Mikro-Öğretim ve Uygulama Okulu Sınıf Ortamındaki Sınıf Söyleminin Karşılaştırmalı Bir İncelemesi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2, 111 - 127, 30.12.2022

Ali İlya

https://doi.org/10.53629/sakaefd.1140040

Öz

Sosyokültürel Kuramın doğuşu, bireyleri belli bir sosyal yapılanmanın üyeleri olarak ön plana çıkarmıştır. İlgili kuram, bireylerin en iyi diğerleriyle etkileşim içerisinde öğreneceklerini savunmuştur ve dil öğrenimi de bunun bir parçasıdır. Etkileşimin dil öğrenimindeki yerini, etkileşim içerisindeki konuşmanın doğasını ve çeşitli ortamlardaki konuşmaların özelliklerini irdeleyen araştırmalar yapılmıştır. Etkileşimin öğrenme sürecindeki öneminin kavranmasını takiben, öğretmenlerin dil kullanımı ve sınıftaki etkileşimi yönetme becerileri de ön plana çıkmıştır. Bu bağlamda öğretmenlerin sınıf içi söylemlerine yönelen çalışmalar ağırlıklı olarak ortaya konmuşsa da mikro-öğretim ortamlarıyla uygulama okullarındaki gerçek sınıf ortamındaki söylemi karşılaştırmalı olarak inceleyen çalışmaların sayısı kısıtlı kalmıştır. Açıklanan ihtiyaçtan doğan bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının uygulama okullarındaki gerçek sınıf ortamı ile mikro-öğretim bağlamı içerisindeki söylemini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Üç öğretmen adayının, iki farklı ortamdaki öğretim uygulamaları kaydedilmiş, sınıf-içi etkileşimlerin transkripsiyonu çıkarılmış ve detaylı bir çözümlemesi yapılmıştır. Ayrıca bir öğretmen adayıyla video temelli görüşme yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları mikro-öğretim ve gerçek sınıf ortamındaki sınıf söylemi arasında bazı farklılıkları ortaya koymuştur. Öğretmen konuşma süresindeki eşitsizlik, öğrenci katılım oranındaki farklılık, etkileşimin organizasyonu iki bağlam arasındaki başlıca farklar olmakla beraber, söylemin birlikte yapılandırılmasının öğrenme sürecindeki etkisi ortak nokta olarak ön plana çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sınıf içi etkileşim, mikro öğretim, öğretmen yetiştirme, sınıf söylemi

A Comparative Analysis of Classroom Discourse in Microteaching and Practice School Contexts

Öz

The rise of the Sociocultural Theory has featured individuals as members of a social group. It primarily asserts that individuals learn best in relation to other people, and language learning is not an exception. A great number of research studies have been conducted to investigate the role of interaction in language learning, nature of talk in interaction, and different aspects of conversations in diverse settings. Subsequent to the discovery of the power of interaction; teachers’ use of language, and skills in managing the interaction in the classroom have also gained importance. Many studies solely focused on the interactions and classroom discourse of in-service teachers in real classroom settings. However, the number of studies comparatively analyzing the classroom discourse managed by pre-service teachers (PSTs) in the microteaching and real classroom settings has remained scarce. The present research emerges out of this need to explore PSTs’ classroom discourse in microteaching and practice school contexts in a comparative manner. Three PSTs’ teaching implementations in two different settings were recorded, the interactions were transcribed, and committed to an in-depth analysis. In addition, one PST was invited to a stimulated-recall interview. The results of the current study demonstrated certain differences between microteaching and practice school contexts in terms of the classroom discourse. Inequalities in the amount of teacher talk in two contexts, difference in the rate of students’ participation, the organization of the interaction were among the major differences while the co-construction of classroom discourse and its effects on the learning process were among the commonalities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

micro teaching, teacher education, in-class interaction, classroom discourse

Kaynakça

• Allen, D. W., & Fortune, J. C. (1965). Microteaching: a new procedure in education. School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford.
• Arsal, Z. (2015). The effects of microteaching on the critical thinking dispositions of pre- service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(3), 140-153.
• Babalola, B. K. (2010). Mediated micro-teaching as a realistically efficient mode of teaching practice. Journal of Research in Education and Psychology, 1(2), 93-97.
• Bell, N. D. (2007). Microteaching: What is it that is going on here?. Linguistics and Education, 18(1), 24-40.
• Can, V. (2009). A microteaching application on a teaching practice course. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 125-140.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Cripwell, K., & Geddes, M. (1982). The development of organizational skills through micro- teaching. ELT journal, 36(4), 232-236.
• Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. English Language Teaching Journal 52, 179–187.
• Cullen, R. (2001). The use of lesson transcripts for developing teachers' classroom language. System, 29(1), 27-43.
• Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Fortune, J. C., Cooper, J. M., & Allen, D. W. (1967). The Stanford summer micro-teaching clinic, 1965. Journal of Teacher Education, 18(4), 389-393.
• Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
• Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 34-70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Ho, Y. S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of adsorption technology in environmental science. Journal of Environmental Protection Science, 1(1): 42746.
• Hunter, M., & Russell, D. (1977). How can I plan more effective lessons. Instructor, 87(2), 74-75.
• I'anson, J., Rodrigues, S., & Wilson, G. (2003). Mirrors, reflections and refractions: The contribution of microteaching to reflective practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 189-199.
• Jefferson, G. (2004): Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In L. Gene (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13-31.
• Johnson, K.E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambirdge University Press.
• Koçak, M. (2010). A novice teacher's action research on EFL learners’ speaking anxiety. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 138-143.
• Lederman, N. G., & Gess‐Newsome, J. (1991). Metamorphosis, adaptation, or evolution?: Preservice science teachers' concerns and perceptions of teaching and planning. Science Education, 75(4), 443-456.
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. The Physics Front, 276.
• Li, L., and S. Walsh. (2011). ‘Seeing is Believing’: Looking at EFL Teachers’ Beliefs through Classroom Interaction.” Classroom Discourse 2 (1): 39–57.
• Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Routledge.
• McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
• Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes?. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286-325.
• Nurmasitah, S. (2010). A study of classroom interaction characteristics in a geography class conducted in English: The case at year ten of an immersion class in SMA N 2 Semarang. (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Diponegoro).
• Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 4, 51-78.
• Öz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners in Turkish context. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269-275.
• Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. Discourse as social interaction, 2, 64-91.
• Popovich, N. G., & Katz, N. L. (2009). A microteaching exercise to develop performance-based abilities in pharmacy students. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 73(4), 73.
• Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge university press.
• Richards, J.C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39 (2), 158-177.
• Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (1991). Teachers, school and society, (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
• Saville‐Troike, Muriel. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schulz, R. A. (2000). Foreign language teacher development: MLJ perspectives—1916–1999. The Modern Language Journal, 84(4), 495-522.
• Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal, 50(1), 16-24.
• Simbo, F.K. (1989). The effects of microteaching on student teachers’ performance in the actual teaching practice classroom. Educational Research 31(1): 195–200.
• Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
• Siu, M. (1999). New Roles for Desing Teachers. Education Today, 49(1), 25- 30.
• Skinner, B. (2012). Changing identities: an exploration of ESL trainee teacher discourse in microteaching. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 46-64.
• Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York & London: The Guilford Press.
• Stanley, C. (1998). A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL, 32, 584-591.
• Suratno, A. (2019). IRF patterns revisited: An analysis of classroom interaction. In N.T.X. Lan, B.T.T. Quyen, H.C.M. Hung, & M.M. Tien (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th opentesol international conference 2019 innovation and inspiration: Building the future of language education (pp. 488-505). Ho Chi Minh City: Publishing House of Economics.
• Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York, NY: Longman.
• Van Lier, L. (1996). Interactioning the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1998). “Infancy”. The Collected Works of LS. Vygotsky: Child Psychology, edited by R. W.Rieber’s, 207–241, Vol. 5. New York: Plenum Press.
• Walsh, S. (2002). “Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom.” Language Teaching Research 6 (1): 3–23.
• Walsh, S. (2003).“Developing Interactional Awareness in the Second Language Classroom through Teacher Self-Evaluation.” Language Awareness 12 (2): 124–142.
• Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
• Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.
• Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.