教师的认知理解与课堂论证的对话框架的一致性:对面对面、开放和远程学习环境的启示

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Open Learning Pub Date : 2023-04-24 DOI:10.58887/ijodel.v8i2.97
S. Gutierez
{"title":"教师的认知理解与课堂论证的对话框架的一致性:对面对面、开放和远程学习环境的启示","authors":"S. Gutierez","doi":"10.58887/ijodel.v8i2.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dialogic scaffolding has the capacity to encourage and sustain students’ engagement in classroom argumentation. This study explored how the teachers’ levels of epistemic understanding were aligned with their intentions for dialogic scaffolding to encourage student's participation in classroom argumentation. Using varied data- gathering procedures such as surveys, classroom observation guides, and interview guides, results showed that the teachers’ varying levels of epistemic understanding are aligned with their dialogic scaffolding. Based on the criteria before the selection, each teacher was knowledgeable about the nature with significant exposure to inquiry-based teaching and learning, including classroom argumentation. Results showed that their rationale and nature of dialogic scaffolding were based on their levels of epistemic understanding. Results corroborate previous findings that explicit implementation of classroom argumentation depends on teachers’ strong intention and foundation of science content to challenge and stretch the capacities of their students in grasping the meaning of the subject matter. The study foregrounds the possibility of implementing classroom argumentation in any classroom, provided that the teachers can dialogically scaffold the class and lessen the immediate evaluative responses to students’ dialogues. The study, therefore, recommends teacher educators increase pre-service teachers’ exposure to inquiry approaches to science education, such as argumentation, as an investment for developing their dialogic scaffolding for classroom argumentation.","PeriodicalId":46089,"journal":{"name":"Open Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alignment of Teachers’ Epistemic Understanding and Intended Dialogic Scaffolding of Classroom argumentation: Implications on Face-to-Face, Open and Distance Learning Environments\",\"authors\":\"S. Gutierez\",\"doi\":\"10.58887/ijodel.v8i2.97\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dialogic scaffolding has the capacity to encourage and sustain students’ engagement in classroom argumentation. This study explored how the teachers’ levels of epistemic understanding were aligned with their intentions for dialogic scaffolding to encourage student's participation in classroom argumentation. Using varied data- gathering procedures such as surveys, classroom observation guides, and interview guides, results showed that the teachers’ varying levels of epistemic understanding are aligned with their dialogic scaffolding. Based on the criteria before the selection, each teacher was knowledgeable about the nature with significant exposure to inquiry-based teaching and learning, including classroom argumentation. Results showed that their rationale and nature of dialogic scaffolding were based on their levels of epistemic understanding. Results corroborate previous findings that explicit implementation of classroom argumentation depends on teachers’ strong intention and foundation of science content to challenge and stretch the capacities of their students in grasping the meaning of the subject matter. The study foregrounds the possibility of implementing classroom argumentation in any classroom, provided that the teachers can dialogically scaffold the class and lessen the immediate evaluative responses to students’ dialogues. The study, therefore, recommends teacher educators increase pre-service teachers’ exposure to inquiry approaches to science education, such as argumentation, as an investment for developing their dialogic scaffolding for classroom argumentation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58887/ijodel.v8i2.97\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58887/ijodel.v8i2.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

对话框架有能力鼓励和维持学生参与课堂辩论。本研究探讨了教师的认知理解水平如何与对话框架的意图相一致,以鼓励学生参与课堂论证。使用不同的数据收集程序,如调查、课堂观察指南和访谈指南,结果表明教师不同程度的认知理解与他们的对话框架是一致的。根据选择前的标准,每位教师都了解自然,并大量接触探究性教学,包括课堂论证。结果表明,他们的认知理解水平决定了对话脚手架的基本原理和性质。结果证实了先前的研究结果,即课堂论证的明确实施取决于教师对科学内容的强烈意图和基础,以挑战和拓展学生掌握主题意义的能力。该研究展望了在任何课堂上实施课堂辩论的可能性,前提是教师能够以对话的方式指导课堂,减少对学生对话的直接评价反应。因此,该研究建议教师教育工作者增加职前教师接触探究性科学教育方法的机会,例如论证,作为发展课堂论证对话框架的投资。
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
Alignment of Teachers’ Epistemic Understanding and Intended Dialogic Scaffolding of Classroom argumentation: Implications on Face-to-Face, Open and Distance Learning Environments
Dialogic scaffolding has the capacity to encourage and sustain students’ engagement in classroom argumentation. This study explored how the teachers’ levels of epistemic understanding were aligned with their intentions for dialogic scaffolding to encourage student's participation in classroom argumentation. Using varied data- gathering procedures such as surveys, classroom observation guides, and interview guides, results showed that the teachers’ varying levels of epistemic understanding are aligned with their dialogic scaffolding. Based on the criteria before the selection, each teacher was knowledgeable about the nature with significant exposure to inquiry-based teaching and learning, including classroom argumentation. Results showed that their rationale and nature of dialogic scaffolding were based on their levels of epistemic understanding. Results corroborate previous findings that explicit implementation of classroom argumentation depends on teachers’ strong intention and foundation of science content to challenge and stretch the capacities of their students in grasping the meaning of the subject matter. The study foregrounds the possibility of implementing classroom argumentation in any classroom, provided that the teachers can dialogically scaffold the class and lessen the immediate evaluative responses to students’ dialogues. The study, therefore, recommends teacher educators increase pre-service teachers’ exposure to inquiry approaches to science education, such as argumentation, as an investment for developing their dialogic scaffolding for classroom argumentation.
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
Open Learning
Open Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Best practices for mentoring in online programs: supporting faculty and students in higher education Best practices for mentoring in online programs: supporting faculty and students in higher education , edited by Susan Ko and Olena Zhadko, New York, Routledge, 2022, 170 pp., £26.39(paperback), ISBN9781138352476 (e-book), ISBN9780429434754 The mediating role of online learning readiness in the relationship between course satisfaction and self-efficacy to learn statistics in online classes Open and online learning: opportunities and challenges Interactions in an xMOOC: perspectives of learners who completed the course The metaphors of Ed Tech
×
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