Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Diyaloglarındaki İletişim Eylemleri

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 100 - 116, 30.05.2021

Tugay Yağcı , Eylem Yıldız Feyzioğlu

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının oluşturdukları diyaloglardaki “İletişim Eylemleri” (İE)’ni incelemektir. Bu amaçla her öğretmen adayının kullandığı İE’lerin sıklığı, her grubun kullandığı İE’lerin sıklığı ve her öğretmen adayının diyaloğa katılma sıklığı belirlenmiştir. Çalışma, rastgele örnekleme yöntemiyle 2019-2020 öğretim yılında öğrenimlerine birinci sınıfta devam eden altı fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın verileri, öğretmen adaylarının “Su Arıtma Modeli” geliştirmek için oluşturdukları diyaloglar aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Betimsel bir tarama nitelikte olan bu araştırmada, diyaloglardaki İE’lerin belirlenmesi için Hennessy vd. (2016) tarafından geliştirilen “Eğitimsel Diyalog Analizi Programı” kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar incelendiğinde, adayların kendi katkısını açıklama veya gerekçelendirme ve tahminde bulunma İE’lerini daha fazla kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen bu sonuç, adayların öğretmen olduklarında sınıflarında öğrencileriyle aralarında oluşacak diyalogların diyalojik olmaktan ziyade monolog olacağına işaret etmektedir. Son olarak adayların diyaloglara katılma sıklıklarının birbirlerinden farklı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Adayların İE’leri ile eleştirel düşünme becerileri, motivasyonel inançları ve grup dinamikleri ile ilişkileri inceleyen yeni çalışmalar önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Diyalog türleri, Eğitimsel Diyalog Analizi Programı, İletişim eylemleri

The Communicative Actions of Preservice Science Teachers in Their Dialogues

Öz

The purpose of the study to examine, “communicative actions” (IE) in the dialogues created by pre-science teacher (PST)s. For this purpose, the frequency of IE's used by each PST, the frequency of IE's used by each group, and the frequency of each PST’s participation in the dialogue were determined. The study was conducted with six PSTs who were selected by random sampling method and who continued their education in the first grade in the 2019-2020 academic year. The data of the study was collected through dialogues created by PSTs to develop a “Water Filter Model”. In this survey-based descriptive study, the “Educational Dialogue Analysis Program” developed by Hennessy et al. (2016) was used to determine CA in dialogues. When the results were examined, it was determined that PSTs were more likely to explain or justify their own contribution and make predictions. The results of this study indicate that when PSTs become teachers, the dialogues that will be formed between them and their students in their classes will be monologues, not dialogues. Finally, it was determined that the participation frequencies of the candidates in the dialogues were different from each other. New studies are proposed that examine the PSTs’ CA and relationships among critical thinking skills, motivational beliefs, and group dynamics and CA.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Communicative actions, Scheme for Educational Dialogue Analysis, Types of dialogue

Kaynakça

• Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561-598.
• Alshaqsi, H., & Ambusaidi, A. (2018). The most common patterns of classroom dialogue used by science teachers in Omani cycle two schools. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 255-268.
• Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to constructivism in science education?. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477-2496.
• Barwell, R. (2017). Mathematical texts, alterity and the expropriation of mathematical discourse in second language mathematics classrooms. In J. Langman, & H. Hansen-Thomas (Eds.). Discourse analytic perspectives on STEM education: exploring interaction and learning in the multilingual classroom (pp. 119–138). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
• Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417-450). Academic Press.
• Chen, G. (2020). A visual learning analytics (VLA) approach to video-based teacher professional development: Impact on teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy, and classroom talk practice. Computers & Education, 144, 1-15.
• Cook, V., Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Major, L., & Wegerif, R. (2019). Developing material-dialogic space in geography learning and teaching: Combining a dialogic pedagogy with the use of a microblogging tool. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 217-231.
• Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2020). Dialogic education for classroom teaching: a critical review. Language and Education, 1-17.
• Demirbağ, M. (2017). Otoriter ve diyalojik söylem tiplerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argüman gelişimine etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 321-340.
• Duit, R. (2016). The constructivist view in science education–what it has to offer and what should not be expected from it. Investigaçôes Em Ensino De Ciências, 1(1), 40-75.
• Ennis, R. H. (2011). The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. 16 Nisan 2020 tarihinde https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf?sfvrsn=7bb51288_2 adresinden alınmıştır.
• Esiyok, J. (2016). The small group writing conference as a dialogic model of feedback. Dialogic Pedagogy: The Importance of Dialogue in Teaching and Learning, 51, 111.
• Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: a psychological theory of learning. In: Fosnot (ed.) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice, (pp.8-33). Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY
• France, A. (2019). Teachers using dialogue to support science learning in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education, 1-15.
• Frederiksen, C. H., & Donin, J. (2015). Discourse and learning in contexts of educational interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 96–114). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
• Gencer, D. K. (2019). Toplum dilbilimde etnografik-etnolojik ve etnometodolojik yaklaşımlar. Araz Y., Yavuz S. ve Çakan B. (Ed.), I. Uluslararası Din ve İnsan Sempozyumu “Din, Dil ve İletişim” (s. 68-76) içinde. Eskişehir: Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Adobe Acrobat Reader sürümü]. Erişim adresi: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/
• Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., ... & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16-44.
• Hocaoğlu, N., Baysal, E. A., (2019). Nicel araştırma modelleri-desenleri. Ocak, G. (Ed), Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, (ss.66-119). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855-882.
• Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4-5), 462–512.
• Juuti, K., Loukomies, A., & Lavonen, J. (2020). Interest in dialogic and non-dialogic teacher talk situations in middle school science classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1531-1546.
• Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70-86.
• Knapp, N. F. (2019). The shape activity: Social constructivism in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 87-91.
• Lefstein, A. and Snell, J. (2011) Classroom discourse: The promise and complexity of dialogic practice. In S. Ellis, E. McCartney and J. Bourne (Eds.), Linguistics and Primary School Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2010). Guiding Student Teachers Towards More Dialogic Science Teaching in G. Çakmakcı & M. F. Taşar (Eds.), Contemporary Science education on Research: Scientific Literacy and Social Aspects of Science. A collection of papers presented at ESERA 2009 Conference (pp. 23-32). Istanbul ESERA 2010.
• Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1-14.
• Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social İnteraction, 1(1), 12-21.
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mirza, N. M., Perret-Clermont, A. N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In Argumentation and Education (pp. 67-90). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroomsaa. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2018). Quality of educational dialogue and association with students’ academic performance. Learning and Instruction, 55, 67-79.
• Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 25-37.
• Muhonen, H., Verma, P., von Suchodoletz, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2020). Exploring types of educational classroom talk in early childhood education centres. Research Papers in Education, 1-22.
• Oldfather, P., West, J., White, J., & Wilmarth, J. (1999). Learning through children’s eyes: Social constructivism and the desire to learn. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Rojas-Drummond, S., Maine, F., Alarcón, M., Trigo, A. L., Barrera, M. J., Mazón, N., ... & Hofmann, R. (2017). Dialogic literacy: Talking, reading and writing among primary school children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, 45-62
• Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
• 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(4), 605-631.
• Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 278-290.
• Šeďová, K., Šalamounová, Z., Švaříček, R., Sedláček, M. (2020). Getting dialogic teaching into classrooms https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9243-0
• Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 443-466.
• Türk Dil Kurumu, 2020, 10 Mayıs 2020 tarihinde https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden alınmıştır.
• Uçak, E., & Bağ, H. (2018). Experience of pre-service science teachers on dialogic interaction. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(31), 194-237.
• Van De Pol, J., Brindley, S., & Higham, R. J. E. (2017). Two secondary teachers’ understanding and classroom practice of dialogic teaching: A case study. Educational Studies, 43(5), 497-515.
• Vrikki, M., Wheatley, L., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2019). Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms. Language and Education, 33(1), 85-100.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge.
• Watters, J., & Diezman, C. (2016). Engaging elementary students in learning science: an analysis of classroom dialogue. Instructional Science, 44, 25–44.
• Xenofontos, C., & Kyriakou, A. (2017). Prospective elementary teachers' beliefs about collaborative problem solving and dialogue in mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19(2), 142-158.
• Yin, Q., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2020). Blending constructivism and instructivism: A study of classroom dialogue in Singapore kindergartens. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(4), 583-600.