| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 28-34 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This article describes how two teacher education service-learning programs illustrate alternative interpretations of scholarship. A tutoring-mentoring program in a teaching oriented masters institution and a motor skill development program in a land grant doctoral-research institution are described relative to how each illustrates forms of scholarship as interpreted by Boyer (1990). We discuss how these forms of scholarship-the scholarship of discovery, integration, teaching, and application-relate to stated institutional mission and evaluation practices. Service-learning experiences for preservice teachers can have the multiple benefits of promoting and ethic of service and social responsibility, demonstrating excellence in teacher education, and exemplifying scholarly endeavors. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-27 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This article responds to the critiques by O`Briend and Prawat of my article, ``Dewey and Vygotsky : Society, Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice.``The central point made by both authors concerns the relationship of process and product in Dewey`s educational philosophy. The authors argue that Dewey did not promote process over product in the classroom and that Dewey and Vygotsky are more similar in spirit and substance than my article suggests. However, when Dewey`s educational philosophy is viewed within the larger framework of instrumental pragmatism, there are clear reasons why Dewey would want to emphasize process (while not disregarding product) in day-to-day education. This article also responds to criticisms involving the relative emphasis Dewey and Vygotsky gave to issues of diversity and individual variance and to the development of ideas of the two theorists. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 16-20 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In an article comparing John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky, Glassman (2001, pp. 3-14) emphasized the profound differences that he believes separate the two great theorists, a view that is challenged in this response. The author argues that the intellectual agendas pursued by the two scholars grew and changed in very similar ways in the course of each individual`s work. Also refuted in this response are stereotypic ideas about Dewey and Vygotsky such as the notion that the former put process ahead of product in education or that the latter downplayed the role of student diversity in learning. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 21-23 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In the May 2001 Educational Researcher, Michael Glassman presented an interesting comparison between the theories of two towering figures in educational thought, John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky. However, Glassman, in his use of the project approach (Katz & Chard, 1989) to make Dewey`s theory operational, misstates several points. This is unfortunate for at least two reasons. First, Glassman`s description of ``Dewey-inspired`` education is problematic in that it calls into question the premises for his comparison of Dewey and Vygotsky`s ideas. Second, and more troublingly, this interpretation perpetuates historical misunderstandings, misuses, and critiques of Dewey`s theory and related practices. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | James Hiebert, Ronald Gallimore, James W. Stigler, Leigh M. O''Brien, Richard S. Prawat, Glassman, Michael , Alice M. Buchanan, Shelia C. Baldwin, Mary E. Rudisill |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-15 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | To improve classroom teaching in a steady, lasting way, the teaching profession needs a knowledge base that grows and improves. In spite of the continuing efforts of researcers, archieved research knowledge has had little effect on the improvement of practice in the average classroom. We explore the possibility of building a useful knowledge base for teaching by beginning with practitioners` knowledge. We outline key features of this knowledge and identify the requirements for this knowledge to be transformed into a professional knowledge base for teaching. By reviewing educational history, we offer an incomplete explanation for why the United States has no countrywide system that meets these requirements. We conclude by wondering if U.S. researchers and teachers can make different choices in the future to enable a system for building and sustaining a professional knowledge base for teaching. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 26-28 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | As a result of a year that I spent as a senior fellow at the National Science Foundation, I learned much about the workings of this agency in relation to education and educational research. In this commentary I describe my work at the agency and present eight observations that might be useful to those in the educational community who interact with colleagues at major federal agencies. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 15-25 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The difficulty of connecting the knowledge generated by educational researchers and the practice of classroom teachers is familiar. Academics write about the importance of research for understanding and improving classroom practices; classroom teachers dismiss the academics` research knowledge as a poor substitute for actual experience. We argue for moving from debates between spectators and actors about knowledge and practice to discussions about how all educators can foster good judgment. We outline two major accounts of judgment in Western thought, Aristotle`s and Kant`s, which ultimately privilege the spectator over the actor. We then introduce the work of Hannah Arendt, who linked thinking and acting without privileging either in her conception of judgment. Focusing on how teachers and researchers might become better educational judges is a crucial, yet neglected, agenda that promises to link these communities. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Alison Cook-Sather, David Coulter, John R. Wiens, Frances K. Stage |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-14 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This article argues for attending to the perspectives of those most directly affected by, but least often consulted about, educational policy and practice: students. The argument for authorizing student perspectives runs counter to U.S. reform efforts, which have been based on adults` ideas about the conceptualization and practice of education. This article outlines and critiques a variety of recent attempts to listen to students, including constructivist and critical pedagogies, postmodern and poststructural feminisms, educational researchers` and social critics` work, and recent developments in the medical and legal realms, almost all of which continue to unfold within and reinforce adults` frames of reference. This discussion contextualizes what the author argues are the twin challenges of authorizing student perspectives: a change in mindset and changes in the structures in educational relationships and institutions. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 25-32 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | An improved quantitative science would emphasize the use of confidence intervals (CLs), and especially CLs for effect size. This article reviews some definitions and issues related to developing these intervals. Confidence intervals for effect sizes are especially valuable because they facilitate meta-analytic thinking and the interpretation of intervals via comparison with the effect intervals from related prior studies. Several recommendations for the thoughtful use of such CLs are presented. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-13 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Practitioner research is a growing form of educational research that presents distinctive ethical issues concerning the protection of research subjects. These issues are also evident in similar forms of action-oriented research carried out in natural settings. Some Institutional Reviews Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for drawing inappropriate conclusions in their reviews of proposed practitioner research projects. This article seeks to explain some of the factor creating the conflicts and misunderstandings among practitioner researchers and IRBs in hopes of ameliorating these difficulties. Although some difficulties are readly resolvable, fundamental societal rifts exist in the ethical perspectives from which judgments about the ethical propriety of such projects should be made, and the disputes derived from these rifts are not so easy to fix. |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama