Název: Žáci jako spolužáci : participace žáků na výukové komunikaci v kontextu jejich vlivu ve třídě
Variantní název:
- Students as classmates : students' participation in classroom discourse in the context of their social dominance
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2021, roč. 26, č. 1, s. 39-68
Rozsah
39-68
-
ISSN1803-7437 (print)2336-4521 (online)
Trvalý odkaz (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2021-1-2
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/143770
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
Předložená studie vychází z faktu, že participace žáků na výukové komunikaci se promítá také do jejich vzdělávacích výsledků, přičemž míra participace žáků je ovlivněna mimo jiné jejich postavením mezi ostatními spolužáky. Cílem této studie proto je z jistit, jakou podobu má participace žáků v kontextu vlivu, který jim přisuzují ostatní spolužáci ve třídě. Studie je koncipována jako kvalitativní výzkumné šetření, jež se opírá o datový korpus složený z videonahrávek série šesti vyučovacích hodin českého jaz yka a literatury ze čtyř devátých tříd českých základních škol (celkem 24 vyučovacích hodin), o data z rozhovorů s žáky i jejich učitelkami českého jaz yka, o výsledky sociometrických ratingových dotazníků a další doplňující data. Zaměřujeme se na participaci dvanácti žáků, kteří byli na základě sociometrického ratingového dotazníku vybráni jakožto žáci s nejnižším (osm žáků) a nejvyšším (čtyři žáci) individuálním indexem vlivu. Z našich výsledků vyplývá, že participace těchto žáků se výrazně odlišuje na úrovni rozhodnutí ne/participovat, z hlediska důvodů, pro které žáci ne/participují (vyhnout se posměchu vs. být slyšet), i z hlediska nastavení podmínek ke komunikaci s učitelkami a jejich odůvodňováním (hájení žáků vs. udržení kontroly nad situací). Za hodnotné považujeme výsledky vztahující se k participaci žáků s vysokým indexem vlivu a nejslabšími známkami, neboť právě tito žáci do výukové komunikace vnášejí repliky s argumenty a otevírají tzv. dialogický prostor. Z tohoto nálezu vyvozujeme didaktické implikace a poukazujeme na to, že zásadní podíl na tom, zda žáci argumentují, mají sami učitelé a jejich nastavení regulativního diskurzu ve třídě
This study is based on the fact that student participation in educational communication influences their academic achievement and that the extent of student participation is influenced by their position among their peers in the classroom. Therefore, this study inquires as to how students with the lowest and the highest level of dominance, as ascribed to them by their peers, participate in classroom discourse. Based on a sociometric rating-scale measure of dominance, this study investigates the participation of 12 Czech ninth grade students, out of which four have the highest and eight the lowest individual index of dominance. Our findings show that the participation of these students differs greatly, both in their choice of whether to participate and in their interpretations of why they do so. Our study also shows that teachers influence whether some students will participate by setting up beneficial conditions for participation. This study presents a significant finding: students who participate with argumentation and open the "dialogic space" are students who have a high index of dominance and the lowest academic achievement. We use this finding to propose implications for teaching and for emphasizing that teachers and how they establish regulative discourse in the classroom are important factors in deciding whether students participate with argumentation.
Note
Tento text je výstupem z projektu Kolektivita v dialogickém vyučování: intervenční studie (GA21-16021S) financovaném Grantovou agenturou České republiky.
Reference
[1] Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2003). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. Rutgers University Press.
[2] Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos.
[3] Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
[4] Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student learning and class participation in an internet-based MBA course. Management Learning, 31(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507600314006
[5] Black, L. (2004). Teacher-pupil talk in whole-class discussions and processes of social positioning within the primary school classroom. Language and Education, 18(5), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666888
[6] Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908
[7] Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & J. Larson (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (s. 74–103). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[8] Carletta, J., Anderson, A. H., & Garrod, S. C. (2002). Seeing eye to eye: An account of grounding and understanding in work groups. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.9.26
[9] Clarke, S. N., Howley, I., Resnick, L., & Penstein Rosé, C. (2016). Student agency to participate in dialogic science discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.002
[10] Corbin, J. (2012, 25. června). Theoretical coding and grounded theory analysis. Lekce Mezinárodní letní školy kvalitativních výzkumných metod ve vzdělávání. Trento.
[11] Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (1997). Students' and teachers' perceptions of conflict and power. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(5), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(97)85542-4
[12] De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Vervoort, E., Doumen, S., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2015). Developmental trajectories of children's behavioral engagement in late elementary school: Both teachers and peers matter. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1292–1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039478
[13] Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P. L., Den Noortgate, W. V., Claes, S., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2017). School engagement trajectories in adolescence: The role of peer likeability and popularity. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.006
[14] Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.883979
[15] Goffman, E. (1996). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
[16] Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00092-4
[17] 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9457-z
[18] Hrabal, V. (2002). Diagnostika: pedagogicko-psychologická diagnostika žáka s úvodem do diagnostické aplikace statistiky. Karolinum.
[19] Jarkovská, L., & Lišková, K. (2008). Genderové aspekty českého školství. Sociologický časopis, 44(4), 683–701.
[20] Jule, A. (2002). Speaking their sex: A study of gender and linguistic space in an ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i2.928
[21] Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2014). Predicting students' cognitive learning activity and intrinsic learning motivation: How powerful are teacher statements, student profiles, and gender? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.01.005
[22] Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., Heintz, A., & Nystrand, M. (2013). Inspiring dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom. New York London Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
[23] Kelly, S. (2008). Race, social class, and student engagement in middle school English classrooms. Social Science Research, 37(2), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.003
[24] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.011
[25] Landsheer, H. A., Maassen, G. H., Bisschop, P., & Adema, L. (1998). A reexamination of the relation between academic and social competence. Adolescence, 33(129), 185–191.
[26] Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2011). How Brianna became bossy and Kofi came out smart: Understanding the trajectories of identity and engagement for two group leaders in a project-based mathematics classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2011.595881
[27] Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. Routledge.
[28] Lortie, D. C. (1975). The schoolteacher. Sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
[29] Mameli, C., Grazia, V., & Molinari, L. (2020). Agency, responsibility and equity in teacher versus student-centred school activities: A comparison between teachers' and learners' perceptions. Journal of Educational Change, 21(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09366-y
[30] Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279526
[31] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
[32] Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
[33] Moscovici, H. (2002). Dynamics of power in teaching college biology: Influence on students' learning. In P. C. S. Taylor, P. J. Gilmer, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Transforming undergraduate science teaching: Social constructivist perspectives (s. 91–116). University of Pennsylvania, Lang Publishers.
[34] Myhill, D. (2002). Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920220137430
[35] Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers' beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
[36] Rentzsch, K., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2013). Being called a 'Streber': The roles of personality and competition in the labelling of academically oriented students. European Journal of Personality, 27(5), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1884
[37] Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
[38] Reznitskaya, A., & Willkinson, I. A. (2019). Measuring production and comprehension of written arguments in upper-elementary grades. Studia paedagogica, 24(4), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2019-4-3
[39] Sedova, K., & Salamounova, Z. (2016). Teacher expectancies, teacher behaviour and students' participation in classroom discourse. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 15(1), 44–61.
[40] Simensen, A. M., Furgestad, A. B., & Vos, P. (2015, 4. února). How much space for communication is there for a low achieving student in a heterogeneous group?. CERME 9 – Ninth congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
[41] Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2017). "Low ability," Participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 40–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217730010
[42] Steinberg, L. (2013). Adolescence. Mc Graw-Hill.
[43] Straehler-Pohl, H., Fernández, S., Gellert, U., & Figueiras, L. (2013). School mathematics registers in a context of low academic expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9503-5
[44] Šalamounová, Z. (2015). Socializace do školního jazyka. Masarykova univerzita.
[45] Šalamounová, Z., & Fučík, P. (2019). The relationship between peer status and students' participation in classroom discourse. Educational Studies [Publikováno online]. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1706042
[46] Šeďová, K. (2011). Mocenské konstelace ve výukové komunikaci. Studia paedagogica, 16(1), 89–118.
[47] Šeďová, K. (2019). Mluvit, či nemluvit? Participace na výukové komunikaci očima vokálních a tichých žáků a jejich učitelek. Orbis scholae, 13(2), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2019.3
[48] Teplá, M. (2014). Zaostřeno na šprty. Studia paedagogica, 19(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2014-1-8
[49] Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00404.x
[50] Vágnerová, M. (2000). Vývojová psychologie. Portál.
[51] Vygotskij, L. S. (1976). Myšlení a řeč. SPN.
[52] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., 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, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001
[53] Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511605895
[54] Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
[55] Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
[56] Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. SAGE.
[57] Zounek, J., Záleská, K., Juhaňák, L., Bárta, O., & Vlčková, K. (2018). Czech Republic and Norway on their path to digital education. Studia paedagogica, 23(4), 11–48. https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2018-4-2
[2] Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos.
[3] Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685
[4] Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student learning and class participation in an internet-based MBA course. Management Learning, 31(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507600314006
[5] Black, L. (2004). Teacher-pupil talk in whole-class discussions and processes of social positioning within the primary school classroom. Language and Education, 18(5), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666888
[6] Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908
[7] Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & J. Larson (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (s. 74–103). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[8] Carletta, J., Anderson, A. H., & Garrod, S. C. (2002). Seeing eye to eye: An account of grounding and understanding in work groups. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.9.26
[9] Clarke, S. N., Howley, I., Resnick, L., & Penstein Rosé, C. (2016). Student agency to participate in dialogic science discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.002
[10] Corbin, J. (2012, 25. června). Theoretical coding and grounded theory analysis. Lekce Mezinárodní letní školy kvalitativních výzkumných metod ve vzdělávání. Trento.
[11] Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (1997). Students' and teachers' perceptions of conflict and power. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(5), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(97)85542-4
[12] De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Vervoort, E., Doumen, S., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2015). Developmental trajectories of children's behavioral engagement in late elementary school: Both teachers and peers matter. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1292–1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039478
[13] Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P. L., Den Noortgate, W. V., Claes, S., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2017). School engagement trajectories in adolescence: The role of peer likeability and popularity. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.006
[14] Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.883979
[15] Goffman, E. (1996). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
[16] Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00092-4
[17] 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9457-z
[18] Hrabal, V. (2002). Diagnostika: pedagogicko-psychologická diagnostika žáka s úvodem do diagnostické aplikace statistiky. Karolinum.
[19] Jarkovská, L., & Lišková, K. (2008). Genderové aspekty českého školství. Sociologický časopis, 44(4), 683–701.
[20] Jule, A. (2002). Speaking their sex: A study of gender and linguistic space in an ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i2.928
[21] Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2014). Predicting students' cognitive learning activity and intrinsic learning motivation: How powerful are teacher statements, student profiles, and gender? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.01.005
[22] Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Caughlan, S., Heintz, A., & Nystrand, M. (2013). Inspiring dialogue: Talking to learn in the English classroom. New York London Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
[23] Kelly, S. (2008). Race, social class, and student engagement in middle school English classrooms. Social Science Research, 37(2), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.003
[24] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.011
[25] Landsheer, H. A., Maassen, G. H., Bisschop, P., & Adema, L. (1998). A reexamination of the relation between academic and social competence. Adolescence, 33(129), 185–191.
[26] Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2011). How Brianna became bossy and Kofi came out smart: Understanding the trajectories of identity and engagement for two group leaders in a project-based mathematics classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2011.595881
[27] Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. Routledge.
[28] Lortie, D. C. (1975). The schoolteacher. Sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
[29] Mameli, C., Grazia, V., & Molinari, L. (2020). Agency, responsibility and equity in teacher versus student-centred school activities: A comparison between teachers' and learners' perceptions. Journal of Educational Change, 21(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09366-y
[30] Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279526
[31] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
[32] Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
[33] Moscovici, H. (2002). Dynamics of power in teaching college biology: Influence on students' learning. In P. C. S. Taylor, P. J. Gilmer, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Transforming undergraduate science teaching: Social constructivist perspectives (s. 91–116). University of Pennsylvania, Lang Publishers.
[34] Myhill, D. (2002). Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920220137430
[35] Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers' beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
[36] Rentzsch, K., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2013). Being called a 'Streber': The roles of personality and competition in the labelling of academically oriented students. European Journal of Personality, 27(5), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1884
[37] Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
[38] Reznitskaya, A., & Willkinson, I. A. (2019). Measuring production and comprehension of written arguments in upper-elementary grades. Studia paedagogica, 24(4), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2019-4-3
[39] Sedova, K., & Salamounova, Z. (2016). Teacher expectancies, teacher behaviour and students' participation in classroom discourse. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 15(1), 44–61.
[40] Simensen, A. M., Furgestad, A. B., & Vos, P. (2015, 4. února). How much space for communication is there for a low achieving student in a heterogeneous group?. CERME 9 – Ninth congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
[41] Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2017). "Low ability," Participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 40–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217730010
[42] Steinberg, L. (2013). Adolescence. Mc Graw-Hill.
[43] Straehler-Pohl, H., Fernández, S., Gellert, U., & Figueiras, L. (2013). School mathematics registers in a context of low academic expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9503-5
[44] Šalamounová, Z. (2015). Socializace do školního jazyka. Masarykova univerzita.
[45] Šalamounová, Z., & Fučík, P. (2019). The relationship between peer status and students' participation in classroom discourse. Educational Studies [Publikováno online]. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1706042
[46] Šeďová, K. (2011). Mocenské konstelace ve výukové komunikaci. Studia paedagogica, 16(1), 89–118.
[47] Šeďová, K. (2019). Mluvit, či nemluvit? Participace na výukové komunikaci očima vokálních a tichých žáků a jejich učitelek. Orbis scholae, 13(2), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2019.3
[48] Teplá, M. (2014). Zaostřeno na šprty. Studia paedagogica, 19(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2014-1-8
[49] Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00404.x
[50] Vágnerová, M. (2000). Vývojová psychologie. Portál.
[51] Vygotskij, L. S. (1976). Myšlení a řeč. SPN.
[52] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., 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, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001
[53] Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511605895
[54] Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
[55] Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
[56] Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. SAGE.
[57] Zounek, J., Záleská, K., Juhaňák, L., Bárta, O., & Vlčková, K. (2018). Czech Republic and Norway on their path to digital education. Studia paedagogica, 23(4), 11–48. https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2018-4-2