Classroom Structure

2021 ◽  
pp. 972-973
Author(s):  
Catherine Davies
Keyword(s):  
Classroom Structure

scholarly journals Application of Best Value Approach to Resolve Educational Non-Performance

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-104
Author(s):  
Jake Gunnoe ◽  
David Krassa
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Performance Studies ◽  
Human Error ◽  
Employee Performance ◽  
School Curriculum ◽  
High School Curriculum ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
Best Value

Trends suggest that employers across various industry believe that the younger generation of employees are deficient at making decisions, thinking critically, and leading others. The Best Value Approach (BVA) is a management model shown to increase organizational efficiency and employee performance. Studies show that the BVA automates administrative work functions and minimizes human error associated with decision making and critical thinking. This research seeks to investigate the effectiveness of incorporating the BVA in high school. The authors hypothesize that BVA concepts can help students rapidly learn critical thinking, decision making, and interpersonal skills. To test this hypothesis, the authors created a BVA high school curriculum and tested it in four phases differing in timeframe, classroom structure, and population. The results show that when students understand BVA concepts they show improved mental stability (stress and confidence), increased academic performance (grades and test scores), and parents/teachers report significant positive behavioral improvements.

Use of Virtual Classrooms in Online Learning Environments

2013 ◽  
pp. 126-134
Author(s):  
Salih Gümüs ◽  
M. Recep Okur
Keyword(s):  
Online Learning ◽  
Learning Environments ◽  
Virtual Classroom ◽  
Learning Tools ◽  
Online Learning Environments ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
Information Research ◽  
Internet Learning ◽  
The One ◽  
Research Action

With the help of enhancements in communication technologies, especially within the framework of opportunities provided by the internet, learning can be done both in traditional environments and online environments. Besides numerical content, online learning content has the ability to offer multiple learning tools together. The one which steps forward among these tools for providing communication and interaction is virtual classroom applications. In this study, virtual classroom structure in online learning environments is examined. Within the framework of the study, academic personnel who have experience with distance education and who have given courses in virtual classroom application are defined. In order to gain detailed information, research is designed qualitatively. After the data is analyzed, suggestions are provided by reporting the research. Action research design of qualitative methods is used in this study.

Becoming an Adult Member in a Community of Learners

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Matusov
Keyword(s):  
Classroom Interaction ◽  
Teaching Experience ◽  
First Grade ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
Paper Strip ◽  
Strip Line ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
School Year ◽  
Design Activities ◽  
Addition And Subtraction

I thought it would be relatively easy for me, with my six-year background of high school teaching and tutoring of math and physics, to co-op in the OC classroom with my first-grade son. I was both right and wrong. Indeed, my teaching experience and professional knowledge as a graduate student in child psychology helped me design activities suitable for first- and second-grade children. However, in terms of philosophy of teaching and organization of learning activities, my experience with traditional schooling was more harmful than helpful. My previous experience prepared me for delivering a lesson to a whole class or an individual. I was used to controlling children’s talk, which was supposed to be addressed only to me, and my students had learned early on in their schooling that they could talk legitimately only to the teacher and only when it was allowed by the teacher. The teacher was supposed to be the director, conductor, and main participant in classroom interaction. In the OC, I was shocked to discover that this traditional format of instruction was actively discouraged by teachers, co-opers, and children. This kind of teaching was not supported by the children in their interactions or by the classroom structure, with its small-group organization, children’s choice of groups, and nonsimultaneous rotation of the children from group to group. However, I did not know how to teach any other way. At the beginning of the school year I planned an activity that I called Magic Computer. It was designed to teach the reversibility of addition and subtraction as well as reading and computational skills, and it had worked beautifully with first- and second-graders in the past. The activity involved moving a paper strip that carried “computer commands” (“Think of a number. Add five to it. Take two away from it,” and so on) through an envelope with a window, to see one command at a time. The commands were designed so that addition and subtraction compensated for each other; therefore, the last message was “You have got your initial number!” The children’s job was to discover addition and subtraction combinations that cancel each other out and write them down on the paper strip, line by line.

Caring Conversations

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Cryns ◽  
Marilyn Osborne
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Junior High School ◽  
School Counselor ◽  
Junior High ◽  
The Other ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
Whole School ◽  
Exceptional Teachers ◽  
Working Together

One thing that characterizes the OC is the respectful way OC teachers talk with kids. When two former OC teachers who had moved and now teach in different schools viewed a videotape of one of them teaching, the other was struck with how, after many years apart from each other, they still talk to kids the same way. Respectful conversations happen in the OC and in other schools where many exceptional teachers reach out and make connections with students. An OC teacher recounted an event that illustrates the contrast with other ways of interaction: . . . When a junior high school counselor came to register the kids in my room for junior high the next year, there was not an available table where she could sit with a small group. So I said, “Just a minute, I'll get you a space.” I asked a few kids who were working together at a table if we could use it for a while and then they could have it back. We teased each other a little and then the kids packed up their supplies and moved to work on the floor. The counselor said, “Is that how you talk to kids usually?” I said yes. She told me that in her school adults didn't treat kids like that at all— “There's hardly anyone who would have fun with kids, or even ask them for the table.” I was so stunned, I asked her what she would have done in that situation. She said she would have told them to just “move out, I need the table.” So there would have been no conversation. I asked her if that was the way the whole school interacted with children, and she said there was one person who talked just like me, and it turned out to be a former OC co-oper who now teaches there. . . . If the classroom structure allows conversations, people can learn to converse with respect. Children themselves can play a role in helping adults communicate with them.

Creating Curriculum with Children

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Goodman Turkanis
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
Group Process ◽  
Classroom Discussion ◽  
Community Of Learners ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
Instructional Interactions ◽  
Teacher Supports ◽  
Children And Parents ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Children's Interests

Children are natural learners, curious and inquisitive, wondering why and who and how. They thrive in an environment that allows curriculum to emerge naturally, with support from other children, co-oping parents, and teachers, around their needs and interests. They are quick to express opinions, offer suggestions, and invent projects. They are an incredible natural resource, and in a community of learners, they contribute to meaningful, exciting curriculum. In a community of learners, everyone has a part to play in supporting the learning process. Children help plan and develop curriculum and are expected to be active participants and responsible learners. Parents support projects and activities with ideas and guest speakers; they teach and present curriculum. The teacher supports both children and parents in their planning, organizes and facilitates all the learning involved, and is ultimately accountable for curriculum development and content. Each role is valuable and part of the whole—more than the sum of the parts. Curriculum can be built by the community together, making use of children’s interests and experience as a key impetus. Such curriculum builds on individual and collective interests to weave together instructional interactions that support and inspire learning by: . . . • Seizing the moment to build on interesting ideas that emerge in classroom discussion . . . . . . • Recognizing that children have their own learning agendas that can provide motivation and the “way in” to learning about all kinds of other curriculum areas . . . . . . • Supporting units of study that often emerge as a group process, as people become interested in each others’ interests and build on each others’ expertise . . . . . . • Using resources of all kinds (with little reliance on textbooks) . . . After exploring these points, I will discuss how the classroom structure and the teacher help create such an emerging curriculum, and the question of what the children learn. Curriculum is all around us, just waiting to happen. This is frequently referred to as “teaching to the moment,” or “seizing the moment.”

Structuring stock investment funds with a limited number of qualified students

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 499-512
Author(s):  
David A. DeBoeuf
Keyword(s):  
Portfolio Management ◽  
Portfolio Performance ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
Entrance Exam ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Student Preparedness ◽  
Stock Investment ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to outline the problems encountered by a student-managed investment program (SMIP) when the pool of qualified finance majors is limited in number. Restructuring the program to a single-semester course and opening the class to motivated/intelligent non-finance majors increased the number of applicants, but resulted in alternative difficulties, particularly time constraints and inadequate student preparedness. A prerequisite exam and regimented classroom structure were the solutions. Design/methodology/approach The paper discusses the problems encountered and solutions devised to address the early year difficulties experienced by a newly developed SMIP at a relatively small university. The core of the paper chronicles the classroom approach to solving the main problem of a single-semester portfolio management course, the handling of an investment learning curve in a short period of time. Findings Though empirically limited due to the program’s infancy, portfolio performance has been encouraging and student feedback exceptional. Regarding the former, stocks purchased by the fund have created greater wealth in total than that of equal dollar investments in an S&P500 index fund. Practical implications Universities interested in running a student-managed fund should feel secure in a one-semester approach, regardless of talent pool size, as measured by the number of motivated, intelligent finance majors. Originality/value Aside from the uniqueness of requiring a mastery of entrance exam investing materials prior to the first class, this paper’s outline of core portfolio management activities includes several strategies and methods meant to streamline the process within a groupthink design.

“Simply No Worse and Simply No Better” May Simply Be Wrong: A Critique of Veenman’s Conclusion About Multigrade Classes

1996 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
DeWayne A. Mason ◽  
Robert B. Burns
Keyword(s):  
Student Achievement ◽  
Selection Bias ◽  
Teacher Motivation ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Age Classes ◽  
Classroom Structure ◽  
Quality Instruction ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Classroom Structures

Although Simon Veenman’s (1995) synthesis of research on multigrade and multi-age classes contributes important definitions and findings to the literature, his assessment of the effects of multigrade classes—the more common of these classroom structures—ignores two key factors: (a) selection bias and (b) lower-quality instruction. The omission of these two key factors and Veenman’s implicit advocacy of multi-age classes and cross-grade grouping render his no-difference conclusion problematic. In this article, we critique Veenman’s conclusion and explanations, and argue that selection bias and lower-quality instruction should be included as part of the explanation for his no-difference finding. We conclude that multigrade classes have at least a small negative effect on achievement as well as potentially negative effects on teacher motivation. We suggest that researchers examine more carefully the conditions under which student achievement and affect may be fostered in this classroom structure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document