| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-32 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In the past few years, it has been argued that the international assessments are seriously flawed by sampling and test bias and that conclusions about U.S. educational inferiority are unwarranted. Alternatively, it has been argued that the differences in national performances are related to cultural differences, institutional arrangements such as curriculum and length of the school year, and ineffective pedagogy. To clarify these issues, I review the history of the assesments and evaluate the major explanations of the achievement differences. I examine, in depth, the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of curriculum-centered explanations because of their relevance to school reform (Westbury, 1992, 1993). |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 21-23 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Rosalind Driver ...[et al.], Carl Bereiter, Lawrence C. Stedman, Peter Doolittle, Marilyn Halpern, Lawrence M. Rudner, Stanovich, Keith E., Cobb, Paul |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 5-12 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The view that knowledge cannot be transmitted but must be constructed by the mental activity of learners underpins contemporary perspectives on science education. This article, which presents a theoretical perspective on teaching and learning science in the social setting of classrooms, is informed by a view of scientific knowledge as socially constructed and by a perspective on the learning of science as knowledge construction involving both individual and social processes. First, we present an overview of the nature of scientific knowledge. We then describe two major traditions in explaining the process of learning science: personal and social constructivism. finally, we illustrate how both personal and social perspectives on learning, as well as perspectives on the nature of the scientific knowledge to be learned, are necessary in interpreting science learning in formal settings. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 18-21 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Random samples of 50 articles each were selected from the education and health sciences literatures to compare their use of quantitative evidence. while proportionally fewer articles from articles from the educational literature cited quantitative evidence in support of research questions and conclusions, the study designs and approaches to analysis represented by these samples were similar. Our results do not provide convincing evidence to support the idea taht educational research is somehow less "rigorous" than that of the health sciences. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 4-17, 21 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Educational researchers frequently compare teachers` work with work performed in other occupations. In this article, I discuss the promises and pitfalls of this type of analysis. Usind data from The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991), I examine the nature of teachers` work and compare teaching with the work performed in other occupations. On the basis of this analysis, I conclude that teaching is a complex form of work that requires high levels of formal knowledge for successful performance. I also argue that the professional status of teaching is closely tied to the complexity of teachers` work and that educational reforms intended to further professionalize the occupation of teaching can succeed only to the extent that they make teachers` work even more complex than it currently is. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Ursula Casanova, Rowan, Brian , William Pickett, Donald F. Burrill |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 22-28 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Editor`s note: Assistant secretary of Education for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement Sharon Robinson agreed to be interviewed on April 6, 1994, while she was in New Orleans attending the Annual Meeting of AERA. Ursula Casanova, News and Comment editors, was the interviewer. The interview was taped and later transcribed. The assistant secretary revieewed the transcription and provided some revisions and clarifications. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 32-33 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 27-32 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 19-26 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | during the past half century, three pronounced trends in state policy have occurred: districts and schools have dramatically risen in enrollments; states have steadily raised their share of revenues for public schools; and local shares have declined. Yet organization theory and evidence suggest that these trends would make public education less efficient. This hypothesis is tested in 38 states that voluntarily cooperated in administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics examination to random within-state samples of eighth-grade students. Both correlations and regressions (controlling for per-student expenditures and student demographics) show that achievement is inversely related to both size indexes and state funding share. Achievement is inversely but insignificantly related to per-student funding. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 5-10 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | This article explores two forms of research on practice: formal research and practical inquiry. formal research is undertaken by researchers and practitioners to contribute to an established and general knowledge base. Practical inquiry is undertaken by practitioners to improve their practice. It is suggestted that practical inquiry is more likely than formal research to lead to immediate classroom change; that these two forms of research are fundamentally different: and that both are useful to practice, but in different ways. |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama