在传统课堂中进行指向高阶思维和社会性发展的话语变革

夏雪梅

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.05.009

在传统课堂中进行指向高阶思维和社会性发展的话语变革

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2019.05.009

夏雪梅

上海市教育科学研究院, 上海 200032

基金项目:

国家社科基金全国教育科学"十三五"规划2019年度国家一般"项目化学习的中国建构与质量评估研究" BHA190155

计量
- 文章访问数: 257
- HTML全文浏览量: 290
- PDF下载量: 3
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2019-09-20

Discourse Change in Traditional Chinese Classrooms for Higher Order Thinking and Social Development

Xia Xuemei

Shanghai Academy of Educational Sciences, Shanghai 200032, China

摘要

摘要: 话语变革是课堂变革的核心。传统课堂的特征之一在于教师控制课堂的话语权，并表现为教师发起-学生回应-教师评价（IRE）的话语结构。教师和学生应该说什么，怎样说，才能指向学生的高阶思维和社会性发展?近20年来，课堂话语在结构、内容与功能上产生了深刻的转向。基于上述研究，本文在传统的阅读课堂中，进行了调节话语、改变话语内容、创建新的话语规则的设计研究。前后测的对比数据表明，课堂中产生了指向高阶思维和社会性发展的话语变革。
- 课堂话语 /
- 课堂变革 /
- 高阶思维 /
- 社会性
Abstract: Classroom discourse is the core of classroom reform. One of the characteristics of traditional classrooms is teachers' control of dialogues in the classroom, which is manifested in IRE. What classroom discourse is needed to promote students' higher order thinking and social development? This paper explores the profound changes in the structure, content and function of the classroom discourse in the last 20 years. It then describes the breakthroughs in this field, which allow students to engage in academic discussions and dialogues, and make discourse a social norm rather than just passing on knowledge. Based on these findings, this paper takes the course of discourse design in reading classroom as an example to explore the possibility of discourse reform in traditional classrooms.
- classroom discourse /
- classroom change /
- higher-order thinking /
- social capability

HTML全文

表 1 一个整合的分析框架

社会视角	心理视角
课堂社会性规则	关于自己的角色，他人的角色以及数学活动的信念
社会性-数学规则	特定的数学信念和价值观
课堂数学实践	数学概念和活动
Note. From “Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research”, by P. Cobb and E.Yackel, 1996, Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), p. 175-190.

下载: 导出CSV

表 1 前后测课堂中的社会性规则对比

社会性规则	前测阶段		后测阶段
社会性规则	教师提示	学生表现	教师提示	学生表现
不懂的问题主动提问教师或同学	0次	0次	2次	6次
听听其他同学的想法	1次	1次	8次	13次
面向全班同学进行表达	0次	0次	2次	11次

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 前后测课堂中的发起主体和类型的对比

话轮的变化	前测阶段		后测阶段
话轮的变化	No.	%	]No.	%
教师发起(T-I)	346	99.71	358	69.38
学生发起(S-I)	1	0.02	158	30.62
教师发起-封闭/展示(T-I-DQ)	289	83.52	164	45.81
教师发起-开放/指示(T-I-RQ)	57	16.47	194	54.19
(前后测的课型都是新授课。在前后测的教师话语中，都有一部分属于管理或做作业等类型，这一部分的比例没有纳入发起中计算)

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 前测课堂中的师生话语样例

分析	话语
T-I-DQ	师：游客们的开心，并没有让贝尔太太开心，反而她看到这帮快乐的游客却非常生气，为什么要生气？她气这些人怎么了啊？
R-0	生(集体)：(沉默，没有回答)
T-I-DQ	师：文中有一个词语，叫……？
R	生(集体)：忘乎所以。
T-E T-I-DQ	师：是呀，这些游客，你们怎么能随随便便的，干嘛……？
R	生(集体)：进我的花园里玩。
T-E T-I-DQ	师：是的呀，没有我的允许，你就……？
R	生(集体)：进来。
T-E	师：对啊！

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 后测课堂中的师生话语样例

分析	话语
T-I-RQ	师：先介绍一下你们组阅读课文后的观点，是统一的还是有分歧的？
S-R	生H：嫦娥是英雄。因为嫦娥是被逼迫才成仙的，因为蓬蒙吃了仙药会变得更坏，为了不让他吃，所以她吃了，而且她成了仙之后，她会变得更加的孤独。
T-Q	师：那么，你们组还有不同想法吗？请说出你们的理由。
S-R	生T(组内)：我认为，嫦娥不是英雄。因为不一定蓬蒙当了神仙以后会危害老百姓。
S-R	生E(组内)：我觉得不是，文中写她拿着剑对嫦娥，就是对着妇女儿童，我觉得他以后成了神仙也不会变的。
S-R	生X(组外)：我们要看课文，文中说他是心术不正，人面兽心，所以嫦娥是见义勇为。
T-E-RQ	师：大家注意看生X充分阅读了课文，用到了课文中的证据。那么，你们组现在关于英雄的理解是否有什么要调整的？
S-R	小组讨论后代表回答：见义勇为保护弱者，牺牲自己的利益，还应该公平公正，顽强奋不顾身，恭敬谦让。其中前面两个是最重要的。

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 前后测课堂中师生话语内容的对比

话语内容	前测时间占比%	后测时间占比%
教师要求学生解释	4.7	19.7
学生解释自己的观点	2.5	38.6
学生要求同伴解释与提出证据	0	11.4

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(43)

[1]	顾明远. (2018).教师可以少讲一点.教学管理与教育研究, 2(2), 96-96. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jxglyjyyj201702053
[2]	哈贝马斯. (2003). 在事实与规范之间(童世骏译).北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
[3]	林崇德主编. (2016). 21世纪学生发展核心素养研究.北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[4]	马淑风, 孙晶晶, 约书亚·莫里斯, 理查德·安德森. (2016).合作推理式课堂——一种可以提高学生高级思维能力的教学方法.张厚粲, 李文玲, 舒华主编. 儿童阅读的世界Ⅲ (第145-172页).北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[5]	师曼等. (2016). 21世纪核心素养的框架及要素研究.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 34(3), 29-37. https://xbjk.ecnu.edu.cn/CN/abstract/abstract8966.shtml
[6]	万伟. (2017).从师生话语特征看课堂教学方式的变革——基于三节不同教学方式课例的实证分析.教育科学, 33(5), 38-44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8064.2017.05.006
[7]	王绍平. (2010).硬性规定讲授时间扭转讲风过盛现象.中学语文, (9), 99-100. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-419X-B.2010.09.057
[8]	肖思汉, 刘畅. (2016).课堂话语如何影响学习——基于美国课堂话语实证研究的述评.教育发展研究, 36(24), 45-54. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=jyfzyj201624008
[9]	严娟. (2015).生物课堂教学中如何做到"限时讲授".广西教育, (13), 73-74. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=gxjy201504055
[10]	张凯. (2012).对讲授时间需要作必要的硬性规定.江西教育, (32), 10-10. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jiangxjy201232006
[11]	Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon:spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19, 1-46.
[12]	Bauersfeld, H. (1995). "Language games" in the mathematics classroom-their function and the education of teachers. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures (pp. 271-291). NewYork: Routledge.
[13]	Barron, B. J. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
[14]	Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
[15]	Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting "relational equity" and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 167-194. doi: 10.1080/01411920701532145
[16]	Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Rrinciples (2nd Ed.). London:Longman.
[17]	Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse:The language of teaching and learning (2^nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
[18]	Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7
[19]	Clark, A., Anderson, R. C., Kuo, L., Kim, I. H., Archodidou, A., & Nguyen-Jahiel. K. (2003). Collaborative reasoning:Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 181-198. doi: 10.1023/A:1023429215151
[20]	Chinn, C., & Anderson, R. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315-368.
[21]	Chinn, C., Anderson, R., & Waggoner, M. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Read. Res. Q, 36(4):378-410. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3
[22]	Cobb, P., &Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 175-190. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1996.9653265
[23]	Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K. & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective Discourse and Collective Reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258-277. doi: 10.2307/749781
[24]	Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement:Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
[25]	Green, J. L. (1983). Research on Teaching as a Linguistic Process:A State of the Art. Review of Research in Education, 10, 151-252. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1167138
[26]	Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A. & Goldman S. R. (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
[27]	Greeno, J. G. (2015). Classroom talk sequences and learning. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S. N. Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 255-263). Washington, DC: AERA.
[28]	Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234-259). New York: Oxford University press.
[29]	Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue:a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325-356. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
[30]	Erickson, H. L., Lanning, L. A., French, R. (2017). Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction for the Thinking Classroom. California:Corwin.
[31]	Mayer, S. J. (2012). Classroom Discourse and Democracy:Making Meanings Together. New York:Peter Lang.
[32]	Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons:Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
[33]	Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's Talk and the Development of Reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111. doi: 10.1080/0141192990250107
[34]	Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., &Resnick, L. B. (2007). Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized:Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.
[35]	Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' high-level comprehension of text:A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764. doi: 10.1037/a0015576
[36]	Newell, G. E., Richard, B., Jamie, S., Jennifer, V. (2011). Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing:A Review of Research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41228654
[37]	Newmann, F. (1992). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York:Teachers College Press.
[38]	Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning:A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 29-48. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701952
[39]	Razie, M., Lashkarian, A. (2015). Reviewing Different Aspects of Classroom Discourse. International Journal of English and Education. 4(4), 449-459.
[40]	Resnick, L. B., & Nelson-LeGall, S. (1997). Socializing intelligence. In L. Smith, J. Dockrell, & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond (pp. 145-158). London/New York: Routledge.
[41]	Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S. N. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC:AERA.
[42]	Sun, J. J., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T., Morris, J. (2015). Social and cognitive development during collaborative reasoning. Resnick, L. et al. Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 63-77). Washington, DC: AERA.
[43]	Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-intensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S. N. 2015. Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 37-51). Washington, DC: AERA.