High School Students' Metaphorical Perceptions about the Concept of Soil

Abstract

In this study, high school students' perceptions about the concept of soil were tried to be determined through metaphors. The phenomenological design was used in the research. Data from the study was collected from 451 students studying in four different types of high schools in the central district of Kütahya. As part of the study, students were distributed written data collection tools “Soil is like ... because...”, and students were asked to write their metaphors and justifications for the concept of soil. The collected data was analyzed by content analysis technique. 133 different metaphors were produced by the students in relation to the concept of soil. This result showed that students perceived the soil as multifaceted. Among the metaphors produced, the most preferred metaphors were mother (48), human (47), life (40), heart (29), water (22) and homeland (16). It has been observed that students are influenced by mythological, cultural and religious factors in their choice and justification of metaphors. Metaphors have been studied under 10 different categories. Considering these categories, it was concluded that students' perceptions about the concept of soil were positive and that they were aware of the importance of soil in living life. In addition, it was understood that soil, which is a geographical concept, cannot be considered separately from its mythological, cultural and religious contexts. As a result of research, the versatility of the soil appears in curriculum units for Geography and Social Studies, in textbooks as a living being and the source of life; and the importance of soil as a resource will transfer to the student from presentation of the content of the course. The geographical, mythological, cultural and religious aspects of soil are to be included in activities that will allow us to detect soil as a whole have been proposed.

Keywords

• Soil Perception
• Student Perception
• Geographical Education
• Social Studies Education
• Phenomenological Research
• Metaphor

Kaynakça

1. Aça, M. (2018). The symbol of “soil” in world mythologies. Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1), 23-35.
2. Akpınar, E. (2011). Toprak coğrafyası. In H. Yazıcı, & M. K. Koca (Eds.), Genel coğrafya (4. ed., pp. 151-158). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
3. Albayrak, A., Hakverdi-Can, M. (2012). Investigation of elementary school students' perceptions about “soil”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (46), 5635-5639.
4. Arslan, M. M., & Bayrakcı, M. (2006). An examination of metaphorical thinking and learning from educational view. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 35(171), 100-108.
5. Artvinli, E. (2010a). Teaching styles of geography teachers. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, (9), 33, pp. 387-408. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub /esosder/issue/6147/82543
6. Artvinli, E. (2010b). Configuring of geography lessons: design of a lesson based on action research, Marmara Geographical Review, (21), 184-218. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr /tr/download/article-file/3204
7. Artvinli, E. (2012). Integrate geographic skills with active learning in geography: a case of Turkey, Journal of Research and Didactics in Geography (J-READING), 0, 1, pp. 43-50, DOI: 10.4458/1005-06
8. Atalay, İ. (2002). Ecoregions of Turkey. İzmir: Orman Bakanlığı Yayınları. Bars, M., & Irmak, Y. (2019). Soil image in yunus emre according to mysticism and folk belief. Bingöl University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 9(18), 1199-1211. doi:10.29029/busbed.562566

9. Batislam, H. D. (2019). Use of soil and soil-related elements in divan poetry. Folklore/Literature, 25(99), 457-470. doi:10.22559/folklor.1013
10. Baykent, U. Ö. (2018). The problem of arche in pre-socratic philosophy. Eurasian Journal of Researches in Social and Economics, 5(5), 130-142. Bible: Old and New Testament-Torah, Psalms, Bible. (2009). Retrieved January 10, 2021 from https://incil.info/
11. Büyükokutan-Töret, A. (2019). Soil phenomenon which has reflected the proverbs of Azerbaijan Turks. Folklore / Literature, 25(98), 267-277. doi:10.22559/folklor.878
12. Çelik, A. (2019). The four main elements of the world and adam: four elements in Garîb-Nâme. Journal of Old Turkish Literature Researches, 2(1), 312-339.
13. Çepel, N. (1988). Toprak ilmi ders kitabı. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Yayınları.
14. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Research methods, design and analysis. (A. Aypay, Trans.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
15. Dağlar, A. (2017). Şair âşığın toprakla hâlleşmesi. Türk Dili, 68(792), 42-47. Doğanay, H., & Sever, R. (2011). Genel ve fiziki coğrafya. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
16. Dunbar, M. B., & Montanarella, L. (2015). Şehirleşme: Daha az yeşil ve tarım çok beton ve kaldırım. In K. Brakel (Ed.), Toprak atlası 2015 (pp. 34-35). Berlin-Postdam: Heinrich Böll Stiftung Derneği-Almanya ve Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies.
17. Efe, R. (2010). Biyocoğrafya. Bursa: MKM Yayıncılık.
18. Ehlers, K. (2015). Yerin altında: Görünmeyen ekosistem. In K. Brakel (Ed.), Toprak atlası 2015 (pp. 12-13). Berlin-Posdam: Heinrich Böll Stiftung Derneği - Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies.
19. Enveri, E. (2018). Soil in creation myths of Turks. Motif Academy Journal of Folklore, 11(24), 91-99. doi:10.12981/mahder.474588
20. Eraslan, L. (2011). Sociological metaphors. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, (27), 1-22.
21. Ergene, A. (1997). Toprak biliminin esasları. İstanbul: Öz Eğitim Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
22. Erpul, G., Madenoğlu, S., & Topçu, P. (2016, May). Sustainable soil management and food safety. Tarlasera-Aylık Tarım ve Kültür Dergisi, pp. 82-84.
23. Esenyel, Z. Z. (2014). An inquiry of the problem of arche in presocratic philosophers in a cosmological and ontological context. Kaygı Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Philosophy, (22), 1-25.
24. European Environment Agency. (2019). Land and soil in Europe. Lüksemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.
25. FAO. (2015). United Nations 2015 international year of soils. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr
26. FAO. (2017). Voluntary guidelines for sustainable soil management. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
27. Geissler, P. W., Prince, R. J., Levene, M., Poda, C., Beckerleg, S. E., Mutemi, W., Shulman, C. (1999). Perceptions of soil-eating and anaemia among pregnant women on the Kenyan coast. Social Science & Medicine, (48), 1069-1079.
28. Gökçe, C. (2010). Soil as a source of living (from different perspective). Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(33), 368-377.
29. Güleç, Ç. (2018). Using mythology in geography education. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 5(1), 162-179.
30. Güllü, U., & Dönel-Akgül, G. (2020). Metaphoric perceptions of secondary school 8th grade students towards soil and agriculture. Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Education Journal of Education Sciences, 11(1), 67-83.
31. Gülüm, K. (2009). A research on proverbs Turk and Turkmen (Turkmenistan) articulated on nature that can be used in geography teaching. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 1(1), 51-58.
32. Gülüm, K., & Avşar, Z. (2020). Comparison of Turkish and Native American proverbs about nature. Millî Folklor, 16(126), 175-183.
33. Gülüm, K., & Boz, M. (2011). A geographical analysis of Turkish world partner proverbs said on nature (the sample of Kıgızistan-Turkiye). Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (24), 354-369.
34. Günaydın, G. (2015). Sancılı ilişki: Köylü, toprak ve iktidar. Toprak atlası 2015 (pp. 66-69). Berlin-Postdam: Heinrich Böll Stiftung Derneği - Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies.
35. Güner, G. (2019). İnsan-toprak ilişkisi üzerine. Türk Tarım ve Orman Dergisi: Retrieved September 10, 2020 from http://www.turktarim.gov.tr/Haber/274/insan-toprak-iliskisi-uzerine
36. Güney, E. (2011). Yerbilim 2 jeomorfoloji. İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık. Gürlen, E., & Köseoğlu, P. (2019). Analysis of university students’ perceptions towards “soil, soil pollution” concepts with metaphors. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 19(1), 243-256. doi:10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.43815-507204
37. Harmancı, M. (2014). From blessed beginning to eternal rest: Perception of soil in Turkish mysticism. The Journal of Ottoman Literature Studies, 23-38.
38. Kalaian, S. (2008). Research design. In P. J. Lavrakas (Eds.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 724-731). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
39. Karakuş, U., & Keçe, M. (2012). Natural environment perception in Turkish proverbs and its’ importance in terms of environmental education. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken 4(3), 131-145.
40. Karataş, İ. E. (2014). Erzurumlu İbrahim Hakkı’s views on the idea of four elements which took place in the Marifetname. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (33), 104-122.
41. Koç, H, Sönmez, Ö, & Çi̇fçi̇, T. (2018). Types of texts that have been used in secondary edcuation geography course books. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(48), 17-39.
42. Kowasch, M. (2017). Resource exploitation and consumption in the frame of education for sustainable development in german geography textbooks, RIGEO, 7(1), 48-79. Retrieved from http://www.rigeo.org/vol7no1/Number1Spring/RIGEO-V7-N1-3.pdf
43. Lutgens, F. K., Tarbuck, E. J., & Tasa, D. (2014). Essentials of geology (11. ed.). (C. Helvacı, Ed., & H. Orhan, Trans.) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
44. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2. ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
45. Mısırlıoğlu, M. (2016, November). Toprak hayvanları. Bilim ve Teknik, pp. 28-33.
46. Mustan-Dönmez, B. (2019). Cultural analysis on the appearance of the feminine soil perception in Anatolian regional music by means of ancient data. The Journal of Kesit Academy, 5(20), 26-40.
47. Ortaş, İ. (2017). Toprak insan uygarlık ilişkisi. In Y. Aksoy (Ed.), Yaşamın her karesinde toprak (pp. 1-26). İstanbul: İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi.
48. Öztaş, T. (2017, August). Varoluşun ve yaşamın kaynağı toprak. Plant Peyzaj ve Süs Bitkiciliği Dergisi. Retrieved September 30, 2020 from https://www.plantdergisi.com/prof-dr-taskin-oztas/varolusun-ve-yasamin-kaynagi-toprak
49. Öztürk, Ç. (2007). Usage of literary texts in geography teaching. Ondokuz Mayis University Education of Journal, (24), 70-78.
50. Pösteki, N. (2012). Attitude on land ownership in Turkish films. Acta Turcica Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies, 4(1), 141-171.
51. Presidency of Religious Affairs. (2020, October 12). Kur’an-ı Kerim. Retrieved from https://kuran.diyanet.gov.tr/mushaf
52. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education . (2018). Ortaöğretim coğrafya dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara. Retrieved October 19, 2019 from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=336
53. Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 4, 5, 6 ve 7. sınıflar). Ankara. Retrieved October 20, 2019 from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=155
54. Ritchie, L. D. (2013). Metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Saban, A. (2009). Prospective teachers’ mental images about the concept of student. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 7(2), 281-326.
56. Saban, A., Koçbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2006). An investigation of the concept of teacher among prospective teachers through metaphor analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 461-522.
57. Sağlam, S. (2018). Soil in Mahtumkulu’s poetry. Balıkesir University the Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 21(39), 39-53. doi:10.31795/baunsobed.437778
58. Şahbaz, N. K. (2012). The theme of the soil in the Ceyhun Atuf Kansu’s poems and Sakarya Meydan Savaşı’s “Ve Toprak”. Acta Turcica Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies, 4(1), 183-192.
59. Sakıcı, Ç. (2017). Terapik açıdan toprağın önemi. In Y. Aksoy (Ed.), Yaşamın her karesinde toprak (pp. 277-295). İstanbul: İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi.
60. Samancı, M. (2017). An important key word in Fuzûlî’s poetry: Soil. Journal of Academic Language and Literature, 1(1), 41-60.
61. Sanır, F. (2000). Coğrafya terimleri sözlüğü. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
62. Şenocak, E. (2017). Mother soil in Âşik Veysel’s poets. Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(21), 503-518.
63. Sezer, M., & Yiğitoğlu, M. (2019). An approach in the context of ecocritism to the poems of Âşık Veysel. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (14), 568-579.
64. Solmaz, E. (2017). The white soil as a breathing and blasting element. Usak University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(4), 643-652.
65. Süzer, S., Eraslan, H., Çınar, M., Karataş, T., Tepeli, E., Sarıtaş, H., Çelik, A., Karakaş, C. (2005). Toprak ve su muhafazası. Ankara: Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Yayın Dairesi Başkanlığı Matbaası.
66. Taşçıoğlu, Ö. L. (2018). Homeland concept and the importance of homeland for the Turkish nation. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 6(71), 221-230.
67. TEMA. (2019). Toprak ana. Retrieved March 10, 2019 from https://topraktema.org/toprak-ana
68. Turan, M. (2019). Soil motif in divan poetry. Motif Academy Journal of Folklore, 12(26), 468-487. doi:10.12981/mahder.526923
69. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2020, September 18). Tarım ve orman alanları. Retrieved October 29, 2020 from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Home/Index
70. Yaran, C. S. (2007). "Rumi's seven advices": universal virtues, cosmic foundations and the matter of belonging. İstanbul University İlahiyat Faculty Journal (16), 21-48.
71. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
72. Yıldırım, M. (2014). Çevre dinamiklerinden toprak ve dinlerde toprak algısı. Çevre ve Ahlak Sempozyum Bildiri Metinleri (pp. 417-424). Gaziantep: Gaziantep Üniversitesi Basımevi.