Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves

Yılmaz SOYSAL (Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi)
İlköğretim Online (elektronik)
2 1
Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 600 - 620 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025 İndeks Tarihi: 07-04-2020

Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves

Öz:
The purpose of this study is to establish an argument regarding whether there is a trueisomorphism between the formats and the meanings of classroom discourse. The meaning of classroomdiscourse signifies whether it is dialogic or authoritative (traditional vs. co-constructive). The format of theclassroom discourse implies the basic unit of analyses of any conversational episode as either in the formof triadic dialogue; Initiate-Response-Evaluate (IRE), or other open-ended chains of IRE-based exchanges.As a general tendency, researchers concluded that the meanings and the formats of classroom discourseshould have presumably matched each other. However, a critical examination of related studies, theexpected isomorphism or matching may be radically altered and invisible when taking teacher discursivemoves for co-construction of knowledge into consideration. Moreover, the concepts as “Learning Demand”and “Productive Disciplinary Engagement” were considered to advocate the argument that teacherdiscursive moves could be attached with more importance compared to any staged formats of IRE-basedexchanges. It was also concluded that particular discursive usage purposes of teacher discursive movesmay modify the expected matching between the formats and the meanings of classroom discourse.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Sınıf Söyleminin Öğretmenlerin Söylemsel Hamleleri Bağlamında Anlamları ve Formatları

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı sınıf söyleminin formatları ve anlamları arasında hakiki bir eş-biçimliliğin olup olmadığına yönelik bir (karşı) tez oluşturmaktır. Sınıf söyleminin anlamı diyalojik-monolojik ya da geleneksel-oluşturmacı zıtları ifade eder. Sınıf söyleminin formatı ise herhangi bir etkileşimli konuşmanın temel analiz birimi olan Başlat-Cevapla-Değerlendir (BCD, üçlü diyalog) ve açık uçlu BCD-temelli söylemsel değişimleri ifade eder. Genel bir eğilim olarak, araştırmacılar sınıf söyleminin formatlarının ve anlamlarının büyük bir olasılıkla eşleştiği yönünde bir uzlaşmaya varmışlardır. Ancak, ilgili çalışmaların eleştirel bir analizi, beklenen eşleşmenin öğretmenlerin söylemsel hamleleri göz önünde bulundurulduğunda radikal bir biçimde değişebileceğini ve yok olabileceğini göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, Öğrenme Talebi ve Alan-Bağımlı Üretken Dahil Oluş gibi sınıf söyleminin temel teorilerinin yukarıdaki tezi desteklediğini ve öğretmenlerin söylemsel hamlelerinin herhangi bir BCD-temelli söylemsel değişimden daha önemli olabileceğini göstermiştir. Ek olarak, öğretmenlerin belli başlı söylemsel hamleleri özellikli sergileyiş biçimlerinin, sınıf söyleminin formatları ve anlamları arasındaki ilişkiyi ya da eşleşme durumunu değiştirebileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.
  • Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. New York, NY: Dialogos.
  • Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Printing.
  • Bakhtin, M. M (1934). Discourse in the Novel. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas.
  • Berland, K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 49(1), 68-94.
  • Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Studies in Discourse Analysis (ed. M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery, pp. 120-145. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.)
  • Booven, V. D. (2015). Revisiting the Authoritative–Dialogic Tension in Inquiry-Based Elementary Science Teacher Questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.
  • Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: a function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141-169.
  • Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education 34, 35-49.
  • Candela, A. (2005). Students’ participation as co-authoring of school institutional practices. Culture & Psychology, 11, 321-337.
  • Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
  • Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346.
  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
  • 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.
  • Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
  • Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: the importance of the F-move. In ELT Journal, 56, 117-127.
  • Duschl, R.A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73.
  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.
  • Erdogan, I, & Campbell, T. (2008) Teacher Questioning and Interaction Patterns in Classrooms Facilitated with Differing Levels of Constructivist Teaching Practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891-1914.
  • Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2008). Learning an additional language through dialogic inquiry. Language and Education, 22,114-36.
  • Hardman, F. (2011). Promoting a dialogic pedagogy in English teaching. In Debates in English teaching, ed. J. Davison, C. Daly, &, J. Moss, pp. 36-47. London: Routledge.
  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B.K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
  • Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I., Kuo, L., Dong, T. & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194-230.
  • Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding Science Talk: The role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004-2027.
  • Lampert, M. (1990a). Connecting inventions with conventions. In L. P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education (pp. 253–265). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Lampert, M. (1990b). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-63.
  • Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
  • Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A microinteractional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 701-737.
  • Lefstein, A., Snell, J. & Israeli, M. (2015). From moves to sequences: expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 866-885.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.
  • Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? Activity theory, conversation analysis and analysis of pedagogical practices. Pedagogies, 2(2), 77-94.
  • Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tzialli, D. (2012) Identification, Interpretation-Evaluation, Response: An alternative framework for analyzing teacher discourse in science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1823-1856.
  • Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education: An International Journal, 22, 222-240.
  • Mameli, C., & Molinari, L. (2013) Interactive micro-processes in classroom discourse: turning points and emergent meanings. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 196-211.
  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38.
  • McMahon, K. (2012) Case Studies of Interactive Whole-Class Teaching in Primary Science: Communicative approach and pedagogic purposes, International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687-1708.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific Discourse in Three Urban Classrooms: The Role of the Teacher in Engaging High School Students in Argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203-229.
  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
  • Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430-445.
  • Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19-41.
  • Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. (2005). Questioning learning. Language and Education 19(5), 415-427.
  • Mortimer, E.F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: An example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 67-82.
  • 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. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  • Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & A., Gnisci. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 414-430.
  • Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21,376-406.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some Strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541-560.
  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.
  • Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children’s talk in classroom discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 113-136.
  • Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators (version 2.0) [CD– ROM]. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Learning, LRDC, University of Pittsburgh.
  • Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736.
  • Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 197-218). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
  • Scott, P. H. (1997). Teaching and learning science concepts in classroom: talking a path from spontaneous to scientific knowledge. In: Linguagem, cultura e cognicao reflexoes para o ensino de ciencias. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Faculdade de Educacao da UFMG.
  • Scott, P. H. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80.
  • 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(7), 605-631.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 137-162.
  • Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Sunderland, J. (1996). Gendered discourse in the foreign language classroom: Teacher-student and student-teacher talk, and the social construction of children’s femininities and masculinities (PhD dissertation, Lancaster University, UK).
  • Sunderland, J. (2000). New understandings of gender and language classroom research: Texts, teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 149-173.
  • Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann.
  • Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 74-101.
  • Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50, 244-74.
  • van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228.
  • van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229-271.
  • van Zee, E.H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 115-142.
  • van Zee, E.H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. W. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology, (pp. 39- 285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934).
  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teacher’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Zohar, A & Schwartzer, N. (2005) Assessing Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge in the Context of Teaching Higher‐order Thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595-1620.
APA SOYSAL Y (2019). Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. , 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
Chicago SOYSAL YILMAZ Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. (2019): 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
MLA SOYSAL YILMAZ Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. , 2019, ss.600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
AMA SOYSAL Y Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. . 2019; 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
Vancouver SOYSAL Y Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. . 2019; 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
IEEE SOYSAL Y "Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves." , ss.600 - 620, 2019. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
ISNAD SOYSAL, YILMAZ. "Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves". (2019), 600-620. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
APA SOYSAL Y (2019). Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. İlköğretim Online (elektronik), 18(2), 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
Chicago SOYSAL YILMAZ Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. İlköğretim Online (elektronik) 18, no.2 (2019): 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
MLA SOYSAL YILMAZ Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. İlköğretim Online (elektronik), vol.18, no.2, 2019, ss.600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
AMA SOYSAL Y Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. İlköğretim Online (elektronik). 2019; 18(2): 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
Vancouver SOYSAL Y Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves. İlköğretim Online (elektronik). 2019; 18(2): 600 - 620. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
IEEE SOYSAL Y "Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves." İlköğretim Online (elektronik), 18, ss.600 - 620, 2019. 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
ISNAD SOYSAL, YILMAZ. "Meanings and Formats of Classroom Discourse in the Context of Teacher Discursive Moves". İlköğretim Online (elektronik) 18/2 (2019), 600-620. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562025
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 11:8

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları