| Nama Pengarang | : | Linn, Marcia C, Lawrence Muilenburg, David F. Labaree, Aaron M. Pallas, David F. Labaree, Aaron M. Pallas, Frank B. Murray, Judith Davidson Wasser, Liora Bresler |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 18-24 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Recently published standards for science, mathematics, history, and other fields challenge educators to design instruction that sets in motion a lifelong habit of learning. Creating lifelong learners requires the redesign of instruction to ensure that students have a generative understanding and an inclination to progressively refine their ideas. We discuss research on middle-school science learning and instruction that suggests how generative models of scientific phenomena can be developed, and we offer a framework for curriculum reform. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 23-27 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Editor`s note: Inspired by ``videoconferencing On-Line,`` my family tried an on-line video conference to connect our University of Chiago daughter with a family party in California. With the author`s advice and technical assistance from computer jock relatives, it worked! I`m looking forward to using it professionally as well as perdonally. |
| 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 | : | 5-11 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This paper provides a review of the claims of situated learning that are having an increasing influence on education generally and mathematics education particularly. We review the four central claims of situated learning with respect to education: (1) action is gounded in the concrete situation in which it occurs; (2) knowledge does not transfer between task; (3) training by abstraction is of little use; and (4) instruction must be done in complex, social environments. In each case, we cite empirical literature to show that the claims are overstated and that some of the educational implications that have been taken from these claims are misguided. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Hiebert, James et al, Simon, Herbert A., Anderson, John R., Reder, Lynne M., Robert Donmoyer, David M. Fetterman |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 12-21 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | We argue that reform in curriculum and instruction should be based on allowing students to problematize the subject. Rather than mastering skills and applying them, students should be engaged in resolving problems. In mathematics, this principle fits under the umbrella of problem solving, but our interpretation is different from many problem-solving approaches. We first note that the history of problem solving in the curriculum has been infused with a distinction between acquiring knowledge and applying it. We then propose our alternative principle by building on John Dewey`s idea of ``reflective inquiry,`` argue that such an approach would facilitate students` understanding, and compare our proposals with other views on the role of problem solving in the curriculum. We close by considering several common dichotomies that take on a different meaning from this perspective. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 17-22 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | During the 20th century, scholarly thinking has been dominated by a strong inequality between theory and practice. Abstract knowledge was considered to be of a higher standing and of more value than concrete skills of the tacit knowledge of good performance. Much of the educational research concentrated on theory formation, both desriptive, for explanation,and perspective, for behavioral instructions. Consequently, educationalists in different subjects and professions were confronted with the problem of bridging the gap between theory and practice, a task that never seemed to succeed. During the past few decades, this problem has been analyzed in such different fields as education (Schoen, Fenstermacher), anthropology (Geertz), epistemology (Rorty, Toulmin, Lyotard), and ethics (Nussbaum). In different ways, these scholars developed alternative models of knowledge. For the justification of such alternative models, several authors, especially in the philosophical domain, referred to the classical controversy between Plato`s and Aristotle`s conceptions of rationality (episteme versus phronesis). In this article, the characteristics of these different types of rationality are discussed, as are the consequences for teacher education of the shift from episteme to phronesis. A revaluation of practical knowledge will be proposed, as well as an alternative view of the relationship between theory and practice. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-30 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 31-36 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In this commentary, we outline two responses to the question of why educational innovations come and go with such regulalarity. The first response we term ``Doing What We Know.`` This explanation relates to educators` tendency to focus on issues that are relatively familiar, easier to communicate, and seemingly more controllable than those that are perhaps more fundamental to the difficulties characteristic of teaching and learning. The second response we foforward pertains to educators` rather limited knowledge of the people, movements, and writings that underlie many recurring innovations. It is argued that paucity of knowledge contributes to potentially superficial implementation of highly touted innovations, as well as to a general inability to tap into the roots of these educational innovations. In as much as this is the case, it is much more likely that those responsible for the construction or implementation of such innovations may overlook the rich histories that can inform and enhance current educational practice. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | N. L. Gage, Robert Donmoyer, Patricia A. Alexander, Murphy, P. Karen, Bradford S. Woods, F. Michael Connelly, Clandinin, D. Jean, Jos P.A. Kessels, Fred A.J. Korthagen |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 5-15 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In recent decades, influential counsels of despair have asserted that the behavioral sciences, including much educational research, have failed to produce long-lasting generalizations. The failure, they say, is due to cultural and historical relativism and interaction effects. But those counsels rest more on logical possibilities than on empirical actualities. They depend on questionable assumptions about the spread and influence of knowledge, they involve contradictions, and they overemphasize the importance of interaction effects. In the last 20 years, moreover, meta-analysis has yielded knowledge concerning the impressive magnitude, consistency, and validity across contexts of many generalizations in the behavioral sciences and promising methods for quantifying and analyzing the generalizability of research results. These arguments, findings, and methods justify mitigating the despair and continuing the effort to build sciences of behavior. |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama