Inclusion, Learning Goals in Didactics and Education - Effects and Findings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract NERA 2017 Inclusion, Learning Goals in Didactics and Education – Effects and Findings Ninna V. Braüner, M.Ed general pedagogy, University College Sjælland, nvb@ucsj.dk Mette Bruun, M.Ed.in general pedagogy, University College Sjælland, meb@ucsj.dk During the last 5-10 years teaching with centralized learning goals in didactics and education together with inclusion of children with special needs have been focus areas both nationally and internationally. Educators, directors of education etc. find inspiration in works by John Hattie and James Nottingham and visit schools in Ontario. Many Danish municipalities require teaching in schools with detailed goals and effective learning. We have asked critical questions to the research in this area and developed critical analysis and possible didactic thinking of pro-fessional teachers. In our project 2015 – 2017 we have researched in these topics. The background is that in Denmark the Inclusion Act was passed in 2012 and a new school act in 2014. Several pupils with special needs have been included in the school and the teachers have met a great challenge by teaching all pupils in the class in an including way. The basic in our project is, that some educators believe or have the hypothesis that clear, detailed, and specified goals combined with classroom management is a main thing for better learning and for including all students. Even the social mobility will increase. In our project we have asked: Which advantages and disadvantages do effective learning goals have of inclusion? How can practice be developed within these frames? We have both observed how students in complicated learning situations participate in education without learning goals and how the same students participate when the teacher has planned the education with learning goals. We have found both advantages and disadvantages. The consequencies differ related to the specific teacher, students, culture of school and municipalities. In interviews the teachers expres their concerns about inclusion, planning with and without learning goals and how the didactical thinking maintains or changes when it`s required that they teach with detailed goals and effective learning. We have seen a conception of the didactics with a very narrow understanding. We know from investigations that teaching with goals is very important for students´learning, but it is difficult to observe essential effects when learning goals in didactics are used systematically. The question is still: Does the great focus on effective learning goals influence students´ learning and teachers´ possibilities of making plans for their teaching and carrying out their plans? Is it a question of thinking in an instrumental way? Can teachers still be independent, reflect their didactic approach and estimate what is convenient in their own class? In our interviews the teachers express that they are aware of the issues but they deal with it in different ways. In the project we have used Intervention research supplied with other approaches. We have observed teaching in schools and discussed the observations with teachers to un-derstand their goals and arguments for planning. Our aim has been not only to observe, but also to intervene and discuss their planning.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».