This is a preview. Log in through your library. Show
Abstract Recent criticisms of process-product research on teaching have attacked its conceptualization, methodology, productivity, and interpretation-application. These 4 kinds of criticism are reviewed and evaluated. Conceptual criticisms refer to the treatment of teachers' intentions, the context of teaching, the normative character of teaching, the conception of causality, and theory. Methodological criticisms bear upon plausibility, predetermined coding categories, ignoring of content, the role of cognitive mediation, the need for experiments, and quality of outcome measures. Criticisms of productivity concern the yield in understanding (theory), predictive power, and control (improvement) of teaching. Criticisms of interpretation-application relate to the use of meta-analysis and the conversion of findings into rules for teaching. Whether the criticisms apply to the essence or the accidents (incidental features) of process-product research provides an overall basis for evaluating the criticisms. Finally, an agenda for such research is outlined. Journal Information Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.The Elementary School Journal has served researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners in the elementary and middle school education for over one hundred years. ESJ publishes peer-reviewed articles dealing with both education theory and research and their implications for teaching practice. In addition, ESJ presents articles that relate the latest research in child development, cognitive psychology, and sociology to school learning and teaching. Publisher Information Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR
Collection. This is a preview. Log in through your library. Abstract Teacher-student interaction patterns in 12 third-grade mainstreamed classrooms were observed with four groups of students: (1) nonhandicapped high achievers, (2) nonhandicapped low achievers, (3) learning disabled, and (4) behaviorally handicapped. Teacher-student interaction was defined using 16 dependent measures derived from the Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System. Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance procedures demonstrated that statistically the groups were significantly different on 8 of the 16 dependent measures. Although the behaviorally handicapped students were treated differently by their regular classroom teachers more frequently than students in the other three groups, no group was given consistent preferential treatment. Most student initiations were nonacademic, and almost one-half of teachers' feedback and initiations were nonacademic. Furthermore, teachers used more disapproving than positive feedback. The results indicate a need for teachers in mainstreamed classrooms to devote more time to academic tasks and to use better classroom management techniques. Journal Information American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) has as its purpose to publish original empirical and theoretical studies and analyses in education. The editors seek to publish articles from a wide variety of academic disciplines and substantive fields. They are looking for contributions that are significant to the understanding and/or improvement of educational processes and outcomes. Publisher Information The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results. AERA is the most prominent international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application. Its 20,000 members are educators; administrators; directors of research, testing or evaluation in federal, state and local agencies; counselors; evaluators; graduate students; and behavioral scientists. The broad range of disciplines represented by the membership includes education, psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Which one of the following strategies is appropriate regarding the use of seat work?What strategy is appropriate regarding the use of seatwork? - Seatwork should be counted as part of the course grade.
What level of Bloom's taxonomy is most difficult to measure with multiple choice tests?It is often thought that multiple choice questions will only test on the first two levels of Bloom's Taxonomy: remembering and understanding. However, the resources point out that multiple choice questions can be written for the higher levels: applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
What is the purpose of the paraphrase rule?Paraphrasing is a way of using different words and phrasing to present the same ideas. Paraphrasing is used with short sections of text, such as phrases and sentences. A paraphrase offers an alternative to using direct quotations and allows you to integrate evidence/source material into assignments.
In what type of situation would it be most desirable for a teacher to use the lecture approach?Lecture seems well suited to situations in which objectives emphasize low-level cognitive objectives (understanding or comprehension) and affective objectives (valuing or becoming interested in material).
|
A frequent criticism of seatwork as a classroom learning strategy is that it
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 decemle Inc.
