Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Eğitiminde Etkileşimsel Kaynaklar ve Öğretmen Soruları

Yıl 2021, , 494 - 523, 15.12.2021

Metin Şardağ Gültekin Çakmakcı

https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1029064

Cited By: 1

Öz

Sınıf içi etkileşim, öğrenme sürecinin dinamiklerini şekillendirmekte olup anlamlı öğrenmeler için zemin oluşturabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada sınıf içi etkileşime odaklanılarak argümantasyon tabanlı bilim eğitiminde fen bilimleri öğretmenleri tarafında kullanılan etkileşimsel kaynaklar, etkileşimsel kaynak olarak kullanılan sorular ve bu soruların kullanım amaçları araştırılmıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışma Konuşma Çözümlemesi bakış açısıyla nitel bir araştırma olarak yürütülmüştür. Çalışma biri kadın, ikisi erkek olmak üzere üç Fen Bilimleri öğretmeniyle 2016-2017 eğitim öğretim yılında 7. sınıf öğrencileriyle Elektrik Enerjisi ünitesinde yürütülmüştür. Toplamda 49 saatlik (ders saati) sınıf içi etkileşim verisi toplanmıştır. Toplanan veriler Gail Jefferson transkript sistematiğine göre transkript edilmiştir. Toplanan veriye gerekçesiz arama ve içerden bakış açısıyla yaklaşılmıştır. Sonuçlar öğretmenlerin diyalojik argümantasyonu desteklemek için bazı etkileşimsel kaynaklar kullandıklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca öğretmenler etkileşimsel kaynak olarak yankı soruları (netleştirme istemi, anlamayı kontrol etme ve teyit etme soruları) ve epistemik soruları (gösterim ve gönderimsel sorular) kullanmışlardır. Öğretmenler bu soruları öğretimsel bağlama bağlı olarak farklı amaçlarda kullanmaktadırlar. Çalışma bulguları etkileşim kalitesinin artırılması açısından mevcut literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Argümantasyon, Etkileşimsel kaynaklar, Konuşma çözümlemesi, Öğretmen soruları, Argümantasyon, Etkileşimsel kaynaklar, Konuşma çözümlemesi, Öğretmen soruları

Kaynakça

• Allwright, R. L. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation in language learning and teaching. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 165-187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
• Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project‐based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395-427. doi:10.1002/sce.20365
• Antaki, C., & Huma, B. (2018, 30.05.2018). Research on language and social interaction: Data sessions world-wide. Retrieved from https://rolsi.net/teaching-2/data-sessions/ Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
• Aydeniz, M., & Gurcay, D. (2013). Assessing quality of pre-service physics teachers' written arguments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 269-287.
• Behnam, B., & Pouriran, Y. (2009). Classroom discourse: Analyzing teacher/learner interactions in Iranian EFL task-based classrooms. Porta Linguarum(12), 117-132.
• Bennett, A. (1982). Strategies and counterstrategies in the use of yes-no questions in discourse. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 95-107). United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
• Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47-59. doi:10.2307/3586388 Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. doi:10.1002/tea.20171
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. doi:10.1002/tea.20385
• Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343-374. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
• Cunningham, R. T. (1987). What kind of question is that? In W. W. Wilen (Ed.), Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching (pp. 67-94). Washington D.C.: National Education Association.
• Damhuis, R. (2000). A different teacher role in language arts education: Interaction in a small circle with teacher. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 243-264). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Dooly, M. (2009). Doing diversity: Teachers' construction of their classroom reality (Vol. 82). Germany: Peter Lang.
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891-1914. doi:10.1080/09500690701587028
• Erduran, S. (2019). Argumentation in chemistry education: An overview Argumentation in chemistry education: Research, policy and practice (pp. 1-10): The Royal Society of Chemistry. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research.
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
• Eshach, H., Dor-Ziderman, Y., & Yefroimsky, Y. (2014). Question asking in the science classroom: Teacher attitudes and practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 67-81. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9451-y
• Farahian, M., & Rezaee, M. (2012). A case study of an EFL teacher's type of questions: An investigation into classroom interaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 161-167. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.631
• Furtak, E. M., Bakeman, R., & Buell, J. Y. (2018). Developing knowledge-in-action with a learning progression: Sequential analysis of teachers' questions and responses to student ideas. Teaching and Teacher Education. 76, 267-282. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.001
• Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 593-611). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Ghafarpour, H. (2017). Classroom conversation analysis and critical reflective practice: Self-evaluation of teacher talk framework in focus. RELC Journal, 48(2), 210-225. doi:10.1177/0033688216631173
• Grooms, J., Enderle, P. J., Hutner, T., Murphy, A., & Sampson, V. (2016). Argument-driven inquiry in physical science: Lab investigations for grades 6-8. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association Press.
• Halvorsen, K. (2018). Questions as interactional resource in team decision making. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(1), 69-93. doi:10.1177/2329488415589102
• Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp. 255-280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., & Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489-503. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.008
• Howard, A. (2010). Is there such a thing as a typical language lesson? Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 82-100. doi:10.1080/19463011003750699
• Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 3(2), 181-199. doi:10.1017/S0047404500004334
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (Vol. 125, pp. 13-34). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kääntä, L., & Kasper, G. (2018). Clarification requests as a method of pursuing understanding in CLIL physics lectures. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 205-226. doi:10.1080/19463014.2018.1477608
• Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers' questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004-2027. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.604684
• Kim, M., & Roth, W. M. (2018). Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1061-1085. doi:10.1007/s11422-017-9846-9
• Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183-209. doi:10.1080/08351811003737846
• Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1851-1877. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7
• Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen, J., & Viiri, J. (2017). Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science. Studia Paedagogica, 22(4), 55-76. doi:10.5817/SP2017-4-4
• Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360. doi:10.1159/000022695
• Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177-201. doi:10.1017/S004740450332202X
• Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Lynch, T. (1997). Nudge, nudge: Teacher interventions in task-based learner talk. ELT journal, 51(4), 317-325.
• McNeil, L. (2012). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396-404. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005
• McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. doi:10.1002/sce.21081
• MEB. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194-225.
• NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscuting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
• Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453. doi:10.1002/tea.20345
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). IDeas, Evidence & Argument in Science CPD Training Pack. London: King’s College London.
• Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (Vol. 30, pp. 233-268). Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
• Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 283-304). London: SAGE Publications.
• Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In T. A. V. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 165-190). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939-967. doi:10.2307/1519752 Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308-329). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257. doi:10.1002/sce.20421
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Schleef, E. (2008). The “lecturer's OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62-84. doi:10.1215/00031283-2008-003
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Sert, O., Balaman, U., Can Daşkın, N., Büyükgüzel, S., & Ergül, H. (2015). Konuşma çözümlemesi yöntemi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, MEUDED, 12(2), 1-43.
• Sert, O., & Seedhouse, P. (2011). Introduction: Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 1-14.
• Sidnell, J. (2009). Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 3-27). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data
• Suryati, N. (2015). Classroom interaction strategies employed by english teachers at lower secondary schools. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 247-264. doi:10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/247-264
• Swales, J. M., & Malczewski, B. (2001). Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 145-164). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Tobin, K. G. (1980). The effect of an extended teacher wait-time on science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(5), 469-475. doi:10.1002/tea.3660170514
• Tobin, K. G. (2006). Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(2), 219-252. doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9008-3
• van Zee, E., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<159::AID-TEA1002>3.0.CO;2-J
• Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher self-evaluation. Language Awareness, 12(2), 124-142. doi:10.1080/09658410308667071
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
• Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 1-14.
• Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247-266. doi:10.1111/ijal.12005
• Waring, H. Z. (2012a). “Any questions?”: Investigating the nature of understanding‐checks in the language classroom. TESOL quarterly, 46(4), 722-752. doi:10.1002/tesq.48
• Waring, H. Z. (2012b). Yes-no questions that convey a critical stance in the language classroom. Language and Education, 26(5), 451-469. doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.656651
• Yataganbaba, E., & Yildirim, R. (2016). Teacher interruptions and limited wait time in EFL young learner classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 689-695. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.094
• Yeon-Hee, J., & Hyunhee, C. (2017). Comparison of questions used by teachers with expertise and little expertise in elementary english classes. The SNU Journal of Education Research, 26(4), 89-107.