prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selves and comparing them to those they...

� Tel.: +90-332-323-8220

E-mail address: asaban

0738-0593/$ - see front ma

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.200

; fax: +90-332-323-8225.

@selcuk.edu.tr (A. Saban).

tter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

4.03.003

International Journal of Educational Development 24 (2004) 617–635

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selvesand comparing them to those they have of their elementary

and cooperating teachers

Ahmet Saban �

Department of Elementary Teaching, Faculty of Education, Selcuk University, Konya 42090, Turkey

Abstract

Currently, it is strongly suggested that our thought processes are largely metaphorical in nature. Indeed, the meta-phors we use not only represent the way we perceive the world and reality but also shape our professional ideas, atti-tudes, and practices. This study employs metaphor as a means of research to provide insights into the imagesprospective classroom teachers have of themselves as future teachers (i.e., professional self-images), their elementaryteachers (i.e., former classroom teachers), and their cooperating teachers (i.e., supervisors of student teaching practi-ces). Data for this study were gathered through the administration of a Likert-style questionnaire consisting of 20metaphorical images of ‘‘classroom teacher’’ to 363 exit level elementary teacher education students enrolled in theFaculty of Education of Selcuk University in Turkey during the 2002–2003 academic year. Results indicate that theteacher candidates in this study appear to be less teacher-centered and more student-centered than their both elemen-tary and cooperating teachers. Also, female teacher candidates appear to be less teacher-centered and more student-centered than their male peers. Implications for preservice teacher education and further research are discussed.# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Prospective elementary teachers; Metaphor; Images of teaching; Gender differences; Turkey

1. Introduction and purpose some literary fancies, but indeed facilitate thecommunication of concepts and ideas that are

Schools are everything from gardens to factor-

ies, from shopping malls to prisons; teachers are

everything from tour guides to judges, from man-

ufacturers to entertainers; students are everything

from raw materials to flowers, from customers to

criminals. When educators compare school to a

symphony orchestra, teacher to a gardener or stu-

dent to a patient, they attend to phenomena that

might otherwise remain unknown. Such figurative

uses of language (i.e., metaphors) are more than

complex and might be difficult to deal with by lit-eral language. As Yob (2003) puts it, a ‘‘meta-phor is employed when one wants to explore andunderstand something esoteric, abstract, novel, orhighly speculative’’ (p. 134).

Recently, Boostrom (1998) has pointed outthat ‘‘to use a metaphor [for teaching] is not away of doing teaching; it is [rather] a way of talk-ing about teaching. A metaphor is a compressed,imaginative expression of a perspective’’ (p. 397).From this point of view, if we (teacher educators)examine various metaphors of teaching, we mightbe able to gain a good understanding of how

A. Saban / International Journal of Educational Development 24 (2004) 617–635618

(student) teachers in different sociocultural con-texts see themselves, their students, and theirwork (i.e., What it is to be a teacher?). Thepresent study which is the focus of this paper wasconducted within the framework of this under-standing. Using the Turkish context, this studyspecifically attempts to answer the followingquestions:

1. Which metaphors represent most prospectiveclassroom teachers’ images of their elementaryteachers?

2. Which metaphors represent most prospectiveclassroom teachers’ images of their cooperat-ing teachers?

3. Which metaphors represent most prospectiveclassroom teachers’ images of themselves asfuture teachers?

4. Do differences exist between participants’images of selves and those they have of theirelementary teachers?

5. Do differences exist between participants’images of selves and those they have of theircooperating teachers?

6. Do differences exist between participants’images of their elementary and cooperatingteachers?

7. Are there any differences between male andfemale participants’ professional self-images?

8. What are some implications for preserviceteacher education and further research?

Teacher education students are in the processof searching for their professional identity. It istherefore important that we examine our teachertrainees’ professional self-images as well as theirimages of their elementary teachers (i.e., their for-mer classroom teachers) and their cooperatingteachers, under the supervision of whom they dotheir student teaching practices. Previous research(e.g., Weinstein, 1990; Calderhead and Robson,1991; Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Bramald et al., 1995)has demonstrated that teacher education studentstend to bring with them into teacher training apersonal teaching schema or a personal value sys-tem about teaching and learning formed over theyears from personal experiences as a student.According to Kagan (1992), for example, such

personal value systems can act as filters throughwhich others’ (and perhaps their future) teachingroles and practices can be interpreted. A greatdeal of research (e.g., Borko and Mayfield, 1995)has also focused upon the effects of cooperatingteachers on preservice teachers’ pedagogicalknowledge and skills during their student teach-ing practices. Nettle’s (1998) study of 79 primarystudent teachers, for example, revealed the exist-ence of both stability and change in the beliefs ofstudent teachers after their teaching practices,pointing to the need for further analysis of thetopic in different sociocultural contexts.

2. Understanding metaphor

Metaphorical thinking involves employing afamiliar object or event as a conceptual tool toelucidate features of a more complex phenom-enon or situation (Oxford et al., 1998). The essen-tial nature of ‘‘metaphor is understanding andexperiencing one kind of thing in terms ofanother’’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: p. 5).According to MacCormac (1990), ‘‘to describethe unknown, we must resort to concepts that weknow and understand, and that is the essence of ametaphor—an unusual juxtaposition of the fam-iliar with the unfamiliar’’ (p. 9). In this regard,metaphors build a non-literal relationshipbetween abstract concepts and something that ismore familiar, concrete and visible. For example,in the ‘‘love is a rose’’ metaphor, ‘‘love’’ and‘‘rose’’, on the surface, have no obvious literalrelationship. At an abstract level, however, theyappear to be related. In this specific case, we can,for example, literally claim that a rose is sweat tosmell and pleasant to touch, but if we touch itsthorns, they can stick us. At the abstract level,then, both ‘‘love’’ and ‘‘rose’’ tend to representsomething that is wonderful or pleasant and thatwe want to get close to, but if we get too close,we might get hurt.

Like in the ‘‘love is a rose’’ metaphor, the twomain concepts involved in any figurative compari-son are called ‘‘the metaphor topic’’ and ‘‘themetaphor vehicle’’ (Chiappe et al., 2003). Themetaphor topic is the subject of a figurative state-

619A. Saban / International Journal of Educational Development 24 (2004) 617–635

ment (i.e., ‘‘school’’ in ‘‘school is a garden’’), andthe metaphor vehicle is the concept that is used tosay something new about the metaphor topic (i.e.,‘‘garden’’ in ‘‘school is a garden’’). It is suggestedthat the metaphor vehicle provides properties thatcan be attributed to the metaphor topic. Hence,as Forceville (2002) also pointed out, for any-thing to deserve the label ‘‘metaphor’’, at least thefollowing three questions need to be answered: (1)Which of the two terms is metaphor? (2) Which isthe target domain (i.e., the metaphor topic) andwhich is the source domain (i.e., the metaphorvehicle)? (3) Which characteristics can/should bemapped from the source domain to the targetdomain?

With regard to the issue of how metaphorswork, Yob (2003) explains that when a metaphoris employed, ‘‘the schema is ‘transported’ from itscustomary realm to a new realm. Here the ele-ments and structures of the schema organize the‘alien realm’ in a way that ‘is guided by theirhabitual use in the home realm’’’ (p. 127). In thisregard, metaphors invite educators to explorecomparisons, make them notice similarities, anduse a situation as an image of another. Accord-ingly, in any figurative comparison, the metaphorvehicle acts as a lens, a screen, or a filter throughwhich the metaphor topic is (re)viewed. Yob(2003) also explains that any ‘‘similes, parables,analogies, and models can all be more or lessmetaphorical. Whenever a linguistic, or for thatmatter visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic,somatic, or olfactory symbol provides a schemafor transfer to a new domain, there is metaphorfor metaphor is a function not a figure’’ (p. 132).

2.1. Metaphor as a mirror of one’s reality

Metaphor is fundamental to one’s search formeaning. It helps one make sense of the worldand reality and of the circumstances he or she iscurrently involved in. Perry and Cooper (2001),for example, contend that metaphor provides agood mirror for understanding the challenges thateducators might encounter during certain stagesof their careers. Such challenges, according to theauthors, might include ‘‘a press for research andresearch funding and for articles to be published

in internationally referred journals, along with an

increase in teaching loads, larger classes, and an

increase in administrative duties and community

involvement’’ (p. 42), which were the case for

some Australian teacher educators over the last

decade. The authors analyzed the personal images

of change by reflecting on the metaphors that

were generated by a group of female teacher edu-

cators to make sense of their professional lives

and practices as they experienced the above new

expectations that were put forward by the current

higher education reform in Australia. In reflecting

on her career in the last decade, one of the parti-

cipants in the study, for example, used the

‘‘snowball’’ metaphor to describe her core respon-

sibilities while at the same time developing and

gathering others in the process of becoming a

teacher educator.

2.2. Metaphor as a mechanism of the mind

By reflecting on personal thoughts, beliefs and

feelings, metaphors provide a valid source for

gaining insights into the teaching profession form

the perspectives of various school people. Inbar

(1996), for example, collected and categorized

over 7000 metaphorical images of teaching, learn-

ing, and schooling provided by students and vari-

ous educators. The participants for the study

included 254 educators and 409 students from 15

different schools in the city of Jerusalem, Israel.

The author asked the participants to indicate four

images of students, teachers, principals and

schools and to choose one image in each category

which most appealed to them. According to the

results, about 18% of the educators perceived stu-

dents as empty ‘‘receptacles’’ (e.g., students as

jars, bottles, containers, glasses), while only 7% of

the students’ own images came from this group.

With regard to the images of teacher, whereas

about half of the students (44.5%) in the study

perceived their teachers as ‘‘super controller’’

(e.g., jailer, judge, policeman, big boss, com-

mander), only about 13% of the educators agreed

with the students’ view. It would appear that

most of the educators in the study tended to per-

ceive themselves more in a caring role while the


majority of the students tended to focus more onthe evaluative and controlling aspects of teaching.

2.3. Metaphor as a sense-making tool

Comparing teaching to other occupations andthe practices of teachers to the practices of otherprofessionals could provide a useful perspectivefor better understanding of teaching as a pro-fession (Soder, 1998). In this regard, in ‘‘Teachingis like. . . ?’’ a group of teacher educators at theLewis and Clark Graduate School of ProfessionalStudies in the US reports on the effect of writingand talking about the metaphors they created tosymbolize their views of teaching (Hagstrom et al.,2000). One of the members of this interdiscipli-nary community, for example, compared teachingto geology and explained ‘‘the geology of teach-ing’’ metaphor briefly as follows: ‘‘Geology is allabout getting to the core of things—finding outabout the extraordinary characteristics of thisplanet. . . . Geology is. . . finding beauty in ordi-nary things we take for granted, like rocks. Thebeauty of teaching is looking at my students asunique souls—not just another group of students.The geology of teaching is learning about stu-dents, finding the ‘inner beauty of the thunderegg’—they all have one. . . .’’ (p. 27).

2.4. Metaphor as a medium of reflection

Black and Halliwell (2000) contend that‘‘becoming conscious of ‘images’ activated bypractical teaching situations is. . . a catalyst forprofessional growth’’ (p. 104). In their study of 14Australian preschool teachers’ practical teachingknowledge, the authors discussed and used threemajor forms of representation: (1) oral (i.e., con-versations and story telling), (2) written (i.e., jour-nals and story writing), and (3) pictorial (i.e.,drawing combined with metaphor). The teachersin the study talked about their teaching experi-ences, drew pictures of themselves as childhoodteachers, and recorded their reflections in theirjournals. They then used these representations toexamine critically the connections between theiraspirations, experiences, relationships and feel-ings, and how these entities contributed to theirteaching identities. One of the teachers, for

example, drew a face ‘‘with happy on one sideand sad on the other’’ to represent her image ofself as a teacher. Based on the participants’insights, the authors further postulated that thecombined use of ‘‘drawing, metaphor, story tell-ing and story writing proved to be a holistic por-trayal of knowledge in action’’ (p. 112).

2.5. Metaphor as an instructional tool

One of the main goals of a teacher educationprogram should be to help prospective teachersdevelop a good understanding of the relationshipbetween teaching and learning. And one of thepowerful ways to accomplish this goal, accordingto Hoban (2000), is to facilitate student reflectionthroughout the course of teacher training. Withregard to the author’s study, for example, stu-dents taking his science method course in theirsecond year of a three-year Bachelor of Teachingprogram at the University of Wollongong, Aus-tralia, were required to reflect on their learningexperiences and keep them in their reflective jour-nals. What is noteworthy of mentioning aboutthis study is that the process of student reflectionsoon turned into an important means of instruc-tion for the participating students. According tothe author, the course was designed so that thestudents had a 3-h class each week made up of a1-h lecture followed by 2 h of hands-on activities.After each class, the students had to reflect ontheir experiences to study the relationshipbetween teaching and their learning and to ident-ify a metaphor to represent their conceptualiza-tions of teaching and learning. As a result of thisreflective process, one of the students in thestudy, for example, deduced the ‘‘playground’’metaphor (with a drawing of it) to represent herunderstanding of the relationship between teach-ing and learning as it tended to reflect the keyfactors for her optimal learning environmentencompassing ‘‘structured lessons, fun and inter-action’’.

2.6. Metaphor as a tool for evaluation

Metaphor could be used as a tool for both for-mative and summative program evaluation pur-poses (e.g., In what ways does the program work,


for whom, with what consequences, and underwhat conditions?). In this regard, Kemp’s (1999)case study of 36 students attending a two-yearprofessional social work training program in Eng-land, a Diploma in Social Work/Diploma inHigher Education, provides a good example forhow to use metaphor as an evaluative tool ineducation. In the beginning of the program, thestudents were divided into four groups, each ofwhich was asked to produce a simile, ‘‘For us,this programme now feels like. . . because. . .,’’ atdifferent times of the training process. Toward theend of the first semester, students in one group,for example, described their experiences with theprogram by using the ‘‘forestry’’ metaphor.According to the author, the forestry metaphorcontained such a degree of pain that required her(as the program coordinator) to take responsi-bility to actively monitor the issue (i.e., the natureof some staff feedback and comments).

3. Metaphor in teaching and teacher education

The use of metaphor as a powerful researchtool in the field of teaching and teacher educationis well documented in the research literature. Areview of the current research literature revealsthat teachers often make use of metaphoricalexpressions when they talk about their profession,their beliefs and their daily teaching practices(e.g., Ben-Peretz et al., 2003; Carroll and Eifler,2002; Carter, 1990; Collins and Green, 1990;Guerrero and Villamil, 2002; Inbar, 1996; Mar-shall, 1990a; Martinez et al., 2001; Oxford et al.,1998; Tobin, 1990; Wallace, 2001; Weade andErnst, 1990; Yung, 2001). In this regard, meta-phors play an important role in understandingteachers’ attitudes towards the theories theychoose to embrace or reject, and provide a frameof reference for understanding the philosophicalorientations, roles and practices of teachers.

A review of the research literature also revealsthat there are numerous metaphors for assessingthe concept of ‘‘teacher’’, each one providing dif-ferent information and calling for differentresponses. The main reason for this situation isbecause, as Yob (2003) puts it, ‘‘primarily, a

metaphor is not the thing being referred to but asymbol of it. If it were the same as the thing itwas referring to, it would not be needed. There-fore, it is other than and in some respects lessthan what it refers to, even when referring power-fully and provocatively’’ (p. 133). One way tocompensate for this deficiency in representationmight be to employ a variety of metaphors whichwhen taken together would provide numerousperspectives and constructions so that a morecomprehensive understanding of the topic couldemerge.

In a recent study, for example, Ben-Peretz et al.(2003) investigated teachers’ professional imagesof self in different work contexts by asking themto mach their images of themselves as teacherswith drawings of other occupations (i.e., shop-keeper, judge, animal keeper, entertainer, conduc-tor, puppeteer, and animal trainer) and tocomment on their choices. The sample of theirstudy included 60 teachers of vocational tracks inIsraeli senior high schools. Half of them taughtgroup 1 (high-achieving) students, and the otherhalf taught group 2 (low-achieving) students.According to the results, out of the three domi-nant pictorial metaphors (i.e., animal keeper, con-ductor, and shopkeeper), more than one-third ofall teachers (35%) chose the ‘‘animal keeper’’metaphor, conveying the caring image of teachingas most appropriately matching their own work,and the teachers of the group 2 students preferredthis choice the most. About 30% of all teacherschose the ‘‘conductor’’ metaphor, with the teach-ers of the group 1 students leaning more towardthis choice. The third most popular choice of vis-ual metaphor (i.e., ‘‘shopkeeper’’ 23.3%) was pre-ferred about equally by teachers of both group 1and group 2 students.

With regard to Ben-Peretz et al.’s (2003) study,chi-square tests further indicated that teachers oflow-achieving and high-achieving students dif-fered significantly in terms of their preferences for‘‘animal keeper’’ and ‘‘conductor’’ metaphors. Incomparison to the teachers of high-achieving stu-dents (17.85%), most teachers of low-achievingstudents chose the animal keeper metaphor(64%). Conversely, whereas only about 12% ofthe teachers of low-achieving students chose the


‘‘conductor’’ metaphor, more than half of theteachers of high-achieving students (53.57%) pre-ferred this image of teaching. These findings lentsupport to the authors’ presupposition that theteaching context has a significant impact onteachers’ images of professional selves. It is alsointeresting to note that while no teacher chose the‘‘animal trainer’’ metaphor, only one teacher oflow-achieving students chose the ‘‘judge’’ meta-phor. Accordingly, it would appear that theteachers in Ben-Peretz et al.’s (2003) study tendedto strongly reject the metaphors of teaching thatprojected the notions of control and judgement.

Recently, many researchers (e.g., BouJaoude,2000; Bozik, 2002; Bullough and Stokes, 1994;Carlson, 2001; Fain, 2001; James, 2002; Mahliosand Maxson, 1998; Marshall, 1990b; Palmquist,2001; Vadeboncoeur and Torres, 2003; White andSmith, 1994) have also suggested the use of‘‘metaphor’’ as a cognitive device for effectivelydealing with prospective teachers’ images ofteaching and learning. In this regard, metaphorsplay a crucial role in gaining insights into morecomplex concepts such as teaching, learning, orschooling and provide important ways of compre-hending people’s personal experiences; that is,they act as ‘‘translators’’ of experience (Miller,1987). For example, we teacher educators maynot be able to truly understand our teacher train-ees’ past schooling experiences, but through met-aphors we can build a bridge between theirpersonal experiences and our own professionalthinking. ‘‘Metaphorical language thus could beseen as the missing link integrating an ‘everyday’thinking and a scientific thinking’’ (Martinezet al., 2001: p. 975).

Mahlios and Maxson (1998), for example,investigated 134 elementary and 119 secondaryentry level teacher education students’ percep-tions of life, childhood, and the schooling experi-ences. According to the authors, when asked tochoose from a list of metaphors (i.e., family,team, garden, circus, prison, zoo, stages, crowd,and factory), most elementary students remem-bered their elementary school experiences asbeing in a ‘‘family’’ (52%) or on a ‘‘team’’ (23%).The same two metaphors were also selected astheir most preferred images of elementary school-

ing by slightly higher percentages (respectively,63% and 43%). Likewise, secondary studentsremembered their elementary school experiencesas being in a family (49%), in a garden (9%), oron a team (8%). Again, the same three metaphorswere also selected as their most preferred imagesof elementary schooling by slightly higher percen-tages (i.e., family 56%, team 23%, and garden11%).

In contrasting the metaphor choices of elemen-tary and secondary preservice teachers, it appearsthat in most cases, they are more similar than dis-similar. While the elementary students remem-bered their secondary school experiences in amore diverse manner as being in a family (25%),on a team (23%), in a crowd (18%), or in a prison(12%), their preferred secondary school meta-phors were more focused and centered on beingin a family (43%) and being on a team (43%).Again, although the secondary students remem-bered their secondary school experiences in amore diverse manner as being on a team (23%),in a family (21%), in a crowd (15%) and in a fac-tory (11%), their preferred secondary school met-aphors were more focused and centered on beingon a team (50%) and being in a family (17%). Itappears from the data that more elementary pre-service teachers (43%) preferred family-like sec-ondary school structures in comparison to theirsecondary peers (17%).

4. Context of the study

4.1. The structure of Turkish education

Education in Turkey is centrally controlled bythe Ministry of Education and is provided free ofcharge in the public schools even though privateschools exist at all levels of education. The struc-ture of the present formal Turkish education sys-tem consists of preschool education, elementaryeducation, secondary education, and higher edu-cation. Preschool education consists of non-com-pulsory programs for children from birth to theage of 72 months. Elementary education is acompulsory eight-year program for all childrenbeginning from the age of six. Secondary edu-


cation encompasses general high schools andvocational/technical high schools where, depend-ing on the type of high school, additional three orfour years of training take place after elementaryeducation. Higher education takes place at uni-versities of at least four-year programs or otherinstitutions of two-year programs. Each univer-sity consists of faculties and four-year schoolsoffering bachelor’s degree programs. Also, thereare two-year vocational higher schools offeringpre-bachelor’s level programs. Admission tohigher education is achieved through a nation-wide student selection examination, which isadministered by the Student Selection and Place-ment Center (OSYM) every year in June. Candi-dates gain access to higher education institutionsbased on their scores from the examination com-bined with their high school grade point averages.Finally, all Turkish universities are ruled by thehigher education law of the Higher EducationCouncil (YOK), established in 1981 as the gov-erning body of the higher education system inTurkey.

4.2. Teacher education in Turkey

The first Turkish teacher training institution,known as the Darulmuallimin, was established in1848. Since then, many different models ofteacher training have been implemented toimprove teacher education in Turkey. In 1926, forexample, two types of teacher training schools,both of which were mainly secondary schools,were designed to meet the different demands ofboth rural and urban areas (Cakiroglu and Cakir-oglu, 2003): (1) primary teacher schools for urbanareas and (2) village teacher schools for ruralregions. The idea of village teacher schools (suchas Village Institutes between 1940 and 1954) wasto train teachers for the rural regions in anattempt to improve the educational level of aver-age village people whose needs were considered tobe completely different from those of living in theurban areas of the country.

The second half of the past century witnessedtwo major changes in teacher education in Tur-key. The first of them was related to the accept-ance of the ‘‘Basic Law for National Education’’

in 1973. Before that, elementary teachers werebeing trained in ‘‘teacher schools’’, which werepractically secondary schools from grades 6 to 12.The Basic Law required all teachers to be trainedin higher education institutions. Afterwards, onlythose students who graduated from two-yearpost-secondary ‘‘education institutes’’ wereemployed as classroom teachers in elementaryschools. The second major change in the Turkishteacher education system took place in 1981 when‘‘the responsibilities and activities of teachertraining were transferred from the Ministry ofEducation to the universities’’ (Altan, 1998: p.408). Before 1981, all teacher education institu-tions were both academically and administrativelyunder the control of the Ministry of Education.With the 1981 higher education reform, all four-year teacher training institutions and three-yearforeign language high schools were transformedinto four-year faculties of education.

Today, there are 76 (53 state and 23 private)universities and higher education institutions inTurkey (Mizikaci, 2003). While two of the publicuniversities are more than 100 years old, 22 of theprivate universities were founded within the lastdecade. Out of 76, 44 (1 private and 43 public)universities have faculties of education, most ofwhich offer dual (both regular and evening) pro-grams for training preschool (Kindergarten)teachers, elementary teachers (both classroomteachers for primary schools and special subjectteachers for middle schools), and secondaryteachers who are employed by both the Ministryof Education and private schools. Yet the facul-ties of education are not the only providers ofteachers. Of those students enrolling in the facul-ties of science and letters, the ones who completepedagogical course requirements in the facultiesof education after having obtained a bachelor’sdegree in their fields of study are also eligible toapply for a secondary teaching position.

Starting in 1998, all faculties of education inTurkey follow a standardized curriculum pre-scribed by the Higher Education Council (YOK,1998). Preparation for the teaching professionrequires the acquisition of knowledge and skills inthe three domains which include general culture,special subject training, and pedagogy. With


regard to the classroom teaching program, forexample, the pedagogical domain consists of 30credit hours (including the teaching practicum)and constitutes about one-fifth of the whole cur-riculum (consisting of 152 credit hours), while themajority of the courses (such as Turkish teaching,math teaching, science teaching, social studiesteaching, or art teaching) are related to the spe-cial subject teaching domain (consisting of 109credit hours). The remaining 13 credit hours arerelated to the general culture domain. Further-more, the teaching practicum encompasses threesessions of field experience during the four-yearteacher education course; one, during the second

semester of the first year, and the other two in thefirst and second semesters of the fourth year. It isthe last session in which students are required todo actual teaching.

5. Methodology of the study

5.1. Metaphor generation

The present study used the concept of ‘‘meta-phor’’ as a means of research for examining pro-spective classroom teachers’ images of ‘‘teacher’’.Table 1 offers a summary of the conceptual cate-gories for teacher (and student), the exemplar

Table 1

Metaphorical images of classroom teachera

Conceptual category for teacher

(and student)

E

C

xemplar metaphors, student–

LASSROOM–teacher

Key aspects/characteristics

Teacher-centered and/or instruction-oriented metaphors

Teacher as transmitter of knowledge

(and student as recipient of knowledge)

C

P

ustomer–SHOP–shopkeeper
Dispensing knowledge to students
assenger–BUS–driver
Fixed curriculum and standardization
Race horse–HIPPODROME–jockey
Racing students through exams/competitions
Teacher as craftsperson

(and student as raw material)

R

t

aw material–FACTORY–

echnician

Manufacturing socially useful products

Clay–WORKSHOP–potter
Shaping students into the prescribed mold
Teacher as repairer

(and student as defective individual)

P

C

atient–HOSPITAL–doctor
Diagnosing and eradicating student errors
ar–REPAIR SHOP–mechanic
Correcting students’ minds and behaviors
Teacher as superior authority figure

(and student as compliant)

S

S

oldier–ARMY–commander
Strict rules and absolute compliance
uspect–COURTROOM–judge
Assessing students’ academic success
Criminal–PRISON–guard
Punishing students for academic failure
Student-centered and/or learning-oriented metaphors

Teacher as nurturer

(and student as developing organism)

C

I

hild–FAMILY–parent
Meeting individual needs and interests
nfant–CRECHE–baby sitter
Providing a nurturing learning environment
Flower–GARDEN–gardener
Fostering students’ potential capabilities
Teacher as entertainer

(and student as conscious observant)

A

A

udience–CIRCUS–juggler
Entertaining students’ curiosities
udience–STAGE–comedian
Having fun and joy while learning
Teacher as scaffolder

(and student as constructor of knowledge)

E

E

xperimenter–LAB–tool provider
Facilitating student learning
xplorer–NATURE–compass
Providing academic support when needed
Teacher as cooperative leader

(and student as active participant)

T

P

ourist–ISLAND–tour guide
Guided discovery and exploration
layer–TEAM–coach
Active participation and cooperation
Musician–ORCHESTRA–

conductor

Working together in harmony

a These categories of metaphors were generated through an analysis of the journal articles concerning the metaphorical images

of teaching, learning and schooling from several databases.


metaphors for each category as well as the keyaspects of each metaphor. The 20 metaphors usedin this study were generated through an analysisof the journal articles (especially, Fisher andGrady, 1998; Gillis and Johnson, 2002; Guerreroand Villamil, 2002; Hagstrom et al., 2000; Inbar,1996; Mahlios and Maxson, 1998; Martinez et al.,2001; Oxford et al., 1998; White and Smith, 1994)concerning the metaphorical images of teaching,learning and schooling from several databases.They were then grouped under two broad theor-etical perspectives in education characterized as(1) teacher-centered and/or instruction-orientedperspective (the first 10 exemplar metaphors) and(2) student-centered and/or learning-oriented per-spective (the latter 10 exemplar metaphors). Theorganizing framework for the grouping of themetaphors is based on the relationships betweenthe teacher, the student, and the goals of edu-cation. For example, whereas the teacher-centeredperspective focuses more on transmission ofknowledge and delivering instruction, the student-centered perspective focuses more on learningfacilitation and active student involvement.

Under the teacher-centered theoretical perspec-tive, four conceptual categories and 10 exemplarmetaphors are included. In short, in the ‘‘teacheras transmitter of knowledge (and student asrecipient of knowledge)’’ category of metaphors(teacher as shopkeeper, driver and jockey), theteacher is both the provider and the transmitterof knowledge while the students are passive recip-ients of knowledge. In the ‘‘teacher as craftperson(and student as raw material)’’ category of meta-phors (teacher as technician and potter), theteacher is perceived to be a highly skilled individ-ual whose main task is to produce students associally useful products while the student merelysupplies the raw material. In the ‘‘teacher asrepairer (and student as defective individual)’’ cat-egory of metaphors (teacher as doctor and mech-anic), the student is perceived to be intellectuallyand behaviorally defective and thus in need ofrepair. The teacher, on the other hand, is onewho knows what is correct or not, and hence hisor her main task is that of fixing students’ errorsand deficiencies. In the ‘‘teacher as superior auth-ority figure (and student as compliant)’’ category

of metaphors (teacher as commander, judge andprison guard), the classroom environment impliesa set of power relationships in which the teacherhas more authority than the students (i.e., decid-ing what and how to teach).

Under the student-centered theoretical perspec-tive, four conceptual categories and 10 exemplarmetaphors are also included. In short, in the‘‘teacher as nurturer (and student as developingorganism)’’ category of metaphors (teacher asparent, baby sitter and gardener), the teacher’smain role is to nourish the potential capabilitiesof each student in a loving and nurturing learningenvironment. In the ‘‘teacher as entertainer (andstudent as conscious observant)’’ category of meta-phors (teacher as juggler and comedian), theteacher uses acting and surprise as part ofinstruction in an attempt to break down affectivebarriers that prevent communication and partici-pation on the part of the students. In the ‘‘teacheras scaffolder (and student as constructor of knowl-edge)’’ category of metaphors (teacher as toolprovider and compass), the teacher provides theneeded help and assistance to students at theappropriate times and removes it when no longeressential. In the ‘‘teacher as cooperative leader(and student as active participant)’’ category ofmetaphors (teacher as tour guide, coach and con-ductor), the teacher is in a position of leadership,and the students are active participants. In the‘‘classroom as a symphony orchestra’’ metaphor,for example, the teacher might be considered asthe conductor, and the students would be themusicians while the musical performance wouldbe the daily educational experience. Hence, work-ing together in harmony (e.g., making musictogether) is an essential feature of this category ofmetaphors.

5.2. The questionnaire

Based on the metaphors generated from thepertinent research literature, a simple and econ-omical questionnaire was designed as the maininstrument to collect the study data. The studyquestionnaire (see Table 2) consisted of 20 meta-phorical images of ‘‘classroom teacher’’ presentedin the Likert-style format. It asked the parti-


cipants to rate the 20 metaphors based on a

three-point Likert-scale (1, not representative at

all, 2, partly representative, and 3, most represen-

tative) to indicate their most representative

images of their elementary teachers, their cooper-

ating teachers, and themselves as future teachers.

Also, two demographic questions (i.e., parti-

cipants’ gender and program type) were included

at the end of the questionnaire for comparison

purposes.The Likert-scale is a well-used attitude scale in

the current research literature. Although most

research suggests that a five-point Likert-scale

elicits the best answers, three- or four-point Lik-

ert-scales are also utilized as legitimate survey

procedures (see e.g., Lewin and Akyeampong,

2002). A three-point Likert format was adopted

for this study mainly because it was considered

the best option for systematically trying to cap-

ture the respondents’ attitudes towards the three

types of teachers, though it was also recognized

that the format did not offer them as much free-

dom of choice as possible. The simplicity of the

questionnaire was crucial for the participating

student teachers since most undergraduate

teacher education programs in Turkey do not

offer any course related to research methodology

(i.e., how to conduct educational research).

Table 2

The questionnaire: Metaphorical Images of Classroom Teacher (MICT)

Dear Teacher Candidate:

The power of metaphor is such that we become conscious of similarities between two fundamentally different things. A metaphor

functions to link two usually unassociated concepts or ideas in order to highlight a similarity or similarities between them. This

questionnaire employs metaphor as a means of research to provide insights into the images prospective classroom teachers, like you,

might have of themselves as future teachers, their elementary teachers, and their cooperating teachers. Please indicate the degree to

which each of the following 20 metaphors represents your image of your elementary teacher, your image of your cooperating

teacher, and your image of yourself as a future teacher. Please respond to every item and indicate your response by circling:

1, Not representative at all (NR)
2, Partly representative (PR) 3, Most representative (MR)
Student–CLASSROOM–teacher
Elementary teacher Cooperating teacher Self as a future teacher
NR
PR MR N R PR MR NR PR MR
Customer–SHOP–shopkeeper
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Passenger–BUS–driver
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Raw material–FACTORY–technician
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Patient–HOSPITAL–doctor
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Car–REPAIR SHOP–mechanic
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Soldier–ARMY–commander
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Suspect–COURTROOM–judge
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Child–FAMILY–parent
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Infant–CRECHE–baby sitter
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Audience–CIRCUS–juggler
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Audience–STAGE–comedian
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Experimenter–LAB–tool provider
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Explorer–NATURE–compass
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Tourist–ISLAND–tour guide
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Player–TEAM–coach
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Musician–ORCHESTRA–conductor
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Your gender:
(1) Male Y our program type: (1) Regular
(2) Female
(2) Evening


5.3. The participants

This study was conducted in a large public uni-versity in Turkey, Selcuk University, which hasan enrollment of approximately 60,000 students.Established in 1975, its name comes from theSelcuk Empire whose capital was the city ofKonya where the main campus of the universityis presently located. The Faculty of Education ofSelcuk University was first established in 1962 asa three-year teacher training institution under theMinistry of Education and became an importantpart of the university as a result of the highereducation reform in 1981. It is also one of thelargest faculties of education in Turkey with over6500 student enrollments in both undergraduateand graduate level programs related to preschool,elementary, and secondary education.

The participants for this study included 363exit level elementary teacher education studentsenrolled in the classroom teaching program of theFaculty of Education of Selcuk University duringthe 2002–2003 school year. Out of 363 parti-cipants, about a third of them (n ¼ 119, 32.8%)were male and the rest (n ¼ 244, 67.2%) werefemale. Also, the sample of the study was aboutequally representative of both regular (n ¼ 183)and evening (n ¼ 180) students in the classroomteaching program. At the time of the study, theparticipants were training to teach in elementaryschools for grades one through five as classroomteachers with a minor in social studies, math,science, or art and were about to finish their stu-dent teaching practicum with their cooperatingteachers. The students completed the study ques-tionnaire in their classrooms in late May 2003.From the outset, they were informed of the pur-pose of the study; they were told that theresearcher was interested in finding out abouttheir images of teaching and that there were noright or wrong answers to the items.

6. Results

The results reported in this section are basedon the quantitative data obtained from the 20Likert-style metaphor items in the study question-

naire. Counts (n), percentages (%), means (X) andstandard deviations (SD) were used to report thedata related to participants’ images of theirelementary teachers, their cooperating teachers,and themselves as future teachers. Paired-samplest-test was used to determine whether differencesexisted between prospective classroom teachers’metaphorical images of selves and those theyhave of their both elementary and cooperatingteachers as well as between their images of theirelementary and cooperating teachers. Also, inde-pendent-samples t-test was used to detect differ-ences in gender and program type related toparticipants’ professional self-images. The t-test isa statistical model designed to determine whetherthe mean differences of two groups or two meas-ures for the same individuals are significantly dif-ferent (Popham and Sirotnik, 1992). The resultsindicated no significant differences between stu-dents in two types of programs (i.e., regular andevening) while gender affected teacher educationstudents’ professional self-images. No significantdifference means that the participants’ meanresponses did not appear to differ at the 5% level.

6.1. The metaphorical images of elementaryteacher, cooperating teacher, and self as a futureteacher

Table 3 illustrates the metaphors selected bythe participants to describe their most representa-tive images of their elementary teachers, theircooperating teachers, and themselves as futureteachers. As shown in Table 3, the 10 most rep-resentative elementary teacher metaphors thatreceived the highest ratings from the participantsincluded the following: (1) ‘‘potter’’ (52.9%), (2)‘‘shopkeeper’’ (41%), (3) ‘‘mechanic’’ (36.9%), (4)‘‘commander’’ (34.7%), (5) ‘‘baby sitter’’ (32.8%),(6) ‘‘parent’’ (30.6%), (7) ‘‘compass’’ (27.5%), (8)‘‘conductor’’ (27.5%), (9) ‘‘prison guard’’ (27%),and (10) ‘‘jockey’’ (26.4%). Likewise, the 10 mostrepresentative cooperating teacher metaphors thatreceived the highest ratings from the participantsincluded the following: (1) ‘‘potter’’ (52.1%), (2)‘‘shopkeeper’’ (50.7%), (3) ‘‘mechanic’’ (45.7%),(4) ‘‘baby sitter’’ (45.5%), (5) ‘‘gardener’’ (44.4%),(6) ‘‘coach’’ (43.8%), (7) ‘‘commander’’ (43%), (8)


‘‘juggler’’ (42.7%), (9) ‘‘conductor’’ (42.1%), and

(10) ‘‘compass’’ (41.6%). In contrast, the 10 most

representative self-image metaphors that received

the highest ratings from the participants included

the following: (1) ‘‘juggler’’ (95%), (2) ‘‘conduc-

tor’’ (94.5%), (3) ‘‘baby sitter’’ (94.2%), (4) ‘‘tool

provider’’ (94.2%), (5) ‘‘coach’’ (93.7%), (6) ‘‘tour

guide’’ (92.6%), (7) ‘‘compass’’ (92.3%), (8) ‘‘gar-

dener’’ (91.7%), (9) ‘‘comedian’’ (91.2%), and (10)

‘‘parent’’ (88.2%).An analysis of the metaphor choice of the part-

icipants clearly reveals that while they picked a

combination of metaphors from both teacher-

centered and student-centered theoretical per-

spectives as their most representative images of

their both elementary and cooperating teachers,

they chose only the student-centered metaphors

to describe their professional self-images. It is

also interesting to note that the first three meta-

phors concerning participants’ most representa-

tive images of their both elementary and

cooperating teachers were exactly the same and

were rated in the same order. Of 363 participants,

more than half chose the metaphor of ‘‘potter’’

(i.e., shaping students into the prescribed mold).

The image of ‘‘shopkeeper’’ (i.e., transmitting

knowledge and skills to students) was ranked

second, and another teacher-centered image of

‘‘mechanic’’ (i.e., correcting students’ minds and

behaviors) was ranked third. On the other hand,

most participants conceptualized themselves as a

combination of ‘‘juggler,’’ ‘‘conductor’’, and

‘‘baby sitter’’. In terms of their professional self-

images, the metaphor of ‘‘juggler’’ (i.e., making

learning fun and enjoyable for the students)

appealed most (95%) to the participants. The

second most popular choice was ‘‘conductor’’

(94.5%), which postulates that though fulfilling a

leading role, the teacher regards students as part-

ners in the teaching–learning process and shares

Table 3

The metaphorical images of elementary teacher, cooperating teacher, and self as a future teacher

Elementary teacher Cooperating teacher Self as a future teacher
n
% n % n %

149 41.0 1 84 50.7 1 24 3 4.2
66 18.2 53 14.6 0 0
96 26.4 76 20.9 24 6.6
77 21.2 59 16.3 52 1 4.3
192 52.9 1 89 52.1 1 37 3 7.7
79 21.8 61 16.8 26 7.2
134 36.9 1 66 45.7 1 31 3 6.1
126 34.7 1 56 43.0 28 7.7
90 24.8 81 22.3 0 0
98 27.0 68 18.7 0 0

111 30.6 1 39 38.3 3 20 8 8.2
119 32.8 1 65 45.5 3 42 9 4.2
92 25.3 1 61 44.4 3 33 9 1.7
76 20.9 1 55 42.7 3 45 9 5.0
75 20.7 1 48 40.8 3 31 9 1.2
69 19.0 1 48 40.8 3 42 9 4.2
100 27.5 1 51 41.6 3 35 9 2.3
54 14.9 1 18 32.5 3 36 9 2.6
82 22.6 1 59 43.8 3 40 9 3.7
100 27.5 1 53 42.1 3 43 9 4.5
n, number of participants; %, percentage of participants.


with them the responsibility for success. The thirdmost popular choice was ‘‘baby sitter’’ (94.2%)which, together with the metaphors of ‘‘parent’’and ‘‘gardener’’ under the same conceptual cat-egory, conveys a strong sense of caring and love.

6.2. Comparing the metaphorical images ofelementary teacher, cooperating teacher, and selfas a future teacher

Table 4 compares the participants’ metaphor-ical images of their elementary teachers, theircooperating teachers, and themselves as futureteachers. In terms of the differences between parti-cipants’ images of selves and those they have oftheir elementary teachers, paired-samples t-testresults indicated that significant differencesexisted between the participants’ two types ofimages for nine out of 10 teacher-centered meta-phors and for all the student-centered metaphors(for each comparison, p< 0:05 ). As shown inTable 4, the participants believed that theirelementary teachers represented the images of‘‘shopkeeper’’, ‘‘driver’’, ‘‘jockey’’, ‘‘technician’’,‘‘potter’’, ‘‘doctor’’, ‘‘commander’’, ‘‘judge’’ and‘‘prison guard’’ more when compared with theirprofessional self-images. Conversely, such meta-phorical images of ‘‘parent’’, ‘‘baby sitter’’, ‘‘gar-dener’’, ‘‘juggler’’, ‘‘comedian’’, ‘‘tool provider’’,‘‘compass’’, ‘‘tour guide’’, ‘‘coach’’ and ‘‘conduc-tor’’ represented the participants’ professionalself-images more when compared with theirimages of their elementary teachers. Accordingly,overall the teacher candidates in this study appearto be less teacher-centered (X ¼ 16:17 ) and morestudent-centered (X ¼ 29:19 ) than their elemen-tary teachers (respectively, X ¼ 19:96 and 19:53 )(for each comparison, p ¼ 0:000 ).

With regard to the differences between parti-cipants’ images of selves and those they have oftheir cooperating teachers, paired-samples t-testresults indicated that significant differencesexisted between the participants’ two types ofimages for eight out of 10 teacher-centered meta-phors and for all the student-centered metaphors(for each comparison, p< 0:05 ). As shown inTable 4, the participants believed that their coop-erating teachers represented the images of ‘‘shop-

keeper’’, ‘‘driver’’, ‘‘jockey’’, ‘‘technician’’,

‘‘doctor’’, ‘‘commander’’, ‘‘judge’’ and ‘‘prison

guard’’ more when compared with their pro-

fessional self-images. Conversely, such metaphor-

ical images of ‘‘parent’’, ‘‘baby sitter’’,

‘‘gardener’’, ‘‘juggler’’, ‘‘comedian’’, ‘‘tool pro-

vider’’, ‘‘compass’’, ‘‘tour guide’’, ‘‘coach’’ and

‘‘conductor’’ represented the participants’ pro-

fessional self-images more when compared with

their images of their cooperating teachers.

Accordingly, overall the teacher candidates in this

study appear to be less teacher-centered

(X ¼ 16:17 ) and more student-centered

(X ¼ 29:19 ) than their cooperating teachers

(respectively, X ¼ 19:57 and 21:92 ) (for each

comparison, p ¼ 0:000 ).In examining the differences between parti-

cipants’ images of their elementary and cooperating

teachers, paired-samples t-test results indicated

that overall no significant difference existed

between the participants’ two types of images

with regard to the teacher-centered metaphors.

Yet, the participants believed that while their

cooperating teachers represented the images of

‘‘shopkeeper’’ and ‘‘mechanic’’ more when com-

pared with their images of their elementary teach-

ers, their elementary teachers represented the

images of ‘‘driver’’, ‘‘technician’’ and ‘‘prison

guard’’ more when compared with their images of

their cooperating teachers (for each comparison,

p< 0:05 ). With regard the to student-centered

metaphors, on the other hand, paired-samples t-

test results indicated that significant differences

existed between the participants’ two types of

images for nine out of 10 student-centered meta-

phors (for each comparison, p< 0:05 ). The parti-

cipants believed that their cooperating teachers

represented the images of ‘‘baby sitter’’, ‘‘gar-

dener’’, ‘‘juggler’’, ‘‘comedian’’, ‘‘tool provider’’,

‘‘compass’’, ‘‘tour guide’’, ‘‘coach’’ and ‘‘conduc-

tor’’ more when compared with their images of

their elementary teachers. Accordingly, overall

the participants perceived their cooperating teach-

ers as more student-centered (X ¼ 21:92 ) than

their own elementary teachers (X ¼ 19:53 )

(p ¼ 0:000 ).


Table 4

Comparing the metaphorical images of elementary teacher,

cooperating teacher, and self as a future teacher

X S
D t -test, p values
Elementary
Cooperating


Elementary
2.22 0 .75
Cooperating
2.37 0 .71 0 .006
Self
2.03 0 .81 0 .001 0.000

Elementary
1.69 0 .76
Cooperating
1.55 0 .74 0 .007
Self
1.04 0 .20 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.92 0 .78
Cooperating
1.87 0 .73 N S
Self
1.56 0 .62 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.89 0 .72
Cooperating
1.78 0 .70 0 .029
Self
1.61 0 .72 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
2.39 0 .71
Cooperating
2.36 0 .74 N S
Self
2.29 0 .62 0 .025 NS

Elementary
1.88 0 .74
Cooperating
1.79 0 .71 N S
Self
1.49 0 .63 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
2.17 0 .74
Cooperating
2.29 0 .73 0 .009
Self
2.22 0 .67 N S NS

Elementary
2.04 0 .81
Cooperating
2.10 0 .87 N S
Self
1.55 0 .63 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.86 0 .79
Cooperating
1.76 0 .79 N S
Self
1.21 0 .41 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.91 0 .79
Cooperating
1.71 0 .76 0 .001
Self
1.18 0 .38 0 .000 0.000
TOTAL

Elementary
19.96 3 .59
Cooperating
19.57 3 .58 N S
Self
16.17 3 .00 0 .000 0.000
Table 4 (continued )

X S
D t -test, p values
Elementary
Cooperating


Elementary
2.09 0 .72
Cooperating
2.18 0 .74 N S
Self
2.88 0 .34 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
2.09 0 .75
Cooperating
2.23 0 .80 0 .015
Self
2.93 0 .31 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.95 0 .74
Cooperating
2.25 0 .76 0 .000
Self
2.91 0 .33 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.88 0 .73
Cooperating
2.18 0 .81 0 .000
Self
2.94 0 .30 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.85 0 .73
Cooperating
2.14 0 .81 0 .000
Self
2.90 0 .33 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.92 0 .68
Cooperating
2.22 0 .74 0 .000
Self
2.94 0 .27 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
2.04 0 .72
Cooperating
2.20 0 .77 0 .002
Self
2.92 0 .28 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.73 0 .70
Cooperating
2.08 0 .75 0 .000
Self
2.92 0 .28 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
1.97 0 .69
Cooperating
2.23 0 .77 0 .000
Self
2.93 0 .30 0 .000 0.000

Elementary
2.01 0 .73
Cooperating
2.21 0 .77 0 .000
Self
2.94 0 .25 0 .000 0.000
Total

Elementary
19.53 5 .62
Cooperating
21.92 6 .49 0 .000
Self
29.19 1 .85 0 .000 0.000
X, mean; SD, standard deviation; NS, not significant

(p> 0:05 ).


6.3. Gender differences in participants’ professional

self-images

Table 5 reports the metaphors selected by both

male and female participants to describe their

professional self-images. An analysis of the meta-

phor choice of male and female participants

reveals that although both groups picked the

same metaphors as their most representative

images of selves, they ranked them in different

order. In contrasting the metaphor choices of

male and female participants, it appears that

more of the male participants tended to pick the

teacher-centered metaphors as their most rep-

resentative images of selves when compared to

the ratings of their male peers. Also, more of the

female students tended to pick the student-cen-

tered metaphors as their most representative

images of selves when compared to the ratings of

their male counterparts.In examining the differences between male and

female teacher education students’ perceptions of

their professional self-images, independent-sam-

ples t-test results confirmed that significant differ-

ences existed between male and female

participants’ preferences for seven out of 10

teacher-centered metaphors and for eight out of

10 student-centered metaphors (for each compari-

son, p< 0:05 ). With regard to the teacher-cen-

tered metaphors, mean responses of the

participants indicated that male teacher candi-

dates preferred the images of ‘‘shopkeeper’’,

‘‘driver’’, ‘‘jockey’’, ‘‘technician’’, ‘‘potter’’, ‘‘com-

mander’’ and ‘‘judge’’ more when compared with

the preferences of their female counterparts. On

the other hand, with regard to the student-cen-

tered metaphors, mean responses of the parti-

Table 5

Gender differences in participants’ professional self-images

Male (n ¼ 119) Female (n ¼ 224) t-test, p values
X S
D X SD

2.18 0 .84 1.95 0.78 0 .011
1.08 0 .27 1.02 0.16 0 .022
1.67 0 .69 1.51 0.57 0 .020
1.78 0 .75 1.53 0.70 0 .002
2.43 0 .71 2.22 0.56 0 .002
1.54 0 .67 1.46 0.60 N S
2.29 0 .70 2.19 0.66 N S
1.67 0 .64 1.49 0.63 0 .009
1.36 0 .48 1.14 0.34 0 .000
1.19 0 .40 1.17 0.38 N S
Total
17.19 3 .41 15.68 2.65 0 .000

2.82 0 .41 2.91 0.29 0 .011
2.84 0 .43 2.97 0.21 0 .000
2.84 0 .43 2.94 0.26 0 .007
2.88 0 .39 2.96 0.23 0 .014
2.82 0 .45 2.94 0.25 0 .001
2.88 0 .37 2.96 0.19 0 .006
2.88 0 .35 2.94 0.24 N S
2.88 0 .32 2.94 0.25 N S
2.86 0 .40 2.96 0.24 0 .002
2.89 0 .34 2.97 0.18 0 .005
Total
28.58 2 .66 29.49 1.18 0 .000
X, mean; SD, standard deviation; NS, not significant (p> 0:05 ).


cipants indicated that female teacher candidatespreferred the images of ‘‘parent’’, ‘‘baby sitter’’,‘‘gardener’’, ‘‘juggler’’, ‘‘comedian’’, ‘‘tool pro-vider’’, ‘‘coach’’ and ‘‘conductor’’ more whencompared with the preferences of their malecounterparts. Accordingly, overall female teachercandidates in this study appear to be less teacher-centered (X ¼ 15:68 ) and more student-centered(X ¼ 29:49 ) than their male peers (respectively,X ¼ 17:19 and 28:58 ) (for each comparison,p ¼ 0:000 ).

7. Discussion

Using a large Turkish university context as acase, the present study utilized 20 metaphoricalimages of classroom teaching to investigate 363exit level teacher education students’ perceptionsof their elementary teachers, their cooperatingteachers, and themselves as future teachers. Sev-eral major findings have emerged from thisresearch. First, the present study provides impor-tant data on the types of metaphors (i.e., edu-cational experiences and understandings) that exitlevel teacher education students have of them-selves, their elementary teachers and their cooper-ating teachers. From the analysis of the metaphorchoices of the participants, it can be argued thatat present the Turkish education system is highlyteacher-centered in character and that most ofthose who went through it strongly desire to havedifferent educational experiences from what wasoffered to them. The need for a shift from a moreteacher-centered to a more student-centeredschooling appears to be supported by both maleand female teacher candidates. The good news isthat the ones who believe that the education sys-tem needs significant reformation are also theones (i.e., teacher candidates) who will have thepower and qualifications to be able to change itin the event that their presently held beliefs donot change once they become a real classroomteacher.

This understanding strongly points to the needfor further research in Turkey to examinewhether exit level teacher education students’conceptions of teaching and learning change once

they start teaching. This is because role percep-tions of beginning teachers might change con-siderably once they enter the world of schoolingin different educational contexts. The question is:Do the root metaphors of exit level teacher edu-cation students change once they start teachingand become experienced in teaching? While thecurrent literature on teacher change providesnumerous examples from all over the world aboutthe existence of both stability and change in thebeliefs of student teachers after preservice teachertraining (e.g., Lewin and Akyeampong, 2002),attention must also be given to the direction ofthe change. Understanding more about thechanges in beginning teachers over time as theygain more experience and skills in different work-place conditions is an essential precursor toimproving the quality of the present educationsystem in Turkey.

Second, the data from this study indicate thatthe female teacher candidates tend to differ fromtheir male peers in significant ways. For example,findings from this study indicate that althoughthe majority of prospective classroom teachersare more oriented towards active student learning(e.g., the student-centered perspective) thanknowledge transmission (e.g., the teacher-cen-tered perspective), more of the female teachercandidates favor the student-centered metaphorsthan their male counterparts and vice versa. Thisis crucial because the current reform effortsregarding teaching and learning are stronglydominated by constructivist and social con-structivist perspectives as opposed to the behavio-rist theory, which dominated the field ofeducation for most of the past century (Holt-Reynolds, 2000). The constructivist and behavio-rist perspectives differ considerably in their viewsof knowledge and in the roles of the teacher andstudents in the teaching–learning process. Inshort, behaviorists emphasize the process ofknowledge transmission while constructivists putmore emphasis on the process of learning and therole of the student in particular. From the stand-point of behaviorists, the teacher plays a centralrole as the deliverer of knowledge. In contrast,from the constructivists’ point of view, knowledgeis assumed to be constructed by the students


themselves. Accordingly, the teacher is no longerassumed to be the transmitter of knowledge, butmore of the facilitator of students’ active learn-ing.

Third, all prospective classroom teachers in thisstudy tended to reject the metaphors which pro-jected the notions of standardization (i.e., ‘‘pass-enger–BUS–driver’’), judgement (i.e., ‘‘suspect–COURTROOM–judge’’), punishment (i.e.,‘‘criminal–PRISON–guard’’), competition (i.e.,‘‘race horse–HIPPODROME–jockey’’), curing(i.e., ‘‘patient–HOSPITAL–doctor’’), and control-ling (i.e., ‘‘soldier–ARMY–commander’’). Interms of the participants’ perceptions of theirprofessional self-images, nobody chose the abovefirst three metaphors while only less than 8% ofthem preferred the latter three. This findingclearly implies that the participants’ rejection ofsome metaphorical images is no less importantthan their positive choices. For example, the part-icipants’ overall tendency to reject the metaphor-ical images of teaching as controlling andjudgemental could imply that many elementaryteachers in the Turkish education system dospend a quite amount of time and effort to con-trol their students’ behavior and learning. Itcould also imply that prospective classroomteachers in this study tend to detach themselvesfrom the controlling and judgemental aspects ofteaching.

Again, the participants’ ratings for the ‘‘crimi-nal–PRISON–guard’’ metaphor suggest that 27%of them have been exposed to some forms of pun-ishment (e.g., corporal punishment) at differenttimes during their elementary schooling years,and 18.7% of them think that this situation is stillthe case for some of the present elementaryschool students. On the other hand, the parti-cipants’ rejection of this metaphorical imageclearly implies that punishment does not fit at allwith their professional self-images. In terms oftheir ratings for their most representative pro-fessional self-images, the ‘‘criminal–PRISON–guard’’ metaphor received no rating at all byboth male and female teacher candidates. Thistendency of the participants is crucial becausecorporal punishment plays a significant rolein the lives of children in many elementary

schools in Turkey as it also does in some otherdeveloping countries around the world (e.g.,Coultas and Lewin, 2002). Currently, there is ten-sion due to opposition between practice, whichoften favors some forms of corporal punishment,and preservice teacher training as well as theofficial policy, both of which discourage using itas a tool to discipline students in schools. Itappears that the use of corporal punishment inmany Turkish schools will remain as a contro-versial issue for a while because even though it isformally banned by the Ministry of Education, itis still practiced with varying degree of frequencyby many classroom teachers.

8. Conclusion

Students enter teacher training programs with areasonably well-developed set of personal beliefsabout what constitutes effective teaching andlearning formed over the years from their experi-ences as a student. While few of us would disputethe influence that former school teachers can haveon our teacher trainees, most of us would want toclaim for ourselves some form of influence ontheir future teaching roles and practices as theypass through our courses. Undoubtedly, wewould also hope that, through their studentteaching practices under the supervision of theircooperating teachers, our teacher trainees willdevelop a realistic view of teaching by having theopportunity to compare the theories of teachingwith the realities of everyday school work.From this point of view, this study providesinsights into the images prospective classroomteachers have of themselves as future teachers,their elementary teachers, and their cooperatingteachers.

In analyzing the Turkish context, findings fromthis study strongly point to the need for teachereducation systems to look more closely at howprospective teachers perceive themselves inrelationship to the teaching profession. They alsosuggest that teacher candidates’ implicitly heldimages of teaching, learning, and schooling needto be made more explicit and given voice inthe preservice teacher training process so as to


promote a deeper understanding of the teachingprofession. In this regard, in different phases (e.g.,in the entry or exit phase) of the teacher edu-cation program, student teachers could be askedto match their perceptions of teaching with differ-ent metaphorical images of ‘‘teacher’’. Thesematching exercises could lead to discussions ofstrengths and weaknesses of different theories ofteaching and serve as an instructional tool byopening dialogues on teaching and learning sit-uations in diverse teaching contexts betweenteacher educators and teacher trainees.

To conclude, the use of metaphor as a researchtool is a fruitful line of inquiry that merits furtherapplication in teaching and teacher education.Future research in the field of preservice teachereducation may take the following questions intoconsideration: (1) Do students from different aca-demic programs differ in terms of their metaphor-ical images of teaching and learning? (2) Do theroot metaphors of entry level teacher educationstudents change by the end of their preserviceteacher training or after their student teachingpractices? (3) Do differences exist between theprofessional self-images of exit level teacher edu-cation students and practicing teachers with dif-ferent teaching experiences? (4) Do differencesexist between prospective and practicing teachers’metaphorical images of ‘‘student’’ as learner?

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the two anonymousreviewers and the editor of International Journalof Educational Development for their valuablecontributions to this article.

References

Altan, M.Z., 1998. A call for change and pedagogy: a critical

analysis of teacher education in Turkey. European Journal

of Education 33, 407–417.

Ben-Peretz, M., Mendelson, N., Kron, F.W., 2003. How

teachers in different educational contexts view their roles.

Teaching and Teacher Education 19, 277–290.

Black, A.L., Halliwell, G., 2000. Accessing practical knowl-

edge: how? Why? Teaching and Teacher Education 16,

103–115.

Boostrom, R., 1998. ‘Safe spaces’: reflections on an edu-

cational metaphor. Journal of Curriculum Studies 30, 397–

408.

Borko, H., Mayfield, V., 1995. The roles of the cooperating

teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach.


BouJaoude, S., 2000. Conceptions of science teaching revealed

by metaphors and by answers to open-ended questions.

Journal of Science Teacher Education 11, 173–186.

Bozik, M., 2002. The college student as learner: insight gained

through metaphor analysis. College Student Journal 36,

142–151.

Bramald, R., Hardman, F., Leat, D., 1995. Initial teacher

trainees and their views of teaching and learning. Teaching

and Teacher Education 11, 23–31.

Bullough, R.V., Stokes, D.K., 1994. Analysing personal teach-

ing metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means

for encouraging professional development. American Edu-

cational Research Journal 31, 197–224.

Cakiroglu, E., Cakiroglu, J., 2003. Reflections on teacher edu-

cation in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education

26, 253–264.

Calderhead, J., Robson, M., 1991. Images of teaching: student

teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching

and Teacher Education 7, 1–8.

Carlson, T.B., 2001. Using metaphors to enhance reflective-

ness among preservice teachers. Journal of Physical Edu-

cation, Recreation and Dance 72, 49–53.

Carroll, J.B., Eifler, K.E., 2002. Servant, master, double-edged

sword: metaphors teachers use to discuss technology. Jour-

nal of Technology and Teacher Education 10, 235–246.

Carter, K., 1990. Meaning and metaphor: case knowledge in

teaching. Theory into Practice 29, 109–115.

Chiappe, D.L., Kennedy, J.M., Chiappe, P., 2003. Aptness is

more important than comprehensibility in preference for

metaphors and similes. Poetics 31, 51–68.

Collins, E.C., Green, J.L., 1990. Metaphors: the construction

of a perspective. Theory into Practice 29, 71–77.

Coultas, J.C., Lewin, K.M., 2002. Who becomes a teacher?

The characteristics of student teachers in four countries.

International Journal of Educational Development 22,

243–260.

Fain, M.A., 2001. Metaphors for learning: a cognitive exercise

for students. Research Strategies 18, 39–48.

Fisher, D., Grady, N., 1998. Teachers’ images of their schools

and perceptions of their work environments. School Effec-

tiveness and School Improvement 9, 334–348.

Forceville, C., 2002. The identification of target and source in

pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1–14.

Gillis, C., Johnson, C.L., 2002. Metaphor as renewal:

re-imagining our professional selves. English Journal 91,

37–43.

Guerrero, M.C.M., Villamil, O.S., 2002. Metaphorical con-

ceptualizations of ESL teaching and learning. Language

Teaching Research 6, 95–120.


Hagstrom, D., Hubbard, R., Hurtig, C., Mortola, P., Ostrow,

J., White, V., 2000. Teaching is like. . .? Educational Lead-

ership 57, 24–27.

Hoban, G., 2000. Using a reflective framework to study teach-

ing–learning relationships. Reflective Practice 1, 165–182.

Holt-Reynolds, D., 1992. Personal history-based beliefs as rel-

evant prior knowledge in coursework. American Edu-

cational Research Journal 29, 325–349.

Holt-Reynolds, D., 2000. What does the teacher do? Con-

structivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’ beliefs

about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Edu-

cation 16, 21–32.

Inbar, D., 1996. The free educational prison: metaphors and

images. Educational Research 28, 77–92.

James, P., 2002. Ideas in practice: fostering metaphoric think-

ing. Journal of Developmental Education 25, 26–33.

Kagan, D.M., 1992. Implications of research on teacher

beliefs. Educational Psychologist 27, 65–90.

Kemp, E., 1999. Metaphors as a tool for evaluation. Assess-

ment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24, 81–90.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Lewin, K.M., Akyeampong, K., 2002. From student teachers

to newly qualified teachers in Ghana: insights into becom-

ing a teacher. International Journal of Educational Devel-

opment 22, 339–352.

MacCormac, E.R., 1990. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MI.

Mahlios, M., Maxson, M., 1998. Metaphors as structures for

elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ thinking.

International Journal of Educational Research 29, 227–

240.

Marshall, H.H., 1990a. Beyond the workplace metaphor: the

classroom as a learning setting. Theory into Practice 29,

94–101.

Marshall, H.H., 1990b. Metaphor as an instructional tool in

encouraging student teacher reflection. Theory into Prac-

tice 29, 128–132.

Martinez, M.A., Sauleda, N., Huber, G.L., 2001. Metaphors

as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning.


Miller, S., 1987. Some comments on the utility of metaphors

for educational theory and practice. Educational Theory

37, 219–227.

Mizikaci, F., 2003. Quality systems and accredition in higher

education: an overview of Turkish higher education. Qual-

ity in Higher Education 9, 95–106.

Nettle, E.B., 1998. Stability and change in the beliefs of stu-

dent teachers during practice teaching. Teaching and

Teacher Education 14, 193–204.

Palmquist, R.A., 2001. Cognitive style and users’ metaphors

for the web: an exploratory study. Journal of Academic

Librarianship 27, 24–32.

Perry, C., Cooper, M., 2001. Metaphors are good mirrors:

reflecting on change for teacher educators. Reflective Prac-

tice 2, 41–52.

Popham, W.J., Sirotnik, K.A., 1992. Understanding Statistics

in Education. F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc, Itasca, IL.

Oxford, R.L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C.,

Lavine, R.Z., Saleh, A., Longhini, A., 1998. Clashing met-

aphors about classroom teachers: toward a systematic

typology for the language teaching field. System 26, 3–50.

Soder, R., 1998. Studying the education of educators: what we

can learn from other professions. Phi Delta Kappan 70,

299–305.

Tobin, K., 1990. Changing metaphors and beliefs: a master

switch for teaching? Theory into Practice 29, 122–127.

Vadeboncoeur, J.A., Torres, M.N., 2003. Constructing and

reconstructing teaching roles: a focus on generative meta-

phors and dichotomies. Discourse 24, 87–103.

Wallace, S., 2001. Guardian angels and teachers from hell:

using metaphor as a measure of schools’ experiences and

expectations of General National Vocational Qual-

ifications. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education 14, 727–739.

Weade, R., Ernst, G., 1990. Pictures of life in classrooms, and

the search for metaphors to frame them. Theory into

Practice 29, 133–140.

Weinstein, C.S., 1990. Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs

about teaching: implications for teacher education.


White, B., Smith, M.W., 1994. Metaphors in English edu-

cation: putting things in perspective. English Education 26,

157–176.

Yob, I.M., 2003. Thinking constructively with metaphors.

Studies in Philosophy and Education 22, 127–138.

YOK, 1998. Egitim Fakultesi Ogretmen Yetistirme Lisans

Programlari [Undergraduate Teacher Education Programs

of the Faculties of Education]. YOK, Ankara, Turkey.

Yung, B.H.W., 2001. Examiner, policeman or students’ com-

panion: teachers’ perceptions of their role in an assessment

reform. Educational Review 53, 251–260.

prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selves and comparing them to those they...

Documents