Some preservice teachers from University A generated three similar metaphors at the beginning of the
semester while other students in the same class generated three differing metaphors. Student 1 stated: “teaching
literacy was like university basketball,” “teaching literacy is like a roller coaster,” and “teaching literacy is like a seed.”
At the end of the semester, Student 1 decided teaching literacy was most like a seed because each child comes as a
seed, and it is the teacher’s job to work with the children (seeds) and tend to them using assessments and strategies
and support the children (seeds) to develop to their full potential. In contrast, Student 2 began the semester viewing
the teaching of literacy as “an open door,” “[a]...trip around the world,” and “[a]...car key:” all indicating that literacy
brings freedom to explore. At the conclusion of the semester, Student 2 decided that teaching literacy was most like
a car key. This metaphor was chosen because all the components of literacy are necessary to start the car and take
the reader on a journey. Also, the driver needs skills and strategies to go far on their journey, reaching his or her
potential. Knowing that this content (assessments, skills/strategies, development) was part of the course provides
more significance to why the preservice teachers chose their post-metaphors. Even though the students were
repeatedly informed there was no one correct metaphor or answer (and the results varied considerably), an
insightful professor can infer what components of class most influenced the students’ beliefs.
Final thoughts
This pilot study has awarded us with descriptive data to document the value of integrating metaphors into
teacher education courses, specifically literacy methods classes. We found the variety of student responses to be
both a challenge and a resource. In this regard, we recognize the limitations of insufficient standardization of
methodology and recommend future research to directly address this constraint in order to minimize ambiguity of
student responses. We also acknowledge that each of us served the dual role of professor and researcher which may
bias results. That said, we bring to light the value of metaphors. We have provided graphical data to illustrate the
powerful differences between concepts (e.g. flower and gardener). Metaphors provide a window into our preservice
teachers’ thinking about their past educational experiences and future ideals of schooling. We afford the teacher
candidates an opportunity for safe dialogue (third-space). By analyzing the course content through a metaphorical
lens we can better understand the values and perspectives of students in potential conflicts and change points within
our teacher education programs.
References
Finegan-Stoll, C. (2006). Using metaphors in education. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from
www.ed.wright.edu/~cfinegan/meta.htm
Hardcastle, B., Yamamoto, K., Parkay, F.W., & Chan, J. (1985). Metaphorical views of school: A cross-cultural
comparison of university students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 309-315.
Inbar, D. (1996). The free educational prison: Metaphors and images. Educational Research, 38(1), 77-92.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1998). Metaphors as structures for elementary and secondary preserv