| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 19-25 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Questions about the proper preparation in research methodologies of doctoral students in education are again on the front burner, fed by deepening skepticism about the value of educational research as well as a revided ``paradigms war`` and broad criticism of the state of graduate education. Faculty struggle to decide whether or not to require all doctoral students to study both quantitative and qualitative research methods, regardless of students diverse talents, interests, and career aspirations. Should students be required to ``appreciate`` both methodologies or to be able to use both? How should research methodologies be taught, and what proportion of doctoral study should they occupy? This article describes the process and circumstances in which the faculty in a school of education at a research university grappled with these questions and, in time, significantly redesigned its doctoral curriculum. Although the faculty`s experience is necessarily particular, their engagement in practical reasoning, local knowledge, and local politics may, as an instance of curriculum deliberation, inform reflections on graduate preparation in other schools of education. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 6-11 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The diversity of epistemological perspectives in contemporary educational research proses challenges for the faculty of doctoral programs striving to prepare the next generation of educational researchers. In this paper, I use Wenger`s (1998) concept of community of practice to explore strategies for preparing doctoral students at research universities for epistemological diversity in their developing practices of educational research. I argue that the preparation of educational researchers in researh-intensive universities largely takes place within local communities of research practice that are smaller than the faculty of a particular school of education, let alone a large, heterogeneous organization such as AERA. However, because doctoral students engage with and are accountable to a relatively small number of faculty and other students, they are unlikely to develop first-hand understanding of diverse epistemological perspectives. Drawing on the community of practice concept, I suggest a number of practical recommendations for preparing such novice researchers for epistemological diversity. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 12-17 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This article reflects on the author`s experience in leading an interdisciplinary seminar that draws together doctoral students who are preparing for careers in educational research in diverse departments across a large School of Education. The article details the work of the seminar and changes in its design as the faculty gained experience. The seminar presents a common underlying structure in a broad range of social scientific educational research, while also exploring very different tacit assumptions brought that model by different research traditions. The author explores the faculty`s intentions, the students responses, and pedagogical lessons about education for interdisciplinary fluency that may be drawn from three years of experience with the seminar. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Lauren Jones Young, Mary Haywood Metz, Aaron M. Pallas, Reba N. Page |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-5 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Can prospective scholars be prepared to appreciate and learn from the presence of epistemological controversy and diverse perspectives? How might graduate programs in education develop researchers who have the capacity to appreciate and perhaps use multiple perspectives and methodologies? Given the finite amount of time in graduate school, and students` needs to (a) become expert enough in a given domain/method to say something new and different, and (b) be able to make a thoughful match between research problem and perspective/methodology, how should we organize research preparation in doctoral study, and to what end? Is it even realistic to consider preparing researchers to use multiple methodologies and to work from different perspectives? |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Glassman, Michael |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-13 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | John Dewey and L.S. Vygotsky share similar ideas concerning the relationship of activity and learning/development, especially the roles everyday activities and social environment play in the educational process. However, the two theorists are far apart in their conception of the relationship between process and goals in education. Dewey concentrates on means in education,believing that it is the ability of the individual to question through experience that is most important for the human community. Vigotsky, while recognizing the importance of (especially cultural) process in education, sees social and cultural goals as being integrated into social pedagogy. This paper compares Dewey and Vygotsky on three key points that relate directly to educational process and goals. First, the two theorists are compared on the role of social history and the tools it produces. Dewey sees social history as creating a set of malleable tools that are of use in present circumstances. Vygotsky believes that tools developed through history have a far more lasting impact on the social community. Second, the two theorists are compared in their conceptualizations of experience/culture. Dewey sees experience as helping to form thinking, whereas Vygotsky, in his cultural historical theory, posits culture as raw material of thinking. Third, the two theorists are compared on their perspectives on human inquiry. Dewey sees the child as a free agent who achieves goals through her own interest in the activity. Vygotsky suggests there should be greater control by a mentor who creates activity that will lead the child towards mastery. These differences are then explored in terms of how they might impact actual classroom strategies and curriculum. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-12 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | What could it mean educators within the ``core disciplines`` to teach in ways that challenge multiple forms of oppression? This article explores the implications of various ``posts`` perspective on anti-oppressive education-especially poststructuralist perspectives-for social studies, English, Mathematics, and science classrooms. The author focuse on two main theoritical constructs: unknowability, multiplicity, and looking beyond the known; and resistance, crisis, and resignifying the self. Implications for teacher education conclude the article. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 23-28 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Bullough, Robert V., Stefinne Pinnegar, Spillane, James P., Richard Halverson, John B. Diamond, Kevin K. Kumashiro |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 13-21 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The authors situate the origins of self-study in four developments within education: the growing prominence of naturalistic inquiry methods, the rise of the Reconceptualist movement in curriculum studies, the increased involvement of international scholars in teacher education research, and the re-emergence of action research and its variations. They focus on autobiography and correspondence (e-mail, letters, recorded conversations) not only because these are the dominant forms of self-study but because of the demands they present for producers and consumers. The work of C. Wright Mills (1959) is used to provide a framework for determining what makes a piece of self-study writing research. Mills argues that personal troubles cannot be solved as merely troubles, but must be understood in terms of public issues and history (p. 226). Insights are drawn from literary conventions. A set of guidelines are provided for consideration by self-study researchers in their quest for greater quality. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 3-13 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | A substantial proportion of quantitative educational research is nonexperimental because many important variables of interest are not manipulable. Because nonexperimental research is an important methodology employed by many researchers, it is important to use a classification system of nonexperimental methods that is highly descriptive of what we do and also allows us to communicate effectively in an interdisciplinary research environment. In this paper, the present treatment of nonexperimental methods is reviewed and critiqued, and new, two-dimensional classification of nonexperimental quantitative research is proposed. The first dimension is based on the primary ``research objective`` (i.e., description, prediction, and explanation), and the second dimension is called the ``time`` dimension (i.e., cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective) . |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 15-25 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This essay examines the ontological and epistemological foundations of Paulo Freire`s philosophy of praxis and critiques the structure of his argument. It outlines a more consistent historicist interpretation of liberation education that retains the liberatory power of modernism and its critique of dehumanization, recognizes the malleability and contradictions of identity, embraces epistemic uncertainties and the varieties of reason in knowledge, and respects the plural conceptions of the good which can shape moral and political life. Finally, the essay argues that this understanding of liberation education requires and ethics grounded in militant nonviolence. |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama