Ira Harkavy and Matthew Hartley. (Eds.). (Summer 2009). New Directions for Youth Development: Theory, Practice, and Research. Universities in Partnership
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ira Harkavy and Matthew Hartley. (Eds.). (Summer 2009). New Directions for Youth Development: Theory, Practice, and Research. Universities in Partnership. No. 122. San Francisco: Wiley Periodicals Inc. 133 pages. ISBN: 978-04705-29836 health of democracy, as so many of founders had proclaimed, depended on an educated citizenry. (Jacoby, 2008, p. 37). The theme for thirtieth issue of New Directions for Youth Development: Theory, Practice, and Research is centred on possibly most critical areas confronting many U.S. cities today: Strategies for Education, Youth Development and Renewal. In five separate articles, recurring theme of engaging through cooperation of and university democratic partnerships is brought into focus in an engaging and informative approach. As quote by John Dewey points out, Democracy must begin at home, and home is neighbourly community (in Harkavy & Hartley, 2009, p. 7). In first article, University-school-community partnerships for development and democratic renewal, authors Harkavy and Hartley point out struggles students face growing up in many of America's large cities, and yet they also remain positive in pointing out benefits that large urban areas can offer children. Medical facilities, colleges, and universities, for example, offer many benefits including economic opportunity as well as educational and civic renewal initiatives. They point out historical roots of partnerships within such as between universities and schools, and how that led to improving society as a whole. They discuss need to identify democratic purpose, process, and product approach when establishing sustainable university-school-community partnerships, which nicely lays out foundation for recurring theme in other journal articles. In this article, authors also discuss Penn approach, referring to strategic community-problem solving research that emphasizes partnerships between a university and its community. As authors point out, the ongoing development of engaged, democratic, civic university that advances learning as it works with its to realize democratic promise of America for all Americans, particularly its children and youth (p. 17). The connection: Schooling, development, and building--The Future Academy case, second article in journal, proves to be substantive in its approach to vulnerability facing children in inner city communities, particularly those of minority backgrounds. As authors Henry Taylor and Linda Greenough observe about high schools in United States, one in ten high schools in U.S. are now considered 'dropout factories' with no more than 60 percent of students graduating (p. 20). Using an historical perspective that includes John Dewey and Paulo Freire's pedagogical models, authors give readers a connection to social problems of past and to current issues facing megalopolis environments of present and future. They show underlying importance of higher education institutions and their ability to contribute to both development and transformation of inner-city neighbourhoods. A number of examples of how can become active participants in changing social and political environments of their communities by participating in university and spear head programs such as Future City Project, Art Project, and Community Clean-A-Thon. The authors pay particular attention to idea of encouraging universities and communities to encourage power of critical thinking with realization of need for participatory democracy from its youth. The third article by authors Robert Bringle, Starla Officer, Jim Grim, and Julie Hatcher, entitled George Washington High School: Analysis of a partnership network, explores various relationships between a university and a public school. …
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 | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 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 ».