| Nama Pengarang | : | Allan Odden, Magdalene Lampert, Clark, Christopher M. , Walberg, Herbert J., F. Michael Connelly, Clandinin, D. Jean, Robert E. Floden, Hans Gerhard Klinzing |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-29 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 13-16 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | In this response to McPeck`s reply to my paper, I briefly summarize my earlier essay, and make four major points: (a) that the vagueness of the concepts, domain, field, and subject, is a problem when subject specificity serves as a basis for prediction, though not necessarily when it serves as a slogan or a vague warning; (b) that the distinction between the subject matter of schools and the subject matter of everyday life is a viable one, though not the mutually exclusive one that McPeck seems to attribute to me; (c) that the distinction between topic and school subject serves to help avoid a tempting equivocation that starts with the premise that all thinking is about some subject; and (d) that ``relatively narrow`` general thinking abilities can be very broad in the range of their application, and that many, though perhaps obvious at times to some, are not trivial, because numerous people seem not to employ them in important situations. An underlying concern is McPeck`s apparent assumption that showing something (e.g., subject-matter knowledge) to be a necessary condition for critical thinking establishes that it is essentially a sufficient condition for critical thinking establishes that it is essentially a sufficient condition, or at least that all other things (e.g.,general abilities) are unimportant. There is yet much research to be done before the basic issues can be resolved: I hope that this conceptual clarification will facilitate this research. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 2-9 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | The proliferation of qualitative methods in educational research has led to considerable controversy about standards for the design and conduct of research. This controversy has been playing itself out over the last several decades largely in terms of the quantitative-qualitative debate. In this paper we argue that framing the issue of standards in terms of quatitative-qualitative debate is misquided. We argue instead that the problem of standards--for qualitative and quantitative research--is best framed in terms of the ``logics in use`` associated with various research methodologies. In particular, rather than being judged in terms of qualitative versus quantitative paradigms, logics in use, which are often drawn from other academic disciplines and adapted for the purposes of educational research, are judged in terms of their success in investigating educational problems deemed important. Finally, we proffer five general standards that can apply to educational research of all kinds. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 17-22 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 10-12 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | Robert Ennis` recent Educational Researcher article (1989) helps to clarify the troublesome notion of subject specificity in the growing literature on critical thinking. It brings a welcome breath of fresh air to a set of questions that has vexed research efforts and educational programs that attempt to promote critical thinking. In calling for clarification on this matter, Ennis has also raised the level of discussion about the meaning of the terms subjects, domains, and even psychological transfer. No longer can we simply gloss over questions about the precise scope and limits of the putative skills that various critical thinking programs are alleged to promote. The recent paper in this journal by Perkins and Salomon (1989) also provides a useful historical overview of just how vexing this problem has been over the past 30 years. This article both replies to Ennis and continues the discussion. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | Arthur E. Wise, John E. McPeck, Willis D. Hawley, Margaret Eisenhart, Kenneth Howe, Ennis, Robert H. |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 22-25 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 24-28 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 28-29 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 8-13 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | As computers are acquired in greater numbers in schools, their impact on the social organization of instruction increasingly becomes an issue for research. Developments in the cognitive science of instruction, drawing on the sociohistorical theory, provide researchers with an appropriate theoretical approach to cultural tools and cognitive change, while developments in the technology of computer-supported cooperative work provide researchers with models for organizational impact outside of education. The concept of a formative experiment in which schools are supported in the appropriation of new technology is illustrated by a project that implements local area network technology in an elementary school. The concept of appropriation derived from sociohistorical theory highlights how schools can make use of technology for goals not anticipated by the researcher. |
| Nama Pengarang | : | - |
| Nama Majalah/Jurnal | : | Educational Researcher |
| Volume / Nomor Edisi | : | - |
| Nomor Halaman | : | 30-34 |
| Abstraksi Narasi | : | - |
Unduh Dokumen Berkas PDF Utama