Available online at www.jlls.org JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES  ISSN: 1305-578X Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 206-220; 2016 Milestone in English Language Teacher Education: How to Use European Profiling Grid in the Assessment of Prospective EFL Teachers' Qualifications Ayfer Su Bergila *, Arif Sarıçoban b a Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey b Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey APA Citation: Bergil,A.S,Sarıçoban,A. (2016). Milestone in English Language Teacher Education: How to Use European Profiling Grid in the Assessment of Prospective EFL Teachers' Qualifications. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 206-220. Abstract This research intends to exemplify one of the new practices that can be used for the assessment of prospective English language teachers' qualifications. Thus, the scope of this research covers the prospective EFL teachers and the implementation of European Profiling Grid (EPG) aimed to be commonly used for language teacher education in Europe. This research is based on a mixed-type research design focusing on both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Thus, it refers to descriptive and experimental research designs. For this purpose, the participants of the study were chosen among the prospective EFL teachers (N=38), their mentors (N=12), course supervisors (N=3), and course registration supervisors (N=3). Totally the research includes 56 participants who reflect the prospective teachers' teaching qualifications in terms of an adapted 7 point likert- type form of EPG. In data analysis process, a series of one-sample T tests, Kruskal Wallis H test for independent samples, one-way ANOVA statistics were applied to the data. The results of the study reveal that EPG has significant effects on prospective EFL teachers in that it can be proposed to use commonly in English language teacher education instead of the Council of Higher Education's assessment form for prospective teacher education. © 2016 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS. Keywords: EFL teacher education; the assessment of prospective teachers; European Profiling Grid. 1. Introduction Teacher education has been of primary interest for faculties of education in Turkey, which aims to prepare the teachers for their future careers. Although general revisions, applications and improvements have been introduced to the field of teacher education generally, the teacher education field needs to be focused on considering the subject-field features and characteristics of them. Among the teacher education programs, English language teacher education is also a multidisciplinary field of study the boundaries of which have not been clearly defined and focused well. Unfortunately deriving its sources from a variety of disciplines, the theoretical foundation of English language teacher education may be regarded as incoherent. Moreover, the influence of source disciplines such as applied linguistic, language teaching and learning, and teacher education have vital importance in shaping the features of English language teacher education. In spite of the necessity and significant value of each discipline, the current research aims to investigate the practices of English language * Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-358-252-5212 E-mail address: [email protected] Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 207 teacher education. In this sense, it is noticed that prospective teachers' teaching qualifications have been observed under the prescribed forms prepared by the Council of Higher Education (CHE) for all of the teacher education departments. This evaluation form has mainly four section named as ‘‘Subject Field and Qualifications on Field Education’’ consisting of two sub-sections of ‘‘Knowledge about Subject Field’’ and ‘‘Knowledge about Field Education’’; ‘‘Qualifications on Teaching-Learning Process’’ addressing four sub-sections of ‘‘Planning’’, ‘‘Teaching Process’’, ‘‘Classroom Management’’ and ‘‘Communication’’; ‘‘Observation of the Students’ Teachers, Evaluation and Keeping Records’’; and ‘‘Other Vocational Qualifications which do not include any sub-sections. These sub-sections of sections include totally 46 items for teaching qualifications of prospective teachers labeled in three point likert-type format, such as ‘‘has deficiencies’’, ‘‘acceptable’’ and ‘‘well-trained’’ (CHE, 2007). On the contrary to the evaluation form for all prospective teachers proposed by the CHE, the EPG suggest a new gateway for each field of prospective teachers pioneering the use of it for English language prospective teachers. This European version of evaluation form for prospective language teachers results from a project co-funded by the European Commission, which ran from 2011 to October 2013 and involved partners from nine countries, which are leading national and international authorities on language education. EPG is an innovative instrument, the main purpose of which is to provide language teachers, teacher-trainers and managers with a reliable means of outlining current competences and enhancing professionalism in language education. The ultimate aim is to increase the quality and efficiency of the training and professional development of language teachers. From the perspective of partners in the EPG Project, teacher development is primarily ‘‘bottom up’’: teachers develop themselves based on the training they participate in, their own personal career experiences, and their interests (Mann, 2005). Depending on the circumstances, teacher development may be triggered by all kinds of events: participating in a training course, attending a workshop organized within the language centre, reading, being observed by or observing a colleague, teaching a new type of course, feedback and discussion with a trainer or manager, exchanging ideas with a colleague on teaching materials, and so on. Mateva, Vitanova & Tashevska (2013) clarify that the EPG is a tool, which contains a series of descriptors of the can-do type, outlining the multifaceted activity of language teachers. The descriptors represent a gradual progression of teachers‟ qualifications and competences from teachers-in-training, through novice teachers, teachers with considerable practice, to experienced modern language professionals. Thus, horizontally, the Grid distinguishes between six phases of development, which, for convenience purposes, are grouped into three main phases, 1.1 and 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2 to encompass teachers of different experience and degrees of competence. The phases are related to four broad categories of language teachers‟ professional practice: Training and Qualifications, Key Teaching Competences, Enabling Competences and Professionalism. Developing vertically, the EPG features thirteen categories, grouped in the above-mentioned four categories. For a detailed description, the reader is referred to the Grid itself. The first main category of Training and Qualifications consists of four sub categories, describing the level of proficiency of teachers in the target language, their education and training, assessed Practice Teaching as well as the scope and length of their teaching experience. It aims to incorporate the wide range of language proficiency and training backgrounds of teachers in Europe, including both native and non-native speaking teachers. The category of Key Teaching Competences encompasses four sub categories, which aim to incorporate teachers‟ knowledge and skills in methodology, lesson and course planning, assessment, interaction management and monitoring. The category of Enabling Competences includes three sub categories: intercultural competence, language awareness and the use of digital media. The final category of Professionalism is dedicated to the two sub categories of professional conduct and 208 Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 administration, including the approach to administrative duties, teamwork and the teacher`s commitment to personal professional growth, as well as to the development of the institution. Related to the review of literature, the data base of the Council of Higher Education reveals 88 general master and doctor of philosophy thesis under the issue of teacher education. Among them, 15 of thesis deal with language teacher education. 9 thesis searched for the language teacher education between the time line of 2010-2015. Kır (2011) investigated the language teacher education in the context of common European Framework, Muthanna (2011) explored the beliefs of teacher educators, students, and administrators which is a case study of the English language teacher education program in Yemen, Özdemir (2012) worked on the history of English language teaching and English language teacher education in Turkey, Uçar (2012) studied pre-service English language teachers’s self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientations and participation in online learning environment consisting a study of a distance English language teacher education program, Gülden (2013) sought the sources of pre-service teachers' instructional decisions in the classroom based on the teacher cognition in foreign language teacher education, Evcim (2013) compared foreign language teacher education programmes during Republican Period, Katırcı (2014) again compared English language teacher education programs in some selected European countries (Finland, Sweden, and Spain) with those of Turkey, Güler (2014) inquired the subject of podcasting in pre-service language teacher education referring to a constructivist perspective, Deregözü (2014) delved into German Language Teacher education in the context of autonomous learning which is a sample of İstanbul University. These studies aimed to suggest better language teacher education context in Turkey and proposed new perspectives on it. Furthermore, Su Bergil (2015) completed a PhD dissertation named as A complementary Study on European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages in Relation to the European Profiling Grid and introduced the European Profiling Grid to the EFL teacher candidates and teachers in Turkey. 1.1. Research questions Under the findings and based on the gathered data of a PhD thesis Su Bergil (2015), this study sought answers to the following research questions: 1. Is EPG a reliable instrument to be used for prospective EFL teacher education? 2. What are the prospective teachers’ profiles in relation to the EPG? 3. Are there significant differences between the sub-sections of EPG? 4. Are there significant differences between the teacher educators who observed the prospective teachers regarding to EPG? 2. Method The current study is a mixed-type research consisting of both qualitative and quantitative research types including the profiles of EFL prospective teachers’ profiles and relying on the statistics of collected data. 2.1. Sample / Participants A total of 2 different groups of participants numbered as 56 were under the scope of this study. The first group consisted of ELF prospective teachers of Hacettepe University, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language Education. The second group consisted of 18 participants 12 of whom were mentors, 3 of whom were course supervisors, and 3 of whom were course registration supervisors. The following tables summarize the detailed information of the participants. Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 209 Table 1. Gender and Age Distribution of Participants Participants Occ Occupation Gender Age 25- 35- 45- Male Female 18-22 23-30 31+ 55+ 34 44 54 N N N N N N N N N Group A Student (38) 7 31 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mentor (12) 1 11 0 0 0 1 6 3 2 Course Supervisor (3) 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 Group B Course Registration 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 Advisor(3) Total ( 56) 11 45 38 0 0 2 10 4 2 According to Table 1. Gender and Age Distribution of Participants, 31 of the prospective teachers are females and 7 of them are males. All prospective teachers’ age distribution ranges from 18 to 22. The participants in Group B consists of the mentor teachers (N= 12), course supervisors (N=3), and course registration advisors of prospective teachers. First of all, the participants in Group B consists of the mentor teachers (N= 12), at state schools where the prospective teachers have taken İDÖ 475 School Experience and İDÖ 478 Practice Teaching courses. Due to the requirement of the courses, the prospective teachers have gone to different state primary, secondary and high schools and taught there in the supervision of the mentor teachers especially during the spring term. Therefore, the participants of the second group are also chosen randomly among these mentor teachers working in different schools in Ankara province who are responsible for the prospective teachers' practice teaching studies (N= 12). Paying attention to the gender distribution of this group, 1 mentor out of 12 is a male and 11 of them are females. As for the age distribution, the age of 1 mentor ranges from 25 to 34, 6 of them range from 35 to 44, 3 of them range from 45 to 54 and 2 of them range from more than 55 years old. The number of the course supervisors responsible for the labeled courses of İDÖ 475 School Experience and İDÖ 478 Practice Teaching were 3. As for the gender distribution of this group, 2 of the course supervisors are males and 1 of them is a female. Moreover, paying attention to the age distribution of these participants, 1 of them ranges from 25 to 34 while 2 of them range from 35 to 44 years. There were another sub-group of the group B consisting of the course registration supervisors who are expected to know all the prospective teachers during their faculty years (N= 3). According to the gender distribution of these participants, 1 of them is a male and 2 of them are females. As for their age distribution, 2 of them range between 25-34 years and 1 of them ranges between 45-54 years. 210 Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 Table 2. Experience, Department and Education Distribution of Participants As for Table 2. Experience, Department and Education Distribution of Participants, except for the student participants, all mentors numbered as 12 are experienced more than 10 years (11+). When the department distribution is taken into consideration, 8 of mentors out of 10 are from English Language Teaching Department (ELT), 3 of them are from English Language and Literature (ELL) and 1 of them is from other departments not included or related to English Language. The education level of all mentor participants are labeled under the category of Bachelor of Arts (BA). As for the course supervisors, 3 of the supervisor participants who are responsible for the courses have more than 10 years experiences (11+). 2 of these supervisors, responsible for the courses, have degrees from English Language Teaching Department while 1 of them has degree from Educational and Applied Linguistics. Paid attention to the educational level of these participants, it is clearly seen that 1 of them has BA degree and 2 of them out of 3 have PhD degrees in their subject field. The experience of the course registration supervisors, who are responsible and guide for the prospective teachers during their faculty life, range from 1 to 3 year(s), 6 to 10 years and 1 of them has more than 11 years of experience. Among them, 2 supervisors have degrees from English Language Teaching Department and 1 of them has a degree from English Language and Literature Department. In terms of education, although 2 of them are PhD candidates in English Language Teaching Department, they all have MA degrees in their subject fields; moreover, 1 of them has a PhD degree from the department of English Linguistics. To sum up, out of 18, 1 participant has 1-3 year(s) experience, 1 has 6-10 years of experience and 16 participants have more than 10 years of (11+) experience. Out of 18, 12 participants have a degree from English Language Teaching Department, 4 participants have a degree from English Language and Literature Department, 1 has a degree from Educational and Applied Linguistics Department while 1 has a degree from another department which is not labeled in this study. In addition, although 12 participants have BA degrees, 3 participants have MA and 3 participants have PhD degrees in their subject fields. 2.2. Instrument(s) The EPG, which specifies the competences of a language teacher in Europe, was guided by the whole specifications labeled in the grid and then in order to make it easy to fill in this grid for each prospective teacher, the parts of T1 and T2 in “Basic,” T3 and T4 in “Independent” and T5 and T6 in “Proficient” sections were designed as T1=0 ''extremely not developed'' , T2=1 ''not developed'', T3=2 ''less developed'', T4=3 ''developed'', T5=4 ''very developed'', T6=5 ''fully developed'' and no idea part=√ like a 7 point likert-type scale. To this end, EPG was filled for each EFL prospective teacher Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 211 included into study and a new generation language teacher assessment format was suggested to the specific area of English language teacher education different from other subject fields. 2.3. Data collection procedures The data were collected at the end of the spring semester of 2014-2015 academic year when the EFL prospective teachers got the course of İDÖ 478 ‘‘Practice Teaching’’. The main reason of conducting the EPG scale at the end of this semester is that they would have finished micro-teaching part of this course and they would have been observed by the teacher educators in detail. In order to collect the data from different perspectives of teacher educators, the EPG scale was filled by mentors, course supervisors and course registration supervisors who were responsible for these prospective teachers at the same time. 2.4. Data analysis In this research, for the analysis of the data SPSS 17.00 packet program was used. The estimated value level of 0.05 was interpreted as meaningful. The reliability of the data was examined by the coefficient of Cronbach's Alpha. As for the reliability level of the scale the Cronbach Alpha was found .89. Table 3. Overall Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,89 13 Table 4. The Reliability Statistics of Each Developmental Phase Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Training and qualifications .75 4 Key teaching competences .82 4 Enabling competences .75 3 Professionalism .76 2 The first developmental phase consisting of ''language proficiency'', ''education and training'', ''assesses teaching'', ''teaching experience'' reached at .75 reliability level; the second developmental phase including ''methodology: knowledge and skills'', ''assessment'', ''lesson and course planning'', ''interaction management and monitoring'' reached at .82 reliability level while the third developmental phase referring to ''intercultural competence'', ''language awareness'', ''digital media'' and the fourth developmental phase addressing ''professional conduct'', ''administration'' had .75 and .76 reliability level. 3. Results and Discussion Table 5., 6. and 7. elaborate the prospective EFL teachers’ profiles in relation to the EPG and the significant differences between each section and sub-section of EPG in terms of the school mentors, course advisors and course registration advisors. 212 Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 Table 5. One-Sample T-Test Results for EPG Sections with Respect to the School Mentors of İDÖ 478 ‘‘Practice Teaching’’ Course Sections N X S sd T p TRAINING and QUALIFICATIONS 38 59,87 25,72 37 14,35 ,000 Language Proficiency 38 50,00 33,13 9,31 ,000 Education&Training 38 68,82 20,45 20,75 ,000 Assessed Teaching 38 66,84 18,76 21,96 ,000 Teaching Experience 38 63,68 24,10 16,29 ,000 KEY TEACHING COMPETENCES 38 68,82 20,45 20,75 ,000 Methodology: Knowledge&Skills 38 74,74 24,02 19,18 ,000 Assessment 38 70,00 21,69 19,90 ,000 Lesson and Course Planning 38 69,55 18,96 22,62 ,000 Interaction,Management&Monitoring 38 64,21 22,85 17,32 ,000 ENABLING COMPETENCES 38 69,55 18,96 22,62 ,000 Intercultural Competence 38 65,26 21,65 18,58 ,000 Language Awareness 38 78,95 16,07 30,28 ,000 Digital Media 38 59,47 26,81 13,68 ,000 PROFESSIONALISM 38 59,47 26,81 13,68 ,000 Professional Conduct 38 58,42 26,87 13,41 ,000 Administration 38 60,53 27,70 13,47 ,000 One-sample T-Test Results for EPG Sections with Respect to the School Mentors of İDÖ 478 ‘‘Practice Teaching’’ is presented in order to support the descriptive results of Research Question 2. According to the One-Sample T-Test results, mean values for each section and sub-section differ meaningfully and the difference between sections and sub-sections of ‘‘European Profiling Grid’’ is significant, t(37)= 14.35 for training and qualifications, 9.31 for language proficiency , 20.75 for education and training , 21.96 for assessed teaching, 16.29 for teaching experience , 20.75 for key teaching competences, 19.18 for methodology: knowledge and skills, 19.90 for assessment, 22.62 for lesson and course planning, 17.32 for interaction, management and monitoring, 22.62 for enabling competences, 18.58 for intercultural competence, 30.28 for language awareness, 13.68 for digital media, 13.68 for professionalism, 13.41 for professional conduct and 13.41 for administration, p˂.01. The mean values are calculated sequentially 59.87 for training and qualifications, 50.00 for language proficiency, 68.82 for education and training, 66.84 for assessed teaching, 63.68 for teaching experience, 68.82 for key teaching competences, 74.74 for methodology: knowledge and skills, 70.00 for assessment, 69.55 for lesson and course planning, 64.21 for interaction, management and monitoring, 69.55 for enabling competences, 65.26 for intercultural competence, 78.95 for language awareness, 59.47 for digital media, 59.47 for professionalism, 58.42 for professional conduct, 60.53 for administration. These results indicate that the prospective EFL teachers teaching profile level are very low especially in the ‘’training and qualification’’ and ‘‘professionalism’’ sections with their sub- sections in EPG which emphasize the importance of Practice Teaching and makes strong reference to the importance of this research again. Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 213 Table 6. One-Sample T-Test Results for EPG Sections with Respect to the Supervisors of İDÖ 478 ‘‘Practice Teaching’’ Course Sections N X S sd T p TRAINING and QUALIFICATIONS 38 68,68 25,03 37 16,91 ,000 Language Proficiency 38 80,00 22,30 29,54 ,000 Education&Training 38 86,31 23,29 22,21 ,000 Assessed Teaching 38 77,89 38,28 21,64 ,000 Teaching Experience 38 30,52 27,79 13,88 ,000 KEY TEACHING COMPETENCES 38 89,60 13,91 39,68 ,000 Methodology: Knowledge&Skills 38 94,21 11,30 32,05 ,000 Assessment 38 85,26 18,99 22,92 ,000 Lesson and Course Planning 38 90,52 13,74 36,89 ,000 Interaction,Management&Monitoring 38 88,42 18,96 27,39 ,000 ENABLING COMPETENCES 38 89,84 13,85 39,97 ,000 Intercultural Competence 38 87,36 16,38 21,78 ,000 Language Awareness 38 90,00 15,24 31,70 ,000 Digital Media 38 92,10 15,09 20,80 ,000 PROFESSIONALISM 38 93,68 11,72 49,26 ,000 Professional Conduct 38 93,68 12,39 26,90 ,000 Administration 38 93,68 11,48 24,06 ,000 According to the One-Sample T-Test results, mean values for each section and sub-section differ meaningfully and the difference between sections and sub-sections of ‘‘European Profiling Grid’’ is significant, t(37)= 16.91 for training and qualifications, 29.54 for language proficiency, 22.21 for education and training, 21.64 for assessed teaching, 13.88 for teaching experience, 39.68 for key teaching competences, 32.05 for methodology: knowledge and skills, 22.92 for assessment, 36.38 for lesson and course planning, 27.39 for interaction, management and monitoring, 39.93 for enabling competences, 21.78 for intercultural competence, 31.70 for language awareness, 20.80 for digital media, 49.26 for professionalism, 26.90 for professional conduct, 24.06 for administration respectively, p˂.01. The mean values are calculated sequentially 68.68 for training and qualifications, 80.00 for language proficiency, 86.31 for education and training, 77.89 for assessed teaching, 30.52 for teaching experience, 89.60 for key teaching competences, 94.21 for methodology: knowledge and skills, 85.26 for assessment, 90.52 for lesson and course planning, 88.42 for interaction, management and monitoring, 87.36 for intercultural competence, 90.00 for language awareness, 92.10 for digital media, 93.68 for professionalism, 93.68 for professional conduct, 93.68 for administration. These results indicate that the prospective EFL teachers’ teaching profile levels are very low especially in the ‘’training and qualification’’ section and ‘‘teaching experience’’ sub-section in EPG which makes strong reference to the importance of this research again. 214 Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 Table 7. One-Sample T-Test Results for EPG Sections with Respect to the Course Registration Advisors of Prospective Teachers Sections N X S sd T p TRAINING and QUALIFICATIONS 38 72,76 14,27 37 31,43 ,000 Language Proficiency 38 80,00 13,95 35,35 ,000 Education&Training 38 70,00 15,94 27,07 ,000 Assessed Teaching 38 70,53 15,93 27,29 ,000 Teaching Experience 38 70,53 16,59 26,20 ,000 KEY TEACHING COMPETENCES 38 70,53 14,18 30,66 ,000 Methodology: Knowledge&Skills 38 72,63 15,71 28,49 ,000 Assessment 38 72,11 15,10 29,45 ,000 Lesson and Course Planning 38 70,00 17,24 25,03 ,000 Interaction,Management&Monitoring 38 67,37 15,01 27,67 ,000 ENABLING COMPETENCES 38 72,13 14,54 30,59 ,000 Intercultural Competence 38 71,05 17,21 25,45 ,000 Language Awareness 38 71,05 15,90 27,54 ,000 Digital Media 38 74,21 14,64 31,26 ,000 PROFESSIONALISM 38 64,21 14,82 26,71 ,000 Professional Conduct 38 64,74 15,02 26,57 ,000 Administration 38 63,68 16,01 24,52 ,000 According to the One-Sample T-Test results, mean values for each section and sub-section differ meaningfully and the difference between sections and sub-sections of ‘‘European Profiling Grid’’ is significant, t(37)= 14.27 for training and qualifications, 13.95 for language proficiency, 15.94 for education and training, 15.93 for assessed teaching, 16.59 for teaching experience, 14.18 for key teaching competences, 15.71 for methodology: knowledge and skills, 15.10 for assessment, 17.24 for lesson and course planning, 15.01 for interaction, management and monitoring, 14.54 for enabling competences, 17.21 for intercultural competence, 15.90 for language awareness, 14.64 for digital media, 14.82 for professionalism, 15.02 for professional conduct, 16.01 for administration, p˂.01. The mean values are calculated sequentially 72.76 for training and qualifications, 80.00 for language proficiency, 70.00 for education and training, 70.53 for assessed teaching, 70.53 for teaching experience, 70.53 for key teaching competences, 72.63 for methodology: knowledge and skills, 72.11 for assessment, 70.00 for lesson and course planning, 67.37 for interaction, 72.13 for enabling competence, 71.05 for intercultural competence, 71.05 for language awareness, 74.21 for digital media, 64.21 for professionalism, 64.74 for professional conduct, 63.68 for administration. These results indicate that the prospective EFL teachers teaching profile levels are very low especially in the ‘‘professionalism’’ sections with their sub-sections in EPG and ‘‘interaction, management, monitoring’’ sub-section of ‘‘key teaching competences’’, which emphasize the importance of professionalism and teaching competences of teacher education. The following tables indicate the ANOVA results of teacher educators and whether there are significant differences between them regarding to EPG referring to the fourth research question of the study. Ayfer Su Bergil, Arif Sarıçoban / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2) (2016) 206–220 215 Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of ANOVA Results of Prospective Teachers’ EPG Levels in Terms of Mentors, Course Supervisors and Course Registration Advisors EPG Supervision N X S Course Supervisors 3 83,84 15,24 Course Registration Advisors 3 71,01 16,16 Mentors 12 64,37 15,91 Total 18 73,07 15,77 According to the descriptive statistics of ANOVA Results of Prospective Teachers’ EPG Levels in Terms of Mentors, Course Supervisors and Course Registration Advisors , it is clearly seen that the mean value of profiles differ with respect to the supervision applied by different people. In detail, profile levels of prospective teachers under the supervision of course supervisors are the most successful ones. The profile levels of prospective teachers under the supervision of course registration advisors place in the second row in terms of their mean value. Finally, the least successful profile levels of prospective teachers are placed under the supervision of mentors with their mean value. Specifically, it would be useful to pay attention that 38 prospective teachers are under the EPG supervision of 3 course supervisors, 3 course registration advisors and 12 mentors. Table 9.One Way ANOVA Results for Repeated Features of Prospective Teachers’ EPG Levels in Terms of Mentors, Course Supervisors and Course Registration Advisors Significant Sum of Source of Variation Sd Mean Squares F p Squares Difference Between Subjects 9746,402 37 263,416 15,39 .000 2-1, 3-1 Measure 7444,498 2 3722,249 Error 17897,407 74 241,857 Total 35088,31 113 4227,522 In this part of the analysis, One Way ANOVA was used as a parametric method which refers the normal distribution of the participants or the data about the participants to compare the independent samples consisting of EPG level scores of prospective teachers in terms of mentors, course supervisors and course registration advisors. Thus, the prospective teachers EPG level scores filled by mentors, course supervisors and course registration advisors were compared by this analysis. As for Table 8. One Way ANOVA Results for Repeated Features of Prospective Teachers’ EPG Levels in Terms of Mentors, Course Supervisors and Course Registration Advisors , it is clearly seen that there are significance differences between the EPG levels of prospective teachers with respect to the different supervisions by mentors, course supervisors and course registration advisors , F(2, 74)= 15.39, p p˂.01. EPG levels of prospective teachers by course supervisors (X= 83.84) are higher than the supervision by the course registration advisors (X= 71.01) and supervision by the mentors (X= 64.37). Thus, the meaningful significance appears mostly between course supervisors and mentors in addition to the course supervisors and course registration advisors; moreover, there is no significant difference between the prospective teachers’ profile levels under the supervision of mentors and course registration advisors. Thus, the EPG competency levels of prospective teachers filled by the mentors and course registration not differing significantly from each other means that in defining the competency levels of prospective teachers these group need to work in collaboration with the course supervisors of prospective teachers.