Letters |
| |
| Authors: | Richard E Clark |
| |
| Institution: | (1) University of Southern California, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Conclusions One of the things particularly disturbing about managing our doctoral programs is the growing realization that our professionals
must be more highly trained than those working in the traditional social or physical sciences. It takes longer (and I suspect
it is more difficult) to produce the hybrid professional capable of and committed to contributing to educational practice.
Our students must be as knowledgeable as the doctoral candidate in (for example) psychology and in addition must acquire a
set of skills that deal with enhancing practice in a great variety of settings. It also is disturbing to realize that our
doctoral students probably won’t acquire this capability unless faculty members begin to model the skills and approaches they
expect their students to acquire.
I have consciously ignored a number of areas (curriculum, focus for courses and assessment, and delineation of desirable competencies
and performances). At the moment my concern is to communicate my strong belief that we must grow away from the training of
people primarily concerned with technical skills in developing instruction, evaluating programs, managing resource centers,
and producing films and television programs and focus on the training of people skilled in inquiring about problems and their
solutions. Presumably these people would be able to arrive at some solutions that would be useful regardless of their career
choices—research, development, production, and/or administration. All student activities involving the actual development
of instruction should be conducted in an atmosphere of constant inquiry and critical discussion of the usefulness of the concepts
being acquired and the process being employed. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
