Classroom Interaction Management in Achievement-Related Diversity: A Conversation Analytic Examination

Öz

This research delves into the intricate dynamics of classroom interactions, focusing on how students perceived as potentially high- and low-achieving demonstrate their epistemic status within these interactions and how teachers respond to and manage these displays. By employing a micro-analytical perspective, this study meticulously examines the interactional strategies and features utilized by both students and teachers throughout the research process. The data were collected from Turkish science and mathematics classrooms as part of a comprehensive, long-term professional development course aimed at enhancing teaching practices. The findings reveal that students employ specific interactional tools, referred to as epistemic stances, which vary according to their perceived epistemic status. These stances serve as indicators of their knowledge, understanding, and engagement within the learning environment. Furthermore, the study highlights how the intentional design of classroom interactions, grounded in the concept of epistemic access, equips science and mathematics teachers with the means to effectively manage the diverse achievement levels in their classrooms. This design not only fosters inclusive participation but also ensures that both high- and low-achieving students are actively engaged in the learning process. The implications of this study extend beyond the immediate findings. It underscores the need for further research into the ways epistemics are displayed and managed in classroom settings. Additionally, the insights gained from this research have the potential to significantly contribute to the fields of science and mathematics education. They offer valuable guidance for teachers, teacher trainers, and educational policymakers in designing professional development courses aimed at enhancing the quality of classroom discourse.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diversity
• epistemics
• classroom discourse
• video analysis
• micro-analytic perspective

Başarıyla İlgili Çeşitlilikte Sınıf İçi Etkileşim Yönetimi: Bir Konuşma Çözümleme İncelemesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, potansiyel olarak yüksek ve düşük başarılı olarak algılanan öğrencilerin, epistemik statülerini etkileşimler içinde nasıl gösterdiklerine ve öğretmenlerin bu gösterilere nasıl karşılık verip yönettiklerine odaklanarak sınıf içi etkileşimlerin iç dinamiklerini incelemektedir. Mikro-analitik bir bakış açısı kullanılan bu çalışmada, araştırma süreci boyunca hem öğrenciler hem de öğretmenler tarafından kullanılan etkileşimsel stratejiler ve özellikler titizlikle incelenmektedir. Veriler, öğretim uygulamalarını geliştirmeyi amaçlayan kapsamlı, uzun vadeli bir mesleki gelişim programının bir parçası olarak Türkiye'deki fen ve matematik sınıflarından toplanmıştır. Bulgular, öğrencilerin epistemik statü olarak adlandırılan ve epistemik statü durumlarına göre değişen belirli etkileşimsel araçları kullandıklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu durumlar, öğrencilerin bilgi, anlayış ve öğrenme ortamına katılımlarının göstergeleri olarak işlev görmektedir. Ayrıca çalışma, epistemik erişim kavramına dayanan sınıf etkileşimlerinin kasıtlı tasarımının, fen ve matematik öğretmenlerini sınıflarındaki farklı başarı düzeylerini etkili bir şekilde yönetme araçlarıyla nasıl desteklediğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu tasarım sadece kapsayıcı katılımı teşvik etmekle kalmıyor, aynı zamanda hem yüksek hem de düşük başarılı öğrencilerin öğrenme sürecine aktif olarak katılmalarını sağlıyor. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, anlık bulguların ötesine uzanmaktadır. Epistemiklerin sınıf ortamlarında sergilenme ve yönetilme biçimlerine ilişkin daha fazla araştırma yapılması gerektiğinin altını çizmektedir. Ayrıca, bu araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular fen ve matematik eğitimi alanlarına önemli katkılarda bulunma potansiyeline sahiptir. Öğretmenler, öğretmen eğitimcileri ve eğitim politikacıları için sınıf içi söylemin kalitesini artırmayı amaçlayan mesleki gelişim programları tasarlama konusunda değerli bir rehberlik sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çeşitlilik
• epistemik
• sınıf söylemi
• video analizi
• mikro-analitik bakış açısı

Kaynakça

1. Akyüz Aru, S., & Kale, M. (2021). Multilevel effects of student qualifications and in-classroom variables on science achievement. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 12(2), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.756083
2. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
3. Choi, J., & Yi, Y. (2016). Teachers' integration of multimodality into classroom practices for english language learners. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 304-327. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.204
4. Erduran, S., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2015). Epistemic practices and thinking in science: Fostering teachers’ development in scientific argumentation. In R. C. Wegerif, J. Kaufman, & L. Li (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 412-425). Routledge.
5. Erduran, S. (2019). Synthesis of epistemic cognition. Science & Education, 28, 819–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00061-1
6. European Commission. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
7. Heller, V. (2017). Managing knowledge claims in classroom discourse: the public construction of a homogeneous epistemic status. Classroom Discourse, 8(2), 156-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2017.1328699
8. Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57-76). Wiley-Blackwell.

9. Herder, A., Berenst, J., Glopper, K., & Koole, T. (2020). Sharing knowledge with peers: Epistemic displays in collaborative writing of primary school children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24(2020), 100378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100378
10. Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
11. Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
12. Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370-394). Wiley-Blackwell.
13. Ingram, J. (2020). Epistemic management in mathematics classroom interactions: Student claims of not knowing or not understanding. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58(2020), 100754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.100754
14. Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031
15. 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). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
16. Kämäräinen, A., Björn, P., Eronen, L., & Kärnä, E. (2019). Managing epistemic imbalances in peer interaction during mathematics lessons. Discourse Studies, 21(3), 280-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619829236
17. Kämäräinen, A., Eronen, L., Björn, P. M., & Kärnä, E. (2020). Initiation and decision-making of joint activities within peer interaction in student-centred mathematics lessons. Classroom Discourse, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1744457
18. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117-142). Routledge.
19. Kaya, G., & Şardağ, M. (2021). Understanding and assessing STEM teachers’ use of IBL to address achievement-related diversity: A case study from Turkey. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(4), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.962465
20. Kelly, G. J. (2014). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 321-336). Routledge.
21. Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737846
22. Koole, T. (2012). The epistemics of student problems: Explaining mathematics in a multi-lingual class. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1902-1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.006
23. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford University Press.
24. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91-113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022665519862
25. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Ablex.
26. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
27. Maass, K., Doorman, M., Jonker, V., & Wijers, M. (2019). Promoting active citizenship in mathematics teaching. Zdm-Mathematics Education, 51(6), 991-1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01048-6
28. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522
29. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
30. Meijer, C. J. (2010). Special needs education in Europe: Inclusive policies and practices. Journal of Inclusion, 4(2). https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/136
31. Melander, H. (2012). Transformations of knowledge within a peer group. Knowing and learning in interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.09.003
32. Miles, S., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (2010). Responding to diversity in schools: An inquiry-based approach. Routledge.
33. Morek, M. (2015). Show that you know – Explanations, interactional identities and epistemic stance-taking in family talk and peer talk. Linguistics and Education, 31(2015), 238-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.004
34. Mortimer, E. F., Scott, P., & El-Hani, C. N. (2012). The heterogeneity of discourse in science classrooms: The conceptual profile approach. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, C. McRobbie (Eds) Second international handbook of science education (pp. 231-246). Springer
35. Mortimer. E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press. Morton, T. (2012). Classroom talk, conceptual change and teacher reflection in bilingual science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.006
36. Orletti, F. (1981). Classroom verbal interaction: A conversational analysis. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp. 531-549). John Benjamins
37. Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3‐4), 186-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x
38. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939-967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
39. Rusk, F., Pörn, M., & Sahlström, F. (2016). The management of dynamic epistemic relationships regarding second language knowledge in second language education: Epistemic discrepancies and epistemic (im)balance. Classroom Discourse, 7(2), 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1171160
40. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
41. Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005
42. Sidnell, J. (2009). Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 3-27). Cambridge University Press.
43. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
44. Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th Ed.). Sage Publication.
45. Skarbø Solem, M. (2016a). Displaying knowledge through interrogatives in student-initiated sequences. Classroom Discourse, 7(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2015.1095105
46. Skarbø Solem, M. (2016b). Negotiating knowledge claims: Students’ assertions in classroom interactions. Discourse Studies, 18(6), 737–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616668072
47. Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education. In OECD (Ed.), Educating Teachers for diversity (pp. 205-217). OECD Publishing.
48. Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 3-24). Cambridge University Press.
49. Şardağ, M. (2019). Formative assessment in argumentation based science education: A conversation analytic research [Doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University]. Ankara, Türkiye.
50. Turkish Research Council (2012). Interuniversity council scientific research and publication ethics regulations. Higher Education Board, Turkey.
51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
52. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge.
53. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press.