Dialogical Teaching...

Page 65

interrelate.” In other words, Quentin found it meaningful to find relationships among new concepts learnt and those that have been constructed. When constructing a concept map, such relationships are clarified. For example, “how is collaborative learning linked to knowledge building?” This question was bothering Quentin for some time and there was a serendipitous discovery that the relationships were clarified in the concept maps that he/she constructed. Dylan shared the importance of communicating clearly and to accept disagreement as part of the process: “when you publish certain things, some people, definitely there will be people who do not agree with what you actually write.” Learners had different views about the assigned grouping. Quentin shared that coming from a program with cohort structure, the peers from the same program had been a valuable source of support. Even though these peers were assigned to different groups in this class, they still consulted one another and used other chat applications for discussion. Nolan revealed that learners from the same programme organized themselves in a chat group (self-organized group), but he was “busybody” enough to be invited to this group and benefited from the chat group, even after the completion of the course. To Diane, however, the assigned group members took a while to get to know one another, but having this small group helped in the process of knowledge building. Likewise, Thomas shared how his group evolved over the duration of the course, developing empathy along the way rather than just being task-focused: Yeah I think the group evolved from a very task orientated, we want to finish… then after that we know that some members have some struggles with families, then never mind, we tend to understand each other, more on the learning but other things about… so we help each other out. “In such a learning environment, those learners who are better at trying to incorporate a lot of what the others have mentioned they have learnt, it really helps to elevate the quality of the assignment,” shared John.

4.5. Conclusion: Learning design, inquiry and knowledge building In the Introduction section, the design rationales and principles for this course was explained. In essence, it was designed to appeal to adult learners by giving them agency and control over the learning processes and topics for inquiry, and more critically, engage them in collaborative meaning making and tapping into their rich experiences as resources for learning. Did the students noticed these learning design? Some learners apparently could discern the differences in learning design between this course and the “traditional” approach. Quentin summarised the main differences of how this course was structured and executed, compared with other courses: The first would be use of technology... I think this one the technology used was more interactive and more participative, and there’s a stronger self-directed component as compared, other ones were more directive. They tell you what to do and we did, what you expected to do we did and how you will do things with it. I think for this one there’s more possibility and more free play. And it’s really up to you to really deep dive or do something more surface, or just do the required as spelled out in brief. I think the second one is I think there was also express grouping right at the start. Most of the courses I’ve attended, NIE at least, they only group later in the course. They rarely group on the first lesson. So there’s definitely more collaboration, expectations from day one…I think the third, of course, would

65


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.