| 查看: 597 | 回复: 11 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
sunyichong木虫 (著名写手)
纯纯家族之“入定”
|
[交流]
150BB求助翻译（截至到11月16日）
|
||
|
发的篇幅的确比较长，但希望各位虫友能够帮帮忙 声明请您不要拿灵格斯或google翻译的东西给我 提前谢谢好心的人 Their chapter provides positive and challenging directions for the education and assessment of students with disability. We ponder whether their principles apply only to students with disability or whether they represent ideal frameworks for the education of all students. In the final chapter in this section of the book, examining issues of fairness, cultural diversity and social capital, Joy Cumming explores assessment issues from the perspective of education law. Education law, including legal challenges relating to assessment, is already a major area of study in the United States, but is only emerging in case law in England and is relatively limited in Australia and many other nations. However, individual students, teachers and parents have a growing expectation of their rights and empowerment as individuals, whether or not such rights are indeed present in a nation’s laws. When administrative recourse to right-perceived wrongs fails, people are turning to the courts for justice. In this chapter, Cumming examines the status of legal challenges in assessments, the frameworks in which such challenges can occur and the burdens that must be met by those who feel they are wronged—the plaintiffs—in order to succeed in court. The area of education law is not recognised in its own right in the law courts, and challenges must be won or lost within the fields that have emerged from other contexts such as administration law, discrimination law or negligence law. Cumming’s analysis shows that the construction of equity in law for an individual is not necessarily of the same meaning that educators would ascribe. Indeed, the courts may be perceived as harsh in their resolution of educational matters that clearly have had considerable negative impact on the lives and opportunities of individuals. Nevertheless, cases raising a range of assessment matters have been successful, and precedents for much broader future actions around educational assessment matters have been established through key cases in England, such as Phelps (2001). Cumming considers the assessment areas where educators need to take care, to reduce the likelihood of litigation and the subsequent distribution of resources to the legal community, rather than to educational provision. Our final characterisation of the chapters in this book reflects the impact of specific contexts on assessment outcomes, whether drawing on geographical, political, paradigmatic or policy frameworks. Patrick Griffin has explored the ways in which schools and teachers can use the array of standardised test data available in Australia, and in schools in other nations, for formative purposes to reform teaching and enhance student learning. Drawing on psychometric models of assessment, including item-response modelling, Griffin follows the work developed at the Australian Council for Educational Research1 in the use of developmental scales to identify the quality and developmental progress of a student’s achievement against the item demands and constructs of such tests. Griffin notes that a developmental approach in interpreting data allows teachers to scaffold learning for individual students and to create ‘personalised and clinical approaches to intervention’ (page 185). When standardised tests are developed using a criterion-referenced approach, the developmental scales and student performance against criteria can be identified. In his chapter, Griffin provides guidelines on ways that teachers can map content and examine student performance and progress. He explores the resources that teachers need in order to undertake intervention and plan future instruction with individual students, suggesting enhanced communication among teachers as an active form of professional development. Griffin’s chapter includes description of a successful school enactment of the principles that he proposes. He concludes by considering the import of his arguments, not only for teacher professional development but also for teacher education. Griffin’s chapter commences with a focus on individualised use of student assessment data for formative purposes to improve learning, but progresses to a systemic examination of the use of data for change and pedagogical enhancement. Given the maintained focus of governments on educational accountability, it is likely that systemic assessment data will continue to grow in Australia and elsewhere. It, therefore, is sensible to explore how this can be used most effectively for the purposes for which it was intended. Gabrielle Matters also examines the way that teachers, and schools, can use a range of assessment data to improve instruction and student learning. Her focus, in the main, is similar to that of Griffin: the standardised-test information available to schools from external accountability regimes. However, Matters argues that considerable detailed information is available to schools and teachers within such school data and suggests ways in which the interaction between students and assessments should be scrutinised to examine and improve student performance. She further argues that future developments of assessments should ensure that information at such a level is of a quality that it can serve these functions. One key to quality for Matters is the care taken in the identification of the construct, the ‘conceptual framework’ (page 210) that is being assessed and against which student progress is being measured. She explores the value of each individual item within an assessment context, and indeed the interaction of the item and the individual student within the specific context. Drawing on a learning model incorporating ‘presage–process– product’, Matters posits that the individual student has as much a ‘causally central role in the learning process’ as teachers and schools, and hence in the assessment process (page 211). Both Matters and Brookhart have noted that individuals have varied backgrounds and experiences and are the product of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’. As Wyatt-Smith and Gunn also noted, this source of difference, however, should not be used to justify or explain different outcomes or to remove responsibility from educators for learning outcomes for each student. Examination of the nature of an assessment item and an individual student’s responsiveness to the item rather than just correctness of response can provide insight into the student’s development. Difficulty of an item is not just a statistical description but also represents a different interaction for each student, according to context. Examination of items and responses can highlight misconceptions and lead to improved instruction. As Matters notes, such examination may even reveal some flaws in the assessment items and tests themselves. Her overall conclusions reiterate her call for more focus on development of quality assessments, in any form, and much more focus on using available assessment information for learning improvement. Sverre Tveit brings the perspective of a student to educational assessment issues, albeit the perspective of a student now engaged in graduate studies. Tveit’s account of the Norwegian assessment experience of the past two decades provides an insight into the impact of differing agendas on education experiences, goals and assessment practices. Tveit was a member of the School-Student Union of Norway at a time when the government decided to implement major national changes to assessment. The Norwegian government’s action was in response to perceived national ‘failure’ on international tests such as PISA, considering the high expenditure of the nation on education. Tveit provides an overview of pedagogical development in Norway, drawing on a range of policy documents as well as personal experience. He describes the assessment regimes of Norway at local and national levels and the various attempted changes by the government—in conjunction with the opposition demonstrated by students, educators, assessment experts and politicians in opposition. His chapter provides a very clear exposition of the impact of external factors on national practice and the political roles that education and assessment play across the world today. Tveit’s overview demonstrates a system exhibiting local authority and national accountability of teachers in a way uncommon to most other nations, with the concept of official, random examinations for students as a monitor of overall schooling effectiveness and student preparedness. Most importantly, Tveit examines the system of assessment in Norway with the critical eye of a student, seeking evidence for research-based underpinning of practice and teacher professional development, and consistency in goals and purposes. He makes a number of propositions for future reform of assessment in Norway. While Tveit’s exploration of assessment is set in a singular assessment culture, his descriptions of theory, practice and issues will resonate throughout the international community. The assessment context for the chapter by Ann Kelly is vocational education. She adopts a situated approach and calls for an extension to current assessment of skills development.Worldwide, vocational assessment has been moving to a competencybased approach. The competences reflect identified component skills, both lower order and higher order, in the development of guild knowledge (see page 246). Thus, the expectation underpinning this approach was that apprenticeships could become part of formal educational contexts, in the same way that general education became institutionalised at the commencement of the 20th century, to cope with the needed growth in education for the Industrial Revolution. Aspects of the apprenticeship could be identified and confirmed. A further advantage envisaged for formal vocational education and a competence approach was the capacity to allow apprentices to proceed at their own learning and developmental paces. However, the formalisation of apprenticeships and vocational education into competences has left many considering that the essence of guild knowledge is missing—competences can become superficial rather than rich descriptions of a skill base (page 246). In her chapter, Kelly has unpacked this issue and explored a way in which the richness of skills development can be explored, using the methodology of conversational analysis to examine authentic enactment of an area of communication competences. Such an analysis allows the identification and assessment of the tacit knowledges that underpin performance. While this analysis provides a telling instance of elaborated assessment in a vocational context, it also demonstrates central themes that emerge from the authors of this book: assessment is most effective when the individual is targeted; individual performance needs elaboration in order to be effective, making high demand on assessment processes; and the situated context of assessment interacts with the performance. Standards as conceptual identities emerge in the discussions of a number of our authors. Within each chapter, the conceptual identity each author attributes to ‘standards’ should emerge for the reader. In his chapter, Graham Maxwell provides a theoretical and policy-based consideration of the situated constructions of ‘standards’ commonly being used around the world and the many contexts that influence such construction of concepts. Maxwell provides an analytical framework, elaborating four dimensions that can be considered to explore the contextual use of a concept of standards: type, focus, underlying characteristic or construct and purpose. Maxwell shows that cultural contexts provide very different interpretations for standards, from conceptions of standards as a form of curriculum framework to conceptions of standards as indicators of levels of performance. Within the latter, many different meanings are still visible in practice. He notes the constant tension between descriptions of performance against standards or others (notionally criterion-referenced and normative standards) despite the basis of both in guild knowledge. The one has always informed the other—we only understand perfection by understanding what is not perfection, and we need a model as a comparator. Overall, Maxwell exhorts educators to identify and clarify the meanings we ascribe to our constructions of a ‘standard’ to enable common conversations about intentions and to clarify the social and cultural contexts that frame these conversations. Throughout his explorations of these frameworks and meanings, Maxwell keeps a central imperative on their impact for the individual learner, working from the central ‘purpose of education [which] is to enable the advancement of the personal knowledge and capabilities of each student to the fullest extent possible and to prepare them for further learning and development throughout their life’ (page 264). It is Maxwell who notes that the children entering school today can expect to live during most of the 21st century and many will enter the 22nd century. In working through the chapters in the book and exploring the ideas presented by our authors, readers will notice commonalities and differences, which we now consider.  |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
博士申请都是内定的吗？
已经有13人回复
-
谈谈两天一夜的“延安行”
已经有8人回复
-
氨基封端PDMS和HDI反应快速固化
已经有11人回复
-
之前让一硕士生水了7个发明专利，现在这7个获批发明专利的维护费可从哪儿支出哈？
已经有11人回复
-
论文投稿求助
已经有4人回复
-
Applied Surface Science 这个期刊。有哪位虫友投过的能把word模板发给我参考一下嘛
已经有3人回复
-
投稿精细化工
已经有6人回复
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ...
sunyichong(金币+150,VIP+0):谢谢 11-16 23:01
sunyichong(金币+150,VIP+0):谢谢 11-16 23:01
|
他们的章节为有学习障碍的学生的教育与评估提供了积极且有挑战性的方向与思路。我们应考虑他们的原理是否只适合于有学习障碍的学生，是否可以成为适合所有学生的理想体系。在本书这部分最后章节，Joy Cumming从教育法的角度研究教育评估问题，从而进一步验证了其公平问题、文化多样性及社会投资等问题。教育法，包括评估相关的一些法定挑战，在美国已成为一个主要的研究领域；但是在英国它只是在判例法中才新出现，在澳大利亚和其他许多国家的法律里出现得更有限。但是，目前学生、教师及父母均越来越关注他们的权利，关注这些权利的授权，即它们是否确是存在于国家法律之中。当人们对察觉到的民事侵权行为进行行政诉讼失败的时候，他们就开始转向法院寻求公平与公正。在本章里，Cumming考察了教育评估对法律的挑战状况，这些挑战发生的相应结构以及由判断某些结构不合理的人（原告）所遇到的一些压力（负担，即由希望法庭诉讼成功而引起的）。教育法的法律权利在法庭上并没有得到认可，它由此带来的法律挑战在诸如行政条例、歧视条例、过失条例等其他法律条文领域里要么获得成功要么失败。他的分析表明了单位个人在法律领域内的公平构造并不是教育工作者所寻求的必要的东西。事实上，法庭可能被视为过于苛刻的解决对人们生活生存及机会有负面影响的教育问题。不过，引起一系列评估问题的案例目前都是成功的，对未来更广阔的教育评估问题的审判，在英国已经通过要案建立起来了。他认为教育工作者应该密切关心着评估领域，尽可能减少诉讼，并关注向法定社区的资源分布，而不是关心教育经费问题。 本书这些章节最后的一些描述反映了影响评估结果的特殊环境或条件的影响作用，是否需要引用不同的框架：地理的、政治的、典型的和政策方针性的结构。 Patrick Griffin 已经研究了澳大利亚学校及其教师如何使用可靠的标准化测试数据，来达到改革教学的目的，并提高学生的学习成绩。他通过引用评估的心理模式，包括项目反应理论模型，按照澳洲使用过的方法与规模来确定学生成绩报告质量与发展性进展。他注意到一种已成型的方法有利于教师教学并创造个性化的教学方法。当应用标准参照方法形成了标准测试后，学生行为是否合乎标准就可以确定。在这章里，他提供了一些有关教师如何安排学习内容以及如何考察学生的进步状况的指导方案。他研究了一些老师需要的资料，通过这些资料教师可以保证他们对学生学习干预，保证未来学习计划指令顺利完成，这些资料表明了可以作为一种积极的职业发展形式，更有利于教师之间的相互沟通与交流。在这章里他讲述了他介绍的一个成功实实施的学校准则。他通过论证得出了最后的结论，不仅是为了教师的职业化发展，而且也是为了教师的培养教育。他的论述是从关注个性化的利用学生评估数据开始的。在确定政府对教育职能的关注的前提下，在澳洲或其他地方，系统性评估数据可能会持续增长。因此，研究如何有目的的有效利用评估数据是明智的。 Gabrielle Matters 也考查一些学校及其教师利用评估数据来提高教学及学生学习成绩的方法。她主要关注的焦点与Griffin类似：从外部的学校教学效果考核方案得到的标准测试信息。但是，她认为需要相当仔细的信息，还建议了一些学生与评估互动方式应该被详细的审查，以确保并提高学生的行为。她进一步认为未来评估的发展应该确保信息是高质量的，以保证以上功能顺利进行。其中一个答案就是密切关心评估构成以及概念性框架的识别。她研究了在评估背景下每一个评估项目的价值、这些项目的相互影响以及在这特定的背景下评估对象的影响。她通过引用一个“预知-处理-结果”的学习模型，认为学生个体在学习及以后评估过程与教师和学校起的作用是相当的。Matters 和 Brookhart都注意到个体有着各种各样不同的背景与经历，是遗传与培养共同作用的结果。 但是，正如Wyatt-Smith 和 Gunn报道的那样，不同的来源不应该用于解释不同的评估结果，也不应该用于免除教育者对于学生学习成绩的责任。研究评估项目性质和评估对象的反应，而不仅仅是积极的反应，可以对学生的发展提供一些帮助。一个评估项目的难题不仅仅是指一个统计学问题，而且是指在特定的环境下每个不同学生不同的影响。对评估项目及对象反应的考察研究可以突出错误想法，导致学习指令提高。正如Matters所述，这种研究可能会显示出评估项目及测试本身的一些缺陷。她得到的最后结论是她要求更多的关注高质量评估的发展，要求更多的关注利用评估信息来提高学习。Sverre Tveit从学生的角度来谈论教育评估问题，尽管这只是一个毕业生的角度。他过去二十年的挪威评估经历的叙述提供了有关不同计划对教育经历、目标和评估的影响的一些看法。他是挪威中学学生会一员，那时候当时的政府在国内正打算实施评估的主要变化。挪威政府的行为正是对国际测试失败的最好回应，国际测试诸如国际学生评估项目，主要涉及到国家对教育的高投入。他提供了挪威教育教学发展的概况，引用了一系列的政策方针以及个人经历。他描述了当地全国水平的评估方案，以及政府所尝试的不同变化，这些变化所遭到学生、教育工作者、评估专家以及政治家的一系列反对声音。他的这一章节非常清晰的说明了外部因素对国家行为如何影响以及教育和评估在今天的社会里扮演的政治角色。他的概括叙述说明了当地一个全国性权威的教师教学效果考核制，此制度含有对学生正式随机的考查，以此作为总的教育教学有效性及学生准备情况的监测。更为重要的是，他以一个学生批判性的眼光审查了挪威评估系统，寻找到了一些研究性的实践基础和教师职业发展的线索，寻找到了一些目标一致性的线索。他对挪威未来评估系统做了大量的假设与设想。尽管他的评估探索只是限于单一的文化领域里，但是他对理论、行为及问题的描述将会在全世界范围内产生共鸣。 Ann Kelly论述的此章涉及到的评估背景是职业教育。她采用了多元化文化教学并要求对目前评估技巧发展有一定的延伸与扩展。世界范围内的职业学校评估已经正在向以能力为本的方式发展。在知识行会的发展中，无论是较低还更高，能力反映确定了技能所需要的全部部件。因此，支持这个方法的期待就是学徒制可以成为正式教育的一部分，以此同时，常规教育在20世纪初期应该被制度化，以此来处理工业革命所需要的增长教育需求。学徒身份应该能够得到确认与证实。此种教育及其方法所设想的未来优点就是有利于学徒以他们自己学习与发展的进度进行向前。但是，学徒制及此种职业教育手段也可能遗留下许多问题，比如知识行会的本质的流失，即能力技巧变得肤浅，而不是包含丰富的基础技巧理论。在她所叙述的这章里，她引入了这个问题，并通过使用对话式分析方法（此方法是为了检查通信能力区域内真正的实施）研究了如何探索丰富的技能形成。这样的分析有利于业绩的隐性知识的评估与鉴定。这种分析不仅为职业背景下的评估提供了一个详细的实例说明，也证明了此书作者提出的中心论点：当对象是个体时，评估是最有效的。为了保证有效性，个体行为表现与成绩需要详细说明，以致向评估过程及与个体表现与成绩有相互作用的多元化背景提出高要求。 标准，作为意识上的身份认同，大量出现在我们这许多作者的论述中。在本书中的每一章节里，几乎每一个作者都把这种意识上身份认定认为是应向读者展现的标准。在Graham Maxwell写的章节里，他提供了一种对多元化标准构造的理论与政策性考虑，这被构造的标准普遍适用于整个世界以及影响此构造的许多环境。他提供了一个分析框架，此结构说明描述了可以用于研究概念性标准的不同背景的四个方面：1、类型；2、焦点；3、基础特征及构成；4、目标。他表明文化背景可以为标准提供非常不同的解释，从作为课程结构的标准定义到作为绩效指标的标准定义。对于后者，许多不同含义在实践中仍然可见。他注意到在标准下的绩效描述之间存在着一种不变拉力。一个事物总有两方面，其中一方面总可以体现另一方面特点。比如，我们总是，也只能通过理解什么是不完美来懂得如何完美。因此我们需要一个比较模型。总的说来，他劝告教育工作者应该努力弄清楚我们构造标准的原因和意义，才能使目的性对话顺利进行，也能使构成对话的社会文化背景更清楚。贯穿他的整个有关结构和含义的研究，他始终保持必须对个体学习者有影响的评估研究，他总是从教育的中心目标出发开展研究。这个中心目标就是使每个学生能够最大限度的获得知识与能力的提高，并尽可能为他们将来的学习深造和进一步发展作准备。而且，他，还注意到今天入学的孩子们期待在21世纪一直生活下去，直至进入22世纪。 读者通过阅读本书的这些章节以及理解作者所带来的不同的思想观点，可以注意到我们目前应该考虑的共同性与差异性。 |
11楼2009-11-16 10:41:30
|
他们提供积极和具有挑战性的方向章为教育和评估学生的障碍。我们是否原则的适用的学生是否和残疾的教育理想框架(类型)的所有学生都…在本节的最后一章书的内容,检查问题的公平、文化多样性和社会资本、快乐Cumming评价问题上观点探讨的教育法律。教育法,包括对法律的挑战与评价,已经是一个主要的研究领域,在美国,但只出现在判例法在英格兰和相对有限公司在澳大利亚和许多其他国家。然而,个别的学生、教师和家长也期待他们的权利和权力作为个人权利,是否存在于arein行为对一个国家的法律。当行政诉诸right-perceived错误失败了,人们把目光投向了法庭。在这一章中,Cumming法律挑战现状的考察中,框架的评估 这样的挑战,必须负担由那些感觉他们是wronged-the plaintiffs-in要取得成功,在法庭上。这个地区的教育法律是不承认自己的权利,并在法庭挑战要赢得或输在这个领域已经从其他环境,如行政法治,歧视法律或疏忽法律。Cumming的分析表明,在法律上的股权结构对个体的未必是相同的意义,也将教育工作者。事实上,法院可以视作尖刻的教育问题的决议已经相当明显的负面影响的个人的生命和机会。然而,病例募集了各种评价问题已经成功先例,未来的行为更广阔的教育评估事项周围已经建立了关键的病例在英格兰,如菲尔普斯(2001)。Cumming认为评估区域教育者必须小心,减少的可能性诉讼及后续的资源分配到法定团体,而不是教育提供我们最后的特征性的章节在这本书的具体语境反映了影响评估结果,是否在地理、政治、图纸和政策框架的聚合…帕特里克·格里芬探索如何在学校和老师可以利用阵列的标准化测试数据可在澳大利亚,并在学校的其他国家一样,为造型的目的,改革教学,提高学生的学习。图上的评估,包括心理模式item-response造型,狮鹫遵循工作发展的教育Research1澳大利亚议会在使用的发展规模、识别和质量的发展学生的成绩对项目的要求和构建这样的测试狮鹫指出发展的方式解释数据让老师和学生学习个体脚手架的个性化创造和临床方法来干预”(页185)。在标准化测试中使用了标准参照方法、发展规模和学生表现的指标都能被确认。在他的章节,格里芬提供指导教师们可以在地图上的内容和检验学生的成绩和进步。他描述了资源,教师需要为了进行干预,以个别学生的未来计划的指导,提出增强教师之间的交流活动形式的职业发展。格里芬的章节的描述,包括一个成功的原则制定的学校了。他总结说,考虑他的论点,进口不仅对教师专业发展的同时,也为教师教育。格里芬的章开始,并着重介绍了individualised利用学生评估数据为造型,提高学习的目的,但进展到全身检查数据的使用改变和教育的提高。政府的焦点上保持教育的责任,它是可能的,系统性评估数据将继续在澳大利亚长大和其他地方。因此,努力探讨如何是明智的话,这可能会使用最有效的用途的目的是. 具体事宜的方式也检视教师、学校、可以用一系列的评估数据来改善教学和学生学习。她的焦点,在主要的、类似于鹫:standardised-test资料提供给学校从外部的问责制度。然而,问题是相当详细资料指出,学校和教师提供的数据和显示在这样的学校之间的互动方式,评估学生应进行检查和提高学生的表现。她认为未来的发展,进一步评估应确保信息在这一水平是高质量的,它可以为这些功能。一个关键问题是护理质量被识别的构建、概念架构”(页面)正在评估210个学生的进步而被测量。她以个别项目进行评估,并在语境的互动项目确实与个别学生在特定的语境。画一个学习模型合并的presage-process-product ',或是个人的学生都一样轻松的学习过程中起着举足轻重的作用,学校的教师,因此在评估过程(页211)。Brookhart事务,曾指出,个人有不同的背景和经验的产物,是“自然”和“后天的。作为Wyatt-Smith Gunn也指出,这与不同的来源,然而,不应该用来说明或解释不同的结果或去除责任教师为每个学生学习效果。考试的性质的物品和个人评估学生的反应,而不是正确的物品的反应可以提供深入了解学生的发展。一项困难的不仅仅是一种统计描述又代表了不同的交互作用对每个学生,根据上下文。检查的项目和反应可以突出的误解导致改善教学。在目前的笔记,这样的考试,甚至可能揭示了一些缺陷,评估项目和测试他们自己。她的整体结论一再呼吁更多的集中发展质量评估,以任何形式,以及更多关注可使用评估信息,为学习进步Sverre Tveit带来的视角对教育评价问题的学生的角度,尽管现在从事学生攻读硕士学位。Tveit的挪威评价过去二十年的经验,提供了洞察到不同的议程上的影响和评估的经验、教育目标的做法。Tveit是工会成员的School-Student挪威当时政府决定实施国家重大变化来评估挪威政府的行动是在国家的失败'on到国际测试,如比萨,考虑到高支出的国家在教育方面。Tveit概述教育发展在挪威,凭借一系列政策文件以及个人经验他描述了在评价机制,挪威的地方和国家的各种企图改变美国的联合显示反对党的学生、教育家、评估专家和政界人士的反对。他提供了一个非常清楚的博览会章节的影响,对国家实践外部因素的政治角色,发挥教育评估当今遍及世界。Tveit显示系统的概况和民族责任表现当地机构的教师在某种程度上,其他大多数国家,不凡的概念,对学生的随机考试正式担任班长的整体教育有效性和学生的准备工作。最重要的是,Tveitexamines系统的评估在挪威与批判性的一名学生,寻找证据支撑的实践和研究性的教师专业发展、一致性的目的和目标。他对未来的主张改革在挪威的评估。虽然Tveit探索评估是在一个奇异评估文化,他笔下的理论、实践与问题的整个国际社会将会产生共鸣。本章的语境中进行评估以安凯莉是职业教育。她采取了位于方法和要求延长现有评估技能的发展。世界范围内,职业评估已经被移动到一个以能力的途径。这个能力体现鉴定组件技巧,低阶和高阶、发展协会(见页246)的知识。因此,这种方法是学徒的背后可能成为正式的教育背景,在同样的方式,通识教育成为顶峰期压低在20世纪,应付所需的增长在工业革命的教育。方面的学徒能识别和确认。另外一个好处想象为正式职业教育和竞争能力的方法是允许继续在他们的技术学习和发展的步伐。然而,formalisation学徒和职业教育的能力已经使许多考虑到知识的本质就是失踪的能力可以行会变成肤浅而不是富人描写技巧基地(页246)。在她的章节,凯利已经打开了这个问题,探讨了丰富的技能的发展可以的会话分析检视正宗的面积沟通能力。这样的分析和评价,可以识别的隐性知识作为性能。虽然这种分析提供了一个实例阐述了评价讲述一个职业背景,它也演示了主题,从本书作者:评估是最有效的个人目标;个人表演需要细心的效果,使得高需求评估过程;而位于评价与语境的性能。标准的身份出现在讨论的概念,我们的一些作家。在本书的每一章,这个概念的身份每个作者的属性,以标准应该出现的读者。在他的章节,格雷厄姆·马克斯韦尔的选择提供了理论和政策考虑位于建筑标准通常被广泛应用于全世界和许多环境影响等施工的概念。马克斯韦尔提供了理论分析框架,阐述了四个维度,可以考虑去探索了语境使用的概念,重点,标准:类型特征的构建和目的的潜在…马克斯韦尔显示提供非常不同文化背景下的诠释为标准,从概念的标准作为一种课程标准的概念框架的水平的性能指标。在后者,许多不同的意思都是可见的。他指出了恒张力之间对标准的描述或其他人(名义上)尽管标准参照和标准的基础上,两者在公会的知识。这个人一直告诉other-we只懂完美藉由瞭解什麽是不完美的,我们需要一个模型作为对照。总的来说,马克斯韦尔劝诫教育者识别并澄清的含义,我们将对我们的“标准”,使普通谈话的意图,并阐明了社会和文化背景,这些对话框…在他的框架和有意义的探索,对他们必须保持一个中心的个人学习,工作从中央的目的的教育,是为了让提升个人知识和能力的每个学生的最大限度可能和准备 他们进一步学习和发展的一生”(页264)。这是谁的孩子指出马克斯进入学校时能活到今天,大部分的21世纪,许多人会进入22世纪在经过章书中所提出的观点,探讨公司作者、读者会注意到你的共性和差异,我们现在考虑。 |
4楼2009-11-14 13:48:45
5楼2009-11-14 16:35:00
|
抛砖引玉了，实在太多，希望其它虫子继续。哈哈。 Their chapter provides positive and challenging directions for the education and assessment of students with disability. We ponder whether their principles apply only to students with disability or whether they represent ideal frameworks for the education of all students. In the final chapter in this section of the book, examining issues of fairness,cultural diversity and social capital, Joy Cumming explores assessment issues from the perspective of education law. Education law, including legal challenges relating to assessment, is already a major area of study in the United States, but is only emerging in case law in England and is relatively limited in Australia and many other nations. However, individual students, teachers and parents have a growing expectation of their rights and empowerment as individuals, whether or not such rights are indeed present in a nation’s laws. 他们的章节为教育和评估残疾儿童提供了积极的和富有挑战性的方向。我们想他们的原则是否只适用于残疾学生还是代表了教育所有学生的理想框架。在本节的最后一章里，在审视公平性、文化多样性和社会资本等问题时，Joy Cumming从教育法的观点来探索评估问题。教育法，包括评估有关的立法问题，在美国已经是一个大的研究领域，而在英格兰的判例法里才斩露头脚，在澳大利亚和其它许多国家（在这方面的研究）比较有限。但是，不管在一个国家的法律里是否真正存在这种权利，作为个体的学生、老师和家长却越来越期望获得权利和授权。 |
6楼2009-11-14 17:12:59