Orbis scholae je odborný recenzovaný časopis zaměřený na problematiku školního vzdělávání v jeho širších sociokulturních souvislostech. Cílem časopisu je přispět k porozumění školnímu vzdělávání a jeho rozvoji, k řešení problémů praxe a vzdělávací politiky.

ORBIS SCHOLAE, Vol 14 No 1 (2020), 49–80

Interakce při řešení problémově orientovaných úloh ve výuce přírodovědy

[Interaction While Solving the Problem-Oriented Tasks in Primary Science Education]

Tereza Češková

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2020.3
zveřejněno: 15. 10. 2020


It has been over ten years since the key competences were introduced into the Czech curricula; however, there are still lots of teachers who do not fully understand how to implement these competences in their teaching and instruction. This paper focuses on one of them: the problem-solving competence. In our previous research, we found that a well-designed assignment of a problem-oriented task does not guarantee developing of problem-solving competence. From our research, a need to focus on the execution of the problem-oriented task as such has emerged. The presented study aims to describe the interaction between the teacher and pupils while solving the problem-oriented situation developed around the problem-oriented task. I used the method of a conversation analysis of 15 problem-oriented situations selected from 10 primary science lessons, collected in 2010/2011 in five classes (in two subsequent lessons). My analysis shows that interactions in problem-oriented instruction have overall looser character of institutional rules; the teachers´ role is rather inhibited as they let the pupils come up with their solutions more independently, intervening in the process only if necessary – e.g. to narrow down the problem space or to help by bringing an analogy from a different context. However, the teachers never provide explicit prompts leading to direct solution of the task nor reveal the correct solution. There are also differences in the way they provide feedback and rapport during the problem-oriented situations. For instance, when the teachers ask for an explanation or justification, they elicit a specification or providing other possible solutions instead of correcting the students. In conclusion, I discuss the connection between the explored interactions and scaffolding, limitations of my research and the potentials of follow-up research to understand in more depth how to support the development of pupils problem-solving competence.

Klíčová slova: problem-oriented task; problem-oriented situation; problem-solving competence; interaction; conversation analysis

reference (72)

1. Alexander, R. J. (2005). Teaching through dialogue: The first year. London: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

2. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Abingdon: Routledge.

3. Češková, T. (2016). Výukové situace rozvíjející kompetenci k řešení problémů: teoretický model jako východisko pro jejich analýzu. Pedagogika, 66(5), 530-548.

4. Češková, T., & Knecht, P. (2016). Analýza problémově orientovaných výukových situací ve výuce přírodovědy. Orbis scholae, 10(2), 93-115. CrossRef

5. Fisher, R. (2007). Dialogic teaching: Developing thinking and metacognition through philosophical discussion. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6-7), 615-631. CrossRef

6. Gaut, B. (2000). "Art" as a cluster concept. In N. Carroll (Ed.), Theories of art today (s. 25−44). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

7. Gavora, P. (2005). Učitel a žáci v komunikaci. Brno: Paido.

8. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 283-307. CrossRef

9. Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2014). The teaching of science in primary schools. London: Routledge.

10. Havlík, M. (2012). Sekvenční a prozodické aspekty rozhovoru (Disertační práce). Praha: FF UK.

11. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (s. 147-170). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

12. Chi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem-solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information-processing approach (s. 227-250). New York: Freedman.

13. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346. CrossRef

14. Ingram, J., & Elliott, V. (2014). Turn taking and "wait time" in classroom interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 1-12. CrossRef

15. Ingram, J., & Elliott, V. (2016). A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom interactions and the effects on student and teacher interactional behaviours. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(1), 37-53. CrossRef

16. Ingram, J., Pitt, A., & Baldry, F. (2015). Handling errors as they arise in whole-class interactions. Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 183-197. CrossRef

17. Janík, T., Slavík, J., Mužík, V., Trna, J., Janko, T., Lokajíčková, V., … Šebestová, S. (2013). Kvalita (ve) vzdělávání: obsahově zaměřený přístup ke zkoumání a zlepšování výuky. Brno: MU.

18. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65-95. CrossRef

19. Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P., & Stobart, G. (2007). Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Piloting assessment for learning in some Scottish primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 605-627. CrossRef

20. Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I:

21. Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In E. Klieme & J. Baumert (Eds.), TIMSS-Impulse für Schule und Unterricht (s. 43-57). Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.

22. Knecht, P. (2007). Didaktická transformace aneb Od "didaktického zjednodušení" k "didaktické rekonstrukci". Orbis scholae, 2(1), 67-81. CrossRef

23. Knecht, P. (2014). Příležitosti k rozvíjení kompetence k řešení problémů v učebnicích a ve výuce zeměpisu. Brno: MU. CrossRef

24. Konečná, M. (2007). Řeč a rozumění: poznámky k filosofické a teologické hermeneutice H.-G. Gadamera, G. Ebelinga a E. Fuchse. Brno: Marek Konečný.

25. Koole, T., & Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26, 57-69. CrossRef

26. Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204-1230. CrossRef

27. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Chestnut Street: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

28. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841. CrossRef

29. Mareš, J. (2016). Pro výzkumy komunikačních struktur ve výuce neplatí: Jak prosté, milý Watsone! Pedagogika, 56(3), 344-353. CrossRef

30. Mareš, J., & Křivohlavý, J. (1995). Komunikace ve škole. Brno: MU.

31. Markee, N. (2015). The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. CrossRef

32. Maroni, B. (2011). Pauses, gaps and wait time in classroom interaction in primary schools. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(7), 2081-2093. CrossRef

33. Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Validity: How might you be wrong. In W. Luttrell (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice (s. 279-287). New York: Routledge.

34. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183-213. CrossRef

35. McMahon, K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: Communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687-1708. CrossRef

36. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

37. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377. CrossRef

38. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

39. Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2016). Scaffolding through dialogic teaching in early school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 143-154. CrossRef

40. Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57(1), 55-69. CrossRef

41. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of "triadic dialogue"?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406. CrossRef

42. Nomlomo, V. (2010). Classroom interaction: Turn-taking as a pedagogical strategy. Per Linguam: a Journal of Language Learning / Per Linguam: Tydskrif vir Taalaanleer, 26(2), 50-66. CrossRef

43. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-198. CrossRef

44. Petrová, Z., & Pupala, B. (2008). K súčasným pedagogickým diskusiám o zóne najbližšieho vývinu. Pedagogika, 58(2), 117-130.

45. Píšová, M., Hanušová, S., Kostková, K., Janíková, V., Najvar, P., & Tůma, F. (2013). Učitel expert: jeho charakteristiky a determinanty profesního rozvoje (na pozadí výuky cizích jazyků). Brno: MU.

46. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. CrossRef

47. Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání (2005). Praha: NÚV.

48. Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání (2016). Praha: NÚV.

49. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., … Warvi, D. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office.

50. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-50. CrossRef

51. Rusk, F., Pörn, M., Sahlström, F., & Slotte-Lüttge, A. (2015). Perspectives on using video recordings in conversation analytical studies on learning in interaction. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 39-55. CrossRef

52. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for. Language, 50(4), 696-735. CrossRef

53. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382. CrossRef

54. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

55. Skukauskaite, A., Rangel, J., Rodriguez, L. G., & Ramón, D. K. (2015). Understanding classroom discourse and interaction: Qualitative perspectives. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (s. 44-59). Hoboken: Wiley. CrossRef

56. Slavík, J., Chrz, V., Štech, S., Nohavová, A., Klumparová, Š., Hník, O., … Valenta, J. (2013). Tvorba jako způsob poznávání. Praha: Karolinum.

57. Sternberg, R. (2009). Kognitivní psychologie. Praha: Portál.

58. Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. CrossRef

59. Šeďová, K., Švaříček, R., Makovská, Z., & Zounek, J. (2011). Dialogické struktury ve výukové komunikaci na druhém stupni základní školy. Pedagogika, 61(1), 13-33.

60. Švaříček, R. (2011). Funkce učitelských otázek ve výukové komunikaci na druhém stupni základní školy. Studia paedagogica, 16(1), 9-46.

61. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage. CrossRef

62. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

63. Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 69-95. CrossRef

64. Tobin, K., Ritchie, S. M., Oakley, J. L., Mergard, V., & Hudson, P. (2013). Relationships between emotional climate and the fluency of classroom interactions. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 71-89. CrossRef

65. Tůma, F. (2014). Dialogismus a výzkum interakce ve třídě: přehledová studie (1990-2012). Pedagogika, 64(2), 177-199.

66. Tůma, F. (2016). Konverzační analýza a interakce ve třídě: východiska a metodologické aspekty. Pedagogická orientace, 26(3), 415-441. CrossRef

67. Tůma, F. (2017). Interakce ve výuce anglického jazyka na vysoké škole pohledem konverzační analýzy. Brno: MU. CrossRef

68. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296. CrossRef

69. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1-37. CrossRef

70. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. CrossRef

71. Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children's mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 222-255.

72. Woods-McConney, A., Wosnitza, M., & Sturrock, K. L. (2016). Inquiry and groups: Student interactions in cooperative inquiry-based science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 842-860. CrossRef

Creative Commons License
Interakce při řešení problémově orientovaných úloh ve výuce přírodovědy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

230 x 157 mm
vychází: 3 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 150 Kč
ISSN: 1802-4637
E-ISSN: 2336-3177

Ke stažení