Why the Constraints-Led Approach is not Teaching Games for Understanding: a clarification

Background: There is some apparent confusion regarding similarities and differences between two popular physical education (PE) pedagogical frameworks, that is, the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU).

Purpose: Our aim in this commentary is to detail important theoretical and pedagogical concepts that distinguish these approaches, as well as to recognise where commonalities exist.

Findings: In particular, we note that TGfU had its roots in the 1960s in the absence of a substantial theoretical framework, although several attempts to retrospectively scaffold theories around TGfU have subsequently emerged in the literature. TGfU is a learner-centred approach to PE in which teachers are encouraged to design modified games to develop the learner's understanding of tactical concepts. In contrast, the CLA has arisen more recently from the umbrella of Nonlinear Pedagogy (NLP), emerging from the empirically rich theoretical framework of ecological dynamics. The CLA adopts a ‘learner–environment’ scale of analysis in which practitioners are encouraged to identify and modify interacting constraints (of task, environment and learner) to facilitate the coupling of each learner's perceptual and action systems during learning. The CLA is a broader framework which has been adapted for the design of (re)learning environments in PE, sport and movement therapy. Other key distinctions between the approaches include: the overall goals; the way in which the learner and the learning process are modelled; the use of questioning as a pedagogical tool; the focus on individual differences vs. generic concepts; and how progressions and skill interjections are planned and implemented.

Conclusions: Despite such distinctions, the two approaches are somewhat harmonious and key similarities include: their holistic perspective of the learner; the proposed role of the teacher and the design characteristics of learning tasks in each. Both TGfU and the CLA have a powerful central focus on the nature of learning activities undertaken by each individual learner. This clarification of TGFU and the CLA is intended to act as a catalyst for more empirical work into the complementarity of these juxtaposed pedagogical approaches to learning design.     

自然语言的理解综述

为了解决计算机理解自然语言问题,产生了自然语言理解这一研究方向。文章介绍了自然语言理解的一些特点和发展状况,并归纳了自然语言理解研究中的一些关键问题。     

理解的复杂性和人类命运——兼论埃德加·莫兰的理解观

对"理解"问题的理解经历了从认识论到本体论的过程。人们首先是在经验意义上开始对"理解"进行解构的。真正着眼于从认识论角度厘析"理解"并把它作为认识论的一个核心概念加以把握的是狄尔泰,他把理解视为人文科学研究的根本方法;海德格尔则把"理解"提升到本体论的高度加以重视,认为"理解是人的存在方式";在伽达默尔那里,"理解"实现了历史与现实的"视界融合"。而在当代,复杂性、不确定性挑战人类的理解,意义的失落、语言的无奈、箱格化知识的藩篱、习俗惯性的怠惰等都构成理解的障碍,理解受到各种"噪音"的纷扰而导致不理解现象频发。复杂性理论思想家埃德加.莫兰强调,斑杂的世界使"理解"的命运和人类的命运联结在一起,人类需要建立一种崭新的理解的伦理学,即在摈弃自我中心主义的前提下进行理解和相互理解,如此,我们的理解才更有深度和创造性。     

对英国的《公众理解科学》考试的分析

在科学和技术发展的社会,提高公众的科学素养,促进公众对科学的理解,已引起社会各界关注。因此,本文以英国的《公众理解科学》考试及相应课程为例,分析英国将公众理解科学引入正规教育过程中的经验与教训,为科学教育的改革以及正规教育之外的公众理解科学活动的开展,提供有益的借鉴。     

深度参与:理解型教学设计的学生视角

理解型教学的关键不在于采用哪种教学形式,重要的是学生一定要全身心地投入,进行深入地思考,找到解决问题的贯穿线索,才能真正达到理解的目的。所以,理解型教学就是灵活地思考和运用所学知识的过程,而学生能灵活运用所学知识的有效途径就是"深度参与"。为使学生切实理解所学知识,关键是要让他们体验知识的建构过程,积极参与各个教学环节。即在理解型教学设计与实施过程中,从理解型教学目标的制定,学习活动的设计到持续性评价等阶段,学生都要积极参与。"深度参与"会激发学生学习的信心,树立学习的责任感,表现出持续的进步。     

对邓小平的社会发展观与当代中国社会发展理论的再认识

邓小平理论不仅解决了坚持和发展社会主义的方向、动力、目标、战略和途径等问题，而且继承和发展了马克思主义的社会发展观，创造了具有中国特色的社会发展理论，结合中国国情对发展理论的哲学研究、发展社会学、发展政治学、发展经济学等相关学科进行了新的探索。     

研究性阅读和现代教育技术

研究性阅读和现代教育技术的整合，有利于激发学生探究阅读的兴趣，拓宽学生的视野，加大知识容量，以及在探究过程中创设情境培养学生的形象思维和创新思维，加深对课的理解。     

英美股市行话

二十世纪前,美国股市都是实体交易,即通过场内股票经纪人喊价来买卖股票的,经纪人在喊价时,往往简单明了,这就形成了股市中的一些特有的股市行话。这些行话有时人们往往很难理解。     

关于沈守正《诗经说通》的诗学考量

沈守正的《诗经说通》是明代众多《诗经》学著作中较有代表性的一部。在《诗经说通》中,沈守正采用了"通其滞义、归之合并"等解《诗》方法,以文学文艺之眼光解读《诗经》,取得了较大成就,充分体现了晚明《诗》学发展的新特征。同时,由于时代等因素局限,沈守正在解《诗》时也难免存在不足和偏颇之处。