| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910460173103321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Educating in dialog : constructing meaning and building knowledge with dialogic technology / / edited by Sebastian Feller, Ilker Yengin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam, The Netherlands ; ; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : , : John Benjamins B.V., , 2014 |
|
©2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (268 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Dialogue Studies, , 1875-1792 ; ; Volume 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Dialogue analysis - Data processing |
Dialogue analysis - Technical innovations |
Communication in education - Technological innovations |
Distance education |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Educating in Dialog; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of contents; Preface; References; About the authors; Part I. A constructivist approach to dialogic teaching and learning: Knowledge as social construction; Education and our conversations about, with and through technology; 1. Introduction; 2. Conversation about technology: Technology changes how we think; 2.1 Knowledge and Ways of Thinking - what is valued and what is lost/devalued; 2.2 Technology and control of the environment; 2.3 Technology as enculturation and globalization |
2.4 How technology interferes with democracy2.5 Technology and equity; 3. Conversation with technology: Trying to negotiate with and control the technology; 3.1 Design drives the logic and bias of technology; 3.2 Technology steers the conversation to facts; 3.3 Relationships are mediated by technology; 3.4 Actions for educators; 4. Conversation through technology: How we dialogue with each other using technology; 4.1 Distance; 4.2 Time; 4.3 Audience; 4.4 Implications for educators; 5. Conclusion; References; Author's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
address; Understanding and explaining; Introduction; Understanding |
ExplainingConsequences; Conclusion; References; Author's address; The why dimension, dialogic inquiry, and technology supported learning; Introduction; Inquiry and learning; Dialogue, learning and technology; Dialogic inquiry; Philosophical considerations; Epistemology, ontology and paradigm; Changing paradigms; Becoming to know; Questions and Inquiry; Sense-making; Knowledge modeling; Conclusion; References; Author's address; Part II. Learner-centered pedagogy: Building knowledge and constructing mea; Dialogue-oriented analysis of constructivist teaching and learning within a UK company |
1. Introduction2. Context; 2.1 Background; 2.2 A model for a constructivist learning dialogue; 2.3 Case study: MCQs for trade test knowledge check on high voltage cable jointing skills; 3. Investigations of Manual MCQ-Creation using the constructivist learning dialogue model; 4. Products from constructivist learning dialogue; 4.1 The CAREGen methodology for MCQ-Creation; 4.2.1 Step 1 - Define Objective of the MCQ routine in a CSLO; 4.2.2 Step 2 - Identify the most appropriate source documents; 4.2 Applying CAREGen to create MCQs in the HV Cable Jointing domain |
4.2.3 Step 3 - Explicate (and if necessary Add) Coherence Relations for sentences that meet the selection criteria and then re-workthem into CRST-compliant CSLOs4.2.4 Step 4 - Extract candidate antonym pairs for each of the identified sentences; 4.2.5 Step 5 - Apply construal operations in the context of identified antonym pairs; 4.2.6 Step 6 - Generate AC item sets by inserting generated components into a MAC template; 5. Recommendations; 6. Conclusions; References; Author's address; Appendix; Programme |
Exploring the opportunities of social media to build knowledge in learner-centered Indigenous learning spaces |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
In this paper, I develop a view of teaching and learning as explorative actiongames (TaLEAG). The concept of the action game is borrowed from Weigand's(2010) Theory of Dialogic Action Games or Mixed Game Model (MGM). TheMGM rests on two basic assumptions: communication is dialogic and languageis action. These two assumptions are adapted to teaching and learning in generaland to what I call explorative action games in particular. The ensuing discussionrevolves around the question of how educational technology should be designedin order to facilitate learning in the context of explorative action |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |