論文注釋索引
06-14
論文注釋索引
培養學生學習興趣
對教師來說，最成功的教學莫過於激發學生學習興趣、教給學生相關的學習策略、達到培養學生自主學習能力目的的教學。調動學生強烈學習興趣的教學方法是最成功的教學方法，因為這是學生為興趣而學，在學習中學會自我學習將使他們終身受益。
可以調動和保持學生學習興趣的另一個因素是課堂活動的安排。一方面，課堂活動要遵循有利於語言學習的原則，即主要以語言活動為主。另一方面，課堂活動本身要符合學習者不同階段的心理、生理、認知等方面的特點，使他們在愉快、放鬆、自然、有效的語言環境和交往中學習語言。這就應了我們常說的一句有關教學方法的話：方法（活動）本身沒有什麼優劣之分，看為什麼目的而用它。
培養和保持學生學習動機的第三大重要因素是學習資源（learning resources）。學習資源不但指學習材料，還包括學習的手段和條件，如多媒體和互聯網、廣播、電視、錄像等。關於教材的功能定位、教材的編寫和評估，所有教師都要參考相關的理論深入思考。同樣重要的是，對外語學習其他資源的配置、整合和利用也應該充分考慮是否有利於學生提高和保持學習興趣。
持續保持學生學習興趣的第四大因素是外語學習的成就感（sense of accomplishment）。順利完成某一學習任務、在某一次評估（包括考試）中獲得高分較高的評價、在公開場合展示自己的學習成果、教師和同學的肯定與表揚，尤其是自己所學的知識可以在語言實踐中得到充分運用並取得成功等都能使學生體驗到一種成就感。這種成就感不但能激發學生進一步學習的信心和決心，而且可以促成外語學習的良性循環。
☆ 束定芳，陳素燕. 寧波諾丁漢大學英語教學的成功經驗對我國大學英語教學改革的啟發[J]. 外語界，2009，（6）[P28]
高質量的師資隊伍：
高質量主要體現在三個方面：一是英語實踐能力，而是應用語言學習理論素養，三是敬業精神。
☆ 束定芳，陳素燕. 寧波諾丁漢大學英語教學的成功經驗對我國大學英語教學改革的啟發[J]. 外語界，2009，（6）[P29]
全面、客觀、科學、準確的評估體系對於實施教學目標至關重要。教學評估對教學的反撥作用極為重要。
形成性評估體現了外語教學中以評促學、以評促教、重在過程的理念。
☆ 束定芳，陳素燕. 寧波諾丁漢大學英語教學的成功經驗對我國大學英語教學改革的啟發[J]. 外語界，2009，（6）[P29]
教材歷來是語言教學中一個不可或缺的重要環節。一些專家（如Canagarajah 1999; Gary 2000; Harmer 2001; Hetchinson & Torres 1994; Kuo 1993; Richards 1998; O』Neil 1993; Swales 1980等）肯定教材的作用，認為教材服務於一定的教學目的，不僅為教學提供較系統的課堂教學安排，而且還提供較好的語言輸入，既有助於解決教師自身水平不一的問題，又能使教學質量得到統一保障。
一部現成的教材往往內含編寫者對語言本質的認識、對某種教學法的選擇以及對教學活動的具體設計、安排和組織等。由此，教材為使用者設定了一定的框架，對教師和學生能動性的發揮、對他們的投入以及教與學可能不利。故Prabuh早在1987年就提出，教材對教學既是一種友好的支持，同時也是一種限制。Hutchinson和Torres（1994）也同樣認為任何一本教材，就其本質而言都是一種「協調」，是教師本人對教學的認識和安排與教材編寫者對教材作用的認識和教學安排之間的一種整合。這說明教師使用教材時應了解自己的教學對象，即學生的需求，清楚自己的教學目的和安排，這樣才能在教學中靈活地使用教材，充分發揮教材的作用，使之有效地服務於教學。
☆馮輝，張雪梅. 英語專業教材建設的回顧與分析 [J]. 外語界，2009，（6）[P63]
寫作是語言技能的直接產出，也是語言學習要達到的最高層次之一。
教材作為教學理念的設施媒介對實際教學效果會產生不可估量的影響。
英語寫作教材是教師實現教學目標的載體，很大程度上決定了教學效果和產出，所以教材研究應是提高教學質量的較好切入點。
現代英語教學的一個基本理念是課程大綱的設計、教學材料的選擇與編製、課堂教學過程的設計與實施、教學結果的評價等都首先要考慮語言實際使用情況，即根據語言實際使用情況來決定
寫作也需要真實的交際情景來誘發寫作激情，但這些教材大多隻客觀地闡述寫作技巧，對為什麼要這樣寫關注不夠，漠視語篇與語境、寫作者的關係，體現了考試導向的特點。
教育學理論明確指出教師、學生和教材是決定教學質量的三個因素。
系統功能語言學作為「適用語言學」（appliable linguistics）可以幫助解決語言教學的諸多問題。它把語言作為交際的工具，把閱讀和寫作看做是同一交際過程的兩個基本程序：閱讀是語言輸入性活動，而寫作則是輸出性活動。
McCarthy和Carter（1994）認為，以語篇為基礎進行語言教學應該是語言教學的基本原則。從一定程度上說，語言教學其實就是語篇教學，我們提倡語言課程從設計到實施都要圍繞語篇來進行，要始終以「語言即語篇」的語言觀來指導教學材料的選擇。實際交際中語言的基本單位不是詞句，而是語篇，從語篇的角度來討論寫作教學的過程和方法，這就要求教材編寫者站在一定的高度去審視寫作全過程，以語篇、語類、語用為指導思想去設計詞、句、段落和語篇的寫作，在語篇語境中探討詞、句、段的得體性，從而提高學習者的語篇生成能力。
讀寫循環教學法：即在寫作過程中，把閱讀和寫作有機結合，通過不斷的讀寫循環逐步增強學習者的讀寫能力（張德祿等2005：312），這一過程在「悉尼學派」的語類讀寫教學中得到了廣泛應用，並且被證明是成功的，值得我們借鑒。
寫作教學有必要將技能學習和思維認知能力發展有機結合起來，把思維方式訓練納入寫作教學範疇，這樣有利於培養學生的思辨能力，豐富學生的精神生活，從而跳出單純的機械性技巧的傳授。
這一問題可以從語域著手，建立話語範圍的相關知識，包括與寫作主題相關的各語類的文化、社會知識，提高他們的認知水平、思維能力。
我們認為寫作不僅僅是一個語言技能問題，更重要的是通過寫作來發現、認識自我和周圍世界以及為社會服務的過程，然後用語言有效、準確表達感悟和認識，從而提高思維的深度和廣度。
☆唐青葉，蘇玉潔. 功能語言學視角下的英語專業寫作教材研究 [J]. 外語界，2009，（6） [P70-76]
於書林和黃建濱（2008：37）對中小學英語教材調查分析發現，中小學教材的研究多是從教材本身和教師角度出發，介紹教材、評價教材、探討如何使用教材和編寫教材的相關問題等，而從學習主體（學生）的角度分析探討教材的研究甚少。
☆黃建濱，於書林. 20世紀90年代以來我國大學英語教材研究：回顧與思考 [J]. 外語界，2009，（6）[P82]
語言是交際和思維的工具。在現代信息社會中，語言又是最重要的信息載體。
☆戴煒華. 外語語言學學科建設和研究生教育 [J]. 外語界，2009，（6）[P2]
通過重視寫作過程，提高英語寫作能力。長期以來，英語寫作成果教學法（THE PRODUCT
APPROACH）在我國居於主導地位，教師根據寫作的終成品來判斷寫作的成敗，重視寫作的技術性細節（如格式、拼寫、語法等），忽視寫作過程的指導。根據D.Rumechart和J.McClelland提出的連通論（Connectionism)理論，寫作包括寫前階段、具體寫作、文章修改三個基本過程，這三個過程並非是線性排列，而是循環往複，穿插進行的。教師只有重視加強對寫作三個過程的指導，才能更好地提高英語寫作能力。在寫作前階段，教師重在指導學生如何挖掘題材，訓練發散性思維，以及如何選擇材料、謀篇布局等。在具體寫作中，教師重在指導學生如何緊扣主題、運用正確的寫作方法等。在文章修改中，教師重在指導學生如何修改語法及用詞的錯誤。
最近，國內有學者通過對某大學本科學生開展的一項教改試驗提出了以寫促學的教學理論（王初明等，2000）。其中談到寫作易於克服學習心理障礙和有效促進語言知識的內在化。我認為中學英語教學也是如此。新的英語國家課程標準規定，高中畢業時，學生應有較強的自信心和自主學習能力，能就熟悉的話題與講英語的人士進行比較自然的交流，能就口頭或書面材料的內容發表評價性見解，能寫出連貫且結構完整的短文，能自主策劃、組織和實施各種語言實踐活動，如商討和制訂計劃，報告實驗和調查的結果等。然而要想達到這一水平，對於缺乏語境、把英語作為第二語言來學習的我國中學生來說，決非輕而易舉之事。而在說和寫兩種交際方式中，需要克服更多心理障礙的是前者，因為口頭表達不僅要思維反應敏捷，而且對語音語調也有要求，這往往導致說話者產生抵觸情緒，乃至不願開口。這樣的例子我們在教學中時常遇到，如果我們平時注重對其加強寫作訓練，讓學生在較口頭表達長的思考時間內對語法規則、詞語搭配、句子運用等方面進行認真推敲、仔細斟酌，使所學的英語知識得到鞏固及內在化，必將增強他們的學習信心，提高其學習英語的主動性，在這個基礎上適時地加以必要的聽說和閱讀訓練，效果一定更好。
以寫作教學作為英語教學的突破口，確實有成效，這一點在國內學者（王初明等，2000）對大學本科生一學期的跟蹤試驗中已得到驗證。以寫促學的確是一項符合我國中學生學習實際的可行手段和有效措施。
☆王初明、牛瑞英、鄭小湘：「以寫促學 —— 一項英語寫作教學改革試驗」， 《外語教學與研究》，2000年第3期。
加強英語寫作能力的培養在中學階段乃至在英語語言學習和運用的整個過程中都是十分重要的。英國英語教學專家傑里米·哈默教授在How to teach English一書中，談到為什麼要重視寫作教學時有這樣一段話：The reasons for teaching writing to students of English as a foreign language include reinforcement, language development, learning style and, most importantly, writing as a skill in its own right. 也就是說，加強英語寫作訓練有助於我們大多數英語學習者鞏固已學過的語言知識，發展我們的語言技能，也有利於提高寫作技能本身。可見，英語寫作作為書面表達的一種交際方式，在語言教學中佔有舉足輕重的地位。
☆ Harmer, J. (2000) How to Teach English, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
韓禮德（Halliday,1973）說：「語言在用筆寫下之前一直是潛意識中的東西。」中等程度的英語學習者（非母語）一旦對自己口頭掌握英語滿懷信心時，很容易陷入「學習靜止期」。教師進一步激發他們的學習熱情頗為困難，而寫作恰能喚起他們對所學或所掌握的語言的感覺。
☆ Halliday,M.A.K.（1973）,Explorations in the Functions of Language,London:Edward Arnold.
寫作教學一直較薄弱, 以致形成了「聽到寫作學生心煩, 見到習作教師頭疼」的現象。（劉寬平，2003）
☆ 劉寬平、周業芳、曹小燕 2003 提高中國學生英語寫作能力的有效途徑〔J〕.外語界.（6）：68-71
在過去的幾十年中，國外對外語寫作教學法的研究和實踐一步步走向成熟，並形成了一系列卓有成效的寫作教學方法。而在中國，特別是在中學英語教學中，寫作教學一直遭受冷落，許多教師在教學中表現出對寫作教學的實質認識不足，對教學方法策略也缺乏系統、深入的思考，
☆《中學課程輔導●教學研究》2009年第2期供稿文/王一傑過程教學法在高中英語寫作教學中的應用與探討我國目前採取的意念教學大綱強調培養學生的語言能力和交際能力，而傳統的英語寫作教學法(即以行為主義理論為基礎的結果教學法)顯然已不能滿足大綱對教學的要求。寫作教學的改革已勢在必行。針對這種情況，本文介紹了目前國外較為流行的寫作教學法：過程教學法。以交際理論為基礎的過程教學法認為寫作並不是寫作者的單獨行為，而是群體的交際行為。它把寫作的重點放在寫作過程而不單單是寫作結果上。通過一系列的、由學生親自參加的、在教師監控下的課堂活動使學生在寫作過程中不斷得到糾正、指導、幫助和啟發。這就克服了結果教學法的弊端，激發了學生的寫作積極性，提高了他們創造性思維能力，從根本上提高學生的筆語交際能力。
1. 關注結果的導向，重視過程的監控； 2. 以學生為中心，以方法為導向，以應用為目的； 3. 強調學習者的認知主體作用，又不忽視教師的指導作用； 4. 關注優秀傳統教學思想的繼承，重視新興教學思想的兼收並蓄； 5. 關注教學理念的更新，重視策略技巧的改進和教學方法的創新。
美國心 理學 家Flavell在20世紀70年代提出元認知概念，他認為，元認知是認知的認知，即認知主體對有關自身任何認知活動的認識和調節。元認知由三部分組成：元認知知識、元認知認知體驗和元認知活動。這三方面相互聯繫和制約，構成元認知整體。元認知知識是指認知主體所儲存的既和自身有關又和各種任務、目標、活動及經驗有關的知識片斷。元認知體驗指的是伴隨並從屬於智力活動的有意識的認知體驗或情感體驗，Flavell對此並未作進一步的分析。元認知活動指認知主體以當前的認知活動為對象，不斷進行一系列積極的自覺的監測、控制和調節活動。
☆ [1]唐芳，徐錦芬.國內外英語寫作元認知研究綜述[J].外語界，2005，(5).The right climate for student achievement: A Vygotskian approachBy David NurenbergSubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Phase II of the Ph.D. Program inEducational Studies, Lesley University.Senior Advisor:Paul Jablon, Ph.D.Please do not copy or distribute without permission of the author.Nurenberg, 2Chapter One: IntroductionAnyone studying education must at some point address the following question:How do people learn? Cognitive psychologists (Berkeley, 2007) posit that knowledge is「actively constructed by learners in response to interactions with environmental stimuli…learners respond not to external stimuli but to their interpretation of those stimuli,」 andthat 「language and culture play essential roles both in human intellectual developmentand in how humans perceive the world」. In Piaget』s words, 「knowledge is not a copy ofreality,」 but rather is constructed, and constructed differently at different stages in one』slife, dependant on different environmental influences. Decades later, Paulo Freire (1998)argues that 「to teach is not to transfer knowledge, but to create the possibilities for theproduction or construction of knowledge」 (p. 30).The theoretical framework of constructivism, framing learning as something thatis not merely received but rather negotiated, and influenced by factors beyond merely thebiological makeup of the student and the knowledge base of the teacher, necessitates thatresearchers attend to the multitude of factors involved in classroom climate when tryingto determine how to help students learn best. Chapter Three will more thoroughlyexplore definitions of 「classroom climate」, but for now I will define the phrase as the「physical and social properties of a classroom and school environment that provide thecontext in which learning takes place.」 For social constructivists, this context is morethan just background setting; rather, students』 learning derives from the continualinteraction with their context.Before that, however, Chapter Two will take a brief tour of Vygotskian socialconstructivism in particular, touching as well on the arguments of some of its critics. Itwill then address some contemporary studies and theories of the role of school climate instudent learning and achievement. Finally, it will try and apply this research to issues ofschool safety as well as school achievement: If knowledge is constructed and dependentNurenberg, 3on certain climactic factors, then what is the affect on achievement when those climaticfactors are some of the same ones that are conducive to peaceful and peaceableenvironments?This entire set of questions is important in the face of the current social climate inthe United States, which arguably has viewed public education as in dire need ofimprovement for the past twenty-five years. The 1983 report of President RonaldReagan"s National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, touched offa wave of attempts to address perceived failures of public education through reformsinvolving increased standardization in instruction. This trend persisted and in 1994, theUS Congress set the National Education Goals, articulated in terms of standards-basededucation reform, based on the principles of 「outcomes-based education」. Outcomesbasededucation is adefinition of education that shifts from the traditional focus on what studentsshould be taught (content) and how much time they should be taught it for, to afocus on setting universal standards of what students are expected to demonstratethey "know and are able to do". The traditional model that some students wouldbe tracked for success while most others would be tracked elsewhere is rejected infavor of continuous improvement, and success "for all" students…all definitionsand names for standards based reforms share an emphasis on settingclear…higher standards, and observable, measurable outcomes. Crucial is thebelief that all students can learn, which means students of all abilities, all socialracial and ethnic groups, and genders, sometimes disabilities as well. (McNeir,1993)These definitions of achievement were enshrined by the 2001 No Child LeftBehind Act (NCLB), which among other things mandated each state create new (orenshrine existing) learning standards, on the basis of which all students must be assessedthrough standardized tests in order to graduate. Critics (for example, Heney, 1999)argued that, in practice, this would mean that 「skill and drill」 instruction geared towardstest performance would replace true comprehension and mastery of the material.According to the Center on Public Education (Trickey, 2006), NCLB』s implementationNurenberg, 4caused 71 percent of the districts CPE surveyed to cut back on instructional time forsubjects that were not immediately related to the reading and math skills covered on thetests.Similarly, the way in which Educational research assesses the efficacy ofeducational practices has also become more narrowly defined. The National ResearchCouncil (Shavelson & Towne, 2002) makes a detailed and compelling call forstandardization and rigor in educational research, apparently seeking to bolster thecredibility of a field they describe as being 「plagued by skepticism concerning the valueand validity」 of its scientific methods (p. 13). In a political climate that demandedquantitatively measurable results, the NRC called upon educational researchers todevelop and implement their work in 「clear, unambiguous, and empirically testableterms…linked through a chain of reasoning」 (p. 18) The NRC claimed to be respondingto a public that 「seek[s] trustworthy, scientific evidence」 and 「a working consensus aboutwhat works in what contexts and what doesn』t, and on why what works does work」 (p.22).While they may have the best of intentions, administrators and policymakersnationwide appear to have responded to the admonitions of the standards-basedmovement with an increasingly standardized set of instructional practices. A host ofstudies (many of which are summarized in Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005, Rose 2004,Fairtest, 2003) have demonstrated that student learning has not substantially improved inthe wake of outcomes-based reforms, especially among poor and minority studentsnationwide. A strategy of increasingly standardized math and reading instruction,supplemented by even more hours of standardized instruction if students fail theassessments, seems to have limited ameliorative effects.1 Jonathan Kozol presents South1 Furthermore, as an unintended consequence of the standardization renaissance, argues Mandel (2006), new teacherretention has suffered. 「Since No Child Left Behind was enacted, school districts have felt forced to focus solely ontesting…consequently, nearly every decision at the local school level involves `teaching to the standards.』 Thisexcessive focus on testing and standards has led to a lack of focus on the practical guidance and support that wouldhelp first-year teachers stay afloat」 (p.66) If, as this paper will subsequently argue, changes in school climate andNurenberg, 5Bronx school P.S.#65 as emblematic of the failures of how schools have responded to thestandards-based call, a school where:…fifth-grade teachers had to set aside all other lessons for two hours of the day todrill the children for their tests for three months prior to exams…On top of this,two afternoons a week, children had to stay from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m for yetanother session of test-drilling, and on Saturdays they had to come to school againfor three additional hours of the same routine during the final four weeks justbefore exams….Nobody believed test-drilling was of educative worth. Its onlyfunction was to…defend the school from state or federal punishments」 (Kozol inNEA Today, 2007, Emphasis mine)Part of the problem may lie in the ironic incompatibility between these methodsof instruction and type of learning that the outcomes-based movement wants students toexperience. If we just wanted students to recall facts and figures, these instructionalmethods might serve, but interestingly enough, an earlier NRC publication (Bransford etal, 1999) offers a challenge to the idea that our schools are unable to provide that type ofeducation: 「In many cases, schools seem to be functioning as well as ever, but thechallenges an expectations have changed quite dramatically (e.g., Bruer & Resnick,1987)」 (p. 119-20). While schools originally were designed to prepare their graduates forefficiency in factory or clerical style standardized tasks, the demands of today』s job worldrequire students to 「understand the current state of their knowledge and build upon it,improve it, and make decisions in the face of uncertainty」 (Talbert and McLaughlin,1993 in Bransford et al, 1999, p.120) This need for problem-solving and 「adaptiveexpertise」, recognized by the outcomes-based movement, seems to fit well with thehigher levels of Bloom』s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain wherein students must notonly recall and translate data but use it in new applications, distinguish its organizationalenvironment affect student learning, then the lack of consistency caused by high teacher turnover may actually harmstudent performance, an ironic result given NCLB proponents』 intentions.Nurenberg, 6structure, build new structures and evaluate that work (Bloom, 1956). Standardization,by its very nature, would seem to preclude this sort of 「adaptive expertise.」What is there to do? When Shavelson & Towne announce that they categorically「reject the postmodernist school of thought」 (p. 24) simplistically defining thatepistemology as one that 「posits that social science research can never generate objectiveor trustworthy knowledge」, they may unwittingly ignore theories like socialconstructivism. In their resistance to approaches that focus on idiosyncratic communityconditions (and that therefore, in their view, lack broad generalizability), they risk cuttingthemselves off from the very tools that social scientists have developed during the lastthirty years in recognition of the complex, dynamic nature of the fields they study, toolswhich could address many of the socio-cultural and environmental issues that hamperstudents learning and interfere with high achievement.Chapter Three of this paper will argue that discomfort, alienation and violence,both in the immediate community and in the national/global culture of war, terror andfear, interfere with student learning and achievement, while communities where studentsare safe, create and maintain cooperative communities in and outside of school, andreflect meaningfully on their learning are those in which they learn and achieve at higherlevels. By focusing on adjusting and responding to these climate issues, teachers andstudents alike may be able to improve the very skills that outcome-based education asksof them.More than just this definition of achievement is at stake, however: As the Centerfor Education Reform (CER) argues:Despite this country"s mostly admirable utilitarianism when it comes to education,good education is not just about readiness for the practical challenges of life. It isNurenberg, 7also about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is about preparation for moral,ethical and civic challenges, for participation in a vibrant culture, for informedengagement in one"s community, and for a richer quality of life for oneself andone"s family…the decisions we make about education are really decisions aboutthe kind of country we want to be; the sort of society in which we want to raiseour children; the future we want them to have; and even-and perhaps especiallyaboutthe content of their character and the architecture of their souls. (Allen, etal, 1998)Could the right kind of school climate address both the outcome-based critics desires andthose of the CER? Strong basic skills and competencies, as well as the socio-emotionalcompetencies that the CER poetically terms the 「content of their character and thearchitecture of their souls」? The social constructivists』 answer is yes. It hasNurenberg, 8II. Social constructivism, Vygotsky and beyond: Theories and critical responsesLev Vygotsky (1836-1934) was a Russian Jew whose desire to be a teacher wassquelched by the Czarist restrictions on Jewish employment (Hansen-Reid, 2001). Heinstead became first a doctor and then a lawyer. Later, in the post-revolutionary USSR,Vygotsky began an academic career at the Institute of Moscow that culminated in 270scientific articles, numerous lectures and 10 books, many of which pointed to social andcultural factors which he believed influenced the development of thought, language andlearning. Premier Joseph Stalin banned Vygotsky』s work two years after the theorist』sdeath from tuberculosis on the grounds that it was not compatible with the dominantvisions of Marxism, but the ban was lifted upon Stalin』s death in 1953. By 1962Vygotsky』s work became readily available outside the Iron Curtin.Even behind such a barrier, Vygotsky was not functioning in a vacuum, nor washe the first to develop theories of socio-cultural influence on education. Vygotsky waswell versed in both Piaget and Sapir and Whoorf (between whose theories he attemptedto situate his own). He had also read John Dewey』s critiques of memorization, drill andpractice based education in the United States, particularly Dewey』s advocacy for aneducation rooted in a child』s own experience, interests, and motivations (indeed, Deweywas even invited to Russia in 1917 to advise the nascent Soviet school system), not tomention Hegel and Kant (Stokes, 2007). Indeed, it is in responding to all of thesetheorists, particularly Piaget, that Vygotsky distinguishes himself and his own ideas abouteducation, which pave the road towards contemporary theory on the importance of schoolclimate.Vygotsky』s initial arguments in his first book, Thought and Language, involverefuting Piaget』s claims that climate – or indeed, any environmental experiencewhatsoever – has no effect on a child』s learning. According to Vygotsky (1962), Piaget"sNurenberg, 9"experiments led him to believe that the child was impervious to experience" (p. 23).Piaget constructed a series of stages through which a child progresses, many of which hespends in an 「egocentric」 state, apparently uninfluenced by the outside world, proceedingalong an individualized biological timetable. Piaget (1923) writes that "the child neverreally and truly comes in contact with things, because he does not work. He plays withthings, or takes them for granted」 (p. 269). Vygotsky disagrees, claiming that thesePiagetian stages 「are not laws of nature but are historically and socially determined.」 Hecontinues, citing other contemporary critics, that:[Piaget] has already been criticized…for his failure to sufficiently take intoaccount the importance of social situation and milieu. Whether the child"s talk ismore egocentric or more social depends not only on his age but also on thesurrounding conditions (p. 23)In Mind and Society (Vygotsky, 1978), Vygotsky resists the Piagetian assumption thatprocesses of child development are independent of learning [and that] learning isconsidered a purely external process that is not actively involved indevelopment…merely utiliz[ing] the achievements of development rather thanproviding an impetus for modifying its course (p. 79)Vygotsky argues that 「the conception of maturation as a passive process cannotadequately describe these complex phenomena. Nevertheless… our approaches todevelopment we continue to use the botanical analogy in our description of childdevelopment」 (p. 20). Despite the usage of such terminology like 「kindergarten」, saysVygotsky, humans are not plants, not passive slaves to a predetermined schedule ofdevelopment: 「A child』s perception,」 he writes, 「because it is human, does not developas a direct continuation and further perfection of the forms of animal perception, not evenof those animals that stand nearest to humankind」 (31)Nurenberg, 10As a linguist, Vygotsky used the arena of language development in which tochallenge previous theories of development. Piaget, for example, believed that languagebegan as internal speech and worked its way outward to social speech, while Vygotskycontended that all speech is social, and internal speech is social speech that is eventuallyinternalized. Vygotsky highlighted the influence of external factors:Essentially, the development of inner speech depends on outside factors; thedevelopment of logic in the child, as Piaget』s studies have shown, is a directfunction of socialized speech. The child』s intellectual growth is contingent on hismastering the social means of thought, that is, language…The later stage (innerspeech to verbal thought) is not a simple continuation of the earliers. The natureof the development itself changes, from biological to sociohistorical. Verbalthought is not an innate, natural form of behavior but is determined by ahistorical-cultural process and has specific properties and laws that cannot befound in the natural forms of thought and speech (p. 51)Vygotsky』s theories of language, of course, predate those of Noam Chomsky and thetransformational theories of grammar that follow, but the influence of historical-culturalsystems in learning is one that continues to inform contemporary constructivist theory.Contemporary constructivists also know not to misread Vygotsky』s words – 「determinedby a historical-cultural process」2 – as Vygotsky arguing for some sort of complete socialdeterminism in human development. Vygotsky scholar Harry Daniels (Daniels, 1996)recounts how:…much of the work in the West has tended to ignore the social beyond theinteractional and to celebrate the individual and mediational processes at theexpense of a consideration of the socio-institutional, cultural, and historicalfactors. Ideological differences between the West and East have given rise todifferences in theoretical development and of course pedagogical application (p.9)2 Even more inflammatory to a Cold War era Western audience might be Vygotsky』s assertions later in that samechapter about how the development of human speech is 「governed essentially by the general laws of the historicaldevelopment of human society」 (p. 51). Ironically, despite these echoes of Marx here and elsewhere that madeVygotsky so unpopular in the West, Premier Stalin judged Vygotsky』s work to be in such insufficient keeping with theprinciples of Communism so as to be striken from publication.Nurenberg, 11Even in a post-Cold War era, a certain discomfort appears to remain in the West withtheories that do not place the individual in a privileged position of agency vis a vi thesocial. A recent article (Blunden, 2006) notes how several contemporary critics (Billett,2006, p. 53 and Stetsenko, 2005, p. 70), 「have touched on the issue of the need forpsychology in general, or Cultural-Historical Activity Theory in particular, to betterreflect the capacity of individuals to exercise genuine agency alongside larger socialforces.」 Blunden worries that:Failing a more critical appropriation of the concepts of cultural and socialformations involved in the constitution of consciousness, psychology risks erringin the direction of objectivism, casting individuals as creatures of the culture andinstitutions within which they live, minimising the way in which people createtheir own lives, inclusive of the culture and social formations which conditionthem.Vygotsky, however, would be the last person to 「minimize」 the role in whichindividuals play in 「creating their own lives」 while interacting with culture.Furthermore, Vygotsky would likely not use the word 「condition」 – for Vygotsky,culture did not 「program」 individuals any more than individual biology proceeded absentof any cultural influence. In his understanding, the two factors engaged in a dialectic, acontinual series of interactions which influenced one another. In the words of oneVygotsky scholar:The issue [in Vygotskian theory] is not whether one should begin with culturaltools or with the individual. Instead, it is one of understanding the fundamental,irreducible tension between these two aspects of mediated action which areanalytically distinct but inextricably connected in reality. One the one hand,cultural tools cannot play any role in human action if they are not appropriated byconcrete individuals acting in unique contexts. On the other hand, we cannot actas humans without invoking cultural tools (Wertsch, 1993, p.170 in Daniels, p.18)Nurenberg, 12A pair of contemporary Australian scholars (Liu and Matthews, 2005) alsoattempt to expose what they see as confusion among Vygotsky』s detractors. Theirthorough review of contemporary critics of constructivism comes to the same conclusionas Daniels above: that those critics by and large misunderstand Vygotsky and create afalse dichotomy between individualism and social influence, a kind of 「Cartesiandualism」 which Vygotsky himself would have been the first to reject:The irony now appears to be that from the divergence of constructivist views hasemerged a dualist position – the very position constructivism came into being toavoid. By arguing for individual or social construction of knowledge a Cartesianparallelism between individual and social idiosyncrasy has arisen. This is mostclearly seen in popular accounts of constructivists and their recent critics… thephilosophical rigour underpinning Vygotsky』s works has not been widelyrecognised in popular literature. We suggest that the historical-dialectical-monistphilosophy characterising Vygotsky』s theory is at odds with the dualistapproaches inherent in many popular accounts of constructivism and theircriticisms…. confusions about Vygotsky』s theory often arise from concepts takenliterally and from the lack of appreciation of the general philosophical orientationunderpinning his works (p. 386-7)In short, they conclude that 「popular literature on constructivism and its criticalcomments has tended to apply a dualist framework incongruent to the monist philosophyguiding Vygotsky』s writings」 (p. 389). Arguing about whether the individual or thesocial weighs in more heavily into the equation misses the point that for Vygotsky, thevery act of that dialectic, of that mediation, is what matters.Even a Piaget vs. Vygotsky dualism is in many ways a false one. Vygotsky noteshow Piaget himself noted the interrelationship between student andinstruction/environment:[Piaget writes that] 「nothing is more suitable to the technique of history teachingbetter than the psychological study of the child』s spontaneous intellectualtendencies.」 But in the very same chapter an investigation of these spontaneousintellectual tendencies in children brings the author to the conclusion that whatchildren』s thinking really requires, is the same thing that makes up the basic goalNurenberg, 13of history teaching, i.e. a critical and objective approach, and understanding ofinterdependencies and an awareness of relationships and stability (Vygotsky,1934, in van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994, p. 364)Piaget, however, interprets this relationship as one of 「antagonism」 betweenteaching/learning and development. For Piaget, a new or seemingly different idea putsthe child in a state of disequilibrium, after which she either accepts it whole, accepts itwith a modification, or dismisses the new idea entirely. Vygotsky 「would counter…byputting forward another assumption which suggestions that, so far as concept formation isconcerned, not antagonism but relations of an infinitely more complex nature should existbetween the processes of education and development」 (365), a synthesis as opposed to anantagonism. The differences are this: for Piaget, a child with a new idea is eitherachieving victory, surrendering, or negotiating some compromised peace, seeking toremain in cease-fire until the next assault. For Vygotsky, the child perpetually exists atthe negotiating table, with 「battle lines」 permeable and interchangeable, uniformsinfluenced by the fashion of the other side even as the battle rages.This ability to synthesize is what separates humans from animals, according toVygotsky』s work in Mind and Society, in that 「the basic characteristic of human behaviorin general is that humans personally influence their relations with the environment andthrough that environment personally change their behavior, subjugating it to theircontrol」 (p.51). In other words, animals do not alter their environment by creating signsand structures, which in turn shape a new environment which will in turn influence them.Humans do this, setting up the back-and-forth dialectic between self and society:The mastering of nature and the mastering of behavior are mutually linked, just asman』s alteration of nature alters man"s own nature…Just as the first use of toolsrefutes the notion that development represents the mere unfolding of the child"sNurenberg, 14organically predetermined system of activity, so the first use of signsdemonstrates that there cannot be a single organically predetermined internalsystem of activity that exists for each psychological function. The use of artificialmeans, the transition to mediated activity, fundamentally changes allpsychological operations just as the use of tools limitlessly broadens the range ofactivities within which the new psychological functions may operate (p. 55)It is this very mediated activity that, for Vygotsky, permits learning and shapesdevelopment in academic settings. Just as Vygotsky does not accept Piaget』s theory thatlearning and development are independent entities, neither does he believe that 「learningis development」 (p. 81), criticizing reflex theorists whom he says believe that both 「occursimultaneously; learning and development coincide at all points in the same way that twoidentical geometrical figures coincide when superimposed.」 Neither still is he satisfiedby the latter-day reflex theorists like Woodward and Thorndike who point to differentdevelopment of different skill processes, or by Kofka and the Gestalt theorists who arguefor learning as a generalized capacity to think, 「an intellectual order that makes itpossible to transfer general principles discovered in solving one task to a variety of otherstasks」.3In Vygotsky』s view, learning and development influence one another, and do sowhile both influencing and being influenced by the environment. Vygotsky relates inThought and Language his disappointment with what he perceived to be the insularnature of his society』s views on the development of children absent any theorizing aboutthose environments in which they learned:Most of the psychological investigations concerned with school learningmeasured the level of mental development of the child by making him solvecertain standardized problems. The problems he was able to solve by himselfwere supposed to indicate the level of his mental development at the particular3 To be fair, Piaget includes parts of this idea in his idea of formal thinking, but he and Inhelder alike said that it wasnot totally generalizable.Nurenberg, 15time. But in this way only the completed part of the child"s development can bemeasured, which is far from the whole story (p. 103).Vygotsky』s own experiments focused on the role of one particular kind of socialmediation – teacher intervention and assistance. What he called 「the most essentialfeature of his hypothesis」 based on this research was this: 「developmental processes donot coincide with learning processes. Rather, the developmental process lags behind thelearning process」 (91). In other words, a child』s biological capacity for performingcertain tasks limited, but did not define, what that child could learn, thanks to theavailability of social interactions. In his experiments he saw that, alone, students couldseldom perform tasks too advanced for their age level. However, when a student wasaided in tasks by a teacher or another individual with greater experience and problemsolvingcapabilities, then that student could perform some tasks well above thoseexpected of his or her age level.Having found that the mental age of two children was, let us say, eight, we gaveeach of them harder problems than he could manage on his own and providedsome slight assistance: the first step in a solution, a leading question, or someother form of help. We discovered that one child could, in co-operation, solveproblems designed for twelve-year olds, while the other could not go beyondproblems intended for nine-year olds.Vygotsky constructs from this research his now famous theory of the Zone of ProximalDevelopment, which he defines as 「the discrepancy between a child"s actual mental ageand the level he reaches in solving problems with assistance.」 His research indicated that「the child with the larger zone of proximal development will do much better in school.」4It is not merely that instruction can help a child learn more than she couldotherwise. For Vygotsky, all learning takes place because of the instructional/biological4 For a discussion of how this theory intersects with contemporary neuro-biological understandings of the building ofneural capabilities through modeling and practice, see Brandsford et. al., 1999)Nurenberg, 16relationship. In his experiments, he continually introduced 「problems」 and「complications」 into the assigned tasks, and noted how the interference and the interplaybetween the children and the problems led them to develop new lines of thinking. Theidea of the development of high-level concepts happening on some preplanned biologicaltimetable seemed absurd to Vygotsky. He concluded that 「concepts are always formedduring a process of finding a solution to some problem facing the adolescent』s thinkingprocess」 (Vygotsky, 1931, in Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994, p. 257)All of this reinforces the basic social constructivist idea, which Vygotskyarticulates in Mind and Society, that 「human learning presupposes a specific socialnature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those aroundthem」 (p. 88). Animals, says Vygotsky, can imitate, but they can never learn, becauselearning requires the kind of two-way social and environmental interaction of which onlyhumans are capable.It is upon these products of Vygotsky』s theories that much of school climateresearch seems to be based, the idea that, when certain conditions (a certain kind ofteacher-student or student-student interaction, or certain physical classroomarrangements) are present, a child is capable of learning more (and perhaps achievinghigher scores on learning assessments) than when other conditions are present. Whilethis may seem like a self-evident idea to many classroom teachers who can bear dailytestament to the effects on their classes of, say, the presence or absence of a particularlydisruptive student, or of a helpful assistant teacher, the more complex nature of theseinteractions is not generally understood or explored in education policymaking.Two contemporary social learning theorists (Lave and Wenger, 1991) note thatNurenberg, 17[t]ypically, theories, when they are concerned with the situated nature of learning atall, address its sociocultural character by considering only its immediate context theactivity of children learning is often presented as [merely] located in instructionalenvironments and as occurring in the context of pedagogical intentions whosecontext goes unanalyzed…[but] "locating" learning in classroom interaction is notan adequate substitute for a theory about what schooling as an activity system hasto do with learning. (p. 147-8)They argue that:if participation in social practice is the fundamental form of learning, we require amore fully worked-out view of the social world… about the socioculturalorganization of space into places of activity and the circulation of knowledgeableskill; about the structures of access of learners to ongoing activity and thetransparency of technology, social relations, and forms of activity; about thesegmentation, distribution, and coordination of participation and the legitimacy ofpartial, increasing, changing participation within a community; about itscharacteristic conflicts, interests, common meanings, and intersectinginterpretations and the motivation of all participants vis-a-vis their changingparticipation and identities… (148)This is key to School Climate research, which attempts to do just what Lave andWenger suggest: to examine structures, spaces, circulation, transparency, social relations,and all of the other seemingly external factors that, according to Vygotsky and hissuccessors, all play a role in the acquisition of knowledge in that they mediate, engage ina dialectic with, whatever the individual brings from his or her own biological and「personal」 bag of tricks. A change in these climactic factors in a classroom or communitycould, in a constructivist view, change the learning and achievement of the studentswithin.School climate research studies interactions between students and theirenvironment, both with inanimate factors and particularly between students and betweenstudents and teachers. Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1934, in van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994)maintains that 「concepts do not simply represent a concatenation of associativeconnections assimilated by the memory of an automatic mental skill, but a complicatedNurenberg, 18and real act of thinking which cannot be mastered by simple memorization」, andconsiders the idea that 「a child acquires concepts in their finished state during the courseof his schooling」 to be 「totally inadequate」 (p.356). Vygotsky had harsh words for thekind of 「skill and drill」, non-interactive approach that Dewey so harshly criticized in theUnited States, calling it 「the replacement of the acquisition of living knowledge by theassimilation of dead and empty…schemes, represent[ing] the most basic failing in thefield of education」 (p. 357) Vygotsky believed that, because of the Zone of ProximalDevelopment, children really learned concepts through problem solving, aided byteachers and fellow students.In the century since Vygotsky』s experiments, many latter-day researches havefound supporting evidence for his ideas. The American psychologist Jerome Bruner, forexample, adapted much of his theories about 「scaffolding」 (the ability of teachers to aidstudent learning through support and brokering of complex concepts) from Vygotsky』sZPD (Stokes, 2007). This paper cannot do justice to all of the researchers who haveexperimented with these ideas, but will list a few to give a sampling of the diversity ofrealms in which the ZPD has been explored and tested in the contemporary era: Studentsutilizing the ZPD in the form of 「peer social dialogue integrated with teacher support」showed improvement in word recognition, fluency, and self-evaluation (Dixon-Krauss,1995). (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) outline the supporters and detractors of the ZPD asapplied to the use of negative feedback in acquiring a second language. (Salomon,Globerson, & Guterman, 1989) found that computer-based learning tools can serve tocreate a ZPD which resulted in increased reading comprehension scores for 7th graders.The ZPD has been applied to so-called 「moral education」 and character developmentNurenberg, 19(Tappan, 1998) in children, and the ZPD has been shown to benefit adults, such asscience teachers who participated in constructivist-based graduate-level methods courses(Jones, Rua & Carter, 1998).One researcher (Hedegaard, 1990) concluded thatThe zone of proximal development must be used as a tool for class instruction. Inour teaching experiment, we saw that it is actually possible to make a classfunction actively as a whole through class dialogue, group work, and tasksolutions. The teaching experiment differed from traditional instruction in thatthe children were constantly and deliberately forced to act. The children』sresearch activity was central in these guided actions, which gradually led thechildren to critical evaluations of the concepts…. (p. 191-2)However, as a walk through many classrooms in the contemporary United Statesmight reveal, especially in light of the recent trends in outcome and standards-basededucation discussed in my introduction, rote memorization and drilling in schools, if itever left, has made a comeback. See Liu and Matthews for a tour of research thatsupports and advocates for such structures, including how:Fox (2001) observed that in its emphasis on learners』 active participation, it isoften seen that constructivism too easily dismisses the roles of passive perception,memorisation, and all the mechanical learning methods in traditional didacticlecturing. Other researchers (Biggs, 1998; Jin and Cortazzi, 1998) have noted thatwhile constructivist teaching approaches, including one-to-one or small groupclassroom interaction, do not always guarantee teaching effectiveness, traditionaldidactic lecturing in large classes of 50 to 70 students in China has not alwaysmeant the doom of teaching efforts.A constructivist would argue, however, that none of these cases can be examined absentthe conditions in the classroom and society at large. The very fact that large classlectures succeed in the studied communities in China5 where they do not in my school inMassachusetts indicates that other factors influence learning. Therefore, a teacher thatdoes not capitalize on interaction limits his or her ability to teach, surrendering to the5 Although I question to what degree (in terms of Bloom-taxonomic-level) of understanding they succeed.Nurenberg, 20conditions of the time and ignoring the facts that #1) those conditions play a role in theirstudent』s learning, and that #2) those conditions are alterable, and some alterations couldconceivably improve their students』 acquisition and development of skills and concepts.Part of the contemporary backlash against such ideas may stem from a perceptionthat, until the 1990s, constructivist theories dominated educational discourse. Accordingto one critic (Phillips, 1995):Across the broad fields of educational theory and research, constructivism hasbecome something akin to a secular religion. … constructivism, which is,whatever else it may be, a 「powerful folktale」 about the origins of humanknowledge. As in all living religions, constructivism has many sects – each ofwhich harbours some distrust of its rivals. This descent into sectarianism, and theaccompanying growth in distrust of nonbelievers, is probably the fate of all largescalemovements inspired by interesting ideas…. (p. 5)Good, et al (in Tobin, 1993) similarly caution that constructivism will only prove usefulin science education when there is 「a confrontation with the real differences that existamong different constructivisms」 (p 84).The exploration of such differences and 「sectarian rivalries」 is not relevant,however, to this paper. Most of the debate appears to take place on very abstractepistemological levels that do not seem to differ on the basic principles discussed alreadyin this paper. While there are indeed some more radical social constructivists – forexample (Elkonin, 1971 and Aries, 1982 in Hedegaard, 1990), who argue that childhooditself is a social construction, that children before the 18th century were treated as andthus behaved like little adults, and that much of what we think are biological stages ofdevelopment are in fact socio-historically determined - more moderate constructivists,(not to mention contemporary brain researchers) upon whom this paper builds itsframework, (Hedegaard, 1990), merely point out thatNurenberg, 21Although each child is unique, children obviously share common traits with otherchildren….a child is unique and individual, but children』s individualities havecommon features. If these features are not developed, we tend to regard the childas deviant…. (p. 191,2)Far from Phillips』 fear of an orthodoxy that persecutes heretics, Hedegaard characterizesconstructivism as a way in which to make sure individual children are not ostracized andmarginalized. In Hedegaard』s words:To work with the zone of proximal development in classroom teaching implies thatthe teacher is aware of the developmental stages of the children and is able to planfor qualitative changes in the teaching towards a certain goal. Being of the sametradition, children in the same class have a lot of knowledge and skills in common.Instruction can build upon these common features if it takes into account thatchildren vary in their speed and form of learning. (p. 191)For one final time, constructivism of the Vygotskian school does not argue thatindividuality or biology has no place plays no role , not even in its more extreme (andleast palatable to critics) forms like Wenger』s Communities of Practice. In this book,Wenger argues that individual identity development itself cannot be extricated from thesocial: 「We cannot become human by ourselves」, he writes, and 「hence a reified,physiologically based notion of individuality misses the interconnectedness of identity」(p. 146). Even here, Wenger does not deny individuality as a concept, but rather that 「itis a mistaken dichotomy to wonder whether the unit of analysis of identity should be thecommunity or the person. The focus must be on the process of their mutual constitution.」This paper will not go as far as to present all students as socio-community 「units」,but it must be understood that the paradigm it employs is one that refuses to recognize achild as an island unto herself. Her learning and development in class is no moredependent on inalienable, individual qualities as it is completely determined by her socioNurenberg,22historical context – rather, in Vygotskian fashion, it is the product of the interactions andinterplay between the two.Contemporary neuroscience (Bransford et al, 1999) yields physical evidence thatbrain activity during learning happens in an extremely complex fashion, in severaldifferent areas (the development of declarative knowledge, for example, producesrecordable effects in the hippocampus, while procedural knowledge manifests as activityin the neostriatum). In short, 「research has…indicated that the mind is not just a passiverecorder of events, rather it is actively at work in both storing and in recallinginformation」 (112). Recall, for example, is affected by environmental conditions andstimuli, and can be enhanced or befuddled with the right environmental prompts. Moreinteresting still from a Vygotskian perspective, 「there is growing evidence that both thedeveloping and mature brain are structurally altered when learning occurs」 (114). Theindividual』s brain and neurological pathways undergo physical, measurable changeduring the learning process, change that varies depending on the stimuli during learning.Another possible reason why constructivist ideas might be unsettling enough tolead to continued misunderstanding of dialectical theory, according to Daniels (Daniels,1996), may be becausethe very idea of mediation carries with it a number of significant implicationsconcerning control. In that the concept denies the possibility of total controlthrough external or internal forces it carries with it intellectual baggage which ispotentially highly charged, especially in the political context in which these ideaswere promulgated (p. 7)The role of teacher, according to Paulo Freire, is not to control, but to recognize thepower of mutual influence. As he explains in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a teacher whorecognizes this 「is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but [also] one who is himselfNurenberg, 23taught in dialogue with the students, who in term while being taught also teach. Theybecome jointly responsible for a process in which all grow」 (67). As we will shortlyexamine, School Climate research seeks ways to exploit that partnership for the benefit ofstudents and teachers alike.Nurenberg, 24III. School Climate ResearchThis paper has been using the phrase 「School Climate」 but as of yet has notdefined it in any terms beyond its status as being informed by constructivist ideals. TheNew York based Center for Social and Emotional Education, founded in 1996 atTeachers College, Columbia University (CSEE, 2007) offers the following definition ofschool climate:Although researchers and practitioners use somewhat different dimensions (e.g.,the 「tone」 or 「atmosphere」 of the school), virtually all agree that school climaterefers to the quality and character of school life…[it is] based on patterns ofstudents』, parents』, and school personnel』s experience of school life and reflectsnorms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices,and organizational structures.Sackney (1988) offers a thorough tour of various articulations of school climate in theCanadian literature, where the discipline seems to have evolved not only fromeducational but also business/organizational contexts, and various models includeeverything form physical ecology to social milieus to group-subcultures and 「wefeelings」 to overall 「school ethos.」 Sackney』s own monograph settles on the followingdefinition:…a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of the school that: (a)is experienced by the members (students, teachers, administrators, secretaries,consultants and custodians), (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can bedescribed in terms of the values, norms and beliefs of a particular set of attributesof the school.Even with such broad definitions, how much does School Climate even matter atall in terms of student achievement? The constructivist view, which sees a continualdialectic between individual and social/environmental conditions as the locus forlearning, would of course say that environment is a vital part of learning, but who is toNurenberg, 25say that the influence of school environment holds any weight in the face of, for example,family environment or racial/ethnic heritage? Good and Weinstein (1986) contend that「research shows that the school a student attends can make a substantial difference in theeducation received; schools are not interchangeable」 (p. 1090) They rebuff critics(specifically Averh, Carroll, Donaldson, Kiesling & Pincus, 1974) who say there isinsufficient evidence to connect resources and other inputs to a school with studentoutcomes, arguing instead that 「the utilization of resources was far more important thanthe level of resources available.」 In other words, what a school does with its resources,the specific climate it creates, is what must be examined in terms of correlation withstudent achievement. In their own survey of studies, they conclude that 「variation inachievement among schools serving similar populations is often substantial and hassignificant implications for school policy」 (p. 1096). Literature from the UK alsosupports this idea: for example, a three-year longitudinal study of secondary schools inLondon and Isle of Wight in the 1970s (Rutter, et al, 1979) concluded thatChildren』s academic attainment was…strongly and consistently associated withschool process influences, even after other variables had been taken statisticallyinto account (p. 175)In the past 30 years, a host of studies have emerged affirming that 「school climateis thought to be linked to educational outcomes, especially achievement」 (Pallas, 1988, p.541). Norris, Emmons and Ben-Avie (1997) list nine studies that correlate school climateand achievement, while Cohen, et al. (2007) cites five studies not listed in Norris, et al』sarticle. According to Norris, et al, this research is empowering in the face of sociallydeterministic theories, especially involving poor and minority students who some policymakers would suggest are doomed, educationally speaking, in any scenario that does notNurenberg, 26involve the radical alteration of their socioeconomic conditions. Seeing connectionsbetween school climate and achievement allows us to focus 「not only on studentbackground and motivational factors but also on school context and the quality ofinteractions among and between students and teachers as explanations of studentacademic achievement」 (p. 322). Several studies they cite, in fact indicate that schoolclimate has a greater affect on African American student achievement than on that ofWhite students. Freiberg, et al (1999) assembled a list of international contributors withdata from the USA, UK, Australia and Holland which supports the idea that, 「like astrong foundation in a house, the climate of a school is the foundation that supports thestructures of teaching and learning.」The next logical question then becomes, what kinds of socio/environmentalconditions in school climate foster learning and achievement at high levels? As might beexpected, 「learning theory does not provide a simple recipe for designing effectinglearning environments; similarly, physics constrains but does not dictate how to build abridge (e.g., Simon 1969)」 (Bransford et al, 1999, p. 119)This section of will outline several research-based theories as to thecharacteristics of instruction in successful learning environments. 「Success」 here will beaddressed both in terms of the outcome-based standards of increased achievement onstandardized assessments, and in the CSEE model, where 「a sustainable, positive schoolclimate fosters youth development and learning necessary for a productive, contributingand satisfying life in a democratic society.」 There is no dichotomy necessary hereregarding those two definitions of success, as school climate theorists would argue (as weshall see) the latter is a precondition for the former.Nurenberg, 27The ways in which I have chosen to parse the data are as follows:1. Environments that create and reinforce comfort and safety2. Environments that involve cooperation and connection within school communities3. Environments that encourage connection with communities and ideas beyond theclassroom4. Environments that stimulate and encourage metacognition, 「thinking about one』sthinking」I argue that these are not separate categories, but components of a greater whole,and indeed one component enables and reinforces another in feedback loops: cooperativeclassrooms generate the kind of connectedness that makes for emotional comfort andfeelings of acceptance. Physical safety is a prerequisite for cooperative environments,which can in turn create more physical safety. Connectedness with communities outsidethe classroom create the kind of relevance that motivates and engages students, andmakes worthwhile the acts of metacognition, which can help students reflect on theprocesses that create all of these environmental conditions and refine them, reinforcingthe whole system.First, however, I will break them down into component parts for easierexamination:1. Comfort and SecurityComfort and security, both physical and emotional, seem to be commonly heldconceptions of what constitutes the kind of school climate that promotes learning andhigh achievement. The grounding for this theory could be said to begin with Maslow(1943) and his theory that human beings have a hierarchical set of basic needs whichmust be progressively satisfied before they can address 「higher」 needs. In Maslow』sview, a person』s 「deficiency needs」 for physiological satisfaction (food, water, sleep,Nurenberg, 28basic homeostasis) and safety from physical or emotional harm must be met beforeaddressing any higher-order, 「growth」 needs like learning complex declarative andprocedural knowledges in a classroom.These ideas are supported in subsequent research on school climate: Marzano, etal (1997) have collected a body of research that supports the idea that 「A student』s senseof comfort and order in the classroom affects his or her ability to learn. Comfort andorder as described here refer to physical comfort, identifiable routines and guidelines foracceptable behavior, and psychological and emotional safety」 (p. 23) Their definition of「comfort」 is a wide one, beginning with the physical conditions around them:A student』s sense of comfort in the classroom is affected by such factors as roomtemperature, the arrangement of furniture, and the amount of physical activitypermitted during the school day. Researchers investigating learning styles (e.g.,Carbo, Dun and Dunn, 1986 ; McCarthy, 1980, 1990) have found that studentsdefine physical comfort in different ways. Some prefer a noise-free room; othersprefer music. Some prefer a neat, clutter-free space; others feel more comfortablesurrounded by their work-in-progress」 (p. 23)The recommendation in this review, as in elsewhere (NASSP, 1996), is that 「the physicalsetting of a high school should nurture a student in much the same way that the clean,safe interior of a home makes the youngster feel comfortable and secure」 (p. 34)Security derives from more than just the physical plant. A host of studiesdemonstrate that students in violent school settings perform more poorly than students insafer settings. Below are a sampling:Coleman (1998) analyzed base-year student data files from the 1988 NationalEducation Longitudinal Study cross-sectionally to identify relationships between schoolviolence and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The study addressedvariables including school type (public/private, urban/suburban/rural) and racial/ethnicNurenberg, 29composition, and examined various types of violence: physical conflicts, verbal abuse,robbery/theft, vandalism, possession of weapons, substance abuse, and teacher-relatedviolence. Coleman found that 「when the incidence of negative personal behaviorincreases, there is a negative effect on achievement. Students experiencing victimizationand students" perceptions of violence in their schools show lower levels of effect onachievement」 (p. 7).Gronna and Chin-Chance (1999) present their own literature review, which Iexcerpt from here, of additional studies:Furlong and his colleagues (1995) found that students who had been victims ofviolence had lower grades and higher levels of perceived danger within schoolsthan their non-victim peers. The researchers suggest that high levels of schoolviolence may have a "generalized retarding effect on a child"s development andoverwhelm coping and protective factors naturally present in the student"s life"(pp. 294-295). Kimweli and Anderman (1997) concluded that students enrolledin violent schools are exposed to unpredictable events not under the student"scontrol and found that smaller schools had lower levels of violence. Based on thefinding that extreme violence has been found to hinder cognitive, social, andemotional development (Furlong et al., 1995; Harris, 1995; Prothow-Stith &Quaday, 1995), one can argue that an unsafe environment would hinder academicachievement. In more violent schools, students have less time to focus onacademic activities as they are concerned about other factors and personal safetyissues (Kimweli & Anderman, 1997; Prothrow-Sith & Quaday, 1995) (p. 3-4)Heinrich, et al (2004) also cite six additional studies not in Gronna and Chin-Chance』slist that 「indi[cate] that children who report more incidences of witnessing andvictimization by violence do less well in school」 (p. 328). Finding much evidence in theliterature that school violence correlates with lower achievement, but less evidence that asafe school correlates with increased achievement, Gronna and Chin-Chance concludefrom their own study along these lines thatNurenberg, 30controlling for student background characteristics and differences in schoolconditions, students who are in safer schools have higher grade 8 achievementscores than students who are in less-safe schools. The results suggest that schoolswith lower levels of school violence provide better learning environments forstudents in middle-level schools (p. 2)Grissmer, et al (1998) caution that while a rise in violent crime may correlate withdecreased test scores for African American students, its importance must not beoverstated, but rather taken in context with a multitude of other factors. The effect ofschool violence on achievement has been show to change dependent on such variables asschool size (Commission on Business Efficiency of the Public Schools, 2003), parentalsupport or lack thereof and/or whether one is a witness to violence or a direct victim(Henrich, et al, 2004). (Schwab-Stone, et al 2003) argue that each form of violenceexposure has its own particular outcomes. Still, there seems to exist a substantial body ofevidence that violent environments hinder achievement.The research shows that students require not only physical comfort and safety,however, but emotional and psychological safety, even beyond reducing the kind ofanxiety and hypervigilance present in school communities plagued by violence.Positive and 「safe」 school climates, however, must go beyond the simple absenceof violence. They must continually reinforce norms of safety and consistency6.Marzano, et al, 1997, among many others, reaffirms the idea that students learn best inenvironments with consistent routines: 「research shows…that explicitly states and6 There is a body of theory and research that maintains that, to service diverse populations, school communities mustalso reinforce norms of racial equity, multicultural appreciation, and identity safety. Claude Steele』s experiments withwhat he calls 「stereotype threat」 demonstrate that African American students』 academic success may be dependent on「trust that stereotypes about their group will not have a limiting effect on their school world」 (Perry, Hiliard, & Steele,p. 122). The conclusion he draws from a variety of studies is that 「underperformance appears to be rooted less in selfdoubtthan in social mistrust」 (p. 124), and he calls for the creation of climates of 「identity safety」 to 「weaken thesequelae of identity vigilance, mistrust [and] disidentification」 (p. 125) that he feels lead to underperformance.Interestingly enough, his studies also show that White and female students suffer from stereotype threat, and benefitfrom climates where norms of fairness and equity are made explicit. In a subsequent qualifying paper I will take moretime and care in exploring the ways in which race, gender, ethnicity and other factors influence school climate andclassroom achievement, as such an exploration could not be properly conducted as merely a subsection in this paper.Nurenberg, 31reinforced rules and procedures create a climate that is conductive to learning. If studentsdo not know the parameters of behavior in a learning situation, the environment canbecome chaotic」 (p. 23)Bransford, et al (1999) also views climate (they employ the term 「environment」)as dependent on norms: 「Different classrooms and schools reflect different sets ofexpectations…[and] different norms and practices have major effects on what is taughtand how it is assessed.」 These norms, in their analysis, include classroom managementrules both explicit and implicit about speaking, asking questions, behaviors that arerewarded or punished, and paradigms of competition versus community. The analysisstresses the importance of factoring in how these norms interact with cultural norms inthe students』 home or ethnic communities – in one of their examples, students bearingcultural identities which discourage distinguishing oneself from the crowd mightexperience public praise for their efforts as a hostile climactic factor, while a studentfrom a different cultural background might not. Overall, they posit that, 「at the level ofclassrooms and schools, learning seems to be enhanced by social norms that value thesearch for understanding and allow students (and teachers) the freedom to make mistakesin order to learn (e.g., Brown and Campione, 1994; Cobb et a, 1992)」 (p. 133).How are these norms established and reinforced? That is the subject of the nextsection.2. Cooperation and Connection within School CommunitiesAmong Maslow』s (1943) deficiency needs, which must be met before growth ispossible, are the emotional/psychological needs for love, acceptance/belonging, and therespect of others in the community. School climate research also supports this idea:Nurenberg, 32「Students who feel accepted usually feel better about themselves and school, workharder, and learn better」 (McCombs and Whisler, 1997, in Marzano, et al, p. 16).Whitlock (2006) examines the idea of connectedness through literature review andthrough his own research, concluding that students who feel 「cared for, trusted andrespected by collections of adults that they believe hold the power to make institutionaland policy decisions」, exhibit better behavior and academic performance.In sum, it appears that norms that reinforce acceptance and cooperation generatemore positive school climates. From a Vygotskian perspective, this is not just a matter ofmaking students 「feel better」 without any other positive result. Truthfully, we should beconcerned with students』 psychological and emotional well-being even if it did not affectacademic achievement, but it also happens to. Because of the ZPD and the interactionalnature of learning, students who feel more comfortable together, who work more closelytogether in connected communities, are actually capable of more advanced learning thanthose who do not:…the ZPD is useful to explain, at least in part, why the phenomenon ofcollaborative problem solving or inquiry-based activities makes sense. Emergingadolescents may begin to connect to one another』s thinking and to grasp conceptswith the assistance offered by one of their more knowledgeable peers (Albert,2003, p. 60)Albert bases her analysis of cooperative learning not only on Vygotsky but his Americansuccessor Bruner, when he argues that[a] true act of discovery is not a random event (Bruner, 1973). It is deliberate andintentional. The learning community in which it is embedded influences theactivity of problem solving… (Albert, 59)Nurenberg, 33Definitions of 「cooperative learning」 vary, but most contemporary educationaldefinitions seem to pay homage to the work of Roger Johnson and David Johnson at theUniversity of Minnesota. According to Johnson & Johnson (1994), cooperative learninginvolves more than just students being together in a group. There must be what they call「positive interdependence」, which iswhen students perceive that they are linked with group mates in such a way thatthey cannot succeed unless their group mates do (and vice versa) and/or that theymust coordinate their efforts with the efforts of their group mates to complete atask…[t]here is a difference between simply having students work in a group andstructuring groups of students to work cooperatively. A group of students sittingat the same table doing their own work, but free to talk with each other as theywork, is not structured to be a cooperative group, as there is no positiveinterdependence.Johnson & Johnson go on to specify that positive interdependence needs to be coupledwith individual accountability for each student』s role in the group effort, as well groupaccountability for goals:Each group member"s efforts are required and indispensable for group success(i.e., there can be no "free-riders"). Each group member has a unique contributionto make to the joint effort because of his or her resources and/or role and taskresponsibilities.To this end, Johnson & Johnson also list as prerequisites for true cooperative learning thedevelopment and usage of interpersonal and small-group skills for communication,coordination and conflict resolution within groups. Finally, metacognition, the act ofreflection on/processing how the group works, must be employed regularly for ongoingimprovement of the group』s functioning. This paper will further discuss metacognitionlater on.So, in summary, cooperative learning as defined in this paper isNurenberg, 34…an instructional paradigm in which teams of students work on structured tasks(e.g., homework assignments, laboratory experiments, or design projects) underconditions that meet five criteria: positive interdependence, individualaccountability, face-to- face interaction, appropriate use of collaborative skills,and regular self-assessment of team functioning (Kaufman & Felder, 2000).What does the research bear out regarding cooperative learning』s effects onachievement? Baloche (1998) concludes thatWhen well-structured, learning goals that are designed to emphasize cooperationtend to promote higher achievement than learning goals that are designed toemphasize either individualism or competition. This is true in every subject, at allgrade levels, and particularly when higher-level thinking skills are required (D.Johnson, Maruyama, R. Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Cooperative effortsresult in better performance in problem solving than competitive efforts do. Thisis true at all grade levels (Quin, D. Johnson, & R. Johnson, 1995)…learning thatis structured cooperatively tends to increase achievement for all students, andachievement results are particularly potent for some groups who are morecooperative in their cultural and social orientations (Kagan, 1980, 1992)」 (p. 3)Putnam (1997) reaffirms this research by citing the 「best-evidence synthesis」technique used by Slavin (1990) to examine 68 studies on cooperative learning. Slavinfound that 49 of the 68 comparisons (72%) were positive, favoring the cooperativelearning methods, and only 8 (12%) favored control groups (p. 31). She also citesJohnson & Johnson (1989), in which they use meta-analysis methodology to analyze 323studies of cooperative work:[T]he data indicate that achievement and productivity are higher when studentscooperate than when they work individually or compete. The moremethodologically rigorous the study was, the more powerful was the effect oflearning on achievement」 (32). More than 50% of the findings were statisticallysignificant in favor of competition, and only 10% in favor of competitive orindividualistic learning – average cooperator performed above (about 3/5 astandard deviation) the average person working independently or competitively(p.33)Nurenberg, 35Putnam does raise the caveat that most of this research has been conducted on lessonsinvolving basic skills in spelling, math, and more research needs to be done on lessonsinvolving advanced, higher order problem solving.7Albert already described, from a Vygotskian/Brunerian perspective, a possiblereason for the positive effect a cooperative climate on achievement. Baloche goes furtherto discuss how cooperative groups develop and reinforce norms values and roles, creatinga psychologically beneficial climate as well as an academically beneficial one. Drawingon research, Baloche examines the different roles between 「base groups」 and 「informalgroups.」 Base groups are those which are formed by teachers and administrators toestablish consistent, helpful routines and positive norms. To be successful in promotingpositive school climate, base groups should have stable, heterogeneous membership andmeet regularly throughout the school year. Although Baloche doesn』t use the term「social capital」, she is essentially arguing that participation in these groups increasessocial capital within a school community.Social Capital, a term coined by John Dewy (1900)8 and promulgated mostrecently by Robert Putnam』s book Bowling Alone, refers to 「a sense of belonging and theconcrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance thatcan be involved) [that] can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people」 (Field, 2003,「Social Capital」). As Beem (1999) presents it:The central idea is that "social networks are a valuable asset". Interaction enablespeople to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit thesocial fabric…trust between individuals thus becomes trust between strangers and7 She also cites studies that demonstrate that individualist approaches seem to work better than cooperate ones in somespecialized cases, such as adult learners acquiring simple motor skills.8 Pierre Bordieu (1986) in The Forms of Capital is generally credited with the first use of the term in its moderndefinition, but the initial coinage remains Dewey』s.Nurenberg, 36trust of a broad fabric of social institutions; ultimately, it becomes a shared set ofvalues, virtues, and expectations within society as a whole (p. 20)In this case, the 「shared set of values, virtues and expectations」 are that 「allchildren and adolescents, in all schools, have the right to believe that they are valued bypeers – that peers notice and care when they come to school and that peers notice andcare when they do not come to school. Base groups are one way to build a sense ofinclusion, respect, appreciation, and community into classroom life」 (Baloche, 1998, p.95)Baloche also speaks about the role of 「informal cooperative learning groups」, theshort term 「communities」 with random membership such as temporary discussion oractivity groups that offer opportunities to bounce ideas off new people. What ties all ofthese groups together, she says, is Johnson & Johnson』s idea of positive interdependence,that we all share mutual goals, even if those goals, in a diverse community, are bynecessity differentiated.How can academic cooperation function given the reality of vast heterogeneity instudent ability, even within so-called tracked classes. According to Putnam (1997) andSlavin (1990), differentiation is the key to successful cooperative learning environments.Slavin』s research concludes that successful cooperative learning must have equalopportunities for students at all levels to get points/rewards for improving – 「one size fitsall」 doesn』t work. But research differs as to the best kind of heterogeneous grouping andthe best. method of differentiation.Putnam (1997) cites research that says low-performing students bring down thelevel of academic achievement in cooperative heterogeneous settings, yet they actuallyderived better social benefits (they are 「liked more」) in cooperative settings thanNurenberg, 37competitive ones, even if they bring down the group attainment (p. 38) In terms ofraising that attainment, she cites research (Jones & Carter, 1994) that shows that if thegroup task goals are designed so that each student can learn something from the exercise,then pairing high-low students can be beneficial for all (p. 38-39).Mixed-ability grouping by itself, of course, is no panacea for low achievement.As early as the Coleman Report of 1966, research suggested that, whilepeer effects existed and were significant in shaping educational attainment – withstudents being seriously advantaged or disadvantaged depending on the quality oftheir fellow- classmates…it asserted, too, that those effects were non-linear – thatthe weak student benefited more from association with strong classmates thanthose strong students lost in associating with weaker classmates」 (Zimmerman,Rosenblum and Hillman, 2004) (p.2)Without careful design of groups, mixed-ability grouping can have negative socialconsequences as well:Gifted students…often feel exploited when cooperative learning is used as apredominate method of instruction and groups are configured heterogeneously(Coleman, 1994; Mills & Durden, 1992; Robinson, 1991). Fiedler, Lange, andWinebrenner (2002) likewise believe heterogeneous grouping may have negativeside effects both on the gifted student and on the others in the classroom. Averageor low-ability students may see their "perceptions of themselves as competent,capable learners suffer" (Fiedler et al., p. 110)(All in Huss, 2006)As is evident from this discussion, the kind of school climate involvingcooperative learning which benefits achievement does not happen as a natural result ofmixed-ability grouping: it requires specialized structures and skills which teachers musthelp students acquire. Yet Slavin (1995), after reviewing 99 studies on cooperativelearning, reports that 「it is possible to create conditions leading to positive achievementoutcomes by directly teaching students structured methods of working with each other(especially in pairs)」 (p. 45, in Putnam, p. 32).Nurenberg, 383. Cooperation and connection with communities and ideas beyond the classroomBransford, et al (1999) stress the need to recognize the interfaces of that climatewith the climate of students』 greater communities (since, in their analysis, 53% of wakingstudent time is spent outside of school vs. 14% in school). They also discuss the effect oftelevision and other media as influencing 「educating」 forces, for good or ill, on studentachievement and worldview. At all times, they argue, an awareness must be maintained,and inclusion practiced, of all of these influences beyond the classroom. One of four9key 「environmental」 (climate) requisites in Bransford, et al for an academicallysuccessful is an environment that is learner-centered: 「culturally responsive, culturallyappropriate, culturally compatible, culturally relevant」 (p. 122), where instruction isaimed at discovering what students think in relation to problems at hand, giving themsituations to go on thinking about to further readjust their ideas. Teachers in learnercenteredenvironments use 「diagnostic teaching」 to recognize the importance of, and tobuild upon, what the students bring to class, and then engage students in a cognitiveconflict and then have discussions about conflicting viewpoints (echoing once again theVygotskian problem-based style). Paulo Freire was well aware of this prerequisite whenhe conducted is literacy campaigns in developing nations, where headapted his educational methods to the specific historical and cultural setting inwhich his students lived [and thus] they were able to combine their 「spontaneous」concepts (those based on social practice) with those introduced by teachers ininstructional settings (John-Steiner & Souberman in Vygotsky, 1978, p. 131)9 The two requisites not discussed here are that classrooms must also be knowledge centered (exposing students to avigorous body of knowledge and not shying away from greater context of complex ideas) and assessment centered(providing regular, reliable, valid assessments that are not merely summative, but whose results students then applytowards improving their work).Nurenberg, 39Another requisite is that classrooms be what Bransford, et al call 「communitycentered」, helping students to make connections with 「experts」 outside of school and theability to share their work with others in the community:Opportunities to prepare for [events that link school and greater community] helpsteachers raise standards because the consequences go beyond mere scores on atest (e.g. Brown and Campione, 1994, 1996; Cognition and Technology Group atVanderbilt, 1997; Wiske, 197) (p. 137)The benefits of community-interactional service-learning have been well documented;see Dufour & Eaker (1998)』s best practices manual and Ward & Wolf-Wendel (2000)』sliterature review. A great deal of literature also exists studying the developmental (and toa lesser extent, cognitive) benefits of service learning on college students (Astin, et al,2000; Eyler, 2000)10Even absent actual involvement in communities beyond the classroom, a sense ofconnection between classroom material the real world can reap benefits. Regarding mathand science education in particular, Yager (1999) warns of the 「a schism between theexplanations offered in schools and those accepted and used by students」, and argues that「content comprising school programs must be related to the real world of students if it isto be useful.」 He references others (Simpson, 1963; Perrone, 1994) to explain how「concern for mathematics and science in the real world can…exemplify the visions in ourcurrent national standards.」10 The groundwork for these ideas goes back at least as far as Maslow when he talks about the higher-order needs todemonstrate competence.Nurenberg, 404. MetacognitionJohnson and Johnson already detailed the importance of metacognition in thecontinual examination and maintenance of cooperative learning environments, whichAlbert reinforces in her own work:In learning communities, metacognition encompasses awareness of what is to belearned, when and how it is to be learned, as well as self-knowledge of personaland intellectual qualities. The teacher scaffolds learning and understanding,gradually allowing the students to monitor and regulate their own learning of thematerial by deciding when to use a different approach or how to proceed tosuccessfully complete a task (p. 59)She draws upon Bruner (1973), who sees instruction as…participat[ing] in the process that makes possible the establishment ofknowledge. We teach a subject not to produce living libraries on that subject, butrather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as ahistorian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting. Knowing is aprocess, not a product (p. 72)Metacognition has been recognized as a key element in defining what it means to have"expertise" in a subject (Sternberg, 2004). Research shows (Lucangeli & Cornoldi, 2000)that skills and achievement memory, reading, numerical and geometrical problem-solvingabilities, and in a limited way, arithmetic, are related to metacognitive capabilities, as isspelling (Turner, D"Isa, 1993) and scientific research (White & Frederiksen,1998). Somestudies (Lucangeli & Cornoldi, 2000; O"Neil & Abedi, 1998) suggest that assessments ofmetacognition』s affect on achievement grow more reliable when examining olderstudents.Drawing it all togetherAs has been mentioned before, it is no coincidence that all of these SchoolClimate factors – safety, cooperation, real-world connections, and metacognition – are allNurenberg, 41correlated positively with student achievement. All of these factors are interdependentwith one another. The same skills that students develop in cooperative learningenvironments, in Baloche』s view (Baloche, 1998), aid them in their interactions in thereal-world beyond the classroom achievement. She cites research to support the benefitsfor improved skills in democratic participation, better relationships with peers, and betterphysical and psychological health…which in turn connects back to physical andemotional safety. Cooperation and the safety which is both necessary for it, andgenerated by it, is both maintained by and stimulates metacognition. All of theseelements, in turn, enable the kinds of higher-order achievement that the outcomes-basedmovement desires of students.The implications for my doctoral work of this interdependent system』s positiveaffects on achievement are discussed in the final section of this paper.Nurenberg, 42IV. Conclusions: Questions and potential connections to Peace EducationIt would be irresponsible to entirely dismiss the outcome-based educationmovement』s calls for preparing our students with the skills, knowledges and problemsolving approaches they need for the modern world which they will enter. On the otherhand, it is equally irresponsible to keep plowing ahead with standardized instructionalmodels that seem to poorly serve the students who most need to develop those skills,knowledges and approaches. At best, such models only focus our attention on one pieceof a larger picture. So what models should be employed? A question that my work stillneeds to settle regards assessments: the multitude of studies cited and mentioned in thispaper hardly share common definitions of learning and achievement, and the degree oftheir compatibility with the state-enshrined standardized tests will be vital in establishingtheir relevance in informing practical education policy. On the other hand, I may wish toestablish later in my dissertation one or more alternate means of assessment, one whichstill meets the goals laid out by state and national frameworks but may perhaps bemeasurable in other ways besides currently employed standardized instructionalpractices. Whatever route I take, I will need to more specifically define 「achievement」.For the purposes of this paper, 「achievement」 means various kinds of attainment asaccording to various study standards. Specifically, this breaks down into one of threetypes of standards:1) Attainment in grades earned in existing classroom assessment measurements ineach classroom or school of student (potentially useful, but difficult from which togeneralize)Nurenberg, 432) Standardized test scores (more easily generalizable, but by their nature lesspermeable to change from any one experimental classroom intervention).3) Attainment on instruments designed by the researcher (highly variable).With this significant caution in mind, however, given how the experimentalinterventions cited in this paper showed increased attainment through one or more ofthese assessment methods, one can say with some confidence that there is some measureof positive correlation between certain school climates and student achievement. Whenschools establish norms that promote safety, cooperation, connection with the largercommunity and metacognition, they succeed in school (even if that success is measuredby a variety of standards). In other words, students』 academics improve in some way,shape, or form when they are safer, see each other and the greater world as cooperativepartners, and think critically about their actions. This list of factors sounds remarkablysimilar to hose that the discipline of Peace Studies includes in its definition of 「positivepeace」. 「Positive peace」 (Lieber, 1994) is not merely the absence of war but the creationand maintenance of a safe, just, cooperative society. Lesley University』s Center forChildren, Families, and Public Policy (formerly the Center for Peaceable Schools)bridges this disciplinary gap explicitly:Peaceable Schools and Communities envisions a global community free fromviolence, disconnection, and systemic inequity where inclusive, empoweredlearning that is rooted in the values of affirmation, consensus building, excellence,and equity is a reality for all members. As a result of the Peaceable Schools"efforts, educators, young people, and other community members will have thetools, knowledge and relationships to live out and generate welcoming, dynamicand interconnected communities (Lesley University, 「About us」)The central question of my dissertation will be, 「How does helping youngstudents become peacemakers affect their academic achievement?」 Proceeding from aNurenberg, 44constructivist framework and using it to view the data from school climate research, thereappears to be promising evidence towards a theory that, 「Yes, the same skills that helpstudents to be peaceable and cooperative helps them learn academic subjects better aswell.」My future qualifying papers will delve in more detail into the history,philosophies, methods and definitions of peace education, as well as differentiatingbetween different types of curricula and programs that in my analysis earn thatdesignation. For now, I will note that curricula and programs which satisfy mydefinitions of 「peace education」 have been shown in many cases to be capable ofbringing about measurable, more pro-peaceful/pro-cooperate attitude change in students(Eckhardt, W., 1984; Jeffries, R. & Harris, I., 1998; Lantieri, L. & Patti, J., 1998;Barnett, R., Adler, A., Easton, J., & Howard, K, 2001; Batiuk, M., Boland, J., & Wilcox,N., 2004 ; Biton, Y., et. al., 2006), and these represent only a fraction of hundreds of suchstudies in publication. Much of this research has itself been evaluated, with positiveresults; for example, the Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies』 Center forEvaluation Research and Methodology closely examined 584 independent studies of suchprograms and (Derzon, J., Wilson, S., & Cunningham, C., 1999), and focused on 82 to「rate」 on a scale of 1-4, concluding in its summary that 「school-based programs areeffective in preventing and reducing violence and other antisocial behaviors. Theyaccomplish this reduction by successfully reducing the mediating conditions andbehaviors they seek to alter」 (p. 30).1111 To be fair, the report did call for a need for more stringent research methods, as the overwhelming majority of the584 studies they examined did not meet their standards for rigor.Nurenberg, 45However, I have only found a handful of persuasive studies explicitly linkingpeace curricula and achievement. I theorize, however, that is because the label of 「peaceeducation」 has not been applied to the very school climate methods that, in my analysis,are peace education. Some even self-identify as such - Teaching Students To BePeacemakers was created by Johnson & Johnson, the same researchers who pioneered thecooperative learning research and articulation discussed earlier. Laurie Stevahn』s studiesabout incorporating the Teaching Students to be Peacemakers program into traditionallanguage arts curricula do explicitly make links between conflict resolution skills andacademic skills (Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Real, D., 1996; Stevahn,L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Laginski, A. M., & O"Coin, I, 1996 ; Stevahn, L.,Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Green, K., & Laginski, A. M., 1997. See also Harder,A., 1999). Cohen, et al. (2007) literature review that enough research exists to suggestthat:we now have a research-based school climate-related guidelines that predictablyreduce school violence, promote learning and school success in ways that lay thefoundation for adults being able to love, work and participate in a democracy. (p2)Why is there a need to make an explicit connection, to apply the label of 「peacestudies?」 Our current national and world climate is one that suffers from a pervasive fearof violence, both domestic and foreign based. We are engaged for the first time in sixtyyears in two simultaneous wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), which themselves are constructedby our political leadership as part of a 「global war」 with no foreseeable end. Hundredsof billions of dollars have been funneled to this war effort, not to mention towardsdomestic policing in response to rises in violent crimes at home, all with results that areunclear at best (absent the kind of demand for research-based accountability that, for theNurenberg, 46past 20 years, has been levied at public education). Our society will not be able to sustainitself economically or spiritually if we do not actively and consciously seek to developalternative ways of dealing with conflicts than just through violence. By calling attentionto best educational practices that simultaneously build the skills for more cooperative,peaceable relations at home and abroad, we can attempt to equip subsequent generationswith the tools to carry out a conscious mission of making our country and world a morepeaceful place.It is undeniable that, beneath its pragmatic mission to prepare students with jobskills, the roots of public education lie in utopian visions – even before Mann and Dewy,the early 17th century Czech teacher and philosopher Comenius envisioned education as ameans to bring peace in the midst of the wars of the Reformation (Stokes, 2007). It istime to revive Comenius』 vision of education as a peacemaking force, for the benefit ofour society and our world in the large scale, and in the more immediate scale, ourstudents』 improved learning of their academic subjects.Nurenberg, 47REFRENCESAljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, P. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern LanguageJournal (78)4, Winter, 465-483Allen, J, et al. (1998). 「Education Manifesto: A Nation Still At Risk」. Center forEducation Reform website. Retrieved July 19, 2007from http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=1548.Alpert, L. (2003). Creating caring learning communities that support academic success.In Cimino, C., Haney R., & O』Keefe, J. (Eds.), Educating young adolescents:Conversations in excellence (2002). Washington, DC: National CatholicEducation Association. pp. 51-65Astin, et al, 2000. How service learning affects students. Los Angeles: Higher EducationResearch Institute.Averech, H., Carrol, S., Donaldson, T., Kiesling, H., & Pincus, J. (1974). How effectiveis schooling? A critical review of research. Santa Monica, CA: RandCorporation.Baloche, L. (1998) The Cooperative Classroom: Empowering Learning. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R., Adler, A., Easton, J., & Howard, K (2001). An evaluation of Peace EducationFoundation"s conflict resolution and peer mediation program. School BusinessAffairs (67) 7, 29-39.Batiuk, M., Boland, J., & Wilcox, N. (2004). Project Trust: Breaking down barriersbetween middle school children. Adolescence, 39 (155), 531-538.Beem, C. (1999) The Necessity of Politics. Reclaiming American public life, Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 17 June 2007 fromhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmBerkeley University Graduate Student Instruction Teaching Resource Center. (2007).「Theories of Learning: Social Constructivism.」 Teaching Guide for GraduateStudent Instructors. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/learning/social.html.Billett, S. (2006). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual andcollective planes of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity (13)1, 53-69.Nurenberg, 48Biton, Y., et. al. (2006). Peace in the eyes of Israeli and Palestinian youths: Effects ofcollective narratives and peace education program. Journal of Peace Research(43) 2. 167-80.Blunden, A. (2006). Modernity, the individual and the foundations of cultural-historicalactivity theory. Article for publication in Mind, Culture and Activity (14)4, 2007.Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www.werple.net.au/~andy/works/modernitychat.htmBloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitivedomain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.Bosworth, Derek. (1994) 「Truancy and pupil performance.」 Education Economics (2) 3Bransford, J, et al. (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school.Washington, D.C.: National Research Council/National Academy Press.Bruner, J. (1973). The relevance of education. New York: W. W. Norton.Cohen, J, McCabe, L., Michelli, N & Pickeral, T. (2007 – in press, pending revisions).「School climate: Research, policy, practice and teacher education.」 Articleaccepted by Teachers College Record (volume/issue TBA).Coleman, B. (1998). School Violence and Student Achievement in Reading andMathematics among Eighth Graders. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.Commission on Business Efficiency of the Public Schools. (2003). School Size,Violence, Cost and Achievement. September 15, 2003. New Jersey. RetrievedJuly 20, 2007 at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/reports/buseff_report.pdfCSEE (2007). 「School climate: A foundation for teaching and learning.」 Center forSocial and Emotional Education homepage. Retrieved July 18 , 2007, fromhttp://csee.net/climate/schoolclimate/Daniels, H. (ed) (1996). An introduction to Vygotsky. London: Routledge.Derzon, J., Wilson, S., and Cunningham, C. (1999). The effectiveness of school-basedinterventions for preventing and reducing violence. Center for Evaluation Resarchand Methodology. Nashville: Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy.Dewey, J. (1900) School and Society. In the 2001 edition, New York: Dover.Dixon-Krauss, L. 1995. Partner reading and writing: Peer social dialogue and the Zoneof Proximal Development. Journal of Reading Behavior (27)1, March, 45-63.Nurenberg, 49Dufour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998) Professional learning communities at work: Best practicesfor enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National EducationalService.Eckhardt, W. (1984). Peace studies and attitude change: A value theory of peace studies.Peace & Change (10), 2.Eyler, J. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of service-learning onstudent learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, SpecialIssue. Fall, 11-17.Fairtest.org. (2003). 「No child left behind」 after three years: An ongoing track record offailure – a Fairtest fact sheet. Cambridge, MA: FairTest: National center for fairand open testing. Retrieved on July 10, 2007 from http://www.fairtest.org/facts/NCLB_Year3_Fact.htmlField, J. (2003) Social Capital, London: Routledge. Retrieved 17 June 2007 fromhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmFreiberg, H., et al. (1999) School Climate: Measuring, Improving and SustainingHealthy Learning Environments. New York: Routledge.Friere, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. USA: Continuum International PublishingGroup, 2000.Good, R, et al in Tobin, K. (1993) The practice of constructivism in science education.Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Good, T and Weinstein, R. (1986) 「Schools make a difference: Evidence, Criticisms, andNew Directions.」 American Psychologist (41) 10, October, 1090-1097.Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., & Williamson, S. (1998). Why did the black-white score gapnarrow in the 1970s and 1980s? In Jencks, C. Phillips, M. The black-white testscore gap (pp. 182-226). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Pp. 206-221Gronna, S. and Chin-Chance, S. (1999) Effects of school safety and school characteristicson grade eight achievement: A multilevel analysis. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec,Canada, April 19-23, 1999).Hansen-Reid, M. (2001). 「Lev Semonovich Vygotsky.」 Lev Vygotsky: theories and life.Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/MHR/indexvyg.htmlNurenberg, 50Haney, W. (1999). 「High-stakes assessments in reading」. International ReadingAssociation. Retrieved July 19 2007 fromhttp://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/ps1035_high_stakes.pdfHarder, A. (1999). Peace is the road: From top to bottom, Glenfair cares. NorthwestEducation (4) 3. 56, 54.Haynes, N., Emmons C., and Ben-Avie, M. (1997) School climate as a factor in studentadjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and psychologicalconsultation, 8(3), 321-329.Hedegaard, M. (1990). The Zone of Proximal Development as a basis for instruction. InL.C. Moll (ed.) (1990) Vygotsky and Education. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press: pp. 349-71.Henrich, C., et al. (2004) The association of community violence exposure with middleschoolachievement: A prospective study. Applied Developmental Psychology(25), 327-348Huss, J (2006). Gifted education and cooperative learning: a miss or a match? GiftedChild Today. September 2006. Retrieved 11-9-07 from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5841296/Gifted-education-and-cooperative-learning.htmlIntech (n.d.) 「Cooperative Learning」. Kennesaw State University. Retrieved July 20,2007 from http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/intech/cooperativelearning.htmJeffries, R. & Harris, I. (1998) Cooling the climate using peace education in an urbanmiddle school. Middle School Journal (30) 2, 56-64.Johnson, R & Johnson, D (1994) An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand,A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Creativity and collaborative learning. Baltimore:Brookes Press. Retrieved July 20, 2007 at http://www.cooperation.org/pages/overviewpaper.htmlJohn-Steiner, V. and Souberman, E. 「Afterword」. In Vygotsky (1978), Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. USA: Harvard UniversityPress.Jones, M., Rua, M., & Carter, G. 1998. Science teachers" conceptual growth withinVygotsky"s zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching (35) 9, 967 – 985.Kaufman, D & Felder, R (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learningteams. J. Engr. Education, 89(2), 133–140 (2000)Kozol, J. (2007) Letters to a Young Teacher. USA: Crown. In NEA Today (26) 3, 25.Nurenberg, 51Lantieri, L. & Patti, J. (1998). Waging peace in our schools. Boston: Beacon Hill Press.Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Practice, person, social world. Chapter 2 in Situatedlearning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress: pp. 45--58.Lesley University Center for Children, Families, and Public Policy (2007). "About Us."Peaceable Schools and Communities home page. Retrieved 3-1-07 fromhttp://www.lesley.edu/academic_centers/peace/index.html.Lieber, C. (1994) Making choices about conflict, security, and peacemaking. Adaptedfor the ESR (Educators for Social Responsibility) web page 「What is Peace?」,retrieved July 21, 2007, from http://www.esrnational.org/peacewhatis.htm.Lucangeli D. & Cornoldi, C. (2000) Mathematics and Metacognition: What Is the Natureof the Relationship? Journal of mathematical cognition (3), 2, Sept, 121 – 139.Mandel, S. (2006) What new teachers really need. Educational Leadership, March, 66-69.Marzano, R., Pickering, D., Arredondo, D., & Paynter, D. (1997) Dimensions of learningteacher"s manual, Second edition by Robert J. Marzano, Debra J. USA:Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.Retrieved July 10, 2007 fromhttp://www.advancedhiring.com/docs/theory_of_human_motivation.pdfMcCombs, B. and Whisler, J. (1997), The learner centered classroom and school. USA:Jossey-Bass.McNeely, C., Nonnemaker, J., Blum, R. (2002). Promoting school connectedness:Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal ofSchool Health (72)4, April, 138-146.McNeir, G. (1993). 「Outcome based education」. ERIC Digest 85 November 1993.Retrieved July 19 2007 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest085.html. Citation in text also uses paraphrasings fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcomes-based_education#What_is_OBE.3FNASSP (1996) Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. USA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals.O』Neil, H. (1998). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potentialfor alternate assessment. Los Angeles: CRESST/UCLA.Nurenberg, 52Pallas, A. M. (1988) School climate in American high schools. Teacher』s CollegeRecord (89), 541-554.Perrone, V. (1994). How to Engage Students in Learning. Educational Leadership, 51(5),11-13.Perry, T, Steele, C, and Hilliard III, A (2003). Young, Gifted, and Black: Promoting HighAchievement Among African American Students. Boston, MA: Beacon P Books.Piaget, J. (1923). Le langage et la pensee chez l"enfant Neuchatel-Paris, Delachaux &Niestle.Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces ofconstructivism. Educational Researcher, 24 (7), 5-12.Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling Alone: America"s Declining Social Capital. Journal ofDemocracy (6) 1, Jan, 65-78. Retrieved 15 June 2007 fromhttp://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v006/putnam.htmlPutnam, J. (1997) Cooperative Learning in Diverse Classrooms. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merril (Prentis Hall).Rose, L. (2004) No child left behind: the mathematics of guaranteed failure.Educational Horizons, 82, 121-130.Rutter, M et al. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their effects onchildren. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Sackney, L. (1988) Enhancing school learning climate: Theory, research and practice.Saskatchewan School Trustees Association Research Report #180. Saskatoon:University of Saskatchewan. Retrieved July 19. 2007, athttp://saskschoolboards.ca/research/school_improvement/180.htmSalomon, G., Globerson, T, & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a Zone of ProximalDevelopment: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a readingpartner. Journal of Educational Psychology (89 SL) 4, 620-627.Schwab-Stone, M., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C., Leckman, P., & Ruchkin, V. (2003). Nosafe haven: III. Disentangling the impact of involvement in violence from violenceexposure, Unpublished manuscript. Cited in (Heinrich et al, 2004).Shavelson, R. and Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific Research in Education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Simpson, G. (1963). Biology and the nature of science. Science, 139(3550), 81-88.Nurenberg, 53Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice 2nd edition.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Sternberg, R. (2004) Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes anexpert student? Journal of Instructional Science (26), 1-2, March, 127-140.Stetsenko, A. (2005). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency inwork and working life. Mind, culture and activity (12)1, 70-88.Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Real, D. (1996). The impact of acooperative or individualistic context on the effectiveness of conflict resolutiontraining. American Educational Research Journal (33), 801-823.Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Green, K., & Laginski, A. M. (1997).Effects on high school students of conflict resolution training integrated intoEnglish literature. Journal of Social Psychology (137) 3, 302-315.Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Laginski, A. M., & O"Coin, I. (1996).Effects on high school students of integrating conflict resolution and peermediation training into an academic unit. Mediation Quarterly (14) 1, 21-36.Stevahn, L. (1997). Effects on high school students of conflict resolution trainingintegrated into English literature. Journal of Social Psychology (137) 3, 302-15.Stokes, W. (2007, spring semester). Interdisciplinary Studies II, EAGSR 8104. ClassLectures. Lesley University.Sunderman, G., Orfield, G., Kim, S. (2005). NCLB meets school realities (Lessons fromthe field). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Tappan, M. (1998) Moral education in the Zone of Proximal Development. Journal ofMoral Education (27)2, June, 141-60.Trickey, H. (2006) No child left out of the dodgeball game? CNN.com. Retrieved July19, 2007 from http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/20/PE.NCLB/index.htmlTurner, N. (1993) Learning styles and metacognition. Reading Improvement (30) 2,summer, 82-85.Vygotsky, L. (1931) 「The development of thinking and concept formation inadolescence.」 In van der Veer, J. and Valsiner, J. (1994) The Vygotsky Reader.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Nurenberg, 54----. (1934) 「The development of academic concepts in school aged children」. In van derVeer, J. and Valsiner, J. (1994) The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.----. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.----. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. USA:Harvard University Press.Ward, K. & Wold-Wendel, L. 「Community-centered service learning: Moving fromdoing for to doing with」. American Behavioral Scientist (43) 5, 767-780 (Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge: 1998.White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: MakingScience Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction (16) 1, 3-118Whitlock, J. (2006) Youth perceptions of life at school: Contextual correlates of schoolconnectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 10 (1). pp. 13-29.Yager, R. (1999) Real-world learning: A necessity for the success of current reformefforts. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC). Retrieved on July 23, 2007from http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:0yMPoEky8MEJ:www.enc.org/features/focus/archive/realworld/document.shtm%3Finput%3DFOC-000884-index++Robert+Yager+%22real+world%22Zimmerman, D., Rosenblum, D., and Hillman, P. (2004) Institutional ethos, peers andindividual outcomes. Williamstown, MA: Williams Project on the Economics ofHigher Education. Discussion paper no. 68.推薦閱讀：
※「引得市」文獻數位化字頭輸入教學懶人包1.0
※IndexR：實時、基於Hadoop的數據倉庫
※20180222《古文字譜系疏證》字頭索引數位化完成
※起名常用漢字繁體筆畫索引
※mysql某千萬級數據表中某欄位有100多種取值，該欄位適合加索引嗎？