Classroom Discourse and Teachers’ Experience: A Cognitive View
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1110.20Keywords:
cognitive taxonomy, cognition, discourse analysis, EFL, teachers’ talkAbstract
In this article, we intend to investigate the role of experience in EFL teachers’ discourse using a cognitive taxonomy. In this line, we are going to examine whether there any significant differences between novice and inexperienced groups of teacher in their discourse with regard to a cognitive taxonomy. The selected sample comprises twenty-seven English teachers engaged in EFL classes. Totally, six categories of cognitive processes were introduced. The categories are from the most concrete to the most abstract: (1) knowledge; (2) comprehension; (3) application; (4) analysis; (5) synthesis; and (6) evaluation. According to the results, it was revealed that experienced teachers used more action verbs in all the categories of this taxonomy (428 action verbs out of 805), whereas novice teachers (teachers which has less than 4 years of experience) used 377 action verbs. It can be concluded that experienced teachers teach in more fruitful and meaningful way. Novice teachers can learn and construct meaning from their experiences when they are actively engaged in authentic activity that will help them to learn to think and act in a community of practice.
References
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Bibi Khan, W., & Inamullah, H. M. (2011). A study of lower-order and higher- order questions at secondary level. Asian Social Science, 7(9), 149-157.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives—Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David Mackey.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 13–15.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 8–15.
Cots, J. M. (1995). Bringing discourse analysis into the language classroom. Departament d'Angles i de LingüísticaUniversitat de Lleida.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dunegan, L. (n.d). An investigation of multiple intelligences: Developing an indicator of learning styles for vocational education and traditional students (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 35-50.
Gorrell, J., & Dharmadasa, H. (1994). Perceived self-efficacy of pre-service and in service Sri Lankan teachers. International Education, 24, 23-36.
Hattie, J. A. (2003). Teachers make a difference what is the research evidence? Australian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 5-13
Hausfather, S., & Samuel, J. (1996). Vygotsky and Schooling: Creating a Social Contest for learning. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 1-10.
Horner, R., Zavodska, A., & Rushing, J. (2005). How challenging? Using Bloom's taxonomy To assess learning objectives in a degree completion program. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2(3), 48-52.
Inceçay, G. (2010). The role of teacher talk in young learners’ language process. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 277-281.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453-484.
Lord, T., & Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: Exploiting Bloom's taxonomy in creating science questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 12 (2), 34-65.
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual framework. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Millrood, R. (2004). The role of NLP in teachers’ classroom discourse. ELT Journal, 58, 28-37.
Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. NY: Routledge.
Morine, G. (1973). Planning skills: paradox and parodies. Journal of Teacher Education, 2, 135-143.
Mortiboys, A. (2005). Teaching with emotional intelligence: a step-by-step guide for higher and further education professionals. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Peregroy, S., & Boyle, O. (2005). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K–12 teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Renaud, R., & Murray, H. (2007). The validity of higher-order questions as a process indicator of educational quality. Research in Higher Education, 48(3), 311-331.
Smart, J. B., & Marshall, J. C. (2012). Interactions between classroom discourse, teacher questioning, and student cognitive engagement in middle school science. The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal, 16(1), 8-32.
Van den Oord, E. J., & Rossem, V. (2002). Differences in first graders’ school adjustment: The role of classroom characteristics and social structure of the group. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 371–394.
Wang, V., & Farmer, L. (2008). Adult teaching methods in China and Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1-15.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Kersting, N., & Ing, M. (2004). The effects of teacher discourse on student behavior in peer-directed groups. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: San Diego.
Zarei, A., & Afshari, S. N. (2012). Experienced and novice Iranian teachers’ perceptions as to the effect of intrinsic factors on teacher efficacy. Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review, 1(1), 4-14
