Teaching Students to Think Globally. Jack Hassard. Georgia State. University. Abstract. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. The Global Thinking Project engages students. Through seminars, classroom visits, laboratory demonstrations.
Presents Sketching Techniques to Learn How to Sketch with Expression and Power 32 pencil sketch drawing lessons. Techniques for Creative Thinking First of all, you should read the introduction which discusses the question: 'What can I do to increase my creativity?'. Chester Brown’s graphic novel Paying for It. K asks the questions and critics X, Y, and Z debate the answers. K: What do you make of Brown’s decision to draw his. IRRATIONALITY Rethinking thinking Economists are starting to abandon their assumption that humans behave rationally, and instead are finally coming to.
Learn how to draw bark with pen and ink with this free drawing tutorial by artist Vincent Whitehead. Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing Christine A. Tanner, PhD, RN ABsTRACT This article reviews the growing body of research on. Welcome to Education World's Work Sheet Library. In this section of our library, we present more than 100 ready-to-print student work sheets organized by grade level. 8.5 x 11 SPINE: 1.125. Architecture/Design & Drafting. Today’s most comprehensive compendium of architectural drawing types and methods, both hand.
Georgia State University and the Russian Academy. Education. The goals of the project serve as a vehicle to empower. Earth, as well as to. Using. teaching and learning materials developed by teachers, the. Who would have guessed in 1.
Soviet Union, and. Russian Revolutions in 1.
The early social history of the AHP- Soviet. Exchange program was described in the Journal of Humanistic. Psychology (Hassard, 1. In this paper I will describe the. This project started out as an exchange of ideas about how.
AHPers, faculty at the Experimental Gymnasium. School 7. 10, and researchers at the Institute for General and. Educational Psychology. It has evolved into the Global Thinking. Project, a computer- mediated telecommunications school project in.
The Global Thinking Project at Georgia State. University is an effort to engage teachers and students in. We have written and field. Global Thinking: Teacher's Resource Guide (Hassard.
Weisberg, 1. 99. 5), an interdisciplinary. Students collaborate globally using the. Institute for. Global Communications. At the present time, over 1. Australia, the Czech Republic, Russia. Singapore, Spain, and the United States are participating in the. The project organizes an annual Global Summit conference for.
October), the Global Thinking Teacher. Preparation Institute (July), engages graduate students and teachers.
Most recently, the GTP has received funding from the. United States Information Agency (USIA. With no. official invitation, a group of 3. Moscow, Leningrad (St. Petersburg), and Tbilisi for 1. September 1. 98. 3. Rooted in the concern for the well- being of the.
United States and the former Soviet Union, this delegation laid the. AHP Soviet Exchange. Program. Since 1. AHP has sponsored more than 2. USSR, and received nearly a. Soviet colleagues. These exchanges fostered.
USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. Russian Academy of Education) and the AHP that focused on. Through seminars, classroom visits, lab. Georgia State University (GSU) emerged as the. AHP's educational activities with the Academy of. Pedagogical Sciences (APS).
An international conference on Soviet and. American education led to an agreement between GSU and the APS that. Moscow in May of 1. Both parties agreed to. Both sides agreed to collaborate to. Empower students and teachers to get. Introduce students to collaborative.
Develop computer literacy in students. The Russian. Connection.
The Global Thinking Project is a grassroots. Moscow, St. Petersburg and Atlanta. Theproject owes its existence not only the AHP. Soviet Exchange Program, but to the efforts of American and Soviet. As shown in Figure 1, the. Global Thinking Project fostered the exchange of people and ideas. These. exchanges established interdependence amongst American and Russian.
Global Thinking Project. Personal. contact, and a deep interest and understanding of each others'. Figure 1. Global Thinking Project.
Timeline. Date. Location. Event. 19. 83 - 1. Moscow, Leningrad. Tbilisi. AHP Soviet Exchange Program. North American. professional psychologists and educators to collaborate with. Soviet Union. 19.
Moscow. Gorbachev General Secretary. President of the USSROctober, 1. Moscow, Tbilisi. Leningrad. AHP delegation to USSR. Wrote draft of agreement with USSR Academy of.
Pedagogical Sciences in consultation with Y. Koulutkin. first annual conference on Soviet- American Education held at.
GSU May, 1. 98. 9Moscow, Leningrad. Agreement signed between. Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, AHP and GSU; discussions. November, 1. 98. 9Moscow, Leningrad. Conference in Leningrad with. American educators and 5.
Soviet educators. Drafts and. outlines of topics for Global Thinking curriculum and. July, 1. 99. 0Dahlonaga.
Georgia. Writing conference creating. Global Thinking Teacher's Guide. October, 1. 99. 0Atlanta and.
Jonesboro. Field test of. Telecommunications and Global Thinking curriculum between. Atlanta area. December, 1. Moscow, Leningrad.
Installation of Macintosh. Soviet schools; teacher. Soviet pilot. teachers. February - May. 1. Atlanta, NW Georgia. Pittsburgh, Moscow, Leningrad. Online field test of Global.
Thinking using Apple. Link Telecommunications. May, 1. 99. 1Moscow and. Leningrad. Meetings among Soviet.
Project Director to discuss field. August, 1. 99. 1Prague. International Conference. Telecommunications. Collaboration with about 5. Russian. scientists during the week of the attempted August. October, 1. 99. 1Atlanta, Lookout Mountain.
Georgia. 16 member delegation of. Soviet educators (all pilot teachers) meet with American. Retreat seminar in NW Georgia, conference in. Atlanta on Global Thinking Project. October, 1. 99. 1 - April. Atlanta, NW Georgia. Pittsburgh, Moscow, Leningrad.
Field test of Global. Thinking using Apple. Link Telecommunications. System. April, 1.
Moscow, St. October, 1. May. 1. 99. 3Australia, Georgia (2. Russia (schools in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and. Yaroslavl), Spain and New Zealand Field test of the Global.
Thinking curriculum using the Eco. Net, and affiliated. Glasnet (Russia), Greennet. Europe), Pegasus (Australia)January - February. Moscow, St. Petersburg.
Yaroslavl. 13 member delegation of. Russia- -Global Thinking. Georgia, Barcelona, and Australia)July, 1.
Simpsonwood Conference. Center, Norcross, Georgia. First annual Global Thinking. Teacher Leadership Institute (2. Australia. Spain and the US)September 1. May. 1. 99. 44. 3 schools from Australia.
New Zealand, Russia, Spain, UK, and the USSchools organized into four. Global Communities (of about 1.
Global Thinking Project telecommunications curriculum. November 1. 99. 3Atlanta, Georgia (Georgia. State University)Mini- symposium on research.
Global Thinking- -- results published in March, 1. Golley & Hassard, 1. July 1. 99. 4Simpsonwood Conference. Center, Norcross, Georgia. Second Annual Global. Thinking Teacher Leadership Institute (teachers from.
Australia, Russia, Spain, & the United. States)September 1. June. 1. 99. 54. 3 schools from Australia. Czech Republic, New Zealand, Russia, Spain, UK, and the.
USSchools organized into four. Global Communities (of about 1. Global Thinking Project telecommunications curriculum. May 1. 99. 5 - June. Five Georgia cities and. Russian cities. GTP- -- Georgia/Russia Student. Teacher Exchange, Funded by the USIA.
American and 5. 0. Russian students and 2.
GTP. exchange. July 1. Simpsonwood Conference. Centr. Third Annual Global Thinking. Teacher Leadership Institute (Teachers from Australia.
Spain, Russia and the United States. June 1. 99. 6Atlanta, Georgia. The Second. GTP- -- Georgia/Russia Student and Teacher Exchange between. Russia and the Untied States funded by the USIASeptember 1. May. 1. 99. 74. 0 Schools world. Schools organized into four.
Global Communities (of about 1. Global Thinking Project telecommunications curriculum. Linking for. Learning.
The Global Thinking Project was one of the. American and Russian teachers to establish. Berenfeld. 1. 99.
Hassard & Weisberg, 1. In December 1. 98. Americans. from Georgia transported six Macintosh computers, printers and Hayes. Moscow, and over a period of ten days, delivered and set up. Russian schools (Moscow schools 9. St. Petersburg schools 9. USSR Academy. of Pedagogical Sciences.
Teacher preparation seminars were held in. Global Thinking curriculum. Using the. Apple. Link telecommunications system and the SOVAM Teleport in Moscow. Russian and six. American schools- -- one in Pittsburgh, three in the Atlanta area, and. Walker County (Northwest region of Georgia).
During the Winter and Spring of 1. Global Thinking field test. The. project conducted an evaluation study, had experts in science. Hassard & Weisberg, 1. The results of these first.
American and Russian students led to the development. Global Thinking Project curriculum framework (Figure. Beyond America and. Russia. How does a project grow? We. have not set out deliberately to involve schools from other regions.
However, it has happened. The way the project has. In February of 1. I. received an email message from Narcis Vives, a teacher and director. Barcelona. He said he had learned about the. Global Thinking Project from his involvement in another. Barcelona and Atlanta were.
Olympics, he wondered if we would be interested in. In May he traveled to Atlanta to visit. After visiting some of the project schools, and. Global Thinking materials, he suggested that some. Barcelona schools join the project for the 1. The GTP Center in Barcelona now. In October, 1. 99.
Roger Cross, a science. La. Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Georgia State University for part of his. Sabbatical leave year. I had met Roger two years earlier at the. National Science Teachers Association meeting held in Atlanta.
While. at GSU, he got involved in the Global Thinking Project by working. Global Thinking, and by collaborating with us on the.
Global Summit. At the Global Summit, over 1. Global Thinking. students and teachers from Georgia and Russia participated in a.
Chattahoochie River near. Atlanta to engage in environmental projects and discussions. While at. GSU, he suggested that some schools in Australia and New Zealand. U. K. One U. K school has joined the project, as well. As a result of this process, schools in these.
Barcelona, Australia, Russia) have become empowered to be. Global Thinking in their own right. Cross has made. contacts in China, Singapore and India and has encouraged schools.
Two schools from Singapore joined the. March, 1. 99. 4. Narcis Vives and his colleagues received. Global Thinking Teacher's Resource Guide.
Catalan). Vives and his colleagues have. South American nations, and. Argentina has joined the project. Vadim Zhudov. director of school 7.
Mocow, and his colleagues made arrangements. Global Thinking into Russian and distribute it to all. Russian schools in the project. Because we have received funding from the. Eisenhower Higher Education Program, and the U. S. Environmental.
Theory and Research on Teaching as Dialogue. Theory and Research on Teaching as Dialogue- +- Nicholas C. Burbules and Bertram C.
Bruce. University of Illinois. Urbana/Champaign. To appear in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4th Edition, Virginia Richardson, ed. The back- and- forth form of question and answer, challenge and response, has been viewed as the external communicative representation of a dialectical process of thinking based on conjecture, criticism, and reconstruction of ideas. Some of these views of dialogue have stressed the role of the teacher as a facilitator of a student’s discovery of certain insights on his or her own; in some cases it is in pursuit of an answer the teacher has in mind already, in others, of an answer neither participant could have anticipated.
Other views have stressed the role of vigorous debate and argument as a basis for hewing defensible conclusions out of the raw material of opinion and speculation. Still other views have stressed the role of the teacher as a partner in inquiry, learning with the student as both explore a problem together through reciprocal questions and answers. Other, quite different, traditions of thought, such as Zen Buddhism, also have a view of dialogue, but denigrate the value of express communication as a way of sharing knowledge or insight, relying instead upon the indirect effect of riddles, paradoxical statements, and questions (koans) that precisely cannot be answered. Such brief genealogical reflections should make clear that the contemporary vision of dialogue as a pedagogy that is egalitarian, open- ended, politically empowering, and based on the co- construction of knowledge, reflects only certain strands of its history. Contrasting accounts see dialogue as a way of leading others to pre- formed conclusions; or as a way for a master teacher to guide the explorations of a novice; or as a set of ground rules and procedures for debating the merits of alternative views; or as a way to frustrate, problematize, and deconstruct conventional understandings.
Dialogue is not only a multiform approach to pedagogy; its different forms express deeper assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the nature of inquiry, the nature of communication, the roles of teacher and learner, and the mutual ethical obligations thereof. A special challenge for this chapter, therefore, is to carve out a useful terrain between two unproductive extremes. One is to consider any verbal interaction between teacher and student, or among students, a . Building on Dewey’s (1. The other unproductive extreme is to narrow prescriptively the multiple forms of dialogue to a single form as . One of our central claims will be that there are forms of dialogue, and that their usefulness in educational settings will depend on the relation between forms of communicative interaction and (1) the contexts of such interaction, (2) other activities and relations among participants, (3) the subject matter under discussion, and (4) the varied differences among those participants themselves.
Conceptions of dialogue need to be rethought within the changing institutional and demographic circumstances of teaching and learning, and within the changing educational needs and aims of society. The discursive tradition. This rethinking of dialogue is informed by another tradition of theorizing that regards all communicative and representational acts as forms of social practice (Bruce, 1. Cazden, et al., 1. Fairclough, 1. 98. Foucault, 1. 97. 2, 1.
Gee, 1. 99. 0; Luke, 1. This tradition explores discourses as forms of sociohistorically constituted relations among people, activities, texts, and situations. Participating in a discourse then means assuming a role within a community of practice (Wenger, 1. The discursive perspective implies that the various types of dialogue do not carve out distinct natural kinds; nor are dialogical forms discontinuous with discursive patterns generally. For particular analytical purposes, it may be helpful to set criteria for what will be counted as a kind of . This is the classic move of nominalism. Yet it is fruitful to ask why traditions do count certain types of communicative interaction as dialogue, and others not; why dialogue has had particular appeal for some as a model of teaching and inquiry; and what is at stake in appropriating the term .
Because the major prescriptions in favor of dialogue as an approach to pedagogy have generally come from philosophical sources, these accounts have tended to emphasize either the epistemological advantages of dialogue as a way to pursue knowledge and understanding (see, for example, Socrates or Plato: Hamilton 1. Buber, 1. 97. 0; Freire, 1. Levinas, 1. 98. 1). Both kinds of arguments have tended to arise from a priori assumptions that may or may not have been tested against studies of pedagogical practice.
As a result, the prescriptive tradition has often neglected the ways in which idealized forms of interaction either may not be feasible in certain circumstances, or may have effects contrary to their intent. It may seem ironic that a quintessentially communicative activity, such as dialogue, has often been discussed in ways that ignore research on discourse generally. But the philosophical origins of this concept, its prescriptive intent, its idealized characterizations, have all tended to promote an anti- empirical approach toward elaborating what dialogues look like and how they work – or fail to work – educationally. While some accounts of dialogue have drawn from personal experiences in communicative engagement, in general there has been a desire to insulate the prescriptive model of dialogue from the conflicted rough- and- tumble of discourse generally (however, see Carlson, 1. In this essay we employ a model of discourse that stresses a tripartite set of relations among discursive practices, other practices and activities, and mediating objects and texts (see Figure 1): mediating objects and texts/ \ other practices – linguistic interactions (Figure 1)Discursive practices are related, on the one hand, to other practices and activities within a setting.
What people say and how they are heard is wrapped up with other kinds of relations and interactions among them, which might range from very specific practices (how close together people stand or sit while talking, for example) to very general institutional norms or structures (such as requirements in school to raise one’s hand before speaking, or the physical arrangements of classrooms). At the same time, despite the oral connotations of . Finally, those texts and objects are also artifacts within a setting of practices (for example, the differences in content, but also the differences in forms of production, sales, and patterns of use, between daily newspapers and weekly newsmagazines). A variety of research studies have emphasized these connections among linguistic interactions, mediating objects or texts, and other practices (for example, Anderson, Holland, & Palincsar, 1. Cazden, et al., 1. Engestr. Yet the issue goes even deeper, because these relations among discursive practices, other practices and activities, and mediating objects and texts are not simply interactions among discrete social factors; they are dialectical relations among elements that mutually constitute one another.
A letter to a relative is a discursive practice, yet also a text, yet also a practice with nondiscursive significance (such as buying or perhaps collecting stamps). A Web page on a computer screen is a mediating object or text, but also a practice (it was made, by someone, in a particular situation), and a practice with nondiscursive significance, such as using electricity (which is available to only a fraction of the world’s population). A variety of new representational forms are blurring traditional distinctions between .
Within this model, then, any particular pattern of speech acts – such as dialogue – must be seen as situated in a complex net of interactions that govern how those speech acts are expressed, heard, interpreted, and responded to. In such a net of interactions the full meaning and effects of discourse will be impossible to read off the surface meanings of the words themselves. The nature of the relations fostered by particular forms of verbal interaction may be utterly unpredictable from the actual intentions and purposes of the agents concerned. For example, current work on inquiry models for learning have shown how teachers and students shape learning contexts through dialogues (Bruce & Davidson, 1. Easley, 1. 98. 7; Hansen, Newkirk, & Graves, 1.
Harste, Short, & Burke, 1. Raphael, et al., 1. Wells, 1. 98. 6) in which participants highlight, identify, and negotiate which aspects of the institutional – even physical – arrangements of the classroom are most salient for their interests and needs. Dialogue frames modes of interaction and directions of inquiry; furthermore, as learners pursue a line of inquiry, their questions are developed not only by the evidence or experiences themselves, but in part through the social structure of teacher- student and student- student verbal interactions. Similarly, activity theory (Engestr. A distinctive feature of activity theory is the sociocultural formation of mind.
In contrast to other traditions in psychology, such as behaviorism, this approach conceives learning and mental development as a process mediated by social relations; in this, dialogue comes to be seen not only as a means of transmitting information or an overlay on cognition, but a constitutive dimension of the activity systems that construct and display thinking. Work on inquiry and activity systems, and related work, has pointed to the idea of shared thinking, or distributed intelligence, as a basic metaphor for how knowledge is formed, which suggests a fundamental shift in how we conceive education.