GSTPGO1 Onderzoek in Onderwijs Blok 1, groep 4. Programma vandaag Terugblik opdracht Vooruitblik en Tussenevaluatie Debat.

Presentatie over: "GSTPGO1 Onderzoek in Onderwijs Blok 1, groep 4. Programma vandaag Terugblik opdracht Vooruitblik en Tussenevaluatie Debat."— Transcript van de presentatie:

1 GSTPGO1 Onderzoek in Onderwijs Blok 1, groep 4

2 Programma vandaag Terugblik opdracht Vooruitblik en Tussenevaluatie Debat

3 Five commonplaces (Schwab) curriculum contentlearner teacherMilieu Where do we teach?

4 Content Millar, R., Klaassen, K., & Eijkelhof, H. (1990). Teaching about radioactivity and ionising radiation: an alternative approach. Physics Education, 25(6), 338. Duit, R., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (1997). Studies on educational reconstruction of chaos theory. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 339- 357. Ma, L., Ferguson, J., Roper, M., & Wood, M. (2007, March). Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 499-503). ACM.

5

6 ist vs. soll Helpen blauwe contactlenzen bij dyslexie? Onthoud je meer van aantekeningen maken op papier? Werkt leerstijlgericht onderwijs? Moeten we voor masteropleidingen selecteren? – Zijlstra (2010) -> doorstroommasters afschaffen, alle masters selectief – Bussemaker (2015) -> ingrijpen als toegankelijkheid in geding komt Moet de leerkracht meer invloed hebben op het schooladvies? Is de rekentoets nodig (en zo ja met of zonder context)? Willen we 21 st century skills / Maker-Ed / Ipadscholen? Is de leraar verantwoordelijk voor de motivatie van alle leerlingen?

7 Why debate? To exercise in – setting up an argumentation for a point of view – articulating your argumentation – critically analyzing your opponent’s arguments in – order to refute them To learn a new way of presenting yourself

8 Features of debate Structured discussion, rules about who speaks when Speakers’ aim is to convince judges and audiences – I.e.: address the audience, not your opponent! Argue your case, not simply state it – A way to structure your argumentation is to label arguments Critically examining the opponent’s argumentation Interaction: refuting what the opponent just put forward Role play: you argue for a point of view that is not necessarily your own

9 Formulate a coherent (and plausible!) line of argumentation

10 Make your argument SEXI State – What is the core argument? EXplain – Why is it plausible? NB: The logic supporting your argument should be robust and well thought through as your opponents will try to shoot holes in it. Illustrate – How can you clarify your argument? – Name facts or examples that support your argument

11 UU ‘College debates’ format Team preparation (8 min) Public votes Opening statements (A; proponents and B: opponents, 3 min each) Reaction phase (members of the two teams try to refute the other team’s arguments and ask questions to reveal weaknesses in the other (10 min. total) Closing statements team’s (1 min each) Jury statements (groep C) Public votes Plenary discussion with audience (groep D) & instructor

12 Focusing the debate To prevent many arguments going back and forth without a clear focus, think of the following questions: – What should be the key question in this debate, according to your team? What does your team have to prove (or refute) in order to win this debate? What is your most important argument to support this point? -> This is the point to start your opening statement and end your closing statement with!

13 Stelling voor vandaag Het is de verantwoordelijkheid van de leraar om alle leerlingen te motiveren voor de leertaak.

14 Voorbereiden groepen – A: Voorstanders – B: Tegenstanders – C: Jury – (D: Publiek)