Kaplan, K., Çerçi, A. (2021). The relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self- efficacy perceptions. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(4). 2851-2870. Received : 19.07.2021 Revised version received : 15.09.2021 Accepted : 19.09.2021 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TURKISH TEACHERS' SELF-EFFICACY AND GRAMMAR SELF-EFFICACY PERCEPTIONS (Research article) Correspondence: Kadir Kaplan (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0010-8252). Gaziantep University kadirkaplan007@gmail.com Arif Çerçi (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5398-8030 ) Gaziantep University arifcerci@gmail.com Biodatas: Kadir Kaplan is currently an Assistant Professor at Gaziantep University, Department of Turkish Education. Research areas: Turkish education and media literacy. Arif Çerçi is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Turkish Education at Gaziantep University. Research areas: Turkish education and speaking education. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0010-8252 mailto:kadirkaplan007@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5398-8030 http://orcid.org/xxxx http://orcid.org/xxxx Kaplan & Çerçi 2852 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TURKISH TEACHERS' SELF- EFFICACY AND GRAMMAR SELF-EFFICACY PERCEPTIONS Kadir Kaplan kadirkaplan007@gmail.com Arif Çerçi arifcerci@gmail.com Abstract Self-efficacy is people's belief in themselves for a goal they want to achieve. When both the relevant literature and the course contents of the education faculties in Turkey are examined, it is seen that grammar is an important area of competence in terms of teaching Turkish. This study focused on the relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions. A mixed-methods research design was used in the research. The quantitative dimension consists of two scales, and the qualitative dimension is conducted with an interview. TSES and GSES questionnaires were applied to 404 participants who work as Turkish teachers in public schools in Turkey and agreed to participate in the research voluntarily. In order to examine the data obtained from the questionnaires in depth, a focus group interview was conducted with 6 participants who worked as Turkish teachers in public schools in Turkey and voluntarily agreed to participate in the research. According to the findings obtained from the research, a significant and positive relationship is observed between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self- efficacy perceptions. It is shown that both self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions of the participants did not differ significantly according to the gender variable. Keywords: self-efficacy, self-efficacy perception, self-efficacy of Turkish teachers, grammar self-efficacy 1. Introduction There have been numerous studies in the field of language teaching dealing with the psychological aspects of learning. These studies show that psychological factors such as motivation (Dörnyei, 2001; Ehrman, 1996; Oroujlou & Vahedi, 2011) and anxiety (Horwitz, 2001; Macintyre, 1995; Zheng, 2008) have an effect on success and learning. Another important factor affecting success and learning is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as people's belief in themselves to fulfill a goal they want to achieve (Bandura, 1997). This belief has a significant impact on motivation and success. According to Bandura (1986), the more the individual believes that he/she can exhibit a behavior, the more effort he/she puts into that behavior and the more successful he/she will be in realizing the behavior he/she has targeted. In this direction, individuals with high self-efficacy show high performance even when performing difficult tasks; however, individuals with low self- efficacy may give up quickly (Tollefson, 2000). This situation reveals that self-efficacy is an important factor in the successful performance of a job. Some internal and external factors can be effective in shaping self-efficacy. The individual's own experiences, experiences based on observations from the behaviors of others, encouragement and advice of the social environment, and physiological or emotional mailto:kadirkaplan007@gmail.com mailto:arifcerci@gmail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2853 states such as sadness and anxiety that can change according to various conditions (Bandura, 1977) are the main factors affecting self-efficacy. In this context, field experts state that in order for individuals to behave in the desired direction, the effects of these factors on self- efficacy perceptions should be known, and the self-efficacy perceptions of individuals should be strengthened through some activities such as verbal persuasion, progressively difficult tasks, and faith-enhancing feedback (Sakız, 2013; Senemoğlu, 2003). In the literature, there are some studies on self-efficacy in different disciplines such as health, informatics, and psychology (Gecas, 1989; O'Leary, 1985; Oliver & Shapiro, 1993). However, it is seen that most of the studies on self-efficacy focus on issues related to learning and education. Some of these studies examined the effect of self-efficacy on learning (Gürcan, 2005; Joo, Bong & Choi, 2000; Schunk, 1990). Some studies looked into the relationship between self-efficacy and motivation (Pajares & Graham, 1999; Schunk, 1995; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006). Some studies also inquired into the relationship between self- efficacy and some demographic variables (Junge & Dretzke, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990). An important part of the studies in the field of self-efficacy is about teachers' self-efficacy (Demirtaş, Cömert & Özer, 2011; Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012; Settlage, Southerland, Smith & Ceglie, 2009; Yeşilyurt, 2013). Teaching, which is defined as a profession that requires expertise (Çelikten, Şanal, & Yeni, 2005; Güven, 2010) has an important role in the development of societies. For this reason, studies have been carried out to determine teacher competencies in order to shape the societies in the desired direction and to achieve the general and special aims of education (Yeşilyurt, 2011). When the relevant literature is examined, the competencies that teachers should have generally consist of two dimensions: professional and personal (Kıncal, 2001; Yetim & Göktaş, 2004). In the study conducted by the Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Teacher Training (MEB a, 2017) on this subject, the research findings in the relevant literature were examined and three basic competencies were determined by taking the opinions of field experts. These are Professional Knowledge, Professional Skills, Attitudes and Values. The factors given here are necessary but not sufficient to be an effective and efficient teacher. Although their academic achievement levels are high, teachers with low self-efficacy may experience problems in communicating with students, teaching activities and classroom management (Ülper & Bağcı, 2012). For this reason, the concept of self-efficacy is accepted as an important factor in studies related to the teaching profession. Many studies have been conducted in different disciplines on teachers' self-efficacy perceptions in this context. When these studies are examined, it is seen that the subject area factor is an important variable in determining self-efficacy. Many studies (Azar, 2010; Özçelik& Kurt, 2007; Telef, 2011) show that self-efficacy differs significantly according to the subject area of the teacher. Thus, there are many studies on teacher self-efficacy in different subject areas such as science, mathematics, information technologies, language teaching and physical education in the literature. One of these subject areas is Turkish language teaching. In the literature, the relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy perceptions and some demographic variables, the relationship between teaching listening and self-efficacy, the relationship between reading and self-efficacy, self-efficacy perceptions for using the creative drama method etc. (Bircan & Kılıç, 2013; Kurudayıoğlu & Çelik, 2013; Kurudayıoğlu & Kana, 2013; Saracaloğlu, Karasakaloğlu & Gencel, 2010) are among the topics covered on this issue; however, no research has been found on the relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions. Kaplan & Çerçi 2854 When the Turkish Language Teaching Undergraduate Program prepared by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK, 2018) is examined, it is seen that grammar is designed as a course of 4 semesters in total, with two credits per semester. This is one of the indications that proficiency in grammar is important in terms of Turkish teaching. In addition, Turkish Teaching Special Area Competencies prepared by the General Directorate of Teacher Training and Development (MEB, 2017b) consist of 25 competencies related to 5 basic competencies and 165 competency indicators related to these competencies. According to this information, in order to be considered competent in their fields, Turkish teachers must have basic language skills as well as grammar, knowledge and skills. In the Turkish education system, students who graduate from secondary schools must take the High School Entrance Examination (LGS) before starting high school education and be successful in this exam (MEB, 2021). Approximately 60% of the 20 Turkish questions directed to students in this exam are directly related to grammar. This means that students must have knowledge and skills for grammar in order to be successful in the Turkish test. All these reveal the importance of Turkish teachers' self-efficacy perceptions towards grammar in terms of their professional competence and self-efficacy. It is seen that the factor of gender is effective on self-efficacy within the frame of literature on self-efficacy. Numerous studies focusing on the relationship between gender and self- efficacy (Bong, 2010; Kartal, Temelli & Şahin, 2018; Namaziandost & Çakmak, 2020; Pajares, Miller & Johnson, 1999) show that participants' self-efficacy differs according to the gender factor. In this context, it was aimed to examine the relationship between Turkish teachers' self- efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions. Therefore, the following research questions will guide the present study: 1. Is there a significant relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions? 2. Do Turkish teachers' self-efficacy perceptions differ according to their gender? 3. Do Turkish teachers' perceptions of grammar self-efficacy differ according to their gender? 2. Method 2.1. Model of the Research The study used a mixed-methods research design in which qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed separately. The mixed-methods research design is defined as "a research approach in which the researcher collects both quantitative and qualitative data to understand research problems, integrates two datasets, then draws conclusions using the advantages of combining these two datasets" (Creswell, 2021, p. 2). In the quantitative aspect of the study, two different questionnaires were administered to the participants in order to determine the relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and their grammatical self-efficacy perceptions. In the qualitative aspect of the research, focus group interviews were conducted based on the sub-problems of the research. Creswell stated that stronger results can be achieved if quantitative and qualitative data are analyzed and the results of these data are interpreted together. In this context, the findings obtained from the surveys and focus group interviews were interpreted together in order to better understand the research problem. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2855 2.2. Population and Sampling The population of the research consisted of Turkish teachers working at public schools in Turkey. According to the data of the Anadolu Agency (AA, 2020), the official news agency of the state, the number of Turkish teachers working at public schools in Turkey was 50833. In the present study, an easily accessible sample was used because the schools were closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic during the research process. Due to this situation, it had been difficult to reach the participants. Therefore, we had to use a convenience sample. In convenience sampling, the researcher chooses a situation that is close and easy to access. This method is widely used for reasons such as providing speed and practicality to the research and being less costly than other methods (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2008). According to Israel's (1992) sample size formula, it was aimed to reach 397 participants randomly, with a 5% margin of error, and a total of 404 participants were reached and they agreed to participate in the study. 2.3. Participants 2.3.1. Survey participants 404 people who work as Turkish teachers at public schools in Turkey agreed to participate in the study voluntarily. Demographic information of the participants is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Participant demographics (N= 404) F % Gender Male Female 179 225 44 56 Degree BA MA PhD 340 56 8 84 14 2 Region Marmara Inner Anatolia Eastern Anatolia Southeast Aegean Mediterranean Black sea 26 26 22 181 10 122 17 6 6 6 45 3 30 4 According to the data in Table 1, 179 of the participants were male, and 225 were female. 340 of the participants have undergraduate, 56 MA, 8 PhD degrees. 26 of the participants work in Marmara, 26 in Inner Anatolia, 22 in Eastern Anatolia, 181 in Southeast Anatolia, 10 in Aegean, 122 in Mediterranean and 17 in Black Sea Region. 2.3.2. Focus group interview participants 6 people working as Turkish teachers in public schools in Turkey agreed to participate in focus group interview voluntarily. Demographic information for the participants is shown in Table 2. Kaplan & Çerçi 2856 Table 2. Focus group demographics Interviewee Code Professional Experience (Years) Gender Interviewee 1 1 Male I 2 1 Male I 3 11 Female I 4 5 Male I 5 11 Male I 6 2 Male According to the data in Table 2, two of the participants had 11, two had 1, one had 5 and one had 2 years of professional experience. Five of the participants were male and one of them was female. 2.4. Data collection tools Survey technique was used as a data collection tool in the research. "A survey is a questionnaire in which questions are placed in certain regularity in order to determine the thoughts, opinions or tendencies of people within the framework of a research; it is a research technique that aims to collect information in this way" (Aziz, 2018, p. 236). For this purpose, Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES), developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001), and adapted into Turkish by Çapa, Çakıroğlu and Sarıkaya (2005) and Grammar Self- Efficacy Perception Scale (GSES) developed by Yılmaz (2019) were used to collect the data. Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale consists of 23 items, and Grammar Self-Efficacy Perception Scale has 24 items. The TSES consists of 3 factors which are Student Engagement (SE), Instructional Strategies (IS) and Classroom Management (CM). As a result of reliability analysis, the Alpha coefficient of the scale was determined as .82 for the SE factor, .86 for the IS factor, .84 for the CM factor and. 93 for the whole scale. The GSES consists of 4 factors: Sentence and Semantics (SS), Morphology (M), Phonetic (P), General Grammar (GG). The reliability coefficient of the scale was determined as .90 for the SD factor, .82 for the M factor, .81 for the P factor, .79 for the GG factor and .91 for the whole scale as a result of reliability analysis. These values show that both scales are reliable for the present study. In addition, focus group interviews were conducted in order to obtain in-depth information about the findings obtained through the TSES and GSES scales in the research. Focus group discussion is defined as “a group discussion in which a subject is examined by groups of four to twelve people under the direction of the researcher” (Marshall, 1999, p. 281). The purpose of the focus group interview is to obtain rich content compiled from different perspectives, ideas, assessments and experiences on the subject under investigation. (Baş, Çamır & Özmaldar: 2008). In the interview, 3 questions, which were created according to the semi-structured interview form, were asked to the participants. The questions directed to the participants were formed based on the theoretical framework of the research and depending on the purpose of the research. The questionnaire used in the interview was presented to the opinions of a Turkish teacher, an assessment-evaluation expert and a Turkish educator academician. Depending on these opinions, the place of one of the items in the questionnaire was changed; a sub-theme (category) was added to one main theme, and the interview form was given its International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2857 final form. The interview questions used in the research are presented in the "Appendix" section. 2.5. Data collection process and analysis of data 2.5.1. Quantitative data The quantitative analyses were conducted with a software program (SPSS). To see whether the data are normally distributed, skewness and kurtosis values were checked for the whole dataset. George and Mallery (2010) argued that data are considered to be normal if skewness and kurtosis values are between ‐2 to +2. According to this, it can be said that the data of the present study has normal distribution. Therefore, the subsequent analyses were conducted using parametric tests. Table 3. Descriptive statistics Variable M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis TSES 3.90 .42 2.75 5.00 .14 .06 GSES 4.31 .46 2.78 5.00 -1.01 .50 Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the assessments, including mean, standard deviation, range, skewness, and kurtosis values for the whole dataset. Normality assumptions were checked and were observed not to be violated. 2.5.2. Qualitative data The qualitative data of the research were collected by a semi-structured focus group interview. Firstly a group of 4 people was interviewed to test the intelligibility of the questions. Later, 12 Turkish teachers working in public schools in Turkey were invited to the interview, and 6 of them voluntarily agreed to participate in the research. An online interview was conducted with 6 interviewees who voluntarily agreed to participate in the interview. The interview, which lasted approximately 1.5 hours, was audio and video recorded. Before the interview started, the "Interview Form" was signed by the participants. Accordingly, researchers have assured the participants to use the data obtained from the interview only for scientific purposes, that the identities of the participants will be kept confidential, and that they can therefore freely answer the questions asked. Audio and video recorded data were analyzed using deductive content analysis (Creswell, 2012). Deductive content analysis was used in the research since the themes were determined in advance depending on the theoretical structure of the study and the research problems. During the analysis process, the interviews with the participants were first transcribed. The written answers were analyzed depending on the themes created according to the interview questions. 3. Findings 3.1. Findings for survey analyzes In this section, the findings obtained from the participants are presented and interpreted in tables within the framework of the research questions. 3.1.1. The relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions Regarding the first research question, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were checked. The results regarding the relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions are presented in Table 4. Kaplan & Çerçi 2858 Table 4. Pearson Correlation relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions SS M P GG GSES SE .24** .28** .31** .11* .27** IS .34** .40** .41** .19** .39** CM .36** .40** .37** .25** .40** TSES .36** .40** .41** .21** .40** *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) According to the findings in Table 4, SE displayed significant correlations with SS (r= .24; p <.01), M (r= .28; p <.01), P (r= .31; p <.01), GG (r= .11; p <.05). The IS factor was also found to be significantly and positively correlated with SS (r= .34; p <.01), M (r= .40; p <.01), P (r= .41; p <.01), and GG (r= .19; p <.01) .01). SS (r= .36; p <.01), M (r= .40; p <.01), P (r= .37; p <.01), GG (r= .25; p <.01)There were positive and significant relationships between the CM factor ans SS (r= .36; p <.01), M (r= .40; p <.01), P (r= .41; p <.01), and GG (r= .21; p <.01). TSES and GSES factors were also found to be positively and significantly correlated (r= .40; p <.01). The results of the correlation analyses revealed that there was a direct correlational relationship between Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy and grammar self- efficacy perceptions regarding all scale factors. 3.1.2. The relationship between Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and gender In order to check whether there is a statistically significant difference between the genders regarding Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions, independent sample t-tests were applied, the results of which are given in Table 5. Table 5. Independent samples t-test results for Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and gender Factors Gender N x̄ df SD t P SE Female Male 225 179 3.79 3.72 402 .44 .50 1.32 .18 IS Female Male 225 179 3.91 3.94 402 .44 .50 -.48 .63 CM Female Male 225 179 4.01 4.06 402 .50 .47 -1.08 .27 TSES Female Male 225 179 3.90 3.91 402 .41 .43 -.11 .91 According to the analyses in Table 5, there was no statistically significant difference between male and female participants in terms of the scores the participants obtained from the Turkish teacher self-efficacy scale and its subcomponents: SE (t (402) = 1.32, p>.05), IS (t (402) = -.48, p>.05, CM (t (402) = -1.08, p>.05, TSES (t (402) = -.11, p>.05). 3.1.3. The relationship between Turkish teachers’ grammar self-efficacy perceptions and gender International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2859 Independent samples t-test analyses were conducted to discover any potential difference between male and female participants in terms of grammar self-efficacy perceptions. The findings of the analyses are presented in Table 6. Table 6. Independent samples t-test for the relationship between grammar self-efficacy perceptions and gender Factors Gender n x̄ df SD t P SS Female Male 225 179 4.68 4.69 402 .39 .44 -.28 .77 M Female Male 225 179 4.47 4.57 402 .46 .51 -2.12 .04* P Female Male 225 179 4.37 4.42 402 .56 .65 -.84 .39 GG Female Male 225 179 3.40 3.47 402 .78 .83 -.93 .35 GSES Female Male 225 179 4.29 4.34 402 .44 .49 -1.16 .24 *p< .05 According to the independent samples t-test analyses given in Table 6, there is a significant difference between male and female participants regarding the M sub-dimension scores (t (402) = -2.12, p< .05). No other significant difference was observed between the gender groups in terms of the other variables: SS (t (402) = -.28, p>.05), P (t (402) = -.84 p>.05, GG (t (402) = -.93, p>.05, and GSES (t (402) = -1.16, p>.05). 3.2. Findings for the analysis of the focus group interview 3.2.1. The relationship between grammar self-efficacy and teaching self-efficacy perceptions The data obtained from the focus group interview showed that there is a positive and strong relationship between teachers' Turkish language teaching self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions. The interviewees stated that one of the most important criteria of Turkish teaching proficiency is their proficiency in grammar. This situation causes Turkish teachers with low self-efficacy perceptions to feel professionally inadequate. In this context, one of the interviewees stated that he felt inadequate in teaching Turkish as he did not consider himself competent in the field of grammar in the past years. Excerpt 1: “When I went to my first internship, I was very hesitant to teach at the time of teaching practice because, as I mentioned, I was a little weak in grammar. I'd run away. I'd hang, somehow trying to get other friends to tell me”. I1 Another interviewee stated that Turkish teachers with low self-efficacy perceptions avoided teaching in 7th and 8th grades because of the difficulty of grammar subjects. Excerpt 2: “Some teachers do not want to attend the 8th-grade classes in general because they are not proficient in grammar). After all, they prepare the students for the exam because I have just started or I have only taken 5th and 6th grades for 2-3 Kaplan & Çerçi 2860 years; I do not have a good grasp of 8th grades, especially in grammar. This way, there is avoidance. They don't want to take those grades. I3 The findings obtained from the interviews reveal that there are three main factors affecting the teachers' perception of grammar self-efficacy: I) Self-perceptions of teachers about grammar self-efficacy II) Perceptions of students III) Perceptions of other subject area teachers. Some interviewees stated that their proficiency in Turkish teaching is shaped by their own perceptions of grammar. Excerpt 3: “I did not attend the course for three years, my teacher, I worked in national education on assignment. Of course, when you are away from classes, the command of grammar inevitably decreases. There was obviously a lack of self- confidence”. I3 Some participants stated that their proficiency in the teaching profession is shaped by students' perceptions. According to the teachers who hold this view, the students believe that their teachers, whom they consider sufficient in grammar, are also competent in their profession. Excerpt 4: “The expectation of the students from us when teaching our lesson in a concrete way in our class is to be a competent teacher in the field of grammar. That is to say, I am primarily in the field of grammar. I didn't think that proficiency affects teaching self-efficacy, but when it went into practice, especially that Turkish teacher profile in the minds of students started to push the profile of Turkish teachers who knew good grammar in this direction.” I2 Some participants stated that other branch teachers consider teachers who do not know grammar as professionally inadequate. Excerpt 5: “Other teachers around us ask, for example, whether this, that addition is written like this, is it written separately, is it written adjacent to it, how is the spelling of that word? Inevitably, these kinds of questions are asked. When you are exposed to it, and you cannot answer clearly, a negative perception inevitably occurs, my teacher, in terms of grammar. In other words, grammar actually serves us as a measurement tool”. I3 The common point of 3 different factors affecting the self-efficacy perceptions of Turkish teachers on grammar is as follows: The teacher self-efficacy of Turkish teachers with high grammatical self-efficacy perceptions is also high and the teacher self-efficacy of Turkish teachers with low grammatical self-efficacy perceptions is low. 3.2.2. The relationship between grammar self-efficacy perceptions and lesson planning, lesson-oriented activities, classroom management, motivation and assessment-evaluation factors The findings obtained from the interview showed that the perception of grammar self- efficacy is primarily effective on the motivation of teachers. In this direction, it was determined that there was a directly proportional relationship between low or high grammar self-efficacy perceptions and low or high motivation of teachers. Excerpt 6: “First of all, my own motivation will decrease if I do not feel sufficient in that subject (grammar self-efficacy). I can't plan properly because even if we speak a sentence in Turkish, there are both grammar and comprehension skills at work”. I3 Some of the participants stated that low or high grammar self-efficacy were not just teachers'. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2861 Excerpt 7: “Motivation, you can't convey it because you don't know it anyway. What kind of activity is it when you can't master classroom management? You designed the activity, the students were too hard or it was too easy, it was finished right away. What happened to both the teacher and the students? His motivation dissipates this time”. I4 Some participants stated that the low self-efficacy perceptions of grammar caused a high level of anxiety in the teacher, and this anxiety negatively affected the teacher in terms of lesson planning and classroom management. Excerpt 8: “When I first graduated, I had a little problem with grammar. While planning my lessons, I was a part-time teacher. I was feeling high anxiety while planning what would happen. There was pressure on me, and I felt this anxiety a lot while doing the activities. And I always aimed to memorize, study and take them to the children. What can I take to the lesson, not anxiety or memorization? I will give an example; I will go from the subject of adjective you just mentioned; it is something I did because we were volunteering teachers in temporary education centers. For example, I dressed colorfully for my teacher, instead of memorizing, instead of working. I said to the children, let's make a difference, let's make an activity for them; I dressed colorfully”. I1 It was found that teachers' motivation level (low or high) and motivation aspect (positive or negative) directly affected lesson planning, lesson-oriented activities, classroom management and assessment-evaluation factors. Excerpt 9: “If the teacher knows grammar in terms of classroom management, he will dominate the class. And, of course, he will feel more competent about it. Again, he will provide the highest motivation. If he knows the grammar and conveys what he knows, he will provide the motivation accordingly. And of course, your teacher said very well in the measurement and evaluation part: how will you evaluate if you don't know? This is an important issue too. That is, the more we know, the more we must see ourselves sufficient in the concept of self-efficacy”. I5 In this context, it was observed that teachers with high grammar self-efficacy perceptions also had high motivation levels, while teachers with high motivation levels felt more competent in lesson planning, lesson-oriented activities, classroom management and assessment-evaluation. 3.2.3. The relationship between grammar self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy in teaching basic language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) The findings obtained from the interview analyses showed that there was a positive relationship between Turkish teachers' perceptions of grammar self-efficacy and their self- efficacy for teaching basic language skills. In this regard, one of the interviewees stated that a Turkish teacher with high grammar self-efficacy both felt more competent in teaching basic language skills and was accepted as a "knowledgeable teacher" by his environment. Excerpt 10: “The more we master the grammar, the more we can learn how to teach it. I feel that we have passed it to the other side in a more beneficial way. And this is the feedback I get from the teachers around me and the teachers at the institution where I work. I can even state that. In some of our conversations about other teachers, in the teachers' room, etc. Can you do it?" when there is a subject etc., "What advice do you have about this, sir?", "I will prepare an exam, do you have any opinions and suggestions about it? You are a recent graduate, my teacher, sometimes we hear about the exams we take from our teachers. To sum it up, this is the case. It Kaplan & Çerçi 2862 has a positive impact. I am a teacher in transferring our language skills to the individual, teaching”. I1 One of the interviewees stated that there was a positive relationship between the perception of grammar self-efficacy and the teaching of basic language skills; however, he stated that this relationship was high in speaking and writing skills and low in reading and listening skills. Excerpt 11: “I think there is a significant relationship between grammar self-efficacy perceptions especially in writing and speaking skills. Why are these skills more I can say that there is a significant relationship with these? However, I think that this significant relationship is relatively lower in listening and reading. Of course, I think it may be due to the fact that grammar acquisition here is generally within the writing skill. I2 On the other hand, it was stated that Turkish teachers with low self-efficacy perceptions of grammar experienced anxiety about teaching basic language skills and tended to avoid some activities or student questions. Excerpt 12: “A teacher with low self-efficacy perception, especially in grammar, does not write as you mentioned when he enters the classroom). Since he anticipates the questions that the student will ask himself/herself about reading skills or reading skills and he/she feels low self-efficacy in this field, he/she will enter into avoidance, and this will naturally be reflected in other language skills. I2 The findings obtained from the focus group interview showed that there was a positive relationship between Turkish teachers' perceptions of grammar self-efficacy and their self- efficacy in teaching basic language skills. According to this, it is possible to reach the conclusion that Turkish teachers with a high self-efficacy perception of grammar have higher proficiency in teaching basic language skills. 4. Conclusion and Discussion The first finding of the study shows that there is a significant and positive relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions. We think that the fact that grammar lessons have a significant share among the course contents in the Turkish teaching undergraduate program and that both grammar and grammar teaching take place among the special field competencies of Turkish teaching are effective in the emergence of this relationship. In addition, we think that the fact that grammar questions have an important place among Turkish questions in high school entrance exams affects this meaningful and positive relationship. Ceyhan and Akın (2015) found that a significant portion of the Turkish questions in the high school entrance exams is for grammar. Yorgancı (2015), on the other hand, stated that the Turkish course common exam in the high school entrance exam measures the most grammatical gains based on the findings he obtained from his study. It can be said that this situation is an indication of the perception of grammar self- efficacy as an important determinant of Turkish teacher self-efficacy. The findings obtained from the focus group interview of the study support this view. The participants, who were included in the study as interviewees, stated that the self- efficacy of Turkish teachers largely depends on the perception of grammar self-efficacy and their perception of grammar self-efficacy is shaped according to their own thoughts, the thoughts of their colleagues and especially the thoughts of the students. Studies in the literature (Goddart, Hoy & Hoy, 2000; Ross, 1992) show that teachers' self-efficacy is related to students' success, and in this respect, they support the finding of the research. In addition to the findings in the literature, we can say that the success of the students in the high school entrance exams largely depends on the success in the field of grammar, so we can say that the International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2863 more a Turkish teacher is competent in the field of grammar, the more professionally competent he/she is regarded. Another finding obtained from the focus group interview shows that Turkish teachers' perceptions of grammar self-efficacy are related to course-oriented activities, classroom management, motivation and assessment-evaluation activities. Accordingly, teachers’ motivation with a high self-efficacy perception of grammar is higher and depending on this motivation, they better organize activities for the lessons, and they are more successful in providing classroom management. In this context, they construct assessment-evaluation activities more effectively. When the relevant literature is examined (Çakan, 2004; Ekici, 2006; Ekici, Ekici, Ekici & Kara, 2012; Kurt, 2012), we see that lesson-oriented activities, classroom management, motivation and assessment-evaluation factors are important criteria for determining teachers' self-efficacy. In this context, it is possible to reach the conclusion that Turkish teachers who have a high grammatical self-efficacy perception also have high professional self-efficacy. Another finding obtained from the focus group interview shows that there is a positive relationship between basic language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and both grammar self-efficacy perception and Turkish teacher self-efficacy. Accordingly, we can say that Turkish teachers with a high self-efficacy perception of grammar also have high professional self-efficacy and accordingly, they perceive themselves as more competent in teaching basic language skills. 20 items of the 51-item scale developed by Ülper and Bağcı (2012) to determine the self-efficacy of Turkish teachers are about basic language skills. It supports the view that knowledge and skills in listening, speaking, reading and writing are accepted as an important criterion in determining Turkish teacher self-efficacy. This finding in the literature is consistent with the one we obtained from our research. The research findings show that both Turkish teacher self-efficacy and grammar self- efficacy perceptions do not differ significantly according to the gender variable. This finding we obtained in our study overlaps with some of the relevant research findings in the literature (Akay & Boz, 2011; Akçil & Oğuz, 2015; Gençtürk & Memiş, 2010; Gömleksiz & Serhatlıoğlu, 2013; Yenice, 2012) and contradicts some others (Deniz & Tican, 2017; Elkatmış, Demirbaş & Ertuğrul, 2013). This situation can be explained by the effect of moderator variables such as educational status and professional experience, which are among the variables of self-efficacy and gender. 5. Implications for Teacher Education The findings of the current research demonstrate that Turkish teachers’ perceptions of grammar self-efficacy have a significant effect on their teacher self-efficacy perceptions. When compared to teachers with a lower sense of grammar self-efficacy, those with a higher sense of grammar self-efficacy perceive themselves to be more competent in professional competencies such as classroom management and motivation and have more positive attitudes towards their profession. In this context, the following can be suggested in order to train Turkish teachers with high perceptions of teacher self-efficacy: 1. Pre-service Turkish teachers may be required to do presentations on grammar topics through micro-teachings during their initial teacher education. We can increase their self- efficacy as a result of the sense of achievement they will develop with presentations graded from easier grammar topics to harder ones. In this way, pre-service Turkish teachers’ perceptions of grammar self-efficacy can be strengthened. 2. Novice Turkish teachers can be given the responsibility of lower grades first in the first years of service, and then be assigned to higher grades as they develop experience. Kaplan & Çerçi 2864 3. In-service trainings can be given to practicing Turkish teachers to increase their sense of professional self-efficacy. 6. Suggestions for Further Research The current research is limited to the identification of the relationship between Turkish teachers’ perceptions of teacher self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy. Further studies can focus on the sources of the illustrated relationship between these two constructs and the potential factors that may be influencing this relationship. Furthermore, studies can be conducted inquiring into the roles of the stakeholders such as the teacher, students, school administration, methodology, and educational philosophy on the development of Turkish teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2865 References Akay, H. & Boz, N. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematiğe yönelik tutumları, matematiğe karşı öz-yeterlik algıları ve öğretmen öz-yeterlik inançları arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 281-312. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/256213 Akçil, M. & Oğuz, A. (2015). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin öz yeterlik inancı ile öğrenen özerkliğini destekleme davranışları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10(11), 1- 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8616 Anadolu Ajansı (2020). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı resmi kurumlarda görev yapan öğretmen istatistikleri. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/yaklasik-1-milyon-ogretmen- genc-nufusu-gelecege-hazirliyor/1319248. Azar, A. (2010). Ortaöğretim fen bilimleri ve matematik öğretmeni adaylarının öz yeterlilik inançları. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(12), 235–252. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1123430 Aziz, A. (2018). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri ve Teknikleri (12. Bs.). Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baş, T., Çamır, M. & Özmaldar, B. (2008) Odak Grubu Çalışması (3. bs.), Baş, T. ve Akturan, U. (Editör) Nitel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (s. 105-112). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Bircan, E. & Kılıç, L. K. (2013). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının yaratıcı drama yöntemini kullanmaya yönelik öz yeterlik algıları. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 799-820. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.461 Bong, M. (2010) Personal factors affecting the generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: gender, ethnicity, and relative expertise. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67(4), 315-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979909598486 Ceyhan, C. & Akın, E. (2015). TEOG sınavı Türkçe dersi sorunlarının Türkçe dersi öğretim programındaki kazanımlar açısından değerlendirilmesi. Siirt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4, 119-128. Retrieved from https://acikerisim.siirt.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12604/758/TEOG%20T%c 3%9cRK%c3%87E%20SORULARI.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paperback, 472 pp. $82. ISBN: 9781412995306. Creswell, J. W. (2021). Karma Yöntem Araştırmalarına Giriş (3. bs.). Mustafa Sözbilir (Çev. Ed.), Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/256213 http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8616 https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/yaklasik-1-milyon-ogretmen-genc-nufusu-gelecege-hazirliyor/1319248 https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/yaklasik-1-milyon-ogretmen-genc-nufusu-gelecege-hazirliyor/1319248 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1123430 https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.461 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979909598486 https://acikerisim.siirt.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12604/758/TEOG%20T%c3%9cRK%c3%87E%20SORULARI.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://acikerisim.siirt.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12604/758/TEOG%20T%c3%9cRK%c3%87E%20SORULARI.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Kaplan & Çerçi 2866 Çakan, M. (2004). Öğretmenlerin ölçme değerlendirme uygulamaları ve yeterlik düzeyleri: ilk ve orta öğretim. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37( 2), 99- 114. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/509196 Çapa, Y., Çakıroğlu J. & Sarıkaya, H. (2005). Öğretmen özyeterlik ölçeği Türkçe uyarlamasının geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 30(137), 74-81. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/5074/1155 Çelikten, M., Şanal, M. & Yeni, Y. (2005). Öğretmenlik mesleği ve özellikleri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 1(19), 207-237. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/231612 Demirtaş, H., Cömert, M. & Özer, N. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının özyeterlik inançları ve öğretmenlik mesleğine ilişkin tutumları. Eğitim ve Bilim. 36(159), 96-111. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/278/241 Deniz, S. & Tican, C. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen öz-yeterlik inançları ile mesleki kaygılarına yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(4), 1838-1859. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.32772-363968 Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman: New York. Ehrman, M. (1996). An exploration of adult language learner motivation, self-efficacy and anxiety. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century (pp. 81-103). University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Ekici, F., Ekici, E., Ekici, F.T. & Kara, İ. (2012). Öğretmenlere yönelik bilişim teknolojileri öz-yeterlik algısı ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(31), 53-65. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/114558 Ekici, G. (2006). Meslek lisesi öğretmenlerinin öğretmen öz-yeterlik inançları üzerine bir araştırma. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 24, 87-96. Retrieved from https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7f9b84d8-80c4- 44ca-9ceb-d7376ac6df99%40sdc-v-sessmgr03 Elkatmış, M., Demirbaş, M. & Ertuğrul, N. (2013). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencileri ile formasyon eğitimi alan fen edebiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik öz yeterlik inançları. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 3(3), 41-50. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/209637 Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology. 15, 291-316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001451 George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson. Gençtürk, A. & Memiş, A. (2010). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin öz-yeterlik algıları ve iş doyumlarının demografik faktörler açısından incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(3), 1037-1054. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/90733 Goddart, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479 Gömleksiz, M. N. & Serhatlıoğlu, B. (2013). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin öz-yeterlik inançlarına ilişkin görüşleri. International Periodical For The Languages, Literature https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/509196 http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/5074/1155 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/231612 http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/278/241 https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.32772-363968 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/114558 https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7f9b84d8-80c4-44ca-9ceb-d7376ac6df99%40sdc-v-sessmgr03 https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7f9b84d8-80c4-44ca-9ceb-d7376ac6df99%40sdc-v-sessmgr03 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/209637 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001451 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/90733 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312037002479 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2867 and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(7), 201-221. Retrieved from https://turkishstudies.net/turkishstudies?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=4918 01061_14G%C3%B6mleksizMehmetNuri-vd-3-201-221.pdf&key=16742 Gürcan, A. (2005). Bilgisayar özyeterliği algısı ile bilişsel öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişki. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 19, 179–193. Retrieved from https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7c00ae9f-18cc- 461a-801e-74937122e511%40sessionmgr4008 Güven, D. (2010). Profesyonel bir meslek olarak Türkiye’de öğretmenlik. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi. 27(2), 13-21. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/43778 Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-review-of-applied- linguistics/article/abs/language-anxiety-and- achievement/4DBB97FCB69BD1632CBBDAD96C81884E Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Technical Report, University of Florida. Joo, Y.J., Bong, M. & Choi, H.J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02313398 Junge, M. E. & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly. 39, 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629503900104 Kartal, O. Y., Temelli, D. & Şahin, Ç. (2018). Ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojileri öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin cinsiyet değişkenine göre incelenmesi, Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 11(4), 922-943. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.410279 Kurt, T. (2012). Öğretmenlerin öz yeterlik ve kolektif yeterlik algıları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 195-227. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article- file/256483 Kurudayıoğlu, M. & Çelik, G. (2013). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının okumaya ve okuma eğitimine ilişkin özyeterlik algıları. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(4), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.12780/UUSBD277 Kurudayıoğlu, M. & Kana, F. (2013). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının dinleme becerisi ve dinleme eğitimi özyeterlik algıları. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 9(2), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.77359 Macintyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to sparks and ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/329395 Marshall, G. (1999). Sosyoloji sözlüğü, Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları. MEB Öğretmen Yetiştirme Genel Müdürlüğü. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Ankara. MEB Öğretmen Yetiştirme Genel Müdürlüğü. (2017). Türkçe öğretmeni özel alan yeterlikleri. Ankara. https://turkishstudies.net/turkishstudies?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=491801061_14G%C3%B6mleksizMehmetNuri-vd-3-201-221.pdf&key=16742 https://turkishstudies.net/turkishstudies?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=491801061_14G%C3%B6mleksizMehmetNuri-vd-3-201-221.pdf&key=16742 https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7c00ae9f-18cc-461a-801e-74937122e511%40sessionmgr4008 https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7c00ae9f-18cc-461a-801e-74937122e511%40sessionmgr4008 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/43778 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-review-of-applied-linguistics/article/abs/language-anxiety-and-achievement/4DBB97FCB69BD1632CBBDAD96C81884E https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-review-of-applied-linguistics/article/abs/language-anxiety-and-achievement/4DBB97FCB69BD1632CBBDAD96C81884E https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-review-of-applied-linguistics/article/abs/language-anxiety-and-achievement/4DBB97FCB69BD1632CBBDAD96C81884E https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02313398 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001698629503900104 https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.410279 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/256483 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/256483 https://doi.org/10.12780/UUSBD277 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17383/181611?publisher=mersin-university https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17383/181611?publisher=mersin-university https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.77359 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/329395 Kaplan & Çerçi 2868 MEB (2021). Sınavla öğrenci alacak ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezî sınav başvuru ve uygulama kılavuzu. Ankara. Mojavezi, A. & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the students' motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 483-491. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.3.483-491 Namaziandost, E. & Çakmak, F. (2020). An account of EFL learners' self-efficacy and gender in the Flipped Classroom Model. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 4041–4055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10167-7 O'Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23(4), 437- 451. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(85)90172-X Oliver, T. A. & Shapiro, F. (1993). Self-efficacy and computers. Journal of Computer-Based Interactions, 20(3), 81–85. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ476367 Oroujlou, N. & Vahedi, M. (2011). Motivation, attitude, and language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 944-1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.333 Özçelik, H. & Kurt, A. A. (2007). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin bilgisayar özyeterlikleri: Balıkesir ili örneği. Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 441-451. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/91000 Pajares, F. & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 24(2), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991 Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing selfbeliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.50 Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495395 Sakız, G. (2013). Başarıda anahtar kelime: Öz-yeterlik. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 185-210. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article- file/153499 Saracaloğlu, A. S., Karasakaloğlu, N. & Gencel, İ. E. (2010). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin özyeterlik düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(33), 265-283. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70212 Schunk D. H. (1990). Goal setting and selfefficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist. 25, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6 Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 112-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406961 Senemoğlu, N. (2003). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim kuramdan uygulamaya (8. bs.). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi. Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K. & Ceglie, R. (2009). Constructing a doubt-free teaching self: Self-efficacy, teacher identity, and science instruction within diverse settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 102–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20268 http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.483-491 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10167-7 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000579678590172X#! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00057967 https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(85)90172-X https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ476367 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18770428 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18770428 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.333 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/91000 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0361476X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0361476X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0361476X/24/2 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.50 https://doi.org/10.2307/1495395 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/153499 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/153499 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70212 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6 https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406961 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20268 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2851-2870. 2869 Telef, B. B. (2011). Öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlikleri, iş doyumları, yaşam doyumları ve tükenmişliklerinin incelenmesi. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 91-108. Retrieved from https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=81109ee0- 9925-4a2a-8bc7-f8ed001d2a43%40sessionmgr4008 Tollefson, N. (2000). Clasroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation. Educational Psychologhy Review, 12(1), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009085017100 Tschannen-Moran M. & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an exclusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Ülper, H. & Bağcı, H. (2012). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının öğretmenlik mesleğine dönük öz yeterlik algıları. International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic. 7(2), 1115-1131. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.3039 Vancouver, J. B. & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1146-1153. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146 Yenice, N. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının öz-yeterlik düzeyleri ile problem çözme becerilerinin incelenmesi, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(39), 36-58. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70333 Yeşilyurt, E. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik mesleğinin genel yeterliklerine yönelik yeterlik algıları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 9(1), 71-100. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/256222 Yeşilyurt, E. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen öz-yeterlik algıları. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 12(45), 88-104. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70461 Yetim, A. A. & Göktaş, Z. (2004). Öğretmenin mesleki ve kişisel nitelikleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 12(2), 541-550. Retrieved from http://w3.balikesir.edu.tr/~goktas/yayinlar/ogretmenin%20_kisisel_nitelikleri.pdf Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi. Yılmaz, S. (2019). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının dil bilgisi öz-yeterlik algıları üzerine bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gaziantep. Yorgancı, O. K. (2015). Sekizinci sınıf Türkçe dersi ortak sınavı sorularının öğretim programına göre değerlendirilmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu (2018). Türkçe öğretmenliği lisans programı. Ankara. Zheng, Y. (2008). Anxiety and second/foreign language learning revisited. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1(1), 1-12. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506736.pdf Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51 https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=81109ee0-9925-4a2a-8bc7-f8ed001d2a43%40sessionmgr4008 https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=81109ee0-9925-4a2a-8bc7-f8ed001d2a43%40sessionmgr4008 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009085017100 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.3039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70333 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/256222 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/70461 http://w3.balikesir.edu.tr/~goktas/yayinlar/ogretmenin%20_kisisel_nitelikleri.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506736.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51 Kaplan & Çerçi 2870 Appendices Interview Form In this study, which was conducted to determine the relationship between Turkish teachers' self-efficacy and grammar self-efficacy perceptions, the interviews will be video/audio recorded in order to focus on the details of the interview later. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. What is expected from you in order for the study to achieve its purpose is to answer all questions completely, without any pressure or suggestion and to give the most appropriate answers sincerely. If you read and approve this form, it will mean that you agree to participate in the research. However, you also have the right not to participate in the study or to stop working at any time after participating. The information obtained from this study will be used for research purposes only and your personal information will be kept confidential. Your voice recordings and personal information, Dr. Arif Cerci and Dr. Kadir Kaplan except for, it will not be shared with anyone or published anywhere. I have read the text. I consent to participate in the research. Participant's Name and Surname: History: Signature: Semi-Structured Focus Group Interview Questions 1. How does your perception of grammar self-efficacy affect your teaching self-efficacy? 2. What effect do you think the perception of self-efficacy in grammar has on the following items? a) lesson planning b) activities for the lesson c) classroom management d) motivation e) measurement-evaluation 3. How does your perception of self-efficacy in grammar affect your self-efficacy in teaching basic language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing)?