An Interactional Resource for Creating Opportunities for Student Participation: Designedly Incomplete Utterances

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 45 Sayı: 45, 376 - 396, 03.01.2019

Nergiz Kardaş İşler , Ali Ekber Şahin , Ufuk Balaman

Öz

This study examines social studies course classroom interaction in a primary school and describes an interactional resource deployed by the teacher for creating opportunities for student participation. Social studies classrooms are multidisciplinary settings that require teaching of rich content, which is only possible through ensuring student participation. However, there is no study to our knowledge that documents such resources in social studies classrooms by focusing on the micro moments of classroom interaction. This study investigates 17 hours of social studies classroom interactions using Conversation Analysis as the research methodology and present findings on a specific interactional resource deployed repeatedly by the teacher for encouraging learner initiatives and creating opportunities for student participation. This resource has been referred to in previous literature as Designedly Incomplete Utterance (DIU) that is mainly used for creating opportunities for student participation by leaving an utterance designedly incomplete so that it can be completed by the students. Our study has shown how designedly incomplete utterance (DIU) is used as an interactional resource (i.e. as hints, for eliciting an extension or repetition of prior talk, and for prompting the continuation of an action) by the teacher, which provides evidence for that the teacher creates opportunities both for student initiations and student participation in an observable way. Our study contributes to the field of social studies education with the first research to examine social studies classroom interaction and also by presenting an innovative research methodology and providing the teachers and teacher candidates with a rich interactional resource to encourage, create opportunities for, and maintain student participation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social studies, classroom interaction, conversation analysis, designedly incomplete utterance, student participation

Öğrenci Katılımına Zemin Hazırlayan Etkileşimsel Bir Kaynak: Eksik Tasarlanmış Sözceler

Öz

Bu çalışma, ilkokul sosyal bilgiler
dersindeki sınıf içi etkileşimini inceleyerek, öğretmenlerin öğrenci katılımını
sağlama amacı ile kullandığı bir etkileşimsel kaynağı betimlemeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Sosyal bilgiler sınıfları multidisipliner eğitsel ortamlar
olup, zengin içeriklerin öğretiminin gerçekleştirilmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu
tür etkinliklerin gerçekleştirilmesi ise öğrenci katılımının sağlanması ile
doğrudan alakalıdır. Ancak bu konuda sosyal bilgiler alanında herhangi bir
çalışma yapılmamış ve öğrenci katılımı, katılımın gerçekleşme anlarına
odaklanmayan çalışmalarla anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmamız, ilkokul sosyal
bilgiler sınıf içi etkileşimini, Konuşma Çözümlemesi yöntemini kullanarak 17
saatlik bir veri bütüncesi içerisinde incelemiş ve öğretmenin, öğrenci
başlatımlarını teşvik etme ve öğrenci katılımına zemin hazırlama amacıyla,
tekrarlı olarak bir etkileşimsel kaynağa başvurduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu
etkileşimsel kaynak, Eksik Tasarlanmış Sözce (ETS) olarak alanyazında da yer
almış ve öğretmenin sözceleri eksik tasarlayarak, öğrencilerin tamamlamasına
olanak sağladığı ve böylece öğrenci katılımına zemin hazırladığı tespit
edilmiştir. Çalışmamız, sosyal bilgiler alanına, yöntemsel bir yenilik
getirmekte, alandaki sınıf içi etkileşim çalışması eksiğini gidermekte ve
öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarına, öğrenci katılımını sağlamak üzere zengin bir
etkileşimsel kaynak örneği sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal bilgiler, sınıf içi etkileşim, konuşma çözümlemesi, eksik tasarlanmış sözce, öğrenci katılımı

Kaynakça

• Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: the case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 353-366.
• Badem, F. (2018). Interactional resources for restoring understanding of teachers' instructions in an EFL classroom. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
• Balaman, U. (2018). Embodied resources in a repetition activity in a preschool L2 classroom. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(1), 27-51.
• Bozbıyık, M. (2017). The implementation of veo in an English language education context: A focus on teacher questioning practices. Unpublished master thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse. 6(1), 33-56.
• Daşkın, N. C. (2017). A conversation analytic investigation into L2 classroom interaction and informal formative assessment. ELT Research Journal, 6(1), 4-24.
• Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Duran, D. (2017). Student-initiated questions in English as a medium of instruction classrooms in a Turkish higher education setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Evertson, C. M. (1994). Classroom management for elementary teachers. Allyn & Bacon, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 160 Gould Street, Needham Heights, MA 02194.
• Fagan, D. S. (2012). On language teachers’ classroom practices: Bridging conversation analysis with language teacher education research. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 35-37.
• Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29-45.
• Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.
• Ingram, J., Briggs, M., & Johnston-Wilder, P. (2011). Turn-taking in the mathematics classroom. In Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 1325-1334.
• Jacknick, M. C. (2011). “But this is writing”: Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas- ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language),5(1), 39-54.
• 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.
• Kardaş İşler, N. (2018). İlkokul sosyal bilgiler dersinde öğrenci başlatımları ve öğrenme fırsatları: Konuşma çözümlemesi yaklaşımı. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Kaya, G. (2017). Teacher talk and learner contributions in inquiry based science education: A conversation analytic examination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on language and social interaction, 35(3), 277-309.
• Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in society, 1(1), 97-120.
• Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19(1), 111-131.
• Margutti, P. (2010). On designedly incomplete utterances: What counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315-345.
• Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28(5), 436-458.
• Mchoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: a case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88(4), 536–550.
• Netz, H. (2016). Designedly incomplete utterances and student participation. Linguistics and education, 33, 56-73.
• Newman, F. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Paoletti, I., & Fele, G. (2004). Order and disorder in the classroom. Pragmatics 14, 1(30), 69-85.
• Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication education, 59(2), 185-213.Rodriguez, J. B., & Wilstermann, I. M. (2018). Learner initiative in the Spanish as a foreign language classroom: Implications for the interactional development. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 113-133.
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4). 696-735.
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden: Blackwell.
• Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Sert, O. (2016). Sınıf içi etkileşim ve yabancı dil öğretmeni yetiştirme. İçinde S. Akcan ve Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Türkiye’deki yabancı dil eğitimi üzerine görüş ve düşünceler (ss. 14-30). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
• Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70, 14-25.
• Sert, O., Balaman, U., Can Daşkın, N., Büyükgüzel, S., & Ergül, H. (2015). Konuşma çözümlemesi yöntemi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi 12(2), 1-43.
• Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542-565.
• Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27(2), 4–13.
• Skovholt, K. (2018). Anatomy of a teacher–student feedback encounter. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 142-153.
• Sumruk, H. (2018). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretiminde kelime öğretiminde etkileşimin konuşma çözümlemesi yöntemiyle incelenmesi: A2 örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1759-1785.
• Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Abingdon, Oxon New York: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577-594.
• Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201-218.
• Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. New York: Routeldge.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.
• Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2011). Pursuing a question: Reinitiating IRE sequences as a method of instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 475-488.