Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Effects of the Teacher Discursive Moves on the Students’ Reasoning Qualities in the context of Science Teaching: Discourse Analysis Approach

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 994 - 1032, 31.07.2019

Yılmaz Soysal

Abstract

The basic purpose of the current study is to delve into the influences of the teacher discursive moves on the student-led cognitive contributions as in the form of reasoning quality by virtue of classroom discourse analysis approach. An experienced elementary science teacher and his 32, fifth grade students were the participants. In-class implementations were conducted through argument-based inquiry science teaching approach. The analysis of video-based data was carried out by means of systematic observations as a branch of sociocultural discourse analysis. Through data-based and theory-laden coding catalogues types of the enacted teacher-led discursive moves and student-led cognitive contributions as their reasoning qualities were coded analytically. Each teacher-led move and student-led cognitive contribution were counted, then, proportionally compared in order to determine the relations between discourse and cognition. Teacher-led moves were gathered under 10 higher categories. These were knowledge providing and evaluating moves, observing-comparing-predicting moves, communicating moves, monitoring moves, evaluating-critiquing-judging moves, challenging moves, seeking for evidencing moves, labelling-naming moves, inferencing moves and ensuring mutual respect moves. The knowledge providing and evaluating moves were negatively influencing on the student-led cognitive contributions, and since the observing-comparing-predicting moves were required less cognitive from the side of the learners, these moves were not functional in augmenting the cognitive contributions. Communicating and monitoring moves facilitated prior conditions for improving the student-led cognitive contributions. Evaluating-critiquing-judging and challenging moves held more concrete and visible effects in enhancing the cognitive contributions. Based on these, several recommendations were offered for the sake of the professional development of science teachers.

Keywords

Discursive moves reasoning quality classroom discourse cognitive contribution teacher education science education

References

  • Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745-1765.
  • Alexander, R. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching (Vol. 2). UK: Dialogos: Cambridge.
  • Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos: Cambridge.
  • Banhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93.
  • Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29, 3–12.
  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
  • 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.
  • Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing Scientific Reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123-141.
  • Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010b). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142-174.
  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449.
  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
  • Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M., (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M.S. Khine (ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 (pp. 39-53).
  • Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.
  • Ceylan, K. E. (2012). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerine dünya ve evren öğrenme alanının bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı yöntem ile öğretimi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2017). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A Framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education, 47, 373-405.
  • 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.
  • Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2008) Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
  • 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.
  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3-17.
  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education: Editorials from the Journal of Teacher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.
  • 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.
  • Erickson, F. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In M. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 17-34). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
  • Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.
  • Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J. & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, (15), 3-4, 175-196.
  • Gadamer, H. (2004). Truth and method. New York: Continuum publishing group.
  • Gallardo-Virgen, J., & DeVillar, R. (2011). Sharing, talking, and learning in the elementary school science classroom: Benefits of innovative design and collaborative learning in computer-integrated settings. Computers in Schools, 28, 278–290.
  • Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23(1), 119-169.
  • Gillies, R. & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse, problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 323–340.
  • Gunel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers’ implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term professional development program on the Science Writing Heuristic. Unpublished PhD thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391.
  • Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K. & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: Elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, (15), 3-4, 197-221.
  • Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 1–44.
  • 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.
  • Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325-356.
  • Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.
  • Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Janiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., & Kuo, L. J. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194-230.
  • Kabataş Memiş, E. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (atbö) yaklaşımının ve öz değerlendirmenin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen başarısına etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
  • Kayima, F., & Jakobsen, A. (2018). Exploring the situational adequacy of teacher questions in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 1-31, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9.
  • Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması. Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
  • Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12, 91-113.
  • Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857–874.
  • 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, 866-885.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwoord: Ablex.
  • 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., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
  • McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2; 2), 233-268.
  • 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.
  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.
  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1(2), 137-168.
  • Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33-59.
  • Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14.
  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Molinari, L., &Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249–258.
  • Molinari, L., C. Mameli, & 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.
  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Oh, P.S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625.
  • Oliveira, A. W., (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.
  • Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.
  • Polat, H. (2014). Atomun yapısı konusunda argümantasyon yönteminin ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin başarısı üzerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
  • Resnick, L.B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg, & D. Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications. New York: Springer.
  • Resnitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.
  • 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.
  • Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613.
  • Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. R. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15, 222-250.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (2-3), 235-260.
  • Sinha, S., Rogat, T., Adams-Wiggins, K., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273–307.
  • Soysal, Y. (2018a). Determining the mechanics of classroom discourse in Vygotskian Sense: Teacher discursive moves reconsidered. Research in Science Education, 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1116.
  • Soysal, Y. (2018b). A Review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of ınquiry-based. Teaching. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1476-1495. DOI: 10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466372.
  • Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69–85.
  • Tümay, H. ve Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.
  • Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425-446.
  • van D. Booven, (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.
  • van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & Michaels, S. (2015) Productive classroom dialogue as an activity of shared thinking and communicating: A commentary on marsal. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(4), 320-325.
  • van der Veen, C., de Mey, L., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2017). The effect of productive classroom talk and metacommunication on young children’s oral communicative competence and subject matter knowledge: An intervention study in early childhood education. Learning and Instruction, 48, 14-22.
  • 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., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversation about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
  • Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: a review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.
  • Webb, N.M., Franke, M.L., Ing, M., Wong, J.C., Fernandes, C., Shin, N., et al. (2014). Engaging with others' mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers' instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.
  • Wegerif, R. (2008). Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning. Advances in cultural-historical activity theory (pp. 273–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 994 - 1032, 31.07.2019

Yılmaz Soysal

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı bir fen öğretmeninin sınıf içi gerçekleştirdiği söylemsel (öğretimsel, pedagojik) hamlelerin öğrenenlerin ders esnasında yaptıkları bilişsel katkılara (akıl yürütme kalitesi olarak) etkisinin söylem analizi yaklaşımı ile araştırılmasıdır. Araştırmanın katılımcıları bir fen öğretmeni ve 32, 5. sınıf öğrencisidir. Sınıf içi uygulamalar argümantasyon-tabanlı fen öğretimi yaklaşımı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Video temelli verilerin analizi sosyokültürel söylem analizinin bir kolu olan sistematik gözlem ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Belirli kataloglar aracılığıyla, öğretmenin sergilediği söylemsel hamle tipleri ve öğrenen bilişsel katkıları olarak akıl yürütme kaliteleri analitik olarak kodlanmıştır. Her bir söylemsel hamle ve bilişsel katkı sayılmış, uygulamalar arasında söylem-biliş ilişkilerinin belirlenmesi için oranları karşılaştırılmıştır. Söylemsel hamlelerin işlevleri 10 kategori altında toplanmıştır. Bunlar bilgi sağlayıcı & değerlendirmeci hamleler, gözle-karşılaştır-tahmin et hamleleri, iletişimsel hamleler, izleme hamleleri, değerlendir-yargıla-eleştir hamleleri, çeldirme hamleleri, delillendirme hamleleri, isimlendirme hamleleri, çıkarımda bulunma hamleleri ve karşılıklı saygıyı sağlama hamleleridir. Bilgi sağlayıcı & değerlendirmeci hamleler öğrenenlerin bilişsel katkılarını olumsuz etkilemiş, gözle-karşılaştır-tahmin et hamleleri ise düşük bilişsel talep gerektirdiğinden öğrenenlerin bilişsel katkılarını artırma noktasında etkili olamamıştır. İletişimsel ve izleme hamleleri bilişsel katkıların artması için ön koşulları sağlamıştır. Öğrenenlerin bilişsel katkılarını en somut ve görülür şekilde değerlendir-yargıla-eleştir ve çeldirme hamleleri etkilemiştir. Fen öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişimleri için çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

Söylemsel hamleler akıl yürütme kalitesi sınıf söylemi bilişsel katkı öğretmen eğitimi fen eğitimi

References

  • Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745-1765.
  • Alexander, R. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching (Vol. 2). UK: Dialogos: Cambridge.
  • Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos: Cambridge.
  • Banhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93.
  • Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29, 3–12.
  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
  • 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.
  • Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010a). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing Scientific Reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123-141.
  • Brown, N. J. S., Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010b). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessments. Educational Assessment, 15, 142-174.
  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427-449.
  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
  • Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. M., (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M.S. Khine (ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 (pp. 39-53).
  • Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.
  • Ceylan, K. E. (2012). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerine dünya ve evren öğrenme alanının bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı yöntem ile öğretimi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2017). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A Framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education, 47, 373-405.
  • 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.
  • Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2008) Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
  • 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.
  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3-17.
  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education: Editorials from the Journal of Teacher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
  • Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.
  • 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.
  • Erickson, F. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In M. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 17-34). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
  • Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.
  • Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J. & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, (15), 3-4, 175-196.
  • Gadamer, H. (2004). Truth and method. New York: Continuum publishing group.
  • Gallardo-Virgen, J., & DeVillar, R. (2011). Sharing, talking, and learning in the elementary school science classroom: Benefits of innovative design and collaborative learning in computer-integrated settings. Computers in Schools, 28, 278–290.
  • Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23(1), 119-169.
  • Gillies, R. & Khan, A. (2008). The effects of teacher discourse on students’ discourse, problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 323–340.
  • Gunel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers’ implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term professional development program on the Science Writing Heuristic. Unpublished PhD thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391.
  • Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K. & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: Elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, (15), 3-4, 197-221.
  • Herrenkohl, L., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 1–44.
  • 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.
  • Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325-356.
  • Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.
  • Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Janiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., & Kuo, L. J. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194-230.
  • Kabataş Memiş, E. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (atbö) yaklaşımının ve öz değerlendirmenin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen başarısına etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
  • Kayima, F., & Jakobsen, A. (2018). Exploring the situational adequacy of teacher questions in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 1-31, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9.
  • Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması. Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
  • Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12, 91-113.
  • Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857–874.
  • 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, 866-885.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwoord: Ablex.
  • 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., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
  • McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2; 2), 233-268.
  • 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.
  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.
  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1(2), 137-168.
  • Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33-59.
  • Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14.
  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Molinari, L., &Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249–258.
  • Molinari, L., C. Mameli, & 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.
  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Oh, P.S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625.
  • Oliveira, A. W., (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453.
  • Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.
  • Polat, H. (2014). Atomun yapısı konusunda argümantasyon yönteminin ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin başarısı üzerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
  • Resnick, L.B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. Sternberg, & D. Preiss (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications. New York: Springer.
  • Resnitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.
  • 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.
  • Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613.
  • Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. R. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: a study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15, 222-250.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (2-3), 235-260.
  • Sinha, S., Rogat, T., Adams-Wiggins, K., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273–307.
  • Soysal, Y. (2018a). Determining the mechanics of classroom discourse in Vygotskian Sense: Teacher discursive moves reconsidered. Research in Science Education, 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1116.
  • Soysal, Y. (2018b). A Review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of ınquiry-based. Teaching. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1476-1495. DOI: 10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466372.
  • Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69–85.
  • Tümay, H. ve Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.
  • Tytler, R., & Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425-446.
  • van D. Booven, (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.
  • van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & Michaels, S. (2015) Productive classroom dialogue as an activity of shared thinking and communicating: A commentary on marsal. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(4), 320-325.
  • van der Veen, C., de Mey, L., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2017). The effect of productive classroom talk and metacommunication on young children’s oral communicative competence and subject matter knowledge: An intervention study in early childhood education. Learning and Instruction, 48, 14-22.
  • 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., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversation about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
  • Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: a review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.
  • Webb, N.M., Franke, M.L., Ing, M., Wong, J.C., Fernandes, C., Shin, N., et al. (2014). Engaging with others' mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers' instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.
  • Wegerif, R. (2008). Reason and dialogue in education. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning. Advances in cultural-historical activity theory (pp. 273–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
There are 90 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Yılmaz Soysal 0000-0003-1352-8421

Publication Date July 31, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 7 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Soysal, Y. (2019). Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 994-1032.
AMA Soysal Y. Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. July 2019;7(3):994-1032.
Chicago Soysal, Yılmaz. “Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 7, no. 3 (July 2019): 994-1032.
EndNote Soysal Y (July 1, 2019) Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 7 3 994–1032.
IEEE Y. Soysal, “Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı”, Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 994–1032, 2019.
ISNAD Soysal, Yılmaz. “Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 7/3 (July 2019), 994-1032.
JAMA Soysal Y. Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2019;7:994–1032.
MLA Soysal, Yılmaz. “Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 3, 2019, pp. 994-1032.
Vancouver Soysal Y. Fen Öğretiminde Öğretmenin Söylemsel Hamlelerinin Öğrenenlerin Akıl Yürütme Kalitelerine Etkisi: Söylem Analizi Yaklaşımı. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2019;7(3):994-1032.
 Download Cover Image