Dialogical Teaching...

Page 41

kinesthetically or authentic experiences (Experiencing), needs to understand the reasons and principles behind things (Theorising), analyse the patterns and seek for logic (Analysing) and put whatever learned into practice by working on an authentic workplace problem (Applying). Last but not least, I also need time after every segment or activity to reflect on what I have learned so far and think through the whole learning holistically. (Oscar) A small number (n=3) of students whose focus in their reflection in the final assessment was on a description of what was new content for them, as opposed to the awareness of their inquiry process and their journey, tended to have limited experience and access to the language of reflection. Overall, the three students concerned had lesser capability in their command of written language. Language is a key resource of the dialogical inquiry process; it is a primary resource for learning. These students require a different scaffolding to enable them to reach the standards explicit in the assessment criteria – which were used by participants to both self-assess and assess the work of their peers. Metacognitive awareness and the language to describe it seems to be important in developing higher order thinking, inquiry and in internalising the social dialogical process into new planes of mental activity. This is analysed further in the following section on reflecting and reflections.

3.4.1. Reflecting and reflections We categorised learners’ reflections into four subgroups: descriptive, partially reflective, holistically reflective and metacognitive. The criteria for categorization were derived from the definition of the ‘Reflecting’ aspect of map of inquiry (Bound, 2010) as well as the criteria used to mark the reflection portion of the assignment. From the descriptive level to the reflective & aware level, the level of reflecting increases and the depth of reflecting increases as well. The descriptions for the different type of reflection can be as seen in table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Description for Reflection Types Type of Reflection

Description

Descriptive

Descriptive rather than reflective piece with little or no explanation / analysis of their learning journey or what has been learnt

Partially Reflective

Focus on two or less of the following 1. Awareness of own assumptions and/or how one learns 2. Reflecting on own assumptions (why it did/did not change) and/or how one learns 3. Including other ways of thinking (i.e. taking peer’s perspectives, identifying limitations) 4. Seeking to reveal and relate to values, paradigms & culture

Holistically Reflective

Focus on more than two of the following 1. Awareness of own assumptions and/or how one learns 2. Reflecting on own assumptions (why it did/did not change) and/or how one learns 3. Including other ways of thinking (i.e. taking peer’s perspectives, identifying limitations) 4. Seeking to reveal and relate to values, paradigms & culture

41


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

6.6 Specific Recommendations

1min
page 84

6.2 Developing educator capabilities

2min
page 81

6.5 The need for system change to support approaches such as dialogical teaching

2min
page 83

6.1 Individual educator agency

2min
page 80

Figure 6.2: Roles and metaphors of learning in relation to monologic and dialogic approaches

2min
page 79

Figure 6:1: Continuum from monologic to dialogic

2min
page 78

5.7. Challenges faced by learners and the educators

2min
page 74

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

2min
page 77

Figure 5.2: Concept map of the dialogic teaching and learning model

3min
pages 75-76

5.1. “Rising above’ the two case studies

1min
page 69

5. Rising Above

3min
page 68

4.5. Conclusion: Learning design, inquiry and knowledge building

5min
pages 65-67

Figure 4.5. Frequency count of notes at different phases of interaction for different sessions

6min
pages 63-64

Figure 4.4. Changes in conception of learning

2min
page 62

4.3. Awareness of dialogic inquiry process and metacognition

2min
page 57

4.2. Moving from didactic teaching (direct instruction) to dialogical teaching and learning

13min
pages 53-56

4.1. Learners’ perception of the values of dialogical teaching and learning

8min
pages 50-52

3.6. Conclusion: Relationship between learning activities, inquiry and knowledge building

5min
pages 45-47

Figure 3.7: Neil’s concept map

1min
page 44

Figure 3.5. Relationship between Reflection Types & Course Scores

1min
page 42

Table 3.2: Description for Reflection Types

2min
page 41

3.3. Changes in roles and responsibilities

6min
pages 34-35

3.4. Learners’ awareness of their own dialogical inquiry processes

3min
pages 36-37

3.2. Moving from monologic teaching experiences to dialogical teaching and learning

3min
page 33

3. Workplace Learning & Performance

2min
page 29

2.5. Knowledge co-construction

3min
page 23

2.2. The dialogical construction of meaning, and inquiry

5min
pages 19-20

Executive Summary

2min
page 7

2.3. Dialogic inquiry

2min
page 21

1.3 Methodology

2min
page 10

2.6 Bringing multiple ‘tools’ together

2min
page 24

1.5 Structure of the report

1min
page 16

Recommendations

2min
page 8
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.