网范文：“A third year seminar course” 这篇教育范文对三年的课程进行了略论。14个学生报名参加了一个研究会，最后一年课程名为社会学和认知学。学生达到了研究会，每周轮流讨论阅读状况。之后,相同的学生则进行总结,考虑课堂讨论。每个人都被邀请来评论。老师通过一定的方法鼓励学生。探讨人员使用多种措施来收集数据。
课程结束时学生们完成了导师的标准课程评估问卷。他们被要求评估课程内容、课程组织和导师的贡献。然后探讨人员邀请学生个人访谈。下面的范文进行详述。
Fourteen students enrolled for a final year seminar course entitled Socio-biology and cognition. Students met weekly for seminars and took turns in presenting to the group a synopsis of a book or articles they had read in the preceding week. Following this, the same students then posted a summary version of their presentation, taking account of the in the class discussion, to the course email list. Online, everyone was invited to comment on it using the quote/comment procedure. The tutor also encouraged the students, as in the first year, to post him if something came up during the tutorial session and we dont get a chance to cover it to your satisfaction.
As with the first study the researchers used a multi-method approach to collect data. They attended three of the seminars. These were each one hour and forty minutes long. They were introduced to the students by the tutor and the students were apprised of the nature of the research project. The researchers names were added to the skywriting course list so they had instant access to all online contributions. The three seminars were audio taped and observation notes were taken..
At the end of the course the students completed a standard course evaluation questionnaire for the tutor. They were asked to evaluate course content, course organisation and tutor contribution on a scale of 15 (strongly agree to strongly disagree). The anonymous responses were made available to the researchers by the tutor. The researchers then invited students to individual interviews of between twenty to thirty minutes, twelve of the fourteen students accepted this invitation. They were asked to look back to their first year use of skywriting and to compare it with their most recent use. All interviews were transcribed and analysed qualitatively.
Initial analysis of the data from the three seminars attended, along with the accompanying skywriting contributions, showed that not all the students contributed to seminar discussions (five making no verbal contribution at all). However, all the students did contribute to skywriting, although only half of them had done so on the year one course. As one student reflected it didnt seem to be like a duty or a threat, something you must do. Instead it just comes out [that] I should do it.
The students not only felt a commitment to their peers to make contributions but they also felt their contributions should be good: I always make sure its a decent message, and that Ive thought about it and planned it out. The use of skywriting seemed to reinforce relationships: I know people better than in my other seminar class (where skywriting was not used). It created: a sense of community within which they could:get the idea of what everyone else is thinking. They also appreciated the practical efficiency gains of sharing the reading load, which they all felt was heavy.
The students contributions show an effective use of skywriting both as a tool for summarising tutorial discussions and as a tool for critique. A somewhat less formal tone is apparent between student and tutor, for example: Sorry, Ive had a delay getting back to you via e-mail but right now I have been immersed in lots of reading and very little analysing. Luckily, your points left me doing an awful lot of further thinking, which is a great help! In what follows the same student offers opinions, starts sentences with, for example: I agree, I admit Im still not sure Why should it matter?, and ends with: Let me get back to you on that one!.
Many of the skywriting ideas were picked up on in the face to face seminar sessions and vice versa. Skywriting, as one student put it, gets more of a debate going amongst people. This was contrasted with other seminar courses where students aimed to score lots of marks because you said what the lecturer wants you to say. However it had taken the whole course for people to work out how best to use skywriting.
The students saw the point of the kid-sib analogy: If you cant explain it in simple terms you probably dont understand it. When writing messages only three of the students said they primarily directed them to the tutor; seven others said they were intended for everyone, while two students relied equivocally. Altogether the 14 students contributed 74 messages and the tutor contributed 33. This contrasts with the first year, where tutor contributed as many messages as the students, but still represents a high level of participation by the tutor. The students were appreciation of his active role: [he] keeps us on the right lines because I think sometimes we do go off on a tangent'; [he] guides us towards the right frame of mind. However, this did not mean that the tutor was chairing the discussion: he gives input but he doesnt really structure the discussions. In contrast, in seminar sessions the tutor definitely took a structuring role in discussion.
All the students found the skywriting postings useful for exam revision and accessed them from the archive. One student would regularly download the messages onto a disk then take it home, sift through it and delete all the bits that are rubbish and keep all the good bits and then just print them out and revise from them adding my own comments. Of the twelve students interviewed, nine were owned their own computers, though only three of these were networked.
In contrast with the first year, peer contributions came to be regarded by the students as a valuable resource for learning. When youve read an article youve [only] got your own understanding of it. But if you go on the skywriting and read loads of other peoples commentaries it puts things together. The fact that its all grouped into different categories [lets] you see where the course is going and where you are going in your reasoning. However, there was still some irritation about contributions which took them down the wrong road, as this was a waste of time.
Compared to the first year, there was less concern about the public nature of the system: if you get things wrong you get things wrong. One student who was initially worried about everyone reading her comments said at the end: I think thats a good thing because instead of writing a paragraph of useless drivel you actually go away and research. All agreed that working within a small group: you feel more confident; In the first year [there were] so many more people, but with a seminar you do know the people in the group so if you cock it up or say something really stupid nobody really minds.
However the social comparison aspect of skywriting was still significant for the students. One commented that other peoples errors gave him: confidence that not everybody else is completely understanding everything. The students were reticent: to criticise somebody else when skywriting. This contrasts with the seminars: In class you can back down, you can say fair enough or whatever.
The third year students were also much less concerned than they had been two years earlier about being shown up by the tutors response to their messages. In part, they thought that this was because the tutor had changed his style of response. One student suggested that the tutor had: toned it down a lot in the first year he used to say no, thats completely wrong and youd think, oh my God! Now he says No, but or It was a very good try, but, so its useful . Another student referred to first year replies from the tutor as a bit of a hacksawbut [he] now appreciates your ideas and your questions. How far this is a matter of changing student perceptions or higher quality student contributions is hard to judge, but the tutor certainly felt that the change was more in the students than in his own behaviour.
The students perceived skywriting as complementary to face to face tutorials. The latter allowed for immediate reactions and immediate explanations while the former gave them a chance to have ideas continually ticking over throughout the week. It seems that working within a smaller group the students were able to evolve a way of working that drew the best from both learning environments. The course evaluation questionnaires gave high ratings for the course and particularly for the tutor. The tutor later described this group as a particularly good one, resulting from: self selection...these were the ones who were up to it... they were all top students. Seven of the students indeed obtained first class marks on the course.
The seminar topics chosen by the tutor were explicitly about controversial things. He observed that: because its socio-biology of cognition which is controversial as well [as] relatively new...it produced several zealots people who ended up being more bullish about socio-biology and cognition than I was. Towards the end of the course, the tutor felt that they had succeeded in; [bringing] down a few intellectual barriers, with students becoming actively engaged in debate. He felt that skywriting had helped to get away from the school ethos to something much more level [as between tutor and students].
However, this was only a matter of degree. The students still tended to pit their arguments against the tutor rather than against their peers. Overall, the tutor was still regarded as the expert. The students remained more interested in his contributions, in his responses and his ideas on the ambiguities left over from the class than in those of their peers. Indeed, there would have been fewer readers if there had been no tutor contributions; the tutor was the catalyst. There remained a lurking suspicion that peer contributions were a bit suspect. However, overall, the students were confident users of skywriting and made good use of it for shared learning.
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，英语论文，保留一切法学追诉权。
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X
，英语毕业论文 |
