Who are we and where are we going?

The first part of this paper introduces a method for identifying the major patterns or trends of an institution. This method rests upon the identification of concrete decisions which are perceived as highly significant by individuals representing various segments of an institution. In the second part of the paper the method is applied to a recently established graduate school and research and development center. Five major institutional patterns which have characterized the development of this institution are identified and discussed: 1) democratization, 2) centralization of decision-making over research and development funds, 3) legitimation of development and implementation activities, 4) growth, and 5) entrenchment.Finally, the relevance of the findings is discussed in reference to all institutions of higher education; institutions which are faced with demands for broader participation on the one hand and increasing accountability on the other.The study upon which this paper is based was funded by the Research and Development Review Board, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Thanks are also due to Professors John Holland and Michael Skolnik for many valuable suggestions.     

Teachers and science curriculum materials: where we are and where we need to go

Curriculum materials serve as a key conceptual tool for science teachers, and better understanding how science teachers use these tools could help to improve both curriculum design and theory related to teacher learning and decision-making. The authors review the literature on teachers and science curriculum materials. The review is organised around three main questions: What do teachers do when using science curriculum materials?, What happens when teachers use science curriculum materials? and Why do teachers make the decisions they do? For each question, the authors first summarise the findings of two key reviews from the mathematics education literature, then situate the findings from science education in juxtaposition with those findings. The review uncovers that relatively little is understood about the mechanism underlying how teachers interact with curriculum materials. To try to address this gap, complementing and extending the field’s existing understandings of the teacher–curriculum relationship, the authors make four propositions, grounded in the literature on self-regulation. The propositions reflect a mechanism for teacher curricular decision-making. The self-regulation perspective also helps to develop more targeted support for science teachers aimed at the uptake, adaptation and enactment of curriculum materials in ways that are intended, and that teachers themselves experience as an improvement in their teaching. The authors conclude with a call for research that further explores the ways in which individual science teachers’ decision-making is situated within the wider sociocultural context.     

Self-regulated learning: where we are today

Self-regulated learning has emerged as an important new construct in education. Our understanding of self-regulated learning has been informed by three schools of thought: (1) research on learning styles, (2) research on metacognition and regulation styles, and (3) theories of the self, including goal-directed behavior. Based on these schools of thought, a three-layer model is presented. The innermost layer pertains to regulation of the processing modes. The middle layer represents regulation of the learning process. The outermost layer concerns regulation of the self. Educators and researchers would benefit from an integration of these three frames of reference into a comprehensive model of self-regulated learning.     

Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: a roadmap of where we are,how we got here,and where we are going

We have known for a long time that a relationship exists between how learning is assessed and the learning processes and strategies students employ when engaged in those assessments. Black and Wiliam pointed out in 1998 that self-regulated learning should be a primary goal of formative assessment (FA). Since then, a growing body of research on this relationship has been produced. The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss keystone publications that inform our current understandings of the relationship between FA and self-regulated learning. The result is a roadmap of the development of the field and directions for future research.     

Implications of social network sites for teaching and learning. Where we are and where we want to go

This conceptual paper deals with some of the implications that the use of social network sites, though not originally developed and conceived for learning purposes, have for schools and academic activities when they are used as tools able to modify and innovate teaching/learning practices and academic culture. Beside the differences that characterize the two contexts, the attention that social network tools are progressively gaining in schools and higher education practices and pedagogies requires adjustments in learning and teaching that should be constantly considered by educators and policy makers. These environments are also presenting new and crucial opportunities for teacher training and teachers’ professional development. The purpose of the study is to reflect on some significant challenges and opportunities offered by social network sites, and how to exploit the latter, in relation to a number of themes. These themes have been identified as those that deserve better comprehension and further research investigation: communication between students and teachers and appropriate professional behaviours; pedagogical and technological challenges related to incorporating social networking practices into teaching and academic practices; how social networking can be exploited for teachers’ professional training and development. The study also provides some implications for policy and practice.     

Does media affect learning: where are we now?

TechTrends - A careful review of the arguments and counter arguments presented by Clark (1983; 1994) and Kozma (1991; 1994), responses published in the past 20 years (Jonassen, Campbell &...     

Does media affect learning: where are we now?

Conclusion A careful review of the arguments and counter arguments presented by Clark (1983; 1994) and Kozma (1991; 1994), responses published in the past 20 years (Jonassen, Campbell & Davidson, 1994; Morrison, 1994; Reiser, 1994; Shrock, 1994) and existing instructional design literature (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2001; Reiser & Dick, 1996; Smith & Ragan, 1999) indicates there is, and always has been, significantly more agreement on this subject than the debate would indicate. Clark never said that a textbook could deliver an instructional method requiring the use of a 3-dimensional graphic representation as effectively as a computer, nor did Kozma maintain that the computer was the only medium with the capabilities to do so. Both acknowledged that the two instructional components — the instructional methods and the delivery medium — must be aligned to facilitate learning. The debate is, and always has been, about the ability of more than one medium to support a selected instructional method, whether or not any given medium has capabilities that cannot be replicated by another medium, and the validity of the research. We believe that today, in 2005: • Computers are capable of supporting instructional methods that other media are not • Computers, by means of their unique capabilities, affect learning • Computers are often the most cost-effective, efficient delivery method for any given unit of instruction We also: • Acknowledge the limitations of media comparison studies • Acknowledge the need to align the message, the medium and the learning task • Agree that some media are interchangeable and • Support the use of the most cost-effective, efficient delivery method for any given unit of instruction We believe that after 22 years it is time to reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning. We agree that media comparison studies are inherently flawed and support the argument that we must identify research designs that will provide answers to this question in significantly less time.     

Evaluating teaching effectiveness and teaching improvement: A language for institutional policies and academic development practices

Demands for institutional accountability in higher education have been increasing and have led to greater attention to the evaluation of teaching, the assumption being that improved teaching will result in enhanced learning. In our work as academic developers, we are increasingly helping academic managers make explicit teaching policies and practices that seem fair and equitable. To help us in this work, we have developed a framework for evaluating the practice of teaching. What is unique about this framework is the language it provides to differentiate aspects of teaching. For instance, it provides a basis for differentiating and linking criteria to standards, i.e. the level of achievement desired or expected. Standards are critical if the evaluation of teaching is to be seen as fair and equitable, yet they are often unexamined in other representations of the evaluation of teaching. Although the original intent of our efforts was to provide a framework for academic managers, we have come to find it useful in our own work as university teachers and as academic developers. Examples of all three uses are provided in the paper.     

How should we use student ratings to evaluate teaching?

The proper use of student ratings to evaluate teaching is the subject matter of this paper. In particular, two divergent views are contrasted: the multidimensional view of evaluation and the unidimensional. Marsh (Int. J. Ed. Res., 1987, v.11, pp. 253–388) is the most outspoken advocate of the multidimensional view of evaluation based on factor scores. Because we disagree over such an important use of ratings, I explain the position I have adopted, summarize Marsh's most recent position, and respond to his concerns.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April, 1988.     

Personalized learning and ESSA: What we know and where we go

Abstract

The passage of the 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), affords states funding for many new options to address the needs of learners. One of the prominent options is personalized learning (PL). This study sought to determine how states positioned PL in their state plans. This study used a qualitative research design to analyze state ESSA plans for presence of and relation to PL. From this analysis, four themes emerged, (a) definitions of PL, (b) goals of PL for students, (c) supports for PL, and (d) partnership for PL. The findings from this study suggested that many states contain aspects of PL in their state plans; however, there is little consensus of how to best implement PL. This article reported on these findings as well as offered guidance to policymakers and state departments of education on how to operationalize and implement PL.     

多媒体技术提升医学英语教学效果及需要注意的问题

本文阐述了多媒体教学手段辅助医学英语教学的优势和多媒体进行医学英语教学时应注意的问题。目的在于帮助医学英语教师认识到只有科学合理地使用多媒体辅助教学手段,才能更好地满足信息时代医学英语教学的要求,提高医学英语教学质量和教学效果。     

探究性教学的应然走向

探究性学习作为一种学习方式有着与众不同的实践价值取向；主体作用重儿童的自主性，学习过程重学生在生活世界的过程体验和感悟，学习结果既重知识的获得又重精神的培养。探究性教学是基于探究性学习方式的教学，与此相应，探究性教学理应走向：知识获得同时的科学技能掌握、科学精神和情感培养的教学目的．教学生活化的过程取向，多维的评价方式。     

教师角色转换——多媒体教学的必然与应然

多媒体教学以其诸多的优越性成为现代课堂教学的一种趋势。这对传统的教育观念、教学模式产生了深刻的影响，尤其对传统的教师角色产生了强烈的冲击。因此，在更高层次上确立日趋多元的教师角色观是多媒体教学的必然与应然。     

专题式教学——我院思政理论课教学模式的应然选择

针对传统教学模式出现的利弊分析,试从专题教学的角度展开对我院思政理论课改革进行思考和探讨,希望通过专题教学模式实现教师个人成长和学生全面、健康发展的双赢效果。     

双语教学要把好三关

从与时俱进地增强人才培养的社会满意度,提高人才就业的受欢迎程度和为社会服务的角度出发,北京工业大学认真贯彻教育部和北京市教委有关实施意见的精神,从2002年4月开始,在学科基础课和专业课中进行了双语教学的改革实践,对如何搞好双语教学进行了积极的探索。我们的主要体会是,双语教学一定要把好三关。把好教师关我校本着双语教师应该业务能力和外语能力均强这一标准,在教师方面重点抓了以下三项工作。第一是双语课程立项。我们按照申报教师应具备的条件,并结合已往专家和学生对教师的课堂教学评价,考查教师对课程内容的掌握、授课的经验…