| Images of connected features: |
| | | Personally-Seeded Discussions |  |
| | | Face to face dicussion to support online peer evaluation activity |  |
| | | Automated gathering of peer-evaluation outcomes in CeLS |  |
| | | Standards Table: Guidelines for Writing Notes |  |
| | | Metacognitive Comparison Question |  |
| | | Supports for teacher collaboration in eStep |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
Critique activities are often neglected in science courses. Students have difficulty learning to identify flaws in their own work—programmers often cannot enumerate a good set of tests for their designs (Linn & Clancy, 1992). Debugging solutions can stump even experts. Activities that introduce critique need to also help learners develop criteria for evaluating information. Carefully designed prompts can help students begin to ask themselves questions and look at scientific claims critically. Davis (Chapter 5, in press-a) also shows that students need to add new ideas to their repertoire but also need opportunities to identify weaknesses in their knowledge. This identification, promoted by productive reflection, helps them engage in other knowledge integration processes like linking ideas and distinguishing among others.
Some specific design principles include:
- Scaffold learners in identifying when and how to critique persuasive, Internet messages.
- Encourage elaboration of ideas and conjectures when asking for critiques.
Make evidence collections visible using argument representations so students consider a corpus of evidence.
Ask students to critique experiments done by experts, students, and stakeholders.
- Encourage students to apply the criteria they use for others to their own investigations.
- Enable designers to critique their designs and those of their peers.
|
|
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
|
This Principle does not have versions history.
|
|
|
Login
