Analysing Interaction in Science Classrooms

Kristina Danielsson, Ewa Bergh Nestlog, Fredrik Jeppsson, Kok‐Sing Tang
{"title":"Analysing Interaction in Science Classrooms","authors":"Kristina Danielsson, Ewa Bergh Nestlog, Fredrik Jeppsson, Kok‐Sing Tang","doi":"10.24834/educare.2023.1.752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One central issue for research in classrooms is to provide insights concerning characteristics of classroom interaction that can help teachers improve their teaching. In the present study, we analyse spoken interaction in one elementary physics classroom by the use of two different frameworks, targeting similar aspects of social communication, namely how discourse patterns shape the relations between participants. The two frameworks utilized are on the one hand analyses of the communicative approach according to Mortimer and Scott, combined with analyses of discourse patterns such as IRE-patterns, and on the other hand analyses related to the interpersonal meta-function in Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar, SFG. The aim was to highlight possibilities and limitations of the different frameworks.  \nOur analyses reveal that the two analytical frameworks have partly the same, partly different affordances concerning what they can reveal about classroom interaction. The analyses of the communicative approaches have the potential of elucidating discursive patterns and power relations at a general level, while the analyses based on SFG can provide more details about the power relations in terms of how the participants actually structure their utterances. The results are also discussed regarding implications for education.","PeriodicalId":34339,"journal":{"name":"Educare","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24834/educare.2023.1.752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One central issue for research in classrooms is to provide insights concerning characteristics of classroom interaction that can help teachers improve their teaching. In the present study, we analyse spoken interaction in one elementary physics classroom by the use of two different frameworks, targeting similar aspects of social communication, namely how discourse patterns shape the relations between participants. The two frameworks utilized are on the one hand analyses of the communicative approach according to Mortimer and Scott, combined with analyses of discourse patterns such as IRE-patterns, and on the other hand analyses related to the interpersonal meta-function in Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar, SFG. The aim was to highlight possibilities and limitations of the different frameworks.  Our analyses reveal that the two analytical frameworks have partly the same, partly different affordances concerning what they can reveal about classroom interaction. The analyses of the communicative approaches have the potential of elucidating discursive patterns and power relations at a general level, while the analyses based on SFG can provide more details about the power relations in terms of how the participants actually structure their utterances. The results are also discussed regarding implications for education.
科学课堂互动分析
课堂研究的一个核心问题是提供有关课堂互动特征的见解,以帮助教师改进教学。在本研究中,我们通过使用两个不同的框架来分析一个小学物理课堂上的口语互动,目标是社会交流的相似方面,即话语模式如何塑造参与者之间的关系。本文所使用的两个框架,一方面是对Mortimer和Scott的交际方法的分析,并结合IRE-patterns等话语模式的分析,另一方面是对韩礼德系统功能语法SFG中与人际元功能相关的分析。其目的是强调不同框架的可能性和局限性。我们的分析表明,这两种分析框架在揭示课堂互动方面有部分相同,部分不同的启示。对交际方法的分析有可能在一般层面上阐明话语模式和权力关系,而基于SFG的分析可以从参与者如何实际结构其话语的角度提供更多关于权力关系的细节。研究结果还讨论了对教育的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信