Відмінності між версіями «Користувач:SandraStockdill»
м |
м |
||
| Рядок 1: | Рядок 1: | ||
| − | + | The Focus Of Scientific Learning<br><br>Most of the cycles found in the scientific study were classified as focusing on making predictions, interpreting graphs, and other epistemic factors, with just a few cycles found across the three teachers that focused on conceptual development. The study found that while pupils' performance varied across questions and teachers, the greatest degree of pupil performance was observed in the class of the teacher with the most entire question cycles. On the other hand, the study also raises the question of whether the performance differences found between classes were attributable to on the fly formative appraisal practices alone or were a manifestation of overall differences in teachers everyday science teaching abilities.<br><br>Duschl and Gitomer (1997) conducted research on planned assessment conversations in the Science Education through Portfolio Teaching and Appraisal (SEPIA) endeavor. These dialogs are used to help teachers provide scaffolding and support for pupils' construction of meaning by carefully selecting learning experiences, actions, questions, and other components of instruction (Duschl and Gitomer, 1997). Endeavor SEPIA uses modeling and explicit teaching to help students "learn how you can learn in science" (p. 41). Duschl and Gitomer explored how two middle school teachers worked with Endeavor SEPIA's model of education. Developing a portfolio as they finish the unit, pupils are presented with genuine difficulties and proceed through an established sequence of investigations to develop their conceptual understanding, reasoning strategies associated with ways of knowing in science, and communicating abilities.<br><br>A essential component of the appraisal conversation is a three-part process that entails the teacher receiving student ideas through writing, drawing, and sharing orally, to ensure pupils can demonstrate the teacher and other students what they know. The second step entails the teacher recognizing pupils' notions through public discussion, and the third has the teacher using notions to reach a consensus in the classroom by asking students to reason on the foundation of evidence. Job SEPIA also provides teachers with standards for directing pupils during these conversations, including a focus on relationships, clarity, and consistency with signs, use of examples, making sense, admitting alternate explanations, and precision. Engaging students in appraisal-related conversations about their work provides a context where standards and criteria of quality are negotiated and discussed publicly (Duschl and Gitomer, 1997). The authors concluded that teachers should focus less on jobs and actions and more on the reasoning processes and underlying conceptual constructions of science.<br><br>Mfinstrell and vanZee (2003) describe question as a kind of planned for formative evaluation by using questions both to diagnose the state of pupils thinking and to prescribe an appropriate next step for them to take in their own learning. VanZee and Minstrell's (1997) study investigated how the "brooding toss" strategy Minstrell used in his high school physics classroom gave students responsibility for tracking their own thinking and making their significance clear. A reflective throw is defined as a question that "grabs" expire meaning of a student's statement and then "throws" responsibility for thinking back to the pupil. As an example, in case a pupil made a specific assertion, the teacher would respond with another question, such as "Now what does one mean by." or "If you had been to do? what would you are doing?" (p. 245). In this manner, the teacher (in this scenario, Minstrell) used questions to find out what pupils were thinking, to contemplate with his pupils how their thinking fits with what physicists think, and to place responsibility for thinking back on the pupils. While the study happened in the high school classroom of just one teacher, it raises the significant point for all levels of science education that a straightforward, planned-for questioning strategy can be an effective instrument for formative evaluation. The reflective throw driven students to take ownership in their thoughts and to think about them farther, and it also allowed the teacher to respond and take actions on pupils' notions as they were offered to the course. | |
Версія за 11:24, 4 жовтня 2017
The Focus Of Scientific Learning
Most of the cycles found in the scientific study were classified as focusing on making predictions, interpreting graphs, and other epistemic factors, with just a few cycles found across the three teachers that focused on conceptual development. The study found that while pupils' performance varied across questions and teachers, the greatest degree of pupil performance was observed in the class of the teacher with the most entire question cycles. On the other hand, the study also raises the question of whether the performance differences found between classes were attributable to on the fly formative appraisal practices alone or were a manifestation of overall differences in teachers everyday science teaching abilities.
Duschl and Gitomer (1997) conducted research on planned assessment conversations in the Science Education through Portfolio Teaching and Appraisal (SEPIA) endeavor. These dialogs are used to help teachers provide scaffolding and support for pupils' construction of meaning by carefully selecting learning experiences, actions, questions, and other components of instruction (Duschl and Gitomer, 1997). Endeavor SEPIA uses modeling and explicit teaching to help students "learn how you can learn in science" (p. 41). Duschl and Gitomer explored how two middle school teachers worked with Endeavor SEPIA's model of education. Developing a portfolio as they finish the unit, pupils are presented with genuine difficulties and proceed through an established sequence of investigations to develop their conceptual understanding, reasoning strategies associated with ways of knowing in science, and communicating abilities.
A essential component of the appraisal conversation is a three-part process that entails the teacher receiving student ideas through writing, drawing, and sharing orally, to ensure pupils can demonstrate the teacher and other students what they know. The second step entails the teacher recognizing pupils' notions through public discussion, and the third has the teacher using notions to reach a consensus in the classroom by asking students to reason on the foundation of evidence. Job SEPIA also provides teachers with standards for directing pupils during these conversations, including a focus on relationships, clarity, and consistency with signs, use of examples, making sense, admitting alternate explanations, and precision. Engaging students in appraisal-related conversations about their work provides a context where standards and criteria of quality are negotiated and discussed publicly (Duschl and Gitomer, 1997). The authors concluded that teachers should focus less on jobs and actions and more on the reasoning processes and underlying conceptual constructions of science.
Mfinstrell and vanZee (2003) describe question as a kind of planned for formative evaluation by using questions both to diagnose the state of pupils thinking and to prescribe an appropriate next step for them to take in their own learning. VanZee and Minstrell's (1997) study investigated how the "brooding toss" strategy Minstrell used in his high school physics classroom gave students responsibility for tracking their own thinking and making their significance clear. A reflective throw is defined as a question that "grabs" expire meaning of a student's statement and then "throws" responsibility for thinking back to the pupil. As an example, in case a pupil made a specific assertion, the teacher would respond with another question, such as "Now what does one mean by." or "If you had been to do? what would you are doing?" (p. 245). In this manner, the teacher (in this scenario, Minstrell) used questions to find out what pupils were thinking, to contemplate with his pupils how their thinking fits with what physicists think, and to place responsibility for thinking back on the pupils. While the study happened in the high school classroom of just one teacher, it raises the significant point for all levels of science education that a straightforward, planned-for questioning strategy can be an effective instrument for formative evaluation. The reflective throw driven students to take ownership in their thoughts and to think about them farther, and it also allowed the teacher to respond and take actions on pupils' notions as they were offered to the course.
