Being a Teacher: Elementary Teachers’ (mis)Conceptions and (ill-structured) Beliefs about Teaching

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 42 Sayı: 42, 135 - 147, 01.07.2017

Sibel Duru

Öz

The purpose of this study is to
investigate experienced elementary teachers’ beliefs and conceptions about
teaching and to explore their ill structured beliefs and misconceptions in the
context of student-centered education perspective. 151 experienced elementary
teachers in Turkey participated in the study. The participants produced 81
metaphors from parents up to multi charger for the concept of a teacher. The
results of the study showed that some of the same metaphors were used for
different perspectives by different participants. In addition, majority of the
participant (57,6 %) believed that their metaphors represented student-centered
perspective. On the other hand, the results of descriptive analysis showed that
of the 151 elementary teachers, 119 (78.8%) had teacher-centered beliefs, 8
(5.3%) had student-centered beliefs while 24 (15.9%) elementary teachers had
mixed beliefs.. The result of the content analyses indicated that some of the elementary teachers did not have any clear
conceptions about student-centered teaching. These teachers described their
metaphors as student-centered or mixed perspectives in terms of codependent
relationships between students and teacher, instead of psychological and
philosophical foundations of education. In addition, it was
observed that the most popular misconceptions and ill structured beliefs were
related to “guide”, “active learning” and “students’ need, interest and
differences”. Discussions of the findings and recommendations for further
research are presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Teaching metaphors; teachers’ beliefs; student- centered perspectives; teacher-centered perspectives; elementary teachers

Öğretmen Olmak: İlkokul Öğretmenlerinin Öğretimle ilgili (Yanlış) Kavramsallaştırmaları ve İnançları

Öz

Bu
araştırmanın amacı ilkokul öğretmenlerinin öğretimle ile ilgili inanç ve
kavramsallaştırmalarını araştırmak, öğrenci merkezli anlayışları ile ilgili
varsa yanlış kavramsallaştırmalarını, ürettikleri öğretmen metaforlarına
dayanarak ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmaya 151 deneyimli ilkokul öğretmeni
katılmıştır. Katılımcılar 81 farklı metaphor üretmişlerdir.  Araştırma sonucunda aynı metaforların farklı
katılımcılar tarafından farklı eğitim anlayışları için kullanılabildiği
gözlenmiştir. Ayrıca araştırmanın sonucu göstermektedir ki   katılımcıların çoğunluğu (57, 6 %)
ürettikleri metaforların öğrenci merkezli olduğunu düşünmelerine rağmen,
üretilen metaforların büyük bir bölümü (78.8%) öğretmen merkezli eğitim
anlayışını yansıtmaktadır.   İçerik
analiz sonuçlarına göre katılımcıların bazılarının öğrenci merkezli anlayışa
yönelik net bir kavramlaştırmaya sahip olmadıkları görülmüştür. Ayrıca,
özellikle öğrenci merkezli anlayışla özdeşleşen, rehber, aktif öğrenme, öğrenci
ihtiyaçları, farklılıkları ve ilgileri gibi, bazı temel kavramlarla ilgili
yanlış kavramsallaştırmaların olduğu gözlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda ilgili tartışma ve öneriler sunulmuştur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğretmen metaforları; öğretmen inançları;öğrenci merkezli eğitim anlayışı; öğretmen merkezli eğitim anlayışı; ilkokul öğretmenleri

Kaynakça

• Abawi, L. (2013). Metaphor: Powerful imagery bringing learning and teaching to life. Improving Schools 16(2) 130–147.
• Akay, Y. ve Kocabaş, A. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin aktif öğrenmeyi nasıl algıladıklarına ilişkin görüşleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(2), 91-110.
• Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 743-751.
• Ben-Peretz, M., Mendelson, N., ve Kron, F.W. (2003). How teachers in different educational context view their roles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 277-290.
• Brooks, J. G. ve Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search for understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Capraro, M.M. (2001). Defining constructivism: Its influence on the problem solving skills of students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (New Orleans).
• Chan, J. K. S. (1999). Student teachers’ beliefs. What have they brought to the initial teacher training. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435607).
• Çöğmen, S. (2014). Liselerde görev yapan öğretmenlerin öğrenme ve öğretme ile ilgili görüşleri. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi , Aydın, Turkey.
• Dadvand, B. (2015). Teaching for Democracy: Towards an Ecological Understanding of Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 77-92.
• Dewey, J. (1983). Report and recommendation upon Turkish education. In J. A. Boydston (Eds.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924, vol. 15., Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
• Draaisma, D. (2007). Bellek Metaforları. İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık.
• Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Needham Heights.
• Duru, S. (2015). A metaphor analysis of elementary student teachers'conceptions of teacher in student-and-teacher centered context. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60 (1), 281-300.
• Ekiz, D. ve Koçyiğit, Z. (2012). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin “Öğretmen” kavramına ilişkin metaforlarının tesbit edilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(2), 439-458.
• Elmas, R., Öztürk, N., Irmak, M., ve Cobern, W.W. (2014). An ınvestigation of teacher response to national science curriculum reforms in turkey. Eurasian J. Phys. & Chem. Educ. 6(1), 2-33.
• Emerson, L. ve Mansvelt, J. (2014). If they're the customer, I'm the meat in the sandwich’: an exploration of tertiary teachers' metaphorical constructions of teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 469-482,
• Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.
• Farrell, T.S.C. ve Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice. Language Teaching Research, 19 (5), 594-610.
• Fullan, M. (1999). The new meaning of educational Change (3rd ed.). New York: Teacher College.
• Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6 (2), 151-182.
• Hein, G. E. (2002). The challenge of constructivist teaching. In E. Mirochnik, & D.C. Sherman (Eds.), Passion and pedagogy: Relation, creation, and transformation in teaching (pp. 197-214), New-York: Peter Lang Publishing.
• Lakoff, G. ve Johnson, M. (2005). Metaforlar: Hayat, anlam ve dil (çev. G. Y. Demir). İstanbul: Paradigma.
• Martinez, M. A., Sauleda, N., ve Huber, G. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints for thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965-977
• Michael, K. ve Katerina, M. (2009). Exploring Greek teachers’ beliefs using metaphors. Austrian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 64-83.
• Mostrom, A. M. ve Blumberg P. (2012). Does learning-centered teaching promote grade improvement? Innovative Higher Education 37(5), 397-405.
• Noble, A., ve Smith M. L. (1994). Old and new beliefs about measurement-driven reform: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 228).
• Oxford, R., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R.Z., ve Saleh, A. (1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: Toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. System, 26(1), 3–50
• Ozsoy, G., Kuruyer, H.G., Özsoy, S., ve Tabak, H. (2013). Öğrenme ve öğrenmeye katılım hakkında sınıf öğretmenleri ne düşünüyorlar? Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 35, 199-213.
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Patchen, T., ve Crawford, T. (2011). From gardeners to tour guides: The epistemological struggle revealed in teacher-generated metaphors of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 286–298.
• Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.
• Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., ve Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U.S teachers teaching, learning and computing. 1998 National Survey Report #4. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED 455657).
• Richardson, V. (1996).The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.102-119). New York: Simon & Shuster MacMillan.
• Seferoğlu, G., Korkmazgil, S., ve Ölçü, Z. (2009). Gaining insights into teachers' ways of thinking via metaphors. Educational Studies, 35, 323–335.
• So, K. ve Kang, J. (2014). Curriculum reform in Korea: Issues and challenges for twenty- first century learning. Asia-Pacific Educational Research, 23(4), 795–803.
• Tangney, S. (2014). Student-centred learning: a humanist perspective. Teaching in Higher Education,19(3), 266-275.
• Thomas, L.,ve Beauchamp, C. (2011). Understanding new teachers' professional identities through metaphor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 762-769.
• Tok, Ş. ve Dolapçıoğlu, S.D (2013).Reflective teaching practices in Turkish primary school teachers. Teacher Development, 17(2), 265-287.
• Vadeboncoeur, J. A. ve Torres, M. N. (2003). Constructing and reconstructing teaching roles: A focus on generative metaphors and dichotomies. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(1), 87-103.
• Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: encouraging development of teacher identity through reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 53-64
• Yıldırım. A. (2003). Instructional planning in a centralized school system: Lessons of a study among primary school teachers in Turkey. International Review of Education. 49(5): 525–543
• Yıldırım, A., Ünal, A. ve Çelik, M. (2011). Öğretmen kavramına ilişkin öğretmen, yönetici ve müfettiş algılarının analizi. International Journal of Human Sciences, 8(2): 92-109.