! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
131!
COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION AND TUTOR’S ASSISTANCE IN
TEACHER EDUCATION. TWO CASE STUDIES ON CASE-BASED
REFLECTION SETTINGS
Te esa Mau i*, Ma c Cla à**, Rosa Colomina*, Ja ie On ubia*, Rosa io Cube o***,
Agu zane Ma inez****, Me cedes Cube o***, Ana Usabiaga****
*Uni e si y o Ba celona, Passeig de la Vall d’Heb on, 171, 08035 Ba ceona, e esamau [email protected],
**Uni e si y o Lleida, A inguda de l’Es udi Gene al, 4, 25001 Lleida, ma c.cla [email protected], ***Uni e si y
o Se illa, c/ Camilo José Cela s/n, 41013 Se illa, ****Mond agon Uni e si y, Lo amendi, 4, 20500 A asa e
ABSTRACT
This pape s udies he unc ioning o collabo a i e e lec ion in a case-based e lec ion se ing
in eg a ed in he eache educa ion P ac icum. We ca ied ou wo case s udies in which e lec ion
was conduc ed collabo a i ely by 15 s uden eache s and one u o . In each e lec ion p ocess, we
in es iga e he phases and he sequence o collabo a i e e lec ion and he assis ance o e ed by he
u o in he di e en phases o he p ocess. We iden i y consis en sequences and phases, wi h each
phase being cha ac e ized by di e en ypes o u o assis ance. Howe e , hese sequences and phases
di e ed clea ly in he wo cases s udied, and he pu poses ha he u o s pu sue h ough e lec ion
we e also di e en . Mo eo e , he sequences ound did no con o m o he pa e ns ha some au ho s
conside ed o be cha ac e is ic o good e lec ion. Ou indings p o ide suppo o he idea posi ed by
p e ious au ho s ha he e is no single speci ic sequence ha de ines good e lec ion, and ha good
e lec ion can ake many di e en o ms and ha e many di e en pu poses.
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
132!
REFLECTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION
Re lec ion is conside ed cen al in eaching and in eache educa ion p og ams oday. I s inco po a ion
wi hin eache educa ion and he de elopmen o e lec i e skills a e cu en ly he ocus o a g ea deal
o esea ch in his ield, and many possibili ies ha e been p oposed (Buscho & Kamm, 2015; Kim e
al., 2013). One se ing ha is becoming inc easingly popula , especially when in eg a ed in s uden
eache s’ p ac icums, is case-based e lec ion. Typically, his se ing consis s o p esen ing a eal
p ac ice si ua ion, on which a u o and se e al s uden eache s conduc collabo a i e e lec ion
(McCullagh, 2012; Tigelaa e al., 2008; Mau i e al., 2015). The gene al s uc u e o his se ing is
well es ablished, wi h se e al ways o p esen ing he si ua ion o e lec ion (e.g., ideo eco dings,
w i en c i ical e en s, and di ec obse a ion), bu i is a less clea how he p ocess o collabo a i e
e lec ion should be conduc ed in e ms o he in e ac ion o he pa icipan s and u o s’ assis ance
(Gel uso & Dennis, 2014). The e a e wo main easons o his lack o de ini ion. Fi s , he ques ion o
he exac na u e and pu pose o e lec ion emains con o e sial; and second, he e is no consensus on
how collabo a i e e lec ion should wo k, and how i should be assis ed by he u o .
Rega ding he na u e o e lec ion, o example, he e is an ongoing discussion abou whe he
success ul e lec ion is de ined by a unique sequence o phases (Ko hagen, 2001; Gel uso & Dennis,
2014) o , on he o he hand, whe he i can ake many di e en o ms wi hou a p e-es ablished
sequence (Cla à, 2015; Tessema, 2008). Among hose who de end he exis ence o a cha ac e is ic
sequence, he mos popula candida es a e Ko agen’s ALACT sequence (Ac ion-Looking Back-
Awa eness-C ea ing-T ial) and a sequence s ongly based on Dewey’s (1933) w i ings e med
Sugges ion-In ellec ualiza ion-Idea-Elabo a ion-Tes ing (e.g. Gel uso & Dennis, 2014). No is he e a
consensus on he in ended pu pose o e lec ion. Among he di e en posi ions a e he Delibe a i e
App oach, acco ding o which e lec ion should con as he si ua ion o p ac ice wi h academic
knowledge (Theo y wi h a big “T”); he Realis ic App oach, which aims o gene a e pe sonal heo y
( heo y wi h a small “ ”) om e lec ion on p ac ice; he Pe sonal App oach, in which e lec ion is
o ien ed o making hidden pe sonal belie s explici and conscious; and he C i ical App oach, o ien ed
owa ds mo ally o ideologically elici ing and conside ing social, poli ical and e hical issues h ough
e lec ion. (Mans elde -Longay oux, Beijaa d, & Ve loop, 2007; Ko hagen, 2001). I has been a gued
ha his dispa i y in he concep ions o he pu pose o e lec ion is due o he pedagogical iews
unde lying i s o ien a ion, which, o una ely and ine i ably, a e e y plu al (Ko hagen, 2001).
The unc ioning o collabo a i e e lec ion has been app oached om wo main iewpoin s. Mos
analyses ha e ocused on ways o assis ing indi idual e lec ion wi hin a collabo a i e se ing. Fo
example, Ko hagen (2001) s udied he u o ’s sca olds which can assis each phase o he indi idual
ALACT sequence, Ha o d & MacRua ic (2008) s udied how o p omp and s uc u e dialogue among
pee s in such a way ha hei collabo a ion os e s e lec ion, and Wope eis, Sloep, & Poo man
(2010) s udied how ce ain ools (in hei case, blogs, bu o he esea che s ha e s udied po olios,
simula ion ools, e c.) can be used o p omo e indi idual e lec ion wi hin a collabo a i e se ing. In
pa allel, a smalle body o esea ch has buil up a ound he s udy o e lec ion as a collabo a i e
p ocess – ha is, collabo a i e e lec ion as a e lec ion p ocess in i sel , and no only as a
collabo a i e se ing ha suppo s indi idual e lec ion. This app oach akes pa icipan s’ join ac i i y
as a uni o analysis. F om his pe spec i e, o example, Tigelaa e al., (2008) s udied and iden i ied
di e en in e ac ion ypes in p ocesses o collabo a i e e lec ion: e.g. Cla i ying, In e p e ing,
Judging, Explaining, e c. Ko hagen (2001) also explo ed his kind o app oach, and p oposed a
sequence o collabo a i e phases in e lec ion: Expe ience – S uc u ing – Focusing – heo y (no e ha
heo y is w i en wi h a small “ ”).
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
133!
In his pape we s udy collabo a i e e lec ion in case-based e lec ion se ings, s a ing om h ee
p emises: 1) e lec ion is app oached as a collabo a i e p ocess – ha is, we aim o s udy collabo a i e
e lec ion as a e lec ion p ocess in i sel , by adop ing social uni s o analysis; 2) success ul e lec ion
may ha e many di e en pu poses; 3) success ul e lec ion may ake many di e en o ms and
sequences.
The s udy pu sues wo esea ch objec i es: i s , o unde s and how p ocesses o collabo a i e
e lec ion a e s uc u ed and e ol e, and second, o unde s and he u o ’s ole wi hin hese
collabo a i e p ocesses
METHOD
Design, se ing, pa icipan s and da a
In iew o hese p emises and objec i es, we adop ed a mul iple case s udy design. Since we we e
open o (and in e es ed in) a di e si y o o ms and pu poses o e lec ion, we s udied eigh cases in
which he e lec ion was guided by eigh di e en u o s, a h ee uni e si ies in cul u ally di e en
a eas in Spain (Andalusia, Basque Coun y, and Ca alonia). In all ins ances a simila case-based
e lec ion se ing was used, bu no indica ions we e gi en o u o s ega ding he guidance hey should
gi e (excep ha hey should o e oppo uni ies o s uden s o pa icipa e and alk).
In all h ee se ings, he case-based e lec ions we e ca ied ou a he uni e si y du ing he s uden s’
p ac icum pe iod. The si ua ions o be e lec ed upon we e eal e en s expe ienced by he pa icipan s
in hei p ac icum. Each s uden selec ed one si ua ion o e en du ing he p ac icum ha she wan ed
o discuss in he collabo a i e e lec ion; she w o e a desc ip ion o i , and ead i ou loud in he case-
based e lec ion se ing. A e his, he collabo a i e e lec ion p ocess began. In he eigh cases,
be ween 10 and 15 s uden eache s and one o wo u o s ook pa . The e was a minimum o i e
consecu i e sessions las ing app oxima ely 90 minu es each. One, wo, o some imes h ee si ua ions
we e e lec ed upon in each session.
We ideo aped he i s i e sessions o all cases. These ideo apes cons i u e he main da a o
analysis, bu we also in e iewed he u o s be o e and a e he i e sessions in o de o ga he da a on
he pu pose hey we e pu suing when guiding collabo a i e e lec ion.
Analysis
We applied wo analy ical echniques o he ideo aped da a: In e ac i i y Analysis and Con en
Analysis. In e ac i i y Analysis (Coll, On ubia & Mau i, 2008) is a echnique o he analysis o join
ac i i y in educa ional se ings, s ongly based on he idea o pa icipa ion s uc u es (E ickson &
Schulz, 1997), which uses social uni s o analysis. The aim o applying his analysis o ou da a was o
cha ac e ize and unde s and he phases o collabo a i e e lec ion occu ing in each p ocess o
collabo a i e e lec ion. In sho , his analysis in ol ed h ee s eps. Fi s , we iden i ied chunks o
in e ac ion which unc ioned as uni s; second, we coded each o hese uni s o in e ac ion by means o
induc i ely c ea ed ca ego ies which desc ibed “wha he pa icipan s a e doing oge he ”; hi d, we
desc ibed each o hese uni s o in e ac ion acco ding o he s uc u e o u n- aking among he
pa icipan s.
Con en Analysis is a echnique which pe mi s eliable coding o la ge amoun s o quali a i e da a, so
ha he da a a e in some sense simpli ied and can be mo e easily p ocessed and managed
(K ippendo , 1980; Cla à & Mau i, 2010). We applied his echnique o iden i y he di e en o ms
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
134!
o assis ance o e ed by he u o a he a ious phases o he e lec ion p ocess. The uni we used o
apply he codes was he u n. The sys em o ca ego ies was induc i ely c ea ed om he da a
hemsel es (Ge bic & S acey, 2005), and in e - a e p ocedu es we e success ully conduc ed o
es ablish he eliabili y o he sys em ( o all he dimensions, in he las e sion o he sys em, he a e
o ag eemen was abo e 75% in independen coding o 30% o he da a). The sys em o ca ego ies
included h ee dimensions o assis ance: 1) Assis ance wi h he dialogic na u e o con e sa ion (se en
ca ego ies); 2) Assis ance wi h he in e p e a ion o he si ua ion (10 ca ego ies); 3) Assis ance wi h
linking heo y and p ac ice (six ca ego ies).
RESULTS
In his pape we p esen he esul s o wo cases, which we will call Case 1 and Case 2.
Case 1
In Case 1, 15 s uden eache s and one u o pa icipa ed in he e lec ion. In he in e iew, he u o
desc ibed he aim while guiding he e lec ion p ocess as o encou age he s uden s o iden i y in e nal
con adic ions o dilemmas which may explain why he si ua ion ook place in he way i did. In he
i e sessions analysed, he pa icipan s e lec ed on eigh di e en si ua ions ( wo in he i s session,
wo in he second, one in he hi d, one in he ou h, and wo in he i h).
In he global conside a ion o he i e sessions, In e ac i i y Analysis makes i possible o iden i y a
gene al pa e n o collabo a i e e lec ion composed by ou phases: Cla i ica ion-Explo a ion-
Focaliza ion-In e p e a ion (Table 1).
Table 1
Gene al s uc u e o collabo a i e e lec ion (Case 1)
S uc u e:
Cla i ica ion
Explo a ion
Focaliza ion
In e p e a ion
In e ac ion:
S -S-S -S
T-S-S-S-S
T-S-T-S
T
To al ime in
he i e
sessions (eigh
si ua ions):
27 m.
59 m.
125 m.
34 m.
% o o al ime
(weigh ):
11%
24%
51%
14%
The Cla i ica ion phase is de o ed o cla i ying aspec s o he si ua ion p esen ed o e lec ion. In his
phase he in e ac ion is ypically cen ed on he s uden who has p esen ed he si ua ion, o whom he
o he s uden s di ec hei ques ions one a e he o he ; hus, he u n- aking s uc u e can be
ep esen ed as Ss-S-Ss-S (whe e Ss is he s uden who p esen ed he si ua ion, and S a e o he
s uden s). The Explo a ion phase is de o ed o explo ing di e en , independen ly conside ed, aspec s
o p oblems o he si ua ion unde e lec ion. Typically, hese aspec s a e conside ed one a e he
o he . Fo example, in a si ua ion desc ibing a con lic be ween eache s abou how o si ua e s uden s
in a class oom (one eache , in one subjec , wan ed o si ua e hem in pai s, while ano he eache , in a
di e en subjec , wan ed o si ua e hem in g oups o ou ), one aspec was “ he p oblems ha he
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
135!
con inuous e-o ganiza ion o he class oom may cause o child en’s lea ning”, and ano he aspec
was “ he di icul y some eache s ind in using collabo a i e me hodology”, e c. The u n- aking
s uc u e in his phase was open, and ypically no pa icipan became he cen e o he con e sa ion.
The u n- aking s uc u e can be ep esen ed as T-S-S-S (whe e T is he u o and S a e di e en
s uden s). The Focaliza ion phase ocuses on in e nal ensions o dilemmas which may be unde lying
he si ua ion, c ea ing ension be ween aspec s usually explo ed in he p e ious phase. Fo example, in
he si ua ion men ioned abo e, a ension exis s “be ween me hodological s abili y in he class and
eache s’ au onomy”. In his phase, he u n- aking s uc u e is ypically cen ed on he u o and can
be ep esen ed as T-S-T-S... (whe e T is he u o and S a e di e en s uden s). Finally, he
In e p e a ion phase is de o ed o es ablishing a plausible in e p e a ion o he si ua ion, based on he
cla i ica ion o he main dilemma o in e nal ension which explains i . Typically his is done by means
o a monologue by he u o , wi h li le in e en ion om he s uden s. Taking he i e sessions
oge he , he phase which was gi en mos ime was Focaliza ion, wi h 125 minu es (51% o he o al
collabo a i e e lec ion ime). Jus unde a qua e o he ime was gi en o Explo a ion (59 minu es,
24%), 14% o In e p e a ion (34 minu es), and he 11% o Cla i ica ion (27 minu es). I we look a he
di e en collabo a i e e lec ion p ocesses sepa a ely, we ind ha he gene al s uc u e p esen ed
abo e is qui e consis en o e he i e sessions and eigh si ua ions e lec ed upon in Case 1 (Table 2).
The sequen ial o de o he di e en phases was consis en in all he e lec ion p ocesses. The ull
sequence was ound in ou ins ances; in wo o he s one phase was missing (si ua ion 5 lacked
Cla i ica ion and si ua ion 7 lacked Explo a ion); he emaining wo ins ances lacked wo phases
(Cla i ica ion and In e p e a ion, in 1 and 2). In all ins ances, he phase wi h he mos ime was
Focaliza ion, al hough in 2 and 3, Explo a ion and Focaliza ion we e gi en he same amoun o ime.
Table 2
Phases o collabo a i e e lec ion in each si ua ion (Case 1)
Cla i ica ion
Explo a ion
Focaliza ion
In e p e a ion
Si ua ion
(session)
% o al ime
% o al ime
% o al ime
% o al ime
1 (1)
--
31%
68%
--
2 (1)
--
50%
50%
--
3 (2)
11%
31%
31%
27%
4 (2)
33%
14%
33%
19%
5 (3)
--
14%
67%
19%
6 (4)
18%
21%
43%
18%
7 (5)
38%
--
48%
14%
8 (5)
16%
26%
31%
26%
Con en Analysis iden i ied ce ain ypes o assis ance which we e cha ac e is ic o some o he phases
o collabo a i e e lec ion in Case 1 (Table 3). In he Cla i ica ion phase, he u o o e ed no

! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
136!
assis ance a all; howe e , he o e ed assis ance in he Explo a ion phase. The mos equen o ms o
assis ance in his phase we e: Opening up he con e sa ion o o he s, o encou age he pa icipa ion o
mo e s uden s in he con e sa ion; and Reminding s uden s o he in e p e a i e cha ac e o e lec ion,
o a oid e alua i e and judgemen al a i udes. In he Focaliza ion phase, he mos equen o ms o
assis ance we e: once again, Opening up he con e sa ion o o he s; Conside ing s uden s’
con ibu ions when he u o con ibu es o he con e sa ion – o example, highligh ing wha one
s uden has said; and Fos e ing s uden s’ iden i ica ion o dilemmas, usually by means o p o oca i e
ques ions o in e en ions. In he In e p e a ion phase, he mos equen o ms o assis ance we e:
Conside ing s uden s’ con ibu ions and Iden i ying explana o y dilemmas in he si ua ion, in which
he u o himsel highligh ed, iden i ied o explained hese dilemmas o in e nal ensions.
Table 3
Typical o ms o u o ’s assis ance in each phase (Case 1)
Cla i ica ion
Explo a ion
Focaliza ion
In e p e a ion
Typical
assis ance on
Dialogic
Con e sa ion
Opening he
con e sa ion o
o he s
Opening he
con e sa ion
o o he s
Conside ing
s uden s’
con ibu ions
Conside ing
s uden s’
con ibu ions
Typical
assis ance on
In e p e a ion
Reminding
pa icipan s o
he
in e p e a i e
cha ac e o
e lec ion
Fos e ing
s uden s’
iden i ica ion
o dilemmas
Iden i ying
explana o y
dilemmas in
he si ua ion
Typical
assis ance on
linking
Theo y and
P ac ice
Case 2
In Case 2, as in Case 1, 15 s uden eache s and one u o pa icipa ed in he e lec ion. In he
in e iew, he u o iden i ied he pu pose in guiding he e lec ion p ocess as o gene a e academic
knowledge by app oaching he p ac ical si ua ion being e lec ed upon om he pe spec i e o Theo y.
In he i e sessions, pa icipan s e lec ed upon i e di e en si ua ions.
In he global assessmen o he i e sessions analysed, as in Case 1, In e ac i i y Analysis iden i ied a
gene al pa e n o collabo a i e e lec ion composed by ou phases, al hough hese phases we e
clea ly di e en om he ones ound in Case 1. The phases iden i ied in Case 2 we e: Cla i ica ion-
Explo a ion-Theo e ical Discussion-Syn hesis (Table 3).
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
137!
Table 4
Gene al s uc u e o collabo a i e e lec ion (Case 2)
S uc u e:
Cla i ica ion
Explo a ion
Theo e ical
Discussion
Syn hesis
In e ac ion:
Ss-S-Ss-S
T-S-S-T
T-S-S-S-T
T
To al ime in
i e sessions
( i e
si ua ions):
10 m.
237 m.
60 m.
8 m.
% o o al ime
(weigh ):
3%
75%
19%
3%
As in Case 1, he sequence o collabo a i e e lec ion in Case 2 began wi h he phase o Cla i ica ion,
ollowed by Explo a ion. Howe e , in Case 2, he u n- aking s uc u e o he Explo a ion phase was
sligh ly di e en ; in his case he con e sa ion was mo e cen ed on he Tu o , hough no excessi ely
so. Typically, he u o ’s in e en ion was ollowed by in e en ions om se e al ( hough no many)
s uden s; hen he u o summa ized o conside ed wha hese ew s uden s had said and es a ed he
con e sa ion. Thus, he con e sa ion was o ganized as a succession o sho pieces o open
con e sa ion be ween s uden s, which we e ma ked and con olled by u o ’s in e en ions a he
beginning and end o each sho piece. This can be ep esen ed as T-S-S-T... (whe e T is he u o and
S a e di e en s uden s). The Theo e ical Discussion phase was de o ed o wo king ou heo e ical
knowledge, p e iously lea n by he s uden s in o he subjec s, by using he si ua ion o exempli y and
examine Theo y. The u n- aking s uc u e was simila o ha o he p e ious phase, ha is, T-S-S-T...
Finally, he Syn hesis phase was aimed o p o ide an in eg a ed and cohe en iew o wha had been
said and es ablished in he p e ious phases. The u n- aking s uc u e ypically comp ised a monologue
by he u o , wi h li le in e en ion by he s uden s.
Taking he i e sessions oge he , he phase which was gi en he mos ime was, by a long way,
Explo a ion, wi h 237 minu es, o 75% o he o al collabo a i e e lec ion ime. Theo e ical
Discussion was gi en 19% o he o al ime (60 minu es), and Cla i ica ion and Syn hesis only 3%
each (10 and 8 minu es espec i ely).
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
138!
Table 5
Phases o collabo a i e e lec ion in each si ua ion (Case 2)
Cla i ica ion
Explo a ion
Theo e ical
Discussion
Syn hesis
Si ua ion
(session)
% o al ime
% o al ime
% o al ime
% o al ime
1 (1)
----
58%
42%
----
2 (2)
5%
95%
-----
----
3 (3)
----
57%
33%
10%
4 (4)
----
100%
----
----
5 (5)
11%
69%
15%
5%
Looking a each e lec ion p ocess sepa a ely, we ind ha he o de in which he ou phases appea ed
was qui e consis en , bu ha hey did no always appea (Table 4). In ac , he ou phases only
appea ed all oge he in one ins ance (5); in one ins ance he e was only one phase (Explo a ion in 4),
and in wo o he ins ances he e we e only wo (Explo a ion and Theo e ical discussion in 1, and
Cla i ica ion and Explo a ion in 2). Howe e , in all ins ances he emphasis (in e ms o ime) was
clea ly placed on he phase o Explo a ion, which was he only phase ha appea ed in all he e lec ion
p ocesses in his case.
Rega ding u o ’s assis ance, we iden i ied some cha ac e is ic ypes in each o he ou phases in Case
2. The mos ypical o m o assis ance in he Cla i ica ion phase was Conside ing s uden s’
con ibu ions when he u o con ibu ed o he con e sa ion. The mos ypical o ms o assis ance in
he Explo a ion phase we e Conside ing s uden s’ con ibu ions (once again); Opening he
con e sa ion o o he s in o de o os e he pa icipa ion o mo e s uden s; Reminding pa icipan s o
he in e p e a i e cha ac e o e lec ion; Iden i ying new aspec s o he si ua ion, in which he u o
highligh ed o p oposed a new aspec and asked he s uden s o conside i in hei e lec ion; Fos e ing
he s uden s’ iden i ica ion o new aspec s o he si ua ion, in which, ins ead o p oposing he new
aspec di ec ly, he u o ga e clues, sugges ions, o ques ions so ha he s uden s hemsel es
iden i ied new aspec s o be inco po a ed in he e lec ion; Iden i ying links wi h o he si ua ions, in
which he u o es ablished simila i ies o compa isons be ween he si ua ion unde e lec ion and o he
si ua ions; and Iden i ying links wi h academic knowledge, in which he u o poin ed o ela ionships
be ween he si ua ion and aspec s o Theo y. The mos ypical assis ances o e ed in he Theo e ical
Discussion phase we e: Conside ing s uden s’ con ibu ions; Opening he con e sa ion o o he s;
Reques ing cla i ica ion om a s uden abou he opinions o iews; Iden i ying new aspec s o he
si ua ion; and Fos e ing he s uden s’ iden i ica ion o links wi h academic knowledge, in which,
ins ead o he u o iden i ying hese links (as she ypically did in he p e ious phase), he u o now
ga e clues o ques ions o encou age he s uden s hemsel es o iden i y new links wi h hei academic
knowledge. Finally, he mos ypical o ms o assis ance ha he u o o e ed in he Syn hesis phase
we e: Conside ing s uden s’ con ibu ions; Reminding pa icipan s o he in e p e a i e cha ac e o
e lec ion; Iden i ying new aspec s o he si ua ion; Reminding pa icipan s o he in e p e a i e
! ! EAPRIL!Con e ence!P oceedings!!2015!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
139!
amewo k o e e ence, in which he u o emphasized heo e ical amewo ks o ideas ha he
s uden s had wo ked on in o he subjec s; and Iden i ying links wi h academic knowledge.
Table 6
Typical o ms o u o ’s assis ance in each phase (Case 2)
Cla i ica ion
Explo a ion
Theo e ical
Discussion
Syn hesis
Typical
assis ance in
Dialogic
Con e sa ion
Conside ing
s uden s’
con ibu ions
Conside ing
s uden s’
con ibu ions
Opening he
con e sa ion o
o he s
Conside ing
s uden s’
con ibu ions
Opening he
con e sa ion
o o he s
Reques ing
cla i ica ion
om a s uden
Conside ing
s uden s’
con ibu ions
Typical
assis ance on
In e p e a ion
Reminding
pa icipan s o
he
in e p e a i e
cha ac e o
e lec ion
Iden i ying new
aspec s o he
si ua ion
Fos e ing he
s uden s’
iden i ica ion
o new aspec s
o he si ua ion
Iden i ying
new aspec s
o he
si ua ion
Reminding
pa icipan s o
he
in e p e a i e
cha ac e o
e lec ion
Iden i ying new
aspec s o he
si ua ion
Reminding
pa icipan s o
he
in e p e a i e
amewo k o
e e ence (e.g.
cons uc i ism)
Typical
assis ance on
linking
Theo y and
P ac ice
Iden i ying
links wi h o he
si ua ions
Iden i ying
links wi h
academic
knowledge
Fos e ing he
s uden s’
iden i ica ion
o links wi h
academic
knowledge
Iden i ying
links wi h
academic
knowledge