排序方式： 共有13条查询结果，搜索用时 31 毫秒
11.
The present article presents a rubric we developed for assessing the quality of scientific explanations by science graduate students. The rubric was developed from a qualitative analysis of science graduate students’ abilities to explain their own research to an audience of non‐scientists. Our intention is that use of the rubric to characterise explanations of science by scientists, some of whom become professors, would lead to better teaching of science at the university level. This would, in turn, improve retention of qualified and diverse scientists, some of whom may elect to become science teachers. Our rubric is useful as an instrument to help evaluate scientific explanations because it distinguishes between the content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of scientists, as well as a scientist’s ability to integrate the two in the service of a clear and coherent explanation of his or her research. It is also generally useful in evaluating, or self‐evaluating, science explanations by science professors and researchers, graduate students preparing to be scientists, science teachers and pre‐service teachers, as well as students who are explaining science as part of learning. 相似文献
12.
13.
Selcuk R. Sirin Lisa R. Jackson Lisa Gonsalves Angela Howell 《International journal of qualitative studies in education》2013,26(3):437-456
Recognizing the importance future aspirations play in the developmental outcomes of adolescents, this study illuminates the role that individual and contextual factors play in the formation of future aspirations among urban youth. The data for this study were collected prior to the implementation of an intervention program at an urban high school. Focus groups, questionnaires, goal maps and a group identity collage were employed to solicit the perspectives of urban adolescents about their future aspirations and the influences on them. Using a grounded theory methodology, the authors classified the multiple sources of data into a theoretical model of urban adolescents’ future aspirations. Participants’ voices, which were used to construct the theoretical model, are also provided here to vivify the model. This ‘person‐in‐context’ model encompasses both individual/contextual resources and barriers to the future aspirations of urban youth. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed. 相似文献