Metaphorical Perceptions of Turkish EFL Instructors in Relation to Their Students
Abstract
Problem Statement: Despite the fact that the metaphorical perceptions of university instructors about their students are important in teacher-student interactions in the classroom environment, as they pave the way to an effective teaching-learning process, in Turkey there are a limited number of studies on them. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to determine the metaphorical perceptions of Turkish EFL Instructors in relation to their students. Method: In this study both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques were used, by requesting 120 instructors to fill in forms containing prompts such as “students are like.................., because they..........” . Findings and Results: The results of the study revealed that Turkish EFL instructors created 98 valid metaphors. The most frequently repeated metaphors were baby (f=10), soil (f=8), seed (f=7), flower (f=5), child (f=5), puppet (f=4), son/daughter (f=4), white page (f=4), empty box (f=4) and slave (f=4). In accordance with the metaphorical perceptions of the subjects, five conceptual metaphorical categories were determined: 1) Student as raw material, 2) Student as significant other, 3) Student as plant, 4) Students as absolute compliant, 5) Student as animal.
Keywords: Turkish EFL Instructorsmetaphorstudentsconceptual category
Introduction
Metaphors have been very important not just in the social lives of human beings, but also in their
educational domains. The reason why they are so important is that they tell so many things with only
one image. “If a picture is worth 1,000 words, a metaphor is worth 1,000 pictures! For a picture
provides only a static image, while a metaphor provides a conceptual framework for thinking about
something” (Shuell, 1990: 102). “Metaphor is employed when one wants to explore and understand
something esoteric, abstract, novel, or highly speculative. As a general rule, the more abstract or
speculative it is, the greater the variety of metaphors needed to grapple with it” (Yob, 2003: 134).
“what we teach” and “how we teach it” are closely linked to metaphor and emphasize the need to
understand it to comprehend our actions (Herron, 1982: 235). According to Lakoff and Johnson
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 5), metaphor pervades everyday language as well as human thoughts and
actions.
On the other hand, much research has been carried out on metaphors during the last three decades,
some cases defining them (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2009; Massengill Shak & Mahlios, 2008), or focusing
upon teachers (Saban, Kocber, & Saban, 2007; Leon-Carillo, 2007), or students (Saban, 2010), or
school environments and languages (Mahlios & Maxson, 1998; Arıoğul, & Uzun, 2011).
For example Ellis & Barkhuizen (2009: 313), define metaphor as “a comparison between two
dissimilar notions where one notion is to be understood in terms of the other notion.
In their study on prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, Saban, Koçbeker and
Saban analyzed 64 valid personal metaphors and identified 10 main conceptual themes.
Musiał (2002: 477) maintains that teaching is creating metaphor functions as a superordinate
metonym for the following linguistic manifestations:
music/carving wood; The teacher is like a sculptor; Learners are like flower buds/unexplored territory.
On the other hand, Strugielska (2008: 111) states that one of the most important aspects of a
metaphor is the roles it creates for the self and others. Thus, if I am a shepherd, my students must be
sheep. If I am a gardener, my students are plants.
Problem
Although the metaphorical perceptions of university instructors about their students are important in
teacher-student interactions in the classroom environment, as they pave the way to an effective
teaching-learning process, in Turkey there are limited number of studies on them.
Rationale
The purpose of the study is to determine the metaphorical perceptions of Turkish EFL Instructors in
relation to their students, therefore, in order to achieve the aim of the study, answers were sought to the
following questions:
1. What are the metaphors used by Turkish EFL instructors in relation to their students?
2. How many conceptual categories can be determined in accordance with the metaphors used by
Turkish EFL instructors?
Method
Research Design
In order to seek answers to the research questions, both qualitative and quantitative data collection
techniques were used, by requesting the participants to fill in forms eliciting information in relation to
their metaphorical perceptions about their students.
Participants
The participants in this study were 120 Turkish EFL instructors, 80 male and 40 female, from five
universities in Turkey. However, due to forms returned empty or improper descriptions, data evaluation
was carried out on the forms obtained from 112 instructors.
Instrument
Forms containing prompts such as “students are like.................., because they..........” were used as
data collection instruments. The participants were required to complete the prompts in accordance with
the metaphors which best described their students.
Procedure
Data collection for the study was performed during the first month of the 2015-2016 academic year.
One hundred and twenty university instructors were sent the forms eliciting information on metaphors
describing their students. However, only 112 of them completed and returned them properly.
Data Analysis
The metaphors determined were analyzed in four steps: 1) Coding and selecting, 2) Categorizing, 3)
Reliability, 4) Using SPSS for qualitative data analysis.
Coding and selecting: the metaphors written on the forms by the participants were transferred to an
Excel spreadsheet in alphabetical order. Forms returned empty and improper descriptions were
eliminated. Thus, data evaluation was carried out on 112 valid metaphors.
Categorizing: 112 metaphors created by the participants were examined in relation to subject matter,
source, and the subject matter-source relationship. 14 metaphors were eliminated at this stage, as they
could not be put in to any conceptual category and, thus, 98 metaphors were accepted as valid.
Accordingly, five different conceptual categories were determined.
Reliability: In order to ensure reliability, a consistency study was carried out. Both researchers
worked on the conceptual categorization and sorting out the data. Two experts were given the
alphabetical list and the conceptual categorizations made by the researchers and were requested to
match the list and the categorization. Based on the reliability formula of Miles and Huberman (1994),
the reliability of the study was calculated (Reliability= agreement/(agreement + disagreement)*100)).
The experts consulted put 6 metaphors into a different category from the researchers, so the reliability
was found to be 0,94, which was quite high.
Using SPSS for qualitative data analysis: All the data, metaphors and conceptual categories were
transferred to the SPSS program and the frequencies and percentages of 98 metaphors and 5 conceptual
categories were computed and given in tables.
Findings
The Turkish EFL instructors created 98 valid metaphors. The most frequently repeated metaphors
were baby (f=10), soil (f=8), seed (f=7), flower (f=5), child (f=5), puppet (f=4), son/daughter (f=4),
white page (f=4), empty box (f=4) and slave (f=4). The valid metaphors created by the participants
were put into five conceptual categories: “Student as a raw material”, “Student as a significant other”,
“Student as a plant”, “Student as an absolute compliant”, and “Student as an animal.”
Conceptual Categories
Student as a Raw Material
It is clear from Table
instructors likened their students to soil (f=8, 25,81), an empty box (f=4, 12,9%), a white page (f=4,
12,9%), dough/play dough (f=3, 9,68 %), an apprentice (f=2, 6,45 %), a raw precious stone (f=2, 6,45
%), crude oil (f=2, 6,45 % ), or a flash disk (f=2, 6,45 % ), respectively.
The main characteristics of this category of metaphors are as follows:
“A student is like soil, because we can benefit from soil if we cultivate it well. So students can learn
well if we teach them well.”
“A student is like a white page, because as we teach her/him, s/he progresses.”
“A student is like an empty box, because when we teach her/him, s/he is filled with information.”
“A student is like dough, because s/he is shaped according to how we handle her/him.”
Student as Significant Other
It can be seen in Table
likened their students to a baby (f=10, 45%), a child (f=5,22,72%), a son/daughter (f=4, 18,8%), and a
brother/sister (f=3, 13,63%), respectively.
Some of the completed prompts are as follows:
“A student is like a new-born baby, because in order to acquire the information s/he is exposed to,
s/he observes and imitates.”
“A student is like a child, because s/he isn’t aware of her/his responsibilities.”
“A student is like a son/daughter, because we are living in a family, school and they always need
us.”
Student as a Plant
Table
students to a seed (f=7, 38,88%), a flower (f=5,27,77%), or a young tree (f=3, 16,66%), respectively.
Some of the written statements of the instructors are as follows:
“A student is like a flower, because s/he needs special care in order to flourish.”
“A student is like a young tree, because s/he grows up depending on her/his surroundings.”
“A student is like a seed, because seeds flourish when they are sown and a student flourishes when
s/he is educated.”
Student as Absolute Compliant
In Table
3(23,07%) as sheep, and 2 (15,38%) as wage workers, respectively. The following sentences are the
samples from the prompts completed by the instructors:
“A student is like a puppet, because s/he cannot decide by herself/himself.”
“A student is like a slave, because s/he has to do what the instructors say.”
“A student is like a sheep, because s/he has no rejection to instructors’ commands.”
“A student is like a wage worker, because s/he has to study every day.”
Student as an Animal
It is obvious from Table
(22,22%) as a horse, 2 (22,22%) as cat, 1 (11,11%) as fox, and 1 (11,11%) as hungry wolf.
Main characteristics of this category of metaphors are as follows:
“A student is like a sheep, because s/he is always guided by the instructors.”
“A student is like a cat, because s/he isn’t loyal to her/his teacher, as cats aren’t to their owners”
“A student is like a horse, because s/he has to run for the exams.”
“A student is like a fox, because s/he is cunning about getting high marks by means of flattering.”
Discussion and Conclusion
students?
In a study on culture and teacher metaphors used in the educational system, Çelikten (2006)
determined that teachers were mostly seen as a doctor or a gardener. In another study, Oktay and Osam
(2013) examined the metaphors students at a university chose to describe the roles of foreign language
teachers and compared them with metaphors chosen by teachers of English at the same university. It
was found that three roles-- conductor, shopkeeper, and entertainer-- were favored most by both the
participating students and teachers.
Kesen (2010) carried out a study on 150 EFL Turkish learners in relation to their perceptions of
English language course books and she found that most of the participants likened language course
books to a planet, a foreign country, a secret garden, and space, which indicates the uncertainty and
enigma experienced by the learners.
In his Master’s dissertation on 50 ELT and 50 non-ELT students at Cukurova University,
Ahkemoğlu (2011) found that, whereas some metaphors are peculiar to English language teachers, such
as oracle, schizophrenic, and gum, others are common to other field teachers as "light", "guide" and
"bridge".
In our study the most frequently repeated metaphors in relation to students were baby (f=10), soil
(f=8), seed (f=7), flower (f=5), child (f=5), puppet (f=4), son/daughter (f=4), white page (f=4), empty
box(f=4), slave (f=4) and sheep (f=3).
metaphors used by Turkish EFL instructors?
In a study on40 EFL student teachers; Wen-Chuan, Paichi and Shu (2012) discovered 8 conceptual
categories in relation to teachers. In another study, on 365 pre-service teachers, Konaklı and Göğüş
(2013) determined 12 conceptual categories, analyzing the metaphors, sources of metaphors and the
relation between the metaphors and the metaphor sources.
On the other hand, a study by Akbaba-Altun and Apaydın (2013) on 165 teacher candidates
studying at a private university, revealed that while female teacher candidates used five conceptual
themes of water, sapling, baby, child and eating among the concrete metaphors, males used the concept
of a fruit tree.
In another study on the metaphorical conceptualizations of Arab learners of Turkish, Arioğul and
Uzun (2011) determined 40 metaphors in response to the cue “learning Turkish is like…..” and
categorized them under 4 conceptual categories.
In his study on 2847 prospective teachers, Saban (2010) investigated metaphorical
conceptualizations of the learner, and discovered 98 metaphorical concepts under 12 conceptual
themes. These were as follows: student as raw material, student as an empty vessel, student as a
developing organism, student as a significant being, student as absolutely compliant, student as
knowledge recipient, student as knowledge reflector, student as knowledge constructor, student as a
defective being, student as social participant, student as knowledge carrier, and student as social
capital.
In our study, 98 valid metaphors were determined and grouped under 5 conceptual categories, which
were as follows: Student as a raw material, student as a significant other, student as a plant, student as
absolute compliant, and student as an animal. Thus, this study is in parallel with Saban’s in relation to
three categories: student as a raw material, student as a significant other and student as absolute
compliant.
References
- Ahkemoğlu, H. (2011). A Study on Metaphorical Perceptions of EFL Learners Regarding Foreign Language Teacher.Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, Çukurova University, the Institute of Social Sciences.
- Akbaba-Altun, S., & Apaydın, Ç. (2013). Metaphorical Perception on the Concept of “Education” of Prospective Girls and Men Teachers. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 19(3), 329-354.
- Arıoğul, S., & Uzun, T. (2011). Metaphorical conceptualizations of Arab learners of Turkish. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2088–2.
- Çelikten, M. (2006). Culture and teacher metaphors used in educational system. Social Sciences Journal, 21, 269-283.
- Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Herron, C. (1982). Foreign-Language Learning Approaches as Metaphor. The Modern Language Journal 66(3), 235-242. [Online]: Retrieved on 15.September, 2015, at URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/326625
- Kesen, A. (2010). Turkish Efl Learners’ Metaphors With Respect To English Language Coursebooks. Novitas-ROYAL. Research on Youth and Language, 4(1), 108-118.
- Konaklı, T., Göğüş, N. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitim fakültesine ilişkin metaforik algıları: Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi örneği. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2), 67-93.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Leon-Carillo, C. (2007). Filipino Preservice Education Students’ Preconceptions of Teacher Roles Viewed Through a Metaphorical Lens. Asia- Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 197-217.
- Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1998). Metaphors as structures for elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 227–240.
- Massengill Shaw, D., & Mahlios, M. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ metaphors of teaching and literacy. Reading Psychology, 29(1), 31-60
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. California: Sage
- Musiał, A. (2002). Exploring teacher trainees’ metaphors of language teaching. In Stanulewicz, D. (ed.), PASE Papers in Language Studies, Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Universytetu Gdańskiego: 463-470.
- Oktay, Y. B., & Osam, Ü.V. (2013). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. H. U. Journal of Education, 44, 249-261.
- Saban, A., Kocber, B.N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective Teachers’ Conceptions Of Teaching And Learning Revealed Through Metaphor Analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 123-139.
- Saban, A. (2010). Prospective teachers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of learner. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 290–305
- Shuell, T. J. (1990). Teaching and learning as problem solving. Theory into Practice, 29, 102-108.
- Strugielska, A. (2008). Coherence Relations and Concept Dynamic in Learners’ Personal Theories. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 107-129.
- Wen-Chuan, L., Paichi, P.S., & Shu, C.Y. (2012). Exploring personal EFL teaching metaphors in pre-service teacher education. Practice and Critique, 11(1), pp. 183-199. Retrieved on 20 December, 2015, at URL: http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2012v11n1dial3.pdf.
- Yob, I. M. (2003). Thinking constructively with metaphors. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22, 127–138.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
04 October 2016
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-014-3
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
15
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-1115
Subjects
Communication, communication studies, social interaction, moral purpose of education, social purpose of education
Cite this article as:
Elkılıç, G., & Aybirdi, N. (2016). Metaphorical Perceptions of Turkish EFL Instructors in Relation to Their Students. In A. Sandu, T. Ciulei, & A. Frunza (Eds.), Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, vol 15. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 330-337). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.09.43