E. & Nath than, N N., ., Cohen ( (Sayag) g), E , E., G , Glassner, A , A., V , Vardi-Rat ath, E Kaye Academic ic C Colle lege o of Educatio ion, I Israel Th The 6th i h intern rnatio ional c l conference o of teache her e educ ucatio ion Jul uly 20 2013 13 1
• “Classroom discourse refers to any and to all verbal interchanges.” • “Discussion – Based Teaching involves the systemic use of discussion to accomplish curricular objectives.” (Henning, 2008) 2
What kind of discussion pattern is common among teachers? IRE - Initiation, Response and Evaluation Teacher: How many seasons we have in a year? Students: Four Teacher: Right ( Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Vardi-Rat 2001) (Wegerif, 2002) 3
Challe llengin ing I Instruc uctio ional D l Discour urse t to Promote L Learning • Build the social reality (Cazden, 1992). • Construct knowledge ( Henning , 2008) • Enable high order thinking and Promote reasoning ( Lund, 2004; Beck & MeKeown, 2009;Lefstien and Snell, 2012, p.38) 4
How w can instr structi tional disc scou ourse se create te ? meanin ingful l l learnin ing • All students can contribute to successful dialogue • Students have the opportunity to influence discourse • Give the students time to think • Give feedback which promote thinking ( Langer, 1997; Nystrand, Gamoran, Zeiser & Long, 2003; Applbee, Langer, Nystrand &Gamoran, 2003) 5
od Meth thod Action research focused on teaching and examining the results a course aiming to improve discourse navigation and perceptions. Research Question: Can a course on teaching how to conduct discourse in class create changes in student- teachers' discourse practices and perceptions? 6
The course model 1. . Modeling and analyzing three types of discourse D 2 - Exploratory D 3 - Disputational D 1 - Opening Discourse Discourse Discourse critical discussion divergent discussion convergent discussion 2. Conduct discussions during the course 3. Learning to document and analyze classroom discourse 7
Participants One group every year between 2007-2010 during one semester. Teaching Experience Mother Tongue No Teaching experience Hebrew- 67% (28) 57% (24) Veteran teachers Arabic- 33% (14) 43% (18) 42 42 8
Research Tools: • Drawing a concept map for the topic “good instructional discussion” • Documentation of two (pre & post) discourse conducted by student-teachers • Reflective writing on two discourse transcripts 9
Codin ing S System o of discours urse –focus us o on teacher’ t talk lk IN (8): Speech TT- Turn FE-Feedback TQ– Teacher Questions (7) Initiation Allocation (3) (3) TT1 - giving FE1 - short Script and uptake Open or close IN1 - statement Test or Real talk permit to negative/ positive questions questions IN2 – Requests Questions all feedback IN3 – Requests for TT2 - giving FE2 - repeating on sentence completion TQ6- script TQ4-Open TQ1 – Test talk turn to children answers IN4 – Raising a question - the question - the Questions specific pupil FE3 - connecting dilemma, conflict or question is part of question required The questioner (teacher between children problem the lesson elaboration, re- has the choice) saying, IN5 – summarizing the planning scenario. phrasing and information while TT3 - giving interpreting, IN6 – The teacher reorganization. checking others. talk turn to reflecting on express her opinion TQ7 - Uptake (When/ How) those who did children saying. question- the TQ2 Technical not talk IN7 - Opening and question is a TQ5 - Close question – "what closing discourse response to the question- The did you say?" episode on going answers are IN8 -urging discourse in class. embedded in the TQ3 – Real question, or questions- the suggested yes/no questioner does answer. not have the answers, and is interested to know it. 10
Codin ing S System o of discours urse –focus us o on teacher’ t talk lk Meta- Teacher enable Teacher Addressing to CM- content management Pragmatics talk without her individuals or to the whole Utterances (2) interference class Teacher cognitive Teacher speech Discourse Rule demands from acts on content Management student (6) (5) MM1- the CM21 - to bring/ CM11 – RM1 - focused on PR2 – enables 2 MF1 – the teacher address teacher explanations / discourse rules turns to all demonstrations clarifies information or information / RM2 - focused on PR3 - enables 3 objectives of ideas. behavior rules turns MF2 - the teacher address the discourse CM22 - to present CM12 - different PR4 - enables 4 to individual in public different point of point of view turns MM2 - The PR5 - enables 5 MF3 - the teacher address to views teacher shares CM23 - to describe CM13 –share turns individual in privacy students with their experiences students with her planning CM24 - to find teacher connections to experience CM14 - connect to their prior knowledge Prior knowledge CM25 - to clarify, CM15 –makes elaborate, generalizations, CM26 - to give inferences, reasoning and elaborations, justify their opinions CM27 – encouraging student to ask questions 11
Fin indings- Changes in s in co concept-maps Student-teachers used more concepts in their maps: pre- M = 10 .54 ( 5.28) post- M = 13.5 ( 4.94 ) t= -2.61 p=0.04 discourse time questions feedback Manage- control learning Rules ment 12
Qua uali litati tive a analysis o s of the the m maps s 13
Distr stribution o of F Four F Facets ts in S Stu tudent t –Teac achers C Clas lass Discours rse e Four facets Pre Post Questions 61.51 63.36 Initiations of 19.32 18.06 teachers’ talk Feedback 14.54 12.85 Giving Talk 4.63 5.73 Turn 100% 100% 14
Distr stributi tion on of te teachers’ s’ sp speech Initi tiati tions Pre –learning % Post- learning % 18.10 16.09 Explanations 18.04 15.85 Opening and closing sentences 15.89 20.50 Requests / instructions 15.99 6.98 Requests for completion of sentences 9.80 13.00 Summarizing and reminding 8.61 15.72 Informative Statements 7.67 7.36 Urging pupils to do or to speak 3.23 1.77 Raising an issue for discussion 2.66 2.74 Expression of teachers’ opinion 100% 100% 15
Three S Significant C t Changes : : Ask for completion of sentences N M(SD) t 4.90(3.19) 2.131* IN=pre 20 3.10 (2.44) IN=post 20 decrease *p<.005; **p<.001 Discourse rule N M(SD) t 4.73 (3.96) -2.451* RM pre= 22 Increase 9.45(11.14) RM post 22 Uptake Questions N M(SD) t 7.20 (6.05) -2.078* TQ 7- pre 35 Increase TQ 7- post 35 9.97 (5.87) 16
Significant Interaction effect was found between planned questions and uptake questions: PLANNED>UPTAKE PRE Planned Question Planned- M= 12.35; SD=6.11 The question is part of the lesson Response-M=7.35; SD=5.95 planning scenario How can we keep our water? PLANNED~UPTAKE POST Planned- M=10.01; SD=5.85 Uptake Question Response- M=9.97; SD=5.87 The question is given as a response to pupils’ answers What do you mean? How do you know it? 17
Sig. Interaction Effect between planned and response questions f (2;148) = 4.59 p= 0.004 6 -Planned Q. 7- Uptake Q. 18
Results from the Reflective Writing Student-teachers expressed their understandings - analysis of their own discourse : 1. Debora- I wanted to give every one his turn to talk but sometimes it interfered with the discourse’s flow, so I tried to move on and go back to hear the pupil when he knew what he wanted to say. Giving Turns is not a technical act. 2. Eleanor- I am trying to ask more open questions, but I had to rephrase my questions several times, because open questions sometimes were not clear. Asking Question needs rephrasing. 3. Hadas - When a pupil said a wrong answer, I needed to correct him, on the other hand I must also think how to encourage him. Feedback is sometimes elusive. 4. Efrat - I found myself giving positive feedback but I know that I should elaborate and help pupils conclude and justify their answers. Feedback should be challenging. 19
What did student-teachers learn? • They became aware of discourse processes – more utterances about discourse rules. • They conducted a more dialogic discourse- more uptake questions. • They became aware of the complexity of feedback, of giving talk turn and of asking questions process. 20
Recommend
More recommend
