Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107333
Daniel L. Dinsmore, Luke K. Fryer, Meghan M. Parkinson
ABSTRACT The learning styles hypothesis—and particularly the meshing hypothesis—state that learners’ preferences about their preferred modality of learning (i.e., visual, aural, or kinesthetic) predict learning gains on academic tasks. Despite the fact that this hypothesis is not borne out by the scientific evidence available to us, it still remains in widespread classroom use. This article begins by discussing the evidence against learning styles. Second, the article discusses why teachers might continue to believe in and use learning styles in their classroom as well as why essentialist beliefs about learning are not helpful. Finally, 3 variables that do impact student learning—knowledge, strategies, and interest are discussed. Each is defined, their development and measurements are discussed, and finally some instructional examples are given. Replacing the use of learning styles in the classroom with instructional decisions based on the development of knowledge, strategies, and interest can improve student learning outcomes across a wide range of subjects and grade levels.
{"title":"The learning styles hypothesis is false, but there are patterns of student characteristics that are useful","authors":"Daniel L. Dinsmore, Luke K. Fryer, Meghan M. Parkinson","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2107333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107333","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The learning styles hypothesis—and particularly the meshing hypothesis—state that learners’ preferences about their preferred modality of learning (i.e., visual, aural, or kinesthetic) predict learning gains on academic tasks. Despite the fact that this hypothesis is not borne out by the scientific evidence available to us, it still remains in widespread classroom use. This article begins by discussing the evidence against learning styles. Second, the article discusses why teachers might continue to believe in and use learning styles in their classroom as well as why essentialist beliefs about learning are not helpful. Finally, 3 variables that do impact student learning—knowledge, strategies, and interest are discussed. Each is defined, their development and measurements are discussed, and finally some instructional examples are given. Replacing the use of learning styles in the classroom with instructional decisions based on the development of knowledge, strategies, and interest can improve student learning outcomes across a wide range of subjects and grade levels.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72749534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338
Laura J. Link, T. Guskey
ABSTRACT This analysis explores the essential criteria necessary to define standards-based grading (SBG) and to judge its effectiveness. Findings reveal that although many schools today are initiating SBG reforms, there’s little consensus on what “standards-based grading” actually means. As a result, SBG implementation is widely inconsistent due to an array of factors, including varying and uneven guidance provided by SBG proponents. Without precisely knowing what defines SBG and the clear criteria for judging its effectiveness, uncertainty, confusion, frustration, and resistance are leading educators to abandon SBG efforts altogether. The researchers conclude that there are three essential criteria necessary to define SBG and to judge its effectiveness in schools. When these criteria are discussed, applied, and met consistently, findings indicate that SBG can effectively serve its primary purpose—as an important tool for communicating students’ performance with students and parents.
{"title":"Is standards-based grading effective?","authors":"Laura J. Link, T. Guskey","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This analysis explores the essential criteria necessary to define standards-based grading (SBG) and to judge its effectiveness. Findings reveal that although many schools today are initiating SBG reforms, there’s little consensus on what “standards-based grading” actually means. As a result, SBG implementation is widely inconsistent due to an array of factors, including varying and uneven guidance provided by SBG proponents. Without precisely knowing what defines SBG and the clear criteria for judging its effectiveness, uncertainty, confusion, frustration, and resistance are leading educators to abandon SBG efforts altogether. The researchers conclude that there are three essential criteria necessary to define SBG and to judge its effectiveness in schools. When these criteria are discussed, applied, and met consistently, findings indicate that SBG can effectively serve its primary purpose—as an important tool for communicating students’ performance with students and parents.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85000045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107342
Jeff Vomund, Angela D. Miller
ABSTRACT Despite over 30 years of educational research to the contrary, some educators continue to hold to classroom management theories along the lines of “don’t smile until December,” which pits consistency and control in the classroom against the kindness and caring that should also characterize the learning environment. We address the source of this controversy as faulty reasoning that sees expressions of care as competing with instructional values such as rigorous lessons from teachers and high expectations for students. In fact, research suggests that from student perspectives, quality teaching and high expectations do not compete with caring but express it. We suggest 3 teaching strategies that illustrate how these seemingly disparate aspects of teaching are connected. Further, we consider how teachers can use cognitive empathy to carry out these strategies effectively. The article closes with examples of how these strategies can be practically implemented in classrooms.
{"title":"“Don’t smile until December”: Bad advice based on the either-or fallacy","authors":"Jeff Vomund, Angela D. Miller","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2107342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107342","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Despite over 30 years of educational research to the contrary, some educators continue to hold to classroom management theories along the lines of “don’t smile until December,” which pits consistency and control in the classroom against the kindness and caring that should also characterize the learning environment. We address the source of this controversy as faulty reasoning that sees expressions of care as competing with instructional values such as rigorous lessons from teachers and high expectations for students. In fact, research suggests that from student perspectives, quality teaching and high expectations do not compete with caring but express it. We suggest 3 teaching strategies that illustrate how these seemingly disparate aspects of teaching are connected. Further, we consider how teachers can use cognitive empathy to carry out these strategies effectively. The article closes with examples of how these strategies can be practically implemented in classrooms.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74530435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107341
Angela Starrett, M. Irvin, Dodie Limberg, Shea E. Ferguson
ABSTRACT A college-for-all ethos has been an echoed refrain of American society since the 1990s, but in recent years, it has found a challenge in the burgeoning belief that a college degree is of subjective value and potentially unnecessary to find a well-paying job. This article casts light on these opposed viewpoints in an effort to determine the objective modern-day value of postsecondary education. In the article, we use Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model to provide a framework through which educators can support students as they attempt to discern the best postsecondary and career plans for them. We examine current literature to determine whether or not the two aforementioned perspectives align with current research, assess research demonstrative of Bronfenbrenner’s posited complexity, and dissect the concepts put forth through our use of the Ecological Systems Model.
{"title":"Rethinking the college-for-all ethos","authors":"Angela Starrett, M. Irvin, Dodie Limberg, Shea E. Ferguson","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2107341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107341","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A college-for-all ethos has been an echoed refrain of American society since the 1990s, but in recent years, it has found a challenge in the burgeoning belief that a college degree is of subjective value and potentially unnecessary to find a well-paying job. This article casts light on these opposed viewpoints in an effort to determine the objective modern-day value of postsecondary education. In the article, we use Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model to provide a framework through which educators can support students as they attempt to discern the best postsecondary and career plans for them. We examine current literature to determine whether or not the two aforementioned perspectives align with current research, assess research demonstrative of Bronfenbrenner’s posited complexity, and dissect the concepts put forth through our use of the Ecological Systems Model.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74059108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107344
Katherine D. Philp
ABSTRACT Afterschool programs are increasingly recognized as valuable opportunities for learning that can create social capital, expose students to topics of interest, and build personal identities. Yet poor policies and ineffective practices driven by outdated ideals abound, including an emphasis on the caregiving function of afterschool programs for working families, as well as a focus on academic skill-building and remediation, often to the detriment of adolescents and students of color. I review historical trends and recent controversies alongside empirical and theoretical research to demonstrate the importance of afterschool for learning and development, particularly for students who are most likely to disengage from traditional school cultures. Using learning ecosystems models, I offer insights into how education leaders can leverage the strengths of afterschool programs to support academic achievement without simply extending the school day into afterschool.
{"title":"More than homework help: The critical role of afterschool programs for youth learning and development","authors":"Katherine D. Philp","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2107344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107344","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Afterschool programs are increasingly recognized as valuable opportunities for learning that can create social capital, expose students to topics of interest, and build personal identities. Yet poor policies and ineffective practices driven by outdated ideals abound, including an emphasis on the caregiving function of afterschool programs for working families, as well as a focus on academic skill-building and remediation, often to the detriment of adolescents and students of color. I review historical trends and recent controversies alongside empirical and theoretical research to demonstrate the importance of afterschool for learning and development, particularly for students who are most likely to disengage from traditional school cultures. Using learning ecosystems models, I offer insights into how education leaders can leverage the strengths of afterschool programs to support academic achievement without simply extending the school day into afterschool.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81334172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-27DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107334
K. Harris, D. McKeown
ABSTRACT The ability to write is fundamental for learning and achievement across Grades K-12, performance in the workplace, continuing education, college, personal development, and addressing social justice. The majority of our students, however, are not capable writers. We have a body of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and best practices that can make a meaningful difference in writing development for our students. We describe one EBP for writing instruction, the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of instruction for writing. SRSD results in meaningful improvements in students' writing across grades 1-12 and can be integrated with best practices, including writers' workshop. We then separate fact from fiction regarding this approach for teaching students to write and to engage in reading for writing. Finally, we address paradigm wars and additional barriers to widespread adoption of SRSD in schools, and how to address these barriers.
{"title":"Overcoming barriers and paradigm wars: Powerful evidence-based writing instruction","authors":"K. Harris, D. McKeown","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2107334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107334","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The ability to write is fundamental for learning and achievement across Grades K-12, performance in the workplace, continuing education, college, personal development, and addressing social justice. The majority of our students, however, are not capable writers. We have a body of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and best practices that can make a meaningful difference in writing development for our students. We describe one EBP for writing instruction, the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of instruction for writing. SRSD results in meaningful improvements in students' writing across grades 1-12 and can be integrated with best practices, including writers' workshop. We then separate fact from fiction regarding this approach for teaching students to write and to engage in reading for writing. Finally, we address paradigm wars and additional barriers to widespread adoption of SRSD in schools, and how to address these barriers.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73028072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096372
Aina Appova, Hea-Jin Lee, T. Bucci
ABSTRACT This study examines the limited use of technology as a potential obstacle to educational progress and development. Grounding our work in social justice issues reflected in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “banking education” was reviewed to articulate this use of technology, including the limited students’ engagement, opportunities to learn, and development of information/computer literacy. In the study, we introduce the notion of W3 (what technology is being used, why, and who is using it) to offer specific lenses (Table 1) related to K-12 technology-integrated instruction in regard to power structures. We offer suggestions on how teachers and educators can use these lenses to create technology-integrated activities to ensure equitable and meaningful learning opportunities. We provide additional recommendations on how administrators and policy makers can avoid banking (students’) education and support teachers’ implementation of effective technology platforms as major drivers for empowering students’ learning, progress, and future careers.
{"title":"Technology in the classroom: Banking education or opportunities to learn?","authors":"Aina Appova, Hea-Jin Lee, T. Bucci","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096372","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examines the limited use of technology as a potential obstacle to educational progress and development. Grounding our work in social justice issues reflected in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “banking education” was reviewed to articulate this use of technology, including the limited students’ engagement, opportunities to learn, and development of information/computer literacy. In the study, we introduce the notion of W3 (what technology is being used, why, and who is using it) to offer specific lenses (Table 1) related to K-12 technology-integrated instruction in regard to power structures. We offer suggestions on how teachers and educators can use these lenses to create technology-integrated activities to ensure equitable and meaningful learning opportunities. We provide additional recommendations on how administrators and policy makers can avoid banking (students’) education and support teachers’ implementation of effective technology platforms as major drivers for empowering students’ learning, progress, and future careers.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88770610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096376
Erik M. Hines, D. Ford, Edward C. Fletcher Jr., James L. Moore III
ABSTRACT In this article, we present an extensive overview of inequities in three areas of education: (1) gifted and talented education; (2) accelerated coursework; (3) and discipline. Intersectionality undergirds our focus on these three areas as they go together to paint a disturbing picture of the experiences of Black children in P-12 schools, as well as institutions of higher education. In addition to laying out the culturally assaultive problems, we provide recommendations and resources designed to develop anti-racist, culturally competent educators, along with an equitable education system where Black students are seen as capable, intelligent, good citizens, and humans who are understood and affirmed; thus, “All Eyez on Me” results in dynamic rather than deficit thinking among education professionals.
{"title":"All eyez on me: Disproportionality, disciplined, and disregarded while Black","authors":"Erik M. Hines, D. Ford, Edward C. Fletcher Jr., James L. Moore III","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096376","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we present an extensive overview of inequities in three areas of education: (1) gifted and talented education; (2) accelerated coursework; (3) and discipline. Intersectionality undergirds our focus on these three areas as they go together to paint a disturbing picture of the experiences of Black children in P-12 schools, as well as institutions of higher education. In addition to laying out the culturally assaultive problems, we provide recommendations and resources designed to develop anti-racist, culturally competent educators, along with an equitable education system where Black students are seen as capable, intelligent, good citizens, and humans who are understood and affirmed; thus, “All Eyez on Me” results in dynamic rather than deficit thinking among education professionals.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84259451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096377
Shannon Audley, Maleka Donaldson
ABSTRACT Educational lore casts grit as a panacea for solving long-standing achievement disparities. Fifteen years of empirical research has not supported this claim, yet many schools still uphold grit. Why? This article examines when (and if) K-12 educators should emphasize grit in classrooms. We first define the construct and offer evidence-based critiques of grit’s conceptual claims. Next, we discuss grit’s influence on school achievement, which has, at best, a negligible impact on school achievement. However, at worst, grit reifies social inequalities by boosting the performance of already-privileged individuals and harming minoritized groups and those in under-resourced learning contexts. Finally, we argue that grit does not compensate for adverse circumstances—including poverty, racial/ethnic discrimination, dis/abilities, and intersections—but instead reinforces privilege. Building on these insights, we close with several recommendations for policymakers, schools, and teachers to reduce the inequitable opportunity gaps that undermine achievement and support students with research-based interventions.
{"title":"When to grit and when to quit: (How) should grit be taught in K-12 classrooms?","authors":"Shannon Audley, Maleka Donaldson","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096377","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Educational lore casts grit as a panacea for solving long-standing achievement disparities. Fifteen years of empirical research has not supported this claim, yet many schools still uphold grit. Why? This article examines when (and if) K-12 educators should emphasize grit in classrooms. We first define the construct and offer evidence-based critiques of grit’s conceptual claims. Next, we discuss grit’s influence on school achievement, which has, at best, a negligible impact on school achievement. However, at worst, grit reifies social inequalities by boosting the performance of already-privileged individuals and harming minoritized groups and those in under-resourced learning contexts. Finally, we argue that grit does not compensate for adverse circumstances—including poverty, racial/ethnic discrimination, dis/abilities, and intersections—but instead reinforces privilege. Building on these insights, we close with several recommendations for policymakers, schools, and teachers to reduce the inequitable opportunity gaps that undermine achievement and support students with research-based interventions.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89266257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096386
D. Shin, Minhye Lee, M. Bong
ABSTRACT Are there really “right-brained” and “left-brained” learners? The argument of left- and right-brain learning is the second most pervasive neuromyth in education. In this article, we debunk this myth by distinguishing fact from fiction. Each hemisphere indeed shows dominance in processing certain types of cognitive function. However, individual characteristics and learning potentials cannot be categorized into the left or the right brain. Not only is the entire brain required for any type of learning, but also there exist considerable individual differences in the hemispheric specialization of any specific function. Good teaching is not determining or matching instruction to who is left and who is right but engaging each student’s whole brain. Teachers should instead help students utilize and develop their whole brain by (a) delivering instruction in multiple modes and providing diverse encoding pathways, (b) involving students in the extensive practice of important skills, and (c) promoting students’ agency and self-regulation.
{"title":"Beyond left and right: Learning is a whole-brain process","authors":"D. Shin, Minhye Lee, M. Bong","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096386","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Are there really “right-brained” and “left-brained” learners? The argument of left- and right-brain learning is the second most pervasive neuromyth in education. In this article, we debunk this myth by distinguishing fact from fiction. Each hemisphere indeed shows dominance in processing certain types of cognitive function. However, individual characteristics and learning potentials cannot be categorized into the left or the right brain. Not only is the entire brain required for any type of learning, but also there exist considerable individual differences in the hemispheric specialization of any specific function. Good teaching is not determining or matching instruction to who is left and who is right but engaging each student’s whole brain. Teachers should instead help students utilize and develop their whole brain by (a) delivering instruction in multiple modes and providing diverse encoding pathways, (b) involving students in the extensive practice of important skills, and (c) promoting students’ agency and self-regulation.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81573740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：