In this article, we elaborate on the role of dialogical learning in identity formation in the context of environmental education. First, we distinguish this kind of learning from conditioning and reproductive learning. We also show that identity learning is not self-evident and we point out the role of emotions. Using Dialogical Self Theory, we then suggest that individuals do not have an “identity hierarchy” but a dialogical self that attaches meaning to experiences in both conscious and unconscious ways. We describe the learning process that enables the dialogical self to develop itself, and we elaborate on the characteristics of a good dialogue. We conclude with some remarks expanding room for a dialogue that would foster identity learning. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources5010011 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This paper presents a comprehensive study on assisting new AI programmers in making responsible choices while programming. The research focused on developing a process model, incorporating design patterns, and utilizing an IDE-based extension to promote responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) practices. The experiment evaluated the effectiveness of the process model and extension, specifically examining their impact on the ability to make responsible choices in AI programming. The results revealed that the use of the process model and extension significantly enhanced the programmers' understanding of Responsible AI principles and their ability to apply them in code development. These findings support existing literature highlighting the positive influence of process models and patterns on code development capabilities. The research further confirmed the importance of incorporating Responsible AI values, as asking relevant questions related to these values resulted in responsible AI practices. Furthermore, the study contributes to bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application by incorporating Responsible AI values into the centre stage of the process model. By doing so, the research not only addresses the existing literature gap, but also ensures the practical implementation of Responsible AI principles.
MULTIFILE
Background: The support of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) rarely focused onmotor activity, which might have negative consequences for the quality of life of these people. Evidence-based motor activity programs that present individually tailored and structural motor activity for these people are, regretfully, lacking. This study developed such a program for these people and evaluated the implementationprocess.Methods: The motor activity program is developed in accordance with the theoretical premises of the educational program and consists of four methodological steps in which the content is individually filled with: motor activitystructurally embedded within the activities of daily living, and 3–5 motor activities aimed at a specific goal, which is evaluated. Program delivery consisted of a manual, explanation to the teams, and coaching of one contact personper participant (n = 9). Process evaluation included the delivered fidelity, dose, reach, and adaptations made during the program. In addition, mechanisms of impact and the influence of contextual factors were evaluated. Data collection included researcher logbooks, individual program content, and staff reports.Results: The intended fidelity, dose, and reach were not obtained in most participants. Content has been made explicit for seven participants, but only in one participant all critical steps in implementation were performed asintended, though later in time. In three participants, previously offered motor activities were described within the weekly program, but without all activities having a clear link with the goal set. It is showed that the core elementsof the program were affected with the conceived implementation plan. The time schedule, critical elements in implementation and program content were influenced by a lack of conditions such as professionals’ motivationand responsibility, methodical working, interdisciplinarity and continuity in staff.Conclusions: The results suggest that the implementation might be improved in case more attention is paid to the organizational conditions and implementation structure. The findings led to substantial changes in the implementation strategy. This study underlines the importance of process evaluation prior to testing foreffectiveness.
