Analysing the metaphorical images of Turkish preschool teachers

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 01:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Analysing the metaphorical images ofTurkish preschool teachersAbdulkadir Kabadayi aa Selcuk University , Konya, TurkeyPublished online: 06 Mar 2008.

To cite this article: Abdulkadir Kabadayi (2008) Analysing the metaphorical images of Turkishpreschool teachers, Teaching Education, 19:1, 73-87, DOI: 10.1080/10476210701860081

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210701860081

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10476210701860081

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210701860081

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching EducationVol. 19, No. 1, March 2008, 73–87

ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online© 2008 School of Education, University of QueenslandDOI: 10.1080/10476210701860081http://www.informaworld.com

Analysing the metaphorical images of Turkish preschool teachers

Abdulkadir Kabadayi*

Selcuk University, Konya, TurkeyTaylor and FrancisCTED_A_286174.sgm10.1080/10476210701860081Teaching Education1047-6210 (print)/1470-1286 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis191000000March 2008Dr [email protected] The metaphorical basis of teacher reflection about teaching and learning has been a rich area

of theory and research. This is a study of metaphor as a shared system of interpretation andclassification, which teachers and student teachers and their supervising teachers cancooperatively explore. This study employs metaphor as a means of research to provide insightsinto the prospective preschool pre-service and their cooperating teachers’ current professionalself-images, and their retrospective elementary schooling images. A questionnaire consistingof 12 metaphorical images generated by “preschool pre-service and their cooperating teachers”was administered to all entry level preschool pre-bachelor, bachelor student teachers who wereenrolled in the Faculty of Education in Selcuk University, Turkey, during the 2005–2006academic years. Their cooperating teachers (n = 317), currently working in Konya, werechosen to obtain information about their current and elementary schooling years’ metaphoricalimages. Results of the study indicate that significant differences exist between pre-service(pre-bachelor and bachelor) and cooperating preschool teachers’ current and elementaryschooling metaphorical images. There was a marked difference in their use of student-centeredand teacher-centered metaphors. Implications for pre-service and cooperating teachereducation and further research are discussed.

Rationale

Educators often search for more effective methods of transmitting knowledge to students andhelping them to learn more efficiently. To attain this, some strategies have been used to helpstudents better assimilate and accommodate information in an educational context. One of thosestrategies is the use of metaphor (Bullough, 1991; Bullough & Stokes, 1994; Carter, 1990; Dick-meyer, 1989; Marshall, 1990; Provenzo, McCloskey, Kottkamp, & Cohn, 1989; Stofflett, 1996).Metaphors are not just figures of speech, but constitute essential mechanisms of cognition andmeaning. Metaphors serve as filters for student and cooperating teachers’ perceptions, providingan epistemological framework within which they interpret their experiences and assign meaning.They are also powerful influences upon students and their cooperating teachers, not just reflectingattitudes but shaping their perspectives and their actions. The metaphors teachers use reflect andinfluence how they interpret reality and experience.

Literature review

In education, researchers and practitioners are also unconsciously guided by images and meta-phorical patterns of thought recurring in their field, which can be seen as “stepping-stones” ofprofessional thinking in education. Metaphors are constructed to link human beings’ bodily expe-rience of something to their more abstract thinking, and to “give shape, structure, and meaning totheir imagination” (Sfard, 1998, p. 4). In other words, metaphors are cognitive and socialconstructions.

*Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

74 A. Kabadayi

Metaphors present something in the form of something else. Primary metaphors are the resultof recursive coordination of subjective experience and sensori-motor functions. Coordinated acti-vations of psychological and physiological functions generate linguistic associations and connec-tions, whereby individuals draw upon sensori-motor experience to name phenomena ofsubjective experience (Lakoff, 1999; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). At the same time, metaphors areconstructions of meaning that encapsulate people’s current understandings, while extending andexpanding them by using a metaphorical projection (Prawat, 1999). In this sense, they can belikened to a bridge that links “the known to the unknown, the tangible to the less tangible, thefamiliar to the new” and enables “passage from one world to another” (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999,p. 149). While metaphors do not of themselves prove or demonstrate anything new, they enableus to see in a new light what we are doing or experiencing (Saban, 2006).

It would be beneficial to explain the metaphors in an educational context as follows; meta-phors as teaching/learning tools in the classroom, and metaphors as teacher training tools to trainprospective teachers.

Metaphors as teaching/learning tools in the classroom

Metaphors can exert powerful influences on processes of analysing and planning in education. Inparticular, they profoundly affect teachers’ thinking about teaching and learning. Educators canoften concentrate their efforts on investigating educational metaphors. They also try to discusshow the results may contribute to the solution of problems that arise in teaching students in theclassroom. To be most effective, metaphor must transfer ideas from a familiar concept to one thatis less familiar or unknown. In other words, teachers must ensure that the coherence of the meta-phor is accurate and clear; if not, the intended effect of greater understanding of the topic or issuecan be lost (Earle, 1995; Glynn & Takahashi, 1998). The application of metaphor in teaching canenhance the learning process by creating vivid imagery that establishes connections betweenconcepts and a student’s prior learning or life experiences (Lawler, 1999). However, the use ofmetaphors that are abstract or overly complex is also less effective (Griffey, Housner, &Williams, 1985). In addition to this, a useful metaphorical contrast should possess the fit,relevance and accuracy to contribute to the intended pedagogical effect of providing the studentwith greater understanding and clarity. A significant content retention rate among students wasfound when information was presented using the pedagogical tools of metaphor (Glenn, 2002;Hill, 1988; Korobkin, 1989).

Metaphors as teacher training tools to train prospective teachers

Metaphors have been used as a vehicle to understand the ways in which teachers teach, how theirteaching changes and why teaching is resistant to change. They have also been commonly usedto investigate teaching, teacher beliefs about teaching and by practitioners as reflective andanalytical tools and to promote teacher development (Kurtz, Gentner, & Gunn, 1999; Ritchie,1994; Wilson, 1995). In this sense, metaphor is seen as “a means for assisting beginners to artic-ulate who they think they are as teachers” (Bullough & Stokes, 1994, p. 220) and as a way to helppre-service teachers to “grasp intellectually systems that operate in ways quite mysterious tothem” (Dickmeyer, 1989, p. 152) and “to encourage reconceptualization of problem situations”(Marshall, 1990, p. 129).

These findings were generated in different contexts than Turkey. The current literature onteacher change provides numerous examples from all over the world about the existence of bothstability and change in the beliefs of student teachers after pre-service teacher training (see Lewin& Akyeampong, 2002). In a recent study, Saban (2004) found that teacher candidates appear to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Teaching Education 75

be less teacher-centered and more student-centered in terms of the differences betweenparticipants’ images of selves and those they have of their elementary teachers; their elementaryand cooperating teachers; male and female teacher education students’ perceptions of theirprofessional self-images.

This study was conducted to build up the knowledge base about the current and elementaryschooling metaphorical images of prospective preschool pre-service and their cooperatingteachers. The focus of the vast majority of research on pre-service teacher education has been thestudent teachers (Coultas & Lewin, 2002; Walkington, 2005), with very limited attention tothe cooperating teachers in practicum. Therefore, further investigation is needed in order to viewthe matter both from the cooperating and the pre-service teachers’ (pre-bachelor and bachelor)perspectives. Beside this, it is also important to display whether their learning styles affect theirteaching styles via their self-generated metaphors since the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered metaphors provides a context to discuss ways to enhance the preschool teachereducation course in different sociocultural contexts.

The purpose of this study was to determine the change of the current and elementary school-ing metaphorical images of pre-service and cooperating preschool teachers via their self-generated metaphors, and to determine whether the recent reforms in the teacher training systemaffect the participants’ past and current metaphorical images. To guide this study, the followingresearch questions were investigated:

Was there a difference between the current and elementary schooling metaphorical images of(a) preschool pre-bachelor; (b) bachelor student teachers; and (c) their cooperating teachers viatheir self-generated metaphors?

Research method

This section presents the approach and methodology used in the research.

Research approach

The researcher used the quantitative method because of the advantages; for example, quantitativeinstruments, such as the scale used in this research, took less time to reach a larger number ofsubjects, as recommended in Cooligan (1996) and Creswell (1994) and were financially econom-ical to administer (see Kabadayi, 2006). The quantitative data have allowed us to see whetherthere are significant associations between the independent variables (pre-service and their coop-erating teachers, past and current schooling years) and dependent variables (methaphoricalimages and its dimensions), using statistical techniques such as paired t-test because here therewere more than one independent variables involved in our research. Although quantitativeapproaches are in wide use all over the world, some previous researchers have also used thequalitative approach in these issues (Sumsion, 2002). In this study it was also desired to generatequantitative data with which associations and relationships among variables could be describeddirectly, and generalisable conclusions reached through the research findings.

Sample

The population of the study was pre-service teachers majoring in preschool teaching and pre-bachelor students involving child development and education at Selcuk University and theircooperating teachers who are currently teaching in Konya.

The sample was pre-service teachers enrolled in a method of teaching preschool educationdepartment of faculty of education; pre-bachelor students enrolled in a child development andeducation department of vocational school of social sciences; and their cooperating teachers, who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

76 A. Kabadayi

are currently teaching in different preschools and kindergartens of Konya. The sample (n = 317)included 107 preschool bachelor student teachers, 120 pre-bachelor students of child develop-ment in the education department and 90 cooperating teachers. Their responsibilities were toinclude coordinating and cooperating preschool and pre-bachelor student teachers, in addition todirectly mentoring them.

Preschool education in Turkey has made slow progress up until the turn of the newmillennium when compared to other European countries. At present, the demand for preschooleducation, especially in big cities and industrial areas, is increasing gradually. It is unfortunatethat the spread of education is attained at the lowest level, which is about 15% (Guclu, 2005).Furthermore, according to National Education sources, the number of preschool children is abouteight million at present and the number of preschool students is 437,771, while the number ofpreschool teachers is 22,030 (www.meb.gov.tr).

Research instrument

The present study used the concept of “metaphor” as a means of research for examiningprospective preschool teachers’ images of “teacher”. Before conducting the study, some studies(Bullough, 1991; Clarken, 1997; Earle, 1995, Gillis & Johnson, 2002; Guerrero & Villamil,2002; Hagstrom et al., 2000; Mahlios & Maxson, 1998; Martinez, Sauleda, & Huber, 2001;Oxford et al., 1998; Saban, 2002, 2003, 2004) related to metaphorical images of teaching,learning and schooling were examined. Sixty participants (40 pre-service and 20 of their coop-erating teachers) were randomly chosen to conduct the first step of the study, which mainlydeals with metaphor generation procedure. In the journal articles referred to above, metaphorsgenerated were grouped mostly under two broad theoretical perspectives in education as (1)teacher-centered and/or instruction-oriented; and (2) student-centered and/or learning-orientedperspectives. The conceptual category including teacher–school–student and the key aspects ofthe metaphors were written on a sheet and the metaphors column was left intact. The partici-pants were required to generate 12 metaphors – six for teacher-centered, which focus mainlyon transmission of knowledge and delivering instruction, and six for student-centeredmetaphors, which focus mainly on learning facilitation and active student involvement (Saban,2002, 2003). For the following reasons, out of 51, 12 metaphors were chosen as educationaltools to obtain data according to their order of importance. The participants were required togenerate and fill in the metaphor column, which is based on the relationships between student–SCHOOL–teacher like Gladiator–ARENA–King. Most of the metaphors generated by theparticipants did not match the student–SCHOOL–teacher chains and one of the chains waseither misinterpreted or misplaced like Horse–CART–road or Darkness–LIGHT–Candle. Themetaphors which did not match the chains were omitted from the main list. In the first place,51 metaphors were decreased to 21, most of which were similar such as Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver/Paint–WORKSHOP–Painter and/or Voyager–COAST–Captain/Tourist–CITY–Guide or Toddler–STAGE–Clown/Audience–STAGE–Showman. Fourteen academicians, whowere specialists in educational sciences in Selcuk University, were required to rate the meta-phors with respect to their suitability, originality and adaptability from the most to the leastrepresentative based on a four-point Likert-type scale (“1”, not representative at all; “2”, partlyrepresentative; “3”, representative; and “4”, most representative). All the instruments werehand scored by the academicians and the aggregate data were analysed by the computer. Meanscoring procedure was used to put the metaphors into their order of importance from the mostto the least representative (from 4.00 to 1.00). The metaphors above the cut-off point of 3.33were included in the instrument ranging from 4.00 to 3.42. As a result of the rating procedure,20 metaphors were decreased to 12. Table 1 offers a summary of the conceptual categories for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


teacher (student), the participant-generated metaphors for each category, the key aspects ofeach metaphor and mean scoring of the academicians.

In this research, 12 recent educational metaphors were generated by the participants based onthe mean scoring of the academicians, the key aspects and conceptual category of the metaphorsthat Saban (2004, p. 628) and Clarken (1997) conducted as in the following: under the teacher-centered theoretical perspective, four conceptual categories and six participant-generated meta-phors are included. In short, in the “teacher as an information conveyor (and student as a tabularasa)” category of metaphors (teacher as steam-engine and king), the teacher is perceived to be aperson who spoon-feeds the students with knowledge while the students are passive recipients ofit. In the “teacher as a pearl oyster (student as a grain of sand)” category of metaphors (teacheras rug-weaver), the teacher is assumed to be a highly talented mason who forms and shapes thestudents into socially useful and valuable products while the student is considered to be the rawmaterial. In the “teacher as a prophet (and student as a sinful individual)” category of metaphors(teacher as electrician), the student is perceived to be intellectually, spiritually and behaviorallydefective and thus in need of repair. The teacher’s main task, on the other hand, is to rehabilitate,correct and fix students’ errors and deficiencies. In the “teacher as a disciplinarian (and studentas an obedient individual)” category of metaphors (teacher as referee and tamer), the teacher is

Table 1. Metaphorical images of preschool pre-service and their cooperating teachers.

Conceptual category for teacher (student)

Participant-generated metaphors for student–SCHOOL–teacher Key aspects/characteristics

Teacher-centered metaphorsTeacher as information conveyor (student as tabula rasa)

Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engineGladiator–ARENA–King

Teacher burdens all the workloadMaking the students race through exams

4.003.71

Teacher as a pearl oyster (student as a grain of sand)

Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver Manufacturing socially valuable product

3.50

Teacher as a prophet (student as sinful individual)

Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL– Electrician

Correcting students’ mind, spirit and behavior

3.42

Teacher as disciplinarian (student as obedient)

Footballer–FIELD–RefereeLion–ZOO–Tamer

Controlling students’ behaviors in the class.Strict rules and absolute compliance

3.85

3.71

Student-centered metaphorsTeacher as care-taker (student as developing organism)

Pet–HOUSE–Landlord/ladyCustomer–CLOTH–Tailor

Fostering students’ potential capabilityMeeting students’ needs and interest

3.50

3.71

Teacher as comedian (student as conscious observant)

Toddler–STAGE–Clown Stimulating students’ curiosity 3.64

Teacher as facilitator (student as constructer of knowledge)

Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master

Making the students learn in a respectful atmosphere

3.78

Teacher as team captain (student as active participant)

Worker–FACTORY–Product-managerVoyager–COAST–Captain

Manufacturing a product collaborativelyHelping the students learn by guided discovery and exploration

3.92

3.78

= Mean Score

X̄

X̄

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

78 A. Kabadayi

considered to be the authority who can make everything done by the students who are assumedto be ready to carry out what is ordered in the classroom.

Under the student-centered theoretical perspective, four conceptual categories and six partic-ipant-generated metaphors are also included. In short, in the “teacher as a care-taker (and studentas a developing organism)” category of metaphors (teacher as landlord/lady and tailor), theteacher’s main role is to provide and expose the potential capabilities of each student in a lovingand nurturing learning environment. In the “teacher as a comedian (and student as a consciousobservant)” category of metaphors (teacher as clown), the teacher’s task is to construct a joyfulatmosphere by relaxing students and decreasing their anxieties as part of instruction in order toprovide them with active participation in the teaching/learning process. In the “teacher as a facil-itator (and student as constructor of knowledge)” category of metaphors (teacher as master), theteacher provides necessary assistance to the students at the appropriate times by scaffolding them.In the “teacher as a team captain (and student as an active participant)” category of metaphors(teacher as product-manager and captain), the teacher is in the position of organizer, and thestudents are part of team and active participants. In the “classroom as a factory” metaphor, forexample, the teacher might be perceived as the product-manager, and the students would be theworkers while their production performance would be the daily educational experience. Hence,working together in harmony (e.g., manufacturing goods and merchandise together) is an essen-tial feature of this category of metaphors.

Instrument application

Based on the participants’ generated-metaphors, a practical questionnaire was designed as themain instrument to collect the study data. The instrument consisted of 12 metaphorical images of“preschool teacher” presented in the Likert-style format (see Table 1). It asked the participants torate the 12 metaphors based on a three-point Likert scale (“1”, not representative at all; “2”, partlyrepresentative; and “3”, most representative) to indicate their most representative images of theirelementary teachers, their cooperating teachers, and themselves as future teachers. It started withthe following heading for the first part: “Which of the metaphorical images, do you think, wouldbe most likely, partly likely, or not likely at all to describe your own experiences as a student/preschool teacher and elementary schooling?”

The findings

In analysing data, descriptive statistics including counts, percentage, means and standard devia-tion are used to report the data obtained via fixed-response questions and Likert-style items. Theparticipants were required to rate the 12 metaphors based on a three-point Likert-scale (“1”, notrepresentative at all; “2”, partly representative; “3”, most representative). The data were analysedby the SPSS statistical package by the mean scores, independent groups’ t-test. By using meanscore, it was aimed to show to what extent the metaphor got values from not representative at all(1.00) to most representative (3.00). In addition to this, independent groups’ t-test was conductedto determine the difference between the pre-bachelor student teachers’ current and elementaryschooling metaphorical images followed by bachelor and their cooperating preschool teachers.

Eighty-eight per cent of the participants did not have preschool education while 12% of themhad only one–two years. The study revealed further that the vast majority of the participants(98.4%) were female while the rest (1.6%) were male.

Current metaphorical images of pre-bachelor student teachers scored significantly higherthan their elementary schooling metaphorical images in respect to teacher-centered metaphors(p < 0.05). In Table 2, the largest differences were in Item (2) (Footballer–FIELD–Referee),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


followed by items (3) (Lion–ZOO–Tamer), (4) (Gladiator–ARENA–King), (5) (Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine) and (6) (Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician). The pre-bachelorstudent teachers emphasized the difference between their current metaphorical images and theirelementary schooling years.

They indicate that their current teaching roles were totally different from the ones by whichthey were taught in their elementary years. However, no statistically significant differences werefound between their current and elementary schooling metaphorical images of preschool pre-bachelor student teachers in Item (1) (Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver) in respect of teacher-centeredmetaphors.

Table 2. Comparison of current and elementary schooling teacher-centered metaphorical images of preschool pre-bachelor student teachers.

Current M.IElementary School M.I

Metaphors n SD SD t p

1. Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver(Manufacturing socially useful products)

120 2.17 0.57 2.15 0.76 0.23 0.81

2. Footballer–FIELD–Referee(Controlling students’ behaviors in the class.)

120 2.05 0.71 1.46 0.62 6.83 0.00*

3. Lion–ZOO–Tamer(Strict rules and absolute compliance)

120 2.23 0.68 1.83 0.61 4.85 0.00*

4. Gladiator–ARENA–King(Racing students through exams/competition)

120 2.25 0.79 1.55 0.67 7.18 0.00*

5. Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine(Teacher burdens all the workload)

120 2.06 0.92 1.20 0.55 8.51 0.00*

6. Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician(Correcting students’ mind and behavior)

120 2.35 0.61 2.75 0.45 6.22 0.00*

n= Participants = Mean Score SD = Standard Deviation 0.00* = P <0.05

X̄ X̄

X̄

Table 3. Comparison of current and elementary schooling student-centered metaphorical images of preschool pre-bachelor student teachers.

Current M.IElementary school M.I


7. Voyager–COAST–Captain(Guided discovery and exploration)

120 2.76 0.44 2.20 0.74 7.39 0.00*

8. Pet–HOUSE–Landlord/lady(Fostering students’ potential capability)

120 2.90 0.28 2.20 0.74 9.23 0.00*

9. Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master(Making the students learn in a disciplined atmosphere)

120 2.99 0.09 2.55 0.65 7.21 0.00*

10. Worker–FACTORY–Productmanager(Manufacturing a product collaboratively)

120 2.95 0.25 2.26 0.67 10.5 0.00*

11. Toddler–STAGE–Clown(Stimulating students’ curiosity)

120 2.92 0.32 2.13 0.78 11.0 0.00*

12. Customer–CLOTH–Tailor(Meeting individual needs and interest)

120 2.95 0.27 2.10 0.74 12.7 0.00*

X̄ X̄

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

80 A. Kabadayi

The findings in Table 3 indicate that current metaphorical images of pre-bachelor studentteachers revealed significant difference to their elementary schooling metaphorical images inrespect of student-centered metaphors (p < 0.05). The significant differences were on Item (7)(Voyager–COAST–Captain) followed by Items (9) (Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master), (10)(Worker–FACTORY–Productmanager), (11) (Toddler–STAGE–Clown), (12) (Customer–CLOTH–Tailor). The findings in Table 3 showed that the current roles and the functions of thestudents–schoolteachers were totally different from those in their elementary schooling, exceptfor Item (8) (Pet–HOUSE–Landlord/lady) in respect of student-centered metaphorical images ofpre-bachelor student teachers.

In Table 4 the preschool bachelor student teachers stress that their current metaphorical imageshave significantly differed from their elementary schooling metaphorical images when comparedwith their current and elementary schooling metaphorical images in Item (2) (Footballer–FIELD–Referee), followed by Items (3) (Lion–ZOO–Tamer), (4) (Gladiator–ARENA–King) and (5)(Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine). However, insignificant difference was found in Item (1)(Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver) followed by Item (6) (Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician) inrespect of teacher-centered metaphors.

The results in Table 5 indicate statistically significant differences between preschool bachelorstudent teachers’ current and elementary schooling metaphorical images in respect of their student-centered metaphorical images. While the preschool bachelor student teachers agreed that theircurrent metaphorical images differed significantly from their past schooling metaphorical imagesin Item (7) (Voyager–COAST–Captain) followed by Items (8) (Pet–HOUSE–Landlord/lady), (9)(Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master), (11) (Toddler–STAGE–Clown), (12) (Customer–CLOTH–Tailor), they found no significant difference in Item (10) (Worker–FACTORY–Productmanager).

The findings in Table 6 indicate that significant differences exist between current and elemen-tary schooling metaphorical images of preschool cooperating teachers in Item (3) (Lion–ZOO–Tamer) followed by Items (4) (Gladiator–ARENA–King) and (6) (Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician). But only in Items (1) (Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver), (2) (Footballer–FIELD–Referee)and (5) (Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine) were non-significant differences found in respectof metaphorical images of preschool cooperating teachers in teacher-centered metaphors.

Table 4. Comparison of current and elementary schooling teacher-centered metaphorical images of preschool bachelor student teachers.




107 2.14 0.74 2.07 0.82 0.85 0.39


107 1.97 0.73 1.50 0.73 6.00 0.00*


107 2.28 0.72 1.92 0.76 3.93 0.00*


107 2.17 0.81 1.56 0.72 6.22 0.02*


107 2.00 0.85 1.34 0.70 5.97 0.00*

6. Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician(Correcting students’ mind and behavior)

107 2.38 0.69 2.42 0.70 0.46 0.64

X̄ X̄Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


As can be seen from Table 7, the preschool cooperating teachers agree that their current meta-phorical images differed from their elementary schooling metaphorical images in respect ofstudent-centered metaphors.

The findings posed significant differences in Item (7) (Voyager–COAST–Captain) followedby Items (8) (Pet–HOUSE–Landlord/lady), (9) (Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master), (10)(Worker–FACTORY–Productmanager), (11) (Toddler–STAGE–Clown), (12) (Customer–CLOTH–Tailor). The preschool cooperating teachers expressed the view that the current roles ofstudents were very different from the roles of students in their elementary schooling years.

Table 5. Comparison of current and elementary schooling student-centered metaphorical images of preschool bachelor student teachers.




107 2.71 0.58 2.27 0.78 5.09 0.00*


107 2.73 0.55 2.17 0.75 6.66 0.00*


107 2.88 0.37 2.38 0.68 7.13 0.00*


107 2.89 0.33 2.37 0.77 6.82 0.00*


107 2.87 0.40 2.31 0.73 7.33 0.00*


107 2.87 0.40 2.28 0.75 7.84 0.00*

X̄ X̄

Table 6. Comparison of current and elementary schooling teacher-centered metaphorical images of preschool cooperating teachers.




90 2.06 0.64 2.08 0.78 0.28 0.77


90 1.81 0.80 1.28 0.45 5.91 0.50


90 2.07 0.73 1.62 0.61 5.74 0.00*


90 2.20 0.75 1.46 0.63 8.10 0.00*


90 1.78 0.85 1.08 0.35 7.44 0.44

6. Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician(Correcting students mind and behavior)

90 2.17 0.72 2.65 0.52 5.24 0.00*

X̄ X̄Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

82 A. Kabadayi

Discussion and implications

In this study, the demographic characteristics and metaphorical images of 317 pre-service (pre-bachelor and bachelor) and their cooperating preschool teachers were investigated by using themost crowded and largest university/city in Turkey as a context. An analysis of the study datarevealed the following findings: The demographic characteristics of the participants revealed whois currently teaching and still entering preschool teacher education in Turkey. The fact that thevast majority of the participants (98.4%) were female shows that preschool education in Turkeyis a female-dominated field, which generally reflects current trends within the field of preschooleducation (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). This probably stems from the fact that female participantstend to be prepared for mothering and nurturing in Turkey.

Despite the fact that 88% of the participants did not have preschool education has also beensupported by recent research which displays the proportion of preschool education in Turkey as15% (Guclu, 2005).

As teacher and learner are sine a qua non for the teaching/learning process in the classroom,no teaching/learning procedure is performed if one of the elements of the teaching/learningprocess is lacking in the classroom. Therefore, in this study, the results of current and past school-ing metaphorical images of preschool pre-service and their cooperating teachers were discussedfrom teacher-centered and student-centered aspects separately.

Current metaphorical images of preschool pre-bachelor student teachers show that thenature of student education and formation has differed from their past schooling years. Theybelieve that current metaphors including Item (2) (Footballer–FIELD–Referee) followed byItems (3) (Lion–ZOO–Tamer), (4) (Gladiator–ARENA–King) and (6) (Fuse–ELECTRIC-PANEL–Electrician) better represent student–school–teacher than their elementary schoolingmetaphors. It can be inferred that educating students is becoming more difficult than in the pastas there seems to be a hard struggle and rivalry in every layer of the society, e.g., in the school,in work or in the university entrance examination, especially in Turkey. In the 2005 academicyear, more than 1,500,000 university students competed with each other to be placed among thewinners. Of these, only 150.000 were placed in institutions of formal education, except the

Table 7. Comparison of current and elementary schooling student-centered metaphorical images of preschool cooperating teachers.




90 2.73 0.46 2.12 0.76 6.66 0.00*


90 2.73 0.20 2.15 0.77 6.01 0.00*


90 2.94 0.31 2.37 0.71 6.77 0.00*


90 2.93 0.25 2.23 0.68 9.35 0.00*


90 2.88 0.34 2.03 0.82 9.63 0.00*


90 2.81 0.47 2.04 0.73 8.70 0.00*

X̄ X̄

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


University of Anatolia, in which distance education is available in some disciplines (OSYM,2005). Therefore, pre-bachelor teachers may feel pressure in teaching students in every layer ofeducation, that is, from preschool to university education. Apart from this, in Item (1) (Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver), the pre-bachelor student teachers are of the opinion that the role ofteachers is always to help equip the students with necessary prerequisite skills, which has notchanged up to present. In addition to this, in item (5) (Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine), theparticipants state that teachers’ workloads have not lessened since their primary schooling yearswhen they suffered from lack of educational equipment.

In student-centered metaphorical images of preschool, pre-bachelor teacher candidatesemphasized the changing roles of students. Mean scores of the metaphor analysis showed thatthey preferred the student-centered metaphors more than those in their past schooling years. Fromthe study data, it can also be inferred that the roles of teachers in servicing and guiding (Bullough,1991), collaborating, and entertaining the students are consistent with their current metaphoricalimages, including Item (7) (Voyager–COAST–Captain) followed by Items (9) (Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master), (10) (Worker–FACTORY–Product-manager), (11) (Toddler–STAGE–Clown), (12) (Customer–CLOTH–Tailor) more than those in their past schooling years. But, inItem (8) (Pet–HOUSE–Landlord/lady), the participants disagree that students are as domestic asthey were in the past as their needs and expectations were now different.

The statistical analysis of the data indicates that the metaphors in Table 4 represent currentmetaphorical images of preschool bachelor student teachers more than their elementary schoolingin respect of teacher-centered metaphors in Item (2) (Footballer–FIELD–Referee) followed byItems (3) (Lion–ZOO–Tamer), (4) (Gladiator–ARENA–King), (5) (Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine). Changing conditions of the teaching/learning process of the bachelor teachercandidates in controlling, burdening all students’ workload, taming and racing force them to bestricter and more disciplined than the ones in their past schooling years. In this condition, bache-lor teacher candidates have to play a role of “chameleon”, as Bullough (1991) stated. However,in Item (1) (Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver) the participants indicate that the main task of the teacheras an information deliverer has not changed in manufacturing students as socially useful productsup to now. Furthermore, in Item (6) (Fuse–ELECTRICPANEL–Electrician) the participants areof the opinion that students need teachers’ technical and psychological supports to correct theirminds, spirit and behaviors.

The study data show that the metaphors under the category of student-centered representcurrent metaphorical images of preschool bachelor student teachers more than their elementaryschooling in Item (7) (Voyager–COAST–Captain) followed by Items (8) (Pet–HOUSE–Land-lord/lady), (9) (Apprentice–WORKSHOP–Master), (11) (Toddler–STAGE–Clown), (12)(Customer–CLOTH–Tailor). At present, the Turkish education system is highly teacher-centeredin character. Most of those who go through it strongly desire different educational experiencesfrom what was offered to them (Saban, 2003, p. 843). It shows that preschool bachelor studentteachers have different thoughts about guiding, parenting, collaborating, servicing and entertain-ing their students from their experience in past schooling years. Apart from this, in Item (10)(Worker–FACTORY–Product-manager), the participants point out that the role of the teacher asa boss and the role of the student as a worker have not changed and students were still under thepressure of a heavy workload.

Under the teacher-centered category of the metaphors, the paired t-test indicated that thecurrent preschool cooperating teachers’ metaphorical images differed from their past schoolingmetaphors in producing socially useful products, making the students race through exams,controlling and correcting and eradicating their mistakes. But the cooperating preschool teachersexpressed the view that their current metaphorical images were consistent with their elementaryschooling in commanding the students and laboring their workload. The preschool cooperating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

84 A. Kabadayi

teachers perceive the knowledge transmitter role of teachers differently from in their pastschooling experiences. But only in Items (1) (Silk–LOOM–Rugweaver), (2) (Footballer–FIELD–Referee) and (5) (Wagons–RAILWAY–Steam-engine), the preschool cooperating teachers’current and past schooling experiences did not seem to differ in their central role as the delivererof knowledge and information-provider as behaviorists put forward.

Under the student-centered category of the metaphors, it was concluded from the data analysisthat the current preschool cooperating teachers’ metaphorical images differed totally from theirpast schooling metaphors in parenting, collaborating, entertaining, servicing, guiding and meet-ing their needs.

It shows that the need for a shift from a more teacher-centered to a more student-centeredschooling system appears to be supported by cooperating preschool teachers. At this point,preschool cooperating teachers function as a “butterfly” (Bullough, 1991) in the classroom, whichis likened to “home” by Clandinin (1986). Their cooperating school teacher, as a “butterfly”,lands on one flower (student) then another, to decrease their anxiety by making the students at“home”, and solve their problems by parenting and by meeting their needs in the classroom.

Conclusion

The study comprised two steps. In the first step, 12 educational metaphors were generated by theparticipants. As a result of the first process, the metaphors clustered in eight categories based onGuerrero and Villamil (2002):

(1) Teacher as information deliverer, e.g., “steam engine, king”.(2) Teacher as artist, e.g., “rug-weaver”.(3) Teacher as repairer, e.g., “electrician”.(4) Teacher as disciplinarian, e.g., “referee, tamer”.(5) Teacher as nurturer, e.g., “landlord/lady, tailor”.(6) Teacher as comedian, e.g., “clown”.(7) Teacher as facilitator, e.g., “master”.(8) Teacher as cooperative leader, e.g., “product-manager, captain”.

The metaphors above clearly reveal that there are numerous metaphors for the concept of“teacher”, each one providing a different schema for thinking about “teaching as a profession”.The main reason for this situation, according to Weade and Ernst (1990, p. 133), is because “Meta-phors are selective. They represent a part, but not the whole, of the phenomena they describe”.So, the Turkish pre-service students and their cooperating teachers seem to transport “the schema”from its customary realm to a new realm as in the conceptual theme of teaching and learning asa social process (e.g., “Teaching is like a captain who negotiates a route with the voyagers”). Addi-tionally, they also seem to build linkages between two dissimilar ideas (the concrete and theabstract) or the projection of one schema (the source domain of the metaphor) onto another schema(the target domain of the metaphor) that might be evaluated from a constructivist perspective (e.g.,“Teaching is like a rug weaver who makes the rugs out of silk”) (Yob, 2003, p. 127).

In the second step, the metaphors were given to the participants to make a comparisonbetween their current and elementary schooling metaphorical images. It is implied from thefindings that significant differences were found between their current and past schoolingmetaphorical images including both teacher-centered and student-centered metaphors. It is alsoimplied from the study data that:

(1) Preschool pre-bachelor, bachelor student and their cooperating teachers’ currentmetaphorical images significantly differed from their elementary schooling ones inrespect of teacher-centered metaphors separately.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


(2) Preschool pre-bachelor, bachelor student and their cooperating teachers’ currentmetaphorical images significantly differed from their elementary schooling ones inrespect of student-centered metaphors separately.

The most important result seems to be that the preferred metaphors (current and thoserecalled from student experience) are different. It also seems that recent reforms in teacher train-ing systems of Turkish education are producing fruit since a need for a shift from a moreteacher-centered to a more student-centered schooling system appears to be supported by coop-erating preschool teachers. This suggests that, contrary to considerable literature stating that“teachers teach the way they learned” by Dunn and Dunn (1979, p. 241), and folk wisdom, theparticipants of the study may not teach as they were taught. Therefore, their teaching styles donot seem to be consistent with their learning styles as Koppleman (1980) commented. This iscrucial since the current reform efforts regarding teaching and learning are strongly dominatedby active student learning (e.g., the student-centered perspective) rather than pure knowledgetransmission (e.g., the teacher-centered perspective), which dominated the field of education formost of the past century (Holt-Reynolds, 2000). Understanding more about the changes inbeginning teachers over time as the participants gain more experience and skills in differentworkplace conditions is an essential precursor to improving the quality of the present educationsystem (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Nettle, 1998; Saban, 2002, 2003, 2004). In addition to this,most of the syllabi of faculties of education in Turkey have been revised and re-designed mostlyon the basis of active student learning (e.g., the student-centered perspective) rather than knowl-edge transmission (e.g., the teacher-centered perspective) (www. yok.gov.tr). In line with thisreformation, most of the INSET courses and course books were re-designed on the basis ofconstructivist and social constructivist perspectives rather than the mechanistic approach.Therefore, most of the participants might have been affected by the reformation process inTurkish educational system and seem to be ready to adapt to innovative teaching/learning activ-ities. The participants seem to be affected by “a three-stage process of change” (Yung, 2001, p.259) through (a) awareness of own images; (b) comparison with alternatives; and (c) identifica-tion of new images that are consistent with images of selves. However, there is much to learnabout pre-service students and their cooperating teachers with regard to various metaphoricalimages of, i.e., educational technology, textbooks, school, etc. More research should beconducted to possess a greater knowledge about pre-service preschool teachers and preschoolcooperating teachers in this complex area of teaching and learning in preschool settings. Is therea significant difference between male and female preschool pre-service and their cooperatingteachers in respect of educational metaphors? Is there a significant difference between and oramong preschool pre-service and their cooperating teachers who come from different socio-economical strata in respect of educational metaphors? Is there a significant difference betweenpreschool pre-service and their cooperating teachers who graduated from private and stateschools in respect of educational metaphors?

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the foundation of scientific research projects of Selcuk University. Iwould also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions to themanuscript and to Gaye Bear of Teaching Education for her editorial assistance.

References

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor inlearning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501–518.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

86 A. Kabadayi

Bullough, R.V. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in pre-service teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education, 42(1), 43–51.

Bullough, R.V., & Stokes, D.K. (1994). Analysing personal teaching metaphors in preservice teachereducation as a means of encouraging professional development. American Educational ResearchJournal, 31(1), 197–224.

Carter, K. (1990). Meaning and metaphor: Case knowledge in teaching. Theory into practice, 29(2), 109–115.Cooligan, H. (1996) Introduction to research methods and statistics in psychology. London: Hodder &

Stoughton.Clarken, R.H. (1997). Five metaphors for educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March 24–28.Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning and language. In L.

Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 177–220). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Coultas, J.C., & Lewin, K.M. (2002) Who becomes a teacher ? The characteristics of student teachers infour countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 243–260.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.Dickmeyer, N. (1989). Metaphor, model, and theory in education research. Teachers College Record,

91(2), 151–160.Dunn, R.S., & Dunn, K.J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they … can they … be matched?

Educational Leadership, 36, 238–244.Earle, R. (1995). Teacher imagery and metaphors: Windows to teaching and learning. Educational

Technology, July/August, 52–59.Gillis, C., & Johnson, C.L. (2002). Metaphor as renewal: Re-imagining our professional selves. English

Journal, 91, 37–43.Glenn, R. (2002). Brain research: Practical applications for the classroom. Teaching For Excellence, 21(6),

1–2.Glynn, S., & Takahashi, T (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science texts. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 35, 1129–1149.Griffey, D.C., Housner, L.D., & Williams (1985). Coaches uses of non-literal language: Metaphor as a

means of effective teaching. In M. Peiron, & G. Graham (Eds.), Proceedings of the Olympic ScientificCongress (pp. 131–137). Eugene: Oregon.

Guclu, A. (2005, November 10). Ogretmenim [Oh my dear teacher]. Milliyet.Guerrero, M.C.M., & Villamil, O. S. (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESL teaching and

learning. Language Teaching Research, 6, 95-120.Hagstrom, D., Hubbard, R., Hurtig, C., Mortola, P., Ostrow, J., & White, V. (2000). Teaching is like…?.

Educational Leadership, 57, 24–27.Hill, D. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Springfield, II: Charles C. Thomas.Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’

beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 21–32.Kabadayi, A. (2006). Analyzing the types of TV programmes viewed by children from different socio-

economic strata based on their self-report in the Turkish context. Educational Media International,43(2), 147–164

Koppleman, K. (1980). The relationship of cognitive style to teaching style. Paper presented to theMidwest Educational Research Association, Toledo, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 194 609.)

Korobkin, D. (1989). Humor in the classroom: Considerations and strategies. College Teaching, 36(4),154–158.

Kurtz, K.J., Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (1999). Reasoning. In B.M. Bly, & D.E. Rumalhart (Eds.), Cognitivescience (pp. 145–200). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lakoff, G. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Retrieved November 10, 2005 from http://www.edge.org/discourse/lakoff.html.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Lawler, J. (1999). Metaphors we compute by. In D.J. Hickey (Ed.), Figures of thought: For college

writers. Mayfield: University of Michigan.Lewin, K.M., & Akyeampong, K. (2002). From student teachers to newly qualified teachers in Ghana:

Insights into becoming a teacher. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 339–352.Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1998). Metaphors as structures for elementary and secondary preservice

teachers’ thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 227–240.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014


Marshall, H.H. (1990). Metaphor as an instructional tool in encouraging student teacher reflection. Theoryinto Practice, 29(2), 128–132.

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

Nettle, E.B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 193–204.

OSYM (2005). 2005 ogrenci secme ve yerlestirme sistemi. Yuksek ogretim programlari ve kontenjanlarikilavuzu [2005 student selection and placement system. Higher education programs and their quotaguide]. Ankara, Turkey: OSYM.

Oxford, R.L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R.Z., Saleh, A., & Longhini, A. (1998).Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: Toward a systematic typology for the language teachingfield. System, 26, 3–50.

Provenzo, E.F., McCloskey, G.N., Kottkamp, R.B., & Cohn, M.M. (1989). Metaphor and meaning in thelanguage of teachers. Teachers College Record, 90(4), 551–573.

Prawat, R.S. (1999). Dewey, Peirce, and the learning paradox. American Educational Research Journal,36(1), 47–76.

Ritchie, S.M. (1994). Metaphor as a tool for constructivist science teaching. International Journal ofScience Education, 16, 293–303.

Saban, A. (2002). Prospective classroom teachers’ most remembered and most preferred metaphors aboutelementary schooling. Educational Sciences and Practice, 1(2), 211–223.

Saban, A. (2003). A Turkish profile of prospective elementary school teachers and their views of teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(8), 829–846.

Saban, A. (2004). Prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selves and comparing them tothose they have of their elementary and cooperating teachers. International Journal of EducationalDevelopment, 24(6), 617–635.

Saban, A. (2006). Functions of metaphor in teaching and teacher education: A review essay. TeachingEducation, 17(4), 299–315.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. EducationalResearcher, 27(2), 4–13.

Stofflett, R.T. (1996). Metaphor development by secondary teachers enrolled in graduate teachereducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 577–589.

Sumsion, J. (2002). Becoming, being and unbecoming an early childhood educator: A phenomenologicalcase study of teacher attrition. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(7), 869–885.

Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher identity throughreflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 53–64.

Walsh, K., & Elmslie, L. (2005). Practicum pairs: An alternative for first field experience in earlychildhood teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 5–21.

Weade, R., & Ernst, G. (1990). Pictures of life in classrooms, and the search for metaphors to frame them.Theory into Practice, 29(2), 133–140.

Wilson, B.G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments. EducationalTechnology, 35(5), 25–30.

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

Yung, B.H.W. (2001). Examiner, policeman or students’ companion: Teachers’ perceptions of their role inan assessment reform. Educational Review, 53, 251–260.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

37 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Analysing the metaphorical images of Turkish preschool teachers