Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 1148 - 1172 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.24315/tred.778215 İndeks Tarihi: 29-08-2022

FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME

Öz:
Son yıllarda sınıf içi konuşmalar alan yazında farklı adlarla kullanılmakta olup, çok fazla çalışılmaya başlanmıştır. Alan yazın incelendiğinde fen derslerinde konuşma üzerine yapılan araştırmalarda farklı kavramların kullanılmakta olduğu görülmektedir. Bunlar sınıf söylemi, sınıf konuşması, diyalojik öğretim, sınıf tartışması, keşifçi konuşma ve üretken konuşma kavramlarıdır. Araştırmada, belirlenen bu altı kavram ile 2009-2019 yılları arasında Web of Science, Eric, Ulakbim veri tabanında yayınlanan makaleler ile Ulusal Tez Merkezi’ndeki tezler taranmıştır. Araştırma sistematik bir derleme olup, bu kapsamda 87 çalışma araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Araştırmada sınıf içi konuşmaların veri tabanlarına ve yıllara göre dağılımı, çalışma grubu, çalışma deseni, veri analizleri, çalışmalarda baz alınan konu dağılımları ve sonuçları ortaya konmuştur. Araştırmanın sonucunda; çalışmaların %65’i Web of Science, %24’ü Eric, %5’i Ulakbim veri tabanlarında, %6’sı ise Ulusal Tez Merkezi’nde yayınlanmıştır. Çalışmaların büyük bir çoğunluğu nitel araştırma anlayışına uygun olarak desenlenmiş olup, çalışma grubu olarak en çok fen bilgisi öğretmeni ve sınıfındaki öğrenciler seçilmiştir. Çalışmalarda büyük ölçüde nitel veri analizlerinden video ve söylem analizi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmalarda en çok ısı ve sıcaklık, yoğunluk, ses, madde, astronomi/yer bilimi, kuvvet ve hareket ile hücre konuları çalışılmıştır. Sosyobilimsel konulardaki yayınlarda ise, en çok çevre sorunları, yenilenebilir ve yenilenemez enerji kaynakları/santraller, evrim ve GDO konuları çalışılmıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada kullanılan yayınların sonuçlarına yönelik bulgular sunulmuştur
Anahtar Kelime: Sistematik derleme fen dersi sınıf içi konuşmalar.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON IN-CLASS TALKS IN SCIENCE CLASSES

Öz:
In recent years, classroom talks have been used in the literature with different names and aroused a great deal of research interest. When the relevant literature is reviewed, it is seen that different concepts have been used in studies focused on in-class talks in science classes. These are classroom discourse, classroom talk, dialogic teaching, classroom discussion, exploratory talk and productive talk. By using these six concepts, a search was conducted in Web of Science, Eric and Ulakbim database and National Thesis Centre to reach the related articles and theses published in the period of 2009-2019. The study is a systematic review including a total of 87 works. In the current study, these works were analyzed according to their distribution across the databases and publication years, study groups, study designs, data analysis methods, topics focused on and results. As a result of the study, it was found that 65% of these studies were published in Web of Science, 24% in Eric, 5% in Ulakbim and 6% in National Thesis Centre. The great majority of the studies were designed in line with qualitative research approach and science teachers and the students in their classes were mostly preferred as the study group. In the studies, video and discourse analyses were used to a large extent as the qualitative data analysis method. The most frequently researched topics in these studies are heat-temperature, density, sound, matter, astronomy/earth science, force and movement together with cell related subjects. The topics most frequently studied in the works published on socioscientific issues include environmental problems/renewable and non-renewable energy sources/power plants, evolution and GMOs. Also, findings related to the results of all these studies were presented.
Anahtar Kelime: Systematic review science lesson in-class talks.

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abd-Kadir, J. & Hardman, F. (2007). The discourse of whole class teaching: A Comparative study of Kenyan and Nigerian primary English lessons. Language and Education, 21(1), 1-15. DOI: 10.2167/le684.0
  • Ackers, J. & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 31(2), 245-261. DOI: 10.1080/03057920120053238
  • Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 91-114). London: Sage Publications.
  • Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561-598. DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
  • Anderhag, P., Wickman, P. O., & Hamza, K. M. (2015). Signs of taste for science: A methodology for studying the constitution of interest in the science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 339-368. DOI: 10.1007/s11422-014-9641-9
  • Andersson, J. & Enghag, M. (2017). The laboratory work style's influence on students' communication. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(6), 958-979.
  • Baker, D. R., Lewis, E. B., Purzer, S., Watts, N. B., & Perkins, G. (2009). The communication in science inquiry project (CISIP): A project to enhance scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 259-274.
  • Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891-1912. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1514543
  • Baykal, B. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi iletişim ve etkileşimlerinin analizi: Diyalojik ve otoriter tartışmalar. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Niğde Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Niğde.
  • Bell, B. & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.
  • Bellocchi, A. & Ritchie, S. M. (2011). Investigating and theorizing discourse during analogy writing in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 771-792. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20428
  • Brevik, L. M., Fosse, B. O., & Radnes, K. A. (2014). Language, learning, and teacher professionalism: An investigation of specialized language use among pupils, teachers, and student teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.004
  • Calcagni, E. & Lago, L. (2018). The three domains for dialogue: A framework for analysing dialogic approaches to teaching and learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.001
  • Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., & Neilson, D. (2012). Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2393-2419. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.704552
  • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Published by CRD, Üniversity of York: York Publishing Services Ltd, ISBN 978-1- 900640-47-3.
  • Cervetti, G. N., DiPardo, A. L., & Staley, S. J. (2014). Exploratory talk in middle school science. The Elementary School Journal, 114(4), 547-572. https://doi.org/10.1086/675638
  • Christodoulou, A. & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275-1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
  • Conlin, L. D. & Scherr, R. E. (2018). Making space to sensemake: Epistemic distancing in small group physics discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 36(4), 396-423. DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2018.1496918
  • Çeken, R. & Tezcan, R. (2011). Fiziksel ve kimyasal değişmelerin video gösterimi ve tartışma yöntemi ile öğretilmesinin yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin başarı düzeyine etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 221- 228.
  • Dawes, L. (2008). The essential speaking and listening: Talk for learning at key stage 2. London, England: Routledge.
  • Dawes, L., Dore, B., Loxley, P., & Nicholls, L. (2010). A talk focus for promoting enjoyment and developing understanding in science. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 99-110.
  • Demirbağ, M. & Kingir, S. (2017). Promoting pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding about boiling by dialogic teaching. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 459-471.
  • Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin, & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  • Edwards-Groves, C., Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2014). Classroom talk: Understanding dialogue, pedagogy and practice. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).
  • Fernandez, R. G. (2019). Translanguaging and equity in groupwork in the science classroom: Adding linguistic and cultural diversity to the equation. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09919-w
  • Foster, C. (2012). Creationism as a Misconception: Socio-Cognitive Conflict in the Teaching of Evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2171-2180. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.692102
  • France, B., Mora, H. A., & Bay, J. L. (2012). Changing perspectives: Exploring a pedagogy to examine other perspectives about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 34-59, 803-824. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.630427
  • Friend, L. (2017). IRE and content area literacies: A critical analysis of classroom discourse. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 40(2), 124-134.
  • Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. C., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
  • Gillies, R. M. (2014). Developments in classroom-based talk. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.05.002
  • Gillies, R. M. (2016). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.009
  • Gillies, R. M. (2019). Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.014
  • Glackin, M. (2018). ‘Control must be maintained’: Exploring teachers’ pedagogical practice outside the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(1), 61-76. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2017.1304204
  • Glass, R. & Oliveira, A. W. (2014). Science language accommodation in elementary school read-alouds, International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 577-609. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.802057
  • Gonzales- Howard, M. (2019). Exploring the utility of social network analysis for visualizing interactions during argumentation discussions. Science Education, 103(3), 503-528. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21505
  • Gray, R. & Klyve, A. R. (2018). Talking modelling: Examining secondary science teachers’ modelling-related talk during a model-based inquiry unit. International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1345-1366. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1479547
  • Haglund, J. & Jeppsson, F. (2012). Using self-generated analogies in teaching of thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 898-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21025
  • Hemingway, P. & Brereton, N. (2009). What is a systematic review? Retrieved on July 20, 2019, from http://www.whatisseries.co.uk/whatis/
  • Hennessy, S., Drummond, S. R., Higham, R., Marquez, A. M., Maine, F., Rios, R. M., Carrion, R. G., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16-44.
  • Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. (Eds). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Erişim: 30.06.2011. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/ cochrane/ handbook/
  • Hofmann, R. & Mercer, N. (2016). Teacher interventions in small group work in secondary mathematics and science lessons. Language and Education, 30(5), 400-416. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2015.1125363
  • Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattray, C. (2000). Hypothesis testingin science: Group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 361 –391.
  • Howe, C. & Mercer, N. (2017). Commentary on the papers. Language and Education, 31(1), 83-92. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2016.1230126
  • Jan, M., San, C. Y., & Tan, E. M. (2011). Reconceptualizing science classroom discourse towards doing science through a game-based learning program. US-China Education Review B, 6, 786-796.
  • Kane, J. M. (2015). The structure-agency dialectic in contested science spaces: Do earthworms eat apples? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21206
  • Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Elektronik Dergisi (DEUHYO ED), 6 (1), 26-33.
  • Kaya, S. (2014). Dynamic variables of science classroom discourse in relation to teachers’ instructional beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.7
  • Kerawalla, L., Petrou, M., & Scanlon, E. (2013). Talk factory: Supporting ‘exploratory talk’ around an interactive whiteboard in primary school science plenaries. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 89-102. DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2012.745049.
  • Kumpulainen, K. & Rajala, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 48, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.05.002
  • Larrain, A., Howe, C., & Freire, P. (2018). ‘More is not necessarily better’: Curriculum materials support the impact of classroom argumentative dialogue in science teaching on content knowledge. Research in Science Technological Education, 36(3), 282-301. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1408581
  • Lee, H. & Feldman, A. (2015). Photographs and classroom response systems in middle school astronomy classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 496-508. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-014-9539-z
  • Lee, J. A. & Kim, C. J. (2019). Teaching and learning science in authoritative classrooms: Teachers’ power and students’ approval in Korean elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 49, 1367-1393. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9659-6
  • Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Puttonen, H. R. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705-727. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0
  • Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2018). Challenging transmission modes of teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learner-centredness through dialogicity. Research in Science Education, 48, 1049- 1069. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.
  • Loxley, P., Dawes, L., Nicholls, L., & Dore, B. (2010). Teaching primary science: Promoting enjoyment and developing understanding. Harlow, England: Pearson.
  • Löfgren, R., Schoultz, G., Hultman, G., & Björklund, L. (2013). Exploratory talk in science education: inquirybased learning and communicative approach in primary school. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 482-496.
  • Maeng, S. & Kim, C. J. (2011). Variations in science teaching modalities and students’ pedagogic subject positioning through the discourse register and language code. Science Education, 95, 431-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20429
  • Martin, J. (2016). The grammar of agency: Studying possibilities for student agency in science classroom discourse. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.003
  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23 (4), 353-369. DOI: 10.1080/09500780902954273
  • Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic space’ for children's collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367-384, DOI: 10.1080/09500781003642460
  • Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.007
  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283-297.
  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: for classroom that works. University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning. Retrieved on May 10, 2019, from http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/download/index/ats.
  • Michaels, S. & O’Connor, C. (2013). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. In L. B.
  • Millar, J. (2004). Systematic reviews for policy analysis. In S. Becker ve A. Byrman (Eds.), Understanding research for social policy and practice: themes, methods and approaches, Bristol: Policy Press.
  • Miller, B. W., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Lin, T. J., & Jadallah, M. (2014). The effects of reading to prepare for argumentative discussion on cognitive engagement and conceptual growth. Learning and Instruction, 33, 67-80.
  • Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., & Tytler, R. (2017). Engaging with socially acute questions: development and validation of an interactional reasoning framework. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 54(7), 825- 851. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21386
  • Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In J. Leach, R. Millar, & J. Osborne (Eds.). Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 126–142). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Morton, T. (2012). Classroom talk, conceptual change and teacher reflection in bilingual science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.006
  • Motlhabane, A. (2016). The level and quality of accountability talk in the science lessons. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(12), 2991-3003. DOI: 10.12973/ eurasia.2016.02318a
  • Moule, P. & Goodman M. (2009). Nursing research: An introduction. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
  • Muhonen, H., Puttonen, H. R., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.005
  • Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Puttonen, H. R. (2018). Quality of educational dialogue and association with students’ academic performance. Learning and Instruction, 55, 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.007
  • Murcia, K. & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 417-431. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1062
  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • O’Connor, C. & Michaels, S. (2019). Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.003
  • Oliveria, A. W. (2009). ‘‘Kindergarten, can I have your eyes and ears?’’ Politeness and teacher directive choices in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 803-846.
  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Developing elementary teachers’ understandings of hedges and personal pronouns in inquiry-based science classroom discourse. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 103-126. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-009-9157-4
  • Oliveria, A., Weiland, I., & Hsu, T. F. (2015). Food appraisal: discussing healthy diet and eating in elementary science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 1-24.
  • Ong, K. K. A., Hart, C. E., & Chen, P. K. (2016). Promoting higher-order thinking through teacher questioning: A case study of a singapore science classroom. New Waves Educational Research & Development, 19, 1- 19.
  • Oyoo, S. O. (2012). Language in science classrooms: An analysis of physics teachers’ use of and beliefs about language. Research Science Education, 42, 849-873. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-011-9228-3
  • Özdem, Y. (2009). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Özel, U. (2018). Meslek lisesi öğrencilerinin bilimsel ve sosyobilimsel konularla argümantasyon becerilerinin geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora tezi.
  • Patterson, A. D. (2019). Equity in groupwork: The social process of creating justice in a science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09918-x
  • Pontefract, C. & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Comparative Education, 41(1), 87-106. DOI: 10.1080/03050060500073264
  • Roslan, R., Panjang, S. M., Yusof, N., & Shahrill, M. (2018). Teacher’s feedback in teaching science in a bilingual bruneian primary classroom. On the Horizon, 26(2), 122-136.
  • Roth, W. M. (2014). Science language Wanted Alive: Through the dialectical/dialogical lens of Vygotsky and the Bakhtin circle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 1049-1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21158
  • Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2013). Analyzing students’ learning in classroom discussions about socioscientific issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594-620. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21065
  • Ryu, M. (2013). “But at school … I became a bit shy”: Korean immigrant adolescents’ discursive participation in science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 649-671.
  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119.
  • Salloum, S. & BauJaoude, S. (2019). The use of triadic dialogue in the science classroom: A teacher negotiating conceptual learning with teaching to the test. Research in Science education, 49, 829-857. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9640-4
  • Schoerning, E., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (2014). Language, access, and power in the elementary science classroom. Science Education, 99(2), 238-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21154
  • Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G., (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20131
  • Seah, L. H. & Yore, L. D. (2017). The roles of teachers’ science talk in revealing language demands within diverse elementary school classrooms: A Study of teaching heat and temperature in singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 135-157. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1270477
  • Shemwell, J. T. & Furtak, E. M. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: A study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 222-250. DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2010.530563
  • Sherrod, S. E. & Wilhelm, J. (2009). A Study of how classroom dialogue facilitates the development of geometric spatial concepts related to understanding the cause of moon phases. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 873-894. DOI: 10.1080/09500690801975768
  • Sickel, A. J., Witzig, S. B., Vanmali, B. H., & Abell, S. K. (2013). The nature of discourse throughout 5e lessons in a large enrolment college biology course. Research in Science Education, 43, 637-665.
  • Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of psychology, 70, 747-770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
  • Sohmer, R., Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., & Resnick, L. (2009). Guided Construction of Knowledge in the Classroom. In B.
  • Tan, A. K. & Wong, H. M. (2012). ‘Didn't get expected answer, rectify it.’: Teaching science content in an elementary science classroom using hands-on activities. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 197-222. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.565378
  • Tang, K. S. (2013). Instantiation of multimodal semiotic systems in science classroom discourse. Language Sciences, 37, 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.08.003
  • Tang, K. S. (2016). The Interplay of Representations and Patterns of Classroom Discourse in Science Teaching Sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069-2095. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1218568
  • Tang, K. S. (2017). Analyzing teachers’ use of metadiscourse: The missing element in classroom discourse analysis. Science Education. DOI:10.1002/sce.21275.
  • Turhan, E. B. (2019). Monolojik öğretim yapan bir fen öğretmeni ile diyalojik öğretim yapan bir fen öğretmeninin öğretim söylemi açısından kıyaslanması. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisan tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa.
  • Türköz, G. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çeşitli sosyo-bilimsel konulara yönelik kararlarının, gerekçelerinin ve argüman kalitelerinin incelenmesi: Youtube destekli sınıf içi tartşma kullanımı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Sinop Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sinop.
  • Tytler, R. & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 425-446.
  • Uçak, E. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde kullandıkları iletişimsel yaklaşımlar. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Denizli.
  • Uçak, E. & Bağ, H. (2018a). Discourse analysis of the communicative approaches used by the pre-service teachers. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 381-428.
  • Uçak, E. & Bağ, H. (2018b). Experience of pre-service science teachers on dialogic interaction. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(31), 194-237.
  • Ulu, H. (2017). Dördüncü sınıf fen ve teknoloji derslerinin diyalojik öğretim açısından analizi üzerine bir araştırma. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(4), 608-626.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.
  • Webb, P. Whitlow, J. W., & Venter, D. (2017). From exploratory talk to abstract reasoning: A case for far transfer? Educational Psychology Review, 29, 565-581. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-016-9369-z
  • Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the ınternet age. New York: Routledge.
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voice soft hemind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Xu, L. & Clarke, D. (2012). Student difficulties in learning density: A distributed cognition perspective. Research in Science Education, 42, 769-789. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-011-9232-7
  • Yerrick, R. K. & Gilbert, A. (2011). Constraining the discourse community: How science discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6 (1), 67-91.
APA YILDIRIM L, uçak e, Savran Gencer A (2021). FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. , 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
Chicago YILDIRIM Leyla,uçak esra,Savran Gencer Ayşe FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. (2021): 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
MLA YILDIRIM Leyla,uçak esra,Savran Gencer Ayşe FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. , 2021, ss.1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
AMA YILDIRIM L,uçak e,Savran Gencer A FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. . 2021; 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
Vancouver YILDIRIM L,uçak e,Savran Gencer A FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. . 2021; 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
IEEE YILDIRIM L,uçak e,Savran Gencer A "FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME." , ss.1148 - 1172, 2021. 10.24315/tred.778215
ISNAD YILDIRIM, Leyla vd. "FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME". (2021), 1148-1172. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.778215
APA YILDIRIM L, uçak e, Savran Gencer A (2021). FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(3), 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
Chicago YILDIRIM Leyla,uçak esra,Savran Gencer Ayşe FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi 11, no.3 (2021): 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
MLA YILDIRIM Leyla,uçak esra,Savran Gencer Ayşe FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, vol.11, no.3, 2021, ss.1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
AMA YILDIRIM L,uçak e,Savran Gencer A FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi. 2021; 11(3): 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
Vancouver YILDIRIM L,uçak e,Savran Gencer A FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi. 2021; 11(3): 1148 - 1172. 10.24315/tred.778215
IEEE YILDIRIM L,uçak e,Savran Gencer A "FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME." Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11, ss.1148 - 1172, 2021. 10.24315/tred.778215
ISNAD YILDIRIM, Leyla vd. "FEN DERSLERİNDE SINIF İÇİ KONUŞMALAR ÜZERİNE SİSTEMATİK BİR DERLEME". Trakya Eğitim Dergisi 11/3 (2021), 1148-1172. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.778215