Scaffolding in Improving Students’ Thinking Skills: A Case Study of the Analysis of a Teacher’s Verbal Expressions

Abstract

Purpose. The focus of the study is to investigate a teachers' verbal expressions and questions which were asked in the classroom in terms of providing scaffolding to improve thinking skills. In line with this general aim, the study seeks answers to the following questions: (1) How can the verbal expressions of the teacher be evaluated in terms of providing scaffolding to improve thinking skills? (2) How can the teacher's questions be evaluated in terms of providing scaffolding to improve thinking skills? Method. A primary school 5th grade teacher was selected voluntarily as the “case”. The teacher works in a state school located in Seyhan, Adana. There were 48 students in the class. The teacher is 41 years old and has been teaching for 16 years. The data were gathered through participant observation. One of the researchers had observed the teacher for fourteen hours in various courses. The observation was recorded by using camera and taking notes. The verbal expressions were analyzed by using content analysis and questions were analyzed by using descriptive analysis method. Besides, to ensure the validity of the research, the following issues were taken into consideration: - Thinking that it was sufficient for data collection, observation was ended once data duplication started during the data collection process. - To enhance the internal validity, the data were presented so that others can see the evidence of the way the results and the implications were obtained. - After granting the participants' permission, we used tape recording to prevent data loss. - Excerpts representing the category were chosen and mentioned in findings section. To ensure the reliability of the assessing questioning and verbal expressions, the data were analyzed by two independent experts. Findings. As a result of the content analysis for the verbal expression, two general categories consisting of positive and negative effects were described. In terms of providing scaffolding to improve thinking skills, the followings were under the influence of positive effect : - presenting information category which includes giving information, responding, reminding and memorizing is 38.93%. - comprehending knowledge which includes giving examples, summarizing, telling similarities and differences, paraphrasing, and classification codes is 29.52 %. - using information which includes exercising, imagining and guessing codes is 5.57% - metacognitive category which includes directing, correcting, getting attention, confirming, feedback, thanking and clue codes is 26.18 %. In terms of providing scaffolding to improve students' thinking skills, it was observed that the teacher's codes under negative influence are : asking them to be quick (29.31 %), accusing (24.14 %), warning (18.97 %), commanding (17.24 %), complaining (5.17 %), misinforming (3.45 %) and correcting mistakes (1.72 %). As a result of the descriptive analysis for second research questions regarding questions asked in the classroom, it was observed that proportions for the teacher's “cognitive memory” questions are 22.9 %, “convergent” questions are 56.3 %, “divergent” questions are 10.4 %, and “evaluative” questions are 10.4 %. Conclusion and discussion. In line with the first research question of the study, verbal expressions were found to be inefficient in providing scaffolding to improve students' thinking skills. It can be said that especially in terms of psychological safety and psychological freedoom, it is highly probable for these codes to have a negative effect on the environment in which thinking occurs. In line with the second research question, it can be said that the teacher's questions are inefficient in providing scaffolding to improve students' higher level thinking skills. In the light of these findings, when the verbal expressions and questions of the teacher are considered together, it was observed that the majority of verbal expressions constitute presentation of knowledge and the majority of questions asked by the teacher aim at comprehension of the information. Thinking requires students to interact with the raw information, process and construct it for different purposes by using various skills. The role of the teacher in this process should be to provide scaffolding to the learners. This scaffolding should be provided according to the amount each learner needs and in the shape of self-learning by thinking rather than equal, standardized support among learners (Masters ve Yelland, 2002; Davis ve Miyake, 2004; Lajoie, 2005). Results suggests that there is a need to obtain findings about scaffolding for thinking skills from a wider group of participants in classrooms through more complicated researches where qualitative and quantitative methods are used together. In both pre-service and in-service education, teachers need to receive training in how to improve students' thinking skills.

Keywords

• thinking skills , scaffolding , teacher’s verbal expressions , teacher’s questioning

Öğrencilerin Düşünme Becerilerinin Geliştirilmesinde Rehberli Yardım: Bir Öğretmenin Sözel İfadelerinin Analizine İlişkin Durum Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın genel amacı, öğretmenin sınıfta kullandığı sözel ifadeler ve sorduğu sorularla öğrencilerin düşünme becerilerini geliştirmelerine rehberli öğrenme desteği sağlayıp sağlamadığının incelenmesidir. Araştırmada, nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması kullanılmış ve durum olarak bir sınıf öğretmeni gözlenmiştir. Öğretmenin kullandığı sözel ifadelerlerden elde edilen bulgulara göre, öğrencilere düşünme becerilerini geliştirme konusunda rehberli öğrenme desteği sağlamada pozitif ve negatif etki olmak üzere iki genel kategori elde edilmiştir. Bu kategorilerin altında yer alan alt kategori ve kodların da tam anlamıyla öğrencilerin düşünme becerilerini geliştirmelerine rehberli öğrenme desteği sağlamada yetersiz olduğu bulunmuştur. Düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde rehberli öğrenme desteği sağlamada gözlenen öğretmenin sorduğu soruların analizi sonucunda ise alt düzey soruların % 78.2, üst düzey sorularınsa % 20.8 olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak, öğretmenin sınıfta sorduğu sorularla diğer sözel ifadelerin öğrencilere düşünme becerilerinin gelişimine rehberli öğrenme desteği sağlamada yeterli olmadığı bulunmuştur. Bu nedenle, öğretmenlerin hem hizmet öncesi hem de hizmet içi eğitimlerinde öğrencilere düşünme becerilerinin kazandırılması konusunda eğitilmeleri gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• düşünme becerileri , rehberli öğrenme desteği , öğretmenin sözel ifadeleri , öğretmenin sorduğu sorular

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, T. (1999). İlköğretim okullarında görevli öğretmenlerin derslerdeki soru sorma etkinliklerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
2. Astington, J. W. & Olson, D. R. (1990). Metacognetive and metalinguistic language: Learning to tolk about thought. Apllied Psychology: An International Review. 39 (1), 77-87
3. Azevedo, R. & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.
4. Barth, J. L. & Demirtaş, A., (1997), İlköğretim sosyal bilgiler öğretimi kaynak üniteler. Ankara: YÖK Dünya Bankası, Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi, Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi, 9.1-9.14.
5. Baysen, E. (2006). Öğretmenlerin sınıfta sordukları sorular ile öğrencilerin bu sorulara verdikleri cevapların düzeyleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, Mart 2006, 14(1), 21-28.
6. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative research for education, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research In Scıence Teachıng, 44(6), 815–843.
8. Costa, A. L. (2001). Teacher behaviors that enable student thinking. In A.L Costa (Ed), Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking (359-369), (3rd Ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

9. Costa, & Marzano (2001). Teaching the language of thinking. In A.L Costa (Ed), Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking (379-383), (3rd Ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10. Costa, A. (2008). The school as a home for the mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11. Cunningham, R.T. (1971). Developing question-asking skills. In J. Wiegand (Ed.), Developing teacher competencies, (81-130). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
12. Davis, E. A. & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.
13. Doğanay, A. (2006). Etkin vatandaşlık için düşünme becerilerinin öğretimi. İçinde: C. Öztürk (Ed), Hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler öğretimi: yapılandırmacı bir yaklaşım (179-218). Ankara: PagemA Yayıncılık.
14. Doğanay, A. & Ünal, F. (2006). Eleştirel düşünmenin öğretimi. İçinde: A. Şimşek (Ed), İçerik türlerine dayalı öğretim (207-264). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
15. Doğanay, A. (2007). Üst düzey düşünme becerilerinin öğretimi. İçinde: A.Doğanay (Ed), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri, (279-331). Ankara: Pagema Yayıncılık.
16. Fisher, R. (1995). Teaching children to think. (3th ed.). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Stanley Thornes.
17. Hougham, P. (1992). Improving student teachers’ strategies for asking a range of both high and low level questions through video evaluation. Ed. D. Practicum, Nova University.
18. Gaskins, I.W., Rauch, S., Gensemer, E., Cunicelli, E., O'Hara, C., Six, L., & diğ. (1997). Scaffolding the development of intelligence among children who are delayed in learning to read. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues (43-73). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
19. İnan, C. & Özgen, K. (2008). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulaması sürecinde öğrencilere düşünme becerilerini kazandırmadaki yeterliliklerine yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(25), 39-54.
20. Kaste, J. A. (2004). Scaffolding through cases: diverse constructivist teaching in the literacy methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 31-45.
21. Koray, Cansüngü Ö. & Yaman, S. (2002) Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin soru sorma becerilerinin bloom taksonomisine göre değerlendirilmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 10(2), 317-324.
22. Lajoie, S.P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor . Instructional Science, 33, 541-557.
23. Lefrançois, G.R. (2000). Psychology for teaching. (10th ed.). United States of America: Wadsworth.
24. Marzano, R.J.; Brandt, R.S.; Hughes, C.S.; Jones, B.F.; Rankin, S.C. & Suhor, C.C. (1995). Düşünmenin boyutları: program ve öğretim için bir model. Çev. Doğanay, A. Kara, Z. . Ç.Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(11), 25-38.
25. Masters, J. & Yelland, N. (2002). Teacher scaffolding: an exploration of exemplary practice. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 313-321.
26. Mentis, M. & Dunn-Bernstein, M. (2007) Mediated learning: Teaching, tasks, and tools to unlock cognitive potential. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, A Sage Publications Company.
27. Myhill, D. (2006) Talk, talk, talk: teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19-41.
28. Oral, B. (2000). Öğretmen adaylarının algılarına göre ilköğretim sınıf öğretmenlerinin dönüt ve düzeltme davranışları. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 2, 9-64.
29. Özden, Y. (2002). Öğrenme ve öğretme. (5. baskı), Ankara: PagemA Yayıncılık.
30. Özgür, N. (2007). Teachers’ questions: do they encourage critical thinking. Unpublished master’s thesis, Anadolu Unıversıty. The Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir.
31. Perkins, D. (2001). The social side of thinking. In A.L Costa (Ed), Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking (158-163), (3rdEd). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32. Ritchhart, R. (2007). Cultivating a culture of thinking in museums. Journal of Museums Education, 32(2), 137-153.
33. Roehler, L.R., & Cantlon, D.J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (6-42). Cambridge, MA: Brookline..
34. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35. Rojas-Drummond, S. & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99-111.
36. Saban, A. (2004). Öğretme ve öğrenme süreci: yeni teori ve yaklaşımlar. (3. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
37. Saban, A. (2008). Okula ilişkin metaforlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi,55, 459-496.
38. Tishman, S., Perkins, D.N. & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. Neeham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
39. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (5. baskı) Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
40. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. (Ed. by M. Cole, V.John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
41. Vygotsky, L.S. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R.Van der Veer & J.Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
42. Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn: the social context of cognitive development. (2nd ed). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell
43. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.