Examining the Interactions among Second Language Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Knowledge of Metacognition, and Their Influence on Teaching Metacognition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Three critical constructs in relation to teachers’ instruction were examined in this study. They are pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of metacognition, and the teaching of metacognition. Pedagogical content knowledge is domain specific, which includes teachers’ knowledge about the subject and the translation of this knowledge into classroom activities. Knowledge of metacognition, on the other hand, is domain general, refers to the knowledge of identifying and delineating effective usages of general strategies in learning and self-knowledge. The teaching of metacognition refers to creating conditions where learning and fostering of metacognitive skills becomes plausible. This study examined the interactions between these two knowledge domains and their influence on teaching metacognition to second language adult learners in Language Instruction for Newcomers in Canada (LINC) classrooms. \n \nBased on Shulman’s (1987) teachers’ knowledge base categories, studies by Gatbonton (2008), Tarnanen (2015), Edwards (2014) explored teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge domain. Following Paris et al.’s (1983) framework, the metacognitive knowledge of teachers was examined in Wilson and Bai’s (2010) study that showed pre-service teachers lack of instructional knowledge in this domain. However, the interaction between these two domains and whether the interaction influence teaching metacognition to adult learners has not been discovered in second language context (i.e., LINC classrooms). \n \nTo address this research gap, this study examined the three constructs using a qualitative approach. Eight LINC teacher participants answered 15 open-ended questions in 60-minute interviews. The questions were based on deductive categories related to the constructs. The inductive analysis of the data resulted in themes in all three constructs. The results suggest that the distinct knowledge areas (pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of learners) within LINC teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge are interconnected. The findings also suggest that teachers have better understanding in the declarative knowledge category of metacognition rather than in procedural and conditional categories. This understanding of metacognition is rooted more in practice rather than theory, which amalgamates with pedagogical content knowledge and influences their teaching of metacognition. The conclusion suggests future research in constructing LINC teachers’ explicit knowledge of metacognition (in all knowledge categories) through preservice and in-service teacher education programs.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 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) | 0,002 | 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 ».