Sorgulama Dayalı Fen Sınıflarının Etkileşimsel Çözümlemesi

Çalışmanın amacı: Eğitimdeki son politika ve reform belgeleri, fen öğretiminin etkili bir yolu olarak görülen sorgulamaya dayalıöğrenmeyi teşvik etmektedir. Ancak, sorgulamaya dayalı fen sınıflarındaki öğretmen-öğrenci etkileşimlerinin yapısınıdeğerlendiren az sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Sınıf, öğrenciler ile öğretmenlerin etkileşim sürecinde olduğu sosyal bir yerolmasına rağmen, bu araştırma eksikliği sorgulamaya dayalı fen sınıflarındaki etkileşimin doğasına ilişkin anlaşılmasınıengellemektedir. Materyal ve Yöntem: Bu temelde, bu çalışma, sınıf içindeki etkileşimsel yapıları ortaya çıkarmak için mikro-analitik konuşmaçözümlemesi yöntemiyle sorgulamaya dayalı fen sınıf etkileşimini incelemektedir. Araştırma iki fen bilgisi öğretmeni ve 56 5. sınıf öğrencisi ile yürütülmüştür. 12 saatlik sorgulamaya dayalı fen sınıfı etkileşimlerinden oluşan bir veri tabanı, konuşmaçözümlenmesi kullanılarak satır satır ve adım adım incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Bulgular, sorgulamaya dayalı fen uygulamarında etkileşimsel olarak farklı aşamaların olduğunu ve öğretmen-öğrencietkileşimlerinin bağlama göre değiştiğini göstermektedir. Dersin etkileşimsel olarak farklılaşan bu aşamalarında, öğretmenlerinpedagojik amaçları ve etkileşimli araçların farklılık gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Önemli Vurgular: Bu çalışma fen sınıflarındaki etkileşimsel yapıların ortaya çıkartılmasına ve fen derslerinin etkileşimselözelliklerinin incelenmesi açısından konuşma çözümlemesi araştırmalarına katkı sunmaktadır.

Conversation Analytic Examination of Inquiry-Based Science Classrooms

Purpose: Recent policy and reform documents in education have promoted inquiry-based learning, which is seen as an effectiveway of teaching science. However, there are few studies evaluating the teacher-student interactional structure of inquiry based science (IBS) classes. Although the class is a social place, where learners are in the process of social interaction as a co construction process, this lack of research limits our understanding of the nature of interaction in IBS classes. The lack ofunderstanding of this interactive structure causes teachers to provide the desired answers to the theoretical questions thatare asked outside the classroom, but the results in the classroom are not at the desired level. Design/Methodology/Approach: On this basis, this study examines IBS classroom interaction by the micro-analytic conversationanalysis (CA) method to reveal the interactional phenomena within the classroom. The study was conducted with two scienceteachers and their 56 fifth-grade students. A database of 12 hours of IBS interactions was examined line-by-line and turn-by turn using CA. Findings: Findings show that there are interactionally different phases in the practice of IBS classes and that teacher-studentinteractions also change according to context. These stages were named (1) initiating the inquiry, (2) focusing on theinvestigation, and (3) sharing understanding. Within these different phases of a science lesson, the pedagogical aims of theteachers and the interactive tools are found to differ. Highlights: This has important implications for the study of the subjects and the class, which are dealt with in depth in termsof science education under a different conceptual framework. In addition, this study presents a contribution to CA research interms of examining the interactional characteristics of science classes.

PDF

___

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude S., Duschl, R., Lederman, G. N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., et. al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: an essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380.
Brandt, A. (2011). The maintenance of mutual understanding in online second language talk [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Newcastle University.
Breen, M. (1989). ‘The evaluation cycle for language learning’. In R. K. Johnson (ed.). The second language curriculum. Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, A. B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An interaction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). CUP.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. Routledge.
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Polity Press.
Evnitskaya, N. (2012). Talking science in a second language: The interactional co-construction of dialogic explanations in the CLIL science classroom [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109-127.
Fagan, D. S. (2014). Beyond “excellent”: uncovering the systematicity behind positive feedback turn construction in ESL classrooms. NovitasROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 8(1), 45–63.
Finlayson, O., McLoughlin, E., Coyle, E., McCabe, D., Lovatt, J., & van-Kampen, P. (2015). SAILS inquiry and assessment units. Dublin
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.2307/798722
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1) 1-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Sage.
Heritage, J. (1997). Conversational analysis and institutional talk: analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. Sage Publications.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1– 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.
Hüttner, J. (2014). Agreeing to disagree: ‘doing disagreement’ in assessed oral L2 interactions. Classroom Discourse, 5(2), 194-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.893897
Jacknick, C. M. (2011). “But this is writing”: post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 39-54.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1
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
Jenks, C. J. (2011). Transcribing talk and interaction: Issues in the representation of communication data. John Benjamins.
Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1154998
Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher turn-allocation and repair practices in classroom interaction: A multisemiotic perspective [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Jyväskylä
Kaya, G. (2017). Teacher talk and learner contributions in inquiry based science education: A conversation analytic examination [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Hacettepe University
Kaya, G., & Yılmaz, S. (2016). The impact of open inquiry based learning on students’ achievement and development of science process skills H. U. Journal of Education, 31(2), 300-318. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE. 2016016811.
Kaya, G., Şardağ, M., Cakmakci, G., Doğan, N., İrez, S., & Yalaki, Y. (2016). Discourse patterns and communicative approachesfor teaching nature of science. Education and Science, 41(185), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4852.
Kelly, G. (2014). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Routledge
Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell, & Lederman, N, G. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443- 469). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883– 915. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<883::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-I
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Students' interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693-707.
Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(2), 183- 209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737846
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Springer.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: an approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560189.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Lessons.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal Research Science Teaching, 38(3), 296– 316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to Conversation Analysis. Continuum.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Routledge.
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
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
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), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000. King’s College.
Minner, D. D., Levy, J. A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: an interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320405
Mortensen, K. (2008). Selecting next-speaker in the second language classroom: How to find a willing next-speaker in planned activities. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 55-79. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v5i1.55
Mortensen, K. (2009). Establishing recipiency in pre-beginning position in the second language classroom. Discourse Processes, 46(5), 491-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959463
Mortensen, K., & Hazel, S. (2011). Initiating round robins in the L2 classroom – preliminary observations. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 55-70.
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. Open University Press.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.
NRC. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press.
Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Developing elementary teachers’ understanding of the discourse structure of inquiry-based science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 247-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9157-4
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., … et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
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 Teresa Cadierno, & Soren W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-Based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233-270). De Gruyter Mouton.
Philips, D. C. & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Learning: Perspectives. Nobel Publishing
Pomerantz, A. (1987). Descriptions in legal settings. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 226-243). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Psathas, G. (1995) Conversation Analysis. Sage.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science Education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. European Commission.
Roth, W. -M., Ritchie, S. M., Hudson, P., & Mergard, V. (2011). A study of laughter in science lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 437-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20412
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2008). Teaching about the epistemology of science in upper secondary schools: an analysis of teachers’ classroom talk. Science & Education, 17(2), 289-315. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11191-006-9007-0
Rymes, B. (2008). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Hampton Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell
Sahlström, F. (2011). Learning as social action. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 Interactional Competence and Development (pp. 45-65). Multilingual matters.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schwab, G. (2011). From dialogue to multilogue: a different view on participation in the English foreign-language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.562654.
Scott, P. (1997). Developing science concepts in secondary classrooms: an analysis of pedagogical interactions from a Vygotskian perspective [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Leeds
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
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
Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press.
Sert, O., & Seedhouse, P. (2011). Introduction: Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 1-14.
Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2012). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 1-24,
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis an introduction. WileyBlackwell.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford University Press.
Tang, K. S. (2016). The interplay of representations and patterns of classroom discourse in science teaching sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069-2095.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis. Sage.
Urmeneta, E. C. (2008). Talking English to learn science. A CLIL experience in Barcelona. In M. Dooly and D. Eastment (Eds.), ‘How we’re going about it’: Teachers’ voices on innovative approaches to teaching and learning languages (pp. 127–138). Cambridge Scholar Press.
van Aalst, J., & Truong, M. S. (2011). Promoting Knowledge Creation Discourse in an Asian Primary Five Classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 487-515.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
Walsh, S. & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12005
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577-594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614053
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310-378. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07370000802177193
Zemel, A. & Koschmann, T. (2011). Pursuing a question: reinitiating IRE sequences as a method of instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 475- 488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022.