| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-27 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | School reform advocates have argued that ``authentic`` classroom assessments are complex performances or exhibitions that ``are designed to be trully representative of performance in the field.`` The use of ``authentic`` implies that such assessments are superior to more conventional assessments. However, proponents of ``authentic`` assessment rarely present data, evidential or consequential, in support of the validity of ``authentic`` assessments. Further, as typically conceived, ``authenticity`` denigrates the importance of knowledge and basic skills as legitimate educational outcomes despite substantial evidence to the contrary. It is suggested that ``authentic`` be discontinued in future scholarly discussions of classroom assessment. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | John T. Bruer, James Terwilliger, Tierney, William G. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4-16 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 12-18 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 2 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4-11 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In 1990, in the pages of Educational Researcher, McKenna, Robinson, and Miller and Edelsky engaged in an intensely argued debate over the research on language instruction. In this article, I revisit this important exchange because it remains the most important starting point we have for an attempt to characterize and clarify what is behind the increasing fragmentation of the educational research community. My claim is that the balkanization of our profession is a result of people engaging different vocabularies to tell different stories about research and the work of researchers. In examining this claim, I also examine what happened with the different vocabularies used to discuss qualitative research over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s. Finally, I end with a brief comment about what the proliferation of different vocabularies and different stories might mean for our profession. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 21-26 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In this comment, we propose some modifications to Thompson`s (1996) recent suggestions for AERA editorial policy on statistical significance testing. First, we discuss the potential problems, both procedural and conceptual, that could arise from professional journals mandating the addition of the modifier ``statistically`` to ``signifcant.`` If language remains an issue of consequence, however, findings stemming from rejected null hypotheses could be termed ``nonhance`` to communicate simply and more precisely what it is that a statistical test reveals. Second, although asking authors to provide explicit effect-size information is both sensible and useful, we illustrate how effect sizes (like p values) can be missinterpreted and misused. Finally, in accord with Thompson, we argue that greater attention to replication should be encouraged in educational research. At the same time, we believe that internal replication analyses do not represent adequate substitutes for (or even close approximations to) external replication studies based on new, independent participants. With journals welcoming both construted and literal replication studies, consumers of the educational research literature can concrete less on the limited believability of one-time findings and more on the enhanced believability of repeatable and generalizable ones. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Thompson, Bruce, Joel R. Levin, Robinson, Daniel H. , John K. Smith, Robert Donmoyer, David C. Berliner et al |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 29-32 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In this response to Robinson and Levin`s comments on Thompson (1996), it is argued that describing results as ``significant`` rather than ``statistically significant`` is confusing to those persons most susceptible to misinterpreting this telegraphic wording. Contrary to Robinson and Levin`s view, it is noted that the utility of the characterization of results as being due to ``nonhance`` is limited by the nature of the null hypothesis assumed to be true. It is suggested that effect sizes are important to interpret, even though they too can be misinterpreted; recent empirical studies of publications indicate that effect sizes are still too rarely reported. Finally, the value of ``external`` replicability analyses is acknowledged, but it is argued that ``internal`` replicability analyses can also be useful, and certainly are superior to statistical significance tests regarding evaluating result replicability, because statistical significance tests do not evaluate replicability. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 18-21 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 2 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4-16 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama