研究职前教师的认知条件,以及这种条件如何影响他们在紧急在线实践教学(PT)中的认知操作和元认知调整

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Metacognition and Learning Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1007/s11409-024-09378-x
{"title":"研究职前教师的认知条件,以及这种条件如何影响他们在紧急在线实践教学(PT)中的认知操作和元认知调整","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09378-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This descriptive qualitative study examined pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions, cognitive operations, and metacognitive adaptations during emergency online practice teaching. It further examined the intricate interplay between these components. Using pre- and post-open-ended questions and weekly reflections, qualitative methods were employed to examine participants’ cognitive conditions and processes in detail. The findings uncovered a cognitive paradox: pre-service teachers exhibited less sophisticated beliefs, negative emotions, low self-efficacy, and limited task knowledge while simultaneously holding high outcome expectations and mastery goals. Their cognitive operations revealed a similar cognitive paradox, highlighting the tension between the desired outcomes and the processes employed to attain them. They used both primitive and acquired cognitive operations. Their primitive cognitive operations were predominantly characterized by monitoring and assembling, whereas the acquired processes involved seeking and using feedback and observing. Like cognitive operations, their metacognitive adaptations were reactive and superficial, mainly focused on error identification and rectification. Although their cognitive and metacognitive engagement evolved with time, the presence of simultaneous paradoxical elements accentuates the complexity of the interplay between pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions, cognitive operations, and metacognitive adaptations, making it a non-linear, complex, and multi-dimensional process driven by contradictory forces. These findings have important implications for teacher education programs, suggesting tailored interventions and support mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions and how this shapes their cognitive operations and metacognitive adaptations during emergency online practice teaching (PT)\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11409-024-09378-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This descriptive qualitative study examined pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions, cognitive operations, and metacognitive adaptations during emergency online practice teaching. It further examined the intricate interplay between these components. Using pre- and post-open-ended questions and weekly reflections, qualitative methods were employed to examine participants’ cognitive conditions and processes in detail. The findings uncovered a cognitive paradox: pre-service teachers exhibited less sophisticated beliefs, negative emotions, low self-efficacy, and limited task knowledge while simultaneously holding high outcome expectations and mastery goals. Their cognitive operations revealed a similar cognitive paradox, highlighting the tension between the desired outcomes and the processes employed to attain them. They used both primitive and acquired cognitive operations. Their primitive cognitive operations were predominantly characterized by monitoring and assembling, whereas the acquired processes involved seeking and using feedback and observing. Like cognitive operations, their metacognitive adaptations were reactive and superficial, mainly focused on error identification and rectification. Although their cognitive and metacognitive engagement evolved with time, the presence of simultaneous paradoxical elements accentuates the complexity of the interplay between pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions, cognitive operations, and metacognitive adaptations, making it a non-linear, complex, and multi-dimensional process driven by contradictory forces. These findings have important implications for teacher education programs, suggesting tailored interventions and support mechanisms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09378-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09378-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 本描述性定性研究考察了职前教师在紧急在线实践教学中的认知条件、认知操作和元认知适应。研究还进一步考察了这些组成部分之间错综复杂的相互作用。研究采用前后开放式问题和每周反思的定性方法,详细考察了参与者的认知条件和过程。研究结果发现了一种认知悖论:职前教师表现出较低的信念、消极情绪、较低的自我效能感和有限的任务知识,而同时又对结果抱有较高的期望和掌握目标。他们的认知操作也显示出类似的认知悖论,凸显了期望结果与实现目标的过程之间的矛盾。他们既使用原始认知操作,也使用后天认知操作。他们的原始认知操作主要表现为监控和组合,而习得性过程则包括寻求和使用反馈以及观察。与认知操作一样,他们的元认知适应也是被动和肤浅的,主要集中在错误识别和纠正上。虽然他们的认知和元认知参与随着时间的推移而发展,但同时存在的矛盾因素突出了职前教师认知条件、认知操作和元认知适应之间相互作用的复杂性,使其成为一个由矛盾力量驱动的非线性、复杂和多维的过程。这些发现对教师教育项目具有重要意义,建议采取有针对性的干预措施和支持机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Examining pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions and how this shapes their cognitive operations and metacognitive adaptations during emergency online practice teaching (PT)

Abstract

This descriptive qualitative study examined pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions, cognitive operations, and metacognitive adaptations during emergency online practice teaching. It further examined the intricate interplay between these components. Using pre- and post-open-ended questions and weekly reflections, qualitative methods were employed to examine participants’ cognitive conditions and processes in detail. The findings uncovered a cognitive paradox: pre-service teachers exhibited less sophisticated beliefs, negative emotions, low self-efficacy, and limited task knowledge while simultaneously holding high outcome expectations and mastery goals. Their cognitive operations revealed a similar cognitive paradox, highlighting the tension between the desired outcomes and the processes employed to attain them. They used both primitive and acquired cognitive operations. Their primitive cognitive operations were predominantly characterized by monitoring and assembling, whereas the acquired processes involved seeking and using feedback and observing. Like cognitive operations, their metacognitive adaptations were reactive and superficial, mainly focused on error identification and rectification. Although their cognitive and metacognitive engagement evolved with time, the presence of simultaneous paradoxical elements accentuates the complexity of the interplay between pre-service teachers’ cognitive conditions, cognitive operations, and metacognitive adaptations, making it a non-linear, complex, and multi-dimensional process driven by contradictory forces. These findings have important implications for teacher education programs, suggesting tailored interventions and support mechanisms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge exploration among students: role of feedback, feeling of confidence, and academic motivation Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms Development of metacognitive monitoring and control skills in elementary school: a latent profile approach Metacognitive reflections on essentialism during the learning of the relationship between biology and the human race On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1