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

摘要/Abstract

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。

关键词: 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.

Key words: classroom discourse, classroom change, higher-order thinking, social capability

夏雪梅. 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[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2019, 37(5): 105-114.

Xia Xuemei. Discourse Change in Traditional Chinese Classrooms for Higher Order Thinking and Social Development[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2019, 37(5): 105-114.

参考文献

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Barron, B. J. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting "relational equity" and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 167-194.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Rrinciples (2nd Ed.). London:Longman.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse:The language of teaching and learning (2^nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.
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.
Chinn, C., & Anderson, R. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315-368.
Chinn, C., Anderson, R., & Waggoner, M. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Read. Res. Q, 36(4):378-410.
Cobb, P., &Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 175-190.
Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K. & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective Discourse and Collective Reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258-277.
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.
Green, J. L. (1983). Research on Teaching as a Linguistic Process:A State of the Art. Review of Research in Education, 10, 151-252.
Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A. & Goldman S. R. (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
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.
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.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue:a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325-356.
Erickson, H.L.,Lanning, L. A., French, R. (2017). Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction for the Thinking Classroom. California:Corwin.
Mayer, S. J. (2012). Classroom Discourse and Democracy:Making Meanings Together. New York:Peter Lang.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons:Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Newmann, F. (1992). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York:Teachers College Press.
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.
Razie, M., Lashkarian, A. (2015). Reviewing Different Aspects of Classroom Discourse. International Journal of English and Education. 4(4), 449-459.
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.
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S. N. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC:AERA.
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.
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.

[1]	[德]底特里希•本纳（Dietrich Benner）. 现代教育学和社会教育学的起源和实用性的十大论点[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(9): 33-41.
[2]	宋宇, 许昌良, 朱佳, 柴少明. 面向思维培养：基于精准标注技术的智能化课堂教学分析及应用[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(8): 79-89.
[3]	郑永和, 周丹华, 张永和, 田雪葳, 王晶莹, 郑一. 计算教育学视域下的ChatGPT：内涵、主题、反思与挑战[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(7): 91-102.
[4]	马淑风, 杨向东. 什么才是高阶思维？——以“新旧知识关系建立”为核心的高阶思维概念框架[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2022, 40(11): 58-68.
[5]	邵发仙, 胡卫平, 张睆, 张艳红, 首新. 课堂论证话语的序贯分析:小学生的科学推理[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2019, 37(6): 48-60.
[6]	肖思汉, 德利马. 基于视频的学习过程分析:为什么?如何做?[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2017, 35(5): 55-71+160.
[7]	郝宁, 汤梦颖. 动机对创造力的作用:研究现状与展望[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2017, 35(4): 107-114+138.
[8]	迟艳杰. 在社会历史进程中理解杜威的教学价值思想[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2010, 28(2): 17-23.
[9]	张奇, 张黎. SSI课程与学生非形式推理能力的培养[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2007, 25(2): 59-64,86.