An Investigation of Rural Secondary School Students’ School Images with Regard to Some Variables

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the secondary school students’ school images in their minds and to reveal whether or not these images change in terms of the gender and class level variables. The study was carried out in a village school located in the western region of Türkiye in 2018-2019 education year. The village where the study was carried is only 28 kilometres away from the city centre and it has two neighbourhoods. The reason why this school was chosen is that the researcher was working in the school as a substitute teacher at that time when the study was carried out. Convenience sampling was used in the study. The study group consisted of 83 secondary school students. In addition, there were 42 female students and 41 male students in the study group. As a result of the study, it can be stated that two categories (traditional and broader than traditional) related to the secondary school students’ school images stood out. Moreover, it’s revealed that students’ school images didn’t exhibit a considerably significant difference in terms of class level and a balanced distribution was detected in terms of gender.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Image
• School
• Schoolyard
• Secondary school students
• Rural students

Kaynakça

1. Aktürk Çopur, D. (2017). Imaginable school percepiıon of students. International Journal of Leadership Training, 1(1), 1-8.
2. Algan, H. &Uslu, C. (2009). Designing primary schoolyards with the stakeholder participation: Adana Sample. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences, 22(2), 129-140.
3. Bakır Ayğar, B. &. Kaya, A. (2017). The mediator role of school climate on the relationship between middle school students’ sense of school membership and their school loneliness. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 14-27.
4. Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psyhology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
5. Başaran, İ. E. (2006). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi [Turkish Education System and management]. Ekinoks Publishing.
6. Bechtel, R. B. (1977). Enclosing behaviour. Dowden-Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
7. Bland, D., & Sharma-Brymer, V. (2012). Imagination in school children’s choice of their learning environment: An Australian Study. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 75-88.
8. Bursalıoglu, Z. (1979). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış [New structure and behavior in school management]. (5th Edition). Ankara University Faculty of Education Publishing.

9. Demir, C. E. (2007). Metaphors as a reflectıon of middle school students’ perception of school: A cross cultural analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(2), 89-107.
10. Dönmez, B (2001). School security problem and the role of the school administrator. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 63-74.
11. Emek, E. (2019). Primary school teachers’ view on the use of garden based learning in science. Unpublished Master Thesis. Education Sciences Institue: Nigde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde.
12. Erdem, E. & Demirel, Ö. (2002). Constructivism in curriculum development. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23(23) 81-87.
13. Fidan, N. & Erden, M. (1986). Eğitim bilimine giriş. Kadıoğlu Publishing.
14. Frost, R., & Holden, G. (2008), Student voice and future schools: building partnerships for student participation, Improving Schools, 11(1), 83-95.
15. Geyik, Ş., Çalışkan, Y. M., & Bay, D. N. (2019). Identifying the school perception of preschool children. Ihlara Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 1-17.
16. Ghaziani, R. (2008). Children’s voices: raised issues for school design. Co-Design, 4(4), 225-236.
17. Gökdaş, İ. and Ak, Ş. (2019). The dreams of elementary school students in terms of the schools of the future. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(5), 2161-2172.
18. Hauser, L. (2002). Kindergerechtes und naturnahes schulgelände als erlebnisraum. Zürich: Praktikumsbericht Paedagogisches Hochschule, retrieved from http://www.phzh.ch/ webautor-data /dokus /bericht_ lukas_ hauser_154228. pdf.
19. Homezone (2017). Retrieved May 15, 2020 from http://www.metamorphosis-project.eu/multimedia/photo/home-zone-freiburg-0.
20. Kostenius, C. (2011). Picture this-our dream school! Swedish schoolchildren sharing their visions of school, Childhood, 18(4), 509-525.
21. Learning through Landscapes (2019). 15 Mayıs 2020 tarihinde http://learningthroughlandscapes.eu/project/spring-at-our-school-garden/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
22. Malone, K., & Tranter, P. (2003). Children’s environmental learning and the use, design and management of schoolgrounds, Children, Youth and Environments, 13(2). 87-137.
23. Marcus, C.C. & Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space, child care outdoor spaces, Canada & USA: John Wiley & Sons.inc.
24. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2005). Science and technology course (4th and 5th grades) curriculum]. Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Secondary science curriculum, Ankara.
25. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Science course (elementary and middle school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. grades) curriculum. Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training, Ankara.
26. Özdemir, A., & Yılmaz, O. (2008) Assessment of Outdoor School Environments and Physical Activity in Ankara’s Primary Schools, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 287- 300.
27. Rudduck, J. & Flutter, J. (2004) How to Improve Your School. London: Continuum.
28. Şahin Ç. & Girgin Saridaş, D. (2015). A metaphor study: The perceptions of class teachers towards to design of future learning environments by their 21st century skills. İn Norley K. İçbay M.A. Arslan H., (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches in Education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
29. Tandoğan, T. (2014). More livable urban space for children: practices around the world, Megaron, 9(1), 19-33.
30. Tandoğan, T. (2016). More livable school grounds for children, Megaron, 1(4), 629-637.
31. Tarhan, S. (2008). The effective school perception of teachers who work in primary schools. Unpublished Master Thesis. Social Sciences Institue: Beykent University.
32. Tezcan, M. (1996). Eğitim sosyolojisi. Pegem A Publishing.
33. URL 1, Retrieved May 15, 2020 from https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.4.222.pdf.
34. Vural, R. A. & Cenkseven F. (2005). Case studies ın educational research: definition, types, stages and reporting of case study research. Süleyman Demirel University journal of Burdur Education Faculty, 6(10), 126-139.
35. Wicker, A. W. (1979) An introduction to ecological psychology, Wadsworth Inc.
36. Woolfolk, A. (2017). Educational psychology (Thirteenth, Issue December). Pearson Education, Inc.
37. Woonerf (2010). Retrieved May 15, 2020 from https://volumeone.org/articles/2010/01/28/1148_Our_Very_Own_Woonerf
38. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.