Öğretmenlik mesleğinin bir kadın mesleğine dönüşmesinin yaratabileceği sorunlara yönelik öğretmen adaylarının geliştirdikleri çözüm önerileri

Öz

Öğretmenlik mesleği cinsiyet dengesi bakımından incelendiğinde, giderek artan sayıda kadının erkeklere göre sayısal çoğunluğu oluşturduğu bir meslek haline geldiği görülmektedir. Öğretmen yetiştiren bazı bölümlerde erkek öğrenci sayıları neredeyse yok denecek kadar azalmakta, öğretmenlik mesleği bir kadın mesleğine dönüşme görünümü sergilemektedir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının cinsiyetlerine göre öğretmenlik mesleğinin kadınsılaşmasına yönelik çözüm önerilerinin neler olabileceğinin belirlenmesidir. Araştırma betimlemeye dayalı nitel bir araştırma olup, olgubilim desenine göre planlanmıştır. Araştırmada amaçsal örnekleme yönteminden tipik durum örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi ile Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi “Temel Eğitim, Türkçe ve Sosyal Bilimler Eğitimi, Yabancı Diller, Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi, Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi, Eğitim Bilimleri ve Güzel Sanatlar Eğitimi” bölümlerine devam eden 1., 2., 3. ve 4. sınıf öğretmen adayları oluşturmuştur. Verilerin toplanmasında ise yarı yapılandırılmış bir form üzerinde öğretmen adaylarıyla görüşme yapılmıştır. Öğretmen adayları ile görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler içerik analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda eğitim fakültelerindeki pek çok bölümde erkek öğretmen adaylarının sayıca azalmasının, hem kadın hem de erkek öğretmen adaylarını rahatsız ettiği bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Katılımcıların çoğunluğu öğretmenlik mesleğinin bir kadın mesleği olduğu yargısına karşı çıkmaktadırlar. Adaylar bu konuda hem eğitim fakültelerine hem de YÖK’e önemli sorumluluklar yüklemişler ve bazı konularda çalışmalar yapılmasına yönelik öneriler getirmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cinsiyet
• kadın mesleği
• kadınsılaşma
• öğretmenlik mesleği

Solution suggestions by trainee teachers for the problems that turning of the teaching profession into a female profession may cause

Öz

When the teaching profession is examined in terms of gender balance, it is seen that it has become a profession in which increasing number of women constitute the numerical majority compared to men. In some departments that trainee teachers, the number of male students is almost negligible, and the teaching profession displays the appearance of turning into a female profession. This research aimed to determine what could be the solution suggestions for the feminization of the teaching profession according to the gender of the trainee teachers. The research employed a qualitative descriptive and phenomenological design and typical case sampling method, which is a purposive sampling technique. The study group of the research consisted of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-year prospective teachers at Nevsehir Hacı Bektas Veli University and Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Education, Departments of Primary Education, Social Sciences and Turkish Education, Foreign Languages, Mathematics and Science Education, Computer and Instructional Technologies Education, Educational Sciences, and Fine Arts Education. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire and analyzed with content analysis. As a result of the research, it was found that the decrease in the number of male trainee teachers in many departments in education faculties disturbs both female and male trainee teachers. The majority of the participants oppose the judgment that the teaching profession is a female profession. Candidates assigned important responsibilities to both education faculties and higher education institution in this regard and made suggestions for studies on some subjects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gender, women’s profession, feminization, teaching profession, suggestion

Kaynakça

1. Acar-Savran, G. (2010, Mayıs). Modern tıp biliminin kadın bedenini denetleme biçimi. II. Kadın Hekimlik ve Kadın Sağlığı Kongresi, Ankara.
2. Acker, S. & J. A. Dillabough. (2007). Women ‘learning to labour’ in the ‘male emporium. Gender and Education, 19(3), 297-338.
3. Adams, T. L. (2005). Feminization of professions: The case of women in dentistry. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 30(1), 71-94.
4. Ailwood, J. (2007). Mothers, teachers, maternalism and early childhood education and care: Some historical connections. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 157-165. doi:10.2304/ ciec.2007.8.2.157.
5. Allen, L. & Kelly, B. B. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
6. Aydın, M. (2016). Beş nitel araştırma yaklaşımı. M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir (Ed.), Nitel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (s. 69-110). Ankara: Siyasal.
7. Ball, D. & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
8. Benholdt-Thomsen, V. (2008). Kadın emeğinin geleceği kadına yönelik şiddet. (Çev. Y. Temurtürkan). M. Mies, V. Benholdt-Thomsen, C. Von Werlhof (Ed.), Son sömürge kadınlar (s. 177-199) içinde. İstanbul: İletişim.

9. Bhana, D. & Moosa, S. (2016). Failing to attract males in foundation phase teaching: An issue of masculinities. Gender and Education, 28, 1-19. doi: 10.1080/ 09540253.2015.1105934.
10. Bhana, D., McGrath, K. F., Van Bergen, P. & Moosa, S. (2019). Why having both male and female teachers is a good idea for schools. Erişim adresi: https://theconversation.com/why-having-both-male-and-female-teachers-is-a-good-idea-for-schools-123780
11. Browne, N. (2008). Gender equality in the early years. London: Open University Press.
12. Brownhill, S. & Oates, R. (2016). Who do you want me to be? An exploration of female and male perceptions of ‘imposed’ gender roles in the early years. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 45(5), 658-670.
13. Buyruk, H. (2014). Öğretmenlik mesleğinde kadınlar: Türkiye’de öğretmenliğin feminizasyonundan bahsetmek mümkün mü? Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 12(47), 96-123.
14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2019). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
15. Carrington, B. & McPhee, A. M. (2008). Boys underachievement and the feminization of teaching. Journal of Education and Teaching, 34(2), 109-120.
16. Carrington, B. & Skelton, C. (2003). Re-thinking ‘role models’: Equal opportunities in teacher recruitment in England and Wales, Journal of Educational Policy, 18, 1-13.
17. Carrington, B. (2002). A quintessentially feminine domain? Student teachers’ constructions of primary teaching as a career. Educational Studies, 28(3), 287-303.
18. Connell, R. (2014). Global tides: Market and gender dynamics on a world scale. Social Currents, 1(1), 5-12.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. (M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
20. Стойкова, П. (2018). феминизация на учителската професия в българия. Strategies for Policy in Science and Education, 26(6), 627-636.
21. Cushman, P. (2005). Let’s hear it from the males: İssues facing male primary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 227-240.
22. Cushman, P. (2012). You’re not a teacher, you’re a man: The need for a greater focus on gender studies in teacher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16, 775-790. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2010.516774.
23. Drudy, S. (2008). Gender balance/gender bias: The teaching profession and the impact of feminisation. Gender and Education, 20, 309-323. doi: 10.1080/ 09540250802190156.
24. Drudy, S., Martin, M., Woods, M. & O’Flynn, J. (2005). Men and the classroom: Gender imbalances in teaching. New York : Routledge.
25. Duflo, E. (2012). Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature 2012, 50(4), 1051-1079.
26. Ecevit, Y. (1998). Türkiye’de ücretli kadın emeğinin toplumsal cinsiyet temelinde analizi. 75 Yılda Kadınlar ve Erkekler (s. 267-285) içinde. İstanbul: Türk Tarih Vakfı Yayını.
27. Ehrich, J. F., Woodcock, S. & West, C. (2020). The effect of gender on teaching dispositions: A Rasch measurement approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 1-9.
28. Ersoy, A. F. (2017). Fenomenoloji. A. Saban ve A. Ersoy (Ed.). Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri (s. 81-134) içinde. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
29. England, K. & Boyer, K. (2009). Women’s work: The feminization and shifting meanings of clerical work. Journal of Social History, 43(2), 307-340.
30. EURYDICE. (2010). Eğitim çıktılarında cinsiyet faklılıkları: Avrupa’da alınan tedbirler ve mevcut durum. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.
31. Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals, British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38.
32. Evans, L. (2011). The ‘shape’ of teacher professionalism in England: Professional standards, performance management, professional development and the changes proposed in the 2010 white paper. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 851-870. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.607231.
33. Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406-422.
34. Fischman, G. (2007). Persistence and ruptures: The feminisation of teaching and teacher education in Argentina. Gender and Education, 3(19), 353-368.
35. Foster, T. & Newman, E. (2005). Just a knock back? Identity bruising on the route to becoming a male primary school teacher. Teachers and Teaching, 11, 341-358. doi: 10.1080/1345060 050 0137091.
36. Francis, B. & Skelton, C. (2011). Successful boys and literacy: Are ‘literate boys’ challenging or repackaging hegemonic masculinity? Curriculum Inquiry, 41(4), 456-479.
37. Griffiths, M. (2016). The feminization of teaching and the practice of teaching: Threat or opportunity? Educational Theory, 56(4), 387-405.
38. Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D. & Zahidi, S. (2016). The global gender gap report. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
39. Haynes, K. (2013). Sexuality and sexual symbolism as processes of gendered identity formation: An autoethnography of an accounting firm. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 26(3), 374-398.
40. Haynes, K. (2017). Accounting as gendering and gendered: A review of 25 years of critical accounting research on gender. Critical Perspectives On Accounting, 43, 110-124. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.06.004
41. Hutchings, M., Carrington, B., Francis, B., Skelton, C., Read, B. & Hall, I. (2008). Nice and kind, smart and funny: What children like and want to emulate in their teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 135-157.
42. Hypolito, A. M. (2004). Teachers’ work and professionalization: The promised land or dream denied? Journal For Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(2), 204-226.
43. Ingersoll, R. & Merrill, L. (2010). Who’s teaching our children? Educational Leadership, 67(8), 14-20.
44. İlğan, A. ve Ceviz, H. (2019). The relationship between the perception of the society related to teaching profession and teachers’ professional motivation according to teachers view. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 25(2), 285-338. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2019.008.
45. Jackson, D. (2008, April 22). The value of the male school teacher. The Boston Globe. Erişim adresi: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/22/the_value_of_the_male_schoolteacher/
46. Kamerman, S. B. ve Gatenio-Gabel, S. (2007). Early childhood education and care in the United States: An overview of the current policy picture. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 1(1), 23-34.
47. Kelleher, F. (2011). Women and the teaching profession: Exploring the feminisation debate. London, UK: Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO.
48. Kümbetoğlu, B. (2005). Sosyolojide ve antropolojide niteliksel yöntem ve araştırma. Ankara: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
49. McCuiston, V. E., Ross Wooldridge, B. & Pierce, C. K. (2004). Leading the diverse workforce: Profit, prospects and progress. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25, 73-92. doi: 10.1108/01437730410512787.
50. McGrath, K. & Sinclair, M. (2013) More male primary-school teachers? Social benefits for boys and girls. Gender and Education, 25(5), 531-547. doi:10.1080/09540253.2013.796342
51. McGrath, K. F. & Van Bergen, P. (2017). Are male teachers headed for extinction? The 50 year decline of male teachers in Australia. Economics of Education Review, 60, 159-167.
52. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. S. Turan (Ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
53. Mistry, M. & Sood, K. (2015). Why are there still so few men within early years in primary schools: Views from male trainee teachers and male leaders. Education 43(2), 115-127. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2012.759607.
54. Moosa, S. & Bhana, D. (2017). Men managing, not teaching foundation phase: Teachers, masculinity and the early years of primary schooling. Educational Review, 69, 366-387. doi:10.1080/00131911.2016.1223607.
55. Mulholland, J. & Hansen, P. (2003). Men who become primary school teachers: An early portrait. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 213-224.
56. OECD. (2016a). Education at a Glance 2016: Indicators. Erişim adresi: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ education- at- a- glance- 19991487.html
57. OECD. (2016b). Supporting teacher professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013. Paris: OECD Publishing. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264248601-en
58. OECD. (2017). Why do so many women want to become teachers? OECD Education and Skills Today. Erişim adresi: https://oecdedutoday.com/why-do-so-many-women-want-to-become-teachers/
59. Parkerson, D. H. & Parkerson, J. A. (2014). Transitions in American education: A social history of teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
60. Parlar, H., Cansoy, R. ve Kılınç, A. Ç. (2017). Examining the relationship between teacher leadership culture and teacher professionalism: Quantitative Study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(8), 13-25.
61. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel analiz ve yorumlama. M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir (Ed.), Nitel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (s. 431-539). Ankara: Siyasal.
62. Peeters, J. (2007). Including men in early childhood education: Insights from the European experience. NZ Research in Early Childhood Education Journal, 10, 15-24.
63. Piburn, D. E. (2006, March/April). Gender equality for a new generation: Expect male involvement in ECE. Exchange, 168, 18.
64. Pollitt, K. & Oldfield, J. (2017). Overcoming the odds: Exploring barriers and motivations for male trainee primary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 30-36.
65. Ponte, E. (2012). ‘Wow, this is where I’m supposed to be!’ Rethinking gender construction in teacher recruitment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 43-53.
66. Rehmani, A. (2006). Teacher education in Pakistan with particular reference to teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Quality in education: Teaching and leadership in challenging times, 20, 495-524.
67. Riska, E. (2008). The feminization thesis: Discourses on gender and medicine. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 16(1), 3-18. doi: 10.1080/08038740701885691.
68. Sadaquat, M. & Sheikh, Q. (2011). Employement situation of women in Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 2(38), 98-113.
69. Souza, A. R. & Melo, J. C. (2019). Educadora ou tia: Os reflexos da feminização do magistério na construção da identidade profissional de professores (as) da educação infantil. Revista Inter Ação, 43(3), 697-709. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.5216/ia.v43i3.48977
70. Şata, M. (2020). Nitel araştırma yaklaşımları. Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntemleri (99-117) içinde. Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
71. Tett, L. & Riddell, S. (2009). Educators’ responses to policy concerns about the gender balance of the teaching profession in Scotland. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 477-493. doi: 10.1080/02680930802669292.
72. Timmerman, M. C. (2011). ‘Soft’ pedagogy? The invention of a ‘feminine’ pedagogy as a cause of educational crises. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(3), 457-472, doi: 10.1080/14681366.2011.607837.
73. Tokić, R. (2018). Motivation of male students for preschool teacher profession. Open Journal for Educational Research, 2(1), 31-44.
74. UNESCO. (2016). Percentage of Female Teachers by Teaching Level of Education. Erişim adresi: http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx .
75. Urhan, B. ve Etiler, N. (2011). Sağlık sektöründe kadın emeğinin toplumsal cinsiyet açısından analizi. Çalışma ve Toplum, 2, 191-215.
76. Wang, L., Lai, M. & Lo, L. N. (2014). Teacher professionalism under the recent reform of performance pay in Mainland China. Prospects, 44, 429-443.
77. Warin, J. & Gannerud, E. (2014). Gender, Teaching and Care: A Comparative Global Conversation. Gender and Education, 26(3), 193-199.
78. Warin, J. (2006). Heavy-metal humpty dumpty: Dissonant masculinities within the context of the nursery. Gender & Education, 18, 523-537.
79. Washington, V. (2009). Needed in school teaching: A few good men. New England Board of Higher Education, 18-19. Erişim adresi: https://nebhe.org/info/journal/articles/2009-Spring_Washington.pdf
80. World Bank. (2013). Primary education, teachers (% female). Erişim adresi: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS