d) Studies Conducted on Metaphor

STUDIES CONDUCTED ON

METAPHOR

What? I am a golden finger?

Interpreting metaphors of a foreign language

Fion Ho Yan Lau

The University of Hong [email protected]

Metaphors have long fascinated many scholars for their capability of embodyingabstract ideas. They are considered as heavily culturally loaded linguistic units whichclosely connect language, culture and thoughts. In respect of the belief that metaphorsare culture- and language-specific, people outside a speech community are expectedto encounter difficulties in understanding culture-specific metaphors of a foreignlanguage. This paper explores the processes through which people interpretmetaphors of foreign languages. Interviews were conducted with 40 native speakers ofDanish and Cantonese, in which subjects were asked to interpret English, Cantoneseand Korean metaphors. Subjects from both cultures employed similar strategies tointerpret the metaphors. The reasons for successful or unsuccessful interpretations arealso discussed.

LCOM Papers 2 (2009), 77 – 99

78 Fion Ho Yan Lau

1. Introduction1

Since the twentieth century, the connection between language and culture has becomea prevalent research topic. It has fascinated not only linguists, but also people from awide variety of backgrounds. The inseparability between language and culture is laterconfirmed and reaffirmed by many pieces of research (see, for example, Sapir, 1929;Carroll, 1956; Wardhaugh, 1986). Some scholars such as H. Douglas Brown evendepict the relationship between language and culture as flesh and blood. They believethat language would be dead without culture and culture would have no shape withoutlanguage (Jiang, 2000). To be specific, culture, in this paper, is defined as a set ofshared assumptions, meanings and understandings that are developed in a givenspeech community. Among the linguistic devices, metaphor is one of the salient onesreflecting culture. With their capability of embodying conceptual ideas in differentcultures, metaphors permeate almost every sphere of our lives and serve as a vehicleof thoughts across languages. The conventionalization of metaphors, i.e. the processby which some figurative expressions become integral parts of our language resources,also contributes to the unconscious use of metaphors in our work and speech, be theyformal or informal.

In respect of Leech’s (1974) understanding of metaphors as being culture- andlanguage- specific, some research has suggested that foreign language learning closelyties with cultural learning. In the eyes of most Chinese speakers for instance, Englishis regarded as a foreign language. Some academics such as Scollon (1995), Chun(2003) and Chen (2007) have conducted research on the topic of contrasting Chineseand English metaphors, aiming to study the different cultural assumptions behind theconstruction of metaphors. Notwithstanding the authors’ vastly diverse backgrounds,their studies validate culture as one crucial variable of establishing metaphors. Theyfurther reiterate that the ways people construct and make sense of metaphors varyacross languages and cultures. Nevertheless, in addition to language proficiency, thecomprehension of metaphors of a foreign language can be facilitated by thesimilarities between one’s culture and that of the foreign language, as well as thetransparency of the metaphor itself.

Although the interconnectedness between language and culture is well established, animportant question remains: What are some of the processes through which people

1 This study is developed based on an earlier group research conducted in Denmark in 2008. Theauthor would like to acknowledge the contribution of Anne LEE, Ernest NG and Ruby CHAN in theprevious study.

Interpreting metaphors of a foreign language 79

interpret metaphors of a foreign language? This paper aims to address this question byexploring and explaining the ways in which people from two different cultures (HongKong and Demark) interpret metaphors of other languages. With English being widelyspoken by most people in Hong Kong and Denmark as a second language, HongKong and Denmark serve an excellent ground for this study. Being a cosmopolitancity in Asia and an old kingdom in Europe respectively, the diverse cultures andbackgrounds of both places promise to shed light on the question of how speakersinterpret metaphors of a foreign language.

2. Metaphor, language and culture

In the 1980s, cognitive linguists like George Lakoff and Mark Johnson proposed thatirrespective of the varieties of language, metaphors are one of the basic essentialelements of human communication. They exist in almost every language and arehelpful for the expression of abstract ideas. However, owing to distinct languagesystems and cultural characteristics, metaphors used within a particular communitycan hardly be transferred to another social group or be fully understood by peopleoutside the community.

2.1 Meaning and metaphors

Since Aristotle, whose philosophy mainly focuses on the universal, the fascinationwith metaphors has sparked in many philosophers, cognitive linguists and literarytheorists, etc. The use of metaphors is not only constrained to the ornamentalliteratures, but it can also be applied to other contemporary spoken and writtendiscourses such as advertisements, legal speeches and scientific explanations. Withregard to Lakoff and Johnson (1980, as cited in Tompkins and Lawley, 2000),metaphor is defined as a process: it is principally “a way of conceiving of one thing interms of another, and its primary function is understanding”. With the ability toembody conceptual ideas, metaphor is hailed as an important part of the“interconnected systems of language, thinking, affect, physicality and culture”(Cameron, 2008).

Metaphors can be categorized into different collections, one special feature ofmetaphors is their degree of transparency. The transparency and opacity of metaphors

80 Fion Ho Yan Lau

largely determine the comprehension of metaphors of both native speakers andlanguage learners. According to Guttenplan (2005: 23), transparency is interpreted as“when we hear a metaphor utterance framed in familiar words, we have anunmediated sense of having understood it – a sense not unlike that when we hear anutterance with familiar words used in a straightforwardly literal way”. In other words,the familiar words that appear in the figurative language sometimes enhance its levelof transparency, and hence facilitate our understanding of metaphors.

With respect to transparency, Wieser (2008) also expresses that different levels oftransparency of metaphors do affect the “ease of processing, i.e. whether the meaningof the metaphors will be actively constructed or directly retrieved from memory”.Three levels of metaphor transparency, including novel transparent metaphor,conventionalized transparent metaphor and fossilized opaque metaphor, are thus putforth. Novel transparent metaphors are any new and unfamiliar metaphors whichnormally take significantly longer to process than other literal sentences (Camp, 2006).For example, a Japanese writer, Yamazaki Takumi (1998), depicts life as a picnic. Heintends to encourage his readers to live enthusiastically as if they were going on apicnic. Conventionalized transparent metaphors, by contrast, are “expressions thathave become part of people’s language resources… Conventionalization of metaphoroccurs through the use in a discourse community in which co-adaptive processes ofaccommodation lead to shared ways of talking among members” (Cameron,2003:110). For instance, the expression time flies is considered as conventionalizedbecause it is now commonly incorporated into our speech even though everyoneknows time does not literally fly. Because of conventionalization, this type ofmetaphors normally takes people a shorter processing time to decode.

Fossilized opaque metaphors, i.e. idioms, which are made up of a string of words arethe most opaque type of metaphor. Nevertheless, a clear context and a transparentrelation between the literal and idiomatic meanings of an idiom may ease theopaqueness of the metaphor. For some idioms, “one of the words in the idiom makes amore transparent contribution to overall idiom meaning than the rest” (Vega Moreno,2007: 182). In the English idiom wash hands of it for instance, the word wash carriesa meaning of making something clean, while the idiom itself has a definite meaning ofwithdrawing from something. In this case, the word wash could be a hint ofunderstanding the idiom. Needless to dispute, the understanding and interpretation ofmetaphors also heavily relies on one’s first language and culture, in addition to thetransparency of metaphors.


2.2 Language, culture and thinking

In the previous decades, many academics like Sapir (1929) and Brown (1994) haveconfirmed the inseparability of language and culture. Brown (1994) expresses that thetwo are simply interwoven with one another and are part of each other. Whilelanguage serves mainly as an embodiment or reflection of a culture, “every languageform we use… carries meanings that are not in the same sense because it is associatedwith culture and culture is more extensive than language” (Nida, 1998: 29). Althoughlanguage and culture are inseparable, they are, however, seen as two semiotic systems.With regards to Halliday (1975), culture in particular is seen as a semiotic system inwhich meanings or information is encoded in the meaning potentials of its members.The linguistic system is yet another semiotic system that constitutes culture. Therefore,owing to the reciprocal effects of language and culture that they shape and constituteone another, a learner of a new language, Korean for instance, has to learn the Koreanculture at the same time in order to master the language comprehensively.

To master a new language successfully depends on how much the learners immersethemselves into the native speakers’ world of conception, in addition to the thoroughunderstanding of the language system. By this, conception means the thoughts and/ormental impressions about the world, which are formed through biological and socialprocesses. As suggested by some cognitive and cross-cultural psychologists likeNisbett (2003), human conception which can be shaped through formal educationdepends on cultural contexts. It is never universal but is profoundly influenced byculture instead. Hence, people from the same speech community who shareconstructed experiences are expected to have some cultural patterns of thinking andresponses (Fiaola and MacDorman, 2008). In connection with the completeness oflanguage learning, conceptual fluency, i.e. the knowledge of “how the target languagereflects or encodes its concepts on the basis of metaphorical structuring” is consideredcomparably significant to verbal fluency which can be acquired through gradualeducation (Kecskes, 1999: 148; Danesi and Mollica, 1998). Cultural understandingserving as a conceptual base is thus unquestionably one of the important elements ofsecond language learning while second to knowing the language system.

On account of their arbitrariness, metaphors, being one of the higher levels oflanguage learning, are mostly culture-specific while a limited number of them iscross-cultural on occasion. But Lê and Lê (2004: 1) comment that most metaphors are

82 Fion Ho Yan Lau

ready-made, these “ready-made metaphors strongly reflect cultural perceptions andattitudes which have been in existence in a culture for many years”. For instance, inthe case of a man being rejected by a lady for a date, a Danish figurative expressiongoes like biting into a sour apple whereas the Cantonese one goes like eating a lemon.Although the expressions share the same meaning, they are culturally loaded and theirsurface meanings are barely equivalent when translated into a common language likeEnglish. The conventional use of these expressions allows them to become morelocalized and culture specific. In addition to Broughton’s (1978: 198) belief that“foreign language learning involves cultural learning”, the connection betweenculture-specific languages and conception development also sheds light on theinseparability of language, thoughts and culture.

In relation to culture-specific expressions, idioms which are regarded as fossilizedopaque metaphors are a typical culture-bound linguistic device. They are one of thebest vehicles illustrating how metaphoric language serves as a manifestation of aculture. Alexander (1978) adds that idioms are deliberately fuzzy and have a highdegree of tolerance of ambiguity. Without prior knowledge and exposure to alanguage and its culture, the English idiom bread and butter (meaning basic living),for example, can hardly be rightly interpreted. Leech (1974) therefore concludes thatpeople from different cultures with vastly diverse conceptual thinking may not be ableto understand the figurative speeches of another culture. Hence, understandingmetaphors requires knowledge of not only the linguistic meaning, but also theconceptual meaning which is overt, and the associative meaning which is implicit.Traugott (1984) also adds that the importance of differentiating sentence meaning,which is the literal meaning of an utterance, and utterance meaning, which is theunderlying or intended meaning of the utterance, should be taken into account in orderto fully understand the figurative meaning of an expression.

3. Objectives of study

Since a lot of studies proposed that language and culture are interwoven, metaphors,as one salient linguistic device reflecting culture, have sparked researchers’ interestsin how culture influences the construction and understanding of figurative language.However, instead of solely focusing on the cultural aspect of metaphor interpretation,this study aims to investigate how people usually make sense of metaphors oflanguages other than their first language. Based on this primary objective, this study


also attempts to identify some variables that facilitate and/or hinder the rightinterpretation of metaphors.

4. Methodology

The study was conducted in two intervals: the first was completed in Denmark from26 May to 6 June 2008 and the second was done in Hong Kong from 20 to 31December 2008. A field study which included face-to-face assessments of Englishmetaphors interpretation involving 40 randomly selected young people was carriedout. All subjects spoke English as their second language and were locally educated ineither Denmark or Hong Kong. They were selected on the belief that young peopleaged from 20 to 29 have a wider exposure to the English cultures, like American andBritish cultures, than the younger or older generations, and that they are the maingroup living under the influence of English popular culture.

An equal number of subjects, i.e. 20, was selected correspondingly from Aalborg(Denmark) and Hong Kong for a face-to-face assessment on English metaphors. Allassessments were conducted in English and were done on an individual basis, inavoidance of groupthink. The rationales of this study were clearly explained to thesubjects before the assessment and they were asked to rate their English proficiency inthe first place. During the process, a total of thirteen metaphors were shown to thesubjects, in which five were put into sentences. In addition to English metaphors,three Cantonese metaphors translated into English were included in the assessment forthe Danish subjects and three Korean metaphors translated into English wereintegrated in the assessment for the Hong Kong subjects. The original Englishmetaphors were the same for all subjects. A short interview concerning participants’recognition of non-English metaphors, the reasons why they could or could notinterpret some of the metaphors, and suggested ways for enhancing their awarenessand understanding of English metaphors was conducted at the end of each assessment.

84 Fion Ho Yan Lau

5. Results2

A thematic analysis was conducted to evaluate the data and information collectedfrom the field study. The data collected from the short interview after each assessmentare presented under four big themes: Recognition of English Metaphors, Accounts forCorrect Interpretation, Accounts for Incorrect Interpretation, as well as Enhancementsof English Metaphoric Awareness and Understanding. Subjects’ responses aresummarized as follows.

5.1 Recognition of English Metaphors

Almost none of the interviewed subjects, except one, could recognize the non-Englishmetaphors and distinguish them from the English ones. The only Danish subject whocould interpret the Cantonese metaphors revealed that because of her Danish-Chinesefamily background, she could understand Cantonese jargons and spoke someCantonese as her second language.

The rest of the interviewed subjects, however, expressed that since all the metaphorswere presented in English, they had a feeling that all of them should be Englishmetaphors. Some added that since they had limited exposure to Cantonese or theKorean language and culture, they could not identify them as non-English metaphorsstraight away.

5.2 Accounts for Correct Interpretation

In addition to their daily exposure to some of the English metaphors, many subjectsexpressed that because there are similar or exact equivalents in their own languagesand cultures, most of the English metaphors could be decoded easily. The subjectsfurther revealed that they made sense of the metaphors based on the literal meaningsof the metaphors and the given contexts where the metaphors appeared. They alsorelied on the direct translations from English to their own native language tounderstand the metaphors. Some subjects even attempted to visualize the metaphorsor associate them with their own cultures in order to comprehend the underlyingmeanings of them.

2 See appendices for accessed metaphors, interview questions and comprehensive assessment results.


5.3 Accounts for Incorrect Interpretation

The interviewed subjects said that the principal difficulty in interpreting the givenmetaphors was their limited exposure to English metaphors. Other relevant reasonsmentioned by the subjects included their levels of English proficiency, the lack ofcultural understanding, the literal meaning being totally unrelated to the underlyingmeaning of the metaphor, incorrect association or conceptual understanding under theinfluence of the subjects’ own culture and knowledge, as well as the infrequent use ofEnglish metaphors in everyday life.

5.4 Enhancements of English Metaphoric Awareness and Understanding

Being not able to correctly interpret all English metaphors, interviewees suggestedsome effective ways of enhancing their English metaphoric awareness, such asreading more English articles and books, looking up the English metaphors in adictionary, watching English movies and live shows, making contact with Englishpeople, and immersions in an English-speaking country.

6. Discussion

The subjects, both Danish and Hong Kong people, overall displayed a fairly goodunderstanding of English metaphors while they showed a relatively weak awarenesstowards these metaphors generally. During the survey, although many subjectsrevealed that they did not understand some English metaphors because they had neverused or heard of them before, they gave some sensible interpretations on them. Theymade guesses at the meanings of these metaphors by referring to the metaphors’ literalmeanings and the associate meanings according to their own cultures. Due to the factthat English is not their native language, the interviewees were, however, not aware ofthe non-English metaphors as they had only a very limited exposure to Englishmetaphors. Their non-nativeness of English has hindered them from recognizing theEnglish metaphors successfully. They also pointed out that whether one metaphorexists in their language or culture greatly affects their understanding of the metaphor,especially when it is presented in a second language.

86 Fion Ho Yan Lau

Among the seven English metaphors, some were particularly common to either theDanish or the Hong Kong subjects, or even both. One significant finding of this studysupports Kovecses’s (2002) proposition that cultural variations which are peculiar tospecific languages do exist among metaphors, for example, the different sourcedomains. According to the assessment results, 95% of the Hong Kong subjectscorrectly interpreted the metaphor small potato which infers an unimportant person,especially at the workplace. With reference to the fact that small potato is indeed aHong Kong English metaphor originated in Hong Kong and is widely used throughoutthe city, the Hong Kong subjects could automatically assign the correct meaning to it.This result seems to suggest that personal exposure to the use of metaphors is oneimportant aspect of fully understanding them.

However, being unfamiliar with the Hong Kong English metaphors, the Danishsubjects tended to understand the metaphor small potato based on the clumsyappearance of a potato; the word small that appears in the metaphor was interpreted asmeaning inessential. Some guesses such as “an unimportant issue” and “a stupidperson” were therefore made. In fact, small fish is a more common expression fordescribing unimportant people in the Danish culture while these people can be termedas a small cog in the machine in English. In relation to this, the dissimilar sourcedomains can possibly account for the observation that only 30% of the Danishsubjects could accurately interpret this metaphor.

Apart from the conventional use of metaphors within a specific territory, historicaland cultural backgrounds of a country also have an impact on people’s understandingof metaphors. According to the data, 95% of the Danish subjects showed a clearunderstanding of the English metaphors wash hands of it, in the same boat and breakthe ice because they have exact equivalents in their language. The meanings of thesemetaphors in their first language are exactly the same as those of English. Oneplausible reason why there are exact Danish equivalents can be traced back to thehistory of English and Danish which are genetically related and belong to the samelanguage family of proto-Germanic (Lyovin, 1997). The common language ancestorof Danish and English probably sheds light on the correct interpretations of metaphorsby the Danish subjects due to shared or similar cultural assumptions. This observationis supported by Lyovin (1997: 4) who points out that it is likely that there are somecommon linguistic traits in two languages “because these traits have diffused fromone language into another” through language contact.


On the contrary, without any direct relations between English and Cantonese, theHong Kong subjects encountered more difficulties than the Danish subjects inassigning accurate meanings to the metaphors, like in the same boat. AlthoughCantonese has an exact equivalent of in the same boat, it does not share exactly thesame meaning as that of English. In English, in the same boat refers to being in thesame difficult situation. However, it can refer to either a positive or a negativesituation in Cantonese. Through the Chinese understanding of this figurativeexpression, some Hong Kong subjects were unable to specify the negative situationthat this English metaphor connotes. Owing to this difference of connotation betweenEnglish and Cantonese, the Danish subjects could therefore make a more accurateinterpretation for this metaphor than the Hong Kong people. Nonetheless, knowingthat the metaphor in the same boat exists in two unrelated languages, i.e. English andChinese, an interesting question arises: If a metaphor shares similar meaning betweentwo unrelated languages, from which language does this metaphor actually originate?

In accordance with history, religious beliefs also play a role in the interpretation oflong-established metaphors. As a Christian country, in Denmark, over 80% of itscitizens are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (see the official website ofDenmark 2009). In light of this, most of the Danish people (95% of the Danishsubjects) should probably have no difficulties understanding the metaphor wash handsof it which originated from an allusion of the Bible (Matthew, 27: 24). Hence, inaddition to the equivalents among different languages, the influence of a religion ishighly likely to enhance the understanding of metaphors in other languages. Somemetaphors that have long been used in the scriptures of the holy books for manythousands of years are expected to be understood across languages.

Throughout the field study, the most peculiar phenomenon noted is that many subjects,both Danish and Hong Kong, tried to translate the given metaphors and/or thecontexts that come along with the metaphors into their own languages in order tounderstand them. Over half of the overall subjects were able to understand themetaphor an old hand (meaning an experienced or skilled person) after theycompletely translated it into their first language and took the literal meaning of it.They succeeded in associating the word old with someone who is experienced or agedand hand with the action of working. This observation, in accordance with Wieser(2008), implies that the higher transparency of metaphors can ease the interpretationof figurative language when contextual clues are absent.

88 Fion Ho Yan Lau

On top of direct translations, the interviewed subjects also stated the significance ofcontextual clues for metaphors interpretation. The subjects pointed out that such cluesprovided them with hints that facilitated their understanding of unfamiliar metaphors.The metaphor dark horse served as a very good example in this study. By presentingthis metaphor in the sentence like He is not outstanding but is a dark horse in thisgame, over 60% of the overall subjects correctly inferred dark horse as someone whois not attended to at first, but performs unexpectedly well on an event. Althoughseveral Hong Kong subjects attempted to associate this metaphor with the Cantoneseequivalent, some subjects of both Danish and Hong Kong expressed that the wordsnot outstanding and but were major hints for accurate interpretation. Their responsesthus support the assumption that contextual clues are essentially vital, especially forunderstanding metaphors of a foreign language.

An additional interesting observation of this study is subjects’ dependence onvisualization and imagination. When they were given the unfamiliar metaphors, somesubjects tended to visualize or imagine the appearance and nature of the object. Otherthan spreading one’s octopus legs, tip of the iceberg is a typical example where thesubjects deduced meaning by visualization. Having understood that tip is just a smallpart of an iceberg appearing above the sea level, 85% of the total subjects gave thecorrect definition that it means one small part of a larger issue. In relation to imageschema, Kimmel (2002: 11) explains that “the human capacity to build complexmodels rests on basic physical experiences in space, which motivate conceptualrepresentations”. In other words, people in general assign meaning to somethingunfamiliar according to experiences.

Closely tied with image schema, a remarkable result concerning the association ofunfamiliar metaphors with everyday life experience is also noted. As suggested byBrown and Yule (1983: 133), “the general knowledge about the world underpins ourinterpretation in discourse”. Because of different experiences and culturalbackgrounds, varied associations of metaphors are expected. The metaphors breadand butter, kicking the bucket, cucumber-like face, golden finger and eating a lemonare instances which cause distinct associations. Without the habit of having bread andbutter as the basic food for breakfast every day, only around 20% of the overallsubjects could spell out the exact meaning of bread and butter as a metaphor by guess.Two other noteworthy examples include cucumber-like face and golden figure. Noneof the Hong Kong subjects could associate a cucumber-like face with an acne face (asin the Korean culture) because cucumber, in Hong Kong, is normally linked with


bitter taste which implies unhappy or sad feelings. Some Hong Kong subjects alsoassociated green colour (like that of cucumber) as cowardness or the feeling of scare.On the contrary, when they were presented with the Cantonese metaphor goldenfinger (meaning a traitor who is keen on backstabbing others), some Danish subjectsinstantly associated it with the James Bond movie or the story in Greek mythologyabout Midas’ golden touch. As a result of different associations, a lot of the subjectswere astonished at these connotations and the cultural discrepancies.

With reference to the above instances, this study attempted to reveal some commonstrategies for deconstructing metaphors of a foreign language. From the analysis, it isinteresting to have noted that people from both Asian and Western places (i.e. HongKong and Denmark) actually used similar processes of decoding metaphors of anotherlanguage, such as translating directly the English metaphors into the subjects’ nativelanguages or visualizing the metaphors. The empirical data collected for this studyhave described some of the ways in which people make sense of figurativeexpressions of other language or cultural groups.

7. Conclusion

Regarding the claim that most metaphors are culture- as well as language-specific,this study was set up to explore the processes in which people attempt to understandmetaphors of a foreign language. Throughout the study, the empirical data andobservations further support Broughton’s (1978) belief that foreign language learningshould go in line with cultural learning, and at the same time, confirm the generalrelationship among language, culture and thinking. While the findings of this studysuggest that cultural and personal experiences, together with mental impressions ofthe world tend to provide the largest portion of significant contribution to theunderstanding of unfamiliar figurative language, some other common strategies andprocesses involved in the interpretation of metaphors are observed as well.

By exploring the ways in which people make sense of unfamiliar metaphors, it ishoped to provide some ideas for future researchers who should further examine thecomplex strategies and processes involved in understanding metaphorical ideas andexpressions. The findings also reveal some variables which may have an impact onmetaphor understanding, such as religious beliefs, contextual clues, and similaritiesbetween the speakers’ first language and the foreign language.

90 Fion Ho Yan Lau

Nevertheless, this study has explored only some of the most apparent strategies andprocesses involved in the interpretation of unfamiliar metaphors with a limited scope.If the wider research goal is to examine metaphor construction and interpretation in aspecific speech community or to look at the most effective or important processes andapproaches to analyzing unfamiliar metaphors or use of language, it is important toinvestigate further in the cultural and cognitive aspects involved in the processes. Inthis respect, it is hoped that this research has made some contributions to futurestudies, in which more precise definitions like culture, speech community andcognition could be further developed.

MetaphorCorrect interpretation Total

(%)Number ofDanes (%)

Number of HongKong people (%)1. Small potato

(Hong Kong English)6(30) 19(95) 25(62.5)

2. An old hand 11(55) 12(60) 23(57.5)3. Wash hands of it 19(95) 13(65) 32(80)4. Bread and butter 7(35) 2(10) 9(22.5)5. In the same boat 19(95) 14(70) 33(82.5)6. Break the ice 19(95) 12(60) 31(77.5)7. Golden finger (Cantonese) 1(5) -- 1(5)8. Eat lemon (Cantonese) 1(5) -- 1(5)9. Cucumber-like face

(Korean)-- 0(0) 0(0)

10. A pumpkin (Korean/U.S.) -- 1(5) 1(5)11. It’s just the tip of the

iceberg.18(90) 16(80) 34(85)

12. He is my beggar son.(Cantonese)

1(5) -- 1(5)

13. He is not outstanding but isa dark horse in this game.

8(40) 17(85) 25(62.5)

14. There are lots of whiteelephants in Asia which

0(0) 3(15) 3(7.5)

3Subject/Proficiency

ProficientNumber ofpeople (%)

GoodNumber ofpeople (%)

FairNumber ofpeople (%)

PoorNumber ofpeople (%)

Danes 5 (25) 8(40) 7(35) 0 (0)Hong Kong people

1(5) 7(35) 12(60) 0 (0)TOTAL 6(15) 15(37.5) 19(47.5) 0 (0)


Appendices

Appendix 1: Assessment results

Table 1. English proficiency of surveyed subjects

Table 2. Correct interpretation of metaphors

3 English proficiency is self-rated by the subjects.

waste a lot of money topreserve.

15. Peter, the old man, justkicked the bucket.

8(40) 8(40) 16(40)

16. He is busy every nightbecause he spreads hisoctopus legs. (Korean)

-- 2(10) 2(10)

92 Fion Ho Yan Lau

Appendix 2: Assessment form (Danish subjects)

Age range: 11-1940-49

20-2950-59

30-3960 or above

English Proficiency: Proficient Good Fair Poor

Part I1. Small potato

Interpretation:Yes No

Remarks:Reason:Equivalent Danish expression:

2. An old handInterpretation:

Yes NoRemarks:Reason:Equivalent Danish expression:

3. I wash my hands of itInterpretation:

Yes NoRemarks:Reason:

Equivalent Danish expression:


4. Bread and butterInterpretation:


5. In the same boatInterpretation:


6. Golden fingerInterpretation:


7. Break the iceInterpretation:


8. Eating lemonInterpretation:


94 Fion Ho Yan Lau

Part II1. It’s just the tip of the iceberg.


Remarks:Factors affecting interpretation:

2. He is not outstanding but is a dark horse in this game.Interpretation:

Yes NoRemarks:Factors affecting interpretation:

3. He is my beggar son.Interpretation:


4. There are lots of white elephants in Asia which waste a lot of money to preserve.Interpretation:


5. He just kicked the bucket.Interpretation:


Part III1. Did you recognize some are not English metaphors? Why?

2. What ways would you recommend if you are to raise your metaphoric awarenessand understanding?


Appendix 3: Assessment form (Hong Kong subjects)

Age range: 11-1940-49

20-2950-59

30-3960 or above

English Proficiency: Proficient Good Fair Poor

Part I1. Small potato


Remarks:Reason:Equivalent Cantonese expression:

2. An old handInterpretation:

Yes NoRemarks:Reason:Equivalent Cantonese expression:

3. Wash hands of itInterpretation:


4. Bread and butterInterpretation:


96 Fion Ho Yan Lau

5. In the same boatInterpretation:


6. Cucumber-like faceInterpretation:


7. Break the iceInterpretation:


8. A pumpkinInterpretation:


Part II

1. It’s just the tip of the iceberg.Interpretation:



2. He is not outstanding but is a dark horse in this gameInterpretation:


3. He is busy every night because he spreads his octopus legs.Interpretation:


4. There are lots of white elephants in Asia which waste a lot of money to preserve.Interpretation:


5. Teddy, the old man, just kicked the bucket.Interpretation:


Part III

1. Did you recognize some are not English metaphors? Why?

2. Why do you think you can or cannot rightly interpret some of the metaphors?

3. What ways would you recommend if you are to raise your metaphoric awarenessand understanding?

98 Fion Ho Yan Lau

References

Alexander, R. J. 1978. Fixed expressions in English: A linguistic, psycholinguistic,sociolinguistic and didactic study (part 1). Anglistik und Englischunterricht, 6,171 – 188.

Broughton, G. 1978. Towards a theory of culture in language-teaching. In K. Deterling,& R. Hogel (eds) Englisch auf der Sek undarstufe (vol. 1). Hannover: Schroedel,198 – 205.

Brown, H., D., 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd ed).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents

Brown, G., & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Cameron, L. 2003. Metaphor in Education Discourse. New York: Continuum.– – – 2008. A discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In Metaphor Analysis

Project. Open Research Online. Retrieved on 16 September 2008 fromhttp://creet.open.ac.uk/projects/metaphor-analysis/theories.cfm?paper=ddfm

Camp, E. 2006. Metaphor in the Mind: The cognition of ,etaphor. PhilosophyCompass, 1(2), 154 – 170. Retrieved on 16 September 2008 fromhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/~campe/Papers/CampMetaphorMindCompass.pdf

Carroll, J. B. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of BenjaminLee Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chen, J. 2007. A Contrastive Study of Metaphors between English and Chinese.Shanghai: Xue lin chu ban she.

Chun, L. 2003. A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Metaphors in English and Chinese.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Danesi, M., & Mollica, A. 1998. Conceptual fluency theory for second languageteaching. Mosaic, 5(2), 3 – 12.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2009. Denmark.dk – The Official Website ofDenmark. Retrieved on 21 February 2009 fromhttp://www.denmark.dk/en

Fiaola, A., & MacDorman, K. F. 2008. The influence of holistic and analytic cognitivestyles on online information design: Toward a communication theory of culturalcognitive design. Information, Communication & Society, 11(3), 348 – 374.Retrieved on 21 February 2009 fromhttp://www.macdorman.com/kfm/writings/pubs/Faiola2008HolisticAnalyticCognitiveStyles.pdf

Guttenplan, S. 2005. Obejects of Metaphor. Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Jiang, W. 2000. The relationship between culture and language. ELT Journal, 54(4),328 – 334.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold.Kimmel, M. 2002. Metaphor, imagery, and culture. Spatialized Ontologies, Mental

Tools, and Multimedia in the Making. Retrieved on 2 January 2008 fromhttp://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/6/

Kecskes, I. 2000. Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2.Links & Letters, 7, 145 – 161. Retrieved on 21 February 2009 fromhttp://ddd.uab.es/pub/lal/11337397n7p145.pdf

Kovecses, V. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. USA: Oxford UniversityPress.

Leech, G. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Lê, Q., & Lê, T. 2004. Intercultural health metaphors. Doing the Public Good:

Positioning Education Research, Melbourne. Retrieved on 2 January 2008 fromhttp://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/le04799.pdf

Lyovin, A. V. 1997. An Introduction to the Languages of the World. New York:Oxford University Press.

Nida, E. 1998. Language, culture, and translation. Foreign Languages Journal, 115(3),29 – 33.

Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners ThinkDifferently…and Why. Free Press. New York.

Sapir, E. 1929. The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5, 207 – 214.Scollon, S. 1995. Metaphors of self and communication English and Cantonese. Hong

Kong Journals Online. Retrieved on 2 January 2008 fromhttp://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000061.pdf

Tompkins, P., & Lawley, J. 2002. Metonymy and part-whole relationships. The CleanCollection. Retrieved on 16 September 2008 fromhttp://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/210/1/Metonymy--Part-Whole-Relationships/Page1.html

Traugott, E. C. 1984. “Conventional” and “Dead” Metaphors Revisited. Trier:Linguistic Agency, University of Trier.

Vega Moreno, R. E. 2007. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of EverydayFigurative Speech. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An Introduction of Sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell.Wieser, J. 2008. The comprehension of metaphors by advanced learners of English.

EUROSLA Doctoral Workshop. Retrieved on 16 September 2008 fromhttp://www.hw.ac.uk/langWWW/eurosla/abstracts/jwieser.htm

Yamazaki, T. 1998. Life is Like a Picnic. Tokyo: Sanctuary Books.

KU ScholarWorks | http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu

Please share your stories about how Open Access to this article benefits you.

Making sense of teaching

through metaphors: a review

across three studies

by M. MahliosD. Massengill Shawand A. Barry

2010

This is the author’s accepted manuscript, post peer-review. Theoriginal published version can be found at the link below.

Mahlios, M., Shaw, D., & Barry, A. (2010). Synthesis of metaphors:A review across three studies. Teachers and Teaching: Theory andPractice, 16(1), 49-71.

Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060090347564

Terms of Use: http://www2.ku.edu/~scholar/docs/license.shtml

This work has been made available by the University of KansasLibraries’ Office of Scholarly Communication and Copyright.

Mahlios, M., Shaw, D., & Barry, A. (2010). Synthesis of metaphors: A review across three studies. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,16(1), 49-71. Publisher’s official version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060090347564 . Open Access version:http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/.

[This document contains the author’s accepted manuscript. For the publisher’s version, see the link in the header of this document.]

Making sense of teaching through metaphors: a review across three studiesBy

M. Mahlios, D. Massengill Shaw, and A. Barry

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize findings from three studies that have addressed theconceptualization and application of the metaphor construct to the study of teachers and teaching. Wespecifically examined the perspectives of elementary and secondary preservice teachers, how theparticular metaphors indicated conceptualizations of and orientations to classroom life, and howmetaphors influenced teachers’ approaches to teaching, curriculum and their work with pupils. Weframe the discussion in light of the larger literature on the relationship of beliefs and practices as itrelates to learning to teach and teacher education. The paper provides implications for linking theresearch reported with contemporary ideas for teaching and teacher preparation.

1

Mahlios, M., Shaw, D., & Barry, A. (2010). Synthesis of metaphors: A review across three studies. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,16(1), 49-71. Publisher’s official version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060090347564 . Open Access version: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2

Over the past two decades researchers and teacher educators have shown increasing

interest in metaphor research as a means to better understand how teachers conceptualize their

most basic views about schooling, life, children, curriculum and teaching. There is a growing

body of international literature that supports the study and use of teacher’s metaphorical images

in understanding how they conceptualize their work and themselves in that work (Inbar, 1996;

Martinez, Sauleda, & Huber, 2001; Oxford, Tomlinson, Barcelos, Harrington, Lavine, Saleh, &

Longhini, 1998; Saban, Kocbeker, & Saban, 2007). More recently researchers have followed

teachers into their classrooms to see where and how metaphorical images held by teachers

influence their interactions with children and their actual teaching practices. This paper will

synthesize findings from three studies that have addressed the conceptualization and application

of the metaphor construct to the study of teachers and teaching. Further, the paper will provide

some implications for linking the research reported with contemporary ideas for teaching and

teacher preparation.

Metaphors

One way of examining preservice teachers' beliefs is to identify the conceptual devices

they use to make sense of their work and lives. Perhaps the most potent of these devices is the

metaphor. For the purposes of this line of research, metaphor refers to those analogic devices

that lie beneath the surface of a person's awareness, and serve as a means for framing and

defining experiences (Hardcastle, Yamamoto, Parkay, & Chan, 1985; Neisser, 2003; Yamamoto,

Hardcastle, Muehl, & Muehl, 1990). Teacher beliefs are derived from held metaphors (and

relationships between them) and are what teachers believe to be true about their work. Much of

the earlier research has focused on preservice teachers who have already been enrolled in several

education courses, or on in-service teachers (e.g., Bullough, 1991). Less research has focused on


3

change in metaphors over a period of time, or how they relate to the theoretical orientation of a

teacher education program.

Humans use words and images to interpret life, their experiences, and even their sense of

self. “Metaphor,” according to Yob (2003), “is employed when one wants to explore and

understand something esoteric, abstract, novel or highly speculative…Knowing and how human

beings come to know (education) are also highly speculative notions with succeeding generations

of thinkers promoting novel theories about how it should be conducted” (p. 134). These ideas

about knowing and coming to know, as well as the beliefs that preservice teachers bring with

them to their teacher preparation programs have been systematically studied only within the last

two decades (Bullough, 1991; Bullough, Knowles & Crow, 1992; Carter, 1990; Connelly &

Clandinin, 1988; Kagan, 1992; Parsons, Brown & Worley, 2004). According to this literature,

preservice teacher candidates have definite beliefs about pupils and classrooms as well as distinct

images of themselves as teachers. Researchers like Bullough, Knowles and Crow (1992), Butt

and Raymond (1987) and Pajares (1992) have argued convincingly that such beliefs influence

not only how individuals think and practice during teaching, but also how they interpret the

experience of teaching as well. A group of English teachers in Gillis & Johnson’s (2002) study,

for example, interpreted teaching literature as time in “a hot tub—social, bubbly, inviting,

relaxing, intimate, intimidating, steamy, private, too hot for comfort, baptismal, restorative” (p.

10). Using a short story, “The Monkey’s Paw,” as a novel metaphor, a different group of

educators summed up their beliefs on a vexing aspect of their teaching lives—federally funded

curriculum reform. ‘It appears as if it is a gift but it is not a gift,’ these reading teachers

lamented (Craig, 2005, p. 197).


4

Earlier, the publication of Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (1980) sparked a

growing interest in the study of metaphor as a means of identifying how teachers understand

themselves and their profession (e.g., Martinez, Sauleda, Huber, 2001; Munby, 1986; Provenzo,

McCloskey, Kottkamp & Cohn, 1989; Tobin, 1990). This interest has been based largely on the

idea that metaphors offer a potent, if not primary, means by which people conceptualize and

eventually come to understand their life experiences.

The particular interest of the researchers here has been to identify the dominant

metaphorical views of preservice teachers, to understand how these images are reflected in their

respective views of schooling, life, childhood and teaching and how these images come to

influence their work in the classroom. We agree with Hardcastle, Yamamoto, Parkay & Chan

(1985), and Cook-Sather (2003) that metaphors are the larger constructs under which people

organize their thinking and from which they plan their actions on the multiple environments in

which they participate including, to some extent, how they teach and work with students.

Investigating Metaphor

Over the past decade we have conducted three studies in which we sought to understand

the perspectives that preservice teachers bring to their work; how the particular metaphors

selected by students served as indicators of their conceptualizations of and orientations to

classroom life; and finally how those metaphors influenced students' beliefs and approaches to

teaching, curriculum and their work with pupils. This paper is a synthesis of the findings of these

research efforts.

In the three studies we utilized an instrument titled “What Was School Like.” The

instrument has a long research history with cross-cultural populations, established validity, and

extensive research use (Hardcastle, et al., 1985; Yamamoto, Hardcastle, Muehl, & Muehl, 1990).


5

Yamamoto and his colleagues (1990) developed the instrument through a comprehensive review

of the education literature selecting constructs commonly found in the literature to describe life,

schooling and children. The six-part questionnaire is found in the appendix of this manuscript.

Part 1 solicited demographic data. Part 2 directed students to recall their elementary and school

experiences and to check the listed metaphors that best described each. Possible metaphors

included family, team, garden, circus, prison, zoo, stage, crowd, factory and other. Part 3 asked

students to check their ideal school environment with the aforementioned metaphors. Part 4

asked students to respond to a series of items that described themselves using a four-choice

Likert scale (i.e. strong agree to strongly disagree). Part 5 asked students to think about life,

childhood and teaching. Their choice of life metaphors included following a trail, going down a

river, climbing a mountain, tree growing, rippling water, chasing a rainbow, bird flying, ocean

waves, or their own creation. Childhood metaphors included bubbling spring, trapped animal,

flower blossoming, wind, cloud, dark night or their own creation. In Part 6, students self-selected

eight adjectives to describe their ideal student, teacher, parent, and school administrator.

Respondents to the survey have the option of self reporting their own metaphors or choosing

from the lists provided a metaphor that accurately reflects their views of schooling, childhood

and life. In our experience with the instrument, we have found that most respondents work with

the metaphors provided; some secondary teachers (notably English and social studies) did self

report their metaphors but no elementary teacher in our studies has ever done so.

There have been other methodologies used to enable students to express beliefs such as

life-history interviews and narrative accounts (Kelchtermans, 2005); matching images of

themselves with drawings of other occupations, e.g., animal keeper or entertainer (Ben-Peretz,

Mendelson & Kron, 2003); portfolio essays (Parsons, Brown & Worley, 2004); questionnaires


6

and surveys (Minor, Onwuegbuzie, Witcher & James, 2002) and open-ended responses (Bozlk,

2002). Goldstein (2005) has noted the difficulties some preservice teachers may have in

constructing their own metaphors and therefore suggests a procedure for providing students with

a pre-selected metaphor with which to connect their nascent teaching lives. The latter was the

method chosen for the studies reported here.

Three Studies

For study one (Mahlios & Maxson, 1995) and study two (Mahlios & Maxson, 1998) the

six-part questionnaire designed by Yamomoto et al. (1990) was administered to all elementary

(N=134) and secondary (N=119) education majors at a large southeastern university in the

United States. Statistical procedures used to analyze the quantitative data consisted of frequency

counts, Chi-square and analysis of variance. Content analysis procedures as described by Ball

and Smith (1992), and the SAS cross-tabs program were applied to open response items.

For study three (Massengill, Mahlios & Barry, 2005), the 6-part questionnaire was given

to 50 secondary education majors at a Midwestern United States university. One participant

from each of the five content areas represented in the questionnaire (English, science, social

studies, mathematics, and foreign language) was chosen randomly. We selected five participants

largely due to time and resource constraints. Face-to-face interviews lasting 60-90 minutes were

conducted by one of the authors with the five preservice teachers. Our intent was to provide a

forum for them to elaborate on their beliefs about teaching in general and their specific beliefs

about teaching in their content area to students with a range of abilities. The interviews were

audio taped and the interviewer took notes.

Based on willingness and opportunity to participate, the selected individuals from each of

the five content areas were observed. Three observations were conducted for each: two during


7

their internship and one during the first year of teaching. Observations ranged from 45 to 90

minutes to coincide with class periods. A “continuous recording” procedure was used to record

observational information. Additionally all observed lessons of the selected five students were

audio taped and transcribed. The five preservice participants shared written lesson plans to verify

content information. Follow-up interviews were conducted after the second year of observations

to see if there were changes in beliefs about teaching in general and content instruction in

particular. Member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was used when researcher and participant

interacted to ensure accuracy.

Against the brief review of the metaphor construct and some of our earlier research in

this area, we now turn to an examination of three studies that illustrate what we have learned

about the influence of metaphors on the perspectives that preservice teachers bring to their work,

how particular metaphors indicate conceptualizations of and orientations to classroom life, and

finally how metaphors seem to have influenced teachers' approaches to teaching, curriculum, and

interactions with pupils.

Studies I and II

Perspectives

In our first two studies (Mahlios & Maxson, 1995; Mahlios & Maxson, 1998) focused on

identifying dominant metaphorical views of preservice elementary and secondary teachers and

their respective views of schooling, life and childhood, we described perspectives on teaching

taken by elementary and secondary preservice teachers. We argued in these research reports that

metaphors are representative of the larger constructs under which teachers organize their

thinking and from which they plan their actions in the multiple environments in which they

participate including how they work with students and select teaching practices. Following from


8

the work of researchers like Ausubel (1963), we operated from the notion that individuals tended

to have consistent ways of perceiving and conceptualizing their environment – namely, that

metaphors and relations among them, constitute cognitive structures and are the basis for

generating beliefs that guide practice. From the selected metaphors, we hoped to develop a more

detailed and comprehensive understanding of our students' perspectives on teaching, curriculum

and their work with pupils.

From this prior work, we learned that our elementary and secondary teacher education

students remember their elementary school experience as being a focused, cohesive, positive,

social activity, as being in a family or on a team. While they also view their secondary school

experience like this, some hold views of high school as being less positive and cohesive (i.e.,

prison/crowd). For both levels of schooling, students' preferred images were positive, social

phenomenon (i.e., family and team). These results were consistent with those of an earlier study

involving students in the United States and in other countries (Hardcastle, et al., 1985).

The participants were asked to choose metaphorical images of life and childhood.

Elementary majors chose four metaphors of life (tree, ocean, mountain, and trail) for 80% of

their responses; secondary majors selected the same metaphors, which accounted for 55% of

their responses. Eighty percent of elementary preservice students chose the metaphors of a

flower blossoming (64%) or a bubbling spring (14%) to describe their childhoods. In contrast,

secondary preservice teachers chose flower, spring and wind for 60% of their responses and

“other” for 29%. The differences between elementary and secondary teachers have been a

constant over the course of our studies in this area. The possible explanation for the differences

probably reflects differing views of children and schooling at these levels.


9

When contrasting the selected metaphors by elementary and secondary participants, it

appears that in most cases their choices are more similar than dissimilar, with two major

exceptions. First, the secondary participants supplied "other" metaphor choices (5 to 15% of the

time) in all four categories (elementary and secondary school, life and childhood) reported, while

elementary participants declined from choosing “other.” Second, elementary participants were

more than twice as likely to describe their high school experience as like being in a family (43%)

compared to their secondary peers (17%).

Contrary to our findings, other studies have noted rather marked differences between sub-

groups. For example, in their large scale (N=1,142) study of Turkish preservice students, Saban,

Kocbeker, & Saban (2007) found differences by elementary and secondary program type. Their

elementary or “Classroom Teaching” group generated more “shaping-oriented,” “growth-

oriented,” and “counseling-oriented” metaphors than their secondary or “English Education”

counterparts. Their secondary group produced more “facilitation-oriented” images.

Interpretations for our findings of similarities might be understood on two levels. First,

most studies in this area use open-ended instruments to solicit metaphors and related constructs.

As noted in the methods section of this paper we have used a closed form approach in which we

supplied the metaphor list and from which participants made choices. The provided metaphors

are tied to dominant constructs in the professional education literature and are not necessarily

ones that individual teachers-to-be might have developed as a function of their own life

experience. In short, we framed the choice of metaphor based on widely accepted themes in the

professional education literature. We recognize that the narrative psychology tradition offers yet

another perspective from which to interpret the findings, namely every individual is the ultimate

author of his/her life story. By seeking coherence in life across experiences we construct a


10

narrative-our life story (Bruner, 1987) of which metaphors and the self emerges (Blackmore,

1999). Second, our subjects are a highly selective group of students. We admit a small number of

undergraduates via a very competitive admission system; thus, we may have sampled a more

homogeneous group than may be found in the larger teacher education population of students

nationally, thereby reducing sub-group differences.

In sum, it appears that the two groups of teachers-to-be share some considerably similar

metaphorical views. The favored life metaphor for both is that life is like a tree growing and the

majority felt that being a child is like a flower blossoming - metaphors have been identified in

other studies with similar populations and in roughly comparable proportions to that found in this

study (Yamamoto, et al., 1990). These metaphors suggest the notion of organic development,

either of the 'organic' kind, suggested by Ashton-Warner (1973), i.e., that is deep-seated and

fully contained within the individual, created and affected by one's life. Both interpretations pose

potential conflict for candidates in some teacher preparation programs where the dominant theme

is that knowledge and the development of knowledge and self are socially constructed.

Conceptualization

One of the objectives of study two (Mahlios & Maxson, 1998) was to look within

metaphorical categories to examine the adjectives respondents supplied in order to gain a better

understanding of their formation of various adult roles (parent, teacher, principal). To do this,

we drew on the concept of metaphorical entailments as defined by Lakoff and Johnson (1980).

Entailments describe how two metaphors link, and thus forecast possible cognitive structures

guiding thinking and practice possibilities. We wondered if persons within the same metaphor

groups would select similar adjectives to describe these adult roles. In order to address this

particular research objective, we cross-referenced the most frequently selected adjectives by the


11

most frequently selected metaphors of life and childhood. We found some interesting entailment

patterns within each group, as well as some interesting contrasts between the groups. Our

findings suggested that for at least some of the metaphor groups there may be core traits, or

entailment relationships, that are central to the notions of teaching and that these traits may cross

grade level concerns. Further, our data analysis suggests that preservice teachers as a whole

enter the profession with some common preconceptions about roles (for students, parents and

teachers) that may influence how they approach their professional preparation.

We started with the idea that preservice teachers would separate themselves into distinct

groups by root metaphors that would provide complex descriptions uniquely consistent with

these particular analogical views. What we found instead was considerable overlap in the

descriptions (adjectives) across the metaphor groups. This finding suggested that students may

be operating from simplistic and naive views of children that ignore actual differences in the root

images that some teachers-to-be hold within themselves. These findings are consistent with some

of the developmental and life span/contextual models of teacher development noted by Pintrich

(1990). They also support Comeaux's (1992) finding that preservice teachers differentiated

between the way they preferred to learn as students and the methods they selected for use with

their future pupils. Namely, as students they enjoyed learning in-groups and dialoguing with

their teacher, yet they designed lessons for pupils utilizing didactic methods.

In these earlier studies, we were also interested in identifying whether students’ sense of

teaching could be used as an indicator of their unique conceptualization of and orientation to

classroom life. One hundred twenty elementary and 118 secondary participants responded with

metaphors or words to express their sense of teaching. The dominant theme that cuts across both

elementary and secondary teacher candidates is the tendency to idealize teaching and children.


12

For example, teacher candidates view childhood as innocent and a time of freedom and choice.

They believe students are eager to learn and ready for the information they will present. In many

ways the teacher candidates see their future role as teacher as easy.

Four additional themes emerged from their collective sense of teaching: teaching as

guiding (leading students to new knowledge), teaching as nurturing (teachers provide

environment that supports growth and development), teaching as stimulating (teachers prod and

encourage learners), and teaching as telling (teachers pass on information and knowledge).

Interestingly enough, these were the same top four categories of conceptual metaphors generated

by Puerto Rican teachers at a TESOL convention (Guerrero & Villamil, 2002).

Study III

Entering Classrooms

Drawing on our findings about preservice students’ conceptualizations of children and

teaching and how these influenced their practice, we conducted our third study. Having

previously concluded that there was little difference between elementary and secondary

preservice teachers’ perspectives and conceptualizations, we focused this third study on 50

secondary education majors at a Midwestern university. We selected one preservice teacher

whose metaphor profiles conformed to those identified in Studies I & II from each secondary

content area (English, science, social studies, mathematics, and foreign language) for further

analysis. The selection criteria included metaphors (life, childhood, etc), adjectives of idea roles

(student, teacher, parent, etc), and overall sense of teaching described in detail in Study 2

(Mahlios & Maxson, 1998). For the purpose of synthesis and length of this manuscript we will

report on two of the five preservice teachers. (See published study 3, Massengill, Mahlios &

Barry, 2005 for all five profiles). We have chosen to present these two profiles as individual case


13

studies. Each begins with the preservice teacher’s beliefs and metaphors about schooling and

teaching, life and childhood. Further, teaching scenarios are described to illustrate relationships

between the participant’s beliefs and practices. Changes that may have occurred between the

internship year and the first full year of classroom teaching are discussed.

Case Study I: Svetlana

Svetlana, who teaches science, emphasized the idea of “growth” throughout her

responses. For example, Svetlana said life is like a tree growing because one continually learns

and grows. Reflecting on her own childhood when her parents helped and encouraged her to

think and explore, she described being a child as like a flower blossoming,. Svetlana said

secondary school should be like a garden where everyone knows a wide variety of people and

they are supportive of each other. She concluded by describing her sense of teaching as, “At

first a young tree, then growing to be a strong tree. A young tree because I am still learning what

I need to know about being an effective teacher, but eventually becoming more sure of myself

and my abilities.” Svetlana rarely spoke directly about what constituted support, but emphasized

how various experiences and situations in life helped her grow as a person.

During Svetlana’s student internship, we observed one classroom biology lesson.

Svetlana’s instructional practice represents her metaphor of gardening: for her, a garden is a safe

place where students can be nurtured through teacher-student interactions; there are a variety of

people in a garden and each will have different needs; students respect others’ differences and

support each other; and, as students are free to think and explore, they grow in their knowledge.

During this biology class, students studied anatomy (respiratory/circulatory systems).

They were dissecting a fetal pig, which they had begun in the previous class period. Students

came into class, and Svetlana told them to continue working with a partner on their pig


14

dissection. She encouraged the students to work together and to support each other. They started

their assignment while Svetlana walked around the classroom meeting with small groups based

on their needs. As Svetlana circulated, she created many opportunities to discuss content and

interact with students. She regularly provided positive affirmation to show her support for

learning. By providing feedback and leading students to new knowledge through her

interactions, Svetlana saw herself “helping students think and grow.”

A second example of Svetlana’s teaching occurred during her first year as a full-time

teacher. This time her biology class was studying protozoa. Again, we saw that her acts of

teaching seem consistent with her perceptions and conceptualizations of support and growth.

She began class by giving students a quiz. They were allowed to use the concept maps

they had made while reading the text chapter. After the quiz, Svetlana discussed the answers

with the students to provide immediate feedback. Next, she provided more background

information and used websites to show illustrations of various protists. Students were then told

to join with a partner of their choice. They were asked to look through a microscope at six slides

of protists and draw what they saw. The practice of directing students to work collaboratively

and to support each other in their learning exemplifies Svetlana’s metaphors of schooling and

life. Svetlana walked around and talked to students, constantly offering information and advice.

Just put algae on that. You might find some euglena. No, just look around. You got

some new pond samples. (Student commented). Sue, do you want some protozoan? See

if it’s flowing down because you might not spot amoebae too quickly. No, no mixed

diatoms. We’re going to save those.

As Svetlana asked questions and assisted students, she believed she was matching her

conceptualization to practice by helping them think and learn. When students finished the


15

microscope task, they were asked to put their things away and use a work sheet. After 15

minutes, Svetlana asked the students to pull out their concept maps again. These served as

summary tools. She directed them to add relevant information while she discussed real world

connections via diseases caused by protists and the effects the diseases had on humans (e.g.,

African sleeping sickness). At the conclusion of her lesson, Svetlana assigned students to read

the next section in their biology textbook, make a concept map and be prepared for a quiz on

Monday.

The context of these sample-teaching scenarios provides more information about

Svetlana and her conceptualizations of teaching. As a new teacher, the reality of teaching

required dealing with numerous management issues. Although the students did not always react

to her discipline, they responded to her content information and her questioning when she

interacted with small groups. Based on our observations of Svetlana, we concluded that she

played the role of gardener by scaffolding her students’ learning. Further, she provided occasion

for the students to know a wide variety of people (by working together) and to support each other

in their learning of concepts. In Svetlana’s mind, these were opportunities for her to

operationalize her secondary school gardening concept of students “supporting each other.”

In the post-interview at the completion of her first-year of teaching, Svetlana said she

maintained her original beliefs, although she admitted to some modification with the metaphor

of, “a child is like a flower blossoming.” She said that some students were like the wind and

others acted like they were in a prison. At that point, Svetlana seemed to begin to realize that

childhood is not entirely ideal although a safe, nurturing learning environment is ideal. Svetlana

indicated that inquiry teaching was ‘much harder done than said,’ but she felt inquiry was

essential to her view of good teaching. She reverted to more lecturing than she originally


16

intended because she felt students did not understand the curriculum if she didn’t lecture.

Svetlana affirmed her sense of teaching as consistent with the growth metaphor – that her roots

were growing and she was feeling a bit stronger and a lot sturdier in her teaching because of one

year of experience. In sum, Svetlana consistently spoke about and reflected the “growth” theme

as a major focus in her thinking and practices about schooling, life, children and teaching.

Case Study II: Juan

Juan, a social studies teacher, believed that life is like following a trail. “As we go

through life, we are confronted by choices (forks in the road) and obstacles, which we must

overcome to continue going down the path we select.” Juan’s view of childhood is like a flower

blossoming. “Children grow and ‘blossom’ as a flower, but need good ground and care to fully

develop into what and who they are.” Further, Juan felt secondary school should be like being

on a team. He believed the teacher and students should work together to achieve common

educational goals. Juan’s sense of teaching reflected his view of secondary school and life.

“Teaming is the way in which we help others reach their potential. As teachers we guide

children, giving them the tools and hopefully the environment to fulfill their dreams and

abilities.”

Juan clearly expressed the idea that other people are important in reaching one’s potential

– e.g. teaming provides support; children need good care. Juan’s ideas are internally consistent:

sense of teaching (teaming and guiding), ideal school (teaming and working together) metaphor

of life (following a trail), and being a child (need good care for a good learning environment).

Thus, for Juan, education helps prepare students for the path they select in life, and teaches them

how they can deal with obstacles that will come their way and how to make wise choices when

dealing with life problems.


17

Juan’s first sample teaching scenario occurred during his student internship experience.

It represents his attempts to match his metaphor of teaming to his instructional practice.

Defining a team, each member belongs, each member has a role, the members learn to work

together and support each other, and the team moves forward with a common goal. The class was

American History and students were reviewing for a test to be taken the next day by playing the

game Jeopardy.

In a game format, two teams were formed with a common goal of reviewing information

and answering questions correctly. Teammates were available to assist as a lifeline if a student

on the team did not know the answer, and they also worked together to decide how much to

wager for the final question. The game followed the sequence in which Juan asked a question to

one team member and the student answered. Then Juan usually clarified or expanded the

student’s answer. For example,

Okay. That’s good. You were right. A lot of times, basically what the flappers did was

to help try to change the perception of women. By doing that, they did things like

smoking, drinking, driving. Not necessarily at the same times. Wearing short skirts,

bobbing their hair.

Through his actions, Juan sought to guide students to knowledge clarification and the

creation of new knowledge. The game continued to be played and the students responded to

Juan, and seemed to be enjoying the game review (e.g., “Andrea is about to explode over

there.”). Throughout the lesson, Juan provided positive reinforcement with statements like

“good job” or “very good.” He gave students the benefit of the doubt when possible, therefore

encouraging engagement. Classroom interactions appeared to illustrate Juan’s belief that as a


18

teacher, he should provide students with a safe learning environment, improve their academic

knowledge and abilities; and work together to achieve socially negotiated educational goals.

The second sample-teaching scenario occurred during Juan’s first year of teaching social

studies. Although the lesson portrays less “teaming,” Juan believed it still reflected his sense of

“guiding.” The class period began with students and teacher talking about current events. During

this time, students could share information they had heard on the news or questions they had

about current events. Juan explained many events, which he characterized as guiding and

scaffolding students to expand their knowledge and understanding. Next, Juan answered

students’ homework questions. Juan discussed the homework assignment and students often

were willing to read their answers. Juan typically responded with one of the following, “Okay.

Very good. That is correct,” thus attempting to create a positive environment through

affirmation of student work efforts. Students turned in their homework assignment after tallying

their points. The main focus of the day’s lesson occurred when Juan gave the students a diary

excerpt from a mother who had a son in war. Juan wanted the students to understand how this

excerpt related to the war we are currently fighting with terrorists. He frequently related the past

to the present.

The context of Juan’s classroom also provides insights into understanding his teaching

behavior. After two years of contact with Juan, it was evident that his typical lesson included

questioning and discussion. Many students participated even though Juan rarely called directly

on a specific student. Juan attempted to create a team-like atmosphere for Jeopardy and other

class games and projects. However, he said that these interactions created management issues.

Therefore, Juan said he resorted to more lecturing than he originally intended because it was

easier to cover content with limited time and planning and maintain control of the class. His


19

goals for the following year were to make the curriculum more hands-on, with role-playing, and

simulation activities, which would lend themselves to more collaboration. Juan spoke of the

importance of being a good role model. He also said he tried to respect students and not single

out any one of them.

Juan named teaming and guiding as his life and school metaphors. Through his teaching,

Juan attempted to establish a guiding environment by questioning students and discussing

knowledge, such as chapter review, current events and new learning material. Juan frequently

guided through scaffolding, clarifying and expanding on the information students provided. He

said that his understanding of teaming meant that they should all work together toward the

common goal of successfully learning course content. Juan also felt he was teaming with his

students when he respected them and expected their respect for him and each other in return.

In sum, it appears that our two preservice teacher beliefs remained similar after one year

of actual teaching experience. In our data we found that the teaching context contributed to the

reaffirmation of beliefs with only some slight changes in basic conceptualizations of teaching

and children over the two years of study three. These beliefs and conceptual metaphors of both

Svetlana and Juan stand in stark contrast to the findings of Cook-Sather (2003). It is her

conclusion that the two metaphors that historically and currently still dominate U.S. schooling

are (a) education as production with the school as a factory and (b) education as remedy with

students as diseased individuals in need of a cure. Cook-Sather concludes that the school needs

to become a more “revolutionary” site.

Practices

The purpose of the third study (Massengill, Mahlios & Barry, 2005) was to observe the

ways in which metaphorical constructs influenced teachers' work with their students over the


20

first two years of teaching. We were interested in seeing whether modifications occurred in

teaching metaphors as a result of changes in content taught, student characteristics, and the

environmental context of learning.

Of these two participants, Svetlana selected the metaphor of life as a tree growing, while

Juan chose the metaphor of life as following a trail. Both participants viewed childhood as a

flower blossoming, which indicates their belief that interaction with children should focus on

nurturing, care, gentleness and innocence. In essence, these teachers felt it was their

responsibility to create a student-centered environment that promoted growth. This idea is also

reflected in their sense of teaching; which they perceived as a growing experience for themselves

and their students. It should also be noted that both participants’ metaphor of life, childhood and

sense of teaching remained fairly consistent over the two-year time period of this study.

Juan (social studies, team, trail) believed that students should be guided to new

knowledge and understanding. In his lessons, Juan typically began each lesson with a discussion

of current events. As students mentioned news that interested them, Juan would supplement

their knowledge and clarify misunderstandings. He incorporated team games like Jeopardy to

encourage collaboration and keep questioning lively. If particular responses were disputed,

students were told to find the answers in the book and he was flexible enough to accept

responses that were reasonable but different from those given in the teacher’s manual. Juan also

used study guides, note taking, visuals, (photos and video clips) and “writing to learn” via

research papers. Multiple texts (e.g., primary source documents as well as texts and reference

materials) were used to foster critical thinking.

Another way Juan guided by scaffolding his students was in the grading of a homework

assignment. Juan did not simply read the answers or indicate correct/incorrect responses. Rather,


21

he took the opportunity to discuss each question/answer, helping students to deepen their

understanding of the focal idea. He provided students feedback on their first drafts of research

papers with “corrections” and “suggestions.” Juan regularly asked students if they needed

clarification and he shared his methods of problem solving via “think aloud.” Through these

examples, Juan guided students to new knowledge and understanding.

Svetlana (science, family, and tree) believed that teaching is a form of nurturing and it

was her responsibility to create an environment that promoted student academic growth.

Svetlana taught in block-schedule classes, and during her instruction, she frequently provided

students opportunities for hands-on experience. For example, during lab, Svetlana interacted

with students, answered questions, clarified science concepts, and gave students feedback. She

realized science terminology was difficult, so she often reviewed terms with students to help

them comprehend the vocabulary. Further, Svetlana used several analogies to help students learn

concepts, (e.g., a spleen is a leech-looking object and trachea is like a hard washboard).

Both case studies illustrate well-documented phenomenon of novice teachers attempting

to match their beliefs and teaching style. Even though beginning teachers face numerous

challenges, there is evidence that they seek to relate their beliefs and practices. As Richardson

(1998) pointed out, “I found that when a teacher tries new activities she assesses them on the

basis of whether they work: Whether they fit within her set of beliefs about teaching and

learning, engage the students, and allow her the degree of classroom control she feels is

necessary” (p. 2).

Discussion

The discussion examines our findings in light of the larger literature on the relationship of

beliefs and practices as it relates to learning to teach and teacher education. To date, Richardson


22

(1996) provides the most comprehensive synthesis of research related to this topic. We have

used her framework to interpret our findings and have categorized the discussion into three

relevant areas: relationship of beliefs and practices in learning to teach, teacher education, and

recommendations for future research.

Relationship of beliefs and practices in learning to teach

A belief is a proposition, or statement, accepted as true by the person holding the belief,

but which actually does not have to satisfy a truth condition as knowledge does (Green, 1971;

Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). In literature, related terms are often used interchangeably for

beliefs and include the following: attitudes, beliefs, conceptions, theories, understandings,

practical knowledge, and values (Richardson, 1996). In our research, we have used the construct

of metaphor and assert that metaphors are psychologically held understandings that lead to

beliefs about the world that are felt to be true. Teachers hold beliefs in clusters (e.g., life

metaphors, schooling metaphors, childhood metaphors) and each cluster within a belief system

may be protected from other clusters (Green, 1971). The clusters may not be necessarily parallel

to one another and thus, incompatible beliefs may be sustained by an individual. Tacit belief

clusters that are not examined explicitly may remain latent in the individual. It was our goal to

look at the consistency of beliefs through profiles of metaphors, adjectives and sense of teaching,

and the concept of entailment patterns among and between elementary and secondary preservice

teachers.

In comparing elementary and secondary participants’ responses, there are some

differences among metaphorical beliefs and subsequent practice, yet far more similarities. For

example, the participants idealized childhood and shared similar views of life (i.e., life is like a

tree, ocean, mountain or trail). Differences were more noticeable with regard to adjectives


23

describing ideal adult roles. For example, secondary participants put more emphasis on

intellectual qualities for both adult and student roles, whereas elementary teachers felt nurturing

was a most desirable quality. Overall, elementary responses were more homogenous and

positive than the secondary ones. In our studies, we did not find much differentiation between

elementary and secondary preservice teachers. Therefore, our findings were incongruous with

previous research (Richardson, 1996) that says there are clear distinctions between elementary

and secondary preservice teachers. Perhaps, our data are different because our institution’s

teacher preparation program is highly competitive and selective. Writing samples are used in the

selection process for prospective elementary and secondary students. It may be that faculty

choose individuals who display nurturing, supporting and developmental dispositions, thus

skewing our sample. Our analysis indicates that there are core metaphorical views that most

teachers hold regardless of the grade level they teach: namely, that they idealize childhood and

have a common perspective on life.

The relationship between belief and action is interactive or “bi-directional” as Haney,

Lumpe, Czerniak & Egan (2002) explain, “and as such, one construct tends to influence the

other” (p. 181). Beliefs drive actions, and in turn, experiences and reflection of actions may lead

to changes in beliefs. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) said, teachers’ beliefs and theories are

“sets of interrelated conceptual frameworks grounded in practice” (p. 7). Further, Schubert

(1991) described the operation of beliefs and actions as “a union of theory and practice in

reflective action” (p. 214). We concur that the participants’ root metaphors and sense of teaching

affected their conceptualizations and orientation toward classroom practices. It is also noted that

the participants’ beliefs and their relations to practice showed no noticeable change over two


24

years of teaching. It appears that their practices reaffirmed their conceptualizations and beliefs

and that the influence of perspectives and practices is indeed bi-directional.

Beliefs, the proposition of truth, derive from three sources: personal experience, previous

schooling, and formal knowledge. Richardson (1996) suggests that metaphors originated from

personal experience like the model Connelly and Clandinin (1991) and Bullough and Knowles

(1991) have used in their work. In our study, we found that the preservice teachers’ metaphors

often originated from their own childhood and elementary schooling experience. Above all, the

findings for metaphors of life and childhood suggest that beginning teachers see the school as an

environment that needs to nurture children. The data show that students believe the schooling

experience should be like a family and or team. In the American culture, the concepts of family

and team are both built upon notions of caring, support and interdependency of their members.

The selected adjectives similarly describe these functions for adult roles. The emphasis that

teaching should be grounded in interpersonal relationships was predominant among the

secondary preservice teachers, which is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Brookhart &

Freeman, 1992).

The nurturing conceptualization appears to be common among many elementary and

secondary teachers, including preservice ones and has been documented by several prominent

researchers including Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Combs, 1982; Heck & Williams, 1984. The

feminist literature also reports that nurturing has typically been related to the caring professions

like teaching (Johnson, Bruce, Graham, Oliver, Oppong, Park, & Mansberger, 2005). This

perception may create a dissonance between student ideals and teacher preparation programs,

especially when the education program emphasizes the primacy of academic content knowledge


25

(Korthagen, 1995). There is a notion that well conceived teacher education programs have a

clearly expressed definition of ‘good teaching’ and thus specific goals for beginning teachers.

Research has shown that the ability to change beliefs of preservice teachers is more

difficult than for in-service teachers. Change usually occurs when the context of a classroom

experience powerfully influences teachers’ beliefs and knowledge (Richardson, 1996).

Therefore, it appears that teachers’ beliefs change with practice and experience. We, however,

did not see any modification of their thinking. When asked to re-evaluate their sense of teaching

and metaphors of life, school and childhood, the participants chose not to make changes. This

indicates the persistence of ideas (i.e. metaphors, beliefs and overall sense of teaching) that

teachers-to-be bring to their university preparation program and that those beliefs extend into

actual classroom practice after one year of classroom teaching.

Professional growth may have its roots in the resolution of conflict between held-beliefs

and the reality of teaching and schooling. When the opportunity comes for novice teachers to

implement their metaphorical beliefs and sense of teaching in their classroom, they are often

faced with unforeseen challenges, which result in dissonance between the ideal and real. These

discrepancies are not unanticipated and have been noted by other researchers (e.g., Argyris &

Schon, 1974; McCarty, Abott-Shim & Lambert, 2001). In this study, both Svetlana and Juan

struggled with this disconnect. When questioned, both participants readily expressed the

challenges that limited their ability to fully display their beliefs in action. Certainly, some of

these challenges stemmed from their contexts, including the numbers of students in their classes

who struggled with reading and learning or who were labeled “at risk.” Svetlana had 16 and Juan

5 such students in their classes. Nevertheless, they asserted their metaphors remained


26

unchanged. Svetlana and Juan appeared to be cognizant of the dissonance, but believed internal

coherence between beliefs and actions would someday come together if they held to their beliefs.

Richardson (1996) raised the question whether changes in beliefs and practices are

actually ‘growth.’ Oftentimes, growth implies that changes have occurred in a positive direction.

Kagan (1992) defines professional growth as “changes over time in the behavior, knowledge,

images, beliefs, or perceptions of novice teachers” (p. 131). In our research, Svetlana maintained

her original beliefs after one year of teaching, yet she felt her roots were growing and she was

feeling stronger and sturdier (the tree metaphor).

Teacher education

These three studies of preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching, schooling and how

metaphors guide their teaching and learning with students offer educators some ideas about the

types of beliefs candidates may bring with them to their preparation program and classrooms.

Coupled with our finding that those beliefs do not show much change after one year of teaching

experience suggests that teacher educators should seek to understand candidates’ beliefs and to

design teacher preparation programs that help preservice teachers understand their beliefs and

how they relate to program conceptualization and varying school contexts.

Beginning elementary and secondary students come into teacher education programs with

fairly consistent, yet vague, views of schooling and children. Our research reveals something of

the nature of these views and how these characteristics interact with the dominant elements of

classroom practice. It may be that the failure of some of our students to 'learn' program concepts

is a result of the clash between views within themselves and those contained in our preparation

programs. This general phenomenon has been reported by Bullough, Knowles and Crow (1992).

More recently Inbar (1996) found a discrepancy between teachers and students on their view that


27

schooling is like prison, and Martinez, Sauleda and Huber (2001) discovered differences between

experienced and prospective teachers on their views of behaviorism and constructivism. This

may explain some of the frustration faculty feel when students do not adopt professed program

views of schooling, teaching and learning (e.g., a constructivist approach, which at a root level,

strikes a contrast to the preeminence of "organic" metaphors). As Pajares (1992) points out, it

may also be the reason why some teaching practices continue despite the fact that they are

ineffective and counterproductive. This 'clash' may also explain research results showing little

effect for program design on student's acquisition of the extant knowledge of learning to teach

(Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984).

One way to reduce the negative consequences of such a clash and the resultant loss of

student professional learning would be to provide entering students feedback on their held

beliefs, surfaced through techniques like that used in this study (cf. Yonemura, 1982), and

discuss how these contrast with dominant program concepts and orientations. As noted earlier,

other avenues for allowing students to express beliefs may be life-history interviews and

narrative accounts (Kelchtermans, 2005); matching images of themselves with drawings of other

occupations, e.g., animal keeper or entertainer (Ben-Peretz, Mendelson & Kron, 2003); portfolio

essays (Parsons, Brown & Worley, 2004); questionnaires and surveys (Minor, Onwuegbuzie,

Witcher & James, 2002), or open-ended responses (Bozlk, 2002). By providing students with

prior information about possible points of disagreement between their ideas and those of faculty

and program elements greater congruence and accommodation may be achieved and more

optimal outcomes attained.

Because many faculty in teacher education programs operate with little knowledge of

who their students are and what dominant beliefs they hold upon entry into teacher preparation


28

programs, we recommend that faculty in teacher preparation programs incorporate the

fundamental views of their students into their professional programs of study. By incorporate, we

mean to acknowledge and show relation between students' metaphors, beliefs and those upon

which the teacher preparation program rests. For example, given that students entering

elementary education programs believe that teaching should be based upon a caring and

nurturing relationship with children these qualities must become a starting point for selecting and

orienting students to professional education programs. These characteristics should become a

central element in the dialogue of core education courses that serve to guide and reinforce the

content of the professional experience. Such dialogues will enable students to better bridge their

held beliefs with the core concepts and responsibilities they will assume as they enter teaching.

We also recommend that faculty directly challenge student-held beliefs where they determine

them to be inappropriate or dysfunctional. This faculty role may need to continue once students

enter the classroom. For example, in a study focused on Sarah, a high school science teacher,

Tobin (1990) explained how Sarah’s management role as “comedian” elicited aggressive,

uncooperative students’ behaviors that disrupted learning. With guidance, Sarah was able to

reflect on her practice and reconceptualize the management component of her teaching role in

terms of being a “social director.” This metaphorical role allowed Sarah to “invite students to

learn, as guests are invited to a party” as long as students were courteous to the teacher and each

other and did not disrupt learning. “Student’s misbehavior,” according to Tobin, “which was

previously widespread, disappeared almost overnight” (p. 125). It is through metaphors that

teachers can be stimulated to explore new conceptual territories in a safe, alternative way

(Martinez et al., 2001). When educators become critically aware of their students’ metaphors


29

they are able “to increase the rigour and precision” of their “analysis of education and

schooling,” (p. 90).

Conclusion

This research, in relation to previous research, presents several important concepts for

teacher educators. First, the combination of personal experience, previous schooling, and student

teaching are more influential in building conceptions of teaching than the teacher education

programs (Richardson, 1996). Second, teacher education programs, with the exception of

student teaching, have minimal effects on teachers’ beliefs and practices. Previous life

experiences and actual teaching experiences are the two most potent influences on beliefs about

teaching, children, and schooling. Third, it appears that change in metaphors and beliefs is easier

to achieve at the in-service level than at the preservice level (Richardson, 1996). In fact, the use

of metaphor may be an ideal starting point from which in-service teachers can take stock of their

professional selves. The current climate of reform may actually force such reflections. In this

way changes made can be harmonious with one’s own goals and philosophies. Gillis and

Johnson (2002) even suggest exercises for using metaphors as a tool to explore personal attitudes

and beliefs. Researchers like Goldstein (2005) recognize the difficulties some preservice

teachers may have in constructing their own metaphor and therefore suggest a procedure for

providing students with a pre-selected metaphor with which to connect their nascent teaching

lives.

Recommendations for future research

We believe it is important to better understand the processes by which students' root

metaphors and subsequent beliefs change over time and the factors which influence them to

change. For example, some of these views change as a result of interaction with the program


30

design or program materials (see Fradd, Lee, Sutman & Saxton, 2001). Others view change as a

result of maturation and some as a result of experience with children, teachers, schools, and

parents (Richardson, 1996). Clearly metaphors are complex and overlapping. Growth and

experience may allow preservice teachers to see the complexity of their metaphors. Nonetheless

our knowledge of how these views are developed, sustained and or changed over time needs

additional attention, and constitutes an important path for future scholarly inquiry.

Implications for future research also include a need to further investigate the relationship

between program conceptualization and student metaphors and their images of teaching and

schooling. The situation in our studies is fairly prevalent in many teacher preparation programs.

It is often assumed that a conflict between student views and program conceptualization does not

exist, or that if a conflict does exist then preservice teachers discount their ideas and adopt those

of their preparation program. An important avenue for future research is to further analyze the

alignment of student beliefs and program framework, using the student’s metaphors as active

elements in helping preservice teachers learn how to teach, as exemplified by the program at the

University of Louisville (Price, 2002).

A second implication is to explore which category of metaphors is more likely to lead to

more effective instruction. Tobin (1990) suggests there are qualitative differences between

metaphorical viewpoints and the quality of one’s teaching. While our studies did not gather data

on the relationship between metaphorical view and teaching competence, it does point to needed

further inquiry. Third, there is a continued need for longitudinal studies, like those conducted by

Bullough & Baughman, 1995, e.g., “Changing Contexts and Expertise in Teaching: First -Year

Teacher after Seven Years.” Changes in beliefs and practice in these studies resulted from

working with students who had special needs like Downs Syndrome and behavior disorders.


31

Bullough and Stokes (1994) found preservice teachers are more open to change at critical events

in their experience. In their seminal work, Becoming a Student of Teaching, Bullough & Gitlin

(1995) provide longitudinal descriptions of beginning teachers, principally focused on how the

“beginning teacher forges personal systems of meaning within the bounds of a particular

context” (p. xv)

Additional studies need to be conducted on metaphors chosen by gender, especially in

light of the work of individuals like Mills who argue that “misogyny is demonstrated by the ways

in which teaching, especially in the early years, is associated with caring, and with the

presumption that caring is women’s work” (Mills, 2004, p. 32). However, there may be some

cross-cultural qualities to these gendered assumptions about teaching. The beliefs of our male

and female case study participants aligned with the categories of beliefs of the males and females

in the study done by Saban, Kocbeker, & Saban (2007) at Selcuk University, Turkey. Teacher

education females (N= 687) generated more growth-oriented metaphors, like Svetlana (teacher as

gardener). Turkish males (N=455) in teacher education at Selcuk generated more cooperation-

oriented metaphors like our male case study participant, Juan. In fact, in terms of cultural

comparisons overall, Saban, et. al. concluded, “there are major cross-cultural similarities in

teachers’ conceptualization of teaching and learning” (p. 134). Nevertheless, all areas of

diversity and disability need to be considered in future research. Examination should continue

into the images teachers hold about their classroom and learning, about how these beliefs and

images are modified, and about the reasons for such change.


32

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory into practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ashton-Warner, S. (1973). Spearpoint. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grunet

Stratton.

Ball, M.S. & Smith, G.W.H. (1992). Analyzing visual data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ben-Peretz, M., Mendelson, N., & Kron, F. W. (2003). How teachers in different educational

contexts view their roles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 277-290.

Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bozlk, M. (2002). The college student as learner: Insight gained through metaphor analysis.

College Student Journal, 36(1), 142-151.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979).The ecology of human development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Brookhart, S.M., & Freeman, D.J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.

Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37-60.

Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54, 11-32.

Bullough, R.V., Jr. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher

education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 42-51.

Bullough, R.V., Knowles, J.G., & Crow, N.A. (1992). Emerging as a teacher. New York;

Routledge.

Bullough, R.V. & Baughman, K. (1995). Changing contexts and expertise in teaching: First-

year teacher after seven years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 461-477.


33

Bullough, R.V., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching. New York: Garland

Publishing, Inc.

Bullough, R.V., & Stokes, D.K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in preservice

teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. American

Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 197-224.

Butt, R.L., & Raymond, D. (1987). Arguments for using qualitative approaches in understanding

teacher thinking: The case for biography. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 7(1), 66-

93.

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W.R. Houston, M. Haberman

& J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York:

Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The

issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-10.

Combs, A. W. (1982). A personal approach to teaching: Beliefs that make a difference. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Comeaux, M. (1992). Challenging students' views about teaching and learning: Constructivism

in the social foundations classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, April.

Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planner: Narratives of

experience. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cook-Sather, A. (2003). Movements of mind: The matrix, metaphors, and re-imagining

education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 946-977.


34

Craig, C.J. (2005). The epistemic role of novel metaphors in teachers’ knowledge constructions

of school reform. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 195-208.7

Fradd, S.H., Lee, O., Sutman, F.X., Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science literacy with

English language learners through instructional materials development: A case study.

Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 1-22.

Gillis, C. & Johnson, C. (2002). Metaphor as renewal: Re-imagining our professional

selves. English Journal, 91(6), 37-43.

Goldstein, L.S. (2005). Becoming a teacher as a hero’s journey: Using metaphor in preservice

education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 7-24.

Green, T. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guerrero, M.C.M. & Villamil, O.S. (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESL teaching

and learning. Language Teaching Research, 6, 95-120.

Haney, J.J., Lumpe, A.T, Czerniak. C.M., & Egan, V.E. (2000). From beliefs to actions: The

beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 13(3), 171-187.

Hardcastle, B., Yamamoto, K., Parkay, F.W., & Chan, J. (1985). Metaphorical views of school:

A cross-cultural comparison of college students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4),

309-315.

Heck, S.F. and Williams, C.R. (1984). The complex roles of the teacher. New York. TC Press.

Inbar, D.E. (1996). The free educational prison: metaphors and images. Educational Research,

38(1), 77-92.

Johnson, T.S., Bruce, M., Graham, P., Oppong, N., Park, S., & Mansberger, D. (2005). Giving

tree teachers: Women and the national board certification process. Feminist Teacher: A


35

Journal of the Practices, Theories, and Scholarship of Feminist Teaching, 15(3), 234-

249.

Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of

Educational Research, 62, 129-169.

Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding,

vulnerable commitment and micro political literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,

21(8), 995-1006.

Korthagen, F.A.J. (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education.

Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1998). Metaphors as structures for elementary and secondary

preservice Teachers’ thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 227-

240.

Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1995). Capturing preservice teachers’ beliefs about schooling, life,

and childhood. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 192-199.

Martinez, M.A., Sauleda, N., Huber, G.L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about

teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965-977.

Massengill, D., Mahlios, M., & Barry, A. (2005). Metaphors and sense of teaching: How these

constructs influence novice teachers. Teaching Education, 16(3), 213-229.


36

McCarty, F. Abbott-Shim, M. & Lambert, R. (2001). The relationship between teacher beliefs

and practices, and Head Start classroom quality. Early Education and Development,

12(2), 225-238.

Mills, M. (2004). Male teachers, homophobia, misogyny and teacher education. Teaching

Education, 15(1), 27-39.

Minor, L.C., Onwuegbuzie, A.E., Witcher, A.E., & James. T.L. (2002). Preservice teacher’s

educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. Journal

of Educational Research, 96(2), 116-127.

Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal of

Curriculum Studies,18(2), 197-209.

Munby, H., Russell, T. Martin, A.K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V.

Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.877-904). Washington D.C.:

American Educational Research Association.

Neisser, J.U. (2003). The swaying form: Imagination, metaphor, embodiment. Phenomenology

and the Cognitive Sciences, 2, 27-53.

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 teaching field. System, 26(1), 3-50.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Parsons, S.C., Brown, P.U., Worley, V. (2004). A metaphor analysis of preservice teachers’

reflective writings about diversity. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 6(1), 49-58.


37

Pintrich, P.R. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college

teaching for teacher education. In W.R. Houston, M. Haberman & J. Sikula (Eds.),

Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 826-857). New York: Macmillan.

Price, C.G. (2002). Exploring teaching metaphors: How they shape beliefs, professional

knowledge and emergent practice of first through fifth year teachers. Paper presented at

the Association of Teacher Educators, Denver, CO.

Provenzo, E.F., Jr., McCloskey, G.N., Kottkamp, R.B., & Cohn, M.M. (1989). Metaphor and

meaning in the language of teachers. Teachers College Record, 90(4), 551-573.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.

Richardson, V. (September, 1998). How teachers change. In Focus on Basics, 2, C. Newsletter

of World Education/NCSALL.

Saban, A., Kocbeker, B.N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching

and learning revealed through metaphor analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 123-

139.

Schubert, W. (1991). Teacher lore: A basis for understanding praxis. In C. Witherell & N.

Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education (pp. 207-233).

New York; Teachers College Press.

Tabachnick, B.R., & Zeichner, K.M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on

the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28 - 36.

Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: a master switch for teaching? Theory into

Practice, 29(2), 122-127.


38

Yamamoto, K., Hardcastle, B., Muehl, S., & Muehl, L. (1990). Metaphorical images of life in

young and middle adulthood: An exploration. The Journal of Psychology, 124(2), 143-

154.

Yob, I.M. (2003). Thinking constructively with metaphors. Studies in Philosophy and

Education, 22, 127-138.

Yonemura, M. (1982). Teacher conversations: A potential source of their own professional

growth. Curriculum Inquiry, 12(3), 239-256.


39

Appendix A Interview Questions

1.2.3.

Why the interest in, and the decision for, teaching as a career?Which level of schooling do you intend to teach? Why?Under the most ideal circumstances, what sort of school organization and school climate

would you prefer?4.5.

What is your main approach to teaching?What are the important matters in your classroom? What do you think is the most critical

thing that you have to focus on, control, assess, or establish?6.7.8.9.

Name three books that have most profoundly affected you in your life? Explain.Name two people who have most profoundly affected you in your life? Explain.As a teacher, how will you use your summers?Describe/elaborate on teaching. In your survey you filled out for us you talk about your

sense of teaching as (answer from instrument inserted here). Any additional thoughts onteaching now that you have completed student teaching? Anything that you would change? Anydifferent feelings?10. What is the difference between teaching students who are at-risk (for failing or

droppingout) and those who are not at-risk?


40

Appendix B Instrument

WHAT WAS SCHOOL LIKE?

Name: ______________________ Age:___ 22 or younger Heritage: ___ AngloSchool: ________ Major: _______Class: (circle) __Fr Soph Jr Sr

___Grad Other (specify)___Current Job: __________________

___ 23 to 30___ 31 to 45___ 46 to 65___ 66 or older

___ Hispanic___ Black___ Indian___ Oriental

Today’s Date: _________________ Sex: (circle) F M__

Size of School Attended

Other (specify) __________

______

Elementary ____________

……………….. 100 or less ………………..……………….. 101 to 300 ………………..……………….. 301 to 500 ………………..……………….. 501 to 1,000 ………………..……………….. 1,001 to 2,000 ………………..……………….. 2,001 or more ………………..

_________ Secondary_________

Type of School Attended___ ……………….. Public ……………….. ___

Elementary ___ ……………….. Parochial ……………….. ___ Secondary_________________ Other (specify) _________________

Elementary ___ ……… Number of School Attended ……… ___ Secondary

Your Overall Experience Was___

Elementary _________

……………….. Positive ………………..……………….. Neutral ………………..……………….. Negative ………………..……………….. Mixed ………………..

______ Secondary______

The School Experience May Be Best Described As___ ……………….. in a family ……………….. ______ ……………….. on a team ……………….. ______ ……………….. in a garden ……………….. ______ ……………….. at a circus ……………….. ___

Elementary ___ ……………….. in a prison ……………….. ___ Secondary___ ……………….. in a zoo ……………….. ______ ……………….. on a stage ……………….. ______ ……………….. in a crowd ……………….. ______ ……………….. in a factory ……………….. ____________________ other (describe) __________________________________________________

________________________________


41

Why Do You Describe Your Experience So?Elementary ___________________ __________________ Secondary

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What Should Your School Experience Have Been Like?___ ……………….. as in a family ……………….. ______ ……………….. as on a team ……………….. ______ ……………….. as in a garden ………………. ______ ……………….. as at a circus ……………….. ___

Elementary ___ ……………….. as in a prison ……………….. ___ Secondary___ ……………….. as in a zoo ……………….. ______ ………………… as on a stage ……………….. ______ ……………….. as in a crowd ………………… ______ ……………….. as in a factory ……………….. _____________________ other (describe) ____________________________________________________

________________________________

Why Do You Say That Above?Elementary ________________________ ______________________ Secondary

_______________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ _______________________

*****************

How Would You Describe Yourself?

Please read the following statements about yourself carefully, and indicate your reaction to eachof them by circling one of the five choices, provided, namely, SA (strongly agree), A (agree), D(disagree), or SD (strongly disagree). Needless to say, there are no right or wrong answers – justyour own feelings about yourself.

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself ……………… SA

A D SD

At times I think I am no good at all ……………………I feel that I have a number of good qualities …………...

I am able to do things as well as most other people

……SASASA

AAA

DDD

SDSDSD


42

I feel I do not have much to be proud of ………………. SA A D SDI certainly feel useless at times ………………………… SA

A D SD

I feel that I am a person of worth, at least onOn an equal plane with others ………………….

I wish I could have more respect for myself …………...All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure ……...I take positive attitude toward myself ………………….

SASASASA

AAAA

DDDD

SDSDSDSD

*****************

Thank you for your cooperation!


43

THINKING ABOUT LIFE, ETC.

“Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so is he.” (Syrus)“Time the devourer of all things.” (Ovid)“Sleep is a death …” (Sir Thomas Browne)

One finds this kind of expression everywhere – such a way of description somehow getsto the core of a given human experience, captures its flavor, and communicates itsessence.

Now, if you were to come up with some expression that grasps your sense of life, what life is allabout to you , what would that be? Pick one of the provided options below, or use your owndescriptions.LIFE is____ Following a trail ____ The ripples across water

____ Going down a river ____ Chasing a rainbow____ Climbing a mountain ____ A bird flying____ A tree growing ____ An ocean with waves coming in and out____ (in your own words) __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________Why do you look at life that way? ____________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In a similar manner, if you were to capture your sense of childhood, the essence of being a childto you , what would you say?BEING____ A bubbling spring ____ A wind free to come and go

A ____ A trapped animal ____ A cloud in the skyCHILD____ A flower blossoming ____ A dark night with no moon or stars

IS ____ (in your own words) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why do you look at childhood that way? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How would you describe your sense of teaching? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


44

DESCRIBING PEOPLE

A. Think about student you are going to work with. Suppose you can choose your IDEAL

types at will – how would you describe such youngsters? Please pick eight adjectivesthat, to you, best capture the features, traits, manners, and characteristics of your idealstudents.

1) ________________________2) ________________________3) ________________________4) ________________________

5) ________________________6) ________________________7) ________________________8) ________________________

B. Now, think about your IDEAL teacher. What would you best characterize such a person?

Please choose eight adjectives for her/him.1) ________________________2) ________________________3) ________________________4) ________________________

5) ________________________6) ________________________7) ________________________8) ________________________

C. Next, please think of you IDEAL school administrator, say, a principal. What would you

see in such a person? Select eight adjectives that seem to describe her/him the best.

1) ________________________2) ________________________3) ________________________4) ________________________

5) ________________________6) ________________________7) ________________________8) ________________________

D. Finally, think about your IDEAL parents, those whom you would love to have as parents

of your students and to work with. Please choose eight adjectives for such people.1) ________________________2) ________________________3) ________________________4) ________________________5) ________________________6) ________________________7) ________________________8) ________________________

The Qualitative Report 2013 Volume 18, Article T&L 3, 1-8http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/pitcher3.pdf

The Metaphors That Research Students Live By

Rod PitcherThe Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

In this paper I report a study of the ways in which research students thinkabout their research. I took a unique approach by using metaphor analysis tostudy the students’ conceptions. The research students in this study wererecruited for an on-line survey at an Australian research-intensive university inwhich they answered questions relating to their conceptions of research. Fivecategories of metaphors for research were arrived at which I have labelledmetaphors of space, metaphors of travel, metaphors of action, metaphors ofthe body and metaphors of ordeal. These metaphors provide usefulinformation about the ways that the students visualise their research and theirconceptions of what it entails. Keywords: Research Students; Conceptions;Metaphors; Metaphor Analysis

Introduction

There are a number of ways of finding out students’ conceptions of their work. Ichose to use metaphor analysis of the responses to an on-line survey. In responding to thesurvey the research students at an Australian research-intensive university were asked todescribe their work as they would to an undergraduate student who had some interest inpursuing a doctorate at some time in the future. In this way I was able to collect themetaphors that the students used to describe their work and hence to be able to ascertain theirconceptions of it.

There has only been a limited number of studies about the conceptions of researchamongst different groups of university people such as academics (Åkerlind, 2008; Brew,2001), supervisors (Bills, 2004; Kiley & Mullins, 2005), postgraduate students (Meyer,Shanahan, & Laugksch, 2005, 2007) and postdoctoral researchers (Pitcher & Ǻkerlind, 2009).These studies used various methods such as phenomenography, participant-observation,focus group conversations, surveys, and questionnaires to explore the participants’conceptions of research. I argue that providing another perspective on students’ conceptionsof research can give the reader another view of an important area of research and broaden hisor her understanding of the topic.

There has been no general agreement as to how conceptions of research should benamed or described. All the studies that have been performed to date have produced differentdescriptions and categories of conceptions of research. In this paper I offer a set ofdescriptive labels that illustrate the participants’ conceptions as well as telling us somethingabout their approaches to research.

The research reported in this paper was conducted under the rules of the EthicsCommittee of the Australian National University, Australia. Ethical clearance was soughtand approval was granted before the research was undertaken. All the research described inthis paper was conducted solely by the author, who gathered the data and also undertook theanalysis of the responses.

The use of MIP to find the metaphors in the text, as described below, removed theresearcher’s bias as to what might, or might not, be considered a metaphor. This methodremoves the need for the analyst to rely on his or her intuition and provides a more reliableway of identifying the metaphors.

2 The Qualitative Report 2013

Review of the Literature

Students’ Conceptions of Research

The literature on postgraduate students’ conceptions of research is limited. As far as Ihave been able to ascertain there have been only two studies, by the same researchers, thatspecifically examined postgraduate students’ conceptions of research. In their study, Meyeret al. (2005) aimed to produce an empirical model from the results of their analysis of thematerial gathered from 154 Australian and South African postgraduate students about theirconceptions of research. The authors state that their aim was to find variations in howresearch is done and conceptualised to find out how postgraduate students’ learning can berelated to their research outcomes. The authors suggest that the outcomes of students’research were influenced by the ways in which students think, which in turn was likely to bedependent upon a number of factors internal and external to the student, such as motivationand knowledge of the subject acquired before the research begins. The students were likelyto perceive their research in ways influenced by these factors, so they must be taken intoaccount when analysing the data (Meyer et al., 2005).

In the questions provided by Meyer and his group, the postgraduate students wereasked to describe, from their own point of view, how they would explain research to astranger, how research is seen in their discipline, why research is done, what successfulresearchers actually do, and what constitutes good research (Meyer et al., 2005). Thestudents’ answers to these questions provided the data which the authors then qualitativelyanalysed.

On the basis of the initial qualitative analysis the authors formulated eight categoriesrelating to conceptions of research (Meyer et al., 2005): (a) research as information gathering,the emphasis being on collecting as much information as possible to solve a problem; (b)research is about discovering the truth searching for and establishing the truth or validity of atopic through research is important; (c) research is about insightful exploration and discoveryand is a way for researchers to seek new insights into existing knowledge; (d) research isabout analytical and systematic enquiry, the process of research is systematic and directed ata particular purpose; (e) research is about incompleteness; research is seen as never ending inthat there is always something new to be determined from new or old data and facts; (f)research as the re-examination of existing knowledge, research into old topics is useful in thatit can produce new insights or conclusions or be a check for the validity of old ones; (g)research is problem based (e.g., the process of research is to identify problems, study theproblems and solve them); and (h) misconceptions about research (Meyer et al.)

In discussing the results of their study of postgraduate students’ conceptions ofresearch, Meyer and his co-authors note that “it is clear that the sample that theysubstantively constitute does not exhibit a uniform approach to conceptualizing research orthe research process” (Meyer et al., 2005, p. 236). This finding was understandable since thestudents bring their own cultural backgrounds and previous knowledge to their research andthey will thus show the variations in personality and outlook that make them individuals.

The authors set out to test whether the findings presented in the first study could beempirically verified by examining a new group of postgraduate students and experienced andinexperienced researchers. The second episode of research was based on that new set ofcollected data and continued their investigation of students’ conceptions of research asdescribed in their first article (Meyer et al., 2005). The second investigation used quantitativemethods rather than the mixed quantitative and qualitative methods of the first study. Thenew investigation was found to confirm the previous findings. The authors add that the

Rod Pitcher 3

categories found by the new investigation were “conceptually virtually identical” to the onesreported in the previous article (Meyer et al., 2007, p. 429).

The two articles discussed above by Meyer, Shanahan, and Laugksch (2005, 2007)appear to be the only ones that investigate postgraduate students’ conception of research,although there is some literature on other types of students’ conceptions of research. As theypoint out, they were unable to find any literature on postgraduate students’ conceptions ofresearch prior to writing their articles. They state that “no such acknowledged literature . . .appears to exist” (Meyer et al., 2005, p. 229), and they add that they “are not aware of anyother empirical studies on this topic” (Meyer et al., 2005, p. 230).

Metaphor Analysis

Although there is not a great deal of literature specifically on students’ conceptions,there is literature on the use of metaphors to investigate various types of conceptions (formore discussion on this point see Andriessen & Gubbins, 2009; Martin & Lueckenhausen,2005; Moser, 2000; Schmitt, 2005; Steger, 2007). Many of these writers make the point thatmetaphors are often unconsciously generated. It is for that reason that metaphors are a usefulway of investigating people’s conceptions. Since the metaphors are often unconsciouslygenerated they will reflect the person’s underlying feelings and understanding, which theymay be unable or unwilling to express consciously.

As the name implies, metaphor analysis is a systematic method of analysing themetaphors that people use to express themselves. It is a means of gaining understanding of aperson’s often unconscious motives and reasons for doing something or of their conception ofthe process involved in doing it. It can reveal the thoughts behind the action. Martin andLueckenhausen (2005) add that metaphor analysis as a method can be used by the researcherto focus on what individuals say and think about what is happening to them.

The text to be analysed by metaphor analysis may be a body of literature, the responseto an interview, or other written material. Written material is used so that it may beconveniently examined a number of times to ensure that all the metaphors are found. Indeed,the search for, and finding of, all the dominant metaphors is of the utmost importance for thefollowing analysis. The material has to be examined closely then examined again and againto ensure that all the metaphors are found. This step is particularly important as some of themetaphors might be obscure and might be missed on the first, or even second, reading.

Metaphors We Live By, as written by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980, is theseminal work on metaphor analysis. Although the authors do not provide a method ofanalysis, they do show how metaphors can be grouped into metaphorical concepts which areimportant for any method of analysis of metaphorical terms.

The metaphorical concept is an important feature of the work. It relates the target andsource domains of the metaphor in the statement, target domain is source domain. Thus, if aperson uses the metaphor of a journey to describe his or her research then the concept mightbe “research is a journey.” In this example, “research” is the target domain and “journey” isthe source domain since “research” is the subject of investigation and “journey” is the domainto which it is linked by the metaphor. Part of the metaphor analysis process involves formingmetaphors into concepts, which illustrate the relationship between the target domain and thesource domain (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

The metaphors found do not occur by chance, says Schmitt (2005), but are parts of alimited number of concepts that have the target and source areas in common. The metaphors,when found, should be grouped into their metaphorical concepts. “The formulation ofmetaphorical concepts requires a creative, synthesizing approach,” notes Schmitt (p. 372).


In discussing the validity of metaphor analysis and the means of obtaining it, Schmitt(2005) suggests that in using metaphor analysis researchers must provide the possibility oftesting their accuracy and credibility. The ways in which the work is to be validated shouldnot be merely applied to the actual analysis but should be applied throughout the wholeinvestigation including the data collection and reporting of results. It is important, he says,that the whole process should be documented. To satisfy this requirement I provide a fullexplanation of the approach taken in this study.

Moser (2000) presents a number of arguments why metaphor analysis should beconsidered an important research method and why it can provide useful interpretations of aperson’s thoughts and attitudes. She argues that metaphor analysis offers “a multifacetedresearch perspective” (p. 4). Metaphor analysis can become either a quantitative orqualitative method by associating metaphors with topics, Moser argues. However, she statesthat it is qualitative metaphor analysis that is the most important since it brings out the fullpotential of the method. A person’s actions and thoughts may be characterised by themetaphors he/she uses in describing them. The use of qualitative analysis allows thosemetaphors to be placed in their correct context and related to the topics with which the personassociates them (Moser).

Martin and Lueckenhausen (2005) say that metaphor analysis is able to show how theindividual feels about something. Further, they go on to say that the individual does not useonly a single metaphor but uses a number of different ones to express different ideas andfeelings, that “[t]here is a range of cross-mapping between abstract thought and concreteobjects” (Martin & Lueckenhausen, p. 392, emphasis added). Thus the proper and completeanalysis of the material necessitates that the researcher be open to the thoughts and feelingsof the speaker or writer (Martin & Lueckenhausen).

From the above discussion, metaphor analysis can be seen as a useful tool with whichto investigate the motivations and attitudes of people. The metaphors that people use toexpress themselves are largely unconscious and indicate a great deal about the person’shidden thoughts and emotions. Thus metaphor analysis is a useful way to investigate theconceptions of research held by doctoral students.

Methodology

To find the metaphors in the responses I used a method called MIP, the MetaphorIdentification procedure, formulated by the Pragglejaz Group (2007). The analysis describedby the Pragglejaz Group (2007) provides a prescriptive method of finding the metaphors in atranscript or other written material. As such it provides a way of finding all the metaphorswithout the risk of the investigator’s sensitivity to metaphors, or the lack of it, being aninfluential factor. The method described is almost mechanical in its application in that eachword is checked against a dictionary definition. The dictionary provides the literal meaningsof the words. Thus, if the meaning in the material is not identical to the literal definitiongiven in the dictionary it can be taken that it is a metaphor. For the purposes of this paper Iused The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2007) as my reference source.

The Pragglejaz Group (2007) describe five basic steps in their method of findingmetaphorical words and phrases. The first step is to read the entire text to gain a generalunderstanding of the context in which the metaphors appear. The next step is to mark out thelexical units within the text. In general ‘a lexical unit’ is a single word. However, there aresome compound words, such as ‘power plant’ and ‘of course’ that require analysis as a singleunit.

The next step is to take into account the meaning of the lexical unit in the context ofthe whole. Next there is the need to determine if the lexical unit has a meaning that is more

Rod Pitcher 5

concrete, relates to a bodily action or is historically older. If this step is true, then one mustdecide whether the meaning in the text contrasts with the basic meaning from the dictionaryand can be understood in comparison with it. If the answer to the above is yes, then thelexical unit is metaphorical. (Pragglejaz Group, 2007, p. 3).

They then work through an example in detail, using an extract from a newspaperarticle, to show how their method should be undertaken. They show how the text to beexamined is broken down into individual words and then each word’s contextual anddictionary meanings compared. This results in a table from which a decision can be made asto whether or not the word is used metaphorically. I used the same table form as a workinglayout for my own work using MIP

The reporting of the results is an important part of the analysis, according to theGroup, and should be undertaken with care. It should provide as much detail about theanalysis procedures as possible. The report, they say, should include information on the textstudied, the lexical units found, the resources used for checking the status of the lexical unitsand any decisions made along the way (Pragglejaz Group, 2007, p. 13).

I first read all the responses through a number of times to get a feel for the text andthe ways in which the respondents described their conceptions. This stage was very tentativebut it later helped in describing the contextual meanings of the words in each response. Itmust be remembered that the most important factor in the investigation is the students’conceptions and that those conceptions can only be derived from the words the students usein describing their conceptions in their responses to the survey. Thus understanding thecontext of the words used in the responses is of vital importance in the analysis.

Each response was divided up into its constituent words. The words were listed in theorder that they appeared in the response to simplify looking back at the response to refreshmy memory about the context during a later stage of the examination. In the first few casesevery word was examined. However as my experience grew I was able to eliminateconjunctions, the definite and indefinite articles, pronouns and some prepositions since thesewere found never to occur as metaphors. The words were listed in order and then looked upin a dictionary to find their literal meanings. This part of the examination is very demandingand time consuming, but it is necessary to do it with care and concentration for it will greatlyinfluence the later decision on whether or not the word is used metaphorically.

The next step was to again examine every word and establish its contextual meaning.Care must be taken to place the word in the context of the whole response or the finaldecision on whether or not the word is used metaphorically may be affected. As part of thedecision making process it is necessary to look back at the whole response to establish thecontext for each word. Although this stage can also become tedious it is enlivened whensome of the words almost jump out from the page and announce themselves as metaphors.However, the decision for or against the word being a metaphor must wait until the nextstage.

The final step is to again examine the words and decide whether each is a metaphor ornot by comparing the basic and contextual meanings. This step must also be done carefullysince it will influence the number of metaphors found in the response and influence the lateranalysis. If any metaphors are missed the later analysis may be skewed and invalid.

Results

There turned out to be five types of metaphors used in the survey responses. The typesshould not be taken as absolutely clear cut and independent, as most of the responses tendedto overlap two or more categories to some degree.


Metaphors of Space

The largest group of metaphors found in the responses related to space. The largestsingle metaphor that occurred was “field” followed closely by “area.”

Metaphors of space suggest that the students using them see their research as openingup or developing into new areas of knowledge. They refer to their research as being in aparticular “field” or “area” which is part of overall knowledge. Other metaphors thatappeared in this category included “regions,” “frontiers,” and “byways,” all of which relate toareas and give the impression of openness and somewhere into which to develop the work.

This type of metaphor gives the reader an image of research being an investigation ofa space, like a field is an open area of land. Thus there is a feeling of openness and space.

Metaphors of Travel

The largest single metaphor referring to travel was “steps” which occurred multipletimes in nine responses. Similar metaphors are “journey,” “path,” and “track.”

Metaphors of travel suggests that the student sees her or his research as a movement,as travelling towards some goal. Other metaphors that appeared in this category included“flow,” “wading,” “embark,” and “sprint” all of which indicate a movement. The destinationmay not be clearly known but movement in some direction is part of the research.

This type of metaphor gives the reader the idea of exploration, of opening up newareas of research, of heading off into the distance to find new knowledge. It suggests a senseof movement involved in research, that research requires a lot of action to bring it to fruitionthat nothing is found by sitting still, only by moving into the unknown.

Metaphors of Action

There was a large variety of metaphors for action. These varied from descriptions ofresearch as “constructing” knowledge, from research seen as “struggling,” to research seen as“scratching” for results. All these metaphors refer to actions that might be taken to conductresearch.

Similar metaphors that appeared in this category included “working,” “delve,” “reap,”and “combing,” all which refer to some action involve to make the research develop in thedesired direction. The metaphors of action give the reader a much more earthy feeling aboutresearch. It seems that the person undertaking it has to get their hands dirty and actually workhard at it.

Metaphors of the Body

There were a number of metaphors that related to a human or animal body. There was“body” itself and “corpus.” Also in this category might be “virgin” and “drown.”

This type of metaphor suggests that the student sees his or her research asmanipulating a “body” of material as a body of a person or animal might be manipulated.Other metaphors that appeared in this category included “infancy,” “struggling,” and “grasp”all of which refer to some bodily function or action.

This type of metaphor gives the reader the idea of research being constructed in someway like a body, where many different parts come together to achieve some outcome. Thereis a sense that research is not a simple isolated field but is related across and between

Rod Pitcher 7

disciplines as one might consider the parts of a human body to be a composite of interrelatedparts.

Metaphors of Ordeal

There were a number of metaphors that referred to research as an ordeal. One studenttwice referred to research as a “marathon” with its intimations of a struggle against the oddsand the persistence required to complete the ordeal. Another referred to the “struggle” ofresearch.

Other metaphors that appeared in this category included “crushing,” “drown,”“fighting,” and “safety net” all of which give the impression that the research is not easy andinvolves suffering to make progress.

The metaphors of ordeal give the reader the impression that the student is strugglingwith the research, that the research is like a marathon race which tests the staying power ofthe student to the limits, and that the ordeal of the research is something overpoweringlystrong that has to be overcome to achieve the doctorate.

Conclusions

It is plain from the above results that research students show a wide range ofconceptions of their work. Their attitudes vary from the more or less positive view of thosewho see their work as travelling to some destination to the more negative view of those whosee it as an ordeal to be suffered. I suggest that this attitude might also be reflected in thestudent’s approach to his or her work and commitment to completing the doctorate.

It is my intention to add another perspective to the growing literature on conceptionsof research, and add to the literature on doctoral students’ conceptions of research. It isimportant that doctoral students’ conceptions of research be understood, particularly by thosewho supervise the students. A mis-match between the supervisor’s and the student’sconceptions of research may lead to problems with the supervisor/student relationship andthus to the student having problems with his or her research and/or not completing the Ph.D.(Bills, 2004; Lee, 2008). If the supervisors are aware of their students’ conceptions ofresearch then steps can be taken to reduce the risk of complications arising from a mis-match.Therefore, my results should be of interest to both supervisors and students and may help toraise the level of understanding between supervisors and students. If that understanding canbe increased, then the possible problems for the relationship and the student might beavoided.

References

Åkerlind, G. S. (2008). An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: Anintegration of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 17-31.

Andriessen, D., & Gubbins, C. (2009). Metaphor analysis as an approach for exploringtheoretical concepts: The case of social capital. Organization Studies, 30, 845-863.

Bills, D. (2004). Supervisors’ conceptions of research and the implications for supervisordevelopment. International Journal for Academic Development, 9, 85-97.

Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in HigherEducation, 26(3), 271-285.

Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2005). Supervisors’ conceptions of research: What are they?Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 245-262.


Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The ChicagoUniversity Press.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral researchsupervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.

Martin, E., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). How university changes teachers: Affective as wellas cognitive challenges. Higher Education, 40, 389-412.

Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students’ conceptions ofresearch I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal ofEducational Research, 49, 225-244.

Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2007). Students’ conceptions ofresearch II: An exploration of contrasting patterns of variation. Scandinavian Journalof Educational Research, 51, 415-433.

Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor analysis in psychology – Method, theory, and fields ofapplication. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 21. Retrieved fromhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1090/2388

Pitcher, R., & Åkerlind, G. S. (2009). Postdoctoral researchers’ conceptions of research: Ametaphor analysis. The International Journal for Researcher Development, 1, 42-56.

Pragglejaz Group, (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words indiscourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.

Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. TheQualitative Report, 10(2), 358-394.

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, The. (2007). (6th ed., 2 vols.) Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

Steger, T. (2007). The stories metaphors tell: Metaphors as a tool to decipher tacit aspects innarratives. Field Methods, 19, 3-23.

Author Note

Rod Pitcher is a Ph.D. candidate in Education at The Centre for Higher Education,Learning and Teaching at the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. The focusof his study is the metaphors that researchers use when describing their work. He usesmetaphor analysis to arrive at an understanding of the conceptions. He may be contacted atThe Centre for Higher Education, Learning and Teaching; Chancelry 10T, Ellery Crescent;The Australian National University; Canberra; ACT 0200 Australia; Phone: +61 2 61250838; Fax: +61 2 612 54023; Email: [email protected]

Copyright 2013: Rod Pitcher and Nova Southeastern University.

Article Citation

Pitcher, R. (2013). The metaphors that research students live by. The Qualitative Report,18(T&L3), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/pitcher3.pdf

d) Studies Conducted on Metaphor

Documents

Transcript of d) Studies Conducted on Metaphor