2009年12月29日 星期二

同志社大學

我再台大文學院拿到一本 "鼓動"--同志社大學
130年紀念冊 有點意思

首頁 > 同志社新聞

同志社新聞 同志社新聞

同志社新聞同志社新聞

2009/12/16UP
同志社大學台灣Forum舉辦通知【2010/1/16舉辦】

同志社大學創辦於1875年,位於日本的古都--京都。目前擁有12個學部、14個研究所,是一所在日本屈指可數的綜合大學。為了實現創立者-新島 襄之創校精神,本校秉持教育理念之一的「國際主義」,與世界30個國家(地區)的113所大學締結了學術交流協定,並頻繁地進行著教育研究交流。本校在本 年度文部科學省(教育部)根據日本的「留學生30萬人計劃」所公佈的「國際化據點整備事業(國際化據點建設事業)(Global 30)」選拔中被選中。為了從台灣及世界各國積極地招生優秀的留學生本校正在努力創造環境,其中包括:充實國外教育研究據點、導入支援留學生學習、研究與 生活的制度、擴建住宿設施等。

此次,為了讓台灣的各位能夠更加了解本校(同志社大學),同時,為了慶祝同志社大學台灣事務所的成立以及同志社校友會台灣分部成立60周年,特此舉辦如下研討會(備有同步翻譯)。


日期 2010年1月16日(週六) 13:00 開始報到、 13:30 大會開始
地點 圓山大飯店[The Grand Hotel] 12層 崑崙廳 「SKY LOUNGE」
104 台北市中山北路四段一號  http://www.grand-hotel.org
流程
13:30-13:50
開幕致詞及同志社大學概況 (校長 八田 英二)
13:50-14:10
演講—《同志社大學與台灣留學生》 (社會學部教授 宇治鄉 毅)
14:10-14:25
日語‧日本文化教育中心/留學生別科的介紹


(日語‧日本文化教育中心所長 山內 信幸)
14:25-14:55
新《留學生課程》的紹介(*只用英語即可畢業、取得學位)


學部 國際教育 國際教養課程(*)
國際交流(Global Communication)學部 日語課程
研究院 國際 MBA課程(*)、Global‧Studies研究院(*)
國際科學技術課程(*)


(日語‧日本文化教育中心所長 山內 信幸)
14:55-15:10
休息(休息之後,分A、B兩組進行)
15:10-15:30
A: 同志社大學國際策略的介紹 (副校長 黑木 保博)


B: 留學說明會 (負責職員)
16:00
懇親會(雞尾酒會方式)
17:30
研討會閉幕 (預定)
參加費 免費
報名方式 請以電子郵件的方式,註明(1)姓名 (2)年齡 (3)地址 (4)職業 (5)畢業年月、學部(請本校畢業生註明此項),郵件主旨請填寫「Forum」,mail到ji-event@mail.doshisha.ac.jp 。
報名截止日期 2010年1月7日(星期四) (因名額有限,額滿為止。)
期待各位的踴躍參與,並請參加研討會結束後所舉辦的懇親會。


連絡處: 同志社大學台灣事務所  電話:02-2331-1278 FAX:02-2331-1397
同志社大學國際化推進室  電話:+81-75-251-3300  FAX:+81-75-251-3303
同志社新聞

2009年12月21日 星期一

Studying Young Minds, and How to Teach Them

Brain Power

Studying Young Minds, and How to Teach Them


Published: December 20, 2009

BUFFALO — Many 4-year-olds cannot count up to their own age when they arrive at preschool, and those at the Stanley M. Makowski Early Childhood Center are hardly prodigies. Most live in this city’s poorer districts and begin their academic life well behind the curve.

Skip to next paragraph
Ryan Collerd for The New York Times

Students at the Stanley M. Makowski Early Childhood Center get an early introduction to math concepts.

Brain Power

Wired for Math

For all that scientists have studied it, the brain remains the most complex and mysterious human organ.

This is the sixth article in a series on some of the insights from the latest research.

Previous Articles in the Series »

Ryan Collerd for The New York Times

Melissa Hitzges, a teacher at the Stanley M. Makowski Early Childhood Center, working with her students to help them recognize patterns.

Ryan Collerd for The New York Times

Joseph Mercado watched as his teacher hid a number of blocks while doing a counting exercise at The Stanley Makowski Early Childhood Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

But there they were on a recent Wednesday morning, three months into the school year, counting up to seven and higher, even doing some elementary addition and subtraction. At recess, one boy, Joshua, used a pointer to illustrate a math concept known as cardinality, by completing place settings on a whiteboard.

“You just put one plate there, and one there, and one here,” he explained, stepping aside as two other students ambled by, one wearing a pair of clown pants as a headscarf. “That’s it. See?”

For much of the last century, educators and many scientists believed that children could not learn math at all before the age of five, that their brains simply were not ready.

But recent research has turned that assumption on its head — that, and a host of other conventional wisdom about geometry, reading, language and self-control in class. The findings, mostly from a branch of research called cognitive neuroscience, are helping to clarify when young brains are best able to grasp fundamental concepts.

In one recent study, for instance, researchers found that most entering preschoolers could perform rudimentary division, by distributing candies among two or three play animals. In another, scientists found that the brain’s ability to link letter combinations with sounds may not be fully developed until age 11 — much later than many have assumed.

The teaching of basic academic skills, until now largely the realm of tradition and guesswork, is giving way to approaches based on cognitive science. In several cities, including Boston, Washington and Nashville, schools have been experimenting with new curriculums to improve math skills in preschoolers. In others, teachers have used techniques developed by brain scientists to help children overcome dyslexia.

And schools in about a dozen states have begun to use a program intended to accelerate the development of young students’ frontal lobes, improving self-control in class.

“Teaching is an ancient craft, and yet we really have had no idea how it affected the developing brain,” said Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain and Education program at Harvard. “Well, that is beginning to change, and for the first time we are seeing the fields of brain science and education work together.”

This relationship is new and still awkward, experts say, and there is more hyperbole than evidence surrounding many “brain-based” commercial products on the market. But there are others, like an early math program taught in Buffalo schools, that have a track record. If these and similar efforts find traction in schools, experts say, they could transform teaching from the bottom up — giving the ancient craft a modern scientific compass.

Beyond Counting

In a typical preschool class, children do very little math. They may practice counting, and occasionally look at books about numbers, but that is about it. Many classes devote mere minutes a day to math instruction or no time at all, recent studies have found — far less than most children can handle, and not nearly enough to prepare those who, deprived of math-related games at home, quickly fall behind in kindergarten.

“Once that happens, it can be very hard to catch up,” said Julie Sarama, a researcher in the graduate school of education at the University at Buffalo who, with her colleague and husband, Doug Clements, a professor in the same department, developed a program called Building Blocks to enrich early math education.

“They decide they’re no good at math — ‘I’m not a math person,’ they say — and pretty soon the school agrees, the parents agree,” Dr. Clements said.

“Everyone agrees.”

In a Building Blocks classroom, numbers are in artwork, on computer games and in lessons, sharing equal time with letters. Like “Sesame Street,” Building Blocks has children play creative counting games; but it also focuses on other number skills, including cardinality (how many objects are in a set) and one-to-one correspondence (matching groups of objects, like cups and saucers). Teachers can tailor the Building Block lesson to a student’s individual ability.

On a recent Wednesday afternoon at the Makowski center, Buffalo’s Public School 99, Pat Andzel asked her preschool class a question:

“How many did you count?”

She had drilled them on the number seven. She held up a sign with “7” and asked her students what number they saw (“seven!”); had the group jump seven times, counting; then had them touch their nose seven times. As the class finished counting seven objects on a poster, she asked again:

“How many?”

“I never used to ask that,” Ms. Andzel said in an interview after the lesson. She asks it all the time now, she said, because it drives home a subtle but crucial idea: that the last number they said in counting is the quantity; it is the answer.

“Many of these kids don’t understand that yet,” she said.

The curriculum includes a variety of math-based lessons and activities, as well as software programs, all drawing on findings from cognitive science. When it comes to understanding numbers, for example, recent research suggests that infants can distinguish one object from two, and two from three.

By preschool, the brain can handle larger numbers and is struggling to link three crucial concepts: physical quantities (seven marbles, seven inches) with abstract digit symbols (“7”), with the corresponding number words (“seven”). Lessons like the one Ms. Andzel taught are meant to fuse this numeric trinity, which is crucial for understanding basic math in kindergarten.

Children begin recognizing geometric shapes as early as 18 months, studies find; by preschool, the brain can begin to grasp informal geometric definitions.

It can when taught properly, that is. Many books use a pizza slice to illustrate a triangle, for example, even though slices are rounded at one end. Once a child has fused the word triangle with a specific shape (triangle = pizza slice), it is hard to break that association later on.

“The definition,” Dr. Clements said, “is a three-angled shape. Period.” Building Blocks teaches this definition, illustrating it with triangles skinny and fat, squat and tall.

In all, this curriculum and others link numbers to objects, to rhythms, to the chairs and plates around a table — to the physical world.

“If children have games and activities that demonstrate the relationship between numbers, then quantity becomes a physical experience,” said Sharon Griffin, a psychologist at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., who found in a series of careful studies that a curriculum she devised, called Number Worlds, raised the scores of children who lagged in math. “Counting, by contrast, is very abstract.”

In a study published last year, scientists at Carnegie Mellon University reported that playing what seems a simple childhood game, similar to Chutes and Ladders (sometimes called Snakes and Slides), accelerates the understanding of numbers for low-income preschoolers.

“Being told 8 is 2 times 4 is one thing,” said Robert S. Siegler, a psychologist who is one of the authors. “It’s another to see that it’s twice as far to the number 8, and that it takes twice as long to get there.”

The Number Instinct

“Use your eyes like cameras,” said Lara Lazo, one of the teachers at P.S. 99, after the midmorning break. “Get ready to take a snapshot.”

The children bracketed their eyes with their hands, making “cameras,” and Ms. Lazo showed them a paper plate with three dots on it — then quickly covered the plate.

“What number did you see?”

A cacophony of “threes” and “fours” erupted.

“O.K.,” she said. “Let’s try it again.”

The lesson is intended to teach a skill called subitizing. “The idea,” Dr. Sarama said, “is to get them to recognize quantity — to say, ‘I see three’ — not by counting, but by instantly recognizing how many are there by sight.”

A crude “number instinct” is hard-wired into the anatomy of the brain, recent research has found. Mammals can quickly recognize differences in quantity, choosing the tree or bush with the most fruit. Human beings, even if they live in remote cultures with no formal math education, have a general grasp of quantities as well, anthropologists have found.

In a series of recent imaging studies, scientists have discovered that a sliver of the parietal cortex, on the surface of the brain about an inch above the ears, is particularly active when the brain judges quantity. In this area, called the intraparietal sulcus, clusters of neurons are sensitive to the sight of specific quantities, research suggests. Some fire vigorously at the sight of five objects, for instance, less so at the sight of four or six, and not at all at two or nine. Others are most active in response to one, two, three, and so on.

When engaged in a lesson or exercise, these regions actively communicate with areas of the frontal lobe, where planning and critical thinking are centered.

“This is what we believe focused math education does: It sharpens the firing of these quantity neurons,” said Stanislas Dehaene, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Collège de France in Paris and author of the books “The Number Sense” and “Reading and the Brain.” The firing of the number neurons becomes increasingly more selective to single quantities, he said; and these cells apparently begin to communicate with neurons across the brain in language areas, connecting precise quantities to words: “two,” “ten,” “five.”

A similar honing process is thought to occur when young children begin to link letter shapes and their associated sounds. Cells in the visual cortex wired to recognize shapes specialize in recognizing letters; these cells communicate with neurons in the auditory cortex as the letters are associated with sounds.

The process may take longer to develop than many assume. A study published in March by neuroscientists at Maastricht University in the Netherlands suggested that the brain does not fully fuse letters and sounds until about age 11.

“As these kinds of findings come in, they will have implications not only for teaching, but also education policy,” said Daniel Ansari, an assistant professor in developmental cognitive neuroscience at Western Ontario University.

Explaining Five

In math, there is no faking it. Children either know that five is more than three, or they do not. Either they can put number symbols in exactly the right order, or they cannot. In their studies, Dr. Clements and Dr. Sarama test children one on one and videotape the results for comparisons.

Over the past four years, the couple has tested Building Blocks in more than 400 classrooms in Buffalo, Boston and Nashville, comparing the progress of children in the program with that of peers in classes offering another math curriculum or none at all. On tests of addition, subtraction and number recognition after one school year, children who had the program scored in the 76th percentile on average, and those who did not scored in the 50th percentile.

By the end of kindergarten, a year after the program has ended, those who had had it sustained their gains, scoring in the 71st percentile, on average.

Many hurdles remain for this and similar curriculums based in cognitive science, experts say. Schools may move away from the curriculum; teachers move around, as do students; and in later grades there is always the risk that children who have mastered basic math will not get the attention they need to advance even further.

But for now at least, education based on brain science has helped hundreds of Buffalo children refine their native abilities in math. In one videotaped exam, a 4-year-old boy in a FUBU jersey and long dreadlocks who entered P.S. 99 in 2006 was unable to count or match cards with 3, 5, 2, 1 and 4 on them to cards with equivalent numbers of grapes.

In a video of his post-Building Blocks exam, six months later, he instantly says there are 10 pennies placed in front of him, without counting. He easily matches the number cards to their corresponding grape cards — and puts the mixed-up numerals in the correct order.

“What’s the biggest, nine or seven or five?” asks the teacher giving the exam.

The boy thinks for a moment. “Nine,” he says. “Five is the littlest.” Then he holds one palm above the other and says: “Five is like this. See?”

“Do you see what he’s doing?” Dr. Clements said, interrupting the video. “Right there. He wants to explain. He wants to explain five.”

2009年12月13日 星期日

Cooperative education

coop job system 建教工讀制

Cooperative education is a structured method of combining classroom-based education with practical work experience. A cooperative education experience, commonly known as a "co-op", provides academic credit for structured job experience. Cooperative education is taking on new importance in helping young people to make the school-to-work transition, service learning, and experiential learning initiatives.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History of cooperative education

[edit] Schneider's foundations

While at Lehigh University at the beginning of the 20th Century, Herman Schneider (1872–1939), engineer, architect, and educator, concluded that the traditional classroom was insufficient for technical students (Smollins 1999). Schneider observed that several of the more successful Lehigh graduates had worked to earn money before graduation. Gathering data through interviews of employers and graduates, he devised the framework for cooperative education (1901). About that time, Carnegie Technical School, now Carnegie Mellon University, opened and thereby minimized the need for Schneider's co-op plan in the region around Lehigh University. However, in 1903 the University of Cincinnati appointed Schneider to their faculty, and later, in 1906, allowed him an experimental year to implement his plan. Following that year, the University of Cincinnati gave him full permission for the co-op program.

Schneider, beginning from the rank of Assistant Professor, would rise through the rank of Dean of Engineering (1906–1928) to become President (1929-32) of the University of Cincinnati, based largely upon the strength of the co-op program. Throughout his career, he was an advocate for the co-op framework. His thirty years of service to the University of Cincinnati are partly credited for that institution's worldwide fame.

In 1965, The Cooperative Education and Internship Association (CEIA) created "The Dean Herman Schneider Award" in honor of the contributions made by Dean Schneider in cooperative education. The award is given annually to an outstanding educator from faculty or administration.

[edit] Post-Cincinnati evolutions

In 1909, seeing the possibility of co-op education, Northeastern University began using co-op in their engineering program, becoming only the second institution to do so in this country. By 1919, Antioch College had adapted the co-op practices to their liberal arts curricula, for which reason many called co-op the "Antioch Plan." Also in 1919 the General Motors Institute (GMI) was opened following this model to train new General Motors hires. This school was later renamed Kettering University.

In 1922, Northeastern University emphasized its commitment to co-op by extending it to the College of Business Administration. As new colleges opened at Northeastern, such as the College of Liberal Arts (1935) and College of Education (1953), they became co-op schools as well. By the 1980s, Northeastern was the acknowledged leader in co-op education across the world.(Smollins 1999)

In 1926, Dean Schneider invited those interested in forming an Association of Co-operative Colleges (ACC) to the University of Cincinnati for the first convention. The idea took hold, and was followed by three more annual conventions. In 1929, the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, now called American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), formed the Division of Cooperative Engineering Education, incorporating the membership of the ACC (Auld 1972).


In 1961, the Ford and Edison Foundations commissioned a study of co-operative education, published as Work-study college programs; appraisal and report of the study of cooperative education, (James Warner Wilson and Edward H Lyons, New York: Harper). That study resulted in the formation of the National Commission for Cooperative Education (NCCE). NCCE remains today to promote and lobby for co-operative education in the United States. Its membership comprises sponsoring corporations and organizations (not individuals) from academia and business.

By 1962, about 150 academic institutions used co-op education, in one form or another. Many were outside of engineering. The need for professional support of non-engineering programs became obvious, and the membership of ASEE, in 1963, began the Cooperative Education Association. To reflect its membership more accurately, it was eventually (sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s) named the Cooperative Education and Internship Association, it remains today as the professional association for co-operative education outside of ASEE.

Much of that early efforts of NCCE focused on lobbying and promotiing co-operative education. In 1965, the federal Higher Education Act provided support specifically for co-operative education. Funding continued from the federal government through 1992, when Congress ended its support of co-operative education. In all, a total of over $220 million was appropriated by the federal government toward co-operative education (Carlson 1999)

In 1979, educators from Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States (Northeastern's President, Kenneth Ryder), met to discuss work-related programs in their respective countries. In 1981 and 1982, this group, headed by President Ryder, convened an international conference on cooperative education. In 1983, several college and university presidents, educational specialists, and employers from around the world (including Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the Philippines, the United States and the United Kingdom) formed the World Council and Assembly on Cooperative Education to foster co-operative education around the world. In 1991, it renamed itself the World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE). By 2005, that Association boasted a membership of over 1,000 individuals from 43 different countries.

[edit] Co-op models

From its beginnings in Cincinnati in 1906, cooperative education has evolved into a program offered at the secondary and post-secondary levels in two predominant models (Grubb & Villeneuve 1995). In one model, students alternate a semester of academic coursework with an equal amount of time in paid employment, repeating this cycle several times until graduation. The parallel method splits the day between school and work, typically structured to accommodate the student's class schedule. Thus, like school-to-work (STW), the co-op model includes school-based and work-based learning and, in the best programs, "connecting activities" such as seminars and teacher-coordinator work site visits. These activities help students explicitly connect work and learning.

Co-op's proponents identify benefits for students (including motivation, career clarity, enhanced employability, vocational maturity) and employers (labor force flexibility, recruitment/retention of trained workers, input into curricula) as well as educational institutions and society (ibid.). Beyond informal and anecdotal evidence, however, a familiar refrain in the literature is the lack of well-done research that empirically demonstrates these benefits (Barton 1996; Wilson, Stull & Vinsonhaler 1996). Barton (1996) identifies some of the research problems for secondary co-op as follows: federal data collection on high school co-op enrollments and completions ceased in the 1980s; some studies use data in which co-op was not isolated from other work experience programs. Ricks et al. (1993) describe other problems: due to lack of a clear or consistent definition of cooperative education, researchers cannot accurately identify variables and findings cannot be compared; theory is not well developed; theory, research, and practice are not integrated; and co-op research does not adhere to established standards.

Another set of problems involves perceptions of the field and its marginalization. Because of its "vocational" association, co-op is not regarded as academically legitimate; rather, it is viewed as taking time away from the classroom (Crow 1997). Experiential activities are necessarily rewarded in post-secondary promotion and tenure systems (except in certain extenuating situations), and co-op faculty may be isolated from other faculty (Crow 1997; Schaafsma 1996). Despite the current emphasis on contextual learning, work is not recognized as a vehicle for learning (Ricks et al. 1993). Schaafsma (1996) and Van Gyn (1996) agree that the field places too much emphasis on placements rather than learning. Wilson, Stull & Vinsonhaler (1996) also decry the focus on administration, logistics, placements, and procedures.

Some institutions are fully dedicated to the co-op ideal (such as Georgia Institute of Technology, RIT, Kettering University, and LaGuardia Community College). In others, the co-op program may be viewed as an add-on and therefore is vulnerable to cost cutting (Wilson, Stull & Vinsonhaler 1996). Even where co-op programs are strong they can be threatened, as at Cincinnati Technical College when it became a comprehensive community college (Grubb & Villeneuve 1995) or LaGuardia during a budget crisis (Grubb & Badway 1998). For students, costs and time to degree completion may be deterrents to co-op participation (Grubb & Villeneuve 1995).

[edit] New approaches

Despite these problems, there is optimism about the future of co-op education; "Social, economic, and historic forces are making cooperative education more relevant than ever" (Grubb & Villeneuve 1995, p. 17), including emphasis on university-industry-government cooperation, a fluid and demanding workplace, new technology, the need for continuous on-the-job learning, globalization, and demands for accountability (John, Doherty & Nichols 1998). Federal investments in school-to-work and community service have resulted in a number of initiatives designed to provide "learning opportunities beyond the classroom walls" (Furco 1996, p. 9). Because this has always been a principle of co-op, the field is in a position to capitalize on its strengths and the ways it complements other experiential methods in the effort to provide meaningful learning opportunities for students. To do this, however, cooperative education must be redesigned.

For Wilson, Stull & Vinsonhaler (1996), a new vision involves conceiving, defining, and presenting co-op "as a curriculum model that links work and academics - a model that is based on sound learning theory" (p. 158). Ricks (1996) suggests affirming the work-based learning principles upon which co-op is based. These principles assert that cooperative education fosters self-directed learning, reflective practice, and transformative learning; and integrates school and work learning experiences that are grounded in adult learning theories.

Schaafsma (1996) also focuses on learning, seeing a need for a paradigm shift from content learning to greater understanding of learning processes, including reflection and critical thinking. Co-op is an experiential method, but learning from experience is not automatic. Therefore, Van Gyn (1996) recommends strengthening the reflective component that is already a part of some co-op models. "If co-op is only a vehicle for experience to gain information about the workplace and to link technical knowledge with workplace application, then its effectiveness is not fully developed" (Van Gyn 1996, p. 125).

The Bergen County Academies, a public magnet high school, utilizes co-op education in a program called Senior Experience. This program allows all 12th grade students to participate in cooperative education or an internship opportunity for the full business day each Wednesday. Students explore a wide range of career possibilities. This new approach was recognized as an educational best practice and has been adopted as a state educational initiative for 12th grade students.

[edit] Integrating experiential methods

School-to-work and service learning have also been promoted as ways to link theory and practice through meaningful experiential learning experiences. Furco (1996) outlines the similarities between school-to-work and service learning. Although school-to-work, service learning, and co-op have different goals, each of his points also applies to cooperative education:

  • Based on the philosophy that learners learn best through active engagement in meaningful activities
  • View of students as active learners and producers of knowledge
  • Use of such instructional strategies as contextual learning and application of knowledge to real situations
  • Requirement for schools to establish formal partnerships with outside entities
  • Concern for integrating school experiences and external experiences

The Community Service Scholarship Program at California State University-Fresno combines cooperative education with service learning. Students receive co-op/internship credit and scholarships for completing a placement at a community service site (Derousi & Sherwood 1997). As in traditional co-op work placements, students get real-world training, opportunities to explore career options, and enhanced employability skills such as communication, problem solving, and leadership as well as awareness of community and social problems. Combining co-op and service learning thus prepares students for roles as workers and citizens.

Research on highly successful co-op programs in Cincinnati (Grubb & Villeneuve 1995) and at LaGuardia Community College (Grubb & Badway 1998) shows that they share the basic philosophy and fundamental characteristics of the educational strategy of school-to-work. The reconceptualization of co-op should recognize and build upon this connection. At the same time, lessons from successful co-op programs can benefit the broader STW movement.

There is a need for broader definition of acceptable models for integrating work and learning. Barton (1996) and Wilson, Stull & Vinsonhaler (1996) identify a variety of work-based learning activities taking different names: co-op, internships, externships, apprenticeship, career academies, etc. Work-based learning programs should look for connections and develop collaborative relationships. The alternating and parallel co-op models may not meet the needs of returning adult students and dislocated workers needing retraining (Varty 1994). Alternatives such as extended-day programs emphasizing mentoring should be considered.

Connecting activities to integrate school- and work-based learning are an essential part of STW. At LaGuardia, the required co-op seminar helps students make connections by giving them a structure within which to reinforce employability skills, examine larger issues about work and society, and undertake the crucial activities of critical reflection (Grubb & Badway 1998).

Grubb & Badway (1998) and Grubb & Villeneuve (1995) found that the value of cooperative education is embedded in the culture of the institution (LaGuardia) and the region (Cincinnati). In this supportive culture, employer support does not have to be repeatedly obtained and there are clearly understood long-term expectations on all sides (schools, employers, students). This "informal culture of expectations around work-based learning may be more powerful in the long run than a complex set of regulations and bureaucratic requirements" (Grubb & Villeneuve 1995, p. 27).

However, even LaGuardia has found it difficult to sustain co-op culture over time (Grubb & Badway 1998). "The only way in which STW programs can find a permanent place in schools and colleges is for the work-based component to become so central to the educational purposes of the institutions that it becomes as unthinkable to give it up as it would be to abandon math, English, or science" (Grubb & Badway 1998, p. 28).

Finn (1997) believes that the answer lies in going beyond reconceiving co-op as an "educational strategy, pedagogy, model, methodology, or curriculum" (Finn 1997, p. 41). She asserts that it is time for cooperative education to develop and define its body of knowledge, investigate its unique phenomena-e.g., the concept of learning from experience, and clarify and strengthen the qualifications of co-op practitioners. For Ricks (1996), cooperative education is inherently committed to improving the economy, people's working lives, and lifelong learning abilities. It can thus position itself to serve the experiential learning needs of students into the 21st century.

Cates and Cedercreutz (2008) demonstrate that the assessment of student work performance as pursued by co-op employers, can be used for continuous improvement of curricula. The methodology, funded by the Fund for Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) has been developed to a level allowing institutionalization. The methodology could, when implemented over a larger front, provide a substantial competitive advantage for the entire field.

[edit] Examples

  • The University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada has the largest co-operative education program in the world, with more than 11,000 students enrolled in co-op programs and more than 3,000 active co-op employers. It offers fully automated Web-based job submission (for employers) and job application/resume posting (for students). Waterloo's renowned engineering program is one of the few co-op only engineering programs in Canada. Waterloo's 5-year co-op program includes 24 months of work experience, the longest undergraduate co-op experience in Canada and most likely in the world.
  • Just down the street from the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University also provides a co-op business program in Canada. The program, which has a competitive entry limited to roughly one-third of the students who start the program in their first-year, offers three four-month work terms, and uses enhanced web-tools to make the job application process as simple as possible for employers and students. It is the first program of its kind in Canada.
  • Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has one of the largest co-operative education programs in the United States, branded as "The Ultimate Internship". Drexel has a fully Internet-based job database, where users can submit resumes and request interviews with any of the hundreds of companies that are offering positions. A student graduating from Drexel with a 5-year degree typically has a total of 18 months of internship with up to three different companies.
  • Northeastern University in Boston, MA has the largest, and second-oldest, co-operative education program in the United States, and is known as one of the only five-year universities in the United States. Northeastern's co-op program has been ranked #1 in the Co-Op and Internships category by U.S. News and World Report. A student graduating from Northeastern with a 5-year bachelor's degree has a total of 18 months of internship experience with up to three different companies.
  • Rochester Institute of Technology was among the first universities to begin cooperative education back in 1912. Today RIT's program is the fourth-oldest and one of the largest in the world.
  • Georgia Institute of Technology was one of the first universities to offer cooperative education in 1912. It is the fourth-oldest and the largest optional co-op program in the United States and has perennially been listed in U.S. News & World Report as one of the "Top Ten" co-op programs in America.
  • Kettering University in Flint, Michigan enrolls students in co-operative education from their first year on campus, specializing in engineering, science, and management degree programs.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

This article incorporates text from the ERIC Digests article "New Directions for Cooperative Education" by Sandra Kerka, a publication in the public domain.

  • Auld, Robert B. (1972), "The Cooperative Education Movement: Association of Cooperative Colleges", Journal of Cooperative Education 8 (5): 24–27, ISSN 0022-0132
  • Barton, Paul E. (1996), Cooperative Education in High School: Promise and Neglect, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service (ED 400 413)
  • Carlson, Ann (1999), "Co-op Planet: Organizations at N.U. Plant Co-op's Seeds Far and Wide", Northeastern University Magazine 24 (5), May 1999, http://www.numag.neu.edu/9905/wase.html, retrieved 2005-07-12
  • Cates, Cheryl and Cedercreutz, Kettil [Ed.] (2008), Leveraging Cooperative Education to Guide Curricular Innovation, The Development of a Corporate Feedback System for Continuous Improvement, Center for Cooperative Education Research and Innovation, Cincinnati, Ohio.
  • Crow, C. (1997), "Cooperative Education in the New Millennium", Cooperative Education Experience, Columbia, MD: Cooperative Education Association, pp. 1–5 (ED 414 433)
  • Derousi, P.; Sherwood, C. S. (1997), "Community Service Scholarships: Combining Cooperative Education with Service Learning", Journal of Cooperative Education 33 (1): 46-54, Fall 1997 (EJ 565 927)
  • Finn, K. L. (1997), "The Spaces Between: Toward a New Paradigm for Cooperative Education", Journal of Cooperative Education 32 (2): 36-45, Winter 1997
  • Freeland, R. M.; Marini, R. C.; and Weighart, S. Moving Partnerships between Co-op Institutions and Co-op Employers into the Next Century. Journal of Cooperative Education 33, no. 2 (Winter 1998): 17-27.
  • Furco, Andrew (1996), "Service Learning and School-to-Work", Journal of Cooperative Education 32 (1): 7-14, Fall 1996
  • Grubb, W. Norton; Badway, Norena (1998), Linking School-Based and Work-Based Learning: The Implications of LaGuardia's Co-op Seminars for School-to-Work Programs, National Center for Research in Vocational Education (ED 418 230)
  • Grubb, W. Norton; Villeneuve, Jennifer Curry (1995), Co-operative Education in Cincinnati, Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education
  • John, J. E. A.; Doherty, D. J.; Nichols, R. M. (1998), "Challenges and Opportunities for Cooperative Education", Journal of Cooperative Education 33 (2): 10-16, Winter 1998
  • Ricks, F. (1996), "Principles for Structuring Cooperative Education Programs", Journal of Cooperative Education 31 (2-3): 8-22, Winter-Spring 1996 (EJ 524 105)
  • Ricks, F.; Cutt, J.; Branton, G.; Loken, M.; Van Gyn, G. H. (1993), "Reflections on the Cooperative Education Literature", Journal of Cooperative Education 29 (1): 6-23, Fall 1993 (EJ 475 316)
  • Schaafsma, H. (1996), "Reflections of a Visiting Co-op Practitioner", Journal of Cooperative Education 31 (2-3): 83-100, Winter-Spring 1996 (EJ 524 109)
  • Stockbridge, Frank Parker (April 1911). "Half Time At School And Half Time At Work: Cooperative Education, The Plan Of The University Of Cincinnati". The World's Work: A History of Our Time XXI: 14265-14275.
  • Smollins, John-Pierre (1999), "The Making of the History: Ninety Years of Northeastern Co-op", Northeastern University Magazine 24 (5), May 1999, http://www.northeastern.edu/magazine/9905/history.html, retrieved 2005-07-12
  • Van Gyn, G. H. (1996), "Reflective Practice: The Needs of Professions and the Promise of Cooperative Education", Journal of Cooperative Education 31 (2-3): 103-131, Winter-Spring 1996 (EJ 524 110)
  • Varty, J. W. (1994), "Cooperative Education for the '90s and Beyond", Co-op/Experience/Co-op 5 (1): 10-11, March 1994 (EJ 478 859)
  • Wilson, James Warner; Stull, W. A.; Vinsonhaler, J. (1996), "Rethinking Cooperative Education", Journal of Cooperative Education 31 (2-3): 154-165, Winter-Spring 1996 (EJ 524 112)

[edit] External links

2009年12月8日 星期二

The University in Ruins

The University in Ruins


由 Bill Readings 著作 - 1997 - 260 頁
books.google.com - 關於此書 - 更多書籍結果 »


品牌: 比尔·雷丁斯
  基本信息·出版社:北京大学出版社
  ·页码:210 页
  ·出版日期:2008年
  ·ISBN:9787301139592
  
  ·开本:16

  ·外文书名:THE UNIVERSITY IN RUINS
 
   内容简介《废墟中的大学》梳理了现代大学所走过的历史,认为,西方现代大学的教育理念历经了三个阶段,康德的理性大学、洪堡的文化大学和当代的所谓一流 大学——随着经济全球化的进程以及民族国家的衰微,现代大学,即洪堡意义上以承担国家和民族文化使命为己任的大学已经走到了黄昏时代。而在对现代大学进行 大规模诊断之后,雷丁斯提出了一种以“思想之名”办学的理念,也就是以培养学生的反思、质疑、批判的能力为旨归的教育。这种教育事实上是对康德的理性大学 理念的回归。

  作者简介比尔·雷丁斯,蒙特利尔大学比较文学系副教授。( 故)
  媒体推荐大学现已是一个衰败的体制,被迫放弃了其历史的存在 依据,而陷入了消费主义的意识形态中,文化追求的任务被追求一流所取代,这使得大学完全淹没在全球资本主义的单调繁重运作中,它将毕业生不是作为主体,而 是作为物件而送出,且是在国家官僚机构的细查下按人头数来计算。以上就是比尔·雷丁斯精彩论述的要点所在。……当下那些要在新的全球化经济中生存的各种社 会和团体都经历着同样的困惑,雷丁斯的论文对此提供了洞见。大学一直都意味着是一个不受外界潮流影响的机构,但雷丁斯却令人信服地指出了它的脆弱性,它是 一个被卷入消费主义大潮中的微型世界,被迫成为那个王国中的一个属官。雷丁斯对自己所预见的大学功能的解体进行了深入思考,并进行了精彩论述。


  ——安东尼·史密斯,牛津大学马格德琳学院院长,《新政治家与社会》
  在英语世界中,任何一个经历了过去十年艰苦漫长的学术道路的人,无疑都会看出雷丁斯的论述无比真实,即大公司式的经营模式已经成为当下大学管理机制的一部分。
  ——纳塔夏·拉赫勒,《耶路撒冷邮报》
  这是一本就当代大学问题进行激烈且睿智论战的著作,……任何一个在那些高等教育机构中工作和就读的人士的必读之书。即便这些机构还未完全没落,但肯定已经陷入重围。
  ——斯坦·珀斯基,《多伦多全球与邮政报》

   编辑推荐《废墟中的大学》编辑推荐:大学现已是一个衰败的体制,被迫放弃了其历史的存在依据,而陷入了消费主义的意识形态中,文化追求的任务被追求一流 所取代,这使得大学完全淹没在全球资本主义的单调繁重运作中,它将毕业生不是作为主体,而是作为物件而送出,且是在国家官僚机构的细查下按人头数来计算。 以上就是比尔·雷丁斯精彩论述的要点所在。……当下那些要在新的全球化经济中生存的各种社会和团体都经历着同样的困惑,雷丁斯的论文对此提供了洞见。大学 一直都意味着是一个不受外界潮流影响的机构,但雷丁斯却令人信服地指出了它的脆弱性,它是一个被卷入消费主义大潮中的微型世界,被迫成为那个王国中的一个 属官。雷丁斯对自己所预见的大学功能的解体进行了深入思考,并进行了精彩论述。

  ——安东尼·史密斯,牛津大学马格德琳学院院长,《新政治家与社会》
  在英语世界中,任何一个经历了过去十年艰苦漫长的学术道路的人,无疑都会看出雷丁斯的论述无比真实,即大公司式的经营模式已经成为当下大学管理机制的一部分。
  ——纳塔夏·拉赫勒,《耶路撒冷邮报》
  这是一本就当代大学问题进行激烈且睿智论战的著作,……任何一个在那些高等教育机构中工作和就读的人士的必读之书。即便这些机构还未完全没落,但肯定已经陷入重围。
  ——斯坦·珀斯基,《多伦多全球与邮政报》


  目录
  前言 戴安娜·埃拉姆
  致谢 比尔·雷丁斯
  一 导言
  二 一流理念
  三 民族国家的衰落
  四 理性界限内的大学
  五 大学与文化理念
  六 文学文化
  七 文化战争与文化研究
  八 后历史大学
  九 学习的时间:1968
  十 教学的场景
  十一 在废墟上栖身
  十二 各抒己见的共同体
  索引
  译者后记
 
  序言审读《大学之用》、《废墟中的大学》、《高等教育市场化的底线》这几部忧患当代大学命运的译稿时,偏偏赶上电视台的哪个频道,也正连篇累牍地播放着宣传国外知名学府的系列节目——照例是一路的天花乱坠.仿佛下界仰望着天国。
   这种可巧插播在高考之后的追捧,明眼人一望便知,肯定是迎合了强烈的牟利动机。不过,首先引起我关注的,还不是它那骨子里的“学店’’做派,而是装潢在 其表面的、很少引起公众怀疑的神圣性。就冲这种煞有介事的神圣性,我简直有些不忍地念及:在这个空空如也的时代,就别再去撕破家长们仅存的虔诚了吧?试 想,除了



  文摘第二章一流理念
  把作为民族国家意识形态标志的现代大学与作为官僚公司的当代大学区别开来的重要性在于,它能使我们观察一个重要的现象。“一流”正在迅速成为大学的口号,而且要想理解当代大学,需要反思一下追求一流可能意味着或不意味着什么。
   在我第一次就一流概念的重要性发表谈话的几个月之后,加拿大一家重要的新闻周刊杂志《麦克林斯》出版了它年度第三期加拿大大学专刊。这些大学的地位与那 些被《美国新闻和世界报道》所排名的大学的地位并驾齐驱。1993年11月15日出版的《麦克林斯》自称根据各种指标把加拿大的大学都排列了名次。让我惊 奇的是,这期杂志的名字为“一流的标准”。对我来说,一流不是简单地等同于“整体质量管理”。它不仅仅是把企业的某些东西输入到大学里,试图以《管理企业 的方式管理大学》这种输入毕竟还不认为大学是一个真正的企业,只是在某些方面像一个企业。
  当福特汽车公司与俄亥俄州立大学为了“在校园生活的 所有领域开展整体质量管理”而结为“伙伴关系”的时候,这种关系是基于“大学的使命与公司的使命不是那么不同”的假定,俄亥俄州立大学负责企业与管理的副 校长简纳特·皮切特如是说。也许不是“那么不同”,但也不是完全相同。大学正在向公司转型,虽然俄亥俄州立大学的校长E.戈登·吉对“大学和它所服务的顾 客”的理解是俄亥俄州立大学已经走上转型之路的标志,但大学还没有把整体质量管理应用于它的各个方面。转型的手段是追求质量,因为“质量”可以适用于“校 园生活的所有领域”,并且能够以单一的评价标准把它们联系在一起。正如校园新闻报《俄亥俄州之灯》所报道的那样:“对大学和它所服务的顾客来说,质量是最 根本的问题,吉说,顾客指的是教师、学生、学生的父母以及毕业生。”这篇文章的作者感觉到有必要澄清校长所说的大学的“顾客”是指什么人,这种必要性是几 乎已经过时的教育观的悲惨标志,混乱也许仍然会在这个问题上出现。

  因此我们想为吉校长澄清一点:质量不是根本问题,但一流会很快成为问题的根 本,因为一流要我们认识到,大学不只是像一个企业;它就是一个企业。一流大学的学生不只是像顾客;他们就是顾客。因为一流意味着重大的飞跃:“追求一流” 的观念在大学内部发展起来了——大学将一流确立为中心理念,而通过这个理念,大学得到了外部世界的理解(在《麦克林斯》的例子里,加拿大的中层和上层即是 如此)。


  后记比尔·雷丁斯这本书的英文书名(University in Ruins),一语双关,既有“没落的大学”,又有“废墟中的大学”两层意思,从用词的层面上可看出,前一层意思是隐含的。而“废墟”的意象才是作者要凸 显的。也就是说,在本书中,尽管作者回顾了现代大学所走过的历史,但他并不是在哀悼什么,而是以此回顾为参照,去分解和重建现代大学理念。作者的“分解” 也可以说是“解构”,即解构眼下正火的“一流大学”理念,而他的“重建”并不是提出另一套硬性规定,而是要保留大学的“废墟”状态,即一种没有什么“主建 筑”,却可产生无数个