From theory to practice: From planning to reflection on dialogic teaching

Vol.20,No.2(2015)
Studia paedagogica

Sami Lehesvuori Jouni Viiri

PDF (Czech)
Abstract
This study addresses how a science teacher, aware of the theory of dialogic teaching, is able to implement related communicative approaches in practice. Dialogic teaching approaches are increasingly gaining ground among scholars in the field of classroom interaction. Although reported as infrequent, many studies have provided carefully selected examples of dialogic communicative approaches. These approaches aim to facilitate students' thinking and challenge students to express their ideas beyond memorizing and collection of facts. Some studies have also addressed how dialogic teaching can be introduced to student teachers during teacher education. However, challenges arising from the implementation of dialogic practices into classroom realities are addressed insufficiently in these studies. In this study, the aim is to explore whether a teacher who is familiar with different communicative approaches, including the dialogic approach, is able to put theory into practice as a beginning secondary teacher. By analyzing the lesson plans/reflections and lesson videos, the aim is to find out whether a teacher well grounded in theory is able to implement pre-planned dialogic approaches in practice. Furthermore possible challenges, or conversely propitious conditions, for the implementation of the dialogic approach are illustrated. Results reveal that theory-based planning was successful in terms of bringing dialogicity into classroom realities. The majority of pre-planned episodes were reflected upon and analyzed as dialogic. Implications for teacher education and teacher professional development are also discussed.

Keywords:
classroom interaction; dialogic teaching; planning and reflection; communicative approach
References

[1] Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.

[2] Bleicher, R. E., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbin, C. J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 319–339. | DOI 10.1023/A:1025480311414

[3] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.

[4] Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the follow-up in english language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[5] Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. | DOI 10.3102/0013189X023007005

[6] Education indicators in focus 2012/09 (2012). Paris: OECD.

[7] Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen/Routledge.

[8] Freese, A. R. (2006). Reframing one's teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflection and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 100–119. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.003

[9] Hartford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884–1892. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010

[10] Hatton, N., &, Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. | DOI 10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U

[11] Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20171

[12] Kiemer, K., Gröschner, A., Pehmer, A. K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers' practice and students' motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35(1), 94–103. | DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003

[13] Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Towards dialogic teaching in science: Challenging classroom realities through teacher education. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

[14] Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705–727. | DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0

[15] Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939. | DOI 10.1002/tea.21100

[16] Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Company.

[17] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

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

[19] Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge, talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.

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

[21] Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (s. 177–194). New York: Springer.

[22] Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. | DOI 10.1080/09500780902954273

[23] Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 367–385. | DOI 10.1080/01411920410001689689

[24] Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

[25] Monet, J. A., & Etkina, E. (2008). Fostering self-reflection and meaningful learning: Earth science professional development for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 455–475. | DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9106-7

[26] Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

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

[28] O'Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 214–221. | DOI 10.1007/BF02357063

[29] Oliveira, A. W. (2009). Developing elementary teachers' understandings of hedges and personal pronouns in inquiry-based science classroom discourse. Journal of Research in Science Education, 8(2), 247–269.

[30] Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20345

[31] Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 957–969. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.005

[32] Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[33] Peters, E. E. (2010). Shifting to a student-centered science classroom: An exploration of teacher and student changes in perceptions and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 329–349. | DOI 10.1007/s10972-009-9178-z

[34] Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: Striking a balance between 'opening up' and 'closing down' classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324),

[35] 77–83.

[36] Scott, P., Ametller, J., Mortimer, E., & Emberton, J. (2010). Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (s. 322–337). London: Routledge.

[37] Science competencies for tomorrow' world, volume 1 – Analysis (2007). Paris: OECD.

[38] Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, D. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(3), 605–631. | DOI 10.1002/sce.20131

[39] Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Harper Collins.

[40] Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[41] Šeďová, K., Šalamounová, Z., & Švaříček, R. (2014). Troubles with dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 274–285. | DOI 10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.04.001

[42] Webb, N. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28. | DOI 10.1348/000709908X380772

[43] Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[44] Wells, G., & Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428. | DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3

[45] Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305. | DOI 10.1177/002248719104200407

Metrics

291

Views

116

PDF (Czech) views

Copyright © 2015 Studia paedagogica

PDF (Czech)