联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写英国assignment,Think Students School
发表日期:2013-09-06 09:05:29 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写assignment > 英国代写assignment > 正文
Think Students School

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Nature of the Problem

Teaching students how to think is critical to their success in school and their future value as human capital capable of functioning productively in the workplace (Brooks, 2004). This process of teaching students how to think is not one that is familiar to many teachers, who have for years relied on memorization (Marshall, 2006).

The Thinking Maps program consists of eight visual tools that students use to develop higher-order thinking skills. The maps give students ways to organize their thoughts, structure their thinking, and see their thinking. They provide students with a common visual language and allow them to be active participants in their learning (Hyerle, 2004; Holzman, 2005).

Teachers receive training in how to introduce and teach Thinking Maps to their students. This training is in the form of professional development conducted either by an external trainer or an internal trainer. The expectation is that teachers will then implement the program in their classroom following the procedures and using the strategies they have learned in their training (Hyerle, 2004).

The reality is that very little of the training received during professional development sessions is ever implemented in the classroom (Everett, Tichenor & Heins, 2003; Taylor, 2003), and this is true at the site school concerning the Thinking Maps program. Teachers may come back from their training session excited and eager to implement the new strategies believing that they have just found the magic tool to revolutionize their teaching.

They begin using the strategies only to find they have questions about specific situations and how to solve problems that develop as they try to effectively implement the program. At this point it is easy to abandon the effort if they do not have the on-going support they need to work around the natural stumbling blocks that occur in developing and using new skills (Slavin & Madden, 2001).

Problem Statement

The problem at this elementary school is that implementation of the Thinking Maps program is not consistent and pervasive. Thinking Maps training was initially conducted in February 2002 for the whole teaching staff at the target site school by an external trainer. Thinking Maps are visual tools designed to aid students in seeing their thinking leading to higher order thinking skills and are a research-based program proven to improve student learning (Hyerle, 2004). A follow-up session was conducted several months later.

However, only 48% of the current staff was employed at the school and attended that original training. No further training was conducted and implementation of the Thinking Maps program is now inconsistent across grade levels. Teachers attend one-size-fits-all professional development sessions continuously and most of what they learn never gets implemented in the classroom (Taylor, 2003).

These sessions ignore basic andragological theory about adult learning such as self-concept, readiness and orientation to learn, past experiences, and an understanding of learners’ need to know what is being presented (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2005). The time, effort, and money invested in that training is wasted. In addition, the benefit to the students of excellent programs to deliver the curriculum in innovative ways is lost (Everett, et al., 2003). That is the case with the Thinking Maps program at this elementary school.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Thinking Maps program at the site elementary school. In January 2002 the administrators at the target school paid $5,380 for Thinking Maps curriculum and contracted with an educational consulting and publishing company called Thinking Maps, Inc. to conduct a school-wide in-service training in Thinking Maps for the school’s staff.

The goal of that professional development, which cost $3,000, was to provide teachers with training in research-based strategies to increase student achievement by improving students’ critical thinking skills. However, evidence of teacher acceptance and student ownership of these strategies is lacking.

With the arrival of a new assistant principal who is a Thinking Maps trainer, training sessions were conducted as part of school in-service days for the current teaching staff. Training was conducted by grade level and all teachers were required to write a goal related to the use of Thinking Maps in the classroom to be used as part of their evaluation plan for the year.

Teachers are being highly encouraged to implement the training in the classroom and are required to provide proof of implementation, in the form of student work samples, to receive their in-service points.

Background and Significance

In order for organizations to learn there must be feedback, both positive and negative. A comprehensive assessment of the successes and failures within the program guide future learning (Marquardt, 2002). This research project will evaluate the Thinking Maps program at the site school to see how effective the training for the program is in providing students with tools to become critical thinkers and to assess if the school is getting a return on its monetary and time investment in the program.

A key part of the evaluation will focus on determining if the Thinking Maps program is being implemented effectively in the target school and what changes or improvements are needed to ensure consistent, pervasive implementation. In addition, it will document teacher attitudes about the program and its perceived effectiveness in increasing students’ higher-order thinking skills as one possible contributing factor to the program’s level of effectiveness.

Organizational Setting

The county in which the target school is located is the eighth largest school district in the state of Florida and the 37th largest in the nation. Of the 483,924 residents listed in the 2000 Census information, approximately 80% were Caucasian, 14% African-American, 10% Hispanic, and the remainder were American Indian and Asian. There are 152 schools in the county serving 92,000 students.

Of these schools, 106 are regular schools: elementary, middle, and secondary public schools. The rest are technical centers, alternative programs, adult schools, conversion charter, and charter schools. An additional three elementary schools opened in August of 2007 and growth projections of a 31.5 % increase in students by the year 2015 mean many more schools will be built (Crouse, 2007).

The public elementary school that will be the target for this research study serves grades Pre-K through fifth. It is located on the urban fringe of a mid-size city in a rural community that is bisected by arterial highways leading to nearby metropolitan communities. Median resident age is 41.9 years, median household income is $28,247 per year (year 2000), and the median house value is $51,700 (year 2000).

Inexpensive housing has led to a substantial influx of new residents, many of whom commute to the metropolitan areas. The population of the area is currently estimated at over 50,000 and growing. The growth rate since the 2000 U.S. Census is eight percent (Rufty, 2008). Economic growth in the area has fluctuated as a result of changes in local industry, which is heavily dependent upon the phosphate industry and agricultural products. The industry has suffered reverses in production and agricultural production has moved further south because land has been developed for housing.

The target school was originally built in 1907 as a high school. It underwent many changes and additions through the years, eventually evolving into an elementary school. The current student population is 530 students and consists of 61% Caucasian students, 23% Hispanic students, 13% African American students, and 3% students from other ethnic groups. The socio-economic status of the student population ranges from very low to middle class. It is a Title One school with 78% of the students receiving free or reduced lunch.

The staff consists of 38 teachers whose average classroom experience is 12 years. The ethnicity of the faculty is 81.6% Caucasian, 15.8% African American, and 2.6% Hispanic. There are more females than male staff members, the percentages being 86.8% to 13.2%. The current classroom teacher to student ratio is 18 to one. There are two administrators, a principal and an assistant principal.

The researcher was hired at the school in 2001 as a reading teacher and tutor. She has taught Kindergarten and fourth grade, worked as a resource teacher, and was the site coordinator for the school’s after school program. In addition she has attended supplemental trainings in the use of Thinking Maps in the teaching of Math and Science and presented that training at an in-service for the target school. Currently, she is on an educational leave of absence.

Research Questions

In order for the Thinking Maps program to be implemented consistently and pervasively in the target school, teachers must own the strategies and speak the language. Students imitate what they see modeled for them in the classroom, therefore, it must become second nature for teachers to use Thinking Maps automatically in their daily instruction. Thus the following research questions will be addressed in this study:

1. Are students able to accurately demonstrate critical thinking skills by producing graphic organizers using Thinking Maps to analyze material presented for them across the curriculum to the level expected? If not, what weaknesses such as inconsistent school-wide implementation and teachers’ lack of skill/knowledge are contributing to this less than desired academic achievement?

2. What are the most appropriate staff development methods to ensure continued effectiveness of the program in terms of training and support for teachers so that they automatically use Thinking Maps in their instruction?

3. What are the most appropriate methods to ensure continued effectiveness of the program so that students automatically use Thinking Maps inside and outside of the classroom across all curriculum areas?

Definition of Terms

Andragogy. The term andragogy came from the German word andragogik. The earliest known use of the word was in a paper written by Alexander Kapp, a German music teacher, in 1833. The word remained obscure until Malcom Knowles used it to describe his adult learning theory (Reischman, 2004). In this paper, andragogy is used to refer to adult learning.

Logic Model. The Logic Model is a process for organizing program evaluation. It is usually represented by a graphic organizer and provides a focus and structure for evaluation (Taylor-Powell, Jones & Henert, 2003).

Thinking Maps. Thinking Maps are a set of eight visual tools for learning developed by Dr. David Hyerle based upon the thinking processes work of Dr. Albert Upton (Thinking Maps, Inc., 2004). In this paper Thinking Maps is used to refer to both the program and the visual tools.

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

An Overview of Andragogy

“Andragogy is any intentional and professionally guided activity that aims at a change in adult persons” (Knowles, et al., 2005, p. 60). Thus, andragogy correlates to adult learning as pedagogy correlates to child learning. Adult learning differs significantly from that of children in that learning differences between individuals become greater as they become older.

Because effective staff development is necessary for effective implementation of new procedures, curriculum, and new skills; it is important to understand how adults learn and to know what components and delivery system are most effective in staff development.

Knowles, et al. (2005) found five core principles that guide adult learning:

(a) Learners’ need to know is critical because adults need to be responsible for their own learning and must see the value and need for whatever it is they are being asked to learn;

(b) Learners’ self-concept is crucial because the way adults perceive themselves makes them more or less successful in their work and career;

(c) Learners’ prior experience is important because new knowledge builds upon background knowledge;

(d) Learners’ readiness to learn is important because adults learn when they feel ready; and

(e) Learners’ motivation is important because adults are motivated internally, intrinsic motivation.

In examining individuals’ orientation to learning, children’s learning is more subject-directed learning. Adults want to problem solve. They want to take what they learn and apply it to the real world and are more problem centered. When individuals understand the relationship between their learning goals and those of their organization and collaborate with their co-workers to reach those goals, the shared responsibility for learning results in greater benefits for all parties (Conzemius & O'Neill, 2001; Marquardt, 2002).

Kline and Saunders (1998) discovered that “organizations learn through change in the culture” (p. 23). In order for change to take place, the organization must change the attitude and behavior of its members. All members must become willing to learn, change, and adapt before the organization can become a learning organization (Marquardt).

Staff Development

Staff development focuses on adult learning in order to assure that those responsible for student learning continue to hone their skills and improve their knowledge. In order for the highest return on investment to occur, the staff development must be aligned with staff, student, school, and district needs and goals. The curriculum must meet participants’ needs, the facilitator must be credible, and ample opportunity for discussion and planning for implementation must be provided (Peery, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2007).

Professional development and professional learning based on data that targets specific student and individual teacher needs is more effective than whole school training (Goldberg, 2004; Partee & Sammon, 2001). Demands on teachers’ planning time must be taken into account when planning for staff development activities. The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) has established professional development standards to guide schools in creating effective staff development programs that rely on ongoing skill-building rather than ineffective “one-shot” sessions (Holler, Callender, & Skinner, 2007).

According to the NSDC, at least 10% of a school district’s total budget should be dedicated to staff development. They further recommend that at least 25% of teachers’ time be devoted to improving their craft through professional development, learning communities, and collaboration with peers. For staff development to be incorporated into daily instruction, follow-up must be included.

Follow-up can take many forms including homework, discussion groups, modeling, peer coaching, and examination of student work. Finally, it is important to provide continued support to teachers as they work toward mastery and incorporation of new strategies in the classroom. An understanding of adult learning theory and thorough knowledge of the skills, abilities, and differences in learning styles is crucial to the success of the implementation process (National Staff Development Council (NSDC), 2008).

Development of Higher-Order Thinking Skills

Perhaps most importantly in today's information age, thinking skills are viewed as crucial for educated persons to cope with a rapidly changing world. Many educators believe that specific knowledge will not be as important to tomorrow's workers and citizens as is the ability to learn and make sense of new information.

Workers are expected to be able to transfer and adapt the concepts and knowledge learned in one situation and apply them to another consciously and seamlessly (Danielson, 2002).

Marzano (2003) reported that in order to be effective, teachers need specific strategies to design effective lessons and provide students with ways to organize the content delivered in those lessons. He found that students must be able to synthesize the knowledge presented to them in order to focus on the most important aspects of the lesson and extend their understanding. Even young children can begin to develop critical thinking skills when “provided with opportunities to see logical connections with new material and previously acquired knowledge” (Gallenstein, 2005, p. 44).

Individuals who have developed higher-order thinking skills can think about their thinking processes. They have the ability to generate and test hypotheses and can use hypothetical data to form multiple hypotheses. These critical thinkers are not dependent upon concrete data but can infer and generalize based upon their prior experiences and the new information they are receiving (Deming & Cracolice, 2004).

Thinking Maps

Thinking Maps are the creation of Dr. David Hyerle who developed them as tools for learning for his own students in 1988. They are a set of eight visual tools based upon the thinking processes work of Dr. Albert Upton (Thinking Maps, Inc., 2004). There is a separate Thinking Map for each of the following thinking processes:

(a) defining in context,

(b) describing qualities,

(c) comparing and contrasting,

(d) classifying,

(e) working with part-whole relationships,

(f) sequencing,

(g) identifying cause and effect, and

(h) seeing analogies. Thinking Maps allow students to draw their thinking, see their thinking, develop connections between concepts, and provide a shared, common language for critical thinking. Research conducted by educators and administrators who have implemented Thinking Maps in schools and classrooms have shown impressive results in increasing student achievement and learning (Designs for Thinking, 2007).

Marzano and Pickering (2005) included two of Hyerle’s Thinking Maps in their book on strategies to build student vocabulary. They found that using an organizer such as Hyerle’s Thinking Maps helps students understand analogies. Thinking Maps fall under the umbrella of visual tools that include brainstorming webs, graphic organizers, and thinking-process maps.

Providing students with strategies and tools to organize their thoughts and manage their learning allows both the student and the teacher to differentiate instruction. Students need a variety of tools to use so that they can select what works best for them in each situation (Tomlinson, 2001).

Organizers “help students learn the tools of thought and communication” that will help them be successful (Tomlinson, 2003, p. 52). “Effective teachers use proven research-based practices that are employed by thousands of other teachers” (Wong & Wong, 2004, p. 27).

Logic Model

The basic components of the Logic Model are the inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Inputs pertain to what is invested in the program in terms of staff, time, money, materials, and facilities. Outputs consist of activities, what is done, and participation, who is reached (Taylor-Powell, E., Jones, L., & Henert, E., 2003). The activities may comprise training, workshops, meetings, publications, or even development of curriculum.

Participation refers to the people the activities are intended to impact, those who have been targeted by the services, or who participate in the program. Outcomes are the learning, actions, and conditions that result. Learning outcomes are short term and are described as a change in awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, opinions, or motivations.

Medium term outcomes are actions that result in changes in behavior, practice, procedures, or policies. Another way to describe long-term outcomes is as impacts such as change in social, economic, civic, or environmental conditions.

The Logic Model is usually represented in the form of a graphic organizer with inputs, outputs, and outcomes in separate boxes and arrows showing the connection between components. The premise of the model is that inputs directly lead to outputs that result in outcomes. The evaluation explores the causal connection between components.

A situation statement that describes the problem, who is affected by the problem, and who is interested in the analysis of the problem will create a baseline to establish the value of the evaluation. Assumptions and external factors must also be delineated when creating the Logic Model (Taylor-Powell et al.).

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Introduction

A formal evaluation will be conducted using “systematic procedures and formally collected evidence” (Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen, 2004, p. 8). Evaluative methodology, specifically the Logic Model and Evaluation research design, will be used to determine the effectiveness of the Thinking Maps program and the extent to which the program has been implemented in the target school and what strategies need to be used to improve and increase the use of Thinking Maps. Qualitative data collection techniques will be employed including surveys, document analysis, and observations (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). Logic Model and Evaluation research design

Participants

Participants in this study will be the regular classroom teachers at the target site elementary school. This group consists of 23 female and one male teacher ranging in age from 24 to 63. Two teachers are African American, 2 teachers are Hispanic, and 19 teachers are Caucasian. These teachers range in experience from 1 year to over 30 years in the classroom and teach Kindergarten through Grade 5.

Procedures

The methodology for this research project will use formative evaluation to help strengthen or improve the Thinking Maps program by examining the delivery of the program, the quality of its implementation, and the assessment of the organizational context, personnel, procedures, and inputs. The Logic Model and Evaluation research design will be used to evaluate the program. This will include a needs assessment to determine the potential barriers to the program facilitators (teachers). The Logic Model evaluation will also incorporate process evaluation to:

(a) determine how the Thinking Maps program is implemented, (b) evaluate the fidelity of the implementation (monitoring how the program is performing), (c) determine if the activities are delivered as intended (auditing the program to make sure it is following required implementation guidelines), (d) determine if the participants are being reached as intended, (e) identify defects in the procedural design or in the implementation of the program, (f) determine participant reactions to the program, and (g) determine the most appropriate method to ensure continued effectiveness of the program.

Outcome Evaluation will be done to determine (a) to what extent are desired changes occurring, (b) if the program is making a difference, and (c) what seems to work and not work. From this evaluation the researcher will provide information about what is actually occurring in the program, and this feedback will be used to make formative evaluation decisions about how to modify or improve the program and/or its implementation.

The focus of this study is to determine the factors that lead to school-wide implementation of a program delivered in professional development training. Evaluation will begin with a thorough research of the amount and extent of training provided for the staff during all phases of professional development for Thinking Maps.

Cross-training provided in related programs and through other sources will also be explored and evaluated. Additional research topics will include adult learning theory, visual tools, and research-based strategies to increase higher-order thinking skills.

The second step consisted of developing a needs assessment/teacher survey (see Appendix A) to determine the site teachers’ attitudes, skill level, and comfort level with Thinking Maps. This survey development and survey administration is discussed in the Instruments section of this chapter.

The third step will be to analyze the survey response data to address Research Question 1 (Is the determine the current training levels for all staff and whether further training needs to be conducted. Data will also be analyzed related to years of teaching experience and teacher willingness to engage in implementation of new teaching strategies. Finally, the responses will provide a basis for determining the need for and amount of follow-up support necessary to increase implementation of the Thinking Maps program.

The fourth step of this evaluation will be to conduct a school-wide inventory of Thinking Maps. Classroom observations will be conducted to document the extent to which teachers are using Thinking Maps in daily instruction. In addition, student work will be observed to document student use of Thinking Maps. Finally, administrators will be observed to determine if they are modeling the strategies they expect to see implemented in the school.

The final step in the evaluation will be to analyze all data and prepare a report for the administration documenting the consistency and pervasiveness of the implementation of the Thinking Maps program. The researcher will also make recommendations on training and follow-up support to improve the program.

Procedures to Address Research Questions

Interventions and Research Instruments

The researcher will use the Logic Model process as described by Taylor-Powell et al., (2003). The Logic Model provides a systematic structure for evaluating a program to determine its effectiveness and make decisions about needed improvements. The Logic Model focuses the evaluation by establishing the questions, indicators, timing, and data collection methods.

The survey (see Appendix A) developed by the researcher consists of several parts. The first part addresses training, implementation, support, opinions and attitudes, and collaboration. The next part requests information related to extent of professional development with the program, perceptions about the training, and perceived extent of classroom implementation.

Finally, the survey solicits teacher attitudes about the program, its effectiveness in increasing higher-order thinking skills in students, and effectiveness of the professional development and follow-up support provided.

The design for the survey is based upon the guidelines described by Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2004) as a paper and pencil questionnaire with Likert-scale responses and short-answer open-ended items intended to gather information about the Thinking Maps program at the target school.

Questions included solicit information from grade level teachers pertaining to their professional development related to the program and subsequent implementation of the program. This format was selected to provide specific, detailed, and anonymous information that will be analyzed and used to provide feedback to improve the Thinking Maps program.

To assure that the survey was comprehensive and in a format that was clear and easy for respondents to complete, the researcher had several individuals serve as a Formative Committee to review the survey prior to its submittal to IRB approval and administration. These individuals included the target school’s principal, reading coach, media specialist, and a teacher. The principal and teacher were included to gain insight from a member of the administration and a member of the teaching staff.

The reading coach was included because she conducts the majority of the staff training sessions and she interacts with all teachers on the staff to ensure effective instruction of the reading curriculum. Finally, the media specialist was chosen because she has contact with all teachers and students through their use of the media center for reading, research, and technology instruction.

In order for the formative committee to effectively evaluate the teacher questionnaire, the researcher provided a copy of the research questions to the committee. The committee found that the first research question was subjective in nature as stated and needed to be rephrased. Therefore, the original question, Is the Thinking Maps program increasing students’ critical thinking skills to the level expected?, was restated as, Are students able to accurately demonstrate critical thinking skills by producing graphic organizers using Thinking Maps to analyze material presented for them across the curriculum to the level expected? The second research question was acceptable as stated and the only recommended change to the third research question was to add the words, across all curriculum areas.

In evaluating the teacher questionnaire the committee made a number of recommendations to improve the quality and appearance of the survey. The committee found that the font and spacing on the survey needed to be increased to avoid confusion and eye strain for respondents. Questions in sections one, two, and four related to training and support respectively were acceptable as stated. The questions in section three pertaining to implementation were rearranged for better flow of ideas.

Members stated that the questions about use needed to be directly followed by the questions about the need for further training. The question in section five asking about parent feedback regarding Thinking Maps assignments was determined to be unnecessary since the research questions do not address parental involvement in the program. In addition, the three questions asking if Thinking Maps are helpful for struggling students, Exceptional Student Education students, and English for Speakers of Other Languages students were deemed unnecessary because of the inclusion policy of the school district.

The only change in the final Likert-scale section on collaboration was to format the subject areas in bold on the curriculum planning questions. Finally, the committee supported the use of the short response questions and the space for additional comments at the end of the survey.

The survey will be distributed at one of the weekly staff meetings. The research, release form, and survey will be explained to teachers. The voluntary nature of participation will be clarified as well as the assurance of confidentiality.

Release forms and surveys will be distributed and participants will be asked to complete the survey during the staff meeting. Participants will place the completed surveys in a box by the door as they leave the room at the end of the staff session.

Timeline

The study will begin immediately upon receiving IRB approval. It is anticipated that the study will be conducted during the 2007-2008 school year. The study will begin with an examination of the Thinking Maps professional development that participants have received and an in-depth review of the related literature.

This will be followed by a needs assessment and an analysis of the results. Classroom observations, Thinking Maps inventory, and implementation strategy review will follow. Finally, all data will be analyzed to determine recommendations to submit to administration to improve the implementation of the Thinking Maps program.

Limitations

Possible weaknesses in this project are based upon human factors and generalizability. Dependence upon teachers for information about staff development could be influenced by individuals’ personal feelings about the program, about staff development in general, and their unwillingness to share their true feelings about the program.

Anonymity of survey findings is intended to decrease this weakness. Dependence upon administrators for information about implementation could be affected by inconsistent observations and administrators feelings about the program and the staff. The use of the observation checklist (see Appendix B) is intended to minimize this occurrence. Student ability to produce Thinking Maps that demonstrate their critical thinking skills is limited by the extent of their knowledge of Thinking Maps.

Their teacher may not have received adequate training or the student may not have been at the target school for Thinking Maps instruction. In addition, the population of this Title I school is highly transitory with students attending the school for a short period of time moving to a new school and then returning to the target school. Therefore, students may be exposed to Thinking Maps at the target school but not use them at another school diminishing their ability to produce an accurate product.

Analysis of student work is limited to work posted in the classroom and that submitted by teachers to administration as part of their follow-up assignments for staff development. This limitation was unavoidable because of staff resistance to any additional assignment for students. The final limitation to this project is its generalizability which is limited to Title I elementary schools that have implemented the Thinking Maps program.

Delimitations

This project will be restricted to a study of the implementation of Thinking Maps in regular grade level classrooms. Kindergarten, Exceptional Student Education classes, and Pre-School classes were not included in this study. The reason for this exclusion is to narrow the focus of the study to effective implementation of the Thinking Maps program. To do this, the study was restricted to teachers in regular classroom settings for students accustomed to the educational process.

Assumptions

For the purposes of this study, the researcher will assume that the survey and the classroom observation form, which have been reviewed by the formative committee, will provide useful information about the implementation of Thinking Maps in the target elementary school. It is further assumed that teachers will participate and complete the survey honestly giving their true feelings about the program. Another assumption is that administrators will provide unbiased observations on the classroom observation forms.

A final assumption is that the researcher will be allowed access to student work submitted by teachers in fulfillment of their staff development follow-up training and that the student work will provide an accurate portrayal of development of critical thinking skills.

References

Brooks, J. G. (2004, September). To see beyond the lesson. [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 62, 8-12.

Conzemius, A., & O'Neill, J. (2001). Building shared responsibility for student learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Crouse, J. (2007, March 14). Study: 121,000 students by 2015. [Electronic version]. The Ledger. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from TheLedger Web Site: http://www.theledger.com/article/20070314/NEWS/703140453

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Standards and accountability movement needs to push, not punish. [Electronic version]. National Staff Development Council, 28, 47-50.

Deming, J. C., & Cracolice, M. S. (2004, March). Learning how to think: An inquiry unit on gas laws focuses on the explanation phase of the learning cycle [Electronic version]. The Science Teacher, 71, 42-47.

Designs for Thinking. (2007, March). Thinking Maps. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from http://www.mapthemind.com/thinkingmaps/thinkingmaps.html

Everett, D., Tichenor, M., & Heins, E. (2003, Fall). A profile of elementary school teachers involved in a professional development school. [Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 37-56.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Gallenstein, N. L. (2005, September). Never too young for a concept map. [Electronic version]. Science and Children, 43, 44-47.

Goldberg, B. (2004, November/December). Data-driven professional development. [Electronic version]. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 11, 24-25.

Holler, E. W., Callender, S., & Skinner, C. (2007, May). Time well spent. [Electronic version]. Principal Leadership, 7, 42-44, 46.

Holzman, S. (2005, February). Thinking Maps: Strategy-based learning for English Language Learners (and others!). Retrieved March 22, 2007, from Sonoma County Office of Education Web Site: http://www.scoe.org

Hyerle, D. (Ed.). (2004). Student successes with thinking maps: School-based research, results, and models for achievement using visual tools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed., Rev.). Burlington: Elsevier.

Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning organization: Mastering the 5 elements for corporate learning (2nd ed.). Palo Alto: Davies-Black.

Marshall, J. (2006, January). Math wars 2: It's the teaching, stupid! Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 356-363.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., & Pickering, D. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher's manual. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Staff Development Council (2008). NSDC standards: About the standards. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from National Staff Development Council Web Site: http://www.nsdc.org/standards/about/index.cfm

Partee, G. L., & Sammon, G.M. (2001, February). A strategic approach to staff development. [Electronic version]. Principal Leadership, 1, 14-17.

Peery, A. (2002, November). Beyond inservice. [Electronic version]. Principal Leadership, 3, 22-28.

Reischman, J. (2004, September 4). Andragogy. History, meaning, context, function. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from Andragogy Web Site: http://web.uni-bamberg.de/ppp/andragogik/andragogy/index.htm

Rufty, B. (2008, February 22). Polk’s growth outpaces Florida and nation. The Ledger, B1-B2.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). Success for all: Research and reform in elementary education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taylor, P. (2003). How to design a training course: A guide to participatory curriculum development. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Taylor-Powell, E., Jones, L., & Henert, E. (2003). Enhancing program performance with logic models. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from University of Wisconsin-Extension Web Site: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/lmcourse/

Thinking Maps, Inc. (2004). About us. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from Thinking Maps, Inc. Web Site: http://www.thinkingmaps.com/htabout.php3

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2004). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications.

 

 

第1章:背景介绍
问题的性质
教学学生是怎么想的,是他们在学校的成功和未来的人力资本的价值,能够在工作场所工作富有成效(布鲁克斯,2004年)的关键。教导学生如何思考,这个过程不是一个熟悉的许多教师,有多年依靠死记硬背(马歇尔,2006) 。
思维地图程序由8个学生使用的可视化工具,发展高层次思维技巧。地图给学生的方式组织他们的想法,构建自己的思想,并看到他们的思想。他们为学生提供一个共同的视觉语言,并允许他们在学习中成为积极的参与者( Hyerle , 2004;霍尔兹曼, 2005) 。
教师接受培训,如何引进和教导学生的思维地图。这种培训的形式进行外部教练或内部培训师的专业发展。期望是教师实施方案的程序和使用的策略,他们已经学会了在他们的训练( Hyerle ,2004)在他们的教室。
现实情况是很少的培训,专业发展会议期间收到的是曾经在课堂上实施(埃弗雷特, Tichenor &海因斯, 2003年泰勒, 2003年) , ,站点学校有关的思维地图程序,这是真实的。教师可以回来,从他们的兴奋和渴望相信,他们刚刚发现的神奇工具,彻底改变自己的教学实施新的战略培训会议。
他们开始使用的策略,才发现他们有问题,有关具体情况和如何解决发展问题,因为他们试图有效地实施方案。在这一点上是很容易放弃努力,如果他们没有持续的支持,他们需要开发和使用新的技能(斯拉劲爆,2001)发生在周围的自然的绊脚石。
问题陈述
在这所小学的问题的思维地图程序的执行并不一致,无孔不入。最初是在2002年2月进行训练思维地图在目标站点学校整个教学人员由外部教练。思维地图的可视化工具,旨在帮助学生看到他们的思维领先的高阶思维能力,是一个证明,以提高学生的学习( Hyerle ,2004)的研究为基础的方案。一个后续会议上进行了数个月后。
然而,目前的员工只有48%的受雇在该学校,并出席了原来的培训。没有进行进一步的培训,和思维地图程序的实施是跨年级不一致。教师参加大小适合所有专业发展会议不断,大部分所学内容在课堂上(泰勒,2003)从未得到实施。
这些会议忽略基本andragological的成人学习理论,如自我概念,准备和学习方向,过去经验,了解学习者的需要知道正在提交(诺尔斯,霍顿斯万森,2005) 。被浪费的时间,精力和资金投入,培训。此外,有利于优秀的方案,以创新的方式提供课程的学生丢失(埃弗雷特等,2003) 。这是这所小学的思维地图程序的情况。
该研究的目的
这项研究的目的是评估在现场小学的思维地图程序。管理员在目标学校在2002年1月支付$ 5,380思维地图课程,称为思维地图的教育咨询和出版公司签约,公司将进行全校在职培训学校的工作人员的思维地图。
,专业发展,花费3000美元,我们的目标是为教师提供培训,科研为基础的战略,以提高学生的批判性思维能力,提高学生成绩。然而,接受教师和学生拥有这些战略缺乏证据。
随着一个新的助理校长的到来,谁是思考地图教练,进行培训课程,部分学校在目前的教学人员的服务天。培训是由级别和所有教师被要求写一个思维地图在课堂上被用来作为其评估计划的一部分,今年的使用有关的目标。
教师正在极力鼓励在课堂上实施培训,并须提供实施证明,在学生工作样本的形式,接受他们的服务点。
背景及意义
为了组织学习必须有反馈,无论是正面和负面的。全面评估计划内的指导今后的学习成功和失败(马夸特,2002年) 。这一研究项目将在现场学校评估的思维地图程序,看如何有效的培训计划是在为学生提供工具,成为关键的思想家和评估,如果学校是在金钱和时间的投资上获得回报计划。
评价的一个关键部分将重点放在确定的思维地图程序得到有效执行在目标学校需要什么样的变化或改进,以确保一致,普遍实施。此外,它还将记录教师的态度有关程序及其成效作为一种可能的贡献因素在增加学生的高层次思维技巧,程序的效益水平。
组织设置
全县目标学校位于佛罗里达州的第八大校区,在全国第37大。 483924所列居民在2000年的人口普查信息中,约80%为白人, 14%的非裔美国人,西班牙裔10 % ,其余为美洲印第安人和亚洲。全县152所学校的92,000名学生提供服务。
在这些学校中,106是正规学校:小学,初中,公立中小学校。的其余技术中心,替代方案,成人学校,转换包机,包机学校。另外三所小学2007年增长预测,到2015年上升31.5%学生8月开业意味着有更多的学校将建成( CROUSE ,2007年) 。
公立小学,这将是此项研究的目标服务等级Pre -K通过第五。它位于城市边缘的一个中等规模的城市,在农村社区干线公路通往附近城市社区平分。居民的年龄中位数为41.9岁,家庭收入中位数是每年28247美元( 2000年) ,房子的价值中位数是51700美元( 2000年) 。
廉价住房,导致大量涌入的新居民,其中许多人的通勤到大都市地区。目前估计有超过50,000和不断增长的人口的区域。自2000年美国人口普查的增长率是百分之八( Rufty ,2008) 。在该地区的经济增长由于当地工业的变化,这在很大程度上依赖于磷酸盐工业和农产品波动。该行业遭受了逆转的生产和农业生产继续向南移动,因为土地已开发的住房。
的目标学校始建于1907年,作为一所高中。它经历了许多经过多年的修改和补充,最终演变成一所小学。现时全港学生人数为530名学生和61%的白人学生, 23 %的西班牙裔学生,13%的非洲裔学生,和3%的学生来自其他族群组成。社会经济地位的学生人口范围从很低到中产阶级。这是一个标题一所学校78%的学生接受免费或减价午餐。
工作人员由38名教师的课堂教学经验平均为12年。 81.6%的教师是美国黑人,白人,15.8%和2.6%,西班牙裔的种族。有更多的女性比男性工作人员,比例为86.8 %至13.2% 。目前任课老师与学生的比例是18比1 。有两个管理员,校长和校长助理。
作为阅读的老师和导师,学校在2001年被聘为研究员。她曾任教幼稚园及小学四年级,担任资源教师,是学校的课后计划的现场协调员。此外,她已经参加了在数学和科学的教学思维地图使用的补充培训,介绍,培训服务为目标的学校。目前,她是在教育请假。
研究问题
为了要在目标学校一贯和普遍地实施思想地图程序,教师必须拥有自己的策略和讲的语言。学生模仿他们看到他们在课堂上为蓝本,因此,它必须成为第二自然教师使用在他们日常的指令自动思维地图。因此,在这项研究中,研究以下问题将得到解决:
1。学生是否能够准确显示批判性思维能力的图形组织者利用思维地图分析材料跨学科课程为他们预期的水平吗?如果不是,是什么弱点,如不一致的学校广泛实施和教师缺乏的技能/知识贡献小于所需的学术成就?
2。什么是最合适的员工发展计划的成效,以确保持续的方法在对教师的培训和支持,让他们在他们的指令自动使用思维地图?
3。什么是最合适的方法,以确保持续计划的成效,使学生自动使用在所有课程领域的课堂内外的思考地图?
术语的定义
成人教育学。长期成人教育学来到从德语单词andragogik 。已知最早的使用的字,是写在1833年,德国的音乐老师,亚历山大·卡普在一份文件中。这个词仍然晦涩难懂,直到马尔科姆诺尔斯用它来形容他的成人学习理论( Reischman ,2004) 。在本文中,成人教育学是用来指成人学习。
逻辑模型。逻辑模型是一个过程,组织方案评估。它通常由一个图形的组织者,并提供评估(泰勒 - 鲍威尔,琼斯& Henert的,2003年)的重点和结构。
思维地图。思维地图是一套八可视化工具可用来学习大卫博士Hyerle开发基于工作阿尔伯特厄普顿博士(思考地图公司, 2004年)的思维过程。在本文中的思考地图是用来指两个方案和可视化工具。
第2章:相关文献回顾
成人教育学概述
“成人教育学是任何故意和专业导游活动,旨在改变成年人” (诺尔斯等人, 2005年,页60) 。因此,成人教育学与成人学习作为教育学与孩子学习。成人学习显著不同,学习差异儿童个体之间变得更大,因为他们成为老。
因为有效的员工开发的新程序,新课程,新技能的有效实施是必要的,重要的是要明白成年人如何学习和知道哪些组件和输送系统是最有效的员工发展。
诺尔斯,等。 (2005)发现,指导成人学习的五个核心原则:
(一)学习者需要知道是至关重要的,因为成年人必须为自己的学习负责,必须看到,不管它是什么,他们都被要求学习的价值和需要;
(二)学习的自我概念是非常重要的,因为成人认为自己的方式,使他们或多或少在他们的工作和事业的成功;
(三)学习者以往的经验是很重要的,因为新的知识为基础的背景知识;
(四)成人学习者的学习准备是很重要的,因为学习时,他们觉得准备好了;
(五)成人学习者的学习动机是很重要的,因为内部的动机,内在动机。
孩子的学习是在审查个人的学习方向,更多的学科导向的学习。成人要解决问题。他们要采取什么他们学习,并把它应用到现实世界,更多的问题为中心。当个人了解自己的学习目标和他们的组织之间的关系,并与他们的同事,以达到这些目标,学习成果在更大的利益各方( Conzemius奥尼尔,2001年, 2002年夸特,共同承担责任)。
克莱恩和桑德斯(1998)发现, “组织学习,通过文化的变化” (第23页) 。为了要发生变化时,组织必须改变其成员的态度和行为。所有成员都必须愿意学习,改变和适应前的组织可以成为一个学习型组织(马夸特) 。
员工发展
员工发展重点成人学习,以保证那些负责学生的学习继续磨练自己的技能,提高他们的知识。为了回报率最高的投资发生,必须与员工发展人员,学生,学校和地区的需要和目标。该课程必须满足参与者的需求,主持人必须是可信的,必须提供充足的机会进行讨论和实施规划(佩里, 2002亲爱的哈蒙德, 2007) 。
专业发展和专业学习的基础上的数据,针对特定的学生和教师个人的需求是更有效地比整个学校培训(戈德堡, 2004; Partee萨蒙, 2001) 。要求教师'规划的时候,必须考虑规划时,为员工的发展活动。国家工作人员发展理事会( NSDC )建立专业发展标准,指导学校建立有效的员工发展计划,依靠持续的技能建设,而不是无效的“一次性”的会话(喊叫,凯伦德, &斯金纳, 2007) 。
根据NSDC ,至少有10 %的学区的总预算应致力于员工的发展。他们还建议,至少有25 %的教师通过专业开发,学习社区,并与同行合作,致力于提高自己的手艺。对于员工的发展纳入日常教学,后续必须包括在内。
后续可以采取多种形式,包括作业,小组讨论,模拟,朋辈辅导,检查学生的工作。最后,重要的是他们的工作向新的策略,在课堂上掌握并纳入教师继续提供支持。成人学习理论的理解和彻底的知识,技能,能力和学习风格的差异(国家工作人员发展理事会( NSDC ) , 2008年)的实施过程中的成功是至关重要的。
开发中高阶思维技能
也许最重要的是在今天的信息时代,思考能力是受过教育的人,以应付瞬息万变的世界看作是至关重要的。许多教育界人士认为,特定的知识将明天的劳动者和公民不被视为重要的学习和理解新信息的能力。
工人预计能够在一种情况下的概念和学到的知识转移和适应,并自觉地将它们应用到另一个无缝(丹尼尔森,2002年) 。
马尔扎诺(2003)报道,为了有效,教师需要具体的战略设计有效的经验教训,并为学生提供的方式来组织这些经验教训中提供的内容。他发现,学生必须能够合成呈现给他们的知识,以便把重点放在最重要的方面的教训,并延长他们的理解。连小孩子都可以开始培养批判性思考能力“提供了机会看到新材料,以前学到的知识与逻辑连接” ( Gallenstein , 2005年,第44页) 。
谁开发高阶思维技能的个人,可以想想他们的思维过程。他们有能力生成和测试的假说,并可以使用假设的数据形成多种假设。这些重要的思想家是不依赖于具体的数据,但可以推断和概括,根据他们以往的经验和新的信息,他们正在接收(戴明Cracolice的,2004) 。
思维地图
思考的地图是创造大卫博士Hyerle的谁开发他们在1988年为自己的学生学习的工具。它们是一组八个根据工作阿尔伯特厄普顿博士(思维地图公司, 2004年)的思维过程的可视化工具。有一个单独的思维地图为每个下面的思维过程:
( a)定义在上下文中,
(二)描述的特质,
( c)比较和对比,
(四)分类,
(五)部分与整体的关系,
(六)测序,
( g)查明原因和影响,
(H)看到类比。思维地图,让学生画出自己的想法,看到他们的思维,发展概念之间的连接,并提供了一个共享的,共同的语言批判性思维。在提高学生成绩和学习(设计思维,2007年) ,已实施思维地图在学校和教室的教育者和管理者进行的研究已显示出令人印象深刻的结果。
马尔扎诺和皮克林(2005)包括两个Hyerle的思维地图在他们的书战略,以建立学生词汇。他们发现,使用的组织者,如Hyerle的思维地图,帮助学生了解类比。思维地图的保护伞下的可视化工具,包括脑力激荡网,图形组织者和思维过程图。
战略和工具,以提供学生组织自己的思想和管理他们的学习,让学生和老师不同的教学。学生需要的各种工具使用,因此,他们可以选择最适合他们在不同的情况下(汤姆林森,2001年) 。
组织者“帮助学生学习的思想和沟通的工具,这将帮助他们获得成功(汤姆林森, 2003年,第52页) 。 “有效教师使用成熟的研究为基础的做法,是由成千上万的其他老师” (黄和黄, 2004年,第27页) 。
逻辑模型
逻辑模型的基本组成部分的输入,输出,和结果。输入涉及到什么是投资在程序方面的工作人员,时间,金钱,材料和设施。输出包括的活动,做了什么,和参与,达到(泰勒 - 鲍威尔, E. ,琼斯, L. , & Henert , E. , 2003) 。这些活动可能包括培训,研讨会,会议,出版物,甚至发展课程。
参与是指的活动旨在影响,那些谁已经有针对性的服务,或参与该计划的人的人。结果是学习,行动和条件的结果。学习成果是短期的,并且被描述为一个变化的意识,知识,态度,技能,意见,或动机。
中期结果导致行为的变化,实践,程序,或政策的行动。另一种方式来形容长期的结果是在社会,经济,公民,或环境条件变化的影响,如。
逻辑模型通常表示的形式与在单独的方框和箭头示出的组件之间的连接的输入,输出,和结果的图形组织者。该模型的前提是输入输出,导致的结果直接导致。评估探讨组件之间的因果关系。
一种情况描述的问题,受该问题影响的是谁,是谁在分析这个问题感兴趣的语句将创建一个基线建立价值评价。假设和外部因素也必须创建的逻辑模型(泰勒鲍威尔等人)时,划定。
第3章:研究方法
介绍
使用“系统程序和正式收集的证据” (帕特里克·桑德斯& WORTHEN的, 2004年,第8) ,将进行正式评估。评价方法,具体的逻辑模型及评价研究设计,将用于确定思维地图程序的有效性,并在何种程度上在目标学校的方案已经开始实施,需要什么样的策略可以用来改善和提高利用思维地图。将采用定性数据收集技术,包括调查,文件分析和观察(瘿,博格,2003年) 。逻辑模型及评价研究设计
参与者
在这项研究的参与者还会定期在目标站点小学任课教师。这组由23名女性和一名男性老师在24至63岁不等。两位老师是非裔美国人, 2教师是西班牙裔美国人,白人和19名教师。这些教师的范围从1年到30年的经验在课堂上教从幼儿园到五年级。
程序
这个研究项目的方法将使用形成性评价,以帮助加强或提高思维地图程序通过检查的方案,其实施的质量,交付和评估的组织背景,人员,程序和输入。逻辑模型及评价研究设计,将用于评估程序。这包括了需求评估,以确定节目主持人(教师)的潜在障碍。逻辑模型的评价也将过程性评价纳入到:
(一)思维地图程序确定如何实施, ( b)评价实施的保真度(监控程序如何执行) , (c)决定如果活动交付(审计程序,以确保它是(七)所需的实施指引),(四)确定如果参与者正在达到, (五)确定在程序设计或实施方案的缺陷, ( f)决定参与者的反应程序,确定最合适的方法,以确保持续计划的成效。
成效评估工作将确定: (一)到什么程度需要发生变化, (二) ,如果该程序作出区别,及(c)似乎什么工作,而不是工作。从本次评测中,研究人员将提供有关什么是真正发生在节目中,这种反馈将被用来决定如何修改或完善的程序和/或它的实施形成性评价的信息。
这项研究的重点是确定的因素,导致程序交付专业发展培训学校范围内实施。评估将开始了深入的研究与培训期间为员工提供职业发展的各个阶段的思维地图的数量和程度。
还将探讨和评估有关的方案和通过其他渠道提供交叉培训。其他的研究课题将包括成人学习理论,可视化工具,以研究为基础的战略,以增加高层次思维技巧。
第二步包括制订需求评估/教师调查(见附录A )来确定现场教师的态度,技术水平和舒适度的思维地图。本次调查的发展和调查管理仪器本章第一节中讨论。
第三步将是分析调查响应数据,以解决研究问题1(确定目前的训练水平为全体员工进行进一步的培训需求是否也将分析数据与多年的教学经验和教师愿意从事实施新的教学策略。最后,响应将提供确定的必要性和后续支持必要的思维地图程序,以增加执行量的基础。
第四步将是本次评测的思维地图进行全校库存。将进行课堂观察记录的程度,教师在日常教学中使用思维地图。此外,学生的工作将观察记录学生的思维地图。最后,管理员将观察,以确定它们是否建模策略,他们希望看到在学校实施。
评价的最后一步,将所有的数据进行分析,并编制一份报告,记录的一致性和普遍性思维地图程序实施行政。研究员也将提出建议,培训和后续支持改善方案。
程序,以处理研究问题
干预和研究工具
泰勒 - 鲍威尔等人(2003)所描述的,研究人员将使用逻辑模型的过程。逻辑模型提供了一个评估程序,以确定其有效性,并作出决定需要改进的系统结构。逻辑模型建立的问题,指标,时间,和数据收集方法,重点评价。
研究人员开发的调查(见附录A )由几部分组成。第一部分涉及培训,实施,支持,意见和态度,和协作。接下来的部分请求信息相关的专业发展程度与程序的培训,观念,认知程度的课堂实施。
最后,调查征求教师的态度有关程序,其有效性在提高学生高阶思维能力,专业发展的有效性,并提供后续支持。
根据李克特规模的反应和简答开放式的项目,旨在收集信息的思维地图程序菲茨帕特里克,桑德斯, WORTHEN的的(2004)描述的准则,作为纸张和铅笔问卷调查设计目标学校。
问题征求级教师的信息与他们的专业发展有关的方案和后续实施方案。此格式被选中来提供具体的,详细的和匿名信息进行分析,并用于提供反馈,以提高思维地图程序。
为了确保调查是全面的格式,清晰,便于受访者完成,研究者有几个人作为一个形成调查委员会审查之前其提交给IRB的批准和管理。这些人士包括目标学校的校长,阅读教练,媒体专家和老师。校长和教师的管理和教学人员的成员的成员包括洞察。
读数教练被包括在内,因为她的员工培训课程和阅读课程,以确保有效的指令,她与所有的老师对员工进行大部分。最后,被选中,是因为她有接触的所有教师和学生通过阅读,研究和技术指导他们使用媒体中心的媒体专家。
为了形成委员会,以有效地评价教师问卷,研究者提供了一份研究问题委员会。该委员会发现,第一个研究问题在本质上是主观的陈述,并需要改写。因此,原来的问题,是思维的地图程序增加学生的批判性思维能力的水平,预计,重列为学生是否能够准确表现出批判性思维技能,生产图形组织者使用思维图来分析材料,他们横跨预计课程的水平?正如第二个研究问题是可以接受的,唯一推荐的第三个研究问题的变化是添加的话,在所有课程领域。
在评价教师问卷委员会提出了多项建议,以提高调查的质量和外观。委员会发现,调查的字体和间距上需要增加,以避免混乱和受访者的眼睛疲劳。分别在第一个,两个,四个相关培训和支持的问题是可以接受的表示。第三部分有关执行中的问题被重新安排的想法更好的流动。
委员指出的问题,需要有关使用直接的问题,其次是需要进一步培训。第五部分中的问题询问家长反馈的关于思维地图的任务的决定是不必要的,因为研究问题不解决家长参与程序。此外,三问,如果是有帮助的困难的学生,特殊学生教育的学生,和其他语言的学生音箱英语思维地图被认为是不必要的,因为学区纳入政策。
李克特规模在最后一节合作的唯一变化是格式化大胆的学科领域的课程规划问题。最后,该委员会支持使用的短的响应问题,并在调查结束的空间补充意见。
调查将分布在每周的员工会议之一。研究,发布的形式,调查将教师解释。自愿参与性质将被澄清以及保密的保证。
发行形式和调查将分发给员工会议期间,参与者将被要求完成调查。与会者将门放置在一个盒子里完成的调查,他们在员工会议结束离开房间。
时间轴
收到IRB的批准后,将立即开始研究。预计在2007-2008学年,将进行研究。这项研究将开始考试的思维地图专业发展的参与者已经收到相关文献的深入审查。
这之后,将通过需求评估和分析的结果。课堂观察,思考地图库存和实施策略检讨将随之而来。最后,所有的数据将被分析,以确定提交建议政府提高实施的思维地图程序。
限制
在这个项目中可能存在的弱点是根据人为因素和普遍性。依赖于教师对有关员工发展的信息可以影响个人的个人感受有关的计划,有关开发人员在一般情况下,他们不愿意和大家分享自己的真实感受有关程序。
一位不愿透露姓名的调查结果是为了减少这个弱点。不一致的意见和管理员有关的程序和工作人员的感情依赖管理员信息实施可能会受到影响。使用观察清单(见附录B)是为了尽量减少这种情况的发生。学生展示他们的批判性思维能力的思维地图的能力是有限的程度,他们的知识思维地图。
他们的老师可能没有得到足够的训练或学生可能还没有在目标学校地图教学的思考。另外,这个标题我校的人口很短的一段时间移动到一个新的学校,然后返回到目标学校与学生就读的学校是非常短暂的。因此,学生可能会暴露目标学校的思维地图,但不使用它们削弱他们的能力产生一个准确的产品的另一所学校。
学生工作分析是有限的工作,张贴在教室,由教师管理及其后续任务为员工的发展的一部分提交。这种限制是不可避免的,因为员工抵抗任何额外分配学生。这个项目的最终限制是它的普遍性,这是仅限于标题我小学已实施的思维地图程序。
划界
该项目将被限制实施定期级别教室的思维地图的一项研究。幼稚园,特殊学生教育班,学前班不包括在这项研究中。这种排斥的原因研究的重点是缩小思维地图程序的有效实施。要做到这一点,研究限制教师在正规课堂设置,让学生习惯教育过程。
假设
对于这项研究的目的,研究人员将承担调查和课堂观察的形式,形成委员会已审阅有关实施目标小学的思维地图,将提供有用的信息。进一步假定教师会诚实地给自己的真实感受,有关该计划的参与和完成调查。另一个假设是,管理员会提供公正的意见,课堂观察表。
最后一个假设是,研究人员将被允许访问提交学生工作的教师在履行他们的开发人员的后续培训和学生的批判性思维能力的发展工作将提供一个准确的写照。
参考文献
布鲁克斯, J. G. ( 2004年9月) 。看到超越教训。 [电子版] 。教育领导,62, 8-12。
Conzemius , A. , &奥尼尔, J. (2001) 。构建学生学习的共同责任。亚历山大:协会为监督和课程发展。
克劳斯, J. (2007年3月14日) 。研究:由2015年的121,000名学生。 [电子版] 。总帐。 3月17日,2007 TheLedger网址: http://www.theledger.com/article/20070314/NEWS/703140453
丹尼尔森, C. (2002) 。加强学生的成绩:学校改进的框架。亚历山大:协会为监督和课程发展。
亲爱的哈蒙德, L. (2007) 。标准和问责制运动需要推动,而非惩罚。 [电子版] 。国家工作人员发展局,28 , 47-50 。
戴明, J. C. Cracolice , M. S. ( 2004年3月) 。侧重于学习如何思考:查询单位气体定律的解释阶段的学习周期[电子版] 。科学教师,71, 42-47 。
设计思维。 ( 2007年3月) 。思维地图。 2007年3月17日,从http://www.mapthemind.com/thinkingmaps/thinkingmaps.html
埃弗雷特, D. , Tichenor , M. , &海因斯, E. ( 2003年秋季) 。配置文件涉及小学教师专业发展学校。 [电子版] 。中国幼儿教育研究,18, 37-56 。
菲茨帕特里克, JL ,桑德斯, JR , WORTHEN , BR (2004年) 。程序评价:替代方法和实用指南(第三版) 。波士顿:皮尔森。
胆,胆M. D. , J. P. , &博格, W. R. (2003) 。教育研究:介绍(第7版) 。波士顿:培生教育。
Gallenstein , N. L. ( 2005年9月) 。概念图永远不会太年轻。 [电子版] 。科学和儿童,43, 44-47 。
戈德堡, B. (2004年, 11月/ 12月) 。数据驱动的专业发展。 [电子版] 。多媒体及互联网的学校, 11 , 24-25 。
喊叫, EW ,卡伦德, S. , &斯金纳, C. ( 2007年5月) 。时间用得其所。 [电子版] 。校长领导, 7 , 42-44, 46。
霍尔兹曼, S. ( 2005年2月) 。思维地图:以战略为基础的英语学习者学习(和其他人) 。 3月22日,离索诺玛县办教育网址: http://www.scoe.org
Hyerle , D. (主编) 。 (2004年) 。学生成功思维地图:以学校为基础的研究,结果,成就和模型使用的可视化工具。千橡:科温。
诺尔斯, MS ,霍尔顿, III ​​, EF ,斯旺森, RA (2005年) 。成人学习者:成人教育和人力资源开发(第6版,修订版)的权威经典。伯灵顿:爱思唯尔。
夸特, M. J. (2002) 。构建学习型组织:掌握企业学习(第二版)的5个元素。帕洛阿尔托: :戴维斯黑色。
马歇尔, J. ( 2006年1月) 。数学战争2 :这是教学,傻了! Phi三角洲Kappan ,87, 356-363 。
马尔扎诺, : R. J. (2003年) 。在学校的研究转化为行动。亚历山大:协会为监督和课程发展。
马尔扎诺, R. , &皮克林, D. (2005) 。建筑学术词汇:教师手册。亚历山大:协会为监督和课程发展。
国家工作人员发展局(2008年) 。的NSDC标准:关于标准。 3月2日,由国家工作人员发展局网站: http://www.nsdc.org/standards/about/index.cfm
Partee , G. L. &萨蒙, G.M. ( 2001年2月) 。人员开发的战略方法。 [电子版] 。校长领导,1, 14-17 。
佩里, A. ( 2002年11月) 。除了在职。 [电子版] 。校长领导,3, 22-28。
Reischman , J. ( 2004年9月4日) 。成人教育学。历史,意义,背景下,功能。 2008年2月24日,从成人教育学网址: http://web.uni-bamberg.de/ppp/andragogik/andragogy/index.htm的
Rufty , B. ( 2008年2月22日) 。 ,波尔克的增长速度超过佛罗里达州和国家。总帐, B1-B2 。
斯莱文, R. E. , &劲爆, N. A. (2001) 。所有:在小学教育研究和改革的成功。新泽西州马瓦:劳伦斯Erlbaum联营的。
泰勒, P. (2003) 。如何设计培训课程,参与课程开发指南。纽约:连续国际出版集团。
泰勒 - 鲍威尔, E. ,琼斯, L. , & Henert , E. (2003) 。提高程序的性能与逻辑模型。 7月9日,2007大学威斯康辛拓网址: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/lmcourse/
思维地图, (2004年) 。关于我们。 2007年3月17日从思维地图公司网址: http://www.thinkingmaps.com/htabout.php3
汤姆林森, C. (2001 ) 。如何区分混合能力的教室(第二版)的指令。 ,弗吉尼亚州亚历山德里亚:协会监督和课程发展。
汤姆林森, C. (2003 ) 。履行差别化教室的承诺:回应教学的策略和工具。亚历山大:协会为监督和课程发展。
黄H. K. ,黄, R. T. (2004) 。第一天的学校:如何成为一个有效的教师(第三版) 。加州山景城:哈利·黄刊物。