prospective teachers' metaphorical conceptualizations of learner

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 290–305

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Prospective teachers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of learner

Ahmet Saban*

Department of Primary Teaching, Ahmet Kelesoglu Faculty of Education, Selcuk University, Meram, Konya 42090, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 September 2008Received in revised form28 January 2009Accepted 24 March 2009

Keywords:Prospective teachersMetaphorical images of learnerDifferences based on gender, programme

type, and teacher trainee statusPhenomenological researchTurkey

* Tel.: þ90 332 3238220; fax: þ90 332 3238225.E-mail address: [email protected]

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.017

a b s t r a c t

This study investigated the metaphorical images that prospective teachers in Turkey formulated todescribe learners. Participants (N ¼ 2847) completed the prompt ‘‘A student is like . because .’’ toindicate their conceptualizations of learner. Data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.Altogether 98 well-articulated metaphorical images were identified and 12 conceptual themes weredeveloped. Significant associations were detected between teacher trainees’ gender, programme typeand status in programme, and the 12 conceptual themes. Metaphors provided a cognitive lens intoprospective teachers’ thinking and cognition. Implications for teacher education and further research arediscussed.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and purpose

Postulated by George Lakoff (a linguist) and Mark Johnson (aphilosopher) in their seminal book of Metaphors We Live By in 1980,the cognitive theory of metaphor maintains that ‘‘most of what wethink, experience and do is very much a matter of metaphor’’ (p. 3).From the standpoint of the cognitive theory, far from being a merefigurative or decorative device, metaphors structure our percep-tions, thoughts, and actions. They act as a lens, a screen, or a filterthrough which a subject is (re)viewed and become a mental modelfor thinking about something in light of another. The metaphoricalexpression of ‘‘A student is like a white page’’, for instance, refersnot just to what students are like, but indeed to what it is like to bea learner.

1.1. The cognitive function of metaphor

Metaphor involves ‘‘understanding and experiencing one kindof thing in terms of another’’ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 5).According to MacCormac (1990, p. 9), ‘‘To describe the unknown,we must resort to concepts that we know and understand, and thatis the essence of a metaphor – an unusual juxtaposition of thefamiliar with the unfamiliar’’. Thus, metaphor employs a cross-

All rights reserved.

domain mapping in the conceptual system. To put it in Quale’swords:

It is a descriptive analogy, serving to illuminate whateverphenomenon A is being considered, by drawing ‘lines of asso-ciation’ to some other phenomenon B that we feel we alreadyunderstand. The qualification ‘already understand’ is essentialhere: the metaphor is asymmetric, in the sense that in thecontext of explaining A, the referent phenomenon B is assumedto be understood! Thus, some (not all) characteristics of B areused to explain . some corresponding characteristics of A.(Quale, 2002, p. 447)

It is suggested that metaphors do not prove or demonstrateanything new by themselves, but enable us to see in a new lightwhat we are doing or experiencing. Using a metaphor for teaching,for example, is not a way of doing teaching; it is rather a way oftalking about teaching. Thus, a ‘‘metaphor is employed when onewants to explore and understand something esoteric, abstract,novel, or highly speculative’’ (Yob, 2003, p. 134). Once expressed,however, metaphors also project a form of argument or a genuinepreference for something over another. As Kliebard pointed outabout three decades ago:

To see the school as if it were a factory and the curriculum asa means of production is not merely to make an observation;that metaphor has imbedded in it an element of persuasion, andone who is not critically aware of the power of metaphor caneasily become its victim. (Kliebard, 1982, p. 15)

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0742051X

http://www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/crad

A. Saban / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 290–305 291

1.2. The practical value of metaphor

Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) theoretical approach to metaphor ascognition ‘‘posits a dialectic relationship between the social and thecognitive, whereby the mind and, by extension, the metaphoricalconceptualizations that mediate mental processes are seen as bothproducts and determinants of the social environment’’ (Guerrero &Villamil, 2002, p. 96). This makes metaphor a powerful cognitivetool for educators in search of meaning and sense of self. In Blackand Halliwell’s (2000) study of 14 Australian pre-school teachers,for example, one participant explained her self-image of beinga pre-school teacher with the ‘‘erosion’’ metaphor as follows:

Sometimes I feel like an island. Years come and children come tovisit a while, have the fun they can, and learn what they can thenthey leave again – like tourists. The island (me) is providing asmuch for them as possible while they are there. Part of theisland is being eroded by wind, ocean etc. – like how I feel whenI cannot do much for a particular child – I’m being worn out. Ofcourse the other side of the island has a resort where people arehaving a great time and are completely unaware of how theother side of the island is being worn away. Even though theisland has solid foundations and is not going anywhere despitecyclones and bad weather something must be done about theeroding section or in time it will all wear away (Black & Halli-well, 2000, p. 108).

Through the ‘‘erosion’’ metaphor, thus, this teacher developedan awareness of the demands and pressures of her work in child-care, and of her need to take some ‘‘erosion protection’’ measures.The metaphor also helped her identify her major dilemmaregarding teaching pre-school children (i.e., How to cope with thepressures of teaching pre-school children while, at the same time,trying to meet their individual needs and interests?) and made herexamine how her current emotions and actions affected herteaching in action. In short, as was the case for this pre-schoolteacher, metaphor construction can be a liberating experience foreducators by helping them understand the professional circum-stances that they are currently involved in.

1.3. Metaphors of teaching and learning

Within the educational context, metaphors play an importantrole in gaining insight into school people’s thinking and reasoningabout teaching and learning. Inbar (1996), for example, collectedabout 7042 metaphorical images provided by 409 students and 254educators in Israel and found that about 18% of educators and 7% ofstudents imagined learners as ‘‘empty receptacles’’ (e.g., cup).Again, about 10% of educators’ and 3% of students’ metaphorsinvolved images of learners as ‘‘clay’’ (e.g., dough). Perhaps a morecritical finding of the study was that about 33% of students and 8%of educators conceptualized learners as ‘‘captive beings’’ (e.g.,slave).

Similarly, Bozlk (2002) asked 49 freshmen enrolled in a generaleducation cluster course at a mid-western university in the UnitedStates to create metaphors for themselves as learners at four pointsduring an academic year (the first day of class, at mid-term, the lastday of class, and the following semester). As a result of this exercise,a total of 35 well-articulated metaphors were collected. Findingsindicated that most students tend to come to higher educationseeing themselves as passive learners, ready to soak up theteachers’ knowledge (e.g., sponge). They are also concerned withretaining their information once they acquire it (e.g., person withAlzheimer’s).

Do prospective and experienced teachers view teaching andlearning differently? Martinez, Sauleda, and Huber (2001) analyzed

the metaphorical images of 50 experienced teachers and comparedthem with those of 38 education major seniors in Spain. Findingsrevealed that 57% of experienced teachers and 56% of prospectiveteachers shared traditional metaphors depicting teaching andlearning as ‘‘transmission of knowledge’’. Moreover, about 38% ofexperienced teachers and 22% of preservice teachers expressed‘‘constructivist metaphors’’. While only 5% of the metaphors ofexperienced teachers conceived learning as a ‘‘social process’’, 22%of preservice teachers’ metaphors reflected this conceptual theme.

Do variations exist in prospective teachers’ thinking of teaching andlearning? Saban, Kocbeker, and Saban (2007) investigated 1142Turkish preservice teachers’ metaphorical images of teacher.Findings revealed that while prospective Primary teachers gener-ated more ‘‘shaping-oriented’’ (e.g., sculptor) metaphors, prospec-tive English teachers produced more ‘‘facilitation-oriented’’ (e.g.,compass) metaphors, and prospective Computer teachers providedmore ‘‘transmission-oriented’’ (e.g., public fountain) metaphors.Again, females appeared to be more ‘‘counselling-oriented’’ (e.g.,psychologist) than males who in turn provided more ‘‘cooperation-oriented’’ (e.g., tour guide) metaphors. Although no statisticallysignificant class level differences were detected, entry-levelparticipants appeared to be more ‘‘growth-oriented’’ (e.g.,gardener) than their exit-level peers, who in turn generated more‘‘facilitation-oriented’’ (e.g., lighthouse) metaphors.

Do perceptions of prospective teachers change over the course ofteacher training? Leavy, McSorley, and Bote (2007) examined thechanges in 124 Irish and American first-year preservice teachers’beliefs about teaching and learning by asking them to providemetaphors at the beginning and the end of the semester. Resultsshowed that 49% of teacher trainees’ initial metaphors gatheredaround the behaviourist perspective, followed by 24% constructivistmetaphors, 9% socio-cognitive metaphors, and 18% self-referentialmetaphors. Classification of the metaphors after training yieldeda significant increase in the constructivist metaphors (44%), fol-lowed by 42% behaviourist metaphors, 6% socio-cognitive meta-phors, and 8% self-referential metaphors.

Do prospective teachers’ self-images differ from the images theyhave of their former and mentor teachers? Saban (2004) investigated363 exit-level Turkish teacher candidates’ metaphorical images ofselves and compared them with the ones they had about their bothformer school teachers and current mentor teachers. Data for thestudy were gathered through the administration of a Likert-stylequestionnaire consisting of 20 metaphorical images of teacher (i.e.,shopkeeper, driver, jockey, technician, potter, doctor, mechanic,commander, judge, prison-guard, parent, baby-sitter, gardener,juggler, comedian, tool provider, compass, tour guide, coach, andconductor). The first 10 metaphors symbolized the teacher-centredperspective while the latter 10 metaphors represented the student-centred perspective in education. According to the results,prospective teachers appeared to be less teacher-centred and morestudent-centred than both of their former and mentor teachers.

Do teachers in different work contexts conceive their teaching rolesand identities differently? Ben-Peretz, Mendelson, and Kron (2003)investigated 60 Israeli vocational high school teachers’ images ofself in different work contexts to see if teachers’ workplaceconditions affected their perceptions of professional self. Half of theteachers taught Group 1 (high-achieving) students and the otherhalf taught Group 2 (low-achieving) students. Findings indicatedthat out of the three dominant pictorial metaphors (i.e., animalkeeper, conductor, and shopkeeper), 35% of teachers chose theanimal keeper metaphor, and the Group 2 teachers preferred thischoice more. About 30% of teachers chose the conductor metaphor,with the Group 1 teachers inclining towards this choice more. Theshopkeeper metaphor (23.3%) was picked by both groups ofteachers about the same level.

A. Saban / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 290–305292

Do cross-cultural similarities/differences exist within the meta-phorical images of teaching and learning? A group of educators fromthe United States, Brazil and Argentina (see Oxford et al., 1998)explored conceptions of teacher by collecting metaphors fromstudent-written and teacher-composed narratives, interviews, andarticles and texts authored by education theorists. In combining theresults of these parallel inquiries, 14 distinct metaphors emerged todescribe teachers, and they were organized according to four majorphilosophical viewpoints that have shaped educational thoughtthrough the centuries (see Table 1). Likewise, Guerrero and Villamil(2002) asked six male and 16 female teachers in Puerto Rico toprovide the metaphorical images with which they were mostreadily associated. As a result of this exercise, 28 teacher-imageswere identified, out of which nine conceptual themes were devel-oped (see Table 1). More recently, Saban et al. (2007) explored 1142Turkish teacher education students’ conceptions of teacher. Alto-gether 64 well-articulated metaphorical images were identified,out of which 10 conceptual themes were also developed (see Table1). Table 1 compares these three studies with regard to theirconceptual categories and exemplar metaphors for teacher.

The comparison of these three studies suggests that majorcross-cultural similarities exist in the metaphorical conceptualiza-tions of teaching and learning. The social order perspective, forexample, conceives learning as a process of adapting to the prev-alent societal norms, and so all the conceptual categories (andexemplar metaphors) representing this perspective put the teacherin the role of a social engineer who is to mould students for theneeds of society. Again, the cultural transmission perspectiveconceives learning as a passive process of knowledge acquisition,and so all the conceptual categories (and exemplar metaphors)representing this perspective put the teacher in the role ofa transmitter who is to transfer the cultural heritage of the societyin which s/he lives to the students. The learner-centred growthperspective, on the other hand, conceives learning as an activeprocess of schemata construction, and so all the conceptual cate-gories (and exemplar metaphors) representing this perspective putthe teacher in the role of a nurturer who is to cultivate the personalgrowth and development of each individual in the classroom.Likewise, the social reform perspective conceives learning as anauthentic participation in the activities of a social community, andso all the conceptual categories (and exemplar metaphors)

Table 1A comparison of three studies with regard to their CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES and [exem

Oxford et al. (1998) Guerrero and Villamil (2002)

SOCIAL ORDER[manufacturer, competitor,hanging judge, doctor,mind-and-behaviour controller]

ARTIST [potter]REPAIRER [mechanic of the mind]GYM INSTRUCTOR [person starting an aerobics

CULTURAL TRANSMISSION[conduit, repeater]

PROVIDER OF KNOWLEDGE [moon, wire in a thtelevision set, sun, missile, tree full of apples]

LEARNER-CENTRED GROWTH[nurturer, lover or spouse,scaffolder, entertainer, delegator]

NURTURER [bee, busy bee, Mother Nature, gardPROVIDER OF TOOLS [tool carrier]

SOCIAL REFORM[acceptor, learning partner]

CHALLENGER [snag in the river, window to thelion tamer, gateway to the future, shooting starCOOPERATIVE LEADER [coach, little leagues coamovie/theatre director, instrument of God, symINNOVATOR [explorer, convertible car]

representing this perspective put the teacher in the role of a socialreformer whose main role is to facilitate the creation of a demo-cratic community.

What is critical here is that the participants generated manycommon metaphors despite the differences in the socio-culturalbackgrounds of the societies where the three studies wereconducted. For example, metaphors related with nurturing andmanufacturing were used in all of them while some metaphorsrelated with ‘‘nature’’, such as ‘‘sun’’ and ‘‘tree’’, were used intwo (see Saban et al., 2007; Guerrero & Villamil, 2002). On theother hand, it is also interesting that some metaphors such as‘‘lion tamer’’ and ‘‘bullfighter’’ (see Guerrero & Villamil, 2002),‘‘lover or spouse’’ (see Oxford et al., 1998), ‘‘shepherd’’ (seeSaban et al., 2007) were used in only one of the studies, whichmight suggest that they reflect the features people are morefamiliar with in the socio-cultural environments where thestudies were held.

1.4. Aims of the study

The analysis of the pertinent research literature indicates thatmetaphors can reveal a multitude of teaching and learningconceptions. Furthermore, gender (male vs. female), programmetype (primary teaching vs. subject teaching), or teacher status(entry-level teacher trainee, exit-level teacher candidate, or expe-rienced teacher) seem to be major factors to differentiate suchprevailing conceptions. Conducted within the framework of thecognitive theory of metaphor and based on the Turkish socio-cultural background context, this study also intended to investigatethe learner-images of Turkish prospective teachers. Specifically, thefollowing questions guided this study:

� What metaphorical images do Turkish preservice teachers useto describe learners?� What conceptual themes can be derived from these meta-

phorical images?� Do teacher trainees’ gender, programme type, and status in

programme affect their conceptualizations of learners?� What implications can be derived for teacher training and

further research?

plar metaphors] for teacher.

Saban et al. (2007)

class]

MOLDER/CRAFTSPERSON [architect, baker, carpenter,constructor, contractor, cook, honeybee, ironworker,jeweller, mill, miner, painter, potter, sculptor, tailor,technician, weaver]CURER/REPAIRER [doctor, mechanic, medicine]SUPERIOR AUTHORITY FIGURE [brain, locomotive,shepherd, ship captain]

ick wall, KNOWLEDGE PROVIDER [book, candle, computer,flower, fountain, jug, light, pen, rain, shopkeeper,spring, sun, television, tree/fruit tree, writer/poet]

ener] NURTURER/CULTIVATOR [chameleon, farmer, gardener, soil]FACILITATOR/SCAFFOLDER [bridge, compass, flashlight,ladder, lighthouse, North Star, road map, taxi driver,torch, traffic signs]ENTERTAINER [actor/actress, stand-up comedian]COUNSELOR [companion, psychologist, friend, parent]

world, bullfighter,]ch, trail guide,phony director]

CHANGE AGENT [fashion designer, scriptwriter]COOPERATIVE/DEMOCRATIC LEADER[coach, conductor, tour guide]


2. Turkish context

With a population of more than 70 million, the contemporaryTurkey comes from an Asiatic–Islamic socio-cultural and educa-tional background. With the establishment of the Turkish Republicin 1923 as a democratic and secular state, however, Turkey soonbecame concerned with westernizing its education system. Thepresent Turkish education system consists of pre-school, primary,secondary, and higher education institutions. Compulsory primaryeducation, which may be preceded by a non-compulsory pre-school year, was increased from five to eight years in 1997. Itinvolves the education of 6–14 years old children and is free at Stateschools. Currently, there are about 10 846 930 children receivingprimary education in 34 656 schools with 402 829 teachers, and thegross enrolment ratio at this level is approximately 96% (Ministry ofNational Education [MoNE], 2008). Secondary education is not yetcompulsory, but it was extended from three to four years in 2005.Students at this level may choose to go to a general or a vocational/technical high school. Currently, there are about 3 386 717 studentsreceiving secondary education in 7934 schools with 187 665teachers, and the gross enrolment ratio at this level is approxi-mately 87% (MoNE, 2008). Students gain access to higher educationinstitutions based on their scores from the nationwide studentselection examination. Currently, there are about 68 state and 31private universities established by foundations (Higher EducationCouncil [HEC], 2008), and the gross enrolment ratio at this level isabout 35% of the relevant age group (MoNE, 2008).

Preparation for teaching requires the acquisition of knowledgeand skills in three different domains which include general culture(about 20%), special subject training (about 50%), and pedagogy(about 30%). Today, there are 67 faculties of education in 5 privateand 62 state universities that offer programmes for trainingteachers (HEC, 2008). Since the establishment of the first Turkishteacher training institution (the Darulmuallimin) in 1848, manydifferent models of teacher training have been implemented toimprove teacher education in Turkey. In 1926, for example, twotypes of teacher training schools, both of which were mainlysecondary schools, were designed to meet the different demands ofrural and urban areas (Cakiroglu & Cakiroglu, 2003). With theacceptance of the National Education Basic Act No. 1739 in 1973,however, all teachers were required to be trained in highereducation institutions, and in 1981 all the responsibilities andactivities of teacher training were transferred from MoNE to theuniversities (Altan, 1998). A current reform initiative in Turkishteacher education has been introduced through the NationalEducation Development Project with the following focus areas(Grossman, Onkol, & Sands, 2007; Grossman & Sands, 2008):

� There was a shortage of primary school teachers and theextension of compulsory primary schooling from 5 to 8 years in1997 demanded more teachers in a very short time. Thus, therestructured faculties of education were required to opennew programmes to educate future teachers. Also, a new

Table 2Information about the participants.

Prospective primary teachers f (%) Prospective subject teachers

Science f (%) Computer f (%)

Male 549 (39.4) 83 (32.9) 140 (70.4)Female 845 (60.6) 169 (67.1) 59 (29.6)Entry level 709 (50.9) 125 (49.6) 94 (47.2)Exit level 685 (49.1) 127 (50.4) 105 (52.8)Total 1394 (49) 252 (17.3) 199 (13.7)

The ages of the participants ranged from 17 to 25 years (M ¼ 20.48 years, SD ¼ 1.75).

master’s-without-thesis programme was introduced for highschool teachers.� Pedagogy was neglected as a field of teaching and research in

the faculties of education. Faculties of education and arts/science duplicated each other in the teaching of subjectknowledge. Thus, arts/science faculties would teach subjectknowledge while faculties of education would focus more onmethodology.� Preservice teacher work was limited in terms of time spent and

activities done in schools. Thus, new faculty–school partner-ships were set up to provide prospective teachers with morestudent teaching experiences during their training period.� Coordination between MoNE, HEC and the faculties of educa-

tion was weak. Hence, a better coordination between thosewho prepare teachers (i.e., HEC and faculties of education) andthose who employ them (i.e., MoNE) was envisaged.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants for this study included 2847 teacher educationstudents enrolled in the Ahmet Kelesoglu Faculty of Education ofSelcuk University in Turkey. Overall, prospective Primary Teachers[PT] (i.e., classroom teacher candidates for grades 1–5) constituted49% of the participants (see Table 2) while prospective SubjectTeachers [ST] for grades 6–8 came from five different programmes:Science (17.3%), Computer (13.7%), Turkish (35.1%), Math (14.7%), andSocial Studies (19.1%). Participants included all the teacher traineesin the specific programmes during the 2007–2008 academic year,excluding those who were absent or not available for some reason atthe time the study was being carried out. The response rate wasabout 95%, and this proportion was calculated based on the elimi-nation of 137 papers for the reasons explained in the section of‘‘Coding and elimination stage’’ below. Overall, females constituted59.1% of the participants. The distribution of gender across the twomajor programmes was as follows: 39.4% males and 60.6% females inthe primary teaching programme and 42.4% males and 57.6% femalesin the subject teaching programmes. The sample was composed of1459 entry-level (i.e., freshmen þ sophomore) and 1388 exit-level(i.e., junior þ senior) teacher candidates. Their distribution acrossthe two main programmes was as follows: 50.9% entry-leveland 49.1% exit-level teacher candidates in the primary teachingprogramme and 51.6% entry-level and 48.4% exit-level teachercandidates in the subject teaching programmes. Finally, the agesof prospective teachers ranged from 17 to 25 years (M ¼ 20.48years, SD ¼ 1.75).

3.2. Data collection process

Data were collected in Turkish during the spring of 2008through the use of the prompt ‘‘A student is like . because .’’

Total f (%)

Turkish f (%) Math f (%) Social Studies f (%) Subtotal f (%)

133 (26.1) 104 (48.6) 156 (56.1) 616 (42.4) 1165 (40.9)377 (73.9) 110 (51.4) 122 (43.9) 837 (57.6) 1682 (59.1)254 (49.8) 122 (57) 155 (55.8) 750 (51.6) 1459 (51.2)256 (50.2) 92 (43) 123 (44.2) 703 (48.4) 1388 (48.8)510 (35.1) 214 (14.7) 278 (19.1) 1453 (51) 2847 (100)


Simply, a blank piece of paper with this prompt on top of the pagewas distributed to all participants, asking them to complete it byfocusing on a single metaphorical image. Also, three close-endeddemographic questions (i.e., gender, program type, and class level)were included at the bottom of the page for comparison purposes.The resemblance between the ‘‘metaphor topic’’ (i.e., student) andthe ‘‘metaphor vehicle’’ (i.e., source domain) was emphasizedthrough the use of the words ‘‘like’’ and ‘‘because’’. In this way,participants were expected to make their implicit beliefs explicit.Participants were given roughly 15 min to provide their metaphorsas their immediate reactions to the learner-phenomenon ratherthan writing exhaustive essays on the topic. For the majority ofthem, the 15-min time duration was long enough to generatea solid metaphorical image to represent their thinking (of learners)best. Finally, all the participants were requested permission fortheir essays to be used in the study and were assured that theircomments would remain anonymous (i.e., no names were asked).

3.3. Data analysis process

The analysis of the metaphorical images encompassed thefollowing stages and actions.

3.3.1. Coding and elimination stageIn the first stage, all the metaphorical images supplied by the

participants were simply coded (such as dough, parrot, etc.), andthose papers in which a metaphorical image was not clearly artic-ulated were eliminated. For example, some participants simply didnot write anything at all (i.e., blank paper). Some provided state-ments of views about certain characteristics of students instead ofintroducing a recognizable metaphorical image (e.g., ‘‘A student isan active participant in the learning process.’’). Again, albeitmentioning a metaphor, some could not provide any rationale fortheir metaphorical reasoning (e.g., ‘‘A student is like a parasite.’’).Finally, some metaphors were peculiar so they could not be placedunder a clearly recognizable conceptual theme (e.g., ‘‘A student is

Table 3A thematic classification of the 98 metaphorical images for learner.

Conceptual theme f (%) Metaphor

Raw material 644 (22.6) Dough 208, clay 150, log 79,book 20, grain of wheat 19, ca

Developing organism 605 (21.3) Seedling 361, seed 158, childnewborn calf 2

Empty vessel 524 (18.4) White page 234, soil 101, habag 5, fridge 3, balloon 2, ba

Significant being 358 (12.6) Flower 238, mine 83, treasur

Absolute compliant 253 (8.9) Robot 76, race horse 69, slavprisoner 4, chess pawn 3, wa

Knowledge recipient 111 (3.9) Sponge 30, video camera 15,photographer 5, owl 4, taperoot of a tree 3, mill 2, sunflo

Knowledge reflector 101 (3.5) Mirror 49, parrot 31, moon

Knowledge constructor 84 (3) Honeybee 35, detective 27, sphunter 2, journalist 2

Defective being 51 (1.8) Patient 33, password 7, stree

Social participant 42 (1.5) Ant 29, tourist 4, actor/actres

Knowledge carrier 38 (1.3) Porter 29, donkey 3, camel 2

Social capital 36 (1.3) Investment 30, natural resou

Emboldening has been used to highlight the dominant metaphors.Italic type has been used to denote the common metaphors across participants’ gender,Numbers indicate the total frequencies (and percentages) of participants and metaphors

like a word written on the beach because s/he is always silent inthe classroom.’’). Hence, because of these reasons, altogether 137papers were eliminated.

3.3.2. Sample metaphor compilation and translation stageIn the second stage, the coded 98 metaphors were organized in

alphabetical order and were scrutinized to choose a sampleexpression that represented each identified metaphorical imagebest. For example, the metaphorical image of ‘‘seedling’’ wasmentioned by 361 participants (see Table 3). So after going throughthe 361 hand-written essays, the one paper that was believed torepresent the ‘‘seedling’’ image best was picked. This procedurewas followed for all of the 95 metaphors which were mentioned bytwo or more participants. Each of the remaining three metaphoricalimages was developed by only one participant, and so their paperswere used to represent the metaphors of ‘‘overhead projector’’,‘‘draft of a book’’, and ‘‘bridge’’. Nonetheless, the metaphorsproduced by the participants contained varying degrees of detail.Some were explained by one or two sentences at most while otherswere elaborated extensively. So quotes in vivo were taken from theparticipants’ metaphorical images and three consecutive dots (.)were used to represent the eliminated content.

At this stage, the compilation of a metaphorical list (seeAppendix A) was a necessary step, considering the number of theparticipants and the amount of data collected in the study. Thisaction was also practically valuable for two important reasons. First,the list was used as a reference point for the grouping of the 98metaphors into certain conceptual themes (see the discussionbelow in the section of ‘‘Sorting and categorization stage’’). Second,since the interpretations of the findings were based on the analysisof the 98 metaphorical images included in this list, it was also usedas a means to validate the analysis of the study data (see thediscussion below in the section of ‘‘Establishing the inter-coderreliability rate’’).

In the second stage, all the 98 exemplar images in the meta-phorical list were also translated from Turkish to English. All the

f (%)

stone 47, play dough 41, water 35, iron 21,rpet 13, fabric 11

11 (11.2)

54, son/daughter 13, apprentice 12, chick 5, 7 (7.1)

rd disc 81, trash can 52, box 18, cup 17, storeroom 5,nk account 2, dam 2, diary 2

13 (13.2)

e 19, ocean 9, island 5, iceberg 4 6 (6.1)

e 59, puppet 16, soldier 12, cavy 7, circus animal 4,gon of a train 3

10 (10.2)

customer 13, cow 9, antenna 6, beggar 6, TV viewer 6,recorder 4, blood-sucking insect 3, magnet 3,wer 2

15 (15.3)

9, star 6, printer 3, copy machine 2, overhead projector 1 7 (7.1)

ider 6, explorer 3, fisherman 4, philosopher 3, adventurer 2, 9 (9.1)

t kid 4, broken car 2, psychopath 2, virus 2, draft of a book 1 7 (7.1)

s 4, footballer 3, musician 2 5 (5.1)

, suitcase 2, memory machine 2 5 (5.1)

rce 5, bridge 1 3 (3.1)

programme type, and status in programme.in each conceptual theme.


translations were made by the author of this article himself duringthe summer of 2008. Then the translated version of the list wasgiven to a colleague from the English Language Department ofSelcuk University and she was asked to translate it into Turkish. Inthe event that any mismatch was identified between the two lists,discussions were held with her regarding the mismatched words,phrases, or sentences, etc., until a complete consensus was reached.

3.3.3. Sorting and categorization stageThe ultimate aim in the third stage was to abstract from the 98

surface metaphors the generative categories (i.e., conceptualthemes) that they represented. Thus, each metaphorical imagewas analyzed to characterize its elements: (1) the topic, (2) thevehicle, and (3) the ground. The topic is the subject of a meta-phoric expression and the vehicle is the source domain to whichthe metaphor topic is compared while the ground refers to thenature of the relationship between the metaphor topic and themetaphor vehicle. For example, likening the relationship betweena teacher and a student (i.e., the topic) to ‘‘the relationshipbetween a jug full of water and an empty cup’’ (i.e., the vehicle) isto conceive learners as empty receptacles and learning as ‘‘wait-ing to be filled with teachers’ knowledge’’ (i.e., the ground). Thus,the metaphorical image of student as ‘‘an empty cup’’ (PT/4/F)1

was grouped under the conceptual theme of student as ‘‘emptyvessel’’. As a result of this inductive content analysis, 12 majorconceptual categories were identified (see Appendix B). The 98metaphorical images formulated by the participants represent the‘‘surface images of learners’’ while the 12 conceptual themesabstracted out of them represent the ‘‘generative categories forlearners’’, each encompassing those metaphoric images withsimilar emphasis.

3.3.4. Establishing the inter-coder reliability rateInter-coder reliability assesses the consistency of a coding

system used in a study. Since the critical step of the data analysisprocess was the abstraction of the 12 generative categories and theclassification of the 98 metaphors into them, a colleague2 was askedto sort the 98 metaphorical images into the 12 conceptual themes.For this purpose, the colleague was provided with two lists: (1) thelist of the 98 exemplar metaphorical images (i.e., Appendix A) and(2) the list of the 12 conceptual themes with their main character-istics (i.e., Appendix B). The colleague was asked to read eachexemplar metaphor and place it into one of the 12 conceptualthemes, without leaving any of them out. To estimate the inter-coder reliability rate, Miles and Huberman’s (1994) formula(i.e., Reliability ¼ Agreement/Agreement þ Disagreement � 100)was used. The final inter-coder agreement rate in qualitative dataanalysis is expected to approach or exceed 90%.

Initially, the metaphors of flower, mine, treasure, water, andmemory machine had been put by this researcher under theconceptual themes of ‘‘developing organism’’, ‘‘raw material’’,‘‘social capital’’, ‘‘absolute compliant’’, and ‘‘empty vessel’’, respec-tively. Since the colleague placed these five metaphors underdifferent categories than the researcher, the initial reliability wasfound to be (93/93 þ 5 � 100¼) 94%. However, after havinga discussion with the colleague and reaching a complete consensus,

1 Words in bold specify the vehicle of the metaphorical expressions. The firstcapital letters in the parentheses represent the programme type of the participants(i.e., PT ¼ primary teaching; ST ¼ subject teaching). Moreover, the single numbersin the parentheses indicate the teacher trainees’ status in programme (i.e., 1 ¼ entrylevel; 4 ¼ exit level) while the single capital letters show their gender (i.e.,M ¼ male; F ¼ female).

2 The colleague did his graduate studies at Ohio University in the United States atthe same time with this researcher.

they were placed into the present categories based on the collea-gue’s analysis and categorization, and thus yielding a final reli-ability of 100%.

3.3.5. Analyzing data quantitativelyIn the last stage, all the study data were entered into the SPSS

programme to calculate the frequencies (f) and percentages (%) ofthe metaphorical images in each conceptual category. Because ofthe nominal or classificatory nature of the study data, a nonpara-metric statistical technique (namely, the chi-square – c2-test) wasalso employed (see Popham & Sirotnik, 1992) to compare the 12conceptual themes across the teacher trainees’ gender, programmetype, and status in programme.

4. Results

Altogether teacher trainees produced 98 well-articulatedmetaphors for learner (see Table 3). The mean student number permetaphor (i.e., 2847/98) is about 29. This means that out of 98metaphors, 27 were dominant (mentioned by 29 or more partici-pants), whereas 71 metaphors were produced by 28 and lessparticipants. This section first introduces the 12 conceptual themesthat were abstracted from the 98 metaphorical images by high-lighting their main characteristics. Subsequently, it deals with theeffects of the teacher trainees’ gender, programme type, and statusin programme on their conceptualizations of learners.

4.1. Conceptual themes

4.1.1. Student as raw material‘‘Raw material’’ was the most prevalent learner-image. Alto-

gether 644 participants (22.6%) and 11 metaphors (11.2%) consti-tuted this conceptual theme with the metaphors of dough 208, clay150, log 79, stone 47, play dough 41, and water 35 being dominant.Main characteristics of this category of metaphors include thefollowing:

� The student is a raw material, like the ‘‘play dough . (that) isshaped according to the viewpoints of his/her teachers’’ (ST/4/F).� The teacher is a master who ‘‘shapes students like the potter

shapes the clay, giving them any shape that s/he likes’’ (PT/4/M).� The student is expected to take all kinds of shapes, like the ‘‘water

. that takes the shape of the cup in which it is poured’’ (ST/4/F).� Teaching is producing students as socially useful products, like ‘‘a

book that is being written by a writer’’ (ST/4/M) or ‘‘a carpetthat is woven loop by loop’’ (PT/4/F).� The teacher shapes students into a prescribed societal mould, like

a baker who kneads the ‘‘dough’’ to make pastry out of it (ST/4/F), a tailor who makes clothes out of the ‘‘fabric’’ (PT/4/F), anironworker who makes useful tools for people out of the ‘‘iron’’(ST/1/M) or a sculptor who ‘‘changes a piece of meaninglessstone into a masterpiece’’ (PT/4/F).� The teacher works to bring about cultural unity in the society. For

example: ‘‘Just as a carpenter trims a log to make usefuldomestic objects out of it, the teacher also trims his/herstudents’ bad habits in order to fit them to the society’sexpectations’’ (ST/1/F).� Teachers (and students) follow a standardized curriculum. For

instance: ‘‘The teacher educates his/her students and makesthem useful for the society just like the mill grinds the grainsof wheat’’ (PT/1/M).


4.1.2. Student as developing organismAltogether 605 students (21.3%) and 7 metaphors (7.1%) repre-

sented this conceptual theme with the metaphors of seedling 361,seed 158, and child 54 being dominant. Main characteristics of thiscategory of metaphors include the following:

� The student is a naive being, like ‘‘an apprentice who is beingtrained for a job’’ (PT/4/M).� The student is a growing being, like ‘‘a seed which grows as a big

tree by getting its water, food and other minerals from the soiland its light from the sun’’ (ST/4/F).� Learning is tied to the real life issues, in which the student acts

like ‘‘a chick that has just come out of an egg and wants todiscover everything around’’ (PT/1/M) or ‘‘a newborn calfwhich struggles to stand on his/her feet alone’’ (ST/1/F).� The teacher cares about the well-being of each student in the

classroom and hence ‘‘treats his/her students at school verymuch like parents take care of their sons/daughters at home’’(PT/4/F).� The most important job of the teacher is to support the growth of

each student, who is like ‘‘a child . (that) tries to walk on his/her own with the help of his/her parents’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘a newlyplanted seedling that needs the warm care and protection ofthe gardener in order to grow’’ (PT/4/F).

4.1.3. Student as empty vesselAltogether 524 students (18.4%) and 13 metaphors (13.2%)

constituted this conceptual theme with the metaphors of white page234, soil 101, hard disc 81, and trash can 52 being dominant. Maincharacteristics of this category of metaphors include the following:

� The student displays an empty brain, like ‘‘a white page onwhich teachers transfer all the knowledge they have’’ (PT/1/F)or ‘‘an empty box that teachers fill with any kind of informationthey want’’ (ST/4/F).� The student’s brain is unlimited, like ‘‘an empty bag because it

never gets full no matter how much you fill it’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘acomputer’s hard disc because its capacity to store informationis endless’’ (PT/4/M).� The student accepts knowledge without any reservation, like the

‘‘soil which accepts everything good or bad without anyreservation’’ (ST/1/F) or ‘‘a trash can because s/he takeseverything thrown inside his/her brain without consideringwhether it is useful or not’’ (ST/4/F).� Learning is a process of accumulating knowledge, in which

students are perceived to be like ‘‘a balloon which swells withair’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘an empty dam which accumulates water’’ (PT/1/M).� Learning is a process of storing knowledge, in which students are

likened to ‘‘a fridge’’ (PT/4/F) or ‘‘a storeroom’’ (ST/4/M)‘‘because they have to keep all the knowledge inside their brainwithout considering necessary or unnecessary’’.� Teaching is depositing knowledge into the students’ brains, which

are like ‘‘a bank account where teachers invest their money’’(PT/1/M), ‘‘an empty cup . (that) waits to be filled with theteachers’ knowledge’’ (PT/4/F), or ‘‘a diary in which teacherswrite about everything’’ (PT/4/F).

4.1.4. Student as significant beingAltogether 358 students (12.6%) and 6 metaphors (6.1%)

constituted this conceptual theme with the metaphors of flower238 and mine 83 being dominant. Main characteristics of thiscategory of metaphors include the following:

� The student is a unique individual, like ‘‘an iceberg because s/hehas many more qualities than s/he shows’’ (PT/4/F) or ‘‘anocean because the deeper someone goes in, the more s/he candiscover’’ (PT/1/F).� Students display different needs, interests, and characteristics. For

example: ‘‘A student is like a flower with its own needs. Someneed wet soil or just the sunlight while others need the care ofa gardener. Students are alike. Each one of them has differentneeds’’ (PT/4/F).� The most important job of the teacher is to expose the hidden

talents of his/her students, who are like ‘‘an island’’ (ST/1/F), ‘‘amine’’ (ST/4/F) or ‘‘a treasure’’ (PT/1/F) waiting to be discoveredby the teachers in terms of their interests, skills, and abilities.

4.1.5. Student as absolute compliantAltogether there were 253 students (8.9%) and 10 metaphors

(10.2%) under this conceptual theme with the metaphors of robot76, race horse 69, and slave 59 being dominant. Main character-istics of this category of metaphors include the following:

� The student is a captive being, like ‘‘a cavy because all theeducation trends are tried on him/her’’ (ST/1/F) or ‘‘a prisonerbecause s/he is always punished for some reason’’ (ST/4/F).� The student is to obey all the rules and regulations without

questioning the authority. ‘‘The rule is very simple: Thecommander commands and the soldiers obey. Otherwise, theyget punished for their misbehaving’’ (ST/4/M). So ‘‘just as thewagons of a train follow the locomotive by going where itgoes, students also need to follow their teachers in every aspectof their schooling life’’ (PT/1/M).� The teacher decides about what and how to teach in the class-

room. For example: ‘‘A student is like a robot that is pro-grammed to do some usual coursework assigned by theteachers but never is asked about what s/he wants to do (orlearn)’’ (ST/1/F).� The student acts according to the wills and desires of his/her

teachers, like ‘‘a circus animal that has to do all the trickstaught by his/her trainer’’ (PT/4/F), ‘‘a chess pawn which theteacher plays however s/he likes’’ (ST/4/F) or ‘‘a puppet whichbehaves in the way the teacher likes him/her to do’’ (ST/4/M).� Learning is racing with peers, like ‘‘a race horse because s/he

must always study (or run) without stopping, but mostimportantly s/he must always be in front of his/her classmates.So there is no strict bond between friends’’ (ST/1/F).� School is a boring and unpleasant place for students to be in. Thus,

‘‘just like a slave who looks forward to the day s/he will befreed, the students also look forward to the day they will begraduated’’ (ST/1/F).

4.1.6. Student as knowledge recipientAltogether 111 students (3.9%) and 15 metaphors (15.3%)

constituted this conceptual theme with the metaphor of sponge 30being dominant. Main characteristics of this category of metaphorsinclude the following:

� The teacher is the main source of knowledge. For example: ‘‘Justas a television provides its viewers information about whathappens in the world, a teacher also gives his/her studentsknowledge about everything’’ (PT/4/F).� The student is in need of knowledge, like ‘‘an antenna which

faces the radio station to receive its signals’’ (ST/4/F), ‘‘asunflower which faces the sun to get some light’’ (PT/1/M) or‘‘a beggar who is in need of money’’ (ST/1/M).


� Teaching is a one-way process of knowledge transmission‘‘because what is important is how well the teacher sells his/her knowledge to his/her customers, not how much s/heknows’’ (ST/1/F).� Learning is a process of observing and recording facts and events,

like ‘‘a photographer who takes a picture of everything s/hesees around’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘an owl . (that) observes everythingvery carefully’’ (ST/4/F). While observing facts and events, thestudent ‘‘records everything that s/he sees or hears in his/hermemory’’ in the way that ‘‘a tape recorder’’ (ST/4/M) or ‘‘avideo camera’’ (ST/4/M) does.� Learning is a process of absorbing knowledge, during which the

student ‘‘sucks the knowledge of his/her teachers just likea blood-sucking insect sucks the blood of human beings’’ (ST/4/F) and ‘‘inhales all the knowledge into his/her mind just likea magnet magnetizes pieces of iron’’ (ST/4/F). The student actslike ‘‘a sponge’’ while ‘‘soaking up the teachers’ knowledge’’(PT/4/F) in the same way a ‘‘root of a tree absorbs the waterand minerals from the ground’’ (PT/4/F).� Learning is a process of digesting knowledge, during which the

student acts very much like ‘‘a ruminating cow’’ (ST/4/F) or ‘‘amill’’ (PT/1/M) to be able to grind the teachers’ knowledge.

4.1.7. Student as knowledge reflectorAltogether 101 students (3.5%) and 7 metaphors (7.1%) repre-

sented this conceptual theme with the metaphors of mirror 49 andparrot 31 being dominant. Main characteristics of this category ofmetaphors include the following:

� The main role of the student is to reflect the teacher’s knowledge,like ‘‘a mirror because s/he reflects whatever is taught by theteachers’’ (PT/1/F) or ‘‘the moon because s/he reflects theteachers’ knowledge as the moon reflects the sun’s rays’’ (ST/4/F). The student does not (and indeed cannot) produce any newknowledge but merely receives it from the teacher and reflectsit on the exam paper just like ‘‘a star . (which also) cannotproduce its own light, but takes it from the sun and reflects iton earth’’ (PT/4/F).� The student merely supplies what the teachers have loaded in his/

her brain, just like ‘‘a parrot because s/he repeats everythingexactly the way teachers say’’ (PT/1/F), ‘‘an overhead projectorwhich reflects exactly what the teacher has written on thetransparency sheet’’ (PT/4/M) or ‘‘a printer which prints outthe data saved in the memory’’ (PT/1/F).� Learning is a process of duplicating the teacher’s knowledge. For

example: ‘‘A student is like a copy machine because just asa copy machine transfers all the information saved in it ontoa paper, a student reproduces all the knowledge s/he gets fromthe teacher’’ (ST/1/M).

4.1.8. Student as knowledge constructorAltogether there were 84 students (3%) and 9 metaphors (9.1%)

under this conceptual theme with the metaphor of honeybee 35being dominant. Main characteristics of this category of metaphorsinclude the following:

� The student is an active being, like ‘‘a honeybee because s/hetravels from one teacher to another in an effort to bring togetherthe parts of knowledge that s/he is about to construct’’ (PT/1/F).� Learning is an individual activity of knowledge construction, like ‘‘a

spider that makes his/her own net (knowledge)’’ (ST/4/F).� The student strives for meaning and understanding, like ‘‘a

detective who examines all the clues very carefully to reach an

understanding’’ (PT/4/F), ‘‘a journalist who examines all thefacts from different points of views’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘a philoso-pher who is after the meaning of life through his/her endlessquestions’’ (ST/4/F).� Learning is a continuous process of knowledge chasing, in which

the student acts like ‘‘an adventurer who always goes on a tripto discover new things’’ (PT/4/F), ‘‘an explorer who is after thenew and unknown all the time’’ (ST/4/M), ‘‘a fisherman .(who) fishes for knowledge’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘a hunter . (who)tracks in order to reach his/her prey’’ (PT/4/M).

4.1.9. Student as defective beingAltogether 51 students (1.8%) and 7 metaphors (7.1%) repre-

sented this conceptual theme with the metaphor of patient 33being dominant. Main characteristics of this category of metaphorsinclude the following:

� The student is an intellectually defective being, like ‘‘the firstdraft of a book which should be revised and corrected by theteacher’’ (ST/1/M).� The student is a behaviourally defective being, like ‘‘a patient

because while doctors remove the defective parts from thehuman bodies, teachers also treat the faulty behaviours of theirstudents’’ (PT/1/F).� The student is an emotionally defective being, like ‘‘a psychopath

that needs a psychiatrist to bring him/her up as a psychologi-cally healthy individual’’ (ST/1/F).� The student is a problematic being, like ‘‘a password that needs

to be cracked by the teachers’’ (ST/1/F).� The student is an unwanted being, like ‘‘a street kid because s/he

has been abandoned by his/her parents and has not beenclaimed by the teachers yet’’ (PT/4/M).� The student is in need of repair. For example: ‘‘A mechanic

repairs the broken parts of a car while a teacher treats his/herstudents’ undesirable behaviours in order for them to functioneffectively in the society’’ (ST/1/F).� Teaching is treating students’ flaws and deficiencies. For example:

‘‘Just like an antivirus programme removes all the viruses froma computer, the teacher also removes all the defective ideas thatcan poison a student’s soul or mind’’ (ST/1/M).

4.1.10. Student as social participantAltogether there were 42 students (1.5%) and 5 metaphors (5.1%)

under this conceptual theme with the metaphor of ant 29 beingdominant. Main characteristics of this category of metaphorsinclude the following:

� Learning is a socio-cognitive process of meaning making. Forexample: ‘‘A student is like a musician in a symphonyorchestra and the teacher is the conductor of the orchestra,while the melodies they construct together represent the corecomponents of the school curriculum’’ (ST/4/M).� Students work and learn together, not in isolation from one

another, like ‘‘an ant because s/he works in collaboration withother students in the classroom in order to accomplisha learning task, which is beneficial for all of them’’ (ST/4/F).� The teacher acts as a cooperative leader in the classroom. For

example: ‘‘A student is like an actor/actress and the teacher isthe director of the play. The director makes sure that everyoneon the stage (classroom) works together in harmony to enter-tain the audience (parents)’’ (PT/4/F).� The teacher acts as a guide in the teaching–learning process, like

a ‘‘coach who guides the footballers in the football match by


giving them all the tactics they need to win the match’’ (ST/1/M) or ‘‘a tour guide who helps a group of tourists to reach theirdestinations’’ (PT/1/M).

4.1.11. Student as knowledge carrierAltogether 38 students (1.3%) and 5 metaphors (5.1%) consti-

tuted this conceptual theme with the metaphor of porter 29 beingdominant. Main characteristics of this category of metaphorsinclude the following:

� Learning is furnishing of the mind with the teachers’ knowledge,during which the student is perceived to be like ‘‘a suitcasebecause s/he carries one’s goods’’ (PT/4/M) or ‘‘a camel thatcarries people’s loads on its hump’’ (ST/1/F).� The student possesses knowledge provisionally, because ‘‘just as

the load a porter carries does not belong to him/her, anyknowledge that a student holds in his/her mind doesn’t belongto him/her’’ (PT/1/M).� Knowledge has no practical value for the student. For example: ‘‘A

student is like a donkey because s/he is being loaded with lotsof knowledge, but none of it is put into practice by him/her’’(ST/4/F).

4.1.12. Student as social capitalAltogether there were 36 students (1.3%) and 3 metaphors (3.1%)

under this conceptual theme with the metaphor of investment 30being dominant. Main characteristics of this category of metaphorsinclude the following:

� The student is the guarantor of the future of the society in whichs/he lives. For example: ‘‘A student is like the natural resourceof a country because the future of the country dependsmostly on how effectively its natural resources are used’’(ST/4/M).� The teacher is the main vehicle to prepare students for the future

of the society. For example: ‘‘A student is like an investment forthe future of the society because a society’s future dependsmostly on how well its citizens are educated by its teachers’’(PT/4/M).� The teacher acts as an architect of the society who works to

change the mind setting of each student in the classroom. Forexample: ‘‘A student is like a bridge to the future, and thestronger the bridge is built by the teachers, the brighter thefuture of a society will be’’ (ST/4/F).

4.2. Effects of programme type, gender, and trainee status

The c2 analyses regarding programme type differences withinthe 12 conceptual themes indicate that prospective primary andsubject teachers conceptualized learners with significantlydifferent metaphors (see Table 4). Specifically, while more primaryteacher trainees viewed learners as ‘‘raw materials’’ (c2 ¼ 4.500,p ¼ .034), more subject teacher trainees perceived learners as‘‘absolute compliants’’ (c2 ¼ 11.626, p ¼ .001) and ‘‘knowledgecarriers’’ (c2 ¼ 6.175, p ¼ .013).

The c2 analyses regarding gender differences within the 12conceptual themes indicate that prospective male and femaleteachers also conceptualized learners with significantly differentmetaphors (see Table 4). Specifically, while more male teachertrainees visualized learners as ‘‘empty vessels’’ (c2 ¼ 10.908,p ¼ .001), more females perceived learners as ‘‘significant beings’’(c2 ¼ 10.731, p ¼ .001).

The c2 analyses regarding status differences indicate that entry-level and exit-level teacher candidates conceptualized learners

with significantly different metaphors, too (see Table 4). Specifi-cally, while more entry-level participants viewed learners as‘‘absolute compliants’’ (c2 ¼ 19.306, p ¼ .000) and ‘‘knowledgeconstructors’’ (c2 ¼ 8.237, p ¼ .004), more exit-level candidatesperceived learners as ‘‘empty vessels’’ (c2 ¼ 8.728, p ¼ .003) and‘‘significant beings’’ (c2 ¼ 4.360, p ¼ .037).

Moreover, the distribution of participants within the 12conceptual themes by gender–programme type, gender–status inprogramme, and status in programme–programme type alsoyielded some noticeable interactive patterns (see Table 5).Specifically:

� More prospective female primary teachers conceptualizedlearners as ‘‘raw materials’’ (c2 ¼ 5.324, p ¼ .021), ‘‘emptyvessels’’ (c2 ¼ 5.834, p ¼ .016), and ‘‘knowledge reflectors’’(c2 ¼ 4.268, p ¼ .039) than prospective female subject teacherswho in turn provided more metaphors in the categories ofstudent as ‘‘absolute compliant’’ (c2 ¼ 15.611, p ¼ .000) and‘‘knowledge carrier’’ (c2 ¼ 7.403, p ¼ .007).� More entry-level male and female teacher candidates conceptu-

alized learners as ‘‘absolute compliants’’ (c2 ¼ 4.445, p ¼ .035and c2 ¼ 15.480, p ¼ .000, respectively) than the exit-level maleand female teacher candidates who in turn provided moremetaphors in the category of student as ‘‘empty vessels’’(c2 ¼ 4.717, p ¼ .030 and c2 ¼ 3.866, p ¼ .049, respectively).� More entry-level primary teacher trainees conceptualized

learners as ‘‘empty vessel’’ (c2 ¼ 5.369, p ¼ .020) than theentry-level subject teacher trainees who in turn provided moremetaphors in the category of student as ‘‘knowledge carrier’’(c2 ¼ 4.519, p ¼ .034).� More exit-level primary teacher trainees conceptualized learners

as ‘‘raw material’’ (c2 ¼ 5.614, p ¼ .018) and ‘‘knowledgereflector’’ (c2 ¼ 5.810, p ¼ .016) than the exit-level subjectteacher trainees who in turn provided more metaphors in thecategories of student as ‘‘absolute compliant’’ (c2 ¼ 11.297,p ¼ .001) and ‘‘social participant’’ (c2 ¼ 8.794, p ¼ .003).

5. Discussion

Previous research (e.g., Saban, 2003) has indicated that studentsenter teacher training programmes with a reasonably well-devel-oped set of beliefs about what constitutes effective teaching andlearning formed over the years from informal observations andpersonal experiences as a student. ‘‘With this in mind, a thoughtfulteacher educator might ask: What are the preconceptions aboutteaching and learning held by our students?’’ (Clark, 1988, p. 7). Inresponding to Clark’s noteworthy advice, this study was an attemptto explore Turkish prospective teachers’ metaphorical images oflearner. Several major understandings have emerged out of thestudy.

First, metaphorical images of learners vary widely, also revealingmultiple realities of students in the act and process of learning. Themain reason for the multitude of metaphors is because they areselective. They represent a part of the phenomena they describe,but not the whole of it (Weade & Ernst, 1990). Considering thevariety of the metaphorical images of learners in the present study,for example, one might also recall the parable of the blind peoplewho described different parts of the elephant: none of them wasincorrect, but none of them had the entire picture, either. To put itin Yob’s words:

Primarily, a metaphor is not the thing being referred to buta symbol of it. If it were the same as the thing it was referring to,it would not be needed. Therefore, it is other than and in somerespects less than what it refers to, even when referring

Table 4Distribution of the 12 conceptual themes by programme type, gender, and status in programme.

Programme type Gender Status in programme

Primary teaching(n ¼ 1394) f (%)

Subject teaching(n ¼ 1453) f (%)

Male(n ¼ 1165) f (%)

Female(n ¼ 1682) f (%)

Entry level(n ¼ 1459) f (%)

Exit level(n ¼ 1388) f (%)

Raw material339 (24.3) 305 (21) 273 (23.4) 371 (22.1) 325 (22.3) 319 (23)c2 ¼ 4.500, p ¼ .034*** c2 ¼ .745, p ¼ .388 c2 ¼ .203, p ¼ .652

Developing organism298 (21.4) 307 (21.1) 231 (19.8) 374 (22.2) 305 (20.9) 300 (21.6)c2 ¼ .026, p ¼ .871 c2 ¼ 2.383, p ¼ .123 c2 ¼ .214, p ¼ .644

Empty vessel273 (19.6) 251 (17.3) 248 (21.3) 276 (16.4) 238 (16.3) 286 (20.6)c2 ¼ 2.526, p ¼ .112 c2 ¼ 10.908, p ¼ .001*** c2 ¼ 8.728, p ¼ .003***

Significant being177 (12.7) 181 (12.5) 118 (10.1) 240 (14.3) 165 (11.3) 193 (13.9)c2 ¼ .037, p ¼ .847 c2 ¼ 10.731, p ¼ .001*** c2 ¼ 4.360, p ¼ .037***

Absolute compliant98 (7) 155 (10.7) 99 (8.5) 154 (9.2) 163 (11.2) 90 (6.5)c2 ¼ 11.626, p ¼ .001*** c2 ¼ .368, p ¼ .544 c2 ¼ 19.306, p ¼ .000***

Knowledge recipient47 (3.4) 64 (4.4) 49 (4.2) 62 (3.7) 52 (3.6) 59 (4.3)c2 ¼ 2.027, p ¼ .155 c2 ¼ .497, p ¼ .481 c2 ¼ .895, p ¼ .344

Knowledge reflector59 (4.2) 42 (2.9) 41 (3.5) 60 (3.6) 58 (4) 43 (3.1)c2 ¼ 3.744, p ¼ .053 c2 ¼ .005, p ¼ .946 c2 ¼ 1.600, p ¼ .206

Knowledge constructor38 (2.7) 46 (3.2) 32 (2.7) 52 (3.1) 56 (3.8) 28 (2)c2 ¼ .481, p ¼ .488 c2 ¼ .286, p ¼ .593 c2 ¼ 8.237, p ¼ .004***

Defective being19 (1.4) 32 (2.2) 24 (2.1) 27 (1.6) 33 (2.3) 18 (1.3)c2 ¼ 2.849, p ¼ .091 c2 ¼ .809, p ¼ .368 c2 ¼ 3.765, p ¼ .052

Social participant18 (1.3) 24 (1.7) 21 (1.8) 21 (1.2) 26 (1.8) 16 (1.2)c2 ¼ .636, p ¼ .425 c2 ¼ 1.454, p ¼ .228 c2 ¼ 1.938, p ¼ .164

Knowledge carrier11 (0.8) 27 (1.9) 18 (1.5) 20 (1.2) 20 (1.4) 18 (1.3)c2 ¼ 6.175, p ¼ .013*** c2 ¼ .662, p ¼ .416 c2 ¼ .030, p ¼ .864

Social capital17 (1.2) 19 (1.3) 11 (0.9) 25 (1.5) 18 (1.2) 18 (1.3)c2 ¼ .044, p ¼ .833 c2 ¼ 1.620, p ¼ .203 c2 ¼ .023, p ¼ .880

***p � .05.


powerfully and provocatively. One way to compensate for thisdeficiency in representation is to employ a variety of metaphorswhich when taken together provide numerous perspectives andconstructions so that a more comprehensive understanding ofthe subject can emerge. (Yob, 2003, p. 134)

Second, various factors (such as gender, program type, orteacher trainee status) appear to influence how prospectiveteachers conceptualize learners. For example, while primaryteacher trainees are more ‘‘shaping-oriented’’ (e.g., dough, clay,etc.), subject teacher trainees demand more for an ‘‘obedientlearner’’ (e.g., robot, slave, etc.). Again, while more male teachertrainees visualized learners as ‘‘empty vessels’’ (e.g., white page,hard disc, etc.), more female teacher trainees perceived learnersas ‘‘significant beings’’ (e.g., mine, treasure, etc.). Moreover, whilemore entry-level teacher trainees viewed learners as ‘‘knowledgeconstructors’’ (e.g., honeybee, detective, etc.), more exit-levelteacher candidates perceived learners as ‘‘empty vessels’’ (soil,storeroom, etc.). Program type differences were also reported byMahlios and Maxson (1998) who examined 134 elementary and119 secondary American prospective teachers’ perceptions ofelementary and secondary schooling structures by asking them to

choose an image from a list of nine metaphors (i.e., family, team,garden, circus, prison, zoo, stages, crowd, and factory). Whileboth groups picked the ‘‘family’’ and ‘‘team’’ images to representtheir most preferred elementary and secondary school structures,more elementary preservice teachers (43%) preferred the family-like secondary school image in comparison to their secondarypeers (17%).

The distribution of participants within the 12 conceptualthemes by gender–programme type, gender–status in programme,and status in programme–programme type in the present studyalso yielded some noticeable interactive patterns between thesegroups. It appears that prospective female primary teachers aremore ‘‘shaping- and transmission-oriented’’ than prospectivefemale subject teachers who in turn demand for a more ‘‘obedient-learner’’ image. Again, it appears that more entry-level male andfemale teacher candidates view learners as ‘‘absolute compliants’’ incomparison to the exit-level male and female teacher candidates whoin turn demand for ‘‘empty brains’’ more. Additionally, while entry-level primary teacher trainees are more ‘‘transmission-oriented’’,exit-level primary teacher trainees are more ‘‘shaping-oriented’’.Lastly, in comparison to the entry-level subject teacher trainees, the

Table 5Distribution of participants within the 12 conceptual themes by gender–programme type, gender–status in programme, and status in programme–programme type.

Primary teaching f (%) Subject teaching f (%) Entry level f (%) Exit level f (%)

Raw materialMale 133 (24.2) 140 (22.7) c2 ¼ .363, p ¼ .547 143 (24.3) 130 (22.5) c2 ¼ .520, p ¼ .471Female 206 (24.4) 165 (19.7) c2 ¼ 5.324, p ¼ .021*** 182 (20.9) 189 (23.3) c2 ¼ 1.418, p ¼ .234Entry level 163 (23) 162 (21.6) c2 ¼ .407, p ¼ .524Exit level 176 (25.7) 143 (20.3) c2 ¼ 5.614, p ¼ .018***

Developing organismMale 116 (21.1) 115 (18.7) c2 ¼ 1.106, p ¼ .293 112 (19) 119 (20.6) c2 ¼ .455, p ¼ .500Female 182 (21.5) 192 (22.9) c2 ¼ .477, p ¼ .490 193 (22.2) 181 (22.3) c2 ¼ .006, p ¼ .937Entry level 139 (19.6) 166 (22.1) c2 ¼ 1.409, p ¼ .235Exit level 159 (23.2) 141 (20.1) c2 ¼ 2.038, p ¼ .153

Empty vesselMale 116 (21.1) 132 (21.4) c2 ¼ .016, p ¼ .901 110 (18.7) 138 (23.9) c2 ¼ 4.717, p ¼ .030***Female 157 (18.6) 119 (14.2) c2 ¼ 5.834, p ¼ .016*** 128 (14.7) 148 (18.2) c2 ¼ 3.866, p ¼ .049***Entry level 132 (18.6) 106 (14.1) c2 ¼ 5.369, p ¼ .020***Exit level 141 (20.6) 145 (20.6) c2 ¼ .000, p ¼ .985

Significant beingMale 53 (9.7) 65 (10.6) c2 ¼ .257, p ¼ .612 51 (8.7) 67 (11.6) c2 ¼ 2.762, p ¼ .097Female 124 (14.7) 116 (13.9) c2 ¼ .229, p ¼ .633 114 (13.1) 126 (15.5) c2 ¼ 2.057, p ¼ .151Entry level 84 (11.8) 81 (10.8) c2 ¼ .399, p ¼ .528Exit level 93 (13.6) 100 (14.2) c2 ¼ .122, p ¼ .727

Absolute compliantMale 44 (8) 55 (8.9) c2 ¼ .312, p ¼ .577 60 (10.2) 39 (6.8) c2 ¼ 4.445, p ¼ .035***Female 54 (6.4) 100 (11.9) c2 ¼ 15.611, p ¼ .000*** 103 (11.8) 51 (6.3) c2 ¼ 15.480, p ¼ .000***Entry level 69 (9.7) 94 (12.5) c2 ¼ 2.882, p ¼ .090Exit level 29 (4.2) 61 (8.7) c2 ¼ 11.297, p ¼ .001***

Knowledge recipientMale 20 (3.6) 29 (4.7) c2 ¼ .817, p ¼ .366 26 (4.4) 23 (4) c2 ¼ .137, p ¼ .711Female 27 (3.2) 35 (4.2) c2 ¼ 1.152, p ¼ .283 26 (3) 36 (4.4) c2 ¼ 2.500, p ¼ .114Entry level 23 (3.2) 29 (3.9) c2 ¼ .411, p ¼ .521Exit level 24 (3.5) 35 (5) c2 ¼ 1.855, p ¼ .173

Knowledge reflectorMale 21 (3.8) 20 (3.2) c2 ¼ .286, p ¼ .593 23 (3.9) 18 (3.1) c2 ¼ .538, p ¼ .463Female 38 (4.5) 22 (2.6) c2 ¼ 4.268, p ¼ .039*** 35 (4) 25 (3.1) c2 ¼ 1.069, p ¼ .301Entry level 30 (4.2) 28 (3.7) c2 ¼ .237, p ¼ .627Exit level 29 (4.2) 14 (2) c2 ¼ 5.810, p ¼ .016***

Knowledge constructorMale 18 (3.3) 14 (2.3) c2 ¼ 1.100, p ¼ .294 24 (4.1) 8 (1.4) c2 ¼ 7.919, p ¼ .005Female 20 (2.4) 32 (3.8) c2 ¼ 2.977, p ¼ .084 32 (3.7) 20 (2.5) c2 ¼ 2.045, p ¼ .153Entry level 26 (3.7) 30 (4) c2 ¼ .109, p ¼ .741Exit level 12 (1.8) 16 (2.3) c2 ¼ .482, p ¼ .487

Defective beingMale 9 (1.6) 15 (2.4) c2 ¼ .911, p ¼ .340 16 (2.7) 8 (1.4) c2 ¼ 2.571, p ¼ .109Female 10 (1.2) 17 (2) c2 ¼ 1.913, p ¼ .167 17 (2) 10 (1.2) c2 ¼ 1.374, p ¼ .241Entry level 11 (1.6) 22 (2.9) c2 ¼ 3.148, p ¼ .076Exit level 8 (1.2) 10 (1.4) c2 ¼ .176, p ¼ .675

Social participantMale 10 (1.8) 11 (1.8) c2 ¼ .002, p ¼ .963 11 (1.9) 10 (1.7) c2 ¼ .031, p ¼ .860Female 9 (0.9) 13 (1.6) c2 ¼ 1.254, p ¼ .263 15 (1.7) 6 (0.7) c2 ¼ 3.287, p ¼ .070Entry level 16 (2.3) 10 (1.3) c2 ¼ 1.775, p ¼ .183Exit level 2 (0.3) 14 (2) c2 ¼ 8.794, p ¼ .003***

Knowledge carrierMale 7 (1.3) 11 (1.8) c2 ¼ .498, p ¼ .481 9 (1.5) 9 (1.6) c2 ¼ .002, p ¼ .968Female 4 (0.5) 16 (1.9) c2 ¼ 7.403, p ¼ .007*** 11 (1.3) 9 (1.1) c2 ¼ .084, p ¼ .772Entry level 5 (0.7) 15 (2) c2 ¼ 4.519, p ¼ .034***Exit level 6 (0.9) 12 (1.7) c2 ¼ 1.872, p ¼ .171

Social capitalMale 2 (0.4) 9 (1.5) c2 ¼ 3.733, p ¼ .053 3 (0.5) 8 (1.4) c2 ¼ 2.391, p ¼ .122Female 15 (1.8) 10 (1.2) c2 ¼ .967, p ¼ .325 15 (1.7) 10 (1.2) c2 ¼ .686, p ¼ .407Entry level 11 (1.6) 7 (0.9) c2 ¼ 1.143, p ¼ .285Exit level 6 (0.9) 12 (1.7) c2 ¼ 1.872, p ¼ .171

***p � .05.


exit-level subject teacher trainees seem to demand for an ‘‘obedient-learner’’ image more.

Third, the 98 metaphorical images as well as the 12 conceptualthemes discussed in the present study offer important insights into

the structure of the Turkish education system. For example, the twoof the most prevalent learner-images of Turkish prospectiveteachers were ‘‘raw material’’ (22.6%) and ‘‘empty vessel’’ (18.4%).Again, the two of the least-mentioned learner-images belonged to


the themes of students as ‘‘knowledge constructor’’ (3%) and ‘‘socialparticipant’’ (1.5%). Thus, overall it appears that while the shaping-and transmission-oriented notions of teaching and learning existpredominantly, the cognitive and socio-cognitive views of teachingand learning are by no means absent in Turkish prospectiveteachers’ thinking. This observation resembles the findings ofMartinez et al. (2001) who, after having studied prospective andexperienced Spanish teachers, postulated that ‘‘the perspective ofsituated learning is by no means absent in [Spanish] teachereducation’’ (p. 971).

Furthermore, the overall demand for an ‘‘absolute compliant’’learner-image (%8.9) in prospective teachers’ cognition might notcome as much of a surprise, for Turkey was once claimed to havethe most highly centralized educational system of any OECDmember states (Fretwell & Wheeler, 2001). Even though a signifi-cant structural reform initiative to decentralize educational provi-sion in Turkey was ratified by the parliament in 2004, it still awaitsto be achieved. The structural reform mainly intended to devolvethe decision-making power regarding the development andimplementation of school curriculum from MoNE to local author-ities. But many politicians as well as educators were deeply con-cerned that such decentralization ‘‘would eventually result inabolishing the principle of unification of education’’ and thus rec-ommended that ‘‘it would be more functional to empower localauthorities to make local decisions about educational provisionwithin the framework of a unified system’’ (Aksit, 2007, p. 135).Thus, it seems that the centralized way of decision-making struc-ture is not only in effect in the governance of the Turkish educationsystem but also in the management of individual classrooms. Whatcould be more troubling here is that it seems that as students movefrom primary schools to upper levels of education, the Turkisheducation system becomes more and more authoritarian in nature,demanding for a more ‘‘obedient-learner’’ image (see the increaseof ‘‘absolute compliant’’ images from 7% to 10.7% in programmetype comparisons).

Fourth, the associations of teacher trainees’ status in programmewith their learner-images have evidenced the existence of bothstability and change in their beliefs of teaching and learning overthe course of teacher training. Nonetheless, while changes inprospective teachers’ implicitly held beliefs are desirable andshould be expected as a result of their training, attention must alsobe given to the direction of change. It appears from the findings thatentry-level and exit-level teacher trainees in the present study holdthe two dominant learner-images (i.e., ‘‘raw material’’ and ‘‘devel-oping organism’’) about the same. With regard to the third domi-nant learner-image (i.e., ‘‘empty vessel’’), however, it appears thatduring their journey from entering to exiting teacher training,prospective teachers somehow become more ‘‘transmission-oriented’’ (see the increase of ‘‘empty vessel’’ images from 16.3% to20.6%) and perhaps less ‘‘constructivist’’ (see the decrease of‘‘knowledge constructor’’ images from 3.8% to 2%).

There could be several reasons for this result. To start with, thesignificant increase of transmission-oriented images in exit-levelTurkish teacher trainees’ thinking may be a reflection of theteaching methods and practices that are modelled in the specificteacher education institution in which this study was carried out.Although some changes were made in the curricula of educationfaculties with an aim to provide parallelism with the ones made inthe curricula of primary and secondary schools based on theconstructivist theory, in fact, none of the pedagogical domaincourses in the current teacher education programmes specificallydeals with the constructivist theory (see HEC, 2008). From theperspective of the practical applications of the constructivisttheory, it is generally up to the individual lecturers whether or notto use the constructivist pedagogy in their coursework.

Again, considering the fact that ‘‘most teachers [in Turkeystill] use the transmission model of teacher-centred methodsand have not been [yet] trained in a constructivist way ofteaching’’ (Aksit, 2007, p. 129), the reality in schools whereprospective teachers do their teaching practices may be verydifferent from what has been aimed by MoNE with its currentcurriculum reform initiative. Launched in 2005, this reform aimsto change considerably the focus and content of the wholenational curriculum in grades 1–12 gradually by (a) reducing theamount of content, (b) embracing a student-centred, construc-tivist teaching model, (c) incorporating information andcommunication technologies into instruction, and (d) monitoringstudent progress via authentic assessment (see MoNE, 2009).Thus, it could be claimed that the significant decrease in the useof constructivist metaphors among the exit-level Turkish teachertrainees is very likely to have resulted from their experiences inschools. Of course, in a country where teachers (as well asteacher educators) are still expected to follow a standardizedcurriculum with a national school timetable and preparestudents for the exams (see the ‘‘race horse’’ metaphor inAppendix A, developed by an entry-level female Subject Teachercandidate), the views of learners as constructors of ownknowledge usually in communities of practice could be alsoconsidered as impracticable.

6. Implications for teacher education

One important goal of teacher education programmes is tofacilitate teacher trainees in developing their professional self.From this point of view, if we, teacher educators, examine ourteacher trainees’ images of teaching and learning, we might be ableto gain a good understanding of how prospective teachers indifferent socio-cultural contexts view themselves in relationship tothe profession of teaching (i.e., What is it to become a teacher?).As Leavy et al. pointed out:

Teacher educators can no longer only be concerned withimparting knowledge about teaching, rather, teacher educationmust provide avenues for student teachers to understand thevalues, attitudes, and beliefs that they bring to preserviceteacher education and then to plot and monitor their ownprofessional growth. Images and metaphors of teaching [andlearning] have the potential to provide the language of practicefor student teachers and teacher educators to engage incollaborative dialog to achieve these avenues. (Leavy et al., 2007,p. 14, italics added)

The activity of metaphor generation, then, could serve asa ‘‘pedagogical tool’’ for teacher educators in urging their teachertrainees to examine, understand, and ultimately modify their pre-conceived beliefs of teaching and learning. In different stages ofbecoming a teacher (e.g., entry-stage, practicum stage, or inductionstage), prospective teachers could be asked to provide theirperceptions of various educational phenomena via metaphor. Afterexamining their own metaphorical images and becoming moreaware of their own beliefs, preservice teachers can then be offeredalternative metaphors for personal consideration. In this way,a process of change could be initiated through awareness of ownimages, comparison with alternatives, and identification of newones that would be more consistent with the images of selves. Toput it in Gillis and Johnson’s (2002, p. 38) words, metaphors canhelp us ‘‘understand ‘the selves we want to become or despair ofbecoming . the selves we have been and the selves we escapedbeing’ . [as well as] the selves we are able to become’’. In achievingall of these worthwhile professional undertakings, metaphor seemsto be the most potent cognitive device.


7. Possibilities for future research

This study is not without its limitations and thus could be opento a number of criticisms. Yet, acknowledging and addressing theselimitations could be logical to point to the possibilities for futureresearch. Firstly, despite a substantive sample size, the presentstudy was carried out in only one Turkish teacher training insti-tution. So more research is needed to get a complete picture of howTurkish preservice teachers think and reason about learners (andperhaps other educational phenomena).

Secondly, the 12 conceptual themes discussed in this study couldbe regarded as speculative (since they have been externally devisedrather than generated by the participants themselves as the image-providers), and the dividing lines between some of them (namely,‘‘empty vessel’’, ‘‘knowledge recipient’’, ‘‘knowledge carrier’’, and‘‘knowledge reflector’’) may be seen as arbitrary. Yet, in contrast tothe ‘‘knowledge recipient’’ theme (student as a customer, ora photographer, etc.), the ‘‘empty vessel’’ theme presumes learnersto be empty and static beings (like a hard disc or a white page, etc.)with no action or even intention of getting information. Again, the‘‘knowledge carrier’’ theme presupposes that students hold theteachers’ knowledge temporarily and that knowledge does nothave any practical value for their personal lives, for they (as‘‘knowledge projectors’’) have to give it back to the teachers soonusually in the exams. For example, the metaphorical image ofmemory machine under the ‘‘knowledge carrier’’ conceptualtheme conceives learner as the one who ‘‘stores up all the knowl-edge before exams, but later forgets it all, for s/he has onlymemorized it instead of learning’’ (ST/4/F).

Thirdly, female participants in this study generated more imagesin the themes of student as ‘‘developing organism’’ (22.2%) and‘‘significant being’’ (14.3%) than male participants (19.8% and 10.1%,respectively). So it appears that female prospective teachers aremore ‘‘humanistic’’ and ‘‘growth-oriented’’ than their male peers.Unless supported empirically, however, this assumption wouldonly reveal the perceived attitudes of preservice female teachersrather than their actual teaching practices. Thus, future researchmight focus on and document student teaching practices of femaleteacher trainees to see whether or not their orientations towardsteaching (theory) reflect their actual teaching (practices).

Finally, from the way the study data were collected, it is not allclear that whether participants provided their experienced or idealimages of learners. So future research might ask teacher trainees tofocus on and generate two types of metaphors: (1) one to representtheir experienced studentship and (2) the other to represent theirideal images of learners. Comparing these two metaphors with oneanother could also provide avenues to understand the discrep-ancies between the ‘‘actual’’ and the ‘‘ideal’’ images of learners in aneducation system.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the two anony-mous reviewers and the editors of Teaching and Teacher Educationas well as Dr. Zuhal Guven from the English Language Departmentof Selcuk University for their valuable contributions to this article.The research of this article was financially supported by theBilimsel Arastirma Projeleri (BAP) Koordinatorlugu of SelcukUniversity.

Appendix A. 98 metaphors in alphabetical order

- A student is like an actor/actress and the teacher is the directorof the play. The director makes sure that everyone on the stage

(classroom) works together in harmony to entertain the audi-ence (parents). (PT/4/F)

- A student is like an adventurer who always goes on a trip todiscover new things. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like an ant because s/he works in collaboration withother students in the classroom in order to accomplisha learning task, which is beneficial for all of them. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like an antenna which faces the radio station toreceive its signals. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like an apprentice who is being trained for a job.(PT/4/M)

- A student is like an empty bag because it never gets full nomatter how much you fill it. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like a balloon which swells with air. (ST/1/M)- A student is like a bank account where teachers invest their

money. (PT/1/M)- A student is like a beggar who is in need of money . (ST/

1/M)- A student is like a blood-sucking insect because s/he sucks the

knowledge of his/her teachers just like a blood-sucking insectsucks the blood of human beings. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a book that is being written by a writer .Every time a student graduates, the teacher becomes likea writer who has written a new book. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like an empty box that teachers fill with any kindof information they want. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a bridge to the future and the stronger thebridge is built by the teachers, the brighter the future ofa society will be. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a broken car . A mechanic repairs the brokenparts of a car while a teacher treats his/her students’ undesir-able behaviours in order for them to function effectively in thesociety. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like a camel that carries people’s loads on itshump. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like a carpet that is woven loop by loop . (PT/4/F)- A student is like a cavy because all the education trends are

tried on him/her. (ST/1/F)- A student is like a chess pawn which the teacher plays

however s/he likes. (ST/4/F)- A student is like a chick that has just come out of an egg and

wants to discover everything around. (PT/1/M)- A student is like a child because s/he tries to walk on his/her

own with the help of his/her parents. (ST/1/M)- A student is like a circus animal that has to do all the tricks

taught by his/her trainer. (PT/4/F)- A student is like the clay because the teacher shapes students

like the potter shapes the clay, giving them any shape that s/helikes. (PT/4/M)

- A student is like a copy machine because just as a copymachine transfers all the information saved in it onto a paper,a student reproduces all the knowledge s/he gets from theteacher. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like a cow because s/he always ruminates in orderto digest the teacher’s knowledge. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like an empty cup because s/he waits to be filledwith the teachers’ knowledge. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a customer because what is important is howwell the teacher sells his/her knowledge to his/her customers,not how much s/he knows. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like an empty damwhich accumulates water. (PT/1/M)- A student is like a detective who examines all the clues very

carefully to reach an understanding. (PT/4/F)- A student is similar to a diary in which teachers write about

everything. (PT/4/F)


- A student is like a donkey because s/he is being loaded withlots of knowledge, but none of it is put into practice by him/her.(ST/4/F)

- A student is like the dough in front of a baker . A baker canmake lots of things out of the dough, such as bread, pastry, orcookie. Similarly, the teacher kneads the students and makesuseful citizens out of them. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like the first draft of a book which should berevised and corrected by the teacher. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like an explorer who is after the new andunknown all the time. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a piece of fabric in the hands of a tailor .While a tailor tries to make good clothes out of the fabric that s/he has, a teacher tries to make good citizens out of the studentsthat s/he has. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a fisherman because s/he fishes for knowl-edge. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like a flower with its own needs. Some need wetsoil or just the sunlight while others need the care ofa gardener. Students are alike. Each one of them has differentneeds. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a footballer because learning is like playinga football match. The teacher then is the coach who guides thefootballers in the football match by giving them all the tacticsthey need to win the match. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like a fridge because s/he keeps knowledge insidehis/her brain, just like the fridge keeps the food. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a grain of wheat that needs to be ground bythe mill . The teacher educates his/her students and makesthem useful for the society just like the mill grinds the grains ofwheat. (PT/1/M)

- A student is like a computer’s hard disc because its capacity tostore information is endless. (PT/4/M)

- A student is like a honeybee because s/he travels from oneteacher to another in an effort to bring together the parts ofknowledge that s/he is about to construct. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like a hunter because s/he tracks in order to reachhis/her prey (knowledge). (PT/4/M)

- A student is like an iceberg because s/he has many morequalities than s/he shows. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like an investment for the future of the societybecause a society’s future depends mostly on how well itscitizens are educated by its teachers. (PT/4/M)

- A student is like an island waiting to be discovered bythe teachers in terms of his/her interests, skills, and abilities.(ST/1/F)

- A student is like a journalist who examines all the facts fromdifferent points of views. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like a log to be carved in front of a carpenter. Just asa carpenter trims a log to make useful domestic objects out ofit, the teacher also trims his/her students’ bad habits in order tofit them to the society’s expectations. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like a magnet because s/he inhales all theknowledge into his/her mind just like a magnet magnetizespieces of iron. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a memory machine because s/he stores up allthe knowledge before exams, but later forgets it all, for s/he hasonly memorized it instead of learning. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a mill because s/he is always in the process ofgrinding the knowledge s/he receives from his/her teachers.(PT/1/M)

- A student is like a mine because every student has an oreinsight which has to be exposed by the teachers. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a mirror because s/he reflects whatever istaught by the teachers. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like the moon because s/he reflects theteachers’ knowledge as the moon reflects the sun’s rays. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a musician in a symphony orchestra and theteacher is the conductor of the orchestra, while the melodiesthey construct together represent the core components of theschool curriculum. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like the natural resource of a country because thefuture of the country depends mostly on how effectively itsnatural resources are used. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a newborn calf which struggles to stand onhis/her feet alone. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like an unprocessed iron . An ironworker takesthe unprocessed iron as a raw material and makes useful toolsout of it for people such as a shovel, a hoe, or a mattock. Ateacher also takes his/her students as raw materials and shapesthem with his/her ideas. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like an ocean because the deeper someone goes in,the more s/he can discover. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like an overhead projector which reflects exactlywhat the teacher has written on the transparency sheet. (PT/4/M)

- A student is like an owl because s/he observes everything verycarefully. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a parrot because s/he repeats everythingexactly the way teachers say. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like a password that needs to be cracked by theteachers. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like a patient because while doctors remove thedefective parts from the human bodies, teachers also treat thefaulty behaviours of their students. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like a philosopher who is after the meaning of lifethrough his/her endless questions. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a photographer who takes a picture ofeverything s/he sees around. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like play dough because s/he is shaped accordingto the viewpoints of his/her teachers. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a porter who carries someone else’s packageson his/her shoulders . Just as the load a porter carries doesnot belong to him/her, any knowledge that a student holds inhis/her mind doesn’t belong to him/her. (PT/1/M)

- A student is like a printer which prints out the data saved inthe memory. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like a prisoner because s/he is always punished forsome reason. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a psychopath that needs a psychiatrist tobring him/her up as a psychologically healthy individual.(ST/1/F)

- A student is like a puppet which behaves in the way theteacher likes him/her to do. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a race horse because s/he must always study(or run) without stopping, but most importantly s/he mustalways be in front of his/her classmates. So there is no strictbond between friends. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like a robot that is programmed to do some usualcoursework assigned by the teachers but never is asked aboutwhat s/he wants to do (or learn). (ST/1/F)

- A student is like the root of a tree because just as the root ofa tree sucks the water and minerals from the earth, the studentalso absorbs the teachers’ knowledge. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a seed which grows as a big tree by getting itswater, food and other minerals from the soil and its light fromthe sun. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a newly planted seedling that needs thewarm care and protection of the gardener in order to grow.(PT/4/F)

(continued on next page)

Student as raw material

- The student is a rawmaterial

- The teacher is a master- The student is expected to

take all kinds of shapes- Teaching is producing

students as socially usefulproducts

- The teacher shapesstudents into a prescribedsocietal mould

- The teacher works tobring about cultural unityin the society

- Teachers (and students)follow a standardizedcurriculum

Student as developing organism

- The student is a naivebeing

- The student is a growingbeing

- Learning is tied to the reallife issues

- The teacher cares aboutthe well-being of eachstudent in the classroom

- The most important job ofthe teacher is to supportthe growth of eachstudent

Student as empty vessel

- The student displays anempty brain

- The student’s brain isunlimited

- The student acceptsknowledge without anyreservation

- Learning is a process ofaccumulating knowledge

- Learning is a process ofstoring knowledge

- Teaching is depositingknowledge into thestudents’ brains

Student as significant being

- The student is a uniqueindividual

- Students display differentneeds, interests, andcharacteristics

- The most important job ofthe teacher is to exposethe hidden talents of his/her students

Student as absolute compliant

- The student is a captivebeing

- The student is to obey allthe rules and regulationswithout questioning theauthority

- The teacher decides aboutwhat and how to teach inthe classroom

- The student acts accord-ing to the wills anddesires of teachers

- Learning is racing withpeers

- School is a boring andunpleasant place forstudents to be in

Student as knowledge recipient

- The teacher is the mainsource of knowledge

- The student is in need ofknowledge

- Teaching is a one-wayprocess of knowledgetransmission

- Learning is a process ofobserving and recordingfacts/events

- Learning is a process ofabsorbing knowledge

- Learning is a process ofdigesting knowledge


- A student is like a slave because just like a slave who looksforward to the day s/he will be freed, the students also lookforward to the day they will be graduated. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like the soil which accepts everything good or badwithout any reservation. (ST/1/F)

- A student is like a son/daughter. The teacher treats his/herstudents at school very much like parents take care of theirsons/daughters at home. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a soldier and a teacher is like his/hercommander. The rule is very simple: The commandercommands and the soldiers obey. Otherwise, they get punishedfor their misbehaving. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a spider that makes his/her own net (knowl-edge). (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a sponge because a sponge soaks up waterwhile a student absorbs information. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a star . A star cannot produce its own light,but takes it from the sun and reflects it on earth. In the sameway, a student does not produce any new knowledge butmerely receives it from the teacher and reflects it on the exampaper. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a piece of stone in front of a sculptor . Just asa sculptor changes a piece of meaningless stone into a master-piece by shaping it, a teacher also shapes his/her students forthe benefit of the society. (PT/4/F)

- A student is similar to a storeroom because s/he has to keep allthe knowledge inside his/her brain without consideringnecessary or unnecessary (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a street kid because s/he has been abandonedby his/her parents and has not been claimed by the teachersyet. (PT/4/M)

- A student is like a suitcase because s/he carries one’s goods.(PT/4/M)

- A student is like a sunflower which faces the sun to get somelight. (PT/1/M)

- A student is like a tape recorder because s/he records every-thing the teacher says. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a tourist and a teacher is like a tour guidewho helps a group of tourists to reach their destinations.(PT/1/M)

- A student is like a trash can because s/he takes everythingthrown inside his/her brain without considering whether it isuseful or not. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a treasure and a teacher is like a treasurehunter . All students need a teacher to discover their hiddentalents. (PT/1/F)

- A student is like a TV viewer because just as a televisionprovides its viewers information about what happens in theworld, a teacher also gives his/her students knowledge abouteverything. (PT/4/F)

- A student is like a video camera because s/he records every-thing that s/he sees or hears in his/her memory. (ST/4/M)

- A student is like a virus and a teacher is like an antivirusprogram . Just like an antivirus programme removes all theviruses from a computer, the teacher also removes all thedefective ideas that can poison a student’s soul or mind. (ST/1/M)

- A student is like a wagon of a train because just as the wagonsof a train follow the locomotive by going where it goes,students also need to follow their teachers in every aspect oftheir schooling life. (PT/1/M)

- A student is like water . that takes the shape of the cup inwhich it is poured. (ST/4/F)

- A student is like a white page on which teachers transfer all theknowledge they have. (PT/1/F)

Appendix B. 12 conceptual categories with their maincharacteristics

Student as knowledge reflector

- The main role of thestudent is to reflect theteacher’s knowledge

- The student merelysupplies what theteachers have loaded inhis/her brain

- Learning is a process ofduplicating the teacher’sknowledge

Student as knowledgeconstructor

- The student is an activebeing

- Learning is an individualactivity of knowledgeconstruction

- The student strives formeaning andunderstanding

- Learning is a continuousprocess of knowledgechasing

Student as defective being

- The student is anintellectually defectivebeing

- The student is a behav-iourally defective being

- The student is anemotionally defectivebeing

- The student is aproblematic being

- The student is anunwanted being

- The student is in need ofrepair

- Teaching is treatingstudents’ flaws anddeficiencies

Student as social participant

- Learning is a socio-cognitive process ofmeaning making

- Students work and learntogether, not in isolationfrom one another

- The teacher acts asa cooperative leader inthe classroom

- The teacher acts asa guide in the teaching–learning process

Student as knowledge carrier

- Learning is furnishing ofthe mind with theteachers’ knowledge

- The student possessesknowledge provisionally

- Knowledge has no prac-tical value for the student

Student as social capital

- The student is the guar-antor of the future of thesociety in which s/he lives

- The teacher is the mainvehicle to preparestudents for the future ofthe society

- The teacher acts as anarchitect of the societywho works to change themind setting of eachstudent in the classroom


References

Aksit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of EducationalDevelopment, 27, 129–137.

Altan, M. Z. (1998). A call for change and pedagogy: a critical analysis of teachereducation in Turkey. European Journal of Education, 33, 407–417.

Ben-Peretz, M., Mendelson, N., & Kron, F. W. (2003). How teachers in different educa-tional contexts view their roles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 277–290.

Black, A. L., & Halliwell, G. (2000). Accessing practical knowledge: how? Why?Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 103–115.

Bozlk, M. (2002). The college student as learner: insight gained through metaphoranalysis. College Student Journal, 36, 142–151.

Cakiroglu, E., & Cakiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey.European Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 253–264.

Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: contri-butions of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17, 5–12.

Fretwell, D. H., & Wheeler, A. (2001). Turkey: Secondary education and training.Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available from. http://www.worldbank.org/.Accessed 19.04.08.

Gillis, C., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). Metaphor as renewal: re-imagining our profes-sional selves. The English Journal, 91, 37–43.

Grossman, G. M., Onkol, P. E., & Sands, M. K. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkishteacher education: attitudes of teacher educators towards change in an EUnation. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 138–150.

Grossman, G. M., & Sands, M. K. (2008). Restructuring reforms in Turkish teachereducation: modernization and development in a dynamic environment. Inter-national Journal of Educational Development, 28, 70–80.

Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESLteaching and learning. Language Teaching Research, 6, 95–120.

Higher Education Council [HEC]. (2008). Available from. http://www.yok.gov.tr/.Accessed 19.04.08.

Inbar, D. (1996). The free educational prison: metaphors and images. EducationalResearch, 38, 77–92.

Kliebard, H. M. (1982). Curriculum theory as metaphor. Theory Into Practice, 21, 11–17.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.Leavy, A. M., McSorley, F. A., & Bote, L. A. (2007). An examination of what metaphor

construction reveals about the evolution of preservice teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1217–1235.

MacCormac, E. R. (1990). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1998). Metaphors as structures for elementary and

secondary preservice teachers’ thinking. International Journal of EducationalResearch, 29, 227–240.

Martinez, M. A., Sauleda, N., & Huber, G. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinkingabout teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965–977.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2008). National education statistics, formaleducation 2006–2007. Available from. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/index.htm. Accessed 19.04.08.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2009). Available from. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php?name¼Downloads&d_op¼viewdownload&cid¼74.Accessed 26.01.09.

Oxford, R. L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R. Z., Saleh, A., et al.(1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: toward a systematictypology for the language teaching field. System, 26, 3–50.

Popham, W. J., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). Understanding statistics in education. Itasca,IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Quale, A. (2002). The role of metaphor in scientific epistemology: a constructivistperspective and consequences for science education. Science and Education, 11,443–457.

Saban, A. (2003). A Turkish profile of prospective elementary school teachers andtheir views of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 829–846.

Saban, A. (2004). Prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selvesand comparing them to those they have of their elementary and cooperatingteachers. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 617–635.

Saban, A., Kocbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’ conceptions ofteaching and learning revealed through metaphor analysis. Learning andInstruction, 17, 123–139.

Weade, R., & Ernst, G. (1990). Pictures of life in classrooms, and the search formetaphors to frame them. Theory Into Practice, 29, 133–140.

Yob, I. M. (2003). Thinking constructively with metaphors. Studies in Philosophy andEducation, 22, 127–138.

http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.yok.gov.tr/

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/index.htm

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/index.htm

http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php%3Fname%3DDownloads%26d_op%3Dviewdownload%26cid%3D74





prospective teachers' metaphorical conceptualizations of learner

Documents