EFFECTS OF SECOND STEP CURRICULUM ON BEHAVIORAL AND ACADEMIC OUTCOMES IN 5TH AND 8TH GRADE STUDENTS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

Okullarda problemli davranışları azaltmak, gönüllü davranışları ve başarıyı artırmak adına oluşturulan programlar genellikle sosyal-duygusal gelişim veya karakter gelişim programları olarak nitelendirilirler. Bu uzun dönemli çalışmada, Second Step isminde böyle bir programın 5. ve 8. Sınıf öğrencilerinin 4 okul dönemi boyunca okuldaki davranışları ve başarıları üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın örneklemini açık kayıt yapılan bir sözleşmeli okul sisteminde bulunan 35 okuldan (16 kontrol ve 19 uygulama okulu) 5,189 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Üç-kademeli uzun zamanlı büyüme modelinden elde edilen sonuçlar uygulama okulundaki öğrencilerin kontrol okulundaki öğrencilere kıyasla dört okul dönemi boyunca daha az problemli davranış gösterdiklerini ve başarılarında daha fazla artış olduğunu göstermiştir. Uygulama okullarındaki öğrenciler aynı zamanda gönüllü davranışlarda da artış kaydetmişlerdir, fakat bu artış kontrol okulları ile kıyaslandığında daha az bir anlamlı farklılık oluşturmuştur. Çalışmanın bulguları sorumluluk ve başarıyı destekleyen sınıf ve okul içi atmosferi artırma konusunda önemli işaretler barındırmaktadır

School-based programs designed to reduce problem behaviors, increase prosocial behaviors, and improve academic achievement have often been characterized as social-emotional learning or character development (education) programs. This longitudinal study investigated effects of such a program, called Second Step, on observed problem behaviors, observed prosocial behaviors, and school grades across 4 school semesters for 5th to 8th grade students. A sample of 5,189 from 35 schools (16 control and 19 treatment schools) in an open-enrollment charter school system participated. Results from a three-level longitudinal growth model analysis indicated that students in the treatment schools (with Second Step curriculum) attained higher school grades and exhibited fewer problem behaviors than students in the control schools across 4 school semesters. Students in the treatment schools also exhibited more prosocial behaviors, but this increase was marginally significant or approaching significance. The findings have implications for promoting a positive classroom or school climate that supports engagement and achievement

___

  • Björk-Willén, P. (2008). Routine trouble: How preschool children participate in multilingual interaction. Applied Linguistics, 29, 555-577.
  • Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 45-62.
  • Cekaite, A. (2008a). Soliciting teacher attention in an L2 classroom: Affect displays, classroom artefacts, and embodied action. Applied Linguistics, 30, 26-48.
  • Cekaite, A. (2008b). Developing conversational skills in a second language: Language learning affordances in a multiparty classroom setting. In J. Philip, R. Oliver, & A. Mackay (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child's play? (pp. 105-129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Goodwin, C. (1986). Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62, 29-49.
  • Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522.
  • Goodwin, C. (2003) Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita. (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, (pp. 217-241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, (pp. 222-244). Maldan: Blackwell.
  • Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 103-124.
  • Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 145-17.
  • Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.) (2011). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
  • Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development, (pp. 1-15). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
  • Hauser, E. (2009). Turn-taking and primary speakership during a student discussion. In H. Nguyen, & G. Kasper (Eds.). Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives, (pp. 215-244). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
  • Heath, C. (1984). Talk and recipiency: sequential organization in speech and body movement. In J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures in social action: Studies in conversation analysis, (pp. 247-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures in social action: Studies in conversation analysis, (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, (pp. 222- ). London: Sage Publications.
  • Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L. Fitch, & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, (pp. 103- ). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds). (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington: University Press of America.
  • Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. Nguyen, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk- in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives, (pp.351-385). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
  • Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person's telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese: Development of interactional competence during one-year study abroad. In G. Pallotti, & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation- analytic perspectives, (pp. 45-85). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
  • Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1467-1492.
  • Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171-212.
  • Koshik, I. (2002). "Designedly incomplete utterances": A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 5, 277-309.
  • Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372.
  • Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition, conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 849-862.
  • Mortensen, K. (2016). The body as a resource for other-initiation of repair: Cupping the hand behind the ear. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49 (1), 57.
  • Nguyen, H. (2006). Constructing 'expertness': A novice pharmacist's development of interactional competence in patient consultations. Communication & Medicine, 3, 147-160.
  • Nguyen, H. (2008). Sequential organization as local and longitudinal achievement. Text & Talk, 28, 501-528.
  • Nguyen, H. (2012). Developing interactional competence: A conversation-analytic study of patient consultations in pharmacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Ohta, A. (1999). Interactional routines and socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493-1512.
  • Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing 'methods' for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler, (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development, (pp. 206-243). Tonawanda: Multilingual Matters.
  • Peters, A. M., & Boggs, S. T. (1986). Interactional routines as cultural influences upon language acquisition. In B. Schiefelin, & E. Ochs (Eds). Language socialization across cultures, (pp.80-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I and II). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
  • Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
  • Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings, (pp. 101- ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191.
  • Sert, O. (2015). Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Language, learning, and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wong, J., & Waring, Z. (2008). 'Very good' as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3), 203.
  • Young, R. F. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105-132.
  • Young, R. F. (2000). Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium. Vancouver, Canada.
  • Young, R. F., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535.
  • Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki, & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk, (pp. 87-106). London: Sage.
  • Zimmerman, D. H. (1999). Horizontal and vertical comparative research in language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (1&2), 195-203.