESA (Engage, Study, Activate)

• OHE (Observe, Hypothesise, Experiment)

Planning Guidelines When it comes to the general guidelines of planning, the golden rule is to "start with the ending in mind" by focusing on Learning Outcomes. Here, we have to pause and send a thank you to our Curriculum Development Unit! Because they  go over the learning outcomes and handle the work of the curriculum details, we are free from that day-to-day burden. Additionally, when Steve asked the guiding question of "how will I assess learning?" we owe another thank you to our Testing Units for taking care of that framework for the rest of us!

With those elements handled, our job is to avoid the traps of a bad lesson: rigid planning, ignoring the class profile, and teaching the plan instead of the students. We just need to focus on flexibility and always having a backup plan (or two), just in case.

The last question was: Can AI Help? We intuitively said yes. Steve then demoed the Pearson Smart Lesson Generator. Unlike other AIs, which may arguably lack pedagogical rigor, this generative AI tool proved to be an effective one to introduce novelty without having to input each and every detail about pedagogy. 

We would like to thank Steve O'Farrell for this practical look at how we can plan smarter, not harder.

You can access the PDF for Steve's presentation here.

The fall term started off with a workshop organized by the Professional Development Team and elegantly moderated by Aslı Karabıyık Kımav. Entering the room, participants seemed to smile as they were handed "OK / NOK" cards.

The idea for this session stemmed from our end-of-term brainstorming. Noting that "5-minute activities" was consistently raised as favourites in our feedback forms, we wanted to (re)introduce more discussion and experience-sharing in a relaxed atmosphere. We designed the workshop to be half informal and participant-led, capped off with brief literature reviews to see what the ELT world says about the topics discussed.

We began by listing some of the common problems and challenges we face in our classrooms. Aslı asked the participants to hold up their cards to vote "OK" or "NOK" on statements such as:

• ⁠I use L1 to teach grammar.

• ⁠I’m OK with students who are chronic late-comers: the guest stars

Participants offered a variety of reasons for their choices. Unsurprisingly, most of the rationales were highly dependent on context (as most ELT choices are): factors like our teaching partners, the level of the group, and the specific profiles of our students came up often. 

Common Threads in our Discussions

Despite the differing opinions, several commonalities emerged as ideas were raised:

• ⁠Reform of ideas: Our ideas and practices have transformed over time through experience and education.

• Symmetry with Literature: Our reservations, instincts, and practices actually closely mirrored the academic research Aslı shared following the mini-discussions. 

• Empathy: Some participants shared newly gained perspectives on the learner experience, drawn from their own current endevours to learn a new language.

• Student-Centric Choices: Ultimately, our arguments—whether "OK" or " NOK"—were always based on what we genuinely thought was best for our learners.

Dealing With "Unmotivated" Students

When the discussion turned to "unmotivated students," several teachers shared their practices regarding learner "readiness":

• Timing Matters: We acknowledged that sometimes—whether it's very early in the morning or late in the afternoon—students (and even teachers!) simply may not be "ready" to focus, no matter how interesting the lesson may be.

• ⁠The "Idiom of the Day": Serkan Geridönmez shared his long-standing practice of using a daily idiom to gently engage students in the morning.

• The First 5 Minutes: Cevdet Bala highlighted the importance of the first five minutes ( maybe even more) of class. He uses simple, relatable questions to help students ease into contributing to the lesson (provided that ground rules and a common understanding of language learning have been established at the beginning of the term).

Supporting this discussion on morning readiness, Aslı shared with us a fascinating biological insight regarding circadian rhythms:

"From puberty until the early 20s, the body begins to secrete the hormone melatonin (the sleep hormone) 2 hours later than adults. (Hagenauer et al., 2009)"

Conclusion

The overwhelming consensus was that this should be the first of many similar sessions. We would like to thank all the participants who made the workshop so lively by sharing their experiences and insights, and a special thank you to Aslı for moderating the session so smoothly.

A couple of weeks ago, we delved into assessment with Dr. Christine Coombe’s broad overview of Best Practice in Exam Development ( AUSFL PD DAY 2 ) where she examined universal principles like validity, reliability, and the mechanics of item construction. The focus of this workshop shifted from that general, macro-level framework to a more specific—and often far more subjective—challenge within our own teaching context: Writing Assessment.

This week, Doğukan Hazar Özçubuk presented on "Writing Assessment Literacy," specifically focusing on Turkish EFL teachers at the tertiary level. Much like Hilal’s session on our research habits, this presentation was rooted in our own context, holding up a mirror to the gap between how we learn to grade and how we actually grade in our daily practice.

Doğukan started his session with a sample text for the participants to grade. This, in itself, created a discussion on how we graded the sample and what hypothetical grade it might be given and the criteria we have used over the years. 

The Study: Training vs. Reality

Doğukan then linked this small discussion to his study, which involved 94 questionnaire participants and 14 interviewees. The results revealed a common reality for many of us: while roughly half to two-thirds of us received some form of assessment training during their education or in-service workshops (65% in courses, 50% in workshops), the participants stated that “everyone learns on the job”.

Findings & Challenges

We consider writing assessment as an integral part of our teaching practice, as one participant stated: “I accept it as a necessary part of being a teacher.” However, the study highlighted the challenges we face, including deciphering handwriting, dealing with “irrelevant” content, and the “negotiation” of grades.

Doğukan moved on to the core ( arguably ) of the session with questions that led to the most engaging discussions and perhaps the most nodding heads in the room. 

• The Grammar Debate: The first was this statement about the place of grammar in writing assessment : “You cannot have “good writing” without good grammar. If the language is full of errors, the quality of ideas does not matter.” Needless to say, this question sparked a mini debate in the group discussions. 

• The "Irrelevant" One ( or Is It ): What followed was another question about what should or is considered an “irrelevant” text. If a student writes a good text on the best place they have visited when the question is "What is the best place to visit?", do we grade it? 

• The Halo Effect: Finally, he touched upon the subconscious bias where we give a "good student" a high grade regardless of the specific task performance. 

Alternative Assessment Methods

The session was not all about these discussions. It also reminded us of the alternative assessment methods, all of which received both positive and negative comments from the participants in the room. 

Peer Assessment: Moving beyond teacher correction and feedback to student collaboration and training.

Self-Assessment Checklists: Encouraging and training students to scaffold their own work before submission. 

The Portfolio Approach: Allowing students to choose their best work for final grading with a reflective piece on their own improvement. 

From Confession to Solution

The session ended with a call to a moment of professional honesty. We were asked to identify which "assessment trap" is our biggest struggle. Do we let grammar kill a creative idea? Do we grade the student rather than the paper? 

Surely, assessment is a complex process; however, Doğukan left the participants with a reflective statement to start thinking: "Next time, when I grade papers, I commit to changing ONE thing..."

We would like to thank Doğukan Hazar Özçubuk for this practical and reflective session. For more information on the study or the assessment models discussed, please contact him directly at dhozcubuk@anadolu.edu.tr

Following Gökhan’s session on our internal thought processes regarding grammar, we moved to another introspective topic that hits even closer to home: our relationship with Research.

Hilal Sarıkaya Arslantaş presented her study, which is deeply embedded in our specific context. What made this session particularly engaging was that the practising teacher participants in her study were actually some of the teachers from our own school. Her research compared the beliefs and practices of these in-service teachers (our colleagues) against those of pre-service teachers, exploring how we define research, how often we engage in it, and importantly, what stops us from doing so.

Before moving on to the study design, Hilal asked the workshop participants: Do you define yourself as a researcher? The responses reflected the diversity she found in her study. 

The Study Design

The presentation outlined a mixed-methods study involving a significant number of participants: 122 pre-service teachers and 79 practising teachers from our institution responded to questionnaires, followed by in-depth interviews with 32 individuals (25 of whom were practising teachers). Hilal wanted to explore three key themes: EFL Teachers' views on research, the benefits perceived, and the actual engagement with it.

Defining "Research": A Tale of Two Groups?

One of the most interesting findings was the difference in how the two groups defined "research."

• Pre-service Teachers: Tended to have broader, somewhat vague definitions. For many, research was associated with general inquiry or classroom problem-solving, as one pre-service teacher candidly stated: "Research is anything that you look up in any kind of dictionary, any kind of search engine".

• Practising Teachers: Our definitions were more systematic and practical. We recognised research as something grounded in methodology and objectivity. However, we also recognised the "everyday" nature of inquiry. One colleague offered an intriguing analogy: "Checking if a door is locked by turning the knob can be seen as research... We make observations and test hypotheses every day".

A Comparison of the Two Groups

Despite having a clearer understanding of what constitutes good research, the data showed that actual engagement is a challenge for both groups.

• Pre-service Teachers

Research Conceptions: Broad definitions; often associated research with general inquiry or classroom problem-solving. 

Good Research: objectivity, hypothesis testing, and practical classroom application.

Reading: 55.7% rarely, only 0.8% often.

Doing: 45.1% sometimes, 6.6% often.

Barriers: Lack of interest, time, and difficulty in understanding research.

Motivation: Solving classroom problems and professional growth.

Subgroups: No significant differences based on year, experience, or coursework.

• Practising Teachers

Research Conceptions: Systematic, practical, and everyday problem-solving. Higher recognition of research-like activities.

Good Research: Objectivity, methodological soundness, and practical relevance. Mixed views on dissemination

Reading: 48.1% rarely, 13.9% often.

Doing: 48.1% rarely, 5.1% often.

Barriers: Lack of time, institutional limits, and family duties.

Motivation: Improving teaching, PD, academic needs, and institutional contribution.

Subgroups: Teachers without postgraduate degrees had higher research conception scores; other background factors showed no significant differences.

Both groups stated "time" as a barrier, however, it is perhaps noteworthy to mention that the more systematic understanding of research did not lead to more research. Why? The practising teachers also cited: Responsibilities. 

•  “…I set up a family, and then I became a parent. And of course, there's this family issue, and when you have a family, then I mean your focus. It's a distracting factor, I think, in your work life”

• “…Because of the responsibilities that are in my parents, my children. They may need me.” 

Perhaps, it may also be noteworthy to mention Hilal shared during the presentation that these responsibilities were mostly stated by female participants. 

Institutional Support & Motivation

The study highlighted that when we do engage with research, it is often driven by a desire to solve classroom problems or contribute to our institution.

Regarding institutional support, encouragingly, some teachers noted that they follow the articles and webinars shared by our Unit, which helps them "follow the latest trends very easily". 

• "You know, in our school, the PDU unit, they offer a kind of like sources to read. So, I try to follow those as well.”

• “I follow the PDU department’s articles and webinars.”

• “Every month, the teacher development team works very well and they share some articles or research results with us. And we can follow the latest trends very easily thanks to them.”

This suggests that while the participant teachers may not have time for deep academic research, they appreciate the curated resources provided by our unit.

Conclusion

Hilal's session didn't ask us to become full-time academics. Instead, it acknowledged the constraints of our daily lives—families, full-time schedules, and exhaustion—while validating that research is still valuable, and we can find ways to incorporate it in our classrooms. 

The session left us with one reflective question to carry into our week: "What is one small way you could bring research into your own teaching practice?"

We would like to thank Hilal Sarıkaya Arslantaş for this illuminating look into our professional habits. For more information on the study, please reach out to her directly at hilalarslantas@anadolu.edu.tr

This week’s professional development session focused on our Grammar Cognitions. 

Following our look at exam development in general, we shifted gears to a more context-focused area: exploring the psychology behind AUSFL teaching practices. Gökhan Gök presented an insightful session titled "Our Cognitions in Grammar Teaching," which examined the often-complex relationship between our professional ideals and our classroom reality.

The session was grounded in the concept of "Teacher Cognition"—how what we think, feel, and believe shapes our development and work as teachers— and it started off with a question to the workshop participants: What is the number one factor in deciding how you teach grammar in your classroom? The results on the Mentimeter, unsurprisingly, reflected his findings. 

Bridging these responses to his research, Gökhan, introduced his mixed methods teacher cognition study, which included a survey with 128 participants and an interview with 38 participants at AUSFL.

Survey Results: 

The data presented painted a clear picture of how we view ourselves as educators. We are not traditionalists; the vast majority of us believe in a meaning-first, contextual approach to grammar. More specifically: 

•  96.9% of the participants agree that new grammatical points should be presented and practised in contextual situations.

•  94.5% agree that grammar teaching should focus on the meaning of structures and their use in context.

•  92.7% agree that we should begin teaching a new point by giving examples rather than rules.

The Reality Check / Interview Findings: 

Gökhan continued with a compelling question: Do we feel this progressive on a Wednesday morning in Week 12 of the term? His study revealed a "Cognition-Practice Dichotomy". While we hold these progressive ideals, reality often forces us to compromise. As one participant noted, direct and explicit grammar teaching is often chosen simply because it saves time.

Gökhan identified several "culprits" that drive this gap between our beliefs and our actions. The main ones are: 

• Washback: "We teach what is tested." Grammar-heavy exams or perceived prioritisation of grammar force us to focus more on accuracy rather than fluency.

• Time/Syllabus: The dense curriculum pushes us to choose speed (explicit explanation) over discovery (inductive learning).

• Learner Expectations: Students often demand rules and formulas because it feels safe and predictable.

Validating Our Practice / Suggestions: 

After a group discussion, the session concluded with a reassuring message: Instead of feeling guilty/confused about the gap, we can adopt a Strategic Compromise:

• From L1 Avoidance/Reliance to Strategic L1: Don't ban Turkish, but use it only for complex comparisons or immediate clarity. Avoid using it as a default for simple instructions.

• From Mechanical to Meaningful: If you must use a mechanical drill (due to the book), add a personalization twist immediately after (e.g., Make 3 sentences about your partner/yourself.

• From Teacher Control to Tech Autonomy: Use Al tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) to generate extra practice materials or feedback, shifting the burden of endless examples off your shoulders.

• It's Okay to be Eclectic: We don't have to take sides. Experienced teachers tend to utilize a variety of methodologies to respond to diverse learner needs.

• It's Important to be Intentional: The gap between cognitions and practice is an opportunity for reflecting on our practice.

The participants were finally encouraged to be intentional and ask themselves reflective questions such as:

•  "Am I teaching this rule explicitly because the students truly need it for communication, or because it is the “safe” option for the exam?"

•  "When my students spoke today, was I listening to correct their grammar, or was I listening to understand their message?"

•  " Did I 'overteach' this concept today out of my own impatience, or did I actually allow the students the time to struggle and discover it?”

We would like to thank Gökhan Gök for this thought-provoking session. For more details on the data or references, please reach out to him directly at mggok@anadolu.edu.tr.

This term’s PD days began with an awareness-raising session called “Are You Hearing This? Special Needs – Hearing Impaired” by Steve O’Farrell.

He started by pointing out that hearing impaired learners can sometimes be overlooked, which would be a challenge for us teachers when preparing for their needs.

To get the participants engaged, he asked them to brainstorm ice-breaking activities in groups. He then highlighted how any activity in our lessons could be an obstacle for these learners’ language learning experiences.

The session was informative as he provided us with information about the different levels of hearing impairment. He then went on to discuss how we can empathise with these learners and create more inclusive language learning experiences for them.

Steve concluded the session by inviting the participants to ask questions and share their thoughts on the session. 

We would like to thank Steve O’Farrell for this informative session. For those interested in the slides or further information, you may contact him directly at stephen.ofarrell@pearson.com.