To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'.

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Rachel H Ellaway, Catherine Patocka
{"title":"To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'.","authors":"Rachel H Ellaway, Catherine Patocka","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10391-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this commentary, the authors comment on a recent paper that argued for clear definitions of metacognition, reflection, and metacognitive reflection. Challenging the notion that exclusive definitions are essential to the sciences of health professions education, the authors argue for approaches that define conceptual spaces in which different definitional positions can coexist and scholarship based on similarity rather than identity can be pursued.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10391-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this commentary, the authors comment on a recent paper that argued for clear definitions of metacognition, reflection, and metacognitive reflection. Challenging the notion that exclusive definitions are essential to the sciences of health professions education, the authors argue for approaches that define conceptual spaces in which different definitional positions can coexist and scholarship based on similarity rather than identity can be pursued.

定义或不定义:对 "元认知反思案例 "的评论。
在这篇评论中,作者对最近的一篇论文进行了评论,该论文主张对元认知、反思和元认知反思进行明确定义。作者对排他性定义对于健康专业教育科学至关重要的观点提出了质疑,并主张采用定义概念空间的方法,在这些概念空间中,不同的定义立场可以共存,并可以在相似性而非同一性的基础上开展学术研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信