International Journal of Progressive Education
Abbreviation: IJPE | ISSN (Print): 1554-5210 | DOI: 10.29329/ijpe

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(3) 169-184

An Analysis of the Relationship between the Metaphorical Perceptions of Classroom Teacher Candidates Towards Computer-Assisted Mathematics Instruction and Their Learning Approaches

Bülent Nuri Özcan & Özlem Ateş

pp. 169 - 184   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.11

Published online: June 07, 2021  |   Number of Views: 2  |  Number of Download: 21


Abstract

This study aims to reveal the perceptions that classroom teacher candidates have regarding the concept of computer-assisted mathematics instruction (CAMI), with the help of metaphors. Furthermore, the another aim of the study of this study consists of an analysis of whether these metaphors differed based on the teacher candidates’ learning approaches. The descriptive and relational survey model was employed in the study. The study group was comprised of 90 teacher candidates, who were first-year students at the Department of Primary Education of a Faculty of Education in the Aegean Region. In order to determine the metaphoric perceptions of the teacher candidates, they were initially asked to complete the sentence “Computer-assisted mathematics instruction is like ........, because ......”. The data were interpreted, using the content analysis technique. Moreover, they were subjected to a scale for the purpose of analyzing whether there were any differences between the metaphors at different levels of learning approaches. The metaphors were found to be included in the categories “CAMI with positive aspects”, “CAMI with negative aspects”, “CAMI in terms of structural aspects” and CAMI with neutral aspects”. Upon the comparison of these categories to the learning approaches, it was found that teachers, who adopted the “deep” and “strategic” learning approach, had a much more positive perception, while those adopting the “surface” learning approach had a negative perception. Additionally, it was observed that teacher candidates, who rather put emphasis on the structural aspects and conditions of CAMI, were the ones to adopt the strategic learning approach. Thus, determination of the learning approaches adopted by teacher candidates and an analysis of their perceptions towards a number of concepts are considered to be significant as they could be effective in the course of their educational lives and in the processes of becoming role models when they start the profession.

Keywords: Computer-Assisted Mathematics Instruction, Learning Approach, Classroom Teacher Candidates, Metaphor


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ozcan, B.N. & Ates, O. (2021). An Analysis of the Relationship between the Metaphorical Perceptions of Classroom Teacher Candidates Towards Computer-Assisted Mathematics Instruction and Their Learning Approaches . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 169-184. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.11

Harvard
Ozcan, B. and Ates, O. (2021). An Analysis of the Relationship between the Metaphorical Perceptions of Classroom Teacher Candidates Towards Computer-Assisted Mathematics Instruction and Their Learning Approaches . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), pp. 169-184.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozcan, Bulent Nuri and Ozlem Ates (2021). "An Analysis of the Relationship between the Metaphorical Perceptions of Classroom Teacher Candidates Towards Computer-Assisted Mathematics Instruction and Their Learning Approaches ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (3):169-184. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.11.

References
  1. Açıkgül, K., & Aslaner, R. (2014). Computer Based Instruction and Prospective Mathematics Teachers: A Literature Review İnönü University Journal of Educational Sciences Institute, 1(1), 41-51. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aktümen, M. & Kaçar. A. (2003). The Role of Computer Assisted Instruction in The Teaching of Expressions among Primary Education Eight Grade Students and Evaluation Students’ Opinion about Computer Assisted Instruction. Kastamonu Education Journal, 11(2), 339-358. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arslan, M. M & Bayrakçı, M. (2006). Examining the Metaphorical Thinking and Learning Approach in terms of Education. National Education Journal. 34(171), ss.100-108. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ateş, Ö. (2019). Preservice Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science and Their Metaphoric Perceptions of Science and Scientists, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11 (4), 141-159. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aydın, İ. S. & Pehlivan, A. (2010). The Metaphors That Turkish Teacher Candidates Use Concerning "Teacher" and "Student" Concepts. Turkish Studies-International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 5/3 Summer 2010, p. 818-842. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baki, A. (2001). Evaluation of Mathematics Education Under the Light of Information Technology. National Education Journal, 149, 26-31. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baki, A. (2002). Computer-aided Mathematics for Learners and Teachers. İstanbul: Ceren Publication. [Google Scholar]
  8. Beyaztaş, D. & Senemoğlu, N. (2015). Learning Approaches of Successful Students and Factors Affecting Their Learning Approaches. Education and Science. 40(179):193–216. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boz, İ., & Özerbaş, M. A. (2020). Opinions of Primary School Teachers about the Use of Technology in Mathematics Lesson. Science, Education, Art and Technology Journal (SEAT Journal), 4(2), 56-66. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bozkurt, A. & Cilavdaroğlu, A. K. (2011) Mathematics and Classroom Teachers’ Perceptions Of Technology Use And Integration Into Their Instruction. Kastamonu Education Journal, 19(3), 859-870. [Google Scholar]
  11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., & Çakmak, E. K. (2015). Scientific Research Methods. Pegem Publising. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cerit, Y. (2008). Students, Teachers and Administrators' Views on Metaphors about the Concept of Teacher. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 6(4), 693-712.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of Teaching, Learning and Language. In L. Cameron ve G. Low (Eds.). Researching and Applying Metaphor (pp.149-176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Çeliköz, N., (1997). The Studies Relating to Computer-aided Teaching in Turkey. Educational Administration Journal, 3(4), 479-498. [Google Scholar]
  15. Çivril, H., Aruğaslan, E., & Özkara, B. Ö. (2018). Distance Education Perceptions of Distance Education Students: A Metaphor Analysis. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 8(1), 39-59. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dinçer, S., & Doğanay, A. (2016). Computer Assisted Instruction Rating Scale Adaptation Study. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Faculty of Education, 35(1), 45-62. [Google Scholar]
  17. Doğruluk, S. (2015). The Relationship between Pre-Service Teachers' Self-efficacy Beliefs Related to Educational Internet Usage and Their Learning Approaches. Unpublished Master Thesis. Institute of Science and Technology, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University [Google Scholar]
  18. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer Self-efficacy, Computer Anxiety, Attitude to the Internet and Reported Experience with the Internet, by Gender, in an East European Sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 521–535. [Google Scholar]
  19. Durukan, Ü. G., Hacıoğlu, Y., & Dönmez Usta, N. (2016). Computer Education and Instructional Technology Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 4 (7), 24-46 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ekinci, N. (2009). Learning Approaches of University Students. Education and Science, 34(151), 74-88 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fidan, M. (2017). Metaphors of Blended Learning’ Students Regarding the Concept of Distance Education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(1), 276-291. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gültekin, M. (2013). The Metaphors that Primary Education Teacher Candidates use Regarding Curriculum. Education and Science, 38(169), 126–141. [Google Scholar]
  23. Güveli, E., İpek, A. S., Atasoy, E., & Güveli, H. (2011). Prospective Primary Teachers’ Metaphorical Perceptions Towards Mathematics. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 2(2). [Google Scholar]
  24. İnceoğlu, M. (2010). Attitude, Perception and Communication. İstanbul: Beykent University Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jensen, D. (2006). Metaphors as a Bridge to Understanding Educational and Social Contexts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 36–54.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., Sunar, D., & Bekman, S. (2001). Long-term Effects of Early Intervention: Turkish Low- Income Mothers and Children. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 333-361. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karasar, N. (2002). Scientific Research Methods, Nobel Publising, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  28. Keşan, C. & Kaya, D. (2007). Primary School Teaching Students' Perspectives on Computer Aided Basic Mathematics Teaching. Journal of Science, Education and Thought, 7(1). [Google Scholar]
  29. Koç, E. S. (2014). The Metaphoric Perceptions of Classroom Teacher Candidates Regarding the Concepts of Teacher and Teaching Profession. İnönü University Faculty of Education Journal, 15(1), 47-72. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G., ve Johnson, M. (2010). Metaphors Life Meaning and Language. İstanbul: Ithaki Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2010). Interactive Video Technology: Enhancing Professional Learning in Initial Teacher Education. Computer & Education, 54(3), 742-748. [Google Scholar]
  32. Marton F. Saljo R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I Outcome and Process. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Usluel, Y. K. (2008). Indicators of Effective Technology Integration within the Framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model, 8th Internatıonal Educational technology conference Eskişehir, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  35. Olpak, Y. Z., Arıcan, M., & Baltacı, S. (2018). The Effects of Preservice Teachers’ Learning Approaches and Individual Innovativeness Characteristics on Their Satisfaction towards Peer Instruction. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 525-551. [Google Scholar]
  36. Özturk, E. (2013). An Investigation On Prospective Teacher's Computer Anxiety and Computer Self Effıcacy Based on Several Variables. Hacettepe University Journal Of Education, (44), 275-286. [Google Scholar]
  37. Polat, K. & Karakuş, F. (2020). Examination of Pre-Service Teachers' Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Towards Computer-Aided Education . Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(2), 579-592. [Google Scholar]
  38. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.  [Google Scholar]
  39. Ramsden, P. (1979). Student Learning and Perceptions of the Academic Environment. Higher Education, 8, 411-427 [Google Scholar]
  40. Russell, T. & Hrycenko, M. (2006). The Role of Metaphor in a New Science Teacher’s Learning from Experience. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, and S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 131–142). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Saban, A. (2008). Metaphors about School. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 55, 459-496.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Sarı, M. H. & Akbaba Altun, S. (2015). A Qualitative Research on Classroom Teachers' Technology Use in Mathematics Teaching. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 6(19), 24-49. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic Metaphor Analysis as a Method of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358–394. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr%0Ahttp://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol10/iss2/10 [Google Scholar]
  44. Senemoğlu, N. (2011). Development Learning and Teaching. Pegem Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  45. Şahin, B. (2013). Teacher Candidates’ Metaphoric Perceptions Related with “Mathematics Teacher”, “Mathematics” and “Math Lesson” Concepts. Mersin University Faculty of Education Journal, 9(1), 313-321. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J, & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: a Re-Conceptualization of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Students as Learners (pp.262-271). Oxford: Oxford Brooks University. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tobin, K. & Tippins, D. J. (1996). Metaphors as Seeds for Conceptual Change and the Improvement of Science Teaching. Science Education, 80(6), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<711:: AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-M. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Yenilmez, K. & Sarıer, Y. (2007). Prospective Teachers' Opinions on Computer Aided Mathematics Teaching, Proc. 1st International Symposium on Computer and Instructional Technologies, Çanakkale, 1184-1204. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yılmaz, G. K., & Güven, B. (2015). Determining the Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions on Distance Education by Metaphors. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 299-322. [Google Scholar]