Perceptions of Secondary Education School Principals on Geography Teachers and Lessons (Pages: 611-620)
Author :
Abstract
The objective of this study is to determine the perceptions of secondary school principals’ on geography teachers and geography lessons. For this purpose a semi structured interview form containing some open ended questions was given to the participants consisting of school principals working at various secondary schools in Istanbul. The answers to these questions were examined via text content analysis method and various results were obtained. Results revealed that school principals mostly define geography lessons using natural phenomenon. They emphasize the importance of geography lessons in secondary schools based on the fact that the necessity of the students to learn about the environment they live in. The principals also emphasize that the number of geography lessons at schools and the number of teachers are sufficient. In addition they think that geography teachers generally do not have a habit of collaborating. The importance of supporting geography lessons with visual and technological materials along with field applications is emphasized. School principals draw attention to the fact that geography teachers cannot meet the expected performance criteria and that this is due mostly to environmental reasons and sometimes due to individual reasons. It has been observed that even though school principals mostly think along similar lines to geography teachers regarding the solution of problems faced in geography lessons they sometimes think differently. More rational solutions to the problems faced in geography lessons can be provided by this study that aims to determine the perception of school principals on geography lessons and geography teachers in an attempt to determine the place of geography lessons and teachers in corporate culture.
Keywords
Abstract
The objective of this study is to determine the perceptions of secondary school principals’ on geography teachers and geography lessons. For this purpose a semi structured interview form containing some open ended questions was given to the participants consisting of school principals working at various secondary schools in Istanbul. The answers to these questions were examined via text content analysis method and various results were obtained. Results revealed that school principals mostly define geography lessons using natural phenomenon. They emphasize the importance of geography lessons in secondary schools based on the fact that the necessity of the students to learn about the environment they live in. The principals also emphasize that the number of geography lessons at schools and the number of teachers are sufficient. In addition they think that geography teachers generally do not have a habit of collaborating. The importance of supporting geography lessons with visual and technological materials along with field applications is emphasized. School principals draw attention to the fact that geography teachers cannot meet the expected performance criteria and that this is due mostly to environmental reasons and sometimes due to individual reasons. It has been observed that even though school principals mostly think along similar lines to geography teachers regarding the solution of problems faced in geography lessons they sometimes think differently. More rational solutions to the problems faced in geography lessons can be provided by this study that aims to determine the perception of school principals on geography lessons and geography teachers in an attempt to determine the place of geography lessons and teachers in corporate culture.
Keywords
- Ari, Y. (2005). The Four Traditions of Geography (William D. Pattison) - Coğrafyanın dört geleneği (Translation). Aegean Geographical Journal, 12(2), 119-125.
- Alexander, R., Rose, J., & Woodhead, C. (1992). Curriculum organization and practice in primary schools: A discussion paper. London: HMSO.
- Bailey, P. & Fox, P. (eds) (1996). Geography teachers’ handbook. Sheffield: Geographical Association.
- Balderstone, D. (2000). Teaching styles and strategies. In A. Kent,(ed.) Reflective practice in geography teaching. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
- Bednarz, S. W. (2003). Citizenship in Post–9/11 United States: A Role for Geography Education? International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education, 12 (1), 72–80.
- Boardman, D. (ed.) (1987) Handbook for geography teachers. Sheffield: Geographical Association.
- Bursalioglu, Z. (2000). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış Ankara: PegemA Publication.
- Canbazoglu S, Eroglu B, & Demirelli H (2010). The evaluation of school principals’ efforts related to science and technology courses,Kastamonu Education Journal, 18(3), 759-774.
- Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education (M.E.B.) (2012). Regulation on secondary education institutions, Ankara.
- Corner, C. (1998). A study of the effects of participation in a course to support the teaching of geography in the primary school. Teacher Development, 2(1), 27-43.
- Celik. V. (1999). Eğitimsel liderlik, Ankara: Pegem Publication.
- Esteves, M. H. (2006). Curriculum changes and teacher training: The pedagogy of geography teaching in Portuguese schools. Educate, 6(2), 3-5.
- Gumuseli, A İ (1996). Okul müdürlerinin öğretim liderliğini sınırlayan etkenler. Eğitim Yönetimi, 2(2), 201- 209.
- Ilhan, A. (2007). A comparison of the undergraduate geography program of Buca Faculty of Education of Dokuz Eylul University and the undergraduate geography program of Cambridge University, Dokuz Eylul University, Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 22, 152-162, Izmir.
- Incekara, S. (2007). International Trends in Secondary Geographic Education: The Case of Turkey, Marmara Geographical Journal, 16, 109-130.
- Kayaduman, H., Sirakaya M., & Seferoglu S. S. (2011) Investigation of “Increasing Opportunities and Improvement of Technology” Project in Terms of Teacher Competencies,Akademik Bilisim, 2-4 February 2011 / Inonu University, Malatya.
- Kent, A. (ed.)(2000).Reflective practice in geography teaching. London: Paul chapman Publishing.
- Kizilcaoglu, A. (2006). Thoughts about geography course program, Balıkesir University, The Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 9(16), 1-19.
- Morgan, J. (2006). Discerning Citizenship in Geography Education. In J. Lindstone and M. Williams, (eds.) Geographic Education in a Changing World. IGU Commission on Geographical Education, 213–226, Springer, The Netherlands.
- Murphy, J. (1998). What’s ahead for tomorrow’s principals. Principal Magazine, September. 3.
- Ozguc, N. (1994). Beşeri coğrafya’da veri toplama ve değerlendirme yöntemleri, Istanbul: Istanbul University Press.
- Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, USA.:Sage Pub.,
- Roberts, M. (2000). The role of research in supporting teaching and learning . In A. Kent, (ed) Reflective practice in geography teaching. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
- Sisman, M. (2004) Öğretim liderliği Ankara: Pegem A Publication.
- Tas, H. İ. (2007). Cografya eğitimi, tarih, standartlar, hedefler. Istanbul: Aktif Publication.
- Williams, M. (2006). Introduction: Whither school geography. In J. Lindstone and M. Williams, (eds.) Geographic Education in a Changing World. IGU Commission on Geographical Education, 181–183,
- Yalin, H. İ. (2002). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme. Ankara: Nobel Publication.
- Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seckin Publication.