| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4-17 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Current debate in education on the role of individual and social factors in development often presents Piaget as giving primacy to individual cognitive processes in contrast to Vygotsky`s view of the primacy of social and cultural factors. It has even become popular to say that Piaget`s child is a solitary scientist constructing knowledge apart from the social context. This view is in error. To counter the often inaccurate assumptions, piaget social theory is summarized, including an account of this consideration of the relations between the individual and the social insociomoral, affective, and intellectual development. His emphasis on the role of norms in development is discussed. Piaget`s view of the identify of cognitive operatiuonns and co-operations is explained with examples. Issues related to Piaget`s social theory are raised. The co-operative context favoring operational development is discussed in terms of five general principles of teaching that apply to all levels of education. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Hiebert, James et al, Rheta DeVries, Richard S. Prawat, John P. Smith, III, Owston, Ronald D. , Robert Donmoyer |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-26 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| 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 | : | 30-32 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 5-17 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1966) contested four propositions that they incorrectly called ``claims of situated learning.`` This response argues that the important differences between situative and cognitive perspectives are not addressed by discussion of these imputed claims. Instead, there are significant differences in the framing assumptions of the two perspectives. I clarify these differences by inferring questions to which Anderson et al.`s discussion provided answer, by identifying presuppositions of those questions made by Anderson et al., and by stating the different presuppositions and questions that I believe are consistent with the situative perspective. The evidence given by Anderson et al. is compatible with the framing assumptions of situativity; therefore, deciding between the perspectives will involve broader considerations than those presented in their article. These considerations include expectations about which framework offers the better prospect for developing a unified scientific account of activity considered from both social and individual points of view, and which framework supports research that will inform discussion of educational practice more productively. The cognitive perspective takes the theory of individual cognition as its basis and builds toward a broader theory by incrementally developing analyses of additional components that are considered as contexts. The situative perspective takes the theory of social and ecological interaction as its basis and builds toward a more comprehensive theory by developing increasingly detailed analyses of information structures in the contents of people`s interactions. While I believe that the situative framework is more promising, the best strategy for the field is for both perspectives to be developed energetically. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 28-30 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Slavin, Robert E., Stephen P. Heyneman, James G.Greeno, Ronald A. Berk, Simon, Herbert A., Anderson, John R., Reder, Lynne M., Robert Donmoyer |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 22-28 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-27 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In 1992, the Committee on the Role and Status of Women in Educational Research and Development began a study of the AERA annual meeting proposal review process. The study investigated two aspects of the process: the proposal review materials used by divisions and SIGs and comments made by receivwers from one division. We learned that (a) most of the divisions and SIGs use just one proposal review fro, regardless of the type of session proposed; (b) the dimensions used to evaluate the proposals are remarkably similar across divisions and SIGs; (c) rating scales for the evaluation dimensions differ across divisions and SIGs, but in each case, reviewers are called upon to use their professional judgment to interpret the meanings of the rating scale points; (d) in most of the proposal evaluation materials there is little guidance for receiwers regarding how to interpret the various evaluation dimensions or rating scales or how to write constructive reviews; and (e) proposal reviews differ in breadth, depth, and educational value. This article offers recommendations for improving the proposal review process. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 15-17 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama