The Critic as Designer: How Metacognition Makes Transdisciplinarity Possible
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
For students to solve complex problems from heterogeneous domains, they need practice engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork. According to Tan, Nesbit, Ellis, and Ostafichuk (2018), “Metacognition also plays a significant role in transdisciplinary interactions by enabling individuals to monitor, reflect on, and adapt learning processes in a multidimensional context”. Simply put, metacognition is the process of a learner self-monitoring their own thoughts and viewpoints. In our context of transdisciplinary design education, improving metacognition is relevant as students learn problem-framing and human-centered approaches while engaging in continuous collaboration and critique with students and faculty from other disciplines. The practice of critique is central to design processes across disciplines, though it is enacted in very different ways. The Critical Response Process, created by Liz Lerman, provides feedback in the form of inquiry from Responders that first try to understand the Creator’s perspective and thought process. The Creator is encouraged to reflect on their work from a new perspective. Finally, the Responders give their opinion on the project with the Creator’s full permission. Our study explores how Lerman’s Critical Response Process paired with guided self-reflection facilitates the elements of metacognition (setting goals, self-monitoring, controlling, and evaluating) in a transdisciplinary design course based in an engineering department. Our goal in this course is for students to engage in Critical Response Process feedback with peers to promote transdisciplinary learning. We address these research questions: In what ways is metacognition helpful to students as they learn to value different ways of knowing? Do learner/artist-centered critique techniques, like Lerman’s Critical Response Process, encourage participants to withhold immediate judgment and to consider various perspectives? How does students’ thinking about transdisciplinary teams and their own learning change after engaging in the Critical Response Process? Our methods include analyzing student assignments completed across the span of one semester. We use thematic coding informed by literature on metacognition and the learning outcome goals for the course. The student assignments used are Free Writes, where the students take five minutes to respond to suggested prompts; written Critical Response Process peer critiques sent to other groups; and a Reflection on their own peer critique after hearing from others. Anticipated results include insights into how students respond to giving and receiving critiques, and how this engagement influences their use of the elements of metacognition.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».