Video Aracılı, Ulusötesi ve İşbirlikli Görev Tasarımı Toplantılarında Hem-Zıt Fikir Olma Süreçlerinde Öğretmen Eğitmeni Geri Bildiriminin Rolü

Öz

Bu araştırma, farklı öğretmen eğitmenlerinden çok modlu geri bildirimler alarak karşılıklı pedagojik kararlara vardıktan sonra sanal değişim görevleri tasarlamakla görevli ulusötesi hizmet öncesi öğretmen (HÖÖ) grupları (Avusturya, İspanya ve Türkiye'den) arasındaki hem-zıt fikir olma uygulamalarını incelemektedir. HÖÖ’ler belirli tasarım kriterlerine dayanarak, önceden belirlenmiş bir konu üzerinde bir sanal değişim görevi tasarlamak için video aracılığıyla toplantılar düzenlediler ve ardından geri bildirim almak için görevlerini öğretmen eğitmenleriyle paylaştılar. Geri bildirim aşaması, öğretmen eğitmenlerinin video aracılığıyla veya yazılı geri bildirim olarak çeşitli geri bildirim verme tercihlerini içeren çok modlu bir süreç olarak ortaya çıktı. Geri bildirim aşamasından sonra, HÖÖ’ler çeşitli geri bildirim kaynaklarından yararlanarak görev tasarımlarını sonlandırmak için ulusötesi gruplarında iki tasarım toplantısı daha düzenlediler. Çok Modlu Konuşma Analizi kullanılarak, HÖÖ’lerin video aracılığıyla toplantılarının ekran kayıtları, öğretmen eğitmenlerinin geri bildirimlerine hem-zıt fikir olma durumunu göstermek ve nihai görev tasarımları hakkında kararlar almak için kullandıkları yolları ortaya çıkarmak amacıyla analiz edildi. Bulgular, öğretmen geri bildiriminin, hem-zıt fikir olma uygulamalarını yönlendirmede merkezi bir rol oynadığını, öğretmen adayları arasında zenginleştirilmiş görev tasarımı tartışmalarına yol açtığını, öğretmen adaylarının çeşitli kaynaklardan gelen geri bildirimleri dinamik bir şekilde nasıl entegre ettiğini ve işbirlikçi-yapılandırıcı pedagojik karar alma süreçlerine katılırken bunu epistemik bir otorite olarak nasıl kullandığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çok modlu konuşma analizi
• video aracılı etkileşim
• hemfikir olma
• zıt fikir olma
• geri bildirim
• teknoloji aracılı GDDE (göreve dayalı dil eğitimi)

Teacher Educator Feedback as a Source of (Dis)Agreement in Video-Mediated, Transnational, and Collaborative Task Design Meetings

Öz

This research investigates the (dis)agreement practices among transnational groups of pre-service teachers (PSTs) (from Austria, Spain, and Türkiye) involved in designing virtual exchange tasks after receiving multimodal feedback from different teacher educators to reach mutual pedagogical decisions. Based on specific design criteria, they engaged in video-mediated meetings to collaboratively design one virtual exchange task on a pre-assigned topic and then shared their tasks with the teacher educators to receive feedback. The feedback stage unfolded as a multimodal process involving teacher educators’ diverse feedback delivery preferences as video-mediated or written feedback. After the feedback stage, the PSTs held two more design meetings in their transnational groups to finalize their task design by drawing on diverse feedback sources. Using Multimodal Conversation Analysis, the screen recordings of PSTs’ video-mediated meetings have been analyzed to uncover the ways they use the feedback of their teacher educators to display (dis)agreement and make decisions on the final task designs. The findings reveal that teacher feedback plays a central role in guiding agreement and disagreement practices, leading to enriched task design discussions among PSTs and demonstrating how PSTs dynamically integrate feedback from diverse sources and leverage it as epistemic authority while engaging in co-constructive pedagogical decision-making.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• multimodal conversation analysis
• video-mediated interaction
• agreeing
• disagreeing
• feedback
• technology-mediated TBLT
• virtual exchange.

Kaynakça

1. Badem-Korkmaz, F., Ekin, S., & Balaman, U. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ resistance to teacher educator advice on task design for video-mediated L2 interaction. Classroom Discourse, 13(2), 212-230.
2. Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. Cambridge University Press.
3. Balaman, U. (2019). Sequential organization of hinting in online task-oriented L2 interaction. Text and Talk, 39(4), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2038
4. Balaman, U. (2023). Conversation analytic language teacher education in digital spaces. Springer Nature.
5. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University
7. Press.Butarbutar, R. (2021). Learner’s perception of task difficulties in technology-mediated task-based language teaching. English Journal of Language Education and Humanities, 9(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v9i1.10079
8. Chen, T., & Lin, C. (2018). Enhancing l2 english learning through mobile-assisted tblt: efl learners’ perspectives. The Journal of Asiatefl, 15(2), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.13.453

9. Çiftçi, E. Y., & Savaş, P. (2017). The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: a synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30(3), 278-298. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344017000313
10. Dooly, M., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). Researching online foreign language interaction and exchange: Theories, methods and challenges. Peter Lang.
11. Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning, 169-183.
12. Dooly, M., & O’Dowd, R. (2018). In this together: Teachers’ experiences with transnational, telecollaborative language learning projects. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 181-200
13. Ekin, S., Balaman, U., & Badem-Korkmaz, F. (2021). Tracking Telecollaborative Tasks through Design, Feedback, Implementation, and Reflection Processes in Pre-service Language Teacher Education. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0147
14. Ekin, S. (2023). Video-mediated lesson planning conversations of pre-service language teachers in a transnational virtual exchange project [PhD Thesis]. Hacettepe University.
15. Evans, L., Morgan, K., & Tsatsaroni, A. (2010). Discourse and collaborative action in the analysis of classroom pedagogic practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 439-447.
16. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
17. González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 86–104.
18. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In Marta González-Lloret & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL 18(1). 105–121.
20. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
21. Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123-162). Irvington.
22. Hofer, M., & Kaufmann, G. (2022). Collaborative decision-making in teacher education: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112.
23. Ismailov, M. (2021). Conceptualizing an inquiry-based lingua-cultural learning through telecollaborative exchanges. F1000Research, 10, 677.
24. Jaramillo, N. (2021). Leveraging asynchronous speaking tasks to promote willingness and confidence to speak in Spanish: a qualitative study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6657
25. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis, studies form first generation (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
26. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. Routledge.
27. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 281–314). University of Hawai’i Press.
28. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.
29. Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2017). Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search of new criteria. System, 64. 7–20.
30. Loranc-Paszylk, B., Hilliker, S., & Lenkaitis, C. (2021). Virtual exchanges in language teacher education: facilitating reflection on teaching practice through the use of video. Tesol Journal, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.580
31. Luyet, V., Hugentobler, V., & Wirthner, M. (2012). The use of feedback in pre-service teacher education: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 1106-1115.
32. Machwate, S., Bendaoud, R., Henze, J., Berrada, K., & Burgos, D. (2021). Virtual exchange to develop cultural, language, and digital competencies. Sustainability, 13(11), 5926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115926
33. Martin, S., & Valdivia, P. (2017). Enhancing collaborative decision-making in teacher education through technology integration. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3), 112-125.
34. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403-426.
35. Mäkipää, T., & Hildén, R. (2021). What kind of feedback is perceived as encouraging by Finnish general upper secondary school students?. Education Sciences, 11(1), 12.
36. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
38. Meskill, C. Ed. (2013). Online Teaching and Learning. Sociocultural Perspectives. Bloomsbury: London.
39. Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177
40. Müller-Hartmann, A. (2016, April). A task is a task is a task is a task… or is it? Researching telecollaborative teacher competence development–the need for more qualitative research. In New directions in telecollaborative research and practice: selected papers from the second conference on telecollaboration in higher education (pp. 31-43). Research-publishing. net.
41. Nazarloo, S., & Yaghoubi-Notash, M. (2018). The impact of collaborative decision-making on teacher professional development: A case study analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 112-125.
42. Odo, M., D. (2023). Perceptions of preservice English teachers regarding peer reaction video feedback on their microteaching. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231210652
43. O’Dowd, R. (2015). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 194-207.
44. O’Dowd, R., Sauro, S., & Spector‐Cohen, E. (2019). The role of pedagogical mentoring in virtual exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 146-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.543
45. O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative language learning: A resource book on foreign language learning. Peter Lang.
46. Pinter, A. (2019). Agency and technology-mediated task repetition with young learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00010.pin
47. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.
48. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. language, 50(4), 696-735.
49. Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 271-302). John Benjamins.Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
50. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
51. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
52. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444805003010
53. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
54. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
55. Turan, P. (2023). Between teacher candidates’ reflection and teacher educators’ evaluation: fluctuations in epistemic (a)symmetry in feedback conversations. Modern Language Journal, 107(4), 1011-1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12886
56. Van den Branden, K. (2009). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher in task‐based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 264–285.
57. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244-276.
58. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
59. Waring, H.Z. (2017). Going general as a resource for doing advising in post-observation conferences in teacher training. Journal of Pragmatics, 110. 20–33.
60. Windsor, S., Kriewaldt, J., Nash, M., Lilja, A., & Thornton, J. (2020). Developing teachers: adopting observation tools that suspend judgement to stimulate evidence-informed dialogue during the teaching practicum to enrich teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 48(4), 642-656. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1712452
61. Yigitoglu, N. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the efficacy of different types of feedback on micro-teaching activities. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 14(2), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.752214
62. Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: technology-mediated tblt, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136-163. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190516000039