对日趋严重的剽窃问题和正确使用科学引用的讨论

在几乎所有的发达国家，高中和大学教师发现学生从书籍和互联网摘抄资料而不注明出处的现象显著增加。剽窃是作者把别人的文字和或者思想据为已有的现象。尽管生物学教师反复告诫学生不要剽窃，可是剽窃现象依然有增无减。产生这种现象的原因可能是文字很容易从互联网上粘贴过来。这种剽窃有时被称作“科技促成便捷剽窃”，或者称作“粘贴复制剽窃”。     

Five years of strategic environmental assessment efforts at a research university: A case study of an organizational innovation

This study examined the emergence and subsequent five-year history of environmental scanning at a large research university. Proponents of strategic approaches to management in organizations usually recommend environmental scanning as a necessary support for effective decision making. The technique seeks to build systematic understanding of the external environment of the organization, via ongoing reconnaissance of relevant developments in technology, the economy, the political and legal arenas, and the larger society. Scanning's fit with educational organizations may be problematic, however. Over time, scanning efforts on the campus studied here became less theory-based and less centralized, and scanning failed to become an institutionalized innovation. The difficulties in institutionalizing scanning are traced to six factors: limitations posed by organizational structure, an absence of powerful champions, constraints from the organizational culture, the existence of a policy vacuum surrounding scanning efforts, the daunting demands of such efforts themselves, and questionable articulation with the fundamental goals and mission of the institution. The analysis suggests that the generic scanning model seems unlikely to win acceptance in research universities without substantial modification.His research and his teaching focus upon organization and policy in higher education. Among his current research projects are an investigation of the changing demography of the professoriate and a study of the effects of the ongoing centralization of higher-education governance at the state level in the U.S. His Ph.D. is from Stanford University.His primary focus is assisting academic disciplines and institutions in developing ecologically sensitive curricula and sustainable practices.He received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.     

Flexible coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates: How effective is the teaching and learning?

The educational implications of non-traditional delivery methods atpostgraduate level are not yet well understood. A major question is whetheradvantages of access and flexibility are accompanied by trade-offs inlearning experiences and outcomes. In this paper we address the effectivenessof delivery methods currently used in postgraduate coursework programs inAustralia. We draw heavily on a national study of flexible delivery methodsin postgraduate education, conducted in 1995.Following a nation-wide survey, we investigated the effects of deliverytechnologies on learning and teaching in seven postgraduate courses.Information was collected, mostly by taped interview, from staff andstudents, and also from course documentation. We present here a typology,based on teaching and learning characteristics, by which we found it usefulto group delivery methods. We identify and discuss four major issuesconcerning the effects of these delivery methods on learning and on teaching,under the headi ngs learner control of learning, interaction and socialexchange, teachers as supporters of student learning and feedback inteaching. As well, we report, according to the typology, the effects ofspecific technologies on teaching and learning.We conclude that on the score of encouraging intellectual independencemany non-traditional delivery methods are fairly robust – on managingcomplexity or uncertainty and encouraging a lively critical inquiry, theyfare less well. From what we have seen, the most effective strategies atpostgraduate level use integrated delivery approaches to create flexiblelearning environments with premiums on individual time management andpractical application of learning. Considerably more detailed evaluation ofthe resulting learning outcomes is needed.     

Examination standards and the limits of linking

There is a tendency in the literature to characterize linking as equating done somewhat less rigorously. The ambiguity of this conception can lead to confusion amongst policy‐makers and members of the public and can result in the proliferation of comparability myths. As the constructs assessed by two tests decrease in similarity, so the difference between equating and linking becomes one of kind rather than degree. To help make sense of linking in different contexts, a general model is proposed, based upon the idea of a ‘linking construct’. This general model is used to define the limits of linking and to clarify what users and stakeholders need to know about linking and linked scores. Finally, a distinction is drawn between judgemental linking as a method (e.g., social moderation) and judgemental linking as a theory (i.e., the value judgement theory of linking). The latter presents a challenge to the general model, which is defended.