Investigating Students' Epistemologies In CSCL Discourse Through Reflective Judgment Model And Practical Epistemologies

JOHNNY YUEN

CENTRE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

UNIQUE FORMS OF LEARNER-DISCOURSE DYNAMICS

How learners perceive/act-out their roles in the discourse…

• Social learning theory – Vygotsky

• 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

QUOTES FROM A GRADE 8 32 STUDENTS ONLINE DISCOURSE…Idealism & Materialism: designing a new tourist attraction in HK

Student A:

• “I think we should attract the tourist from china. “

Student B:

• “I think (our) proposal should attract the mainland tourist because mainland is a high consume tourist which will boost the economy of HK. “

Student C:

• “…. 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…”

THIS STUDY IS DRIVEN BY THE OBSERVATION…

Why some students, like student C, contributes more notes of high level epistemic dynamics than others in the socio-constructivist discourse Knowledge Forum® ?

Are there any differences between students?

• Do they hold different beliefs in knowledge and knowing?

• If they do, would it be reflected in students’ contributions to the online and offline discourse?

STUDYING ENGAGEMENT IN SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING DISCOURSE

A “loosely coupled system” (Kanselaar, 2002) serve as the basis of learner’s epistemic engagement and potential outcome in socio-constructivist learning:

Nature of knowledgeBeliefs about learning and cognitionPedagogical beliefs about the best way to support learning

Mature scientific inquiry works resemble socio-constructivist epistemic dynamics (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2005; Sandoval, 2005; Zeidler et, al., 2009)

RESEARCH QUESTION

Would students who operate at more advanced levels of epistemology more likely to engage in the online CSCL discourse towards theory building?

INVESTIGATING STUDENTS’ EPISTEMOLOGIES

• Reflective Judgment Model – King & Kitchener (1994, 2004)

• Students’ reasoning styles in response to ill-structured problems• Pre-reflective, Quasi-reflective, Reflective

• Epistemological Authenticity Framework– Chinn & Brewer, 2001; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002

• Epistemic connections students make to connect ideas• Linear, cause and effect?• Complex network of factors?• Causal, Inductive, Analogical, Contrastive

CONTEXT OF STUDY• 32 grade 8 students

• Integrated Humanities, inquiry-based curriculum design

• Module “Idealism & Materialism: theories that explains development of civilizations”

• 31 one-hour lessons over 12 weeks• Group project “Proposing a new tourist attraction to boost tourism in HK”

• Stage 1: Background Research• Stage 2: Proposal Preparation• Stage 3: Peer Review of Proposal• Stage 4: Individual Reflection

• First time to use Knowledge Forum (KF), to extend classroom discussion

SOURCES OF DATA & ANALYSIS

1. Students’ level of Reflective Judgment

• Survey instrument designed with reference to King & Kitchener’s (1994, 2004) Reflective Judgment Model (RJM) & RCI test (Wood, Kitchener, Jensen, 2003)

• Two ill-structured scenarios designed: • Natural & Cultural Conservations, Ecological Footprint (one page each)

• Conducted at pre & post module

2. Numbers and types of epistemic connections used in final essay (Chinn & Brewer, 2001; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002)

• Individual essay• On “Idealism & Materialism”• 4 types of epistemic connections: Causal, Inductive, Analogical, Contrastive

3. Densities, number and types of argumentative and question markers used to reason with peers on Knowledge Forum® (Law, et al., 2011)

• 4 stages of online KB discussion, 1021 notes contributed1. Argumentative acts: claim, disagreement, reason, elaboration, condition, contrast,

consequence

2. Questioning: explanatory, factual

SAMPLE QUESTION

SAMPLE QUESTION

HIGHLIGHT OF FINDINGS

In line with the Reflective Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994, 2004):

• Pre-reflective students believes what they know and think are absolutely certain, hence no justification is required

• Lower density of argumentative and question markers in the online discourse

• Quasi-reflective students hold that knowledge claims contain elements of uncertainty and idiosyncrasy

• Higher density of argumentative and question markers in the online discourse

HIGHLIGHT OF FINDINGS (2)

From applying the Epistemological Authenticity Framework (Chinn, et al,. 2001, 2002), students in their “idealism and materialism” essay

• Students who have used less types (and usually the more primitive ones) of epistemic connections in their individual essay

• Lower density of argumentative and question markers in online discourse

• Students who have used more types of epistemic connections in their individual essay

• Higher density of argumentative and question markers in online discourse

SOME IMPLICATIONS• Quality of students engagements (discourse markers) in

the socio-constructivist online discourse somewhat relates to the epistemology they hold (RJM or Epi. Authenticity Framework).

• 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.

• More research on how the RJM, Epi. Auth. Framework and discourse engagement informs each other is required

THANK YOU

johnny@cite.hku.hk

Acknowledgement:

Prof. Nancy Law