Sınıf İçi Konuşmaların Bir Analizi: Diyalojik mi Monolojik mi?

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 603 - 625, 01.05.2016

Seyit Ateş Yasin Döğmeci Esra Güray Feride Fulya Gürsoy

Öz

Öğrenmenin gerçekleşmesinde sınıfta kullanılan dilin karakteri oldukça önemlidir. Uluslararası literatürde diyalojik öğretimi konu edinen çok sayıda araştırmaya rastlanırken Türkiye’de sınırlı sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı öğretmenlerin sınıflarında nasıl bir dil kullandıklarını diyalojik öğretim açısından analiz etmek ve diyalojik öğretimi geliştirmeye yönelik öneriler geliştirmektir. Araştırma nitel yaklaşımla betimsel tarama modeline uygun olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında yer alan sınıflarda, öğrenme – öğretme sürecinde gerçekleşen konuşmaların diyalojik bir yapıya sahip olup olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Gönüllü olarak araştırmaya katılan sınıf öğretmenlerinin Türkçe ve Sosyal Bilgiler derslerindeki sınıf içi konuşmaları kayıt altına alınmış ve her bir kayıt Reznitskaya’nın 2012 belirlediği göstergeler dikkate alınarak analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda diyalojik öğretimin göstergeleri olan otorite, sorular, geri bildirim, üst-düzey tepkiler, açıklama ve işbirliği boyutlarında sınıf içi konuşmaların monolojik boyuta yakın olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Diyalojik konuşmaların gerçekleştirilebilmesi için öncelikle onun bir sınıfta olup olmadığının tespit edilmesi ve dikkate alınan göstergeler açısından geliştirmeye yönelik çalışmaların yapılması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

diyalojik öğretim, monolojik öğretim, sınıf içi konuşmalar

An Analysis of Speeches of Classroom Inside: Is It Dialogic or Monologic?

Öz

Language used in classroom inside has a profound impact on when learning occurs. Although there is increasing research related to dialogic learning in international scientific literature, the research on dialogic learning do not get much more attention in Turkey. This research aimed to analyze how teachers use the language on the inside of classroom in accordance with dialogic instruction and develop some suggestions for dialogic instruction. The present research used qualitative survey design. In the first phase of the research, it was decided which classrooms had dialogic speeches. The volunteer social studies teachers’ and elementary school classroom teachers’ speeches of classroom inside were recorded. Every record was analyzed according to the indicators determined by Reznitskaya 2012 . The findings showed that the some indicators of dialogic learning, including questions, feedback, high-level responses, explanation, and cooperation related to the speeches of classroom inside were close to monologic dimension. In order to develop dialogic speeches in classroom inside, it is required to be determined whether or not there are dialogic speeches classroom inside. And then it should be developed by giving attention to its indicators

Anahtar Kelimeler

dialogic instruction, monologic instruction, classroom inside speeches

Kaynakça

• Adler, M., Rougle, E., Kaiser, E., & Caughlan, S. (2003). Closing the gap between concept and practice: Toward more dialogic discussion in the language arts classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 312–322.
• Akış, A. (2012). Otoriter ve diyalojik öğretmenlerin öğretmen-öğrenci rollerine dair beklenti ve inançları. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Akoglu, G., Ergu, C. ve Duman, Y. (2014). Dialogic reading: Its effectiveness on receptive and expressive language of children in need of protection. Elementary Education Online, 13, 622-639.
• Akyol, H., Yıldırımi K., Ateş, S. ve Çetinkaya, Ç (2013). Anlamaya yönelik ne tür sorular soruyoruz? Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9, 41-56.
• Alvermann, D. E., O’Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D. R. (1990). What teachers do when they say they’re having discussions of content area reading assignments: A qualitative analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 297–322.
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (Vol. 8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
• Baykal, B. (2014). Fen ve Teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi iletişim ve etkileşimlerinin analizi: Diyalojik ve otoriter tartışmalar. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Niğde Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year-long classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 385–414.
• Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 907–941.
• Boyd, M.P., & Markarian, W.C. (2011) Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance, Language and Education, 25, 515-534.
• Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. 19.05.2016 tarihinde ERIC veri tabanından indirilmiştir.
• Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378-411.
• Cohrssen, C., Niklas, F., & Tayler, C. (2015). Is that what we do?’ Using a conversationanalytic approach to highlight the contribution of dialogic reading strategies to educator–child interactions during storybook reading in two early childhood settings. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0 (0), 1–22.
• Dağ, N. (baskıda). Yapılandırmacılık bağlamında sınıf içi iletişime ve sınıftaki birliktelik hâline ilişkin tespitler. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
• Doyle, B.G., & Bramwell, W. (2006) Promoting emergent literacy and social-emotional learning through dialogic reading. The Reading Teacher 59, 554–564.
• Fisher, A. T. (2011) Creating an articulate classroom: examining pre-service teachers’ experiences of talk. Language and Education, 25, 33-47.
• Fisher, R. (2005). Teacher-child interaction in the teaching of reading: a review of research perspectives over twenty-five years. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 15–27.
• Flynn, K. S. (2011). Developing children’s oral language skills through dialogic reading: Guidelines for implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 8-16.
• Gambrell, L. (1996). What research reveals about discussion. In L. Gambrell & J. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions Fostering engaged reading (pp. 25–38). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Gormley, S. & Ruhl, K. L. (2005) Dialogic shared storybook reading: An ınstructional technique for use with young students in ınclusive settings, Reading &Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21, 307-313.
• Gürsoy, F.F., Güray, E. ve Döğmeci, Y. (2016). Öğretmenim senin sorduğundan daha zorunu Sempozyumu’nda sözlü bildiri olarak sunulmuştur, (11-14 Mayıs, Muğla).
• Hargrave, A. C., & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool ki. XV. Uluslararası Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 75-90.
• Haworth, A. (1999) Bakhtin in the classroom: What constitutes a dialogic text? Some lessons from small group interaction, Language and Education, 13, 99-117.
• Howe, C. & Abedin, M. (2013) Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 325-356.
• Jones, D. (2007). Speaking, listening, planning and assessing: The teacher’s role in developing metacognitive awareness. Early Child Development and Care 177(6 & 7), 569-579.
• Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23,99–113.
• Lever, R., & Sénéchal, M. (2011). Discussing stories: How a dialogic reading intervention improves kindergarteners’ oral narrative construction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 1-24.
• Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Examination of the relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263– 290.
• Lonigan,C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two shared-reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 306-322.
• Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio-cultural approach. London: Routledge.
• Morgan, P.L., & Meier C.R. (2008). Dialogic reading’s potantial to improve children’s emergent literacy skills and behavior. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52, 11-16.
• Murphy, P.K., Soter, A.O., Wilkinson, I.A., Hennessey, M.N., & Alexander, J.F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764.
• Naomi L. Rahn, N.L., Coogle, C.G., & Storie, S. (2016). Preschool children’s use of thematic vocabulary during dialogic reading and activity-based ıntervention. The Journal of Special Education, 1–11
• National Board for Professional Teacher Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.
• Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and Dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35, 135–198.
• Opel, A., Ameer, S., & Aboud, F. E. (2009). The effect of preschool dialogic reading on vocabulary among rural Bangladeshi children. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 12-20.
• Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65, 446-456.
• Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., et al. (2009). Collaborative Reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 29–48.
• Rodrigez, I.S. (2013). The effects of trained teachers’ ıntegration of dialogic reading discourse on hispanic english language learners’ literacy skills in kindergarten. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
• Rogoski, B.N., Flores, E.P., Gauche, G., Freire, R., & de Souza, C.B.A. (2015).Comprehension after dialogic reading: effects of prompts, probes and differential reinforcement based on narrative functions. Revista Perspectivas, 6, 48-59.
• Rosenblatt, L.M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and Response. Theory into Practice, 21, 268-277.
• Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). Ther transactional theory of reading and writing. İn R.B. Ruddell, and N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoritical models and processes of reading (5th ed., p. 1363-1368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Sandora, C., Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students’ comprehension and interpretation of complex literature. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 177–212.
• Siebert, H. (1996). Dialogic teaching in a monologic culture. Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Milwaukee, March 29. 10.04.2016 tarihinde ERIC veri tabanından erişilmiştir.
• Sim, S., & Berthelsen, D. (2014). Shared book reading by parents with young children: evidence-based practice. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39, 50-55
• Skidmore, D. (2003). From pedagogical dialogue to dialogic pedagogy. Language and Education, 14, 283-296.
• Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 395–411.
• Soter, A., Wilkinson, I.A., Murphy, P.K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 372-391.
• Şimşek, Z. C. ve Erdoğan, I, N. (2015). Effects of the dialogic and traditional reading techniques on children’s language development. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 754 – 758.
• Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 3-28.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
• Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605895 UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.
• Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic reading: A shared picture book reading intervention for preschoolers. En A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer, On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (p. 177-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Zevenbergen, A.A.,Whitehurst, G.J., & Zevenbergen, J.A. (2003).Effects of a shared- reading intervention on the inclusion of evaluative devices in narratives of children from low-income families. Applied Developmental Psychology. 24, 1–15.