How does a high school biology teacher interact with his 10th grade students?: Examining science talk in evolution and human genetics instruction from a sociolinguistics perspective
Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.
- Tez No: 403403
- Danışmanlar: Dr. VALARIE L. AKERSON
- Tez Türü: Doktora
- Konular: Eğitim ve Öğretim, Education and Training
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 2017
- Dil: İngilizce
- Üniversite: Indiana University
- Enstitü: Yurtdışı Enstitü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Sayfa Sayısı: 344
Özet
Özet yok.
Özet (Çeviri)
The results showed that Evan used discourse patterns of lecture, recitation, guided discussion, guided small group work, activity preparation, and teacher's instructions in the evolution unit, and lecture, recitation, activity preparation, teacher's instructions, and student presentation in the human genetics unit. The similarity between the two units was that Evan used lecture and recitation more frequently than other discourse patterns. The difference was that Evan used guided discussion and guided small work only in the evolution unit. Although Evan controlled many steps in guided discussion and guided small group work, they still made more room for students' opinions and reasoning than other discourse types used in the two units. Another difference was that student presentation, in which only the student talked, was used only used in the human genetics unit. Activity preparation, teacher instruction, student presentation, and guided small group work were the discourse patterns categories that emerged in this study while other discourse pattern types were borrowed from van Zee et al. (2001)'s framework for ways of talk in science classrooms, which included two other discourse patterns that are more student-centered, peer collaboration and student generated inquiry discussion, neither of which Evan used in either unit. Among the discourse patterns Evan used, lecture, teacher's instructions and activity preparation featured teacher-talk almost entirely. In recitation, the most frequently used discourse pattern in both units, and guided discussion, used only in the evolution unit both students and teacher talked in whole class question-response- evaluation and/or feedback exchanges. Additive recitation series occurred when the teacher used multiple recitations and asked multiple questions sequentially. Guided small group work and student presentations, discourse patterns in which students should encouraged to speak up and share their ideas with the whole class or their small groups, many steps of these two patterns were still teacher directed, which left less room for students' creativity and ideas. Among all the discourse patterns, small group interactions most promoted students' questioning. During lectures and recitations, however, student questions were not as welcomed and sometimes regarded as interruptions and not answered at that moment. Additionally, teacher-initiated conversations usually occurred between the teacher and fewer than four students, the exceptions being five interactions with four students and two interactions with five students. Question 2: What are the purposes and cognitive functions of teacher questions and the purposes of student responses in teacher-initiated dialogues? What types of feedback does the teacher provide following students' responses? To answer this research question, I transcribed verbatim everything audible in the discourse patterns that started with teacher questions in the 14 lessons across units to analyze the purposes and cognitive functions of the teacher's questions, the students' responses, and the teacher's follow-ups. (Paulus, Lester, & Dempster, 2013). For this analysis, I used Chin's (2006) categories of moves, types and purposes of utterance, teacher feedback, and students' cognitive process. When I came across instances that did not fit into these categories. I created new subcodes, especially for purpose of utterance, teacher feedback, and students' cognitive processes. In addition, I coded the days of the week on which conversations occurred and specifically identified Bella's talk as she emerged as a focal participant because, as noted earlier, she was the most talkative student in the classroom (I will discuss the frequency of her talk later in the chapter). In the dialogues that started with teacher questions, I coded each teacher question, each student response, and each teacher follow up separately. My codes for the speaker were teacher, student 1, student 2, student 3, student 4, student 5 (none of the dialogues involved more than five students), and students. I coded instances when students answered a question in chorus (usually responding to short answer questions) as students. Then, I coded the same utterance for its type and move. For the types of the utterance, I used the categories of question, answer, comment, and statement. For the moves, I coded teacher questions as initiate when he was asking for the first time or re-initiate if he was restating the same question when students did not respond or provided responses he considered incorrect or inappropriate. I coded student's utterances as respond when they were responding to a question and re-respond when the same student was re-answering the same question (usually after the teacher's re-initiation). Re-initiate and re-respond categories emerged during the analysis as Evan sometimes repeated the same question usually with fine tuning until he received the response he sought. I coded teacher's follow up as evaluate and/or feedback. After I coded each utterance for its speaker and move, I coded for its purpose. Because the dialogues I analyzed started with the teacher's questions, students talked for the purposes of“reply”, justify, and“self-correct.”However, teacher's purposes in his questions and follow ups varied more, although some codes, such as assess correctness, appeared more than others. For the purposes of the utterances, I used Chin's (2006) codes (accept, challenge, check, clarify, consolidate, correct, elicit, expound, fine-tune, guide, inform, link, probe, remind, restate student's response, restate the question, and specify) as well as codes that emerged during analysis (assess correctness, attention-drive, praise, and tease). For the student utterances, I coded students' cognitive process as well as purposes of their talk. These categories helped me to see the cognitive functions of each teacher question. Chin's (2006) codes for the students' cognitive processes that were found in the data at least once included apply, compare, describe, evaluate, explain, guess, hypothesize, identify, predict, and recall, to which I added the codes read, infer, and calculate, which emerged during analysis. Chin's categories of observe, theorize, and sort or classify were not observed in the 14 lessons that I analyzed. Additionally, I coded students' utterances as“Bella”or“not Bella”. Another main category was the types of teacher's follow ups to students' responses, which included both categories borrowed from Chin's study and categories that emerged during the analysis. Types of teacher follow-ups were categorized according to whether the students' responses were correct, incorrect, a mixture of correct and incorrect, incomplete, absent, or not needing to be correct. The correctness of a response was not always factual but sometimes appropriate from teacher's perspective. The categories of teacher follow-ups when students' answers were correct (or appropriate) included acknowledging with no follow-up,acknowledging with praise, asking a new question with no comment, accepting and asking more questions, affirmation-consolidation, and affirmation-direct instruction. The categories of teacher follow-up when student/s' answers were incorrect (or inappropriate) included accepting while still seeking for a better response, explicit correction without explanation, implicit correction without explanation, consolidation and reformulation of the question, constructive challenge, and ignoring. The categories of teacher follow-up when students' responses were a mixture incorrect (or inappropriate) and correct (or appropriate) included focusing on correct parts while ignoring incorrect parts, focusing on right answers while ignoring wrong answers (when multiple students had responded), extension by responsive questioning (focusing and zooming), explanation of response, and ignoring of response. The categories of teacher follow-up to student/s' incomplete responses included only the category of waiting for other students to complete the rest of the response. The categories of teacher followup when students did not provide a response included repeating the same question, providing more details or giving hints, and reformulation of the question. In the following section, I illustrate how these codes were applied to the teacher's and students' utterances with three sample dialogues (two recitation and one guided discussion), followed by more details including frequency and percentage of the application of each code. Table 2 below includes exchanges between the teacher and students from an additive recitation dialogue that occurred on in the human genetics unit. In this dialogue, Evan is asking questions to make sure students grasp an idea before they start answering analysis questions and making graphs on the worksheet that they are supposed to complete individually. The first dialogue starts with Evan's oral reading of the first question on the assignment sheet,“Is it true that dominant phenotypes are always the most common in a population?”Because this question called for a yes/no answer to assess the correctness of students' responses, I coded it as question (Q) for the type of utterance, initiate (I) for its move, and assess correctness for its purpose. In response to Evan's question, one female student (Bella) said“no”without adding any other explanation. Bella's utterance was coded as answer (A) for the type of utterance, respond (R) for its move, and reply for its purpose. Because Bella was evaluating what the teacher had just asked, the cognitive process behind her answer was coded as evaluate. The student responded to Evan's initial yes/no question without explaining her thinking or showing her understanding, which apparently was not satisfactory for Evan as in his follow-up he said,“No, it is not true. So, based on the pinky example, who can explain why it is not always true? Bella (using the student's name)?”This type of his utterance was coded as evaluate (E) because he accepted the correctness of the student's response, and feedback (F) because he gave feedback and initiate (I) because he asked another question. In his utterance, after reinforcing Bella's response by restating it (“No, it's not true”), Evan aimed to elicit students' understanding by reminding them of a previously discussed example and asking a why question:“So, based on the pinky example, who can explain why it is not always true?”Therefore, the purposes of Evan's question were coded as accept, restate student's response, remind, and elicit. The type of teacher follow-up was coded as“accepting and asking another question”under the category of“When Student's Response is Correct”. In turn, Bella responded;“Because on here like the bent pinky is dominant and because of that only 50% of it is showing. So, like, shouldn't it be 75%?”As she started her response with a“because”in answer to a“why”question, the purpose of her response was coded as justify and reply. The cognitive process behind her response was coded as explain and apply, the latter because she applied her understanding to the pinky example and attempted to explain (although not completely) why dominant phenotypes are not always the most common in a population. In response to Bella's incomplete response, Evan gave more information with an example and asked another question. This type of utterance was coded as comment (C), statement (S) because he explained it with an example, and question (Q) because he asked another question. The purpose of his response was coded as inform because he provided information and completed Bella's response, remind, and assess correctness because he asked a probability question that evaluated the accuracy of student's response. In response to Evan's question,“if you cross two heterozygous genes, what is the probability of inheritance of at least one dominant allele?”One male student said“1”(probably guessing or failing to understand what the question), and another student (Bella) said 75%, which was the correct response. The cognitive process behind Bella's response was coded as recall (from experience with problems involving probabilities in genetics) and calculate because she made a math calculation. As follow-up, Evan ignored the inaccurate response and followed up on Bella's response only by repeating it. Then he closed the dialogue by summarizing the main points discussed so far. The purpose of his talk, therefore, was coded as accept, restate student's response, and consolidate. This type of follow up was categorized as "focusing on the right answer and ignoring others when multiple students have produced a mixture of correct and incorrect responses (see Table 2 below for the codes).
Benzer Tezler
- Lise ekoloji konularının disiplinler arası öğrenci merkezli öğretiminin başarıdaki rolü
The Role of student centered interdisciplinary ecology teaching on secondary school student success
SELİME ÇİMEN
Doktora
Türkçe
2002
BiyolojiMarmara ÜniversitesiOrtaöğretim Fen ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. SEMA ERGEZEN
- Fen lisesi biyoloji ders kitaplarındaki 'enerji' kavramının incelenmesi
Examining the concept of 'energy' in science high school biology textbooks
HATİCE SULTAN AYDOĞAN
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2022
Eğitim ve ÖğretimNecmettin Erbakan ÜniversitesiMatematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. MUSA DİKMENLİ
- Doğrusal olmayan kanonik korelasyon analizi ve bir uygulama
Nonlinear canonical correlation analysis and an application
NECDET SÜT
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2001
Tıbbi BiyolojiTrakya ÜniversitesiBiyoistatistik Ana Bilim Dalı
Y.DOÇ.DR. MEVLÜT TÜRE
- 11. sınıf biyoloji ders kitabında kullanılan metaforlar ve analojiler üzerine bir çalışma
A study on the metaphors and analogies used in the 11th grade biology textbook
HÜLYA BOYA
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2023
Eğitim ve ÖğretimBalıkesir ÜniversitesiMatematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı
DR. ÖĞR. ÜYESİ BURCU GÜNGÖR CABBAR
- For an echology of microbe-artworks:Thinking in between art and science
Mikrop-sanatın bir yankıbilimine doğru: sanat ile bilimin arasında düşünmek
EMRE SUNTER
