Okul Öncesi Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf İçi Etkileşim Örüntülerinin İncelenmesi: Sınıf Söylemi Analizi Yaklaşımı

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 111 - 127, 16.12.2020

Serenay Başalev , Yilmaz Soysal

https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.816264

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışma iki okul öncesi öğretmeninin sınıf içi öğretimlerinde ortaya çıkan etkileşim örüntülerinin incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Etkileşim örüntüleri üçlü bir diyalog yapısı ile gözlemlenebilir. Öğretmen bir soru ile diyaloğu başlatır, öğrenciden öğretmen sorusuna cevap sağlanır ve öğretmen verilen cevabın doğru/makul olup olmadığına karar verebilir, ya da cevabı genişleten/değiştiren ek açıklamalar yapabilir ya da cevapla ilgili başka bir soru sorabilir. Durum çalışması olarak tasarlanan bu araştırmanın katılımcılarını iki okul öncesi öğretmeni ve 52 okul öncesi öğrencisidir. Çalışmanın veri setini sınıf içi uygulamaların video kayıtları (n = 17, 302 dakika) oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmenler, araştırmacılar tarafından tasarlanan ve sınıf içi diyaloglara imkân sağlayan hikayeleştirilmiş ikilemleri öğrencileri ile tartışmışlardır. Öğretmenlerin söylemleri sosyokültürel söylem analizinin bir kolu olan sistematik gözlem yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Sistematik gözlemlerde analiz birimi öğretmenlerin cümleleridir. Her bir öğretmen cümlesi hem teori hem de veri temelli olarak bu çalışma kapsamında geliştirilen Üçlü Etkileşim Örüntüsü Kodlama Kataloğu aracılığı ile kodlanmıştır. Öğretmenlerin üç farklı tipte etkileşim örüntüsünü farklı frekanslarla sergilediği görülmüştür: Başlat-Cevapla-Değerlendir (BCD), Başlat-Cevapla-Açıkla (BCA) ve Başlat-Cevapla-Takip Sorusu (BCT). Öğretmenlerin sıklıkla takip sorularını kullandığı (BCT) ve aynı zamanda sınıf söyleminde olgu ve durumları açıklayıcı (BCA) ya da öğrenci ifadelerini değerlendirici (BCD) söylemler sergilediği de belirlenmiştir. Ek olarak, öğretmenlerin diyaloglar esnasında hangi tür konuşma ikilisini; T-S (öğretmen-öğrenci) ve/veya S-S (öğrenci-öğrenci), tercih ettiği belirlenmiştir. Her iki öğretmenin de sınıf söylemine yoğun müdahalelerinin olduğu ve öğrenci – öğrenci arasında yaşanan diyalogların kısıtlı olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda öğretmenlerin sınıf içi konuşmalarında oluşan ve entelektüel çıktıları etkileyebilen etkileşim örüntülerine yönelik bilinçli pedagojik-söylemsel farkındalığının geliştirilmesi için çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Etkileşim örüntüsü, Okul öncesi eğitimi, Sistematik gözlem, Söylem analizi

Investigating Preschool Teachers’ In-Class Patterns of Interactions: Classroom Discourse Analysis Approach

Öz

The current study purposed to examine the patterns of interactions of two preschool teachers emerged during their in-class teaching. Patterns of interactions can be observed by virtue of a triadic dialogue structure. The teacher opens up the dialoguing through a question, then a response is provided by a student, and then the teacher may determine whether the provided responses is correct/credible, or the teacher makes explications that may elaborate/modify the received response, or the teacher may pose another question pertaining to the provided response. The participants of this study, which was designed as a case study (naturalistic inquiry), were two preschool teachers and 52 pupils. The data set of the present study included video-based records of the in-class implementations (n = 17, 302 minutes). The teachers negotiated the narrated dilemmas created by the researchers with their students that enabled unfolding classroom dialogues. Teachers’ discourses (e.g., articulations, externalisations) were analysed through the systematic observation approach that is a branch of sociocultural discourse analysis. In systematic observations, the unit of analysis was the analytical utterances (sentences) of the teachers. Each teacher-led verbalisation was coded through the Triadic Pattern of Interaction Coding Catalogue that was developed within the frame of the current study by a both data-driven theory-laden manner. It was detected that the teachers displayed three different typologies of the pattern of interaction with different frequencies: Initiate-Response-Evaluate (IRE); Initiate-Response-Explicate (IREx); Initiate-Response-Follow-up questioning (IRF). It was revealed that the IRF triadic was mostly enacted by the teachers in addition to the IREx triadic that was staged in order to explicate/elicit the cases and phenomena under consideration and the IRE triadic that was displayed for assessing the student-led utterances. Furthermore, it was detected that which typologies of the talk dyads, e.g., T-S (teacher-student) and/or S-S (student-student), were preferred by the teachers. It was observed that the teachers had intensified interventions in the classroom talks and that the dialogues between student-student were substantially restricted. In line with the deduced findings, suggestions were offered to develop the conscious pedagogical-discursive noticing pertaining to the pattern of interaction occurring in the teachers’ classroom conversations and may influence the intellectual attainments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Discourse analysis, Pattern of interaction, Preschool education, Systematic observation

Kaynakça

• Burla, L., Knierim, B., Barth, J., Liewald, K., Duetz, M., & Abel, T. (2008). From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing Research, 57(2), 113-117.
• Buty, C., & Mortimer, E.F. (2008). Dialogic/authoritative discourse and modeling in a high school teaching sequence on optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635-1660.
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
• 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.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
• Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.
• Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The Importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117-27.
• Degotardi, S., & Han, F. (2020). Quality of educator-infant conversational interactions among infants experiencing varying quantity of linguistic input. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(5), 743–757.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (Vol. 2). Sage.
• Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Methuen.
• Frejd, J. (2019). When children do science: Collaborative interactions in preschoolers’ discussions about animal diversity. Research in Science Education, 1-22.
• Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded theory: Some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions. Working paper series, Report no. WP006/99, Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton. Erişim adresi: https://wlv.openrepository.com/handle/2436/11403
• Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391.
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
• Leach, J., & Scott, P. (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.
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.
• Mascareño, M., Deunk, M. I., Snow, C. E., & Bosker, R. J. (2017). Read-alouds in kindergarten classrooms: A moment-by-moment approach to analyzing teacher–child interactions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(1), 136-152.
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 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. (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: Jossey-Bass.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). Okul öncesi eğitim programı. Ankara.
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
• Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.
• Piaget, J. (2015). Çocuğun ahlaki yargısı. (Çev. İ. Dündar,). İstanbul: Pinhan. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 1932).
• Scott, P. (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.
• Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
• Soysal, Y. (2018a). Determining the mechanics of classroom discourse in vygotskian sense: Teacher discursive moves reconsidered. Research in Science Education, 1-25.
• Soysal, Y. (2018b). A review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of inquiry-based teaching. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1476-1495.
• Soysal, Y. (2019a). Investigating discursive functions and potential cognitive demands of teacher questioning in the science classroom. Learning: Research and Practice, 1-28.
• Soysal, Y. (2019b). Fen öğretiminde öğretmenin söylemsel hamlelerinin öğrenenlerin akıl yürütme kalitelerine etkisi: Söylem analizi yaklaşımı. Research in Education, 7(3), 994-1032.
• Soysal, Y. (2019c). Indicators of productive classroom talk and supporting discourse moves: A systematic review for effective science teaching. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 114-137.
• Soysal, Y. (2019d). Meaning and formats of classroom discourse in the context of teacher discursive moves. Elementary Education Online, 18(2), 600-620.
• Soysal, Y. (2020a). Investigating the discursive interactions in the elementary science classroom. Elementary Education Online, 19(1), 1-17.
• Soysal, Y. (2020b). Establishing the norms of the Vygotskian teaching in the science classroom. Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 1838-1857.
• Soysal, Y., & Radmard, S. (2020). Research into teacher educators’ discursive moves: A Vygotskian perspective. Journal of Education, 200(1), 32-47.
• Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2019). Relationships between teacher discursive moves and middle school students’ cognitive contributions to science concepts. Research in Science Education, 1-43.
• Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Wells, G. (Ed.) (2001). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.