首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
  相似文献   

2.
This paper explores 30 students' views on the purposes for studying US history. Twelve students were 5th graders, 12 were 8th graders, and six were high school students. Responses were drawn from detailed interview protocol data compiled over three years in the context of a larger research programme that extensively studied the teaching and learning practices in five American history classrooms, two at 5th grade, two at 8th grade, and one at the high school level. Two questions from the protocol frame this exploration:'Why do you think they teach you American history in school?' and 'How might learning American history help you in your life away from school?'. Responses indicated that (a )all the students were able to construct some answer to the questions; (b ) rationales for learning history varied considerably by age, interest and ethnic background, but versions of the Santayanan rationale and utilitarian responses were most common; (c ) students seemed initially puzzled by the questions as though they had never considered them before; and (d ) students appeared to hold a 'stabilized', consensus view of history, meaning that they thought of history as a collection of putative facts and that their task was to learn them. Implications are considered against the backdrop of teaching and learning American history and the current history curriculum.  相似文献   

3.
A Year of Firsts     
  相似文献   

4.
Marton  Ference  Wen  Qiufang  Wong  Kam Cheung 《Higher Education》2005,49(3):291-318
It has been shown earlier that while some high school students (younger on the average) do not differentiate between memorization and understanding, others (older on the average) do so (Marton, Watkins and Tang, Learning and Instruction 7, 21–48, 1997). Those who do differentiate impose a sequential ordering on the two: When you learn you memorize first and understand subsequently or When you learn you understand first and memorize later. This sequential ordering is expressed both through the students account of their theory of learning and their account of their own study practices. In the current study a group of 20 students of an elite University in mainland China were interviewed about learning, memorization and understanding in the context of their studies upon entering the University and 1.5 years later. It was found that while on the first occasion the predominant mode of talking about memorization and understanding was by discussing them in terms of either of the two above ways of sequentially ordering them. On the second occasion the most frequent way of talking about memorization and understanding was in terms of two simultaneous events, simply two different aspects of the very same learning process. The students spoke about using both repetition and variation in their study practice at the same time. Unlike when you read the same presentation of something several times in the same way and thus repeat the same thing again and again, when you read different presentations of the same thing or when you read the same presentation in different ways, something is repeated and something is varied. To the extent that repetition enhances remembering and variation enhances understanding – as the students seem to believe – they will likely remember that which is repeated and understand that which is varied. And when the two are intertwined they will remember what they understand.  相似文献   

5.
The academic study of Education1 1. A capital E is used when Education refers to Education as an academic subject or discipline. A lower case e is used to refer to education as a process. View all notes (as a social, historical, and theoretical phenomenon) is complicated by the fact of our immersion in it. This paper combines Said's idea of “contrapuntal reading” with Bourdieu's notion of reflexivity to explore what happens when students on an Education course directly confront the fact of their everyday involvement in their object of study, Education. How do the questions raised by post-colonial and other critical social writers “appear” from such a position? How does the fact of our involvement complicate our theoretical or scientific knowledge of these? By means of an episodic, narrative form of writing, this paper describes a life history pedagogy for teaching a compulsory “social issues” course online to New Zealand pre-service teacher education students. As data I draw on online conversations with and between students as they engage in the production of contextualized life history interview narratives.  相似文献   

6.
  相似文献   

7.
Informal observations of Prolog learners showed that, despite being presented with correct information and models, students still tended to construct their own idiosyncratic explanations of events, and, characteristically, they defended these ‘stories’ fiercely when tutorial intervention was attempted. Although the stories were often so flawed that the student's future progress was potentially hampered, it was nevertheless true that learning could not have proceeded at all without them. It seems that if we are to understand the novice Prolog programmer, we need to know about these stories, their source, and what, if anything, they have in common from one learner to another. Pain and Bundy (1987) posed the question “What stories should we tell novice Prolog programmers?” in order to teach them Prolog. In our research, we ask: “What stories do novices Prolog programmers tell themselves?” in order to learn Prolog. Observational studies undertaken showed that students used tacit knowledge of human discourse processes both to interpret the language used to communicate with the computer and to interpret the behaviour of the machine. Students did not appreciate the fundamental differences between natural discourse (as takes place amongst humans) and formal discourse (as takes place between humans and machines), and confused elements of the discourse levels. This can be an effective initial learning strategy, but unless its limitations are recognised, programs are inevitably incomplete at some level. Examples from these studies are reported here with illustrative protocol fragments.  相似文献   

8.
Whether your day care center or Head Start program has staff of five or twenty-five, you might wish to consider a professional development component (PDC). “What is that?” you say. “Not another thing we have to do. Isn't it enough that early childhood educators ... must be an astute purchaser, ... must be persnickety picker-and-chooser, ... must be a scavenger, ...” (Hymes, 1968, pp. 82–85) “and that programs have to meet state licensing standards or Head Start Performance Standards? Now programs must develop a new component!”  相似文献   

9.
This is an editorial report on the outcomes of an international conference sponsored by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (REESE-1205273) to the School of Education at Boston University and the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University for a conference titled: How Can the History and Philosophy of Science Contribute to Contemporary US Science Teaching? The presentations of the conference speakers and the reports of the working groups are reviewed. Multiple themes emerged for K-16 education from the perspective of the history and philosophy of science. Key ones were that: students need to understand that central to science is argumentation, criticism, and analysis; students should be educated to appreciate science as part of our culture; students should be educated to be science literate; what is meant by the nature of science as discussed in much of the science education literature must be broadened to accommodate a science literacy that includes preparation for socioscientific issues; teaching for science literacy requires the development of new assessment tools; and, it is difficult to change what science teachers do in their classrooms. The principal conclusions drawn by the editors are that: to prepare students to be citizens in a participatory democracy, science education must be embedded in a liberal arts education; science teachers alone cannot be expected to prepare students to be scientifically literate; and, to educate students for scientific literacy will require a new curriculum that is coordinated across the humanities, history/social studies, and science classrooms.  相似文献   

10.
相似文献   

11.
AID — the acronym stands for Assessment for Instructional Development — is a behaviourally referenced class questionnaire developed by the author from a data base drawn from 12 institutions of HE (Polytechnics and Universities). It is intended to help the user locate

  • objectives in their own progress towards which his students report they lack confidence

  • teaching behaviours that seem to bear on these objectives

  • changes of teaching strategy that may therefore help the students

AID is focussed on the individual class and subject discipline — it is not suitable for ‘accountability’ uses.

The paper describes the rationale for choosing a behaviourally referenced system (focussed on what teachers and students do or feel, and how often) rather than a ‘satisfaction scale’ (focussed on ‘do my students like me?'), and the way AID was developed from earlier, mainly North American behaviourally referenced systems, such as IDEA. Crucial changes in research methodology are explained and justified. The characteristics and capabilities of the developed system are then outlined, and how to use it is explained. Finally, illustrations are given of three typical uses of the system — a comparison of three elements in a part‐time course for use by the course team in a course review, and two analyses of particular teaching programmes for individual lecturers.  相似文献   


12.
In the last issue of the Journal (volume 75, number 4), we read about our esteemed colleague Israel Scheffler's love affair with Hebrew. In this issue, we continue the conversation about Hebrew as part of a series of articles by distinguished senior colleagues who bring the wisdom earned by a lifelong career in Jewish education.

Many of us share Scheffler's love affair with Hebrew, and we are anguished by the challenges facing the American Jewish community with regard to the teaching and learning of Hebrew language. Whenever educators sit together, no matter the setting, they discuss: What are the best ways to teach Hebrew? What are ambitious, but reasonable goals for Hebrew language learning in pre-schools, day schools and after school programs? What constitutes literacy in each of these settings?

In this article, Lifsa Schachter, professor emeritus of education at the Segal College, shares some of her ideas on a range of questions such as these. Her ideas emanate from the research literature on second language acquisition, as well as from her own experiences and experiments designed to make a difference in the domain of Hebrew language learning. Lee Shulman (Shulman, 1987 Shulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, Spring, : 1–20.  [Google Scholar]) asserts the validity of using the “wisdom of practice” in addressing educational challenges such as this one. Hebrew language teaching is an instance where experienced practitioners hold much knowledge. Yet, little of their knowledge has been committed to writing.

We're delighted to share this article with you and hope that it encourages others to write about grappling with the challenges of Hebrew language learning in our schools. We encourage our senior colleagues in particular to share their wisdom about this and other issues that can make Jewish education vital and vibrant for the Jewish people in the twenty-first century.  相似文献   

13.
“What do you think of European preschools?” “Do they have good schools in Yemen?” “What are Chinese child care centers like?” I am always taken aback when asked such questions. Of course, I'm always taken aback when someone asks what I think of kindergarten education in the United States; I never know how to answer that either. Does the question refer to kindergarten classes in the school near my home? Or kindergartens across the United States? Even if the inquirer expected an answer based on the schools which I visit regularly to supervise student teachers I would have to give a general statement, followed by some qualifying statements related to different teachers, different schools, and different school districts — all withinone county! The old adage that “All generalizations are dangerous, including this one” always comes to mind.  相似文献   

14.
The introduction of problem-based learning into K-12 science classrooms faces the challenge of achieving the dual goal of learning science content and developing problem-solving skills. To overcome this content-process tension in science classrooms, we employed the knowledge-creation approach as a boundary object between the two seemingly contradicting activities: learning of science content and developing problem-solving skills. As part of a design research, we studied a group of Grade 9 students who were solving a problem related to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Through the lens of the activity theory, we found that students’ understanding of the intended science knowledge deepened as they made sense of the disciplinary-content knowledge in the context of the problem and concurrently, the students successfully developed solutions for the problem. This study shows that developing problem-solving competencies and content learning need not be disparate activities. On the contrary, we can harness the interdependency of these two activities to achieve dual goals in learning.  相似文献   

15.
Robert Howsam prefaced his paper with the story of The Velveteen Rabbit, a very ordinary, cheap rabbit who was loved by his owner for only an hour on Christmas morning, and spurned by the other toys‐‐those which were expensive, mechanical, very modern, or exquisitely detailed‐‐until he felt very insignificant and commonplace. His only friend was the Skin Horse. The oldest inhabitant of the nursery, he was battered, bald and showed his seams, but he was also wise and experienced.

"What is REAL?”, asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the Nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. “Does it mean having that buzz inside you and a stick‐out handle?"

“Real isn't how you are made”, said the Skin Horse. “It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.”

Rabbit also learned that becoming Real sometimes hurt, and that it takes a long time. “That's why it doesn't often happen to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept.”

Eventually the Boy and the Rabbit became inseparable. One night, when Rabbit was left in the garden, an annoyed Nanny, having had to collect him, chided the Boy for making such a fuss over an old toy.

“You musn't say that’, said the Boy. “He isn't a toy. He's Real.”

And Rabbit was happy.

Real rabbits, who found him one day in the garden, laughed at hint when he said he was Real, but, in time, when he was old and shabby and about to be burned with all the other toys after a scarlet fever infection, the nursery Magic Fairy appeared. She was going to turn him into a Real rabbit.

“Wasn't I Real before?”, asked the little Rabbit.

“You were real to the Boy”, the Fairy said, “because he loved you. Now you shall be Real to everyone.”.  相似文献   


16.
An instrument to be used by students in evaluating faculty was developed with the major focus being five conceptualized interpretations of scales (factors) culled from other research on faculty evaluation. The five conceptualized factors were: Evaluation, Presentation, Preparation, Personality, and Intellect. Thirty-five professors from the Division of Curriculum and Instruction teaching 65 classes (1,122 students) at graduate and undergraduate levels participated in May; and 75 professors teaching 2,804 students participated in a December study. Each of the five factors were found to be: independent; stable across student groups; of high internal consistency and reliability; of a high degree of concurrent validity (faculty evaluating themselves); discriminatory among faculty; and applicable under sundry instructional conditions. The instrument can provide information to instructors for the improvement of teaching, as well as providing information for students concerning individual instructors. As part of a larger evaluation system, the instrument can provide information for career decisions.  相似文献   

17.
Great teachers understand the fundamental difference between motivation and inspiration: motivation is self-focused and inspiration is other focused. Exceptional teachers guide students to greatness by inspiring them to discover where their talents and passions intersect. For today's besieged classroom teacher, the desire to motivate students often springs from a place of self-concern: "I want to change your behavior with a reward or incentive so that, if you meet the targets or goals I set for you, this will help me meet my own needs and goals." Students are highly motivated to perform when they first come to school. The question is not "how can students be motivated?" but rather, "how can educators be deterred from diminishing—even destroying—student motivation and morale through their policies and practices?"  相似文献   

18.
  相似文献   

19.
A Multicultural Counseling course (MCC) brings unique challenges and rewards to both instructors and students. Given its unique challenges, the process of teaching a MCC is as important as, or even more important than, the content. Drawing from extant literature and the authors’ experiences, this paper discusses such topics as what to teach, how to teach, classroom dynamics, instructors’ issues, and students’ issues to provide a concise, practical, and comprehensive framework for teaching such difficult but essential courses.  相似文献   

20.
Case-based learning and problem-based learning have demonstrated great promise in reforming science education. Yet an instructor, in newly considering this suite of interrelated pedagogical strategies, faces a number of important instructional choices. Different features and their related values and learning outcomes are profiled here, including: the level of student autonomy; instructional focus on content, skills development, or nature-of-science understanding; the role of history, or known outcomes; scope, clarity, and authenticity of problems provided to students; extent of collaboration; complexity, in terms of number of interpretive perspectives; and, perhaps most importantly, the role of applying versus generating knowledge.
A leader who gives trust earns trust.His profile is low, his words measured.His work done well, all proclaim,“Look what we’ve accomplished!”—Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
Problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) are at least as old as apprenticeship among craftsmen. One can envision the student of metals at the smelting furnace, the student of herbal remedies at the plant collector''s side, or the student of navigation beside the helm. In recent years, however, PBL and CBL have emerged as powerful teaching tools in reforming science education. Most notably, these approaches exhibit key features advocated by educational researchers. First, both are fundamentally student-centered, acknowledging the importance of actively engaging students in their own learning. As the responsibility for learning shifts toward students, the role of the instructor also shifts, from the conventional authority who dispenses final-form knowledge to an expert guide, who motivates and facilitates the process of learning, while promoting the individual development of learning skills. The efforts of an ideal teacher may well be hidden. As Lao Tsu suggested centuries ago, educational achievement is measured by what a learner learns more than by what the teacher teaches.Second, in orienting more toward student perspectives and motivations, CBL and PBL tend to focus on concrete, specific occasions—cases or problems—wherein the target knowledge is relevant. Contextualizing the learning contributes both to student motivation and to the making of meaning (construed by many educators as central to functional memory and effective learning). The cases and problems are not merely supplemental illustrations or peripheral sidebars, but function centrally as the very occasion for learning. This style of learning resonates with views of cognitive scientists that our minds reason effectively through analogy and models, as much as through the interpretation and application of general, abstract principles.A third feature, and perhaps the most transformative, is the potential of PBL and CBL to contribute to the development of thinking skills and an understanding of the nature of science, beyond the conventional conceptual content. As students work on cases or problems, they typically exercise and hone skills in research, analysis, interpretation, and creative thinking. In addition to benefiting from practice, students may also reflect explicitly on their experience and thereby deepen their understanding of scientific practices. But such lessons do not emerge automatically. The instructor must make deliberate choices and design activities mindfully to support this aim.In these three ways, PBL and CBL have proven valuable in many settings and hold promise more widely. An instructor first venturing into the realm of CBL and PBL, however, may easily be overwhelmed by the variety of approaches and the occasional contradictions among them. The literature is vast and includes sometimes conflicting claims about appropriate or ideal methods. This paper aims to introduce some of the key dimensions and to invite reflection about the respective values and deficits of various alternatives. It hopes to inform pedagogical choices about learning objectives and foster corresponding clarity in classroom practice. It also hopes, indirectly, to promote clarity on values and learning outcomes among current practitioners and in educational research and to provide perspective on the discord among advocates of specific approaches.1The first two sections below introduce CBL and PBL, respectively, as instructional strategies reflecting certain values. (A teacher might well adopt both simultaneously.) Beyond these basics, there are many dimensions or distinctions to consider, addressed in successive sections (and summarized in 2 In addition, PBL gained recognition largely from applications in professional education—medical, business, and law schools (Butler et al., 2005 ). These instructional contexts tend to emphasize training. Contemporary science education, by contrast, tends to highlight student-based inquiry and understanding of scientific practices (National Research Council, 2012 ). The original approaches, as models, may need adapting. Most notably, the difference in context, between learning how to apply knowledge and learning how knowledge is generated, can be critical, as described below. The principles surveyed here can help guide the teacher in crafting an appropriate instructional design to accommodate specific contexts and values.

Table 1.

Key dimensions shaping learning environments and outcomes in CBL and PBL
• Occasion for engaging content: Contextualized (case based) or decontextualized?
• Mode of engaging student: Problem based or authority based?
• Instructional focus: Content, skills, and/or nature of science?
• Epistemic process: Apply knowledge or generate new knowledge?
• Setting: Historical case or contemporary case?
• Epistemic process: Open-ended or close-ended?
• Authenticity: Real case or constructed case?
• Clarity of problem: Well defined, ill defined, or unspecified?
• Social epistemic dimension: Collaborative or individual?
• Complexity of social epistemics: Single perspective or multiple perspectives?
• Scope: Narrow or broad?
• Level of student autonomy: Narrow or broad?
Open in a separate windowFocusing on distinctions in pedagogical approaches encourages one to think more rigorously about educational values and aims. For example, is knowing content the ultimate aim? To what degree is understanding scientific practice and/or its cultural contexts also important? What are the aims regarding analytical or problem-solving skills—or learning how to learn beyond the classroom? Is student motivation, or engagement in learning, a goal? Does one hope to shape student attitudes about the value or authority of science—or to recruit more students into scientific careers or to promote greater gender or ethnic balance? What role is afforded to student autonomy, either in shaping one''s own learning trajectory or as an independent thinker? Possible outcomes range from traditional conceptual content to skills, attitudes, and epistemic understanding. Different methods foster different outcomes. The goal here is to help one clarify one''s aims and align them with the appropriate strategies or teaching tools.3  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号