How teacher talk guidance during Invention activities shapes students' cognitive engagement and transfer
How teacher talk guidance during Invention activities shapes students' cognitive engagement and transfer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40594-019-0170-7
复制
发表时间：
2019-05-07
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Connolly, Helena
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chase, Catherine C.;Marks, Jenna;Connolly, Helena
背景：K-12 STEM教育的一个关键问题是如何最好地引导学生参与探索性学习活动，使学生发展可转移的知识。我们在一项名为“发明”的探索性活动的教师话语引导研究中对这一问题进行了调查。在这项研究中，教师与学生进行一对一的工作，指导他们尝试发明基于比例的物理科学现象方程。我们将交互式、建设性、主动和被动（ICAP）框架作为一个理论视角，通过它来探索不同形式的教师谈话指导和由此产生的学生谈话。ICAP假设预测，建设性参与比主动参与带来更多的学习，而主动参与又比被动参与带来更多的学习。然而，学生并不总是表现出老师所提示的那种认知参与。在本文中，我们致力于三个目标：(1)探索教师在其谈话中引发并由学生实施的认知参与形式；(2)在发明过程中师生对话的新背景下测试ICAP假设；(3)确定教师谈话指导发明活动和其他探索性STEM学习任务的有效形式。结果：虽然大多数学生的谈话是主动的，但教师的建设性、主动和被动的提示分布均匀。教师和学生的谈话类型趋于一致，因此学生通常会以教师邀请的认知参与类型做出回应，除了被动谈话。总体而言，教师话语对学生迁移能力的影响最为显著，而师生对话对迁移的影响较弱，学生话语对迁移的影响不显著。我们发现了一些支持ICAP假说的证据，最突出的是在教师谈话中，建设性提示正向预测迁移，主动提示与迁移无关，被动提示负向预测迁移。结论：本研究表明，教师在引导学生完成发明任务时，如果目标是激发学习向新情境的转移，应该使用大量的建设性提示，相对较少的被动提示。这项工作还将ICAP假设的CAP部分扩展到师生对话，并强调了教师在鼓励学生以有效的方式认知参与探索性STEM任务方面的关键作用。
Background: A key question in K-12 STEM education is how best to guide students as they engage in exploratory learning activities so that students develop transferable knowledge. We investigated this question in a study of teacher talk guidance of an exploratory activity called Invention. In this study, teachers worked one-on-one with students, guiding them as they attempted to invent ratio-based equations of physical science phenomena. We applied the interactive, constructive, active, and passive (ICAP) framework as a theoretical lens through which to explore different forms of teacher talk guidance and resulting student talk. The ICAP hypothesis predicts that constructive engagement leads to greater learning than active engagement, which in turn leads to greater learning than passive engagement. However, students do not always enact the type of cognitive engagement that teachers prompt. In this paper, we work towards three goals: (1) to explore the forms of cognitive engagement prompted by teachers and enacted by students in their talk, (2) to test the ICAP hypothesis in the novel context of teacher-student dialog during Invention, and (3) to identify effective forms of teacher talk guidance for Invention activities and other exploratory STEM learning tasks.Results: While the majority of student talk was active, teachers produced an even distribution of constructive, active, and passive prompts. Teacher and student talk types tended to align, such that students often responded with the type of cognitive engagement teachers invited, with the exception of passive talk. In general, teacher talk showed the most robust relationship with students' abilities to transfer, while teacher-student dialog demonstrated a weaker relationship with transfer, and student talk was not significantly related to transfer. Some evidence for the ICAP hypothesis was found, most prominently in teacher talk, where constructive prompts positively predicted transfer, active prompts were not related to transfer, and passive prompts negatively predicted transfer.Conclusions: This research implies that teachers should use a large proportion of constructive prompts and relatively few passive ones when guiding students through Invention tasks, when the goal is to provoke transfer of learning to novel contexts. This work also extends the CAP portion of the ICAP hypothesis to teacher-student dialog and underscores the teacher's critical role in encouraging students to cognitively engage with exploratory STEM tasks in effective ways.