© Kamla-Raj 2013 Anthropologist, 16(3): 427-434 (2013)

Philosophy Group Teacher Candidates’ Preferences with Regardto Educational Philosophies of Teaching and Learning Activities

Baykal Bicer

Faculty of Education Dumlupinar University, 43000, TurkeyE-mail: baybicer@gmail.com

KEYWORDS Philosophy Group Teacher Candidates. Educational Philosophies. Education and Philosophy

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to determine philosophy group teacher candidates’ educational philosophiesabout teaching and learning activities. The sample of the research is constituted by, 149 female and 30 male, intotal 179 philosophy group candidates who were selected randomly among the active students during 2011-2012academic year in a state university education department pedagogical training program. Based on the surveymethodology, study was done by using “Educational Beliefs Scale” as the data collection tool. In this survey thereare 40 Likert style items aiming to determine teachers’ adopted educational beliefs. Cronbach’s alpha coefficientsof internal consistency of the scale were tested between 0.70-0.91 for sub scales and reliability coefficient wasranging between 0.69-0.86 in lower dimensions. During data analysis, descriptive statistics and t-test were used.According to the results, philosophy group teacher candidate were adopted the Existentialist philosophy the mostwhile they adopted the Essentialist philosophy the least. While there were no differences among teacher candidatesadopted educational philosophies in terms of gender and educational status variables, except Essentialism femaleteacher candidates score higher than male teacher candidates in the remaining dimensions. Graduates on the otherhand adopted Progressivism and Reconstructionist educational philosophies more than the others. When teachercandidates adopted philosophies compared there were a low positive correlation between Existentialism andPerennialism, a low negative correlation between Essentialism and Progressivism, a high positive cor relationbetween Existentialism and Progressivism, and a moderate positive correlation between Progressivism andReconstructionist.

Address for correspondence:Assist. Prof. Dr. Baykal BicerDirectorDepartment of Elementary Education,Dumlupinar University,Evliya Celebi Kampusu, Kutahya, TurkeyTelephone: +902742652031-ext.4605Cell: 00905059428786E-mail: baybicer@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

Defining a concept means that also deter-mining the scope and the borders of that con-cept. In this respect, the difficulty of definingphilosophy is evident (Bicer 2013). Even thoughthere is not an agreed upon universal definitionof the concept of philosophy, in the most gen-eral sense it is expressed as “a knowledge areaformed by systematic, in-depth and speculativethought of human beings with regard to uni-verse and their relationship with it” (Gutek 2001:2). The education, which is a social phenome-non in terms of the transmission of knowledge,skills and values (Quan-Baffour and Arko-Achemfuor 2013), is also a wide and complexconcept which cannot be put under one singledefinition like philosophy. In the broadest sense,

as a process; education can be defined as theprocess of influence of man to generate wantedchange in behavior intentionally either on him-self or another (Uysal 2004). Both philosophyand education help individuals to create goalsto determine their expectations from life, to re-late various situations they faced to each other,to interpret different thoughts, and “withoutbeing attached to previous views make a standwith his/her own point of view” (Kiziltan 2012).As it can be seen, the topic of both philosophyand education is the individual and his variousactivities. According to Kuken (1996), as thesource of all sciences philosophy’s field of eth-ics distinguishes human education as its topicentirely. Also as Arslan (1996) states, for whichpurpose and how people should be educated,which knowledge and skills should be taught tothem, how they should be disciplined, is short,the questions and suggestions with regard tothe idea of a right education are in the specialfield of philosophy. On the other hand, the qual-ity of the relationship that teachers build withtheir students is based on the meanings thatthey put into the human nature (Gutek 2001). Atthis point, where the relationship between edu-cation and philosophy gets complicated, phi-

428 BAYKAL BICER

losophy of education emerges as a separate fieldof knowledge.

Philosophy of education is a discipline or asystematic whole of ideas and concepts that in-vestigates and controls the assumptions, beliefs,decisions and measures guiding the applicationsand educational policies in terms of consistencyand meaning. Philosophy of education evalu-ates the understanding of human nature at thebasis of educational systems. It attempts to cre-ate new philosophies to be used in education. Itgathers philosophical and educational approach-es related to the topics like human nature, soci-ety together in a systematic way (Kincal 1996).In another words, “ When philosophy of educa-tion taken in to account as a process, it can bestated as an effort to explain principles, ideasand concepts that direct education as well as theproblems preventing education” (Buyukduven-ci 1987: 53).

Although education activity is as old as hu-man history, it sustained its existence in the fieldof philosophy till modern times. Today, while bothfields seem to be independent from each other,the relationship of philosophy and education isa deep and multi-dimensional one. Since educa-tion of individuals perceived as one of the mostimportant endeavors throughout the history,there has been a constant effort to find the bestways to educate man and reach the best educa-tional models (Tozlu 1997). “Education-teachingactivities of education system, their applicationmethods, behavioral dimensions, causes andconsequences” (Coban 2002: 311–312) were putforward differently by philosophical approach-es having different perspectives.

Perennialism evaluating education throughphilosophical perspective is an educational phi-losophy which is mainly based on Realist andThomist philosophies. Perennialists presentsuniverse with its spiritual aspect and human’splace in the universe metaphysically. For Peren-nialist, school is a social institution that is estab-lished to develop human’s mental potential(Gutek 2001). According to Perennialism whichis reflecting enlightenment, rationalism, human-ism and optimism, since everywhere human hasthe same universal nature, for everyone educa-tion should be based on the same universal prin-ciples and emphasises that it should be builtupon these facts. In Perennialism finding theessence human’s constant universal nature,among the objectives of education the develop-

ment and perfection of the human mind is veryimportant (Cevizci 2000; Arslan 1996). As an ed-ucational philosophy Essentialism is also basedon the realistic and idealistic philosophies. Ac-cording to this approach, human as a social andcultural being has no knwoledge by birth. Laterknowledge is acquired through induction and itis absolute truth (Sonmez 2009). For Essential-ism human’s nature is free from their individualcultural and historical constructs. In this regard,Essentialism unlike other philosophies wants tocreate a better life through human nature whichis common to all human beings (Holma 2007).

Progressivism with its fundamentals basedon W. James and J. Dewey’s pragmatism and W.Kilpatrick’s “project method”, generally withinthe framework of the child’s interests, gives im-portance to the educational innovations whichare rest on the activities that might bring signif-icant consequences in child’s behaviors, work-ing standards and principles of action (Knoll2010; Bas 2013). And some progressivists fol-lowing J. Dewey see social and institutional re-forms as the broader framework of schools (Gutek2001). According to Progressivism education isnot a preparation for the future life but it is lifeitself. All the real problems of life should be re-flected to the realm of education as much as pos-sible thus all kinds of classes representing theentire life should be included in the program (Dew-ey 2008).

The new construct which is also called associal re-constructionism refers to a fundamen-tal opposition to the conservative perennialistand essentialist theories which reflects socialvalues and phenomenon of the past. Re-construc-tionist state that culture and education shouldbe reconstructed based on the needs of the mod-ern world. According to them, education is theconstruction project of the social reform of themodern era (Ergun 2009). The most convenientway to build civilization for humanity requiresindividuals who can use science and technolo-gy in the most effective way to reach the desiredgoals and plan on his and society’s reconstruc-tions (Ergen 2012).

According to the contemporary philosophi-cal approach existentialism, the main problem isto create value and the act of selection. Manbuilds his own selves. Since he is not previouslycompleted, already finished creation, his exist-ence comes before his essence. This condition,thus, the act of selection is none other than his

PHILOSOPHY GROUP TEACHER CANDIDATES’ PREFERENCES 429

freedom (Sartre 1996). In this context, the goal ofan existentialist education is to provide aware-ness for individuals with regard to the value ofthe act of making choices and therefore makingthem free and realize their freedom (Gutek 2001).According to existentialism, education which isthe process of bringing individuals to their limitsshould be arranged in a way to allow individualto make choices (Kneller 1964).

Defined in many different ways by philoso-phers and educator throughout the history, edu-cation always has a philosophical perspective.As well as influencing the intellectual fields likescience, art and morality, by leading education,determining educational goals and guiding edu-cational applications philosophy of educationtakes its place as a discipline which imposes im-portant duties for teachers who are a crucial vari-able in the adaptation process of the individualto the rapidly changing modern era. Sincethrough the philosophical beliefs they adoptedteachers not only influence the individuals theytrain but also influence their environment. Whenthe related literature is reviewed, it is seen thatthough some teachers adopt traditional educa-tional philosophies and plans their teaching-learning activities in this direction, some teach-ers would still prefer to adopt contemporary ed-ucational philosophies (Ekiz 2007; Duman andUlubey 2008; Tekin and Ustun 2008). Moreover,as each teacher can adopt one single education-al philosophy, they can also adopt more thanone educational philosophy (Doganay and Sari2003). This situation shapes their feelings,thought and behaviors in their entire professionallives and affects the next generations at the samerate as well. Determining philosophy groupteacher candidates adopted philosophies carriesimportance as they gain professional skills, es-pecially, since they will shape the future andundertake a different mission with regard to con-tributing students’ critical thinking skills at sec-ondary schools. In this context, philosophygroup teacher candidates adopted educationalphilosophies with regard to teaching-learningactivities were aimed to be investigated with thisresearch. In line with this general purpose;1. What are the educational philosophies

adopted by philosophy group teacher can-didates?

2. Are there any differences among the edu-cational philosophies adopted by philoso-phy group teachers candidates based ongender and educational status?

3. What are the relationships among the edu-cational philosophies adopted by philoso-phy group teacher candidates? Answersto these questions were sought.

METHODOLOGY

Model

The survey methodology has been used todetermine the educational philosophies adopt-ed by philosophy group teachers candidates ina descriptive manner. Survey research model isdefined as “ an approach that tries to describe asituation, which took place in the past or cur-rently exists, as it is” (Karasar 2012).

Population and Sample

The sample of 179 philosophy group teachercandidates who were receiving pedagogical for-mation training from a state university educa-tion faculty during 2011-2012 academic year weresurveyed for this research. Among the partici-pating teacher candidates 149 of them were fe-male and 30 of them were male. Also 84 of thesephilosophy group teacher candidates were stillpursuing an undergraduate degree while 95 ofthem were graduates of four year undergraduateprograms.

Data Collection Tool

The research data was collected using “Edu-cational Beliefs Scale (EBS)” developed by Yil-maz et al. (2011). Each one referring to a differenteducational philosophy EBS constitutes of five-dimensional scale which has 40 items trying todetermine teachers’ adopted educational beliefs.Thus, EBS has five subscales; Perennialism,Essentialism, Progressivism, Re-construction-ism and Existentialism. The items on the scalewere scored between 1-strongly disagree and 5-strongly agree score range. There were no re-verse scored items on the scale. Cronbach Alfainternal consistency coefficients were between0.07-0.91 at tested sub scales and the confidencecoefficient was ranging between 0.69-0.86 at thesub dimensions.

Data Analysis

For the overall analysis of the participantopinions descriptive statistics were used while

430 BAYKAL BICER

t-tests were used to make comparisons. PearsonCorrelation coefficient was used to determine therelationships among the adopted educationalphilosophies. In correlation analysis to determinethe strength of the relationship following mea-sure taken into account; 0.07-1.00 high, 0.69-0.30moderate and 0.29-0.00 low (Buyukozturk 2010).Statistical significance level .05 has been accept-ed as the basis level for analysis in the study.

RESULTS

In this section of the research, primarily pre-dominant educational philosophies adopted bythe philosophy group teacher candidates weredetermined, after wards some comparisons weremade based on gender and educational status ofthe candidates and finally the relationshipsamong the educational philosophies of teachercandidates were investigated. The distributionof predominant educational philosophies adopt-ed by philosophy group teacher candidates canbe seen in Table 1.

As it can be seen in Table 1, majority of theteacher candidates adopted Existentialism

(59.7%), followed by Progressivism (26.2%) aseducational philosophies while Essentialism(4.0%) was the least adopted educational phi-losophy based on the research results. As morethan half of the candidates participating in thisresearch adopted the Existentialism education-al philosophy, candidates adopting the other re-maining philosophies constitute the other halfof the participants. The distribution of educa-tional philosophies adopted by teacher candi-dates based on gender variable is presented inTable 2.

When Table 2 examined, it is seen that fe-male philosophy group teacher candidatesscores higher in all dimensions (Perennialism,Progressivism, Re-constructionism, Existential-ism) except Essentialism compared to the maleteacher candidates. In Essentialism dimensionmale teacher candidates scored higher than fe-male teacher candidates (X=11.83). The resultsof the t-test done to determine whether there areany significant difference among teacher candi-dates adopted educational philosophies basedon gender revealed that there are not any signif-icant differences. The results of the analysis doneto determine the distribution of educational phi-losophies adopted by philosophy group teach-ers based on education status are presented inTable 3.

Table 3 shows the educational philosophiesadopted by philosophy group teacher candi-dates based on education status. According tothis, philosophy group teacher who were still intheir 4th year of undergraduate degree scoredhigher at Perennialism (X=29.60), Essentialism(X=11.68) ve Existentialism (X=30.83) dimen-sions compared to the teacher candidates who grad-uated. Progressivism (X=56.27) and Re-construc-tionism (X=26.92) were adopted by graduatedteacher candidates more as educational philo-

Table 1: The distr ibution of predominant educa-tional philosophies adopted by philosophy groupteacher candidates

Dominant educational philosophies f %

Perennialism 8 5.4Essentialism 6 4.0Progressivism 3 9 26.2Re-constructionism 7 4.7Existentialism 8 9 59.7Total* 149 100.0*30 students gave highest score to more than oneeducational philosophy therefore it is not indicated inthe frequency table.

Table 2: Educational philosophies adopted by philosophy group teachers based on gender

Educational philosophies Gender N X S Sd t p

Perennialism Female 149 29.36 4.45 177 .068 .946Male 3 0 29.30 5.13

Essentialism Female 149 11.04 4.25 177 .733 .468Male 3 0 11.83 5.55

Progressivism Female 149 56.41 8.37 177 .730 .467Male 3 0 55.17 9.18

Re-constructionism Female 149 26.82 4.77 177 .132 .896Male 3 0 26.70 4.76

Existentialism Female 149 31.22 5.17 177 1.507 .134Male 3 0 29.57 6.99

PHILOSOPHY GROUP TEACHER CANDIDATES’ PREFERENCES 431

sophies. The results of the t-test done to deter-mine whether there are any significant differenceamong teacher candidates adopted educationalphilosophies based on education status revealedthat there are not any significant differences.

When the philosophical preferences of phi-losophy group teacher candidates were investi-gated, it was seen that preferences were focusedon more than one philosophical approach. Thedistribution of the relationships among these ed-ucational philosophies adopted by teacher can-didates is presented in Table 4.

When Table 4 is investigated, it is determinedthat among the educational philosophies pre-ferred by philosophy group teacher candidates,there are a positive low correlation (r=.313,p<0.05) between Perennialism and Existentialism,a negative low correlation (r=-.362, p<0.05) be-tween Essentialism and Progressivism, a posi-tive moderate correlation (r=.592, p<0.01) betweenProgressivism and Re-constructionism, a posi-tive high correlation (r.,766, p<0.01) between Ex-istentialism and Progressivism and a positivemoderate correlation (r=.494, p<0.01) betweenExistentialism and Re-constructionism.

DISCUSSION

In this research philosophy group teachercandidates’ predominant adopted educationalphilosophies were determined, followed by it thereport of the most participated dimensions basedon gender and education status were given. Ac-cording to this, it is concluded that majority ofthe philosophy group teacher candidates adopt-ed Existentialism, followed by Progressivism aseducational philosophies and Essentialism werethe least adopted educational philosophy. Whencompared with similar researches these findingswere matching with results of the research con-ducted by Yilmaz et al. (2012) suggesting thatthe most prefer educational philosophies byteachers are Existentialism, Progressivism, Pe-rennialism, Re-constructionism and Essential-ism in order. Also in their research Doganay andSari (2003) determined that Existentialism, Ex-perimentalism, Realism, Perennialism and Ide-alism are the most preferred educational philos-ophies. Therefore, it can be said that the researchresults show some similarities and support eachother with that regard. The abolition of the obli-gation to prepare lesson plans at both primaryand secondary school level might be consideredeffective for the Existentialism taking the firstplaced as the most preferred philosophy in thestated research results. Since, existentialismkeeps its distance to the understanding of plansand programs that are not allowing opportuni-ties for the freedom of choice, creativity; there-fore individuality for the sake of educational stan-dardization and which are determining processof learning absolutely in order to increase pro-ductivity (Arslanoglu 2012; Kale 2009; Sonmez2005).

Based on the gender variable, female philos-ophy group teacher candidates scored higher in

Table 3: Educational philosophies adopted by philosophy group teachers based on education status

Educational philosophies Ed. status N X S Sd t p

Perennialism 4. Class 8 4 29.60 4.93 177 .703 .483Graduate 9 5 29.12 4.23

Essentialism 4. Class 8 4 11.68 4.82 177 1.404 .162Graduate 9 5 10.74 4.14

Progressivism 4. Class 8 4 56.12 8.37 177 .121 .904Graduate 9 5 56.27 8.66

Re-constructionism 4. Class 8 4 26.68 4.53 177 .332 .740Graduate 9 5 26.92 4.97

Existentialism 4. Class 8 4 30.83 5.45 177 .264 .792Graduate 9 5 30.05 5.63

Table 4: The relationship among educational phi-losophies adopted by philosophy group teachercandidates

Perennialism 1.00 -.039 .279 .279 .313Essentialism -.039 1 -.362 -.065 .291Progressivism .279 -.362 1 .592 .766Re-constructionism .279 -.065 .592 1 .494Existentialism .313 -.291 .766 .494 1

Pere

nnia

lism

Esse

ntia

lism

Prog

ress

ivism

Re-c

onst

ruct

ioni

sm

Exist

entia

lism

Educationalphilosophies

432 BAYKAL BICER

all educational philosophies except Essentialismcompared to the male teacher candidates. InDoganay and Sari (2002) and Duman and Ulubey(2008)’s research female teacher candidatesscored higher in all educational philosophiesexcept Perennialism compared to the male teach-er candidates. As the findings of these research-es compared, due to the fact that both essential-ism and perennialism are traditional educationalphilosophies and considering their parallel no-tions in different points, it can be said that maleteacher candidates are more traditional abouteducational activities compared to the femaleteacher candidates. Being parallel with the re-sults of Doganay and Sari (2002) and Duman andUlubey (2008)’s researches, the research resultsshow that female teacher candidates score high-er in contemporary educational philosophiescompared to male teacher candidates, therefore,it can be said that findings support of each oth-er.

When philosophy group teacher candidatesadopted educational philosophies investigatedbased on education status variable compared tothe graduated philosophy group teacher candi-dates, teacher candidates who were still in their4th year of undergraduate degree scored higherin Perennialism, Essentialism, and Existentialismdimensions. It is also seen that Progressivismand Re-constructionism educational philoso-phies were adopted more by the graduate teach-er candidates. This situation might be caused bythat fact that in recent years, Turkish educationsystem has been dominated by constructivisteducation approach therefore; during the teach-er preparation process constructivism is beingemphasized repeatedly. In addition, since thegraduated teacher candidates were more closeto being appointed as teachers compared to theother teacher candidates who were still in train-ing, it brings to mind that they know the Pro-gressivism and Re-constructionism elements thatTurkish education system is based on.

When philosophy group teachers’ philo-sophical preferences are investigated it is seenthat their preferences are not concentrated onone single philosophical viewpoint. As the re-sults are reviewed it is seen that while the rela-tionship between traditional and contemporaryphilosophies are low, the relationship amongcontemporary philosophies are usually at mod-erate or high levels. For example, it is detectedthat there are a positive low correlation between

Perennialism and Existentialism and a negativelow correlation between Essentialism and Pro-gressivism. On the other hand, it is concludedthat there are a positive moderate correlationbetween Progressivism and Re-constructionism,and a positive high correlation between Existen-tialism and Progressivism and a positive moder-ate correlation between Existentialism and Re-constructionism. Therefore, finding a significantpositive correlation among Prograssivism, Re-constructionism, and Existentialism stated ascontemporary philosophies in the literature indi-cates that these philosophies are in close rela-tionship with the main arguments of the teach-ing-learning process. In this context, they allemphasize student centered activities while Ex-istentialism stresses the students search for theirpersonal truths during the learning process, Pro-gressivism underlines the active experience andRe-constructionism focuses on the learning pro-cess as in fact the effort to re-construction of thesociety (Bicer 2012; Gutek 2001; Sonmez 2005).The significant negative correlation betweenEssentialism and Progressivism, as Gutek (2001)stated, can be explained by the argument thatwhile as a conservative philosophy Essential-ism based on the development of general mentalabilities, as a change oriented contemporary ed-ucational philosophy Pregressivism assume thatteaching should carried out with real-life prob-lems.

Similar results like teacher candidates prefer-ence of more than one philosophy simultaneouslywere observed by Tekin and Ustun (2008) in theirresearch findings as well. According to the re-search findings, it can be said that philosophygroup teacher candidates have multiple philo-sophical preferences, and during planning andapplication of teaching-learning activities theyadopted the most useful and compatible parts ofthe educational philosophies based on theirneeds.

CONCLUSION

According to the results obtained by thisresearch, majority of the philosophy groupteacher candidates adopted Existentialism, fol-lowed by Progressivism as educational philoso-phies and Essentialism were the least adoptededucational philosophy. Based on the gendervariable, it is observed that female philosophygroup teacher candidates scored higher in all

PHILOSOPHY GROUP TEACHER CANDIDATES’ PREFERENCES 433

dimensions except Essentialism compared to themale teacher candidates. With regard to Essen-tialism dimension, male teacher candidates scorehigher than female teacher candidates.

Although there are no significant differenceamong educational philosophies adopted byphilosophy group teachers based on educationstatus variable, compared to the graduated phi-losophy group teacher candidates, teacher can-didates who were still in their 4th year of under-graduate degree scored higher in Perennialism,Essentialism, and Existentialism dimensions.Progressivism and Re-constructionism educa-tional philosophies were adopted more by thegraduate teacher candidates.

According to the level of relationshipsamong the educational philosophies preferredby philosophy group teacher candidates, thereare a positive low correlation between Perennial-ism and Existentialism, a negative low correla-tion between Essentialism and Progressivism, apositive moderate correlation between Progres-sivism and Re-constructionism, a positive highcorrelation between Existentialism and Progres-sivism and a positive moderate correlation be-tween Existentialism and Re-constructionism.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Even though this research is limited to onlyphilosophy group teacher candidates, by add-ing different sections to the further researchteacher candidates’ philosophical preferenceswith regard to education can be investigated indetail and comparison. The teacher candidatesfrom different age groups and socio-cultural back-grounds, who participated in this research, canfurther be investigated in terms of the course oftheir adopted educational philosophy with ei-ther cross-sectional or longitudinal studies.Moreover while researching, teacher candidatesor teachers adopted educational philosophiesusing qualitative research approaches like par-ticipant observation or case studies to gatherdetailed information that can be effective to ob-tain important results. In all the fields of teacherpreparation, ‘Educational Philosophy’ coursescan be given as mandatory courses to assureteacher candidates’ understanding of differenteducational philosophies and to allow them toevaluate the concept of education from a philo-sophical perspective through a ‘Philosophy’course.

REFERENCES

Arslan A 1996. Felsefeye Giris. Ankara: Vadi Yayincil-ik.

Arslanoglu I 2012. Egitim Felsefesi. Ankara: NobelYayincilik.

Bas G 2013. Ogretmenlerin Egitim programi tasarimyaklasimi tercih olcegi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik cal-ismasi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri ,13(2): 965-992.

Bicer B 2013. Analysis of pre-service teachers’ viewsof philosophy through metaphors. Anthropologist,16(1-2): 229-240.

Bicer B 2012. Ilerlemecilik. In: N Gokalp, S Celik (Eds.):Egitim Felsefesi. Istanbul: Lisans Yayincilik, pp.113-124.

Buyukduvenci S 1987. Egitim Felsefesi “Yazilar”. An-kara: Yargicioglu Matbaasi.

Buyukozturk S 2002. Veri Analizi El Kitabi. Ankara:Pegem Akademi.

Cevizci A 2000. Felsefe Sozlugu. Istanbul: ParadigmaYayinlari.

Coban A 2002. Sinif ogretmenligi ogretmen adaylarin-in, egitim surecine iliskin felsefi tercihlerinin de-gerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Universitesi Sosyal Bil-imler Dergisi, 26(2): 311-318.

Dewey J 2008. Okul ve Toplum. (Cev. H. Avni Bas-man). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Doganay A, Sari M 2003. Ilkogretim OgretmenlerininSahip Olduklari Egitim Felsefelerine Iliskin Algi-larinin Degerlendirilmesi. From <http://www.tebd.gazi.edu.tr/arsiv/2003 cilt1/sayi_3/321-339.PDF> (Retrieved on April 15, 2013).

Duman B, Ulubey O 2008. Ogretmen adaylarinin ben-imsedikleri egitim felsefelerinin ogretim teknolojile-rini ve interneti kullanma duzeylerine etkisi ile il-gili gorusleri. Mugla Universitesi Sosyal BilimlerEnstitusu Dergisi (ILKE), 20: 95-114.

Ergen G 2012. Yeniden Kurmacilik. In: N Gokalp, SCelik (Eds.): Egitim Felsefesi. Istanbul: Lisans Yay-incilik, pp. 124-126.

Ergun M 2009. Egitim Felsefesi. Ankara: Pegem Aka-demi.

Ekiz D 2007. Ogretmen adaylarinin egitim felsefesiakimlari hakkinda goruslerinin farkli programlar acis-indan incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayis UniversitesiEgitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 24: 1-12.

Gutek GL 2001. Egitime Felsefi ve Ideolojik Yaklasim-lar. (Cev. Nesrin Kale). Ankara: Utopya Yayincilik.

Holma K 2007. Essentialism regarding human nature inthe defence of gender equality in education. Jour-nal of Philosophy of Education, 41(1): 45-57.

Kale N 2009. Felsefiyat. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.Karasar N 2012. Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi. Ankara:

Nobel Yayinevi.Quan-Baffour KP, Arko-Achemfuor A 2013. The ef-

fects of lack of career path on job satisfactionamong South African teachers. Anthropologist,15(1): 25-32

Kincal RY 1996. Egitim Bilimine Giris. Erzurum.Kiziltan O 2012. Felsefe ogretimi sorunlari ve yeni

yaklasimlar. Egitim ve Ogretim Arastirmalari Der-gisi, 1(4): 334-342.

Kneller G F 1964. Introduction to the Philosophy ofEducation. Los Angeles: University of California.

434 BAYKAL BICER

Knoll M 2010. “A Marriage on the Rocks” An Un-known Letter by William H. Kilpatrick about hisProject Method. From <http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511129.pdf> (Retrieved on June 12, 2013).

Kuken G A 1996. Felsefe Acisindan Egitim. Istanbul:Alfa Yayincilik.

Sartre JP 1996. Varolusculuk (Existentialisme). (Cev.Asim Bezirci). Istanbul: Say Yayinlari.

Sonmez V 2009. Egitim Felsefesi. Ankara: Ani Yayinci-lik.

Tekin S, Ustun A 2008. Amasya egitim fakultesi ogret-men adaylarinin egitim sureci hakkindaki felsefitercihlerinin tespiti. Selcuk Universitesi Ahmet Ke-lesoglu Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 25: 145-158.

Tozlu N 1997. Egitim Felsefesi. Istanbul: Milli EgitimBakanligi Yayinlari.

Uysal E 2004. Egitim’e felsefi antropoloji cerceves-inde kavramsal bir yaklasim. Cumhuriyet Univers-itesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi, VIII: 81-99.

Yilmaz K, Altinkurt Y, Oguz A 2012. Ilkogretim veortaogretim okulu ogretmenlerinin egitim inanclari.Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Der-gisi, 31(2): 1-19.

Yilmaz K, Altinkurt Y, Cokluk O 2011. Egitim inan-clari olceginin gelistirilmesi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlikcalismasi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri,11(1): 335-350.