Öğretmen, Öğretme, Öğrenme, Öğretim Materyali ve Değerlendirmeye ilişkin Metaforlar: Yapısal Bir Analiz

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen, öğretme, öğrenme, öğretim materyali ve değerlendirme kavramlarına ilişkin metaforlarını açıklayan faktörlerin incelenmesi ve bu faktörler arasındaki ilişkilerin keşfedilmesidir. Toplam 678 öğretmen adayı araştırmaya gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan veri toplama araçları Tekinarslan ve Eren (2011) tarafından öğretmen, öğretme, öğrenme, öğretim materyali ve değerlendirme kavramlarına ilişkin olarak tanımlanan faktörlerden hareketle oluşturulmuştur. Araştırmanın amacı doğrultusunda açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerini takiben, model karşılaştırmalarına ilişkin analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca, öğretmen adaylarının metaforları aracılığıyla tanımlanan faktörler arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi için sıfır-sıra korelasyon analizi de gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular iki önemli sonuç ortaya koymuştur. Birincisi, öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen, öğretme, öğrenme, öğretim materyali ve değerlendirme kavramlarına ilişkin metaforlarının hem bilişsel hem de duyuşsal faktörlerle anlamlı ve demografik değişkenlerin etkisinden bağımsız bir biçimde tanımlanmasıdır. İkincisi, söz konusu kavramlara ilişkin faktörlerin birbirleriyle anlamlı ve pozitif yönlü olarak ilişkilenmesidir. Araştırmada öğretmen eğitimine ilişkin çıkarsamalar ve gelecekte yapılacak araştırmalarda tartışılmıştır

Keywords

• Metafor
• Öğretmen
• Öğretme
• Öğrenme
• Öğretim materyali Değerlendirme

Metaphors regarding Teacher, Teaching, Learning, Instructional Material and Evaluation: A Structural Analysis

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the factors explaining prospective teachers’ metaphors regarding the concepts of teacher, teaching, learning, instructional material, and evaluation, and to explore the relationships among these factors. A total of 678 prospective teachers voluntarily participated in the study. Research instruments were developed based on the factors which were described by Tekinarslan and Eren (2011) in relation to the concepts of teacher, teaching, learning, instructional material, and evaluation. In line with the aim of the study, model comparisons were conducted following the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Furthermore, a zero-order correlation analysis was also conducted in order to examine the relationships among the factors which were described through the prospective teachers’ metaphors. The findings of the present study lead to two major conclusions. The first one is that the prospective teachers’ metaphors regarding teacher, teaching, learning, instructional material, and evaluation are significantly described both through cognitive and affective factors regardless of the effects of the demographic variables. Second one is that the factors regarding the mentioned concepts are significantly and positively related to each other. Implications for teacher education and directions for future studies were also discussed in the study

Keywords

• Metaphor
• Teacher
• Teaching
• Learning
• Instructional material
• Evaluation

References

1. Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 743-751.
2. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). AMOS 20 User’s Guide. Amos Development Corporation.
3. Bağcı, H., & Çoklar, A. N. (2010). Roles assigned by prospective teachers to themselves in terms of use of educational technology: A metaphor study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4412-4416.
4. Bullough, R. V. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 43-51.
5. Bullough, R. V., & Stokes, D. K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 187-224.
6. Burden, R., & Burdett, J. (2007). What’s in a name? students with dyslexia: their use of metaphor in making sense of their disability. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 77-82.
7. Çoklar, A. N. & Bağcı, H. (2010). What are the roles of prospective teachers on the educational technology use: A metaphor study. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(3), 186-195
8. Cerit, Y. (2008). Öğretmen kavramı ile ilgili metaforlara ilişkin öğrenci, öğretmen ve yöneticilerin görüşleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(4), 693-712

9. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233- 255.
10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
11. Conway, P. F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 89-106.
12. Coşkun, M. (2010). Lise öğrencilerinin “iklim” kavramıyla ilgili metaforları (zihinsel imgeleri). Journal of Turkish Studies, 5(3), 919-940.
13. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
14. Erdoğan, İ. (2010). Milli eğitime dair. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
15. Eren, A. (2010). Consonance and dissonance between Turkish prospective teachers’ values and practices: Conceptions about teaching, learning, and assessment. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 27-48.
16. Eren, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ future time perspective and Professional plans about teaching: The mediating role of academic optimism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 111-123.
17. Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). The teacher is an octopus: Uncovering preservice English language teachers’ prior beliefs through metaphor analysis. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37(2), 236-248.
18. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: How do teachers learn to teach? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 697-705), New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
19. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
20. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
21. Gök, B. & Erdoğan, T. (2010). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ perceptions about concept of technology through metaphor analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (2), 145-160.
22. Güven B., & Güven, S. (2009), İlköğretim öğrencilerinin sosyal bilgiler dersinde metafor oluşturma becerilerine ilişkin nicel bir inceleme. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(2), 503-512.
23. Huk, T., & Ludwigs, S. (2009). Combining cognitive and affective support in order to promote learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 495-505.
24. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: Assessment and learning practices and values. Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109-138.
25. Kadunz, G. ve Straber,R. (2004). Image-Metaphor-Diagram: Visualisation in Learning Mathematics. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 241- 248.
26. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
27. Karasolak, K. (2009). Mimari Özellikleri Farklı İlköğretim Okullarındaki Öğrenci Ve Öğretmenlerin Okullarının Bina Ve Bahçeleri Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
28. Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London Sage Publications.
29. Kim, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2006). Data modeling: Structural equation modeling. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 161-175), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
30. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, W. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32. Lakoff, G. (2009). The political mind: A cognitive scientist’s guide to your brain and its politics. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
33. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
34. Lawley, J. and Tompkins, P. (2000). Learning metaphors. SEAL Journal (December), 1-5.
35. LeDoux, J. (2006). Duygusal beyin (Çev. A. Uysal). İstanbul: Pegasus.
36. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. Marsh, C. J. (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Martinez, M., Sauleda, N., & Huber, G. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965-977.
39. Özsoy, S. (2011). Spor gazetelerinin başlıklarında militarist ve şiddet içerikli metaforlar. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 1, 88-114.
40. Öztürk, Ç. (2007). Sosyal bilgiler, sınıf ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ‘coğrafya’‟ kavramına yönelik metafor durumları. Ahi Evren Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 55-69.
41. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
42. Pinnegar, S., Mangelson, J., Reed, M., & Groves, S. (2011). Exploring preservice teachers’ metaphor plotlines. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 639-647.
43. Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135-147.
44. Saban, A. (2004). Prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selves and comparing them to those they have of their elementary and cooperating teachers. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 617-635.
45. Saban, A. (2010). Prospective teachers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of learner. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 290-305.
46. Saban, A., Koçbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 123-139.
47. Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Achievement goals, task performance, and interest: Why perceived goal difficulty matters? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12), 1739-1753.
48. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th edition). New York, NY: Pearson.
49. Tatar, N., & Murat, S. (2011).Öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirmeye yönelik algıları. E-international Journal of Educational Research, 2(4), 70-88.
50. Tekinarslan, E., & Eren, A. (2011). Examining the Prospective Teachers’ Metaphors regarding Teacher, Teaching, Learning, Instructional Material, and Evaluation Concepts. Paper presented at 14th International Conference of Evaluation in Education in the Balkan Countries, Belgrade, Serbia.
51. Thomas, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2011). Understanding new teachers’ professional identities through metaphor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 762- 769.
52. Thomas, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2007). Learning to live well as teachers in a changing world: Insights into developing a professional identity. Journal of Educational Thought, 41(3), 229-244.
53. Ullman, J. B. (2007). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson.
54. Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th edition). London: Pearson.
55. Wulf, A., & Dudis, P. (2005). Body partitioning in ASL metaphorical blends. Sign Language Studies, 5(3), 317-332.
56. Yalçın, M. O. (2012). Lise öğrencilerinin matematik dersine ilişkin mecazları, tutumları ve başarı düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.