Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
What Works Clearinghouse |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Evidence; Intervention; Aggression; Emotional Disturbances; Interpersonal Competence; Direct Instruction; Elementary School Teachers; Elementary School Students; Psychological Patterns; Self Control; Problem Solving; Models; Program Effectiveness; Elementary School Curriculum
Abstract:
"Tools for Getting Along" is a 26-lesson curriculum designed to help upper elementary school teachers establish a positive, cooperative classroom atmosphere. Lessons are intended to reduce disruptive and aggressive behavior by helping students develop anger management skills. Students use problem-solving steps to generate, implement, and evaluate solutions to problems. The curriculum incorporates direct instruction, modeling, guided practice, independent practice, and skill generalization. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified four studies of "Tools for Getting Along" published or released between 1989 and 2012 that focus on children classified as having an emotional disturbance (or children at risk for classification). One study is within the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol but does not meet WWC evidence standards. This study was a randomized controlled trial in which differential attrition cannot be determined, and the intervention and comparison groups were not shown to be equivalent at baseline. One study is out of the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Two studies are out of the scope of the Children Classified as Having an Emotional Disturbance review protocol because they are not primary analyses of the effectiveness of an intervention. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (157K)
|
Author(s): |
Matlen, Bryan J.; Klahr, David |
Source: |
Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, v41 n3 p621-634 May 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-05-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Research Design; Guidance; Cognitive Development; Direct Instruction; Grade 3; Pretests Posttests; Elementary School Students; Science Instruction; Science Education; Young Children
Abstract:
We report the effect of different sequences of high vs low levels of instructional guidance on children's immediate learning and long-term transfer of simple experimental design procedures and concepts, often called "CVS" (Control of Variables Strategy). Third-grade children (N = 57) received instruction in CVS via one of four possible orderings of high or low instructional guidance: high followed by high (HH), high followed by low (HL), low followed by high (LH), and low followed by low (LL). High guidance instruction consisted of a combination of direct instruction and inquiry questions, and low guidance included only inquiry questions. Contrary to the frequent claim that a high degree of instructional guidance leads to shallow learning and transfer, across a number of assessments--including a 5-month post-test--the HH group demonstrated a stronger understanding of CVS than the LL group. Moreover, we found no advantage for preceding high guidance with low guidance. We discuss our findings in relation to perspectives advocating "invention as preparation for future learning", and the efficacy of "productive failure".
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-04-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Historiography; Curriculum Development; Educational History; Intellectual History; Educational Change; Educational Theories; Progressive Education; Curriculum Design; Educational Attitudes; Role of Education; Direct Instruction
Abstract:
In the historiography on curriculum reform during the progressive era, one interpretive lens has dominated the study of 20th-century reform for more than 40 years: the idea of the "social efficiency" doctrine. In this historiographical essay, the authors briefly trace the rise of social efficiency as an idea in curriculum history, identify the four common assertions on which it is based, review the recent studies that challenge these assertions, and finally, suggest some ways to rescue the term from overuse and abuse. The authors argue that, historically speaking, "social efficiency" was a widely used, poorly defined, highly problematic term that had multiple uses for multiple scholars between the 1890s and the 1930s. Historiographically speaking, the authors argue the idea of the social efficiency doctrine has been an inconsistent, heterogeneous, and imprecise lens through which to explain long-term curriculum change.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-04-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Science Instruction; Science and Society; Genetics; Instructional Effectiveness; Discourse Analysis; Experimental Groups; Qualitative Research; Decision Making; Reflection; Direct Instruction; Problem Solving; Group Discussion; Agricultural Production; Agronomy
Abstract:
In this study the effects of different learning environments on the promotion of decision-making competence for the socioscientific issue of genetically modified crops is investigated. The comparison focuses on direct vs. indirect instructions. Therefore on the one hand a sophisticated decision-making strategy was presented to the directly instructed experimental group (1) and had to be applied correctly. On the other hand indirectly instructed students had to invent an appropriate strategy by themselves (2) based on the given information and the structure of the problem context. Group discussions are analysed qualitatively in order (1) to outline how the given strategy was understood and its results were reflected on by the students and (2) to explore the characteristics of invented strategies and their degree of complexity. Results indicate that the direct instruction of complex decision-making strategies may lead to a lack of understanding of the decision process when the given strategy is applied and therefore may cause rejection of the final decision. Indirectly instructed students were able to invent sophisticated decision-making strategies containing compensatory trade-offs. It is concluded that when directly instructing complex decision-making strategies, essential parts of reflection have to be integrated in order to gain greater transparency. Accordingly, empirical evidence has been found to consider indirect instruction as a possible way to foster decision-making strategies for complex socioscientific issues even if compensatory procedures are considered to be necessary.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Faikhamta, Chatree |
Source: |
Research in Science Education, v43 n2 p847-869 Apr 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-04-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Scientific Principles; Inservice Teacher Education; Science Teachers; Pedagogical Content Knowledge; Comprehension; Educational Objectives; Direct Instruction; Reflection; Modeling (Psychology); Science Instruction
Abstract:
The nature of science (NOS) has become a central goal of science education in many countries. This study sought an understanding of the extent to which a nature of science course (NOSC), designed according to the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching nature of science (NOS), affects in-service science teachers' understanding and learning of NOS, and their orientations towards teaching it. A qualitative research approach was employed as a research methodology, drawing upon pre- and post-instruction NOS questionnaires, field notes, and in-service teachers' weekly journal entries and assignments. Open-ended NOS questionnaires, used to assess participants' understandings of NOS, were analysed and categorized as either informed, partially informed and naive. Other qualitative data were analysed through an inductive process to identify ways in-service teachers engaged and learned in the NOSC. The results indicate that at the beginning of the course, a majority of the in-service science teachers held naive understandings of NOS, particularly with respect to the definition of science, scientific inquiry, and differences between laws and theories. They viewed implicit project-based science and science process skills as goals of NOS instruction. By engaging in the course, the in-service science teachers developed an understanding of NOS and orientations to teaching NOS based on various elements, especially reflective and explicit instruction, role modelling, and content- and non-content embedded instruction. The aim of this study is to help science teacher educators, consider how to support and develop science teachers' understandings of NOS while being mindful of PCK for NOS, and develop methods for teaching NOS frameworks.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-12-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Information Analyses; Journal Articles |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Children; Blindness; Visual Impairments; Multiple Disabilities; Object Permanence; Orientation; Visually Impaired Mobility; Teaching Methods; Measures (Individuals); Direct Instruction; Informal Assessment
Abstract:
Introduction: This article discusses the impact of blindness and low vision on the development of object permanence and provides suggestions for assessment and instruction. Methods: The reviewed literature was identified by searching both ERIC and Psych Info using combinations of search terms such as "object permanence" and "visual impairment" or "low vision and blindness." Books, assessment tools, and nonpeer-reviewed literature were also reviewed. Results: Although children with low vision use vision as the basis to master object permanence, children who are blind rely primarily on their tactile experiences of objects. Recommended instructional practices include the consistent and repeated naming of the concealed object, concealment of motivating and varied objects, and direct reinforcement. Discussion: Direct instruction that is grounded in careful assessment may accelerate the mastery of object permanence, with unique strategies being applied to the instruction of children who are blind, including the coactive concealment of objects. Implications for practitioners: Practitioners may use the structured informal assessment and the identified items within commercially produced assessment tools to identify a child's current knowledge of object permanence. Practitioners may integrate the research-based and promising practices to improve instruction. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|