Název: Three dimensions of dialogicity in dialogic argumentation
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2019, roč. 24, č. 4, s. [199]219
Rozsah
[199]219

ISSN18037437 (print)23364521 (online)
Trvalý odkaz (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/SP201949
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/142246
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
Three dimensions of dialogicity are emphasised in the literature: dialogic teacher talk, students' dialogic moves and organising for dialogic teaching. In this article, we examine these dimensions and the interplay between them in supporting dialogic argumentation in the context of wholeclass discussions in mathematics and physics. Three seemingly different seventhgrade lessons were selected for further analysis from the database of a research project on dialogic argumentation. In this paper, we focus on wholeclass discussions after a group assignment. The lessons were video recorded with multiple cameras and transcribed. We characterised dialogic features of teacher talk, more general teacher decisions and organising for dialogic teaching, as well as students' dialogic and justifying moves. In addition, we examined how these were connected. According to the results, the three dimensions of dialogicity played out differently in the lessons. Furthermore, the results give insights into the interplay of the three dialogicity dimensions and students' justifying moves in dialogic argumentation.
Note
This work has been funded by the Academy of Finland (project number 286576).
Reference
[1] Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.
[2] Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) Argumentation for learning: Welltrodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187.  DOI 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
[3] Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peertopeer dialog. Cognitive science, 33(3), 374–400.  DOI 10.1111/j.15516709.2009.01017.x
[4] Bakhtin, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
[5] Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891–1912.  DOI 10.1080/09500693.2018.1514543
[6] Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argumentbased inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 277–320.
[7] Conner, AM., Singletary, L.M., Smith, R.C., Wagner, P.A., & Francisco, R.T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students' engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429.  DOI 10.1007/s1064901495328
[8] Evans, S., & Dawson, C. (2017). Orchestrating productive whole class discussions: The role of designed student responses. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19(2), 159–179.
[9] Hähkiöniemi, M., & Francisco, J. (2019). Teacher guidance in mathematical problemsolving lessons: Insights from two professional development programs. In P. Felmer, P. Liljedahl & B. Koichu (Eds.), Problem solving in mathematics instruction and teacher professional development (pp. 279–296). Cham: Springer.
[10] Hähkiöniemi, M., Hiltunen., J, Jokiranta, K., Kilpelä, J., Lehesvuori, S., & Nieminen, P. (2019). Students' dialogic and justifying moves during dialogic argumentation in mathematics and physics. Manuscript in preparation.
[11] Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding wholeclass discussions in middlegrades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.  DOI 10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0646
[12] Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[13] Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen., J., & Viiri, J. (2017). Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science. Studia paedagogica, 22(4), 55–76.  DOI 10.5817/SP201744
[14] Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2018). Challenging transmission modes of teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learnercentredness through dialogicity. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 1049–1069.  DOI 10.1007/s1116501695987
[15] 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), 359–377.  DOI 10.1080/01411920410001689689
[16] Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (Eds.) (2020). The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. London: Routledge.
[17] Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. New York: McGrawHill Education.
[18] Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393.  DOI 10.1007/s111650119266x
[19] Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.
[20] O'Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue 'dialogic'? Human Development, 50(5), 275–285.  DOI 10.1159/000106415
[21] 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), 77–83.
[22] Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaningmaking interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.  DOI 10.1002/sce.20131
[23] Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57(1), 14–25.  DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005
[24] Segal, A., & Lefstein, A. (2016). Exuberant, voiceless participation: an unintended consequence of dialogic sensibilities? L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1–19.  DOI 10.17239/L1ESLL2016.16.02.06
[25] Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical thinking and learning, 10(4), 313–340.
[26] Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[27] Zaccarelli, F. G., Schindler, AK., Borko, H., & Osborne, J. (2018). Learning from professional development: A case study of the challenges of enacting productive science discourse in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 44(5), 721–737.
[28] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). 'Explain to your partner': teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.  DOI 10.1080/03057640802701986
[29] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., 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(1), 79–93.  DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001
[30] Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 244–274.  DOI 10.1159/000106414
[31] Wegerif, R., Doney, J., Richards, A., Mansour, N., Larkin, S., & Jamison, I. (2019). Exploring the ontological dimension of dialogic education through an evaluation of the impact of Internet mediated dialogue across cultural difference. Learning, culture and social interaction, 20, 80–89.  DOI 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.003
[32] Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
[2] Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) Argumentation for learning: Welltrodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187.  DOI 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
[3] Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peertopeer dialog. Cognitive science, 33(3), 374–400.  DOI 10.1111/j.15516709.2009.01017.x
[4] Bakhtin, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
[5] Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: Conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891–1912.  DOI 10.1080/09500693.2018.1514543
[6] Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argumentbased inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 277–320.
[7] Conner, AM., Singletary, L.M., Smith, R.C., Wagner, P.A., & Francisco, R.T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students' engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429.  DOI 10.1007/s1064901495328
[8] Evans, S., & Dawson, C. (2017). Orchestrating productive whole class discussions: The role of designed student responses. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19(2), 159–179.
[9] Hähkiöniemi, M., & Francisco, J. (2019). Teacher guidance in mathematical problemsolving lessons: Insights from two professional development programs. In P. Felmer, P. Liljedahl & B. Koichu (Eds.), Problem solving in mathematics instruction and teacher professional development (pp. 279–296). Cham: Springer.
[10] Hähkiöniemi, M., Hiltunen., J, Jokiranta, K., Kilpelä, J., Lehesvuori, S., & Nieminen, P. (2019). Students' dialogic and justifying moves during dialogic argumentation in mathematics and physics. Manuscript in preparation.
[11] Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding wholeclass discussions in middlegrades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.  DOI 10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0646
[12] Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[13] Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen., J., & Viiri, J. (2017). Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science. Studia paedagogica, 22(4), 55–76.  DOI 10.5817/SP201744
[14] Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2018). Challenging transmission modes of teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learnercentredness through dialogicity. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 1049–1069.  DOI 10.1007/s1116501695987
[15] 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), 359–377.  DOI 10.1080/01411920410001689689
[16] Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (Eds.) (2020). The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. London: Routledge.
[17] Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. New York: McGrawHill Education.
[18] Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393.  DOI 10.1007/s111650119266x
[19] Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.
[20] O'Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue 'dialogic'? Human Development, 50(5), 275–285.  DOI 10.1159/000106415
[21] 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), 77–83.
[22] Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaningmaking interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.  DOI 10.1002/sce.20131
[23] Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57(1), 14–25.  DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005
[24] Segal, A., & Lefstein, A. (2016). Exuberant, voiceless participation: an unintended consequence of dialogic sensibilities? L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1–19.  DOI 10.17239/L1ESLL2016.16.02.06
[25] Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical thinking and learning, 10(4), 313–340.
[26] Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[27] Zaccarelli, F. G., Schindler, AK., Borko, H., & Osborne, J. (2018). Learning from professional development: A case study of the challenges of enacting productive science discourse in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 44(5), 721–737.
[28] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). 'Explain to your partner': teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.  DOI 10.1080/03057640802701986
[29] Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., 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(1), 79–93.  DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001
[30] Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 244–274.  DOI 10.1159/000106414
[31] Wegerif, R., Doney, J., Richards, A., Mansour, N., Larkin, S., & Jamison, I. (2019). Exploring the ontological dimension of dialogic education through an evaluation of the impact of Internet mediated dialogue across cultural difference. Learning, culture and social interaction, 20, 80–89.  DOI 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.003
[32] Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.