Multımodal resources ın students’ explanatıons ın clıl ınteractıon

İçerik ve Dil Entegreli Öğrenme (İDEÖ) son yıllarda dilbilim ve eğitim alanlarında oldukça önem kazanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, bir durum çözümlemesini baz alarak, İDEÖ gibi özel bir dil öğrenim ortamında doğal sınıf etkileşimini içeren video kayıtlarının ayrıntılı ardışık çözümlemesinin katılımcıların işbirlikçi açıklamalarını anlamamıza nasıl yardımcı olduğunu göstereceğiz. Konuşma Çözümlemesi (KÇ), Etkileşimsel Dilbilim (ED) ve Çok Kipli Çözümleme (ÇKÇ) yöntemlerini kullanarak, şu sorulara odaklanılmıştır: a) Açıklama eyleminde, öğrenciler tarafından hangi sözsel, söz-ötesi, ve sözsüz kaynaklar kullanılmaktadır? Ve b) Aktivite katılımcılar tarafından nasıl ardışık bir şekilde organize edilmekte ve nasıl işbirlikçi bir şekilde tamamlanmaktadır? Bulgular göstermektedir ki ardaşık, çok kipli bir yaklaşım, öğrencilerin (diğer öğrenciler ve öğretmen ile birlikte) açıklama eylemleri esnasında ne gibi kaynaklar kullandıklarını açığa çıkarmak için çok faydalıdır. Aktivitenin başarılı bir şekilde tamamlanmasını sağlayan bireyler arasındaki işbirliğidir; ve bu esnada dil ve içerik ile ilgili problemler; duraksamalar, yüz ifadeleri, işaret etme, ve mimikler ile gösterilmekte, ayrıca diğer öğrenciler tarafından istem ve ek yorumlar vasıtası ile çözülmektedir. Bu bulguların ışığında iddia edebiliriz ki, İDEÖ öğretmenleri, çeşitli göstergebilimsel kaynakları kullanmalarına fırsat yaratmaları için öğrencileri teşvik etmelidir, ve böylece hem açıklamaları yapan kişinin hem de tüm sınıfın hem içerik bazlı hem de dilbilgisel yapıları işbirlikçi bir şekilde tartışabilmeleri sağlanmış olacaktır.

In recent years, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has received much attention in linguistics and pedagogy. Based on a single case analysis, it will be shown how a detailed sequential analysis of video-recordings of naturally occurring classroom interaction enables us to understand how an explanation can be accomplished collaboratively by participants in a specific language-learning environment like CLIL. Drawing upon Conversation Analysis (CA), Interactional Linguistics (IL), and Multimodal Analysis, the questions addressed are a) what verbal, para-verbal, and non-verbal resources can be used by students to carry out the interactional activity of ‘explaining’? and b) how is the activity sequentially organized and collaboratively achieved by all participants? It will be shown that a sequential, multimodal approach is useful in revealing the subtle resources students deploy to construct meaning, in collaboration with the teacher and fellow students, in the course of an ‘explaining’. It is the cooperation between all participants which helps students accomplish the activity, where language and content problems are displayed through pauses, facial expression, pointing, and gesture, and resolved by fellow students through prompts and additional comments. Taking such findings into account, CLIL teachers should be encouraged to create opportunities for students to make use of various semiotic resources, allowing for the explainer and for the class to collaboratively negotiate subject-related content as well as linguistic form.

PDF

___

Appel, J. (2009). Erklären im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In: Spreckels, J. (ed.) (2009): Erklären im Kontext - Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Hohengehren: Schneider, 33-48.

Barth-Weingarten, D. (2008). Interactional Linguistics. In: Antos, G., Eija V. and Tilo W. (eds.): Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 2: Interpersonal Communication. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 77-106.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (2001). Introducing Interactional Linguistics. In: Selting, M., and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-22.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins.

Deppermann, A. and Schmitt, R. (2007). Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstands. In: Schmitt, R. (eds.): Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Tübingen: Narr, 15-54.

Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica. 62(1/2), 51-75.

Goodwin, Charles (2010). Building Action by Combining Unlike Resources. Plenary held at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA10) in Mannheim, July 4-8, 2010.

Harren, Inga (2009). Schülererklärungen im Unterrichtsgespräch des Biologieunterrichts. In: Spreckels, J. (ed.). Erklären im Kontext - Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Hohengehren: Schneider, 81-93.

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Koole, T. (2009). Erklären in der Mathematikklasse – Eine angewandte Konversationsanalyse. In: Vogt, R. (ed.), Erklären. Gesprächsanalytische und fachdidaktische Perspektiven. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 109-121. Koole, T. (2010). Displays of Epistemic Access: Student Responses to Teacher Explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209.

Kupetz, R. and Ziegenmeyer, B. (2005). Fallgeschichten zum bilingualen Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrerausbildung. In: Blell, G. and Kupetz, R. (eds.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht und Lehrerausbildung für den bilingualen Unterricht. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 65-100.

Kupetz, R. and Ziegenmeyer, B. (2006). Why does it scratch? - Learning to teach Biology in English (CLIL). ELT Conference Report - Current Trends and Future Directions in English Language Teaching: British Council, 58-65.

Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and Speech in the Vocabulary Explanations of One ESL Teacher: A Microanalytic Inquiry. Language Learning, 54(1), 79-117.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content – A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Marsh, D. (2000): Using languages to learn and learning to use languages – An Introduction to CLIL for Parents and Young People. URL: http://www.clilcompendium.com/1uk.pdf, retrieved October 7th , 2010.

Mohan, B. and Huxur-Beckett, G. (2001). A Functional Approach to Research on Content- based Language Learning: Recasts in Causal Explanations. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 58(1), 133-155.

Mondada, L. (2006). Video Recording as the Reflexive Preservation and Configuration of Phenomenal Features for Analysis. In: Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Jürgen R, and Hans-Georg Soeffner (eds.): Video-Analysis: Methodology and Methods: Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 51-67.

Mondada, L. (2007). Interaktionsraum und Koordinierung. In: Schmitt, R. (ed.). Koordination - Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 55-93.

Neumeister, N. (2009).“Wissen, wie der Hase läuft“. Schüler erklären Redensarten und Sprichwörter. In: Spreckels, J. (ed.): Erklären im Kontext - Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Hohengehren: Schneider, 13-32.

Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes. 26(2), 206–223.

Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. New York/London: Routledge.

Sacks, H. (1992). Notes on methodology. In: Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Reprint (1984). Cambridge: CUP, 21-27.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language. 50(4), 696-735.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Seedhouse, P. (2009). How language teachers explain to students what they are supposed to do. In: Spreckels, J. (ed.). Erklären im Kontext - Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Hohengehren: Schneider, 66-80.

Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2000). Argumente für die Entwicklung einer 'interaktionalen Linguistik'. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion. 1, 76-95. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de.

Selting, M. et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion. 10, 353-402. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de.

Selting, M. (forthcoming). Verbal, vocal, and visual practices in conversational interaction. In: Müller, C., Fricke, E., Cienki, A. and McNeill, D. (eds). Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook. Berlin etc.: de Gruyter

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis – An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. Spreckels, J. (ed.) (2009). Erklären im Kontext - Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Hohengehren: Schneider.

Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (2005): Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica. 156(1/4), 1–20.

Streeck, J. (1996). How to do Things with Things: Objects Trouvés and Symbolization. Human Studies. 19(4), 365-384.

Stukenbrock, A. (2009a). Erklären – Zeigen – Demonstrieren. In: Spreckels, J. (ed.), Erklären im Kontext – Neue Perspektiven aus der Gesprächs- und Unterrichtsforschung. Hohengehren: Schneider, 160-176.

Stukenbrock, Anja (2009b). Herausforderungen der multimodalen Transkription: Methodische und theoretische Überlegungen aus der wissenschaftlichen Praxis. In, Birkner, K. and Stukenbrock, A. (eds.), Die Arbeit mit Transkripten in Fortbildung, Lehre und Forschung. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, 144-169.

Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis. Just Speaking and Writing Aren’t Enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 50(1), 158-164.

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating Language and Content Teaching through Collaborative Tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 58(1), 44-63.

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In: Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum, 471-483.

Zydatiß, W. (2007). Bilingualer Fachunterricht in Deutschland: eine Bilanz. FLuL – Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen. 36, 8-25.