全文获取类型
收费全文 | 164篇 |
免费 | 2篇 |
专业分类
教育 | 153篇 |
科学研究 | 3篇 |
体育 | 1篇 |
信息传播 | 9篇 |
出版年
2020年 | 3篇 |
2019年 | 5篇 |
2018年 | 6篇 |
2017年 | 11篇 |
2016年 | 6篇 |
2015年 | 3篇 |
2014年 | 3篇 |
2013年 | 29篇 |
2012年 | 7篇 |
2011年 | 2篇 |
2010年 | 5篇 |
2009年 | 4篇 |
2008年 | 5篇 |
2007年 | 6篇 |
2006年 | 6篇 |
2005年 | 4篇 |
2004年 | 5篇 |
2003年 | 4篇 |
2002年 | 3篇 |
2001年 | 1篇 |
2000年 | 3篇 |
1999年 | 4篇 |
1998年 | 1篇 |
1997年 | 5篇 |
1996年 | 6篇 |
1995年 | 5篇 |
1994年 | 1篇 |
1993年 | 2篇 |
1992年 | 3篇 |
1991年 | 1篇 |
1990年 | 2篇 |
1989年 | 1篇 |
1988年 | 2篇 |
1987年 | 1篇 |
1986年 | 4篇 |
1985年 | 3篇 |
1984年 | 1篇 |
1983年 | 1篇 |
1982年 | 1篇 |
1979年 | 1篇 |
排序方式: 共有166条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
31.
The article analyzes the concept of student cognitive engagement, and the manner in which classroom instruction may develop self‐regulated learners. Since theory and research on academic motivation, to date only vaguely define the role of learning processes, and since studies of learning strategies rarely assess motivational outcomes, our analysis integrates these two streams of literature. We also identify specific features of instruction and discuss how they might influence the complex of student interpretive processes focal to classroom learning and motivation. Measurement issues and research strategies peculiar to the investigation of cognitive engagement are addressed. 相似文献
32.
33.
34.
To study deception, participants were randomly assigned the role of allocator or recipient in an ultimatum negotiation game. Allocators “earned” 7 dollars and divided the money between themselves and recipient and communicated the decision either face-to-face or through text chat. Recipients were unaware the amount the allocator had, and therefore, allocators could deceive. Most allocators used deception. We hypothesized that participants who self-identified as good liars would communicate more face-to-face than through text chat when deceiving, and this was supported for deceptive omission but not fabrications. Good liars were more likely to have their truths correctly detected than bad liars. 相似文献
35.
It is impossible to consider contemporary science education in isolation from globalisation as the dominant logic, rethinking
and reconfiguring social and cultural life in which it is located. Carter (J Res Sci Teach 42, 561–580, 2005) calls for a close reading of policy documents, curriculum projects, research studies and a range of other science education
texts using key concepts from globalisation theory to elucidate the ways in which globalisation shapes and is expressed within
science education. In this paper, we consider an example from our own practice of a school-based curriculum project, Sustainable Living by the Bay, as one such instance. The first section reviews neoliberalism and neoconservativism necessary to understand how globalisation
penetrates education, while the second outlines aspects of the curriculum project itself. As there were many different facets
to the development and implementation of a project like Sustainable Living by the Bay, there is space only to elaborate two examples of the globalisation discourse. The first example concerns the government policy
initiative that funded the project while the second example focuses on learner- centred pedagogies as globalisation’s pedagogies
of choice. 相似文献
36.
37.
Information literacy, and other similar ‘literacies’, such as digital literacy, mediacy, and informacy, are concepts relating to knowledge, skills, and attitudes, at various levels, in dealing with information in varied formats and diverse situations. The breadth of scope of these concepts implies that training must be equally broad, varied, and context-sensitive. This is exemplified by two case studies of information and digital literacy training. The first is a training programme in information literacy for the scientific staff of a multinational pharmaceutical research organization. The second is a summer school dealing with digital literacy, primarily for information professionals from countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. 相似文献
38.
39.
40.
What is the difference between NAEP anchor levels and achievement levels? How are the processes different for creating these levels? What points of controversy surround use of these levels for reporting achievement? Will having standards for NAEP promote improvement of public education? 相似文献