• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.2.75-79

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.2.75-79"

Copied!
6
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:25

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Using Portfolios to Improve Teaching Quality: The

Case of a Small Business School

Ian Stewart

To cite this article: Ian Stewart (2004) Using Portfolios to Improve Teaching Quality: The Case of a Small Business School, Journal of Education for Business, 80:2, 75-79, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.80.2.75-79

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.2.75-79

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View related articles

(2)

n April 2000, the School of Business and Economics at Seattle Pacific University gained accreditation by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Al-though the process took several years, it was the “hinge” that allowed faculty members to embrace new issues and support the changes involved in achiev-ing accreditation (Curry, 1992, p. 23). My purpose in this article is to examine one activity that the faculty members undertook to improve teaching quality: the development of course and teaching portfolios. I draw on Barbara Curry’s model of organizational change. Orga-nizational theorists generally recognize three stages in the process of organiza-tional change (Curry, p. 12): (a) mobi-lization, in which the system is prepared for change; (b) implementation, through which change is introduced in the sys-tem; and (c) institutionalization, through which the system is stabilized in its changed state. The structure of this arti-cle follows these stages. It should be noted that it is often difficult to deter-mine where one phase stops and another begins because the stages are interwoven at any point in the life of an innovation (Berman, in Curry). My hope is that our experience may be of interest to other schools that wish to make changes in the way that they develop their faculty members.

Mobilization

In the mid-1990s, several of my col-leagues expressed dissatisfaction with student ratings as the only source of information about teaching. After con-siderable discussion during 1995–1996, the faculty members agreed that three exercises from the American Associa-tion for Higher EducaAssocia-tion’s (AAHE) Peer Review of Teaching Project From Idea to Prototype (Hutchings, 1995), designed to reveal the “pedagogical thinking” behind teaching activities, may provide richer evidence about the substance of teaching.

The Peer Review Project emphasizes teaching as serious intellectual work. Each exercise reflects the three broad time phases in which instruction takes

place: pre-interaction, interaction, and postinteraction. The first exercise calls for selecting a syllabus and writing a reflective memorandum explaining the choices and rationale that underlie the syllabus. Before the adoption of this exercise, my colleagues and I developed guidelines for the syllabus (Grunert, 1997). In the second exercise, the instructor attempts to capture the partic-ulars of classroom practice by offering three alternatives: inviting a colleague to visit a class and make detailed notes, arranging for a class to be videotaped, or writing a case on a classroom episode. A reflective memorandum accompanies whichever mode is cho-sen. Finally, in the third exercise the instructor places the focus on student learning by suggesting the selection of an assignment/student-work sample and writing a reflective memorandum explaining what the samples reveal about students’ learning (see http:// www.aahe.org/teaching/Peer_Review.ht m for a full description of the exercises). One of the reasons the exercises appealed to us at this school was that the same student rating form was currently used across all disciplines, as though teaching accounting and teaching orga-nizational behavior were the same. Fur-thermore, we appreciated the opportuni-ty to become active agents rather than passive objects in the process of

generat-Using Portfolios to Improve

Teaching Quality: The Case of

a Small Business School

IAN STEWART

California State Polytechnic University–Pomona Pomona, California

I

ABSTRACT.In this study, the author applies B. K. Curry’s (1992) model of organizational institutionalization to a case study involving efforts to imple-ment course and teaching portfolios in a small business school. This article is based on the personal observations of those involved and the published liter-ature on the subject. Both teaching and course portfolios became part of the routinized behavior and culture of the school. The author argues that course portfolios, because of their focus on student learning, can greatly enhance the development of teachers, assist in creating a culture of evidence around learning outcomes, and foster the scholarship of teaching and learning.

(3)

ing and compiling evidence of teaching effectiveness (Hutchings, 1996, p. 50).

We decided that the exercises would be completed collaboratively. Two pro-fessors were to team up, one comment-ing on the other, and then they would reverse their roles (Keig & Waggoner, 1994; Seldin, 1997). The partnerships formed included tenured and non-tenured, as well as senior and junior, faculty members. Their purpose in this approach was to encourage a “commu-nity of practice” in the school (Brook-field, 1995, p. 253; Hutchings, 1998, p. 16). Heller concluded that

[u]sing teachers in a peer supervision role is linked to their personal growth, their sense of collegiality, and to improved instructional practices—all of which con-tribute to higher morale, greater job satis-faction, improved school climate, and ultimately higher student achievement. (quoted in Keig & Waggoner, p. 128)

Second, we decided that the peer part-ners should be from the same field of study. This decision was based on Keig and Waggoner’s recommendation that the “vast majority of critical teaching incidents are interdependently content and context-bound, requiring analysis from and the assistance of colleagues with considerable expertise in the field of study” (p. 52). Faculty members wanted to delve into the “more substan-tive” aspects of teaching, areas that Shulman (1987) called pedagogical con-tent knowledge and that require the abil-ity to blend “content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular top-ics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (p. 8). We felt that these were precisely those teaching aspects on which within-discipline fac-ulty members would be uniquely quali-fied to observe and comment.

Third, we concluded that the docu-mentation of the exercises would be confidential to the partners and kept separate from summative evaluation. The dean of school was to be notified only that the partners had each com-pleted the exercises. We felt that the partners would be more candid with each other with this framework because the intent was “to provide data, diagnos-tic and descriptive feedback, with which

to improve instruction” (Keig & Wag-goner, p. 13).

In summary, mobilization occurs as the system is prepared for change. Fac-ulty members’ readiness to embrace the AAHE Peer Review exercises grew out of dissatisfaction with student ratings as the only source of information about teaching. This situation created a cli-mate in which they were open to deter-mining the need for change through dis-cussion. The AAHE exercises were seen as a way of uncovering the more sub-stantive aspects of teaching, those that only faculty members can judge and on which only they can assist others. These aspects included reflecting on the design issues embodied in a syllabus, seeing how well a design was enacted in a class visit or videotape, and looking at the products of student learning to assess outcomes. The exercises required faculty members to work in pairs over an extended period, in relationships that were both reciprocal and confidential. In a survey that I conducted in April 2004, 8 out of 11 faculty members who participated in these exercises agreed that having a peer collaborate with them had been a stimulus to professional con-versations and critique.

Implementation

Challenges

Implementation occurs when change is introduced into the system. In this case, the implementation of the innovation was not without some challenges. The first was that because there are only 19 full-time faculty members in the School of Business and Economics, with some departments consisting of only one, two, or three faculty members, some faculty members had to team up with colleagues from other disciplines. In discussing this with the faculty members involved, we attempted to look for common interests. For example, the business ethics profes-sor had worked as an information sys-tems consultant, so he teamed up with the information systems specialist.

A second difficulty concerned the timetable for implementation. When the AAHE exercises were proposed initially in the 1995–1996 academic year, we thought that faculty members would do

one exercise each quarter. At this rate, all faculty members would have com-pleted the exercises by the end of the 1996–1997 academic year. This esti-mate proved to be far too optimistic. The exercises are labor intensive, requiring dialogue and deliberation, and many faculty members already were carrying additional burdens associated with other aspects of the accreditation process. Ultimately, faculty members agreed to do one exercise per academic year. At this rate, 3 years later, 15 out of 19 faculty members had completed all three exercises. The remaining 4 faculty members completed their exercises just before the accreditation team’s visit in April 2000.

A third and more fundamental issue concerned the situation in which a col-league would be called on later to eval-uate a peer partner for promotion, tenure, or award decisions. Although it would have been ideal to have kept the formative and evaluative processes entirely separate, as most scholars rec-ommend (Keig & Waggoner), given the amount of faculty members, some inevitably would be required to partici-pate in both processes. After airing out these issues, faculty members concluded that ultimately they would have to rely on the integrity and “good faith” of their colleagues (Keig & Waggoner, p. 138). As Brookfield explained, “For critical reflection to happen, there has to be a trustful atmosphere in which people know that public disclosure of private errors will not lead to their suffering negative consequences” (1995, p. 250).

Course Portfolio

Following the completion of the exer-cises in the 1998–1999 school year, and in preparation for the accreditation team’s visit in April 2000, the faculty members agreed to package the docu-mentation for the three exercises into what was then emerging as a course portfolio(Hutchings, 1998). The course portfolio is modeled on the three-part structure (design, implementation, and results) of the exercises in the Peer Review Project. In addition, for the visit, faculty members wrote a reflective narrative on the relationships among all three of the exercises. As Hutchings

(4)

stated, the course portfolio represents the “intellectual integrity of teaching. By capturing and analyzing the relation-ship or congruence among design, implementation, and results, it gets at that ‘more holistic, coherent, integrated aspect of teaching’”(1998, p. 16). These are the aspects of teaching in which, as Shulman pointed out (Hutchings, 1996, p. 51), we often fail.

In 1997–1998, the school finally identified “the scholarship of teaching” (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999, p. 13) as one of its priority goals (representing 35%–40% of all faculty scholarship). We realized that the emerging model of the course portfolio was structured in a way that treats teaching as a kind of “scholarly project.” William Cerbin (1996), the inventor of the course port-folio, described this approach in the fol-lowing manner:

Being a social scientist, I began to think of each course . . . as a kind of labora-tory—not as a truly controlled experi-ment, of course, but as a setting in which you start out with goals for student learn-ing, then you adopt teaching practices that you think will accomplish these, and along the way you can watch and see if your practices are helping to accomplish your goals, collecting evidence about effects and impact. . . . [t]he course port-folio is really like a scholarly manuscript . . . a draft, of ongoing inquiry. (p. 53)

Thus, the course portfolio was seen as a vehicle not only for promoting teaching improvement but also for encouraging an attitude of inquiry into teaching that aims to make the work public so that col-leagues can review, critique, and build upon the portfolio in their own work (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999).

Moreover, because the “center of gravity” of the course portfolio “is evi-dence that the teacher gathers about stu-dents’ learning and development” (through the use of classroom assess-ment techniques, examination of stu-dent work, etc.) (Hutchings, 1998, p. 14), we hoped that this would provide the accreditation team with some sys-tematic “data points” that they could use to assess student achievement in our courses. As Bernstein (1998, p. 83) reported, “This case is often best made by a longitudinal account, showing how learners’ understanding changed over the unfolding of the course and showing

those forms of identified good teaching practice that were included during that time.” A survey that I conducted in April 2004 revealed that 9 out of 11 faculty members felt that the course portfolio had been useful in demonstrating stu-dent achievement for assessment and accreditation purposes.

Teaching Portfolio

In 1997, the Tenure and Promotion Committee instituted a Teacher of the Year award for faculty members in the School of Business and Economics. The award was based on a teaching portfo-lio. Unlike the course portfolio, which focuses on the unfolding of a single course from conception to results, the teaching portfolio (Edgerton, Hutch-ings, & Quinlan, 1991) focuses on the teacher. Hutchings described the teach-ing portfolio as representteach-ing “a broad sampling of the faculty member’s peda-gogical work—in a variety of different courses, over a number of years” (1996, pp. 50–51). Because the content and organization of portfolios can differ from professor to professor, the compo-sition of the portfolio and the weight-ings to be given to the various elements in it were mandated by the Tenure and Promotion Committee and standardized that same year. Teaching responsibili-ties (list of courses taught, advising duties) were weighted 5%; statement of teaching philosophy and goals, 20%; instructional material, 35%; student evaluations of teaching, 35%; and teaching honors and activities, 5%.

Another change implemented in 1998 was the requirement of a teaching port-folio as part of the annual review of nontenured faculty members. This review is designed to help faculty mem-bers reflect on their teaching with the aim of improving and strengthening their cases for tenure. Drawing on Chism (1997–1998), Grasha (1996), Goodyear and Allchin (1998), Murray (1995), and Seldin (1997), we published guidance on how to go about compiling such a portfolio in the Faculty Hand-book. In the following year, 1999, we mandated a teaching portfolio as part of the developmental post-tenure review process occurring every 5 years.

In summary, faculty members

legit-imized course portfolios when it became clear that they provided a way of creating an ongoing, reflective process to improve teaching. This was what the AACSB was calling for in its standards (1991, IN.2). Moreover, with the course portfolio’s emphasis on the connection between teacher practice and student perfor-mance, this method was an excellent way to assess “institutional effectiveness and student achievement,” another aspect of instructional responsibilities that the AACSB wanted monitored (1991, IN.2). Furthermore, in its focus on a purposeful experimentation and investigation of stu-dent learning, the course portfolio repre-sented teaching as a familiar kind of scholarly project, one that is essential to advancing the scholarship of teaching, consistent with the school’s priority on teaching vis-à-vis scholarship and ser-vice (AACSB, 1991, M.5). The imple-mentation of the course portfolio also proved to be a catalyst for the acceptance of what Miller (1998, p. v) described as its “fraternal twin,” the teaching portfo-lio. The teaching portfolio became stan-dardized procedure, playing a part in bringing reward to teaching and in the review process for tenured and non-tenured faculty members. In my April 2004 survey, all 11 faculty members responding agreed that the teaching port-folio had enabled them to document their teaching effectiveness for annual review, tenure, post-tenure review, and the Teacher of the Year Award.

Institutionalization

Institutionalization occurs when the system is stabilized in its changed state. Curry (1992) indicated that the institu-tionalization of change occurs gradually and incrementally at three different lev-els: the structural, the procedural, and the cultural level.

Structural Level

At a structural level, the change must be

reflected in multiple concrete ways throughout the organization. It is when the structures surrounding a change also change to support it that . . . a change is “institutionalized” that is . . . part of legit-imate and ongoing practice, infused with

(5)

value and supported by other aspects of the system. (Kanter, quoted in Curry, 1992, p. 9)

Specific policy changes required teaching portfolios (a) for the Teacher of the Year Award (1997), (b) as part of an annual review of nontenured faculty members (1998), and (c) as part of a quintennial post-tenure review (1999). Hence, by the 1999–2000 school year, teaching portfolios had become “part of a routinized behavior of the institutional system” (Berman & McLaughlin, in Curry, 1992, pp. 10–11) in the School of Business and Economics. “In the long-run specific changes in structure and practices . . . may have more impact than any other approach to faculty development” (Nelson, 1981, p. 52).

Procedural Level

The second condition for institution-alization requires that the policies and behaviors associated with the change become standard operating procedures. These procedures for compiling course and teaching portfolios are now set out in the Faculty Handbook.

By the time that the accreditation team visited campus in April 2000, (a) all 19 faculty members had completed a course portfolio (16 faculty members worked in pairs, and 3 formed a triad); (b) all nominees for the Teacher of the Year Award for the previous 3 years had completed a teaching portfolio; (c) all 4 nontenured faculty members had com-piled a teaching portfolio in each of the last 2 years as part of their annual review; and (e) 3 tenured faculty mem-bers had compiled a teaching portfolio as part of a post-tenure review.

Although one may argue that teach-ing portfolios had become part of the standard operating procedures of the school, once the school was accredited there was no longer an incentive to pre-pare a course portfolio. In the 2001–2002 school year, however, my colleagues and I thought it worthwhile to try to reconnect the course portfolio to other aspects of the organization. Two reasons proved important in the rethink-ing of the role of the course portfolio.

First, although the teaching portfolio provides a vehicle for developing a

gen-eral case on teaching quality, the course portfolio connects the learning objec-tives to the learning activities that are likely to result in those outcomes. This connection invites the instructor to re-examine continually his or her success in achieving the learning goals (Hutch-ings, 1996; Miller, 1998). The course portfolio provides evidence, as Bern-stein indicated, of the effectiveness of the “transactional relationship” (1998, p. 77) between the teacher and the learner by showing “where the course experience contributed to student growth” (1998, p. 82). By requiring the faculty member to make an argument, complete with supporting evidence, about his or her efforts to help and encourage student learning in a particu-lar course, we hoped that the school would be able to “explicitly identify the goals and demonstrate achievement” required by the new AACSB standards (2003, Stds 16, 18, &19).

Second, because the course portfolio focuses on a particular “experiment,” to use Cerbin’s term, it more closely resem-bles the products of scholarship than does the teaching portfolio (Miller, 1998). By requiring the course portfolio, we hoped to foster the scholarship of teaching and learning as an institutional priority. To realize these goals, we amended the post-tenure review policy to mandate the preparation of a course port-folio instead of the teaching portport-folio. One could argue that this reform has not really “carried the day.” In my April 2004 survey, only 3 out of 11 faculty members felt that preparing course portfolios had enabled them to track changes in student understanding across multiple sections of the course in a way that enabled them to contribute to a scholarship of teaching and learning. In this connection, it is per-haps worth pointing out that even Hutch-ings and Shulman (1999), although argu-ing that all faculty members should teach in a scholarly manner, suggested that not all of them will engage in serious inves-tigation of teaching and learning in their particular fields.

Institutional Level

The third condition for institutional-ization requires teaching improvement to be incorporated into the culture of the

organizational community (Curry, 1992). In this case, the innovation’s norms and values were entirely compat-ible with those of the host organiza-tion’s culture. Seattle Pacific University is primarily a teaching university. The mission statement of the School of Business and Economics affirms that “we are a learning community which prizes educational excellence and effec-tive teaching.”

In addition to compatibility of the norms, values, and goals of the innova-tion with those of the host organizainnova-tion, the profitability of the innovation also is a factor in its institutionalization (Curry, 1992). Portfolios were a profitable inno-vation because individual faculty mem-bers saw that preparing a portfolio was a vehicle for them to demonstrate teach-ing improvement. In the survey of April 2004, 9 out of 11 faculty members reported that preparing a teaching port-folio had improved their instructional practice. Portfolios were also of value in institutional decision making in the con-text of teaching awards, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review. But port-folios were also generally profitable to the school as a whole with regard to AACSB accreditation. Indeed, this is a major reason why the faculty members legitimized portfolios.

In summary, portfolios received orga-nizational structural support for the ben-efits that they conferred in the following areas: demonstrating continuous teach-ing improvement, recognizteach-ing teachteach-ing, reviewing tenured and nontenured fac-ulty members, and advancing teaching practice through scholarship. Although the teaching portfolio became part of the standard operating procedures of the school, the course portfolio has been woven only recently into the life of the school. The norms of portfolios were compatible with those of the teaching mission of the institution and the school. The faculty members saw the exercises as profitable to them personal-ly in terms of their own instructional development, and they saw the exercis-es as profitable to the school as a whole with regard to demonstrating what the AACSB required—namely, that they were engaged in “activities that improve course content and teaching quality” (1991, 2003).

(6)

Conclusion

The faculty members saw the course portfolio as a

step toward richer, more authentic, “situ-ated” portrayals of what teachers know and can do, a significant advance on pre-vailing practice, which depends almost exclusively on student ratings. . . The aim of portfolios is not . . . to replace student voices but to supplement, com-plement, round out the picture. (Hutch-ings, 1998, p. 18)

By working on his or her course port-folio with the help of a trusted discipli-nary colleague, each faculty member was able to uncover what Shulman referred to as “the pedagogy of sub-stance” (quoted in Keig & Waggoner, 1994, p. 106) and at the same time con-tribute to colleagues’ practices.

Faculty members’ experience with the AAHE exercises soon became the catalyst for generating and compiling teaching portfolios that illustrated gen-eral teaching effectiveness. After it received organizational support, the teaching portfolio was institutional-ized, became part of standardized pro-cedure, and was valued by the school’s faculty members in the context of teaching recognition (1997) and review of nontenured (1998) and tenured (1999) faculty members. However, because of the special status of the course portfolios, institutionalization was not achieved until 2002, when the post-tenure review policy was amend-ed to require a course portfolio instead of a teaching portfolio.

NOTE

1. Huber (2004) described the challenges faced by four faculty members as they sought to inte-grate the scholarship of teaching and learning into their academic careers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to acknowledge the contributions made to this research by the Center for Teaching at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, where I spent my sabbatical leave in 2000–2001, and by my former colleagues in the School of Business and Economics at Seattle Pacific Uni-versity. I also want to thank the reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

REFERENCES

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (1991). Achieving quality and continuous improvement through self-evaluation and peer review. St. Louis, MO: Author.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2003). Eligibility proce-dures and standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO: Author.

Bernstein, D. (1998). Putting the focus on student learning. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teach-ing to advance practice and improve student learning (pp. 77–83). Washington, DC: Ameri-can Association for Higher Education. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically

reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cerbin, W. (1996). Inventing a new genre: The course portfolio at the University of Wisconsin– La Crosse. In P. Hutchings (Ed.),Making teach-ing community property: A menu for peer col-laboration and peer review (pp. 52–56). Wash-ington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Chism, N. V. N. (1997–1998). Developing a phi-losophy of teaching statement. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 9,3.

Curry, B. K. (1992). Instituting enduring innova-tions: Achieving continuity of change in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. Washington, DC: George Washing-ton University, School of Education and Human Development.

Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1991). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the scholarship of teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Goodyear, G. E., & Allchin, D. (1998). Statements

of teaching philosophy. In M. Kaplan & D. Lieberman (Eds.),To improve the academy (17,

103–122). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Devel-opment Network in Higher Education. Grasha, A. E. (1996). Teaching with style: A

prac-tical guide to enhancing learning by

under-standing teaching and learning styles. Pitts-burgh: Alliance Publishers.

Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus: A learn-ing-centered approach. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Huber, M. T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholar-ship of teaching and learning in academic careers. Washington, DC: American Associa-tion for Higher EducaAssocia-tion and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1995).From idea to

proto-type: The peer review of teaching (a project workbook). Washington, DC: American Associ-ation for Higher EducAssoci-ation.

Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1996). Making teaching community property: A menu for peer collabo-ration and peer review. Washington, DC: Amer-ican Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (1998). Defining features and

sig-nificant functions of the course portfolio. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning (pp. 13–18). Washington, DC: American Associa-tion for Higher EducaAssocia-tion.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999, Septem-ber/October). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 11–15.

Keig, L., & Waggoner, M. D. (1994). Collabora-tive peer review: The role of faculty in improv-ing college teachimprov-ing. ASHE-ERIC Higher Edu-cation Report No. 2. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Miller, M. A. (1998). Preface. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education. Murray, J. P. (1995). Successful faculty

develop-ment and evaluation: The complete teaching portfolio. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8. Washington, DC: George Wash-ington University, Graduate School of Educa-tion and Human Development.

Nelson, W. C. (1981). Renewal of the teacher scholar. Washington, DC: Association of Amer-ican Colleges.

Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A prac-tical guide to improved performance and pro-motion/tenure decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Edu-cational Review, 57,1–22.

Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical soli-tude. Change, 25(6), 6–7.

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

[r]

Sehubungan dengan Proses Pelelangan Paket Pengadaan Puskel Roda Empat pada Satuan Kerja Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Rokan Hulu, maka dengan memperhatikan Surat Penetapan

Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi motif individu tidak dapat terlepas dari macam-macam motif itu, yaitu yang bersumber dari dalam individu itu sendiri atau disebut minat, dan

Panitia Pengadaan Barang / Jasa Lainnya Di Dinas Perhubungan Komunikasi Dan Informatika Kabupaten Sanggau akan melaksanakan Pelelangan Umum dengan

pengajaran (instruction) yang dirancang untuk merespon karakteristik unik anak dengan memiliki kebutuhan khusus yang. tidak dapat diakomodasi oleh kurikulum

1 Pembangunan Prasarana Pengaman Pantai, Pengaman Tebing Sungai di kelurahan Beringin Pekerjaan Konstruksi.. 1

• Memberikan gambaran kepada konseli bahwa konselor mendengarkan, memperhatikan dan memahami apa yang diceritakan.

[r]