Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Öğretiminde Kullandıkları İletişimsel Yaklaşımların Söylem Analizi

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde kullandıkları iletişimsel yaklaşımın belirlenmesidir. Bu amaçla, öğretmen adaylarına diyalojik öğretim ve iletişimsel yaklaşıma yönelik farkındalık oluşturmak için 7 hafta süren bir eğitim programı geliştirilmiş ve uygulanmıştır. Eğitim öncesi ve sonrası öğretmenlerin birer dersleri videoya kaydedilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının ders videoları Mortimer ve Scott (2003) tarafından geliştirilen iletişimsel yaklaşımın sınıflarına göre analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın amacı doğrusunda öğretmen adaylarının kullandıkları iletişimsel yaklaşımı belirlemek için söylem analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Söylem analizi için ise, öğretmen adaylarının dersleri örnek olaylar olarak kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarından eğitim öncesi ve sonrası derslerini izlemeleri ve kendilerine göre derslerinde sıklıkla kullandıkları iletişimsel yaklaşımı ve bu iletişimsel yaklaşımı kullanma gerekçelerini yazmaları istenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarının eğitimden önce sıklıkla otoriter yaklaşımları tercih ettikleri, eğitimden sonra ise otoriter yaklaşımların yanında diyalojik etkileşimli iletişimsel yaklaşımı da derslerinde kullanmaya başladıkları tespit edilmiş ve kullanmalarındaki gerekçeler ortaya çıkarılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Fen dersleri, İletişimsel yaklaşım, Diyalojik öğretim

Discourse Analysis of the Communicative Approaches Used by The Pre-service Teachers

The purpose of the study is to determine the communicative approach used by pre-service teachers in science teaching. For this purpose, 7-week instructional program was developed and applied to raise the pre-service teachers’ awareness of dialogic teaching and communicative approach. Before and after this instructional program, one lesson of each pre-service teacher was video-recorded. These videos were analyzed on the basis of four classes of communicative approach developed by Mortimer and Scott (2003). In line with the purpose of the study, the discourse analysis method was employed to determine the communicative approach used by the pre-service teachers. For this discourse analysis, the lessons of the pre-service teachers were used as sample cases. Moreover, the pre-service teachers were asked to watch their lessons video-recorded before and after the implementation of the instructional program and to write which communicative approach they used in these lessons and why they used this approach. The findings of the current study revealed that the pre-service teachers mostly preferred the authoritative approach before the instructional program; yet, after the instructional program, besides the authoritative approach, they started to use dialogic interaction-based communicative approach in their lessons. Their reasons for using this communicative approach were also elicited.

Keywords:

Science classes, Communicative approach, Dialogic instruction,

PDF

___

van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 159–190.
van Zee, E. H. & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6 (2), 229-271.
Uçak, E. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde kullandıkları iletişimsel yaklaşımlar. [Communicative approach types used by pre-service teachers’ in science teaching]. Doctorate Dissertation, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
Scott. P. H, Mortimer, E. F. & Aguiar. O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.
Scott, P., Ametller, J. Dawes, L., Staarman, K. J., & Mercer, N. (2007). An investigation of dialogic teaching in science classrooms. Paper presented at NARST: New Orleans, April.
Scott, P. & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88 (324), 77–83.
Roth, W. M. (2005). Talking science. Language and learning in science classrooms. MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.
Ryder, J & Leach, J. (2006). Teaching about the epistemology of science in upper secondary schools: An analysis of teachers’ classroom talk. Science Education, 17, 289-315.
Pimentel, D.S. & McNeill, K.L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instruction moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97 (3), 367-394.
Pimentel, D. S. & McNeill, K. L. (2010, March). Discourse in science classrooms: The relationship between teacher perceptions and their practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, PA, Philadelphia
Özdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: Sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma [Qualitative data analysis: A study on methodological problems in social sciences]. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversity Social Science Journal, 11(1), 323-343.
Ortmann, L. L. (2015). Disciplinary Literacies in STEM Integration: An Interpretive Study of Discourses within Classroom Communities of Practice. A Disserdation Submitted To The Faculty Of The University of Minnesota.
Oliveira, A.W. (2009). Developing elementary teachers’ understandings of hedges and personal pronouns in inquiry-based science classroom discourse. Journal of Research in Science Education, 8, 247–269.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating in the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135-198.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Columbia University, New York.
Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press, Maidenhead/Philadelphia
Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In J. Leach, R. Millar, & J. Osborne (Eds.). Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 126–142). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Monilari, L., Mameli, C. & Gnisci, A. (2012). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 414–430.
Molinaria, L. & Mamelia, C. (2010). Classroom dialogic discourse. An observational study. Procedia Social and Behavional Sciences, 2, 3857-3860.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed), CA: Sage, Thousand Oak
Mercer N., Dawes, L. & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classrooms. Language and Education, 23 (4), 353-369.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (3), 367–385.
MEB. (2013). [Ministry of National Education]. İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Science teaching programme]. Education Board, Ankara.
Löfgren, R., Schoultz, J., Hultman, G., & Björklund, L. (2013). Exploratory talk in science education: Inquiry– based learning and communicative approach in primary school. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (4), 482-496.
Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J. & Puttonen, H.R. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Science Teacher Education. 22 (8), 705-727.
427 Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J. & Puttonen, H.R. (2010). Guiding student teachers towards more dialogic science teaching. In G. Çakmakçı & M. F. Taşar (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: scientific literacy and social aspects of science (pp. 37–46). Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
Lehesvuori, S., Ratinen, I., Kulhomaki, O., Lappi, J. & Viiri, J. (2011). Enriching primary student teachers’ conceptions about science teaching: Toward dialogic inquiry-based teaching. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 7 (2), 140-159.
Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Towards dialogic teaching in science: Challenging classroom realities through teacher education. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.
Koufetta-Menicou, C. & Scaife, J. (2000). Teachers’ questions-types and significance in science education. School Science Review, 81 (296), 79-84.
Kaya, G., Şardağ, M., Çakmakçı, G., Doğan, N. İrez, S.& Yalaki, Y. (2016). Bilimin doğası öğretiminde kullanılan söylem desenleri ve iletişim yaklaşımları [Discourse patterns and communication approaches used in teaching nature of science]. Education and Science, 185 (41), 83-99.
Kanadlı, S & Sağlam, Y. (2016). Investigating the Effectiveness of a Professional Development Program Designed to Improve Science Teachers’ Classroom Discourse. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8 (3), 97-112.
Kanadlı, S. & Sağlam, Y. (2012). Öğretmenlerin öğretmen-öğrenci rollerine yönelik inançlarının otoriter ve diyalojik söylevlere etkisi [The influence of teachers' beliefs towards teacher-student roles on authoritarian and dialogical statements]. In Proceedings of the 10th National Science and Math Congress 27-30 June 2012. Niğde University, Niğde, Turkey.
Kanadlı, S. (2012). Öğretmenlere yönelik hazırlanan bir mesleki gelişim programının etkililiğinin incelenmesi [Investigating the effectiveness of a professional development programme designed for teachers]. Doctorate Dissertation, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Hardman, F. & Abd-Kadir, J. (2010). Classroom discourse: Towards a dialogic pedagogy. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews & J. Hoffman (eds.). The International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy, pp. 254-264) Routledge, Taylor and Francis, London.
Hackling, M., Smith, P., & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking science: Developing a discourse of inquiry. Teaching Science, 56 (1),17-22.
Game, A. & Metcalfe, A. (2009). Dialogue and team teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 28 (1), 45-57.
Erdogan, I. & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1891-1914.
Demirbağ, M. (2017). Otoriter ve diyalojik söylem tiplerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argüman gelişimine etkisi [The effects of authoritative and dialogic discourses on pre-service science teachers’ argument development]. Uludağ Üniversity Education Faculty Journal, 30 (1), 321-340.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1315–1346.
Baş, T. & Akturan, U. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. NVivo 7.0 ile nitel veri analizi. (1.bs) [Qualitative research methods. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo 7.0 (1th ed.)]. Ankara: Seçkin Academy Publishing.
Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3 th Ed), York: Dialogos.
Akpınar, E. & Ergin, Ö. (2005). Yapılandırmacı kuramda fen öğretmeninin rolü [The role of science teacher in constructivist approach]. Elementary Education Online, 4 (2), 54-65.
Akış, A. (2012). Otoriter ve diyalojik öğretmenlerin öğretmen-öğrenci rollerine dair beklenti ve inançları [Authoritarian and dialogical teachers’ expectations and beliefs about their own and students’ roles]. Master Dissertation, Gaziantep Üniversity, Gaziantep, Turkey.