Metaphorical Images For Educational Planning: Perceptions Of Public Elementary School Teachers

Year 2009, Issue: 21, 111 - 124, 01.02.2009

Adnan Boyacı

Abstract

Metaphorical image as one way of attaining insight into such meaning is an alternative way of thinking about educational planning. Metaphor as the expression of selectivity of perceived social reality, re-conceptualization of experiences, expressions of emotions and activated forms of shared assumptions is an alternative way of thinking about educational planning. Departing from symbolic orientation, purpose of this study is to find out perceptions of public elementary school teachers about planning processes in Turkish primary education system via metaphorical images they used. The study was realized with qualitative research techniques. Phenomenological design which is used to reveal individual perceptions or point of views related to specific phenomena was employed in the study. Data was collected from 23 public elementary school teachers. Since the researcher was interested in exploring symbolic images and subjective perceptions about educational planning held by public elementary school teachers having different seniority, school, grades and branch in different elementary schools, maximum variation heterogeneity sampling technique was used. In analysis of open ended question in semi-structured interviews descriptive analyze technique was used. Research findings were supported with frequency tables and citations from authentic expressions of respondents. At the stage of identification and explanation of described findings, cause-effect relationships among the research findings and findings of similar researches were also used in order to increase the quality of interpretations realized by researcher. The findings were categorized and the results were discussed under four themes as “metaphors for structure of educational organizations and its components in terms of planning functions”, “metaphors for planning process”, “metaphors for the success of planning process depending on outcomes of reforms” and “metaphors for their perceived roles in this planning process”. About the first theme, organizational structure of educational system in terms of planning functions which were gathered under three categories as building, animal and others, although metaphors produced by elementary teachers seem to represent dispersed point of view, perceived images mainly underline huge, complex and spoiled organizational structure of elementary education system. Focusing on the metaphors produced by eslementary teachers, perceived images mainly indicate lack of coordination and complex network in elementary education system. Besides findings can also be elaborated with concept of ‘problematic goals’ in Cohen and March’s 1974 ‘organized anarchies’ conceptualization. Depending on the metaphors produced by teachers systemic inconsistency and loose collection of perceived images concerning organizational planning appears to be compatible with concept of ‘problematic goals’ in Cohen and March’s 1974 ‘organized anarchies’ conceptualization. Research findings also revealed a the sub-theme under the theme of organizational structure of educational system in terms of planning functions, which is teachers, schools and students in organizational structure of educational system in terms of planning functions. Accumulated perceptions of teachers on their roles in organizational structure of elementary education system indicate that teachers see themselves as a component which is not taken care by the system, although they see themselves sacrificing people knowing useless role in the system. Metaphorical image implies some underlining assumptions about the relationship between teacher and students: the sensitivity and vulnerability of student, student’s helplessness, dependency to teacher, teachers’

Keywords

Educational Planning, Metaphor, Elementary Education, Teacher Research type: Research

İlköğretim Okulu Öğretmenlerinin Eğitim Planlaması Süreçlerine Yönelik Kullandıkları Metaforlar

Abstract

Metaforlar algılanan sosyal gerçekliğin, deneyimlerin, duyguların ve paylaşılan varsayımların seçilmişifadeleri olarak sosyal bilimlerde bir araç olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Metaforik anlamlar üzerine yapılan çalışmaların sonuçlarısöylenen ve iddia edilenlerle, algılananlar arasındaki boşluğu doldurmanın yanısıra nitel ve görgül araştırmalara yönelik bir arka plan oluşturur. Eğitimde sürdürülebilir gelişmeye temel oluşturan eğitim planlamasısüreçlerinin başarısıise planlama ve uygulama arasındaki uyumla belirlenir. Bu anlamıyla metaforik imajlara dayanan çözümlemeler, planlara ilişkin öznel anlamlarıirdelemeye yönelik yapısıile planların uygulayıcılar tarafından nasıl algılandığına ilişkin alternatif bir çözümsel araç sunar. Başka bir ifade ile planlamaya ilişkin metaforik anlamlar, planlama ve uygulama sürecinde, uygulayıcılardaki öznel algılara dayalısorunlardan kaynaklanan uyumsuzluğun nedenlerinin belirlenmesinde önemli görülmektedir. Bu araştırmanın amacıkamuda yer alan ilköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin ilköğretimde gerçekleştirilen planlama süreç ve uygulamalarına ilişkin algılarınıkullandıklarımetaforlar yoluyla belirlemektir. Bu temel amaca bağlıolarak araştırma nitel araştırma yöntemi benimsenerek olgubilim deseni ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarının belirlenmesinde maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesinden yaralanılmışve araştırmanın verileri Eskişehir ilinde ilköğretim okullarında görev yapan 23 öğretmenden yarıyapılandırılmışgörüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın verilerinin çözümlenmesinde betimsen analiz tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları şunlardır; planlamanın sonuçlarına bağlıolarak öğretmenlerin eğitim sisteminin örgütsel yapısına ve sistemin, okul, öğretmen ve öğrenci boyutlarına ilişkin metaforlarıfarklılaşmakla birlikte; örgüt sistemini mimari yapılara, dinazor ya da ahtapota, parçalıbulmaca ve örümcek ağıgibi yapılara benzetmişlerdir. Bir başka ifade ile öğretmenlerin, örgütü karmaşık ve kapsamlıbir yapıolarak algıladıklarısistemin işleyişinde hantallıktan kaynaklanan sorunların olduğunu ve süreçte öğretmenleri sistemin yürütücüsü olarak fedakar kişiler olarak değerlendirdikleri söylenebilir. Öğretmenler planlama sürecini araştırma yapılmadan gerçekleştirilen, sürekli değişiklik gösteren, alt katmanlara doğru katılımcıların görüşleri alınmayan ve amacına ulaşılmasıgüç bir süreç olduğu şeklindeki metaforlarla ifade etmişlerdir. Ayrıca öğretmenler planlama süreci sonundaki reformların ve bu reformların oluşturduğu dönüşümün yetersiz olduğu yönünde görüşler ortaya koyarken, planlama sürecinde rollerinin çok fazla olmadığıancak uygulama sürecinde işyüklerinin ve sorumluluklarının oldukça fazla olduğu yönünde metaforlar kullanmışlardır.

Keywords

Eğitim Planlaması, Metafor, İlköğretim, Öğretmen

References

• Balcı, A. (1992). Eğitim örgütlerine yeni bakış açıları: kuram-araştırma ilişkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 (1).
• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bogdan, R.C.and Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Cerit, Y. (2006). Öğrenci, öğretmen ve yöneticilerin okul kavramıyla ilgili metaforlara ilişkin görüşleri. Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitim Bilimleri, 6 (3).
• Cohen, M. D. and March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Cornelissen, J.P. (2005). Beyond compare: metaphor in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 30 (4), 751-764.
• Craig, C., J. (2005). The epistemic role of novel metaphors in teachers’ knowledge constructions of school reform. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 11 (2),. 195–208.
• Cutright, W., M. (1999). A Chaos-Theory Metaphor for Strategic Planning in Higher Education: An Exploratory Study. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee at Knoxville). Dissertation Abstracts International.
• Firestone,W.A. (1980).Images of schools and patterns of change. American Journal of Education, 88 (4), 459-87.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977. (Ed. Colin Gordon.) New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
• Harris, N. (2000). Practice through a lens: A metaphor for planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19 (3), 309-315.
• Hunt, S.D. and Menon, A. (1995). Metaphors and competitive advantage: Evaluating the use of metaphors in theories of competitive strategy. Journal of Business Research, 33 (2). 81-90.
• Inbar, D. (1991a). The free educational prison: metaphors and images. Educational Research, 38 (1), 77- 92.
• _____. (1991b). A metaphorical insight into educational planning. Journal of Educational Administration, 29 (3), 23-37.
• Manning, P.K. (1979). Metaphors of the field: varieties of organizational discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 660-671.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
• Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 601-607.
• Munby, H. (1986) Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: an exploratory study, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18 (2), 197-209.
• Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• _____ (1989). A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor: A multidimensional problem. Ortony (ed.): Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pajak, E.F. (1986). 'Psychoanalysis, teaching, and supervision', Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1, (2), 122-131.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: Sage Publication.
• Segiovanni, T. J. (1987). Metaphorical use of theories and models in supervision: building a science. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2 (3), 221-232.
• Sackman, S. (1989). The role of metaphors in organizational transformations. Human Relations, 42 (6), 463-485.
• Sandercock, L. (1995). Voices from the borderlands: a meditation on a metaphor. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14 (2), 77-88.
• Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Pub.
• Schön, D. A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective and problem setting in social policy. Ortony (ed.): (254–283), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Şimşek, H. (1997). Metaphorical images of an organization: power of symbolic constructs in reading change. Higher Education, 33 (3), 283-307.
• Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
• _____. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14, 516- 531.
• Vadeboncoeur, J. A & Torres, M. N. (2003). Constructing and reconstructing teaching roles: a focus on generative metaphors. Discourse: Studies in Cultural Politics of Education. 24 (1), 87-102.
• Verma, N. (1993). Metaphor and analogy as elements of theory of similarity for planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13 (1), 13-25.
• Verma, N. (1998). Planning metaphors. Lanham MD: Lexington Books.
• Volkman, M.J & Anderson, M.A. (1997). Creating professional identity: Dilemmas and metaphors of a first-year chemistry teacher. Science Education, 83 (3), 293-310.
• Yıldırm, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.