Promoting Dialogic Talk in a Speaking Classroom: Rethinking Bakhtinian Pedagogy
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
فاطمه نیک نژاد ناییج آباد
1
,
محمدرضا خدارضا
2
,
داوود مشهدی حیدر
3
1 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد تنکابن، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تنکابن، ایران
2 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد تنکابن، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تنکابن، ایران
3 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد تنکابن، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تنکابن، ایران
کلید واژه: Speaking Skill, dialogic teaching, dialogic discourse pattern, EFL students, learners’ perceptions,
چکیده مقاله :
This study sought to promote EFL learners' speaking ability drawing on Bakhtin’s notion of dialogic discourse pattern (DDP) and to explore their perceptions towards implementing dialogic teaching (DT) in a speaking classroom. To this end, from the population of students in different language institutes, 47 students were selected based on a purposive sampling method. The data were collected at two step-wise processes adopting a mixed-method approach. First, the researcher directed two EFL teachers to apply the DDP principles in a dialogic (DG) and non-dialogic group (NDG). The intervention lasted for 12 weeks. Then, a posttest of speaking was conducted to track the possible improvement. The findings attested that the dialogic talk could promote EFL learners’ speaking ability. Next, DG group was required to complete a written discourse completion task to determine the extent to which incorporating DT could promote learners’ speaking ability. To analyze the data, Thomas's (2006) inductive approach was adopted comprising the dominant themes. The results revealed different themes and sub-themes such as developing self-directed learning skills, disseminating critical literacy practice, fostering language learning, promoting motivation and affective factors, to name but a few. The findings propose some implications for classroom management, materials preparation, and language policy program.
تحقیق حاضر تلاشی است جهت بهبود گفتمان نقادانه دانشجویان با استفاده از الگوی آموزشی باختین و بررسی نگرش دانشجویان نسبت به روش آموزشی دیالوکنیکی در کلاس مکالمه زبان انگلیسی. بدین منظور از دانشجویان موسسات آموزشی مختلف، تعداد ۴۷ نفر در این تحقیق به صورت هدفمند شرکت کردند. داده های تحقیق حاضر، در دو مرحله کمی و کیفی به صورت روش تحقیق تلفیقی جمع آوری شده است. در مرحله کیفی؛ دو مدرس زبان توسط محققین با روش اموزشی باختبن آشنا شدند تا اصول دیالکتیکی را در یک کلاس آموزش دهند و در کلاس دیگر به عنوان گروه گواه مورد مقایسه قرار بگیرند. این مرحله ۱۲ جلسه آموزشی طول کشید. اطلاعات جمع آوری شده با استفاده از آزمون تی تست در دو گروه مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داده است که اصول آموزشی دیالکتیکی باعث مکالمه نقادانه دانشجویان می گردد. مرحله دوم به صورت کیفی انجام شده است. در این مرحله از دانشجویان خواسته شده تا به سوالاتی در زمینه میزان اثربخشی این روش درپیشیرد مکالمه نقادانه به آنها پاسخ دهند. پاسخ دانشجویان جمع آوری و سپس با استفاده از مدل توماس نتایج این تحقیق به چند بخش کلی و جزئی تقسیم شده است که شامل پیشرفت خود یادگیری، پیشرفته سواد انتقادی، تمرین آموزش زبان انگلیسی و بالا بردن عوامل عاطفی و انگیزشی در یادگیری کلاس تقسیم بندی شده است. نتایج این تحقیق می تواند کاربردهای آموزشی در مدیریت کلاس تهیه تدوین مطالب درسی و برنامه ریزی در سیاست‌های آموزش زبان داشته باشد.
Aday, L. A., & Cornelius, L. J. (2006). Designing and conducting health surveys: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561-598.
Anderson, K. T. (2017). Leveraging Researcher Reflexivity to Consider a Classroom Event over Time: Reflexive Discourse Analysis of ‘What Counts’. Classroom Discourse, 8(1), 36-54.
Bakhtin, M. (1999). The Bildungsroman and its significance in the history of realism (Toward a historical typology of the novel). In M. Holquist (Ed.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 10-59). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M M Bakhtin (M. Holquist, ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.
Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891-1912.
Barjasteh, H. (2017). Navigating the Hindrances Arising at Macro and Micro-level from Practicality of Transformative Pedagogy. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 10(20), 29-49.
Barjesteh, H. (2019). Dynamicity of Transformative L2 Materials Preparation Model in EFL Classroom: Place of Critical Language Pedagogy in Teacher Education. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 38(2), 47-79.
Barjesteh, H., & Niknezhad, F. (2020). Fostering critical writing through dialogic teaching: A critical thinking practice among teachers and students. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 91-117.
Berson, E. Borko, H., Million, S., Khachatryan, E., & Glennon, K. (2015). Practice what you teach: A video-based practicum model of professional development for elementary science teachers. Orbis scholae, 9(2), 35-53.
Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907-941.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Degener, S. C. (2001). Making sense of critical pedagogy in adult literacy education. Annual review of adult learning and literacy, 2(1), 26-62.
Dehqan, M., & Niknezhad, F. (2017). Incorporating problem-posing instruction in an EFL speaking classroom: The case of fluency and accuracy in Challenges. In S. M. R. Amirian, & G. Zareian (Eds.), Foreign Language Teaching in Iran (pp. 33-53). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of Indignation. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Graves, N. (2013). Learner managed learning: Practice, theory and policy. Leeds: Routledge.
Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25-39.
Hansen, C., & Zukowski, J. (2008). Placement and evaluation package: Interchange, passages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Kabilan, M. K. (2000). Creative and critical thinking in language classrooms." The Internet TESL Journal, 6(6), 1-3.
Kiramba, L. K., & Harris, V. J. (2019). Navigating authoritative discourses in a multilingual classroom: Conversations with policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2), 456-481.
Lew, M. D., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Self-reflection and academic performance: is there a relationship? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 529-545.
Liyanage, I., & Canagarajah, S. (2019). Shame in English language teaching: Desirable pedagogical possibilities for Kiribati in neoliberal times. Tesol Quarterly, 53(2), 430-455.
Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E., & Soler, E. A. (2006). Towards acquiring communicative competence through speaking. Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 139-159). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Maslow, A. H. (1981). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McLaren, P. (2005). Capitalists and conquerors: A critical pedagogy against empire. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
McLaren, P. (2019). The future of critical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(12), 1243-1248.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, culture and social interaction, 1(1), 12-21.
Murcia, M. C., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teachin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H. & Wells, C. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.
Nguyen, X. N. C. M., & Walkinshaw, I. (2018). Autonomy in teaching practice: Insights from Vietnamese English language teachers trained in Inner-Circle countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 21-32.
Niknezhad Naeijabad, F., Khodareza, M., & Mashhadi Heidar, D. (2019). Appraising Discourse Content of EFL Classrooms through the Lens of Bakhtin’s Dialogic Discourse Pattern. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(1), 78-51.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Critical pedagogy and second language education. System, 18(3), 303-314.
Razmjoo, S. A., & Riazi, A. M. (2006). Do high schools or private institutes practice communicative language teaching? A case study of Shiraz teachers. In High Schools and Institutes. The Reading Matrix, 6 (3), 340-363.
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114-133.
Roberts, P. (1998). Freire, P.(1998) Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach, Boulder, Westview Press, 100 pp., ISBN 0 8133 2304-5. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 23(1), 40-55
Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education 67, 278-290.
Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.
Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy." Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 170-178.
Wegerif, R. (2019). Dialogic education in Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press
