Słowa kluczowe
zaangażowanie w naukę
pomocna rozmowa
rozmowa niepomocna
nauka ucznia
Jak cytować
Abstrakt
This pragmatic case study explores Japanese students’ perceptions of lecturer talk in an Australian higher-education setting. The main findings cover two sections. The first section discusses positive talk focusing on pedagogical strategies that enhance student engagement. Teachers can create a stimulating learning environment that fosters active participation and meaningful connections with students through personal anecdotes, real-world applications, and interactive discussions. The second section examines negative talk with poor impact on student learning experiences. Issues such as lack of clarity, low interaction, and undesirable teaching approaches hinder students’ comprehension and engagement, highlighting the importance of effective communication strategies in facilitating learning. The article concludes with practical recommendations provided by students to improve teacher communication and enhance the overall learning experience, emphasising the significance of student-centred, engaging, and inclusive teaching practices in promoting compelling lecturer talk.
Bibliografia
Aukrust V.G. (2007), Young children acquiring second language vocabulary in preschool group-time: Does amount, diversity, and discourse complexity of teacher talk matter? “Journal of Research in Childhood Education”, No 22(1), pp. 17–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540709594610
Bao D. (2014), Understanding silence and reticence. London: Bloomsbury.
Bao D. (2020), Exploring how silence communicates. “English Language Teaching Journal”, No 3(1), pp. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i1.1939
Bao D. (2023), Silence in English language pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009019460
Barkley E.F., Major C.H. (2020), Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Baroutsis A. et al. (2016), Student voice and the community forum: Finding ways of ‘being heard’ at an alternative school for disenfranchised young people. “British Educational Research Journal”, No 42(3), pp. 438–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3214
Bertinetto L. et al. (2016), Staple: Complementary learners for real-time tracking, (in:) Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 1401–1409. Online: https://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2016/app/S06-44.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.156
Biddle C., Hufnagel E. (2019), Navigating the “danger zone”: Tone policing and the bounding of civility in the practice of student voice. “American Journal of Education”, No 125(4), pp. 487–520. Online: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/704097
Black R., Mayes E. (2020), Feeling voice: The emotional politics of ‘student voice’ for teachers. “British Educational Research Journal”, No 46(5), pp. 1064–1080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3613
Bradley G. (2003), The crisis in educational research: A pragmatic approach. “European Educational Research Journal”, No 2(2), pp. 296–308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2003.2.2.7
Brookfield S.D., Preskill S. (2012), Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Celce-Murcia M. (1989), Interaction and Communication in the ESOL Classroom. “A Forum Anthology”, No 4, pp. 25–31.
Charteris J., Smardon D. (2019), Student voice in learning: Instrumentalism and tokenism opportunities for altering the status and positioning of students? “Pedagogy, Culture & Society”, No 27(2), pp. 305–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2018.1489887
Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K. (2017), The ethics of educational and social research, (in:) Joseph W., Russell K.S. (eds.). Research methods in education. Routledge, pp. 111–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539-7
Crotty M. (1998), The foundations of social research: Meanings and perspectives in the research process. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Dallimore E.J., Hertenstein J.H., Platt M.B. (2004), Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. “Communication Education”, No 53(1), pp. 103–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135805
Edwards D. (2016), Strong student-lecturer relationships reduce university dropout in Australia and Japan. ACER Discover. Online: https://www.acer.org/au/discover/article/strong-student-lecturer-relationships-reduce-university-drop-out-in-austral.
Fisher D., Rickards T. (1998), Associations between teacher-student interpersonal behaviour and student attitude to mathematics. “Mathematics Education Research Journal”, No 10(1), pp. 3–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217119
Gillies R.M. (2013), Productive academic talk during inquiry-based science. “Pedagogies: An International Journal”, No 8(2), pp. 126–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2013.767770
Gillies R.M. (2016), Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. “International Journal of Educational Research”, No 76, pp. 178–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.009
Gillies R.M., Haynes M. (2011), Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. “Instructional Science”, No 39(3), pp. 349–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9130-9
Gillies R.M. et al. (2012), The Effects of two Strategic and Meta-cognitive Questioning Approaches on Children’s Explanatory Behaviour, Problem-solving, and Learning during Cooperative, Inquiry-based Science. “International Journal of Educational Research”, No 53, pp. 93–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.02.003
Gillies R.M. et al. (2014), Primary Students’ Scientific Reasoning and Discourse during Cooperative Inquiry-based Science Activities. “International Journal of Educational Research”, No 63, pp. 127–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.01.001
Hanada R. (2023), The Interpreter. Australia’s lost appeal: Reversing a downward trend for Japanese students. Online: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-lost-appeal-reversing-downward-trend-japanese-students#:~:text=Australia%E2%80%93Japan%20educational%20links%20are,the%20Australian%20Department%20of%20Education
Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., Bélisle, M. (2021), An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. “International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education”, No 18(1), pp. 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3
Jay T. et al. (2017), Dialogic teaching evaluation report and executive summary. London: London Education Endowment Foundation.
Jin Z., Webb S. (2020), Incidental vocabulary learning through listening to teacher talk. “The Modern Language Journal”, No 104(3), pp. 550–566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12661
Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T., Smith K.A. (2024), Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. “Journal on Excellence in College Teaching”, No 25(3–4), pp. 85–118.
Kassam N. (2022), Lowy Institute Poll 2022. Online: https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/report/2022/
Kelly L.M., Cordeiro M. (2020), Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational processes. “Methodological Innovations”, No 13(2), pp. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242
Khong T.D.H., Saito E., Gillies R.M. (2019), Key issues in productive classroom talk and interventions. “Educational Review”, No 71(3), pp. 334–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1410105
Knowles L. (2023), Who to Argue with: Japanese EFL students’ preference for student-teacher or student-student debate format. “The Educational Review”, USA, No 7(2), pp. 152–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.02.005
Lee C. D. (2005), Double voiced discourse: African-American vernacular English as resource in cultural modeling classrooms, (in:) Ball A., Freedman S.W. (eds.), New literacies for new times: Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning for the 21st century. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 129–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755002.007
Lee C. D., Rosenfeld E., Mendenhall R., Rivers A., Tynes B. (2004), Cultural modeling as a frame for narrative analysis, (in:) Lightfoot, C., Daiute, C. (eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society. California: SAGE, pp. 39–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985246.n3
Lee C. D., Spencer M.B. & Harpalani V. (2003), Every shut eye ain’t sleep: Studying how people live culturally. “Educational Researcher”, No 32(5), pp. 6–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005006
Leichsenring A. (2017), Classroom-based speaking and listening learning strategies: Japanese learner preferences. “The Center for ELF Journal”, No 3, pp. 11–20.
Leavy A. (2005), ‘When I meet them I talk to them’: the diversity challenges for preservice teacher education. “Irish Educational Studies”, No 24(2–3), pp. 159–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310500435422
Mackenzie N., Knipe S. (2006), Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. “Issues in Educational Research”, No 16(2), pp. 193–205.
Mahmoodi F. (2016), The effect of teacher talk style on student achievement. “International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches”, No 2(4), pp. 205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2395-2296.189668
Mayer R.E. (2005), Introduction to multimedia learning, (in:) Mayer R.E (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.002
Mercer N., Dawes L., Staarman J.K. (2009), Dialogic Teaching in the Primary Science Classroom. “Language and Education”, No 23(4), pp. 353–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273
Mezirow J. (1991), Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Miller T. (1995), Japanese learners’ reactions to communicative English lessons. “JALT Journal”, No 17(1), pp. 31–52.
Morgan D.L. (2014), Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. “Qualitative Inquiry”, No 20(8), pp. 1045–1053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733
Moţăţăianu I.T. (2018), Technology mediated communication in education. “Euromentor Journal-Studies about education”, No 9 (02), pp. 48–54.
Nias J. (1993), Primary teachers talking: A reflexive account of longitudinal research. “Education Research”, No 1, pp. 132–146.
Nurpahmi S. (2017), Teacher talk in classroom interaction. “ETERNAL” (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), No 3(1), pp. 34–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24252/Eternal.V31.2017.A4
Pring R. (2015), Philosophy of educational research (3rd ed.). London: Bloomsbury. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474228596
Rabel S., Wooldridge I. (2013), Exploratory Talk in Mathematics: What Are the Benefits?. “Education”, No 41(1), pp. 15–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.710095
Rasyid M., Hafsah J.N. (1997), Teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia: theory, practice, and research. FBS IKIP Ujung Pandang.
Reznitskaya A. (2012), Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. “The Reading Teacher”, No 65(7), pp. 446–456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01066
Rojas-Drummond S. et al. (2003), Talking for reasoning among Mexican primary school children. “Learning and Instruction”, No 13(6), pp. 653–670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00003-3
Rosebery A.S. et al. (2005), The generative potential of students’ everyday knowledge in learning science, (in:) Romberg, T., Carpenter, T., Fae D. (eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 55–79.
Tomlinson B., Dat B. (2004), The contributions of Vietnamese learners of English to ELT methodology. “Language Teaching Research”, 8(2), pp. 199–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr140oa
Tsuneyasu M. (2017), Teacher’s tendencies and learner’s preferences regarding corrective feedback types. 語学研究, No 31, pp. 35–45.
Wegerif R., Mercer N. (2000), Language for thinking: A study of children solving reasoning test problems together, (in:) Cowie H., Aalsvoort G. v. d. (eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 179–192.
Wells G. (1999), Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895
Wells G., Arauz R.M. (2006), Dialogue in the classroom, “Journal of the Learning Sciences”, No 15(3), pp. 379–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2024 Dat Bao
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Przedstawiany utwór (artykuł) upubliczniany jest na podstawie umowy z autorem i na licencji Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Użytkownicy mają obowiązek podania wraz z rozpowszechnionym utworem, informacji o autorstwie, tytule, źródle (odnośniki do oryginalnego utworu, DOI) oraz samej licencji;
- bez tworzenia utworów zależnych,
- utwór musi być zachowany w oryginalnej postaci.
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu zachowuje prawo do czasopisma jako całości (układ, forma graficzna, tytuł, projekt okładki, logo itp.).