排序方式： 共有22条查询结果，搜索用时 27 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
Carl Bereiter 《学习科学杂志》2015,24(1):187-192
“Practicality Studies” (Janssen, Westbroek, & Doyle, 2015/this issue) starts with a critical commentary on “Principled Practical Knowledge: Not a Bridge but a Ladder” (Bereiter, 2014) but consists in the main of an essay on what the authors consider to be really practical knowledge for teachers. The gist of their criticism is that “Bereiter and with him a large part of the design research community in the learning sciences underestimate the magnitude of … usability issues and in fact believe that much of the task of usability is already solved by design research in the learning sciences” (p. 177). The authors argue persuasively for giving “practicality studies” a place in learning sciences research, but their subtitle—“How to Move From What Works in Principle to What Works in Practice”—claims too much and makes an invidious distinction. 相似文献
4.
Sixteen adult volunteers provided thinking-aloud protocols while undergoing a 10-hr individually administered course in BASIC (beginner's all-purpose symbolic instruction code) programming. Three levels of goals were identified as operative in the learning situation: task-completion goals, instructional goals, and personal knowledge-building goals. Although protocol statements indicating knowledge-building goals were infrequent, students exhibiting a relatively high proportion of them were distinctive in several ways. They did significantly better on a posttest. Their performance in goal cue selections differed from that of other participants in ways consistent with their orientation: They responded more often to learning goal cues than to task goal cues. They actively related new learning to prior knowledge and they posed and tried to solve problems and questions. Students oriented toward instructional goals tended to focus on what was explicitly taught. Students oriented toward task-completion goals tended to equate learning with successful completion of assigned tasks. Level of goal orientation and posttest performance were unrelated to level of education and prior computer experience but were positively related to previous experience of independent learning. 相似文献
5.
6.
Carl Bereiter 《Interchange》1970,1(1):25-32
Kohlberg's attempt to derive from cognitive-developmental theory the conclusion that specific instruction cannot contribute significantly to cognitive development is viewed as a category error, an attempt to set into opposition two concepts that are not of the same type. His distinctions of structural versus nonstructural, generalized versus situation-specific, and permanent versus impermanent behavior change are found to apply equally to changes resulting from instruction and natural behavior changes. It is suggested that a more educationally relevant distinction is one between developmental accomplishments that depend upon adult-child interaction and those that do not.
Résumé La tentative de Kohlberg visant à conclure, à partir de la théorie du développement cognitif, que l'enseignement spécifique ne peut pas contribuer de façon importante au développement cognitif, est considérée comme une erreur de catégorie dans ce sens que sa thèse cherche à mettre en opposition deux concepts d'ordre différent. En effet, les distinctions que Kohlberg approte entre le changement structural et non structural au niveau du comportement, généralisé et limité à un cas particulier, permanent et transitoire s'avèrent également applicables aux changements attribuables à l'enseignement et aux changements naturels du comportement. L'article suggère qu'une distinction plus pertinente du point de vue éducationnel est celle qu'on établit entre les réalisations du développement qui dépendent de l'action réciproque de l'adulte et de l'enfant et celles qui n'en dépendent pas.相似文献
7.
8.
9.
10.