Pedagogia do Oprimido

人教版高中英语新课程教材中,语言运用（Using Language）是每个单元必不可少的部分,提供了围绕单元中心话题的听、说、读、写的综合性练习,是单元中心话题的延续和升华.如何设计Using Language部分的教学,使自己的教学模式既不落俗套,又能真正体现新课程标准所倡导的教学理念,正是广大一线英语教师一直努力探索的问题.

打磨Using Language,倡导新理念

which is used to describe a third component of thinking processes, particularly preverbal, and it denotes the concept that the world is activated by some generalized "energy" that links together causally all objects and events ; it is presumably revealed by a person's lack of curiosity about causal connections, as though they were self-evident. Aside from the rather frequent use of such key words, having strong connotations for this reviewer far away from what the author is aiming to denote, the book is written in a lucid and stimulating style that makes reading it an invigorating intellectual exercise. It is a book that is likely to have somewhat limited attraction to the full-time clinician, especially one treating adult patients. And child psychiatrists and psychologists, if reasonably well read, will most likely be familiar with the majority of references from which this author has synthesized his material. On the other hand, the scholarly and refreshing con¬ ceptual approaches of the author will appeal to psychologists, philosophers, linguists, and psychiatrists with a research bent and anyone else who wants to be provoked to do some thinking on the problems of language, language development, and the psychology of cognition. Louis A. GOTTSCHALK, M.D. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. By George A Miller, Eugene gALANTER, and Karl H. Pribram. Price, $5.00. Pp. 226. Henry Holt & Co., Inc., New York 17, 1960. This is an important book for psychiatrists and behavioral scientists, since it presents a clear, concise study of the application of cybernetics, information and computer theory to the problem of analyzing behavior. The authors have been actively engaged in behavioral research in different areas\p=m-\Millerin information and communication, Galanter in experimental psychology, and Pribram in neurophysiology. The book resulted from a series of discussions which they engaged in during a year they spent together at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, Calif. Their original intent was to write a diary, as it were, of the development of their ideas and, fortunately, enough of this remains to make the book clear, easy to read, and interesting. It is also fortunate, however, that in the final writing a variety of studies comparing the "behavior" of computing machines with human "cognitive behavior" have been reviewed and summarized. The result is one of the best presentations of the present status of the brain-computer problem. The authors, however, do not discuss certain aspects of this problem, such as the difference between the brain and its vast number of parallel channels, but few operations, and the modern high-speed computer with its few channels and vast numbers of operations. This omission is consistent with their interest, since it would introduce the question of mechanisms rather than the problem of the structure of behavior as it is observed in everyday life in the clinic and in experiments on learning, conditioning, etc. Similarly, they do not discuss the qualitative differences between mechanisms of memory in the computer and those in the brain. In the former, a "memory"\p=m-\ i.e., stored information\p=m-\isidentified, metaphorically speaking, by an address, whereas no such mechanism is known in the brain (personal communication, Dr. Julian Bigelow). With few exceptions, however, the data, concepts, and theories presented are handled with elegant precision, as illustrated by the discussion of Sherrington's concepts of the "Reflex" and the "Synapse," Kurt Lewin's ideas of "tension states," and the numerous references to the work of Newell, Shaw, and Simon on computers and logic. There are, nevertheless, areas with

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fjors.1968.86.pdf

Plans and the Structure of Behavior

1. INTRODUCTION In a traditional instructor-centered classroom, the teacher delivers lectures during class time and gives students homework to be done after class. In a flipped, or inverted, classroom, things are done the other way round: the teacher "delivers" lectures before class in the form of pre-recorded videos, and spends class time engaging students in learning activities that involve collaboration and interaction. Passive learning activities such as unidirectional lectures are pushed to outside class hours, to be replaced with active learning activities in class. The term "inverted classroom" appeared in the literature as early as 2000 (Lage, Platt and Treglia, 2000) and was made popular by Chemistry teachers Bergmann and Sams in recent years (Bergmann and Sams, 2012, 2012a). With successful similar implementations of web-based lecture technologies--the often quoted success stories being the Khan Academy and Massive Open Online Courses--the flipped classroom gained traction at educational institutions in North America across a spectrum of disciplines and at different levels of instruction. This pedagogy has also been consistently rated as one of the top trends in educational technology (for example, Watters, 2012). Some educators have reported lower failure rates (Michigan Radio, 2013), greater flexibility, lesser stress (NBC, 2013), improved student attitudes and even better test scores (Flipped Learning Network, 2012) for classes that adopted this model. However, being a relatively new trend, most implementations of the flipped classroom are reported in blogs, online magazines and newspapers instead of academic papers and conferences. There seems to be little rigorous research done to measure the effects of this pedagogy (Goodwin and Miller, 2013), and what has been published so far seems far from conclusive. Whilst a 3-year long study of flipped learning for a pharmaceutics course reported a 5.1% improvement in student performance (Meyer, 2013), contradictory preliminary data from another 3-year study at Harvey Mudd College suggest that flipping may not cause any difference in student outcomes (Atteberry, 2013). Adding to the debate, a recent study (Schneider, Wallace, Blikstein and Pea, 2013) concludes that students who engage in open-ended exploration first outperformed those who used traditional textbook materials first, and implies that video lectures and textbooks should come after exploration, and not before (Plotnikoff, 2013). Despite the controversy, this pedagogy's raising popularity has motivated the author to run a trial on a class of 46 Information Systems (IS) undergraduates during a special term in 2013. The course that this class was taking is a second course in programming that covered object-oriented design and advanced programming. In previous years, this course was usually conducted in "interactive seminar" style: instructors taught a new concept and reinforced what they had just taught via short hands-on programming exercises performed on students' laptops. Instructors then moved on to the next concept and the cycle was repeated. Longer programming exercises would then be given as optional homework that could be submitted for feedback from teaching assistants. Whilst such interactive seminars were more effective than traditional monologue-style lectures (Steinert and Snell, 1999), the author observed that some students were still not engaged. Many students were updating their Facebook pages during the teaching sessions. Students who visited the washroom could miss a critical part of the lecture. Slower students who had difficulty picking up the concepts during the "first parse" were consequently unable to successfully complete the hands-on exercises that followed. For these students, the course rapidly snowballed into a vicious cycle of disengagement, poor performance, lack of confidence, and further disengagement. It was hoped that the flipped classroom could increase students' engagement with the content and improve their overall experience with the course. …

/pdf/teaching-tip-the-flipped-classroom-2ei0dj7i1u.pdf

Teaching Tip: The Flipped Classroom.

This study presents a large-scale systematic review of the literature on the flipped classroom, with the goals of examining its reported advantages and challenges for both students and instructors, and to note potentially useful areas of future research on the flipped model's in and out-of-class activities. The full range of Social Sciences Citation Indexed journals was surveyed through the Web of Science site, and a total of 71 research articles were selected for the review. The findings reveal that the most frequently reported advantage of the flipped classroom is the improvement of student learning performance. We also found a number of challenges in this model. The majority of these are related to out-of-class activities, such as much reported inadequate student preparation prior to class. Several other challenges and the numerous advantages of the flipped classroom are discussed in detail. We then offer suggestions for future research on flipped model activities.

The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges

We investigated the role that tangibility plays in a problem-solving task by observing logistic apprentices using either a multitouch or a tangible interface. Results showed that tangibility helped them perform the task better and achieve a higher learning gain. In addition, groups using the tangible interface collaborated better, explored more alternative designs, and perceived problem solving as more playful. Mediation analysis revealed that exploration was the only process variable explaining the performance for the problem-solving task. Implications of this study are discussed in terms of the benefits of tangibility for education and directions for future research.

/pdf/benefits-of-a-tangible-interface-for-collaborative-learning-4l7yhh5aad.pdf

Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction

In this paper we present the results of an eye-tracking study on collaborative problem-solving dyads. Dyads remotely collaborated to learn from contrasting cases involving basic concepts about how the human brain processes visual information. In one condition, dyads saw the eye gazes of their partner on the screen; in a control group, they did not have access to this information. Results indicated that this real-time mutual gaze perception intervention helped students achieve a higher quality of collaboration and a higher learning gain. Implications for supporting group collaboration are discussed.

/pdf/real-time-mutual-gaze-perception-enhances-collaborative-5a494x2aaf.pdf

Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality

In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of a microworld-based learning environment for neuroscience. Our system, BrainExplorer, allows students to discover the way neural pathways work by interacting with a tangible user interface. By severing and reconfiguring connections, users can observe how the visual field is impaired and, thus, actively learn from their exploration. An ecological evaluation of BrainExplorer revealed that 1) students who engaged in the open-ended exploration outperformed students who used traditional textbook materials and 2) correctly sequencing activities is fundamental for improving student performance. Participants who used the tabletop first and then studied a text significantly outperformed participants who read a text first and then used the tabletop. Additionally, those results were best predicted by the quality of students' verbalizations while using BrainExplorer. The implications of this study for preparing students for future learning with Tangible User Interfaces are discussed.

Preparing for Future Learning with a Tangible User Interface: The Case of Neuroscience

In this paper, we describe multimodal learning analytics (MMLA) techniques to analyze data collected around an interactive learning environment. In a previous study (Schneider & Blikstein, submitted), we designed and evaluated a Tangible User Interface (TUI) where dyads of students were asked to learn about the human hearing system by reconstructing it. In the current study, we present the analysis of the data collected in the form of logs, both from students’ interaction with the tangible interface and as well as from their gestures, and we describe how we extracted meaningful predictors for student learning from these two datasets. First we show how Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques can be used on the tangible interface logs to predict learning gains. Second, we explored how Kinect TM data can inform “in-situ” interactions around a tabletop by using clustering algorithms to find prototypical body positions. Finally, we fed those features to a machine-learning classifier (Support Vector Machine) and divided students in two groups after performing a median split on their learning scores. We found that we were able to predict students’ learning gains (i.e. being above or belong the median split) with very high accuracy. We discuss the implications of these results for analyzing rich data from multimodal learning environments.

Unraveling Students’ Interaction Around a Tangible Interface using Multimodal Learning Analytics

Emerging technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR), have the potential to radically transform education by making challenging concepts visible and accessible to novices. In this project, we have designed a Hololens-based system in which collaborators are exposed to an unstructured learning activity in which they learned about the invisible physics involved in audio speakers. They learned topics ranging from spatial knowledge, such as shape of magnetic fields, to abstract conceptual knowledge, such as relationships between electricity and magnetism. We compared participants' learning, attitudes and collaboration with a tangible interface through multiple experimental conditions containing varying layers of AR information. We found that educational AR representations were beneficial for learning specific knowledge and increasing participants' self-efficacy (i.e., their ability to learn concepts in physics). However, we also found that participants in conditions that did not contain AR educational content, learned some concepts better than other groups and became more curious about physics. We discuss learning and collaboration differences, as well as benefits and detriments of implementing augmented reality for unstructured learning activities.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3290605.3300774

Bertrand Schneider

Papers

Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction

Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality

Preparing for Future Learning with a Tangible User Interface: The Case of Neuroscience

Unraveling Students’ Interaction Around a Tangible Interface using Multimodal Learning Analytics

What Can We Learn from Augmented Reality (AR)?: Benefits and Drawbacks of AR for Inquiry-based Learning of Physics