Cognitive apprenticeship : teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathtematics

Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-27)This research was supported by the National Institute of Education under Contract no. US-NIE-C-400-81-0030 and the Office of Naval Research under Contract No. N00014-85-C-002

Better Writing, Better Thinking: Using Legal Writing Pedagogy in the Casebook Classroom (Without Grading Papers)

In this Article, Professor Beazley proposes that a Legal Writing revolution is the next revolution in legal education, and that the revolution is not just coming, it has begun. She offers first steps for law school faculty to take in furtherance of this revolution. Professor Beazley argues that the pioneers of this new revolution are Legal Writing faculty. Section I of this Article examines some ways that the law school culture that segregates Legal Writing faculty has both promoted their opportunities to develop innovative pedagogies and inhibited their ability to share those pedagogies with other faculty. Section II explains certain aspects of cognitive apprenticeship theory, and of composition and writing process theory, that are relevant to the casebook classroom. Section III identifies teaching methods that Legal Writing faculty have used to teach students how to think like lawyers by exploring and exposing the thinking behind the decisions of both legal writers and legal readers. Section IV identifies certain teaching methods that exploit the educational benefits supported by these theories and that may be particularly well-suited to adaptation by casebook professors with minimal expenditures of time. Revolutions often begin with small steps, and small steps sometimes lead to giant strides

Guiding The Work Of Writing: Reflections On The Writing Process

The phenomenon of teaching and learning the writing for publication process was examined from the perspectives of instructors and the students

Knowing and doing vocational education and training reform: evidence, learning and the policy process

Much of VET policy internationally draws on a toolkit that has been seriously questioned for its logic, international relevance and effectiveness by considerable amounts of academic research. Reflecting primarily on our experiences of leading a complex, multi-country policy study, we develop an account that seeks to explore ways in which the apparent incommensurability between academic and policy knowledge can be addressed. This leads on to a broader discussion of key issues of contestation in the debates about knowledge for policy as they relate to international education and development more generally. We consider three key turns in the discourse of international education policy and research: to "governing by numbers", "what works" and policy learning, and ask what happens when these discursive trends travel to Southern and VET contexts. We suggest that this analysis implies that policymakers need both to be more modest and reflexive in their expectations of what knowledge can be mobilised for policy purposes and more serious in their commitment to supporting the generation of the types of knowledge that they claim to value. For international and comparative educators, we stress the importance of being clearer in seeking to shape research agendas; more rigorous in our approaches to research; and better in our external communication of our findings. Given the particular focus of this special issue on VET, we end by reiterating the particular challenge of reawakening research on VET-for-development from twenty years of slumbers

Improving Causal Reasoning in a College Science Course

HonorsPsychologyUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162619/1/harrinmi.pd

Teaching Composition as a Social Process

Bruce McComiskey is a strong advocate of social approaches to teaching writing. However, he opposes composition teaching that relies on cultural theory for content, because it too often prejudges the ethical character of institutions and reverts unnecessarily to product-centered practices in the classroom. He opposes what he calls the read-this-essay-and-do-what-the-author-did method of writing instruction: read Roland Barthes\u27s essay \u27Toys\u27 and write a similar essay; read John Fiske\u27s essay on TV and critique a show. McComiskey argues for teaching writing as situated in discourse itself, in the constant flow of texts produced within social relationships and institutions. He urges writing teachers not to neglect the linguistic and rhetorical levels of composing, but rather to strengthen them with attention to the social contexts and ideological investments that pervade both the processes and products of writing.https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_pubs/1126/thumbnail.jp

Reviewing critical pedagogy\u27s criticisms and providing a pragmatic heuristic

This article reviews scholarly literature about problems in critical pedagogy, pragmatic examples of implementing critical pedagogy, professional learning communities, and critical pedagogy-based curricula in new media toward proposing part of a broad solution to some of critical pedagogy\u27s criticisms in reaching out to educators: the use of a heuristic that critical pedagogues could use to determine the accessibility in tone of curricula that they could reference to colleagues whom may not know about or otherwise avoid critical pedagogy. Under this initiative, a heuristic is developed based on a review of literature defining and characterizing critical pedagogy. This heuristic is then applied in a study of three critical pedagogy-based unit plans. The results confirm the validity of the heuristic, but the results also cast doubt on the range of its use. A positive correlation about the rate of use of keywords with positive- and negative-connotations cross­ sectioned with unit grade level suggests that the usage rate of such keywords in critical curricula declines as curricula targets earlier grade levels. This positive correlation presents a case for why this research is valuable, and it also creates a compelling case for further research --Leaf iv

Cognitive apprenticeship in architecture education: using a scaffolding tool to support conceptual design

Modeled on the master-apprenticeship relationship, student designers gain access to implicit design knowledge mainly through the conversations with their tutors during studio projects. However, intimate design studio tutelage is being challenged by increasing student to staff ratios. If leveraged effectively, technology offers the potential to maximize tutors' time investment in order to allow them to tend to more students. Scaffolding tools (Reiser, 2004) as supplement to teacher support, can assist learners with complex tasks previously out of their reach. This case study is a critical realist inquiry into the use of a scaffolding tool, Cognician Cogs. It seeks to reveal the ways in which and circumstances under which these Cogs scaffold conceptual design in a second year architecture studio project. The study draws upon Cognitive Apprenticeship as a conceptual framework to shed light on design studio practices involving specially developed Cogs. The mixed methodology approach adopted consisting mainly of qualitative data in the form of the project brief, scaffolding tool content, sample design critique conversations and interviews with three tutors and nine students. Supplementary quantitative data included closed survey question responses and Studio work marks collected from the entire class (39). Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was framed by the Vitruvian guiding principles of architecture: 'Firmness', 'Commodity' and 'Delight'. The study revealed that the intended use of the Cogs to cover aspects of Firmness and Commodity only resulted in the over-scaffolding of Firmness and the under-scaffolding of Delight. The students' resulting designs were practically acceptable, but lacked novelty