Diyalojik Söylem Öğrencinin Derse Aktif Katımını Arttırabilir mi?

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 1, 24 - 35, 28.02.2022

Yılmaz Sağlam Sedat Kanadlı

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.749894

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı diyalojik söylemi geliştirmeye yönelik olarak tasarlanan bir hizmet içi eğitim programının sınıf içi öğrenci aktif katılımına olan katkısını araştırmaktır. Bu çalışma bağlamında sınıf-içi aktif katılım; öğretmenin öğrenciye göre konuşma süresi, derste ortaya çıkan öğrenci farklı fikir sayısı, öğretmen tarafından sorulan bir soru başına cevap veren öğrenci sayısı ve öğretmen tarafından sorulan soruların öğrenci tarafından bireysel olarak yanıtlanma oranı olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmada öğretmen seçimi, verilerin toplanması ve analiz edilmesinde, tasarım tabanlı araştırma (DBR) metodu benimsenmiştir. Çalışmada toplamda on yedi öğretmen gönüllü olarak dört haftalık bir eğitim programına katılmıştır. Program, diyalojik ve otoriter söylemler ile ilgili teorik bilgiler ve bu söylemlerin uygulama örneklerinden oluşmuştur. Programın sonunda öğretmenler partnerleri ile birlikte çalışarak ders planları tasarlamışlar ve kendi sınıflarında bu planları uygulamışlardır. Tüm uygulamaların (eğitim öncesi ve sonrası sınıf içi uygulamaların) video kayıtları yapılmış ve bu kayıtlar akabinde yazılı hale getirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada diyalojik söylemi sınıflarında en iyi kullanan dört öğretmenin sınıf uygulamaları analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma verilerinin betimsel analizleri diyalojik söylemin, öğrencilerin konuşma süresinde, derse katılma oranlarında, yeni fikirler ortaya koymalarında ve öğrencilerin bireysel yanıtlama oranında genel olarak anlamlı bir artışa katkı sağladığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

diyalojik söylem, otoriter söylem, , aktif katılım

Destekleyen Kurum

TUBİTAK

Proje Numarası

113K693

Teşekkür

TUBİTAK'a katkılarından dolayı teşekkür ederiz.

Can Dialogic Discourse Enhance Student Active Participation?

Öz

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate contribution of a professional development program committed to providing quality
training to support dialogic talk to student active participation. Indicators of active participation, in the context of this study,
were the speaking duration of the teacher compared to student, the number of different ideas of the students emerging in the
classroom milieu, the number of students answering per question asked by the teacher, and the rate of students’ personal
answers for the questions asked by the teacher.
Design/Methodology/Approach: In recruiting teachers, gathering, and analyzing data, the educational design-based research
(DBR) method was adopted. A total of seventeen teachers volunteered and participated in a four-week course program. The
program involved theoretical and practical information about authoritative and dialogic talk. After the program had been
completed, the teachers worked in pairs, designed lesson plans, and implemented the plans in their classrooms. Teachers’ preand post-intervention practices were videotaped and then transcribed.
Findings: A total of four teachers being able to successfully implement the dialogical discourse in their classrooms were selected
for analysis and the findings are reported in the present study. The descriptive analysis showed that dialogical discourse
generally contributed a significant increase in student talk ratio, number of student responses, new ideas, and students’
personal responses.
Highlights: Dialogical discourse-based education has reduced the speaking time of teachers. It contributed to the emergence
of different ideas in the classroom. It increased students' active participation in the lesson and their individual response rates.

Anahtar Kelimeler

dialogic discourse, authoritative discourse, active participation

Proje Numarası

113K693

Kaynakça

• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J.(2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
• Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin.TX: University of Texas Press.
• Bakker A., van Eerde D. (2015). An Introduction to Design-Based Research with an Example From Statistics Education. In: Bikner-Ahsbahs A., Knipping C., & Presmeg N. (eds). Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht.
• Berakat, B., & Mohammadi, S.(2014). The contribution of the teachers’ use of dialogic discourse pattern to the improvement of the students’ speaking ability. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 353 – 362.
• Billett, S. (1998). Appropriation and ontogeny: identifying compatibility between cognitive and sociocultural contributions to adult learning and development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 17(1), 21-34.
• Demirbağ, M.(2017). Otoriter ve diyalojik söylem tiplerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argüman gelişimine etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 321-340.
• Gillies, R., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39,7–27.
• Hajhosseiny, M. (2012). The effect of dialogic teaching on students' critical thinking disposition. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1358 – 1368.
• Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133-153.
• Hiebert, J., R. Gallimore, H. Garneir, K. Bogard Givvin, H. Hollingsworth, J. Jacobs, et al. (2004). Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (NCES 2003 13 Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams.C.(2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-378.
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J.K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369.
• Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Journal, 25(1), 95-111.
• Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
• Mortimer, E.F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: an example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 67-82.
• Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In Leach, J., Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (Eds). Improving Science Education: the contribution of research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Mortimer, E. F. (2005, January 19). Dialogic and authoritative discourse: A constitutive tension of science classroom. <http://icar.cnrs.fr/ecole_thematique/analyse_video/documents/Dialogic_and_authoritative_discourse.pdf> (2020, May 24).
• Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Pratton, J., & Hales, L. W. (1986). The effects of active participation on student learning. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 210-215.
• Scott, P.(2008). Talking a way to understanding in scence classroom. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 17-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scott, P., 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. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wilson, S. M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H.(2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.