• Other research products close
• CA close

L’objectif de cet article est d’inciter les lecteur(e)s à réfléchir sur l’art d’enseigner et à la manière de soutenir la pratique inventive. Les lecteur(e)s sont invités dans une salle de classe et immergés dans une journée d’apprentissage avec des enfants de 11 et 12 ans. The purpose of this paper is to engage readers in thinking about the art of teaching and how to support inventive practice. Readers are invited into a classroom and immersed in a day of learning with 11 and 12-year-olds.

This paper addresses requirements conflicts, their resolution through negotiation and the investigation of such processes in distributed communication settings. It proposes a multi-disciplinary research approach to the study of distributed requirements negotiation. This approach builds on 'best practice' models in the research fields of requirements engineering, soft systems methodologies, study of groups with technology, negotiation behavior, group interaction analysis, and behavioral and social sciences. Preliminary results of the implementation of this approach are presented and future work is discussed.

Cet article offre une critique du point de vue d’un statisticien de la méthodologie utilisée par Hattie, et explique pourquoi il faut absolument qualifier cette méthodologie de pseudoscience. On parle tout d’abord des intentions de Hattie. Puis, on décrit les erreurs majeures de Visible Learning avant d’expliquer l’ensemble des questions qu’un chercheur devrait se poser en examinant des études et enquêtes basées sur des analyses de données, incluant les méta-analyses. Ensuite, on donne des exemples concrets démontrant que le d de Cohen (la mesure de base derrière les effets d’ampleur, effect sizes, de Hattie) ne peut tout simplement pas être utilisé comme une mesure universelle d’impact. Enfin, on donne des pistes de solution pour mieux comprendre et exécuter des études et méta-analyses en éducation. This paper presents a critical analysis, from the point of view of a statistician, of the methodology used by Hattie in Visible Learning, and explains why it must absolutely be called pseudoscience. We first discuss what appears to be the intentions of Hattie’s approach. Then we describe the major mistakes in Visible Learning before reviewing the set of questions a researcher should ask when investigating studies and surveys based on data analyses, including meta-analyses. We give concrete examples explaining why Cohen’s d (the measure of effect size used in Visible Learning) simply cannot be used as some sort of universal measure of impact. Finally, we propose solutions to better understand and implement studies and meta-analyses in education.

Generations from now, scholars will no doubt thank Dr. Howard Leeson for his extraordinary note-taking skills. Leeson, Adjunct Professor and Professor Emeritus of Politics and International Studies, was Saskatchewan’s Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs during the constitutional negotiations 35 years ago. From his unobstructed access to the talks and the behind-the-scenes negotiations, Leeson took detailed and copious notes as a member of the Saskatchewan negotiating team. He was one of the few who even bothered taking out a notepad. Staff no

The purpose of this research is threefold: 1) to provide an overview of research pertaining to best and promising practices in the area of violence prevention programming for children and youth; 2) to provide an analysis of children- and youth-focused violence prevention programs currently offered by non-profit organizations in Calgary, Alberta; and 3) to provide recommendations to inform subsequent phases for developing a strategic coordinated community approach to violence prevention programming for children and youth in Calgary.This research identified various types of violence prevention programming offered throughout Calgary, specifically identifying the differences between school and community-based programs and universal/targeted approaches.