| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 30 - 38 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Patricia A. Alexander, Lubienski, Sarah Theule, Ackerman, Phillip L. , Giyoo Hatano, Yoko Oura, Patricia A. Alexander, Lajoie, Susanne P., Sternberg, Robert J. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3 - 4 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 22-30 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Recent criticisms of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) have appeared in education and psychology research journals (e.g., Cohen, 1990, 1994; Kupfersmid, 1988; Rosenthal, 1991; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989; Shaver, 1985; Sohn 2000; Thompson, 1994, 1997; see also Research in the Schools [1998]). In this article we discuss these criticisms for both current use of NHST and plausible future use. We suggest that the historical use of such procedures was reasonable and that current users might spend time profitably reading some of Fisher`s applied work. However, we also believe that modifications to NHST and to the interpretations of its outcomes might better suit the needs of modern science. Our primary conclusion is that NHST is most often useful as an adjunct to other results (e.g., effect sizes) rather than as a stand-alone result. We cite some examples, however, where NHST can be profitably used alone. Last, we find considerable experimental support for a less rigid attitude toward the interpretation of the probability yielded from such procedures. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 14-21 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In the following text of her Dewitt Wallace-Reader`s Digest Distinguished Lecture at the 2003 AERA annual meeting, Lisa Delpit argues that educators must look beyond standardized test scores and scripted instructional programs if their desire is to educate all children. Educators must cease questioning the capacity of low income, students of color and, instead, create rigorous, engaging instruction based on knowing who the students are, including their cultural, intellectual, historical, and political legacies. Furthermore, they must look to preintegration African-American institutions where "counternarratives" were developed to affirm Black intelligence and provide the motivation for students to achieve. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 31-38 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In this article, we examine the definition of "scientifically based research" in education that have appeared in recent national legislation and policy. These definitions, now written into law in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, and the focus of the National Research Council`s 2002 publication, Scientific Research in Education, are being used to affect decisions about the future of education programs and the direction of education research. Perhaps because of the high stakes involved, there has been some tendency to lump together the definitions emanating from Washington sources. From our perspective as participants in some of this activity, we argue that there are important differences among these definitions and their purposes. Furthermore, we suggest that the various definitions, together with public input about them, can provide leverage for altering the meanings of scientifically based research and education research that are being operationalized in current public policy. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Robert L. Linn, Margaret Eisenhart, Lisa Towne, Lisa Delpit, Howard Wainer, Robinson, Daniel H. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-13 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Some of the central features of current educational accountability systems are discussed using the requirements under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 as the primary example. It is argued that broadly shared responsibility is needed for accountability systems to contribute to improved education. It is also suggested that systems need to be designed in ways that are consistent with research and past experience. This requires the setting of ambitious performance standards and improvement targets, but ones that can reasonably be achieved given sufficient effort and supporting resources. These design features are contrasted with the NCLB requirements. Illustrations of some of the state responses to the NCLB demands that attempt to avoid the over-identification of schools for improvement and sanctions are provided. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 13 - 24 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3 - 12 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Alejandra M. Lopez, Cynthia E. Coburn, Cobb, Paul, Kay McClain, Teruni de Silva Lamberg, Dean, Chrystal |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 25 - 37 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3 - 5 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama