|
|
此文章由 gdg 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 gdg 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 gdg 于 2014-8-22 22:06 编辑
Identifying that what matters
Instead, we should be asking where the major source of variance in student’s achievement lie, and concentrate on enhancing these sources of variance to truly make the difference. There have been many studies over the past few years that have asked this question about wherein lies the variance. Most have been conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modelling, which decomposes the variance of many influences such as what the student brings to the task, the curricula, the policy, the principal, the school climate, the teacher, the various teaching strategies, and the home. Ignoring the interaction effects, which are too often, minor, then the major sources of variance are six-fold.
Students — which account for about 50% of the variance of achievement. It is what students
brings to the table that predicts achievement more than any other variable. The correlation between ability and achievement is high, so it is no surprise that bright students have steeper trajectories of learning than their less bright students. Our role in schools is to improve the trajectory of all these students, and I note the recent PIRLS
and TIMMS studies which have shown that our irajccloi'y for the not so bright students is one of the Haue.sl in the OECD worlds.
Home--which accounts for about 5-10% of tlie variance - considering that the major effects of the home are already accounted for by the attributes of the student. The home effects are more related to the levels of expectation and encouragement, and certainly not a function of the involvement of the parents or caregivers in the management of schools.
Schools — which account for about 5-10% of the variance. Schools barely make a difference to achievement. The discussion on the attributes of schools — the finances, the school size, the class size, the buildings are important as they must be there in some form for a school to exist, but that is about it. Given NZ schools are well resourced with more uniformity in the minimum standards than most countries, it should be less surprising that in NZ the school effects are probably even lower than in other countries.
Principals —are already accounted for in the variance attributed to schools and mainly, I would argue, because of their influence on the climate of the school. Principals who create a school with high student responsiveness rather than bureaucratic control (i.e., more like a primary school atmosphere than an Intermediate and unlike so many NZ secondary schools), who create a climate of psychological safety to learn, who create a focus of discussion on student learning have the inHuence, The effect on learning is trickled through these attributes rather than directly on learning.
Peer effects — which accounts for about 5-10% of the variance. It does not matter too much who you go to school with, and when students are taken from one school and put in another the influence of peers is minimal (of course, there are exceptions, but they do not make the norm). My colleagues, lead by ian Wilkinson, completed a major study on peer influences and perhaps we are more surprised by the under utilisation of peers as co-teachers in classrooms, and the dominance of the adult in the room to the diminution of the power of the peer. Certainly peers can have a positive effect on learnings but the discussion is too quickly moving to the negative powers with the recent increase in discussion on builying (which is too 】.eal)，and on the manner students create reputations around almost anything other than pride in learning.
Teachers ~ who account for about 30% of the variance. It is what teachers know, do, and care about which is very powerful in this learning equation.
|
|
我用过的价廉物美的化妆/护肤品（Priceline） (2011-1-22) denisezhang 
发表于 2014-8-22 22:56
