辩论赛中认知语篇与元认知语篇的不同范畴分析

Q3 Social Sciences

Studia Paedagogica Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI:10.5817/sp2019-4-5

Na'ama Y. Av-Shalom, Randi M. Zimmerman, C. Chinn, R. Duncan

{"title":"辩论赛中认知语篇与元认知语篇的不同范畴分析","authors":"Na'ama Y. Av-Shalom, Randi M. Zimmerman, C. Chinn, R. Duncan","doi":"10.5817/sp2019-4-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance. After 10 years of work with science curricula designed to develop reasoning, we present a framework grounded in data from our projects for identifying different forms of metacognitive engagement in science inquiry classes. We focus on four categories of discourse from our data: object of thought or discourse; expressions of what someone is thinking; degree of specificity; and discourse applying and tailoring understanding of epistemic cognition to particular topics. We present multiple examples in each of these categories. Our goal is to provide analytic tools along with examples to better identify and code argumentative discourse that advances students' apt epistemic performance.","PeriodicalId":37607,"journal":{"name":"Studia Paedagogica","volume":"50 12","pages":"101-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of Different Categories of Epistemic and Metacognitive Discourse in Argumentation\",\"authors\":\"Na'ama Y. Av-Shalom, Randi M. Zimmerman, C. Chinn, R. Duncan\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/sp2019-4-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance. After 10 years of work with science curricula designed to develop reasoning, we present a framework grounded in data from our projects for identifying different forms of metacognitive engagement in science inquiry classes. We focus on four categories of discourse from our data: object of thought or discourse; expressions of what someone is thinking; degree of specificity; and discourse applying and tailoring understanding of epistemic cognition to particular topics. We present multiple examples in each of these categories. Our goal is to provide analytic tools along with examples to better identify and code argumentative discourse that advances students' apt epistemic performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Paedagogica\",\"volume\":\"50 12\",\"pages\":\"101-118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Paedagogica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2019-4-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Paedagogica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2019-4-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

论证实践已被证明可以加深理解并提高学习成绩。经过10年旨在培养推理能力的科学课程研究，我们提出了一个基于项目数据的框架，用于识别科学探究课堂中不同形式的元认知参与。根据我们的数据，我们将话语分为四类:思想或话语的对象;表达某人在想什么;特异性程度;以及对特定主题的认识论认知的应用和剪裁理解。我们在每个类别中都提供了多个示例。我们的目标是提供分析工具以及示例，以更好地识别和编码辩论话语，从而提高学生的适当认知表现。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Analysis of Different Categories of Epistemic and Metacognitive Discourse in Argumentation

Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance. After 10 years of work with science curricula designed to develop reasoning, we present a framework grounded in data from our projects for identifying different forms of metacognitive engagement in science inquiry classes. We focus on four categories of discourse from our data: object of thought or discourse; expressions of what someone is thinking; degree of specificity; and discourse applying and tailoring understanding of epistemic cognition to particular topics. We present multiple examples in each of these categories. Our goal is to provide analytic tools along with examples to better identify and code argumentative discourse that advances students' apt epistemic performance.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Studia Paedagogica Social Sciences-Education

CiteScore

1.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Studia Paedagogica publishes original papers on education, upbringing and learning from all spheres of social life. The papers are theoretical, but mainly empirical as the journal publishes research undertaken in the Czech Republic and abroad. The journal publishes only original research papers and is open to both experienced and early researchers. Early researchers can publish their papers in the section Emerging Researchers of the journal and are offered intensive editorial support. The journal is interdisciplinary - it covers current topics in educational research while at the same time providing scope for studies grounded in other social sciences. The journal publishes four issues per year, two issues are dedicated to general interest articles and are in Czech, two issues are on a single topic and are in English. Studia Paedagogica is a peer reviewed journal published by the Masaryk University. The executive editors are members of the staff of the Department of Educational Sciences and the editorial board comprises of international experts. The name of the journal is derived from the name of its predecessor, Studia minora facultatis philosophicae universitatis brunensis (Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity), which was issued from 1996 to 2008. However, the tradition of the journal dates much further back as the pedagogical-psychological series of the journal was published even between 1966 to 1995.