Dialogical Teaching...

Page 42

Metacognitive

Focus on more than two of the following and must include point 5: 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 5. Awareness of metacognitive processes and meta-thinking

Figure 3.5 indicates there is a general upwards trend where scores increase with the depth of their reflection piece. Specifically, students with descriptive level reflections all had scores below 50 with little or no reflection in their work and only provided brief descriptions of what it was like taking the course. Students with partially reflective pieces had scores ranging from 51 to 63 while students with holistically reflective pieces had course scores ranging from 63 to 84. Those with metacognitive reflections generally scored 85 and above with the exception of CCK and CLE who scored 67 and 78 respectively. Students with metacognitive reflections, for the most part, scored better for the course, likely due to the ability to use metacognitive processes in their learning and/or dialogical inquiry process. Metacognition can be widely divided into cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation (Stack & Bound, 2012). Many of these metacognitive reflections involved understanding themselves as a learner and how that affects their performance. A common point discussed was recognising their dominant ways of thinking in the map of inquiry and how it influences their learning. Neil incorporated other components of cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation (meta-cognition) in his reflection. Specifically, in the discussion of the data collection process, Neil recognised his way of thinking regarding the data collected and subsequently evaluated his thought process, resulting in his data analysis yielding new information inconsistent with his previous mental schema. This reflective process of considering, what does this mean, appears to contribute to deeper understanding of how to apply theory to practice. Not surprising that with such insights, he scored higher than many other students for the course.

Figure 3.5. Relationship between Reflection Types & Course Scores

42


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.