Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Bluetooth File Transfer
File Transfer: I successfully learned how to send a file from a PC to a PocketPC via Bluetooth connection. After establishing all connections (which I hope I blogged about before), all I did was right click on the file I wanted to send. Then selected Bluetooth device. Make sure that Passkey and Encryption settings are matched up on both devices. It was a easy as that.
Sorensen, 1970
Sorensen, A. B. (1970). Organizational differentiation of students and educational opportunity. Sociology of Education, 43, 355-376.
Organizational differentiation is the division of a school's student body into subgroups of a permanent character. Structural characteristics of the school as determinants of learning. Direct and indirect effects. Dimensions: 1) Assignment of students to groups for instructional purposes to reduce variation either relative to learning capacity (vertical or tracks) or between class variation relative to transmitted knowledge (horizontal); 2) Inclusiveness, the number of opportunities assumed to be available at different educational levels, 3) Electivity, the degree to which students' own decisions are allowed to be a determining factor in the assignment to groups, 4) Selectivity, the amount of homogeneity that educational authorities intend to produce by the assignment procedure, 5) Scope, the extent a given group of students will be members of the same classroom over time.
"The pattern of organizational differentiation also may influence the teachers to whom a student gets exposed and the behavior of these teachers." Teaching a high selectivity classrooms full of students with the same non-cognitive characteristics: career goals in science, positive attitudes, and college goals, would set the context for setting high goals.
Organizational differentiation is the division of a school's student body into subgroups of a permanent character. Structural characteristics of the school as determinants of learning. Direct and indirect effects. Dimensions: 1) Assignment of students to groups for instructional purposes to reduce variation either relative to learning capacity (vertical or tracks) or between class variation relative to transmitted knowledge (horizontal); 2) Inclusiveness, the number of opportunities assumed to be available at different educational levels, 3) Electivity, the degree to which students' own decisions are allowed to be a determining factor in the assignment to groups, 4) Selectivity, the amount of homogeneity that educational authorities intend to produce by the assignment procedure, 5) Scope, the extent a given group of students will be members of the same classroom over time.
"The pattern of organizational differentiation also may influence the teachers to whom a student gets exposed and the behavior of these teachers." Teaching a high selectivity classrooms full of students with the same non-cognitive characteristics: career goals in science, positive attitudes, and college goals, would set the context for setting high goals.
Cavallo & Laubach, 2001
Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1029-1062.
10th grade students were more likely to enroll in an elective chemistry course when in high inquiry versus low inquiry classrooms. Students who plan to enroll in elective class have more positive attitudes than those not planning to enroll. This effect was more pronounced in high inquiry classrooms. Low inquiry classrooms showed relatively no difference in attitude between enroll and non-enroll students. Students reasons for enrolling included future careers, learning more about science, and need for college. Students reasons for not enrolling included no future career in science, did not need science credits, and not interested in science.
10th grade students were more likely to enroll in an elective chemistry course when in high inquiry versus low inquiry classrooms. Students who plan to enroll in elective class have more positive attitudes than those not planning to enroll. This effect was more pronounced in high inquiry classrooms. Low inquiry classrooms showed relatively no difference in attitude between enroll and non-enroll students. Students reasons for enrolling included future careers, learning more about science, and need for college. Students reasons for not enrolling included no future career in science, did not need science credits, and not interested in science.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Aleamoni, 1999
Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153-166.
Myth 9: Whether students take the course as a requirement or as an elective affects their ratings.
Several investigators have found that students who are required to take a course tend to rate it lower than student who elect to take it (Cohen & Humphreys, 1960; Divoky & Rathermel, 1988; Gillmore & Brandenburh, 1974; Pohlmann, 1975). Instructors of elective courses were rated significantly higher than instructors of required courses (Gage, 1961; Lovell & Haner, 1955; Petchers & Chow, 1988; Scherr & Scherr, 1990). However, studies have found no significant differences between student rating (Heilman & Armentrout, 1936; Hildebrand, Wilson & Dienst, 1971).
Myth 9: Whether students take the course as a requirement or as an elective affects their ratings.
Several investigators have found that students who are required to take a course tend to rate it lower than student who elect to take it (Cohen & Humphreys, 1960; Divoky & Rathermel, 1988; Gillmore & Brandenburh, 1974; Pohlmann, 1975). Instructors of elective courses were rated significantly higher than instructors of required courses (Gage, 1961; Lovell & Haner, 1955; Petchers & Chow, 1988; Scherr & Scherr, 1990). However, studies have found no significant differences between student rating (Heilman & Armentrout, 1936; Hildebrand, Wilson & Dienst, 1971).
Midgley, et al., 2000
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
In 2x2 matrix of develop/demonstrate competence and perceptions/strategy they attempted to measure school goal structures. Teachers agreed (M=4.07) with school goal structures of developing competence over demonstrating competence (M=3.02). Although I felt the item wording could be biased to show that result. Such language reflects the lingo of schools today, It's not clear to me whether they really believe this. Teachers somewhat agreed (M=3.44) with strategy use for developing competence, but somewhat disagreed (M=2.21) with demonstrating competence. Without summative and comparative feedback can leave some students without a clear sense of skill assessment. Teachers somewhat agreed (M=3.36) with statements about teacher efficacy.
In 2x2 matrix of develop/demonstrate competence and perceptions/strategy they attempted to measure school goal structures. Teachers agreed (M=4.07) with school goal structures of developing competence over demonstrating competence (M=3.02). Although I felt the item wording could be biased to show that result. Such language reflects the lingo of schools today, It's not clear to me whether they really believe this. Teachers somewhat agreed (M=3.44) with strategy use for developing competence, but somewhat disagreed (M=2.21) with demonstrating competence. Without summative and comparative feedback can leave some students without a clear sense of skill assessment. Teachers somewhat agreed (M=3.36) with statements about teacher efficacy.
Oakes, Gamoran & Page, 1992
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, pp. 570-608. New York: Macmillan.
Provisions for common, traditional, and required coursework compete with provisions for differentiated, innovative and elective coursework. Curriculum differentiation makes different knowledge available to different groups of students. (Different goals = different knowledge?) Secondary is differentiated allow considerable student choice with elective courses about evenly balanced in number with high school graduation requirements. Older adolescents have more choice and more vaired subject matter than do junior high students. Half of coursework becomes elective, in explicit recognition of differences in inidividual students' abilities, interests, and aspirations. Curriculum is a resource distributed by administrators and teachers to students within schools. It is not a random distribution.
Teachers often prefer instructing high-ability students (Ball, 1981; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Metz, 1978). Occasionally teachers prefer not to teach high tracks, finding it threatening to work with students who challenge their authority (Metz, 1978) or who are of higher social status (Lortie, 1975). Class assignment is sometimes used as a reward for more successful teachers (Becker, 1953; Hargreaves, 1967; McPartland & Crain, 1987). In Oakes (1990b), secondary science and math teachers' backgrounds and qualifications vary with class level assignment. These differences remain when student population characteristics were controlled for.
Provisions for common, traditional, and required coursework compete with provisions for differentiated, innovative and elective coursework. Curriculum differentiation makes different knowledge available to different groups of students. (Different goals = different knowledge?) Secondary is differentiated allow considerable student choice with elective courses about evenly balanced in number with high school graduation requirements. Older adolescents have more choice and more vaired subject matter than do junior high students. Half of coursework becomes elective, in explicit recognition of differences in inidividual students' abilities, interests, and aspirations. Curriculum is a resource distributed by administrators and teachers to students within schools. It is not a random distribution.
Teachers often prefer instructing high-ability students (Ball, 1981; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Metz, 1978). Occasionally teachers prefer not to teach high tracks, finding it threatening to work with students who challenge their authority (Metz, 1978) or who are of higher social status (Lortie, 1975). Class assignment is sometimes used as a reward for more successful teachers (Becker, 1953; Hargreaves, 1967; McPartland & Crain, 1987). In Oakes (1990b), secondary science and math teachers' backgrounds and qualifications vary with class level assignment. These differences remain when student population characteristics were controlled for.
Tobin, 1987
Tobin, K. (1987). Forces which shape the implemented curriculum in high
school science and mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3,
287-298.
In meta-analysis of 5 qualitative studies from 1984 to 1986, all 33
teachers emphasized the importance of completing the academic work in
higher ability classes. They needed to know the content in grade 10 in
order to succeed in grade 11 and 12. Less pressure to finish the course
with low-abilty grade 10 students because they were unlikely to remain
in school in 11th. Bare-bones course based on textbook. No enjoyment. No
current events. Most cases finished as soon as possible. Then busy work.
Crossword puzzles and films for 80 min each. Planning involved covering
content, not understanding.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Wood, 1994
Wood, S. (1994). Collaborating to change the psychological culture of the school: Effects on teachers of a goal theory approach. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 57.
In 1989-90, a University of Michigan team replicated the Ames program with 29 teachers in 5 local schools. They found that school-level policies worked in opposition to task-focused strategies that teachers were trying to implement in their classrooms. Policies like honor roll, reading program rewards, year to year placement from task to ability oriented classrooms were all perceived by teachers as negatively influencing their work in implementing goal change. Teachers' good intentions to make their individual classrooms as task-oriented as possible are sometimes undermined by the existence of schoolwide policies that stress ability goals.
Suggests that teachers, like students are subject to the goal stresses in their environment and in turn put similar stresses on their subjects. "If we are to create a task-focused environment for students, we've got to work in one."
Issues relating to the schedule, the needs of gifted and talented students, and the availability of electives like band took precedence, and not only inhibited change but demoralized the members of the [leadership] team. It seems to me they did not follow their own advice, grouping of gifted kids, departmentalized approach to curriculum, scheduling by groups of ability all fall into the kinds of things that should be changed. But they describe these things as unchangeable, constraints.
In 1989-90, a University of Michigan team replicated the Ames program with 29 teachers in 5 local schools. They found that school-level policies worked in opposition to task-focused strategies that teachers were trying to implement in their classrooms. Policies like honor roll, reading program rewards, year to year placement from task to ability oriented classrooms were all perceived by teachers as negatively influencing their work in implementing goal change. Teachers' good intentions to make their individual classrooms as task-oriented as possible are sometimes undermined by the existence of schoolwide policies that stress ability goals.
Suggests that teachers, like students are subject to the goal stresses in their environment and in turn put similar stresses on their subjects. "If we are to create a task-focused environment for students, we've got to work in one."
Issues relating to the schedule, the needs of gifted and talented students, and the availability of electives like band took precedence, and not only inhibited change but demoralized the members of the [leadership] team. It seems to me they did not follow their own advice, grouping of gifted kids, departmentalized approach to curriculum, scheduling by groups of ability all fall into the kinds of things that should be changed. But they describe these things as unchangeable, constraints.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Talbert, 1990
Talbert, J. E. (April, 1990). Teacher tracking: Exacerbating inequalities in the high school. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Boston, MA.
This paper addresses the teachers' place in stratified classes. Are teachers differentiated according to the teachers they teach?
This paper addresses the teachers' place in stratified classes. Are teachers differentiated according to the teachers they teach?
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
