Žákovská participace jako předmět akčního výzkumu

Roč.20,č.2(2015)
Studia paedagogica: Akce!

Abstrakt
Cílem této studie je analyzovat změny v participaci žáků na výukové komunikaci, k nimž došlo v důsledku zapojení učitelů do projektu akčního výzkumu zaměřeného na implementaci principů dialogického vyučování. Participace je operacionalizována jako: 1) výukový čas, který žáci vyplňují svými promluvami; 2) příležitost žáků k rozvitým promluvám; 3) triadická interakce, tedy bez prostřední komunikace mezi větším počtem aktérů, než je jeden žák a učitel. Prostřednictvím kvantitativní analýzy v příspěvku prokazujeme, že v hodinách sledovaných učitelů došlo ke zřetelnému posílení žákovské participace, a to ve všech uvedených parametrech. Následně pomocí kvalitativní analýzy identifikujeme mechanismy, které k tomuto výsledku vedou.

Klíčová slova:
výuková komunikace; dialogické vyučování; žákovská participace; akční výzkum
Reference

[1] Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. London: Blackwell.

[2] Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.

[3] Applebee, A. N., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. | DOI 10.3102/00028312040003685

[4] Atkins, L., & Wallace, S. (2012). Qualitative research in education. London: Sage.

[5] Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.

[6] Black, L. (2004). Differential participation in whole-class discussions and the construction of marginalised identities. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5(1), 34–54.

[7] Black, L. (2007). Analysing cultural models in socio-cultural discourse analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1–2), 20–30. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.07.003

[8] Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012

[9] Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2002). Elaborated student talk in an elementary ESoL classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(4), 495–530.

[10] Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141–169. | DOI 10.1207/s15548430jlr3802_2

[11] Burns, Ch., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35–50. | DOI 10.1080/0305764042000183115

[12] Candela, A. (2005). Students' participation as co-authoring of school institutional practices. Culture & Psychology, 11(3), 321–337. | DOI 10.1177/1354067X05055523

[13] Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heineman.

[14] Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411. | DOI 10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3

[15] Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498. | DOI 10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_4

[16] Corrie, L. (1997). The interaction between teachers' knowledge and skills when managing a troublesome classroom behaviour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 93–105. | DOI 10.1080/0305764970270108

[17] Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlstrom, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 205–223. | DOI 10.1080/00313830801915853

[18] Finn, J. D., & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 141–162. | DOI 10.3102/00028312029001141

[19] Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2013). The co-construction of learning difficulties in mathematicsteacher-student interactions and their role in the development of a disabled mathematical identity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 341–368. | DOI 10.1007/s10649-012-9457-z

[20] Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2007). The social construction of participation in an elementary classroom community. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(3–4), 141–158. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.011

[21] Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. In K. Littleton & Ch. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. understanding and promoting productive interaction (s. 48–63). London, New York: Routledge.

[22] Lefstein, A. (2002). Thinking power and pedagogy apart – coping with discipline in progressivist school reform. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1627–1655. | DOI 10.1111/1467-9620.00215

[23] Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.

[24] Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Social organisation in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[25] Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

[26] Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62(1), 249–258. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.05.003

[27] Myhill, D. (2008). Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 339–352. | DOI 10.1080/01411920220137430

[28] Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of 'Triadic dialogue'? An investigation of teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406. | DOI 10.1093/applin/21.3.376

[29] Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, London: Teachers College Press.

[30] Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Engaging students in guided science inquiry discussions: Elementary teachers' oral strategies. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 747–765. | DOI 10.1007/s10972-009-9168-1

[31] Parker, M., & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers' use of questioning and modelling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review, 59(3), 299–314. | DOI 10.1080/00131910701427298

[32] Scott, P., Ametller, J., Mortimer, E., & Emberton, J. (2010). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge. In K. Littleton & Ch. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction (s. 289–303). London, New York: Routledge.

[33] Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[34] Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

[35] Šeďová, K. (2011). Mocenské konstelace ve výukové komunikaci. Studia paedagogica, 16(1), 89–118.

[36] Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., & Šalamounová, Z. (2012). Komunikace ve školní třídě. Praha: Portál.

[37] Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., Sedláček, M., & Šalamounová, Z. (2014). On the way to dialogic teaching: Action research as a means to change classroom discourse. Studia paedagogica, 19(4), 9–43. | DOI 10.5817/SP2014-4-2

[38] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[39] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., & Turrou, A. C. (2014). Engaging with others' mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 79–93. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001

Metriky

416

Views

261

PDF views