Abstract
In the
recent years, the conceptualization of Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC)
and its interactional features have been closely examined in various contexts through
a variety of research methodologies (e.g. Aşık & Kuru Gönen, 2016; Seedhouse
& Walsh, 2010). This study investigates the needs for pre-service and in-service
German language teachers to improve their CIC. The current study also explores the
frequency of using interactional resources through opinions of the pre-service and
in-service German teachers. In the descriptive study, the data were gathered through
the survey of “Situation and Needs Analysis on Classroom Interactional Competence”.
A total number of 63 German language teachers participated in the study, 22 pre-service
and 41 in-service teachers from the state schools in 2016-2017 academic year. In
line with the participant responses to the survey items, independent sample T-test
was conducted and the relation between the needs and frequency of use of CIC was
scrutinized. In this study, the general opinions of the participants in control
group about CIC and its interactional properties were used to examine through a
qualitative data analysis program, and the data were thematized via the inductive
content analysis. The findings of this study have revealed that there is a match
between the needs and frequency of using CIC features that are stated by the participants.
This demonstrates that the participants think that they utilize CIC and its features
during their teaching practices in a direct proportion in addition to the degree
they ascribe necessity of these features. The participants of the study have also
emphasized the significant role of CIC in foreign language education and they have
declared the necessity of CIC training within both pre-service and in-service teacher
education. The analytic findings of this study are supposed to make an important
contribution to classroom interaction and teacher education by reflecting the perspectives
of German language teachers regarding these issues.
Keywords
Classroom interaction foreign language education teacher education German language teaching
References
- Amir, A. ve Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 151-167.
- Aşık, A. ve Kuru Gönen, S. I. (2016). Pre‐service EFL teachers’ reported perceptions of their development through SETT experience. Classroom Discourse. 7(2), 164‐183.
- Balcı, A. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık
- Bilgin, N. (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde İçerik Analizi. Teknikler ve Örnek Çalışmalar. Ankara: Siyasal.
- Boettcher, W. (1999). Der Kampf mit dem Präpositionalobjekt. Grammatische Abenteuer in Schule und Hochschule. İçinde A. Bremerich-Vos (Ed.), Zur Praxis des Grammatikunterrichts (s.193-252). Freiburg im Breisgau: Fillibach.
- Bozbıyık, M. (2017). The implementation of VEO in an English language education context: A focus on teacher questioning practices. Unpublished master's thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri.Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6 (1), 33-56.
- Chomsky, N. ve Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics, 1(02), 97-138.
- Ellis, R. (2003). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Escobar Urmeneta, C. ve N. Evnitskaya (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165-80.
- Fröhlich, M., Spada, N. ve Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. Tesol Quarterly, 19(1), 27-57.
- Howard, A. (2010). Is there such a thing as a typical language lesson?. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 82-100.
- Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
- Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel.
- Koçer, Ö. (2013). Program Geliştirmenin İlk Basamağı: Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretiminde İhtiyaç ve Durum Analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 38 (169), 159-174.
- Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 35, 277-309.
- Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5, 51-77.
- Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372.
- Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
- Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–27.
- Mayer, O. ve Hüther, T. (2010). Wortschatzerklärungen im DaF-Unterricht in Japan. Ergebnisse einer videobasierten Unterrichtsanalyse. 愛知教育大学研究報告, 59 (人文・社会科学編), 77-84.
- Miles, Matthew B. ve Huberman, A. Michael (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising Learning in Applied Linguistics (pp. 105-126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. ve Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696-735.
- Schart, M. ve Legutke, M. (2012). Lehrkompetenz und Unterrichtsgestaltung. München: Langenscheidt.
- Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38 (4), 165-187.
- Seedhouse, P. ve Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising Learning in Applied Linguistics (pp. 127-146). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sert, O. (2011). A Micro-Analytic Investigation of Claims of Insufficient Knowledge in EAL Classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne.
- Sert, O. (2015). Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- Sert, O. (2016). Sınıf İçi Etkileşim ve Öğretmen Yetiştirme. İçinde S. Akcan ve Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Türkiye’deki Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Üzerine Görüş ve Düşünceler (s. 14-30). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınevi.
- Sert, O. ve Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542-565.
- Shamsipour, A. ve Allami, H. (2012). Teacher talk and learner involvement in EFL classroom: The case of Iranian setting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2262
- Sinclair, J. ve Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University.
- Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23.
- Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher self-evaluation. Language awareness, 12(2), 124-142.
- Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge.
- Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
- Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
- Walsh, S. ve Li L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247-66.
- Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577-594.
- Yükseköğretim Kurulu (1998). YÖK-Dünya Bankası Fakülte-Okul İşbirliği Kılavuzu. Ankara: YÖK.
- Yükseköğretim Kurulu (2018). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğretmen Yetiştirme Lisans Programları. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/icerik/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_rEHF8BIsfYRx/10279/49875], Erişim tarihi: 15.04.2018.
Abstract
Son yıllarda Sınıf İçi Etkileşimsel Yeti kavramı ve etkileşimsel özellikleri
çeşitli bağlamlarda farklı araştırma yöntemlerinden faydalanılarak yakından incelenmiştir
(örn. Aşık & Kuru Gönen, 2016; Seedhouse & Walsh, 2010). Bu çalışma Almanca
öğretimi yapan hizmet öncesi ve hizmet içi öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi etkileşim becerilerinin
geliştirilmesine yönelik ihtiyaçlarını araştırmaktadır. Bu etkileşim özelliklerinin
ne sıklıkla kullanıldığı da hizmet öncesi ve hizmet içi Almanca öğretmenlerinin
görüşleri doğrultusunda araştırılmaktadır. Tarama modelindeki çalışmada veriler
“Sınıf İçi Etkileşimsel Özellikler İhtiyaç Analizi” başlıklı anket formu kullanılarak
elde edilmiştir. Araştırma 2016-2017 öğretim yılında 22’si hizmet öncesi Almanca
öğretmeni ve 41’i de Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’na bağlı olarak görev yapmakta olan
hizmet içi Almanca öğretmeni olmak üzere toplam 63 kişi üzerinde yürütülmüştür.
Katılımcıların anketlere sunduğu yanıtlar doğrultusunda bağımsız örneklem t-testi
uygulanarak sınıf içi etkileşim becerilerine duyulan ihtiyaç ile kullanım sıklığı
arasındaki ilişki analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma grubundaki katılımcıların konuya yönelik
genel görüşleri ise bir nitel veri analizi programından faydalanılarak taranmış
ve veriler tümevarımcı içerik analizi ile kategorileştirilmiştir. Çalışmadan elde
edilen sonuçlar sınıf içi etkileşimsel becerilerin katılımcılar tarafından belirtilen
ihtiyaç dağılımı ve kullanım sıklık dereceleri arasında uyumlu bir ilişki olduğunu
göstermektedir. Bu durum katılımcıların sınıf içi etkileşimsel becerilere yükledikleri
ihtiyaç seviyesi ile doğru orantılı olarak öğretmenlik uygulamalarına da bu etkileşimsel
yetilerin kullanımını yansıttıklarını düşündüklerini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, katılımcılar
sınıf içi etkileşimin yabancı dil öğretimindeki önemli rolünü vurgulamış ve hem
hizmet öncesi hem de hizmet içi eğitimde yer alması gerektiğini belirtmişlerdir.
Bu çalışmanın analitik bulgularının Almanca öğretmenlerinin bakış açısını yansıtarak
sınıf içi etkileşim ve öğretmen yetiştirme alanına önemli katkılarda bulunacağı
düşünülmektedir.
References
- Amir, A. ve Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 151-167.
- Aşık, A. ve Kuru Gönen, S. I. (2016). Pre‐service EFL teachers’ reported perceptions of their development through SETT experience. Classroom Discourse. 7(2), 164‐183.
- Balcı, A. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık
- Bilgin, N. (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde İçerik Analizi. Teknikler ve Örnek Çalışmalar. Ankara: Siyasal.
- Boettcher, W. (1999). Der Kampf mit dem Präpositionalobjekt. Grammatische Abenteuer in Schule und Hochschule. İçinde A. Bremerich-Vos (Ed.), Zur Praxis des Grammatikunterrichts (s.193-252). Freiburg im Breisgau: Fillibach.
- Bozbıyık, M. (2017). The implementation of VEO in an English language education context: A focus on teacher questioning practices. Unpublished master's thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri.Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6 (1), 33-56.
- Chomsky, N. ve Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics, 1(02), 97-138.
- Ellis, R. (2003). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Escobar Urmeneta, C. ve N. Evnitskaya (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165-80.
- Fröhlich, M., Spada, N. ve Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. Tesol Quarterly, 19(1), 27-57.
- Howard, A. (2010). Is there such a thing as a typical language lesson?. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 82-100.
- Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
- Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel.
- Koçer, Ö. (2013). Program Geliştirmenin İlk Basamağı: Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretiminde İhtiyaç ve Durum Analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 38 (169), 159-174.
- Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 35, 277-309.
- Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5, 51-77.
- Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372.
- Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
- Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–27.
- Mayer, O. ve Hüther, T. (2010). Wortschatzerklärungen im DaF-Unterricht in Japan. Ergebnisse einer videobasierten Unterrichtsanalyse. 愛知教育大学研究報告, 59 (人文・社会科学編), 77-84.
- Miles, Matthew B. ve Huberman, A. Michael (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising Learning in Applied Linguistics (pp. 105-126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. ve Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696-735.
- Schart, M. ve Legutke, M. (2012). Lehrkompetenz und Unterrichtsgestaltung. München: Langenscheidt.
- Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38 (4), 165-187.
- Seedhouse, P. ve Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising Learning in Applied Linguistics (pp. 127-146). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sert, O. (2011). A Micro-Analytic Investigation of Claims of Insufficient Knowledge in EAL Classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne.
- Sert, O. (2015). Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- Sert, O. (2016). Sınıf İçi Etkileşim ve Öğretmen Yetiştirme. İçinde S. Akcan ve Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Türkiye’deki Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Üzerine Görüş ve Düşünceler (s. 14-30). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınevi.
- Sert, O. ve Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542-565.
- Shamsipour, A. ve Allami, H. (2012). Teacher talk and learner involvement in EFL classroom: The case of Iranian setting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2262
- Sinclair, J. ve Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University.
- Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23.
- Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher self-evaluation. Language awareness, 12(2), 124-142.
- Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge.
- Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
- Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
- Walsh, S. ve Li L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247-66.
- Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577-594.
- Yükseköğretim Kurulu (1998). YÖK-Dünya Bankası Fakülte-Okul İşbirliği Kılavuzu. Ankara: YÖK.
- Yükseköğretim Kurulu (2018). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğretmen Yetiştirme Lisans Programları. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/icerik/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_rEHF8BIsfYRx/10279/49875], Erişim tarihi: 15.04.2018.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Makaleler |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | January 31, 2019 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2019 Volume: 34 Issue: 1 |
