ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ MECAZLAR YOLUYLA ÇOCUK KAVRAMINA BAKIŞ AÇILARI BOYLAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Year 2012, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 149 - 165, 01.01.2012

Oğuzhan Kıldan Berat Ahi Müge Uluman

Abstract

Bu araştırma, öğretmen adaylarının çocuk kavramı hakkındaki düşüncelerinin davranışçı felsefe ve yapısalcı felsefeye göre birinci sınıftaki ve dördüncü sınıftaki değişimini mecazlar yoluyla ortaya koymak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Araştırmaya bir devlet Üniversitesinin Eğitim Fakültesinde 2007-2011 yılları arasında eğitim görmüş 104 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak öğretmen adaylarına, başında “çocuk ….. gibidir; çünkü……” yazılı bir kağıt kullanılmıştır. Bu kağıt doküman olarak kabul edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde nitel ve nicel analiz teknikleri uygulanmıştır. Mecazlar nitel veri analizi ilkelerine göre analiz edilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının okudukları program ile dördüncü sınıfta kurdukları mecazların felsefi temelleri arasındaki farkın anlamlı olup olmadığını anlamaya yönelik olarak Kruskal-Wallis H Testi uygulanmıştır. Veri analizi sonucunda öğretmen adaylarının çocuk kavramı hakkında kurdukları mecazların felsefi temellerinde önemli bir değişiklik olmadığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarının programları ile son sınıfta kurdukları mecazların felsefi temelleri arasında anlamlı fark bulunamamıştır.

Keywords

Öğretmen adayı, çocuk, mecaz

The Perspectives of Teacher Trainees’ Regarding the Concept of “Child” by Means of Metaphors A Longitudinal Study

Abstract

This study was carried out to reveal the changes related to the “child” concept of the teacher trainees through metaphors in their first and forth years based on behaviourism and constructivism. 104 teacher trainees studying at the faculty of education of a state university between 2007 and 2011 participated in the study. As a data collection tool, teacher trainees were given a paper on which “a child is like…; because…” was written. This paper was accepted as a written document. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were carried out in order to analyse the data. The metaphors gathered through the papers were analysed according to qualitative analysis principles. Kruskal-Wallis H Test was performed in order to find out whether the relation between the departments of the teacher trainees and the philosophical foundations of the metaphors they devised was significant. As a result of data analysis, it was observed that there was not an important change in the philosophical foundations of the metaphors devised by the teacher trainees regarding the concept of “child”. In addition, there was not a significant difference between the departments of teacher trainees and the philosophical foundations of the metaphors they devised in their final year

Keywords

Teacher trainee, child, metaphor

References

• Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1999). In search of understanding the case for a constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA. ASCD.
• Cameron, L. (1999Operationalisin g metaphor for applied linguistic research. (Ed. L. Cameron and G. Low). Cambridge University Press.
• Researching and Applying MetaphorCambridge
• Cameron, L. (2002). Metaphors in the learning of science: a discourse focus. British Educational Research Journal. 28(5), 673-688.
• Chesley, L. G., Gillett, D. A. and Wagner, W., G. (2008). Verbal and Nonverbal Metaphor With Children in Counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development. (86), 399-411.
• Davis, R., Maher, C., Noddıngs, N. (1990). Introduction: Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Doll, Jr. W., E. (2008) “Maturana is not a constructivist” … nor is piaget louisiana state university (USA) & university of victoria (Canada) complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5, (1)
• Geldard, K., Foo, R., Y. and Finch, J. S. (2009). How is a fruit tree like you? using artistic metaphors to explore and develop emotional competence in children. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling. 19(1), 1-13.
• Hove, H. V., Schauwer, E. D., Mortier, K., Bosteels, S., Desnerck, G. and Loon J. V. (2009). Working with mothers and fathers of children with disabilities: metaphors used by parents in a continuing dialogue. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 17(2), 187-201.
• Jakobson, B. and Wickman, P. (2007). Transformation through language use: Children’s spotaneous metaphors in elementry school science. Science & Education. (16), 267-289.
• Jones M. Gail And Brader-Araje Laura. (2002). The Impact of Constructivism on Education: Language, Discourse, and Meaning. American Communication Journal. 5, (3).
• Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2005). Metaforlar: Hayat, anlam ve dil (Çeviren G.Y. Demir). İstanbul: Paradigma.
• Leavya, A. M., McSorleya, F. A. ve Bote, L. A. (2007). An examination of what metaphor construction reveals about the evolution of preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching and Learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 1217–1233.
• Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Özçalışkan, Ş. (2007). Metaphors we move by: children’s developing understanding of metaphorical motion in typologically distinct languages. Metaphor and Symbol. 22(2), 147-168.
• Pikul, M., B. (2010). Teaching children to understand metaphors as a path leading to theory of mind development. European Journal Of Developmental Psychology. 7(5). 529-544.
• Rundblad, G and Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal Developmental Psychology. (28), 547-563.
• 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.
• Saban, A. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenci kavramına ilişkin sahip oldukları zihinsel imgeler. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 7(2), 281-326.
• Saban, A. (2010). Prospective teachers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of learner. Teaching and Teacher Education. 26, 290–305.
• Saban, A., Koçbeker, B. N. ve Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analysis. Learning and Instruction. 17, 123-139.
• Super, C. M. (2003). The metaphors of development. Human Development. (46), 3-23.
• Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC:Falmer
• Welton, J. (2005). The art of visualisation: understanding metaphors. International Journal of Disabilit. Development and Education. 54(2), 257-262.