Scaffolding Thinking using Sentence Openers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 23
About This Presentation
Title:

Scaffolding Thinking using Sentence Openers

Description:

Sentence Openers (adapted from Paul (1993) Thinking Type. Introduction. Context. Methodology ... their thoughts (Fey, 1992; Garrison, 1993; Newman et al., 1997) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:41
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: yiongh
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Scaffolding Thinking using Sentence Openers


1
Scaffolding Thinking using Sentence Openers
  • Dr Yiong-Hwee, TEO
  • Ministry of Education (Singapore)
  • ICCE 2007
  • Knowledge Building Workshop
  • 6 November 2007

2
Outline
  • Scaffolding thinking in knowledge building using
    sentence openers
  • Context
  • Methodology
  • Platform design
  • Findings
  • Conclusion

3
Scaffolding thinking using sentence openers
  • Goal of KB get our students engaged in
    discussion to share with each other to improve
    the knowledge advancement of the community
    (Scardamalia, 2002)
  • Quality of discussion depends on quality of
    thinking involved
  • Socrates invented a question answer method of
    discussion called Socratic Thinking

4
Scaffolding thinking using sentence openers
  • Scant literature on use of Socratic thinking in
    online discussion
  • Aim to scaffold students thinking using a
    knowledge building tool (sentence opener) in
    order to improve quality of discussion
  • Sentence opener a predefined way to start
    arguments (e.g. I am looking from the point of
    view of )
  • Scaffolds such as these are epistemological
    markers to encourage students to probe deeper
    into the issues being investigated, thereby
    promoting KB discourse (Scardamalia Bereiter,
    2006)

5
Using sentence openers to scaffold Socratic
Thinking
6
Context National Institute of Education,
Singapore
  • Elective unit on educational video production to
    pre-service teachers
  • Face-to-face lessons (7 weeks)
  • Online discussion (3 weeks)
  • Group video project (4 weeks)
  • Participants
  • 42 pre-service teachers
  • Self-formed groups of 3-4 members (scriptwriter,
    cameraman, editor)

7
Learning from examples critiquing examples
  • Examples can help students learn a new skill (Chi
    Bassok, 1989)
  • Novice students involved in design studies
    project-based learning have problems applying
    theories to practice
  • Use examples of professional work to establish
    standards (Thomas Mergendoller, 2000)
  • Use examples of students work to define high and
    low quality work (Thomas Mergendoller, 2000)
  • How critiquing helps in learning
  • Expand students awareness and reinforce what has
    just been learned (Hartung, 1995)
  • By recognising strengths weaknesses of others
    work, students can improve upon their own (Reist,
    2005)
  • Why collaborative critiquing?
  • Social constructivism
  • Situated cognition

8
Collaborative Critique
  • The Video Examples
  • No Looking Back (gangsterism for sec schools)
  • Strangers (meeting strangers for pri schools)

9
Developing the 4-step critique model for
collaborative critiquing
  • No literature on using critiquing to teach the
    production process of video
  • Developed 4-step critique model
  • Participants identify project purpose, audience
    expertise
  • Participants evaluate strengths of design
    suggest improvements
  • Participants evaluate weaknesses of design
    suggest improvements
  • Participants summarise impt points for transfer
    to own project

10
Scaffolding collaborative critiquing with
technology
  • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)
    environment
  • Purpose to support students in learning
    effectively
  • Example of CSCL asynchronous conferencing
  • Benefits of asynchronous conferencing
  • participation any place and any time (Bourne,
    2000 Romiszowski Mason, 1996),
  • reduced social barriers due to shyness and
    language problems or gender (Groeling, 1999 Hsi,
    1997)
  • reduced social barriers due to Confucianist
    Heritage Culture
  • recorded opinions enable easy reference later
  • increased reflection as participants can take
    their time ordering and composing their thoughts
    (Fey, 1992 Garrison, 1993 Newman et al., 1997)
  • Peer tutoring learn from diverse perspectives

11
Methodology
  • Qualitative case study
  • Had dry run on using the critique procedure in KC
    on a trial topic
  • 4-week Online discussion log spliced into units
    of message ideas
  • Content analysed 2 coders
  • Triangulated with data from reflection log,
    online survey, interviews

12
The research question
  • To what extent did the Socratic sentence openers
    promote in-depth statements?

13
Designing the asynchronous discussion forum
Knowledge Community
14
Designing the asynchronous discussion forum
Knowledge Community
  • No literature on how to critique video on the
    production process
  • The 4-step critique model

15
Designing the asynchronous discussion forum
Knowledge Community
Step 3
Step 4
16
Using sentence openers to scaffold Socratic
Thinking
17
Results Discussion
  • Statements that use sentence openers had the
    highest percentage of in-depth statements

18
Results Discussion
  • Sentence openers were used successfully as
    metacognitive scaffolding by prompting students
    to think from various perspectives when they were
    critiquing the video examples online.
  • In developing the pre-service teachers in-depth
    thinking, some categories of Socratic Thinking
    were found to be under-developed.
  • By analyzing the use or non-use of sentence
    openers, a facilitator can monitor students
    Socratic Thinking and help them develop those
    aspects that were under-developed.

19
Results Discussion
  • Sentence openers contributed to in-depth
    discussion and supported students discourse in
    many ways
  • Help to start a message by offering
    possibilities.
  • Help reflection by making participants pause and
    think.
  • Show participants intent of message.
  • Offer teachers coaching information on types of
    thinking that is lacking.
  • Allow participants to self-code the message
    intent.
  • Focus participants thoughts.
  • Help thinking from multiple perspectives.
  • Promote in-depth statements and quality
    questions.
  • Help communicate clearly.
  • Help in problem solving.
  • Help in critiquing.

20
Implications for practice
  • Design of asynchronous discussion environment
  • Prompting learners to think about certain issues
    and to think in different ways are powerful
    scaffolding techniques
  • Findings show how sentence openers are phrased,
    how prominently they are located, and how much
    they involved in-depth thinking, affect their use

21
Conclusion What is the value-add of technology?
  • Face-to-face discussion is more teacher-led and
    online discussion is more student-centred.
  • CSCL technology has facilitated collaborative
    critiquing by
  • playing the role of organiser of critique
  • playing the role of coach
  • listing important discussion areas
  • monitoring thinking
  • playing the role of a fair, patient listener and
    recorder

22
Future Research
  • Implementing two phases of critique First phase
    could be to critique other peoples design work
    (e.g. this study). After novice designers have
    embarked on their own project, another online
    critique forum could be set up for peers to
    critique each others work in a second phase.
  • Track whether students transfer what they learnt
    from critique to own video projects

23
  • THANK YOU!
  • yhteo3_at_gmail.com

Yiong Hwee, TEO
QUESTIONS?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com