(CZ) Reflexe jako nástroj změny komunikačního chování učitele: případová studie
(EN) Critical Reflection as a Tool for Changing the Communication Behaviour of the Teacher: A case study

Strana / Page: 477-494
Autor / Author: Šeďová, K.
Klíčová slova / Key words: výuková komunikace, dialogické vyučování, vzdělávání učitelů, reflektivní rozhovory
teaching communication, dialogic teaching, teacher training, critically reflective interviews

Anotace:

V této studii podrobujeme analýze data získaná prostřednictvím reflektivních rozhovorů s učiteli v rámci vzdělávacího programu zaměřeného na změnu komunikačního chování učitelů. Klademe si otázku, jaký je obsah reflektivních rozhovorů a zda existuje korespondence mezi tímto obsahem a následnou změnou výuky. Ukazujeme, že jde o korespondenci selektivní, neboť učitel zapracovává do své výuky jen selektivně zvolené podněty z rozhovorů. Zároveň se zapracováním změny se jako nepředpokládaný důsledek typicky vynoří nový problém, který je předmětem kritické reflexe v dalším kroku. Dále ukazujeme, jak jsou reflektivní rozhovory formovány odlišným profesním viděním učitelů a výzkumníků a jak je přes toto odlišné profesní vidění možné dospět k souladu.

Annotation:

In this study we analyse data gathered through reflective interviews with teachers as part of a training programme focused on changing the communication behaviour of teachers. We pose the question of the nature of the content of reflective interviews and whether there is a correspondence between this content and subsequent change in teaching. We show that this is a selective correspondence, because the teacher incorporates into his teaching only selectively chosen suggestions from the interviews. At the same time, by the incorporation of the change a new problem typically emerges as an unanticipated consequence and this becomes the subject of critical reflection in a next step. We also show how the reflective interviews are formed by the different professional visions of teachers and researchers and how despite these different professional perspectives, a harmony can be achieved.

Článek ke stažení v češtině [PDF]:
Download the article in English [PDF]:

Literatura / References:

Adey, P. (2006). A model for professional development of teachers thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 49–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.07.002

Akbari, R. (2007); Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practice in L2. System, 35(2), 192–207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.12.008

Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos.

Berson, E., Borko, H., Million, S., Khachatryan, E., & Glennon, K. (2015). Practice what you teach: A video-based practicum model of professional development for elementary science teachers. Orbis scholae, 9(2), 35–53.

Beuchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: issues emerging form a review of current literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123–141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.982525

Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515–534.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.597861

Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in Teaching of English, 49(3), 272–296.

Burns, C., & Myhil, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education 34(1), 35–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764042000183115

Collin, S., Karnseti, T. (2011). The collective dimension of reflective practice: The how and why. Reflective Practice, 12(4), 569–581.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.590346

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers´professional development: Towards better conceptualisation and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (2006). How effective are teacher-initiated classroom questions in enhancing student learning? In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes (279–293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grossman, P. L., Smagorinski, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1–29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/444230

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U

Chinn, C. A., Anderson R. C., & Waggoner. M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3

Janík, T., et al. (2011). Video v učitelském vzdělávání. Brno: Paido.

Janík, T. (2013). Od reformy kurikula k produktivní kultuře vyučování a učení. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 634–663.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-634

Korthagen, F., Kessels, J., Kosters, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels T. (2011). Jak spojit teorii s praxí. Didaktika realistického vzdělávání učitelů. Brno: Paido.

Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028004004

Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. Educational Dialogues. Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction, 1(4), 48–63.

Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.

Mena Marcos, J. J., Sánchez, E., & Tillema, H. (2009). Teacher reflection on action: what is said (in research) and what is done (in teaching). Reflective Practice, 10(2), 191–204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940902786206

Mena Marcos, J. J., Sánchez, E., & Tillema, H. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: what is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21–36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.538269

Minaříková, E., Píšová, M., Janík, T., & Uličná, K. (2015). Video clubs: EFL teachers´ selective attention before and after. Orbis scholae, 9(2), 55–75.

Molinari, L., & C. Mameli. (2015). Triadické interakce ve výukové komunikaci. Studia paedagogica, 20(3), 9–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/SP2015-3-2

Noffke, S., & Brennan, M. (2005). The dimensions of reflection. A conceptual and contextual analysis. International Journal of Progressive Education, 1(3), 58–78.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue. understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, London: Teachers College Press.

Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2001). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Cela Research Report Number 14005. New York: The National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013) Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073

Parker, M., & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers' use of questioning and modelling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review 59(3), 299–314.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910701427298

Pehmer, A. K., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2015). Fostering and scaffolding student engagement in productive classroom discourse: Teachers´ practice changes and reflections in light of teachers professional development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 7, 12–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.05.001

Pimentel, S. D., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers´ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061

Sfard A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944

Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27–46.

Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach. Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260067

Smagorinsky, P., Shelton, S. A., & Moore, C. (2015). The role of reflexion in developing eupraxis ine learning to teach English. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(4), 25–308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2015.1067146

Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2011). Computer-assisted systematic observation of classroom discourse & interaction: Technical report on the systematic discourse analysis component of the Towards Dialogue study. Working papers in Urban Language & Literacies. London: King's College London.

Šedová, K., Sedláček, M., & Švaříček, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 14–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005

Šedová, K., Švaříček, R., Sedláček, M., & Šalamounová, Z. (2014). On the way to dialogic teaching: Action research as a means to change classroom discourse. Studia paedagogica, 19(4), 9–43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/SP2014-4-2

Šedová, K., Švaříček, R., & Šalamounová, Z. (2012). Komunikace ve školní třídě. Praha: Portál.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G., & Arauz, M. R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3