2,462 research outputs found

    Cognitive apprenticeship : teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathtematics

    Get PDF
    Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-27)This research was supported by the National Institute of Education under Contract no. US-NIE-C-400-81-0030 and the Office of Naval Research under Contract No. N00014-85-C-002

    Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning

    Get PDF
    This article presents an outline of a script theory of guidance for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). With its four types of components of internal and external scripts (play, scene, role, and scriptlet) and seven principles, this theory addresses the question how CSCL practices are shaped by dynamically re-configured internal collaboration scripts of the participating learners. Furthermore, it explains how internal collaboration scripts develop through participation in CSCL practices. It emphasizes the importance of active application of subject matter knowledge in CSCL practices, and it prioritizes transactive over non-transactive forms of knowledge application in order to facilitate learning. Further, the theory explains how external collaboration scripts modify CSCL practices and how they influence the development of internal collaboration scripts. The principles specify an optimal scaffolding level for external collaboration scripts and allow for the formulation of hypotheses about the fading of external collaboration scripts. Finally, the article points towards conceptual challenges and future research questions

    Collaboration scripts - a conceptual analysis

    Get PDF
    This article presents a conceptual analysis of collaboration scripts used in face-to-face and computer-mediated collaborative learning. Collaboration scripts are scaffolds that aim to improve collaboration through structuring the interactive processes between two or more learning partners. Collaboration scripts consist of at least five components: (a) learning objectives, (b) type of activities, (c) sequencing, (d) role distribution, and (e) type of representation. These components serve as a basis for comparing prototypical collaboration script approaches for face-to-face vs. computer-mediated learning. As our analysis reveals, collaboration scripts for face-to-face learning often focus on supporting collaborators in engaging in activities that are specifically related to individual knowledge acquisition. Scripts for computer-mediated collaboration are typically concerned with facilitating communicative-coordinative processes that occur among group members. The two lines of research can be consolidated to facilitate the design of collaboration scripts, which both support participation and coordination, as well as induce learning activities closely related to individual knowledge acquisition and metacognition. In addition, research on collaboration scripts needs to consider the learnersโ€™ internal collaboration scripts as a further determinant of collaboration behavior. The article closes with the presentation of a conceptual framework incorporating both external and internal collaboration scripts

    Effects of differently sequenced classroom scripts on transformative and regulative processes in inquiry learning

    Get PDF
    Kooperatives Forschendes Lernen hat sich empirisch als ein effektiver Instruktionsansatz fรผr die Fรถrderung des naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens bewรคhrt. Obwohl Forschung zur Orchestrierung von Sozialformen im Unterricht zeigt, dass diese einen wichtigen Einfluss auf die Qualitรคt von Lernprozessen, wie Kommunikations- und Interaktionsprozessen, und damit auf die Lernergebnisse von Gruppe und einzelnen Lernenden hat, wurde im Bereich des Forschenden Lernens die Verteilung und Abfolge von individuellen und kooperativen Lernaktivitรคten bislang jedoch kaum untersucht. Basierend auf Erkenntnissen zu Scaffolding, Fading, Productive Failure und dem ICAP-Rahmenmodell wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit der Einfluss zweier Unterrichtsskripts auf die transformativen und regulativen Prozesse des forschenden Lernens bei Individuen und Gruppen untersucht. Das eine Unterrichtsskript sieht die Abfolge โ€žPlenum-Kleingruppe-Individuumโ€œ vor (PKI-Skript), das andere wechselt vom Plenum รผber die individuelle Ebene zur Kleingruppenebene (PIK-Skript). Transformationsprozesse beziehen sich dabei auf wissensgenerierende Prozesse, wรคhrend regulative Prozesse meta-kognitive Prozesse darstellen. Deskriptiv zeigten sich unterschieden zwischen den beiden Bedingungen: Lernende mit dem PKI-Skript zeigten mehr und intensivere individuelle transformative Prozesse, z.B. wรคhrend bei der Datenauswertung und beim wissenschaftlichen Schlussfolgern. Lernende mit dem PIK-Skript zeigten hingegen mehr transformative und regulative Prozessen auf der Gruppenebene. Lernende, die mit diesem Skript arbeiteten, zeigten mehr und intensivere Grounding-Aktivitรคten, die das gemeinsame Verstรคndnis und das Entstehen eines Common Ground fรถrderten. Dementsprechend zeigten sich hier auch hรคufiger intensivere transformative Prozesse auf der Gruppenebene.Collaborative inquiry learning has been empirically proven to be an effective instructional approach to foster studentsโ€™ scientific literacy. However, there is little research on the coordination of individual and collaborative activities during inquiry learning which could shape the quality of communication and interaction, and consequentially, individual and group learning outcomes. Research has indicated that classroom orchestration (i.e., distribution and sequencing of activities) could have profound effect on learning processes and outcomes. Premised on theories of scaffolding, fading, productive failure and the ICAP (interactive, constructive, active and passive) framework on different activity types, this study investigates the effects of two differently sequenced classroom scripts on the individual and group transformative and regulative processes in inquiry learning. Transformative processes refers to processes that yield knowledge and regulative processes are meta-cognitive processes. Descriptive statistics suggest that the Plenary-Small Group-Individual (PSI) script transition facilitated better individual engagement in transformative processes such as generating of evidence and the drawing of conclusions, whereas the Plenary-Individual-Small Group (PIS) script condition fostered better transformative and regulative processes for the group. Establishing shared understanding and forging common grounds through grounding and high-level grounding was more prevalent in this script condition, which also accounted for more occurrences of high-level transformative processes at the group level

    ๊ณผํ•™ ๋…ผ๋ณ€ ์ˆ˜์—…์—์„œ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚˜๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ๋“ค์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰๊ณผ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ ํƒ์ƒ‰

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(๋ฐ•์‚ฌ)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› :์‚ฌ๋ฒ”๋Œ€ํ•™ ๊ณผํ•™๊ต์œก๊ณผ(์ƒ๋ฌผ์ „๊ณต),2019. 8. ๊น€ํฌ๋ฐฑ.๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ๊ณผํ•™ ์ˆ˜์—…์—์„œ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚˜๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰๊ณผ ์ „๋žต์„ ์ฃผ์ œ๋ณ„๋กœ ํƒ์ƒ‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ํƒ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ํ•™์ƒ ์‚ฌ์ด์˜ ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ์„ ์š”๊ตฌํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์–ด์„œ, ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์ด ๋ณด์ด๋Š” ๋…ผ๋ณ€์  ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ์„ ํƒ์ƒ‰ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ํ•„์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์กฐ์ž‘์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘” ํƒ๊ตฌํ™œ๋™ ๋ฐ ์‹คํ—˜ํ™œ๋™ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ด ์–ด๋ ค์šด ํ•„๋ฆฌํ•€ ์ƒ๋ฌผ ์ˆ˜์—…์—์„œ ์ธ์ง€์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘” ํƒ๊ตฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜/ํ•™์Šต ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์œผ๋กœ ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™์„ ํ™œ์šฉํ•  ๊ฐ€๋Šฅ์„ฑ์„ ํƒ์ƒ‰ํ•˜๋Š”๋ฐ ๊ทธ ๋ชฉ์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ํ•„๋ฆฌํ•€์˜ ๊ณผํ•™ ๊ต์‚ฌ 4๋ช…๊ณผ ๊ทธ๋“ค์ด ๊ฐ€๋ฅด์น˜๋Š” ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์„ ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž๋กœ ํ•˜์—ฌ ์งˆ์  ์‚ฌ๋ก€ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๊ฐ€ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด 20์ฐจ์‹œ์˜ ์ˆ˜์—…์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋…นํ™”, ๋…น์Œ ์ „์‚ฌ๋ณธ์„ ์ฃผ๋œ ์ž๋ฃŒ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๋ฐ˜๋ณต์  ๋น„๊ต๋ถ„์„๋ฒ•์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ๋‹ดํ™”์—์„œ ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ๊ณผ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋…ผ๋ณ€์  ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ์„ ์ฐพ์•˜๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ์งˆ์  ์ž๋ฃŒ๋“ค์˜ ํƒ€๋‹น์„ฑ์„ ํ™•๋ณดํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์„ค๋ฌธ์กฐ์‚ฌ, ๊ณต์‹ ๋ฐ ๋น„๊ณต์‹ ๋ฉด๋‹ด, ๋น„์ฐธ์—ฌ ๊ด€์ฐฐ ์ž๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ์ถ”๊ฐ€์ ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์ž๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ํ™œ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜/ํ•™์Šต์˜ ๋ณธ์„ฑ, ๊ต์‹ค ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™์˜ ๋ณธ์„ฑ๊ณผ ์žฅ์ ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ต์‚ฌ๋“ค์˜ ์ง€์‹๊ณผ ์‹ ๋…์„ ์ดํ•ดํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ทผ๊ฑฐ์ด๋ก ์˜ ๋ฐ˜๋ณต์  ๋น„๊ต๋ถ„์„๋ฒ•์„ ํ†ตํ•˜์—ฌ ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์› ๋‹จ๊ณ„(contingency phase)์™€ ์ง€์› ์†Œ๋ฉธ ๋‹จ๊ณ„(fading phase)์—์„œ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚˜๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰ ๋ฐ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋…ผ๋ณ€์  ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ์„ ์ฐพ์•„๋‚ด์–ด ๋ฒ”์ฃผํ™”ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. 4๊ฐœ ๋ฐ˜์—์„œ ๊ฐ๊ฐ 5์ฐจ์‹œ์”ฉ ์ด 20์ฐจ์‹œ์˜ ์ˆ˜์—…์„ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์—ฌ ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์› ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์ง€์› ์†Œ๋ฉธ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋กœ ์ดํ–‰ํ•˜๋Š” ๋…ผ์˜๊ณผ์ •์„ ์ฐพ๊ณ , ์—ฌ๊ธฐ์„œ ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚˜๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ํ•™์ƒ ๊ฐ„์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ์„ ๋Œ€์ฃผ์ œ์™€ ์†Œ์ฃผ์ œ๋กœ ๋ฒ”์ฃผํ™”ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์„ ํ–‰์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ ์ œ์‹œ๋œ ๋ถ„์„ํ‹€ ํ™œ์šฉ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•๊ณผ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ๊ท€๋‚ฉ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ฐพ์•„๋‚ด๋Š” ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์„ ํ˜ผํ•ฉยท์ ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ๊ฐ ์ฃผ์ œ๋“ค์„ ๋„์ถœํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ฝ”๋“œ์ฒด๊ณ„๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ํ•™์ƒ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ์„ ์ดํ•ดํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ๋งŒ๋“ค์–ด์ง„ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ, ๋Œ€ํ™”์˜ ์œ ํ˜• ๋ถ„์„๊ณผ ๋Œ€ํ™”์—์„œ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚˜๋Š” ์—ญํ•  ๋ถ„์„์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ์€ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ ๋ฐœํ˜„์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ต์‚ฌ๊ฐ€ ๋‹ดํ™”์  ์ง€์›์œผ๋กœ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์€ ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์› ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ์š”์ฒญ๋œ ๋ฐ˜์‘์„ ์ฃผ๋กœ ํ•˜๋ฉด์„œ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ํƒ๊ตฌ์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ํ•œ ๋ฐ ๋น„ํ•ด, ์ง€์› ์†Œ๋ฉธ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ์š”์ฒญ๋ฐ›์ง€ ์•Š์€ ๋ฐ˜์‘์„ ํ•˜๋ฉด์„œ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ํƒ๊ตฌ์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ  ์žˆ์–ด์„œ, ๋‘ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚˜๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ํ”„๋กฌํ”„ํŠธ์™€ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋ฐ˜์‘์ด ๋ชจ๋‘ ๊ธฐ๋ก๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ํ”„๋กฌํ”„ํŠธ๋Š” ๊ฐœ๋…์ , ๋ถ„์„์ , ๋ฐ˜์„ฑ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ฒ”์ฃผํ™”๋˜์—ˆ๊ณ , ์ด๋“ค์€ ๊ฐ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ณ„๋กœ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ์—ญํ• ์„ ํ•œ๋‹ค๊ณ  ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ์€ ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์› ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ์‚ฌ์ „ ์ง€์‹ ์—ฐ๊ณ„ ์š”๊ตฌ, ๋‚ด์šฉ์˜ ์žฌ์š”์•ฝ ์š”๊ตฌ, ์ˆ˜์—… ๋‹ดํ™”์— ๊ธฐ์—ฌ ์š”๊ตฌ, ์ง„์ˆ ์˜ ์žฌ๊ตฌ์„ฑ ์š”๊ตฌ, ์˜ˆ์ƒ๋œ ๋ฐ˜์‘์„ ์œ„ํ•œ ํžŒํŠธ ์ œ๊ณต, ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ์ง€์†์ ์ธ ํ† ๋ก  ์ฐธ๊ฐ€๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ฑ…์ž„๊ฐ ๋ถ€์—ฌ ๋“ฑ์˜ ์—ญํ• ์„ ํ•œ ๋ฐ ๋น„ํ•˜์—ฌ, ์ง€์› ์†Œ๋ฉธ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ํ† ๋ก  ์ง€์†์„ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ง€์›, ํ† ๋ก  ํ™•์žฅ์„ ์œ„ํ•œ ํ”„๋กฌํ”„ํŠธ ์ œ๊ณต, ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ์—ญ๋Ÿ‰ ํ™•์žฅ ๊ธฐํšŒ ์ œ๊ณต ๋“ฑ์˜ ์—ญํ• ์„ ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ์—์„œ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์ด ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚ธ ๋…ผ๋ณ€์  ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ์€ ๋‘ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ๋ชจ๋‘ ๊ธ์ •์  ์—ญํ• ์„ ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ž์‹ ์˜ ์ฃผ์žฅ ์ œ๊ณต๊ณผ ์ง€์ง€๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ถ”๋ก ์„ ํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๊ธฐ์กด ์ฃผ์žฅ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋ช…๋ฃŒํ™”, ์ด์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋ฐ˜๋ฐ•๊ณผ ํ‰๊ฐ€ ๊ณผ์ •์—์„œ ๋น„ํŒ์  ์‚ฌ๊ณ ๋ฅผ ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋ƒˆ๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ์—์„œ 4๋ช…์˜ ๊ต์‚ฌ๋Š” ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™ ์ง€์›์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ์„œ๋กœ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰์„ ๋ณด์ธ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋Š”๋ฐ, ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์ฐจ์ด๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ๋“ค์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜/ํ•™์Šต์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์ง€์‹๊ณผ ์‹ ๋…, ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™์˜ ๋ณธ์„ฑ๊ณผ ์žฅ์ ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์ง€์‹๊ณผ ์‹ ๋…์ด ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์ˆ˜์ค€์„ ๋ณด์ธ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จ์ด ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์‹ ๋…๋“ค์€ ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜์  ์ ‘๊ทผ(SSI ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๋˜๋Š” ๋‚ด์šฉ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜)์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ํ”„๋ ˆ์ด๋ฐ์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์ณค๊ณ , ๋” ๋‚˜์•„๊ฐ€ ๊ทธ๋“ค์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰๊ณผ ์ „๋žต์— ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ๊ฐ€ ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์› ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ๊ต์ˆ˜์  ์ ‘๊ทผ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ํ”„๋ ˆ์ด๋ฐ๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จํ•˜์—ฌ ์ œ์‹œํ•œ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰์€ ์ ์ ˆํ•œ ์ธ์‹์  ์‹คํ–‰์„ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ „๋žต ๊ตฌ์‚ฌํ•˜๊ธฐ, ํ˜‘์ƒ ๋ฌธํ™” ๊ตฌ์ถ•ํ•˜๊ธฐ, ๊ฐœ๋…์ -๋ฐ˜์„ฑ์  ์งˆ๋ฌธํ•˜๊ธฐ, ๊ณต๋™์˜ ํ•ฉ์˜๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ์•„์ด๋””์–ด์— ์œ ์—ฐํ•œ ์ž์„ธ ๊ฐ€์ง€๊ธฐ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ์ง€์› ์†Œ๋ฉธ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ๋Š” ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ์ง€์‹ ์ž์› ์ธ์‹ํ•˜๊ธฐ, ํ•™์ƒ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์ƒํ˜ธ์ž‘์šฉ ์ฐธ์—ฌ ์˜์ง€์— ๋ฏผ๊ฐํ•˜๊ธฐ ๋“ฑ์˜ ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฐ ๊ต์‚ฌ๋Š” ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์› ๋‹จ๊ณ„์—์„œ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋…ผ๋ณ€์  ํ–‰์œ„์ฃผ์ฒด์„ฑ ์ง€์›์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ๋‘ ๊ฐ€์ง€์˜ ์„œ๋กœ ๋‹ค๋ฅด์ง€๋งŒ ์—ฐ๊ด€๋œ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์ „๋žต์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ Loida๋Š” SSI ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์ˆ˜์—…์—์„œ ์ ์ ˆํ•œ ์ธ์‹์  ์‹คํ–‰์„ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ „๋žต์„ ๊ตฌ์‚ฌํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ 1) ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค๋กœ ํ•˜์—ฌ๊ธˆ ์‚ฌ์ „ ๊ณผํ•™ ์ง€์‹์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ๋‹จ์ˆœํ•œ ๊ฐœ๋…์œผ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์ถ”์ƒ์ ์ธ ๊ฐœ๋…์„ ๊ตฌ์„ฑํ•˜๋„๋ก ํ•˜์˜€๊ณ , 2) ๊ทธ๋“ค์ด ์‹ค์ œ๋กœ ๊ฒฝํ—˜ํ–ˆ์Œ์งํ•œ ์‹œ๋‚˜๋ฆฌ์˜ค๋ฅผ ์ œ๊ณตํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ Carlo๋Š” ํ˜‘์ƒ ๋ฌธํ™” ๊ตฌ์ถ•์„ ์œ„ํ•ด 1) ์ค‘๋ฆฝ์  ๊ด€์ ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ํ†ตํ•ฉ ๋ฐฉํ–ฅ์˜ ํ˜‘์ƒ์ด ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ง€๋„๋ก ํ•˜์˜€๊ณ , 2) ์ด์งˆ์  ์•„์ด๋””์–ด๋ฅผ ์ˆ˜๋ ด์‹œ์ผœ ๊ณต๋™์˜ ํ•ฉ์˜๋ฅผ ์ด๋Œ์–ด๋‚ด์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ Don์€ ๋‚ด์šฉ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์ˆ˜์—…์—์„œ 1) ์‚ฌ์‹ค์ ์ธ ์ •๊ทœ ๊ฐœ๋…์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์งˆ๋ฌธํ•˜๊ธฐ, 2) ๋ฐ˜์„ฑ์  ํƒ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•œ ๋…ผ์˜ ํ™•์žฅํ•˜๊ธฐ๋ฅผ ์‹คํ–‰ํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ๊ฐœ๋…์ -๋ฐ˜์„ฑ์  ์งˆ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ์„ ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋ƒˆ๋‹ค. ๋งˆ์ง€๋ง‰์œผ๋กœ, ๊ณต๋™์˜ ํ•ฉ์˜๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ์•„์ด๋””์–ด์— ์œ ์—ฐํ•œ ์ž์„ธ ๊ฐ€์ง€๊ธฐ๋ฅผ ๋ณด์ธ ๊ต์‚ฌ Maria๋Š” 1) ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์‹คํ–‰์—์„œ ์šฐ๋ฐœ์  ์ง€์›์„ ๊ฐ•ํ™”ํ•˜์˜€๊ณ , 2) ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ์ง€์ง€ ์ฆ๊ฐ€์™€ ์ด๋“ค์˜ ๋‹ดํ™”์  ์ •์ฒด์„ฑ ์ฆ์ง„์„ ์กฐ์œจํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ถ„์„ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ํ•„๋ฆฌํ•€์˜ ๊ณผํ•™ ์ˆ˜์—…์—์„œ ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ์ธ์ง€์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘” ํƒ๊ตฌํ•™์Šต์ด ๊ฐ€๋Šฅํ•จ์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ค€๋‹ค. ์กฐ์ž‘์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘” ํƒ๊ตฌํ™œ๋™ ๋ฐ ์‹คํ—˜ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ํƒ๊ตฌ ํ™œ๋™ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰์ด ์ œํ•œ์ ์ธ ํ•„๋ฆฌํ•€ ๊ต์‹ค ํ™˜๊ฒฝ์—์„œ ํƒ๊ตฌ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๊ต์œก์˜ ๊ธ์ •์ ์ธ ๋Œ€์•ˆ์„ ์ œ๊ณตํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ผ ํ•˜๊ฒ ๋‹ค. ๊ต์‚ฌ์˜ ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ ์‹คํ–‰์ด ๊ทธ๋“ค์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜/ํ•™์Šต์˜ ๋ณธ์„ฑ, ๊ต์‹ค ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™์˜ ๋ณธ์„ฑ๊ณผ ์žฅ์ ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ์ง€์‹/์‹ ๋…๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋กœ ๋ณผ ๋•Œ, ์˜ˆ๋น„ ๊ต์‚ฌ์™€ ํ˜„์ง ๊ต์‚ฌ๋“ค์˜ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ์ฃผ์˜์  ์‹ ๋…์„ ๊ณ„๋ฐœ์‹œํ‚ฌ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋Š” ๊ต์‚ฌ ์ „๋ฌธ์„ฑ ํ–ฅ์ƒ(PD) ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์ด ์š”๊ตฌ๋œ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์€ ๊ต์‚ฌ๋“ค๋กœ ํ•˜์—ฌ๊ธˆ ํƒ๊ตฌ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ํ”„๋ ˆ์ด๋ฐ์„ ๊ฐ–๋„๋ก ํ•˜๊ณ  ๋Œ€ํ™”์  ์Šค์บํด๋”ฉ์„ ํ†ตํ•˜์—ฌ ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์€ ํƒ๊ตฌ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜ ์‹คํ–‰์„ ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋„๋ก ๋„์šธ ๊ฒƒ์ด๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ต์‚ฌ ์ „๋ฌธ์„ฑ ํ–ฅ์ƒ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์ด ๋ชจ๊ตญ์–ด ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๋‹ค์–ธ์–ด ๊ต์œก(MTB-MLE) ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์˜ ์„ฑ๊ณต๊ณผ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ๋…ผ๋ณ€ํ™œ๋™ ์ด‰์ง„์„ ์œ„ํ•œ ์–ธ์–ด ์‚ฌ์šฉ ๊ทน๋Œ€ํ™”์— ๊ทธ ๋ชฉ์ ์„ ๋‘๋Š”๋ฐ ๋Œ€ํ•ด ํ•จ์˜๋ฅผ ์ œ๊ณตํ•˜๊ณ , ์ถ”๊ฐ€์ ์ธ ํ›„์† ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ์ œ์•ˆํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.The study thematically explored the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and strategies in classroom argumentation implementation. As dialogic inquiry involves interrelated responses, students expressions of argumentative agency in response to their teachers dialogic scaffolding were also thematically explored. This study was conducted to investigate the potentials of classroom argumentation to become a minds-on inquiry teaching method in the Philippine biology education due to the limitations of schools for hands-on or laboratory-based instructions. The study employed the qualitative multiple-case study research design which involved four science teachers and their students in the Philippines. Robust amount of data which were analyzed through constant comparison method to establish themes representative of the teachers dialogic scaffolding and students expressions of argumentative agency where taken from audio- and video transcripts of a total of 20 lesson transcripts; five lessons observed from each teacher. These were supplemented with other data obtained through survey, formal and informal interview, and non-participant observations to establish the teachers profile regarding their knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation. Thematic analyses for both the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and students expressions of argumentative agency in both the contingency and fading phases followed the grounded theory methodology through constant comparison method. This was applied to the total of 20 classroom transcripts (five from each) of the four classes to develop the themes and subthemes which represented the interrelated categories of teachers and students dialogic exchange which sustained their argumentative discussions from the contingency phases to the fading phases. In the coding process, themes were developed using the combined inductive and template approaches which merged the a priori and data-driven codes. The codebooks that were generated were particularly focused on types of dialogues and the roles played by these dialogues to establish the interplay of teachers and students dialogic interactions. Dialogic scaffolding in this study was used as discursive support provided by the teachers to elicit students expressions of argumentative agency. Students expressions of argumentative agency on the other hand, were focused on their willingness to participate in the dialogic inquiry with solicited responses in the contingency phases and unsolicited responses in the fading phases. As the study was focused on the dialogic exchange, the roles of the teachers dialogic scaffolding prompts and students responses were noted in both the contingency and fading phases of their discussions. Teachers dialogic scaffolding prompts were classified as conceptual, analytical, and reflective and were expressed in different roles such as linking statements to prior knowledge, recapitulating, appropriating, recasting, cued eliciting, and increasing perspectives in the contingency phase while supporting, being a tool for communication, and extending students capacities in the fading phase. Students dialogic roles to express their argumentative agency on the other hand, can either be constructive which supported or provided reasons to claims or critic which clarified, challenged, or evaluated existing claims. Results showed that the teachers had different dialogic scaffolding practices for classroom argumentation implementation. These differences were affected by their varying levels of knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation. These beliefs eventually affected their framing of instructional approaches to implement classroom argumentation (SSI-based or content-based) which further influenced their dialogic scaffolding practices and strategies. Four themes, which were associated to their framing of instructional approaches, emerged as the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices in the contingency phase namely: 1) appropriation strategies, 2) enactment of the culture of negotiation, 3) conceptual-reflective questioning, and 4) flexible affirmations of students ideas for collective consensus. In the fading phase, two themes represented the teachers dialogic scaffolding and similarly, these were aligned to their instructional approaches to classroom argumentation implementation. In order to implement their personal dialogic scaffolding practices, each teacher employed two different but related dialogic scaffolding strategies to support the students expressions of argumentative agency in the contingency phases. In the SSI-based classes, using the appropriation strategies, Teacher Loida dialogically scaffolded the students by: 1) using prior scientific knowledge to build abstract concepts from simple ones, and 2) providing scenarios that may be experienced by the students. In the enactment of the culture of negotiation, Teacher Carlo used the strategies: 1) offering neutral points of view as prerequisites for integrative negotiation, and 2) converging disparate ideas leading to collective consensus. In the content-based classes, Teacher Don implemented his conceptual-reflective questioning by: 1) questioning using factual-canonical concepts, and 2) extending discussion through reflective inquiry. Finally, using the flexible affirmations of students for collective consensus, Teacher Mara implemented this by: 1) providing reinforcement for a mutually contingent dialogic exercise, and 2) revoicing to increase students backing and enhance their discursive identity. Results of the analysis point out the possibility of implementing classroom argumentation as a minds-on inquiry process in the Philippine biology education. This is in response to the advocacy for inquiry-based teaching despite the limits posed by the scarcity of resources for hands-on or laboratory-based inquiry teaching practices. With the varying dialogic scaffolding practices of the teachers employed in this study based on their varying levels of knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation, the study recommends professional development (PD) programs that would facilitate the development of the constructivist beliefs of pre-service and in-service education. This would eventually lead them to framing and implementing inquiry-based teaching such as classroom argumentation through their dialogic scaffolding. Implications for pre-service and in-service teachers PDs which aim to maximize the use of language in promoting classroom argumentation with the success of the mother tongue-based-multi-language Education (MTB-MLE) program in the Philippines were discussed. Further recommendations for future related studies were discussed.Table of Contents Contents Page Dedication ii Acknowledgement iii Abstract vi Table of Contents x List of Tables xiii List of Figures xiv Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Statement of the Problem 8 1.2. Objectives of the Study 12 1.3. Significance of the Study 13 1.4. Limitations of the Study 15 1.5. Overview of the Dissertation 16 Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Definition of Terms 19 Chapter 3. Review of Related Literature 26 3.1. Dialogic scaffolding argumentation as an inquiry-based approach in science education 27 3.2. Defining a dialogic learning environment . 31 3.3. Scaffolding in science education 35 3.4. Argumentative agency in the current research 37 3.5. Developing students epistemic agency for classroom argumentation 40 3.6. Advantages of classroom argumentation 42 3.7. Developing teachers PCK for argumentation teaching 43 3.8. The secondary school science education in the K to 12 curriculum of the Philippines 45 3.9. Improving the constructivist teaching approaches of science teachers in the Philippines 47 Chapter 4. Methodology 50 4.1. Research design 50 4.2. Sampling and settings of the study 52 4.3. Participants of the Study 54 4.4. Classroom dynamics 57 4.5. Data collection 59 4.5.1. Procedure 59 4.5.2. Instruments 61 4.6. Data analysis and interpretation 65 4.6.1. Analysis and interpretation on the teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and implementation strategies for students expressions of argumentative agency in both the contingency and fading phases 66 4.6.2. Descriptive analysis and interpretation on the teachers knowledge and belief systems on nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation 68 4.6.3. Analysis and interpretation on what and how the students expressed argumentative agency as a response to their teachers dialogic scaffolding practices in both the contingency and fading phases 70 4.7. Establishing the research quality 74 4.8. Ethical considerations 75 Chapter 5. Results and Discussion 77 5.1. Teachers dialogic scaffolding practices 80 5.1.1. Dialogic scaffolding practices and implementation strategies in the contingency phase 80 For the SSI-based implementing teachers 80 Theme 1: Appropriation strategies 81 Theme 2: Enactment of the culture of negotiation 90 For the content-based implementing teachers 97 Theme 3: Conceptual-reflective questioning strategies 98 Theme 4: Flexible affirmations of students ideas for collective consensus 107 5.1.2. Teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and implementation strategies in the fading phases 114 Theme 1: Recognition of students scientific knowledge capitals for the SSI-based implementing teachers 116 Theme 2: Sensitivity to students willingness to participate in the dialogic exchange in the content-based classes 130 5.2. Teachers knowledge and beliefs on the nature of teaching and learning and on the nature and advantages of classroom argumentation 144 SSI-based implementing teachers 144 Content-based implementing teachers 154 5.3. Students expressions of argumentative agency in response to their teachers dialogic scaffolding practices and strategies 165 5.3.1. Theme 1: Neutral and immediate application of scientific knowledge in the dialogic response in the contingency phase 168 5.3.2. Theme 2: Use of science concepts, willingness to take part, and recognition of the advantages of turn-taking in the fading phase 190 Chapter 6. Summary and Conclusion 217 Chapter 7. Implications and Recommendations 229 References 234 ๊ตญ๋ฌธ์ดˆ๋ก 254 Appendices 258 I. Communications 258 II. SNU IRB Approval Sheets 259 III. Sample Research Instruments 267 A. TBTLQ 267 B. TKBAS 268 C. TBTLI 269 D. TDSAOC 270 E. TSCAIG 271Docto

    Constructive interaction in scripted computer-supported collaborative learning

    Get PDF
    Abstract. This study explores the constructive interaction of higher education students during the Facebook groupsโ€™ discussion. The specific aims are investigating what forms of interaction were generated and how these interactions vary in three differently supported scripts. The participants of this study were ten small groups of higher education students (N=88) from three different Universities; collaborative learning for these groups was supported with a particular design micro- script for promoting both participation towards task-related and socio-emotional interaction over a six-week CSCL course. The results show that constructive interaction was rarely found. The majority of groups manifested more in the task-related than the socio-emotional categories. In terms of differences within the three collaboration phases, the intense constructive interaction was shown in the first and second tasks, where scripts were still supported studentsโ€™ collaborative activities. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the group who actively contributed to socio-emotional interaction was likely to engage well in task-related performance

    Distributed Scaffolding: Wiki Collaboration Among Latino High School Chemistry Students

    Get PDF
    The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate if wiki collaboration among Latino high school chemistry students can help reduce the science achievement gap between Latino and White students. The study was a quasi-experimental pre/post control group mixed-methods design. It used three intact sections of a high school chemistry course. The first research question asked if there is a difference in academic achievement between a treatment and control group on selected concepts from the topics of bonding, physical changes, and chemical changes, when Latino high school chemistry students collaborate on a quasi-natural wiki project. Overall results for all three activities (Bonding, Physical Changes, and Chemical Changes) indicated no significant difference between the wiki and control group. However, students performing the chemical changes activity did significantly better than their respective control group. Furthermore, there was a significant association, with large effect size, between group membership and ability to overcome the misconception that aqueous ionic reactants in precipitation reactions exist as molecular pairs of ions. Qualitative analysis of classroom and computer lab dialogue, discussion board communication, student focus groups, teacher interviews, and wiki content attributes the better performance of the chemical changes wiki group to favorable differences in intersubjectivity and calibrated assistance, as well as learning about submicroscopic representations of precipitation reactions in multiple contexts. Furthermore, the nonsignificant result overall points to an aversion to peer editing as a possible cause. Drawing considerably on Vygotsky and Piaget, the results are discussed within the context of how distributed scaffolding facilitated medium levels of cognitive conflict. The second research question asked what the characteristics of distributed metacognitive scaffolding are when Latino high school chemistry students collaborate on a quasi-natural wiki project. Results suggested a higher frequency of metacognitive scaffolding by the teacher, over peers, for content knowledge and making connections knowledge. Teacher metacognitive scaffolding often took the form of posting discussion board questions designed to stimulate student reflection on their content or creativity. On the other hand, both teacher and peer metacognitive scaffolding for general goals knowledge and strategy knowledge was relatively infrequent. Recommendations are offered for improving teacher and peer metacognitive scaffolding

    Online peer tutoring behaviour in a higher education context

    Get PDF

    Bridging between Research and Practice

    Get PDF
    This book presents a fresh approach to bridging the perceived gap between academic and classroom cultures. It describes a unique form of research partnership whereby Cambridge University academics and school teachers together grappled with and reformulated theoryโ€”through in-depth case studies analysing practice using interactive whiteboards in five subject areas. The inquiry exploited the collaboratorsโ€™ complementary professional knowledge bases. Teachersโ€™ voices are particularly audible in co-authored case study chapters. Outcomes included deeper insights into concepts of sociocultural learning theory and classroom dialogue, more analytical mindsets, sustained new practices and ways of working collegially.; Readership: The book will interest academic and teacher researchers, initial teacher educators, professional development leaders, mentors, plus practitioners interested in using interactive whiteboards and dialogic teaching. It explores widening approaches to collegial development to reach educators working in other contexts (with and without technology). This could involve intermediate theory building or shortcutting by sharing and adapting the outcomesโ€”springboarding teachersโ€™ further critique and professional learning
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore