Developing a material-dialogic approach to pedagogy to guide science teacher education

Developing teaching material for descriptive writing subject by using think pair share model in elementary school

“…It can be achieved by taking into account some internal and external factors when considering teaching materials developed, such as the interests of students, classroom conditions, the attractiveness of the topic and teaching method used by teachers. Consideration of external factors is consistent with research was conducted by Hetherington & Wegerif (2018)That external factors such as the media, classroom conditions and teaching methods is crucial for the success of students; learning in the classroom, including teaching Indonesian language with the topics of descriptive writing.…”

Teaching STEM education through dialogue and transformative learning: global significance and local interactions in Mexico and the UK

“…In this model of communitarian STEM education, particular significance is placed on dialogic understandings, both in the context of community relations, but also in terms of the pedagogies employed in STEM in schools and universities. Bakhtinian dialogism encourages the analysis of patterns of teacher-student communication in naturalistic classroom settings (Skidmore and Murakami 2016;Hetherington and Wegerif, 2018) but this special issue calls for a broader understanding of dialogism that extends to interaction between teacher educators, teachers, community actors and more formal domains of knowledge in the university and society, promoting a Freirean style of communitarian dialogue as emancipation. Freire (1989) proposed that education should develop a critical consciousness in which teachers empower students to surface their personal understandings of their own learning experiences but this approach is rarely applied in STEM education.…”

“…Freire (1989) proposed that education should develop a critical consciousness in which teachers empower students to surface their personal understandings of their own learning experiences but this approach is rarely applied in STEM education. Dialogic teaching moves away from the privileging of one voice (a monologic space) where the dominant voice is usually the teacher, towards the development of a dialogic space in teaching where students and teachers interact around the curriculum (Cowie and Van der Aalsvoort 2000;Hetherington and Wegerif, 2018). In addition, studies in education following a dialogic perspective have highlighted the importance of language positioning in the context of the teaching relationship, as well as the ethics involved in a dialogic space in which two or more voices can express themselves without trying to silence each other (Bakhtin 1993(Bakhtin , 2010Castro Félix and Daniels, 2018;Reynaga-Peña et al, 2018).…”

“…Some research evidence reveals that overall educational quality is a more potent influence on economic outcomes (Hanushek and Woessmann 2012) and that innovative curricula and pedagogies are what is needed (Marginson et al 2013). A number of large funded research projects over the last decade such as epiSTEMe in England (Cambridge University) have aimed to assess the impact of pedagogic change in STEM subjects or to intervene in the delivery of STEM as in the case of the STEM for Diversity project (see Hetherington and Wegerif, 2018). Other researchers claim that in many contexts education is not the predominant determining factor in economic growth and the impact of education on the economy is bounded by scope and time (Bevan 2011;Brown, Lauder, and Ashton 2012).…”

PCK som ”Materialefaglighed” – videns og handlingsstrukturer i naturfagslokalet

“…haft eksplicit fokus på sammenhaengen mellem det socio-materielle og laererprofessionalitet indenfor naturfagene (Forbes, Madeira, Davis, & Slotta, 2009;Guerriero & Révai, 2017;Hetherington & Wegerif, 2018;Otrel-Cass & Cowie, 2019;Wei, Chen, & Chen, 2019), og sammenhaengen mellem det socio-materielle og PCK er endnu mindre belyst (Forbes et al, 2009;Wei et al, 2019) ligesom den seneste konceptualisering af PCK baseret på et faelles arbejde mellem centrale forskere på feltet heller ikke saerligt tydeligt har inddraget det sociomaterielles eventuelle betydning herfor (Carlson & Daehler, 2019;Gess-Newsome, 2015). Flere forhold og en aktuel udgivelse fra Milne og Scantlebury med den rammende titel: "Material Practice and Materiality: Too Long Ignored in Science Education" (2018), tyder således på, at der er behov for dybere indsigt i de evt.…”