Investigating Students' Epistemologies In CSCL Discourse Through Reflective Judgment Model And Practical Epistemologies<br...
Unique forms of learner-discourse dynamics<br />How learners perceive/act-out their roles in the discourse…<br /><ul><li>S...
Enhancement of learner’s potential in ZPD
Socio-cognitive conflict – Piaget
Creating disequilibrium in learner’s model, towards accommodation or assimilation
Communities of Practice (CoP) – Lave & Wanger
Specific form of socialization process for learning of tacit knowledge and social norms specific to community
Knowledge Building – Bereiter & Scardamalia
Collaborative works on advancing ideas towards knowledge artifacts or theory building</li></li></ul><li>Quotes from a Grad...
This study is driven by the observation…<br />Why some students, like student C, contributes more notes of high level epis...
If they do, would it be reflected in students’ contributions to the online and offline discourse? </li></li></ul><li>Study...
Nature of knowledge
Beliefs about learning and cognition
Pedagogical beliefs about the best way to support learning
Mature scientific inquiry works resemble socio-constructivist epistemic dynamics (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2005; Sandoval, ...
Investigating students’ Epistemologies<br /><ul><li>Reflective Judgment Model – King & Kitchener (1994, 2004)
Students’ reasoning styles in response to ill-structured problems
Pre-reflective, Quasi-reflective, Reflective
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Investigating Students' Epistemologies in CSCL Discourse Through Reflective Judgment Model and Practical Epistemologies

487

Published on

Short paper presentation at the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL 2011 Hong Kong

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
487
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Investigating Students' Epistemologies in CSCL Discourse Through Reflective Judgment Model and Practical Epistemologies"

  1. 1. Investigating Students' Epistemologies In CSCL Discourse Through Reflective Judgment Model And Practical Epistemologies<br />Johnny Yuen<br />Centre for Information Technology in Education<br />University of Hong Kong<br />
  2. 2. Unique forms of learner-discourse dynamics<br />How learners perceive/act-out their roles in the discourse…<br /><ul><li>Social learning theory – Vygotsky
  3. 3. Enhancement of learner’s potential in ZPD
  4. 4. Socio-cognitive conflict – Piaget
  5. 5. Creating disequilibrium in learner’s model, towards accommodation or assimilation
  6. 6. Communities of Practice (CoP) – Lave & Wanger
  7. 7. Specific form of socialization process for learning of tacit knowledge and social norms specific to community
  8. 8. Knowledge Building – Bereiter & Scardamalia
  9. 9. Collaborative works on advancing ideas towards knowledge artifacts or theory building</li></li></ul><li>Quotes from a Grade 8 32 students online discourse…<br />Idealism & Materialism: designing a new tourist attraction in HK<br />Student A: <br />“I think we should attract the tourist from china. “<br />Student B: <br />“I think (our) proposal should attract the mainland tourist because mainland is a high consume tourist which will boost the economy of HK. “<br />Student C:<br />“…. I think we should only focus on tourist of one area, such as Asia, Europe, or north America. If we are intending to attract people from the whole world, we should meet all of their needs and interest in order to "make them" go to the tourist attraction. I think it would be too hard, and Hong Kong do not have such land or resources to do so…”<br />
  10. 10. This study is driven by the observation…<br />Why some students, like student C, contributes more notes of high level epistemic dynamics than others in the socio-constructivist discourse Knowledge Forum® ? <br />Are there any differences between students?<br /><ul><li>Do they hold different beliefs in knowledge and knowing?
  11. 11. If they do, would it be reflected in students’ contributions to the online and offline discourse? </li></li></ul><li>Studying engagement in socio-constructivist learning discourse<br /><ul><li>A “loosely coupled system” (Kanselaar, 2002) serve as the basis of learner’s epistemic engagement and potential outcome in socio-constructivist learning:
  12. 12. Nature of knowledge
  13. 13. Beliefs about learning and cognition
  14. 14. Pedagogical beliefs about the best way to support learning
  15. 15. Mature scientific inquiry works resemble socio-constructivist epistemic dynamics (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2005; Sandoval, 2005; Zeidleret, al., 2009)</li></li></ul><li>Research Question<br />Would students who operate at more advanced levels of epistemology more likely to engage in the online CSCL discourse towards theory building?<br />
  16. 16. Investigating students’ Epistemologies<br /><ul><li>Reflective Judgment Model – King & Kitchener (1994, 2004)
  17. 17. Students’ reasoning styles in response to ill-structured problems
  18. 18. Pre-reflective, Quasi-reflective, Reflective
  19. 19. Epistemological Authenticity Framework– Chinn & Brewer, 2001; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002
  20. 20. Epistemic connections students make to connect ideas
  21. 21. Linear, cause and effect?
  22. 22. Complex network of factors?
  23. 23. Causal, Inductive, Analogical, Contrastive</li></li></ul><li>Context of study<br /><ul><li>32 grade 8 students
  24. 24. Integrated Humanities, inquiry-based curriculum design
  25. 25. Module “Idealism & Materialism: theories that explains development of civilizations”
  26. 26. 31 one-hour lessons over 12 weeks
  27. 27. Group project “Proposing a new tourist attraction to boost tourism in HK”
  28. 28. Stage 1: Background Research
  29. 29. Stage 2: Proposal Preparation
  30. 30. Stage 3: Peer Review of Proposal
  31. 31. Stage 4: Individual Reflection
  32. 32. First time to use Knowledge Forum (KF), to extend classroom discussion</li></li></ul><li>Sources of data & Analysis<br />Students’ level of Reflective Judgment <br /><ul><li>Survey instrument designed with reference to King & Kitchener’s (1994, 2004) Reflective Judgment Model (RJM) & RCI test (Wood, Kitchener, Jensen, 2003)
  33. 33. Two ill-structured scenarios designed: </li></ul>Natural & Cultural Conservations, Ecological Footprint (one page each)<br /><ul><li>Conducted at pre & post module</li></ul>Numbers and types of epistemic connections used in final essay (Chinn & Brewer, 2001; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002)<br />Individual essay<br />On “Idealism & Materialism”<br />4 types of epistemic connections: Causal, Inductive, Analogical, Contrastive<br />Densities, number and types of argumentative and question markers used to reason with peers on Knowledge Forum® (Law, et al., 2011)<br /><ul><li>4 stages of online KB discussion, 1021 notes contributed</li></ul>Argumentative acts: claim, disagreement, reason, elaboration, condition, contrast, consequence<br />Questioning: explanatory, factual <br />
  34. 34. Sample question<br />
  35. 35. Sample question<br />
  36. 36.
  37. 37. Highlight of Findings<br />In line with the Reflective Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Pre-reflective students believes what they know and think are absolutely certain, hence no justification is required
  38. 38. Lower density of argumentative and question markers in the online discourse
  39. 39. Quasi-reflective students hold that knowledge claims contain elements of uncertainty and idiosyncrasy
  40. 40. Higher density of argumentative and question markers in the online discourse</li></li></ul><li>Highlight of findings (2)<br />From applying the Epistemological Authenticity Framework (Chinn, et al,. 2001, 2002), students in their “idealism and materialism” essay<br /><ul><li> Students who have used less types (and usually the more primitive ones) of epistemic connections in their individual essay</li></ul>Lower density of argumentative and question markers in online discourse<br /><ul><li> Students who have used more types of epistemic connections in their individual essay</li></ul>Higher density of argumentative and question markers in online discourse<br />
  41. 41. Some implications<br /><ul><li>Quality of students engagements (discourse markers) in the socio-constructivist online discourse somewhat relates to the epistemology they hold (RJM or Epi. Authenticity Framework).
  42. 42. Epistemic Authenticity Framework helps understand how students sees and organize their learning outcome, and to an extend informs their way of engagements in the discourse.
  43. 43. More research on how the RJM, Epi. Auth. Framework and discourse engagement informs each other is required</li></li></ul><li>
  44. 44.
  45. 45. Thank you<br />johnny@cite.hku.hk<br />Acknowledgement:<br />Prof. Nancy Law<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×