Although an understanding of these

Although an understanding of these three levels of objectives is conceptually
useful, they are presented here as a framework for consideration, not a prescribed
method. In practice, librarians will do well to follow the advice of Norman E. Gronlund to write objectives that are “specific enough to provide focus for both teaching
and the assessment of learning, without limiting the teacher’s flexibility in selecting
instructional methods and materials.” This is particularly important given that critics
of writing objectives in behavioral terms rightly argue that student performance may
not reflect what the student has learned as well as might be supposed.
Gronlund also suggests “using an overall classification of possible learning
outcomes to serve as a frame of reference” to help broaden the possible areas considered, to aid in stating and organizing objectives, and to check for possible omissions. Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy gives a hierarchical organization of learning
in the cognitive domain (thinking skills) in six levels: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, with the last three identified as higher-level thinking skills. David R. Krathwohl and colleagues have done the same
for the affective domain, which is concerned with motivation and prioritization,
and Elizabeth J. Simpson has detailed the psychomotor domain. A. Dean Hauenstein takes a holistic approach to the three domains in rewriting the taxonomies
as a unified whole. In applying objectives to libraries, instruction librarians will
find assistance in the Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic
Instruction , developed by the Bibliographic Instruction Section of the Association
of College and Research Libraries. The Model Statement can be customized to a
particular library regardless of type and to individual learners regardless of experience, age, or background. As a unique blend of several theoretical traditions, this
document presents an excellent framework for thinking about instruction in libraries. The aforementioned Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher
Education and The Nine Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning will
also be helpful in this regard.

Although an understanding of these three levels of objectives is conceptually 
useful, they are presented here as a framework for consideration, not a prescribed 
method. In practice, librarians will do well to follow the advice of Norman E. Gronlund to write objectives that are “specific enough to provide focus for both teaching 
and the assessment of learning, without limiting the teacher’s flexibility in selecting 
instructional methods and materials.” This is particularly important given that critics 
of writing objectives in behavioral terms rightly argue that student performance may 
not reflect what the student has learned as well as might be supposed.
 Gronlund also suggests “using an overall classification of possible learning 
outcomes to serve as a frame of reference” to help broaden the possible areas considered, to aid in stating and organizing objectives, and to check for possible omissions. Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy gives a hierarchical organization of learning 
in the cognitive domain (thinking skills) in six levels: knowledge, comprehension, 
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, with the last three identified as higher-level thinking skills. David R. Krathwohl and colleagues have done the same 
for the affective domain, which is concerned with motivation and prioritization, 
and Elizabeth J. Simpson has detailed the psychomotor domain. A. Dean Hauenstein takes a holistic approach to the three domains in rewriting the taxonomies 
as a unified whole. In applying objectives to libraries, instruction librarians will 
find assistance in the Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic 
Instruction , developed by the Bibliographic Instruction Section of the Association 
of College and Research Libraries. The Model Statement can be customized to a 
particular library regardless of type and to individual learners regardless of experience, age, or background. As a unique blend of several theoretical traditions, this 
document presents an excellent framework for thinking about instruction in libraries. The aforementioned Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher 
Education and The Nine Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning will 
also be helpful in this regard.

0/5000

Dari: -

Ke: -

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]

Disalin!

Although an understanding of these three levels of objectives is conceptually useful, they are presented here as a framework for consideration, not a prescribed method. In practice, librarians will do well to follow the advice of Norman E. Gronlund to write objectives that are “specific enough to provide focus for both teaching and the assessment of learning, without limiting the teacher’s flexibility in selecting instructional methods and materials.” This is particularly important given that critics of writing objectives in behavioral terms rightly argue that student performance may not reflect what the student has learned as well as might be supposed. Gronlund also suggests “using an overall classification of possible learning outcomes to serve as a frame of reference” to help broaden the possible areas considered, to aid in stating and organizing objectives, and to check for possible omissions. Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy gives a hierarchical organization of learning in the cognitive domain (thinking skills) in six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, with the last three identified as higher-level thinking skills. David R. Krathwohl and colleagues have done the same for the affective domain, which is concerned with motivation and prioritization, and Elizabeth J. Simpson has detailed the psychomotor domain. A. Dean Hauenstein takes a holistic approach to the three domains in rewriting the taxonomies as a unified whole. In applying objectives to libraries, instruction librarians will find assistance in the Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic Instruction , developed by the Bibliographic Instruction Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries. The Model Statement can be customized to a particular library regardless of type and to individual learners regardless of experience, age, or background. As a unique blend of several theoretical traditions, this document presents an excellent framework for thinking about instruction in libraries. The aforementioned Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education and The Nine Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning will also be helpful in this regard.

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Meskipun pemahaman tentang tiga tingkat tujuan secara konseptual
berguna, mereka disajikan di sini sebagai kerangka untuk dipertimbangkan, bukan ditentukan
metode. Dalam prakteknya, pustakawan akan melakukannya dengan baik untuk mengikuti saran dari Norman E. Gronlund untuk menulis tujuan yang "cukup spesifik untuk memberikan fokus untuk kedua pengajaran
dan penilaian belajar, tanpa membatasi fleksibilitas guru dalam memilih
metode pembelajaran dan materi." Ini sangat penting mengingat bahwa kritik
dari tujuan penulisan dalam hal perilaku benar berpendapat bahwa kinerja siswa mungkin
tidak mencerminkan apa yang siswa telah belajar serta mungkin seharusnya.
Gronlund juga menyarankan "menggunakan klasifikasi keseluruhan pembelajaran mungkin
hasil untuk melayani sebagai kerangka referensi "untuk membantu memperluas wilayah yang mungkin dipertimbangkan, untuk membantu dalam menyatakan dan pengorganisasian tujuan, dan untuk memeriksa kemungkinan kelalaian. Taksonomi Benjamin Bloom memberikan organisasi hirarkis pembelajaran
dalam domain kognitif (kemampuan berpikir) dalam enam tingkatan: pengetahuan, pemahaman,
aplikasi, analisis, sintesis, dan evaluasi, dengan tiga terakhir diidentifikasi sebagai kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi. David R. Krathwohl dan rekan telah melakukan hal yang sama
untuk domain afektif, yang berkaitan dengan motivasi dan prioritas,
dan Elizabeth J. Simpson telah rinci domain psikomotorik. A. Dean Hauenstein mengambil pendekatan holistik untuk tiga domain di menulis ulang taksonomi
sebagai kesatuan yang utuh. Dalam menerapkan tujuan untuk perpustakaan, instruksi pustakawan akan
menemukan bantuan dalam Model Pernyataan Tujuan Akademik Bibliografi
Instruksi, dikembangkan oleh bibliografi Instruksi Bagian dari Asosiasi
College dan Perpustakaan Penelitian. Pernyataan Model dapat disesuaikan dengan
perpustakaan tertentu terlepas dari jenis dan peserta didik terlepas dari pengalaman, usia, atau latar belakang. Sebagai campuran unik dari beberapa tradisi teoritis, ini
dokumen menyajikan kerangka kerja yang sangat baik untuk berpikir tentang instruksi di perpustakaan. Standar tersebut Literasi Informasi Kompetensi untuk Higher
Education dan Sembilan Standar Literasi Informasi untuk Belajar Mahasiswa akan
juga membantu dalam hal ini.

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 3:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Bahasa lainnya

Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.