| Images of connected features: |
| | | Model-It |  |
| | | Examples of Inquiry |  |
| | | Data Query (The Galapagos Finches) |  |
| | | Standards Table: Guidelines for Writing Notes |  |
| | | Alternated Individual and Group Discourse (eStep) |  |
| | | Work Reviewer |  |
| | | Metacognitive Comparison Question |  |
| | | Journal Organization |  |
| | | Supports for teacher collaboration in eStep |  |
| | | Comparison of similar visualizations |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
Engage learners in reflection to promote autonomous lifelong learning. When learners reflect they make their thinking visible to themselves, monitor their progress, and reach new insights. The pattern of conducting an exploration and then reflecting improves inquiry projects. Integrating reflection with action comes up repeatedly in inquiry projects. In many cases prompts that intend to elicit reflection instead motivate learners to move on to the next step or to conclude that they were successful. Combining an experiment, investigation, or research endeavor with reflection can improve both activities but requires testing in the context of use to ensure that learners engage in productive reflection.
Generating reflections on the topic helps students develop a more robust understanding of the material (Davis, 1998; Linn & Hsi, 2000).
Some ways to implement this design principle include:
- Design prompts for planning and monitoring to promote generation of sophisticated explanations.
- Design prompts to remind students of the pieces of the project to promote completion of the project
- Design prompts for planning and monitoring to promote principled knowledge integration.
- Combine prompts that ask for self-monitoring with other activity structures so students get feedback on their progress.
- Use activities to structure student work with argument maps and evidence explanations.
- Engage curriculum designers in reflecting on their designs and using results to customize instruction.
|
|
Theoretical background:
|
|
|
|
| Tips (Challenges, Limitations, Tradeoffs, Pitfalls): |
| Creating effective prompts can be difficult. Not all prompts result in the knowledge integration desired. Some prompts derail the knowledge integration process leading students in unfruitful directions while others promote knowledge integration. |
| References (Off-line): |
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S., 2000. Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
| References (Online): |
| http://www.internetscienceeducation.org/chapter13.html |
|
History
|
|
|
|
|
Login
