Author :
Abstract
The task of promoting cognitive work is the School’s most important task. Recent research, carried out in OECD countries, concluded that the differences between developing countries and developed countries should no longer be attributed to the number of years of compulsory schooling, but rather to suitable attention upon the development of cognitive competences (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010). However learning situations and tasks distributed to the learners are not always sufficiently clear about the cognitive competences that they promote, nor develop that meta-knowledge about the procedures that literature correlates to higher levels of school effectiveness (Enfield, Smith, & Grueber, 2007). Thus, the present study seeks to explore how school subjects such as History and Natural Sciences develop curricular tasks that promote the development of cognitive competences. Research data come from 43 reports from 43 classes of those two school matters. Research could conclude that there is a remarkable difference between the values obtained in the dimension of the importance of the studied tasks and the planned occasions for their implementation and evaluation.
Keywords
Abstract
The task of promoting cognitive work is the School’s most important task. Recent research, carried out in OECD countries, concluded that the differences between developing countries and developed countries should no longer be attributed to the number of years of compulsory schooling, but rather to suitable attention upon the development of cognitive competences (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010). However learning situations and tasks distributed to the learners are not always sufficiently clear about the cognitive competences that they promote, nor develop that meta-knowledge about the procedures that literature correlates to higher levels of school effectiveness (Enfield, Smith, & Grueber, 2007). Thus, the present study seeks to explore how school subjects such as History and Natural Sciences develop curricular tasks that promote the development of cognitive competences. Research data come from 43 reports from 43 classes of those two school matters. Research could conclude that there is a remarkable difference between the values obtained in the dimension of the importance of the studied tasks and the planned occasions for their implementation and evaluation.
Keywords
- Enfield, M., Smith, E., & Grueber, G. (2007). A sketch is like a sentence: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science Education, 92(4), 608-630.
- Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
- Gonçalves, M. F., & Machado, F. (1990). Currículo e desenvolvimento curricular: Problemas e perspectivas. Porto: Asa.
- Goodson, I. (2001). O currículo em mudança: Estudos na construção social do currículo. Porto: Porto Editora.
- Inhelder, B., & Céllerier, G. (1996). O percurso das descobertas da criança: Pesquisa sobre as microgéneses cognitivas. Lisbon: Instituto Piaget.
- Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2010) How much do educational outcomes matter in OECD countries?. Retrieved June, 2011 from http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/hanushek_woessmann.pdf.
- Morgado, L. M. (1997). Construtivismo, aprendizagem operatória e diversificação curricular: Pistas para um debate. Revista Portuguesa de Psicologia, 32, 21-33.
- Morgado, L. M. (1988). Aprendizagem operatória da conservação das quantidades numéricas. Coimbra: National Institute of Scientific Research / Centre of Psychology from the University of Coimbra.
- Mouraz Lopes, A. (2004). Culturas epistémicas na área do currículo. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
- Pereira, F{tima (2009). Conceptions and knowledge about childhood in initial teacher training: Changes in recent decades and their impact on teacher professionality and on schooling in childhood. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1009-1017.
- Praia, J., Cachapuz, A., & Gil-Perez, D. (2002). A hipótese e a experiência científica em educação em ciência: Contributos para uma reorientação epistemológica. Ciência e Educação, 8(2), 253-262.
- Pressley, M., & Harris, K. (2009). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 77-94.
- Simsek, A., & Balaban, J. (2010). Learning strategies of successful and unsuccessful university students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 36-45.
- Strauss, S. (2000). Theories of cognitive development and learning and their implications for curriculum development and teaching. In Bob Moon, Miriam Ben-Peretz, & Sally Brown (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education (pp. 28-50). New York: Routledge.
- Ünal, M. (2010). The relationship between meta-cognitive learning strategies and academic success of university students. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(3), 840-864.
- Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986).The teaching of learning strategies. In M.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(pp. 3 15-327). New York, NY:Macmillan