Sosyobilimsel bir Konu Olan GDO Konusunda Öğrenci Gözüyle Diyalojik Öğretim

Year 2022, Issue: 55, 293 - 323, 28.04.2022

Esra Uçak , Ayşe Savran Gencer , Arife Seviş , Sibel Usta

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1029432

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Diyalojik öğretimin yapılabilir ve yararlı olduğuna dair çalışmalar olmasına rağmen, araştırmalar öğretmen tarafından tartışmaların yönlendirildiği otoriter sınıf söyleminin hakim olma eğiliminde olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmada, diyalojik bir öğrenme ortamında öğrencilerin kendilerini ele alınan konu ile bağlantılı olarak nasıl konumlandırdıkları incelenmiştir. Bunun için, oldukça otoriter söylemleri olduğu tespit edilen bir fen öğretmeninden, 12 hafta boyunca diyalojik öğretim ve iletişimsel yaklaşım üzerine aldığı eğitimlerden sonra sosyobilimsel bir konu olan GDO konusunda diyalojik bir ders tasarısı oluşturması istenmiştir. Uygulama sonrasında altı öğrenci ile işlenen dersler ile ilgili yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır, ayrıca aynı öğrencilerden diyalojik işlenen dersler ile daha önce işledikleri fen derslerini işleniş biçimi açısından resim çizerek karşılaştırmaları ve çizdikleri resimleri açıklamaları istenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulgularında; diyalojik öğretimde öğretmen ve öğrenci rolü, sınıf normları, öğrenme ortamı, öğrenci özellikleri ve öğrenci-öğrenci etkileşimine yönelik oluşturulan temalara ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri açığa çıkarılmış ve öğrenci resimleri ile diyalojik öğrenme ortamı yorumlanmıştır. Öğrencilerin görüşme bulguları incelendiğinde; özellikle sınıf içi konumlara ilişkin görüşmeye katılan tüm öğrenciler öğretmenlerini kutup yıldızına yani rehbere benzetmişler, kendilerini ise fikirlerini özgürce söyleyip savunan, araştıran, derse aktif katılan katılımcılar olarak konumlandırmışlardır. Görüşmeye katılan öğrencilerin çizimleri ve yorumları incelendiğinde ise öğretmenin önceki fen derslerine göre diyalojik olarak işlediği derslerinde öğrencilerin fikir ve görüşlerini alarak derslere daha fazla öğrencinin aktif katılımının olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

diyalojik öğretim, sosyobilimsel konular, GDO, fen bilimleri

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

yok

Dialogic Teaching on GMOs as a Socio-scientific Issue from the Eyes of Students

Abstract

Although studies show that dialogic teaching is feasible and useful, the existing research has revealed that the authoritative discourse in which the teacher directs discussions tends to dominate. The current study investigated how students positioned themselves concerning the subject addressed in a dialogic learning environment. To this end, a science teacher, who was determined to have highly authoritative discourses, was asked to construct a dialogic lesson design on GMOs, a socio-scientific issue, after 12 weeks of training on dialogic teaching and communicative communication approach. After the application, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six students to elicit their opinions about the delivered lessons. Moreover, the same six students were asked to compare the dialogically instructed lessons with their previous science lessons by means of drawings and to explain their drawings. In findings, the student's opinions about the themes of teacher and student roles, classroom norms, learning environment, student characteristics, and student-student interaction in dialogic teaching were revealed, and the dialogic learning environment was interpreted on the basis of the students’ drawings. When the data obtained from the student interviews were examined, especially for classroom norms, it was found that all students likened their teacher to the pole star; that is, a guide and positioned themselves as participants who freely talked about and defended their opinions, researched and actively participated in the lesson. When the drawings and explanations of the students were examined, it was determined that the teacher allowed students to express their opinions and thoughts in the lessons instructed dialogically compared to the previous lessons, and thus more student participation was achieved in the dialogically delivered lessons.

Keywords

dialogic teaching, socio-scientific issues, GMOs, science

Project Number

yok

References

• Akış, A. (2012). Otoriter ve diyalojik öğretmenlerin öğretmen-öğrenci rollerine dair beklenti ve inançları. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep.
• Aleaxander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.
• Almahrouqi, A. & Scott, P. (2012). Classroom discourse and science learning. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research & practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 291-307). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense publishers.
• Billings, L. & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia Seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907–941. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039004905
• Bryce, T. & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological Progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717–733. https://doi. org/10.1080/0950069032000138833
• Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1315–1346.
• Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K.P.E., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J.W. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one firstgrade classroom. In: D. Kirschner & J. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition theory: Social, semiotic, and neurological perspectives (pp. 151-233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Corden, R. (2009). Literacy and learning through talk. Open University Press.
• Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-students relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113-143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563.
• Çepni, S., (2007). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
• Game, A. & Metcalfe, A. (2009). Dialogue and team teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 45-57. Hajhosseiny, M. (2012). The effect of dialogic teaching on students' critical thinking disposition. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1358 – 1368.
• Han Tosunoğlu, Ç. & İrez, S. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimi için pedagojik bir model. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi/Journal of Higher Education and Science, 9(3), 384-401. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2019.340.
• Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education - a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10763-010-9273-9.
• Ingram, J. & Elliott, V. (2014). Turn taking and ‘wait time’ in classroom interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.002
• Kanadlı, S. (2012). Öğretmenlere yönelik hazırlanan bir mesleki gelişim programının etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep.
• Karahan, E. (2021). Sosyobilimsel konularda öğrenci failliği. A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu ve D. Karışan, D. (Ed.), Sosyobilimsel Konular içinde (1.baskı s. 31-48). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık.
• Kılınç, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21385.
• Kutnick, P. & Colwell, J. (2010). Dialogue enhancement in classrooms. Towards a relations approach for group working. K. Littleton, C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 192-215). London: Routledge.
• Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajic, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079–2113.
• Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Canadian Journal of Science. Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150409556619
• Levinson, R., Douglas, A., Evans, J. E., Kirton, A., Koulouris, P., Turner, S., & Finegold, P. (2001). Valuable lessons: engaging with the social context of science in schools [report]. Wellcome Trust, London.
• Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students' experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09500690500339621.
• Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. UK: Routledge, London.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). CA: Sage, Thousand Oak.
• Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press, Maidenhead/Philadelphia.
• Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue. Understanding the Dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, London: Teachers College Press.
• Nystrand, M., Wu, L.L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating in the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-198.
• Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. London, UK: Nuffield Foundation.
• Özmantar, M.F., Bingölbali, E., Demir, S., Sağlam, Y. ve Keser, Z. (2009). Değişen öğretim programları ve sınıf içi normlar. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2). http://www.insanbilimleri.com
• Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
• Ratcliffe, M. & Millar, R. (2009). Teaching for understanding of science in context: Evidence from the pilot trials of the "twenty first century science" courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 945– 959. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20340.
• Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (Eds.) (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Reznitskaya, A. & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Pschologist, 48 (2), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
• Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues-based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 355–369). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159- 4_20.
• Saunders, K.J. & Rennie, L.J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253-274. DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9248-z.
• 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.
• Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88 (324), 77–83.
• Scott, P., Ametller, J., Mortimer, E., & Emberton, J. (2010). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge. In K. Littleton, & Ch Howe (Eds.). Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp.289-303). London, New York: Routledge.
• Smith, H. & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: the importance of feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485–502.
• Smit, K., de Brabander, C.J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environment in pre-vocational secondary education: Psychological needs and motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(6), 695-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821090
• Tidemand, S. & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09500693.2016.1264644.
• Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179-190.
• Ulu, H. (2017). Dördüncü sınıf fen ve teknoloji derslerinin diyalojik öğretim açısından analizi üzerine bir araştırma. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(4), 608-626.
• Uçak, E. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde kullandıkları iletişimsel yaklaşım türleri. Doktora Tezi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
• 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1071398
• 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, 159–190.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6.Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yıldırım, L., Uçak, E. ve Savran-Gencer, A. (2021). Fen derslerinde sınıf içi konuşmalar üzerine sistematik bir derleme. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(3), 1148-1172.
• Yılmaz. Ş. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin soru üretme hakkındaki muhakemeleri ve inanç sistemleri. Doktora tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1002 /tea.20281.