DİYALOJİK ÖĞRETİM VE ANA DİLİ EĞİTİMİ

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3, 701 - 712, 15.12.2020

Duygu Yüceer

Öz

Konuşmanın düşünme, anlama ve öğrenmeyi teşvik etme gücünden faydalanan pedagojik bir yaklaşım olan diyalojik öğretim güncel yaklaşımlar arasında dikkat çekmektedir. Diyalojik öğretim, olumlu etkileri nedeniyle eğitimin pek çok alanında uygulanmaktadır. Müzik, fen bilimleri, sağlık, beden eğitimi, özel eğitim ve eğitimde teknoloji uygulamaları olmak üzere bu yaklaşımın geniş bir kullanım alanı vardır. Okuma, yazma, konuşma ve dinleme alanlarını kapsayan ana dili eğitiminde de diyalojik öğretimden faydalanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı diyalojik öğretimin ana dili eğitiminde kullanımının katkılarını yapılan makale çalışmaları üzerinden temel dil becerilerine göre sınıflandırarak ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma içerik analizi yönteminin meta-sentez yaklaşımı kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak diyalojik öğretimin ana dili eğitiminde kullanımının dört temel dil becerisinin gelişimine katkı sağladığı ve bu beceri alanlarında daha derin ve etkili anlama, üst düzey düşünme ve üst bilişi geliştirme ile motivasyonu artırma konusunda etkili olduğu görülmüştür. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Diyalojik öğretim, ana dili eğitimi, temel dil becerileri

Kaynakça

• Agbatogun, A. O. (2012). Exploring the efficacy of student response system in a subsaharan African country: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education:Research, 11(1), 249-267.
• Akyol, H. (2016). Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Alexander, R. (2008a). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.
• Alexander, R. J. (2008b). Essays on pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman. Bakhtin, M. (1981) The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
• Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (Vol. 8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
• Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1047-1065. doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8
• Berk, L. E. & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning : Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, D.C. : National Association for the Education of Young Children.
• Camlin, D. A. (2015). ‘This is my truth, now tell me yours’: Emphasizing dialogue within participatory music. International Journal of Community Music, 8(3), 233-257. doi:10.1386/ijcm.8.3.233_1
• Carneiro, A.C.L.L., Souza, V., Godinho, L.K., Faria, I.C.M., Silva, K.L. & Gazzinelli, M.F. (2012). Health promotion education in the context of primary care. Revista Panamericana De Salud Publica-Pan American Journal Of Public Health, 31(2), 115-20.
• Chang, C. W., Wallian, N., Nachon, M., & Gréhaigne, J. -. (2006). Language productions and action strategies: Towards a semioconstructivist approach of the basketball in Taiwan. Staps, 72(2), 63-77.
• Chen, Y. -., Benus, M. J., & Yarker, M. B. (2016). Using models to support argumentation in the science classroom. American Biology Teacher, 78(7), 549-559. doi:10.1525/abt.2016.78.7.549
• Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C. & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378-411.
• Davis, B. H., Resta, V., Davis, L., I., & Camacho, A. (2001). Novice teachers learn about Literature Circles through collaborative action research. Journal of Reading Education, 26, 1-6.
• Demirbağ M. & Kingir S. (2017). Promoting pre-service science teachers' conceptual understanding about boiling by dialogic teaching. Journal of Baltıc Science Education, 16, 459-471.
• Diaz-Greenberg, R., Thousand, J., Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Nevin, A. (2000). What teachers need to know about the struggle for self-determination (conscientization) and self-regulation: Adults with disabilities speak about their education experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 873-887.
• Engin, M., & Donanci, S. (2015). Dialogic teaching and iPads in the EAP classroom. Computers and Education, 88, 268-279.
• Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54(6), 513-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298805400604
• Fisher, R. (2007). Dialogic teaching: developing thinking and metacognition through philosophical discussion. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6-7), 615-631.
• Fisher, R. (2011). Dialogic teaching. In A. Green (ed.), Becoming a reflective English teacher (pp.90-109). Berkshire: MG-Hill Open University Press.
• Forsyth, R. (2009). Distance versus dialogue: Modes of engagement of two professional groups participating in a hospitalbased video ethnographic study. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(3), 276-289.
• Frijters, S., Dam, G. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction,18, 66-82.
• Galitskih, E., Zalutskaya, S., Nikonova, N., Sosnovskaya, I., & Yurieva, O. (2018). Humanistic technologies in education: The dialogue-building experience. [Tecnologías humanísticas en educación: La experiencia de construcción de diálogo] Espacios, 39(40).
• Gillies, R. M. (2014). Developments in cooperative learning: Review of research. [Avances en el aprendizaje cooperativo: Revisión de la investigación] Anales De Psicologia, 30(3), 792-801. doi:10.6018/analesps.30.3.201191
• Glackin, M. (2018). ‘Control must be maintained’: Exploring teachers’ pedagogical practice outside the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(1), 61-76. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2017.1304204
• Göğüş, B. (1978) Orta dereceli okullarımızda Türkçe ve yazın eğitimi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
• Griffth, P.L. & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what should be its role in literacy instruction? In Susan E. Israel & Cathy Collins Block & Kathryn L. Bauserman & Kathryn Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in Literacy Learning Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and Professional Development (pp. 3-18). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Güneş, F. (2013). Türkçe öğretimi: Yaklaşımlar ve modeller. Ankara: Pegem.
• Haworth, A. (1999). Bakhtin in the classroom: What constitutes a dialogic text? Some lessons from small group interaction. Language and Education, 13(2), 99-117. DOI:10.1080/09500789908666762.
• 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.
• Kesler, T. (2012). Writing with voive. The Reading Teacher, 66 (1), 25–29.
• Kong, A., & Fitch, E. (2002/2003). Using Book Club to engage culturally and linguistically diverse learners in reading, writing, and talking about books. The Reading Teacher, 56, 352–362.
• Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 48, 23-31. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.05.002
• 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.
• Luz, M. R. M. P., Oliveira, G. A., & Poian, A. T. D. (2013). Glucose as the sole metabolic fuel: Overcoming a misconception using conceptual change to teach the energy-yielding metabolism to brazilian high school students. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(4), 224-231. doi:10.1002/bmb.20702
• Major, A. E. (2008). Appraising composing in secondary-school music lessons. Music Education Research, 10(2), 307-319. DOI: 10.1080/14613800802079171
• MEB (2018). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312239736-Türkçe%20Öğretim%20Programı%202018.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• 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.
• Onan, B. (2011). Anlama sürecinde Türkçenin yapısal işlevleri. Ankara: Nobel.
• Otten, S., Engledowl, C. & Spain, V. (2015). Univocal and dialogic discourse in secondary mathematics classrooms: The case of attending to precision. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1285-1298 .
• Özbay, M. (2011). Anlama teknikleri: Okuma eğitimi. Ankara: Öncü Kitap.
• Paris, S. G. & Hamilton, E. E. (2009). The development of children’s reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Dufy (Eds), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 32-53). New York, NY: Routhledge.
• Pifarré, M., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2011). Wiki-supported collaborative learning in primary education: How a dialogic space is created for thinking together. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 187-205. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9116-x
• Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65, 446-456.
• Reznitskaya, A. & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114-133.
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 155-175.
• Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark , A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C. & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29-48.
• Ruthven, K., Mercer, N., Taber, K. S., Guardia, P., Hofmann, R., Ilie, S., Luthman, S. & Riga, F. (2017). A research-informed dialogic-teaching approach to early secondary school mathematics and science: The pedagogical design and field trial of the epiSTEMe intervention. Research Papers in Education, 32(1), 18-40. doi:10.1080/02671522.2015.1129642
• 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.
• Slavin, R. E. (2015). Eğitim psikolojisi kuram ve uygulama (Galip Yüksel, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
• 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.
• Taboada, A.,Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J. T. (2013). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, N., & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Thompson, C., & Kleine, M. (2015). An interdisciplinary dialog about teaching and learning dialogically. Innovative Higher Education, 40(2) 173-185.
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher order processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wigfield, A. & Tonks, S. (2004). The development of motivation for reading and how it is influenced by CORI. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 249-272). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Wilkinson, I.A. & Hye Son, E. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil,P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.) Handbook of reading research (Vol. iv, pp. 359–387). New York: Routledge.