Title INSIDE: Teachers' communicative strategies for ...

1 downloads 0 Views 73KB Size Report
Keywords: inclusive communication, school inclusion, classroom interactions, conversation analysis ... school policies (Lindsey 2007; Norwich & Kelly 2004).
Title   INSIDE:  Teachers’  communicative  strategies  for  inclusive  classrooms     Authors   Heidrun  Demo,  Researcher  in  Inclusive  Education,  Faculty  of  Education,  Free  University  of  Bolzano   (presenting  author)   Daniela  Veronesi,  Researcher  in  Sociolinguistics,  Faculty  of  Education,  Free  University  of  Bolzano     First  and  second  choice  network   4  Inclusive  Education   17  Didactics-­‐Learnig  an  teaching     Keywords:  inclusive  communication,  school  inclusion,  classroom  interactions,  conversation  analysis     General  description  of  research  questions,  objectives  and  theoretical  framework  (up  to  600  words)   The  paper  takes  its  departure  point  from  research  on  school  inclusion,  conceived  in  its  broadest   definition  as  quality  learning,  as  well  as  full  participation  for  all  (Booth  and  Ainscow  2011).  In  particular,   the  project  aims  at  analysing  educational  practices  at  the  micro  level  of  classroom  interaction,  focusing   on  those  teachers’  communicative  practices  which  can  best  enhance  inclusion.     The  relevance  of  the  micro  level  in  studies  on  school  inclusion  is  related  to  two  research  lines.  Firstly,   meta-­‐analysis  on  studies  that  tried  to  demonstrate  the  efficacy  of  inclusive  schooling  versus  special   schools  or  special  classes  or  viceversa  could  not  produce  univocal  findings  (Elbaum,  2002;  Freeman  and   Alkin,  2000;  Lindsey,  2007).  This  fact  has  led  some  authors  to  develop  the  hypothesis  that  the  micro   level  of  classrooms  management  might  be  more  relevant  for  school  efficacy  than  the  macro  level  of   school  policies  (Lindsey  2007;  Norwich  &  Kelly  2004).  Secondly,  research  that  takes  its  departure  from   inclusion  as  a  human  right  -­‐  that  does  not  need  to  be  demonstrated  in  its  efficacy,  but  has  to  be  granted   for  all  (Stainback  and  Stainback  1990)  -­‐  has  always  concentrated  on  the  development  of  instruments  and   methods  that  enhance  inclusion  in  the  school  context,  on  the  meso  level  of  single  school  organization   and  on  the  micro  level  of  classrooms.  A  good  example  of    such  approach  is  represented  by  the  “Index  for   Inclusion”  (Booth  and  Ainscow  2011).     The  relevance  of  relationships  on  the  micro  level  of  inclusive  classrooms  has  been  underlined  by  several   works,  both  internationally  and  nationally  (for  what  concerns  Italy).  The  Index  for  Inclusion  itself  puts   the  category  “relationships”  into  the  dimension  “inclusive  culture”  at  the  basis  for  the  other  two   dimensions,  that  is,  the  development  of  inclusion  on  an  organizational  school  level  and  on  the  level  of   orchestrating  learning  processes  for  all.  The  assumption  is  that  only  in  a  school  climate  where   transparent  and  open  relationships  at  all  levels  (teacher-­‐teacher,  teacher-­‐pupil,  pupil-­‐pupil,  teachers-­‐ families…)  are  developed,  inclusive  practices  become  feasible  (Booth  and  Ainscow  2011).  A  similar  

assumption  has  been  stated  in  a  model  for  inclusive  didactics  developed  in  Italy  where  the  relationship   between  teachers  and  pupils  has  a  crucial  role,  in  that  it  is  the  basis  for  all  other  interventions  for   facilitating  learning  and  participation  (Ianes  and  Macchia  2008).     One  of  the  possible  ways  of  investigating  educational  relationships  between  teachers  and  pupils  is  the   study  of  their  interactions,  as  proposed  by  Conversation  Analysis  (Sacks,  Schegloff    &  Jefferson  1974;   Sydnell  &  Stivers  2012).  Within  Conversation  Analysis,  a  number  of  phenomena  related  to  classroom   interaction  (cf.  Fele  &  Paoletti  2003)  have  been  described,  such  as  for  instance  the  classical  initiation-­‐ response-­‐evaluation  triplet  that  characterizes  the  asymmetric  communication  between  teacher  and   pupils  (Mehan  1979),  as  well  as  the  way  in  which  teachers  sustain  pupils’  self-­‐correction  (Weeks  1985)   or  formulate  questions  in  ways  that  lead  pupils  to  the  correct  answers  (Lerner  1995;  Margutti  2010).   Further  studies  have  also  focussed  on  the  topic  of  diversity  management,  analzising  gender  differences   in  reproach  sequences  (Tainio  2011),  the  way  teachers  formulate  questions  while  examining  non-­‐native   pupils  (Grassi  2007)  and  handle  the  issue  of  participation  in  multilingual  classes  (Ciliberti  2003).   Teacher’s  Talk  in  classes  that  integrate  children  with  special  educational  needs  have  also  been  decribed   (Berry  2008).   Against  this  background,  the  specific  goal  of  our  paper  is  the  identification  and  description  of  some   communicative  strategies  that  foster:  1)  all  pupils’  participation  to  the  knowledge  co-­‐construction   process  and  2)  all  pupils’  feeling  of  belonging  to  the  class  group.  To  this  aim,  instructional  interaction   between  teachers  and  the  whole  class  in  primary  school  classes  (grade  3)  is  investigated.     Methods/Methodology  (up  to  400  words)     The  project  is  based  on  audio-­‐  and  videorecordings  of  classroom  interaction;  analysis  specifically  focus   on  the  interaction  between  the  teacher  and  the  class  during  instructional  conversation,  as  carried  out  in   elementary  schools  in  South  Tyrol  (Bolzano).  Attention  will  be  thereby  devoted  to  the  way  in  which   communicative  strategies  employed  by  teachers  (question  design,  feed-­‐back,  error  correction,   scaffolding  techniques  etc.,  see  for  instance  Weeks  1985;  Lerner  1995;    Macbeth  2004;  Margutti  2006;   Kohle  &  Elbers  2014)  can  enhance  each  pupil’s  contribution  to  knowledge  co-­‐construction  on  the  one   hand,  and  can  help  to  build  a  sense  of  belonging  and  participation  to  the  class  as  a  group  on  the  other.   Furthermore,  a  series  of  semi-­‐structured  interviews  have  been  carried  out  with  involved  teachers,  so  as   to  gain  access  to  their  perspective  on  inclusion  and  on  their  perceived  experience  of  classroom   interaction,  and  so  as  to  gather  ethnografic  information  that  can  be  useful  to  orient  data  analysis.   Classroom  interaction  data  have  then  been  transcribed  and  examined  within  the  theoretical  framework   of  Conversation  Analysis  (Sydnell  &  Stivers  2012)  while  interviews  will  be  investigated  from  the   perspective  of  Qualitative  Content  Analysis  (Schreier  2012).   Three  primary  school  classes  (grade  3)  in  a  urban  context  of  the  Province  of  Bolzano  (north  East  of  Italy)   build  the  sample.  Two  researchers  have  been  in  the  class  for  one  school  morning  and  have  collected   data  through  audio-­‐  and  videorecordings.  Only  episodes  of  instructructional  conversations  between   teachers  and  the  whole  class  have  been  considered  for  the  analysis.  The  semi-­‐structured  interviews   have  been  conducted  by  a  researcher  with  the  teachers  involved  in  the  recorded  lessons.  The  sample  is   selected  on  voluntary  basis.    

  Expected  outcomes/results  (300)   Some  preliminary  findings  about  identified  communicative  strategies  adopted  by  teachers  will  be   presented  and  described  in  the  way  they  foster  inclusion.  For  example  some  relevant  aspects  could  be   question  design,  feed-­‐back,  error  correction  or  scaffolding  techniques.     The  current  research  project  aims  at  offering  new  perspectives  in  a  still  rather  unexplored  topic  within   the  area  of  inclusive  education  studies,  and  can  therefore  be  seen  as  a  first  pilot  study  that  may  be   further  developed  in  the  future  by  examining  a  larger  variety  of  classroom  interaction  typologies  as  well   as  pupils  at  different  ages,  this  way  providing  a  comprehensive  overview  of  inclusive  communicative   strategies  in  classroom  interaction.     References   Booth,  T.  &  Ainscow,  M.  (2011).  Index  for  Inclusion.  3rd  Edition,  Bristol:  CSIE.   Berry,  R.  A.  W.  (2006).  Teacher  Talk  During  Whole-­‐Class  Lessons:  Engagement  Strategies  to  Support  the   Verbal  Participation  of  Students  with  Learning  Disabilities,  Learning  Disabilities  Research  &  Practice   21/4,  211–232.   Ciliberti,  A.  (2003).  Collaborazione  e  coinvolgimento  nella  classe  multilingue.  In:  Ciliberti,  A.,  Pugliese,  R.   &  Anderson,  L.,  Le  lingue  in  classe.  Discorso,  apprendimento,  socializzazione.  Roma:  Carocci,  123-­‐142.   Elbaum,  B.  (2002)  The  Self-­‐Concept  of  Students  with  Learning  Disabilities:  a  Meta-­‐Analysis  of   Comparison  Across  Different  Placements,  Learning  Disabilities  Research  and  Practice  17/4,  216-­‐226.   Fele,  G.  &  Paoletti,  I.  (2003).  L'interazione  in  classe.  Bologna:  Il  Mulino.   Freeman,  S.  e  Alkin,  M.C.  (2000)  Academic  and  social  attainments  of  children  with  mental  retardation  in   general  education  and  special  education  settings.  Remedial  and  Special  Education  21/1,  3-­‐18.   Grassi,  R.  (2007).    Interrogare  l’allievo  straniero:  strategie  di  adeguamento  all’interlocutore.  In:  Baraldi,   C.  (ed.),  Dialogare  in  classe.  La  relazione  tra  insegnanti  e  studenti.  Roma:  Donzelli,  131-­‐150.   Ianes,  D.  &  Macchia,  V.  (2008),  La  didattica  per  Bisogni  Educativi  Speciali.  Strategie  e  buone  prassi  di   sostegno  inclusivo.  Trento:  Ericskon.   Lerner,  G.  (1995).  Turn  design  and  the  organization  of  participation  in  instructional  activities.  Discourse   Processes  19,  111-­‐131.   Lindsay,  G.  (2007)  Educational  psychology  and  the  effectiveness  of  inclusive  education/mainstream,   British  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  77,  1-­‐24   Margutti,  P.  (2006).  “Are  you  human  beings?”  Order  and  knowledge  construction  through  questioning  in   primary  classroom  interaction.  Linguistics  and  Education,  17,  313–346.   Mehan,  H.  (1979).  Learning  Lesson.  Cambridge  MA,  Harvard  University  Press.  

Norwich,  B.  &  Kelly,  N.  (2004)  Pupils'  view  in  inclusion:  moderate  learning  difficulties  and  bullying  in   mainstream  and  special  schools,  British  Educational  Research  Journal  30/1,  43-­‐65.   Sacks,  H.,  Schegloff,  E.  &  Jefferson,  G.  (1974).  A  Simplest  Systematics  of  the  Organisation  of  Turn-­‐Taking   for  Conversation.  Language  50,  696-­‐735.   Schreier,  M.  (2012).  Qualitative  Content  Analysis  in  Practice.  London:  SAGE.   Sidnell,  J.  &  Stivers,  T.  (eds.)  (2012).  The  Handbook  of  Conversation  Analysis.  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.   Stainback,  W.  e  Stainback,  S.  (1990)  Support  networks  for  inclusive  schooling:  interdependent  integrated   education,  “Baltimore”,  MD:  Paul  H.  Brookes71-­‐87.   Tainio,  L.  (2011).    Gendered  address  terms  in  reproach  sequences  in  classroom  interaction.  Linguistics   and  Education  22,  330-­‐347.   Van  de  Pol,  J.,  Volman,  M.,  &  Beishuizen,  J.  (2010).  Scaffolding  in  teacher–student  interaction.  A  decade   of  research.  Educational  Psychology  Review,  22,  271–296.  VERIFICARE   Weeks,  P.  (1985).  Error-­‐correction  tecniques  and  sequences  in  instructional  settings:  toward  a   comparative  framework.  Human  Studies  8,  195-­‐233.