主引多元意见的协商讨论
2012-4
复旦大学出版社
冯豫
168
155000
《主引多元意见的协商讨论--美国社会研究课程教师的课堂话语分析》(作者冯豫)以独特的跨学科的视角，基于教育心理学的学习理论和西方教育界“社会研究”课程的认识论，以五位美国优秀的中小学“社会研究”教师的录像资料为研究对象，并以兼有定量和定性的课堂话语微分析为研究方法，揭示了这些教师在对学生的文献分析进行指导以后如何进一步引导学生参与多元意见的协商讨论并形成“历史移情”的学科思维方式。《主引多元意见的协商讨论--美国社会研究课程教师的课堂话语分析》的录像资料取自于由美国国家人文基金会和高等教育 革新基金会共同资助的科研项目“纵贯历史的永恒主题”的资料库，其中包括课堂教学以及对每位教师课前课后所进行的三次访谈。本书第一章描述了探究性“社会研究”课程的教学模式、协商讨论在整体教学模式中的位置及其在教学中遇到的众多挑战，同时交代了本书四个具体的研究问题及其生成的依据。第二章的文献综述就课堂讨论式的“社会研究”教学所引用的理论指导框架以及支持此类教学所涉及的各种因素进行了详尽的阐述。第三章具体地解释了用于回答四个研究问题选择不同话语分析方法的理由，介绍了作者为确保研究结果的效度所采取的一些措施。第四章对研究问题一一作了回答，定量分析指出了教师们鼓励学生参与多元意见协商讨论的共同策略和各自面临的挑战，定性分析展示了教师们定义教学角色的话语策略及其过程、提问策略的几大类别和具体言语行为、促使学生思考不同意见的策略及其具体的交互过程，以及培养学生移情关注的话语策略及其过程。最后一章在回顾研究结果后对传统的苏格拉底式问答教学和本书探讨的主引协商讨论式教学进行比较，接着进一步讨论本研究对于有关理论的构建和研究方法作出的贡献，和对于反思型教师的成长具有的实际意义，最后还指出了本研究的一些局限性和未来的研究方向。
冯豫：美国印第安纳大学教学系统技术和教育心理学双专业博士、应用语言学/TESOL硕士，原为复旦大学大学英语部副教授，现任上海杉达学院大学英语部主任、教授。曾为复旦和高教出版社出版的《二十一世纪大学英语（读写教程）》（1999）主要编写人员之一，参加编写美国SAGE出版社出版的《社会和行为科学百科辞书》(2009),以及为已故张亚伦教授续译《国史概要》（樊树志著）(2011)。
中文概要
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter One: Background
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Purpose
Research Questions
Key Terms
Summary and Overview
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning
Scaffolding
Engagement in Historical Empathy
Discussion in Social Studies Classrooms
Teacher Questioning
Classroom Discourse, Learning Relationships, and Student
Agency
Summary
Chapter Three: Method
Participants and Settings
Research Design
Research Rigor
Summary
Chapter Four: Results & Findings
Research Question 1 : What learning relationships were created by
the teachers across the group to coordinate student
participation?
Research Question 2 : What questioning strategies did the teachers
use to help their students with their argumentation?
Research Question 3 : How did the teachers attempt to encourage
students to address different perspectives'?
Research Question 4 : Given the data, what discourse strategies can
be characterized as the teachers' attempts to cultivate caring in
their students?
Summary
Chapter Five: Discussion & Conclusion
A Review of Findings
A Discussion of Scaffolding Caring as Empathy in Deliberation
Comparison and Contrast between Deliberative Discussion and
Socratic Discussion
Implications of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Future Directions for Research
Conclusion
References
Footnotes
Appendix A: PIH Project prelesson interview questions
Appendix B: PIH Project postlesson interview questions
Appendix C: Transcription conventions
A concrete theory of scaffolding historical empathy during deliberative discussion can be a tangible object to which other practicing teachers can relate experientially. It can help teachers to build and rebuild interpretive frameworks for conceptualizing their own scaffolding practices. The explicit categories of scaffolding strategies from this study can help teachers examine their repertoires of discussion-scaffolding skills. An upshot of such conscious knowledge is that to help students learn better， teachers who are working online can allocate their cognitive resources purposefully so that they can focus on noticing students‘ gradual appropriation of scaffolding practices. From a teacher learning perspective that emphasizes inquiry as a stance （Cochran-Smith &Lytle， 2001）， this study of teachers’ scaffolding strategies stands to contribute toward understanding-for- practice. In other words， theory building is extended in further practice through other teachers‘ situated， experiential， and reflective development of “practical argument” （Fenstermacher， 1994） amidst the complexity of teaching. It， in essence， serves as a significant epistemic bridge in two ways. One is a rich， active constructivist and contextualized understanding of why and how the scaffolding strategies work. The other is the conceptual tools for monitoring and reflecting on the use of discourse strategies purposefully to create substantial learning opportunities for students. ……
还没有时间读，应该还不错
是英文，请注意哈。