Mots-clés
sesji feedbackowe po hospitacjach zajęć
tutorzy uniwersyteccy
Comment citer
Résumé
Badanie dotyczy rozmów pohospitacyjnych w ramach praktyki nauczycielskiej przyszłych nauczycieli języka angielskiego jako obcego. Wykorzystując metodę analizy konwersacyjnej, dokonano analizy dyskursu dwóch uniwersyteckich opiekunów praktyk w pięciu obszarach, które tworzą go jako gatunek komunikacyjny. Celem było wyodrębnienie elementów językowych konstytuujących wspierający, demokratyczny i otwarty dialog, przyczyniający się do rozwoju cech profesjonalnego i empatycznego nauczyciela. Analiza tego korpusu wykazała, że wypowiedzi opiekunów zawierają elementy stylu konwersacyjnego i instytucyjnego oraz że są zdominowane przez strategię polegającą na zakotwiczaniu tematu bardziej złożonego, służącego rozwojowi sfery kognitywnej praktykanta, na temacie praktycznym, dotyczącym obserwowanej lekcji. W przypadku braku gotowości praktykanta do rozmowy na tym poziomie, opiera się ona na tym, co wydarzyło się na lekcji. Wsparcie sfery emocjonalnej jest językowo realizowane przez wypowiedzi, które chronią, wspierają i dają przestrzeń do rozwoju pewności siebie oraz tożsamości osobowej i zawodowej praktykanta. Badanie wpisuje się w debatę na temat efektywnych i wspierających rozmów pohospitacyjnych. Zwraca uwagę, że badanie własnych wypowiedzi podnosi świadomość opiekunów uniwersyteckich w zakresie języka, jakiego używają w kontaktach z praktykantami.
Références
Arshavskaya, E. (2014). Analyzing mediation in dialogic exchanges in a pre-service second language (L2) teacher practicum blog: A sociocultural perspective. System, 45, 129–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.007
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bąk-Średnicka, A. (2023). The practicum: Mentorship in supervision. A hybrid literature review and corpus-based analysis. Kielce: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego.
Bjuland, R. / Helgevold, N. (2018). Dialogic processes that enable student teachers’ learning about pupil learning in mentoring conversations in a lesson study field practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 246–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.026
Blumberg, A. / Cusick, P. (1969). Supervisor-teacher interaction: An analysis of verbal behavior. Education, 91, 26–134.
Brezina, V. / Weill-Tessier, P. / McEnery, T. (2020). LancsBox 5.x and 6.x [software]. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox
Brown, R. / Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge: MA: MIT.
Brown, R.V. / Hoffman, M.S. (1969). A promissory model for analyzing and describing verbal interaction between college supervisors and student teachers. In: M. Lindsey (ed.), Inquiry into teaching behaviour of supervisors in teacher education labs (pp. 84–108). New York: Teachers College Press.
Brown, P. / Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Burke, M. (2010). Stylistics. In: K. Malmkjær (ed.), The Routledge linguistic encyclopedia (3rd ed.) (pp. 517–524). London: Routledge.
Christensen, P.S. (1988). The nature of feedback student teachers receive in post-observation conferences with the university supervisor: A comparison with O’Neal’s study of cooperating teacher feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3), 275–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90007-8
Copland, F. (2008a). Deconstructing the discourse: Understanding the feedback event. In: S. Garton / K. Richards (eds.), Professional encounters in TESOL (pp. 5–23). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594173_1
Copland, F. (2008b). Feedback in pre-service English language teacher training: discourses of process and power. Unpublished doctoral thesis, the University of Birmingham.
Copland, F. / Donaghue, H. (2023). Analysing discourses in teacher observation feedback conferences. New York: Routledge.
Dobrowolska, D. / Balslev, K. (2017). Discursive mentoring strategies and interactional dynamics in teacher education. Linguistics and Education, 42, 10–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.09.001
Dzięcioł-Pędich, A. (2019). The TESOL practicum in Poland. In: A. Cirocki / I. Madyarov / L. Baecher (eds.), Current perspectives on the TESOL practicum. Cases from around the globe (pp. 207–222). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28756-6_11
Egan, G. (1990). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks / Cole.
Egan, G. (2002). The skilled helper: A problem-management and opportunity-development approach to helping. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks / Cole.
Farr, F. (2011). The discourse of teaching practice feedback. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846742
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 63–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976980210107
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
Gumperz, J. / Hymes, D. (eds). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jarvis, J. (2001). Exploring trainer dialogue. The IATEFL teacher trainers and educators SIG Newsletter, 1(16).
Jarvis, J. (2002). Constructing dialogue with teachers. Paper presented at the Inter-varietal Applied Corpus Studies Conference in Limerick.
Jaworski, A. / Coupland, N. (1999). The discourse reader. London: Routledge.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In: G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Kim, M. / Schallert, D.L. (2011). Building caring relationships between a teacher and students in a teacher preparation program word-by-word, moment-by-moment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1059–1067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.002
Kurtoğlu-Hooton, N. (2016). Confirmatory feedback in teacher education. An instigator of student teacher learning. London: Palgrave Pivot London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52439-3
Lave, J. / Wenger, E. (1991/2020). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Leff, M. / de Velasco, A. (2010). Rhetoric. In: K. Malmkjær (ed.), The Routledge linguistic encyclopedia (3rd ed.) (pp. 456–461). London: Routledge.
Llamas, C. (2010). Sociolinguistics. Introduction. In: K. Malmkjær (ed.), The Routledge linguistic encyclopedia (3rd ed.) (pp. 494–497). London: Routledge.
Long, J.J. / van Es, E.A. / Black, R.W. (2013). Supervisor-student teacher interactions: The role of conversational frames in developing a vision of ambitious teaching. Linguistics and Education, 24, 179–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.02.002
Mena, J., / Hennissen P. / Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge of teaching: The influence of mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 47–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.024
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, D. (1993). The language of criticism. London: Birkbeck College.
Phillips, D. (1999). The feedback session within the context of teacher training and development: An analysis of discourse, role and function. PhD thesis, Institute of Education University of London.
Pulvermacher, Y. / Lefstein, A. (2016). Narrative representations of practice: what and how can student teachers learn from them? Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 255–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.013
Rampton, B. / Maybin, J. / Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and method in linguistic ethnography. In: J. Snell / S. Shaw / F. Copland (eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 14–50). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137035035_2
Rowe, M.B. (1972). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on language, logic, and fate control. Chicago: ERIC.
Rowe, M.B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education January-February, 42–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110
Sacks, H. / Schegloff, E.A. / Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
Shaw, S. / Copland, F. / Snell, J. (2015). An introduction to linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations. In: J. Snell / S. Shaw / F. Copland (eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 1–13). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137035035_1
Steensing, J. (2010). Conversation analysis. In: K. Malmkjær (ed.), The Routledge linguistic encyclopedia (3rd ed.) (pp. 101–104). London: Routledge.
Strong, M. / Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 47–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.005
Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style. Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195221817.001.0001
Tannen, D. (2006). Language and culture. In: R.W. Fasold / J. Connor-Linton (eds.), An introduction to language and linguistics (pp. 343–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk. Language and interaction in institutional discourse. London: Routledge.
Trevethan, H. / Sandretto S. (2017). Repositioning mentoring as educative: Examining missed opportunities for professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 68(1), 127−133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.012
Vàsquez, C. (2004). ’Very carefully managed’: Advice and suggestions in post-observation meetings. Linguistics and Education, 15, 33−58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2004.10.004
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In: R.W. Rieber / A.S. Carton (eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1994). The pragmatics of feedback: A study of mitigation in the supervisory discourse of TESOL teacher educators. PhD thesis, Macquarie University in Sydney.
Zeichner, K.M. / Liston, D. (1985). Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(2), 155–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(85)90013-7
Licence
© Anna Bąk-Średnicka 2024
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Auteurs
Les auteurs de textes acceptés pour publication dans la revue Glottodidactica sont tenus de remplir, signer et renvoyer à l'adresse de la rédaction, un accord sur l'octroi d'une licence gratuite pour les œuvres, avec obligation d'accorder une sous-licence CC.
Conformément à cet accord, les auteurs des textes publiés dans la revue Glottodidactica accordent à l'Université Adam Mickiewicz de Poznań une licence non exclusive et gratuite et autorisent l'utilisation de la sous-licence Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Les auteurs se réservent le droit de disposer librement de l'œuvre.
Utilisateurs
Les utilisateurs d'Internet intéressés ont le droit d'utiliser les œuvres publiées dans la revue Glottodidactica depuis 2016, selon les conditions suivantes :
- Attribution – obligation de fournir, conjointement avec l'œuvre distribuée, des informations sur l'auteur, le titre, la source (lien vers l'œuvre originale, DOI) et la licence elle-même.
- Aucune modification – l'œuvre doit être préservée dans sa forme originale. Sans le consentement de l'auteur, il n'est pas possible de distribuer l'œuvre modifiée sous forme de traductions, publications, etc.
Les droits d'auteur sont réservés pour tous les textes publiés avant 2016.
Autres
L'Université Adam Mickiewicz de Poznań conserve les droits sur la revue dans son ensemble (mise en page, forme graphique, titre, conception de la couverture, logo, etc.).
A PARTIR DE L’ANNEE 2015, LES ARTICLES PUBLIÉS DANS LA REVUE SONT DISPONIBLES SOUS LICENCE CREATIVE COMMONS : https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.fr