| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 28-29 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The authors reiterate their core argument that harnessing the epistemological and methodological diversity of the field to advance its common goals is difficult but essential work. And in keeping with the spirit of their article and the Scientific Research in Education report on which it is based, they encourage further debate and self-reflection in the field about these important issues. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 18-20 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Under the stewardship of the Departement of Education, recent acts of Congress confuse the methods of science with the process of sicence, possibly doing great harm to scholarship in education. An otherwise exemplary National Research Council report to help clarify the nature of educational science fails to emphasize the complexity of scientific work in education due to the power of contexts, the ubiquity of interactions, and the problem of decade by findings interactions. Discussion of these issues leads to the conclusion that educational science is unusually hard to do and that the government may not be serious about wanting evidence-based practices in education. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 21-24 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In this article the authors argue that both the Feure, Twone, and Shalvelson article and the larger National Research Council (NRC) report on which it is based must be understood in the context of curent federal discourse that focuses narrowly on experimentally derived causal explanations of educational program effectiveness. Although the authors concur with much of the Feuer et al. article and the NRC report, they are concerned that the NRC committee, by acepting uncritically its charge to define the scientific in educational research, produced a statment that risks being read as endorsing both the possibility and the desirability of taking an evidence-based social engineering approach to educational improvement nationwide. Finally, the authors review the consequences of not challenging the layperson`s "white coat" notion of science and replacing it with a more complicated and realistic view of what actual scientists do and the varied and complex methods and perspectives they employ in their inquiry. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Pellegrino, James W., Susan R. Goldman, Frederick Erickson, Kris Gutierrez, Berliner, David C., Shavelson, Richard J., Michael J. Feuer, Lisa Twone, Shavelson, Richard J., Michael J. Feuer, Lisa Twone, Alice M. Buchanan, Shelia C. Baldwin, Mary E. Rudisill, Elizabeth Adams St. Pierre |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 15-17 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Two matters of deep concern in the Feuer, Twone, and Shavelson article are the focus of this commentary. Firts, the authors agree that legislative mandates reifying particular methodological approaches would be ill informed and misdirected. Rather, what is legislatively appropriate is a mandate for rigorous peer review of federally funded work combined with funding to support such a review infrastructure within federal agencies. Second, the authors argue that building a professional community poses a substansial challenge that demands action not only by individual researchers but also by institutions of higher education. A through reconsideration of researcher training is in order if the desired professional community is to be achieved. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 29-37 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The purpose of this discussion is to highlight some of the technological tools of our trade. The irony in sharing information about Web based tools is that many remain current for about a nanosecond. Bleeding-edge tools and applications are purposely excluded from this discussion. A select set of Internet or Web-based tools that have survived the novelty stage are presented, including Web surveys, digital photography, voice recognition, file sharing, videoconferencing on the Internet, instantaneous chat rooms, and digital movies. Benefits and a few cautions are presented. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 26-28 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Is response to Fenstermacher`s and Furlong`s commentaries, Cochran-Smith and Fries suggest three additional points to extend the dialogue about the reform of teacher education. They discuss the potential value of debates that marshal evidence for a particular policy position, the importance of open discussion about the ideologies that underlie different position, and necessary cautions about the increasing role of the federal government in educational policy and practice. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 17-19 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | After clarifying several misperceptions of my analysis of the theory-practice dualism manifest in reconceptualist curriculum theorizing, I reply to James Henderson`s inquiries about my perspective on curriculum practice by discussing the ideas of Ralph Tyler and Joseph Schwab and curriculum enactment. Recognizing that continued conversation holds the most promise for a mitigation of ideological conflict endemic to the curriculum field, I propose two topics for further deliberation among curriculum scholars |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 20-22 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In the November 2001 issue of Educational Researcher, Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Mary Kim Fries provided a penetrating analysis of the discourse that comprises the debate between those who advocate highly professionalized teacher preparation and those who seek simpler and more abundant routes to teacher training and certification. This commentary extends the Cochran-Smith and Fries analysis in several directions, inquiring into the democratic and antidemocratic features of the debate between those who would deregulate it. Among the matters probed here are the importance of thoughtful opposition, how and where on the politiocal landscape that opposition is resolved, and who is engaged in the resolution. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 23-25 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This article presents an international perspective on Cohchran-Smith and Fries` (2001) recent analysis of the ways in which two competing ideologies are currently being employed in the United States in support of teacher education reform. In England over the last 15 years, teacher education has been fundamentally reformed and the arguments of both the ``deregulators`` and the ``professionalizers`` have been important in that process. Despite surface similarities, there remain, there remain important differences between the United States and England in how these two ideologieshave been advanced and in the constituencies that have supoorted them. Teacher educators in England have been excluded from much of the public debate and the government has taken on the arguments of the professionalizers. What a comparison between these two countries demonstrates are the complexities involved in the globalization of ideologies. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Baker, Eva L., Robert L. Linn, Damian W. Betebenner, John Furlong, Gary D Fenstermacher, William G. Wraga, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Mary Kim Fries, David M. Fetterman |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-16 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The No Child Behind Act of 2001 substantially increases the testing requirements for states and sets demanding accountability standards for schools, districts, and states with measurable adequate progress (AYP) objectives for all students and subgroups of students defined by socioeconomic background, race-ethnicity, English language proficiency, and disability. However, states` content standards, the rigor of their tests, and the stringency of their performance standards vary greatly. Consequently, the percentage of students who score at the proficient level or higher on the state assessments varies radically from state to state. Some states have farther to go than others to meet the mandated target of 100% proficient within 12 years. These differences are illustrated and the implications for achieving AYP targets are dicussed. Also addressed are possible uses of results from the biennial state-level administrations of the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a means of leveling the playing field. Factors contributing to the volatility of gains in achievement from year to year for individual schools are discussed. |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama