Investigation of prospective teachers' perceptions of strong future and strong geography education

Öz

Human is a being who thinks and can dream about the future. Although the imagination worlds of individuals are different from each other, they may also have similar and common aspects. In addition, the knowledge and attitudes of individuals, the environment they live in and their real life experiences are effective in forming their images about the future. The aim of this research is to examine the images of strong future and strong geography education in their mental worlds from the perspective of prospective teachers. Within the scope of this purpose, the research was carried out with 189 participants studying in the departments of classroom, social studies and science teaching at the faculty of education of a state university in Turkey in the 2019-2020 academic year. The data of this study, which was conducted with the phenomenological design, one of the qualitative research approaches, consists of the responses given by the participants to the questions in the semi-structured interview form. The data obtained as a result of the research were analysed by content analysis. According to the findings obtained, while the strong future perceptions of the prospective teachers were based on conscious and qualified individuals with qualified education and training, an independent and strong economy, and the conditions in which there are no wars in the world and peace prevails, they generally saw the situations in which field studies are at the forefront, related to current life, application-oriented, visual content and technology are used more effectively in the lessons as essential for a strong geography education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Strong Future
• Strong Geography Education
• Teacher Candidates
• Qualitative Approach

Öğretmen adaylarının güçlü gelecek ve güçlü coğrafya eğitimi algılarının incelenmesi

Öz

İnsan düşünen ve gelecekle ilgili hayal kurabilen bir varlıktır. Bireylerin hayal dünyaları birbirinden farklı olmakla birlikte benzer ve ortak yönleri de bulunabilir. Ayrıca kişilerin sahip oldukları bilgi ve tutumları, yaşadıkları çevre ve gerçek yaşamsal deneyimleri onların gelecekle ilgili imajlarını oluşturmada etkilidir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının bakış açısından onların zihin dünyalarındaki güçlü gelecek ve güçlü coğrafya eğitimi imajlarının incelenmesidir. Bu amaç kapsamında araştırma, 2019-2020 eğitim öğretim yılında Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesinde, sınıf, sosyal bilgiler ve fen bilgisi öğretmenliği bölümlerinde öğrenim gören 189 katılımcı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından olgubilim deseni ile gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmanın verilerini yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formunda yer alan sorulara katılımcıların vermiş oldukları yanıtlar oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın sonucunda ulaşılan veriler içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, öğretmen adaylarının güçlü gelecek algıları nitelikli eğitim ve öğretimle birlikte bilinçli ve nitelikli bireylere, bağımsız ve güçlü bir ekonominin yanında dünyada savaşların olmadığı, barışının hâkim olduğu koşullara bağlı oluşurken, genellikle saha çalışmalarının ön planda olduğu, güncel yaşamla ilişkili, uygulama ağırlıklı, derslerde görsel içeriklerin ve teknolojinin daha etkin kullanıldığı durumları ise güçlü bir coğrafya eğitimi için vazgeçilmez olarak görmüşlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güçlü Gelecek
• Güçlü Coğrafya Eğitimi
• Öğretmen Adayları
• Nitel Yaklaşım

Kaynakça

1. Akturan, U., & Esen, A. (2008). Fenomenoloji. Baş, T. ve Akturan, U. (Ed.), Nitel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (ss. 83-98). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
2. Angheloiu, C., Sheldrick L., & Tennant, M. (2020). Future tense: exploring dissonance in young people’s images of the future through design futures methods. Futures. 117, 102527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102527
3. Arı, Y. (2020). Coğrafya lisans programlarında arazi çalışmaları: uygulayıcı öğretim üyelerinin görüşlerine dayalı nitel bir analiz. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi. 25(43), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.17295/ataunidcd.715591
4. Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman Modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-14.
5. Bartram, R. (2010). Geography and the ınterpretation of visual imagery, In Clifford, N. & Valentine, G. (Eds.). Key Methods in Geography, pp. 131-140. London. Sage Publications.
6. Beneker, T., & Schee, J. V. D. (2015). Future geographies and geography education. International Research in Geography and Environmental Education, 24(4), 284–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086106
7. Béneker, T., Palings, H., & Krause, U. (2015). Teachers envisioning future geography education at their schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24, 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086102
8. Boehm, R., Solem, M., & Zadrozny, J. (2018). Therise of powerful geography. The Social Studies 109, 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2018.1460570

9. Bonnett, A. (2008). What is geography?. London: Sage Publications.
10. Cachinho, H. (2005). How to design and implement exciting geographical learning experiences in the classroom. In K. Donert & P. Charzynski (Eds.), Changing horizons in geography education. Torun. Herodot Networks.
11. Catling, S., & Willy, T. (2009). Teaching primary geography. Exeter: Learning Matters.
12. Christensen, B. L., Johnson, R. B., & Turner L.A. (2011). Research methods, design and analysis. Boston: Pearson.
13. Cook, J. (2016). Young adults’ hopes for the long-term future: from reenchantment with technology to faith in humanity. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(4), 517-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1083959
14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15. Dalin, P., & Rust, V.D. (1996). Towards schooling for the twenty-first century. London: Cassell.
16. Das, D., & Chatterjea, K. (2018). Learning in the field—A conceptual approach to field-based learning in geography. In C. H. Chang, B. Wu, T. Seow, & K. Irvine (Eds.), Learning geography beyond the traditional classroom (pp. 11–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8705-9
17. Dator, J. (1998). The future lies behind! Thirty years of teaching futures studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 298-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298042003002
18. Doğanay, H. (2014). Coğrafya öğretim yöntemleri: Liselerde coğrafya eğitim ve öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
19. Dolan, A. (2020). Powerful Primary Geography: A Toolkit for 21st Century Learning. New York: Routledge.
20. Dolan, A. M., Waldron, F., Pike, S., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Student teachers’ reflections on prior experiences of learning geography. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(4), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2014.946324
21. Dorling, D., & Lee, C. (2016). Geography. London: Profile Books.
22. Eckersley, R. (1999). Dreams and expectation: Young people expectation and preferred futures and their significance for education, Futures. 31(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00111-6
23. Elbow, G., Rutherford, D., & Shearer, C. Eds. (2011). Geographic Literacy in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities in the NCLB Era. The National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE).
24. Gidley, J. M. (1998). Prospective youth visions through imaginative education, Futures. 30(5), 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00044-5
25. Göcen, C., & Şahin, S. (2021). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma amaçları bağlamında coğrafya eğitimi, International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences (IJOESS), 12(46), 1355-1370. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.3034
26. Gültekin, M. (2006). Eğitimde güncel bir kavram: Gelecek. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 45, 61-83.
27. Halocha, J. (2005). Primary Childrens’ Understanding of Fieldwork Experiences. In K. Donert & P. Charzynski (Eds.), Changing horizons in geography education. Torun. Herodot Networks.
28. Harshman, J. (2015). About this Map: An interdisciplinary and global edu-cation approach to geography education. The Geography Teacher. 12 (3), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338341.2015.1079543
29. Haubrich, H. (2000). Sustainable learning in geography for the 21st century, paper presented at the 29th International Geographical Union Congress, August, Seoul, Korea. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040008667660
30. Hicks, D. (2002). Envisioning a better world: sustainable development in school geography, in: M.Smith (Ed.) Aspects of teaching secondary geography: perspectives on practice: pp. 278-286. London, Routledge Falmer, The Open University.
31. IGU (International Geographical Union). (1992). The international charter for geography education. Retrieved from: https://www.igu-cge.org/1992-charter. 04.07.2024.
32. Işık, M. (2022). Future perception and expectations of high school students: A research on science high school students. International Journal of Educational Administration and Leadership: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 52-6. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijedal.2022.1.1.9
33. Jungert, T., Alm, F., & Thornberg, R. (2014). Motives for becoming a teacher and their relations to academic engagement and dropout among student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(2), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.869971
34. Kaboli, S. A., & Tapio, P. (2018). How late-modern nomads imagine tomorrow? A causal layered analysis practice to explore the images of the future of young adults. Futures, 96, 32-43. h ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.11.004
35. Kolejka, J., & Hofmann, E. (2005), Geographical fieldwork in forests, in Donert, K. and Charzyński, P. (Eds.), Changing horizonts in geography education, pp. 43-47. Torun: Herodot Network with Association of Polish Adult Educators.
36. Mackintosh, M. (2010). Using photographs. sketches and diagrams. In S. Scoffham (Eds.). Primary Geography Handbook (121-133). Sheffield: Geographical Association.
37. Mallan, K., & Greenaway, R. (2011). Radiant with possibility: ınvolving young people in creating a vision for the future of their community. Futures 43 (4), 374-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.01.008
38. McCall, A. L. (2011). Promoting critical thinking and inquiry through maps in elementary classrooms. The Social Studies, 102(3), 132-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2010.538759
39. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
40. Mitchell, D., & Lambert, D. (2015). Subject knowledge and teacher preparation in English secondary schools: The case of geography. Journal of Teacher Development, 19(3), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2015.1042024
41. Morgan J., (2015). Making geographical futures. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(4), 294-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086133
42. Neuman, W. L. (2012). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar. III. Cilt (5. Basım). İstanbul: Yayın Odası.
43. Nováky E., & Várnagy, R. (2013). Discovering our futures a Hungarian example. Futures. 45, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.11.006
44. Ono, R. (2003). Learning from young people's image of the future: A case study in Taiwan and the US. Futures, 35(7), 737-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00025-9
45. Owens, P. (2017) Geography and sustainability education. In Scoffham, S. (Eds)., Teaching geography creatively, London: Routledge, 163-176. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667775
46. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
47. Pauw, I. (2015). Educating for the future: the position of school geography. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(4), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086103
48. Planinc, T. R. (2011). Future prospects for geographical Education in Slovenia. Review of International Geographical Education online, 1(1), 41-59.
49. Polak, F. (1973). The image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company Amsterdam, London; New York.
50. Rikkinen, H. (2001). On class-teacher students’ views of the future. In Robertson, M. & Gerber, R. (Eds.). Children’s ways of knowing: Learning through experience. pp. 179-193. Camberwell, ACER Press.
51. Robertson, M., & Burston, M. A. (2015). Adolescents, new urban spaces and understanding spatial isolation: can geography educators lead educational reforms? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(4), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086104
52. Rubin, A., & Linturi, H. (2001). Transition in the making. The images of the future in education and decision- making, Futures. 33, 267–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00071-9
53. Rubin, A. (2013). Hidden, inconsistent, and influential: Images of the future in changing times. Futures. 45, 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.11.011
54. Spronken-Smith, R. (2005). Implementing a problem-based learning approach for teaching research methods in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260500130403
55. Toffler, A. (1974). Learning for Tomorrow: The role of the future in education. New York: Vintage Books.
56. Torbjörnsson, T., & Molin, L. (2015). In school we have not time for the future: voices of swedish upper secondary school students about solidarity and the future. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 24(4), 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086105
57. Tunalı, S., & Kiraz, E. (2017). Gelecek üzerine araştırma yapma yöntemlerinin eğitim araştırmalarında kullanılması. Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi, 31(2), 41-54.
58. Whyte, T. (2017) Fun and games in geography. In Scoffham, S. (Eds). Teaching geography creatively, pp. 12-29. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667775
59. Witt, S. (2017). Fostering geographical wisdom in fieldwork spaces-Discovery fieldwork, paying close attention through sensory experience and slow pedagogy. In S. Catling (Eds.), Reflections of Primary Geography. Conference participants’ perspectives on aspects of primary geography (pp. 159-164). Sheffield: Register of Research in Primary Geography/Geographical Association.
60. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.