首页> 外文OA文献 >Against Realist Instruction: Superficial Success Masking Catastrophic Failure and an Alternative
【2h】

Against Realist Instruction: Superficial Success Masking Catastrophic Failure and an Alternative

机译:反对现实主义者的指示:表面上的成功掩盖了灾难性的失败和另一种选择

摘要

Purpose: Often radical constructivists are confronted with arguments why radical constructivism is wrong. The present work presents a radical constructivist alternative to such arguments: a comparison of the results of two instructional practices, the standard, realistbased instruction and a radical constructivist-based instruction, both in physics courses. Design: Evidence from many studies of student conceptions in standard instruction (Duit 2004) is taken into account. In addition, diagnostic data, pre and post instruction, were collected from over 1,000 students in multiple institutions across the U. S. over a period of about 15 years via an established diagnostic of conceptual understanding of motion and force. Findings: Evidence from many studies of student conceptions in standard instruction (Duit, 2004) is that little or no change in student conceptions happens in standard instruction. About half the students in the particular study reported, all science and engineering majors, experienced standard, realist-based instruction and show an average effect size of 0.6 standard deviations and an average normalized gain of 15%. The other half of the students, none of whom were science and engineering majors, experienced radical constructivist- based instruction and show an average effect size over 2.5 standard deviations and an average normalized gain over 60%. Diagnostic pre scores were nearly the same for both groups. Practical implications: The outcome, that students, neither science nor engineering majors, made changes in understanding foundational topics in physics far greater than science and engineering students, poses (1) an ethical challenge to the continued adherence to standard, realist-based instructional practices and (2) an intellectual challenge to the usefulness and appropriateness of the elitist-realist paradigm on which such standard instruction is based. Conclusions: This radical constructivist argument uses the effect of paradigms to judge their pragmatic value, not their truth-value. Based on pragmatic value, radical constructivism results in superior outcomes when applied to physics instruction. The approach to instruction can be applied generally in education.
机译:目的:激进的建构主义者经常会争论为什么激进的建构主义是错误的。本工作提出了一种替代此类论证的激进的建构主义替代方案:对两种教学实践的结果进行了比较,两种教学实践的结果都是基于物理课程的标准,基于现实主义的指导和基于激进的建构主义的指导。设计:考虑了许多有关标准教学中学生观念研究的证据(Duit 2004)。另外,在大约15年的时间里,通过对运动和力的概念性理解的既定诊断,从美国多个机构的1,000多名学生那里收集了诊断数据,指导前后的信息。研究结果:许多关于标准教学中学生观念的研究(Duit,2004年)表明,标准教学中学生观念几乎没有变化。特定研究中约有一半的学生报告说,所有理科和工程专业的学生都经历过标准的,基于现实主义者的指导,并且平均效果大小为0.6个标准差,平均归一化增益为15%。另一半的学生,都不是科学和工程专业的学生,​​都接受过激进的基于建构主义的指导,显示出超过2.5个标准差的平均效应大小和超过60%的平均归一化增益。两组的诊断前分数几乎相同。实际意义:结果表明,既不是科学专业也不是工程专业的学生,​​对物理基础知识的理解所带来的变化远大于科学和工程专业的学生,​​这构成了(1)继续遵守标准的,基于现实主义的教学实践的道德挑战。 (2)对这种标准指导所基于的精英现实主义范式的有用性和适当性的智力挑战。结论:这个激进的建构主义观点利用范式的作用来判断其实用价值,而不是其真实价值。基于务实的价值,激进的建构主义在应用于物理教学时会产生更好的结果。教学方法通常可以在教育中应用。

著录项

  • 作者

    Dykstra Dewey I.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2005
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号