Mahalle Muhtarlarının Kent Ve Mahalle Güvenliğine İlişkin Yaklaşımları: Antakya Örneği/Attitudes Of Neighborhood Heads Towards The Safety In Their Neighborhood And The City: The Case Of Antakya

Öz Özet Birlikte yaşamanın bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan kent ve kentsel mekanlar, tarihin her aşamasında farklı sorunları yaşamış ve bugün de bu sorunları yaşamaya devam etmektedir. Bu sorunlar ve bunlara ilişkin çözüm yollarının oluşmasında kent ve mahalle güvenliğinin de önemli bir konu olduğunu belirtmek gerekir. Çünkü tarihsel süreç içerisinde kent güvenliğinin sağlanmasında mahalle hep önemli bir yere sahip olmuştur. Hatta tedbir olarak sadece kentlerin değil mahallelerin de bölünerek çevreleri duvarlarla çevrilmiştir. Bir arada yaşayan insanların karşılıklı güven ve işbirliğini sağlamak ve ortak kaygılarını gidermek için bu zorunlu olarak görülmüştür. Bu gün de hem yerel yönetimler hem de yerel halk, sosyal kontrol mekanizmaları kurarak kent ve mahalle düzeyinde yaşam güvenliğini sağlamak için çaba göstermeleri gerekmektedir. Çünkü mahalleler, tarihte olduğu gibi bugün de kentsel mekanların en önemli alanıdırlar. İşte bu çalışma, Antakya merkezindeki mahalle muhtarlarının kent ve mahalle güvenliğine ilişkin yaklaşımlarını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kent, Kent Güvenliği, Mahalle, Mahalle Muhtarı. Abstract City and urban places, which emerged as a result of living together, experienced different problems in every period of history and continue to experience these problems today. The safety of neighborhood and city has the potential to play an important role towards the solution of these problems. Neighborhood as an urban unit has been important for the provision of the safety of the city throughout history. In addition to city walls that were built for security, neighborhoods were also surrounded by walls. Such kind of a division was regarded necessary in order to establish mutual trust and cooperation and to ease shared concerns about the safety of city dwellers. Today, both local governments and local public need to establish social control mechanisms at the levels of neighborhood and city in order to provide a secure urban environment.. This is necessary because neighborhood is still the basic unit of urban communities as it has been throughout history. This study aims to explore the attitudes and views of neighborhood heads in Antakya about the safety of their neighborhoods and the city. Key Words: City, Safety in Cities, Neighborhood, Neighborhood Heads

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kent, Kent Güvenliği, Mahalle, Mahalle Muhtarı

PDF

___

Bacon, S. M., & Finnemann, M. D. (1990). “A study of attitudes, motives and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input”. Modern Language Journal, 74(4), 459–473.
Beauchamp, G. (2004). “Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology”, Pedagogy and Education 13(3), 327- 348.
Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). “Beyond the 'wow' factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard”. School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103.
Collins, B. C., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Leatherby, J. G. (1991). “Using constant time delay to teach self-feeding to young students with severe/profound handicaps: Evidence of limited effectiveness”. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 3, 157- 178.
Feasy, R. (2004). “Thinking and working scientifically”, (pp. 44-87). In Skamp, K. (Ed.), Teaching primary science constructively (l2nd ed.). Southbank Victoria: Thomson.
Gerard, F., & Widener, J. (1999). “A SMARTer way to teach foreign language: The SMART board interactive whiteboard as a language learning tool”. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from http://edcompass.smarttech.com/en/learning/research/SBforeignlanguageclass.pdf
Gürel, G., Ülgen, E., Çağıltay, K., Yıldırım, S. (2007). “Problems and expectations of instructors in terms of technology use in higher education: A descriptive study”. Proceedings of the 32nd IUT (Improving University Teaching) Conference. Jaen, Spain.
Hall, J., Chamblee, G., & Hughes, T. (2008). “Teacher perceptions of interactive whiteboards: A comparison of users and future-users in high school and middle school mathematics”. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 4461- 4467). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Harlan, J. D., & Rivkin, M. S. (2000). Science experiences for the early childhood years:An integrated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Judge, S. L. (2001). “Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities: Current status and future directions.” Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 29-30.
Kennewell, S., & Morgan, A. (2003). S”tudent teachers’ experiences and attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children”. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane, & J. Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies (pp. 71-76). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.
Kent, P. (2004). “Smartboards: Interactive whiteboards in classrooms”. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://www.eastchester.k12.ny.us/schools/hs/teachers/blaser/documents/SMART BoardsInteractiveWhiteBoardsintheClassroom.pdf
Lee, M., & Boyle, M. (2003). The educational effects and implications of the interactive whiteboard strategy of Richardson Primary School: A brief review. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from http://richardsonps.act.edu.au/RichardsonReview_Grey.pdf
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). “Impact of SMART board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning”. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869-1882.
Minor, B., Bracken, M., Geisel, P., & Unger, S. (2006). SMART boards in the classroom: The Influence of interactive boards in education. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://tiger.towson.edu/users/sunger2/smart_boards_in_the_classroom.htm
Moffatt, K. (2000). EGEMS – Electronic games for education in Math and Science: Evaluating the use of a SMART board to teach transformation geometry using Super Tangrams.
Okolo, C. M., Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1993). “A retrospective review of computerbased instruction”. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 1-27.
Pennington, M. C (1996). The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan Publications.
Preston, C., & Mowbray, L. (2008). “Use of SMART boards for teaching, learning and assessment in kindergarten science”. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50-53.
Salinitri, G., Smith, K., & Clovis, C. (2002). The aural enabler: Creating a way for special needs kids to participate in the classroom lesson. Retrieved August 17, 2010, from http://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/research_library/special_ed/the_aural_ enabler.pdf
Saltan, F. (2010). “Teachers’ acceptance of interactive white boards: A case study”. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2360-2365). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005) “Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature”. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101.
Smith, L. (2008). “An investigation into the effect of a NATE/Becta training programme on the use of interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning in Secondary English”. English in Education, 42(3), 269-282.
Starkings, S., & Krause, L. (2008). “Chalkboard to smartboard – maths going green?” MSOR Connections, 7(4), 13-15.