In my own
research, I have been interested in how the metadiscourse concept is used in
knowledge building research. Jianwei Zhang has together with his colleagues published
some new research papers about the topic. In this blog post, I attempt to
summarize some key points.
1. Two different metadiscourse strategies
Zhang, Lee
and Wilde (2012) relate the metadiscourse concept to students’ efforts to
co-construct ideas and develop shared, promising research goals. This study
examined two complementary designs of metadiscourse in two Grade 5/6 classrooms
that investigated astronomy. Teachers tested two different metadiscourse designs
which were intended to help students develop a progressive course of inquiry.
Both these approaches are different from a traditional inquiry-based approach
where students often solve pre-specified problems or tasks which rarely generate
curiosity-driven questions spontaneously.
1.1. Co-reviewing student questions
Class A’s
metadiscourse focused on reviewing
student questions to formulate deepening goals. This focus on progressive
questions could be said to represent an “inside out” process to deepen inquiry
because personal wonderment and curiosity serve as the driving force. This
strategy supports student collaborative efforts to monitor what is known and
what is missing in order to identify knowledge goals based on their deepening
wonderment (Zhang, Lee & Wilde, 2012).
About once
every two weeks the whole class had a “metacognitive meeting” which lasted
20-30 minutes. The students reflected on progress and identified the focus of
their further inquiry. Before each meeting, students were given time to read
the online entries of their peers. They then contributed with new and deeper
questions in Knowledge Forum by using the discourse scaffold “I need to understand”. Furthermore,
these questions were listed on chart paper and reviewed in the whole class
meetings. In the meeting, the teacher and the students tried to identify
promising questions that seemed important and might stimulate deep inquiry. These
questions were revisited in the subsequent metacognitive meetings (Zhang, Lee
& Wilde, 2012).
It was
challenging for the students to identify promising ideas. The teacher
encouraged student reflection by asking questions such as: “Which question…that seems like… really
‘meaty’…? So, that’s a question that shows a lot of promise. We could probably
do lots with that...A question we could generate lots of discussions. Lots of
people can have input into it.” (Zhang, Lee & Wilde, 2012). The teacher also tried to illustrate
characteristics of good questions:
- Teacher A: “How big is the Sun?” Would that be a question that would generate lots
of different conversation and people could input lots of different things?
- Student 1: No.
- Teacher A: No, and why not?
(Students murmur. Student 2’s voice gains their
attention)
- Student 2: It’s pretty… It’s like a simple question …How does it heat people?...
that would be a bigger, deeper question…Like, “How does the Sun heat the
Earth?” or something.
- Teacher A: Right. So… There are lots of questions about the Sun, that would be
deeper, richer kinds of questions, that would generate lots of discussion, and
those are the questions we’re really looking for. (Zhang, Lee & Wilde, 2012).
1.2. Co-monitoring of key disciplinary concepts
Class B’s focused on co-monitoring of key disciplinary concepts in readings that could deepen
their inquiry into the “intellectual heart” of a discipline. Students made use
of authoritative sources in order to focus on core concepts in the field. This represents
an “outside in” process for students to monitor what is out there in the larger
world and selectively “adopt” ideas from the field to grow their own inquiry.
Such key concepts serve as conceptual landmarks that can help students better
navigate the landscape of the discipline. According to Zhang, Lee and Wilde (2012)
both the two described designs of metadiscourse support students work to deepen
the collective inquiry. They suggest that an integration of both will likely lead to a more balanced
metadiscourse.
2. Idea Thread Mapper
According
to Chen, Zhang and Lee (2013) it is usually difficult for students to overview
their online collective work. As a consequence it may be difficult to deepen
the inquiry because the work is too disconnected. In addition much research has
focused on small-group discussion which is not necessarily applicable to
discussions in more complex larger groups. In a research study, Zhang et al. (2013) use
an ITM (Idea Thread mapper)-tool which supports students in getting an overview
over the material. Through displaying different inquiry threads, the visualization
tool make collective progress and problems visible to support ongoing reflection
and co-planning. The ITM-aided reflection is used in a two hour long
“metacognitive meeting” around the midpoint of the inquiry. With all the idea
threads projected on a screen, the whole class reviews the collective work
along different lines of inquiry. These conversations seem to increase student awareness of their collective
knowledge.
3. Final remarks
These new
papers indicate that Zhang and his colleagues are trying to develop a more
complex metadiscourse concept. They are working with new tools (Idea Thread
mapper) and scripts that can support metadiscourse in Knowledge Building
discourse in a positive way. For example, they have introduced the term “metacognitive
meetings”. Such regular meetings seem to play
an important role in the educational design. In addition they are also
emphasizing the importance of having a discussion around the quality of
different questions. Since verbal discussions still seem to be of crucial
importance, it would be interesting if future research could describe the interplay
between verbal and written metadiscourse.
LITTERATURE