• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >'Fact vomit doesn't cut it'---The impact of direct instruction on elaboration in sixth grade students' scientific writing.
【24h】

'Fact vomit doesn't cut it'---The impact of direct instruction on elaboration in sixth grade students' scientific writing.

机译：“事实呕吐并没有减少” ---直接教学对六年级学生科学写作的阐述的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Research question. What happens to the quality of student answers to "explain" questions when students receive direct instruction on how to elaborate on their initial answers? Research Activities: The purpose of this intervention was to get students to write more complete answer to "explain" questions. The intervention changed from focusing on explanations that depended on reasoning with evidence to explanations that elaborated on key ideas. Context: Thirty, sixth graders in an Earth Science classroom at an average K-8 school. Instructional Approach: Because of the change in the research question, the intervention took place over a period of only a week and a half. After a brief introduction to the characteristics of "explanatory" writing, students received direct instruction in what it means to "elaborate" and then had an opportunity to revise their own writing and practice elaborating. Data: Pre/Post explanations on tests, in-the-midst written explanations, and an attitude survey. Student responses were analyzed to assess students' ability to (a) elaborate, (b) address the question in the response, and (c) include relevant information. Results: After the intervention students were confident in their ability to elaborate, although still unsure of how to explain elaboration to a peer. Students had a higher percentage of relevant sentences in their responses after the intervention. However, students were no more likely to elaborate their answers after the intervention, as before. Students showed a range of elaborative styles, though, including pictures and information straight from the textbook. Teaching students to write complete, scientific explanations proved to be a more involved and lengthier process than anticipated.;Grade Level. 6;Data collection methods. Student work; Survey -- Attitude; Writing assessment; writing samples Curriculum Areas: Science -- Earth Science;Instructional approaches. Direct instruction; Writing --- Expository
机译：研究问题。当学生收到有关如何详细说明其初始答案的直接指导时，学生对“解释性”问题的答案的质量会如何？研究活动：该干预的目的是使学生对“解释性”问题写出更完整的答案。干预从关注依赖于有证据的推理的解释变成了阐述关键思想的解释。内容：在一所普通的K-8学校中，地球科学教室的30名六年级学生。教学方法：由于研究问题的变化，干预仅进行了一周半的时间。在简要介绍“解释性”写作的特点之后，学生们得到了关于“阐述”的直接指导，然后有机会修改自己的写作并进行实践阐述。数据：测试前后的解释，书面解释和态度调查。对学生的回答进行了分析，以评估学生的能力（a）详尽，（b）在回答中解决问题，以及（c）包括相关信息。结果：干预后，学生仍对自己的阐述能力充满信心，尽管仍不确定如何向同伴解释。干预后，学生在回答中的相关句子比例更高。但是，在干预之后，学生不再像以前那样详细阐述他们的答案。学生们展示了一系列精致的风格，包括图片和教科书中的信息。事实证明，教学生写完整，科学的解释比预期的过程更加复杂，冗长。 6；数据收集方法。学生工作；调查-态度;写作评估；写作样本课程领域：科学-地球科学；教学方法。直接指示；写作---说明

著录项

  • 作者

    McKenzie, Megan.;

  • 作者单位

    University of California, Davis.;

  • 授予单位 University of California, Davis.;
  • 学科 Education Language and Literature.;Education Sciences.;Education Curriculum and Instruction.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 84 p.
  • 总页数 84
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 教育;自然科学教育与普及;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号