Pre-service English language teachers’ collaborative development: the emergence of research, rehearsal and reflection (3R) model from an activity theory perspective

References

• Ahn, K. (2009). Learning to teach in the context of English language curricular reform in South Korea. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Arnseth, H. C. 2008. “Activity Theory and Situated Learning Theory: Contrasting Views of Educational Practice.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 16 (3): 289–302. doi:10.1080/14681360802346663.
   Google Scholar
• Avis, J. 2009. “Transformation or Transformism: Engeström’s Version of Activity Theory?” Educational Review 61 (2): 151–165. doi:10.1080/00131910902844754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayyurt, Y. 2014. “4+4+4 eğitim sisteminde erken yaşta yabancı dil eğitimi.” In Türkiye’de yabancı dil eğitiminde eğilim ne olmalı?, edited by A. Sarıçoban and H. Öz, 109–116. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle-Baise, M., and J. McIntyre. 2008. “What Kind of Experience? Preparing Teachers in PDS or Community Settings.” In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Ensuring Questions in Changing Contexts, edited by M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, and D. J. McIntyre, 40–87. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dornyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. China: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, G. 2014. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Growth as Practitioners of Developmentally Appropriate Practice: A Vygotskian Analysis of Constraints and Affordances in the English Context.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37 (1): 4–17. doi:10.1080/02619768.2013.787592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 1999. “Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation.” In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R. L. Punamäki, 19–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Education and Work 14: 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., R. Engeström, and A. Suntio. 2002. “Can a School Community Learn to Master Its Own Future? an Activity‐Theoretical Study of Expansive Learning among Middle School Teachers.” In Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education, edited by G. Wells and G. Claxton, 211–224. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. “The Discovery of Grounded Theory.” London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson 24 (25): 288–304.
   Google Scholar
• Güngör, M. N. 2016. “Turkish Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflective Practices in Teaching English to Young Learners.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 41 (2): 137–151. doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n2.9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. E. 2006. “The Sociocultural Turn and Its Challenges for Second Language Teacher Education.” Tesol Quarterly 40 (1): 235–257. doi:10.2307/40264518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. E. 2009. Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. Newyork: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, E. (2008). In the midst of ELT reform: An activity theory analysis of teachers’ and students’ experiences in South Korea. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., and S. L. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leont’ev, A. N. 1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T. H. 2010. “Tools for the Study and Design of Collaborative Teacher Learning: The Affordances of Different Conceptions of Teacher Community and Activity Theory.” Teacher Education Quarterly 37 (1): 109–130.
   Google Scholar
• Malm, B. 2009. “Towards a New Professionalism: Enhancing Personal and Professional Development in Teacher Education.” Journal of Education for Teaching 35 (1): 77–91. doi:10.1080/02607470802587160.
   Google Scholar
• McNicholl, J., and A. Blake. 2013. “Transforming Teacher Education, an Activity Theory Analysis.” Journal of Education for Teaching 39 (3): 281–300. doi:10.1080/02607476.2013.799846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow, K. 2004. Insights from the Common European Framework. Spain: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. 2004. “Introduction: “Activity Theory and Education: An Introduction”. Mind, Culture, and Activity 11 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1101_1.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M., and K. Tobin. 2002. “Redesigning an “Urban” Teacher Education Program: An Activity Theory Perspective.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 9 (2): 108–131. doi:10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_03.
   Google Scholar
• Stuart, K. 2012. “Narratives and Activity Theory as Reflective Tools in Action Research.” Educational Action Research 20 (3): 439–453. doi:10.1080/09650792.2012.697663.
   Google Scholar
• Stuart, K. 2014. “Activity Theory as a Reflective and Analytic Tool for Action Research on Multi-Professional Collaborative Practice.” Reflective Practice 15 (3): 347–362. doi:10.1080/14623943.2014.900007.
   Google Scholar
• Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. 2013. İlköğretim Kurumları İngilizce Dersi (2.,3.,4.,5.,6.,7.,8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [Board of Education (2013). English Language Curriculum for Primary and Secondary Education: Grades 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8]. Ankara: MEB.
   Google Scholar
• Venkat, H., and H. Adler. 2008. “Expanding the Foci of Activity Theory: Accessing the Broader Contexts and Experiences of Mathematics Education Reform.” Educational Review 60 (2): 127–140. doi:10.1080/00131910801933914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, W., and D. A. Mitchell. 2012. “Participation in Peer Response as Activity: An Examination of Peer Response Stances from an Activity Theory Perspective.” TESOL Quarterly 46 (2): 362–386. doi:10.1002/tesq.22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar