You are here

Home » Content

What are the roles of prospective teachers on the educational technology use: a metaphor study

Journal Name:

  • World Journal on Educational Technology

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Metaphors in qualitative research methods have been used as a data collection technique, which can’t be obtained directly ensure that data is obtained indirectly. In this research, the training of teachers in using technology to determine what role they are estimated at. In this context, Afyon Kocatepe University, a total of 131 teacher candidates from six different sections to the question directed at the metaphor and the data were analyzed with content analysis. Responses to the metaphor of the six different themes have been obtained: being important / useful, assistant / guide, user, producer / designer, learner and attitude. Evaluation of teacher candidates was their most important roles of the time / to be useful, help / guide and user issues have been. As a result of the analysis according to the department of prospective teachers according to the department the role they differ in their evaluation of the results have been revealed.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_159831_2_pp_186-195.pdf
  • 3
186-195
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

AECT. (2004). The Meanings of Educational Technology. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from
www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Meanings%20of%20ET_4.0.pdf
Aubusson, P. (2002). Using Metaphor to Make Sense and Build Theory In Qualitative Analysis. The
Qualitative Report, 7(4), pp: 1-14.
Çelikten, M. (2006). Kültür ve Öğretmen Metaforları, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Dergisi. 21, pp:269-283.
Cisek, P. (1999). Beyond the Computer Metaphor: Behaviour As Interaction. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 6(11), pp:25-42.
Erdoğan, T. & Gök B. (2008). Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Teknoloji Kavramına İlişkin Algılarının
Metafor Çözümlenmesi Yoluyla İncelenmesi. 8th International Educational Technology
Conference, Eskişehir, pp:1071-1077.
Ergin, A.(2003). Öğretim Teknolojisi ve İletişim. Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme. Editör:
F. Odabaşı, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Eripek, S. (1998). Öğrenci Davranışlarını Değiştirme. Eğitim Bilimlerinde Yenilikler. (Editör: Ayhan
Hakan). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Fisher, D. & Graddy, N. (1998). Teachers’ Images of Their Schools and Perception of Their Work
Environments, School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 9(3), pp:334-348.
Ahmet Naci Çoklar & Hakkı Bağcı / World Journal on Educational Technology (2010) 186-195
195
Gillis, C.& Cherly L.J. (2002). Metaphor as Renewal: Re-Imaging Our Professional Selves, English
Journal. July, pp:37-43.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1993) . How Metaphors Work. Metaphor and Thought. New York:
Cambridge University Pres.
Greene, M. (1994). Epistemology and educational research: The influence of recent approaches to
knowledge.Review of Research in Education, 20, pp:423-464.
Howard, P. (1984). Computer Metaphors: Approaches to Computer Literacy for Educators. Weaver
of Information and Perspectives on Technological Literacy, 1(2), pp:10-11.
Hoyle, E.&Wallace M. (2007). Beyond Metaphors of Management: The Case for Metaphoric Re-
Description in Education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), pp:426-442.
Jensen, F.N. (2006). Metaphors as a Bridge to Understanding Educational and Social
Contexts.International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), pp:1-17.
Kabakçı, I. & T. Tanyeri. Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme Dersi
Kapmasında Öğretim Araçlarına İlişkin Görüşlerinin Karşılaştırılması, 6th International
Educational Technology Conference. Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi, KKTC, 2006.
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford University Pres, New York.
Lakoff, G.&Mark J. (2005). Metaforlar: Hayat, Anlam ve Dil.(Çev. Gökhan Yavuz Demir),İstanbul:
Paradigma Yayınevi.
Mcdermott, P.K. (2003). Zen and The Art Systems of Analysis: Meditations on Computer System
Development. (2. basım). Lincoln: Writers Club Press.
Miles, M. B.& Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis(2. baskı). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Oğuz, A. (2005). Ögretmen Egitim Programlarında Metafor Kullanma, XIV.Ulusal Egitim Bilimleri
Kongresi, Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi.
Saban, A. (2008). İlköğretim I. Kademe Öğretmen ve Öğrencilerinin Bilgi Kavramına İlişkin Sahip
Oldukları Zihinsel İmgeler, İlköğretim Online. 7(2), pp:421-455.
Silman, F.&Şimşek, H. (2006). Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Okulları ve Merkezi Eğitim
Kurumlarına Mecazlar Yoluyla Bir Bakış, Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 23, pp:177-187.
Vadebocoeur, J.A. & Torres M.N. (2003). Constructing and Reconstructing Teaching Roles : A Focus
On Generative Metaphors and Dichotomies, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 24(1), pp.88-97.
Viswanathan, D. & Blom, J. (2010). New Metaphors from Old Practices—Mobile Learning to
Revitalize Education in Developing Regions of the World. IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies, 3(1), pp. 18-23.
Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (5. baskı), Ankara:
Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com