اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 19 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 370 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,043 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,112,571 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,743,371 |
Interactional Characteristics of Contingency in Dyadic Teacher-Student Scaffolding Interactions: A Case of Iranian Novice and Experienced Language Teachers | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 4، دی 2022، صفحه 169-190 اصل مقاله (800.53 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2022.17053.2043 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad khatib* 1؛ Amir Kardoust2 | ||
| 1Allameh Tabataba University | ||
| 2Allameh Tabataba'i University | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 09 فروردین 1401، تاریخ بازنگری: 05 تیر 1401، تاریخ پذیرش: 15 تیر 1401 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Contingency has been claimed to be the central component of scaffolding. By contingency, a calibrated amount of help is provided for the learner. Different methods have been used to study contingency. In this study, contingency has been examined from the conversation analysis perspective in dyadic teacher-learner scaffolding interactions. To reach this aim, a convenience sample of Iranian novice and experienced English language teachers were studied in a non-governmental language institute in Tehran. Three novice and three experienced teachers were video-recorded for a 90-minute session each to yield a 9-hour corpus. After meeting official protocols, the recordings were transcribed using conversation analysis conventions. The results revealed differences between novice and experienced language teachers. Novice language teachers were less contingent towards their learners as they used more high-support moves like exposed corrections while the experienced language teachers used more low-support moves. Novice language teachers initiated more other-initiated-other-repair interactions but experienced language teachers initiated other-initiated-self-repairs. The claims of understanding were also treated differently in the scaffolding interactions. Novice language teachers treated claims of understanding as demonstrations and they did not follow them while experienced language teachers followed learners’ claims of understanding to ensure learning. Implications for language teachers and educators are then discussed. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| "contingency"؛ " scaffolding"؛ " conversation analysis"؛ "novice"؛ "experienced" | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| ویژگیهای پاسخگری در تعاملات تکیه گاه سازی معلم و دانش آموز: مطالعه معلمان باتجربه و تازه کار ایرانی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| محمد خطیب1؛ امیر کاردوست2 | ||
| 1دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی تهران | ||
| 2دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی تهران | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| پاسخ گری به عنوان اصلی ترین بخش تکیه گاه سازی مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. در پاسخ گری مقدار مشخصی از حمایت آموزشی در اختیار یادگیرنده قرار می گیرد. در این مطالعه، پاسخ گری از منظر تحلیل مکالمه در تعاملات تکیه گاه سازی آموزشی بین معلم و یادگیرنده مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. برای دستیابی به این هدف، گروهی از معلمان ایرانی تازه کار و باتجربه زبان انگلیسی در یکی از مؤسسات زبان غیردولتی در تهران مورد مطالعه قرار گرفتند. سه معلم تازه کار و سه معلم باتجربه هر کدام برای یک جلسه 90 دقیقه ای فیلمبرداری شدند تا یک مجموعه 9 ساعته به دست آید. پس از در نظر گرفتن پروتکل‌های رسمی، ویدئو های ضبط شده با استفاده از قراردادهای تحلیل مکالمه پیاده سازی شدند. نتایج تفاوت بین معلمان تازه کار و با تجربه را نشان داد. معلمان تازه کار نسبت به یادگیرندگان خود پاسخ گری کمتری داشتند زیرا از تکنیک های پاسخ گری با پشتیبانی بالا مانند اصلاحات آشکار استفاده می کردند در حالی که معلمان با تجربه بیشتر از تکنیک های با حمایت کم استفاده می کردند. معلمان تازه کار در ترمیم اشکالات، تزمیم را از دانش آموزش شروع و خودشان ترمیم را به پایان می رساندند اما معلمان با تجربه ترمیم را از دانش آموز شروع می کردند و خود دانش آموز ترمیم را به پایان می رساند. معلمان تازه کار همچنین ادعاهای درک را به عنوان درک نهایی تلقی می کردند در حالی که معلمان باتجربه ادعاهای یادگیرندگان را برای اطمینان از یادگیری دنبال می کردند. در انتها، نتایج مطالعه برای معلمان و مربیان زبان مورد بحث قرار می گیرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| پاسخگری, تکیه گاه سازی, تجزیه و تحلیل مکالمه, تازه کار, باتجربه | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adjei-Boateng, E., & Ampadu, E. (2018). Collaborative learning as a pedagogical tool to improve students’ learning. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on pedagogical models for next-generation teaching and learning (pp. 118-134). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3873-8.ch007
Bosanquet, P., & Radford, J. (2019). Teaching assistant and pupil interactions: The role of repair and topic management in scaffolding learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12231
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613
Fagan, T. K. (2012). School psychology. In D. K. Freedheim, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vols. 1, History of psychology, pp. 413-431). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Farrell, T. S. (2012). Novice-service language teacher development: Bridging the gap between preservice and in-service education and development. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.36
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in Action. Current Anthropology, 43(4), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/339566
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp. 255-280). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters [Originally in Studium Linquistik, (1983) vol.14, 58–68.].
Koole, T., & Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26, 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.02.001
Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204-1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003
Lee, Y. A. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.020
Losser, J. L., Caldarella, P., Black, S. J., & Pate, P. E. (2018). Factors affecting service-learning implementation: a comparison of novice and veteran teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 659-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1464906
Moerman, M., & Sacks, H. (1988). On “understanding” in the analysis of natural conversation. In M. Moerman (Ed.), Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis (pp. 180–186). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mulder, M. (2016, April). The competence construct in educational practice: A critical review of global critiques. In WERA Focal Meeting, Washington DC, United States
Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive roles of the teacher during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1825-1851. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239714
Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies during read alouds in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0348-6
Pino-Pasternak, D., Whitebread, D., & Tolmie, A. (2010). A multidimensional analysis of parent-child interactions during academic tasks and their relationships with children’s self-regulated learning. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 219-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.490494
Puntambekar, S. (2022). Distributed Scaffolding: Scaffolding Students in Classroom Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 451-472.
Radford, J. (2010). Practices of Other-initiated Repair in the classrooms of children with specific speech and language difficulties. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn046
Radford, J., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R. (2011). Opening up and closing down: How teachers and TAs manage turn-taking, topic and repair in mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 625-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.004
Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2014). Fostering learner independence through heuristic scaffolding: A valuable role for teaching assistants. International Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.010
Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R. (2015). Scaffolding learning for independence: Clarifying teacher and teaching assistant roles for children with special educational needs. Learning and Instruction, 36, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.005
Radford, J., Ireson, J., & Mahon, M. (2012). The organization of repair in SSLD classroom discourse: How to expose the trouble-source. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 3(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v3i2.171
Sacks, H. (1989). Lecture four: An impromptu survey of the literature. Human Studies, 12(3/4), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142769
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Volume I. Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295-1345. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2781417
Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar, Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, (pp. 52-133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Skinner, B. (2019). Let’s move on: second language trainee teachers’ talk and its impact on learner interaction, The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 513-526. https://doi.org.10.1080/09571736.2019.1642371
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
Tsui, A. B. (2009). Teaching expertise: Approaches, perspectives, and characterizations. In A. Burns & J., Richards, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp.190-197). Cambridge University Press.
van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.10.004
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.009
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge.
Wood, D. (2003). The Why? What? When? and How? of Tutoring: The Development of Helping and Tutoring Skills in Children. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-30.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502547800100203
Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498960220101 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 242 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 301 |
||