Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Praktika Lathi
Praktika Lathi
Praktika Lathi
:
! "! # ! $%&!!
'!!
#( (
, *)
2:
!'- ! %"! ! %"! ! #
!'- .
! %"! /'% #(
0
*
1**:
%, 1-2 "0,), 2007
4!!, 13 14 "0,) 2007
33 ! -.# #& * ( ! --'(, ! ' 1965
%7# " -'% ! %"!, -'%
*"
,
( !!, "# $),
7,
%
&%: 1-2
2007,
13-14
2007
&
2
"
-'
*
.
$
:
:
;
+ *
&
&
&
%, *
/ / % 0
&
,
1
*
%
/%
.
% &
*
, %
%
.
$
,
.
,
/
/
0,
0, *
&
,
&
3
*
*
.
4
% /
%
/
&
&
,
%
& % /.
, ,
%
,
1
.
#) )8# !)+&,#;
9
* -&< # #" ! %#"! '!! #(, &<!
(3 #(#7 -#7
* 3& #(#"!
* *;
*!!#7 7
0!'#
!' -'A
;7 !-(7
7 #
<-, 0-3#7
*<-7 !
%!"!
!!! /'!
;7 */-'
!#7 7
>'- *#!(
;7 -'
( &! #(#7 C!
!!! --
-&! *#.
D-# ?&/
-&! *(
>' ;3&
7 "!
7 <-#7 -#
!
%!"!
!" A!A7
!" -'
<#!#7 *<-7 %!#. /
-<!
!'3-- !3--(
!!! '/(
?- -3&
?-#7 -'!!
" 0-7
?- >A!#7
*.- -<!.-
!#7 7
#
# ;
!#7
!#7 7B
'# %!
D!! '(
/
!!.-
7
-#7 0--, 0-3#7 *<-7
! $-!#
-&! !!#.-
;7 '
'- ;#!(7
! <'
;&! !!.-
D!! (!(
(# 7 ;#7 #(
! "!
- '!
'!!
<7- '#
E- '#
#7 .-
?- -H(7
7 !!#7 # #(#7 -#7
! -!!7
0!7 *((
?-- *--'#
-&! >-"
" !!
(# 7 ;#7 #(
!
%!"!
'!! !.
7 #!! # &! A#7
!& !
%!"!
To
..... 1
!
, ....... 3
Learning from different perspectives: Constructivism to situated learning.
Joan Bliss .. 13
"
-
...... 22
T
#
..... 33
$
, !" ,
#"
...... 39
"
%
#/
(#
)
, $" %& ..... 51
To
&
',
* '
+ .... 57
0
' , ()*
, +"- ', /
'
..... 59
*
: # -
+* , ""- (, %
+ *)
,
* #) ,
"- /" , ( +* ........ 68
0
:
#
+/
K
....78
" "
'
-
+-
....88
0
0)
+
... 97
%
! .... 104
3
:
#
;"- ... 115
0 "
# ' #
<*
'*-
, =* .... 124
/#
>, '" ' .... 129
*
#
. #
#
%
"/ '?, @/ .... 139
4
#
# 6
#
,
#
"/ '?, @/ .... 147
'
*.".8.
# %%.
" ... 151
0
# 9
* #) .. 160
8
.
,
,
.
-A
... 167
"
%: A
*
/" !""- ... 172
0
4
!
#
:
#
0) %& .. 230
:
#%
#
?
%
'
& /A 'C . 237
*
&
%
-F ("-, ! $* ... 245
(
%" ... 250
@
*
#
%/ ! !/
... 253
4 &B?BD&8
"
365
0
*
@#
'
/" !"** . 274
+
+*
. 0. @
. 277
!*
.... 317
#
#!
# " .. 326
# # =
'*-
, %- !
"- ... 386
PISA TIMSS: ;
=
!C/ $& .. 397
To J# &
....... 415
.
#
6 ;,
N#
&
.
'C
... 417
&
# #
: =
#
;
* O%
-
#
%)
, %
L
472
0
#
:
#
;
F
- %, +* ( ..... 481
&
J
%C"- 486
#
0
* :
#
0
+
551
*< '
0
%
!
'- .. 561
X
+
$AA
566
X
web 2.0.
+
$AA
576
0
+
$-
.. 584
To
!" !" #$% % $&'( (#)*&%"!" +'%(%+',!" ,' -#*%$'/)!)',!" 0!&'!" ,' "'0!$'( %#( (% $'('% ( 0,$'/0#',( $&1(
6&
% ,
%
8*
!
, 3
1. 0
4
%
**
,
%
&
. 6
,
/ ,
&1
,
9*,
%. $
%
&
/
&% %
.
&
,
9
*
1
1
%
, . 6
&
.
3
&, ,
.
,
%,
&
%
*
0
, ,
, ,
/ . 6
9
& %
%
0
9
*%
% . 4
%
(trial and error)
%
, &
,
&
, Thorndike (Bacus & Romain,
1992).
=
1
9 9
0
&
,
9
%,1
9
%. $1
,
%
9%
9
,
,
1
%
% /.
2. 0
9
,
&
,
/
9
(
).
$
% **
9
, 9,
& .
% 9
,
9
1 9,
%
1 % 9
1, *
&
&, %
*
.
,
1%
%
,
3.
, &1
,
G,
,
,
%
,
9
,
% %, &% %
(G, 2002, . 13-14).
9%,
.
0
&
9
, 9
,
&1
/
, .&.
%
%
,
. 4
%
9
.
$
% /
.
9
%
, 9, *
%
9
,
9
0
&
%.
%
. H
,
, &
9 &%
(.&.
:
#,
$
.
,
$
), /
G (G, 2002 . 17).
$
,
% /
*
9%
%
9
. 3
&
/
,
9
/
9
. 4
9
%
9%
/
,
*
&1
/
1%
.
"
, &
&
% /
% &
,
9
,
1
% 0.
6
%
&
% .
To , ,
&
%
,
% *
%
%
* %
%, 9
&
,
0
&%
,
.&. &% , & . %
% /
*%
(D
, 2001). + %
,
9
, ,
%
&,
1
(6
-
2005),
,
/
&
,
&
9%
*%
* . ,
,
&
% *
9
,
%
.
$
/%: $ & %
1
%
&
,
/,
%, &
.
%
9%
&
,
1
&
.
,
/
%
%
*
0
&
. 4
&
. 1
, 9
.
% 9 .
,
&
0
%
(Fontaine, 1995). H
9
&
9 ,
,
&
&
.
3
/1
9 **
9
%
/ erreur 9
&
. &
%
errer,
. 4
%
1
/,
/
.
1, 9
1
,
/
.
, ,
/
1
/
,
,
*
9
&.
9 9 %,
% D 9
,
1
&
%
, . "
,
%,
&
0,
%
1%
,
.
20
%
: - &
& :
$-
.
9
,
,
&%
%
&% 0
* %
9 9
,
& %
9
0
%
.
0
. "
/
1%
%
, *
*
.
+ Karl Popper (1963),
20
,
.
$
*
,
,
%
& %
*
% . $9
Popper,
0
**
. +
/
. /
$
($
$), 9, $
(Popper, 1992).
,
&
1%
%
$9
%
Popper, %
"
(falsifiability), *
* . H ,
#. (
" #
$ # #$,
(Popper, 1963). &
,
,
%, ,
&
*
,
9
.
4 %
&
1
, ,
9
%.
,
**
%
0
& %
% ,
%
* %
% * .
"
, , ,
,
%,
9 9 C.S. Peirce (1887),
%/,
1 F. de Saussure
%
. 4 , 9
,
,
%
1
. 4
/
, 9
% ,
9
,
0
9%
(G, 2002).
+ B. Russell, /1
**
T
6
:
%
0 (thruth-falsehood),
1
&
&
1
1%
%
:
) +
9%
&%
,
%
0
,
.
*) 4
%
0
&
% (beliefs)
&
(statements),
9
0
. ) 0
%
/
*
/
%.
!&
1
,
, Russell
9
9 9
%/
%
9
(Russel, 1912, . 69 ..).
4 9 9%
%
&%
&
1%
%
'%, L
"
D 9
%,
,
/
1
.
&
M
&
9
.
H
,
,
&, ,
. "
,
0
&
& %
,
%
,
1%
.
, **
,
1
9,
/1.
/
,
. L
9,
,
$
9,
% L
, "% L
L
/
9
.
3.2.1. 5 (565=
+ $
9
.
%
/
. C
/
1
.
*
&
& . "
9
$
9, 9
,
9
(1
). 6,
$& %
%,
%
9,
*
%
* 4.
, $& %
$
9
* &: 58-
5,
.
0
,
*
*
%
*
,
* %
,
% . $
%
9
,
%
. N
,
*
%
.
Pavlov,
$& %,
* ,
9
&1
,
O,
(
)
,
,
.
&
*
&
&1
9
. N
,
, /
,
9,
/
.
"
Skinner, %
#! ,
&%
&
&
&
9
,
&
%
*
&
.
9 &
%
%
&
%.
4
9%
, 91
Skinner, *
1
#
Skinner.
%
% ,
&
,
(frames),
/
9
,
&
9
(" 2007). Q
4
&
* . ** :
, 6. & D
% ". (2006). %
. /
9: %. %
,
&
&% **
9
.
&
.
%
&
,
9
,
1
&
%
.
%
Crowder (1964), $ !
#
,
%
%
%
.
,
%
%
, &
/%
&
9
/
. 6
/
& % .
.
3.2.2. ,
5
4 % L
Bandura.
,
9
%0 %
9
. 4
1
/%
,
/1
&
&%,
&
,
%0
. 4 0
& *
&
*
*
,
% ,
%,
,
*
&
%5.
$
, &
. +
9,
,
, 9
.
*
9
, 1
/,
%
,
9
&%
%
9
%. +
9
,
, &
9 %
9, %
% &
/,
%
0
%
%
%
.
4
,
Bandura,
&
9
1
, & 9%
,
.
&
,
,
%,
1
& &
%
,
*
/.
3.2.3. )
5
"
"% M
&
1
,
,
*
. + ,
.
6
*
,
/
9 0,
9
.
4 "% L
9
1
*.
(Piaget, Bruner, Ausubel, Vygotsky,
Gagn .), &
9
. '
9
%
9
. L
9
, , "% L
,
Jean Piaget.
$9
Piaget, %
/
&
9
,
&
&
%
%
/,
&
&
. K
&
1
5
4
% 9
&
&
. $&% **
9
* .
D
% (2006),
. 8 . : , (1989). $
(. 9 ;
$
, , 1989. /
>9. ?$#$ $
. : & +
/
9 . 4
&
%
%
%
. ,
%,
9
,
9*% %
,
9
* %
. 4
/ %, %,
% . , ,
*
.
&
,
9%
*
,
%
& %
%
/. +
/
*
,
%
. ,
&
%
%
&
. Q
%
%
(G 2002).
9
% / /
"%
M
&
9
&
,
/
(
& D
%, 2006).
6
&, , ,
. 4
%
%
% /
(metacognitive regulation),
9
#. !
# #$
*
/% (
.., 1996).
=
,
%
*
%
,
%
%
1
*
%. Q
&
.
3.2.4. 5 0?5 $565 (Information Processing Theory)
$9
%, 9
,
%,
9, /1
/
%
%
9 /. $ 9
&
&. &
% %
9
&
*
&
%
15-20
,
. $
,
,
%
. H
/
1
&. $
&
*
,
,
9
, &
/
(6
2003).
9
9
%
/
,
9
.
$9
L
/
9
,
9
%
, 9
/ & 9
&
,
%
%
& &
% &%. $
9
%
9
*
/
(conditions of learning)
1
1
9
&
/
9 9 (Gagn, 1970).
0 9
/
* & %
,
&%
(
, 2001, . 216). , ,
0
&
,
,
&%
9
%
%
%
.
$
,
&
/. Q&
%
, & &
/%
%.
&, ,
0
*
%
0
.
,
*
&% / 0
.
4 0
% &
&
.
9
%
9%
&%
%,
%
% *%
.
.
,
,
&
. 6
/
*,
*
%
*
%
/
*
,
%
%, /
%
1
&% *
.
4
&,
, %
% :
%
%.
3#$, %
9
%
%
. @#$,
9
&
&
&
&
&
% /
.
/
%
& /
, 9
,
/
%
*
,
&
9%
. "
9
&
9
,
%
. 4
/
9
9
, % &%
/
&
%
% /
(.&.
,
.) (Burt, 1977, Movshovitz-Handar & al. 1987,
, 1986, \
, 1998, D
1%, 2001, 8*
, 2007)
6 9
*
*
,
*
. H
9
%,
&
% /
.
,
9
%,
&
*
/
,
9
&
/ ($9
, 2003). "
/, ,
/%
%
,
, &
&
&
(
1
.. 1995,
,1983, 2005)
%.
,
9
&
&
. 6
,
,
*
*
,
&
*
(
, 2001).
5. (85
H
, &
%
.
&%,
1
*
,
&
. +9
, ,
/%
/
, ,
/ ,
1
9 /
,
* % %,
0
*
. 4
/
/
*
/ /,
0,
9
,
%,
% 9
1
& (D
,
2001).
4 &%
&1
&
!!!
C'C'%)&+'
, '., (2001),
% 9
. $ 6. 8*
. \
1 (.),
%
$
$ ! #.,
. %
:
, . 203- 221.
Bacus, An. & Romain Chr., (1992), Librez votre crativit! Paris: Jai lu,
10
8*
, 6., (1997), +
%
8
"
. $ 6.
3
(.), A
$ &$ ># +
,
%
: Gutenberg, .191-219.
8*
, !. (2007). 3
&%
&
& %
.
% (
%
*%).
Burt, 6. (1977). rrors analysis in the adult E.F.L. classroom. In Alatis, J. & Crymes, R. (eds).The
human factors in ESL. Washington.D.C. TESOL.
", . (2007). $
(
. %
: Gutenberg.
Corder, S.P. (1967), The significance of learners errors, in IRAL, vol. 4, pp. 162-169.
Crowder, N.A.,(1964), Diffrences entre la programmation linaire et la programmation intrinsque,
in Hommes et Techniques, Janvier.
3, 3. (1969), *# ' (. %
: "*.
, , $
, &
, 6. (1996). 4 / /
.
4
9 9 * %
. B#
, 3,2, 1-20.
Fontaine, Jac., (1995), Lerreur formatrice, in JDI, Septembre, no1, p. 61-76
Gagn, R. (1970). The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
1
, .,
, 6. & , 3. (1995). *
*
%
3
*
. $:
1
, . &
, 6. H E E
: @ # #
!, A%
, E $,
, 6. (1983). A 9
3%
M E
, ;!# E
, 11, 72 -78.
, 6. (1986). H
/
%
. E !,
A(# F M.E. A%
, . 431- 444.
, 6. (2005). 1%
&%
3
*
& %
. H0 &%
% %
9
. $ "*
3. &
,
}. (.). &
. % (! #.
%
: $
**
, .318-345.
, 6., D
% ". (2001), %
, ;!# " #
#
, %
.
, . (1989). $
(. 9 ;
$
. %
.
, . (1997
). $
( /
>9. ?$-#$
$
. %
: "
.
, . (1997*). $
( +9. +$ $
. %
:
"
.
6
_
, . (2005).
. B# ##. %
:
"
.
Meichenbaum, D., Burland S., Gruson L. et al. (1985), Metacognitive assessment, in Youssen S. (ed),
The Growth of reflection in Children. Orlando: Academic Press.
Movshovitz-Handar, N. , Zaslavsky, O. & Inber, S. (1987). An empirical classification model for errors in high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18,1,3-14.
6
, ". (1998), ' ( & +., '/
..., %
.
11
6
, ., (2003), A (
, %
:
%- ". 3
.
Peirce, C.S., (1958), The fixation of belief, in P.P. WEINER (ed) Selected Writings, pp. 91-113.
Popper, K.A., (1963), Conjectures and refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Popper, K.A., (1992 Reprint edition), Scientific Theory and Falsifiability. London: Routledge
G 6., (2002), / $
.
, %
: Gutenberg.
Russel, B., (1912), The problems of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
$
. (1967).
. $ % # @#$# &#
, 3.
%
: "
, . 540 .
$9
6. (2003),
. $ ?
,
6
. %
: =...L.,
% ,
-D
(1997), %
& ' (. %
.
D
, 6.-Z. (2001),
%
, 6. 8*
. \
1 (.), %
$
$ ! #., . %
:
, . 443-450.
D
1%, . (2001).
(3 $&
)
%
/
& %
. $ 6. 8*
. \
1 (.), .
., . 451-462.
\
, \. (1998). " %
&% %. %
.
12
10
Introduction
NASA's history web Curator, Steve Garber (2007) commented that "History changed on October 4,
1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I. The world's first artificial satellite was
about the size of a beach ball ... That launch ushered in new political, military, technological, and
scientific developments." The last two areas mentioned were very important for Education.
In my article (Bliss 1995) I say,
"The Americans wondered why their scientists were not the first to go into space. Huge
investments in the USA went into large scale curriculum development in the sciences, with
projects such as the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC), the Chemical Bond Approach
(CBA), Chem Study, and in biology BSCS.
England followed in the early 1960's with more than a dozen science curriculum
development projects sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation in physics, chemistry, biology and
integrated science for pupils between 11-16 and, by 1967, for 16-18 year olds. Many other
countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, and other European countries, Canada and
Australia followed, some adapting the ideas and others developing their own.
Primary education saw parallel developments in many countries, these reforms being very
much influenced by the work of Piaget. Amongst such developments were: the Science
Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) from Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley; in Britain the
Schools Council Science 5-13 and the Nuffield Foundation Mathematics 5-13; in Australia the
Australian Science Education Project (ASEP)."
However in spite of these teaching innovations, students continued to hold ideas that were very
different from those taught in school. Many of them were very robust, being particularly resistant to
teaching (Viennot, 1979). Hence from the 1970s a world-wide trend in science education developed in
which researchers and science educators set out to describe pupils' ideas about various scientific
concept areas such as dynamics, light, heat, energy, electricity, etc. This trend also happened in
mathematics and other subject areas. It was from these various research areas that the field of
children's conceptions came in being. This research is known under a variety of headings such as:
Alternative Conceptions, Misconceptions, Informal ideas, Intuitive ideas, etc.
It is crucial to realise that Jean Piaget, whose research, which started many years ago in the 1920's,
was one of the first to put forward forcefully, with extensive supporting evidence, the notion that
children construct their own knowledge and that this knowledge is different in kind from an adult's,
evolving and changing over years. Thus I start this talk by referring first to Piaget. Then I move onto
Vygotsky whose work, with its greater focus on the teacher, has more recently also attracted the
attention of educators. A common view, but in my opinion one to be strongly resisted, is to regard
Vygotsky as supplanting Piaget as the theorist on whom to rely. I shall argue that both are essential to
an understanding of teaching and learning and that their ideas are not conflicting but complementary.
Then I go on to mention Jerome Bruner, who is a well-known psychologist and educator and whose
work has parallels with Piaget, which I set out. And finally I pass to the School of Situated Learning,
which has recently become very popular in the educational field since it stresses the importance of the
context in which children and students learning. Clearly I shall only be able to refer to each of these
areas very briefly and further reading is available as per attached bibliography (some electronic copies
of her own articles are available from the author). Some of the ideas that are outlined in this plenary
were also presented in a keynote lecture at the ESERA Conference (European Science Education
Research Association) in Malmo, August, 2007
Both Piaget and Vygotsky were born in 1896, and Bruner was born nineteen years later in 1915.
However, while Vygotsky died young in 1934, Piaget lived to a good old age, dying only in 1980.
Bruner is alive and well at the moment of giving this talk (December 2007).
The fourth approach, Situated Learning, covers a whole range of proponents. One of the earliest
was Michael Cole who worked with Luria in Russia for a year in 1963 where he became well
acquainted with the work of Vygotsky. However it was during his research in Liberia with John Gay
Constructivism to Situated Learning
13
in 1964 that his concerns with the cultural context of situations arose since, as he put it (writing later
in 1984), "My job was to help him (Gay) find ways to figure out what the Kpelle people understood
about mathematics." Others who form part of this school of thought are: James Greeno, Barbara
Rogoff, Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger, etc.
Before the main presentation, a little history could be helpful. Vygtosky's work was censured at
about the time of his death (1934) by the Russian regime. Thus his ideas were not known in the West
until 1962 when his book on "Thought and Language" was translated and published in the US. One of
the important features of this work relates to the nature of egocentric speech. Piaget was the first to
describe this type of speech in his work The Language and Thought of the Child published in 1923. He
showed that with young children of about three or four years there was a type of speech that, while
accompanying their activities, was not directed towards any one in particular, hence its name,
"egocentric."
For Vygotsky, who had read Piaget's early research, language was always social in origin and so he
sought to try and further understand the role and function of egocentric speech. In order to do this
Vygotsky replicated the tasks given by Piaget to children but he added a series of difficulties and
frustrations to them. In such situations the occurrence of egocentric speech almost doubled.
Vygotsky's interpretation of this phenomenon was that children were thinking aloud and trying to help
themselves plan in tricky situations by talking to themselves but aloud. He went on to hypothesise that
as children grew older this egocentric speech would gradually internalise itself and become inner
speech, our soundless interior voice, which helps us to think through our internal ideas, published by
Vygtosky's in Thought and Language, 1934. Unfortunately Piaget did not hear about Vygtosky's work
and his interest in egocentric speech until his book on language and thought came out in 1962.
PIAGET
Piaget trained as a biologist. However his life's work was focused on what has become known as
Genetic Epistemology, that is, the growth of knowledge and the rules that govern this growth. So,
although most people believe that Piaget's interest was in children, it is, in fact, a concern with the
growth of knowledge in the 'average' child or what he called the 'epistemic' subject and not in
individual children.
Piaget is often criticised for not discussing the areas of motivation, socialisation and individual
differences in children; but since he was dealing with the 'epistemic subject' these were not his
concerns. He was an epistemologist and not a child psychologist. His focus was always on cognitive
development only, for example: number, space, geometry, physical quantities (substance, weight
volume, area, perimeter), speed, time, distance, acceleration, probability, memory, mental imagery,
cause and effect, etc.
Bliss (1995, 2001) points out that Piaget, amongst others, was at origin of Constructivism. The key
idea for Piaget is that children are always active, making sense of world around them, and constructing
their version of it. So action underlies and is fundamental to childrens development of knowledge.
Piaget's Constructivism is realist, with intelligence deriving from real actions on real objects. He
argued,
"These pages contain an account of an epistemology that is naturalist without being positivist; that
draws attention to the activity of the subject without being idealist; that equally bases itself on the
object, which it considers as a limit, therefore existing independently of us but never completely
reached (known); and above all sees knowledge as a continuous construction'." (Piaget, 1968)
Since knowledge evolves, for Piaget each developmental step is vital and valid. But children's ideas
are very different from those of the adult and particularly in specialist areas like science and
mathematics. Thus there is a need to respect children's views about world and in any learning
sequence to attempt to build on these (Piaget 1968 and 1972). Not matter how strange or different a
child or a student's idea appears from our own, it is vital to the realise that this is how he or she is
understanding the environment around them at that moment in time.
Piaget was also considered to be a Structuralist. He believed in the importance of hypothesising
mental structures to account for the qualitatively different ways in which children interact with the
environment as they develop. He wanted to know what their ideas about all the various different
domains of knowledge, for example, the invariance of weight and of volume, had in common. Thus he
postulated a series of qualitatively different stages to describe children's intellectual development.
And, for Piaget (1968), structure describes, what is common to development at each stage. There are
four stages;
Constructivism to Situated Learning
14
x
x
x
x
Thus intellectual development entails the assimilation of the world to these thinking structures, and
the accommodation of these to the world. Note that during the sensori-motor period children's
knowledge is acquired through their actions and movements and through their senses: sight, hearing,
touch, smell and taste. Through this period the ability to represent absent objects and happenings
develops, so that by about 18 months the child is able to represent absent realities by means of
symbols and signs. The beginning of the pre-operational stage is marked by the acquisition of this
power to represent. Young children can now start to interiorise their sensori-motor action schemes and
learn about the world around them. Other aspects of this stage are that of egocentrism, that is, not
taking account of others point of view; that of not being able to separate reality from appearances and
that of being easily confused by causal relations.
A little later, toward the end of the pre-operations stage , there appears one of the more important
features of children's development, the interiorisation of their actions on the world, which become
internal mental structures, allowing children to imagine actions in the head, which characterizes the
beginning of concrete operations. They become much less egocentric and are capable of many tasks
such as classification, conservation of basic elements, ordering, etc, which require thinking about the
world in terms of objects and transformations. But abstract thinking is difficult for them and this only
becomes easier with the beginning of formal operational thinking where children are then capable of
what is called hypothetical deductive thinking. It is during this phase that students are reasoning on
propositions about the world, rather than directly on the world itself.
It is important to note Piaget's early writings suggested that the formal operations stage would
begin around the age of 12 or 13 years. Much later research has shown that formal abstract thinking
tends to be reached by students at a much later age than Piaget described, more like 15 or 16 years old
and then only by a small percentage of students, e.g. approx. 20% at 16 years old (See: Michael
Shayer, 1976 and 1978, Piaget 1977). Work is U.S. shows very similar results by researchers such as
Karplus, R, Karplus, E. (1974). Karplus, E, Karplus, R, Wollman, W. (1974) Karplus, R, Karplus, E,
Formisano, M & Paulsen A (1975, 1977).
Important features of stages:
There are a number of aspects of stages that are crucial to development:
x The order in which children's knowledge develops is invariant. In other words, a child will always
go through the stages of knowledge development in the same sequence.
x However the age at which children reach any stage will vary from child to child, depending on a
range of factors such a social, cultural background, motivation, schooling etc.
x Thus stages are NOT age related in any strict sense
In other words, for the development of children's knowledge the pattern stays the same but the
pace varies!
Some limitations of Piaget's work:
x For most of his research, Piaget neglected the role of language and focused always on action and
activity. However, in the late 1960's he started working with linguists and some of his later work
refers to the role of language (See work of H. Sinclair-de-Zwart 1967).
x There is only a limited description of formal abstract thinking since most of Piaget's work focused
on the development of knowledge from birth until the age of 14/15 years, that is, the first three
stages of development; and not, as he saw it, on the end point as described in formal thinking.
x Piaget attempted to postulate structures of thinking that went beyond his behavioural and
psychological descriptions. Thus he borrowed from logic and mathematics for descriptions of
them. But the use of these two disciplines to provide such descriptions was unfortunate since they
always use closed structures. Our thinking, particularly at the formal level, tends to be reflective
and thus he needed to find appropriate structures for modelling it. Disciplines such as Cybernetics
or Artificial Intelligence might be able to find ways of modelling "thought about thought'," that is,
15
structures that give feedback or reflect on themselves but Piaget did not live long enough to
become familiar with these new disciplines (See Margaret Boden, 1979).
x Towards the end of his life Piaget (1974) started to work again on cause and effect his earlier
work in this area have been carried out in the 1930's. There are at least one hundred research tasks
showing interesting and original results as a result of his work. Initially his approach to causality
used inappropriate structures for modelling children's understanding of causal mechanisms.
Later Piaget worked with Garcia (1983, 1987) on his work in causality. This allowed him to come
closer to a better description of the physical world, when he suggested that meanings were tied
unambiguously to the nature of things,
"Two meanings of an object are, subjectively, what can be done with it and, objectively,
what it is made of or how it is composed" (1983, p.58)
In spite of the many criticisms that can be made of Piaget, Carey (1985) pointed out,
"...Piaget's (stage) theory brought order to otherwise bewilderingly diverse developments.... it
offered the hope of reducing the task of explaining developmental changes to manageable
proportions ( p.13)".
VYGOTSKY
It is important to remember that the work of Vygotsky was published before his death in 1934 and
only became known to readers in the West in 1962 with his first translated book on Thought and
Language. Then in the late 1970's his ideas about child development started also to be translated and
published. Vygotsky said many significant things about this later area. Today, however, I am choosing
to focus on only four important aspects of this.
x First: the role of the adult in child development
Vygotsky stressed the role of the adult: parent, teacher, or competent peer, as being crucial to the
learning process and so the child's intellectual development. In discussing this, Vygotsky (1978) gave
a definition of how learning takes place, using the term zone of proximal development (ZPD), which
he defined as follows:
"... (the ZDP is) the distance between the actual development as determined by independent
problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers." (p.86)
One of the difficulties of implementing such a definition is that probably the student will have a
different ZPD in every subject area: science, maths, history etc. And to add to this, the ZPD's will be
very different for every child across these different areas (See Newman, Griffin and Cole's 1989, a
study of primary school mathematics). However key to the child's learning and development is the
guidance of the adult.
x Second: the difference between actual and potential development.
With this second aspect, potential development is emphasized. This actually means that there is
new relationship between development and learning.
In Education, in many circumstances, spontaneous development is usually the major concern,
particularly, for example, with the recent importance of tests, examinations etc. Kozulin (1990)
pointed out that for Vygotsky, psychological development does not precede instruction but depends on
it and went on to say:
"...it (ZPD) taps those psychological functions which are in the process of development and
which are likely to be overlooked if the focus is exclusively on the unassisted child's
performance." (p.170).
In other words, we need to examine how far children can be stretched in school with the help of the
teacher in their discipline. But, in fact, potential development is what school is about: that is, taking
children from their initial state of knowledge to new knowledge that which teachers, school and the
curriculum consider as important for them to learn.
Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976) describe what happens in the ZPD as involving a kind of
scaffolding process but little is known about this, particularly in specialist areas, like science and
mathematics where the knowledge to be acquired is not intuitive. Much more research is needed into
how to build bridges or scaffold these difficult subjects. After a study of scaffolding in science, design
and technology and mathematics, where it proved to be very elusive (sample: children between 9 and
11 years), we concluded (1996)
Since much school knowledge is specialised (necessarily so) there is always ambiguity in the
teaching-learning situation. Teachers need to believe that children can learn difficult and complex
Constructivism to Situated Learning
16
ideas; this is what school is about. But they must be content that often pupils can only do this one
step or a few steps at a time. Gradually teacher and pupil negotiate path to this specialised
knowledge. Care in this joint activity of negotiation is crucial to reduce the degree of uncertainty
that pupils face.
x Third: the social origins of cultural development
Vygotsky (1981) stresses the role that social processes play in child development when he says:
Any function in child's cultural development appears twice or on two planes. First it appears
on social plane and then on psychological plane. First it appears between people as an interpsychological category and then within child as an intra-psychological category.
Thus Vygtosky stresses the importance of socially constructed knowledge - our cultural and social
heritage - passed on from one generation to another by, for example, teachers in schools as well as
parents and family.
x Fourth: the role of language:
For Vygotsky language is considered as a significant tool, serving as an intermediary between
spontaneous concepts and the higher mental functions. The mastery of language will transform
elementary mental functioning into the higher mental functions. Also, according to Vygotsky,
language mediates the genesis of the higher mental functions themselves.
Vygostky (1981) says that language has importance as a psychological tool because it helps change
qualitatively how we think: "...the psychological tool alters the entire flow and structure of mental
functions," (p.137).
PIAGET AND VYGOTSKY
Does Vygotsky replace or complement Piaget?
x Piaget tells us about knowledge acquired through the child's own activities (spontaneous
knowledge).
x Vygotsky tell us about knowledge acquired from other people and from social practices such as
school (social knowledge).
Both types of knowledge are necessary to our functioning in society so in this respect Piaget and
Vygotsky complement one another.
Where Piaget and Vygotsky differ is in relation both to the role of adults and teachers and the role
of language.
Firstly, in Piaget's work, the role of others in the development of children's ideas is considered, but
only in the very widest sense. For example, he sees other people as crucial in the development of the
decentering process from an initial egocentricism to a more social point of view through interaction
with others. In the main, however, individual constructivism does not attribute a sufficient role to the
teacher, the parent or the peer, and this has rightly led to the attention being given to Vygotsky's ideas
about the role of the adult or teacher in learning. This is emphasised in the distinction between a
child's actual level of development and his/her potential level that can be reached with assistance which is the essence of the adult and teacher's role.
Secondly, for Vygtosky linguistic organisation always uses the context. Also language is needed in
abstract reflection for concept development, reasoning, and thinking. Vygotsky claims that one
instance of the social becoming part of the individual is through the acquisition of language
For Piaget the act of knowing comprises both operative and figurative aspects. Unfortunately the
figurative aspect, which covers not only perception but also imitation, image and language, only plays
a subsidiary role in understanding. And within the figurative side, language is only one element, so for
Piaget it has a very minor role. It was only towards the end of his life he gave it more importance.
But for Piaget, language is critical to formal abstract thinking because abstract thought is about
propositions about the real world and not the real world itself.
BRUNER
One of Bruner's more important educational books was The Process of Education (1960). In this book
he expressed the view that teachers often wasted a great deal of pupils' time because they postponed
teaching areas of the curriculum that they considered too difficult for the pupils to learn. Thus the
myth of "readiness to learn" arose, that is, that students had to be ready to learn something, otherwise
it was pointless teaching it. Bruner rejected this notion and went on to argue:
"We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually
honest form to any child at any stage of development."
Constructivism to Situated Learning
17
Then he elaborated the notion of what is now known as the spiral curriculum
"A curriculum as it develops should revisit the basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them
until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them."
His work on the social studies programme - Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) - in the mid-1960s
was a landmark in curriculum development.
After working in the field of new trends of US curriculum development in the 1950s and 1960s,
Bruner turned to children's cognitive development, reinforced by a visit to Piaget in Geneva. His
approach to cognitive development is very influenced by Piaget's developmental approach to
knowledge. But rather than describing an alternative theory of the development of knowledge, Bruner
(1966) focused on three modes of representation of knowledge and the development of these modes.
But what is representation? To put it simply, representation is a key human ability. In more detail,
it is individuals' ability to use in their mind: actions, symbols, signs to stand in the place of absent
people, objects, events etc. This allows them to bring to mind anything that is not present in their
visual field. It also permits:
x
x
Humans can live in their imagination whenever they wish to or need to. For example, any one of us
could be placed in solitary confinement, and while it would be an unpleasant experience, we would
have the resources of our imagination to keep our minds full of ideas and hope.
Bruner postulated three modes of representation:
Enactive: this mode is dependent on actions and senses (birth to 18 months) It comprises body images
of, for example, imitation, tying a knot, swimming, cycling. In other words, it involves representing
events through motor responses, essentially "knowing how to do something."
Iconic: this mode is dependent on images (18 months to 6/7 years), where the image resembles the
object. However these are the individual's own personal images, which, of course, can differ from
person to person. Thus a glamorous person will probably be quite different for a Greek and for a
Scandinavian. There are some images that are common to many, for example, in UK the red rose in a
certain position has come to represent the Labour party.
Symbolic: this mode is dependent on symbols (from 7 years onwards), where the link between the
symbol and the object it represents is arbitrary e.g. book, un livre,
Symbols can
illustrate people's abstract thinking through their ability to consider propositions about the world using
such symbols rather than objects in the world, for example, logic, physics and mathematics.
Bruner claimed that once we have acquired all three modes of representation, we can use whichever
one is appropriate for whatever we wish to represent.
PIAGET BRUNER
I set out below the stages of Piaget's knowledge development and show how Bruner's stages of the
development of modes of representation run parallel.
x
x
PIAGET
BRUNER
Sensori-motor Enactive
Pre-operational Iconic
Concrete operational - Symbolic
Formal operational.
During the time that Bruner was developing his theory of representation, Piaget was also carrying
out research in the field of imagery and produced the book, "L'Image mentale chez l'enfant" in 1962.
SITUATED LEARNING
Situated Learning probably dates back to the work of Gay and Cole in Liberia (1967) when they
started to analyse the role of culture in the development of learning and mathematical skills with the
Constructivism to Situated Learning
18
people of the Kpelle tribe. Situated Learning is however part of the wider and longer established
framework, that of Situated Cognition, which builds on the writings of scholars such as Heidegger and
Gibson. Much of the work of Situated Learning has emerged from the Laboratory of Comparative
Human Cognition at San Diego (established in 1978) which presently states that its goals are to: "
pursue research which takes differences among human beings as a starting point for understanding
human mental processes.''
The general idea of this school of thought is that people learn a multitude of things in informal
settings where the social cultural context is important. From this perspective, cultural practices
employed in socially assembled situations are learned systems of activity in which knowledge
consists of standing rules for thought and action appropriate to a particular situation, which are
embodied in the co-operation of individual members of a culture. There are many adherents to this
way of thinking and it is sometimes difficult to sort out the differences between them. Thus I am
referring to a fairly recent article by Engestrm (1999) on Situated Learning in which he claimed that,
"Situated Learning should not be seen as unified theory - but a broad and relatively loose
theoretical platform, informed by a number of contextual and practice-oriented theories and
schools of thought, such as" (p.249)
Then he lists Activity theory: Vygotsky, Leontev; Sociology: Bourdieu, Giddens; Situatedness:
Garfinkel, Suchman, and Practice-oriented variants of symbolic interactionism: Strauss, etc.
Engestrm went on to distinguish two versions of Situated Learning: the weak version (proponent:
James Greeno) and the strong version (proponents: Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger).
Greeno (1989) makes three key points, which characterise his approach:
1. The locus of thinking and learning is not in an individuals mind but situated in physical and
social contexts.
2. The processes of thinking and learning are not uniform across persons and situations. Diverse
people and groups have different reasons for holding knowledge to be true. For example, if we
refer to religion and the idea of a deity: Christians refer to the Bible to support their beliefs.
Muslims and Islam, on the other hand, refer to the Koran (Quran) as their central religious
text.
3. Lastly, thinking and learning are not built up from simple components transmitted through
school instruction; they are activities in which children create, elaborate and reorganize their
knowledge and understanding a statement not unlike Piaget's view on intellectual
development.
Turning now to the strong version of Situated Learning, Lave and Wenger (1991) state:
"In our view, learning is not merely situated in practice as if it were some independently
reifiable process that just happened to be located somewhere; learning is an integral part of
generative social practices in the lived-in world. (p.34-5)."
Crucial to their ideas is the notion of a Community of Practice, which refers to the process of
social learning. It occurs when people with a common interest in subject collaborate at length to
share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations. There are communities of practice everywhere at
work, at home, at school. The key notion behind them is that of "shared practices."
Wenger (1998) goes on to define a community of practice along three other dimensions:
x
x
x
Wenger (ibid) further asserts that we need to consider the notion of identity. For him, learning is
central to human identity, where learning is seen as social participation. Thus an individual constructs
his/her identity through active participation in the practices of social communities. Likewise groups of
individuals create their shared identity by participating in communal activities. A community of
practice embodies the beliefs, knowledge and behaviors that need to be acquired.
Studies in Situated Learning focus mainly on adults learning to: weave, make pots, ski, tailor, or
be: midwives, quartermasters, butchers, etc. For Lave and Wenger (1991) learning does not belong to
individuals, but to the social practices of communities of which individuals are a part. Unfortunately
there are few studies focusing on communal or social practices in formal education: pupils, students,
teachers, specialised knowledge, etc. There are however quite a few links with informal education.
Constructivism to Situated Learning
19
Lave and Wenger also claim that it has been their quest to find a metaphor for learning that exists
outside formal educational contexts and is based on social participation. Their aim is to characterize
Situated Learning through detailed examples that illustrate the types of relationships and the forms of
participation essential to apprenticeships within it. However, it would seem that Lave has had a longheld skepticism about Situated Learning being part of formal schooling. For her, Situated Learning
requires a hands-off policy and appropriate facilitative structures for it to be implemented in such
a context.
Summarising the two positions, in the weak one of Greeno. learning is situated in physical and
social contexts, thus context must always be taken into account it is the starting point for learning
studies.
In the strong version, however, learning is a by-product of participation in any social practice thus
"the social practice of a community carrying out such a practice" is the starting point for research into
learning.
Engestrm (1997,1999) claimed that Situated Learnings agenda needs reformulating. In the past
there have been mainly global claims, based on few studies and not research questions. According to
him, recent research demonstrates the need for focused theoretically grounded questions.
Rogoff, Turkanis, Bartlett's (2001) recent research in a Community School in Salt Lake City
introduced the principle of schooling where "learning occurs through interested participation with
other learners." However there are few observation or casework studies of educational practices. The
work of Hargreaves, Hestor and Mellor (1975) is good example of a study of school rules and labeling
in classrooms. Let us hope there are many others to come.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bliss, J. (2001). Learning Science: Piaget and after. In S. Amos and R. Boohen (Eds) Teaching
Science in Secondary Schools. London and NY: Routledge, Falmer with Open University Press
(pp154-163).
Bliss, J. (1996). Piaget und Vygotsky: Ihre Bedeutung fur das Lehren und Lernen der
Naturwissenschaften, in Zeitschrift fur Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, Jahrgang 2, Heft 3, pp.3-16.
(Transalation: Piaget and Vygotsky: their relevance to the teaching and learning of Science, English
version available from author)
Bliss J. (1995). Piaget and after, the case of learning science, Studies in Science Education, Vol.25,
pp 139-172.
Bliss, J.. Askew M & Macrae S (1996). Effective teaching and Learning scaffolding revisited
Oxford Review of Education (Guest Eds. K. Silva and D.Wood), Vol.22.No.1.pp.37-59.
Boden, Margaret (1979), Piaget, Fontana Modern Masters. 2nd edition. Harper Collins, 1984).
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press(Not in
article but Recommended Reading).
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, Jerome S, Olver, R, Greenfield P (1966). Studies in Cognitive Growth. NY: John Wiley &
Sons, 1966.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Cole, Michael, (1984). The World Beyond Our Borders. What Might Our Students Need to Know
About It? American Psychologist, Vol. 39.
Engestrm, Y (1999). Situated Learning at the Threshold of the New Millenium. In J.Bliss, R.
Salj, P. Light, (Eds) Learning Sites: Social and Technological Resources for Learning: Oxford:
Pergamon, Elsevier Science.
Engestrm, Y, & Cole, M. (1997). Situated cognition in search of an agenda. In D.Kirshner & J. A.
Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. NJ: Erlbaum.
(Not in article but Recommended Reading).
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
(Not in article but Recommended Reading)
Garber, Steve (2007) Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age. http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/
Gay, J., Cole, M. (1967). The new mathematics and an old culture New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Greeno, J. G. (1989) A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44, 134-141.
Constructivism to Situated Learning
20
Hargreaves, David H.; Hester, Stephen K.; and Mellor, Frank J. 1975. Deviance in Classrooms.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Study of rules and labelling in the classroom).
Karplus, R, Karplus, E, Formisano, M. & Paulsen, A (1977). A survey of proportional reasoning
and control of variables in seven countries, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 411-417.
Karplus, R, Karplus, E, Formisano, M. & Paulsen, A. (1975). Proportional reasoning and control of
variables in seven countries. Advancing Education through science Programs Report ID-65
Karplus, E, Karplus, R, & Wollman, W. (1974). Intellectual development beyond elementary
school IV: ratio, the influence of cognitive style. School Science and Mathematics, 74, 476-482.
Karplus, R, Karplus, E, (1972). Intellectual development beyond elementary school III: ratio, a
longitudinal study. School Science and Mathematics, 72, 735-742.
Kozulin, A (1990).Vygotskys Psychology. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Lave, Jean (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life
(Learning in Doing). Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J, & Wenger, E., (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Newman, D, Griffin, P. Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone Working for cognitive change in
school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (2001). The Psychology of Intelligence. Hove: Routledge. ((Not in article but
Recommended Reading)
Piaget, J. (1977). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. In P. Wason, P. JohnsonLaird (Eds) Thinking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 158-165
Piaget, J. (1972) The Principles of Genetic Epistemology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Piaget J. (1968). Le Structuralisme, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Translated in 1970 as:
Structuralism. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Piaget, J. (1962). L'Image Mentale chez l'enfant (first edition sold out) Republished in 1991 by
Presses Universitaires de France.
Piaget, J., Garcia, R. (1987). Vers une logique des significations, Geneva: Murionde. Piaget, J.,
Garcia, R. (1983). Psychogenese et histoire des sciences. Paris: Flammarion. Piaget J. in collaboration
with R. Garcia (1974). Understanding Causality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969), The Psychology of the Child. New York, Basic Books, Inc. (Not
in article but Recommended Reading)
Piaget, J. (1923). Le language et la pense de l'enfant, Presses Universitaires de France. Translated
as The Langauge and thought of the child, Piaget J. Published by Routledge in the series Rouledge
Classics.
Rogoff, B., Turkanis, C. G. and Bartlett, L. (eds.) (2001). Learning Together: Children and Adults
in a School Community, New York: Oxford University Press.
Shayer M & Wylam, D (1978). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in British middle
and secondary school children. 11-14 and 14 16 year olds and sex differentials. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 48, 62-70.
Shayer, M., Kucheman, D. & Wylam D. (1976). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in
British middle and secondary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 164173.
Sinclair-de-Zwart, H. (1967) Acquisition du langage et developpement de la pense. Paris: Dunod.
Viennot, L. (1979) Spontaneous Reasoning in elementary Dynamics, European Journal of Science
Education,1, 2, 205-221.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V Wertsch (Ed.), The concept
of activity in Soviet psychology pp. 144-188. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. (From: Myshlenie i rech, Thinking and Speech,
1934) with a foreword by Jerome Bruner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Republished later: Vygotsky,
L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Abridged from 1934) A. Kozulin, Translation, Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Wenger E (1999). Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Psychology and Psychiatry. 17.
Constructivism to Situated Learning
21
8
.$.!... 8
$59
%
& %
,
% 9
(
9 &
%
*)
9%
.
$
%
%,
&%
%
%
,
9
.
$
&
&
%,
*%
9 *
%
.
6 *
%,
%
,
/%
:
1.
2. 3
/%
9
3.
.
*. 3
. 3
%
/
Q
&
% 1
%
,
/
9
9 .
(*) 4
9
. +
8
%
%
$& %
%
& %
(.$.!...).
3
%
%
.$.!... 8 .
1. 0
$
&
%
9
:
%
,
,
/
, '
.. .
&
% %
/*
. +
%
%
%. Q
*1
. "
&
,
%0 %
%, 9,
,
/
. + 1%
% &
,
0
&, &
.
H
*
&
* %
&
%
%
,
%
%
%
%,
1980-90
. D
%
*
,
*
,
.!.,
9
& 0
&
. Q
*
%
&
.
9
9
9,
9
,
, (
&%
)
9
* &
&, %
* &
%
22
%
9%
0
%
o
9
.1
$ %
%
%
. &
%
/
%,
& ,
,
%
9
%
.
2. 0
4 %
%
%
. $
& %
/ % **
9
%
9
%,
9 . 6
& &
,
&
&
%
%. $&
&
%
, 1
&
,
/
9
.
&1
%
%
9 9% .2
H
%
1%
9
%
.
$
%
% 9
%
%
%.
& & %
&
/
;
9%
%
%
% ;
1
/% :3
$ 5
1
. =&
%
1
. &
%, %
%
.
$
=5
/
&
. 4
5
.
1
&
%
%
/%
. $
%
:
* ,
&
,
&
.
,
%,
,
/
,
9
9 &%
.
+
0
* %
,
/,
*
%
*
9
&
%
%
,
9
%
Piaget Aebli, H.: Psychologische
Didaktik, Klett Verlag, Stuttgart 19735
. +
, .: 4
% 6
. $: 6
% . 27 %
1984 . 94.
2
$ **
9
9
.
3
* . &: Heinze, A.: Zum Umgang mit Fehlern im Unterrichsgesprach der Sekundarstute I. Theoretische
Grundlegung, Methode and Ergebnisse einer Videostudie $: Journal fur Mathematik-Didaktik Jahrgang 25
(2004) H. , . 221-244.
$
9
* /
%
&
1
9
, &
.
4
"
&
.
2
23
.
L
9
&%
**
9
.
'
&
&
%
% 9
0
&
.5
%
1
&
;
9
: '
9
&
&
%
0.6
&
.
$
&
9
, ,
&
.
6
9
1
%
1, %
1,
%
1
.
%
0
, 9
0
,
9
1
&
. $
%
, 9
% %
% &%.
9
, 9
*
9
%
%
%.7
' *
& %
9
* 9
%
. 4
%
9 9
0
&
,
.8
+ < 91
&
. 6
%
. 4
&
1
&
&
, 91
%
.9
5. ,5
9
9%
,
/
.
&%,
,
&
%
,
%
.
Q
&
%
, *
, /
,
,
&
,
%,
,
% %
%,
9
,
9 ,
,
,
/
.. .
, 1
.
9
%
,
&
, 9
,
9
& &
.
.
.
9
0 10
%
,
*
%
0 .
5
24
-
, .: M
&
0 "
%
1997.
:
1.
9
%
&
2.
9
&.
L
9
,
% &% ,
/
%
,
9 % ,
&
( / %
), ..11
. 5
9
%
* %,
%
6
%/
.
%
%
,
6
1%
.
& * %
,
*
,
.12
/
9,
/
,
%
.
. 5?
+9
%
% /
. 4
.
. ?
1
&
&
1
9%
& . $
9
1
%
,
% &
%
,
.&.
6
,
. .&.
%
%
*
/,
1
*
;13
4
0
*
&
% 3
.14
8*
%
*
,
%
&%
,
%
&,
&%
&
. ,
0
,
&
0
%.
. ) 5
5 565 .
&
%
,
9 *
%
%,
%
*
,
%
,
*%
,
%
. 15
+
. N
,
&
0,
/
, %
&
9
,
..
&
1
,
%
. 16
11
4
25
9
,
&
/%
.
1.
% 9
9 &
9%
%
%
, %
%9 9
.
& 9
%
&, 9
, 9
%, Q &, / .. .
%
:
%
*.
2.
9%
. +
%
, &
%
9
. 6
%
.
3
0
& %
&%
*
%
%
&. D
.
9
,
1
9
*
. 17
3.
%
*
. !
%
9
,
&
*%
%
. 18
L
%
,
9
&
,
%.
17
Ogle, D.: K-W-L: A Teaching Model, Reading Teacher, . 39 1986
.
6
, 4.: .., .
247.
18
Heinze, A.: .., . 226.
26
7. 558
8
9
, &%
%.
&
1
/%:
&
%
9
. 6
. 4
%
/
6
27
(.&.
% /
%) &
**
.
.
*
-
-
%
*
0 ,
%/
&,
%/
% .19
"
&
6
. 20
+ $
%
6
9 9
&
(
&
& 3
%),
6
,
&
&
"
.
-($.) Q&
*
. 1
;
( *
9
%
/
).
-(3
.) 6
(
%
9
%.) 3 &
&.
19
\
%
9
%
$ 6
. , 6 81e-85b,
%-9.
, 8.. !. }.
&
$: D, \.:
9
Uni. Studio Press, L/ 1983 . 69
...
20
8
, . : &%, Polna
3
% 6
$: $&
. 55 %
1990.
+
9
&
,
9
%
. , 8.: 6
%
%, %
1961
9
%
%
. Winter, H.Q Entdeckendes
Lernen im Mathematikunterricht, Vieweg Verlag, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden 1989
28
(4
%.
$ &
1
,
.)
-($.) !&
1
% 4
8"3.
. 3"
8"
%
4
&
.
8"3, 8L", "L!
3"!4
;
-(3
.)
.
-($.)
4
8"3;
-(3
.)
& .
-($.) N
%
%
/
.
8"3;
-(3
.) 9
*
,
9
%
(4
% 9
, $
&
%
.)
-($.) 6
3"
8",
%
&
4.
-(3
.) 6
.
8
29
-($.)
&%
&
1
;
-(3
.) 8"3
8L"
3"!4
"L!.
-($.)
& 8L"
3"!4
& 8"3..
-(3
.)
8"3..
-($.)
&
4
&.
-(3
.)
&
"L!.
3
& ,
9
/
%
.
* %
%
&.
38'
8"3.
$
%/
,
*
&%
:
9
%
*
%,
& 9
9
% . /
%
6
%
* . &
%
%
&
%,
.
9
%
%.
&
%
&. Q
%
&
, & %
, % &
.
3
9%
,
& &
%
& & .21
6
,
&
3%
. +
%, 9
1
&
%
* %
. ,
%
9
,
1
.
*#.
&%
9
,
*
% 1
,
%
9,
1
0
.
$
&
1
%
% . 22
% 9
% 9
,
*
%
,
91
/
1
.
9
1
&%
%
0 23
9
9.
21
(6
, 4.: L
3
. Gutenberg, A%
19992. $
&
&
30
#.
&%
%,
%
&*
&
% . \
&
%
* 1
,
* %
.
+
&
%
& * %
, &
*
9
0
,
9
%
.
%/
.
*,
/
%
9.
# (' /
)
4
%
/ 24
&
.
9 &
,
*
.
9
% %
%
;
4
* 0
% 9
%
3
% $%/ (.3.$.)
"
&
0
*
O.
1. $%
%
.3.$.
%
% /
2. "
.3.$.
9
9 9%
0
9
.
# (" )
H
9
%
%
9
9%
. "
1
0
&
&
%
%
.
8.
9
4
/
%
%- /
9%
%
. 4
% /
,
&
9
1
,
%.
"
,
%
%,
. L
&
,
%
,
%
%
&
&
.
4
&
*
%
% & %
. "
%-
%
,
9
%
9
,
%.
24
6.: 4
/
, . " %
1981, . 17
%
10
31
C'C'%)&+'
1. Aebli, H.: Psychologische Didaktik, Klett Verlag, Stuttgart 19735
2. +
, .: 4
% 6
. $:
6
% . 27 %
1984.
3. 8
, .:
3
% 6
, . ", %
2000.
4. 8
, .: 4
% 0, . Gutenberg, %
1998.
5. 8
, .: 3
6
%
.3.$.,
. 16, . 52 %
1999.
6. 8
, .:
6
&
/
%
%, . '
/ . 57 %
1996.
7. 8
, .: &%, Polya
3
% 6
$: $&
. 55 %
1990.
8. 3
, .:
% / . 4 /
. " %
1998 4.
9. Heinze, A.: Zum Umgang mit Fehlern im Unterrichsgesprach der Sekundarstute I. Theoretische
Grundlegung, Methode and Ergebnisse einer Videostudie $: Journal fur Mathematik-Didaktik
Jahrgang 25 (2004) H. .
10.
, 6.: 4 & %
&
,
. . "
%
1997.
11.
, 6.: 4
/
, . " %
1981.
12. , 8.: 6
%
%, %
1961.
13.
-
, .: M
&
0 "
%
1997.
14. 6
, 4.: L
3
. Gutenberg, A%
19992
15. 6
, 4.: $
. Gutenberg %
19994.
16. Ogle, D.: K-W-L: A Teaching Model, Reading Teacher, . 39 1986.
17. Oser, F. .
. Lernen Menschen aus Fehlern? Zur Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Schule,
1999
18.
!.-\
!.: M
&
9 %
1974.
19. , 6 81e-85b,
%-9.
, 8.. !. }.
&
.
20. G, 6.:
.
Gutenberg, %
2002.
21. D, \.:
9
Uni. Studio Press, L/ 1983.
22. D, \.: M
&
%, . Gutenberg %
1998.
23. Weimer, H.: Psychologie der Fehler, Klinkhardt, Leipzig 1925.
24. Winter, H. Entdeckendes Lernen im Mathematikunterricht, Vieweg Verlag,
Braunschweig/Wiesbaden 1989.
32
11
. (Hanco 2001, Lacey 2001, "
2000, Blamires et al 1997,
Heward 1996, Armstrong 1995).
$
&
&
9
&
&%
&
&
&
.
$ 9*
,
%
,
&
*
9
. 4
&
1
,
0
&
/
*
&
*
%
% *
9*
%
.
2. 0+( ( /'/(,' - (
+ 9 O&
.
+
9
&
. + 9 O&
9.
&
&
9
%
, & 9
%
. $
*
% &
%
9
* ,
,
%
0
.
& %
&
/ 1
/% 9
. "
, &
,
&
,
% &
&
9
. 6
,
9
%
9
9
%. 4
%
%
9
9%
*
%
**1
9
%
%
0
1
. +
% 9
1
. =&
"
,
'
.
9
%
0 ;
1. +
1
&
O&
33
%
&
& .
2.
%
%
/%
/
9
.
3. +
&1
O&
%. 4
O&
%
9 9
%0.
4.
%
&
/
. "
/
.
6.
&
%
O&
. "
,
&1
&1
*
9
.Carretero M., & Voss, J. (Eds), (1994); Driver,
R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A., (Eds), (1985); Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M.
(Eds), (1999); Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W.F. (1992).4
&
/%
*
1
,
9
. 4
&
9
9
, /&
.
,
, /&
9
. "
*
,
9
,
%
'
,
*
9
1
.
/
&
;
+
*%
&
&
:
1. %
/%
9
%
.
2. 3/
&
9
1
&%
%
.
3. 6
&
* %
&
.
* %
/
*
.
4. 6
*
,
1
9,
*
.
5. 6
3
/
&
.Halpern,
D.F. (Ed.). (1992); Resnick, L.B., & Klopfer, L.E., (Eds.) (1989); Perkins, D. (1992)
3. 0', 0"'(*#( !" !"
+
%
9
,
&
* %
. "
,
&
}
%
9
9
1
% 1%. 4 9
%
%.
"
&
,
9
1
& &
; +
*
9
1
&
& :
1.
. \
,
9 (*
&%)
2.
*%
%
&
9
3.
9
&
&
&
4.
/
/
&
34
5.
*%
%
*
&
*
&
*
6.
/
&
&
.
7. }
&
.Bruer, J.T., (1993); T.D.
Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.), (1999); Bereiter, C. (1997)
4.#1( %# *&%"%# /'/(,'(
4
%
& *
.
&
/
&
/
. 4
&
% /
%
.
9 &
9
&
9 . 4
& /
9%
'
&
*1
9
. 4
%
9%
% /. +
*
,
&
&
%
,
&
&
&
&
/
%
9.
&
&
/%
%
%
. +
*%
&
:
1.
/% &
/.
2. 3
9
% 1
.
3. 6
0
&
. 3
&
%
9.
4. 8%
%
" % /"
*
% 0
%
(*
&%
).
5. 3
*
**
,
/
%
.
6. 3
%
9%
,
9
.Bransford, J.D (1979); Chase, W.G., and
Simon, H.A. (1973); Coles, R. (1970)
5.% (*%0'% %&)"'(%( (( 0 '(*#& /'%',(
+
%
Coleman
9
%
& & - &
* - %
9
.
9*%
70,
/
%
$& (Movement of
Effective Schools). (Weber, 1971, Summers - Wolfe, 1977, Hoover, 1978, Lezotte - Passalacqua,
1978, Brookover et al., 1979, Edmonds, 1979, Rutter et al., 1979, Gregory et al., 1980, Madaus et al.,
1980, Murnane, 1981, Cohen, 1982, Purkey - Smith, 1983, Mackenzie, 1983, Lipsitz, 1984,
Rosenholtz, 1985, Stedman, 1985, Cohn - Rosenholtz, 1985). $
&
&
&
&
1
9
1 9% /
%
.
70
&
80,
$&
/
, *
*
&
9
&
. 6
%
%, %
R. Edmonds (R.
Edmonds, 1979).
$
%
5
& :
35
9
% %
:
i. $ &
%
%0
9
%
ii. $ %
&%
%/
%
.
iii. $
&%
.
iv. $
%
9
% % % ,
&
9
*
9
0
&,
1
(
% 2004:214).
Bush (1995)
%
% %,
%,
%
, 1
:
i.
$
&
%0
9
ii.
$
0
& /
iii.
$
&
iv.
$
/
9
1
&%
v.
$ %
&%
9
9
.
H
*
%
. 4
% 1
/
*
9
,
*
. 4
9
* & %
. 4
/ % &,
,
*
%
9
*
/
,
/.
(
% 2001). +
%
0
&,
%
, 9
,
9
9
%
%
. "
&
&1
&
%
&
&% %0
9
&.(
, 1999).
C'C'%)&+',0( "+%&0(
$*
%. (1999). 3
&
.
., $.
., $.
., ". 6
., 3
6: 3
3
, 8#, ,
Austin G. (1981)., Exemplary Schools and their Identification, unpublished manuscript, Center for
Research and Development, University of Maryland,
Bush Thomas., (1995). Theories of educational management, Paul Chapman, Publishing, London.
Brookover W., Lawrence L. (1979)., Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes
in Student Achievement, Occasional Paper No 17 (Michigan, The Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan),
Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it, pp. 281-300 in D. Bransford, T.D.,
Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (Eds.), (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and
School. National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human Cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont, Cal.:
36
,
!# 3
, %
, }
.
Perkins, D.(1992). Smart Schools. Better thinking and learning for every child. The Free Press.
Piaget, J.(1978). Success and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Purkey S-Smith M. (1983)., Effective Schools: A Review, The Elementary School Journal, 83: 427452,
Resnick, L.B., & Klopfer, L.E. (ds.) (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive
research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Books.
Rosenholtz S. (1985)., Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence, American Journal of Education,
93:352-388,
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeships in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rutter M., et al. (1979)., Fifteen Thousand Hours, Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press,
Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M. (1999). New Perspectives on conceptual change.
Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Stedman L. (1985)., A new Look at the Effective Schools Literature, Urban Education, 20,
summers a-wolfe b. (1977)., Do Schools Make a Difference?, American Economic Review 67:
639-652,
37
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W.F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change
in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-558.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weber G. (1971)., Inner City Children Can be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools, Occasional
Paper No 18, (Washington, DC, Council for Public Education),
Armstrong, D. (1995). Power partnership: parents, children and special educational needs. London:
Routledge.
38
-
,
/
& /
. 9
**
*
(&
),
91
9
/ ,
9
9 9
(
0
& &
)
43.046.721
,
,
, 81
,
9
9
9
. 4
-
&
-
. 6
*
sexcontinuum *
*%
&
%
9
%
9
.
010'( ,0'/':
/
, sexcontinuum, 9
%
* 9
01%',0#( /'/(,'(
,
,
/,
,
.
*
.
&
; =&
, **
,
,
&
&
,
&,
*
.
, %,
&
.(3
,2000).
4 & % /,
9,
-
. ,
,
&
%
,
&
,
,
:
. D
,
/. 4 & % / &
1
&
( * &
)
& (
) .
&
1%. +
,
**
,
/ ,
.(3
, 1999).
%
,
*,
/,
, **
,
/:\& %
(
*
/
, **
, 9
*
/
/),
/&%
(
, **
,
9
&,
&1
,
%
& . .),
9
*%
/ %
(
, **
, /
9
1
&
/
) . .. (3
, 2005).
*,
&
/ /
&
. 9
, ,
,
,
%
&
%
0 %
,
, %
&
/&
/
9
%,
&
,
&%
%
,
. (3
, 2000).
39
.(3
, 2005).
, ,
,
&,
&%
&
,
,
,
&
9
9
%
,
&
/
.
, **
,
,
,
&
, &
,
. $
%,
1
. +
--
. +
, **
,
%,
. +
,
, ,
,
%
.
%
. L
&
& /.
&
/
,
. (3
, 1994).
, ,
9
. 4
9
%
*
1
%
% /.
&%,
%
# '
(
8#
"# '
,
,
, %
&
/
)
,
* ,
. L
,
%
,
,
/,
%
&
.(3
*
, 2005).
6
,
,
9
09
,
&
/
&
% &
. (3
, 2000).
H
9
,
,
,
1
*
%
,
,
,
%
/
/.
9
9
%,
,
*
,
/,
&
9 . (3
*
, 2005): +
%
*
,
&
, ,
9%
,
,
,
&,
* , % 9% 9,
&
% 9,
%
&. +
%
9,
,
, &
,
,
1% /,
*
*1
,
9
,
1
*1,
1
,
,
*
. +
%
,
&
* % , *
1,
& &
9
,
1
,
*, &
% 9. $
&,
*
&
.
H,
,
9
. / \
%
,
,
9
,
. $
&,
, &
%
,
9
**
9
-&- 9
%
9,
40
,
% 0
/
. $
,
0
%
,
%,
*
1 . +
%
\, /
/ \
. (3
, 2000).
Q9
%
9%
/ , & *%
*%
9
%. (3
, 2006),
/
.
&,
.
3
9
,
.
/
%
/
. 6 /& *
&,
0
& %
%/
.
$&%(&%) /'/(,'( (% +#% !" $'/'!"
4
9
, , 9
, **
,
,
%
,
9,
/,
*
%,
,
(
)
,
9
(%)
. H
,
,
9%
,
1, 9 ,
,
. (3
, .,
D
,
,
3
,
., 2001).
"
,
%
&
* *
0
%
%
&
9
. 3 9
9
&1
,
,
&
%
&
9
(3
,
1996,1999). *
,
1
&
, ,
, 91
9
%
,
9 9
1
,
&,
*
,
/
& /
(3
,
2000*).
9
**
*
,
91
,
9
, /,
9
9 9 (
0
& &
*
. 3
*
,
,
*
,
9
,
9
&,
* ,
9
, & ,
,
(
/), & (
9 )
,
-
*
-
(3
, 2002). 3
,
*
&,
1
9 9
.
&
,
&
,
, &
&
/
,
9,
&
,
/
,
/
. (3
, 2007
).
+#%)0"0',% !(q,% , $%(%"
&,
&
(
%
)
, (&,
,
)
,
/%
. Turner
(
=+
, &
, *)
:
41
\ &
(\+)
%
(
%
),
*
(%
),
,
&,
,
%*,
%, ,
9
,
&
(.&.,
0 9
&
). (3
, 1990 ,1993).
4 9
%
23
&
9
/
\ %
= &
. $ (
&, 1 400 %)
\\= ( Klinefelter),
&,
, %*,
&
9
(
/
/
9
1
), 1
&
(
, 0 -
),
9
/
\\\=
\\\\=:
%
. +
\== (1 1000 %)
0 , %,
/% &
/
/ %,
, *
,
,
,
O9
,
%,
-
9-
, & , ,
(
)
,
(%) %
9,
,
%/
, 0
&
,
% 9
,
,
, %
. (Owen,1972,Hook,1973). $
,
\\\ &
(
%
),
&
,
. + \\\\
\\\\\
%
.
(3
, 1990*, 1993).
&
(3
, 1990*,1993,2004), ,
9,
(
,
*
,
1%
), /
1
9
,
,
% 9
%
/
=. $
&,
%
(
) = &
\,
. =&
\\==
\\\==,
\=/\\=,
9
1
9,
&
(&
% ) \\/\=
. , ,
(
)
(
, &
)
. ,
&, ,
(
-
)
,
, (
)
,
1. $
,
&
,
,
%,
9
-/
-
. }
,
sex
, ,
%
!
, $%'%"
Q 0 (1/40000 %) 9
,
/
L-
%
/%
/
, 1
* 1
9
1
9
,
&
,
/% (
9
9
%
:
PKU), 0 1
%
1
1
(
/
, 1/17000 1
%),
,
9, %
.
*
(
,
9
9* %)
% - 6
1%-
/,
,
, , /
, *
,
,
, 9*%
,
. (3
,1990* ,1993).
(#"/#(%(
,
(
9
0
&
) *
,
9,
9
% 9
%
0, %,
& *
-
*-
9 . 3
%,
%
-9
-
, *&
,
1
(/
%)
,
,
,
,
, %,
9
*
9
.
(3
,1990*,1993,2002).
/'/(,' , % C'%-#*%%)',% #$%(&! %# $'/'%#
9
**
*
(&
),
91
9
,
42
9 9 (Hines ,1982 ,Konishi &Gurney ,1982). 9
1
& (3
, 1990* ,1993).
91
9
,
/
9
9
(Changeux ,1982 ). +
% 9
%
9
& 9
9
(Sullerot ,1978). /
,
,
9
9
1 * ( %
9
,
)
9 *
9
( *
9
),
/ 9 (Lacoste-Utamsing & Holloway ,1982). + 9
9
9 ,
, 1
(3
,1990
,2007*).
3
,
*
,
&,
1 ..
9 9
(Denenberg,1981, Diamond et al, 1981). + 1
. /
% %,
/,
9
9
9
,
,
,
, ,
,
, ,
0
(Sullerot,1978, Changeux ,1984).
0, ,
,
,
,
9
&,
,
/
, % (Changeux,1984). +
0, ,
%,
/ (Changeux,1986).
/
(3
,1990
*). D
,
,
,
&%
&
(3 ,1990
*,2004).
,
&
&
1
, ,
0,
(3
,1994).
,
%
&,
,
(3
, 1990
,1993).
,
&% 1%, 1
% (
9), 9
%
9 9
9 (Denenberg ,1981, Diamond et al, 1981). Q,
9 *
,
9
, ,
,
,
9
(3
,2001). + 9
,
1%,
1
9
% 9
% (Sullerot, 1978, Denenberg ,1981,
Diamond et al, 1981). =&
9
/ 9
&
9
(3
,2001). +
9,
&
9
9
, /
(
&
) (9
&
)
,
(3
, 1990
,1993). +
(3
, 2001).
$%
, /
9
* ( )
, /
*
&
/
(Konishi &Gurney, 1982, 3
, 2001). + 9
&
9
&
,
(Konishi &Gurney,1982). $
,
* *
9
/
&
, ,
,
&
,
, , ,*
,
,
(Inglis &
Lawson ,1981, Inglis et al,1982). + &
&
,
/,
,
9
%&
(3
, 2001). %
1
9,
%
,
&
(
0
&)
,
%
%
9
0
&
/
,
/
(
,
,
, )
%
/
43
&
, ,
,
%
%
&
, %, %
&
*
,
&
%
0 & &
%
,
9
*
9
%
,
,
9
%.
+#', /'(&0C!( $&%+%&'(
H (,
&
) 9,
L
$
(9
$
%). + &
&
9
L
,
, ,
,
,
/
9
9
. (3
,1997).
H,
*
%
,
, , &
* 9
9
,
9
% & -%-
.
L
(
&
)
1
-
/
-
/
,
9
9,
&
, % &
*
/
.
, ,
9
% 9
(/)
L
. 6
,
*
/
, 9
, 9
. (3
,1998).
3
9 (
&
9
)
%
L
/
&
9
(
% %
%
9,
% %
%
* . 4
,
%,
*
9
%,
%
/ continuum
/
9
. (3
,1990
,1993).
6
, ,
9
,
%
,
0,
9
,
& 9. +
9
/
9. +
9
,
. .(3
, 1997).
6
%
* 9
,
,
, ,
,
9
, & ,
,
,
1
,
1
.
,
9
,
9 (
%
),
&
/
,
,
9
%
9
9
.
%, *
/
,
&1
, 9,
,
-
1
(
O9
/
% /
),
1 %
L
$
&
% /
9
. (3
, 1998).
/
, ,
9
,
%
,
9
1
1%
*
. +
,
&
/
*
,
,
9
%,
% &,
* ,
/
9
,
.
,
*
%
9,
, &
,
44
/
,
&
, 9
&
%
%. (3
, 1990
,1993).
+
(
)
(), 9
, % %,
(
) %
91
,
9 &%
/
9
).(3
, 1990
, 1993, 1997, 1998). Q&
,
&
,
% (
& 9
&1
0
&
.
,
,
%
%
,
9
&%
/.
continuum
%
&%. (3
, 1990
,1993, 2005).
'/''0&% %# , %" 1%"
O9
/
&%
,
9
% % &
*
% 9
%
% 0
&% 1%
1 1%
,
9
. +
&
%
, *
,
1
%
.
%
%
0
9 &
%,
&%
,
&
* *
% &% 9
% % (
9
) /
.
&,
*
9
,
%
-
/% , ,
,
%
/ (
)
,
% ,
9
%
&/
( Simmonds),
(
%
) ,
* % ,
* %
/ (
/
%
2,5 .),
1
(
)
,
&% 9 %*,
,
%,
% &
,
(
).
9
&
. + 0
&
, ,
*
,
&%
&
,
/
,
%
,
. , **
, &
*
, ,
, *
9
. H
9
,
1
. +
%
(*
,
,
&
),
(
3, 5 6, 9 cm3/min,
, -
,
!),
( &
)
/,
,
9
*
&
9%
,
%
:
(
,
,
91
,
,
% *&% ,
)
%
, %
9
,
(
,
)
%
%
/ (
%
/ ,
*
&
, &
,
),
%
,
/
/
45
(
&
,
: &
%
,
9
&,
,
& %
&% . .),
&%
*
(
,
%, %
&
)
* 0
&% 1%, ,
&%,
(
,
,
91
/9
*&% (
Basedow),
&,
%,
9
* *),
* %
/
* ,
*
,
&
,
%
,
% (
)
0
&% -9
-
. 4
(
%) 9 & &
,
(
1
*%%
/
&
9
, -
/%
,
%
9 ,
, 9 * ,
%
&
),- %
9
9
,
%
(1)
1% (
%
% ,
%
(
,
, &
. .),-
*
&
,
. .)
,
&
%
: .&.,
1
,
9
/
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
%
% 9
,
%
&
/
,
- &1
/
9
%
,
% (
/
/%:
%
/
/ (
&
9)
,
/
%
9
,
%
%
9
,
9
%
,
%
,
/
%
$
,
9
1
%
%
,
%
&1
9
01
9
%
. Q
/
9
& 1
/
9
%.
0&0#"',% 0$'#'%
&
%,
9 %
% 9
9
,
9
,
%,
9
,
1
& 9
. + 9
&
9
,
%
*0
&
,
&,
*
,
/
& /
,
9
,
9
9
9
. 4
,
&
. 6
*
continuum 9
46
*
*%
%
09
/
.
$%&'(
4
* & 9
.+
9
& 9
,
%
*0
&
,
&,
*
--
--
,
/
& /
.
&
91
9
/,
9
9 (
0
& &
)
43.046.721
,
,
, 81
,
9
9
9
. 6
*
sexcontinuum *
*%
&
%
, 9
%
9
.
(#$0&(
4
9
(
%
9
9
)
9
%
,/
,
,
*0
&
.
C'C'%)&+'
1.N ,N. (&.&.), . ` , 9. }. 8
, . 8* %
, 85107.
2.Changeux, J. P.(1984), O $ $, . , %
.
3.Changeux, J. P.(1986), O $ $, 9. 8. 6
, G
, 1986, %
.
4.Denenberg, V.H.(1981), Hemispheric laterality in animals and the effects of early experience,
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 1-49.
5.3
, ?. >. (1990), o# ;!
;, >
@ " $ 7 ;
B# F , % M
& %
%
%
, '
.
6.3
, . 8. (1990*), B#
||: / @, . ! ($=/. }
%)
'
, '
, 5-80.
7.3
, . 8. (1993), B#
, . ! ($=/ . !
) '
,
'
, 42-44.
8.3
, . 8. (1994), /
@#
$ - @ @
,
% L
.
9.3
, . 8. (3.9.1995), $& % M
&
-
&1
;,
##
, 3.9,14.
10. 3
, . 8. (30-31-3-1996
),
0
& %
*
9, ##
', 10/
.
11.3
, . 8. (4-5.5.1996*) %
%
%
%
9; ($*
' &
), ##
', 10.
12.3
, . 8. (1997), 4 "
}
0
& % -}
0
& %
"
*
%
* 9, * ,
'
, 8#, 10, & 11-2(43-4), 1, 48-51.
13.3
, . 8. (1998), }
0
& % = "
*
0
& %
* 9 (
/% &
9
0
&
%
), * , 8#,
11 (& 13-4 (45-6), 1,56-7).
14. 3
. 8. (1999) Manly and womanly or male and famale behavior? (Serious
experimental mistakes in the area of phychological researches concerning phychological assessment),
European Conference on Psychological Assessment (
)
>
@ " $, 5th
%
/
M
&
EARLI/Learning and
Instruction.
47
*0
& % , >
@ " $ & ! ;
+., ;"
@( &
(!
, 19-21.10), 9
% 3
4
,
"
, $0
/ $& $& / * %
*
, 13.
25.3
, . 8. (2007*), N
D
% 6
3
% '
6
%, @#
48
9
.
%
& 6
%
3
9
.
1x
(D , } , L ), M
& (D 9
%
M
&
/ M
&
, ["%
%, / % $& %]
%
% M
&
), master % % / % M
&
, . (
9
!=) [ %
0
&
] M
&
% % M
&
,
%
80
&
, $& $*
D } '
, =/%/.3/%
L
grss@dide.lar.sch.gr
(6
&% *0
&
%
, *
D
(%
50. $
% $
0
&
100 9.
% $
. 3
% $
$
.)
2
L/
. $& %/. 4664/=, & 6
% 3
,
, edimoula@auth.gr
3
%
"
% D
, 10 "
'
mail@1gym-laris.lar.sch.gr
0#*&'('0(
&
}
". D
(
% $
% 6
%
$& % L
L
) ,
1 +
,
9,
%,
& ,
. 3
(. D 9
, $& $*
D # 9
),
/%
9%
,
$&
$
*
D
% % () '
}. $
'
" '
,
% D
'
D
,
D '
% $,
L '
6
D ()
,
49
9
,
, +
80
&
% Q
,
"
'
, 9 ,
&%
%/
, 8
%
.
* (6
$
%
&
Q
,
&&
&
%
/
$& %
$
..., "% "
"
9
$&.$
*
.'
,grss@dide.lar.sch.gr), $
$. "
(
&
% 9,
3% ". '*
( 9 4664/=,
&
)
,
, , .. +
80
&
% Q
, D% 3. ,
D% }. '
% \.
%
,(
% "
%
%
&
-
) ,
%
.
50
$9
, D , Q
1. 0'()!)
/,
.
$
, " " &%
9% %
% 9
/
%/
1 /
% & &.
',
/
%
, 9
&
& &. Q,
&
%
%.
2. (,%$%( ( 0&0#"(
$
%
&
%0
/ &
&
&
. Q,
%
:
(
)
&
9
1
,
/;
(*) 1
/
;
3. 0%/%(
$
&
% %
:
(
) %
,
%
, ,
0
&
(*) %
%
/
%
& (Griffin, 2002 Mason, 2003
1%, 2004).
8*
, %
"
"
9
"
%
"
. Q
%
/
*
1
&
9%
(!9 & $
, 2006)
"
&
/, &%
0
(Cohen, & Manion 1994). &
/ 8# / '
,
'
}
.
"
9, &
%
/
(Breakwell, 1999 Casey & Krueger, 2000 Duggleby, 2005 Kitzinger, 1995).
$
,
&
47
/,
&
/. 6
/ 5
,
%
, %
/. +
/ &
.
"
9, & 6 L L
,
%
, *
:
(
)
&
(*)
,
&.
%,
/%
%
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967 Glaser, 1992).
4. 0&0#"', /'/',('
4.1 ( 565
+
/
%
&
&
1% &%
3
&
. +
51
2
%
& &
.
/
,
*%
= 5
,
:
$ 5 85, %
9
&
/. 3
% %
:
& / , %
* %;
1
/
&
;
$
=5 85, %
9
&,
&, &
. "
/ &%
" /- " : **
,
,
, ,
;
+
&
,
1
&
9
1%;
( 5 85, %
&
/
*
%
. 3
% %
:
%/
;
%/
&
;
4.2
,
&
/
9
. $
,
%
&
,
% 9:
1 9:
&
&
221 .
2 9: + 221
&
66 ,
:
1 ,5: <
3
:
1. * % 9
&
2. %
3. %
4. %
5. %
6. %
% 9%
7. %
8. %
9. %
10. %
, &
2 ,5: $5 565
3
:
11.
12.
%
13. &
14.
15. &
16.
17. &
&
18. %
19. & /
&
20.
-
52
3
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
&
&
*
, & &
*
-
&
1
9
9*
&
&
&
%
43.
*
44. /%
9 &
45.
%
46.
/
47.
48.
9
59.
60.
%
%
&
61.
53
4
4.3 ?
,
$ 9
%, &
/% .
& 66
0
&
:
1 ,
5 ,5: (<
8
/5
.
3
:
1. &
&
2.
/ 9%*
3. &
4.
*
5.
6.
9
2 ,
5 ,5: 0
5 ?
56
<= .
3
:
1. %
/
&
2. , %
&
3. 0
&
4.
%
5.
6.
/
4.4 0 ,
$ 9
%, &
%
.
+
%
:
A
$ .
.
.
"
%
,
&%
,
%0
/
&1
.
%
& 9
L L
,
& &
&% 9%
,
/
/:
"* # #
. @
$ . ".
"? # ! (#
#
. }
$
.".
"~ # .
$
, !
. } $ ! $
."
"&
!
#
#
#
".
5. $%00(
4
%
%
. *%
%
%
/
,
L L
,
%:
(
)
,
(*)
()
.
+
5
%0
/.
,
9
&
%0
/ &
.
54
5
1. +
* 9
'
*
.
2. +
/%
/.
3. +
1
/9
.
4. + &
/
,
* /
.
"
8
0
/ &
&
,
, 9
%
.
1. 8
/.
2.
*
-
.
3.
/
/
% 9
9*
*
.
"
58,
&
%
&
,
.
1. 9
0
&
%
2. +
'
&
9
&
%
.
6. (#$0&(
3
:
(
) 4
%
&
&%
/,
(Mezirow
., 2007).
(*) 4 / %
%
1
9
.
7. 0$'%)%(
4
% %
&
9%
%0
/ &
&
.
%0, 9
%
,
&
/,
. 4 %
/ %
/, 91
%
&
,
&
&
% % & %
%
/.
C'C'%)&+'
Breakwell, G. (1999). A (. %
: "
.
Casey, M. A. & Krueger, R. A. (2000). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied. California:
Sage.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). % #
. %
: 6
&
Duggleby, W. (2005). What About Focus Group Interaction Data? Qualitative health research, 15,
832-840.
Glaser B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Griffin, C. (2002). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Applications in Psychology and
Education. Conference organised by The Psychological Society of Northern Greece and the School of
Psychology. Greece: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
!9, L. & $
, 6. (2006). @ $ . % # ##
$. %
: %.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 31,
299-302.
Mezirow, J.
(2007). 4
&
1
. %
: 6
&
Mason, J. (2003). A (#$# . %
: "
1%, . (2004).
. 4 *
9%
0
&%
. %
: "
.
55
56
To
,
57
58
,
/
&
%
&%
/%
. 6
9. 6
,
:
9%
/
&
,
%
,
9
%
%
,
*
&
,
%
9
%
*
.
4
&
& D 9
, M
&
%
/. + $
&
&,
&
%
. + $ 9
. 1
%
1
59
*
.
&
1
*
%
* &
.
$ & 0
&
,
.
,
$
9 &
9
. ,
,
&
,
,
,
. Q,
&
1
&
9
% . 8*
,
9
1
9
%
0
,
. "
Bandura 9
&
1%
%
. "
"/
&
,
9%
0
. 4
Piaget 1
. +
%.
&
9
&
&
*
%
. &
#!
#
#.,
#. " $ ##
$, #
#.
#.. ;
!
#. $
$
, #
!
#. .(G, 2002).
1
9
. L
,
%
%
9
1%, /
& %
/.
&
%
%
,
1
, 9
%
9 9 .
9
,
9
9
%
.
Q, !
%
%,
%
%
%
, %
&
1
9
% *.
2
60
. ,
1
%
&
&
9
. $&
/ %
,
*
%
&
. , **
,
/ %
9
*
/ /
%
%
%
%
.
6
/
*
$ &1
& L
, 3
%.
, %
%,
%
,
*
9%
1%
,
/
%
,
,
& &
9%
. 4 %
%
%,
1
+ 2 , *
% 0
.
4
% &
"/ %
9
.
,
%
% 0
%
. 4
%
%
&*
,
&
&%
9
. 4
,
%
/%
,
,
,
/ 0
9
%
.
H Y$%%)'(', 0*"%%)' ( (', /'/',('
H &%
/ &
&
,
. 4 &% & 9
()
,
/
9
(
&, 2002). +
%
&
Popper ,
%,
0
&
%
,
%
.
3
61
%/
,
.
$
,
% &
&
(Cook &Ralston, 2005)
/
9
, 9
,
, , &
*
,
%/
%, %
&% ,
%/
% ,
9
&%
% &
&
% "
9
!
&
\. H &%
%
&%
%
# "
.
1
!
&
"
(+
).
9
%
1
*
9%
&%
. 6
&1
. $
9
(case study),
9
(Strauss, 1987, 8lichfeldt &Andersen, 2006)
$
%
, ,
(02)
&
&
% "
9
!
. +
%
#,
&%
,
% 9
.
/
%
,
9
*
9
%.
**
9
,
%
%,
& 9&%
&
/
*
1
,
%
*
1
9
.
&%
%
/ *
* - Slate,
%
&
+
.
,
9
% &
(
, 2002). *
9
&
4
62
9
&
&
&
&
($&%
1).
. + %
/
9
* ,
% ($&%
2)
&
1
/
%
+
.
(< 2 : 4
%
"
% &%
* .
&%
9
5
63
$
%
/
&
/
. 4
% / %
&
O
/ % 0 (6
,
2004),
* 9
% , ,
,
*
% . +
/
/% (
, 2004). 4
% /
*
(metacognitive knowledge),
%
&
/,
,
,
* ,
&, %
*
,
&
,
0,
9, %
*
%
&
(6
, 2004).
4
% /
%
. 4
9
&
* ,
-
(6
, 2004).
"#( /0/%0"!" 0)"!(', 0$010&)('
0"%$'(%( %#(
$
&
. 6
&
%
. +
&
9
.
&
9
.
%
(3
%
&
& +
)
%3: @. !
......................................................................................................
%3:& .
%2: !$....!
#. $ ;
%3:
%2:
.>
. ;
%1: # $
%2:
,
# ..
# $
%1:
.
.
.
%3:
%2: , ! .
$
%
61
%
%
&
9 &,
% & (%1: %
. &.
.%
! ).
6
64
,
% 0.
"&%+%/%(
4
9 (feedback)
*
%
%
.
+
*
%,
&
9. +
/1
9
%
&
. 4
%
.
%
($&
+
)
%3:
%2: , .
%1: &
.....
$ .
%3: "
%2: #, ,
.
%3: $%,
,
,
.
$
9
%
9
%
. 4
9
*. Q % / 9
&%
&
.
%
("
+
)
%3: &,
% '
.....
%1: $ #. ;
%2: .
%3: (
)
% *
, %
, . #
! .
%2: @;
%1: %$
,
!.
%3:
%2: +,
!, - %
.
;
}...
%3: }, ;
-@ #"$ ;
$
(63: ?
7
65
/
&. Q
&
/%
*
%, 9
% 0
&
( , 2002).
9 %
/
/%. G1
/
& &
. 3
9
.
*
*
&%
*
.
&% 1
%
,
%
,
&
* ,
9
. 1
&
,
%
&
.
9%
&
/
(Mercer, 1996). /
&
. 8
1
.
+
% /
9
*
9
*
9
. 6
%
/
. Q
9
% 0.
/
%
&%
1
9%
/
9 &
8
66
9
67
1. 0
$
1
%
- :
% 9
.
%
&
9
,
/ /
, &
"
9,
Exodus ..,
!
/
'
/ .. (!')
% Q
().
%
/
/
9
&
/%
%
/
% %
//
.
,
&
:
)
&
9
-
*)
&
/ 9
9
% &
% (
).
,
*
%
,
9 &:
9
%
*
9
% /
.
2. #5<
4
%
1
%
* %
. $
*
%
%
&
%
%
. +
&
9
%
%
.
&
9
,
9
,
&
&
9
%
,
&
9 . C,
9
&
&
&
&
9
,
9
%
.
&
,
&
9 ,
1
9 , 1
9
, .&.
9
9
* !
.
. 3
&
&
9
(* .
Vandeventer 2001, Schneider & McCoy 1998, Hashemi 2001),
&
68
$ ,
9 9 ,
%
1
9
,
9
/
.
$ 9
,
%
99
%
% &
%
9
9
.
4 9% , ,
%
1
%
%
1
(Baynham
2000: 224-226). $ , 9
,
%
9 % % 9
&
.
% 9
1
% /
&% (Celce-Murcia et al. 1996)
%
/
%
/
(\
.
. 2002: 200).
9
/
%
//
9/9
%
.
,
9
-
*
&
9
. 4
69
(
*
).
4
%
%
"
($9
"9)
. +
&
. , 1%
9
*
&
%
%
(
, &
,
,
9).
. $
8
$ /,
/
(%
9%),
"
(
9%).
4.2. ('
*
'*' ' '
4
3
&
3
:
9
, 9
/. $
,
%
:
x 556: , /,
*,
0 /
%,
0 %
9
x 56:
9
%
9
%
(
9%
)
x =
?:
9
&
*
&
9
/
"
9
,
*
. Q
%
*
1
1.
8
$
0
3 9
$
$
9
'
%
$
0
$
9
'
%
$
'
%
$
$&
/i/
'
%
$
$&
/e/
'
%
$
$&
//
'
%
$
0
$
1. 8
<
70
$5
#
#
$
(!
1
3
%
.
% /
9
9
9
. Q
&
9
9 9
, &
/.
,
9
9 &%
9,
49% /
9
9
9
9
, .&.
. +
9
9 /i/ (, ,
, , ), /e/ (,
)
/o/ (, )
% % &
3. 6 13% &
9
9
/i/, 33%
%
9%
/o/.
9
, &
0 ,
%
9%
/e/. ,
(54%)
9
, 11%
/
.
D
&
%
9
,
9
9
*%
9 .
$
9
9
9
,
,
&
%
,
9
8
" /
&
.
8 / %
249 /
" / 277 /. 4 %
%
9
9
&
/ 9
9
* /. $
,
%
/ 9
:
x 9: /i/ - /j/ (.&. ), /b/ - /mb/ (.&.
), /n/ - // (.&. )
x 39,
9: &
,
,
71
x
x
9
0: #, #
* /: ,
!.
5.2. ('
*
'*'
'
+
9
%
.
&1
(
& /
3 &
)
9
%
9
9
/%
.
4
9
/.
3 /
&
&
9 /
( , 0
9
), &
9
%
. 4
/
&
%
*
%
%
,
*
. ,
9
*
9
/ % 9
*
%
0. ,
/
&
(,
. .).
"
9%
9
&%
. $ &%
*
/%
:
, D% (,
& % ), $9 (,
& % ),
$
9
, $
9, $
*%
'/. $
%
, 9
:
,5
+
5
+
5<
+
(=6
5
(6
=
(
6
8
'
9%
' %
9
9%
' %
9
' 9
' 9
9
7H#DPD
D%
%
SH#UQD
7H#PD
*
YLWV&D#
YLWVLD#
/
9
9/
HNVDIDQLVWX#Q
VIL#5LNVH
NVDIDQLVWX#Q
VIL#5LNVD
%
DQL#uDR
DQL#MDOR
GG5HSR#WDQ
WW5H#SRWDQ
D#LGH
H#GH
$
2. 0
<
565=
/
3 &
.
$
9
9%
9
(
,
&%
/). 22%
9
9%
9
20%
9%
9.
Q
&
9
9 / (17,26%).
9
9% /
72
4
% 09
&
*% /, .&. / "
SVHH#Y'D.
&
% /, .&. 9 .
$!
VSLW&R#QWX
VSLW&R#QWX#[RUMX#
6
9
9
9%
9
9
1
/.
9
%
&
9%
9%
, .&. /
LSHH#5[XQ
%
9
*
*
9%
,
/
NDURWVLLH#ULV
/NDURWV&
&H#ULV/.
$
0
9
9
9% /
&
9
9
/o/,
9
&
0, .&. 9 #
DSR
R#WR
R#DYR#. Q
/
,
,
9
& 9% /
,
&
.
$ ,
9
9 9,
&%
9%
, .&. /
7D#ODVD
9%
9
9
. 6
,
VW
[7,
%
9%
9
, , , .&. /
WUH#SRWDQ
GG5HSR#WDQ.
, / 9%
% 9:
9 (/ai/, /ei/, /oi/), 9
(
=/e/, , =/i/,
=/u/)
%
9 (/ea/, /ia/ . .).
9
9 9
9
/ai/, .&. /
HH#GH,
,
.
%
9
1
9
/a/, /e/
/o/ % /a/, .&. /
H#NOHHQDQ.
6. 5=
"0 )2
6.1. / $( ' ' # * "2
$
}
% (}) "2,
49
/
9%
%
&
. +
% , 9
%
&
.
*
:
&
9
)
%
,
9
(,
9
, 9
,
/).
6.2.
' ', *
'*' '
'
73
&%
&
} "2
4
:
x
=,
*
*%,
(
*
(.&. *
).
x 6
/ &
,
9%
,
9
, ,
.
x 556,
9%
9%
, %
9%
,
9%
&%
&
%.
x 56,
%
&1
9
}
9
1
/
9
.
6.3. + *
'
(49
),
/
,
1
%
&
} "2.
$
,
(38,61%) &1
&%
,
: 1 (>
1), % %
9%
(.&.
,
). 4
1
/ &%
%
&
&
%
.
9
/
(29,11%).
9
9
:
- : *
... (> 4
..)
-;
$
$ $ $
: *+
> *
-;
$
$ $ $ #: *
9 > Q
9
-;
$
$ $ $ .: *
>
-;
$
$ $ $ $: *
>
9
23,73%
.
* % %
:
- #
: *
9 (>
9)
-'
# #
%
9
%
(
9
9
/i/, /e/, // ) &%
9%
: *9 (>9)
-@ #
: *
(>
)
-` ##. $: & 9 ( 5,33%
9
)
9
&%
%
,
9
/,
/,
%
*
&
% /.
: *
radio (>
9), * + " &
(=
), * 9u
(>9
).
+
9
&
8,54%
*
. 3
&
}
9
%
%
,
9
0 .
, ,
,
-
1
%
%
%
1
*
9 (.&.
&
,
%
% . .). $
, 9
74
9
1
%.
:
- (
: * (> )
- #
: *
(>
Q )
7. 565
"0 )2
7.1. / $(
' # * "2
L
%
*
1
9 /
(
&
%
%)
%
. 3 %
&
%
* 9 %,
%
**
9.
9
} /
%
&
9
26 /
10
, / &
9
,
,
%,
& *
& /
. 9
& 1
&
: % ,
&
} "2,
9
.
7.2. ('
$
,
"2
&% / /
*
:
(
)
9
&
/ 9
9 -
1
&
%
/
&
%
9
*%
(*) 9
9
9
%
* %
,
%
9% /
&
&%
.
,
9%
9
.
+ 26 /
9
*
&
&
& 9
9
9
%
( %-
%)
1
9
% -
&
.
, /
9
1
&
9
/p/, /t/
/k/
&% % /
9%. 4
* /
&1
9
/ks/
/ts/.
+
*
&
9
%
9
}
9
9%
%
(
9 *
).
"
9%
9
*
9
&%
/% :
x 3
&
&% /
x 3
& /
x +
/ts/
&% /
75
&
9%
% &.
%
&
9
, 9%
9% &
&
* .
&
.
%
%
9
9
&% /. .&. /S+t+a/
/porta/, /S+uS+ul/
/pupulo/, /t+ulip/
/tulipa/.
C. +
5 55
< /ts/. $
9
9
, &
%
9
%
/
. $
%
9
,
%
%
&
9
} &
9
%
.
*
% 9
* & /ts/
/ t /. .&. /tkau/
/tsokaro/, /tataa/
/tsatsara/.
). +
5 6
= 8 /ks/,
9
% </> (.&. /) <> (.&.
). $
%
9
9
(.&. /ksdnt/,/ksatd/, /ksklud/),
&% /. 4
9
%
9
%
%
%
%
/ks/
9
/z/
%
9: /zens/
/ksenos/, /zana/
/ksana/.
L
**
1
9
}
9
9
&
,
0
9
9
%
. "
,
%
0
9 &%
9
%
. 6
%
,
**
1
9
%
}
% 9 (
&
) /.
+ &
&
*,
%
*
%
9%
/,
&
% },
&
%,
9
76
&
. L
9
&
1
&
9 ,
%
9
9
,
& 9
1
3
% "2. "
, 9
*
*/
1
9
/
&
9
*1
.
&
9
, &
&
9 / %
1
9 %
9%
&
.
9
%
%
& 9 9%
,
*
& 9
%.
,
*
%
,
*%
9
3
%
&
/
9
9, *
%
9
/
9
9
%
%
/
,
&
/.
9. C568
658
Baynham, M. (2002). @ +
!.(9. 6.
). %
: 6
&.
Celce-Murcia, 6., Brinton, D. M. & Goodwin, J. M. (1996), Teaching Pronunciation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eskenazy, 6. (1999). Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronunciation
tutoring: some issues and a prototype. Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 62-76.
Hashemi, S. S. (2001). Detecting grammar errors in childrens writing: A finite state approach. In
Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference in Computational Linguistics (Nodalida-01).
Hauptmann, A. G., Chase, L. L. & Mostow, J. (1993). Speech Recognition Applied to Reading
Assistance for Children: A Baseline Language Model. $ Proceedings of the 3rd European
Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH93), 2255-2258, 8 .
Project
LISTEN.
(&..).
Project
LISTEN.
A
reading
tutor
that
listens.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~listen/ ((
*
30 +*
2008).
Schneider, D. & McCoy, K. (1998). Recognizing syntactic errors in the writing of second language
learners. In Proceedings of Coling-ACL98, 1198 1204, Montreal.
Vandeventer, A. (2001). Creating a grammar checker for CALL by constraint relaxation: a
feasibility study. ReCALL, 13(1), 110120.
\
, D., $
&
, "., 6
, $.,
, ". (2002).
9
&
9%
/
. $ .
3
(.), @ 3 @ ;
;
* / #
@
&$
&
, , 198-206. G.
77
%
%
.
/
&
-
9
/
&
%
%
. $ 9%
/ ,
,
,
*
%
, -,
,
/
.
%
,
/1
9
,
1. 4
, 9
,
9
,
,
,
%,
,
/1
,
&
9
1
*
9
,
1
,
/ /
.2
9
0
. + %, &
&,
/-
9
.
9
%
/
.
%/
9
9
1
.
/&
&
9%
Dell Hymes %
% %
1
9
. "
0
, Hymes & / SPEAKING
.
:
S: Setting and Scene: + &, &
% /
.
P: Participants: 6
&
&
,
1
3.
E: Ends: +
9
*
% /
,
%
9
&,
&
&
%.
A: Acts: + /
9
% 9%
&
,
( / 9 &
, &
).
K: Key: 6 9
%
%
.
6
%
, 9 , *
,
,
.. ..
I: Instrumentalities: 6
9
,
%
,
(&
,
, %,
), 9%
%
.
N: Norms: Hymes
* 9
.
9
,
.
78
G: Genre:
9
9%,
, %, , & ,
, 9 .
. H
&
9 &
% %
/
.
SPEAKING
Hymes
1
. "
& &1
*
0
%
9
.
(,%$%( ,' $0&')&+ ( 0&0#"(
4
%
/
%
&%
(
)
,
%
( %).
$
/1
:
1. 4
&
.
2. + /
/
/ (
%).
3. 3
&
.
4. 3
.
4
/%&
& 2004-05
2005-06 &
,
(L
,
1.000.000
),
100.000
(!
),
9
&
&
&
5.000
(
!
). 3
& %
%/
&,
9
&%
( #
)
&
/
%
4
, &
/ ,
4
PISA
%
&
%
+
+% $
/ (+.+.$..) $
% *
%
/
9
*
&
,
.. ..
5
%
4,10,14,16,20,22,25
/
&
9
9% 1 9.
6
$
%
14 %
0, *
% ,
/ 9
/&%
9.
2
79
20) & !
#" ,
!
$
, # ;
22) @ !
# #;
# !
" !
25) F #$
$
# #
#.. &! !
.
;
# !
!
$%00(
1
,
%
&
%
1,
%
&
%
.
% 4, 20
%
&
1
% &%
. 6
%
%
Q
&
/1
0&
*
&
&
&
%
&
/
. 6
% /%
9
&
9
&
/
9%
(.&.
).
\
%
4
7:
39: L
&
*
*
*
%
9
& &
.
43: $&
/
9
&
% &
.
50: L
/
*%
. L
%
/
9 .
56: + &
:
0
*
9 &
*
. H
%
.
100:
%
&
&
&
1.
110: + &
&
1
.
&
% 20
:
2: }
& +
&%
.
47: }
&
0
.
50: H
&
* .
54: }
/ &
.
61:
*
- *
&
7
%
1
&
%
.
80
9
66: +
% &% &
/,
.
&
9
&
%
9
1 /. \
%
4
/%:
125: + &
&
%
%
.
128: + &
.
.
132: + &
&
.
138: + &
9
%
*%
.
143: &
9
147: + &
11 9 7 &
&
.
163: + &
%
& %
9
.
&
%
20
:
166: +
&
*1
&%
.
171: 4 0
1
&
.
194: + &
/
%
% \
&.
239: 4
&
282: =& 0 /
%
%
& .
305: + &
&
&%
9
1
% &% %
.
336: + &
10
& 1
9
/ - 9
& (
%). +
%
/
&
,
.
4
81
4
* /
/ , /
9
%
% &
&,
%. \
%
:
116: &
9,
%
9%.
128: 1) +
&
. 2)
%.
174: %
%, 9
9.
178: &
9,
%
9%,
.
183: 9.
194: %&
,
&
.
196:
, &
,
9,
%,
,
,
&
,
,
,
,
,
8
210:
%, &
6
9
/
. $
9
/
9
%
9
9
/. \
%
:
124:
&
/
% %.
154:
&
%
9% &
%
%
%.
167: 1.
% %.
2.
%&.9
187: 4
& %
&
.
190: $
&
%
9% &
%
%
211: + 9
%
/
9
*
9
1
&
% %,
%&
,
&
,
*
%&
.
217: /
9
*
9.
%
&% &
%.
82
231:
%
241:
272: 3
312:
&
,
352:
16
!
9
1
16
%,
9
%
0
%
*
,
&,
9
*
1
.
:
31: 3
*
.
32: 3
*
* .
48: \ **
,
,
%,
09
3% %
65: 3
*
70: + &
/
9
%
. L
%
9*
.
113: "
9 *
09
&
**
,
.
196:
* /
091
.
200:
1
09
%.
=%/
&
*
9
1
. $
% 9
9
1
. \
.
13: 3
%
17: 3 /
29: 3 /
&.
89: 6
/
116: 6
09
132:
9%
9%
.
156:
&.
177:
&
%
%
091
& ** ,
091
*
.
.
*
*
.
0
1%
11
H
4
*
/
%.
6
83
09
.
10: =
1
&
,
&
091
,
& 9
.
26:
0%
, 9
%
&
&
%
/
& 3 &
.
30:
0%
, 9
.
39: 1
&
091
1
0%
9
3 %
&
%
/.
49: $
9
9
09.
62: '
&%
0
9
.
376: 6
% 22,25
%
%
&
1
&
/
,
9
(22)
/
,
(25)
.
9
*
. 4
%
%
%.
572
, 366 22
376 25
. 6
%
% &
%
&
% 09
%:
- $
&1
9
(.&. 9
,
9 , 9
9%
,
1
%
9% .. .).
- $
*
1
(.&.
% &,
,
9
% & .. .).
$
%
&
%
%
( 22)
9
% ,
%
.
25
, 9
9
. H
9 &
%
9
&
1
%
.
%
&
22
:
12
Q
*%
*%
.
Q
*%
171 *%
.
14
&
&
%
.
13
84
&
Q
9
.
182: 2. 3
.
188:
2
& %
.
193:
. $1 0
%
1
*
% %.
195:
.
200: 2
&
.
245:
9
.
249:
1
&
/
0 %
&
.
&
25 9
%:
249:
&
Q
9
.
8
85
271: 1
1
&
.
301:
.
357:
% 9
.
421:
&
.
433:
%
9
.
438:
%
9
.
440:
.
& 1
.
454:
.
517:
9
G&
%
.
(#$0&(
4
9
1
.
1. &
&
&.
/%
:
x &
9
&
/
,
9%
/
(.&.
).
x 3 &
%
&
/,
.
&
9
&
%
9
1 / %
%
.
2. H
9 /
%
1
/
/
9 & (
%).
3. +
%
09
*
&
&
&
&.
/%:
x
*
&,
9
*
1
.
x
1
.
x =%/
1
, &
.
4. 3
9:
x
1.
x 3 &
9%
9
.
C'C'%)&+'
1. "*, A. (1999). H
%
*
:
&
* %. " Y %, 1, 57-76. (www.Komvos.edu.gr.)
2. Gumperz, J.J. (1972). The Ethnography of Communication. Introduction. New York: Holt
Rinehart and Winston.
3. Gumperz, J.J. and Hymes, D. (1972). Direction in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of
communication. New York.
4. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: E. Arnold.
86
10
87
""
)
3 "
"
, %
D
%
1. ,
4
&
9
&
*
. ,
%
,
%
("
&
" 1999: 22),
*
. +
*
,
9,
, 9
& %
,
1
*
%
%
,
, , %
.&. 9%
%
/% %.
,
%
%
%
%,
* %
,
,
/ %
,
/
%
9
&
.
1
&%
9 % 9
,
&
,
* %
*
. Q,
/
&
&
,
%
,
&
,
9
%
*
.
"
/
9
%
,
,
9
%
% 1
. C, /
,
*
%
,
& "
/ *
9
&
%
/
/ .
$
%
*
*
"
1
*
%
. 4
/%&
6
3
% %
(
..
), &
9%
9
&
%
*
/
"
9
&
9
& % %
.
' 0 &
&%
1
%
,
* %
9,
,
% .
2. $5
65
+ &
9 1
&,
9
9
.&. -,
&
. $
% 1
, 9
&
&
&
(.&. ----
),
, . . $
,
&
&
9
&
9
&
.
88
+
9
&
.&.
9
9 9
: +
9%
& ...,
9. ,
&
1
(
),
9
(
,
, 9
, )
%
0
(
,
,
). , &%
, . . ,
&,
, ,
1 9
, .&. &
&, %
%
....
H
,
1
* %
9
9. +
,
,
9
1
* %
9 (.&.
) & 9
9,
&%
9.
39
%
%
* %
. "
&
%
1% &
&:
.
!!
!, !
!. #
!: (4)
_________ ! $ ! 750
.".
"
, (1)
9 (
)
&
9 (/ ) &% . H
,
&
1.
3. $5 =
&
%
(Haliday &
Hasan 1976)
*
!
!. $
,
&
,
,
/, 9 % (.&. , , ).
,
%
%
(.&.
, ,
, ),
(.&. ...,
...). $
,
/
%
%
&
/
9
1
. 6 &%
9 9
&
&
&
(.&. &
, &,
.).
&
,
&
/ -
89
*
%
("
& " 1999:
127).
H
9
%,
%
,
1
%
&%
. $
%
,
&
.
<p> *
+
!
!
. </t> [19--]
<t> %
#
#
!
. % #
#
. $ !
#
#
!
. 0
,
. 2
!
+
. </p> <p> 3
#
, !
,
#
. </t> [19--]
<t> $
#
#
!
4
#
4
.
. [19--]
$
* %
*
&
% ,
9
9
&.
&
,
,
1
9&
0 &% . +
&
, 1 %
,
. + 9
% &
%, /
&
&
. 4
,
:
$, (
), # (
),
,
(%), (
).
4
*
(* . Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 335). 4
%
& *
%
1
,
9
.
&
1
* %
.
4 *
%
*%
*
. ,
&
%
%
%
&
9
. $
9,
9
&
,
&
/ &
*%
.
90
4. $5 5
=
+ &
0
%
1
%
,
%
%
,
("
& " 1999: 53 ./.). 4
1
&
%
*
&
9
,
&
9%
%
,
9
%
%
. ,
\
& \
1
** (1997: 115),
&
&, ,
9%
. 4
%
9
*
1
9
% /
%
9% %
& %
*
9
.
C,
0
9
,
1
**
9
(Martin
& Rothery 1986, Martin 1989),
*
9
9
% %
%
/
. Q,
*
% &
9
&
/
.
$
,
&1
9
9
, &
% &
*
1
9.
<t> %
#
+
,
!
#
. </p> [19--]
91
$
9
&%
*
9
( / :
,
%
. .)
% /
*
9
% &
(.&.
9
(/ #,
(! $ . .).
<t>
,</p> <p> &
5
2002
!
8
. </p> <p> 2 8
*
!
</t> [19-$-]
<t> 2
+
,
#
,
,
'
!
. </p> <p> 2
. "
+ . 2'
:
,
, </p> <p> 8
</p> <p> !
+
4 0 / *
* 9
9
1
,
/ ,
:
-
%
&
, 9%
1%
-
9
- &%
: .&. %: # -
#,
-
#,
&1 9:
#"$, #
$ ;
!
%
%
:
! $
, F
#
#
(
%
9 : ;
!
, #., ?
# #
"
# #!. $
9
&
*%
*
&
1
/
9
/
&
.
/
* %
*
,
1
&
* %
,
9
. 8
&
9
%
9
, *
9
,
9
%,
9% % &
%
. 4
9
*
9%
9
. ,
9%
&
/ 9
& 0 /
*
9
. $
9%
&
&
.
% %
.
9
%
*
9
& (Martin & Rothery 1986). 6
&
*
9
* .
&%
/
/
9%
%
*
. "
92
(Johnson 1983). "
,
1
9
,
9
&
.&.
%
. . D
,
%
%
/ *
%
. $ ,
*
% & % 9%
&
.
,
&%
9
1 %
. Q
*
%
%
9
%
9
(* . Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 320).
*
&% %
1
%%
,
&
9
%
1
%. 4
1%
1%
&
&1
.
4 &% &
*
- ,
,
. .
/ &
(* .
$
2004: 192 ./.). ,
/
% %
,
% /
*,
9 . .
&
.
5. $5
+
%
1
&
/
(
9
)
(
). +
%
%
%
! (Kirby & Kantor 1983),
*
%
0
%
9
(
)
. $
/
,
*
%,
%
%
9
&%
1
1
*
. "
&
9 (.&.
&1
9 : * #
% &#.
$.
#
). 4
9
/
9
9
,
%
&
9
,
1
9
9
93
,
!
#
?
4 . </p> <p> *
</t> [19-$-]
$
&
. $
%
,
/
% %: .,
, .$ $
#
#. $
. . 9
,
9
-*
,
9
9
1 * %
&
: .&.
!
- . .
,
*
9
%: #. #, $ #. .,
% :
; $
& 9
1
9
: $,
$ .
,
$
;,
( ,
!$ . ,
. $
/
%
9
*
: +
, +
$!
.
1
*
,
,
, 9,
9
, "/ " 9
,
&
:
- &#. .
# ..., &
- ? " #.,
- . . , "
, ( ;
- /
.
, .
!...
- !$ $, !
- A . $ .
...,
- + !
# ...
*
&%
%
9
, (/)
. +
%
&
9
9%
9
9
*
(
, %, & ),
( &
, ) (Grabe
& Kaplan 1996: 4). 4
0
,
,
&
9
/
%,
&1
0
(Grabe & Kaplan 1996: 241). 4
9
,
/
/
*
*%
/
%
0
.
6. j
?
*
% ,
/
, 0
/
*
9
%
&
. 6 *
,
9
/
,
/
*
9
/.
4
9%
%
9
%
, *
*
* %
. +
94
9
9% 9
1
&1
&
.
,
/
*
9
. ,
/ *
9
9
,
* %
%
(.&. / , %
,
9
. .).
"
/%
*
%
, %
, %
%
. $9
9%
9
&
%
.. (
),
1
/%:
x
%
:
%
&
%,
& /
9 9
9
x %
:
%
/
%
&
,
%,
%
/
:
"'C$$!4 !}+4
"G66!$ 3+6$
'!'+"!+
!6}!4
!}+4
$=}+\4
L6!4 }=4
!6}!4
'!+=G"!
G+=$!$4
6+GD+'+"!
$=6DC}!
=G+$ \G+}C}
3+64 G+$4$
"G66!4
+GL+"GD!
=G+$/!3+$
'!4 +GL+"GD!
6*
;~&;A
?&|%&|?*| &|?/&;
}+4$4 L6+$
G!\+6}+
}=4 G"GDC}
?&|%&|?* &~*;
*+;A &|*~;
G++$
?&|%&|?A ;/;A
"}!4 6D}!$4
$!4
6"'C$$!4 !}+4
$ 556
? 5=
1
&
&
.
"
, 9
9
%
9
%
(.&. %
, / . .). ,
/
&%
95
%
%
%
& *
*
/
%
&
%
%. & *
/
%
,
& &
.
,
%
%
,
&%
*
%
.
"
,
* %
%
% *
%
. ! 1
9% $
,
& *
&
&
%
.
9
,
, %
/%
&
& %
*
. 4 % 9
, ,
1 &
%
.
1
&
&%
& 0
,
&% % 9 (
* /
9)
. ,
9
&
,
*
&
%
9 9
&%
.
C56
, ., 8
, $., ", 3. & 6
-+9
. (
). 4
/
"
. @ 3 !
;
#
& $ +., @
., 22-23
*$
2004.
"
, . & ", 3. (1999). ?
&$
. %
: "
.
L9
-, 3. (2001). ' &%
: %
% ;. $ \,
". 4. (.)
! # #.. %
:
, 53-61.
$
, !. (2004). @
#$# #! # .
. %
:
"
.
\
, . & \
1
**, $. (1997).
# #..
L
:
.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. An Applied Linguistic Perspective.
London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Johnson, K. (1983). Communicative writing practice and Aristotelian rhetoric. $ Freedman, A.,
Pringle, I. & Yalden, J. (.) Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language. London: Longman.
247-257.
Kirby, D. R. & Kantor, K. J. (1983). Toward a theory of developmental rhetoric. $ Freedman, A.,
Pringle, I. & Yalden, J. (.) Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language. London: Longman.
87-97.
Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual Writing. Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, J. R. & Rothery, J. (1986). What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers
about good writing. $ Couture, B. (.) (1986). Functional Approaches to Writing. Research
Perspectives. London: Pinter. 241-265.
96
,
,
&%
9
.
*
: , , %
,
9,
&
1
9. ,
&
&
,
&
9%.
% &
*
1
,
%
/
.
%
,
& %
,
. ..,
9
*
,
&
.
$%
,
**
, &
9
%
%
[1]. H %
9
%
. L
0
%
*
.
&
&
9
%
/
.
8
'
"
%
/
% &%
&1
%
&
,
,
1
%
&
,
%
%
% /.
4
1
*
&%
,
(modes), &
.
9
9 9 9
&,
, / %
&
. \
%
9
+
Ut
pictura, poesis
Ars Poetica [2]. }
%
& & %
1%
,
/
&
20
. ..
[3].
R. Barthes
6. Foucault
0
*
corpus
(Barthes, R., 1999, 2001 Foucault M., 2008).
$
&
&1
%
G. Kress, *%
,
% %
M.A.K. Halliday (Halliday, M.A.K.,
1978, 1985, 1993 Halliday, M.A.K.-Hasan, R., 1989),
Barthes
9 %
97
&
&
9 %
9%
.
*
&
%
. 9 &%
.
1
&
%
&%
. Q 9
&
9%
%
.
H 1%
&1
/%. "
.
&
/%
(Bernstein, B.,
1989 8aynham, M., 2002 6
4., 2006
, 6., 1997).
*
/
&
/
.
4
&1
% 0
&
9
%
%
.
1980 ..
+
%
,
9
,
&
98
9
(Cope, B. Kalantzis, M., 2000). 6
(
/
%
),
,
$ (
*
)
(&%
*
),
&
%
,
,
*
%
%
%
.
%
% 9
%
&
.
&
..L., . \
$. \
1
**
9
&
*
*
(\
, . - \
1
**, $. 1997). L 1
,
%
6... Halliday, % %
9
. +
&
&
/
%
%
%,
% &% %
,
% &
% "
%. 6
1
% &
% 9
%
/
9 &
,
/9
, 9,
. ..
4 &1
. 4
%
& &
%
% /
% &
&
%
.
&,
9 /
&
%.
&%
%
&
% /
%
9
/
.
1
#
%
9
,
%
,
*%
. ..
4
&%
9
.
,
/1
&
9%
*
.
&%
& 9 9 9
. !
, %&
,
*%
&
%
. + 9
&
9
*
. N
&
%
%
.
Q
&%
&%
%
%
,
%
&% 9
%
. 4 * ,
%
99
/
&
&
9
%
,
9
.
Q&
*
&
&%
**
/
.
* 0
/
**
,
.
: '*'
!'
* * ' *
H
9
9
%
%
/
3 &
%
&%
%
/
,
*
% ("
, }., 2006
).
4
/
%
,
. 4
/
9
&%
%
9.
$
&
,
9%,
9
. ..
*
&
,
9 &
&% &%
. \
%
%
&%
.
H
9
&
/
. $
% *
%
9
. +
*
1%
0
&
. 6
%
&
*
&
%
&%, &
,
. ..
9
&
0
,
% /
,
/1
&
&,
&
%
%
.
/
1
/
,
& & /
%
&.
$
&
%
,
& /
. $
1
% *
. "
&
%
,
& %
%,
1 *
#
&,
/
.
$
&
&%
. "
9% /1
%
9
9,
9
.
/1
,
.
1%
&
&% . "
9
,
1
*
100
&
%,
.
() 4
/%
&
&
.
&%
. 4 /
,
,
&
,
&
9
.
$
%
,
/
/%,
%
%
/
.
#
[1] 8 . 3
$
&%
(3....$. ..$), =...L. -
!, D: 1366, . 8'
18-10-2001 / 1373, . 8', 18-10-2001, 1374, . 8', 18-10-2001 / 1375, . 8', 18-10-2001 / 1375, .
8', 18-10-2001 / 1376, . 8', 18-10-2001.
[2] "
9
, * . G
". (1997), ?
. !#. %
: $ ,
&% **
9
.
[3] 8 . Lyons, J., 2002
, L., 1995.
[4]
J. P. Gee, G. Wells, R. Hasan, C. Luke &
, * . \
., 2006.
[5] %
9
&
,
* . "
. }. (2005). 9
*
%
.
$
* %
1%
*
. $ F
,
,
, 2
%
,
D
% -
%
,
1 3 / 4 / 2005, (CD
,
.
. 59).
101
C56
Arnheim R. (1991). Thoughts on Art Education. Occasional Paper 2. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Arnheim R. (1999), /
" A "#
# . (69. !.
). %
: L .
Barthes R. (20014), & % ?
. (69. ". $
, . ". 8 ). %
:
.
Barthes, R. (199921). Elements of Semiology [1964]. (Trans. Lavers, A.-Smith, C.). New York: Hill
and Wang.
8aynham, M. (2002). @ #
!. (69. 6.
). %
: 6
&.
Bernstein, B. (1989). @#$#
. $ # [1971].(
. - 69.
$. !. $ ). %
: /
.
Cope, B. Kalantzis, M. (ed.) (2000). Multiliteracies. Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London and New York: Routledge.
"
, }. (2005).
:
.
%
/
% &%
*
.
$: $
-
+. (.), & @
. Icon and Child (. 465 478). L
: Cannot not design publications.
"
}. (2006
).
&
% &%
. $: % # #.. A
#.
: ,
26 %
"
, %
D
, D 9% $& %, ..L., (. 81 98). L
:
% L
.
"
}. (2006*), 9
%
% &%
*
. & . & .
$, 11, 117 124.
Foucault M. (2008). * ( #
102
, L. (1995). &
+$ . L
:
%.
Perkins D. (1994), The Intelligent Eye: Learning to think by looking at art, Occasional Paper 4.
Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Robertson-Egan, A. - Bloome, D. (.) (2001). +. @
. *
/- $
/- . (69. 6
%). %
: 6
&.
\
. (.) (2006). +
, $
(
),
L
: ..L. ! } $
[
6
9
].
\
, . - \
1
**, $. (1997). A
#
#.- $
#. L
:
.
\
, . (1999).
%
. +$ ~#, 1,
(
http://www.komvos.edu.gr/periodiko). L
: % "
.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Meta-cognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics,
19(4), 515 - 537.
Zimmermann, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31. 845 - 862.
103
%
,
, #
/
*
9
%
.
/
%
,
*
,
:
9
%
,
1
9
9
9
*
,
%
&%
*
&1
*
&
&
&
%
, %
%
,
%
*
*
.
+
*
/
. $ 9 ,
&
/
,
*
,
%&
. Q
%,
9%
,
**
&
,
/,
% *
.
, ,
,
9*% *
%
%,
*
/
&
9 *
:
&%
,
% *
,
,
*
.&.
*
$, . .
/
%
*
*
1%
*
*
. 9
%
1%
*
*
,
*
9
%
1
4
%
%
*%,
/
&
$
&
:
3 , . (2008) + *
9
% /
*
, \
1%
, 3. et al. (.) @ /
&
, %
:
,
$
3 , . (2007) * *
,
\
1%
, 3. et al. 5 @ ;: & @#$# & F ,
$
, L
: 9
Delikari, V. (2006) What an actress (Elli Lambeti), a composer (Eleni Karaindrou) and two secondary teachers
have in common?, %
: www.esrea.org2006
Delikari, V. (2006) Constructing resemblances to artists: the articulation of the concept of students
assessment in discourses of Greek secondary teachers in Education-line,
9
:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk-educol-documents-157139.html.url.
3 , . (2005) 4
*
,
, \. (.) A $ %
. $ @
F ?$
+., @ &# $, %
: "
&
1
9%
1%
,
9%
1%%
,
&
&
* % *
%
%
%
,
&
%
.
104
*
&
,
* ,
%
9
%
.
9
1%
9
(5
15
)
(6
14 )
. +
1%
9
$* 2003-D*
2005
9,
%
(Stavrakakis, 1997, 274). + *
* (nodal point) 9
Laclau
Mouffe, 1985,
112,
$
, 2004, 155):
,
montage
%,
*
*
*
%.
$
&
&
*
,
1
%
/
. 6
Laclau (2004*, 49,
$
, 2004,168):
% / $
$ [affect]
&
%
, % %
,
,
9
%(
% ).
3. 5 5 5= 5
4
&%
% /
%/%
%
*
%/*
%
O
* &
,
1
&
/
*
.
*
*
&
,
&%
,
&
2
2
8
,
9
23/5/2005
9
% 3
/
8/
"# %
% 3/ 3
% %
%
/
, *
"
9
,
:;
. .
&( +9 ( A
&. '
9 ( & ! &. '
, /&& &. %
$,
2005 ($& D251/ 43707/*6/28-04-2005 =L)
*
/%:
,
* /
% /, *
, /
( , "
,
, Q & 6
!
%)
1
/
%
&. $
1
/ %
& &,
%
N 3
9
,
/,
%0
/
,
9 24 * 8
,
9
/
}
&
% %
}
&
%
105
9
, &
,
/
%,
%
9
,
% %
*
%.
3
&
$
#!,
% /,
, 1
&
&
*
. +
&
9
9
% *
&
&
&
,
1
(3 ,
2005). $
%
9
% (
%
)
&,
,
&
*
%
,
% %
,
*
%/*
%
*
% %
/.
*
*
9% *
9
1
% /
*
&
*
*
1%
(14,5,
,
) %
&
,
%,
/
(29,13,
, 9 ). "
9
9
9%
9
&
*
%
*
.
$9
/
$ #!
*
/%:
) $
$
*
. 3
%,
*
&
1
*
*
. $ ,
9
1
% &
-
.
) 4 *
. % .
%
*
.
) "
9%
%
*
,
9%
9
%
. $
%
*
93.
) $
*
9
% *
%
/.
3. $5
:
*
,
9
. $
&
0
$
#.
($ .,
%
%&
4.
$
,
% 9
!
#
,
#
%
8
, 9
,
3
% 8/
"#%
.
3
"
%
*
9
*
, *
3 , 2008.
4
&
% *
.
106
:
# #
20
#. #
. ., # . @!
# .
#
: ! # , ! , #
#
#
(25,6,
, 9 ).
#.,
/
/
:;
#
( ,
. $ $
,
(
( (27,1,
,
). 3
%, 9
,
% /
# , ! .
&
25
,
*
%
%.
9
* %
*
,
1997
.
6
, ,
%
&% /
*
%
/
9
%
*
,
%
%
*
%
%. $
%
%
*
%
("
#.
25)
%&
& (+
($ . . 22 ,
)
! (@ #
#
. . !
,
"
##
;
!# #$
.
!
(31, 13,
, 9 )5.
*) / $,
#
H
,
&
1
,
% /,
,
9
*
.
9,
,
&
*
$ .
,
,
, /
9 %
9.
9
$
&,
:
!
# ( , . #$
#
#
#.
, #,
$
#! !,
#" 5-6,
10 # 10 .
(26,6,
,
).
%
%
,
9 #$
!
$ (
($(30,5,
,
).
+
/
0
*
%,
%
*
1
$
*
, $
20
#!
:
.
#
!
$
, $
!, # !
$! #
#
.
#
!
, $
,
! }$ '
$ !
!, $ . #!
- ! - #. .
.
,
, . ?
!
12
, #
#
&
$
( # .
# (% #
# ( $ .;) F , . /
# 18 . # # #
# .
$ $
#
#
$
(
. #.
,
#.
(! 11 12.
F$
#
#
. $, 93
$
20
#!
. /. (
#
. ? $ .
. /
$
, $.
,
. ,
! , #
$
.
!... (31,16,
, 9 ).
107
4 $
%
& %
%
*
(
# .
)
*
,
9% # $
$ (
): # $
,
$,
,#
# . , ;$
$
$
,
$
(16,7-8,
,
). &
* %
:
,
&
,
## ! ,
,
.
. 4 9
%
,
9% &
6,
, 9
,
*
%
/
. Q&
9
, &
.
+ *
,
&1
.
,
&
9
.
9
(
)
%
.
,
9
*
. &
&
% %
9
# .
*
% ,
%/
,
/
$! &
(
, )
! &
,
1
$
*
% :#
#
. $
( . +
(
,
$
$
. &
#,
!
(#
#
#. &
(
#, #$
,
,
(
$
,
! ! $
!
[
] $
$, .
. %
#
! . .
; /
;(5,3,
, 9 ).
6
&
,
% *
, *
$ #!.
%
# !
#
.
!
$,
9
%
/. Q&
9 % *
&
9
%
%
*
% % *
: #
# !
,
$, ; / # !
#
,
.
! $.
9
% *
!
&
9
*
%
,
,
% *
.&.
*
(
#)7. '
6
"
* %
, *
3 , . (2005)
, ", . (.)
@$
&
,
: 3
%
,
%
3%
/ $& %
$
(
%
9%).
7
+
%
%
,
108
/ %
%
9*%
. +
/%
/ &
:
&
$
#
%
# %
: @
"#
#
#
#
!
( , ( ,
# ,
( !
" #. $
#
. @ !$
$
. # $
$
" #. $(27,1112,
,
).
$
&
,
,
*
Stavrakakis(1999, 128,
*1
'
),8 9
$#
#
. +
%&
%
*
*
%
%,
% *
&
,
9
/ &
,
%
%
$
,
%
,
,
%
9.
=
&
1
( ),
(;
?
#
!,
, (
# %!),
9% $
.(
.&.
: , #
,
).
9
%
&
9%
&
9% &%
, 1
*
(.&.
! #, /
!
#). 4
&
&
.
$
,
%
9
&
, *
%
&
% *
:',
#,
#
, ($ #$,
, ? ,
>$
. '
$
#
,
#;
$ #, $
, #
. #,
$
$ # $
$ 25, $
$
$ , ($ ! #. +
; ;
?
#
!,
, (
# %!.(&
;) , ,
,
# # . ;
#
,
- #
,
! "
#
. # #
$
,
!
#. &, . , $; /
! #.
. ,
# !,
, , ,
9%
/ (
/
9
,
&,
/
;) ($9
, 2003,25)
*
%
%
.
8
$9
iek (Looking Awry, 35),
Stavrakakis (1999, 128)
& 1
:
&
(real) %
(senseless actuality), &
9
[
] %
%
.
& ,
, &
% /
0
%
& 9
,
,
/
%
,
%
/ (..37)
* ,
% 9
0
* :
9
(.., 49).
9
+
&
9%
*
. 8 &
$
(2004, 167).
&1
$. . &
/
%
/ &
.
109
:
; $
# . &
#
(
. @ !$
!
#
. !
$. +
#
,
! ,
! !
,
/ ( .
; (
!
#
# #
, . .
!
" #
#
. F !$
#
,
# . %
! (
! (.
$ !. * @
( !
. % #
#
#
18 10
"
. &
(8,4,
, 9 ).
) $ #
#
4
#
% /
%
*
, **
%
(
,
,
.&.? #
(
. % #
! ,
( , #" . 6
(
#
($
.,
(16,6,
,
).
=&
#
,
% *
% ( )#
&%
/
/,
0
% *
*
9
% /
%
. $
% *
1 /
*
. 4
: $.
,
$
#
. &, $ > +
,
#$
$
,
, .
$. .
#" 14 , #. !$
16. (@#
! ;)
& $ $
. , $, $
.
$
# , #" (23,2,
,
).
&
1
1
% 9
9
*
(
! !
! # ). C
()
&
10
110
9 *
& ,
9
/11. 4
%
0:
/
&% &
9
9
*
,
-
9%
0 *
%
9
%
9
&%
. 3
&
*
%
9,
/
,
# #
(
),
**
*
%
.
1
%
(
1
)
**
*
Q. "
%
**
,
:[ !-#!] !
$
#! ! #
),
&
($
$ 99). /
&
&
/
1
, % 1
%
&
9
/
1
9* *
9
/
%:% ! . , ! . ,
#
,
$
#$
$
,
$ #. ,
. /
#
,
#
#. .$ !
#
, #
# !
. ;
$, .
!# !
, #
. $
$ 99. >
$
$ #
#
$ ! $ ! . ~ . . ### $
$. $ . (
$. &
, $ $. &(
!
.; !
# & ; / !
# &; #.
F $ "
.
F . / #
F
. (
# (22,8,
,
9 ).
N
*
.
#!
9%
%
#
,
&%
%
,
*
. " 9
*
%
9%
. "
,
& **
#
#
,
!
#
$
#
(19,6,
,
).
&
9 % &
,
1
*
,
% *
%
(23,6-7,
,
).
4
/
01
*
9%
9
. +
11
&1
1997, 9% *
/
/
!
1
% *
.
111
% (& -
%)
9
&%
*
%,
9
#,
,
,
$ 12,
, ,
. $
&1
%
,
&
*
:
. % .
. >
#
# 13. }1
9
&
&
.
*
: . $ . #.
$
$
. $9
,
*
%
! ,
, &
#. ,
$, $ .
!, ! [ ] [
*
,
&
9
9%
9]. $
,
#
#
#
!
#
# #
#
$, . . $ [
] $
#
#
( . 3 /
91
9%
%
. ;
# !
# !
,
!
($. &
.
}1
&%
#.
(#
$
)
%
(
# !
# !
,
, ! ($)
%
&
,
9
9%
.
:
,
%
%,
,
& & &
.
9
&%
*
%
%
9*
,
%
,
1
9
:
!
#
# #
#
$. C
% /9
%
%
**
14.
12
$
*
%. 3
1
&
&1
9
% ,
9% *
.
#!
&
% *
.
13
&
% &%
,
,
9%
.
& $
!
%
9
6
(1997, 29)
%
,
/%
:
*
/
%
,
* ,
&
1
,
1
9
,
& (
&
)
1%
%& ,
%
&.
F !
, $ $ #
,
#
( 9
%
). 4
9
,
**
,
9
9
, &
(
-
)
3
,
*
, &
, -
, %
/,
(habitus)
(6
, 1997, ..).
14
6
: #
[
#
] ! . &
# ,
,
,
#
$ . >
#
#. #
!,
# #
.@#
# [
#]
112
4. (
9~
$
%
%
%
$ & *
& 9
%
*
. "
&
:
*
,
$
9 9
*
-
#.
4.
C568
658
3 , . (2008) + *
9
% /
*
, \
1%
, 3. et al. (.)
@ /
&
, %
:
,
$
3 , . (2007) * *
, \
1%
, 3. et al. 5 @ ;: & @#$#
& F ,
$
, L
: 9
Delikari, V. (2006) What an actress (Elli Lambeti), a composer (Eleni Karaindrou) and two
secondary teachers have in common?, %
: www.esrea.org2006
Delikari, V. (2006) Constructing resemblances to artists: the articulation of the concept of
students assessment in discourses of Greek secondary teachers in Education-line,
9
:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk-educol-documents-157139.html.url.
3 , . (2005) 4
*
,
, \. (.) A $ %
. $ @
F
?$
+., @ &# $, %
: "
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C (1985) Hegemony and Social Strategy, London: Verso
Laclau, E. (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, London: Verso
Laclau, E. (1994) Introduction in Laclau, E. (ed.) The Making of the Political Identities, London:
Verso, 1-5
Laclau, E. (1996) Emancipation(s), London: Verso
Laclau, E. (1997) + & &
, (9. " $
), %
:
}%
. . , #
$
,
,
,
#
.
. % .
. >
#
# . }
. !. &
#. ,
$ $ .
!
! #
#
#
!
#
# #
#
$ . . $
# #
(
$ , # ,
. $ . #.
$ $
;
. ;
# !
# !
,
! ($. &
(28, 15-17,
, 9 ).
113
6
, L. (.) (1997) ?$#
& &
. #
, ,
,
: &
(
#
$
%
,
1995,
)
Stavrakakis, Y. (1999) Green Fantasy and the Real of Nature: Elements of a Lacanian Critique of
Green Ideological Discourse, Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 2 (1), 123-132
Stavrakakis, Y. (1997) Green Ideology: a discursive reading, Journal of Political Ideologies,
2(3), 259-279
Stavrakakis, Y. (2003) Passions of Identification Howarth, D. & Torfing, J. (eds.) Discourse
Theory and European Politics, London: Palgrave.
Stavrakakis, Y. (2004) Jacques Lacan (1901-81) in Simons, J. (ed.) Contemporary Critical
Theorists. From Lacan to Said. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 18-33
$
, ". (2004)
9
:
Laclau
&
?$
12, 149-172 (
).
$9
, 6
(2003) / ' $ &#
%
, %
:
=L/
% , www.kleidiakaiantikleidia.net (%
,
/
)
114
,
:
?
58
4
,
9 8 *
, & 6
,
0%9
"
L
1. 0
$
%
*
,
/ %
9
% "2 (Wilkins, 1972:
206).
, 9
Van Els et al. (1984: 238),
/
9
*
"2.
=
&
/
/ % *
&
(James, 1977).
,
1
9%,
201
%
%
. &,
&
%
9
.
,
9
/%
*
9, &
% 9
% /-
"2,
*
&
1
) 9!
'
4
/
1 9
%
,
%
,
9 /
1 9
,
/
9
1
. C,
&
&
1
/% /
(Gass &
Selinker, 2001: 372). +
% 9%
9
&%
, &
. $5
,
/
%
, 9
&
/
/ ,
,
/
*
(Politzer 1978). /=5
,
/
& (Gass & Selinker, ..). 5
, 9
/
1
4
&
%
&
,
&-9
%
%
. "
9%
%
* .
, . \, L
: %
"
, 2001: 320.
1
115
*
1
&
:
!)
x
/ (formal misselection)
$
%
"9
" (synforms).
9
% /
&
1 /
9
%
9
. 4 Laufer (1992 James, ..: 145)
1
*
:
)
*
.&.
-
,
&-
, *)
*
.&.
9
9 , )
9
*
9% .&.
1
1,
)
9
*
9 .&.
9
.
&
&
/
&
/
1
.
,
,
&
%
%
/ "2
& /
&
%
%
,
,
& / "1
9
&
x '
(malformations)
9
/,
"2.
&
1
"2 , "1.
$
%
.2
/
9
&
% %
"1. .&. *0 ,
3
, */
, *
, *&
9
,4
*1-*
, 1-
.
$
%
/% 9:
- 6
/ "1 &
"2 (code-switching) .&. *
,
*
9
.
- 6
/ "1 &
"2,
9
&
%
/
"2,
%
(foreignisation) .&.
< terror + (* * %
).
- 6
/, 9 %
91
/ "2,
&
&
,
9
(transliteration) .&.
*
% "
;"
&%
"
" (8
. ),
& % " ".
x $* (distortions)
&
% "1,
/.
:
-
0
9 .&. * &,
&.
- '
%
9 .&. *&%,
%
- '
9 *&
,
&
, %
,
"2,
&
&
/ &
9%
.
3
*
9/%
&
.
4
&
, 2006.
2
116
- $
&
%
/
.&. */
,
/
!!) $
,
&
&
"2,
91
&.
*
,
% % / /
*
/
/
1
%
&
.
$
**
, &
,
9
. =&
, , ,
&
&
.
:
1. '
&
% & /
2. '
% /
*
($
/)
,
x '
&
% & /
+
/
1
&
:
- \
.&. *1 (
).
- \
/
%
.&. * ,
.
- \
.&. +
9
*
,
0
.
- \
1
, .&. *,
.
x '
% /
*
($
/)
6
9 &
%
&
&
/
* , /
1
&%
%
/, &
*
O
%.
*
9 /
&
:
- $
% / .&.
0
"
*
&
",
"
*
",
& *"
* 9
".
- $
/
&
.&.
0
* &
,
0 /*
.
- D
/
.&.
0
"
9",
& *"
9
".
- D
/
.&.
"
%
",
& *"
% ".
"2,
% "1.
%) "
!) 69
C 9 1
91
9
% 9
,
&
.&. * "/ ** ",
/ **
.
!!) $
3
/% :
x '
% %
$9
&
/ "
#$
!
!." (James (.. 156)
&
% %
,
%
James (..):
)
+.$.,
+.$.,
1
+.$. .&. 9 *"+
,
%
&
,
"
*
+.$. "
%
&
".
3
117
*
%
&%.
,
9
&%
9 %
1
/% 9:
- =* % &% &
&%. $
&,
, /
1 "2 &
/
*
/ % 9,
1
**
%
&,
%
9
.
- % &%
*
&
.
- '
% &
*
.
- '
*
/
&
.
, ,
&%
*
&
&%. N
*
&
,
%
4
118
&%
%
()
.
%
**
%. $
9
%
0
9 % %
%
1%
0
.
1
9
%
. $
/
402
. $ 9
9
&
%
9
.
,
9
/%
*
9, &
,
4.3
8
$5 85
6 85
. ('
6 *
/
9
12.833 33.797 /.
, /
9
4.738 10.663 /, 8 4.002 11.383 /
" 4.093 11.751 /.
4
%
&
9
/
09
1
.
,
9
8.825
(2.093 )
,
9
1815 .
9
, 9
%
9
1
1
1
%
%, ,
%
9:
9
1.275
%, 526 /
414
&%.
$'",( 1
$
#5
#=
(=
?
526
)5
1275
2093
(
<
414
1
%
&
%
&
%
,
0
9
,
% *
&
,
%
%
. $
, &
%
*
&&
(.&. =-G-)
&%
&1
* 0 (.&.
),
/
& .
,
%
/
.
$
&
/1
,
1
.
9!
'
/#
4 *
%
/
/
:
9
95, 78
39
&
/
. !
&
/
&
&%
9%,
9
9,
9%
% 9
9.
&, ,
&
&
&
.
,
5
119
9
/: /
9
: 34, 26, 9.
&
&
/
&
"2,
+ &
9
/.
%
/
/
/
,
,
,
%
. ,
&
/
/
. N ,
&
%
/
&
/ ,
&1
/
9
%
.
0
&
/%
/ /: 7,88% - 12,27% - 17,21%
/
(
& 19, 20
21
&
). ",
&%
/
, ,
, 9
, &
%
.
=
/& /.
/
1
: 4,98% - 8,59% - 22,95%
&
/
(12, 14
28 ).
"
4 /
1
*
9 . $
9
716
356 9 .
;
& /
0
/. 8*
,
1
/
/ /,
,
.
, ,
&
,
/1
&
,
.
1
% %
.
,
+
1
/
%
%/,
9
-
. $
&%
, ,
0
%
%
9
$
%
06
1%
1
.
/,
/
&
9
%
/
"1
.
*
1
%
0
%
%
=
%. $
&, ,
9
9
-%
-
.
,
9
9
*
%
*
&%
. ,
&
,
,
. ",
0
/
.
6
=
"
9
aspect
"
#
&
&
9 Mirambel, [1978] (1988. A & +..
@ # . 69. $.
1. L
:
6
9
)
Holton et al.
(1999. +
6
120
$
0
&1
%
&
. $
&%, ,
&
. +
, , **
,
,
/% &
.
6 , ,
/
1
,
9
.
$
(111 ).
, &
1
&
91
/ ,
9
1
/
9
%
,
. "
9
/
*
.
,
1
,
/
.
0
1
9 ,
1
%
.
'
$
,
%:
1 2,80%
.
6+
1
%
/. 4
0
/
%
9%
%,
0 *
.
,
9
&
/
9
,
9
1
9
.
$
&
. !
9
*
1
,
/
,
, %
&
*
. C,
1
. $
% &
/
&%
% ( +
). , ,
&
/
&%
. $
, 9
% %,
&%
%
0
%
,
&
%
&
0,
%
&
1 9 %
.
1
% / /
% 0,
*
&
%
.7
7
7
121
+
1
9
. /
%
* % "1,
*
%
&
. ,
1
%
*#
1
% /
%
(.&.
.
,
#. - #
),
*#
1
*#
/
.
& 1
&
,
9 9
%
.
;
6 *
%
&%
%
%
%
, &
G
*
5.17
5.18
,
9.
,
9
195 /
1
( 46,76%) . $
&
&
% &.
*
1
(
/)
9
.
'
% 9.
9
116
( 37,81%
&%
). D
%
*
*
%
& / /
9
,
*
. $
:
1
. 4
'
*
,
& & *
, % %
9
9 . ,
Zamel
(1982)
Raimes (1985) ( Krapels, 1990: 48),
/%
&%
*
&
"2 &1
%
"2
&
&%
"1. $
,
//
.
% &%
9
(
9
2 /, 2 8
5 ")
(1
1 ")
9
1
/
**
.
C 6 85
: 65 55
5
6
9%
/
%
*
%
*
1
.
$'",( 2
%
*
" %
x
*
x !&
#
#
x $
&
9
x
x
x
x
%
8
%
6
%
&
*
,
%
9 *
&
.
8
122
(5
/ &1
/
%
,
, %
.
/
"
.
4
1
/ .
=
%
*
1
* 9%
.
&
/
&
%
. 8
&%
%
%
,
9
&
%
9%
%.
$5
x 6
/
O
,
,
9
*
&
*
,
/
& 9
*
.
x =
%
*
,
%
/
%
%/
%
.
C56
&#$
, . & . ". 2006. |
&:
#.
4
3
, !
/
9
123
&
*
.
:
1
&
L
90%.
9
1%
9%
9
(", 2006). 6&
9
,
%
%0,
,
.
%
%
(&%
% %
)
9
9
%
,
1 &
%
(
, 2000).
4
9
%
% %
80,
&
9
% ($
%, 1951). "
%
1%
9
,
9
%
,
&
9
98% (4
1997). , %
9
%
9
&
9
& ,
% %
,
9
&
80
90, %
9
%
1
+
1
&1
1
&
9
&
%("*, 2002).
,
% %
%/
,
& &
&
9
.
+
&%
, %
.
&
&
,
&
. "
&
&
&
%
%
%
%. 6
/
&
&%
0
&
&
/
9.
%0 %
& %
%
&
% &
*
&
. 4
%
&
%
.
$ & ,
&1
*
, ,
,
. $9
0
%,
124
*
*
%
9
&
. 6
9
1
&
1
%
.
$
&
9
&
-
&
/.
1.2 )
8 5
/
$55
4 % **
9
9
162
1
%
. %
9
9
1
.
1
% **
9
,
%
1
&
. + Baker (1992)
%, /1
*
(
5,
56)
&
*
&
. $
%
/
&
. ,
9
%,
%
9 . +
*
/
&
*
0 /.
%
% & &
%. + -
-
*
9
&
&
&
9
(Baker, 1993).
1.2.1 5 ~5
,
&
1
. + %
&
*
. $
1
&
9,
/
9
% 9
% /
9
(Baker, 1992).
1.2.2 5
%
9
. 4
%
1
%
. H 1 /
,
.
1
&
(Baker, 1993).
1.2.3
$9
%
9%
*
.
*
&
9
.
,
9 9 .
9
*
%
*
.
,
&
%
/
(Baker & Jones, 1998).
1.2.4 5
5
8
4
9
%
9 .
9
9
%
9
.
$
*
&
. $
9
125
9
. $
&
&
(Cummins & Swain, 1986).
.
1.3 05
5-
/%:
8
<5=
5 565
;
32
9
3# . 4 *
%
"
%
%
9 &%
9
/.
1.4 8
$
%
- 09
. $ 5
"
%
=5
%
&
9 %.
1.4.1 )5 <5
C
% /1
556
. + L
(2007) (http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/studies/guide/thema_d11/index.html)
9 9
%
9
. /1
, =5 <
9
1
%/ (-, -, -, -
)
(=<
=
=
=
=. +
9 9
1
&
(
9
)
&
%
(%
%
% 9%, 9- 9
).
&1
()5
;)
&% &. $
&
, &%
(" & 6
)
&
, / 6
$
6
("
8
&
).
1.4.2 $565 <5
65=
<5
&% %
9
9% &%
&1
* &
. 6
/,
%
. "
%
,
-% (L
, 2007) (http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/studies/guide/thema_d11/index.html).
&
/
9:
x / &
% &% ( +.# +.#)
x
*
%
9 (&%
)
x = ( )
x / (
%
* % /
,
*&%)
4
& 9
/
%
9
126
(
)
(
)
.. .
x ?,
&% /
%
&
%
. 4
9
.
9
( 9
.
1.5 (~
4
% * %0
,
*%
&%
%
. +
,
9 . ,
, 9
%
%
,
%
%
,
0
.
4
%
9 9
%
,
O
% ,
,
*
%
, % %/
&
%
,
%,
.
!
9
%
,
%
&
-
%
&% %
. 9
%
&
:
1.5.1
58 =
56
$
&
,
1
&1
1
%
%
9%
%
*
% (G, 2002).
1.5.2
58
= 8<
+ &
* %
&
%
.
%
%
%
. + &
&
*
%
%
%
9
. + 9
%
%
/
127
4
, . (1997). 6, /% %
(Minorities, Foreign
Policy and Greece). In K. Tsitselikis & D. Christopoulos (eds.), T
&
(The Minority Phenomenon in Greece). %
(Athens): % & 6+ (Kritiki A.
E & KEMO).
, . (2000). A #
+.. Blacklist, %
G, 6. (2002). / ' $ %.
%.
Gutenberg, %
128
8
5 ,.0.0. (
13-14/12/2007)
!
N
%
..3..
/
=0%9
..3..
/
<
=5/?8
1. &#$#
4
%
//
&
1
1%
:
9
%
%
&
1
#. (interlanguage)1
& &
2 (White 2003, Ellis 1994, Lakshmanan & Selinker 2001, Sharwood Smith & Kellerman
1989)
$
(Mackey, Gass & McDonough 2000, Kormos 1999, Lyster 1998, Olsen 1999, Morris & Tarone 2003,
Mackey & McDonough 2006, Leeman 2003). $
%
&
&
&
%
.
/
&
%
/ %
#.
.
& * 0
%.
$
,
&
,
%
*
%
9
.
1.2. A
$ .
4
%
&
//
:
1. 9
/
*
.
2.
,
%
0.
3.
0
//
.
4.
9%
%
%
,
0
&
.
,
%
*
,
1
%
%
*
. 4
&% 9
&
9
1
%
%
.
5. 8
$ #$# 9
/
& % *
.
6.
%
%
*
9
1
/. 4
%
&
%
&
%
*
&
.
1
4 #.
//
(Selinker, 1972)
&
9
&
1
.
9
1
-&
. 4
#.
, 9
* *
.
2
O
9
%
-&
,
#.
% &
$
% 9
.
129
%
%
//
,
%
. "
,
9
%
*
,
9
* >
9
*
> *.
' #
(false analogy): .&. > *
! > !
.
' (misanalysis):
% &
1
&
%
% &
-&. .&. &
#
1
%
#
1
-$ ($, $) &
1
-$ ( $),
-($ ( ($),
*$ (
($)
.
&
# (incomplete rule application): 9
. .&. *# *
%
(
#
%
). +
9
1
1
&
.
~ ( #
(exploiting redundancy):
&% /
, .&. 6 *
(
! ).
~ ! (overlooking co-occurrence restrictions):
&%
%
9
1
, .&. ?
,
, / %
#
$
&
$ (.&. ?
#
$ / $
),
130
: ?
*$ (
#
$) ,
1
%
&
"3
%
.
$
%
%
%
,
#$ .
#$
9
%
9
9
. + Richards (1971)
(. $9
% (2000:168) (
* 0
9
1
,
/
//
,
#$ /
&
(
, %
9
%
%
0 %
&
%
). $
%
#$.
*
1
.
2.2. ?#
. $
.
#
$
100
%
%
(
%
%) /
24 (
)
&
9%
8# "
%
( !
2006)
6 (
6
,
2005-2007). +
%
9
9, &
9%
3
% L
9
. 4
% .$...6. ( $%/
6
) %
$.
&%
%
5
%
%
%
&
%:
1. ( #
! #
)
2.
(#
)
3. 6 (#
# .)
4.
% (
%
% 0 ./
.)
5.
% (
%
% 0 ./ $)
\
%
:
1. ? : &%
/. .&. A
$
(
#
# *
( .
.
2. +
: % 9
9%
. .&. * * (
)
/
*x
(
(
) / *
*
(
" "$
), *
(
).
3. 56 : +D,
%
9
%
9
-
, .&. %
* #.
(
#.) /
*! (
) #.
4. 56
:
9 9
/, &% 9
% 9%
%,
% 0,
. .&. % #
*. (
. ) /
*
(
(
) / @
#
*
(
).
5. %556 : .&. F
*
(
) * (
)
.
6.
=
&1
:
)
0 (
1
), .&. * , * , * ,
*)
( *
). .&. *
, *
, *
.
7. $59 / < 5 5
: .&. F
.
# #
3
+
" (
%/
%/
&%)
9
% " %
#
%
(
aspect). 9/%
&
(
%
%
% 0).
131
#
(
.
2.3. $
$
4
%
1
@
1:
3%
10%
9%
>
3%
?
3%
14%
!
!
!$!
21%
37%
%!@
%!
%!@
@
1
4
&
(37%)
9
,
,
%
(9%),
1 46%
9
. 3
9
( 21%)
9
(14%)4. ,
0
& 10%
,
(3%)
/ ,
9
9
.
2.4. @ $ .
0
&
9 , 9
9
%
& .
, 9
&
% , 4788 / 707 &
,
,
, 14,76% / &
.
,
% 176 / /, , 3,67% / &
.
4
,
,
%
*
9.
$
,
9
9
400 / 4788 /,
%,
8,35% / &
9 .
9
9
(
) 9
/.
9
9
1
%
%,
9
(
,
/ %
&
).
:
4
4
09 /
..". (2004-2005)
/
9
9
,
0
/, * .
, 8
,
, 6
1%,
(2006:2628).
132
).
2. ' &%
:
#" ! #
* *
(
) #
".
3. ' & /:
9 9
. .&. *
(
) / * (
).
4. %
% % %
%
0% : % #
# * (
) / * +
* (
)
(
) $ #$.
5. %
% 0: * +
#
*"$
(
"$
) "./
*$ (
$)
/ % #$
, *$ (
.$) #
# / } * (
)
.
6. '
&: %
. ;
#.
. * $ (
.)
, *# (
#
)
7. '
9
=-G: A
#. * $ (
) !
./
$
$
* (
) #
.
8. \% 9
%
% 9%: &
$
. /
$; ( $; (
( .;).
4
,
10%
,
9
0
& . $
% %
&%, %
&1
,
1
/.
/
9
5.
+
(3%)
/ ,
9
9 . "
/
&
:
1.
4
/
,
: +
% / &
%
9
& 9
%
%,
9 :
, * #$# (
#
) .
2.
4 &%
/
1
: @
# ! *# (
#)6.
3.
4
/
&
-&:
* . +
%
%
%
(* ) *
&% +D ( ).
4.
4 &%
: F
* *
(
! ).
5.
4
/
9
:
$ #
# #
(
#
.).
6.
4
%
/-
: %
$ *voley bal
(
). * + * (
) # .
7.
4
%
/
1 9 1: ?
# *
!
(
!
).
5
$9
% Q
(
$
)
*
2003 16 %
9 & %
,
L
, 610
/, 42,5%
8#
3
72%
$# 3 &
/. ,
/
81,3%
8# 3
62,8% $# 3 &
9
9%
.
6
&
/ 9%
&
/
9%
.
/
9%,
1
!
(synforms) 9
Laufer, 1989: 13 $
, 2006: 15.
133
8.
4 &%
/
1 9 1,
&
9%
: *(
(
)
. / /
*# (
#
/
# )
$.
4
*
9 .
%
,
9%
//
&
.
,
9
9
&
9%
:
1. / //
/d/ : $ * (
) / *
(
). 9
/d/ //
/
9
&
9% ( // ~ /d/) 9%
%
.
2. // /t/,
9
//
1
%
: *$. (
$.),* .$ (
.$), *
. (
.), * * (
).
3. /p/ /b/: * (
), * (
), *
(
).
4. // /f/: * (
).
5. /#/ /k/: *#! (
!).
6.
9
/(/
/"/
9
9
:
*$ (
($), *$
(
"$
).
4
*
9 . $
%
9
%:
1. $
9
-
: *
, * $
, * , * !.
2. $
9
1
: * (
)
* (
) # $#!. /
*! (
) . $
. / @ $ * * * (
!).
3. $
9
=
-
:
*
(
).
4. '
&
: ! *
(
) .
5. '
%
: %
*
(
)
.
2.5. '
"
9
9
,
%
%
% (
%
%
% 0). $
,
9
*
/
9 /
9
9
* %
(
)7.
&
% 0
,
9
%
1
. 4
%
1
@
2:
%
9
&
(56
9
158
9
). 4
%
/%&
6
(2002-2004, #$
, 3: "
%
3
,
$. 6&
:
., .,
., 6&
.,
6). 8 .
http://www.media.uoa.gr/language/exercises/research.php
134
11%
19%
27%
18%
/'
8!
B
&
B
25%
@
2
+
&
0
&
%
% 0
%
&
%, & @
2.
+
&
&
%
% 0
%
&
% (27% ~ 11%). 4
9
%
.
%
% 0
6
(
%
&%
).
$
%
% 9
&
, 9
&1
0
&
&%
%
. =
135
% 9
//
. +
1
& 9
(#,
% &
%
&
/1
&%
*
. 6
%
$
$!$ (Andersen & Shirai, 1996) 9
&
&
9
0
(
! 1:1,
%,
&1
9%
0)
&
)
&
&
%
10.
3.3. ? (# $ .
#$
%
/ %
,
%
*
,
:
-&
#.
. 4 #.
/&
.
,
,
%
#.. "
, &1
/
//
9
.
9
%
.
&
. &
&
% &
,
/%
9
/
(Lakshmanan & Selinker, ..: 396).
%
/ %
:
1. 4
:
&1
(global)
(local).
*
% %
1
. "
, 9
%
%
$
%
%
: * + * (
) !
*
9
=-: * +
*".
2. 4
: $
9
1
&
,
&
&
&
,
%
9% &. ,
&
&
-&
. "
,
9
-
9
1
%.
3. 4
:
9
1
%
,
. "
, %
&
%
% 0.
10
8 .
Sugaya & Shirai (2007:19),
**
/%
%
0
1%.
136
4. 4 #
: 4
%
&
$
. "
,
&
* !$ (
!
), *$ (
), *$ (
).
H
,
9
/%
&% &
/
% .
6. 4
# !
$ $:
9
9
&,
9
% &, ,
,
9
&
%/: 4
/
% 9% - *#
1
9
-
(
. > !
,
& *
!
).
$
,
%
*
/
%
#.
, &1
9
9%
%
%
.
,
1
,
9
*
,
,
.
C'C'%)&+'
Andersen, R. W., & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language
acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection. In W. C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 527-570.
, }., 8
, D.,
, 6., 6
1%, 6.,
, 8. (2006).
. #$# #! # (
?&+, (# 6).
%
"
.
http://www.greeklanguage.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/foreign/studies/errors, 21-28.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Reynolds, D. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense
and aspect. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 107-131.
, .,
, ., 6&
, .,
, 6. (2004). #$
#
.
6
(2002-2004), :
+
,
:
$.
.
6&.
http://www.media.uoa.gr/language/exercises/research.php.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. London:
Longman.
%, ". (2000). ' 9 %
9
9. $ }.
.. (.), A
$ ! /( #..
% "
, L
,
(2-3/4/99), 167-175.
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49 (2), 303-342.
Lakshmanan, U. & Selinker, L. (2001). Analyzing Interlanguage: How do we know what learners
know? Second Language Research, 17 (4), 393-420.
Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied
Linguistics,12 (2), 180-196.
137
Li, P. & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit correction in relation to error types and
learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48 (2), 183-218.
Mackey, A. & McDonough, K. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and
linguistic development. Language Learning, 56 (4), 693-720.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Morris, F. & Tarone, E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in
Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 53 (2), 325-368.
Olsen, S. (1999). Errors and compensatory strategies: A study of grammar and vocabulary in texts
written by Norwegian learners of English. System, 27, 191-205.
Richards, J. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching
Journal, 25, 204-219.
$
, . (2006). . #$# #! # (
?&+, (>9 %): / ( . % "
.
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/foreign/studies/errors: 14-15.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlalanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-231.
Sharwood Smith, M. & Kellerman, E. (1989). Crosslinguistic influence in Second Language
Acquisition: An introduction.. In T. Odlin (ed). Language Transfer: Crosslinguistic influence in
language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-33.
Sygaya, N. & Shirai, Y. (2007). The acquisition of progressive and resultative meanings of the
imperfective aspect marker by L2 learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29
(1), 1-38.
White, L. (2003). On the nature of interlanguage representation. Universal Grammar in the
Second Language. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell, 19-42.
138
'' ,' (#"0$0'0( !" !" !" !". /'/,',0( 0*"',0( )'
" C#"( %#(
,58 ?,
9 ,
%
3
*
, M.Ed.,
0. 3
8 '
,
*
, 3
27 3 $& 8
, M.Ed.
$59
$9
*,
,
*
&
1%
.
0
,
9
/
,
%
%
. H
&
,
9
,
. Q
,
9
* , 9
%
0,
%
. H
&
&
09
,
0
*
.
&
0 % 9
&
9
& &
.
* %
*
%
% %
,
,
, &
%
,
9
%0
,
%
&%
,
.
,
%
,
1
& %
9
(Sewell,
2002: 24. Muller et al., 2008). +
*
1
,
%
(Smith et al., 1993: 116). 4
,
*
&
1%
(Sewell, 2002: 25-26). H
9
, * , ,
*
, 1 (Kowalski, &
Kujawski, 2004: 297, 302).
$
,
%
,
9
9
O&
,
% %
&
9 :
)
0
&
,
,
,
1
,
, % &
,
*
9
%0, %
*
,
,
%
*
%0,
&
%
&
%0,
%
&
,
139
.&.
&
, &
&
/ ,
,
& %
%,
)
,
1
&
,
*
&
,
&
-
-
,
9
,
9
9
%0,
, 9 *
&% 9
,
%
,
/
%,
,
%
,
,
)
0
,
,
%
%
(Sewell, 2002: 24-26).
%
%
&
% %
9
%0 (Smith et al., 1993: 153),
&
%
0 ,
, &
, &%
O&
. 4 %
%
%
0
. Q,
&
%
*
/
&
%
,
&
&
,
9&
/
%
0
9
/
9
(Kowalski, & Kujawski, 2004: 297, 298).
H
&
,
9
,
. $
&
%
9
% %
&%,
9
. Q
,
9
* (
0
9 ,
, *
,
),
9
%
0,
%
. $
%,
%
9
. H
&
&
09
,
&
&
09
0
*
(Smith et al., 1993: 153. Sewell, 2002: 26-27).
&
:
%
, %
, 0 %
&
% (Garrett, & Fisher, 1926: 419. Sewell, 2002: 27),
) 9
/% -
0
,
9
,
%
, .&.
9
%
,
% %
(Chi, 2005: 187-188).
+
,
*
&
9
&
,
&
%
9
%0 /
%
140
&
*
%0 (Smith et al., 1993: 116, 153. Sewell,
2002: 27),
*
*
%0.
%,
%
%0
&
,
1
,
%0
9
. }1
,
%
%
,
%
*
,
/
,
/
/ 0%
%
,
**
*
,
(Chi, 2005: 162, 181).
&
%
*
1 (Smith et al., 1993: 121)
%
0
&
%
&
% 0
(Abdi, 2006: 39), **
,
&,
(Chi, 2005: 181). H
%
%0
&
,
1
,
9
%0
*
%
9
%
%,
,
,
%
%
(Smith et al., 1993: 116, 151-154).
=& **
9 &
%
9
%,
% &
%0
(Chi, 2005: 171).
,
%/
9% &
%
9
,
* %
*
:
/
%
%,
%
0 %
% 0,
9
,
/
%,
,
1
%
*
%
%
%
0
%0 (Smith et al., 1993: 122. Sewell, 2002: 28),
/ 0 9%
,
%
%
% 9%
(Muller et al., 2008),
%
0
&
,
, &
%
,
&
(
,
9%
)
&
,
&%
%
%
%
,
9
&1
&
,
%
,
1% %
/
*
9
%0 %
9
/,
&
*
%0
(Sewell, 2002: 28. Muller et al., 2008),
&% *%
/
,
/
&%
,
*
&
9
,
% (Smith et al., 1993: 150, 151, 153. Muller
et al., 2008),
,
, 9
%0
,
%
,
%
(Smith et al., 1993: 121, 122, 126. Sewell, 2002: 28. Muller et
al., 2008) &%
(Sewell, 2002: 28. Muller et al., 2008),
141
142
,
%
% 0
&
0
%
(Smith et al., 1993: 126, 153),
/
,
/%
:
% &
9
,
0,
9,
%/
,
9
% 1%, 9
0
% 1%,
9%
% /%
,
1%
(Abdi, 2006: 39),
,
/ %
,
9
&
(Smith et al., 1993: 153),
&
,
*
% 0,
/
%
*
/
9
%
,
0 (Kowalski, & Kujawski, 2004: 298-299, 301-302),
%
%0
0 % (Smith et al., 1993: 117, 122, 154),
&
0
(Schmidt, 1997: 134),
&
,
,
%
(Schmidt, 1997: 124. Sewell, 2002:
28),
%
*
9
/ 9
%
&
,
,
,
,
9% (Chi, 2005: 188,
192-193),
/&
/ ,
%
(Smith et al., 1993: 125),
&%
(Muller et al., 2008) %
(Smith
et al., 1993: 122),
(Altman, 2006: 8),
%
&
,
%, *
& ,
&
9%
% *
9
9 * 0
&
9
,
(Smith et al., 1993: 149. Chi, 2005: 194.
Muller et al., 2008),
%
& %
*%
0
%
1%,
*
&%
%
% *
/ 9 0
&
0,
0
,
,
*
, 1
,
&
,
%
0
,
%
,
/
/
% (Altman, 2006: 7-8),
/,
/
%
%
& % %
(Schmidt, 1997: 124, 126) (
,
Hot Potatoes) %
1
%
.
+
1%
&% & (Sewell, 2002: 28). + Muller et al. (2008) 1
%
/
,
%, :
,
,
%
.
%
1
%
/
%,
%
1
&
(* .
Abdi, 2006: 39),
.
$5
'5
8
1
% !
8#
"
,
&
%
. Q&
9
.
+
%,
*
**
. $
, "
&%
8
,
*# %
D*
2008
/
1
,
143
?
4
%
1
%
,
,
*,
&
9
(&.
! #
, . #
! / &
.
$
#
,
),
9
* 0
9
9 *
% &
& &
% /
.
4
%
2 &
0
%
9
*
&
%
1
(&. ;!
$
(=
)
#
!
/
. "
$ $.
/
# .+ / #
# $
&
). 4
%
,
%,
/ 9
&
%
&
9
& ** .
+ 9 &
9
&
&
9,
*%,
%
.
"
&%
% 0
1%,
%
/
%,
*,
& &1
&
*
,
&%
9
%
,
.
,58 55
$
1
&
%
9
%0
,
%,
,
,
% %
*% %
, ,
,
& ,
,
,
0 (Smith et al., 1993: 119. Schmidt, 1997: 123-124. Chi, 2005: 162.
Abdi, 2006: 39),
%. Q,
% %
9
%
%
%
9
/
%,
9
&1
/1 (Muller et al., 2008).
*%
%
,
%
/
)
(errors),
% *
,
& ,
9
%
9, *)
(misconceptions),
9
*
&
& %
0, )
%
,
(mistakes) (Schmidt, 1997:
124), )
/
(slips),
,
)
(attempts),
% &
%
% .
+
/
,
, &
*
0
9
9
9
,
,
&
% % & %
&
144
&
/ %
,
*
9. 4
/
,
,
*
% ,
/
*
%
(Byrnes,
2004: 58). 4 %
&
%
,
& &
%
/
*
%
/
9%,
9
%
*
9
*
.
%
% %
,
% (Abdi, 2006: 39),
/
%
/ portfolio (Byrnes, 2004: 61-62),
/
/ .
+ Schmidt (1997: 134)
1
%
9%
* %
, 1
%/
. [] %
,
&
. +
9
9
0
. 8*
,
&
. +
9*
9
. +
*
,
&
. [] 6 %
%
9
1
,
&
. + Smith et al. (1993: 148, 152, 153)
&
,
%
&
% %
% &
&
9
&
&
&
%
0
. Q, %
%
9
%.
%
&%
9
0
%. + Garrett, & Fisher (1926: 419)
9
0 %
,
1
%
&
*
.
, &
&%
%
%
9
%
% %
(Byrnes, 2004:
61)
/
,
.
%,
*
9
% ,
%
,
9
/ & %
%
,
&%1
% ,
*
& ,
&,
% . ,
,
&
&
%
0
**
,
,
%
,
&
,
& &
%
.
,
& *
%
,
&
% %
0,
/ %
.
$
%,
9%
,
%/
9 0
% %
. $
%
,
9
%
,
%
,
/%
%
,
%
-1%
&
,
9%
%
&
.
145
C56
Abdi, S. Wali (2006). Correcting student misconceptions. Science Scope, 29,4.
Altman, William S. (2006). In-class writing: a technique that promotes learning and diagnoses
misconceptions. The Teaching Professor, 20,6.
Byrnes, MaryAnn (2004). Alternate assessment FAQs (and answers). Teaching Exceptional
Children, 36,6.
Chi, Michelene T.H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some
misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14,2.
Garrett, H.E., & Fisher, T.R. (1926). The prevalence of certain popular misconceptions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 10,4.
Kowalski, Particia, & Kujawski Taylor, Annette (2004). Ability and critical thinking as predictors
of change in students psychological misconceptions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31,4.
Muller, Derek A., Bewes, J., Sharma, M.D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Saying the wrong thing:
improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer-Assisted
Learning, 24,2.
Schmidt, Hans-Jrgen (1997). Students misconceptions looking for a pattern. Science Education,
81.
Sewell, Audrey (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions. Why every teacher needs to
know about them. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48,4.
Smith, John P., diSessa, Andrea A., & Roschelle, Jeremy (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: a
constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3,2.
146
8 '
,
*
, 3
27 3 $& 8
, M.Ed.
$59
/
,
& &
% %,
% %,
%. Q,
%
,
%
&
1.
$
%
9*
%,
9
0
. & 9
1
,
, %
,
%
,
.
&
%
"
,
&
%
,
&
.
5
8
< 5~8
?
&
&
0
91
%
, !
,
*
& **
%
% & % . $&
/
&
&%
%
%
9
%
% %
(Byrnes, 2004: 61)
,
/ ,
%
,
.
*
9
% ,
%
,
9
/ & %
%
,
&%1
% ,
*
& ,
&,
% ,
&
,
& &
%
.
,
& *
%
,
&
% %
0,
/ %
.
$
%,
9%
,
%/
9 0
% %
. $
%
,
9
,
%
-1%
&
147
,
/
%
,
,
.
*
/
,
&
(Moniot, [1993] 2002: 102103. Carretero et al., 1994: 363). 3
9%
9%
* %
(, 1998: 235-245). /1
*
%
,
9,
*
, * % . + ,
9
&
(Husbands, [1996] 2004: 33).
9
/
%
1
%0
!
(Moniot, [1993] 2002: 327). H
%
,
9%,
,
9 %
&
,
9
(Husbands, [1996] 2004: 105). 4
%. 4 %
9%
:
9-/
, -, - .
&
!
9
,
(Blanco & Rosa, 1997: 196, 198-199). 4 !
/
&
,
/
&, , , ,
(, 1998: 338, 366,
376). 6 !
,
%
% %
("
, 2004: 129).
**
!
&
/
&
,
,
,
*
(Hawkey, 2004: 35).
&
, &
,
, 09
, ,
,
% /
(D
, 1997: 195.
, 1998: 409-410). 3
/
(* , 1997: 68).
(3
, 1997: 79, 95).
,
1
& (D
, 1997: 159). /
,
**
1
9
/
,
/
9
.
,
,
,
(
1 , 1997: 136, 138). 4 & % !
*
%9
%
,
&
%
9 %
%
(Porat, 2001: 52).
, !
% Annales /1
,
, , , ,
%,
/, ,
(Leinhardt et al., 1994: 147148),
&
(D, [1985] 1999: 116, 119),
*
*
(Husbands, [1996] 2004: 90. 6
% &
, 2004:
435).
$5
5< 0
'556
&
%
"
,
&
%
,
&
. $
, ' &%
8
,
/ 6
2007
&
# '
148
/
1
(&
% !
)
&
9
, 2, !, 22-26,
1
%.
*
,
%
'
,
'
,
.
4 9
,
,
%
0
.
* '!
!, (
$ , $
, ! ( ! ) #
,
!
, !
#
!
,
( () ! #
. *
#$
$ (
#
.
&
$ '! #
$
#, #
#
!. * '! ( ##
() !
, (
) !, ! (
)
(
), ! () ##
. ?
. F
.
+
&
%
%:
6
%
1
*
, !
#
.
$
#, #
# #
.
6
% 2
% #
$
, ! #
! , . $ ( #. @
,
$ $, .
!
. +
$.
6
%
3
* '!
. F
, .
(
!
%
1, 2, 3
% %
& , &
%
%
%
9
%
. Q,
$
'
&
/
, 1
9
&
%,
9
.
H
%
4
&
,
,
&
,
9
%,
9
, *
*
,
1
. 4
%
/
&
,
,
, , /
*
,
,
% /
.
,
% &,
/
,
1
9 . , & /
& 1
149
/
, * %,
9
.
&
,
%
1%
.
C56
Abdi, S. Wali (2006). Correcting student misconceptions. Science Scope, 29,4.
Blanco, Florentino, & Rosa, Alberto (1997). Diltheys dream. Teaching History to understand the
future. International Journal of Educational Research, 27,3.
Byrnes, MaryAnn (2004). Alternate assessment FAQs (and answers). Teaching Exceptional
Children, 36,6.
Carretero, Mario, Jacott, Liliana, Limn, Margarita, Lpez-Manjn, Asuncin, & Len, Jose A.
(1994). Historical knowledge: cognitive and instructional implications. In: Mario Carretero, & James
F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in History and the Social Sciences. Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, Michelene T.H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some
misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14,2.
Hawkey, Kate (2004). Narrative in classroom History. The Curriculum Journal, 15,1.
Leinhardt, Gaea, Stainton, Catherine, Virji, Salim M., & Odoroff, Elizabeth (1994). Learning to
reason in History: mindlessness and mindfulness. In: Mario Carretero, & James F. Voss (Eds.),
Cognitive and instructional processes in History and the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Porat, Dan (2001). A contemporary past: History textbooks as sites of national memory. In: Alaric
Dickinson, Peter Gordon, & Peter Lee (Eds.), Raising standards in History education. International
Review of History Education, 3. London & Portland: Woburn Press.
Schmidt, Hans-Jrgen (1997). Students misconceptions looking for a pattern. Science Education,
81.
Smith, John P., diSessa, Andrea A., & Roschelle, Jeremy (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: a
constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3,2.
Husbands, Chris ([1996] 2004). /
|
; +.,
.
6. '
. %
: 6
&.
Moniot, Henri ([1993] 2002). A |
. 6. Q9 . %
: 6
&.
D, 6
([1985] 1999). A |
. &
|
. 6.
8
. $ : }.
* , Q9 (1997). 4
%
& :
. $: N
D
& L
3
(.), /
;.
&
. %
: /
.
"
, 3% . (2004). 4
/
%
!
/
!
%
*
: %
. & . & .
$, 9.
3
, L
(1997). H
%
: 0
&
:
% . $:
. & " ".
6
% (.), &
#
, . 8#. %
:
%-3
.
D
, N
(1997). +
%
. $: N
D
& L
3
(.), /
;.
&
. %
: /
.
150
1.0
Q
5
5
&
,
&,
%
=
'
>
#
%
%
,
,
91
.
5
1
%
&
&
556
?
% .
N
%
*
&%
%/
%
9%
.
1
&
0
&
1 0
&
%
-
*
&
%
.
& %
" ,
, 3
, M
& ,
& 556
?. "
&
9
9% /
9
.
(
- 6
$
, 2004)
C '*
1
%
,
*
.
1%
9
,
/ %
&
,
&.
L
&
,
9
1
%
% . 'Q
,
%
9%,
&
%
/
. C,
%
1
9%,
9
*
&
&
9
. .&.
9
&
%
9%.
/
, 9%
1
/
0
%
%
*
.
1
& %
"1
"
%
&
,
%
9 1
,
&
9
($ 1991, 30-31).
,
9
9
"
",
% &,
/
.
/
**
:
1. +
9 &
&
9
9
,
&
,
9
, &
9* , 1
% / %
9 %
9
9 .
2. +
9
'*' '
'- $9
9, * ,
9%
%
%
%
%
%
.&. !
, "
9
, D
% ...,
*
%
'
9% %
$
151
#
%
"9
6
,
.
3. +
9
, % **
9
&
,
,
%
1
*
/& %
!!
#!
%
& , &
/
.
8*
%
/%
% 1%
, 9, , ** .
% 9%
,
9
,
*
%
%
#
/
0
,
*
,
%
%
9 .
6 %
9% /
0
% **
9
/
&
& , 9
0
8' $ (088$
+8$ "*
, *
-( 303/13-3-2003, . B. ),
2.(
0
) /.
$ %
:
x
&1
,
,
9
i %
%
:
i
*
,
i
,
i
*1
i
9 .
3
% : }
&
:
i
i
i
,
.
}
&
&
9%
i
i
i
&
i
i
%
.
152
}
91
1. }
% :
)
9,
/%
,
&1
8)
%
% &%
%
.
2. }
% *
% % ,
/
. ...
685 /0$$( $( ) =
<;
(< $( =
<:
1.
% &
,
,
,
9%.
2. /5
/
.
3. )56 5, 5-568
&
&
/&
.
4. (<~ 5 65~ 5=
9% /.
5. (=
/
8<
5
556
.
6.
&1
/
0
.
7. }
9
&
%
,
1
/
, .&. 9 ,
.
< $5
/ 5
55:
1. %
9
9%
2.
%
9%
/.
3.
/
)
<
:
x
%
,
,
5 5
:
153
> ),
%
9% /
,
,
/
9
.
4
9
,
/
9
.
4 +
/
,
/
( /
)
%
&%
%
. (!
. 2007).
3."8
5568 :
$
**
&
/
/
9
%
/ ,
&
- %
9
. (
5, ?8,
56 556
8
8
? 8
8
<5
)
= < %0/C 2006-2007 ...
4. 0
) 556 :
$ ; |
& +.
9
!
F ,
8 . .`. ( #
!, ), . #
# 400 .`.. (%
.
2002, . 16)
H 1
9
% /
.
,
,
&
9
..
&
9
,
6=
< 5= 9%
9. 4
9
(9% % 9 %)
*
5,
%
. (6
".,1980).
O
' 1
<8 5<
565 56
5
,
% &
. $ 09
%
%
9%,
*
=,
6, '
*
9
%
.
1. (<8 ?= 6
56
A6 56
9
%
56
6
,
%
&
&
%
9 , .&. , , , ,
4 %
%
,
&
?
(
)
%. =&
9
/
,
&
9
,
.
154
9
9
,
-
%
9
-,
&
9%
(, )
%
*
.
1.
: .&. &% /
&%
1
1.
2. 65=
<5
9
1
565 (
, .&.
%),
5
,
.
'
?
<
8
/
8
(.&.
9%-&
),
?
65
8
=6 (
),
*
%
9
9
1
( &%
.&.
*
). 4 %
&
(
,
%
9): .&. ? =,
6 '<5.
3. 65=
5 56
556 ,
&
155
9 9
"%
9
"
=
(
9
9*
9*%).
556
+
, 9
9
,
*
9%
. Q&
&
%
&
9
, &
9
*
, :
x
x
x
x
x
x
%
%
% % %
8
- 9%
9
}%
(
0
%
%
9%).
D&
9 * .
Q 0
%
%. 4
%
&
* ,
1
& %
.
%
9- 9
9%
%
9%
**
1
& (Bryant,
Bradley, MacLean & Crossland 1989
Bradley 1990).
Q&
*
/
% 0/
%
% 0
/,
,
8
=.
4 %
0
/,
9% : .&. - (
)
/ $
9 %
& /: (.&. - - ).
=
1
& 556
/,
/
(&) /
/
/
9
&
. (* .
6
"., 1980),)
9
%
:
%
,
.
556
:
/
,
9
,
%
0 /
,
9,
**
9
,
*
&
,
- % *
&
-.
,
9
&
.
156
9 .
1 \., (2004),
?8?!- ?
556
-5
1.
9
9
9
.
2.
9
&
%
,
3. /
&
%,
%
4.
9
%
%
%
%
.
5.
9
%
,
%
%.
6.
*
&
9%
0 &
*
7.
%
.
8.
9
/
%
.
9.
*
0
.
10. /
! #,
11.
!
#$ ((. (%:
% "
)
12. "
&
&
&
9
9
. (%: % "
)
13. 4
#. (
$ .
#
#$!
.
#. (\ 1987).
14.
%
1
. (%: % "
15.
-
&
9-
,
16.
%
. (%: % "
%
$!
#$#, +.# @
#$#
#$#
. |! & ;.).
?
556
- $ 5
;
8
:
9 +
:
- %
9
:
9 6
%-
.&.
%
9 3
& & //, -
9 /
.&.
9
%
9
:
/ (--)
(-
--).
9 L
/
. 6
9
15 /
9
3-5 /.
9
%
9
99&
/.
9 Q9
*
%
9
8
/
(
3000 /).
157
9 %
*
*
.
9
/
*
/
- /
&%
.&.-
9/
/
.
9 -}
%
%/ / ,
(%
)
/,
,
%
% ... `
!
( $,
# ( , . ( ! ,
# ( $ (.
9 -C
? ? < / 6
. /
9
%, 58
?
/. (
.!.)
9 -\%
+
9
'/ 3#- # $#/ +38 2007-08.
(
.!.)
9 ,56
5=
=
8?
55 *%
/
/ &
/
9
1% *%
/
9 (
.!.)
9 %
9%/
&%/ %
0
& .
Q9
9%
/
- .&. 9%
%
9%
%
9- ,
, , (
2002-03:
!
3 &
:
:
%
% % 9
%
& .&.
, %
...: 120
:
L /
% %
9
,
,
( 56,9%)10%
9
. (
- 6
$
, 2004)
9 Q9
*
*
/.
9
/
9
. (.&. %
1, -,
,
, . .).
5. (5
' 9
& /
/
,
:
i 3
/
i 3
/
/ /
i 3
/
%
%
\% /
9%
i &
9
% *
i &
/*
/
i
&
1
/
9
*
&
%
i
(.&.
%/ ,
, /
9 /
).
$%
%
'
&1
*
1
&
%.
-
/
,
&
/
*
, %0
9
-
-*
%
9
.
C56:
x (Boud D., Keogh R. & Walker D. (Eds) (1985), Reflection: Turning experience into learning.
London: Kogan Page.
x Fravell, J. H. (1976) Metacognition aspects of problem solving. In L.B. resnick (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence (pp. 231-325). Hillsddale, NjQ Erlbaum.
x Fravell , J. H. (1979), Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area og cognitive
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906- 911.
x Holton D., Markridge P., D Waburton ., (2007) > +
;!# & +., %
: .
.
x !
., *# #., (.)
x
1
., (2000), +
, +$
@#
, %
: . ".
x 6% }., (2004) A
+.
$
##, %
: . Gutenberg
x 6
, 4., A ; /(, 8#, ?
## +!
'#, %
2001, . ".
x 6
". (1980), L% "
, %
.
x 6
". (2002), ; |
& +., %
2002.
x 6
".,
!. .. (2000) ?
- &$
: @. +
@. ?!
?
&. 1 &
, %
, .
"
.
x D 303, 304/13-3-2003.
x
1 \., (2004), +$ +$
- %
: . Gutenberg
x
- 6
$
(2004),
9
, _
6 , %
: 6
&.
x
.3. ,
x Porpodas (1993), The relation between phonemic awareness and reading and spelling of
Greek words in the first school years Oxford, Pergamon Press, . 203-217
x Porpodas, C. Pantrelis S. N. & Hantziou, E. (1990), Phonological and lexical encoding
processes in beginning readers: effects of age and word characteristics, Reading and
Writing, An Interdisciplinary journal2: 197-208.
x $9
6.,
G
% /.
:http://www.media.uoa.gr/language/exercises/appendix.doc.
-
: $. . 6&$
%
: $. . 6&,
. , 6.
, 6&
, . 3
" %
: !. "
)
159
4
& %
/
9%
&%
( II, "# $)
"
-'
.
*
.
9
3
*
, /
8# "
# '
} %
9 . $
*
&
/
,
9
/ ,
&%
.
,
9
$
. +
%
%
9
1
. 9
%
. 6
9
,
, & &,
.
/
&
:
x
9
&
*
. /
% %
9
, &
%
L
/
. 4
%
%
/
%
.
/
%
9
.
/
9
9
"
" (1997, 1999: 69)
%
%
.
9
9
9 1
9% %
/
%0, %, &
9. +
9
.
*%
%
30 &
9
&
(
, Leech, 1983: 15)
&
(
% &%
, ibid)
*
. +
:
x 3
x G
9
4
/
%
1
.
160
1. /
:
&
.
$
&
. ,
%
% &,
&
%
% /%
9
.
&
&
. +
%
&%
&
&%
,
% .
1
9%
*
%. /
*
30
*
* :
)
9
*)
&
.
* %
:
) $
( 4
30)
&
9
. $
9
9
*
&
*
9
,
%
0
/
.
%
: }
/
,
&
9
9
9
%, 9
3
9
. }
9%
9%
,
*
1%
%
9*%
.
01
9
%
.
=& **
9
/
9
,
*
9
9 %/
.
: }
0
&
*
9
:
&%./
9
. $
%
.
30
,
6
2
*
% &
4
* % '%
&
1 &
/
9
%
$
.
%
...
2
161
9
% &
% &
9
&%
/
. $
,
%
9
&%
/%
/
%
:
3
(
9,
)
"9
$
9
3
9
(
9
)
91
"9
0
0
}1
Q&
3
0
0
&
(
,
/)
0
$& 1
(
&
)
6
30
%
9
%
% ( % &). $
%&
.
%
% '%
&
%
0 (93,3%),
# '
162
< (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, 1997: 147)
&
%
/
%
.
+ &%
&
.
30
20 & &%
05
,
6 &%
$5 =,
&%
(6
<,
9
*
1
&
& &
&%
9
. Q
9
*
& &
91
(Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, 1997: 151). 4 %
9
1
&
9
,
%
,
%
%
&
(Hinds, 1979: 137).
H
G% 3% W. C. Mann, C.M.I.M. Matthiessen
S.A. Thompson
(1992: 45) %
* &
&
&
9%
1
9
. 8
% O
% %
%
9 9
(
,
.
.) &
9
%
/
.
&
-
&
%
(text spans).
$
% 9
G% 3%
&
&% '
/
.
4
G% 3% & %
/ &
&
9%
&
/ & &
9
%
1
& % 9
(ideational relations: Georgakopoulou and
Goutsos 1997: 79)
& 91
9
1
&
(ibid.).
0 &
(Restatement), $0 (Summary) %
(List) 91
&
&
& % 9
.
& & % 9
(Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, 1997: 79):
$& '% 9
O
/%
$
31
/
3
/
/
9
,
,
..
H
9
,
%
&
9
9
%
9
.
$
& & '% 9
9
/%,
. +
& $&
3
/ . $
&
& (.&.
9
, %
),
4
163
%
&%
0 &. 3
%,
&
&
/
%
9,
%
%0.
,
%&
9,
%
9%
/%
,
0
&
.
$
&
%
0
'%
&
2
.
. 0: 9
% 1% & 1 9
;
6
1
; }
% 0%
.
0 56
: Q9
/
: 3
&
9 $, L
L $
&5 (<: -
&58 556: /% ' - 3
$ <
5
: 93,3%
4
&%
1
. + &
9
9
(
0
&
&
** ).
%
%
9
9
&
&
(
0 9
).
,
*
0
9
91
.
+
*
&
0
9
/
*
0
&
1,
0
'%
&
.
C. 0: $
9
9
O,
.
&
8
%
9%*, O
,
9
%
% 1%;
0 56
: &% ( % &)
/
: =&
9 $, L
1
$
&5 (<: -
&58 556: O
-/
$ <
5
: 93,3 %
$
&
%
0
'%
&
. ,
%
9 1 &%
&% 9
% &. 3, O % &
164
). 0:
,
, 1
0
&
& 9% % 9
0
&
.
0 56
: Q9
/
: 3
&
9 $, L
L $
&5 (<: -
&58 556: /%
- '
$ <
5
: 93,3 %
*
0
&
. 3
%,
&1 %
9 0
&
,
: 3
& , %
0
&
,
&1 0
&
.
/. 0: }
0
&
*
9
:
&%./
9
.
0 56
:
/
:
$, L
1
$
&5 (<: $
9%
&
&
9
/
/
. +
&
&
&
%0,
1
6
165
x
x
x
%, =L
!, %
, 2000, D 561, . 8#, 6.05.1999
(=.. "2/1088).
C
% ', D 921, . 8#, 5.07.2005 (=..
63447/"2/27.06.2005).
,. 1999: 4
/ Q /, 3
%
*%,
% !
.
) 5= . /. )= 1999:
, %
,
"
.
1
x Austin J. L. 1975: How to do things with words, Clarendon Press Oxford.
x Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler W. 1981: Introduction to Text Linguistics, London,
Longman.
x Brown G. and Yule G. 1983: Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
x Georgakopoulou A. and Goutsos D. 1997: Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
x Grice H. P. 1975: Logic and conversation, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Cole P. and
Morgan J., New York: Academic Press.
x Hinds J. 1979: Organizational patterns in discourse, Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and
Syntax, Givn T., New York: Academic Press.
x Leech G. 1983: The principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.
x Mann W. C. Matthiessen C. Thompson S. A. 1992: Rhetorical Structure Theory and text
analysis, Mann W. C. and Thompson S. A.,Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic
Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsderdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
166
,
3
*
)
565 <
"# '
,
9
&
%
-9
2001
2006.
.
%
% &%
%
09
% ,
,
& .
9
. 9
30-35%.
?
/ ($) &
% &%
.
% &%
,
%
/
9,
/
9,
/ % 9
/ /.
*
&
%
.
*
/
%
, 9
,
9%
9
.
$5
1. 5?
1.
**
9
%/,
.
2. 6
9
.
3. $
%
&%
9%
*
*
.
4.
& %
& 9
&1
&1
1%
.
5. 4 & %
/
.
6. H *
&
*
. 4
*
.
7.
/0
&
.
8.
&
* %
,
1 &
,
%
*
.
9.
*
.
10.
9
9
* %
.
11. 3
9 1
%
. ( %
).
12. 4
.
13. 4
66,
,
/
.
14. }
.
15. $
.
16.
&
1
.
17.
&
%
.
18.
*
* %
.
19.
9
9
,
9
&.
20. 4
9, 9.
21.
0
22. 6
%
0
&
.
23. 4 % &% &
1
*
.
24. 6
,
1 * .
25. &
9
.
26.
%
*
.
27. +
& 9
.
28.
.
29. =&
%
.
30.
.
1
167
31. 4
*
* .
32. $
,
%
.
33. +
* %
.
34. 6
&
/1
&
&
%
.
35. +
/ &
.
36.
, 1
/
%
.
37. 4
9
1
.
38.
1
(
&
).
39. 9
%
*1 9 (
% ).
40.
9
%
& %
.
41. + ,
%
,
09
.
42.
&
&
&
% .
43. 6 /
%
9 1
.
44. 1
.
45. =&
,
.
46. + 9*
1
.
47. 4
*
.
48.
,
1
%
.
49. H
, *
9.
50. 6 &
&
.
51. +
0
.
52. +
% 1
**
.
53.
0
*
.
54.
,
, &
,
,
.
55.
&
.
56.
%
% &
9.
57.
&
*
*
58. =&
&
&
0
&
.
59.
&
9
/
9
* .
60. + &
&
%0.
61.
&
,
/ .
62.
, 1
&
* %
%%
.
63. =&
& .
64. }
/
&
*
.
65. 4
1 /
.
66.
&
&
&
,
*
1
.
67.
,
%
.
68. 4 / *&%
9
%
.
69.
*
.
70. $ % &% /
9% & %
*
71. + 1
/
%
72. 3
%
73. 4
74.
(
&
Q )
0
.
75.
&
.
76. Q - 9
,
&
Q
&
.
77. + 9
78. D
&
%
.
2
168
79.
*1
,
&
.
80. 4 9
*
&
/ 9 .
81. 4
*
&
.
82.
/
,
.
83.
&
%
9
.
84.
% 9
.
85.
&
&
1
&
/ /
86.
/ &
0
%
&
&.
87.
%
*
,
%/
9
% .
88. + 9
89. H
9.
90.
%
% *
9 .
91. 4
9%
9% %
.
92.
%
.
93. 4
2. 6 (
)
1. +
&
9
%
&
%
9
.
2.
%
9
.
3.
& & &%
.
4. 6
&%
9
.
5. +
, & &
, &
6.
9
.
7. 4
* % &%
1
.
8. +
% / /% . (
).
9. 3
9
.
10.
&
,
.
11. 4
9% 9
9
. Q
.
12. ,
,
&
.
13. 4
0
.
14. $
9
9
.
15. $
(
) 9
*
.
16. \ 9
& 1% * .
17. Q
.
18. 9
*
.
19.
*
,
.
20. $
1%
/
9 /
/ 1%.
21. &%
9
&
,
*
1%
.
22. 4 9
9
9
,
, 1
1
.
23. "
9
,
9
*%
.
24. H
&
&
.
3
169
* %
.
26.
0
*
%
27. 4
&
*
&
.
28. +
%
1%
,
9
&
9
/
.
29. $
&%
9
&
0 %
*
* %
.
30.
66
9
.
3. *5
8?
65
<5 ?8
8?
1.
1
&
& 9
.
2.
6.6..
3. Q
%
*
%
.
4. 4
& 1%
.
5. "
* %
*
6. +
.
7.
1
% 1%
.
8.
*
media
*
9. +
,
. 9
.
10.
%
1%
.
11.
%
9
%.
12. $ -
91 *
%.
13.
9
.
14. +
&
1%
.
15.
&
%.
4. j9 565
1. 4
/
&
%,
/
2%.
2.
,
&
*&
&
%
,
0 .
3. "
%
%
,
%,
&
9.
4. +
&
1929
%
&
9
%.
5. H
(
)
&
*
9
*
1
.
6.
,
9 9
, & %
5.
8
= ?
1.
.
2.
&
,
%,
.
3. 6
/
.
4.
/,
*
1
1.
5. 6 %
/.
6. 4
1
.
+
:
1. 4 %
.
,
% &% "
.
2. +
* &
9 .
4
170
3.
,
9
9.
4.
* % &
,
/ &
, /
/
/
/
9
.
C
/
&1
%
/
% /&.
% /
9
:
x %
% /.
x
9
.
x
/
0
3
&
. +
*
%
%
9
&
&
.
- $5
"
:
1. 4
&
%.
2. 4
/
.
,
5,
% /,
9
,
/%:
$ /
"
}
%
*1
& ** . 6 *
&
/
:
1. 59
2. , 9
9
&
9
3.
<55=
4.
5.
% &
9
4
%
%
} .
C
% &
*
%
} .
%
,
%
&
* 7- 10 **
&
.
8
65 5
9
%
%
%
:
1. +
*
&
& %
** .
2. 4
&% %
%. +
&% /
**
.
1
,
.
3. "
% **
/
4. N&
0 ** %
5. $
&%
**
9
6. Q **
*
&
.
Q
1
9
,
9
, 0
/
0 9
.
1
*
.
>#
* ?! |$
6# /
?. ;. /
|
#
6
. F %..&. /
. ;.
; .@. .&.
5
171
$59
6
&
9
14-16 &
*
(basics),
% %
,
*
(new
basics),
,
1%
9
&
1%.
*
/& 09
9%*
14-16 . 4
9% %
&
% %
&
(1.447
). 4
9%
9% &
%
(4.080
%).
4
1
9
9%
9%*
&
% %
.
&
&
. $
,
% %
&
/
,
9
&
%
9
9%*
/
(9
9
%),
%
%
,
% ( 9
) *
&
/%
9
0 .
1. 0
$
&
9% 9%*
14-16
*
,
&
%
9%
&%
.
&
%
& %
,
L
(* .
3)
/
2006. $
%
* % %
9%*,
%
% (9
) % & ( 9
).
4
/,
%
/
,
*
&
%
%
. $
,
,
1
&
%
/
.
,
/
9
%
& %
.
4
,
% 9
&
9
,
&
1%
9
,
&
. $
&
**
9
*
(New Basics) %
(New Literacies)
(Lankshear & Knobel 2003, Leu .. 2004). 4
O
*
,
% 9
,
& /. +
9
&
/
%
&%
9%2. 4
1
L
&
%
% "
/
%
%,
6
3
'
. 4
(* .
2007) /%&
%
%
&
%
"# ..$.
2
8 . 9% "
. 8*
%, . 230-232.
172
%
&
%
.
&
%:
2
1%
%
/
%
&
,
/ /
. $
3
&
&1
. $ 4
5
. $
01
1
%
.
2. ?
,
/
&
% %,
& 9
"
.
$
% %,
%
(
/ ) &
0
/
%, & %
(= &%
%
)
% &
,
,
&
.
4 %
%
&1
*
&
%
, &
%&
/ PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment)
(Johnson & Kress 2003).
3
&
9*
9
/
&
&
,
*
1%
&
& & %
(Fullan 1991, Van
Kraayenoord 1996,
2006),
* &%
. 6
% %
,
, ,
1%
%
/ . 3
&
&
,
% %
, 1
9 &
,
/ % %
(Koutsogiannis & Tsokalidou
).
9
&
%
% % %
& ,
%.
%
9
*
,
& 1%
%
%.
% %,
1
* % %
9%*. L,
%,
9
, &
9
173
,
,
O.
(*)
/
&
&
%
.
() /
&
% % %
9
1
&
%
% (Van Kraayenoord 1996, NCTE 2005).
() $1
%
/ %
(Gorman ..
1988).
&,
&
&
%
.
*
&
/ ,
/%
,
/
&
& %
.
$
,
%
/%
%
& %
*
/& 09
9%*
14-16 .
%
!.
:
(
)
9
%
,
% %
%
&
.
(*)
. 4 %
&
&
&
9
, %
%
% (* .
1).
() '
%
&
/
&
,
9
9%
& %
9%*
.
() 4
9%*
/ %
,
%
5.
&
59 %
* ,
9,
9% 09
/&
9%*. 3
% %
&
%%
%, /
.
%
/ &
%
%&
&%
. 4
/
1
35
(* .
5).
3
174
4.174
.
(
70%)
9%*
, %
(44%)
L
(30,2%).
&
9%*
%
. 4
%
9% &%
1
1:
$
1.
) 56 5<
(<
$ (%)
%
1.836
44
L
1.260
30
248
6
}
164
4
/
4
142
3
$
116
3
88
2
N*
82
2
D
67
2
50
1
D
4
47
1
$
40
1
$%
34
1
4.174
100
(=
$
2
&
&
%
.
*
0 %
,
&
,
&
&%
%
%
%
%
.
$
2.
%
&
) 56 5<
(<
$ (%)
3.855
92,4
88
2,1
& /
10
0,2
\
221
5,3
4.174
100
(=
&
& 9%, %
%
&%
.
1
&
(2,2%)
&
(0,2%). 4
%
%
%
.
&
&
(82%).
&
18%,
* 9
& (
%
9
)
&
&
(* .
Koutsogiannis 2007).
$ &
%
,
/1
%
,
!
,
& &
&
%
. $
9
&
,
%%
%
&%. L
, ,
%
& ,
1
&
/ %
. ,
% /&
*
.
%
,
%,
&
&1
9 %
.
175
4.
4 %
&
%
/
9
//
(Corder 1967: 161-170, 1987, Selinker 1992: 150).
/
(
)
,
&
% -
%
,
%
9
%
(*)
(
, 9
),
%
&
,
&
%
&
, ,
% & (* .
Corder 1987).
% &
%
,
/
9
1
%
&.
4.1 ?#
#$
4
% %
&
:
(
)
9
(*) 9
/
() /
%
%
, %
%
%
%
. / &%
9
, &
1
+
9 "1
"2
&
9%
9%*
&
% % ("1) ("2)
.
6
1
!!.
176
,5
*#
/
%
;
' (#
$
$
3.
%
)1
1.739 (18%)
6.447 (66%)
869 (9%)
343 (4%)
308 (3%)
9.716
)2
802 (25%)
1882 (59%)
309 (10%)
126 (4%)
76 (2%)
3.195
3 &
9%*
9
%
:
*
%
,
9
&
%
9
9
,
/ . ,
1
9
,
1
* %
/ 10%. $
&
1
.
4.2.1 *#
$
1
9
,
/
&
%
:
$
4. +
9 &
,5
)1
)2
?
408 (0,6%)
222 (2%)
@#$#
179 (0,3%)
41 (0,3%)
' (
1.152 (2%)
521 (4%)
} (
5.984 (9%)
1.661 (13%)
'
463 (0,7%)
221 (1,8%)
63.760
12.329
(=
8?
"
% %,
10%
,
&1
&% /.
9
2,9% (1.739 63.760 /),
10,1% ( 6.447
63.760 /).
&
*
/
1 /,
&
&
&
%,
%
,
,
/
*
13% (6.447/46.227).
9
% "2
6,5% (802 12.329 /),
15,3 (1882 12.329 /). /
1 /
9
9
&
. ,
9
% (&2=40,438, p<0,001).
+
1
&%
:
177
$
5. \%
,5
)1
@ "
100 (1,06%)
'
73 (0,78%)
@
57 (0,61%)
9395
(=
<5
5
)2
41 (2,42%)
23 (1,36%)
25 (1,48%)
1694
%
&
/
9
, /
%
(
&
) 1
:
)56 1.
&%
%
14
12
10
!@
$
!$
4
2
0
!
*
!
!
H 9
9
1,
9
1
%
)2
19 (3,5%)
44 (8%)
8 (1,5%)
547
&% 9
*
% % "2,
%
%
(* . 9
2).
/1
0
/ 9%*
&
%
*
&%
&% %,
%
%
&
.
, 9* %
%,
&%
&
% %, 9
1
* %
%
. 4 &%
* %
9
9
&
, ,
.
178
)56 2.
&%
%
35
30
25
!@
20
$
!$
15
10
5
0
!
!
*
!
;
$
&
9
/
1
7:
$
7. $&
9
,5
)1
)2
;
$
~-
75/10.066 (0,8%)
19/2.234 (0,9%)
;
$
*6
42/4.392 (1%)
9/751 (1,2%)
;
$
~-?
28/603 (4,6%)
14/152 (9%)
9
%
+D
&
9
. 4
9
9
*
%
9
&
* %
9
9
(&2=4,820,
p<0,03). C, /
/ &
0
9
9
9
. C,
9
9
9
(&2=4,323,
p<0,04)
(&2=21,783, p<0,001). ,
%
&%
% 0,
1
&
(}
&
1985,
&
1995, 8
2001,
2005).
;
$
'
9 &%
2%
9
(28 1431
& &%)
9
(5
252
& &%).
179
,5
@ " ;
'
;
@ ;
$
9. $
)1
)2
11/1431 (0,8%)
1/252 (0,4%)
9/1431 (0,6%)
2/252 (0,8%)
8/1431 (0,6%)
2/252 (0,8%)
; $
%
%
("1: 0,001%, 7/63760, "2: 0).
4.2.3 ;
@
$
%
4,5%
(70/1566)
9
14% (42/300)
9
. 4
9
%
% (&2=40,529, p<0,001).
$
10. D
%
,5
)1
)2
@ "
21 (1,3%)
28 (9%)
'
33 (2%)
12 (4%)
@
16 (1%)
2 (0,7%)
;! $. $
1.566
300
,5
)1
)2
@ "
29 (0,7%)
14 (2,2%)
'
51 (1,2%)
14 (2,2%)
@
55 (1,3%)
6 (0,9%)
;! $. $
4.277
643
;!
6
%
&%
9
1,7% (70
4122 &%)
9
2% (16 800
&%).
$
12. \%
,5
)1
@ "
36 (0,9%)
'
!
8 (0,2%)
@
26 (0,63%)
;! $. $
4.122
)2
4 (0,5%)
2 (0,3%)
10 (1,3%)
800
180
$
13. 3
,5
)1
0
18 (0,6%)
5 (0,2%)
%
2 (0,1%)
2.833
C*
%
0
22 (0,8%)
21 (0,7%)
2.843
C*
%
)2
13 (2,4%)
0
3 (0,5%)
553
6 (1,1%)
12 (2,1%)
565
?
&
&% ("1: 0,3%, 3 1024
& &%
"2: 2,9%, 5 173
& &%).
&1
9
% &%
%
, % ,
.
$
14.
,5
)1
@ " ..
1 (0,001%)
'
..
2 (0,3%)
;! $. $
1.024
)2
1 (0,6%)
4 (2,3%)
173
216 (0,7%)
3.1292
C*
%
)2
18 (0,3%)
58 (0,9%)
6.149
4.3 ;
4
/ %
9%*
/
, 9
9
%, *
(* .
..
). C,
&
0
,
9 ,
*
&%1
.
,
&
9
%
,
% 09
9*
&
9
*
9 9 & . /1
& %
9
9%*
/
,
%
. C,
&
9 &
.
$
*
9
%
. 4
%
&
&
/ &%
% 9
9
(
& % ) %
(Tsimpli & Mastropavlou 2007). + Tsimpli & Mastropavlou,
,
9
9 ,
,
&
. ,
&% &
*
%. , 9*
&
(.&.
) 9
&
* %
,
&
%
0 %
. +
(
)
*
9
% %
181
(*) *
/
% %
&%1
.
Q
/
%
%
.
&% /
* %
%. C,
&
/
&%
("1: 1.024
63.760 /, "2: 173 12.329 /) &
%
&1
.
,
-
-
1
9
&
&1
% %/,
%
& . Q, 9
*
&
(language awareness)
%
(explicit learning) (* . Doughty & Williams 1998, DeKeyser 2003, Ellis 2006
/ ).
5. /
?
565
Q
9 &
%
/ 9
&
&
1%. 6
%
&%
/
%
.
05 35. 4 /
% %
%
%
0 &
,
%
&
. $
&
*%
%
.
%
;
4
%
*
0 & %
(reading literacy),
*
*
*
,
%
&%
% 9
/ &. L,
%,
&
% %
%
/ %
%
%
&%
(.&.
9%,
9, &
.),
9,
PISA (2006)
&%
(
,
,
9 ..).
% %
%
&
1%,
&
/ , /
/
,
Google
&% (/
2006). 4
%
%
182
9
9,
9
,
/&
5, &%
6
*
&. ...
www.athinorama.gr/afierwmata/makrigianni/ - 23k -
$
-
5. ESOTERICA.gr - ""0 ,&%$%" - -= +?
=4 }
5 9 /
ESOTERICA.gr. ... + 3% +
} ,&%$% 1957.
& % ...
www.esoterica.gr/guests/nea_akropoli/nea_akropoli.htm - 16k -
$
-
www.esoterica.gr
=%/
%
%
%
&
*
%,
%
%. 4 %
% %
:
2. "8 5
$&
%
&
D
9
www.nea-acropoli.gr/ - 49k - 3 3 2005 -
$
-
.
...
(}
),
%
9
0
%
9
&
%
%,
9
&
%
&
%.
%
%
% %.
9
,
&
9
1%
( &
)
%
/
&
(PISA 2006). L%
%,
6. %
2 %
6
2
%
.
$
%
4.080
,
3.585 ( 88%
) &
% %
495 ( 22%
) &
%
. +
16
1
%
:
$
16.
* %
,5
)1
)2
)1&)2
;$
1.948 (54%)
216 (44%)
2.164 (53%)
'
999 (28%)
218 (44%)
1.217 (30%)
&
$
638 (18%)
61 (12%)
699 (17%)
3.585
495
4.080
$
16
9 30%
%
&
% %, 17%
. 9
%
%
,
% &
53%
&
.
+
& %
& 9*
&
%
9
9
(&2=56,316, p<0,001).
,
54%
9%*
9
%
44%
.
&
28%
9%*
44%
.
9
9* 9
%
. 4 %
, ,
% % (18%),
12%
9%*
.
183
6. (5:
%
/%
:
1.
% %
&
%
%
&%
&
,
9
&
(N
.
.
).
2.
/
1
9
9
&%1
.
3.
1
%
&
9 *
&
9% %
.
,
,
* %
%
.
+
9, ,
&
9%*
9
% &
%
&1
,
9%
%/, &
%
&
& , %
.
4.
, *
&
/%
9
,
%
&
/
&
1%,
/
0 . L
9%
&
,
&
. &
(* . N
..
).
%
&
&1
/
*
&
&1
%
%
,
&
&
.
5. /
&, ,
&
%
%
9%*
%
&
&
&
&
.
9
&
9
% %/
&
9
.
$
,
,
&
1
& 1%
,
1%
% &,
9
%
*
%
.
C56
+''*
Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5(4):
161-169.
Corder, S.P. (1987). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning
Doughty C.
Williams J. (1998). Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40(1):
83-107
Fullan, M.G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gorman, A., Purves, A.
Degenhart, R. (.) (1988). The IEA Study of Written Composition I: The
International Writing Tasks and Scoring Scales. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jonson, D.
Kress, G. (2003). Globalization, Literacy and society: redesigning pedagogy and assessment.
Assessment in Education 10 (1):5-14.
Koutsogiannis, D. (2007). A Political Multi-layered Approach to researching Childrens Digital Literacy
Practices. Language and Education 21(3): 216-231.
184
Koutsogiannis, D.
Tsokalidou, R. (
). Designing and implementing a research project on
bilingualism and language education: first findings and remarks. Proceedings of the 42nd Linguistics Colloquium.
Lankshear, C.
Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies. Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Open
University Press: Buckingham-Philadelphia.
Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.
Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies
emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. $ R.B. Ruddell, & N.
Unrau (.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
NCTE (2005). The Impact of the SAT and ACT Timed Writing Tests. Urbana: NCTE
OECD (2004). Lessons from Pisa for schooling policy in Denmark.
OECD (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy. A Framework for PISA 2006.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
Tsimpli, I.M.
M. Mastropavlou (2007). Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics
and determiners. $ J. Liceras, H. Zobl and H. Goodluck (), The Role of Formal Features in Second
Language Acquisition, (142-183). London: Routledge.
Tsimpli, I.M., Roussou, A., Fotiadou, G.
Dimitrakopoulou, M. (
). The
syntax/morphology interface: Agree relations in L1 Slavic/L2 Greek. $ Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Greek Linguistics, University of York.
Van Kraayenoord, C. (1996). Literacy assessment. $ G. Bull
M. Anstey (), The Literacy Lexicon
(237-247). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
*
, ., 8
, $. ", 3.
6
-+9
, . (
). 4
/
"
. @ 3 ! ;
#
& $ +..
% , 22-23 +*
2004.
, . (2007). A # $
.. @ # (#
$ .
%
: .
8
, D. (2001).
% %
/
. $ 6. 8*
. \
1 (.), %
$
! $
(#$)
.
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/files/document/practice/texnologikos_grammatismos_3.pdf
[30.10.2008]
}
, 3.
.
, (1984). 4
% 0 } /
/
: / %
9
. % # &
#. 5, (185-200). L
: 9
.
, .
$.
, (1995).
,
/
/
%,
... 4
% 0 (Verbal Aspect). +$ &
# 1: 9-11.
, 3. (2005). 4
%
% 0
%
//
. Journal of Applied Linguistics 21: 39-54.
$55 '
<8 5
8.
; (.&.
,
, & % *&
.)
18.
9
% 9
, 9
1
/
- 1
*
;
}
H&
-
/;
35. 4 /
% %
%
%
0 & ,
%
&
. $
&
*%
%
.
%
; "0
/
% %.
185
1
&
&
,
9!
1258:
9
86: *,
& !
86:
,
56
&
@ "
945:
9 !
,
Internet,
&
&,
'
!
1645: ** %
(
@ "
3474:
0
&
1%
.&.
%
'
1273:
0 /
@
49:
&
$
*
;
$
-
789: / (
: )
;
$
*6
262: 58
685
;
$
~
-?#
69:
*
58
9 /
'
& *
%#
!
1257:
5
%#
59:
0
&
&
%
1%
9 5 9 59
165:
*
1
photo
%
5 . 55
1243:
(=
)
7
+
&
.
186
$*
@ " ;
135:
!!
@ ;
208:
&
9
'
;
714:
&%
power point
*
%&
$
*
289:
9 5
(
8
8
'
@ "
1642:
&
&
'
577:
9
&
&
@
1155:
0
&
&
@
1682:
9
Word
$
@ "
350:
'
!
406: /
% %
%
@
1083:
*
E *
/
`
1278:
`
449: L
1
/%:
internet
0
&
@ "
1245:
%
Google
/
&
@ "
1218:
0
(
'
1916:
google
9
+
8
@ "
!
1243: (
)
Word
?
1464: <58 &%
$
1238: Q
&
187
%
-
:
-
%
L
13-14 3*
2007
0?5
0
%
(
1
%
3%
,
% L
&
*
. &
,
9
1
.
% 0
&
, ,
,
&
1
&
,
& 9
9
O %
,
%
.
%,
%
9%
% (Freire,
" .., 2003).
3
&
&
*
. $
,
1
&
(Freire,1970). }
&
%
*
*
. $
9
%
%
9
. 6
9 /
/
9
& . 6 &
/
0
&
,
%
/
.
& &
9
9
% 1%
.
6
,
*
(6
\.,- "
., 1999).
4
1
&
/
,
%
.
9
&
,
%,
Bourdieu
(" ,2005).
&
*
%
&
- %
188
.
'
%
%
&
%
, 9
/
9
/
&
&.
4
*
%
%
&
/
*
/
% .
3
:
9
"
$
&
& /
,
. =&
& %
**
1
9
: =&
*
;, ;, &
;, "
%
&
;,
0 ;.
9
% /.
\
9
9
*
*
&%
*
0
,
/
9 %
&
%
0
.
9
%
9
& %
&
,
9*
9
/. "
9
%
*
9
&
*
9
1
9
1%
9
&
.
$
*
% $&
9,
%
&
%/
*
%,
9 % &,
*
/,
%
9
&
9
,
&
/
%
*
/
/
*
&
9%
.
%.
&
1
&
*
,
%
&
%
%
/
%
(
).
%
1%
/ %/
% 9 ( **
,
, ,
..) 1
9
/
,
9
%
%
%
* % .
4
9
/9
%
1%
0
,
Freire 1
&
,
&
.
* %
/.
& &
&
1%. 4
%
,
1
&
%. +
1
% /
/
-
-
0
%
.
&
/
%
% /
,
9, ,
&
. \
&
&
&
%
. 6
9
&
(Freire,1974).
189
6
%
,
%
% . $
&
&
/
,
%
%
% .
9
.
+
9. 4
%
%
9
0,
.
+
,
%
9
%
9
,
%
%
.
/ -
%
6%
/ %
/
&
%
%
,
9
/
/;
%
%, /%
%
- * &
9
,
,
%
; 6%
&
&
,
*
9
,
9
%
9
0
; 6%
%
% ,
9
&
9
9
0
/
;
/
/& &
9 &
%
&
%
. 4
1%
%
,
% &
-
&
*
*
,
%0
9.
+ Freire
%1
&,
&
1
, 9
%, %
%
9.
%
%
1
% 9
. H &
1 Freire
/
(Freire,2006).
*
% %/
9
1
&%
.
H
%
&
%
/
% .
4
%
/
0,
&
1
.
%
%
%,
%
.
% &
9
&
/
. /& 1
%
%,
%
&
%,
,
%
.
190
8*
9
;
, %
: 6
&.
" , ". (2005). * Paulo Freire @#
,L
: 8
.
-$, .(2000). }
# ( , %
: "
.
, . (2001).% @#$# ;
# @, %
:
"
6
, \., -"
., (1999),
#
!,
- ! #
(. $:
: 4 % % /
: 6
% .
, 25-27 !
1999, !!!,
: 2000.
, ".(2003). A @#$#, L
:
%.
Freire, P. (1970). @ # &
, %
:.
Freire, P. (1974). A #$# ?
, %
:.
Freire, P. (2006).
! . (. . '
).
%
: .
191
$59
% 5
6
&
% 6
%
. +
&
&
(3),
%
(\3)
%
%
.
$ %
%
%
.
,
1
%
%
,
&
.
1 /
%
%
(3
\3). $
,
,
/% ,
&
&
%
.
1
%
1
192
6
,
%
1
&%
,
*
. 4
*%
%
%
&
,
*
9
(Brown, 1980 Flavell, 1979).
&
,
%
&
%
%
&
(Meijer, Veenman
van Hout
Wolters, 2006). L
%
(Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999)
%
,
/1
,
3
.
$
%, %
%
%
5
5
,
&
3
.
;
5
6 3
&
,
9
% , .&.
%
*1
*
,
;, 3
% , .&.
%
*
, &
;
6
% , .&.
%
1
%
&
%
&;
+ %
&%
%
%
= .687
3
= .675
,
%
= .703
2
193
= .726
&
.
% %
= .725
3
= .706
&
3
.
%
,
,
&
"
9
%
, &
(
% ),
%
%
:
) / % (
& ), *) (
), ) /% (
% %
), ) %
&% ( 0
&%
), )
%
)
%. 6
%
.
& &
,
&%
Searfoss
Readence (1985) 9
1
% (Bossert & Swantes, 1996). +
* 9
&
,
9 *
*
9
'
. 4 9
&% 0
9%
9%
% &%
*
Pressley
Afflerbach (1995). 4
/
&
%
. 4
9
% 9
98%.
9
1
(,
9
,
,
)
9%
/,
. 4 % %
. 4
&
1
9
/
"
% % (
&
) &%
. +
%
'
*
Likert.
,
& *
18 %
9
:
*
, .&.
*
*1 "
, , .&.
/
*
"
;
9
% &
% , .&.
9
*1
*
"
;
+ %
&%
%
&
,
*
3
= .715
= .708,
3
=
.743
&
3
= 845.
3
194
9
% &
%
3
%
= 802
= .707.
Q
9 %
%
.&.
% %
&
**
/
.
&
%
&%
3
= .732,
= .749.
8
' $
+
3
&
&
3
.
,
9 9
9 %
* [F(1, 133) = 25.578, p <
.001],
9
9
* [F(1, 133) = 13.300, p < .001],
9
*,
%&
9 [F(1,
133) = 130.645, p < .001]
, 9 [F(1, 133) = 23.844, p <
.001]. +
,
1
1.
1: 3
9
&
3
9%
%
*%
6
6
&
3
3
6+
6+
2.25*
3.23
.22*
.62
9
2.04*
2.20
.90*
1.35
7.24*
4.51
.81*
.93
.48*
.77
.01*
.12
6
* p < .01
(
2).
2: 3
9
&
3
/
6
6
&
3
3
6+
6+
.54*
.93
.15*
.36
9
.48*
.77
.19*
.47
7.03*
4.65
1.58*
1.69
* p < .01
2.70*
1.97
.31*
.78
%
,
3
.
&
%
9%
/. $
4
195
&
3
,
& %
/,
*
(
9
) /
.
#$
+
3
&
&
&
&
3
. 4
9
9
/
%
(
&
3
)
&
(6+3 = 68.31, 3 = 3.34, 6+\3 = 151.93, \3 = 21.25), [F(1, 133) =
6.912, p < .001].
!
+
*
% ,
, &%
(
),
% % (
&,
)
%
* %
. 4
* %
9
1
%
0
/ John Borkowski
(Borkowski,
1996 Borkowski, Chan & Muthukrisna, 2002)
**
9
(Palladino, Poli,Masi & Marcheschi, 2000 6
,
2007).
+
%
9
*
/
&
3
.
,
* %
%
9
% ,
&%
. + ,
9 9
1
3.
3: 3
9
&
3
6
6
&
3
3
6
6+
6+
3 %
2.67
.50
3.44
.35
107.450*
3
%
2.17
.68
3.20
.47
104.097*
%
2.52
.67
3.58
.31
142.057*
.05
.22
.33
.77
7.423**
6
%
$
"
1.15
.32
1.87
.34
158.304*
6
* p < .0001
** p < .001
3.16
2.65
11.39
4.48
167.162*
H 9
,
3
&
% , %,
%,
% , &
& &
3
. ,
%
,
& &
5
196
&
3
. 9
9
1
,
.
% %,
*
, 9
1
4.
4: 3
9
&
3
%
%
6
6
&
3
3
6+
6+
&
8
1.25
.43
1.74
.44
38.298*
1.44
.50
1.46
.50
.033**
9
%
&
1.80
.40
1.16
.37
83.115*
23.20
4.98
30.00
2.99
83.546*
* p < .0001
** ns
+
3
% %
9
%
&
,
&
3
&
1
*
.
, &
% &
%
-
,
%
&
3
*
(
0 %
-
).
#$
4
%
3
%
%,
%
&
3
.
4
9
%
(
&
3
) %
% (6+3 = 4.57, 3 = 3.45, 6+\3 = 9.14, \3 =
2.75), [F(1, 133) = 71.886, p < .001].
& #$. ., !
#$
"
%
*
%
& &
&
*
*
6
197
3
,
* 9
(
) * %
.
,
&
3
,
*
&
% %
* 0 %
%
.
(~
+
3
% &
9
. Q
&
&
%
&
&
&
3
.
,
/,
&
,
%
9
.
,
3
**
%
**
9
, &
%
%
%
,
. , &
. +
3
%
9
% &
% ,
1
*
,
&
% &
%
(Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003).
+
9 (
) 9
&
% % 9&%
%
%
. $
&
3
,
*
(
*
&
)
, /
2/3
%
. 4
*
%
&
*
*
%
.
&
,
&
/
%
,
1
%
.
9
9%
/,
1
. H 9
,
,
*
,
9
.
8*
% %
9%
/
. $ ,
*
0
%
%
%.
H
9
3
,
%
9. ,
%
,
%
. 3,
/
*
*
&
* 0
%
,
1
,
* 0. H
*
,
/
(
1/3)
%
. 4
9
&
&
& 6
3
,
%
% (Wong, 1985)
&
%
, /
7
198
. 6
Cain, Oakhill
Bryant
(2004) 11&
, Protopapas
Skaloumbakas (
)
, Perfetti
Hart (2002)
Landi (2005) 9, 1
0
& %
,
%
/
.
6
, Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki
Simos (
)
&
0
/.
+
*
&
*
, / ,
1 %,
&1
,
,
%
& %
&% (Oakhill, Cain & Bryant,
2003).
4
%
%
9 %
%
3
. 9
*
&
%
%
,
%
.
& %
%
3
(
, 2007),
&
, /
.
4
&
% ,
, &%
,
%
*
%,
&
%
%
%
. N
&
&
%
/
%
&
%
. 4
%
%
%
*
0 %
%
,
%
/. H, 9
&
%
,
*
&
3
%
%
.
C56
Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1459 - 1468.
Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we dont understand? Standards for evaluating text
comprehension. $ D. L. Forrest Pressley, G. E. McKinnon & T. G. Waller (eds.),
Metacognition, cognition and human performance, Vol 1 (pp. 155 205). New York: Academic
Press.
Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual
Differences, 8(4), 391 402.
Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S. & Muthukrisna, N. (2002). A process oriented model of
metacognition. Links between motivation and executive functioning. $ G. Schraw & J.C.
Impara (eds.) Issues in the measurement of metacognition. ( . 1 42). Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute.
Bossert, T. S. & Schwantes, F. M. (1996). Childrens comprehension monitoring: Training children to
use rereading to aid comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 35(2), 109 121.
Botsas, G. & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use among
students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational Research, 39,
477 495.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. $ R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F.
Brewer, Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453 - 481). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V. & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Childrens reading comprehension ability: Concurrent
prediction by working memory, verbal ability and component skills. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 31 42.
8
199
Evans Commander, N. & Stanwyck, D. J. (1997). Illusion of knowing in adult readers: Effects of
reading skills and passage lengths. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 39 52.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive development
inguiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906 911.
Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 3(3), 199 205.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L., van den Brock, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Accuracy and fluency in
list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(4), 237 - 245.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Landi, N. (2005). Behavioral and electrophysiological investigations of semantic processing in skilled
and less skilled comprehenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you dont understand: A preliminary investigation. Child
Development, 46, 986 992.
Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. J. & van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in
text studying and problem solving. Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 12(3), 209 237.
Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text
comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(4), 443
- 468.
Otero, J. (1998). Influence of knowledge activation and context on comprehension monitoring of
science texts. $ D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (eds.) Metacognition in
educational theory and practice. (pp. 145 164), Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Padeliadu, S. & Sideridis, G. (2000). Discriminant validation of the Test Of Reading Performance
(TORP) for identifying children at risk of reading disabilities. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 16(2), 139 146.
Palladino, P., Poli, P., Masi, G & Marcheschi, M. (2000). The relation between metacognition and
depressive symptoms in preadolescents with learning disabilities: Data in support of Borkowskis
model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(3), 142 148.
Perfetti, C. A. & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. $ L.Verhoeven, C.Elbro &
P.Reitsma (eds.) Precursors of functional literacy, . 189 213. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). What readers can do when they read: A summary of the results
from the on line self report studies of reading. $ M. Pressley & P. Afflerbach (eds.) Verbal
protocols of reading. ( . 30 82). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Protopapas, A., & Skaloumbakas, C. (
). Traditional and computer-based screening and
diagnosis of reading disabilities in Greek. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Protopapas, A., Sideridis, G., Mouzaki, A. & Simos, P. (
). Development of lexical
mediation in the relationship between reading comprehension and word reading skills in Greek.
Searfoss, L. & Readence, J. (1985). Helping children learn to read. New York, NJ: Prentice Hall.
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies discourse comprehension. New York, NJ: Academic
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Self regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a
social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173 201.
, . (2003). A @#
9
200
0&)(&'%
0
* !
' ,
+F 9
H
, -\
, / 3..
/ # #
?&&. / $
(|
||)
# *. @ , #
# ,
#. &
,
`. @ !,
, $
.
@
: 909 (309 # | || 609 # |||).
%
:
I.
&%.
II. $
&
(%, %
%),
%
1
&%. %
%
%/
&
&%
.
III. 3
,
1%
&
&%.
9
/%
/
%
,
*
%
9
/ (
%
9
/,
)
&%
9
%
9
%
, 9
& % /.
I.1. (
< ,
(
<
: =
<8
8
,
4
&%
*
1
&1
&
&
( %
,
, &
9
,
&
, .).
%/
&
. '
%
.
C 9%,
, %
,
9,
,
9,
9 ( , $ ,
.). +
%
.
+
%
9
&
(
,
,
), 9
1
&%
*
% (
&%
%)
& &
/
&.
9
( .
: *
- ),
%
,
&
.
I.2. /55
<
4
9
&%.
4
/ %
/,
,
,
,
,
. +
/
.
II.1. )
5
85
,00
+
&
&
/
%/
&%.
3
%, 8 <5=
55 58
5
, 5, <5.
+
: , ?, 85,
=
.
*
%
1
# '
%
: <5, 8,
556,
: 55, , . +
9
,
/
0 &%
% /-&
.
1
201
+ 8
5~
5 <5
55
8?
*%
%
/,
*
%
/9
.
&
&
.
4 9
9%
*%,
*%
9
/ ,
%
,
%,
/
.
/
.
9
/ ,
&%,
*
0
:
x
1%
%
0
x
x
//
%
&%
x
&
.
0
56
., 2007, A # $
.. %
, .
Adam J.-M., 1992, Les textes : types et prototypes. Paris, Nathan.
Brown G., Yule G., 1983, Discourse analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
"
., " 3., 1999, ?
$
. %
, "
.
L9
- 3., 1996, 4
. @ ;
#
#., %
, 29 }*.-1 3. 1996, 253-259.
Holton D., Mackridge P., Warburton-D ., 1997, +
9
. % # #.. @ 23
/
+$#
6 ; .@.. L
, 31-42.
Macridge P., 1999, $ %
;, &
,
9
%
9
4 L46G!}4, 9 3.10.1999, 31.
6
"., 1984, '#
+$#
. %
, . 3
6
.
=...L.,
!, Q9
Q, 2005. & #,
', %
,
+..3.8.
III. /56 ?
!!!.1. 9 ,
&%,
# '
(
1
2),
9
/
*
&
%,
/
/
&% .
9% ,
*
0
1
&%
.
(1
2)
9
/
!
2004,
}
% "
,
%
*
/%
. !
(
9% *
%
9
, /
* ):
6
:
4
%
&
-
% /
* %.
9
/
$ ' .
,
$
.
202
8*
,
&
1
9
,
9
% %
.
9*%
, /
1
*&
,
&
/
9
1
*
. C,
&
%
%
% ,
9
*
&
.
& %
&
,
,
%
.
&
1
&
1
&
&
,
%
.
%
5
~ *
,
1%. 4
**
?,
&
9
%
.
/
,
,
,
5
,
,
*
* %
. H
1
9
,
%
%
/
& .
,
%
%
%
&%,
9
/
9
%
%. Q,
9
,
0
& * .
*
%
&
,
1 1%
9
. %
,
9
,
, &
1
. ,
9&
,
9
9
* %
9
%
/%
9.
. 4
%
.
.
"
&
%
. 4
&
,
%
9,
9
,
5
.
4 9
%
%
/%:
#5<
5 56
8
55
. $
=
8 565;
"
=? 9 8
400 5 8?
. (
. 50)
)5 1
~ $ !
$
.
$
.$ # #
. A .
.$
#
. . A
!
.$
!
#
#
. $ .
* # #! .
.$
,
. #
,
#
!,
( $
! .
,
#
# ($
.
F ! #
3
203
( ! !. +
# .
!$ #.
!
.
$.
)5 2
&
# # $
.$
$ #.
! # # !
.
#
$ !. },
$,
#
. /
$
#
# $
#
!" .
&( # ! .
$!
18-35
., !
! !
. &
# #
#
$! #
# ! . ?
$
$ #
# #.
$ #
. $
!
.
,
##
(
(
(
$ punks). F ! #
#
(
. ?
# #
#$ !
# ( $
.
$
#!
$ ( ( $
# ! #
. #
( $ # ( $
. ;
#, #
, ( $
(
$ #
#
!
. F #
#
.
$
# #! .
! $
. %
#
! #!
, #
$.
!
!
# " . A
#.
.
$
, , . !
. A
.
'''.2. $5
56 ?
<
1. ,
) 8
?: # '
.
0
: &
.
=: , 9
, .(;).
(=: : 0
% /
:
9
9%: /
) /55 8
(
<
/55 8 8?
(
)
(
, %
)
1
2
3
%
204
4
5
6
(
$
#
) (< 8
:
L &%
(1,2,3,) $
.
2. 06
8
9%
91
.
: &
.
: ,
(;). 3
1
.
3. )5
) (
< /55
)5 1
1
2 .
3
4 !
)5 2
1
2
3
9
4
, !
#.
)5 2
3% /% /
4. , ?
%
/ /1
/
&%.
$ *
: 20
1) %: 10
2) Q: 10
x 69% (
&%): 3,5 (: 2, (;): 0,5,
. /: 1)
x & (
): 3,5
x "
: 3
4. $5
1. /< 5
/=
%
.
2.
55
8?
(
9%
*
).
3. 6 *%
/ 56 5 8
8
.
4.
/
/ 8
, 56 8
,
5 :
?.
% &
(): 40# /
/
40#
9%
,
30# % .
'''.3.
5 .
5
205
$&&
\
3..
. $*
D 3/
%
%
, 1-2/11/2007
L
, 13-14/12/2007
(#"%* (#"0,',% - %#*'1
(
<
+
9
:
x
8 (
, / , 9 )
/
,
.
6
:
(
< = % &
9%
&
,
&
%
& (6
'/).
:
x
4
&%
&
& :
x
x
x
x
0 (%
0 %
9 &
9%
%
, .&.
-%
),
,
9
,
0.
, &%:
x
x
x
x
,
,
(
),
&%:
%
(&, ).
$
, ,
:
x
"
&%,
,
&
,
. . * .
http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/glossology/show.html?id=325
206
8? ,
5 ,
5
556 &
&
2
<
, 5< 8
&
9
3. 6 &%
&%
9
&
%
.
5/<
8
< 8
(
)
i4
&%
,
% /% 9%
(, ,
9,
%)
9
:
. /55 8 65 8? ( .:
4):
1. ,
~ =
/?
/
5 ( , ! , ,
.
, -
2.
,
,
: ,
, !, ,
$, $, .,
, ,
,
,
!, , $, (, ., .,
,
,
,
, !,
3. ?: ,
#, , , #
, , ,
, , # #
$
4. 5
:
#
, # , # #
5. 5/5: , ,
$ ,
,
6. 5/5 /
8
:
, , $, (,
, , ,
$
,
$, ., ! ,
7. : , , #
, !, ., , , # #$
8. 85 / <8 - 8:
$, , ., , , . ,
#, .,
, , #
, ,
, , # #$, (
!, $ , , $ ! ,
!
$
$
9. <5
<8 / 5/
<: ., , , ., , #
$, ,
! , # , , ., , ,
,
$, $
(!, , #$,
., , .,
, $, $,
, ($, ,
, , (
2
Q9
-Q # '
, .272.
}
L
, /
& (* %
=
),
% 1987,
.86.
4
$
,
/
&
& **
,
&% **
9
7
207
10.
/ :
$, #, , $.
11.
: # , ! ,
12. 86:
, $,
,
,
,
(
$ ,
$ (, $ )
13.
55 8
: /
/ #/
$
`
: .
C.
9 8?/65 (.&.
,
)
). 59 8?/65
%
9 (.&. , .
).
/.
/ :
x
x
x
( =
),
( $*% Q,
)
/ (
% = ) . .
0. &%
5
/ (
/
,
%,
>
).
(. &%
5
(.&.
* %,
>
%
*%).
. &%
5 5 (.&. 9,
,
>
1
).
. &% /
%
<5
1
% 8
(.&.
&,
,
%
*%).
( .
&%
,
% &%
//9
&
. .&. / ,
<8, ~ ,
, , =
?,
&
/
&
%
.
4
&%
&
, ,
=6
,
9
,
5.
C,
&% 1
/ % 9
,
&
% &%
&
%
,
.
(
i (
=
&
,
.
8
,
,
&%.
i
%
1
65~
,
,
1
&
9
208
,
.
'E,
9
6, %
&
9,
,
&
9
.
.&. 9
? .
;,
& &
&% (
-& ., 9
),
*,
&
&
(&, &,
,
)
""
.
i $
&% 9% /%
i $
&
)<
%
(
/
<
=
4
&
&
:
x 6
5
( , , )
,
x
?,
%
/
9
,
9,
.
________________________________________________________
$5
5
.
&%
,
*
% "
, %
:
http://www.komvos.edu.gr/glwssa/dokimes/keimena_dokeimon/a_lykeiou/afigisi_a/afigi
si_5.htm
9
209
=
5,
?
;:
?
5
65
'
, .9.
1. 0
$ %%
&
%
% "
$9,
9%
}
$ 91 9
/%
&
91
/
&
($9, 1979: 7): ,
'
, ,
:
#
$
$,
": "% , #
' (
;
3
1% &%
%,
&
*
%
9 (
%, 1998). 6
9 0
%
,
9
&
,
*1
"
', /-
&
, /
9
9
,
.
4
%
9
% %
9
&
, *
%
%
/%
9
(
, 2001: 27): %
/
&
%
9% 9
%,
&
&
/
. 4
%
&
/
&
.
& &
9 (
, 1991: 41-42),
/ 9
%
&
"
$9
/% :
&
%
9 /
9
&
%
%
,
1
&% /
9
1
.
3
,
,
9
/ &
,
&
,
&
/ &
&
%
(
,
1991).
6
&
&
9
&
& % /,
%
,
*
/,
1 3. }. 6
(2007), &
,
9
%
. &
9
,
&
, & &
& *%
,
*
,
,
0
9:
,
/
. $
,
, 9
/
9
%
% /.
+
%
9
,
%
,
9
(
|,
*! ),
,
&
% ,
9
.
(!) |. ' 763: }
,
& , & %
&
&
&
&,
&
:
!
.
!
! # !.
(9. !.
, 1928)
210
&
:
/
,
% %
%
,
9
% 9,
/
&%,
//
, &
%
%, %
&
.
9
9
,
&
, 9
9
1
.
(glossed texts). $
&
9
(Parker, 2001: 17)
9
,
&
,
(
&
%
), /-
,
/
9
9
1
.
\
&
9, &
/
9
&
&
9
. H 9
,
1
,
9
9
&
9%. $
%
9
&
9 /,
*
& $ 194,
,
&
% 9.
*
%,
9
,
&
9%
9
%
1
. $
, &%
0
,
%.
2.
8 5 59
65
$
% /
%
9
*
0:
.
(Maronitis, 2008 Berman, 2005 Schleiermacher, 1963: 47).
4 %
9
% , 0
&
,
9
&
,
,
1
,
9 &
% %
/
9
*
(8 &
, 1992: 274, 278-279).
,
%
,
& ( D, 1902: 219)
&, 0
%
&
%
,
&
/
9
&
,
%.
:
2
211
2.1.
$9
%
,
%
%
9
,
%
%,
1
9%
%
&%,
1
:
% /
&1
/
(Pheiffer, 1972: 14, 49),
, /
9 %
&%,
*
.
&
* %
:
3
%
&
&, *
/
%
. 6
%
% & %
% ( .&. &
|, +
%
*! )
, %, %
(
, 1996: 268),
%,
9
,
(
9)
9%
.
( 8, 2002: 266),
(
)
%
% .
6 9
%
&
% /
%0
%
,
1
/
(
, 1991: 42). 4
9
% %
%
, ,
,
/
9. 6
*
(
&
%,
%, %, &
%
&%),
9
&
%
,
9
%.
9
%
9
9
1
9
,
&
,
91
9
&
. &
/% % (
/,
&
, % ,
9),
,
,
9
1
. Q,
&
,
9
%
&
|
,
#
*!
9
9
:
/
&! (
1
1-
%, 1965).
4
1 *
9
%. ,
,
%
9
&
/
%
,
1
9
9
% &
,
9
,
*
&,
%
&
, 9
&% /
9
9
1
&%
. "
,
0, *
9 /
1
,
*
&%
%
*
9
*1
%.
212
/
,
9
%
9
&:
9
( .&. -
% % )
&
%,
1
&
9 (
9
&%)
,
/
9
%
9
/
% (Dover
1974: 166).
: 9
9
*
9
9
%
.
, &%
1% %
(
1996 Long 1970
Jaeger 1968 Adkins 1960)
%
9
%
/
/
(
1
/
)
(
& 9
-
). $
%
%
%,
/
,
%
9%
%
&% (
,
/-
/
%),
9
%
,
(,
9
)
*
%
% .
C,
1%
%
%
, %
,
&
(
%)
/ ( .&.
!)
, *
%
O
%/
% , &
,
,
% &
% 9
%
(Finkelberg, 1998).
/
,
(Finkelberg, 2002: 35-49 Hay 1991: 140-145)
,
9 9%
0
% (
,
%
,
, 9
),
%
,
&
%
%,
&
1
&% % % %
(Finkelberg, 1998: 23).
% &
%
9
%
-
&
(
),
9
%
%
&: &
, /
9
,
%
+
%,
&
9 &
*
1
!
*
/
(Heitman 2005 Helleman, 1995: 245-247). 4
%,
,
9
+
%
&
%,
&
&,
&
,
0,
.
2.3.
4
9
/%
:
1 9
/
%
Parker,
2001: 17 %, 1996: 61-63),
9
&
(
9
9
%,
9
%
,
/
). 4 9
/
% 9%
9
%
,
,
9
(Maronitis, 2008).
=
%
,
&
,
&
9
%
9%
,
:
x 1
9/
,
9
*
*
&
-
,
x
9
% &
,
,
213
&
%
,
%
%
/.
0,
*
0
,
/&%
/
&
*
( .&. %
%),
9
1
,
&
/
9
&%.
0
&
*
1
1
,
. $
9
1 %
&
/ %
9, 9
&%,
1
,
%
,
9
(
) /
&%
&
21
(Parker, 2001: xiii-xiv).
0
1
9
, %
9 (
&
%
) %
*
&
*1
,
1
(9,
2004).
,
&
%
9
/%
. C
%
% /
%
,
1 &%
-
,
% &
,
%
,
1
:
9 (
)
,
* ( %
)
,
& , &
9
&
&%
(Burbules &
Bruce, 2001). +
%
9
&
/ %
.
6 *
&,
%
9
1
(
9
)
9
(
9/ 9 /
).
9
%
%,
% &
1 /-
%
&% 9%
&
/
&%
.
1
&
,
9
9
%
%
**
,
*
*
% *
.
( $, &
%1 #$
,
(.
& % /, /
/
9 /
&
%
,
%
:
x
9
%
1
%
/,
214
9
*
9/,
x *
%, , 9
9
9
9, 9
%
.
0&)%)&+'
:
Bakker, . (1997). Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca & ': Cornell
University Press.
Burbules, N. C., & B. C. Bruce (42001). Theory and Research on Teaching as Dialogue. $ V.
Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, . 1102-1121. Washington, DC:
American Research Association.
Dover, K. J. (1974). Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Finkelberg, 6. (2002). Virtue and Circumstances: On the City-State Concept of Arete. AJP 123: 3549.
Finkelberg, M. (1998). Tim and Aret in Homer. CQ 48.1: 14-28.
Goldhill, S. (2001). The Poets Voice. Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hay, J. (1991). Virtuosity in Human Fulfillment. $ A.W.H. Adkins, (ed.), Human Virtue and
Human Excellence, . 131-193. }.=.: P. Lang.
Heitman, R. (2005). Taking her Seriously. Penelope and the Plot of Homers Odyssey. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Helleman, W. E. (1995). Homers Penelope: Tale of Feminine ARETE. EMC 39.2, ns. 14: 227-250.
Long, A. A. (1970). Morals and Values in Homer. JHS 90: 121-139.
Maronitis, D. N. (2008). False and Real Dilemmas in the Translation of Classical Texts. $ A.
Lianeri & V. Zajko (eds.), Translation and the Classic. Identity as Change in the History of
Culture, . 367-383. +/9: Oxford University Press.
Parker, Jan (2001). Dialogic Education, and the Problematics of Translation in Homer and Greek
Tragedy. Studies in the Classics 17. Lewiston-Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Schleiermacher, Fr. (1963). ber die verschiedenen Methoden des bersetzens. $ H. J. Strig
(hrsg.), Das Problem des bersetzens, . 38-70. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgessellschaft.
Snell, B. (hsrg.) (1955). Lexicon des frgriechischen Epos, Band !. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Yamagata, N. (1994). Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Suppl. 131. Leiden: Brill.
:
Berman, . (2005). A
#
215
216
,
59
+
,
9
&%
&
.
*
&
9
($
, 2004, 3$, 2001). 6
%
/
/% ($
, 2004)
9
0
9
*
&
.
,
%
*
,
%
%
1
(3
%
,2000).
0
9
,
,
%
/
*
&
& ("
",1999),
%
&
. Q,
/
,
0,
0. $9
,
% %
& 9
%
%
%
%
.
L
%
%
, &
%
(
1,1999).$
%
,
/ *
% 9
, /
%
,
& %
/
9
,
%
9
,
*
/
,
(
1,1999).
Q
1%
& 0,
&
,
/
% 0
1
& % **
.
&
/
217
1
**
, 9 **
&
% &
1
&
,
0
&
(6
, 2001).
,
%
0
. N
:
&
0
.
&
/
% 0
9
,
% /
%
&
.
,
0
%
9
9
/
(
1, 1999),
/
. "
,
&
.
9
,
&
% &
,
1%
%
/
% 0.
%
**
(6
,2001),
**
.
,
<55 59
4 0
/&
(genre)
O&
,
% (
9
,
9 .. .). N
9
0%
%
*
.
,
,
9
&
%
9
&
, &
1
:
1. }
%
2. %
3. 9
%
.
6
, 0
(6
,2001),
& 0
9 O&
0
.
,
% 0 9
&
0
/
9
%
0
&
&
%.
$
&
&%
5 , 5
865
O&
. "
/
% 0
%
9
O&
&
9
&%
(6
,2001).
"
/
9
9
*
&
0
:
1.
/&1
%
&
2.
&
1
9
&
3.
%
&
4.
&
/
& ,
5.
&
&%
.
218
%
9&
.
$
&1
0
%
%
. , % 0
%
&1
%
/ %
&
1
&
9
9
&
9
9
,
1
*
.
N
0
*
O&
, % 0
0
(6
, 2001). ,
9
, 0 &
%
/
% / &%
0
%. '
%
0 &
&
&
9%
3$,
&
3 $&
/
&
% &
&
9&%. $
%
1
/
9
,
1
9 . ,
/
0
&
&%
(
, 1985)
/
*
*
.
N
0,
&
. ,
9
&
% %
9
(Wray &
Medwell,1999),
&%
/
219
/
/,
%
9&%.
8 6 5
4
%
%
,
%
9
,
*1
9
.
&
9%
9
9 (.&
&%
,
, .. ).
6
9
*1
, &
. 4
9
/
9
*
%
%
,
%
%
9
($9
, 1998). ,
/
.
9
% %
,
%
%. $
%,
%
* & /
% .
)
=
? 59
4
% 0
%
(6
,
2001)
:
1) & % .
/ 0
&
% *
& .
2)
% 0,
9
/ 0
&
.
3) %
/,
1
,
&%
.
4)
/
*
%
&
* 0
/
%
9%
1
/ %
:
)
,
%
/
*
1%
1
1
/
%
% 0
9*
/
O&
, &
9
,
%
/
% 0
/ 9&%
(6
, 2001).
,
9 0
9
,
&
9
9
&
.
% O
%
.
220
0
85
: 85
5. );
Q
9
.
/
%,
/
. &
%
/
&
&
(
,1993).
$
,
9
1
&
.
%
9
*%
9
&& /
&
/
. $
9
%
9
:
*
;
*
, %
;
&
;
% /
;
9
%
,
*;
$
9%
* %
9
:
;
;
;
*;(/
&)
* ;
;
;
1
&
0
0
1%
/
. 3
1
0
9%
. $ ,
,
.
H
9%,
*1
0%
/
*%
& 9
&
1. $
%
9
%
%
. "
&
9
% & /.
221
%
,
0
/
, %
. $ &% %
,
9
,
/
9
. 3
9
&
&
,
&
,
9
.
=
19
* %
post test
*
,
&
. $
/
4).
x 0(*'(%' $#,"!((: $
*
/
&
%
0
. +
&
(6
, 2001)
&
%
:
0
8
8: $9
% &% 1
/
,
%
.
$
, 9 *
&
.
5
: $9
% &% 1
5
5
%
. $
, 9 *
&
.
5: $
9
% 9
&
*
% .
$
, 9 *
&
.
5?: . $9
% &%
9 0 % /
9%
&
5:
685 , 5
,
~ 5~ , 5
,
55 ,
, 6.
%
222
%
( /
%
)
,
%
&%. $
, 9 *
&
.
x )!((', $%/%( 0(*'(!" : $ 9
%
/
,
/
&
%
.
<5 - <5
<8
: /
9
,
% & &%
&
, .. .(1: %
, 2: %
, 3:
%
, 4:
%
).
<8
: /
%
, 4:
%
).
565
5 :
9
# , &
.
5 = :
9
# , &
.
5 5
: $
.
)
?:
: 1:
%
,
2 :
%
, 3:
%
, 4:
%
.
8
#
1
1
*
%
10.
0
*
&,
&
9
,
%
. $
,
&
0
1
1 .
H
0
&
9
9 .
4
3
2
1
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
88E#&#
&FEG/&#
1
4
0 %
6
/
0 %
. 6
&
9
0
/
% 0. 6
&%
9
/
*
.
223
4
3
2
1
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
/8&"#8H&H
&FEG/&#
1*
&
6
.
0 &
/
%,
9
9
%
%. $
&
(
7,8,9,10)
&
%
*
0.
&
%0.
}}+!+'+"!$
}"C"$
}"C"$
3G$4$
37
38
30%
39%
/EEH>9H/&
8E89I9/&
8E89I9/& JB8&#&
>9H/& BH&/H&
31%
1
$
21
,
/
%
124
&
,
37,
30% %
, 38 %
&
,
31%
49 %
&
% , 39%. +
&
& 9 %
% .
4
3
2
1
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
8%J&# F%/BJ#&
1
224
&FEG/&#
, 9
0
% 1
*
9
%
%
,
9
/
&
. 6
&
&
*
.
#
2
2
*
%
7. "
0
9
*1
& / , &
%
.
4
3
2
1
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
88E#&#
&FEG/&#
2
&
% ,
%
0.
4
3
2
1
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
/8&"#8H&H
&FEG/&#
2*
4 0 &
,
9
& %
&
.
}}+!+'+"!$
}"C"$
}"C"$
3G$4$
4
225
22%
45%
33%
/EEH>9H/&
8E89I9/&
8E89I9/&JB8&#&
>9H/&BH&/H&
2
$
20
,
/
%
18
&
,
4,
22% %
, 6 %
&
,
33%
8 %
&
% , 45%. +
&
& 9 %
% .
4
3
2
1
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
8%J&# F%/BJ#&
&FEG/&#
2
$
9
%
%
/
%0
/ %
.
0
Q
,
. "
1%
**
&
%
%
*
9
0
&,
/
%
&
&.
%
**
&1
%
.
%
1
9
.
(5
%
59
4
/ %
&
%
/ 9
*
0
&
&
. 4
/
* &
%
*
9
&
/
0.
6 /%
%
&
% 0
&,
226
&
. 6
&
% 0
1
O& &
. +
0 % &
9
* %
&
. $
,
0 % 1
9 %
,
.
,
&
% 1
*%
9%
%
&
&
9
.
&
%
0 %
. $ pro test
%& &
&
*
9
&%
&
.
"
pro test
%0
/ %
&
%
&
%
%
0 %
..
0. 4
%
&%
. 8*
&
%
0 . H
, %
,
*
&
* %
%
&
&
. 6
%
%
&
% . $ %0
&&% . !
%& &%
&
,
&%
% %
. + &
%/
*
&
,
&
. D
%
/
%
&
%
/
*
. 4
%
,
9
%
*
91
*
%
. Q post test
0
.
post test %
9
,
.
",
%
%
0 %
9
/
% 0
%
%
. $ &
/
- / &%
&
,
&
*
. H
*
9
*
.
% /
227
/
%,
0
&%,
%
&
/ /
%
& .
(~
?
58, 5 585 85
+ %
0
,
%
%
. &,
0
&. Q
%
&
/
9 /
&
&
.
9
*
9
, 0
9
.
$
9
9
%
*
/
&
.
,
9%
&
1
& ,
/
&
.
4
% 0 ,
, 9
1
. !
0
9
%
&
%
%
%
9
*
&
%
9
. 6
&
* & /
&
*
0%
. Q
&
%
*
0%
:
; ; ;
*; ;
$
&
*
*
&,
% :
%
,
& %
;
%
/
; "
/ ;
%
%
;
/
;
%
% *
;
Q
0
%
&
* &
/
,
%
&%
. 4 %
&1
/
&
%
,
9
. Q
%
%
%
&
% .
$
&
0,
/
% 0
%
% *
,
,
%
/
%
0.
!
9
%
%
/
% 0 *
%
%
1
/
&
,
228
. +
% &
9
& /
%
%
% 0 (.& :
).
N
&
*
9
*
9
/
%
% 0
&
&%
9
,
/ %
, *
9 ,
0
/
/
**
& * .
C56
1.
2.
3.
4.
Vacca, T. and Linek, M.W (1992). Writing to Learn. In J. Irwin & M.A. Doyle (Eds.),
Reading/Writing Connections. Learning from Research (pp.145- 159). Newark, DE: IRA.
"
, .,
",3., (1999). ?
&$
. %
:
"
.
3
%
, 8, (2000). @
". %
:
,
5.
3
$
(3$)
6.
6
, 4., (2001). A (. . *#. %
:
.
7.
!, (1999). @#
;. #
;
. %
.
8.
1, \., (N/ 1999*). A
"
. +., &.48, (75 78).
9.
1, \.,
6
%, !., (1998). / @#
10.
, !., (1993). % #
&
. :1, %
:
.
11.
, !., (1993). % #
&
. :2, %
:
.
12. $
, !., (2004). @
@#$# +! '# @. ; A
.
%
: "
.
13. $9
, 6., (1998). 4 &
9
9
'. 61(.),
+$ B#
&
. %
: "
.
14. Wray, D., Medwell, J., (1999), Litracy and Language in the primary years.
15.
, !., (1985). &( B#
. :1, %
:
.
229
1. 0
0 % % %
*
. 6
0 % /
% %
&
,
01. 4
%
&
, 9 %
&
&
/
&
,
0. C,
% &
*
%
9*%
%
9
% 0,
/,
9,
/
&
,
*
2.
4
0
/
,
9
&
-
,
&
9
%
.
%
,
**
&%
3.
+ Brown & Day (1983)
%
*
,
*
&
0. +
9
9%
)
%
9
*) . 6
- 9
%
. +
9
%
%
9
)
%
9 (9
9
)
*)
%
(9
9
). ,
&
%
9
&
4.
4
/
% 9
%
%
%: + Brown &
Day
1
%
, 9
90%
%
9
%
(
9%
%
9),
&
% *
%
&
0. 6
*
(
, %
%
),
/
9
5.
9 0,
(summarization)
(summary),
%
% ,
*
, 9
1
Kintsch W., Van Dijk T., 1978, Toward a model of text comprehension and production, Psychological Review,
85, 363-394
Van Dijk T., Kintsch W., 1983, Strategies of discourse comprehension, Academic Press, N. Y.,
16. 8 .
Brown A., Day J., Jones R., 1983, The development of plans for summarizing texts, Child
Development, 54, 968.
2
$9
6., 1998, 4 &
9
9
. $
%
,
61 '. (.), +$ B#
, "
, 135.
3
Dole J., Duffy G., Roehler L., Pearson P. D., 1991, Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading
comprehension instruction, Review of Educational Research, Summer 1991, Vol. 61(2), 244.
4
Brown A., Day J., 1983, Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise, Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 (1), 1-3.
5
Brown A., Day J., . ., 11-13
Baker L., Brown A., 1980, Metacognitive Skills and Reading, in Spiro R.,
Bruce B., Brewer W. (ed.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 373374.
230
/
, & %
*
9
/
/%.
& % &
/
} % "
/
8# '
6
&
%
/
, ,
9
9
%0
,
&
%
9%
9
1
.
, ,
*
1
%
0
* & % /
1
9
%
%
,
% %
&
%
*
1
0. N
,
9
&
& (
*
),
&
%
9%
9
&
9% 0.
2. (<
, &
% %
:
}
9 &
0,
9
%
1
,
.
}
&
0,
%
1
%
,
*
9
. C
9% ,
0 (100 /)
&
%
&
& .
25
,
/,
18. 4 %0 / ,
/
/, &
%
&
,
*
*
.
9
%
&
:
)
9
(
9%)
/ %0
*)
%
*
9
/
%
% & %
0
&
(
% & %
& )
%
9
9
0 (
/
%
16/4 4/5/2007,
&
45#
60# ).
C , 9
} % "
',
/ *
%
0 (=L !, 1999,
@#
231
4.
5
&
%
/
*
**
9
&%
&
7,
/%:
&
/
.
(9
)
9
&
%
(
)
( %
&
,
&
), O,
,
/
. $ ,
&,
%
/
/
.
*)
#$
$
. (familiarity): 4
.
8
/
9
,
&
, 9
,
%
/ *
9
9
.
) (length): 4
&
0
0. 4
%
&
* / 100,
&%
%
9%,
&
,
9
. / ,
&
/
(/
%.
*
/ %
%
&%
9
, 9 % ,
,
%
9. $
,
%
9,
%
&%
9,
*
,
. C, %
:
9
%
%
(
% &
9
)
&
&%
,
Hidi S., Anderson V., 1986, Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations and
implications for instruction, Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 475-477.
3
3.,
.,
., 2001, %
/ 0, 8*
6., \
1 . (.), %
& $
$ ! #.,
$
, G
, 6 - 8 / 10 / 2000,
, %
, 433-436.
8
(
*
)
*
,
%,
&
% /
/
9
,
&
. "
%
&
&
1
:
%
1,
9,
1%
/ *
.
9
Garner R., 1982, Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits, The Journal of educational research, 75 (5),
277-278, Brown A., Day J., . ., 2, 3
3.,
.,
., . ., 435.
232
10.
$
% &
%
&
/ . $
%
&
. $
*
/
*
/ 9 (
/
/
9
)
&
,
,
11, &
/%
. 4
%
&
%
%,
9
% &
&
(
/
%
%),
%
%& (
O
).
*
%
1
9
,
&
%
9
-
9
%
,
&
&
&
,
, %
,
9
9
12.
5. (5
H 9
,
%
%:
&
9
,
& %
9
&
*
%
%13. ,
* %
%
& 9
9
%
/%
&
,
&
.
,
14
9
,
% *
&%
9
% %
% (
),
9
. N
%, ,
&,
%
/ %
15.
10
4
/
%
.
11
+
%
:
9
& -
%.
12
+ Brown A., Day J., Jones R. (. ., 969) &
,
9
&
,
, &
9
,
&
&
1
&
9%
& .
13
4
%
%
%
9
.
14
"
/
*
.
15
L
/1,
,
%
1
% 0
9
. "
,
%
%,
%
( .&., 9 /
1%
)
9
,
&
&
*1
(
%
/ 9
/ * (context),
,
9
/ .).
233
H &
& 0
, 0
,
16.
0
9
/
. +
&
%
% 9
9%. 3
%
,
9,
&%
, &% 9
,
%
1 /.
% &
0 **
. +
-
0
%0
/
&
. ,
% &
0,
&
%
. +
0
1
&
*
.
1%
&,
,
& %
,
% 0
%
9%
.
1%
%
&
,
% 9
%,
1
% /
/ .
O,
&%
,
9
017. + &
%
:
*
*
&
&
9
.
&
&
9
&
,
,
&
*1
. ,
%
* %
18. +
/
**
%
. +
/
0
9
&
%
,
/
& * %
.
,
,
%
, &
* %
9
&
*
&
.
$
%
9
9:
,
&
*
,
,
, 9&
* .
%9
,
,
, &
0
*%
&
, ,
%/
,
,
0
/
/
.
$
&
9
&
,
* %
&
, %
:
) 6
*
O&
%
*
.
%
9
&
,
&
O&
19. *) 6
16
9
:
) Brown A., Day, . ., *) Brown A., Day J., Jones R, . ., )
Garner R ., . .
) Johns A., 1984, Summary protocols of underprepared and adept university
students: Replications and distortions of the original, Language Learning, 35 (4), 495-517.
17
.,
., 2003, A @
" $
,
"
, %
, 210-215.
18
Dole J., Duffy G., Roehler L., Pearson P. D., . ., 246-247.
19
"
%
0
&
&
%
,
*
%
&
.
234
9
%
*
1
O&
&
/ /
9
%
/
1 /
&
, %
%
, .&.,
1%
9
,
., &
%
%
&
9
%
/
*,
%
/
.
&
, &1
/
.
"
/
,
,
/
&1
& % 1%
.
% 1
%
/
*
&
9 0
%, &
&
9
9
9
,
/ %0
,
/
9%
0
&
&
22.
,
&%
% /
*
1%
&1
&
,
9
1
%
1
* %
. \
1
%
,
9
1
%
.
C56
Baker L., Brown A., 1980, Metacognitive Skills and Reading, 1980, in Spiro R., Bruce B., Brewer W.
(ed.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 353-394.
Brown A., Day J., 1983, Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise, Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 (1), 1-14.
Brown A., Day J., Jones R., 1983, The development of plans for summarizing texts, Child
Development, 54, 968-979.
3
3.,
.,
., 2001, %
/
0, 8*
6., \
1 . (.), %
&
20
1%
9 (individual differences)
&
& %
Spiro (Spiro R, 1980, Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall, in Spiro R., Bruce
B., Brewer W. (ed.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 262-264.
21
Dole J., Duffy G., Roehler L., Pearson P. D., . ., 249-256.
22
.,
., . .
235
$
$ ! #.,
$
, G
, 6 - 8 / 10 / 2000,
, %
, 430 442.
Dijk T. van, Kintsch W., 1983, Strategies of discourse comprehension, Academic Press, N. Y.
Dole J., Duffy G., Roehler L., Pearson P. D., 1991, Moving from the old to the new: Research on
reading comprehension instruction, Review of Educational Research, Summer 1991, Vol. 61(2),
239-264.
Q9
-Q,
', 8# &, +38, %
, 240-286.
Garner R., 1982, Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits, The Journal of educational
research, 75 (5), 275-279.
Hidi S., Anderson V., 1986, Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations and
implications for instruction, Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493.
Johns A., 1984, Summary protocols of underprepared and adept university students:
Replications and distortions of the original, Language Learning, 35 (4), 495-517.
Kintsch W., Dijk T. van, 1978, Toward a model of text comprehension and production, Psychological
Review, 85, 363-394.
Kintsch W., 1998, Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.
.,
., 2003, A @
" $
,
"
, %
.
Spiro R., 1980, Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall, in Spiro R., Bruce B.,
Brewer W. (ed.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
245-278.
$9
6., 1998, 4 &
9
9
. $
%
, 61 '. (.), +$ B#
, "
, 107-178.
=L !, 1999, @#
236
%
3%
% L
0
4
1%. +
& %
9
%
(Heidegger, 1972). 3
9
%
9
&
, &
% %
,
%
,
& %
.
&
,
/
,
9
,
&
/
&
.
4 %
20
&
/
9
&
1
,
/ O&
,
1
, 9
*
% & %
1
% (Krashen,
1985). $9
Bruner (1978)
9
*
1
%
,
%
O&
.
5 65
**
9
%
&
1
9
%
,
&
0
, %
&
(3
, 1987).
Q&
& &% **
9
1%
%
,
1
%
9
%,
%
%
&
& %
,
%
*
%
(Baugh, 2000,
Cmmins, 1996, 2000, Kouritzin, 1999, Lowell & Delvin 1999, Williams, 1998, Wong
Fillmore, 1991, Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).
/
%
*
1
/ %
&
&
,
9
%.
%
&
,
9
&
%
%
9
% (SkutnabbKangas, 2002).
1978
$
*
%
%
. 4
,
1
%
%
,
237
&
%
/
%
. ,
%
&
1
&
,
, *
&
%
* ,
,
%
&
.
$
9
%
%
1
%
,
/
. 3
%
9
, 9
9
,
9
&
&
&%. \
9
/
%
(
&
*
%) &
*
.
3
/&
%
%
* %
% / /
%
/%
&
, 9
/
& ,
.
/ 8
5
4..., $
, 6. 8
,
&
%
&
&
,
1
%
&
1
%/
& . $
&
&
%
,
1.
*
%
&
.
9
9
&
, %
1
*
1
*
.
+
=
;
$
,
9
%
, 9
, *
%
9
%
,
&
,
9%
/
/
PISA
(Program International Student Assessment) 1
*
238
&
% (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004).
C %
D
%, $
%,
D
%
%.
1
&
*
.
%
1
, & ,
%
.
&
*
9
. $
/
%
%
1
/
%
9
1
%
&
1
,
%
/
&
. 6
&
/
0
&
,
%
/
.
& &
9
9
% 1%
. 6
,
*
. H
&
* 9
132
&
(&
"*
).
&
9
%
%
. 4
%
(
, 2008,
, 2006,
& \
*, 2007).
& %
65%
,
09
9&
9 &
. 6
9
0
/
&%
&
9
%
.
%
%
0 &
239
%
%
%
&
,
&
/
,
9%
,
%/
1
* %
(
& ,
...). $ %
%,
/
%
%
.
,
&
% %
&%
& 91
& 9
%
.
( ,
*
,
)
&
/
(
& \
*, 2007).
$ <
H
&
&
/
(
, 9)
%
/
& /. 4
9%. + & /
. +
9
-%
,
, 9 ,
,
,
.
&
9
& 1%
,
O&
&. 6 %
%
,
9
,
&%
9
9
. 6
/
%
%
% %
0.
4 & %
&
%
*
%
,
% 9
,
%
/
9%
,
. 6
9
%-
%
,
%
%
& &
&%
/
%
%
*
(Hofhmann, 1982 3
, 1987).
+ &
&
& / 9
9% %
%
% 09
.
&
9
9,
9
1%
9
* ,
.
%
/
&
/
,
/
9 ,
,
, ,
%
/
*
/1
. $ & ,
240
%
. &
&
%
,
&
&
&
9&
*
% (
, 1997),
&
%
%
/
&
*
/
, 9
%.
4
%
%
%
/
.
,
*
&
%0, %
%
/
, 0
,
/
. 9
&
9
&
.
9 O
, &
9
9
,
. $%
,
%
9
&
&
9*%
%
(
, 2001). /
,
*
1
/%
&%
. &
1
/
,
,
&,
,
*
&
(
&
**
,1994).
4
&
/
,
,
,
&
,
&
*
.
&
* ,
&
%,
9
9
, ,
*
, %
9
.
H
9
, & 9
,
, ,
9. 4
9
%
%
% (Myers, 1992).
& %
&
. 4
*
/
9
10 .
$&
*
%
%
%
. 4 &
&
,
,
&
9,
* %, %
%
9
9
&
&
.
G
9
9.
/
9
9
.
/
.
$5 - (<
+ *
0
9%
4
9
%
. 4
,
9
%
&
*
%
*%
.
, &
%
,
*
,
.
+
&
*
&
,
9
%
9
% 0.
/?
55
&
9
&%
&
. 6
9
1 . 6 %
%
. +
9 . 4
/
9
9
. +
0
*
%
, /
.
"
%
9
&%
&
,
,
,
,
. 4
%
&,
%
C568
658
Baugh, J. (2000). Educational malpractice and the miseducation of language minority
students. In Hall, J. K., Eggington, W. G. (eds). The Sociopolitics of English Language
Teaching 104-116. Clevedom: Multilingual Matters.
Bruner, J.S. (1978), The Role of Dialogue in Language Learning. In: Sinclair, R.J. Jarvella
& W.J.M. Levelt (eds.). The Childs Conception of Language, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and Education Development of Bilingual
Children. In Review of Educational Research, 2, 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.
Ontario, California: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedom, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Finnish National Board of Education (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic education
intended for pupils in compulsory education. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy: Vammala
Heidegger, M. (1972). On time and Being. (trans. Joan Stambaugh). New York: Harper &
Row.
Kouritzin, S. (1999). Face[t]s of first language loss. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Krashen, St. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London, New York:
Longman.
Lawell, A. & Delvin, B. (1999). Miscommunication between Aboriginal Students and their
Non-Aboriginal Teachers in a Bilingual School. In May (ed.), 137-159.
Myers, R. (1992). The Twelve Who Survive - Strengthening Programmes of Early Childhood
Development in the Third World. London and New York: Routledge.
OECD (2004). Learning for Tomorrows World -First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
$: http://www.pisa.oecd.org
OECD (2003). Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow-Further Results from PISA 2000.
Paris: OECD. $: http://www.pisa.oecd.org
Skutnabb Kangas, T. (1984). Bilingualism or not- The Education of Minorities. Clevedon:
Multilingual Mattres
Skutnabb Kangas, T. (2002). Linguicide, ecocide and linguistic human rights Education as
a villain or a partial solution? $
,
. & 6
, $. (.)
%
4
:
%.
%
, L, L
.
Williams, E. (1998). Investigating bilingual literacy: Evidence from Malawi and Zambia.
Education Research No. 24. London: Department for International Development.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 6, 323 346.
3
, 6., (1987), % &
, %
: Gutenberg.
, \.
**
, "..,(1994), A & &
, %
:
Gutenberg.
% Q
(2005), / PISA 2003. $: http://www.kee.gr/html/research
, ., (2001), % @#$# ;
# @, %
:
"
.
6
, \. & "
., (1999), 3
9 , -
*
/. $:
: 4 %
% /
: 6
% .
, 25-27 !
1999,
!!!,
, 2000.
243
, $. & \
*, . (2007), 4
%
& : 6
&
. & ?, &. 80, }* 2006 -!
2007.
, .,(1997),
.
. $:
:
/
:
% %
. A%
, 2-4 O*
1997, 3: $
* E
E
*
"N
1".
, ".,(2000), *# &
, %
: "
.
, ".,(2002), A @#$#,
%, L
, "., (2006), #
!, %
:
.
, "., (2008),
. 3
9
244
0'()(
/
% 1%
%
. N
9
, &1
, ,
* . 3
9
,
9
,
,
,
.
4
*
&1
9
& 1%
, *
*
,
&
*
/
%.
%
& 0
&
% %
0
%
.
9
%
&
,
1
,
1
0
%.
4
&
%
,
&
%
9
%
0%
,
%
9
%
.
,
%
, 1
,
,
/
*
,
/
%
,
, ,
% 9
/
%
%
,
9
,
9
%. 6
%
9
1
*
%
&%, 9
%
&% /
.
&
%
9%
%,
&%
%
,
,
O &
* %
%,
/
,
%
1.
58 5
(5, 5, ,
, .)
,
~ .
1%
%
,
%
&
% $= !#$ $ $
#
! ,
3 $
: %
& $ % $
! +., G
-
% %, 6-8 +*
2000, #, 8*
6.,
\
1 .,
%
3
, . 443-450.
245
9,
9,
, 9
, ,
,
,
% .
/1, ,
%
%
1
%
. ,
&
% ,
*
&
%
,
&,
*/ &
%
. 4
&
%
9
/
%,
&
%
& *
,
&
%
%
. =&
%
,
*
1
&
%
%
/
1
, &
**
.
! 5=
5
5
8 5
5 =5
2.
Q&
*
&% &
% "
(")
, &%
9%
&%
&
"
/. 6
9
%
6
6
2005
$
"
%
# /
'
G ' L
. $
%:
) 8?
=
? 8-< 5
5
56 ,
) 8? 8
8<
< 5 <5
5
5<
,
5, 8<
5=
5,
) 65 8
55
56
8
) 5
= 5
= 5
8
.
%,
/
%
*,
%
9
9
%
*
,
$
,
,
/
9.
/
%
,
%
%
%
# '
,
%
&
/
.
%%
%
, &
9
%
%
, *
26
%, &
&
/
&
,
.&.
; / % /
,
~
,
,
}
/ F
,
&
% ,
&
@
,
! *
@ ,
! &
@ ,
2
L
6.
"., , &# *# #
+., % "
, L
2201, . 199-202.
246
'
& "
!
6
%
,
%
9
, 0
%,
, &
%
* % /%
%
. 6
$
" &
&
&
*
9
/
"
, 9
/
/
% &
1
% /
&
% "
9
9
'
.
,
, &,
&
"
9 $
"
&
%
,
&
$
',
1
%
.
3
9
:
i)
,
ii)
-
,
iii)
&
%
,
iv)
,
v)
}" 9
,
9
vi)
0
&
, &
%
%
& %
,
*
, &
/
% .
&
/
& & # '
,
F |#,
** !
L
:
[]
G (
!
!' []
(L
, III.70.2)
/
&:
)
,
*)
,
)
,
)
.
[]
[..]
(
(L
, III.80.2)
:
) % &%,
*) &% &%,
)
% &%,
) % &%
247
% ((!
)
%
%
,
&
= %
%
*
.
9
%
,
%
%
,
%
/
,
9
% &
*
%
, &
%
&
%
.
N
/
,
9
9
%. N
,
9
9
% &%. $&
&
9
%
. $
, , %
& %
%
, /
&
" % 3
,
9
/ ..
& $ $ :
/ % $
,
%
%
%
(=
%
).
H
&, 09
1 &%
,
% &
%
&%,
&,
%/
9% &%
%
. H &,
&% %,
&%,
%,
, %,
%
&%
%
(=%
) *
&%
. '
%
%
.
4
%
.
+
& &
}
% "
(}")
& ".
%
,
, & & 9% /
&
%
.
9
**
1
&
&
% *
&
,
%
. +
0
& .
%
&
,
& & ,
9
%
. D
, , 1
&
,
&
.
$
%
9
$
",
/
0
9
,
%
. +
65
8 <5
5
.
, &
&
# '
&
,
&
9
,
9
&
$
,
, .&.
9
(
% ), %
%
&%
(
% %
%),
/
(
,
, ,
9
),
%
%,
,
248
9
$
,
,
&
*
9. + 9
%
9
,
,
&
" % 3
,
9
9
$
.
\
%
" # '
,
1
,
/
$
",
/
9
"
&
"
"
.
1
% 9
%
,
O
0
&
,
%
%
% %
9
. }
%
, ,
*
%
,
/
, /
&
& 3
%.
*
% 9
&
%
,
9
*
,
*
*
%
. 4
$
,
.
,
%
, &
/ .
H
&
%
,
9
%
. ,
,
&
%
&
&
%
%
.
% &
,
, %
, &
, , %
%
&
.
?<
8<
!
249
556
5
D $
}
9 }
N '
H$+"":
$
/
/
%
/
,
&
9 %
%
. $ *
&
,
; $ *
/
&
25
9
*
%
% %
*
9
* ;
9
&
%
&
;
$(=8=$
}
9%
.
/
9%
/
9
&
&
&
9 /
. +
&
%
&
0
9. L
&%
&
0
9
&
%
%
%
%
/% .
I$/=JH(= C8=B+J=
+
%
%&
9 1925
/
,
,
*1
(Downing & Thackray, 1975). O %
&
%
1
&
9%.
%
/ -
/
9 /% -
, -
%
0,
&
9 (
% %&). 6
&
%
*
9%. 4
9 &
%
9%
.
, & &
,
1
*
0
&%
,
1
9%
. 4
/
,
9%,
,
.
9%
,
%
9
% / /
%
.
8H"#$: /=C $:H=C +-/:JH+$ /# 8+H0H# 8JH# J=C# $/=
#:8H+""H=
,
/ 9
9
%
9 %
/& /.
1
&%
/
&
%
%&
(.&.
/
&
9%
). $
,
%
/
/
*
9%
. "
0
%
*
/
9
*%
9%,
9%
1
/
%
9%
&
9%
.
3
&1
9 % %
,
9
/
/,
1
9
&
/
&,
&
250
& 9 % %
9
&1
4-5 .
&1
/
*
9%
,
1
/
/
*
/
9
/
9%
.
=0=$
% 9
. $
&
9. 3
/
%
0
&
*
.
H
&
1
&.
&
1
9%
&
%
,
,
. &%
0
,
1
%
&
(.&.
-/)
*
*
. +
25 %
-%
&
25
9
,
& 2 %
%
&
%
%
1
*%
. "
/
9%
&
%
*
&
&
9
. L
9
&
, ,
,
,
,
**
.
9%,
*1
9
9%
9
&
9%
-
.
L
%
/ %
%
%
,
/
*
. L
1
%
%
&
% 0
%,
&
&% 0
%.
8$ 0H=J#=C /= 9+=$
,
,
9
/-
,
1
*
%
9%
&.
/
%
/
0
9,
9.
3
,
%
*
*.
*
,
,
*
*
/ /.
: +KH+ /:$ 8+J+/:J:/H(=/:/+$ "H+ /:# +8=/H:$:
%,
9 %
*%
* &
%
.
6
%
0
&1
**
9
** %. ,
*1
,
&1
,
1
,
&
%
/,
&
,
9
.
0J+$/:JH=/:/$ "H+ 0H+"#$: /# 8J=B9:+/#
&
9%,
&1
%
9
&
&
.
& %
% 9 %
1
& 9
&
.
/J=8=8=H:$: =0=C $ H0H($ 8JH8/$H$
%
&%1
%
&. "
,
9
1
&%
;
*
&1
*%
&
%
&
&
;
&
1
251
*
,
9
,
&
,
9 /
. +
&
9
,
9
. N
%
&
%,
. 6
&
&%
%
0
& %
&
.
&
% &
%
9
&%
&
&%.
9
. 4
%
9
*%
%
* %
.
& %
/
& %
%
&
.
&
*%
*
%
&
*
%
*
. }
&% *1
(.&.
%
). }
0
.
&
/
.
%
&
9
%
. "
,
9%
*% 9
. }
*
*
&. "
& &
*
&
&
* .
+8=/9$+/+/$C8J+$+/+
6
9
*
%
.
*1
9
&
. 9 &
&
&
.
Q&
%
9
*
.
4
%
%
&
%
&
& ,
*
*
&
&
9 /.
, **
, &
9
**
.
252
15
5
?
5
?
8 =
$
\
*
4
% 9
&
/
%1 & %
%
&
. 4
++$ (1996) 1
&
1
9
9
, 1
*
/
*
*
(8
*
$
& 8, 2002).
4
%
% 91
%
% & ,
&
% &
/
/
(Bernstein, 1989).
,
1%
0 (Freire, 1977)
&% 9
9
%.
6 *
%0,
% % 0,
!,
/%
2
9
,
&1 9
%
&
&
1
&
&
.
6
&
%
9
,
%
%
&1
9%
.
9
%
,
&
,
&%
&
,
/
*
&
&
% /
. + *
%
* &
. 9%
%
*
1
*
.
4
*
%
91
,
,
&
,
*
/3
*
1
,
,
*
9%
4.
1
$
&
9
/
*
9
%. &
/
.
4 % **
9
9
&
. +
(2004: 19) 1
9
%
% %
*% &
%
, 0
,
,
, %
,
9
/
,
,
%
&
/,
% 9
.
%
9
%
&
. \
%
*
9
,
*
%
/
% / (
,
2004: 20).
1
& %
&
,
&
,
&
%
. 8 . & Charlot (1993),
(1985)
Perrenoud (1996).
4
+ McLaren
Kris Gutierrez (1997)
9
9
1
&
/
.
%
%
1
253
$
% %
0
%
.
,
,
9 9
%
.
0
5
+
/
. 3
9
%0 &
9 9
,
,
.
,
&
%
/% %
&%. +
%
,
% ,
%
(CopeKalantzis, 2002).
4
*%
%
,
%
*1
9
,
,
1
,
*
9
,
,
/
& &
,
&
,
1
.
8
&
&%
%
9
9
,
/
,
%,
%
%
/
,
%
/1
/
&
% (Gee, 1992).
$
, /
,
/
,
(Cope- Kalantzis, 2002).
6 *
&
9
9
%
(
%5
%
6)
%
,
9% 9
&
%
7.
/
%
%. +
%
*,
/
%
,
9 &
.
&
,
9 %
9 &
&
. +
1
. $
,
1
,
&
/
&
/
. Q
%
,
& % 1%,
&
*
9
0
/
,
1
/.
"
1%
&1
9
%
9%
9
& L * .
&.
(2005).
4
%
&
&
70
. $ %
/
%
,
. "
/
O
&%
254
.
9, ,
, % .. .
&
% .&. ,
&
,
% .. . !
%
&
/
. 4
/
%
9
&
%
%
,
%
%
. "
(
)
,
,
1
.
%
,
/
% 1%
%.
(% 9
%)
%,
&1
% ,
*
1
* %
&
*%
,
, &
9
,
,
9
.
6
O Goodman (1986)
9
%
1
/:
x 4
,
,
&
%
&% .
x 4
&%
.
x 4
%
%.
x 4
%
/
,
&
%.
x 4
%
. 4 %
%
/
/
.
7
9
\
* 49 3. $&
(& 1998 - 2000)
&
132 3. $& %
(&. 2002 2007).
**
,
/
,
132 3 $& (&.
2002),
/ =&%
\
*
/
$
.
8
9
*
9
.
,
&
& &
.
,
.
9
4
/ *
1
..$. (1999)
9
/
:
- }
:
*
! , . ,
# #, # #
# # #
$ "
(.@.;. . 42).
- }
* *
:
##
# ! " . $. #
.
. (..$. . 41).
- }
,
,
&
%
/ %
(
/ 25% ):
/
$ #
$
!
(, . , ,
#
$,
, #
...)../
!
#! 25% $
$
. (.@.;. . 42).
3
255
%
,
/%
%
&%
**
,
9
1
1%
%/%
.
9
9
9
%
,
%
/ /%
10.
, &
&
& 1
. ,
9 &
&
9
.
9
/%:
*
, 3
,
9
&
9% . 9 %
9
1%
9
,
9
9%
:
,
/
.
%
,
%
&
9%
&
/.
9
&
&
,
1
9
. "
9%
3
%
%
&
.
9 /.
9%
*
% %
%
%
. H % &
*
%
&
*
&
/,
9
*
1%
.
1
% %
1% &%
*
.
& &,
%
&
/,
91
,
%
. "
9%, 9
*
1
,
9
&
&
9
9
. 4
%
*%
/, &
/
%.
%
%
9
& ** .
+
1
& **
** %
&
% /. 4
1
,
& &
. +
,
9
**
,
1
9
: % 0
%
& ,
9
&
. $
&
9
&
&
/
,
&,
&
,
9
,
1
1
. $
%,
%
%
9
**
%
1%. 6 %
&
&
0 0
**
/.
4
%
9
/
& **
.
&% & % &
9
**
,
. 9
/
9
, 9
&
.
**
/
1
,
*
9
, %
%
*
. +
,
&
.
10
%
&
9
9
. 8 . &.
, }.
, \. G1 & }. 6. $9
(1996).
256
$
&
&
% /
, &
&
*
11. + &
%
1
.
$
& % &,
/
& ** ,
1
%
**
12.
4 %
.
&%
1% /
9
1%
9
.
%
9
* %
,
0 &
&, 9,
1
9
, &
,
, . 9
91
, %
*
*
,
%
.
9
9
.
4
9%
/
&
9%
%
91
%
&
9
9
.
,
/
% %,
9
*
&
,
,
* %
,
9
..
1
&
9%
&
&
. 4
%
. 4
9
&
.
, /
9
9
1
project (
*
,
%
, .. .),
*
,
11
9
%.
% **
9
%.
13
&. 4
1
%
9
/%
%
. $
%
/%
9
. "
&%
%
* . &. Cummins (2002), $
(2002) &
(2004).
12
5
257
.
\
%
1
&% ,
1 &
9
.
, %/
&
/.
4
% %
9
/
*
1
9
.
&
,
/,
. 6
*
,
&
.
% %
&
9
%
* %
,
,
9, * %
1
&
,
%
.
%
*1
. "
%
/.
1
,
9
* %
. H
1%
/
1
*
%
,
&
& %
%
14.
5
?
"
9
%
% &1
9
* /.
$
, 91
1
&
:
, &
**
, 9
(
,
.. .),
% ** %,
&
**
, & , 9,
9
,
9
,
9
/
,
* % &
9
,
,
(&
, &
9 , &
.).
,
/
9
1
%
,
9
%
.
? 55
$
&%
&
,
9
&
9% .
,
,
9
9
&
1%
.
4
9%
.
,
9,
/. 4
%
&
%
/
9
, 9
9
/
9
.
4
%
**
9
. 4 & **
%
&
*%
,
/
,
9
%
,
1
**
** % /
&
.
4
&%
%
%
,
9
*
,
.
L%
%
9
,
9
%
9
/
&
.
4
/
,
*%
,
/
1%
*
/ /
. +
14
"
/
* . &.
, $. & .
\
* (2005).
258
,
9
9,
*
&
9
%. Q
9 1
&%
,
% .
0
4
9%
*
&
%, 9
%
&1
&
&
9
1
&
. 4
9%
9
9 9
1
%
. 4
%,
, %,
/
&
&
.
O
9
%
/
%
*
%,
&1
.
$5
?5 6 <
=
$
/
, % 5 $5, 9
.
3
,
*
,
*1
9
**
.
%
.
&1
( %
)
1
91
&
6
(
%&
%
).
$
&
,
1
,
(
9%,
,
&,
.),
. 3
%
,
1
, 9
, 1
.
,
1 &%
/ /
/.
6+=},
'4
}+6G+,
*
.
$6
}$! 6!G,
1
.
\
*
, % 91 *
. %
*
&
&9
. Q *,
*
9
,
,
*
,
1
,
, 9,
1
.
H
*&
*
. 6
%
1
1
. H
& /
1
&9
. Q
9
.
$
9
%
. + \
1
%
*
1
%
.
6 &1
. &
},
*
9,
+
,
,
,
*
,
8,
1
1
.
7
259
+ \
%
. Q
.
/
&
*
.
6
9 &
1
*
1
%
&
%
\
.
6
9
9
1
\
:
+ \
\
&9
&9
1
9
.
H
1
*
%
&
.
&
.
*.
H
\
/
%
&9
,
.
9
%
/1
, &
&
.
9%
&1
.
+ \
%
. $
%& 9%
.
9
1
*
}+.
/
%
9. 3
1
1
*
.
9
&9
. 3 9
1
*
.
+ \
:
%
/; *
; "
9
%; 0
. Q&
91
&9
. 3
,
1. "
9;
+ }+$ &
%
,
/
0
:
H
1
*
&
9
,
.
9
.
& 9%
.
+ \
1
*
&
/
. + }+$ %/
%&
9
*
.
/; 3
&
.
*
.
6 /,
, %
,
*
9
: =& 9
}+=$
*
.
%
*
9
%.
\
&
&
%
}+=
%
/ =&%.
4
%
**
%
/%
:
$
1%
0
&. $
9
%
&%
&
. 4
1% 9
&
%/
*
% %
.
%/
,
0
&
%
&
9
*
,
/
/ &
,
9
&
&
1%.
&
/ %
9
&
.&.
& 9 /
,
% 9
9,
9
%
&.
$
&
.
&
&
9/.
. +
%
.
*
,
1
** . +
/
,
260
/
9
1
,
9% %
% %
&
.
$
& &
%,
9
9
,
**
. $
%/
*
,
% ,
9,
, &
, 9
,
/
9 1
%
.
$
,
9
(
)
,
9
%
**
. 6
1%
9
**
,
/
%
**
,
&%
%
%
.
$
&
,
9
/
9
**
&
&
,
&
: 6 /
/
9
%
**
.
**
/, % %/
&
&
.
/
**
9
%
9
&
. "
%
**
9,
&%,
,
&
%
.
5= =
=&
% % 9
:
Q
,
*
,
,
,
9
.
$
1
1
:
,
9
, 9
& .
$
&
9
& 1
1
1
1
1
.
%
1
. 4
%
9
N/
9
.
1
. 4
%
.
- 9
! Q
1
.
1.
9.
&
1
;
.
9
: 3 1
.
9
;
9
1
1
9
9
.
9
.
*
*1, 9
&
. 6
9
.
6
%
19
*
&
1
91
& &
. H
, %
19 %
&
.
. N/
&
.
&
*9 .
-
&!
.
&, &
,
&
.
*%
0
.
. 3 9*
.
N&
1
1
&
.
%
/
*
1
.
%
%
9
.
&
.
4 1 %
9. &
%
9
.
9
261
,
*
&
;
:
;
*/
.
$
%
. $ &
9
.
19 *%
&
.
1
1
9.
&
& *
/.
/
.
4
% %
,
9
/.
%
%
&
. \%
&,
&
,
&,
&
,
%
& .
6 *
,
% ,
0
,
&
,
&1
,
. D/
,
/
9%
9
9
,
9
. 9
, 9
,
, 9&
&
.
9
&
1
(
,
%,
.), &
9
(
9
,
)
. +
9
9
9&
**
-
,
1
&
%
/
.
$
9
1
9/
** #
/,
** -
.
Q %
9
, &, &,
*
%
,
9 %
&
1.
Q
9
,
%
9&
%
9
&1 . H
%&
%
9
%.
9
&1
%
9%
1%.
9,
,
9
*
. 6
9
%
9
,
1
&
.
%,
,
/%.
H
,
*
%
. 9
&%
**
1%
&
,
9
.
%
0
1
9% % 1.
1%
9
,
9
& . 6 *%
/
.
$
%
,
%
9
** . /9
,
9
, 1,
&
.
**
&
.
4 *
1
%
% **
%. 8
* %
,
9
&
. 4
**
0
,
,
,
0
. 4
%
9
9
, &%
/,
262
10
**
%/
**
,
%
%
*
%
/
9
.
$
**
*
,
/,
%/
&
,
, 8. (1985).
. $ . D
, ?$#
. %
:
1%.
Goodman, K. 1986. Whats Whole in Whole Language? A parent/teacher guide to childrens
learning. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
, }.
, \. G1 & }. 6. $9
. 1966. 6
*1
*1
9
9
:
& %
, &
? 38: 26-32.
Mc Gee, L. M. 1992. Awareness of text structure: Effects on children of expository text. Reading
Research Quartely 17: 571-590.
McLaren., P. (1997). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture. Oppositional politics in a
postmodern era. ': Routledge.
Perrenoud, P. (1996). 4 & %
&
& ;
.
;!# &
, 88: 27-32.
G, . (2003). A #
11
263
YL/
!(2002) "
$
: 4
} % "
3 $& -3
& 9
".
\
*, (2006). Q
**
: + %
% &
, & ? 77: 24-29.
\
, .
\
1
**, $. (1997). A
#
#.: $
#. % #
$
. L
:
.
264
12
1. 0
& &
Chomsky
9
/
&
,
,
/
,
%
/
9
. 6&
&
O:
, /
,
% . ,
*
,
9
, &
%,
9
.,
9 .
, **
, & /
. + 9 &
**
*
%
. "
, ,
;
,
; L
&
/
,
%
,
%
%,
. 6&
% %
, 9 .
.
9
:
, 9 .,
%
&
.
, Q
%. &
;
&
1
9
,
%,
1%
.
;
&
,
9%
,
%
%.
+
1
9
&
%
%.
; +
,
,
9
;
%;
9 9
%.
9
9 ,
**
9
&
,
**
,
9
9
(
Joseph Conrad, %
%,
20
).
&,
/
&
&
9
9
.
,
9
,
&%
1
.
, / ,
9/9
1
. D
*
%.
, ,
%
%
*
9
%
&
%
, %
,
/0
(phoney)
% (3-4 *
,
.). %
&
9
,
*
,
,
,
9
%
% &
* .
9
9 9%
&
(sit vs shit (
! (
)), sit vs seat, peace vs piss, piece vs piss,
beach vs bitch .).
/
9
9
; /
9
status
9
;
265
1
&
&
*
1,
.&. / fruit,
& % !.
1
%
,
,
%
fruit;2
/, , %
9
,
1 %
9
9
,
&
Q .
%
9
, 9
, %
fruit
% &
,
,
&
%
%.
2. $5<8
2.1.
L
%
9
0
9
9
1
&
.
&
,
0
%
,
9 %
9
9
%
&
%
0
(Kvecses 2002: vii-viii).
4 0
%
9*%
Lakoff
Johnson (1980), **
Metaphors We
Live By,
1
/
9
&
/, &
%
&
& %
,
& 1
(
), &
&
% 1%
&
9
9
0
&
&
& (Kvecses
2002: viii). , &
/
9
0
% &%
.
6
9, Lakoff (1987: 303) 9:
4
9
&
(domains)
&
%
% (preconceptual) %. Q
. 4
9
*
. 6
% [
] 0 (rational thought) & &%
9 .
+ Lakoff
Johnson (1999: 13),
,
9
9 & (hidden hand)
9 (conceptualize)
(aspects)
.
3
(entities)
(inhabit)
9 9 ,
,
&
0
&
(reasoning).
266
6
*,
%
/, 1 ,
9
9
9
& 9
9
9
9
&%
.
L
/
%
9
%
%
.
. $
9
12,000
9
9
&
/
&
*
,
2,000 &1
.
&,
Kvecses (2002: 16),
9
(metaphorical meaning) &
. L
9
.
&
3.
(!
The heart of the problem
Learn by heart
vs
vs
To shoulder a responsibility
The head of the department
vs
vs
vs
A head-on collision
vs
Pig-headed
stubborn
As obstinate as a mule
She eyed me suspiciously
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
4
* %
*M
%
(
%)
1
* 9 / 9
%
%
? / 9
%
%
*
9
*6
9
%
6%
*"
9
*6
&
6
/
&
*3
&
3
&0
&
.
9,
9
.
3
C , * *
9
/
%, * ?
9*
. $ %
&
9 %
& % 9
.
267
9
0""%'%%)',0( 0+%&0(
I was in seventh heaven
She was on cloud nine
*
*
9
$&%''0(
Fine words butter no parsnips
Beggars cant/mustnt be choosers
A creaking gate hangs long
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
You cant run with the hare and hunt with the
hounds
*+
/ *
*+ 1 /
*6
/4
1
*H
&
& Jack
4 %
9
*3
&
9
%
% 9
&
9
%
.
9
*% 9
.&.
% %
%
:
#! sth is running in the gypsies, # /! he became a Turk, ($
from out.
,
,
9
/%
/ 9
9% (
I (*))
9
/
(language specific).
&
&
&
9,
&%
1 & .
, ,
,
9
9
%
.
2.2. =
Q,
,
%
9
1
%
(count
nouns)
%
(uncountable/mass),
&%
. %
/
(objects)
(substances)
&
/
,
%
9
9 ;
%
cars-
&
%
&
*a sugar-*
,
Sugar is fattening
%
%
%
,
&
268
%
%: *
. "
% 91
1
% &% (generic use) /%:
A car is inexpensive today
Cars are inexpensive today
% &
& .
*F
*
"
%, ,
9
&%
9
%:
/
/
&%
%
&
,
1
.
&
%1
9
.
1
, %
&
,
&
&
. 6
%
,
9/
9
&
*
* %
%
% &%.
%
%
&
* %
.
9
scissors, jeans,
binoculars, headphones . 6 *
,
91
& %
0%
9
1
. $ %
, %
&1
,
/ s
,
: my scissors IS made of stainless steel.
Q,
&
&
%
(
9
),
%
&%
/ pair
9
: two pairs of scissors, two pairs of jeans
. 4
%
1 %
%
& %
9
. 4
9
% %
. '
,
, &
.
9
9 give me THAT scissors
give me THOSE scissors.
;
9
9
9
1
9,
;
2.3. 8
: . L
%&
,
&
,
&
. C ,
ON %,
,
9% (contact)
9
(surface) 9
&, IN &
&
&%
&
(container)
&
. Q, :
/he book is ON the table
/
;/* (= $ )
1
* %
. $
&,
,
%
9
*You look ON the mirror and see your face
*The airplane is ON the sky
You look IN the mirror and see your face
The airplane is IN the sky.
,
9
,
%
9 %
%
; "
9 ; + %
269
3. (85
/
/
/
&
% ,
,
,
,
,
%
9
%
&%
%
&%
9 /
,
*
%
. }
, ,
,
*
9
9
&%. $
&
*
9
9
%
&
& %
&
9
*
. 3 &1
9
% &
, 9
9
&
270
)5 (685
/
$&%(& I
()
()
translation in Greek
69
%
LIDL
271
$&%(& II
&
%
%
,
9
%
/ 9 &
9 %:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/
()
As mad as a hatter
Meaning
Completely mad. This is now commonly understood to mean crazy, although the original meaning
is unclear and may have meant annoyed.
Origin
Mercury used to be used in the making of hats. This was known to have affected the nervous
systems of hatters, causing them to tremble and appear insane. A neurotoxicologist correspondent
informs me that "Mercury exposure can cause aggressiveness, mood swings, and anti-social
behaviour.", so that derivation is certainly plausible - although there's only that circumstantial
evidence to support it.
The use of mercury compounds in 19th century hat making and the resulting effects are wellestablished - mercury poisoning is still known today as 'Mad Hatter's disease'. That could be
enough to convince us that this is the source of the phrase. The circumstantial evidence is rather
against the millinery origin though and, beyond the fact that hatters often suffered trembling fits,
there's little to link hat making to the coining of 'as mad as a hatter'.
()
Raining cats and dogs
Meaning
Raining very heavily.
Origin
This is an interesting phrase in that, although there's no definitive origin, there is a likely derivation.
Before we get to that, let's get some of the fanciful proposed derivations out of the way.
The phrase isn't related to the well-known antipathy between dogs and cats, which is exemplified
in the phrase 'fight like cat and dog'. Nor is the phrase in any sense literal, i.e. it doesn't record an
incident where cats and dogs fell from the sky. Small creatures, of the size of frogs or fish, do
occasionally get carried skywards in freak weather. Impromptu involuntary flight must also happen
to dogs or cats from time to time, but there's no record of groups of them being scooped up in that
way and causing this phrase to be coined. Not that we need to study English meteorological records
for that - it's plainly implausible.
One supposed origin is that the phrase derives from mythology. Dogs and wolves were attendants
to Odin, the god of storms, and sailors associated them with rain. Witches, who often took the form
of their familiars - cats, are supposed to have ridden the wind. Well, some evidence would be nice.
There doesn't appear to be any to support this notion.
272
It has also been suggested that cats and dogs were washed from roofs during heavy weather. This is
a widely repeated tale. It got a new lease of life with the e-mail message "Life in the 1500s", which
began circulating on the Internet in 1999. Here's the relevant part of that:
I'll describe their houses a little. You've heard of thatch roofs, well that's all they were. Thick straw,
piled high, with no wood underneath. They were the only place for the little animals to get warm.
So all the pets; dogs, cats and other small animals, mice, rats, bugs, all lived in the roof. When it
rained it became slippery so sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Thus the
saying, "it's raining cats and dogs."
This is nonsense of course. It hardly needs debunking but, lest there be any doubt, let's do that
anyway. In order to believe this tale we would have to accept that dogs lived in thatched roofs,
which, of course, they didn't. Even accepting that bizarre idea, for dogs to have slipped off when it
rained they would have needed to be sitting on the outside of the thatch - hardly the place an
animal would head for as shelter in bad weather.
()
Sleep tight
Meaning
Sleep well.
Origin
This is a very well-used phrase in many parts of the English-speaking world. It's been common at
bedtime for many years in the form of "good night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite", or
similar.
There are several theories going the rounds as to the origin. One is that bedclothes were tied tightly
to stop bedbugs biting. That's pure speculation and there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to
support it. Another theory, this time a little more plausible, dates from the days when mattresses
were supported by ropes which needed to be pulled tight to give a well-sprung bed. Again though,
this is speculative.
The phrase "sleep tight" itself was well used in the late 20th century, but there could hardly have
been better way of cementing any phrase into the popular consciousness than by Lennon and
McCartney using it in the lyrics of a song at the height of Beatlemania. That's where it found itself,
in Good Night on the White Album in 1968:
Now it's time to say good night,
Good night. Sleep tight.
C'C'%)&+'
Cobuild on CD-rom
Johnson, Mark, (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and
Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
vecses, Zoltn, (2002). Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press
Lakoff, George, (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson, (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson, (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books
Taylor, John, (1995) Linguistic Categorization. 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University
Press
273
4 %
9
&
% & .
9
9
,
.
9
. $& %
%
/
*
9
.
L (
$
& . !
/
9
, 9
:
, &
( %),
9%
%,
% % 9. "
9:
,
,
.
@
/
;
9
%
9
/%:
%
/
% 9
( speaking, writing)
/
9
(listening, reading). ,
:
-
, /
, 9 %
&
,
%
.
C
,
9
($#
#
.
/
%
%
, , 9 *
. +
9
9
%.
"
, /
%
%
. 3
,
9
9
,
%
, .
,
%
, 0
&
,
/,
%
,
/
*
%
. $
% ,
1
,
.
N /
*
*
%
9%
(
%
% 9
).
&
9
* 0
, &
% &
%
-
&
. C
%
9
, &
&
&
/
,
1
%
*
. 4
%, &
9 ,
&%
.
4
1
-
&
. +
1
9:
9
%
(
9
%,
%
),
9 . + 0
& J. Piaget,
& %
*
&
*
9 1% ,
1
&
%
/
,
&
&
1
% 9 1%. , &
9
&
9
& . 3
,
,
%
,
6
.
N
1
%
,
%
,
,
0,
* %
&,
,
%
9*
&
/
,
,
9 *
0
&
* ,
*
*
.
9*%
&
%. $9
Gardner
274
%, %,
%,
9
0 9
%
&.
9
9,
&
*
%
9 /
.
, % &
%
, 0
%, /
&
(
& ,
/
,
9
,
% &%)
,
&
%
-.
@.
$
!; 4
%
/
%
% . +
%
%,
%
*
0. +
%
9
&
%
*
&
0.
,
/
,
9%
/ . $
% 1
&
, &
1
&1
, &
0
. +
&
%
&
%
9%
%
*
%
/
&
-% .
/
1
. C
,
/
/
/ -
9% &
-
.
/ % *
,
9
%
%
%
,
*
,
,
, *
% 9,
/
,
9 &
/%
.
/1
9
&
34
3
$&
%
,
%
9 Hes name is Jerry
%
& & 9 he is = hes (verb to be)
his (possessive pronoun), /
/%
. 9
Chess players can play a game for ours
% 9 ours
hours
cantry
country.
9
%
.
%,
9%
%
.
/
9
&
. 6
&1
9
:
% 9 my number telephone
my telephone number,
&
%
1
%
.
&
. 4
%,
%
.
, &
%
* ,
/
,
-
%, % . +
%
/
% ,
.
,
-
/
%
. 4
-
/ , % %
%
,
*
,
-,
,
&
, &
/
& % /.
+
,
% / *
% . $
-
%
*
%
,
&
. 6
,
%
%
*
,
%
/
%
*
.
$
, %
/
1. 4
,
&
&
2
275
,
/%
&
*
*
% /
*
.
&
,
,
,
&
* . O
/
,
,
* ,
,
*
,
,
0
&,
.
%
&
,
/ %
,
*
%
.
276
=
". }. '
( <
6
*
%
% 1%
1% 9
.
&% %
9
. $&1
% 1%
,
.
%
,
%
,
/%:
@. .
: $ *
9
%
% 1%
9
,
*
*
1 %
%
.
&
%
,
,
%
,
/% 9
.
! .
: 1
9
,
9
%
, ,
9
,
/
%
%
,
, ,
/9*
,
/ %
,
.
/
.
: %
&
,
*
/
.
Q& & ,
*
&
%0,
/
9
. =
%
,
&
9
&
,
&
. "
%
%
/ &
, 9
9
&, %
,
9
* &%
/1
,
%
. $ &
,
9
,
%
9
%.
%
,
9
, , ,
*
: 3
%
*
; 1%
.1
9
&
*
, .&.,
). 9
&
& 0 *
&
/
&
%
% 1%. 4 %
& %
%
%
& ,
*
/ %
%
%
% 1%. +
9
%
&
%
,
9
,
%
,
.
% / &
& &
/
%
& , %
0
9
% &
& %.
,
*
1
8 .
%
$
%
: 3
%
*
; (
% Q
, %
, 1-2
}*
2007 L
, 13-14 3*
2007), @ .
1
277
& % %
,
/
&% %
%
%
. N
*,
&% 09
%
.
% %
,
%
,
%
9
%
9
,
&
* %
%
%
.
&1
: %
/,
9
9
,
*
%
*
%
9%
%
%
. ,
,
9%
%
%-
,
%;
% /
9
%
,
& ,
&% & %
,
&
%
%,
%
9%
%
0.
/
, ,
,
9
%
&
.
&
,
9,
& /
. + -
&
. % 9
&
9% &
%
9
9.
-
9
&% %
%
%
,
*
. $&
/ &
* %
,
*
%
& 9
.
9 %
,
,
9,
0,
&
1
%0
*
. 4 /
, %
,
%
. +
,
9
%
%
&
&
& &
%
.
278
,
,
0 *
,
,
,
% &
,
& *
%0,
1
%
9
%
.
, 0
%
9 ,
%0
/
,
&%
%
. L
& /
9
,
9%
*
%
%
%
. D, .&., , + &
&
%
&
%
9
&
9%;
, & ,
&%
,
9
9
,
,
%, /%:
, &
/
9
9
&
. D
9
,
,
*
&, 1
.
6 9 %
9
9
&
%0
0
%
%
.
% 91
,
9
,
9 9
%
%0
.
, .&.,
9
9
(2006) ,
,
,
1. $ &
,
*
%
%
% 1
&
,
,
, .
%
!.
% 9
&
:
!,
.
9
%,
/
&,
&1
,
9, . \
, %
9
&
& ,
*
%
%
,
&
& 9
%
. 4
%
% %
1
&
. &
%
/
*
&
% 1%. 4
9%
,
&
/ /
,
.
3
%
, *
& &%
%
1
/
9
& &. 4
%
/
1%
9
,
%
9% 9
%
, 0
.
&% /
%
. +
,
&
%
% 1%. 4 %
%
, 9,
*
,
9
/
&
0
*
%
. 6
&
/
&
9%
3
279
&
9
%
%
.
1
&
/
*
/
%
,
,
%
%
&%
. 4
,
,
0
,
9,
&
,
9
,
*
%
.
&
%
,
& &, &
%
&%, *
. 4
%
/
%
9 , 9
9
%. 4 &% 9 /
/ % /
&
&
9
&1
. $
/%
& 9
The man in the
street. + 9
%
%
% 0
1
0
&%
1
%
&
% 1%.
&%
&
9
&
6
/
/
9 &%
(
9
1,
&
&
).
%
! 6
/
9
&
, *
1
,
&
%
% /
,
&,
**
9
&
& *
&
9, &
*
,
&
.2
4
&
&
%
/
9
&
(
, .&.,
& 1967-1973)
9
%
/ /%
% 9
. ** -
%
"
9
1% &
9
&
/ &
9
.3 ,
&
2
*. +
.
, | #
( #: / 4 #!.
, [3
%
%
%
3%
: !
%
], %
2007.
3
"
,
',
/, ,
27
1967-1972, %
, . "% 3
9 (1967-1972).
280
,
&
9
9
(
!
),
&
%
% 0
%
,
&
.
% &
9
(1940-1941)
,
, * %
&%
"
&
9%
&
%
%
& 0
&
9
%
%
, .&.,
%
8#
.
'5 5
5= 5<8
8
%
&
&
, &
,
&
9
, *
,
1
%. 6
&
9
9
0
. ,
%, /,
,
.
9 9
:
*
& %
*
%
%
9
,
%
*
9
.. ,
&
,
&
/ %
&
& 9
&. , %
1
&. ,
& 0,
. 4
%
9
& /%:
%
,
9
,
%
*
,
,
. D
1
&% 9 ordinary people,
,
, &
,
&
9 distinguest persons,
, 1,
&
. L
%
&
eminent persons.
+
&
%
%
%
0. "
%
&%, % &
,
%
%
&
,
%
%
0 *
.
,
, %
/
%
,
&
% 1%
% . ,
*
&
(
) % &
,
% / %
%
,
*
(
)
/
,
,
%
%
3
9.
4 9
%
1
1840,
, . &.,
!
&%
(
% ,
&
%
5
281
,
9
, /
9%
, ..) 91
/%:
&
&
,
&
& &%
"
9 / &!.4 +
*
&
%
%
%
1%. $
9%
,
*
,
, &
%
%
1 & /
/
,
&
/
*
9 & *
%
/
,
&1
. & &
9
,
%
*
9%
%
: 3 &
=
&
,
1
.
1
9
,
%
9, %
,
&%
,
& %
/
*,
9 .
, .&.
,
%
, 1
,
% 1
,
,
,
% 9&
%
%
& &
.
+
1
,
1%
9
/
9 0
&
1
,
19
,
,
%,
/ 1
1%
. H
%
9
1
9 + Pavarotti %
9
1,
1
1
%
/
. 3
%
&,
& /%: + Pavarotti
*
,
1
. 4 9 & /%:
%
1
%!. 6
,
&
&
9,
&
&
, .&.,
% %
9
9
9
%
%. 6
1
&
D
,
/
&
.
& /: "
0 *
Arabia; 4
%
9
%
:
Arabia
0, , %
0,
4
282
/
*
&. $
&
*
, &
9 ,
!
4
&
&
%
,
% %
. "
/
& &%
9
. &
% *
&
,
9 &%
% 9 &
%
% &% 9
%
. H
%
&
%,
%
9
&
%
. $%
&
/
,
9
&
%
9
&
,
1 ,
%
,
9
9
.6
6
% *
, *
&
%
,
9
9 &
% (
%)
% *
%
%
&
% 9%
%
.
&,
!
,
&
&
% %
/ "
%
&
%
.
7
283
9
19
. 6
%
%
,
*
1
9
!
(1717-1863). 4 %
%
%
*
%
&%
% * , *
&
&
9%
. +
, .&., "
&
% 0
G
%
&
,
1
1
% *
.
&
% *
,
, &
O&
&
&
,
&
/
&%
.
$ &
!
( 9%
18
19
.) 1
%
0 9
, *
9
%
%
*
%
&
. 4
/
%
(
*%
&
)
& 8
%
1
,
&
/
&
&
, &
%
9
/ &
%
&%
3
9
"
%
.
6
9%
.&.
,
,
9& , ,
\
, /&% (&
), &,
,
,
,
,
,
%
&
, ,
,
,
, %-
% * , %, (9
%
&
& ),
, 9
, 9
,
,
%,
,
,
,
-*
,
, ,
*
,
,
,
,
,
,
..
*
%
%
%
1
,
,
% (
). + 9
9
&
9%
1
1
. 4
%
,
,
&
&%.8
3
9
&
%
,
&%
%
!
(1780-1863
),
7
8
284
(
%)
%
*
&
9
,
,
, &
1
&
-
/
%
. +
&
9&
&
, .&., &
&
&%
%
, 9
%
.9
(1841)
,
,
/
*
.
+
&
&
% 0
&
& 0
. $& 1
3
9
"
%
.
% &%
, &, %
9,
9%
18
19
!
,
&
%
.
, +
&
9,
9, &
9%
9
,
,
9
&
%
,
%
.
9
,
&,
%
,
%
&
9%
!
,
/
%
&
;....10
9%
9
9 %
1
% 6
. *
%
09
1
9
,
1
,
**
9
.
&1
,
&%
(1841) *
9%
%
! , &%
%
. D
&
%
% % &% 9
%
9
%
, 1
0 %
,
/&1
% 9
/
,
1
&1
.
$
%
&
&
&.
, *
&
&%
&
%
9. 4
%
&%
9
% %
. 4
9
,
&
,
9%
/
(
%
%
1
1
,
%
)
0 %
&
9
/
.
9
!
, %
1980, . 27-29.
10
9
285
9
9
%
&
%
,
/
34
&
1%
.
9
,
%
&
9: + =
(
9
&
%
)
&%
.
&
&.
%
&
* &
& %
*&,
,
, ,
%
,
,
,
;
"
%
9
%
9
: 4 &
(L. L. }&,
, 25-10-2007).
:
, *%
, %
/
%
%
,
9
;
%
,
%
/
9
* ;
&% %
9
9
/
,
%
,
1
9
9:
/
9
&
9
.
H
*
, 9
1
/
1 ,
/
1
,
9
% * %
&
/
. 3
&
1
/ %
,
,
%
%
0 %
/
* %
/... D
&
%
. , 9
%,
%,
,
& %
,
/
& %
.
58 8
5 585
865 <5
0
,
1
9
&
9
.
&1
,
%
%
%
%
%
,
&
*
& %
. & 9
%
&% %
(
%!)
/
%0!!! +
&,
,
%, %
,
,
&
%
. M99-
, ,
9
%
*
9
09
(
)
/%:
/%
&
,
%
0%9
9!
%
!. %
,
, 1
:
!
&%
. %
, &
% 0
%
!
&
%;.
9
9
%
*
,
%, %
1
%
,
,
%
%
(
&,
&, %
%
%,
). 4 9
%
0
/
1%
/%
&
9
%
:
9
286
10
,
9
. +
&
,
9 9, & 1
! +
*
&
, ,
9
9
&% 09
* %
9
,
%
.
$/ 9
9
0
&
0
&
9 %
. $%
, 2007
$
G
, *
%
9
$
3
% "
,
9
6 (
"
% 3
),
%
9
, %
9
&
1
:
&
(
*%
/), (
) 9
, , 9
, (
9
)
1
(!).
$
,
*,
,
9 9
&,
%
.
9%
,
1
, *
/
& % 0
.
3
&
/ ,
&
.11 =
9
,
*
& 0
/ %
9
9%
% 9
*
&
&
. \1
0
1
,
9
&
1
%
9%
9
9
,
& %
1%
&
0
. & %
%
*
&
%
,
&
,
,
&
%. , /
&%
&
&1
9 &
%
%
. N&
.$... (
$
*
% )
09
& %
%
%
. 4
& /%: 4 %
%
. $
%,
9
11
". }. ', /
%
, :
:
.
+
, . !
8*
.
, %
1999, . 188 ..
11
287
1
%
/1
(+
%
, %
, %
9% ..). ,
9
*
& (&)
,
&
,
&. 4
1
&
* & 1
%
1
&
%
/ %
%
.
& &
/
/
*
&
9 *
%
& *
&
%0 %
/
0
9%
. 4 9
/,
9
& %
,
9
*
%
, %
1
/
/
*
.
*
%
9
,
9
.
%
,
/
,
*
% / % %
. /
%
%,
1
&%
% % &
+ % %
9
. =%/ ,
%
, 1
%
,
9
*
9
9
. ,
/
+ ,
%
%
,
9
%
1% &
%/
/,
, %
.12
/ , /
, &
.&.
%
9
,
8
%
4 6
1
&%
1% &
% .
4
%, ,
/
%
8
1
.
%
,
, *
%
8
1
%
, **
,
&
%
9
,
0. $ **
*
%
&
%
* 13.
12
13
288
12
0
/
&
,
9,
%
%
. }
1%
&%
9% % & %
%
*
9
%. /
&
%
*
& .
1
* %
&
,
,
9.
a priori
1%
%
*
9 %
,
%
%
14.
14
13
289
290
.
....
!"
!
, "#
....
#
01. $"
02. "
03. %&
04. !
05. '
06. ! !
07. %&
08. (! &! &)
#
*$
+"
291
01. $"
!
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
!
,
"
"
,
!
,
#
,
.
Susan Pedersen, $
;,
: David Cannadine (.),
;,
"
%
&# , , &# 2007, 81.
#
"
#,
,
'
,
#
,
",
"
,
, #
, #
,
,
'
"
,
"
,
.
Paul Cartledge, $
;,
: Cannadine, .., 53-80.
!
, ,
#
,
,
,
, "
,
'
,
, '
,
(discourses),
,
,
,
" .
Miri Rubin, $
;,
: Cannadine, .., 155-179.
292
02. "
-
! &
1) 9 #": ;
*
1
&
#
#
:
'
#
+
#
.
* '!
'
'
()
/
"
.
2
*
#
:
* '
"
'
#
* #
,
4
#
6
/
6#
#
'
!
&
"
=
#
,
#
>
# #
#
6
#
: &
?,
;
@, &# 2007, 247-255
&!
,
!
#
293
[]
. B
"
#
#
,
. E
'
#
#
. F
" . =
"
. $
' . /' '
. *
,
'
'
!
. $
.
&
?,
;, @, &# 2007, 113
,
"
(
/
..).
*
'
- !
"
,
'
'
(Visual Literacy),
#
&
@
(Susanne
Popp),
#
. *
#
# #
#
" "
'
"
"
,
(strategic essentialism)
#
H
I
! I
#,
"
#
-#
"
,
#
status,
, "'
# #
#.
/"
#
Susanne Popp,
*
I
,
:
(visual
perception)
.
!
.
294
"!
,
#
# #
(images visualizing history).
(Susanne Popp,The Role of Visual Literacy Competence in Understanding Visualized
History. Outline of Visual Literacy Standards for History Teaching, unpublished paper
in: International Society for History Didactics, Public Uses of History, School of Primary
Education Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 19-21 September 2007).
03. %&
1. H
#
,
!
#
,
#
" "
,
# #
,
..).
6. H
#
'
#
(
,
,
,
,
" ,
#" ,
)
"
,
"
.
7. H
#
,
,
'
#
.
04. !
@
#
" ,
,
#
, ,
''
, !
#
,
"
"
,
,
295
#
#
"
#
#
. G
,
"
"
"
#
,
, "
!
.
1 "
!$ #
#
#. % !, !
#
&#. '
#
. *
!. [...] +
#
#
'
#
#
#
#
- - [...].
# -
#! '! !
.
#
!
#
-
! ! #
'!
[;]
- $
. /#
!$.
X-?
'-Y Bartholdy (1779-1825),
#
. $
6
1803 1804
1805
1807.
2 "
[...] "
! $,
#
["-
], !
, ' #
-
!
0
-
, #
##
, !
!
[...] 0 #
'
!
#
- !'
#
- #
#. 1 [...] - # !
#$#
!
!
#, #'
# '.
-
#
$ ' [
#
-
"#
#] 0
[=
]
# "#
#
. %
#
#
-
0
$
[...].
F, 26 I 1806
3 "
[&
! !
# ] [...] '
'
# %
-
-
[...]
!
'
# ' -
#
,
!
$
,
# 2
- ! #
, -
'
! [...] /'
# 0
'
-
# 3
#,
# 3
#
# ,
#
#
!
# '
-
- - . [...] /' 4
#
#
!
#
##
. [...] /'
4
#
#! . [...] /
/ /
[']
\
, 1869
%
#
!
%
%
Y", 5
$ 3
(1700-1950), &# 2005, 134-135 (2
3
) 163 (1
) .
# !
296
1) /
#
;
2) /
"
#
;
3) X !
" ' (
#
" )
"
;
4) F, , ,
#;
5) /
#
"!
"
.
4 "
1. "!
#-#
>
# ,
#
#
-
#
# #
#, #
-
#0
#
-
#
# []
2.1 @
' []
2.2 @ '
$ #
#
#. @ #
'
#
'
-
#
- -
.
H
=
6# 6 , 20 I 1934
(H!
X )
# !
1) H
#
(=
,
, # ,
, "
, ).
2) @
"
; (=
"
,
,
"
,
,
,
#)
3) @
"
(= -
)
"
;
297
05. '
- !
1800
!
1800 1922
1940-53
1932 - 1940
1937
1922-1932
1
/
&#
@
#
46 " (12
34
),
#
"
, #
. /
@,
"
#
'
'
!
'
. F
$
" & /,
H ,
*
,
6
,
6# /
,
/
@
*
, & I
_
& & @. F
#
H /
%
,
H `"
H 6# . /
'
298
#
( \)
#
"
,
('
, ") !
* (
).
B %
, III. &
1922-1930,
: \
@
(.),
A
# 3!
# &
- 1770-2000,
7: @ "
1922-1940.
/ # C
4 /#
-
#,
6
X
- $ H, &# 2003,113.
[ &
]
2
'
!
1920,
#
#
F
40 ! ,
!# [...]. $ "
#
'
"
#
.
%
%
, *
, "
'
6
F,
: !
'. "
'# &
# "
!
#, j F ! 6
, &#
2003, 45-46.
3
G
30
,
q
... @
"
,
"
/
%
20 ,
1937. /
@
%
600
". %
. 6
!
#
,
... B
,
" !
1920 "!
15
. %
4
F "
!
; = '!
" [/F.
#
F
]
"
". &
"
!
.
X x
, &-
-
, 1929
299
5
$ 1929 #
"
!
185.000 "
,
1930-36
350.000 ",
"
[]. =
[
,
"'
"
*
]
[] "
,
,
" . 6
", " { $!
1937,
,
", # #
. $
.
$
%, 5 #
"
!
.
C
- 0
&
# 1930,
\', &# 2007, 37-38
6
%
, "
'
!
,
"
*
"
/
F
,
\',
!
&, ' #
"
!
!
#
"
.
H. X, =
, 3!
%
, 10.9.1936
[ = =
"]
7
# @
6
"
" \'. =
!
"
#
@
.
&
$, 11.9.1936
8
[]
!
,
. % : >
[]
#
,
" #.
[&"], $, /> 3!, 14.9.1936
9
E!
#
-#
#
,
#
,
"
,
# ! [=
!,
]
"
"
[]
%., {
, 2
, 19.9.1936
300
11
10
&
# ""
. 1. &
(%), 2. $
(F), 3. >
(F), 4. $
! (/
), 5. @
(/
), 6. \', 7. F
&'
, 8. 6
,
9. | x. = '
,
,
#
,
"
# 3
#. 12
.
X @
, / #
0 #
' C#- / #
/, &# 1937
11
}
! 6
$
,
#
,
"-"
!. 6
6
# #'
. $ -
!
"
#'
,
.
[&"], = ,
!
, 30.11.1937
12
*
>" $
#
"
" #
#
,
(). 6
#
"
>". $.
/
' 1937
13
6
"
#
. &
"
. [] }
14
6
. B" . B"
"
, "#
. *
" ', #
' , , #
[]. &
,
F
. [@] ,
# "
. F
. $
, " ". H
. B"
.
F \'
15
$ >" $ $,
301
"
,
# #
#,
"
#
.
6
.
[&"], &
#
, %
, 22.6.1938
16
@
"
6 '
*# ?
*"
>" $ $
"
6
""
. F
'
" )
')
(
)
"
. $
#
*/
? *"
''!
6
[]. $
6
[] !
>" $ $.
H 1619/1939, {# 21: @ "
> $ $
17
=
%
6# &
. 6
'
,
"
X
.
`
!.
& |, %
, / , 264 (I 1984), 46-47.
18
[(+"]
w
[...] "
,
\', #
. $
#
#
,
#
#
!
!
"
. E
" #
,
&"
F
#
,
, #
.
,
&#
1937, #,
,
!
#. @
#, , "!
#
'
. = ,
,
#
#
"
,
,
#
, B
6
\' [.],
"
.
F @
, @
-
# " 0. C
&,
"
F F , G , &# 2006, 341-342.
302
13
19
[...] "
- # !
#
,
. &
"!
#
#
#
#,
"
[...].
F @
, .., 342.
20
w
"
[...]
@
,
6
# ,
"
#
'#
.
/
1936-1940,
6
4
&
, &# 1938, 214.
21
= ,
,
#
#
.
/
, .., 214.
0.7 %&
$"%&'1933
'(:)*&
&'
#
!
' ! #
!, ,
-.
'
#
'
#
# .
% !
-
!
#
#
.
G
-
!
'# '
# $!. (= -
)
#,
!
! ,
'
#
#
- ' '
.
"-
'!
-
' />
#
!
. @
,
",
'
!,
,
",
,
",
(
").
/
#
.
@ /',
!0
!
+),
'1936
'(:)*&
+
# #
#
#
#
# #
'
#
#
303
4$ #
'
#
#
!
% ' 4
#
# $
#
!
#
#$.
(&!
%
-
,
4$!
-
C
$
# '
!
.)
-"(
'1936
'(:*
#.
!
!
!
#!
- !
'0
!.
I-
-'
,
'
'-
#
#
#
#
'#
#
% ! 0
!
! !
-
- !
+/ ('1935
'(:0
)(4)
"
-
-*&'1936
'(:#
$ (: #
5 4 # #' 0#
- , '
#,
#
!, -
!
!
#
1 !'
,
'
304
-"
F
#
"
"
",
#
!
F
,
!
\'
/
,
$
, #
"%" x
?,
15
4
,
#
" 4
#
! !
%
0
4,
#
!
!'
-, -
# -
4 4
# 0
'
'
# '-
$ '$
! ! ! '
! !'
!
-
!
# '
#
#.
0.8 (! &! &)
#
*$ +"
"
"
)&
)
+)
& &
(1)
(2)
6"
#
#
, "
#
, '
,
,
,
".
(3)
@
,
#
,
"
, #
.
@
,
#
2)
#
"
3)
4)
@
5)
@
#
"
6)
7)
#
305
.
x
;
x
; (
!"
"!)
#. $ %&
x '
!;
x *
" !/
;
x + !"
!
;
. '
:
x *
"
;
x
*
" !; +
!
!;
x + !
&
; '
;
,. + ":
x + %!
&
;
x
! %;
x +
";
x '
" ;
x '-
;
-
(Logicalmathematical)
(Verbal / Linguistic)
/ !"
(Visual / Spatial)
# / $#
(Musical / Rythmic)
%
(Body /
inesthetic)
&#
'"*%
(Naturalist)
"
(Interpersonal)
%+"
(Intrapersonal)
%'#
(Spiritual)
(Moral)
306
0
,
,
! !,
"
% !.
,
! ,
! ,
!
,
.
0
,
,
,
",
! " !.
"
"
, !
" !
!
.
,
"
"
& "
%&
2 .
, - !
, "
,
!
&"
.
3
!
"
% !
%!
.
3
!
"
%
! %.
Portal (
.. Historynet, Center for History and New Media .
.)
307
308
$0&'-
4
6
/
* %
% , *
,
,
. 4
/
9
%
,
*
*. 4
1
6
L%
& %
".. 6 2005.
0'()!)
6
/ *
%
&
2
4
. ' 9
%
%
1 , 1
*
*
. Q
9 ".. + 9
*
&.
6.6..
9
&
&
.
9 **
9
*
.
9
&
%
9
*
*
%.
3
& &
0
,
/ ( "..)
/
&
% *
.
+
".. ,
*
, &
,
&
,
/
% /.
/% %
%
;
;
%
%
;
& 9 *
9 ;
;
%
&
*
% ;
0&0#"
$
&
0
9 "..
4
9%
*
6
.
&%$%( 0&)('(
/
*
1%
9
*
. $
0
%
0%9
.
6
400
09
L%
349 & %. +
%
%
&
.
309
/
9
x
% *
&
x
%
x
&%
x
% *
&
x
% *
&
*
$%00(
$
1
2 9
09
*
%
,
%
.
&
.
09
*
%
, %
.
&
,
.
%
0
.
9
3
4
0
0%9
%
. $ 2
L%
&
&
.
$'",( 1.
8BH&8
G/H#
25%
20%
15%
/"E>9H#
22%
13% 13%
10%
5%
5,40%
4,25%
2,86%
3,25%
2,00%
0%
G/8 1o
G/8 2o
G/8 3o
G/8 4o
$'",( 2.
"#$&' "('$&)
G/ H#
/"E>9H#
80%
60%
31,80%
27,25%
40%
20%
45,25%
60,61%
28,36%
20,50%
0,75% 0,28%
0%
G/8 1o
G/8 2o
G/8 3o
G/8 4o
$
3 , 4
1
(
3. L!4 =L=}$4 ,
4. \}+'+"!4 =L=}$4)
310
*&" 1 1
37%
2,5%
0,25%
1%
0,5%
1%
1,25%
3,25%
11%
42,25%
*&" 1 2
44,5%
3%
4%
*&" 1 +
0,75%
2,25%
10,5%
18,5%
29%
26,25%
*&" 2
29,75%
2,5%
0%
0,75%
1%
0%
7%
59%
*&" 2 +
48,75%
3,75%
3,5%
2,75%
0,25%
0,75%
1%
2%
1,5%
35,75%
*&" 2 .
67%
1,75%
2,75%
1%
0,5%
1,25%
1,25%
1%
1,25%
22,25%
*&" 3
25,5%
9,5%
8,5%
56,5%
*&" 3 +
46,5%
16,25%
7%
2,5%
1,25%
1,75%
1,75%
23%
*&" 3 .
64%
1,75%
2,25%
2,25%
1,75%
1,75%
4%
2,25%
*&" 3 $
51%
15,5%
16,25%
5%
1%
2,25%
3%
6%
*&" 4
72,75%
3,75%
0,5%
1%
1,5%
0,75%
20,25%
*&" 4 +
61,5%
8,75%
4,75%
2,25%
8,25%
9,75%
*&" 4 .
68,25%
8,25%
3,75%
5%
1,75%
1,5%
1%
*&" 4 $
64,25%
7%
2,5%
4,25%
3,25%
4%
14,75%
5,5%
12,75%
43%
20%
10,5%
*&" 1 1
37,54%
0,86%
3,15%
1,43%
2,58%
2,87%
2,01%
4,01%
8,02%
37,54%
*&" 1 2
51,26%
2,87%
2,87%
7,74%
35,24%
*&" 1 +
1,43%
3,44%
10,32%
0,29%
26,62%
20,06%
26,93%
*&" 2
34,96%
0,29%
1,43%
0,29%
1,43%
1,15%
18,91%
41,55%
*&" 2 +
56,16%
2,87%
4,01%
1,72%
1,43%
0,29%
0,57%
0,86%
1,72%
30,37%
*&" 2 .
76,22%
2,01%
1,43%
2,87%
1,43%
0,86%
0,86%
0,26%
1,15%
12,89%
*&" 3
39,96%
7,45%
11,17%
44,41%
*&" 3 +
58,45%
13,75%
4,3%
1,72%
0,86%
2,01%
0,86%
18,05%
*&" 3 .
73,35%
4,3%
2,58%
0,29%
0,57%
0%
3,72%
1,15%
*&" 3 $
64,47%
8,88%
12,61%
2,01%
2,29%
2,58%
2,29%
4,87%
*&" 4
81,66%
3,15%
1,15%
0,86%
0,57%
1,15%
11,46%
*&" 4 +
74,79%
4,01%
3,44%
2,58%
2,01%
3,72%
*&" 4 .
79,37%
5,16%
2,87%
3,44%
2,58%
1,15%
0,86%
*&" 4 $
77,36%
4,58%
2,87%
1,72%
3,44%
3,15%
6,59%
14,04%
4,58%
09 0
80-90%.
,
/ %
$ '
.
4 9%
%
% *
%
!1 ' . 4
% 9
9
*
(
)
(
/ %
) .
91
*
&
.
311
;)(AB.;( B)&='
G/H#
/"E>9H#
40
20
4 $
4 .
4 +
4
3 $
3 .
3 +
3
2o .
2o B
2o A
1o B
-20
1o A2
1o A1
0
-40
-60
-80
1
1
%
18 , 2
3. H
1
1
L
4 . Q
&
*
%
9 **
*
.
9
L%
9
& %.
& % &
L%.
%
&
6
"# '
&
/
%
9
.
4
%
1
/
.
0
9 .
N
0%9 % 1
9
% 1
.
$
5 9
L
1 1
1
/
%
.
$'",( 5.
*&" 1 1 (:($&;<# *&=>#"?())
G/H#
37,54
42,25
37,54
37
2,01
1,25
4,01
3,25
2,87
1
2,58
0,5
11
1,43
1
8,02
3,15
0,25
0,86
2,5
50
40
30
20
10
0
/"E>9H#
SOS
,
& %
0%9.
3 %
9
9
. Q
&
1
/ %
&
9
%
. 3
%&
/
, 9
.
312
$'",( 6.
*&" 1 2 ((>;)"() )B":?=?#))
G/H#
/"E>9H#
60
35,24
43
7,74
5,5
2,87
2,87
51,26
20
44,5
40
1 L
1 2 1
9
!} 6.
2 L
9
% .6.. %
09
.
$
7,8,9 9
% *
%
.
$'",( 7.
*&" 2
G/H#
59
41,55
18,91
7
7
1,15
0
1,43
1
0,29
0,75
1,43
0
0,29
2,5
34,96
29,75
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
/"E>9H#
$'",( 8.
*&" 2 +
G/H#
/"E>9H#
60
40
20
1,72
1,5
0,86
2
0,57
1
0,29
0,75
1,43
0,25
1,72
2,75
9
8
7
6
5
4
4,01
3,5
2,87
3,75
10
30,37
35,75
30
56,16
48,75
50
313
$'",( 9.
*&" 2 .
G/H#
12,89
22,25
76,22
67
100
80
60
40
20
0
/"E>9H#
9
8
7
6
5
4
.
9
1
%
/ ,
,
9
.
L
2 "
/
% %
1
.
0 %
/.
9
1
3
3 3
$'",( 10.
*&" 3
G/H#
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
/"E>9H#
56,5
44,41
39,96
25,5
9,5
0
8,5
7,45
1
11,17
2
3
$
10. 9
% *
L
3 %
%
%
.
9
.
*&" 3$
G/H#
64,47
0
4,87
6
2,29
3
2,58
2,25
2,29
1
2,01
5
12,61
16,25
8,88
15,5
51
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
/"E>9H#
L
3 3 9
0
. Q
%
.
/
& **
&
%
(
314
%)
1
.
&
/
&
0
.
$&! 0&"0'
09
1-8
/%
. 4 *
&
/ &
9
8. +
1
%
%
%
1
%
*
.
". Q&
%
9
& ,
9
.
3. Q&
% 0
/
. Q
%
% &
. 4
% ,
&
(#$0&(
x +
/
%
9
/
/
x
%
6
/
x +
/
x =& *
*
9
*
x =& *
x
0
*.
&
&
&%
x 4 %
*
& **
x +
,
,
&
.(
( ,
#! $
) (+=6$4$ 1994)
x +
%
x
*
/.
x +
9
1
9
9
. (
)
x +
1
*
/'%&+!', 1'%%)(
+ "..
,
%
,
/ .
&
* %
/
9%
%
. Q
"..
/
&
% &
1
9%
%
$ (# #
! . * #
#
#
. %
#!
$ $
$ .
$ . $
#
,
#!
. &
,
$
$
#
( , !
$
(+=6$4$ 1994)
315
&! #
#$ (#$#
,
$ ,
(# ( ($$C4$ 1990)
%
&
;
316
1%
* %
.
/
9
1
0
). 3
%
9
,
%
(Carpenter & Fennema, 1989), &%
(Mack 1995), &
(Lamon 1993), &
(Fuys, Geddes, and Tischler 1988).
4 0
9 9
* . 4 $
9%
& & 9
:
/
*%
%
%
%
1
(Miller, 1983). 6
%
&
%
*
/
&1 .
% 0
. 4
% . "
&
( ., &
*
%) /
. ,
%/
317
/
&
% & ,
. 4 Borasi (1987)
%/
&
x
&
,
x
0
,
x
9
* %
,
x
&
9
.
4 Borasi /
/ %
%
.
9
%
*
* %
/. '
9
% . H
1
9
1
% . $ ,
&
9
9
1
/
9
(Piaget,1970; Piaget, Inhelder,1975). +
Turniaire and Pulos (1985)
4
*
: (
) * %
%, (*) * %
, () * %
/%, () * %
. *
$
*
%,
9
1
%.
&
9
9
1
%
*
*
*
( "
&
9
1995). =&
(De Bock et al., 1998, 2002)
& 9
%
9 **
% %.
4
1
/
% 0
(Arcavi, 2003; Bishop, 1989; English, 1997). L
*
%
&
9
&
9
.
/
*
0 *
&
. 4 Presmeg (1986), Eisenberg
Dreyfus (1991)
%
*
9 .
H
9
&
,
(Brock and Price 1980)
&
&
(.&.). 4 &%
(.&.)
&
(artifact),
%
%: % (.&. ),
* % 9% (
%
), %
(.&.
) (Saxe, 1991),
9
* .
5= 85
4
%
*
/ /.
43
% # / '
, 16
27
.
&
1%
%
&
(Plato, 82 b7 - 82
e3)
6
. 3
&
&
* %
*
. !
1%
0
*
&
. + &
/%: 1. 4 %
0 * . 2. 4
(.&.) * %
. 3. 4 &
*
. 4. 9
% %
. 4 %
$
-
6
,
% *
$
&
:
$C.
,
, 1
&%
;
318
3+='. 6
.
$C.
&%
&
/
.
3+='. 8*
$C. 3
&%
%
;
3+='. 8*
.
$C.
%
,
%
&%
; 3
/%.
% %
,
&%
%
;
3+='. }
%
.
$C. 9
,
;
3+='.
.
$C. 3 9
&%
;
3+='.
.
$C.
9 ; $0
.
3+='.
.
$C. 3
&%
,
&
&;
3+='. 6.
$C.
%
;
3+='. +.
$C. Q
,
%
%
&%
; 4
.
.
/
% 8
(
}),
1
/
/
9
* %
.
8
.%
4
9%
%
9
1
(* .
1 ).
33%
,
1
. 4 % &%
/
9
( Piaget & Inhelder, 1975). 4
/
&% %
,
%
, 9
1
9
&
&
,
.
4
4
33%
4
28%
14%
3 /
21%
$&
%
$&
%
4%
$
1.
*
6
&
%
5%
319
28%
%
*%
:
2
*
=22=4. L
&%
($&.1). 4
2
3,
22=4, 32=9. 8
4
9,
2
3.
: *.
: 6
2
& ($&.2)
8 *
. (2+&)2=8 % 2+&= 8 % &= 8 -2
2+&=2+ 8 -2= 8 . D
9 *
8
8 . 8
: Q&
. 6%
&%
.
$&.1
6
$&.5
$&.2
$&.3
$&.6
$&.4
$
1: $&%
: L
*
8 ($&.3).
AC2=AB2+BC2=( 8 )2+( 8 )2=8+8=16 AC=4
AE=2
EB=2.
AB2= AE2+ EB2=22+22=8,
AB= 8 *%
.
:
*
&%
($&.3).
: Q&
(ABCD)=8,
(AEB)=2 .
10
: }
(AEB)
. 6
AE,
EB, CE, DE
($&.4) *1
* /
.
11
: 3 1
12
13
:
*;
14
15
16
: }
&
=2
8=2.
17
: $
%.
28
19
20
:
/ &%
&
9 &
*
.
: AEBH,
&
2
*
4 8
*
8
0
.
$
1%
3
1
4
() (2)
%
*
2
3. $ (4) /
%
320
2,
2
&
2+&
*
8,
%
&
. ' /
(2+&)2=8 % 2+&= 8 () % &= 8 -2 (),
2+&=2+ 8 -2= 8
().
1 & ()
%
2+&
(),
& % * ().
8
%
&
0. $
&
&
%
0
9
/
&
/
*
8. $
& &1
($&.3). = 1
AC: AC2=AB2+BC2=( 8 )2+( 8 )2=8+8=16 AC=4
% AE=2
EB=2.
AB2= AE2+ EB2=22+22=8,
9
%
. 4
AB= 8
%
9
&%
* %
9
& AB2= 8 ,
AE=2
EB=2.
/
2. 0
(0), "(").
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
;
}:
.
: L
/
% &%
;
}: 6
. ' =42=16. C& ' & % 4
.
Q&.
.... &
;
: L
*
0
9
&.
}: $9
%
3 32=9, 8. %
2 22=4
2
.3
.
: &
;
}: $&1
*
8
($&.4). &&=&2=8.
/
*
*
: *
. H ($&.3).
}: '
8
& *
1
: C
.
}: Q& &%
($&.5).
:
;
}: H&,
.
: L
*
8.
}:
.
: *.
}: }
/
;
: "
&;
321
28
29
$&.1
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
322
$&.2
$&.3
$&.5
$&.4
$
3: $&
}
$&.6
$&.7
}: \1 4
,
%
* 2
($&.5). H
/
&
.
: 3
%
}: 3
& .
& 8
;
:
;
}:
1. }
*
1
4 .
; 3 &
($&.6).
: 6
, &
;
}: H&
3 *
9. 2 2 4. 8
9
2
..
:
.
}: & &
1%
* 2,5
($&.7), 4
4
..6
8.. 9
*
. & / 9&=8 &
9.
9%.
: &%
&
&
&
*
1 ($&.8).
,
&
. 6
&
..
}: }
: .
6: ' & ($&.9)
. *
*
/
%
.
: $
9.
}: }
Q& /% &%
.. 4
3
7
8
($&.10)
: 6 &%
}: ;
: 6
}: L
& ($&.11).
& 5 67
..
: 6: &
..
&
}: & ($&.12). ' & 567
.
: &%
;
}:
& 4
..6
;
: 8*
.
}: *
6%
3 3; H& & 3
& 5 6..7
4
8,
$&.8
55
56
$&.9
$&.10
$&.12
$&.11
$
4: $&
}
$&.13
:
;
}: 6
1 1
%
%,
.
%
2 2,
&
2.
$
1%
3
2
$ 3
2 (32) } (})
(2-8)
. 1
& (.&.) &
&
($&.1 $&.7).
&
($&.3),
2, 1x1
(16-24) &
&
. " 9
1
%
* (14), (24).
(.&.)
*
9
%
%
.
&%
(})
&1
4
%
. L
9
1
$&.13). +
%
% 9
&%
: &%
&
&
,
% "figural concept " % &
%
(Fischbein 1993).
(5
/ %
% 0
%
/
(Fauvel & van Maanen, 2000) &%
*
/
. /1
/
$ %/
9
/
%
1%
/ $
%
%
9
(Drodge and Reid, 2000).
$
*% &% &
&
&
&
/
9
0 Duval (1998).
$
01
9
9
% 0 (Aspinwall, and Shaw 2002),
1
* %
%
(Brousseau,
1997).
9
&
.
C56
"
, ., &
9
, . (1995). '
3
"
* %
. $ . "
(Ed.),
$
.. L
: Art of
Text.
Arcavi, A. (2003). The Role of Visual Representations in the Learning of Mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics 52: 215241.
Aspinwall, L., and Shaw, K. (2002). Representations in calculus: Two contrasting cases. Mathematics
Teacher, 95, 434-440.
Avital, S. (1980). What can be done with students' errors? Sevavim (15). [In Hebrew].
Bishop, A. (1989). Review of research in visualization in mathematics education. Focus on Learning
Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 7-16.
323
Borasi, R. (1987). Exploring mathematics through the analysis of errors. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 7(3), 2-8.
Brock, W. H and Price, M. H.: 1980, Squared paper in the Nineteenth Century: Instrument of Science
and Engineering, and Symbol of Reform in Mathematical Education, Educational Studies of
Mathematics, 11, (4), 365-381.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Carpenter, T.P., & Fennema, E. (1989). Research and cognitively guided instruction. In E. Fennema,
& T.P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics (pp.2-17).
Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (1998). The predominance of the linear model in
secondary school students solutions of word problems involving length and area of similar plane
figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 65-83.
De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (2002). The effects of different problem presentations
and formulations on the illusion of linearity in secondary school students. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 4(1), 65-89.
Drodge, E. and Reid, D. (2000). Embodied cognition and mathematical emotional orientation.
Mathematical thinking and learning, 2(4), 249-267.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. Perspectives on the Teaching of
Geometry for the 21st Century An ICMI Study. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Eisenberg, T. & Dreyfus, T. (1991), On the Reluctance to Visualize in Mathematics, Visualization in
Teaching and Learning Mathematics (Zimmermann, & Cunnigham, ed), Washington, 25-37.
English, L. (Ed.) (1997). Mathematical Reasoning. Analogies, Metaphors and Images. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates
Fauvel, J., van Maanen, J., (2000). History in Mathematics Education. The ICMI Study. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Fischbein, E.(1993). The Theory of Figural Concepts, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2),
139-162.
Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among
adolescents. Journal for Research In Mathematics Education, Monograph Series, Number 3.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Garuti, R., Boero, P. & Chiappini, G. (1999). Bringing the voice of Plato in the classroom to detect
and overcome conceptual mistakes. In: O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proc. of the 23rd Conference of the
PME (Vol. 3, 9-16). Haifa: Technion Israel Institute of Technology.
Klein, R., Barkai, R., Tirosh, D. & Tsamir, P. (1998). Increasing teachers awareness of students
conceptions of operations with rational numbers. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 22nd Conference of the PME (Vol. 3, 120-127). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.
Lamon, S. J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Connecting content and childrens thinking. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 41-61.
Mack, N. K. (1995). Confounding whole number and fraction concepts when building on informal
knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 41-61.
Miller, P.H., 1983. Theories of Developmental Psychology. Freeman, San Francisco, USA.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston VA: Author.
Oser, F., Spychiger, M., Mahler, F., Gut, K., Hascher, T., Beler, U. & Mller, V. (1999). Lernen
Menschen aus Fehlern? Zur Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Schule. Scientific report (2) to
the Swiss National Science Foundation:
http://www.unifr.ch/pedg/archiv/archiv.htm
Oser, F., Hascher, T. & Spychiger, M. (1999). Lernen aus Fehlern. Zur Psychologie des negativen
Wissens. In W. Althof (Eds.), Fehlerwelten. Vom Fehlermachen und Lernenaus Fehler (1141).
Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Piaget, J., (1970). The childs conception of movement and speed, London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., (1975), The origin of the idea of chance in children, New York: Norton
Plato. Menon. TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae). % 20-04-2007
http://www.tlg.uci.edu/
Presmeg, N. (1986). Visualization and mathematical giftedness. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
17 (3), 297-311.
324
325
8
55 89
=
*
4
"
'
&
&
,
1
,
/1
/. +
'
/
91
"
, 9
N *
. , / *
*
, 9
&
/
!, !.
9 *
"
,
1
,
*
&
/ 9
0 (. 51).
6 %
%
,
%
"
- &
9
#
%. $9
,
&
"
&
%
% (Fischbein, 1999,
.18 -21), 0,
, /
%
%
/ (Shriki, 1997, .152).
&
&% %
,
9%
9
%. 4
%
&
,
&
/
.
$
%
% . L
&%
%
*
%
(Duval,
2001, .1). $
,
#'
"
,
.
,
&%
&
*
0
&
.
$&
*%
6
/%
,
*
. 4
/
1
%
.
, *
*
,
/
.
326
"
,
*
&
0
9
0
/%
.
=
' *
' "*
"
* %
%
, %
,
%
.
,
&
,
9%
% (Duval, 1998, . 38).
4
5
&
%
0
,
*
,
&. 3
1 *
,
1
(
)
&
/
&,
* %
.
4 1
&
,
1
,
& ,
.
%
&%
,
&%
%/
*
%.
,
&
* %
(
/ % &%
), %
%
&%
1. % 0, 568
:
9%
9
M *
/
:1. % 2.
%
3. % (
, 2003, .228). $
&
1%
.
:
''
=
-
%
9, 1
& . +
*
1
, %
%.
1
* %
% 9
&
%
.
%
*
1
,
*
%.
$ %
. +
*
%
9
*
,
%
&%
. Q *
* %
&%
.
,
&
%
9
&%
&%
. H
9
,
%
.
8
''
;
$
&
:
$
,
#$
%
#$
, ! (
.., %
&
( 9
&%
)
&%
&
+
% ,
*
1
&%
,
9
9
1
*
. 3
%,
9
(
&%
)
1
* %
.
*
,
9
1
327
1 9
. 6
$&%
*
/
B
1
N
%
9%:
(
#$
%>
( ## #
!)
.$
;
* ,
. ;*
>
6
% /%
,
%
&%
,
&
1
&
%
&. "
,
%
&
1
&%
,
&
*
,
. 4
%
&
.
, % ,
&%
,
9
&
.
:
&
&%
%
**
,
&%
.
,
&
. ("
,
, /
&
&%
&
1
*
.
%
%
&
).
4 *
%
%
%
, &
9 %
%
,
. =
% %
328
%
. Q
*
1
%
,
9
&
1
,
%
%
. ,
9,
*
1
, *
1
&
&%
.
:
''
4
% *
%
% , #
*
%
9
. + /
&
9%
&%
.
$
%,
/
1
&%
,
&
%
&
&%
% 9.
$
%
9
:
8
''
;
1. 6
&% %
%
1
* %
. "
,
*
:
$5: $
8" 8="
6,},
/
86}
.
&
%
"
'
%:
/ >%?
#
.
% &
6,},
.
&
/
%
( #.
!,
#
)
( #.
!)
&%
.
2. N
&
* &
& %
&
.
M - P:
!#
%
P:
#$ >+
>+
M - P:
#$ >+
3. Q
,
&
9
1
,
% 9. +
%
&
329
$
8" 8=",
'
%:
%,,?
, >=+ , %>=? >%?
#
"
)
+
% /
9
,
C
,
( %>=?)
% 1 (>%? #
)
&
/%
& %
&.
4. $
9
1
1 ,
%
.
%
%
9
9%
.
$
,
(+,), $
%
&
$8 , 8
.
;
'
%:
;>
#
. $ > ;
+
#
$
#$ .
%
/ $8
,
(
) $8
& *
%
, 0
9%
&
( $ > ;
).
9
%
1,
& &
.
:
*
''
=
%
9
- *
-
. +
% *
1
, *
%
1
,
%
/
/
. $
%
, *
.
&
/
,
* %
,
% 9% (pattern imagery)
*
%
%, %
& *
&
#
.
\
%
%,
%
%
,
0
& %
%
%
. $
&
, &
%
.
%
/ 9
Rodd, &1
/
1%
,
% /
(Rodd, 2000, .225).
8
*
''
;
1. $ %
5
&%
,
%
%
&1 &%
. +
Duval 9 &
figural change
operative apprehension,
330
%
0
&%
.
%
9
,
/ 9 &%
& &
%
&
%
/
&
9% &%
.
"
, %
* %
(Duval, 1998, .41): 3
8"3
6
}.
/
%
3G, G$
$8
.
,
%
/%
&%
,
*
,
&
}"6
3$"
G8 (
) 9
1
.
"
&
/
"
"
&
)
C
&
) /
C
"
&
)
4
%
&
1
0
9% %
&%
* %
. $9
Duval,
# $
-
! #
.
#
!
$ # $
.
$:
# ! #
# (Duval,
1998, .41).
2. +
&
%
,
&
&
%
. $
,
%
&
1
:
/
58
&
5
, &
9 .
4
%
* %
,
#
,
,
1
(%
,
% %
). $ %
% &
%
&
(%
%)
/
.
+
9
&,
9
.
*
% *
. &
1
.
,
9
&
.
+ %
/,
%
&
&%
,
%
1
&
* %
.
+
% /
%
/%
:
&
%
&%
, **
. $
, /
9 %
. Q
%,
,
% & %
%.
+
, ,
,
* %
. +
,
&
%
331
%
&% (
* %
),
*
&
.
+
%
/
* %
.
%
,
%
,
,
%
(
/
),
% %
,
&1
(
, 2003, .247).
$
,
%
,
0 . Q,
* %
.
$
&1
,
:
%
1
%
* %
1
%
,
%/
* %
/ 9
, 9
% %
&% %
1
%
/
C
,
,
% 0. Q
%
,
%,
%
.
$
,
% &1
(.&.
&%
)
*
%
1. + &
&
*%
%
*%
,
/
,
&
* .
C'C'%)&+'
1. Duval, R. (1998), Geometry from a Cognitive Point of View, in C. Mammana and V. Villani
(eds) Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century, Kluwer Academic Press,
the Netherlands.
2. Duval, R. (2001), The Cognitive Analysis of Problems of Comprehension in the Learning of
Mathematics, presentation in the Discussion Group: Semiotics in Mathematics Education, 25th
Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
Utrecht, The Nederlands.
3. Fischbein, E. (1999), !ntuitions and Schemata in Mathematical Reasoning, Educational
Studies in Mathematics 38, 51-66.
4.
, . (2003), * $ $ '! %
. @
$,
3
% 3
*%
5. Mariotti,M.A. (1997), Justifying and Proving in Geometry: the mediation of a microworld,
revised and extended version of the version published in: Henjy M., Novotna J. (eds.)
Proceedings of the European Conference on Mathematics Education (pp. 21-26), Prague,
Prometheus Publishing House.
6. Rodd, M.M. (2000), On Mathematical Warrants: proof does not always warrant, and warrant
may be other than proof, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 221-244.
7. Shriki, A. & Ehud Bar On (1997), Theory of Global and Local Coherence and applications
to Geometry, Proccedings of the 21st Conference of PME, Finland.
332
$0&'-
&
.
$
9 &
,
**
%,
/
0
9
,
&1
.. / & &
,
/
/ &,
.
.
0'()!)
9
9
, /
&
*
.
9
,
&
&%
9
* N *
.
&
/
&
,
&
*
,
%
9.
$
9
,
9
0 &
. + 9
%,
,
**
,
,
%
,
&%
:
%
9
6
2,5 + 2 = 2,7
2,4 x 3,2 = 6,8
381
-64
323
5 + 7 = 12
4
5
9
23 = 6
2,32 = 4,9
32 35 = 310
+* = *
+
(
+ *)2 =
2 + *2
+ * = 1+*
+* = *
E= 5 x+2
39
%
/ :
17 - 3,4
54 : 4,5
54,25 : 3,5
3 x
4
2
5
3 :
5
h
5
4
2
333
8
85
;
&%
& % (1909)
&
(
2)3 =
5 ... .. .,
%
9% (x+
)2 = x2+
2,
x =+
, _x_
2y
2y+
/,
1977 6
, 126
*
/ 2,746
2,7471.
$
&
80
2 24 &
*
11-15 , & &%
%
,
,
%
.
&
& *
,
&%
* ,
1
* /.
$
3 S.E.S.M. (Strategies and rrors in Secondary Mathematics),
C.S.M.S. (Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science)
"
/
&
%
9
, * &
,
&
9
4.
"
&
;
&
. H &
* %
&
*
3
*
"
.
$
5
300
9
3 $&
& 1979-1980
*
5-7
62
# "
1980
&
%.
3 &
, +. 1982,
6
30 &
%
41
&
,
/%: $
%& *
,
%
09, % 0
,
60%
,
%
% %
%,
&
% 63%, 80%
90%
&
.
&. 1985-1986 &
3
% %
7 /
&
*
*
/. &
&
%
95,53%,
91,37%
9
&
87,86%,
68,05%.
&
9 40,8%
.&. 9%
1.260:12. N &
%
0
%
105
,
*
15.
&
%
/
.
%
/%:
3
4
5
N. Balacheff, 4
%
, 9. 8.
, 6
% ,
. .6..,
# / 1985, . 4
M. Macgregor - K. Stacey, Students understanding of algebraic notation: 11-15, Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 33, 1997, .2, 8, 11
L. Booth, Algebra, Children strategies and errors, 1984, . 1, 4
. "
, 4
, L/ 1985, .216, 233
3. \
, +
9
&
:
%
/ ,
"#, . 5, . .6.., 1984, . 66-67
3. \
, * %
*
, $&
, . 12,
6-! 1983, . 55-57
6.
- $.
,
/
/;, $&
, . 32, !
.-D*. 1987, . 48-51
334
/:
2 x 5
3
3
3 x
4
3 :
5
3 x
2
5
5
4
5
4
&
35,85%
41,85%
15,65%
15,33%
:
:
:
29,07%
25,88%
14,7%
N
&
:
/:
54 : 4,5
17 - 3,4
54,25 : 3,5
&
Q
%
3 &
"
9
. L
%,
%
9%
& *
4 /.
&. 1986-87 1.375
# "
8
&
3
,
"
*
, /
+*
1986
6
1987.
%
/ 9
** # "
, **
/.
C. )
;
5 - 9 - 5 5
Q
1
9 %
%-
%
.
Piaget *
% 9.
=1
,
&
*
&
10. "
,
. Q, 0
&
9
011.
9;
M
&
%
*
%
/
, % % &
&
/1
9,
/
9
%
12.
=1
13
0 *
% &
O% . 6
11-14 ("
)
Piaget
9
, 9
&
%
55.
014
&1
1
* , &%
9 5
<8
. + 9*
8, 9
1
65. 4 %
&1,
9* &
65
89 .
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
. , 6
"
;,
"#, . 5, &. 17, .
.6.., 3. 1987, .25, 29-32
.
1, M
&
%, . .
, . }.$
, %
1979, . 37
8.
, 4
%
%0
, $&
, . 25, 1985, . 56
.
, M
&
6
%, . 3, %
, . 70
}. 6
, 4 , %
1970, . 172, 173
\. D
, M
&
%, .
1%, %
1977, . 287
. 3
%-9,
% M
&
, . #, 6
/, *# ., %
1996, .
451
4
335
+ 5b = 7
b).
4.
,
/.
5.
.
6.
*
.
&
&
1
,
,
&
,
18, 9
,
/
,
.
D
*
9. 4
0 &
/
3
%, *
% & %
&,
. 4
%
/
,
,
*
1
/
.
;
5
4
.
*
0
19. 6
69 % M
&
%1
&
5
8
&
&
<55
20. $
<~
,
0
,
&%
,
21.
6
1 9%
* &
9 . + Van Hiele22 (1 +
%
)
9
1%
(
)
, %
%
&
&%
(.&.
, ,
),
*
/
&%
9%, &%
, *
. Q
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
336
3. \
, * %
...., .., . 57
M. Macgregor - K. Stacey, .., . 2
L. Booth, Algebra...., .., . 4, 5 &
K. Hart, Childrens Understanding of Mathematics: 11-16, 1981, . 104
L. Booth, Child methods in secondary mathematics, Educational studies in Mathematics, 12, 1981,
. 30, 34, 38
M. Bigge, L 6, .
, %
1990, . 109-110
". 6
, 4 . M
& % , *# ., . 4 , %
1974, . 176. +
0
&
,
%
.
6.
- ". D
%, 6
3
, . #, 6, %
1981, . 99
.
, L
% 0, . 3
&, . 79-80
/
/
%
0
23:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:
&
9
%
9
&
.
% &,
&
9%
&
& % %.
& &
%,
&
0
%.
$
,
% %
,
/
.
%
/
%
.
D
9
1
.
"=
24
tests *
.
/%
,
/1
1
%
%
*
9
* .
8*
9 & 5 25. !
9
%
0
& 9%26.
Koffka27
%
%
gestalt,
%
9%. 4
/%
1
5
5
.
4 %
% *
1
/
0
9
9
9% .
% * (
%0
%
-
, .)
% /
% , % /
%
. $ *
&
,
&
9
1
. H
. $
%
/
9
1
%
%
/
&
1
*
(& % ),
*
.
,
,
(
9
),
9,
* ,
*
&
.
. $
Piaget
1
1
/
? = x !528.
.
!5
29
1
% &
,
/
. $ %
/,
9
1
%
% /
,
9
9
,
. 4
(
%)
0. H
0
,
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
6
337
30
,
& & 65
8 (-).
%
,
,
/
, &
% 0
.
N
5<,
1
%
&1
.
&
8
658.
9
1
&
%, &
&%
. + 31
Eysenck
9
/9 &1
9
&%. 6
&%, 5< 8 5
9,
/1
/
. 6
(
&)
9 /
9% 9. 4
9
&
55,
&1
, ,
&, &
/
,
* 9
%
%
.
&%
&
&
.
.
32
(
- %
) 9
. 6
8
(&
,
, .) 9
89
5<. =&
1
%,
5
.
+
9
. N &
1
33
&
, 9*,
,
1
*
6
0%
34. 4
0
1 %
0,
9
.
89
4 0
*
%
%
&
. 6
1
0
*
35
,
&
9
. $
%
5 89,
/&%
*
. $%
&
9
:36
x
9
* %
x 9
* %
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
338
!.
, / % M
&
, . 4, %
, . 97
/ - M
&/ -
/ '/: &%
6, . 4149
/ - M
&/ - / - '/: 6%, . 3164
/ - M
&/ - / - '/: $
, . 4535
.
, .., .189
/ - M
&/ -
/ '/, $0, . 4307
A. C. Ornstein, Strategies for effective teaching, Harper Collins Publishers, . 41, 42
. $ (&
)
/ 0,
,
/ ,
,
%,
% *
,
,
&
.
38
/
% 0
0
/%
0
- 0
&%
9
,
&%
9
0
, & %
,
& ,
* % 9
%
, 0
,
%, 9*
&
/ 9
, 9
/
-
9
, 9*
% 9
%
.
&
%
&
,
%
/%
.
$
% 0,
1
(
%) 89.
%
* %
9
-
0
. 4
(
)
0
&
%
. L
%
* ,
* 9
& 89,
/&%
* .
N
% 0
&
<8
/
0
&
/.
Polya Know how
8
=
5,
%
86 5.
5 89
=
5.
& 5
=
%
&, 0
55. H
9 &%
*
%
&
,
1
&
/
,
%
%
,
& 39.
5
Q
&
%. 4
9%
* %
*
%
9
,
/&
.
&
9
,
9
. Q
/
Polya40
5 (best motivation)
9
%
9
*
&
.
*
. % = ? 558 <5
8 5= .
&
&
&
. Q
9
/
37
38
39
40
9).
8
339
&%
.
/1 %
,
& %
,
.
%
&
.
6
&
& .
0 %
%. H %
% 9
.
9
&
0 &
%
% &. 8*
%
0 -
. H
%
*
9
1
&
( -)
9
9
.
%
9
/.
,
*%
%
; 6
**
.
). % 5 =
.
%
9
*
%
.
&
&
41.
&
%
,
%
&
%
,
%
. Q
%
*
,
9%
9
%.
9 %
,
%
&
/%
%
%
42:
x
9
%
x %
%
x
%
*
%
.
9
&%, 9
&
%
%
/.
%
**
. 6
/
&
&
9
-
/43. $& *
9
44.
* 9
.
Piaget 45
&
8 5= (cognitive
conflicts).
%
/
,
5=
(situations -problems)46.
&
9
,
%
&1
&
%.
6 *
%. +
9 *
%
%
%
. =1
47
%
%. N
&
( 5 ( -
).
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
340
8.
, .., . 55
6.
, /
%
,
"#, . 5, . .6. , 1984, . 45
6.
- $.
, +
9
4 / -
9%
, 4
%
.6.., . 223
M. Macgrecor - K.Stacey, .., . 17
A. Bouvier, $
,
"#, ..5, &. 20, . .6.., + 1988, . 94
. Bouvier,
,
"#, . 6, &. 21, . .6.., !
. 1989, . 79
G. Halm, H
* , .
. 3. $
, 6
%
, . .6..,
# /
. 1985, .16
N
* %
,
1
. !
&%
%
%
**
%
. N
problem solving
*1
9,
&
/48. + Mialaret
1
*
,
*
%
49.
6 *%
%0. + Anderson
50
1
3
.
x
%
9
.
%0,
/
9
.
x
1
&.
x
&
%
.
+
Spacing
9
, %
/&
%,
&
o
%
&
&
.
9
%
, , &
*
,
,
&
,
/&
.
+
&
1o
..
91
** .
.
/. .$. < <5
& **
1
/
**
..,
& 9
.
1960 *
.,
%
9
9
%
%
/
.
3
&
-
%
%
% 9
*
51.
$
%
9
1
*
&. $
**
.
&
** ,
0
9
&%. + Stenhouse
&%
&
/ ..52.
..
9
, &
%
&
1
9 %,
&
9
- %
53. $ Agenda for
Action,
1980 4,
*
curriculum
problem solving
%
%
54. H
%,
%,
&
%
91
9%
9
.
&
48
S.P. Kalomitsines, Attack your problem, experimental school of the University of Athens, . 49
. +
, 4
%
, 6
%
, . 27, . .6.., *# / 1984, . 85 - 86
50
$.
, 9
% % 0
&
9%
** , }
, . 28, %
1983, . 111
51
3.
, ...
, ! #...
, }
, 13, %
, N/ 1980, . 65
52
Fr. Hazel, Learning to teach, psychology in teacher Training, The Falmer Press, 1985, . 171
%
*
curriculum
%&
P.M.E. (Mexico
1990), * . C. Hoyles, Illuminations and Reflections - Teachers, Methodologies and Mathematics,
The Psychology of Mathematics Education [PME16], New Hamphire, Aug. 1992
53
!. }. 6
,
..
.. $
, }
, . 46, %
,
/ 1988, . 69
54
C.E.R.I (centre for educational research and innovation), Information technologies and basic
learning, OECD 1987, . 221
49
10
341
9
% &
Bloom
6
,
&
&
91
9%
9,
=
, 5
5 8<.
,
1
/
&%
8 <
,
%
4/=.
0. /#
4
* %
4/= &
,
&
&
.
&
9
*%
9
%
/.
9 &
.
H
9 . &
5=, 8
8<.
9
,
% 9% (
&%
)
*
658
%
?5=
5 58.
H
&
%
%,
/
%
,
&
%. "
*
3
&
: ,
565 (
%
& )
55.
Q
9%56
%
%,
&
,
%
* ,
*
/
, &
&. 6
%
9%
,
. Q
&
%, *
% -
% ,
4/=
5 865,
5=
, 5=
~,
&
&
.
H
,
,
& .
% 4/=
&
.
(5 - 5
$9
9
,
* %
&
- .. - **
. L
&%
*
,
/
&
%
%
%
. %
%
% &,
%
,
&
. $
:
x *
/%
/
1%
.
x 3
&
*
.
x
-
,
*
*
,
*
*
.
x $
1% %
,
&*
,
0 1
55
B. R Hodgson, The roles and needs of mathematics teacher using IT, Integrating information
technology into education, . 32
56
F. Nicassio, An action research role for teachers, Integrating information technology into education,
. 40, 43
342
11
C'C'%)&+'
BOOTH L., Child methods in secondary mathematics, Educational studies in Mathematics, 12,
1981.
BOOTH L., Algebra. Children strategies and errors, 1984.
C.E.R.I., Information technologies and basic learning, OECD 1987.
HART K., Children s Understanding of mathematics, 11-16, 1981.
HAZEL FR., Learning to teach, psychology in teacher training, The Falmer Press, 1985.
HODGSON B.R., The roles and needs of mathematics teacher using !, Integrating information
technology into education.
HOYLES C., Illuminations and reflections - Teachers, Methodologies and Mathematics, The
Psychology of Mathematics Education [PME16], New Hamshire, Aug. 1992.
KALOMITSINES S.P., Attack your problem, experimental school of the University of Athens.
KOFFKA K., Principles of Gestalt Psychology, International library of Psychology, Haurcourt,
Brace and Company.
MACGREGOR M. - STACEY K., Students understanding of algebraic notation: 11-15,
Educational studies in mathematics, 33, 1997.
NICASSIO F., An action research role for teachers, Integrating information technology into
education.
ORNSTEIN A.C., Strategies for effective teaching, Harper Collins Publishers.
0
BALACHEFF N., 4
%
, 9. 8.
, %
., . .6.., # /. 1985, . 1 - 11.
C'GG0 ., $
, .
, %
1990.
C%("'/%# (., (.). A "#
$
., Gutenberg 1994.
BOUVIER A., $
, &
+#, .5, &.20, . 6,1988, .84-104
BOUVIER A.,
, &
+9, .6, &.21, . .6.., 1989, . 69-86
))( ., A
$
.
$, L/ 1985.
/"(( - +0", "., @#$# B#
. 9 % (, *# .,
%
1996.
0#(%$%#%# C., 4
%
%0
, ;!#
, .25, }-3. 1985, .52-61.
HALM P., 4
* , .
. 3. $
, %
& ., . .6.., # /
. 1985, . 12 - 21.
,%('" ($., 9
% % 0
&
9%
** , @
, . 28, %
1983, . 108 - 118.
,((!, . - +%#& )., %
. 9, %, %
1981.
,'(%# ,., B#
% $, %
.
,% 0., 6
"
;, &
+#, . 5, &. 17, .
.6.., 3. 1987, . 22 - 32.
&),%#/, )., A
, B# ., *# ., . 4 , 1974.
#&%)'"" ".,
..
..
, @
, .6,1988, .79-91
0"'%# "., A
, %
1970.
%',%"%%# $., 4
%
, %
& ., . 27, . .6.., *# / 1984, . 79 - 94.
$'/)!)',% - -#*%%)',% - 0),#,%$'/',% 01',%
$$/, ". - (',%$%#%# (., * #. $
$
! 4 (
- # $ $ ., 4
%
.6.., . 209-223.
$$/, . - (',%$%#%# (.,
/
/;, ;!#
&
, . 32, !
- D*. 1987, . 46 - 52.
$$/%$%#%# /., ......
*
......
, @
, 13, %
, N/ 1980, . 164 - 179.
$&(,0#%$%#%# '!., &( B#
, .3, %
.
$&!" .,
.
", . 3
&.
12
343
$0&/',& (., /
%
Polya
, @
, %
1984, . 169-174.
$'0 ., B#
@#$#, . .
, . }. $
, %
1979.
%#( $., /
%
, &
+9, .5, . .6., 1984, . 47 - 60.
%#( $., ;!# $
, . Gutenberg, %
1994.
+&),%# *&., B#$#, .
1%, %
1977.
*($ /., * %
*
, ;!# &
,
.12, 6 - ! 1983, . 54 -57.
*($ /., +
9
&
:
%
/ , & +#, .5, . .6.., 1984, . 61 69.
344
13
1
< <
=
6
", PhD
$&.$*
6
/
!
,
$
(Brouner,1985)
0
T
&
1
9
(Skinner: In Smith,2002)
&
%
9*%. $
, 0
%
% 9
9
/%
,
*
*
*,
.
,
/
. 4
*
0
%,
%
%
**
%
*
&
9
. &
&
,
%0
.
,
,
*
/%
%
**
&
&
,
&
. 4
&
/
*
9
, &
& (Glasersfeld, 1984; Vygotsky, 1988; Cobb, 1997; Noss, & Hoyles,
1992). $
%
%
%
*
,
9
**1
,
%
%
. $
/* 1
,
.
%0
%
1
(Cobb, 1991).
.
%
.
%
/ &%
9
(Davis,1983;Ginsburg,1977)
/%
&
.
C,
*%
,
%
%
, :
-
&
;
-
&
&
;
- \1
;
- &
;
- 6
&
3
;
%
%
&
.
<5
$9
3....$ 6
(=...L. 2001) /
#
# ##
@.|.
. # #$
,
!
345
2
% &
&
*
&
,
%
. C
&
9% &
%
,
&
.
,
&
, &
& &
,
**
8
.(2006,.19),
&
&
9
:
( : $
&
.
.
..
.
.
"
%
*
%
: .
=
+
+
++
+
-9
H
&
1
9
%
9%
, 9
*
.(2002),
9
%
,
* /%,
,
*
%.
1
9 9
(Ernest,1989) 9
:
1.
%,
/
.
%
*
,
2.
&
%
.
3.
& **
&
,
& 9
%
.
4.
&
%
9
&
& .
&
%
/
. (
,1994)
$
%
/
.
&
,
*
&
.
H
*
*
&
,
. +
.
&
% -
%
.
2.
/
% 0. 6
*
1%
&
%
. +
%
&
&
*
* * .
346
3
3.
&
*
,
%
,
,
, %.
4
% 9
&
.
4.
1%
1
&
.
$
%
.
*
&
&
&
,
&
&
%
&
&%
. $
%
%
& - * ,
/
,
9
91
. (Nicholls,
1992).
+
%
&
&
&
9
(Duda, 1992). $ 9
,
0
1 .
$
&
,
/
%
&
0
. $
1
1
1 *%
.
4 ,
%
9%,
,
, & %
*,
&
%, & %
%
*
,
% /
&% /% (Schmidt, 1999),
1
(Mosston
Ashworth, 1997)
,
0
&
,
9
%
% .
&
,
&
&
&
(Doise
Mugny, 1986).
% 5 5
+
/%
.
&
1
*%
. "
Dewey
($ Davis,1984): / ,
$
6
"
(
& )
;
1%
. $
. 4
9
*
1 *
, % &
,
&
.
+
&
&*
*.
* %
4
%
1
9
/
,
&
&
%
1
. $9
Thorndike(1922) 9
-
(S-R)
. 4
/
&
&% / (Bouvier,1987). $
1
%0
9 %
%
(Strike,1983). $& Gagne(1983,15)
:
1
. +
T
&
& 1
9
(Skinner: In Smith,2002).
1
%
9
%. $
347
4
/%
,
*
*
*,
.
,
/
.
A
:
x
0
%,
x
%
x
%
**
x
%
*
& 9
.
$
&
&
,
%0
.
* ?
4
%
1
9
, /
&
&%
9
%0
,
1
% &.
/
,
9
.
,
,
9
9
%
%
.
&
1
*
%
%
%
*
. 3
9
**1
,
%
%
.
4
&
&
9%
. $
/* 1
,
.
%0
%
1
(Cobb, 1991).
4
* :
x Q
* 9
0
x
%,
x &
%
&
9
9 %
% %
$ & &
,
%0
.
$5
"
*%
%,
2 1
3 2
:
+
% 9:
348
2 1
3 2
3
5
5
x
*1
;
x
%;
x
&
1
%
;
6
/%
:
+
%
&
. C
%
/%
%
%
%
/
.
&
1
&
.
/
*
%
Gagne(1983):
/
$ #
! $ #
! ( ! $!
! # #
(
#
$!
%
:
x
;
x
;
x
;
C,
%
%
&
%
%
9
%.
6
9
%
%
9.
}
%
:
+
%
:
9 2/3
1/2
,
& 9
3
5
!
N
:
2 1
3 2
2
3
1
2
3
5
3
5
$
&%
.
:
1. 6-H
2.
3. $
%
4. '
5. %
6. 3
1
D
%
&%
9
:
349
6
%
;
"
&
%;
3
;
;
&
,
&
& :
2 1
3 2
3
;
5
4
%
:
D J
E G
D J
D
J
2 2 0
E G
E
G
2.
}
/: &2-3&+2=0
:
9
%,
:
1.*
#
.
$
%
% & &
&
&%
/.
2. +
% 9:
&2-3&=-2
&(&-3)=-2
2
x3
% ( ) &
& &%
*# /
&%
9 # /, 9
&
9,
&
&
(&-3) !
3. +
% 9:
+
: x
E r E 2 4DJ
3F r 3 2 4.F 2 .2
2D
2F 2
+
%
&
&%
9
&%
.
%,
%
9
/
.
%
%
%
&%
,
1,
&
&
9.
3.
;
) 0,62
*) 0,2334
:
350
7
29%
0,532
25%
0,4 (Resnick et al,1989; Nesher,1987)
*
; 6
;
1. + 0,532
0,62
&: 532 > 62!
&
9
&
09
,
2. + 0,4
0,62
!
9
&
/
,
%
.
4.
+*=8,
+*+=; (Olivier, 1984)
:
58%
$
%
%
, %
:
1.
+*+=12
2.
+*+=11
+
/
/
, %
&
9
*%
%
/.
- $
&
/,
4+4+4=12
- $ ,
9
& 3 , 8+3=11
D
1
%
*
.
4.
(
+*)2 = ;
log(
+*) = ;
(
+*) = ;
:
(
+*)2 =
2+*2 , log(
+*) = log
+ log* , (
+*) =
+*
9 /
"# "
8#'
(
&). 9
1
,
&
%
&
&%
*
.
02
01
02
01
5.
) Q
1
1 0,75
. 1
1
12
;
351
8
8) 1
&
&
9/
12
.
9/
0,75
&
;
:
&
%
&
#"
%
21%
73%
6
,
,
. 6
/%
*
.
- 6
/%
:
x $
%
9
%
:
12. 0,75 =
0,75+0,75+0,75+0,75
12-9
(8
&%
**
)
x 4 %
*#
(0,75.12= ;)
&
23% .
&
63%
Bell et al.(1981)
45%
Fischbein et
al.(1985)
/
: 12:0,75 !
3
%,
*
9
&%
: +
,
.
%
9
&%
*
.
6.
$
& ,
/
. 3
6
, 0
/
9
.
$ &%
(Olivier,1984), o 58%
=6D. $ % ;
4
!
3
%
/
&%
.
- %
D 91
* ,
- %
D 91
,
%!
(~
6
9%
/
%
&
.
C
%
9
Ginsburg(1977)
9
, 0
&
&
.
352
9
+
&
%
9 %
&
%
9
&
.
4
% &
9,
%
9
& &%
&%
/
.
9
%
,
& ,
9
&
.
*
& 9
/
% %
*
. 3
/
9
%
&%
.
,
*
. "
,
0
&%
,
&
0
,
& &%
.
* 0
&
%
. C
&
*
1
9 9
*. $
%
1
9
%
%
&
, &
%
*
. $
%
&
1%,
,
**
&
,
Bandura.A.(1991). Human agency: The Rhetoric and the Reality, American Psychologist,
2, pp. 157-162.
Bell, A., Swan, M. & Taylor, G. (1981). Choice of Operations in Verbal Problems with
Decimal Numbers. Educational Studies in Mathematics 12: 399-420.
Bruner.J. (1985).Models of the Learner, Educational Reseacher, 14, 6, pp. 5-8.
Bouvier, A. (1987). The Right to Make Mistakes. For the Learning of Mathematics 7,3: 17-25.
8
.!.,
.\., 6
.}., D.$.(2006). %
9+
- .
**
. =L
Ernest, P. (1989). The Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of the Mathematics Teacher: A
Model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15 (1), 13-33.
Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Sainati, N. & Marino, M.S. (1985). The Role of Implicit Models in
Solving Verbal Problems in Multiplication and Division. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education 16: 3-18.
Gagne, R.M. (1983). Some Issues in the Psychology of Mathematics Instruction. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education 14: 7-18.
353
10
Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick, The
invented reality (pp. 17-4
): }. York: Norton & Company.
Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children`s Arithmetic: The Learning Process. New York. D. Van Nostrand
Company.
K
*, D., 6 , \., +9
, $, $
%, \., 11
, ".(2002). /
#
: (# . %
"
%,
%, % M
&-
. A
.
6
#"
(2006). >
& !, =L/.!., .19.
Nesher, P. (1987). Towards an Instructional Theory: The Role of Student`s Misconceptions.
For the Learning of Mathematics 7,3: 33-40.
}oss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1992). Looking Back and Looking Forward. In C. Hoyles and R. Noss (eds),
Learning Mathematics and Logo (pp. 431-470). Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Nicholls.J.(1992). The general and the specific in the development and expression of
achievement motivation, G. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise, Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, pp. 31-56.
Olivier, A.I. (1984). Introductory Algebra. In-Service Education Course, Cape Education
Department.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Resnick, L.B., Nesher, P., Lonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S. & Peled, I. (1989).
Conceptual Bases of Arithmetic Errors: The Case of Decimal Fractions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education 20: 8-27.
Schmidt.R.(1999). ?
, M9
:
.
1
,
, %
, .59.
Skemp, R.R. (1979). Intelligence, Learning and Action. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, D.L. (2002). On Prediction and Control. B.F. Skinner and the Technological Ideal of
Science. In W.E. Pickren & D.A. Dewsbury, (Eds.), Evolving Perspectives on the History
of Psychology, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Strike, K. A. (1983). Misconceptions and Conceptual Change: Philosophical Reflections on
the Research Program. In H.Helm and J.Novak (Eds). Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics (pp 85-97). Ithaca, Cornell
University.
.6.(1994).;!# $ %
.. : Gutenberg
Thorndike, E. (1922). The Psychology of Arithmetic. New York. Macmillan.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1988). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
=...L. (2001). .&.@.@.;
6
,.!.
354
(3
$ )
355
356
2 Extensive quantities are susceptible of addition and are measured by units of the same nature as the
quantity. In typical part-whole situations, the whole is an area divided into equal areas. If we add 1/3 and 1/3 of
equivalent wholes, the total is 2/3. Intensive quantities are not susceptible of addition and are measured by the
relation between two magnitudes, each one being different from the intensive quantity. For example, the
concentration of orange juice, can be described as 1/3 concentrate and 2/3 water, and each of these quantities is by
itself not concentration. If we add the orange juice from one jar where the concentration is 1/3 water to juice in
another jar where the concentration is also 1/3, the concentration of the mixture is not 2/3.
357
358
Participants
We gave 130 children a fractions assessment, adapted from the CSMS Fractions 1 Paper (Hart,
Brown, Kerslake, Kcherman, Ruddock, 1985) for use with primary school children. The pupils in our
study were attending three different schools in the Oxford area and were in the age range 7y9m to
10y2m. They were either in their fourth or fifth year in school. In the classroom they had been taught
about fractions in the context of part-whole but not in the context of quotient situations.
Procedure
We presented the items using pictures projected on a screen and also printed on the pupils
response booklets. Instructions were given orally. Figure 2 shows the different levels of
correct response on different items by level of schooling, Year 4 (mean age 8y6m) and Year 5
(mean age 9y6m). Because the test was not designed with the aim of comparing performance
359
Participants
A total of 62 children participated in the small groups sessions run by one of three different
researchers. The groups contained between 4 and 6 children, depending of the class size, because the
children were randomly assigned to one of four groups in each class. The children had been taught
360
Procedure
The researcher gave each child a booklet containing the problems, one problem (which often had
more than one question) per page. The children solved the problems first individually and then were
invited to discuss their answers. During this process, the researcher discussed with the children the
written fractional representation of situations and gave the children cues to help them analyze the
questions.
A total of five sessions, one per week lasting approximately 50 minutes each, took place with each
group. Some of the problems we used were taken from Streefland (1997). They involve asking the
children to consider different quotient situations (sharing 3 chocolates among 4 children and later 2
pizzas among 6 children). Further problems were introduced to explore this situation (sharing 4
chocolates among 6 children) and, at a later point, other situations were also presented. A complete
description of the sessions is beyond the scope of this paper. The extracts presented here were taken
from the first two sessions. A list of the problems used in these sessions is presented in Appendix 1.
Results
In view of our aim for this analysis, the sample of interactions presented here was chosen to
provide comparisons between the pupils behavior following a cue to draw on a part-whole or on a
quotient approach to solution. They were obtained from sessions run by different researchers in order
to illustrate that similar findings can occur with different pupils working in groups run by different
researchers. The samples are taken from three different problems. Comments are also presented on the
interactions observed. The childrens words are in italics. Clarifications and abbreviations of
instructions are inserted between square brackets. Three periods between brackets () are used to
indicate that some conversation took place between the utterances, which is not included in the
transcript; without brackets, they indicate that an utterance may have been interrupted.
Different ways of sharing 3 chocolates among 4 children
This teaching session was conducted by one researcher working with four children. This was their
first session and the second problem in the series. The children were asked whether each child could
receive a whole chocolate, whether each could receive at least a half chocolate, and then what fraction
of a chocolate bar each child would receive. Figure 3 presents an example of one of the childrens
booklets.
The children produced different drawings on the chocolates and different written answers. R and C
wrote three quarters, H wrote 1/4 1/4 1/4 , and P wrote 3/4 or 2/3. The researcher (abbreviated as R1)
asked them to explain and compare their answers. None of the children used spontaneously only a
part-whole representation: all attempted to make correspondences between the children and the
portions of chocolates. The extracts below summarize their discussion.
C
[Pointing to the children on the booklet and the chocolates] He gets one quarter from that one,
one quarter from that one, and one quarter from that one. She gets one quarter from that one,
one quarter from that one, and one quarter from that one. She gets one quarter from that one,
one quarter from that one, and one quarter from that on. And she gets one quarter from that
one, one quarter from that one, and one quarter from that one. ()
R1
Three quarters, but theyve got a half and a quarter, isnt it? Look at your drawings.
C
That is three quarters.
R1
Is it three quarters? Is it the same?
C
Yes. Two halves and two quarters and then they just get one here so thats three quarters
[shows that each just gets one of the halves and one of the quarters]. Two quarters is a half.
()
361
R1
P
R1
C
R1
Each one has one third first and then they get two thirds, and then someone will get three
thirds, and then someone else will get two thirds. If they all get equal, then there will be
one left over. (Figure 4)
Hs use of correspondence between the children and the chocolates is quite clear, both in her
drawing and her explanation.
P also tried out this demonstration. All the children became confident after this demonstration: two
thirds and three quarters could not be the same because a share of three quarters provides an
exhaustive division and a share of two thirds does not. The difference between the childrens
uncertainty after trying out the part-whole model contrasts with their confidence after trying
out the quotient demonstration.
Different ways of sharing 2 pizzas among 6 children
This teaching session was conducted by one researcher (R2) with five children. This was their
second session with the researcher. They had already solved the problem of sharing 3
chocolates among 4 children. The next problem was: Six children go to a pizzeria and order
two pizzas. The waiter first brings one, and then the other pizza. How could they share the
first pizza? And the second? How many sixths would each one get? Could they share it
differently if the waiter brought the two pizzas at the same time? What fraction would each
child have? Do they eat the same amount if they share in these different ways?
R2
What fraction of the first pizza do they receive?
M
One sixth.
R2
Why is that?
M
Because there are six children so they split the pizza in sixths [no marks were made on the
drawing].
R2
If they get one sixth from that one and one sixth from that one, how many sixths do they have
altogether?
St
Two sixths.
R2
[if the waiter brought the pizzas at the same time], how would they share them differently, what
are the two ways that they can share it out?
G
They can share it in thirds.
ST
Those get a third from that one, and those three get a third from that one.
362
363
364
10
Kim
Ben
365
11
Year 4: .78
Year 5: .91
Year 4: .35
Year 5: .56
Year 4: .25
Year 5: .48
Year 4: .23
Year 5: .44
366
12
________________________________________________________________
Figure 3
367
13
Figure 5
368
14
References
Behr, M., Lesh, R., Post, T., & Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In R. Lesh &
M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of Mathematical Concepts and Processes (pp. 91-126). New York:
Academic Press.
369
15
370
16
A drawing of six girls and one closed packet of biscuits. (a) If each girl received
exactly one biscuits and there were no biscuits left in the packet, how many biscuits
were in the packet to begin with? (b) If each girl received a half biscuit and there
were no biscuits left in the packet, how many biscuits were in the packet to begin
with? (c) If some more girls joined the group and they all shared the biscuits fairly,
would each girl now receive more, less, or the same amount to eat? (From
Streefland, 1997)
2.
A drawing of 3 chocolates and 4 children. (a) Can each child get a whole chocolate?
(b) Can each child receive at least a half chocolate? (c) What fraction of a chocolate
will each one receive? From Streefland, 1997)
3.
After these two problems, the researcher discussed with the children the notation of
fractions. The children were asked to write a half and indicate what the numbers
meant. The researcher would summarize the childrens discussion, ensuring that
they realized that 1/2 means you cut something in two equal parts and take one
and also one chocolate shared by two children. The children were then asked how
they would represent a situation where three children shared a chocolate: what
fraction would each one get? This discussion of the writing and reading of fractions
was extended to cover 1/5 and two or three further examples of unitary fractions.
4.
Drawing of six children and two pizzas. Six children go to a pizzeria and order two
pizzas. The waiter first brings one, and then the other pizza. (a) What fraction of the
first pizza will each child get? (b) What fraction of the second pizza will each child
get? (c) How many sixths would each one get? (d) Could they share it differently if
the waiter brought the two pizzas at the same time? (e) What fraction would each
child have? (f) Do they eat the same amount if they share in these different ways?
5.
Drawing of 9 children and 6 chocolates. (a) Find two different ways of sharing the
chocolates among the 9 children. (b) If you shared in these different ways, would
they be getting the same amount of chocolate both times or not? (c) Why?
6.
Drawing of 6 children and 4 chocolates. (a) Find two different ways of sharing the
chocolates among the 6 children. (b) If you shared in these different ways, would
they be getting the same amount of chocolate both times or not? (c) Why?
371
17
$0&'-
%
* %
,
%
&
&%
/, *
. 4 9
%
. $
&%
%
%
* %
.
%
&
&%
% 9
%
%
&
&
. $
&
&
,
% %
.
/
%
* %
&
%
* %
.
0'()!)
%
%
.
&
9
%
0
* 1
(Jones, 1998).
%
% 0
, %
1
9
%
,
9
.
*
/ (Fiori & Zuccheri, 2005).
%
&
/
9,
&1
1
9
%
. Q
&
&1
*
: -4
9%
% (behaviorism)
1
-
9
. +
*
,
,
&
*%
. -4 %
% (repair theory)
&
%
/.
-
& %
Brousseau (1997)
/
%
% . $
%
&
%
.
+ &
9
.
!$ .
/
%
1
**
%
. 6
&
%
.
$,
% /1
9*
%
9
%
(Margolinas, 2003). "
9
%
&
* %
%
&
&
.
$
* &
&
*
} &
1
. 4
&
1
9
, 1
&
. 9
% &%
*
&
,
. +
&
%
%
/
%0
372
9. 6
&
9 &
. *
(& &
& %
)
%
&
*
&%
(Papadopoulos & Dagdilelis, 2005).
8*
&
9
%
% 9
. H
&
%,
,
%
9
&
/
.
&
,
%
0
9
&
9
% (Balacheff & Kaput, 1997). $
Balacheff & Kaput
*
%
&1
%
9
* .
$
,
&%
%
%
* %
.
(,"',% ( 0&0#"(
1. *
*
3 (
)
$#3
(/)
* !
"
2. 3 *
*
$ 3
4
*
* %
&
*
&
*%
%. $
%
1
* %
(* .
1, 2).
1
* %
,
* %
&
9
0
9
%
.
$
&
4
(2 # 3
2 $#)
& L
. +
&
%
&
*
*
&
/ (
,
,
, ,
1 ).
* %
&
%
9 9
. Cabri
3
%
2
373
"
,
MSPaint
1
9% Windows. $
&%
GeoComputer
&%
&1 &%
,
9,
9,
*9 %
*%
1
*
&%
.
+
&
/
9
,
&
*
&.
* %
&
9
&
% 9
% &
.
+
&
45
*
. 3 0
&
.
*
&%
%
. 8*
%
91
&
% *
*
. +
%
*
%&
& &
%
9
%
9
.
\%
9
Camtasia Studio
0
9% *
, %
,
,
,
%
*
%. &%
% %0 *
9
%
9
&
9
/ %
.
$&%#('( $%00(!"
9
%
(
&
*
/)
,
9
0
* %
, 9
1.
1.
9
1.
2. 1
%
3. 1
%
4. &1
9%
5. '
%
%
$0&'$!( ': % %( )"%0''
4
%
&
,
%
,
*
1
*
. 4
&
, 9 &
%
%
.
&
%
/ (visualization)
9
, &
9
%
&.
&%
%
% &
9*%.
%
% 0
&
0 1 Van Hiele (1986)
&
* ,
&
,
&
%
374
3. +
%
Q
*
, &
&%
(
1
) (* .
3).
9
&
1,
%
, 9
/.
%
%
,
9
%
. 4 % %
%,
%
9
%
&
&1
&%
,
% %
9
*
.
$0&'$!( '': % %( 0"%$'0' $% %
*
&
*
%. 4
9
,
/
9
,
%
/
.
9
&
: 6
%
*
*
(* .
4) &
&
&%
(2
1).
*
1
ABDF &
. + &
& &%
(&
%),
BED
*
& . 8
& & %
.
%
%
% 8, . %
F.
0
.
/
. D (
% 9) 0
(
%)
8,
*.
%
.
* &
1
&
Cabri
%,
9
. $
*%
%
4
375
9
*%
,
1
9
%
.
4. 1
%
*
*
* %
. Q
&
(
&
&%
,
Cabri
GeoComputer)
*
&. 9
9 9
, 9
&
.
/1
9
%
*
&%
*
$ /,
*
*
(* .
5).
&1 &%
, %
*
%
&%
. 4
%
/
% (
*
)
*
&%
. $
&
,
9
Cabri,
%
9%
%
&
&
.
%
%
*%
*%
, &
0
. Q
9
9
%.
376
? 36 . .
5 = *
Bb
* h ,
= (* .
2
6).
6. '
9%
4
%
9
,
9%
(Papadopoulos & Dagdilelis, 2006).
$
%
, /
,
&1
). Q,
/% *
:
1
/
= ,
%
%
(* .
8). $
%
&
%
%
/ 9
.
6
377
7. '
*
&
$0&'$!( V: $% /#"' (!(( 0,'(( %#
4
%
9
%,
*
1
,
%. $ *
# /
&
*
&%
,
% %
&
&%
9% *.
8.
%
9
1
&
0%
1
/
(
%
),
*%
( )
&
/
&
,
/
&
%
. $ 9
%
&
&%,
%
*
9
&%
%
9
0,
%
*
(* .
8). $
6\6. H
%
9
%/
. Q&
2
*%
34
36
(#$0&(
%
*
. 4 &%
%
*
%.
378
9
&%
%
%
* %
9
%
0
. Q
9
:
x '
/
%
x '
%
x '
%
x '
&1
9%,
x '
0
%
.
Q
0
,
%
. *
%, 1
%
& .
C'C'%)&+',0( "+%&0(
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215-241.
Balacheff, N., & Kaput, J. (1997). Computer-Based Learning Environments in Mathematics. In A.
Bishop et al. (Eds.), International Handbook in Mathematics Education (pp. 469-501). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publisher
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fiori, C. & Zuccheri, L. (2005). An experimental research on error patterns in written subtractions.
Educational Studies in Mathematics (60), 323-331.
Jones, K. (1998). Student Interpretations of a Dynamic Geometry environment. In I. Schwank (Ed.)
Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the European Society fro Research in Mathematics
Education, v.I, pp. 245-258, Osnabrueck, Germany.
Margolinas, C. (2003). A
$! ( $
.. .
$
**
, %
.
Papadopoulos, I. & Dagdilelis, V. (2005). Computer as a tool of verification in a geometry problemsolving context. In Novotna J. (Ed), SEMT 05, International Symposium Elementary Maths
Teaching Proceedings, (pp.260-268). Charles University, Faculty of Education. Prague. The
Czech Republic.
8
379
5
, 5
" .
M.Edu. % #
$ %
.
/ 1 +&' %
A.. Plataros@sch.gr
$5 :
,
&
% . +
%. 3
%,
*
& &0
&
9,
G(&0)
0
%. &0
5
x : P ( x) .
'.&.
: F
! . t ,
!.
j
5<
5
5: + 3 '
,
1
3
,
9: Pltwnoj risamnou,
Anqrwpj sti zon dpoun pteron, ka edokimontoj, tlaj
lektruna esnegken atn ej tn scoln ka fhsin, otj
stin Pltwnoj nqrwpoj qen t rJ prosetqh t
platunucon
+
&
/
% 9
9
.
9
,
*,
%
%
%
1: / >*
' 0
'
(
0 (
'
)
,
&%
: +
&
,
% /
9
,
0,
,
&
,
9
2: /
' 0
'
&! (
91
3 '
!)
4
3, & %
'
%
0, ,
&
. +
,
9
%
.
$ ,
%
0
,
&
0 9 ,
,
0 (
%
).
?
5
:
%
&1
9
:
$
(examples)
$
(counterexamples % non examples)
.
380
3
, &%
9
%
&.
5
5 : 6
% &%,
. '
&:
:
&
,:
,
8
,
&
1
8 6
,
!....
(<: ,
: "
,
,:
,
1 1 11 2 1
, /
,
2 2 22 4 2
3: /
' 9
1 1
1 .
!
2 2
(<:
D D
E E
2D
2E
D
E
8*
/
&
,
# , 9
,
*
%. =&
1
,
%
9 (
),
, 1
,
/
&
,
&%
%
,
&
** .
55 <5
5
: 9
,
/
9
%
/
6
:
$
,
: +
}
,
,
&
,
1 1
2
11
22
2
4
1 1
1
2 2
.
%
%
&
%
%.
%
% '%,
&
. "
:
; $ &
%
9
9
/
,
1
2
4: =
'
5: -
'
&
.
88"
=
8
55 5
:
!
#$
, !
,
#$
,
.
%
%
(
)
,
9
8"
83,
,
,
%.
2
381
)
=5
5
:
=&
(
&
) % : Ka t lon, to mrouj mezon []. (4
%
$&
). Q&
: =&
: () & > &, ( : %
1
%
). 4
% & %
,
%
%
,
5
=5! (+
1
.&. -2>-4 ,
.)
<
: .&.
: *
.
(
! ! '#
$ : () >
!, !
,
5
:
,
&
,
0
.
, 0.01
,
*
. Q
&
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
&%
%
9
-0.01
&%
. H
,
-0.02
9
,
,
[
,*] &
6: :
* **
.
%
% :
,
.
(a, f(a))
Q&
:
1
(% ) %
%
. $ %
, (a,f(a))
.
%
%. H
f :[0, 1 ] o , PH f x x x , x ! 0
% &
%
S
0,
x 0
,
9
#
/
%
%
(0,0)
,
(0,0)
&
. +
%
%
%.
8
5
8
&
9
&,
%
,
1
% 9
f(x), &
. 4
/
,
%
9%
f &
.
/
%
1
, 0
.
(
%)
382
,
&
o D
1
%
, &
9
. 6
% /% #
%
,
&% &%
3
3
o3 %
9
%
3
(1)Q
3,
&
9
.
1
3 Q
= 3
1
3
Q
DQ Q
DQ Q
DQ Q
3N 1 o 3
1
/
3N 2
3N
3
1
. 3 -
**
,
*
%
.
$
%,
1
2
x sin x DQ x z 0
f : o PH f ( x )
x
0
DQ x 0
&
y=x . H 9
&%
:
f &
% &%
%
. 6
6
4
. 3
&, 9
&
2
9
%
%
9
%
-6
-4
-2
2
4
6
.
**
,
-2
0
,
,
-4
*
-6
,
%, /
% 5
<8
5 5
:
L,
%
%
,
. $
,
%,
?5 558
5
. $&
(%
)
.
.
,
&
,
9 9
1
.
,
,
9 /
,
&
,
/
*
. $ 9
%,
asymptote ,
,
,
*
(
)
%
5 Dirichlet :
f ( x)
1
1
x
%
:
x
4
383
!,
%
,
%
&
), 9 &
Hausdorff 1914 &%
1
.
x
1 &
% 9
.
x
&
.
**
/
/
.
9
,
, &
/ /
,
8<
5: $
/
8< (
)
9
( .
).
Q:
&
%,
6
,
9
&
', *
,
1
%
%
8: 4
%
.
,
%
%
&
&
:
$
1 : +
&
% &1
.
5
1: 4 9 : RR 9(&)= &2 & %
&1
= : $
_2:
&%
%
(:=
) 9
5
$
2 : Q:
1
f :[ 1, 0) (0,1] o PH f ( x )
x
([-1,+1])=2
f
&%
9: f : f(x)=1/x
, 0
1
%
9
(
&
% %).
"8
= : $
3 :
&%
,
9
.
5
3 : 4
9 !
,
, 9
,
9 & % (
) %
&
,
. ,
&
, 4/=.
j<
= 4 :
&%
, &
(:=
) 9
.
5
: 3
&!
%
. ,
&
9
% (/
% )
y
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
-1
-2
-3
-4
384
0.8
1
sin DQ x z 0
&
f :[0,1] o R PH f ( x) x
0.6
0
DQ x 0
0.4
9%
-0.4
,
%
9
1
9
-0.6
%, '%
D 9
,
.
-0.8
N
/
&
-1
&
& 6
.
+
9
%
10: $
9
,
%
%
,
&% 0
/
#
%.
%,
,
&%
&
,
%
%
,
% %/.
/
, &
9
&.
$
&
0
, & :
=
0. 3 . % &
9
& % . "
/
, O& .
,
%
/
.
,
5
8<
8
.
C568
8
658:
Chalmers A.:
%;
% 4
2001 ( .57-118)
"' +.: 3
% 6
L
Q
, L
1995 ( .239258)
,8~ 0.: " %
3
% &
%
2000 ( .53-62)
8 H.: 4 3
'
%
6 3
% & 6
6
6
/
%
. -2004 3
: www.math.uoa.gr/me/dipl/dipl_plataros.pdf
8 H.: 3
. 3
:
briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/557157
$ 8. - "' +.: $
: %
3
%
9
: http://www.math.uoa.gr/me/faculty/spirou/Spyrou%204.pdf
6
385
3% :
% 6
(8.., 6..)
$
&
:
%
%
%
1. 0 : 0
8 8
+
*
9
% ,
&
& %
1
%, % % %
,
&
.
%
DSM-IV
*
& & /%
, 9
*
/%: $
&%
,
%
,
,
&
, & %
,
&
. 4
&%
%
1
& % %
% 1%
%
( "1
, 2004, . 53-54).
+ *
&
% %
&
9
%
. (
1998.
&
1985, 2004.
2000).
+ 6
3
,
Geary
(2004),
*
:
a. 8 5 <5
, &
# $ #. $
$. 4 %
1
%
*
%
/ /.
b. 8 5
,
%
.
.
$. '
* %
1
/
/%,
&1
& .&. 4+5=6, % 6
4
5, * %
/ /
%.
c. 8 5
-< 5
9,
%
.
"$
..
/ % 0
09
.&.
9
340
430. 4 *
9%.
+ 0
&
(63) 1
9
%
%
0,
%, &%,
9
,
9
. $
, Mercer (1997)
9
&
&1
*
* %
%
0 (, &% ,
, 9%
9
.), % (*
&
,
, %
),
%
0 (
*
9), %
(
9%),
(.&.
/
%, &% /
, *
..),
(* %
/), %
(
, % ,
&%
* ,
9
),
9 (
, &%
&%, .),
&%
(.&.
* ) (Mercer, 1997, . 415-417).
_______________________________
*+
&
%
.
1
386
/
1
(Janet Lerner 1997, . 497).
9
/
,
%
%
& * &%
. &
,
/ (Henderson,
2002). 6
%
&
9
&
,
,
*
. +
,
/
/
(
&
1993, 2004. Henderson 2002). +
&
%
9
%
.
%
(
%
%
%
/, 3=
)
%
&
*
. N ,
*
%. 4 % **
9
&
/
*
*
,
*
& (Reid and Kirk, 2001).
%
%
,
. + Thomas
West (1991) 9
9
1
9
%
,
9 . ,
,
9
*
%
*
. H
1
,
9
. &1
1
&
9*
* %
. 9
*
%
%.
%
,
*
%
%
&
. (H
9
Henderson 2002, . 2).
9
&
/ %
9
%/
. $ &
,
/
%
/,
& *
% %/
%
3= ( ,
/
%/), %
%/
&
&
%
/. 4 09
/
&
,
*
. Q,
*
*
% /
.
0
*
;
4
%
*
.
,
&
%
*
%
,
&
&
%
%
.
x
*
.6.3;
x
9
;
x
;
x
* %
9 &
(
&
)
.6.3;
x
1
;
x
.6.3.
1%
;.
x
;
2
387
x
x
1
/
&
.6.3;.
1
/
&
& ;
4
/%& 6
2007 "
'
%
1 "
9 # %
,
4 "
9 8# %
%
&
0
. 4
. +
%
220
100. 9
7%
.
55%
%
45%
, &
&
%
,
9
% %
70%
30%
. "
% &
26 %.
* % 9
9 &
%
9 9 ,
, &
&
, & 9 ..
*
%
0
, ,
%,
9
&
. H %
.
&%
6
-
&1
%
(
%,
% ).
4. $5 ~
,
&%
&
.
x 30%
&
1976 & 1980.
x 17%
1981 & 1985
11% 1985.
(< : *5
<
&
8#*
%,
&
&
,
&
&
9
9
%0
/.
.6.3 &
,
/
%
.
3
388
(< C: 0
85
5
0../
H 9
&%
8,
*
.6.3
&
.$
, 33%,
%
, &
63, 50% &
. 83%
%
%
/% 0 9
9
%
,
9
% &
:
x
& 1975
( 84%)
x
&
1976 1980
( 76%)
x
&
1981 1985
( 94%)
x
& 1985
( 82%).
9 &
&
% ()
%
80%.
-$'6- &
15%
/ 5%.
%
,
%:
x 36% 1
,
x 10%
9
* %
.
%
1
,
/
,
%
.
x 25% 1
1%
%
.
4
389
(< /:
x 3
%
66%.
x
0 %
58%.
x
* 57%.
x 3
* 40%.
x 3
34%.
x 3
/ 34%.
x 3
9%
32%
x 3
30%.
* %
,
1
%
4
%
. (Mercer &
Pullen 2005, Bley & Thorton 1994, Bryant 2005).
9
%. %
* %
&%
,
&%
&
,
%&
%
% *%
.
$
.6.3.
1
* %
%
&
80%!
%
%
*
, &
&
,
1%
%
.
5
390
$
&
* %
9
.6.3.
, ,
,
%
*
/%:
x
30%.
x ' 38%.
x 18%
x 12%.
x
2%.
6 *
,
63
1
*
* %
/9 *
%
9.
$
&
/1
9
.
75%
9
,
& %
/ %
9
**
9
. (R. Gurney 1983).
78%
9
*
%
%/
*
. 3
%
1
*
,
*%
( 0 &
,
%
).
$
9
%
, 46%
,
%
&
, &
.
44%
9
.
$
9
% "
55%,
&
0
%
. +
40%,
,
,
& *
%
"
%
'.
,
% &
*
%,
** . 4
&
/
.
+ %
.6.3.
/
/ (* . &%
$).
.
6
391
*%
,
* %
,
&
,
&
*%
.
$
81%
.6.3.
*%
*
1
.6.3.
$
1%
%
43%.
1
%
,
%
. 55%
1
%
.6.3.
/
,
. ,
%
1%
%
%
&
.
$
&
83%
1
.6.3.
*%
%
9%
,
9
&
1%
,
&
.
7
392
&
&
&%
9.
, (
1
1
,
&
%
&%
). Q&
0 =
&
%
/ 9
&
,
0
9
,
%
&
9
.6.3.
%/,
*
*
&
1%
,
1
&
9
& .
60%
1
%
/
%
&
, 40%
&
&
.
$
9
%
%
%
%
.6.3.
,
% 1
29%,
9 43%. H
&
/
28%
%
9
%
%.
& 9
93%
%
, *
%
,
/
.6.3.
$ %
1
/
&
.
$
/
*
% %
50%,
38%.
$
/
&
%
35%, 37%
.
H,
*
, 50%
,
60%
%
/.
,
* %
9
1
.6.3.,
& 1%
/
/.
8
393
$
/1
9
86%
& 11%! (
&
/
9
).
74%
& *
.
&
/1
,
& *
&
1
.
, 87% &
/ 9 9
% %
/.
&
*
&
,
%,
9
1
&
.
5. (5-5
$
,
%
9
% 09
*
&
% 9
,
&
&
63,
%
1% 80%. +
&
&
%
* %
, 1
%
/.
,
1
,
1
%
( .
),
,
%
%/
*
,
% .
0
, 80%
63
1
9
&
%
80%,
%
%
.
9
1
*
*
* %
/9 *
%
9,
,
%
9.
$9
,
1
63
/
/
*
&
&
&
. ,
1%
,
&
&
* %
. , 9
0
,
/
&
63
9
,
,
,
9
.
$
/
&
,
%
/
&
&
.
93%
%
, *
%
,
/
.6.3.
, 9
,
*
&
/ 9 9
% %
/. 4
12 &
.6.3.
&
12 &
%
/ 9,
/ %
%
,
,
%
/
9
/
,
&, .
9
%
&1
&
6
3
.
=
, &
,
* *
%
9
.6.3.
-
9
394
.
**
%,
, &
.6.3. +
* %
%,
%
,
**
, 9
%
%
.
,
%
9
. "
%
%
%
&%
1
,
!
(Chasty 1991).
*
* %
:
x 9
& .6.3.
0.
x
/,
&1
,
.
x + % %
,
/&
&
.
x
&
*
0
.
x
/
& *
,
&
1%
.
x
/ 0
&
%/
,
.
x 6
%
.6.3.
*
&
& .
x '
&
.6.3.
/
.
C'C'%)&+'
A. E %
, ! (2000). 6
3
6
. %
: "
.
"1
,
(2004). (6.-). 3
%
DSM-IV. %
: !
'
.
, $
1
6
, ". (2007). 6
. 8
&
. 8 .
, K
. (1998). 3
/
. %
:
.
&
, $
. (1985). 3
/
:
. @
, . 36, 51-63
. 37, 83-91.
&
, $
(1989). +
/ 9*
*
. %
: +38.
&
, $
(2003).
9*
.
#. %
:
.
$
*
, "
$
*
, 6
. (2007). 6
. %
:
.
$
, 3%, (2003). 6
9%*
. %
:
GUTENBERG.
10
395
11
396
/ %,
:
9 &,
/
&
/
9%
0
&
.
9 %
9 .
9 %
/
/ .
9
1
,
*
% (TIMSS 1995, PISA 2003).
$9
% **
9
,
&
/
/
%
%
&
.
$ &
/
TIMSS
PISA,
Kassel Project,
IAEP I
II
Australasian Schools Competitions.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
1 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA),
&
/
/
&
.
$9
Hegarty1 (2004),
0
&
9
. N 1
,
&
,
&
9
*
9
%
.
*
&%
/ %
. $9
IEA,
&
&
% /
%
9
:
397
PISA
/ ,
%
&
+
+% $
/ (++$)
&,
&
/ %
15 &,
1
&%
%
,
/
% 1%
/&
.
91
%
&
.
9
/ 9
1
/
&
&
/
.
&%
%
/
/
,
*
0
9
. /1
(TIMSS
PISA)
& ,
&
%
%
.
O
/ %
/
, TIMSS
PISA
1
:
9
9%
.
9 \
9%
(.&. 9
*
).
9 4 %
*
1
.
9 *
&
/ .
9
*
.
9 /
/
%
&
*
/,
&
&
.
+
1
9,
&
,
9
,
. PISA
/
/
/
&
% 1%
,
* %
*
9
TIMSS
, &
%
&
* %
&
.
9 ,
9
. 4
TIMSS *
1
/
/
&
/ ,
PISA
%,
&
9
&
,
/ %. 6
&
*
&1
*
/
, &
% .
TIMSS & *
,
9
%
9
, PISA 1
*
/
*
1 %
(TIMSS
Versus PISA: the Case of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2006).
9 4 &
&
9
,
PISA
&
&
++$,
9
TIMSS.
15 % 16 &
. $ 4...
17 &
8 , "
\
18 &
(OECD, 2001).
398
$'
*
/
,
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003
+
,
9 15&
/
PISA 2003
/ 8 /
TIMSS 2003, 20
&3
&
/ %4 (
1).
9
:
9 + &
1
0
,
. + &
*
9%
/
: \ ,
, 8 (9
), !
\ (3
1).
9 4
&
*
/
.
: }*
, !
, $*
, !
.
9 +
9
9 & $
, }
,
*, $
}*
, 8
*
D
,
0
/
PISA. 4...
*
&
%
,
% $ *
, '
, +
G% +
,
TIMSS.
$
1: ,?
< 5
8
PISA 2003 TIMSS 2003 (8
?)
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003
*!&0(
0(
0(
*!&0(
0(
0(
C/)' ,/1(
C/)'
,/1(
8 (D
)
\- (SAR)
\
!
$
}.
$
!
(8
%)
$ *
+
4..
'
G% +
!
$*
!
553
550
542
538
534
524
524
523
509
502
498
500
495
490
483
483
468
466
437
360
359
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
9
10
11
\- (SAR)
!
8 (D
)
\
+
$ *
'
G% +
4..
$
$
}.
!
(8
%)
!
$*
!
12
13
14
14
16
17
18
19
20
589
586
570
537
536
529
508
508
508
505
504
499
498
494
487
484
477
467
461
411
410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
+
#
(NCES, 2004) (OECD, 2004).
9 + &
%
!
-
0
,
0
%
TIMSS.
+ &
$
, }
, }*
, !
(8
%), 8 (D
),
, $
, \, \-, !
,
, !
, $*
,
,
!
, 4..., $ *
, '
, +
G% +
.
4
"
TIMSS 2003,
/
9
/
&
,
1
/
PISA.
399
9 4
9 &
%
/ %,
9
0 PISA,
*
9
,
0
TIMSS,
9
,
% *
.
3
1
#
TIMSS 2003 OECD PISA 2003 database.
,1 !" *!&!" "% ) 0 0( 0$'/% ( % #(
(% PISA 2003 ,' (% TIMSS 2003
H
&!*
H
B
>
#.%.8
!
"IB/&
E!*
&*
PISA 2003
T IMSS 2003
H
(K )
&
E. L
8!
&
H
"'!
!
"-
K (?
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
/&# /%HJ&#
$'
*
/
*
, PISA
2003
TIMSS 2003
4
9
/
&. $9
Grnmo & Olsen TIMSS Versus PISA: the
Case of Pure and Applied Mathematics (2006), Table 1:
9 +
`. ;
, &1
&%
+ $
TIMSS.
9 @
PISA,
&%
! TIMSS.
9 +
PISA, &1
&%
$ TIMSS.
$
/
&
&
, 18 &5
%
, &
,
9%
%
:
)
5
"
$
8
% !
&
%
,
%&
&
Learning for Tomorrows World First Results from PISA 2003, 2004.
400
&
%
6, *)
9 &7, )
* &8, ) &
%
9,
) &
%
10 (
2).
!
,
, \ -
, !
.
, 4..., }.
.
8
}*
, $
.
9
8 (D
), \, !
.
10
'
, +
, G% +
, $*
, $ *
.
7
401
402
498
539
508
557
421
480
539
586
507
481
456
529
505
477
514
496
419
586
8
4...
!
!
!
\
'
}
}*
+
G%
$*
$ *
$
\-
5
*!&0(
580
405
480
505
488
516
534
418
490
508
597
514
477
418
568
510
533
499
5
584
407
512
508
475
507
525
481
500
500
577
549
500
394
559
495
535
511
85
588
427
467
501
471
515
515
461
488
515
598
513
469
413
587
472
537
491
) 5
TIMSS 2003
566
387
539
495
456
484
526
498
516
506
569
560
490
418
573
527
546
531
/
8
558
359
498
505
432
474
479
483
525
486
552
526
470
361
553
472
530
521
*5(<
540
337
505
494
419
477
495
488
526
487
548
551
452
334
536
486
535
525
<8
545
364
514
513
456
472
496
494
511
482
537
528
475
357
527
476
530
517
$
PISA 2003
$
2: % 8
< 5
5<8 5<8
?
=
85
558
363
511
476
428
436
489
513
532
474
538
549
463
385
528
491
526
531
$9
&
2:
9 + &
%
!
-
1
0
&% # $
TIMSS,
&%
.
PISA, &: !
(553),
(552)
\ (558).
9 & %
, 8 (9
)
\
/&1
&%
$, 546
560 *
&
,
PISA
, 535
551 *
&
.
9 $ &
%
%
.
9 +
9
* &
1
9
, %
(
, /
4...
0 PISA),
&
&
# $
TIMSS
.
PISA. Q
&,
1
.
$9
2, 18 &
&
, &
&
1
9
(TIMSS Versus PISA: the Case of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2006,
Table 4, 16):
"
18 &, /
% &%
0
,
%
&
. /
& %,
}#
% ;.
+ &
&
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003,
:
$
3
*!&0(
4...
}.
}*
$
!
\ -
'
+
G% +
$*
$ *
$0&'%*0( %#
$0&'0*%0"%# 0 "
#-%0& 0$'/%(
**
- 3
**
- 3
**
- 3
**
- 3
**
- 3
\
&%
"
\
&%
"
\
&%
"
\
&%
"
$0&'%*0( %#
$0&'0*%0"%# 0
*%0& 0$'/%(
\
&%
"
-
\
&%
"
**
- 3
**
- 3
\
&%
"
**
- 3
**
- 3
+
#
@
3
TIMSS 2003 OECD
PISA 2003 database
3,
&
0 ,
403
.
*
&
.
PISA
# $
TIMSS.
H 9
/5 2, 3 4, &
&
/ % - &
&
-
TIMSS 2003
0
PISA 2003. $ &% # $
10
&
0 *
, .
7. $
9
,
14 & &
,
4. ,
&
0 *
15,
% &% 2,
&
.
9
1
PISA
1
*
,
0
. Q
,
%
%
1 PISA.
404
/5 2
H
&!*
H
B
>
#.%.8.
!
"'! -&
E!*
9 !
&*
&
E L
8!
H
"'!
!
"- (SAR)
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
&:;$()&;)
#
TIMSS 2003 OECD PISA 2003
405
/5 3
/'+%&0( 0$'/%(( !" ,%'"!" *!&!" $%# (#00'*" (H 0', $0&'%*
( 8=$=/:/+$ (% PISA 2003 KAI %# +JH=C (% TIMSS 2003
H
&!*
H
B
>
#.%.8.
!
%
E!*
8!$
&*
&
E L
8!
H
"'!
!
"- (SAR)
K
0
100
200
300
400
&:;$()&;)
500
600
#
TIMSS 2003 OECD PISA 2003 database
406
10
700
/5 4
/'+%& ( 0$'/%(( !" ,%'"!" *!&!" $%# (#00'*" ( 0',
$0&'%* ( +BB+H=/:/+$ (% PISA 2003 ,' !" 00=## (% TIMSS 2003
?
;
)
;
>
(
#.:..
(
'
8**
J
)
)
'! A
;
I H
I!
H
-I
(SAR)
+!
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
&:;$()&;)
11
407
$'
*
/
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003 *
$ TIMSS 2003,
9
&
&
/ . H
%/
9%,
&
&
. $9
Mullis & Martin (2004),
%
8 / *
%
*
.
&
&
/1
, $*
,
8 /
0
.
,
/
8 (D
), +
, !
4... (
4).
PISA 2003, /
0
,
%
9 %
% .
1
9% &
%
/ , $*
PISA 2003
/
, TIMSS 2003
*
.
$ ,58, PISA 2003,
/
%
9
( 23 *
), TIMSS 2003
9 %
(6 *
),
*
%
(
4).
4
9
9
TIMSS 2003
PISA 2003,
0
TIMSS,
PISA.
&
&
TIMSS,
PISA,
&%
, %
%
9. 4
9
}.
,
TIMSS
% /
, PISA
*
9,
/
% 14 (
5,
3
5).
4
9
PISA
TIMSS,
TIMSS
/
/. $9
Kungah & Haesook (2005),
9
9
/
:
)
9 9%
&
/
&
&
,
*) /
9
. Q&
9
& 9*
. , 9
Penner (2003),
&
&
*
9
,
9
%. 4
&%
%
/
%
.
$'
*
/
*
!
'
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003 *
$9
TIMSS 2003,
/
/ /,
/
%
9 &% # ,
&
&%
. $
&
%
9.
1
&
&% # $
, 9
20 &: $*
,
'
, $
, }.
, }*
, G% +
, $
,
!
!
(8
%),
&
&
9
408
12
**
9
* %
&
.
$9
PISA 2003,
/
%
9 &
.
,
/
!
!
,
/
9 8
5 *
&
(3
4).
$
4
/'+%& 0$'/%(( (% TIMSS 2003
"0( (0 )%&' ,' ,%&'('
*!&0(
$%(%
5
C8
(+
)
.$.
'
'
'
(C)
'
, *5
,58
".
"5
%5
&
%
(5
(
(
(
*
-,
SAR
*!&%((*
C0C'%
17
15
12
11
9
11
1
1
12
18
7
7
8
6
-6
1
6
10
7
-2
3
-2
9
-2
6
-3
11
-3
6
2
8
-6
-4
-4
11
-4
1
5
3
-2
12
7
10
-13
-8
-3
5
2
4
3
2
13
-4
22
3
12
0
2
6
15
9
16
18
8
27
14
18
7
15
21
3
15
-5
-8
22
24
0
4
9
8
8
-5
-4
0
2
24
-2
-8
-5
8
-4
18
2
2
-4
14
-1
29
-4
-3
13
3
16
-3
3
35
10
16
4
5
17
9
7
12
* @
4
#
TIMSS 2003 OECD PISA 2003 database
$ #. $ .,
$
. ( ,
,
$ "
#, .
, # (
.
13
409
/5 5
/'+%&0( 0$'/%(( "0( ('( 0',0( $0&'%*0( %#
PISA 2003 !( $&%( % +#%
"&)() (>() ?(B (()
H
-I
-SAR
?
)
)
)
>
(
(
'
"IB&-&"#8
%
I!
I H
;
;
;
#.:.
&
+! (J
)
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
H=>&)
$
9
&
&
,
TIMSS 2003
PISA 2003
9 ,
:
9 &% # $
.
+
%
0
&% # $
7 &, .
/
&
&
(3
7).
9 &%
!
$ &%
!
&
6 & $ *
1
9
- &% 3
& (3
6).
410
14
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003, 9 ,
/
TIMSS 9
PISA. ,
&
/ %
%
*
(Fennema, 2000).
/
%
-
/
/
- 9
1
9
1
,
9 , %
PISA.
%
%
%, & &
&
/ ,
.
$'
*
/
(
*) '
!
', PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003
&
++$,
*&
, &
&
/, /
/
/
&
%
&
9
. 4
%
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003, / :
$
5.
/65
/5
=
(
) ?,
8 <5 <
PISA 2003
TIMSS 2003
*!&0(
PISA 2003
8
<5
4..
\
'
}.
}*
G% +
$
\-
524
483
538
483
523
495
468
509
550
8/5
=
/65
?
516
444
468
463
510
455
425
452
488
8
39
70
20
13
40
43
57
62
TIMSS 2003
8
8/5
/65
<5
=
?
505
534
-29
504
464
40
536
491
45
508
486
22
494
508
-14
461
427
34
508
492
16
499
457
42
586
541
45
+
#
@
5
IEA 2004, Exhibit 4.3, 132
Learning for Tomorrows World-First Results from PISA 2003, 2004, Table, 4.2g, 395
9 $ &
&
&
&
,
/
&
%
/ ,
1
&
.
6
% /
TIMSS 2003, 5 (29
)
"8
(14 ),
/
/
1
0
&
15
411
1
. "
9
, & &
%
,
*
/
&
9
*
.
9
9%
/
/
/
, , & *
%
%/
&
. +
&
/
PISA 2003
1
9% %
-
&
/ -
TIMSS 2003.
\, \ -
$
, & ,
&
1
0 %
/ % ( $
&
*
TIMSS 2003).
/5 10
/65
/5
=
?
8 <5
<
PISA 2003 TIMSS 2003
600
500
400
PISA 2003
300
TIMSS 2003
200
100
0
H=>&)
#
TIMSS 2003 OECD PISA 2003 database
9 4
/
PISA 2003,
&
TIMSS 2003 &
*
.
*
, % 9
Validation Study of the PISA 2000, PISA 2003 and TIMSS-2003 International Studies of
Pupil Attainment, (2006)
/%&
National Foundation for Educational
Research,
9
/
PISA
TIMSS,
%
PISA.
/
/
&
9 *
.
4
PISA 2003,11
* 27
/ 30 &-
++$,
32 41 &
&
. 4
&-
++$ 9
,
&
. 6 0.6%
/
9 ,
*
&
,
/
%
39%
/
.
11
4 &
& TIMSS 1995.
412
16
4 &
&
++$ *
9
9
(19 *
),
. 4
9
& , 9
29 *
. 4
9 *
%
/
%
,
.
PISA 2003 &
&
-
1
%
,
*
%
9
1
.
,
/ &
1
20% 15&
/
&
9*,
%
%
(Learning for Tomorrows World - First Results from PISA 2003,
2004, Table 6.4, 446).
4 &
*
,
/ &
++$,
9
9
/ 12. H
/
&
%
&
,
%
&
(9%
) 5.3 *
4.1 *
(Learning for Tomorrows World - First
Results from PISA 2003, 2004, Table 5.14, 431).
9 PISA 2006,
&
:
9 4
& 39 57 &
%
28 30 &
++$,
459 *
(
%
498 *
).
9 4 &
, *
/
14 *
. /1
/ 9
*
/
*
*
%
%,
*
.
=
*
0
0
(
%
Q D , % 6
%
, Q %
D
Q % \),
/
&
& % %
/,
, &
, &
9%
9
1
. Q
&
&1
6
D
,
1
(
&
,
&
) &,
*
*
,
/
(http://www.ypepth.gr). =&
,
%
\ ,
, !
-
9
/ &,
0
.
+
$ , 9
%
PISA 2003,
/%
%
BBC,
9 &
% %
/
9
. 4
,
9*
&
. 4
%
%
:
&
& &
/
,
%
,
12
6
/ !
+
.
17
413
. }
9
& %
%,
1% ($ , 2003).
+
%
%
,
*
& %
&,
/
/,
& 1
,
-
/ *
/%
.
& %
& %
&
9
1
&
&. 8
9
/ ,
&
. /
*
/,
/
,
& %
.
"
/
%
,
/.
&
9 9
, 9
/
PISA 2003,
,
&
0 ,
9
*/
9
/, -
1
*
9
-
9
/
%
0,
*%
%
&
%
%
,
,
&
%
/ /,
/
.
C'C'%)&+'
BBC GREEK.com, ; &
" & @
. BBC GREEK.com,
%
, (2003)
=...L., ;
*#
!/%., %
, (2006)
http://www.ypepth.gr/el_ec_page2079.htm
9
, .,. PISA 2000-2003:
%
- .
.6.$.-..L., L
, (2007)
American Institute for Research, Reassessing U.S. International Mathematics PerformanceNew Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISSA, Washington: U.S. Department of Education
Policy and Program Studies Service, (2005)
IEA, Third International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS International Studey
Center Chestnut Hill, M.A: Boston College, (2003).
IEA, Improving Mathematics and Science Education in Countries Around the WorldInternational Press Conference Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS 2003), TIMSS International Study Center Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, (2004)
Grnmo & Olsen TIMSS Versus PISA: the Case of Pure and Applied Mathematics
(2006)
Kungah, J. & Haesook, C., The Study of Middle School Students Gender Difference in Math
and its Resolution, (2005).
Mullis I., Martin M., Gonzalez E., Chrostowski S., TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics
Report, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, (2004).
Ruddock G., Glansen-May T., Purple C., Ager R., Validation Study of the PISA 2000, PISA
2003 and TIMSS-2003 International Studies of Pupil Attainment, (2006)
OECD, First Results from PISA 2003-Executive Summary, Paris: OECD, (2004)
OECD, Learning for Tomorrows World - First Results from PISA 2003, Paris: OECD,
(2004)
OECD, PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrows World, Vol. 1, (2007).
414
18
415
416
6 586
5~ ;,
C8
0.
,
% 8
4-,
}
13,. 106 80 %
. kathanas@ecd.uoa.gr
%
&
& 8 ,
/
&
&%
8
& ,
& ,
&1
&
, .
*
:
&
& 91
/ D
8 %. L
&
% 9
:
%
&
9
,
% %
*
9
% & 9
,
&1
*
9
% & 9
%
% & .
%
**
%
,
&
%
.
, ,
8
,
, &
"#
%
: ) =&
1
,
8)
&
& 1
%
,
%
%
!
(
5
%
$
3
*
:
=&
9
$55 /
9
0?8?. 4
/ /
*
%
9
% %
%. H
% %
%, 9
%
. 9
9
"
$
:
&
2
&
,
%
*
9
417
,
,
,
.
%
14
.
&
9
% 3
(
%)
3
*.
4
3
* %
.
&
%
3
*
. + &
%
%
&
&
9 9 (Desmond and Moore,
1991).
/&
9
9.
,
,
9
1
*
,
9,
.
..
%
John Gould o
%
&
%
&
9 3
*
"
12
$ (Gould, 1837).
% ,
/
&
1%
/ &
:
&
3
*
% L
,
1
&
8
%
. Q
,
&
&
% /
. Q,
0
#
%
%
1%
/
&
& %
,
/ % L
%
%
&
&, %.
<5
5~
:
1: 6
&
% /5
5 ?8?.
4 9
% &
&
%/
0:
418
1. H
&
/ &
&
,
0
O%/
3
*:
0 &
Lamarck, Q
3
* (
), .
..
2. + 3
*,
%
&
/ /
9
,
D
% %.
3. + 3
*
L
/ / D
%
%,
&
&
G. Wallace &
%/
. 3
O%&
.
%/ % ,
&
#
3
*
Wallace
* %
. 6
,
%
&
O/
*
&,
,
/%
&
/ /.
%
:
x Malthus
*
.
x
Q
3
*
,
&
* % / /,
&
%
/ %
( ' ).
x +
O
/
&
(
, **
, &
,). (J. Howard, 2006).
+ 3
*,
1 Wallace,
9
O
&
9
%
&
/ /,
D
% %.
8<
<8 8 8
9
.
&
&
%0
. %0,
&
%
&
9
,
6
% %
*
9
% & 9
, %
6
&1
*
9
% & 9
.
'
% & .
8
9
, 5
8<5 16 8,
9 6 586
'( &'0(.
1. $5
56
6
.
$& 9%,
Barker (1985), ... %
9
9%... N
9% ()
,
Driver ** $ . 75, +-
D . 75
9 : 9%
9
... #
!
! #
$ #
# #
!....
N %,
& "
9%
. }
/
9
&1
&
,
9
9.
,
,
%,
1
9%
9
,
,
1.
/
& (
)
Mintzes et al (2001)
& 8
9
*1
9
.
&
/,
,
John
9, .&. 9& , & /
%
9
,
,
.
&% /,
/
&
419
/, 9
* %
John
% *
9 %
1
*
-
% &
%
9
1
. 6
9
* %
&
*
1
9.
$5
".
4
9%
9
1,
9%
9
1
,
& 9
8
.
+
0 %
9 (Aristotle, De
Plantis, in Page et al., 1936):
! !
# . ....
, ...
$ .
#
$ .$, .
! # ....
3 .
0%
9
1
9
. &
, 9
,
& &,
9 -&
9
.
1
, Q
}*,
3
*
( %
%/
/ /
).
8
,
0
,
1
,
*
%
/ 9
*
9
.
4
/
0 8
9
* 9
*
< /
6 6
,
% & #
%
9%
D
.
0
0
/
/%
9
.
2.
%
*
*
9
3
3. " . 6 &%
/
%
%
0
9
1
9
9
,
%
*
.
9 %
:
1. +
(
#
)
, ,
D
% (
\
) 9
*
1
. (&% 9
, ,
&%-
9
, .).
2. Q
1%
9,
/, &1
%
. .&. /
.
D
%
&%
,
8
&%
&1
65
5
.
:
%
420
<
(5
)
. ,
,
9
.
3. $
&
* %
=
<
.
4. $
9
&
1,
*
0:
%
65=.
5
.
5. +
9
/
/ % (- /
).
,
9
%
%.
4
%
*
, *
,
9%
Strasburger,
%
: .../ 1893, Strasburger
(
: " !
75 .. ; , !
,
22
*
.
/ John: ($
&
). 4 $
/
%, /, ,
%
9, .&. 9& , &
/
%
9
, ,
.
&% /,
/
&
* %
%
% *
9 %
1
*
-
% &
% 9
1
. 6
9
* %
&
*
1
9.
J: *
!
$! .
>
#
# .
$: C
.
& [ 9
]
;
J: `
$ (
.
[% John 56
? 6 =
].
$:
9 9
60%
40%
&
;
421
"%
.
+
%
9
&
%,
%
9
9
&
(
.
&
, .).
%
&
%,
%
("
)
.
$
%
/
,
9
"%
, 9,
, , ,
&
,
*
.
D .,
, ,
/
9
&
"%,
&
1
1%
. Q&
0
% 0
"%
&
, &
%
*
.
4 /%
/
%
,
9
& %
0
"
. $
%,
&
,
"
, %
1%
6
% 8
.
&
8
%
*
%,/
/
DNA, RNA, t-RNA, %
, ,
9% .
,
%,
,
,
/
, %
,
&
9
1%,
%
9
"%
"
. ("
.
.
, (2004)).
422
*')#): "
.M .
.
*!: *! ! !
!
.
: /:
;
G:
DNA.
/:
! ;
G:
!!
! . $!
. %!
=&
**
9
%
0
D
%, \
8
.
:
x +
.
x +
*
1
.
x +
*
. 6
%
.
9
1
%
,
9
:
1. }
%
(
0)
.
2. }
*%
/
,
3. }
*%
.
"
8:
-
( .&.
9
%
:
).
,
%
*-
*
#
.
, ,
&, .
4
%
%
/
&
9
O&
. (Modell, et al.(2006).
*
,
&,
. '
:
x
1
.
x }
&
* %
%, %
x
&
(
)
&
O&
.
$ 8< 5
:
H
9
1
* %
.
423
4
9
#
% 9
%
.
%
&
9
. 4
%
.
",
$ $
.
. %
/
.
,
%/
/
9
%. +
%
, 1
,
&
%
9
1 %
.
&
/
;
6% /
*
%
& * ;
4
&. 4
0
,
&0
*%
, *
%
9%
9
%
%
*% &
%
*%
%
%
9
%
.
C'C'%)&+'
Modell, H., J. Michael and M. P. Wenderoth (2006). The role of Uncovering Misconceptions. The
Amer. Biology Teacher, 67, 20-26).
Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. and J.D. Novak (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal
of Biological Education, 35 (3): 118-124.
Desmond, A. and Moore, J. (1991). Darwin. London, UK. Michael Joseph.
Rees A. P. (2007). The evolution of textbook misconceptions about Darwin. JBE, 41, 53-55.
Gould, J. (1837). Mr. Darwins collection of birds, a series of Ground Finches, Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 5: 4-7.
Howard, J., (2006).
, #$
. /* >A%/& #
.
"
.
. (2004). 0
"# "
# '
*
. 4 @ ; # $ 6.
&
. / #
&
.
.
424
/
08
$& % *
04
D
25, 11471, %
Email: eleni.danili@gmail.com
$59
4
%
/
*
1
&
9
/
. 4
*%
-*%
,
% %
. 4
9
, **
, &
.
+ %
9
%
%,
1
/ %
&
.
%
&
&
3
% D
"
*
9%
%. $
%
1
:
) 9 9
%
9
*) 9
%
/
/
"
*
&
%
& %.
0
&
-
&
/
%
%
&
%
. 4 /
, /
/ -
%
% %
/
. + %
% %
&
%
,
/
&%
. H %
% %
/
0
/. C
,
%
/
,
/
/
&
%
%
% %
&
%0
;
$ ?;
+
/
%
, 9
/
,
%
/ *
1
9
&
1
%. $9
%
&
,
[]
&
/
%
&
1
(Biggs, 1996). 4 %
/ ,
&
%
1
&
(- ). H (Ramsden, 1987) 1
&
%
*
&
%. $
Danili
Reid (2005) /
\
9%
&
/
/ . 3
9 9
/ /1
1
425
9 /-
. "
%
% %
/
1
1
,
,
. $
/1
.
; "
&
%
9
/ #. . 4
*%
-*%
,
% % .
9
&
. + 6
9 &
: A
. !
!. H
&
%
&
/
.
9
: 6% 9%
/
/ ; (Entwistle and Entwistle, 1992).
/ %
0
;
&
; 6
%
9 9
, &
9 %
*
; (Kyoko 1997)
Q
**
&
*
0
u. +
Unger (1993)
#
*%
&
*
&
.
&% 9
/
Bloom (1956),
&%
1
%
/ &
&
%
,
*1
9
%
(Johnstone, 2003). Q Bloom (1956)
/
&. + Biggs (1996)
&
1
* &
%
/
Bloom
/ SOLO.
4
/
SOLO &
&
Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes
$ @!
$
$ %
9
/
&
. + Biggs (
1) 9
/
%
&
&
. $
1 9
9
.
2
$
6
426
5
$
6
%
D
%
D
$
I
/
SOLO
1 : 5-
(Prestructural): \
,
%
&
*
(
% &
%
).
2 :
-
(Unistructural)
%
1,
%
&
&
% (
%).
3 : =-
(Multistructural)
, 9,
9,
1,
/. 6
&
&
(
%
*
)
4 : < (Relational): $
,
* ,
/
(1
),
,
&1,
9
1.
9
, %
9
%
(
&).
:
8
5
(Extended
abstract):
5
L, ,
,
1
. 4
&
O&
0
9 ,
.
+ %
9
9
0
&
%
,
/
9
/
%
0
/. !
%
9
/
SOLO
%
9
.
*
/ ; $
9
9
%
,
&
&
9
3
% D
"
*.
05 8
8
565
.
5
+ %
3 9 &
0
&
9 9
%
0. + Egan
$!$ #. $. + Egan (1972)
1 3 9
(Centre for Structural Communication)
Kingston-upon Thames
/
**
%.
3
427
+ %
9
%
/
1
/ %
%
% ,
&
/
, &
#
$ #. (Johnstone, 2003). $
9
/ 9
1
9%
1
%
9
% &
9
%
. $
(
9
&
) &
.
&
, /, , &,
, ,
,
&.
%
1
9
.
4 * 0
&
/
% 1
&1
%
%-
%
(Johnstone, 2003).
%
%
9
/ %
% %
% /
%
%
%
. + %
*
&
9
% & %. 4
% %
%. +
%
% & & &
* %
,
&
1
% % %
&
1
&
&
%
9
%
%
.
H
&
.
% %
%
&
. =&
/
(Johnstone, 2003):
I.+
%
* & 9
&,
%
*
( % ).
II.+
%
*
& & 9
& 9,
*
.
III.+
%
* % & 9
1 &
9,
*
.
IV.+
%
& 9
*
& 9
*
%
+ Johnstone and Ambusaidi (2001)
Egan
*
. $9
*
:
8
%
3
%
%
3
*
(3/3)- (0/6) =
1
428
%
%
2
*
(2/3)- (0/6) =
0,7 (
*
% )
%
%
*
(2/3) - (1/6) = 0,5.
+
%
/
*
(3/3) - (6/6) = 0
$9
, *
+1, 0 -1. $
&
*
. "
1
& *
5. $
% *
/ 10
0.
*
%
&
/
*
*%
%
.
&1
. "
/
"
(
12 )
& 12
(4
x 3 % 3 x 4) &
&
&. "
'
(
16 &)
16
.
& &
20
9
. + %
9
&
&
& &
9
&
% % %
/
(Danili and Reid, 2005; Chen, 2004).
$
1
3,
%
Chen (2004)
%
*% ,
% "
*,
3
% D
. 3
3
*
*
"% % (General Science course)
/
"
(Junior High School)
*
D
%.
$5
1: 5
$
&
. $
,
%
&
&
.
"
%
% / &%
.
&
%. \% 9 .
5
429
1.
/ %
%
9*
%
1.
2. / %
%
&
.
3. / %
&
%.
$
2
9
%
,
%.
$
2
5
05 1 ( 8
: 5. 4, 5, 6, 9
H
%
%
3
%
N
05 2 ( 8
: 5. 2, 7
H
%
6
%
H
3
6
%
05 3 ( 8
: 5. 8
$%
$%
%
%
430
$
%("=262)
26
15
14
4
3
16
22
%("=262)
40
15
18
5
7
15
%("=262)
18
24
32
26
"
%
% / &%
.
&
%. \%
9 . \
/
.
1. $ %
8 &
8
1;
2. $ %
&
%
;
3. $ %
&
1
;
4. $
*
;
$
3
9
%
,
%. $
9
&
%
% 1
4.
$ 1
&%
Q = m .3.c,
/
&
%.
2
6,
/
8
9.
*
45%
. H
(38%) /
% 8
9. 4 4 1
/
&
&
. + %
&
*
Q = m.3.c. 4 %
%
(
1 9).
%
%
,
. 6 29%
, 6%
, 0,4%
0
64,6%
0
.
7
431
$
3
5
05 1( 8
: 5. 2, 6
H
%
6
%
%
N
05 2 ( 8
: 5. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9
H
0
0
%
0
%
0
%
N
05 3 ( 8
: 5. 3, 9
H
%
6
%
%
3
6
%
N
05 4 ( 8
: 5
H
0
0
%("=262)
45
9
38
8
%
16
34
26
4
14
6
%
32
6
29
10
7
16
%
29
0,4
6
64,6
0
4 &
9%
%
9
. 4 9
& &
/
%,
**
*
,
%
- %
%,
%
% &
9/
%
&
&
9
% .
&
/
%
% %
9
%
0
&
%
9
9
(
-),
&
/
,
/
.
4
/
-
*
9
. \
6 (2000)
9
*
*
&
,
.
**
&
%
1%,
*
%
, &
/
%
0 (Greer, 2001). $
/
&
,
,
*
. $
/
9 Perry,
(1970)
0
%
/
:
,
/ 9
,
%
. Q
%
9
/
&
&
432
%
%
.
9
/
9
%
/ .
:
/ %
% ,
1
& .
4 &
% 1
1
9
&%
-
9
/
%
9
% * . + %
9 *
%
*
&
%.
C568
658
1. 6 . (2000) + 9
. (9
) %
9
433
*
.
91
/
9
. $
&
/
9
%
&
&%
*
*
100 0C
.
$ &%
% %
%
/
& . 4
, 9
% 9
.
% &1 /
/
9
0
%
(
&
&). $
1
0
/
9
*
.
&%
%
& 9
%
9
%
1%
9
*
1
* 0
*. H
& . 4
9
(
), *
0 /. +
% 1
&
/
1
. $
&
9
,
1
/
& * 0
9
.
%
% .
434
L
%
&
%
.
&%
%
%
%
& 9
% 9
&
9
%
. 6
%
%
% &
/
.
*
%. $
&
&
%
*1
9
9
&
9
*
.
$ &%
/.
&
&
. =&
9
%
&%
0
/%
9
/1
,
*
&1
9
.
H
9
& &
%
9 / (
&
,
&
),
(
, &
/
)
% ( %
0
*
/ % ).
$ &%
*
0
/%
. 4 *
%
(
,
/.)
9
*%
%
&
%
%
&
&
0
%
. H
%
9
%
%
%
9
9
.
+
%
*%
,
%
/&%
. 3
5=
<
5
/
1 . .
1
0
% . H
0
%
.
9
,
&
*
*
*%
%
100 C
&
%
/
1%
/
%
.
&%
%
&%
9
.
& 9
9
. H
0
%
, *
%
9
9
.
%
,
,
&
0
0
&
9
/1
.
435
+
&
&% 1
/
9
. +
%
%
9
%
%
.
*
&
/,
%
100 C
:
&
\1
%
' ..
H
/
% %
1%
0
/ 9
. + /%
*
*
%
%.
+
%
6
*
:
9 %
9
9
&
9 3
9 3
/
9 &
%
.
6
4
%
&
4 /
% &
&
.
9 4
%
%
6
%
!
9 \%
&
*
*
.
&%
9
.
436
437
438
<
8
5
%
.
%
%
&
0
Laplace
9
%
,
$
9 %- % (
%)
*
% 3
.
&
%
,
%
.
&
Michael Faraday
0
9
%
%, impetus
Buridan, %
18
& *,
Benjamin Franklin 4
& & 6
,
/
&
0 %
1930
%
.
,
8
"
;
,
&,
%.
: &1
& %
9
%
, &,
% 9
%.
9
%
&1
9
%
. "
-
% , , %,
1,
,
9
. 4 /, /0
, 9%,
&
9
%
.
9
&
/ 9
,
9
$
-
&
1%
%
1 (
#"
.
:
&1
+G=\!+=
0. $9
%
&
&
& !!
'
'
'
.
}
, ,
&
9%
.
%
%
#"
-
% *
*
& %
,
%
9
. +
&
5 +,
9
9
%
9
, &
%
,
%
,
&%
, 9
%
.
&
; L
,
&,
*%
%
; 3
. "
**
$
.
!
. ( |$ ?, / % ?,
2004).
**
*
8'
$ ;
&
&
&
1
.
&
&
&
.
1
439
3
/
0
1
-% % 0,
,
,
&
%
&
.
&
9 / /
& . A |
&
&
9
1
.
$
,
*
& % 0
.
0
9
.
%
.
&
. &% 9
%
.
.
Q
& %
& 9
1
D=$!+ (Wolpert, 1992)
}!!L6}+ $+} +!}+ }+=
( Cromer, 1993).
: &1
%
''
.
\1
,
%,
- -
1%
&. +9
-
-
&
O
' *
'.
$
* ,
*
,
)
9
-
-
*) % -
-
1
%.
C8 5<8
}
, ,
&
9%
.
%
. .
1. 4
% 0 . 4 9
*
&
1.
2. $ *
$0 O&
. +
: &
(
3.
1
%
%
, &
**
&
/
&%
%
.
0 '*& 8:
A
( $
$
,
$
!.
440
', *%
D
%.
010'( ,0'/': D
%, /, * %
,
,
0
$
% /
1
&
, &
,
9 '
(
&).
5
96
& ,
5 8
1
*
/
*
, ,
9
&
. 4 %
*
%:
&
*
*
,
&%
%
9
%
&
,
%
/
/
*
%
/.
()& %
, , &,
09
9
&
% (
)
*
-
&
, 9%
9
-
%
training %
doping, ( )
&
% . 4
*
%
%
&
%
/
&
%. 4
&
&
,
% % /
&
%
, *
%
&
9
9
*
.
=
5
%, &
%
,
1
441
&
.
85
%
9
1%
9
%
* ,
&
D
%. 4
1%
%
&
%.
5
% (% ") / D
%
09
&
(
9 **
9
):
6 5 ( 9% %) &
.
6
=5 ( 9% %) &
, %
/
/
%.
6 5
( 9% 9
%) &
, , ,
&.
6 85
( 9% * %
% ) &
/
%
* .
% ( 5
1%
&% 5
(
2004).
3
% <
%
5=5 5
.
1% =
(
) *
&%
58
.
5 5 .
/
%
1383
.
/
300
(
22%
).
&
L%
& %
2004.
+
&
9
.
5 (
% / 2004)
4 (:
')
$
%
% 9
1
M=10 kg
R=0,1 m
&
,
&
%
9 9=0,56.
&% % t=0 1
9
&
&
=8 m/s.
}
9
:
4 (=
*
)
I=
442
2
M .R 2
5
&
*
: g = 10 m/s .
85 5
.K 1 (*! 4 - I )
70
60
: %
50
4
40
4*
4
30
4
20
10
0
(1-2)
(3-4)
(5-6 7)
:!
05 4-:
%
&
9% &% % t=0.
5 4-:
58,24
60
cm (0)
R
80 rad / s
: %
50
40
35,1
30
20
(< ( 5 4-):
10
3,55
3,11
&, :
0
0
(1-2)
(3-4)
35,1% 1 &
:!
7%, (9
)
1 &,
5
?5.
%
(5-6 7)
05 4-:
&
1
.
05 4- ( ):
3
443
1 5:
0 HWDMRULN : M g KPM T
6WURMLN : R
I cm
D JZQ
2 5:
M acm (1)
2
2
M R (3)
5
acm
acm
(4)
I cm D JZQ (2)
4m / s 2
0 HWDMRULN : T M g KPM
6WURMLN : - R
I cm
D JZQ
M acm (1)
2
2
M R (3)
5
acm
acm
(4)
I cm D JZQ (2)
4 m / s 2
3 5:
6WURMLN .QKVK J UZ DS WR VKPH R (SDM 9 P
(1)
: M g KPM R I P D JZQ (1c )
acm
2
7
2
2
2
2
I P I cm M R
MR MR
M R (3)
5
5
acm
(4)
D JZQ
4m / s 2
5 4- :
.K 3 (4 - I )
60
54,2
50
: %
40
30
20
12
15,1
18,7
10
0
0
(1-2)
(3-4)
(5-6 7)
:!
4
444
9
%
0
9%
9% , &
9
&%
&
.
: =&
&
&% /;
0 HWDMRULN : M g KPM T
M acm (1)
2
I cm
M R 2 (3)
5
acm
acm
(4)
D JZQ
9,33m / s 2
2
%
0 HWDMRULN : T M g KPM
6WURMLN : R
I cm
D JZQ
M acm (1)
2
M R 2 (3)
5
acm
acm
(4)
I cm D JZQ (2)
9,33m / s 2
5
445
! 5 8
5 ~:
( Wx Wy N T
dL
dt
N 0 T T R
dL
dt
(
1,6
kg m 2
s2
( Wx Wy N T
dL
dt
N 0 Wx W x R
dL
dt
(
5,6
kg m 2
s2
5 4- :
.K 4 (4 - I )
60
50
50,3
: %
40
30,2
30
20
10
11,5
0
0
(1-2)
(3-4)
(5-6 7)
:!
6
446
05 4-
( ):
1 5:
Z Z 0 D JZQ t (1)
'T
'T
D JZQ
X cm
Z0 t D JZQ t 2 (2)
30
N 2S
2S 60rad (3) (2) t1
S
acm
40rad / s 2 (4)
Z R (5)
1s t 2 =3s
* 5
5?
, 8
55
=
=
<8
(1) NDL (5) , ~
cm 4m / s.
2 5:
2
s X cm ,0 t acm t (2)
(2) t1 1s t 2 =3s
2
30
s N 2S R
2S R 6m (3)
S
* 5
5?
, 8
55
X cm X cm ,0 acm t (1)
=
=
<8 (1) , ~
cm
4m / s .
3 5:
9
1
&% 3
% 6&
%
:
.
.
.
.
.
U
.
.
U . 0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
m
m I
mgh
I
2 cm,0 2 cm 0 2 cm 2 cm
h s 6 0, 56 3,36m
= cm ,
R
cm 4m / s.
.
.
.
.
.
U .
5 4-
:
.K 5 (4 - I )
60
53,8
50
:%
40
30
20,9
20
11,1
14,2
10
0
0
(1-2)
(3-4)
:!
(5-6 7)
7
447
6 &%
9% ($
9).
6 &% % 9 9% .
6&
%
% /
.
' (
% )
9%
* %
(4-).
&
, &% & /.
\% 9
% (s
3x).
(3 = } 2).
& % /.
/.
5!
4
9
<55
1%
<55~ 8 = (
%
),
=
/;
= ( 5
):
.K 6 (+
J
.& ))
70
61
60
: %
50
40
30
22
20
10,4
10
6,6
0
(0-10)
(10-15)
(15-18)
(18-20)
:!
(=5
:
)
%$
(J
)
%
: %
70
60
50
40
30
20
:!
10
0
(0-10)
448
(10-15)
(15-18)
(18-20)
+
9
9
,
9
/
2%, 9
% , &
9
0
%
/
&
/.
"
9
9
%
,
Q
,
*
9
,
%
1
& *
%
,
9
1
.
%
&
.
4
%,
&%
9,
% %
% , &
%
/
&,
%
%
9
,
. L
, ,
9
% %
*
0
&%
9
%
%
&.
H
,
9
,
& %.
$&%( $&%(0))'((
&%
1
,
<,
56
6
8
9
*
,
<8
?
9
,
puzzle,
8<
.
/
/9
.
(#$0&(:
%
9
:
+
% 9
5
+5-(< (=.
5<
6
/ 5 58
$
.
9
5 685
%
.
D
, &
**
PISA.
9
449
0
6
8 :
: %
%
*
*
,
*
. '
'.
10
450
%
**
%
0,
%
9 &
1
/
,
. ,
%
/
%,
9.
4
912
12-16 ,
9
6
D
% \
2004-2007.
1. 4
%
:
%
&
;
-}(
!: 4 *
%
9
%
:
%
&
;
9
9
&1
/
9
% ,
9
9
, &
. C /
&
%
&
% . &
%
1
,
9 % .
#
: $
%
9%
%
-
.
,
,
*%
9%, * % o
,
1%
(
, 2004).
@
#: 4
%
9
9
, 6
D
% \
}* 2004-6 2008.
$
&
%
1000 ,
,
. 4
9
9%
9
%
.
@
: 4
%
*%
9
:
i) , ii) (L
&
& %
- ), iii)
1
; iv) 8
*
(3
%&
) v) & 9
(
% 9
), vi)
/
(4 %
%
), vii) 1
1; (N
-$
%-3
%), viii)4 /
9
(8
% ) ix) Q
(6
9
% ), x) &
(
451
,
*
; 9) +
& *; 10) +
1; , %
; 11) =&
&;
+ &
%
10-15 . 1
%
,
% *
,
,
%
.
% &
&
%
&
.
3.
912
&
&
\
(82%), '*
(16%)
'%
(2%)
9
6
}* 2004- +* 2007. +
&
3 4%, $ 3 5%,
"
7%, 8 "
25%, " "
44%,
/
/' 7%
/
'
9%.
4. Q
&
%
/
%
4.1.
4.1.1.
9
9
;
%
:
%&
,
9
/;.
16%
912
11-18 &
/
9. 9
1
/ 20%
"
25%
3. C, 9
17% / 8
" "
, 16% /
'
11% /
'
.
9
9
" " ! (
2004, .17,
Phillips, W.C. 1991). 4 0
0 *
0
9
/
9
%
,
2%
.
4.1.2. /
9
)
*%
%
}
.
%
,
9
&
9
.
&
%
&1
/
9
%
,
%&
. "
9%
: ,
&
, 9 9
%
9;
*) *
*,
9
9, 1971,
%
11.
, ,
%
,
,
9
9,
&
,
,
9
1.
)(9
):$
8
" "
,
/
'
'
,
1%: (i) =*
: 9
%
9 ; +
%
&1
, *
9 *
, 9
% ,
/
% ,
,
,
: 9
,
&
(ii)3
*1
%
}
/
$ % 9%
*
9
" (Segr, 2001) (iii) 9
9
$ %
9 9 , %
&
. "
1
4 * %
%, ,
&
0
*
,
9
,
9
&
&
%
}
". ,
9
%
}
%
9
&%
1%.
452
, 9
*
1 9
,
&
0
&
.
4.2.
4.2.1. =&
&;-
31%
912
&
&, 37%
. 15%
&
, &
2%
/
%
& %
9
.
% & (
&
)
31%, 32% & 28%
&
8, " "
/
'
.
&
46% "
44% /
'.
(
&
)
38% / 8
" "
47%
/
'
44% /
'.
%
/ & (
&
,
& ),
&
18%
17%
&
" "
/
'
, 9
1
5%
2%
&
8 "
/
'.
%
%
/
9
(
&,
%
& /
/,
9
)
&
3%, 4%,
2%
0%
&
8, " "
, /
'
/
'
.
4
%
,
&1
,
% &
/
.
4.2.2. 3
%
/
0 & 9
%
+ &
& % &
,
&
9 %:
- 4
1%
,
. "
/
1
9 9
, "
% &%
,
.
- 6
/
9 &
9
.
- 17
1%
1
.
- + %
9 & &
9
0
. Q,
3
&
(Kirk , 1998, .411-415). +
0
% 9
9
(
D
, 213a-218a). + "
9* /
9
9
, &
&%
&1
/%
(IMSS, 1999). + Torricelli
/,
%
17
von Guericke
Boyle
0,
9
(Holton&Brush 2002, . 384-5). &%
& 9
%
1
0
. +
9*
/
(Balibar 1977, .144-148).
4.3.
%&
,
;
4.3.1.
& !: Q
54%
912
9
&
, 4%
9 &
9
/
*
/
3%. 11%
9
. 6
91
%,
%& *
,
1
/
0
0 *
.
$: Q
,
5%
,
%
,
.
&
11% "
, 4
453
&
**
9
9
9
1
(Sr 1985).
4.3.2. /
4 /
%
%
%
:
%
&
;. Q,
%
!
/
, /
" " !
. 4
, !
,
9
.
4.3.3. $
1
1;-
4
Torricelli
9
. /
2,
9 &
1
(Torricelli 1644) . &
Torricelli
9
,
9
% .
%:
..
%&
.,
0
..,
%&.
4.4. +
& *;
4.4.1.
6
/
3 &
/
'
& *. $
40%
912
& *, 2%
& &
*.
,
,
& *
&
50%.
& *
"
"
,
& 32%
/
'
,
& 36%. ,
& $ 3 &
/.
&
& * $
3
" "
, 9
, &1
9
%
&
& / % & % & /.
4
& * &
9 **
9
(Hapkiewicz
1999, Henriques 2000,
2004, .32).
4.4.2. /
& *- $
%
H
& * &1
O
& 1
,
9
**
9
(Hapkiewicz 1992, Henriques 2000).
9
%0
1
%&
&
& 1
(
, D
% 3, 216b-217a,
309a, 311a).
H /
:
& *,
%
/
%.
/
Torricelli.
Torricelli %
1%
, &
%
,
9
* %
&
. 27%
2
, 9
&
0 760 mm
454
&
). 2%
9
1
0. +
%
*
/
8 "
. , 2%
9
1,
*
.
A !
!
:
9
% 3%
9
1
/ !
, 9
&1
% &% /.
Q, 2%
1
%
/
%
/
/
9.
$
$ #
$ &% **
9
9
% ,
(Henriques 2000).
4.5.2.3
%
/ 9
&1
*
9
%
4
1
,
*%
6
*
. 3
9
%
&
,
%
,
&
,
9
%
(Glashow 1994, pp. 160-164). 6
%
9
% *
.
4.5.3. /
9
4 /
9
#
.
4.6. 4 /
9
*
4.6.1.
9%
%
%&
,
; 27%
912
%&
,
%
.
30% /
3,
21% /
'
. +
% 9
9 /
9
(Sr 1985).
8%
,
%&
.
, 23%
9
1
.
:
- 4%
,
%&
. 4
1
&
& *
(
2004, .17, Phillips, W.C. 1991).
- 9%
%&/
/
9
1
/
&
,
%&
.
- 2%
&
&
,
,
, &
.
- 3%
/
1,
. 6
9
1
1
1
&%
%
.
- 5%
/
1
/
*
1/
,
%&
9
%
9
% . +
%
9
*
&
%
, ,
.
, 22%
/ 1%
,
9
1
0
/
. $
&
9
0
&
/
, 2%
9
& /
.
4.6.2. 3
%
/
;!
! !: H 9
&
9
9
%
455
9
% .
9%
,
,
/
9
*
&
*
, &
. ,
*,
,
1
/
*1
1. ,
/
&,
*
&, /
*1
.
,
%
&
, ,
, &
*
, & *
9
,
%
%
% . C,
%
*
&
% 1%, *1
100,
*1
. ,
*
&,
# $
,
%
&
*1
%
&%
&
.
&
!
#.: ,
*
9
%
&
. Q, 91
& 9 %,
%
&
%.
4.7.
%&
;
4.7.1.
$/#
/ ((
: 38%
912
0
& *
%
.
$
:
- 13%
912
&
,
/
%&
.
- 10%
.
- 5%
/
%
/
%&
/
/ 9.
- 3%
9
.
- 3%
&
*
.
- 4%
9
/
/
9 *
.
, 4%
&
.
, 3%
9
1
.
$ .
: 7%
9
9
9%
1
/
/
/
%
9
% .
%
/
.
& !/
/ $:
14%
912
%&
,
/
%& *
,
1
/
0
0 *
. 1%
9
/
%
91
. 4
&1
&
&
%
% .
+
9
1
. , 1%
9
*
,
3.
3
%
&
&
%.
,
1
&
%
,
,
**
& %
%
. 3 &
, ,
456
4.7.2. /
4 /
%
,
*
&
% ,
& %
9,
9
.
%:
9
, &
9
%/
;.
A
:
,
&
%
,
,
9
,
. ,
&
. $
&
&
9
9
.
:
9 9;. 6
&1
0
,
. "
,
/% .
6
*
%
/
%
1
&
0
,
%
&%
&
.
;
!: 4
&
*
,
&
*
1
% ,
.
;!
:
%
;,
0 *
0
,
, &
/
,
.
4.8.
/
4.8.1.
,
%; -
A
: 912
, 29%
%
%&/
/
&
/
/
9
1
,
%&
.
, 6%
%
.
A
#/
: 32%
%
1 & . $
, 12%
9
%
, 9%
%
%, 5%
9/
& 9/
9
/
9
1
, 6%
%
*.
/
: 2%
9
%&
,
,
%
9
%
. $
*
&
9
/
. +
9
%
. 1%
&
,
%
9
/
9
/
. $
%
9
&%
%.
#: 4%
%
%
9%/
1/
9/
1 &
/
.
%
&
,
&
9
& 9 %. +
,
%
%
& %& ,
.
,
/
,
, 9
%
1 &%
&
, 9
1
/ 9
0
* 0
.
&
,
%
* 9
457
;!
: 4
,
,
Faraday,
%
18
.
%
/ &
0
%
0. 4
,
.
18%
%&
%&
%
9. $
:
- 3% &
%&
%&,
/
9
/
/
.
- 2%
%&
%&,
%
&
&
- 1% &
, %&
%
%
, 9
1
9
%
, 9
*
1
.
- 1%
%&
& %&/ %&
%
%&
%&/ %&.
- 14%
%&
%&/
%&
%&/
%&
%&
&
, 1%
%&
%&/
%&
%&.
, 1%
,
%& %&
,
1
9
. +
%
%
3, "
/
'
,
& /: 3%, 3%
1%
&
.
4.9.2. /
%
/
+
&
%& %&,
&
&
& 9
D
%,
&
%
&
. 4 /
%&
* ,
/
&
,
%
/%
9 %.
A #$ $
.
$
Boyle
,
,
&
,
%&
1. 6
&
4,
9
. \
%
%
%&
. 3
,
&
, ,
9
, %&
%. 3
*
,
*
,
(Conant 1966, pp.33-38).
% # : 4
%
9
%,
& %& &
. , ,
,
%
0
; ,
9,
%
,
**
9, & %
,
*
0&,
& * %
;
4.10. D
&
;
4
3
458
4.10.1. =& 9
&
;-
72%
912
9
/ 9
&
.
,
9
9
&1
/
.
%
9
1
&
3
"
,
&
43%
40%
& /,
0 " "
/
'
,
&
&
81%
78%.
13%
9
/ 9
&
. +
%
8 3
37%
/.
1%
/ 9
&
,
9
*
/
/ / 9
. , 0,3%
/ 9
&
,
*% 9.
%
9
,
%
.
%
(0,3%) &
9
&,
9
,
1
&,
&
9
/
/
0.
%
,
&,
&
9
&
9
9
,
/
/
. ,
/
.
4.10.2. 3
%
/
%
$
%
,
&
9
&
/
.
D
,
9
&
9
. "
/
%.
,
9
,
&1
: 6
9
&%
Boyle, &%
1660
9
9
,
&
. 4
*%
Boyle &
0 9 ,
&
/ 9
. 6
,
0
&%,
%
1%
9
9,
/
(Boyle
1661).
4.12. &
4.12.1.
%&
,
%
&
*
;
39%
9
1
& &
&
,
%&
. $
: 16%
9
1
&
&
*
,
14% 9
1
&
*
1
,
, 7% 9
1
/
5% 9
1
&
%
/.
1%
9
%&
*
/
.
6% 9
1
9
, /
/
&
/
9// &. 16%
9
*
%
& /
9
% /
% /
9
, 1% 9
1
/ /
9
% /. , 16%
9
%
.
4.12.2. 3
%
/
%
$
%,
/
, &
,
9
/ 9
%
,
*
9
,
*%
%
%. ,
/
,
9
%
9
.
459
*%
/
1
%
: &
9
1
*
"
$ % (61 1960). 4
91 Tyndall
&%
19
(Tyndall Center).
8*
9
%
1, 3 , .411-415
61,., 1960: D
%, II, L-+%, 8*
, Q
3
, %
D.,
, ., 6
/%, .: 2004:
%
&
;
/
%
D
6
D
% \
.
$ 9 8.,
.,
6. (.), @ 4 @
;
#
$ 6. &
. / #
&
, , ,
%
2004, .243-250.
Phillips, W.C. 1991, Earth Science Misconceptions, Science Teacher Feb'91 pp 21-23.
http://homepage.mac.com/vtalsma/syllabi/2943/handouts/misconcept.html
Segr E.,1997: !
D
%, B, .24-39, 3
, %
.
Sr, M.G., 1985: 4
. $ Driver,R., Guesne,E., Tiberghien,A.1993: +
9
% Q % D
, &
, .153-179
Torricelli, E., 1644: Letter to Michelangelo Ricci concerning the Barometer In William Francis
Magie, A Source Book in Physics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935
Tyndall Centre, Who was John Tyndall?,
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/history/john_tyndall.shtml
460
an advisory teacher teaching enquiry-based science to one class of 9-11 year olds in each
participating school, using stories, or contexts, from industry
in-service training session for all members of staff in each school
a visit to a chemical or similar manufacturing company, tailored to meet the curriculum needs of
that age group
training for each company offering site visits, to enable effective and relevant visits to take place.
In addition, a longitudinal study has been carried out, to find out what children think of both
science and industry, 5 years after their involvement in the project; and to find out whether teachers
still used the approach with classes in their schools.
This session will present a brief overview of the methodology and the findings from these various
studies, and how the project has evolved as a result of the research carried out. Statistical data will be
presented, as well as childrens drawings of industry, and pertinent quotations from children and their
teachers.
Current Practice in Terms of Changing the Rather Negative Perceptions that Young Children
Hold of Science-Based Industries
Linking primary school science with industry in the UK
Joy Parvin, Gayle Pook, Chemical Industry Education Centre, University Of York
Joy Parvin and Gayle Pook work for the Chemical Industry Education Centre (CIEC), based at the
University of York in the UK. The CIEC has been involved in the development of contextualised
teaching materials for the past 20 years and now employs a team of advisory science teachers that
provide stimulating science lessons for schools in the north of England. The advisory teachers also
deliver in service training directly into schools and through the National Science Learning Centre
Network.
In this workshop you will have the opportunity to try out some of the ideas that are inspiring young
scientists to continue their science education. There will be examples of enquiry based investigations
that tackle real problems based on those encountered in product research and manufacture. Combining
a context led and investigative approach to the teaching of science motivates children and helps them
to explore their understanding of the concepts involved.
Our aims are to:
x
x
x
x
461
x
x
All of the activities included will be enquiry based and include elements of planning, carrying out
and evaluating their findings.
Links to literacy, numeracy and ICT are easily made through this approach and will be flagged up
throughout the workshop.
462
!" !" )' 0&%,&(' ,' 0&% ,'
/'/,', %#( "'0!$'(
6&
% $
, 3 (.3. 407/80) ..3..
$0&'-
9
,
9
%0
9
& % &% 9
% . 4
: (
)
-
%
%0
-
, (*)
% /
()
. +
% *
**
9%
9
%0
%
%
&
. 4
% /
, &
&
9
% /
&
. 4
%
. 3
9
*
&
&
&
.
0'()!)
&
9 3
% D
& *
%0
(Driver, Guesne &
Tiberghien, 1985 Pfundt & Duit, 1994). 4 %
&
*
(Driver & Oldham, 1986 Glynn, Yeany & Britton,
1991).
,
9
,
9
9
%0 (Erickson, 1979, 1980 Engel,
1982 Kesidou & Duit, 1993 Tiberghien, 1980,1985). +
%0
9
0 & % &% 9
-% .
,
&
&
*
*
0
%0
(Arnold & Millar, 1996
Harrison, Grayson & Treagust, 1999 Linn & Songer, 1991 Thomaz, Malaquias, Valente & Antunes,
1995).
*
&
,
/
%0
%. 6
%
%0,
**
9
, &
%
O&
0%
9%
(Arca & Caravita 1993 Bednarz & Garnier, 1989
Giordan & De Vecchi, 1987 Johsua 1989, Monteil 1989).
* %
9
/
%0 (Astolfi & Peterfalvi,
1993). 4
%
&
%0
,
*
0
0
9%
&
9%
%0
9
'
/
*,
. 4
0, &
&
%
%0. +
%0
,
,
%
463
&
9
9
3.
&
3
,
,
9
,
*
,
* %
&%
& .
4
,
% /
% &%
&
.
,
&
: (
)
% &%
, (*)
% /
()
9
% , $# /
3.
0$%/' !" ,' 0$'/'!,%0"%' (%*%' )' 0&%,&(' ,'
0&%
6 *: (
)
**
9%
9
%0
% &%
, (*)
/
&
%
%0
,
9
0
($
, 2005).
1
&
,
1
,
%0
,
%
,
/
9
.
% I: 4
%
9
.
9
/
%
. 4
%
%
. 4 %
%
. 4 %
/
&
(
, ,
).
% |I: 4
%
9
.
9
/
%
. 4
%
%
. 4 %
%
. 4 %
/
&
(
, ,
).
% ||I: 4
,
9
9
0
&
, &
9
%
. 4
& %
0
&
1
%
%
%
&.
9
/
. 4
%
%
,
. 4 %
&
1
/
.
6 *
0
%
,
.
9
%0
,
464
1.
&
.
1: 4
,
*
&
* , /
&
.
2: 4
%
0
& /
.
3: 4
(
) /
.
4: 0&
9
.
5: 4
.
&
$& 1: 4
*
&
* /
*
$& 2: 4
. 4
&
9%
9
1
.
$& 3: 4
/
&
1
.
$& 4: 0&
0
$& 5: 4
9
.
&
&
%
(Astolfi & Peterfalvi, 1997 Peterfalvi, 1997):
(
) +
/
%
*
%
.
(*) +
%
9
,
%
,
%,
%
, ,
%
.
() +
&
%
,
9%
0
9
/
&
%
&%
9
.
&
% /
&
/
.
() 4
,
&
&
% /
*
.
465
() 4 /
&
&
&
%
%
&1
* %
& . C,
&%
9
%
, %
/
& 9
&% &
% /
.
()
&
%
%
/
:
&
%0
%0 (
% )
%
/
,
&,
&
%0
.
(1) +
& /
/
%
* %
&
.
$ ,
9
% /
,
%
*
9 (Astolfi & Peterfalvi, 1997):
(
)
:
%0
,
,
9
&
/
,
(*) %
:
,
,
/
0
. +
1%
/. 4 9
%
1%
/
&1
.
#
. +
&
%
%
&
. 9
/
,
, /%
& * 0
.
, /
* %
9 &
&
&
.
%
1%
%
,
.
$
&
,
% /
*
#.
.
1%
0
%
, %
&
/
*
&
&
/
. +
%
&
% &
%
. $
1%
%
9%
/
%
. , 1%
%
(
&1
&
), 1
9
9
%
. %
0
9
&%
0
.
1%
%
%
.
,
%
,
91
&
9
&
&
. +
%
466
. +
%
&
1%
*
.
1%
%
.
, /
* %
, &
9% . ,
&
&
,
/
/.
1
&
%
&
1%
&
,
%: (
) %
9
(
1%
)
(
%
% 9
)
,
(*) %
%
(-)
(
- I),
%
(
- II). $
1
%
.
$
%
*
0
&
.
&
*
%.
. 6
%,
%
,
&
%
&
. +
%
. $
%
,
%
&
.
*
/
().
%/
(- I),
%
(- II).
9
% & % /
,
&
& % &%
. ,
%
&%
%
*
&
%/
&
%
.
$ 1
* 0
9%
(/
)
&
*
%
1.
%
467
9
*
&
*
%
, 1
(
*
)
1
&
,
%
(%
%:
(! #
). $
%
& 1.
%
%
*
&
*
1
*
(%
%: !
#
"#
"#
).
2.
%
%
1.
%0
%0
1
%0
& 1
-
N
N%
16
94.1
6
- I
N
N%
1
5.9
16
5.9
94.1
6
- II
N
N%
4
23.5
13
76.5
2 % & 2. $
%
2.
%
&
1
. Q
,
9
%
9
9
(%
%:
! (!, #
). $
%
& 2.
%
%
%
0
&
&
(%
%
) (%
%: !
,
$
! (! #
##
#
(
).
3.
%
%
2.
%0
%0
2
%0
& 2
-
N
N%
15
88,2
6
- I
N
N%
2
11,8
15
11,8
88,2
6
- II
N
N%
5
29,4
12
70,6
3 % & 3. $
%
3.
%
. 6
(%
468
%: !
#
). $
%
& 3.
%
%
%
1
%
(%
%:
#
#!
).
4.
%
%
3.
%0
%0
3
%0
& 3
-
N
N%
14
82,3
6
- I
N
N%
1
5,9
16
17,7
94,1
6
- II
N
N%
4
23,5
13
76,5
$
1
0
9&
&
*
9% %
(
%
0
% 1
).
, 1
/%
*
.
+
%
(* .
5),
4 % & 4. $
%
4.
%
9
/
*%
9 %,
0&
(%
%: . ##
$
#
!
##
$
#
#
#
). $
%
& 4.
%
%
9
/
% &%
,
(%
%: ##
$
. #
, . ##
$
#
#
).
5.
%
%
4.
%0
%0
4
%0
& 4
-
N
N%
16
94,1
6
- I
N
N%
1
5,9
16
5,9
94,1
6
- II
N
N%
3
17,7
14
82,3
-
N
N%
17
100
6
- I
N
N%
1
5,9
16
94,1
6
- II
N
N%
5
29,4
12
70,6
469
+
%
(* .
6),
5 % & 5. $
%
5.
%
,
%
(%
%:
"$
!
! #
,
"$
). $
%
& 5.
%
%
/1
-*
&
*
(%
%:
"$
#
!
"$
"$
. /
$
! "$
).
2, 3, 4, 5
6,
/%
%
:
x 3
% %
%
*
&
- I
-.
$
, -
%
&
%
& (
0% 17.7%),
,
&
% /
, 9
&
,
9
%
%
9
&
%
. $
,
- II
%
&
0 (
70.6%
82.3%).
(#$0&(
4
&
% /
,
$# /
&
.
**
9%
9
%0
% &%
%
%
&
, 0
% % &%.
$
%
9
9
9 $# /
&
, *
&
9
% /
.
"
9
%
,
%
,
%
. 4
,
%
-
&
,
9 &
%
-. ,
&
%
9
&
,
9
%
%
9
&
%
.
L
%
9
%
%
%
/
&%
. \
&
1
: (
) /
0
&
%0, (*)
%
% /
(
,
,
), () 9
,
470
471
8# /
"
. 3
9
9
& %
/
% /
%0
&
* *
-%
. 4
%
%
9
. 4
%
/
-%
-
9
%
%0
-
%
D
%.
,
&
. $
,
&
% /
%0
-%
,
&
/
%
&
%0.
0'()!)
&
,
%
3
%
D
&
9%
%0
9
D
(Driver, Guesne & Tiberghien, 1985
Pfundt & Duit, 2001).
0
&
&
%0
9
0 %
& % &%.
,
%0
,
9
*
3
% D
&1
&
* &
%
%0
(Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982).
%, %
& &
%
%
%
%0
9
D
. $
%
%,
%0
%
0
%
9*
-
%
9
%
&% %
%0
%
(Hewson & Hewson, 1984). +
&% %
%
% &
&
(Druyan, 1997 Hewson & Hewson, 1984 Kwon, 1997
Lee, 1998 Niaz, 1995 Stavy & Berkovitz, 1980 Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982 Thorley
& Treagust, 1989). H,
1
9
%
%
% (Chan,
Burtis & Bereiter, 1997 Chinn & Brewer, 1998 Dreyfus et al., 1990 Kang, Scharmann & Noh,
2004 Limn, 2001 Mason, 2001 Tirosh, Stavy & Cohen, 1998).
* %
,
&%
-%
,
%
&
%,
9
*
%0
%,
9
1
/%
(Ames & Murray,
1982 Doise & Mugny, 1984 Doise, Mugny & Perez, 1998).
, %
&
:
9
&
% *
&
9
%, % 9,
*
%
9
%
,
9*% %
. 4 %
% (Foulin & Mouchon, 1998). 4 9
472
%
9
.
%
&
%
%. +
9/
*
0. Q
9
-%
/
%,
%
%
.
H,
%
1 -%
,
9
%
%0
3
% D
(Johsua & Dupin, 1988 Ravanis,
Papamichael & Koulaidis, 2002 Skoumios & Hatzinikita, 2005 Trumper, 1997).
, % **
9
& 0
% /
* % *
%
% (Pintrich, 1999 Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993). +
&
1
&
0
0
(Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993). 6
9
%
9
1
(6
& D
, 2003). Q&
%:
/.
,
*
( 9 )
&
(6
& D
, 2003).
/
,
*
/
9,
&
,
9
%
0
*
%
%
%
%0
. $
, &
%
* *
.
C % &%
1%
, &
* /
%
0
& %
%0
,
%
(Biddulph & Osborne, 1984 Gibson, 1997 Hardy, Jonen, Moller & Stern, 2006
Smith, Carey & Wiser, 1985 Smith, Snir & Grosslight, 1997).
4
&
%
%
-%
.
&
/
1%
/* .
473
/
$ ,
9
%
%,
&
%
%
D
% -
/,
&
/
% //
. $
&
,
% &
-
*
- *
-%
. 9
%
& % /. ,
%
9
%0
%
.
(
8
"
%
D
%, &%
/. + %
%
* %
&
9
Dawson
McInerney (2003)
D
%.
+
/
%
. 4
/
% *
. $ % &
%
%
&
. "
/ &
%
D
% %
&;). $ , %
/
%0
*%
*
()
9 9
.
&
%0
&
&
* . $
,
**
9%
%0
&
* (Biddulph & Osborne,
1984 Gibson, 1997 Hardy, Jonen, Moller & Stern, 2006 Smith, Carey & Wiser, 1985 Smith, Snir &
Grosslight, 1997)
%
,
0
* 0
%
/%
/*
, 1
/
1
%
(.&.
1
,
,
)
1
/*
. Q,
,
& 1
, 9
,
*
1
. +
%0
/*
, 9
1
,
(Driver, Guesne & Tiberghien, 1985).
$9
& % , % *
/
&
%
.
,
*
1
,
. $9
&, /*
1
,
.
474
&
Perkins
Grotzer (2000)
9
&
. $9
,
1
,
&
/
.
/*
, &
%
1
% *
1
.
$
1.
% / /
%0
/*
*%
/ /
%0
1: / % *
&%
%
9
2: / % *
1
%
3: / % *
4: / % *
&
%
( &)
*%
"
*
9
(.&.
1
, )
"
*
%
"
*
% *
4 *
0
*
1
0
& &
&
,
O
* *
. $
1
1
*
.
+
%
: (
)
/
%
&
%0
, (*)
%0
()
%
%0
&
. $
%
. $
2
1
1%
%
.
$
2.
1%
%
/*
6
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
%
1%
1
/*
G 1
/*
G
/*
G
/*
G
/*
G
/*
G
/*
G
/*
$ ,
9
,
*
*%,
%,
%
&%
.
,
/
475
%0
&
. +
%
/
/
&
%0
9
&
9
,
9
&
%0
%
%
%
/1
.
%
%/ 9
&
9%
/
%
%0
(Hardy, Jonen, Moller & Stern, 2006).
+ *
+
, *
%
%
/
%
D
%,
/%
: (
) &
/
, (*) &
%
/
, ()
%
&
/
()
%
/
. $
&
,
%
.
"
,
&
% /
&
%
: 1
.
9
*
, 9
/
*
. }
*
, %
, 6
,
9
&
%
&
,
1
,
9
%
.
$
%
&
/
&
%
: L
0 *
/
,
1
, G
%
&
*
*
, 9
9*
*
,
&
*
,
6
/
&
, L
\
,
9
9
/ 9
.
6 *
%
%
/,
%
%
4
&
&
%
% / %
.
4
%0
&%
,
% %
9
* .
$
,
-%
9
%
%0
%
%
*
%
%0 %
9 &
320 &
(160 &
9
%0
&%
160
).
,
%,
x2,
&
-%
. +
& *
x2
(Blalock,
1987 Erickson & Nosanchuk, 1985).
$%00(
4
/: (
)
D
%, (*)
-%
,
9
%
%
%0
&%
, ()
&
476
-%
.
,
5
+
%
% -
/
9
,
(* .
3).
3.
%
%
!&
/
!&
%
&
/
%
/
6
7
(%)
35
30
20
15
3
&
1
&
/
(35%) %
&
% /
(30%).
&
%
&
/
(20%) %
%
/
(15%).
8
-
=5
$
4
1
&
9
-%
9
%
%
%0
&%
,
9
.
4 (57,5%)
-%
%0
&
&%
. H,
(42,5%)
%
-%
9
%0
&
&
&%
.
(<8
5
8
-
=5
9
9
,
0
%
%0
&%
%
(70,8%). $
,
&
&
% /
%0
9 &
%0
&
&%
.
,
%
&
%0
%
%0
&%
%
.
,
%
*
&
%0.
477
4.
-%
%:
& (} & }%)
%
$
%0
%
%0
;!
%
!&
&
%
/
/
}
}%
}
}%
14
29,2
27
84,4
%
/
}
}%
15
62,5
}%
92
57,5
!&
/
}
}%
36
64,3
68
42,5
20
35,7
34
70,8
15,6
37,5
160
100
56
100
48
100
32
100
24
100
,
/
%
&
%
[x2 = 26,53, df = 3, p<0,0001]. 4
&
% 9
(* .
5).
x +
&
&
% /
*
%0
&%
,
&
&
%0.
x
,
&
%
&
/
%0
&%
&
*
%0
.
%
%
&
&
% /
%
$
%0
%
%0
!&
/
36
[0,67]
+
20
[0,78]
-
!&
%
%
&
/
/
14
27
[2,59]
[2,00]
+
5
34
[2,33]
[3,01]
+
%
/
15
[0,32]
+
9
[0,38]
-
%0
. $
,
&
1
%
1
$
6
1
: (
)
, (*)
(
)
()
(+, -)
(+) % (-)
.
478
&
/
,
-%
,
1
&%
0
/
%0
9
.
,
%
%, *
%
%.
%,
9
(Palmer, 2005): (
) %
1
, (*) %
%
&
9
%0
,
, () &%
()
9
& % /
9
%
,
%
%
1%, 9
,
9
%. C
* %
%
%.
,
&%
* %
,
%
/
, %
% &
(Pintrich,
1999),
%
&
%0
%
.
C'C'%)&+'
Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by
social conflict, Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 894-897.
Biddulph, F., & Osborne, R. (1984) Making sense of our world : An interactive teaching approach,
Hamilton: Education Research Unit, University of Waikato.
Blalock, H. M. (1987). Social statistics, Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conict in conceptual
change, Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 140.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous
data in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623654.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1998). The social construction of knowledge: Social marking
and socio-cognitive conflict. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 77-90).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals?:
Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28, 91-113
Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the cognitive conict strategy for
conceptual change some implications, difculties, and problems, Science Education, 74(5),
555569.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (l985). Childrens ideas in science. Milton Keynes. Open
University Press.
Druyan, S. (1997). Effect of the Kinesthetic Conflict on Promoting Scientific Reasoning, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1083-1099.
Erickson, B. & Nosanchuk, T. (1985). Understanding data. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Foulin, J.N., & Mouchon, S. (1998). Psychologie de l'ducation. Paris: Nathan.
Gibson, J. (1997). Floating and Sinking again, Primary Science Review, 46, 10-11.
Gorsky, P., & Finegold, M. (1994). The role of anomaly and of cognitive dissonance in restructuring
students concepts of force. Instructional Science, 22, 7590.
479
Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Mller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of Instructional Support Within
Constructivist Learning Environments for Elementary School Students Understanding of
Floating and Sinking, Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307-326
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The Role of Conceptual Conflict in Conceptual Change and
the Design on Science Instruction, Instructional Science, 13(1), 113.
Johsua, S., & Dupin, J.J. (1988). Processus de modlisation en lectricit, Technologies, Ideologies,
Pratiques, VII(2), 155-169.
Kang, S., Scharmann, L., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science
learning, Research in Science Education, 34, 71-96.
Kwon, J. (1997). The necessity of cognitive conflict strategy in science teaching, Paper presented at
the International Conference on Science Education: Globalization of Science Education, Seoul,
Korea.
Lee, Y. J. (1998). The effect of cognitive conflict on students' conceptual change in Physics, Doctoral
dissertation, Korea National University of Education.
Limn, M. (2001). On the cognitive conict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A
critical appraisal, Learning and Instruction, 11(45), 357380.
Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change, Learning
and Instruction, 11(6), 453483.
6
, ., & D
, ". }. (2003). % %
1
* %
.
2 $
6
3
*
:
"
. %
,
%
%
.
Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive Conflict as a Teaching Strategy in Solving Chemistry Problems: A
Dialectic-Constructivist Perspective, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959-970.
Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of
Science Education, 27, 1853 1881.
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: the role of complex
causal models in students understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41, 117-166.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students alternative frameworks and science education
(4th edition). Kiel, Germany: Institute of Science Education, University of Kiel.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In
W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds), New perspectives on
conceptual change
(pp.33 - 50). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change,
Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientic
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Science Education, 66(2), 211227.
Ravanis, K. Papamichal, Y., & Koulaidis, V. (2002). Social marking and conceptual change: the
conception of light for ten-year old children, Journal of Science Education, 3(1), 15-18.
Skoumios, M., & Hatzinikita, V. (2005). The role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning,
International Journal of Learning, 12(7), 185-194.
Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the
concepts of size, weight, and density, Cognition, 21, 177-237.
Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change:
The case of weight-density differentiation, Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221-283.
Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the
concept of temperature, Science Education, 64, 679692.
Thorley, N. R., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for
conceptual change in Physics, International Journal of Science Education, 9(2), 203-216.
Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conict and intuitive rules, International Journal
of Science Education, 20(10), 12571269.
Trumper, R. (1997). Applying conceptual conflict strategies for in the learning of the energy concept,
Research in Science and Technology Education, 15, 5-18.
D
, ". }., & \
, . (2001). ;
#
$ %
..
%
: G+$.
480
0"0&)0' 0'"' /#(,%% " %',%/%0' %)! ( +#(( (:
0"%$%'',%( $&)%"( %!" !" +'"%0"!";
! ;
+ $#
6
0'()!)
4
9%
D
,
,
&
%
%
3
% D
(Driver and al., 1993; 1999), !
D 9
D
&
/ / %.
&
*
,
9
(Gilbert,
Osborn & Fensham, 1982)
.
,
/
&
.
% %
& *
0
D
. (
%, 1994, G
*
.,
1994,
1997). Q,
%
(
*
0
)
1
*
9
(Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993). ,
9
&
, (
,
, &-
,
*
%) (G
*, 1999)
%
%,
&
(G
* &
, 1998).
% *
& &,
1
)
1 ,8
5 0
j5
(,00),
9
%
*
&%
&
&
* (
*
0
%
9 9
9
). "
1
/
&
, \
,
&%,
&
%,
, 9,
*
9
9
.
4
, ,
%
3
% D
9
%
*
%
9 (
, 2000; Koliopoulos & Ravanis, 2000). $
1
" $, !!).
481
,
&1
"
%
6&
%.
&
/
&
&
%
,
0 %
/% &
9
(
& G
* 1998). 8*
,
&
&
&
%
&
% L
%,
& 6&
%,
9
%
&
9
#
# .. # .
$
&
,
-
# ;
9
$
( # !
(
( # .
...
1/
$
!
2/
(
$
. 4
%
# ,
,
,
#
.
#
.
+
,
, &
*
0 %
0
(Driver, 1993). +
&
% &%
. \
, %
, ,
,
%
9. 9
/ % 1
% &
9
%
%
. $
/%& 12-16
(Engel, 1982) 9
0
,
/
%
%
0
% %. Q,
&
&
%,
&
%
. H
,
/
1
%
, ,
&
&
. ,
&
(Driver and al., 1999).
+
,
&% %
/%&
,
9
(D=$!4 8# "
, +38, . 33-78, 2003).
$
, 9
&
9
:
,
:
# , $
;,
,
,
, #
, (
!$, $ #
,
!
,
.
0%/%%)' j&0#"(
$&
*
. $ &
9: 1)
%
**
9
-
%
,
*,
, 2)
%
, 3) $&
*
*
&.
H
9 D
% 8 "
, * &
*
0
, & &,
%
9 9
9
-
9
482
%0,
%,
,
9
9
-
/
1
%
% /
.
$
, *
* 35
*
* %
9 %
8 "
(
14-15 )
&
% "
,
&
9
% *
.
$%00(
#
4
&%
%
&
/
/
&
. $
&
,
&
,
%
:
"
,
% #
.
(
.
%
#
# # $
!
. Q
% /
#
# .
, #
.
. A
#
!# #
. ,
/
$
#
.
#
!
$ !
$.
&
%
9:
&%
%
, 9
,
,
,
&
.
%
9
&%
%
6,2%
. $
%&
& %,
22,4%
/. $
,
/
%
9
&%
%
, 60,5%
% %
.
$
, 46,7%
&1
&%
%
, 20%
1
9
, 13,3%
20%
&
,
%, & .
-
$ &
/
1%
%
9
%
9
% /
. 6 &
,
%
:
"
,
%
" .
%
/
#!
90 qC,
.
(
) " ( ). #
#
#!
#! # . F ! ! ##
#!
!,
#-# #$ $ . #! $ (
) !
#! # .
&
9:
9%
,
,
9
1
483
,
%
,
%
,
, &
-
, &
- ,
9
%
, &
9
1
,
9
1,
9
, &
, /% %
, /%
*
/%.
%
9
65,9%
. $
%&
&
%, 45,3%
/. $
,
/
%
9
, 63,8%
% %
.
%, 23.1%
&
-
,
16.4%
&
/%
14.3%
%
.
(#$0&( /(#(
& &
%
*
-
- 9
%,
&
&%
%
-
/
9
&% (46,7%), 9
(20%)
(13,3%).
9
&
-
(23.1%),
/%
(16.4%)
%
(14.3%).
&
&
*
. "
,
,
, 1, %
. 6
&
$# /
&
. H, &
,
&
&
/%
9
9
.
4
&%
%
. +
1
/
, ,
9
%
%
. + Lemeignan & WeilBarais (1993)
(
, &
&
-
%
, )
&%
%. 8*
,
%
% 1
%
%. +
&
&
9
,
9
,
*%
%
%,
&
, . 8
/
&
1
. +
(2000)
%
"
, 1
&
.
-
9
-
%
. $1
%
,
*
-
.
%
, ,
*%
%
&%
%
9 &
%
.
484
4
, , 9%
. 6
%
&
(Lemeignan & Weil-Barais,
1993).
9
,
9 9
9
, 9 % 9
%
, 9, ,
&
%
% %,
&
% %. 3
%,
&
9
&
%,
, 9,
*
0 *
% :
/
,
*
,
&
-
,
*-
%
&
.
C'C'%)&+'
Driver, R., Guesne, E., Tibergien, A. (1993), * $ .
, 69
L, $
-
8, $
., . Q % D
&
, %
.
Driver R., Squires A., Rushworth P., Wood-Robinson V. (1999): *
. $
6. &
.- % @#
!" $ . $
. (
.
,
9
6. \
1%), .
%-". 3
, %
.
Gilbert, J.K., R.J. Osborne and P.J. Fensham. 1982. Children's science and its consequences for
teaching. Science Education, 66, 4, 623-633.
Harman, P. (1990), Energy, force and matter: the conceptual development of nineteenth century
physics, cambridge university press.
, . (1997), ;!# ##
$ 6. &
., %
.
, 3. & G
*, . (1998), +
* %
&
.
1
"
, & . 6, 4, 26, 36-46.
Koliopoulos, D. Ravanis, K. 2000, 'Rflexions mthodologiques sur la formation dune culture
concernant le concept dnergie travers lducation formelle', Revue de Recherches en ducation:
Spirale, vol. -, no. 26, pp. 73-86.
, 3. (2000), $&1
/
:
6
% , $
, . (.) @ ##
6
&
6., .
%-". 3
, %
.
, 3. (2004),
6. &
., . 6
&, %
.
% 8. (.) (1994), !
, . Gutenberg, %
.
Leimegnan, G & Weil-Barais, A. (1997), A
$ . (
9
}. 3
, . 3
) .
%-". 3
, %
.
G
* . (1999): + 9
% & %
(3
% ), .
%-". 3
, %
.
G
*, . 2003, &#$# $ 6. &
., } & ,
%
.
485
%0
*
. +
%0
&
%
& % /.
9
% &1
%
9
%.
H
% 0
&
,
9
/ /
%
,
9
9
*
%
% 9
. 6
%
%,
&
&
,
9
%
%
9
-
* . 4
%
9
,
&
,
9
*
.
4
9 % 9
% ,
0
9
& % 9
%.
%
9
9
/
0
&
%
9
%
% **
9
(
9
: McCloskey, 1983;
Clement, 1982; McDermott, 1984, 1998; Minstrell, 1982; Driver & Easley, 1978; Driver & Erickson,
1983; Driver, Guesne & Tibergien, 1985; Driver, 1989; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; diSessa, 1988, 1993,
Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992; Hynd, 1998; Vosniadou, 1994)
H
1%
9
9 9
%,
% %
,
/
*%
9
%. +
9
0
&
&
&
0
,
: ,
%0,
0,
, ,
& .
1
, %
/
9. + Posner, Strike, Hewson
Gertzog (1982)
1
%
Kuhn
(1970) #
#
(%
Lakatos (1970) # ! #
)
486
,
O /
%
&
*
%
. +
%
0
(dissatisfaction)
&
,
,
(intelligibility),
9
(plausibility)
(fruitfulness)
.
9
% % %
%
,
9%
1%
% (&
Piaget:
$)
O&
%
9 (&
Piaget
9). 4
% Posner, Strike,
Hewson
Gertzog (1982) %
% 9
%
/
*
9
% &
*
/ %
%,
&%
0
(.&. Guzzetti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas, 1993;
Hynd, 2003; Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides, 2003; Mason, 2001, Mason & Gava, 2007). "
,
Hynd (2003)
1
0
1
/
%
%,
/
O&
&
%
% ,
9 ,
,
,
%
%
/% &.
$
01
,
%
9 9
%
%,
/ / 0
%
9
%
, 9
O,
&
&
.
4
9% O&
%
%
0
&
%
9
%
*
9 9
9 9
%
9 9
% (.&., Smith, diSessa & Rochelle, 1993;
Hammer, 1996). 4
9 % 9
% 1
,
&
,
% (phenomenological primitives %,
, p-prims)
9% /
&
.
,
, &
1
*
&
%
(diSessa, 1988,1993). $9
% ,
9 % 9
% &
,
.
, 9
% % 9
9 9
%,
%
% ,
%,
1
%
(Smith, diSessa, & Rochelle, 1993).
,
diSessa (1988, 1993), O&
/
& &
%
-
9
& (p-prims)
&
9
9
/
9.
&
%
/
#
.
6 9
%
diSessa
% 9
&
,
-/ (self-explanatory) %
%
( 9
%)
1
/%
(diSessa, 1993, . 114).
H
9,
9 % 9
% & 1
9
*9%
9
9
-
*
9
. "
,
*9
,
9
,
%,
&,
&-&
& &,
9
9% (Spelke, 1990).
$9
%
,
9
9
487
9
&
1
*
,
9
,
1
,
. $ ,
%
9
&
/
9
%
&1
.
, &1
*
,
. + 9
&
%
9
- *
9
&
&
%
9
/
9
9
,
&
.
$9
% % ,
9 % 9
%
/
9
&
%
, %, O
,
&
,
,
% % &
. "
9
%
1
9 &
-
&
9 9
%. 6
1% %
%,
%
,
,
& %
9
%
&
% %
%
(Vosniadou, 1994, 2003,
2008; Carey, 1985, 2000).
4
9 9
% *
1%
/% 9
%
%# & % 9
%. +
%
/ -
%
**
9
*
/
,
&
/
/
9
9
. 6
%
/
%
O&
*
,
1
(Vosniadou, 2003, 2008).
$
%
*
, /% Chi (1992)
(Chi, De Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994; Reiner, Slotta, Chi, & Resnick, 2000), 9
% 9
%
/
& 9 9
%,
/
9
9
9
* . "
, 9
%
9
(&.
)
/
. $
%
%
%
*
*
. 4
%
,
%
%
9
%,
1
,
9 % 9
%
* ,
. 4 %
%
9
%
, 9
%
,
%
%
1
&
/ *
&
%
-
O
%
9
9
%. 4
%
9
%
& 1%
-
&
/
9
,
&
488
C'C'%)&+'
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
21(1), 13-19.
Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning
and discovery in sciences. In R. Giere (Ed.) Cognitive models of science. Minnesota Studies in the
Philosophy of Science 15, Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Chi, M.T.H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves
understanding. Cognitive science, 18, 439-477.
Clement, J. (1982). Students preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics,
50(1), 66-71.
Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure
in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335-356.
diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P.B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the
computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
Driver, R. and Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development
in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985). Children's Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Study
of Students' Conceptual Frameworks in Science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
Gunstone, R., & Watts, M. (1985). Force and Motion. In R., Driver, E., Guesne & A., Tibergien (Eds.),
Childrens Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in
science: A comparative metaanalysis of instructional interventions from reading education and
science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117-159.
Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and
reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64 (10),
1316-1325.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30
(3), 141-151.
Hynd, S. (1998). Conceptual change in a high school physics class. In B. Guzzetti & S. Hynd (Eds.)
Perspectives on conceptual change, pp. 27-36. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hynd, C. (2003). Conceptual change in response to persuasive messages. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 291-315). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions. (Second edition, enlarged). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos &
A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-195). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Learning and
Instruction, 11, 453-483.
Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual
change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.) Reframing the conceptual change
research in learning and instruction. Oxford: Elsevier.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDermott, L. C. (1998). Students conceptions and problem solving in mechanics. In A., Tiberghien, E.
L., Jossem & J., Barojas (ds.) Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education
(I.C.P.E).
489
Millar, R. (Ed.) (1989). Doing science: Images of science in science education. London, The Falmer
Press.
Minstrel, J. (1982). Explaining the at rest condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, January, 10-14.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception. Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66 (2), 211-227.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J.D., Chi, M.T.H., Resnick, L.B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to
substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., & Rochelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist analysis
of knowledge in transition. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-183
Spelke, E.S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29-56.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Guest
Editor) Conceptual Change. Special Issue of Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
Vosniadou, S. (2003). Is Intentional learning necessary for conceptual change? In G. Sinatra and P.
Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). The conceptual change approach and its reframing. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, &
X. Vamvakoussi (Eds), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction.
Oxford: Elsevier.
490
&
& tabula rasa,
&
%0
9
& (8
1998,
% 1994,
1998). +
& .
%
%&
,
&
%
%&
/ % %&
,
/
'
.
'( :
,
%, ,
0, %&.
0
+
0
&
&
& : ,
&%
Rumelhart (1980),
9
Schank
Abelson (1977)
Gentner
Steven (1983)
Johnson-Laird (1983)
Vosniadou & Brewer (1992).
4
,
9
9
%
%
%,
&
9 *
.
+
**
9
,
*
&
9
%
.
}
. +
9%
(
% &%)
'
%
9
.
}
3
%
/
(parallel distributed
processing)
9 & &%
* .
&
/
9,
%
9
,
9
9
9
(8
1998,
1
491
% 1994). $
%&
9
&
.
&
9
%-
%
%&
&
:
) "
%
%&
: + /%
%
%&
&1
9
%
%& ( Watt & Russel 1990),
/
% %&
%& (
%,
0), / /
&
,
( )
%,
0
%&
9
.
-/ 5
75
$& %
: 25
3,
25
"
25
6
"
(-experts).
15 %
1
.
#
* %
&
%
%
%&
9 & . 8#
*
% &
%
&
%&
,
%
9
& (
9%
&).
%
&
/ %
.
8
$
%
/1
%
%-
% 0
%&
.
1. 8 '
*;
@
$ 1: @
@
$ 2: ` !
@
$ 3: /
@
$ 4: ` ! !
(!
$
/
%
%&
&
, %
9
%
&% % (
-
,
&
). $9
1
1* (*
),
/
9
/
.
$
(% ) 37,3 %
(22,7 %)
(% -
% &%)
(
% &%).
%
%
% **
9
. + Watt & Russel (1990)
&
*
&
9
%&
2
492
Asoko (1991)
&
%
%&
/.
%
/
%
0
10-15 (
/ 32 %- 40 %).
*
Asoko (1991) 260
4
16
%
%&
&%
*
. 4 Asoko (1991)
%/
/
%
%
,
9
%
%&
.
&
,
%/
% ,
&1
9
&
%,
.
$
&
&%
% .
,
6
"
(% )
40 %
(% -
% - &
) 28%. $ 4 "
8
(
% &%) 44 %
(% ) 32 %, $ 5 3 $&
(% -
% &%) 48 %
(% ) 40 %. 6
3 $&
9
1
&
/
/
%
(% ),
(% -
% &%)
(
% &%).
, 2
75
(% 2,7 % )
9
9
%&
&
.
9
Asoko
*%
0
9
% &% *
.
$9
2
2* (*
),
9
/ . $
(% ) 81,3 %
(5,3 %)
(% -
%),
(% - &
)
(%
%&
).
%
,
,
*
% .
9
&
Asoko (1991)
1
%
%&
, 09
9
* %
% . +
%
&
9
9
&
. +
,
%&
/%
*
%
% %. $
,
%
6
"
/%
%
%&
(\
/
) (
% 10, 6
"
).
,
3 $&
4
"
8
9
1
&
&
%
%
% . +
6
"
9
1
&
:
(% -
%)
(% - &
).
9
% .
%
9
**
9
%
6
"
() &
% .
, 6
"
(% ) 56 %
(%
- &
) 16 %. $ 4 "
8
(% ) 96 %
(% -
%&
) 4 %. $ 5 3 $&
(% ) 92 %
(% -
%) 4 %.
493
$
1*
2*
9 %
/%
&
%
9
.
2. 8 >
'* ;
/ . $
(
) 41,3 %
(&
) 29,3 %. H
9
(
),
&
%
0
%&
,
%
(&
)
(
) 28
%. $
4 "
8
(
) 56 %
(&
)
20 %. $
5 3 $&
(
) 40 %
(
&
) 28 %.
(&
)
(
&
) &
&
%&
. $
9
*
%& 9
/
%
*
0
9
.& '
*
%&
9
&
1
%
9
. 4
(&
-
)
%
1
%
% 91
0 (52 %)
6
"
/
20 %.
3. /
%
;
$
'G .
$&
%
%
0
%&
. $9
4
4* (*
),
9
/
1%
0
.
,
(&
-
- 9
) 33,3 %
(&
- /
) 22,7 %. $ 6
"
(&
-
- 9
)
32 %
(&
- /
) 20 % .$ 4
"
8
(&
-
9
) 48 %
(&
- /
)
20 %. $ 5 3 $&
(&
- /
)
(&
-
) 28
%
.
(&
-
- 9
) 20 %.
+
(&
-
- 9
), (&
- /
), (&
-
)
1
&,
9
&
.
9 9
1
%&
&
. 8*
9
.
&
/
0
%&
& %
.
4
(&
- /
)
9
1
/
20%
28 %
(
)
&
*
%
%& 9
. 4
4
494
&
9
Watt
Russell. 18%
*
11
%1
%,
%
%&
.
4
(&
-
)
(28 %)
3 $&
12 %
8 %
6
"
4
"
8
&
.
%
&
9
Watt & Russell (1990)
9
%
/
"
. $9
, 20 %
/
"
10 %
/
"
9
9
*
. Q
57
9
. 4
%&
9
%,
10 %
/
"
20 %
/
"
.
25 %
/
"
9
%
. + %
&
%&
,
9
11%
..
4
(&
-
- 9
)
32 %
48 %
6
"
4
"
8
&
(20 %)
3 $&
.
%
& *
Watt & Russell (1990)
/
1%
&
.
&
91
&
.
(5-(~
,
%/
:
+
9
&1
%
%&
&% % (
-
-
-),
:
x
9
(% )
%
%&
(
,
&
)
x
*
%
x
*
%&
&% %
%
0 91
Driver et al (1994)
%
9
% %
,
% /%
*
9
&
(.&
*
).
%
9
/% : 37,
3 %
, 44 %
, 64 %
81 %
9 %
/%
(
-
)
%
9
. $
,
9
Asoko ..,
1
,
&
9
%
%&
5
495
&
x
*
9
%&
x
9
&% % (.& &
)
%&
9
%&
x
*
%&
&
4
/
9 &
/
%
9
9
%&
, *
,
3
"
/
&
0
%&
&
. 8*
,
,
6
"
(-experts)
9
1
&
& .
%
Asoko .. *%
,
%
,
&
%&
. ,
%
/%
,
9,
%&
,
&
. H
%
%&
,
, &
14 ,
%
&
.&
%
%
.&
%
. +
9
. 4
%&
/
%
%
/&
. 70%
9
.
$& %
&
%&
9
:
$& 1 , $& 2 &
, $& 3
, $& 4
&% % .&
1 .
%
9
Watt &
Russel (1990)
9
&
(2, 3, 4). & 1 *
Watt &
Russel (1990)
%
*
*
/
/ &% %
.
$&
0
%
%&
9
:
x
9
(
)
*
%& %
9
*
%&
*
x
9
&
9
/
x
9
&
9
x
9
&
9
9
9
%.
%
%
9 Watt & Russell (1990)
/
%
9*%
*%
%0
%&
&
,
%
%
/
/ . 6
9
&1
%. , Asoko, Leach
Scott (1992)
9
1
6
496
%0
%&
. 3
&
9
&
.
$
,
%
/
/
%& (
%--
0).
%
,
&1
9
9
,
*
0
%
,
9% &
&
%
% /.
C56
Asoko H.M., Leach J. and Scott PH. (1992) Sounds interesting: working with teachers to find
out how children think about sound, NFER-Nelson, Topic 8:1-7.
Asoko H.M., Leach J. and Scott PH. (1991) A study of students' understanding of sound 5-16 as
an example of action research, Paper prepared for the Symposium, Developing Students'
Understanding in Science at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association
at Roehampton Institute, 2 September 1990, London.
8
$., & Brewer G.(1988) L
497
$55
$
1.
$5 5- $5
/
5
1.%
1
&
*
2.% -
% &%
6
% &
%&
3.% -
%&
6 &
&%
% %
%&
&
4.
% \%
%&
% &%
5.% -
%- 4&.
.
1
,
1
&,
%
&
&
, %&
6. % 4&
&
&%
&
9
@ 1
;
:
% +
@
;
:
4 +
>!$
;
:
5
;.
>!$
;/ /(
Total
Count
% within ;
10
@$
.
.!
7
40,0%
12,0%
4,0%
12,0%
28,0%
4,0%
100,0%
11
25
32,0%
8,0%
8,0%
44,0%
4,0%
4,0%
100,0%
10
12
25
40,0%
48,0%
28
17
17
75
37,3%
22,7%
4,0%
22,7%
10,7%
2,7%
100,0%
@$
.
!
1
12,0%
498
@
Total
25
100,0%
$
2.
$5 85- $5
/
5
1.%
* $ . #
2.% -
%
#
!
#
. #!$
3.% - 4&
@ 2
;
:
% +
@
@$ @$
.
14
3
56,0%
12,0%
@$
!
4
16,0%
@$ @$
$
%
(
Total
1
4,0%
3
12,0%
25
100,0%
;
:
4 +
>!$
24
96,0%
1
4,0%
25
100,0%
;
:
5
;.
>!$
;/ /(
23
92,0%
1
4,0%
1
4,0%
25
100,0%
Total
Count
% within ;
61
81,3%
4
5,3%
4
5,3%
1
1,3%
4
5,3%
1
1,3%
75
100,0%
$
3. 05 10: $5
/
5
1.6
(& &
. 3 /
%)
%
. *
$
2. 4&
(
0)
%$ $ .
$
. ;
!
$ .
3.
(
/ &
)
/ #!$
!$
(
$
. #$
4. 6
&
()
$ !
!
5.
499
@ 3
A
!
!$
%
!
Total
;
:
% +
@
7
28,0%
13
52,0%
1
4,0%
3
12,0%
1
4,0%
25
100,0%
;
:
4 +
>!$
14
56,0%
5
20,0%
3
12,0%
1
4,0%
2
8,0%
25
100,0%
;
:
10
5
;. >!$ 40,0%
;/ /(
4
16,0%
1
4,0%
7
28,0%
3
12,0%
25
100,0%
22
29,3%
5
6,7%
11
14,7%
6
8,0%
75
100,0%
Total
Count
% within ;
31
41,3%
$
4
14 : 8' * -
'
1. 4&
/
#! . !
#$
. $
;
:
% +
@
5
20,0%
A.
A.
`$
!
!
#
$
6
#
1
3
8
3
4,0%
12,0%
32,0% 12,0%
;
:
4 +
>!$
;
:
5
;. >!$
;/ /(
5
20,0%
2
8,0%
2
8,0%
12
48,0%
7
28,0%
7
28.0%
Total
Count
% within ;
17
22,7%
3
4.0%
12
16,0%
@ 4
A.!
($
&
#
10
500
`$
#
$
Total
5
20,0%
25
100,0%
1
4,0%
3
12,0%
25
100,0%
5
20,0%
5
20,0%
1
4,0%
25
100,0%
25
33,3%
9
12,0%
9
12,0%
75
100,0%
$
4
05 14: $5
-<8
1. :
!*
2. :
- *
3. :
- '
11
501
$
4
;
:
% +
@
;
:
4 +
>!$
;
:
5
;. >!$
/( ;/
Total
Count
% within ;
A.
A.!
A.!
($
$ #
12
3
5
48,0%
12,0%
20,0%
`$
$
#
5
20,0%
25
100,0%
Total
10
40,0%
1
4,0%
6
24,0%
5
20,0%
3
12,0%
25
100,0%
4
16,0%
7
28,0%
2
8,0%
11
44,0%
1
4,0%
25
100,0%
26
34,7%
11
14,7%
13
17,3%
16
21,3%
9
12,0%
75
100,0%
12
502
$
#
,
&
%
%
,
*
%
%
* *
%
1.
/ !
%
D..
"
,
%
D..
,
/
&
% " /, 91
0
% &,
/ !.
200
D.. 9
9
9
&
/ %
.
,
1
/,
&
/ ,
, (..
$ !( $
$,
$
.
). +
9
/
SOS ( SOS
.
!,
)2.
$& %
/
"
D..,
9
1
9
:
"
9
,
9
&
$ $ $
$3
D
%
%.
/
%
,
/ !
20034. 54% /
&
& 9 4/=. 4 9
,
*%
.
%
,
&
**
9
D
% "
9
.
%
&
/
,
1
/5, ,. (2006),
/ 2005 6
D
% "%
" / 4
'
,
$ 6.
&
.: F @(, 16, 8-18.
$, ., (65, *.,
8, "., $5, )., (2006), 8
*
"
" /, A @ ; &&6, '
2006.
&
, ,. (2003), 6
9
%
/
.
% . 3
(.)- . 8* (.).
&#$# &( # /
&
(1961-2001),
% Q
, 81-96.
2
1
503
0
. 48% %
9
9 %
1
(44%),
&
9%
.
%
(
, #, $!- ). 6 13,5%
*
% ( 4-7
9). 5%
&
&
9 /% (
). +
D
% "
9
1
D..
,
,
% &% 1999
&
2004
% &%5.
%
, 1
28% (1999)
31% (2004)
%
.
80% (1999)
73% (2004)
%
5% (1999)
2% (2004)
.
13% (1999)
5% (2004) &
/
%
. $
2004 *
%
,
3
% D.6. $
1999
%
. \
9%
%
(
,
#, $!- )
9
1999
&
5%,
2004 &
9 16%. Q&
/
2004,
&
& 9 4/= (
10% 1999 69%). 27%
2004
*
%
%. &
%
1
1999.
4 09
/
/ 1999
2004 D
%
"
9
,
9
&%
& 9%
(
#
, $
! !).
9
9*%
%
/ &
/
%
&
&
.
% %
/ &
,
&
/
%
.
/1
,
%
,
&
%
% %
%
%
.
, &
1
,
&
&
,
,
,
,
*
1
3
*
&
9
/
. 3
0 1
9
*%
,
%,
%
3
% ,
&
&.
5
,5
, )., +, )., *, ,., (2000), L
D
% "# "
"
/ !
"
: 6
"&
9%"
,
: 2
3
% D
& 9
} &
,
'
.
+, )., ~, $., L
D
% 8# "
"
/
!
"
3
%
, &#
.
6
504
,
9
%
(
%
*
D
)
1%.
%
&
/
&
%
*
/
9
9
. ,
1
/
% %
&% /
.
8?-,
: ,
%,
% 1%.
0
6 1
%
,
*
& /%:
9/9 , 9 ,
,
/ .
/1
,
&
,
)
D
% (Literacy in science)
(Norris & Phillips, 2002, Yore & Bizanz, 2003)
D.. *)
9
D.. (Sutton, 1992, Merzyn, 1987, Bramer & Clemens, 1980, Wellington & Osborne,
2001)
1
%
*
D..
.
H
9 ,
D..
9
Literacy in Science
% **
9
%
'
% &
*
3....$
..$
&%
9
&
9
*
,
9
9
* (
). $
,
D..
1
9
20 *
/
& '
*
(8
/ 2007). $ ,
*
%
9
*.
9
*
&
D.
& %
% (Mayer, 1997; NRC, 1996; Shortland, 1988,
%
9
(DeBoer, 2000; Hurd, 1998; Shortland, 1988),
9
(DeBoer, 2000,
& %
* (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996) ..+
D..,
9
0 Norris & Phillips (2003),
9
9
*
9%
505
D.. 6
1
(fundamental
sense)
9
*,
&
,
D..
(derived sense).
9
* &
% &
*
.
$& ,
%
9
,
%
01
/% :
x
**
D
&
0 &
/1
* (Graf, 1989,1990: DiGisi, 1995).
x +
9
9
&
%
/
9
(Sutton, 1992).
x +
/
&
&
(Kelly and Monger, 1974).
x +
% D
%
0
&
/
(Merzyn, 1987: Bramer and Clemens, 1980).
x +
/
9
*
&
/ (Barnes, 1971).
x +
&
/
.(Gardner, 1974).
x $
,
/
*
&
. (Cassels and Johnstone,
1984,1985).
x $
9%
&
&
D
/
1
/
.(Sutton, 1980,1992).
$9
Lemke (1990)
D.. &1
&
& (thematic content)
9 (special style).
9
9
&% %
, &% /
% 1%
%,
% .&
% 9%
9
%
9 9
.& %.
$
%
*
& "
% 1%
"
%.
,
1
/
/
&
9%
% 1%
% (.& /
).
/
&
% 1%
&
&
D.. (.& / &
:
&
- &
/
/
). /
% 1% &
9%
D.. ( .& / *
: 0
& *
- *
"
).
$
&
/
&
* Cassels & Johnstone (1985)
Marsall & Gilmour
(1991).
6 ,
*
%
&
. %
/
,
%
%
,
%
:
) 4
(/%,
)
/
1 /
.
*) 4 % &% /
,
.
) 4
* %
% % %
%
/.
) 4
/
9
1
.
506
) 4
/
%
,
%
.
, !.}. (1985), Block, K. (1985) , + (2002)
,
%
%
&
(Marsall S., Gilmour M.,1990
Cassels J. & Johnstone A., 1985).
%
*
D
.
34
$#/
3 (1 %
: 81
3. $& -
)
(2 %
: 14 3. $& -} %
). C
9 (16
-18
)
&
(25
9
&)
8-~
4
-
/%:
1
%
&
-
,
/ (9
, , / % /
1
, % ,
%1 % %/, *1 % *
)
*)
0
&
/
.
4
9
/
&
&
/
/
&
/,
9%
/
%
&
/.
,
&
/
/
&%
/
% 1%
%. "
/ 9
,
% 1%
%.
&%
-
:
%
% (
)-
%
6
% (%
)-
%
6
% (
)-
%
6
% ('
&
)-
%
-
%
% (
)-
% 1%
6
% (%
)
% 1%
6
% (
)-
% 1%
6
% ('
&
)-
% 1%
-
1
2
3
4
5
&
/ %
/ /
&
. +
%
/
507
D
&
D
%
%
(
-
)-
%,
%.
%
9
.
%
%
%
(
-
)
%
1%
6
%
(%
)
%
D
.
D
% 9.
6
%
D
(
-
)-
%.
%
1%
6
%
(
)
%
, ,
9
.
'
/
%
.
9
6
.
6
%
(
)
%
1%
9
.
6
%
('
&
)-
%
/%.
-
+
&
/ 9
, 9
-
%,
%
*
1
.
$5
(<
"
$
%
(<
"
%
% (
1
2,9
22
)-
%
6
% (%
7
)-
%
6
% (
17
50,0
4
)-
%
6
% ('
&
)-
3
8.8
%
-
13
38,2
1
$
34
100,0
34
8H#+(+$ 1. /
( 6
-@
&
&
:
508
$
%
64,7
20,6
11,8
2,9
100,0
8
%
, 50%
38,2%
% . ($ #
)
-
#
&
.
%
, 64,7%
20,6 % #$
#
@$ (
- #
) % . ($
)
+
% &
-
38,2% () 2,9% ().
+
&
/ 9
, 9
-
% 1%,
%
*
1
$5
(<
"
$
%
(<
"
$
%
%
% (
8
23,5
11
)-
%
1%
6
% (%
1
2,9
7
)-
% 1%
6
% (
)-
%
10
29,4
7
1%
6
% ('
1
2,9
2
&
)-
% 1%
-
14
41,2
7
$
34
100,0
34
8H#+(+$ 1%. /
(
-@
$
32,4
20,6
20,6
5,9
20,6
100,0
&
:
8
%
, 29,4%
41,2%
% . ($ #
)
-
#
&
.
%
, 32,4%
20,6 % #$
#
@$ (
- #
) % . ($
)
+
% &
-
41,2% () 20,6% ().
4
%
%
%
*
/
9
/ 9
% (t(33)=9,657, p<0,05)
% 1% (t(33)=
2,559, p<0,05).
$
,
-
/
%
%
*
/
%
% (%
)
% 1%
%.
/
%
*
D..
*
% /
%
1%
, &
9%
%. ,
%
*
%
% 1%,
/
%
&% /
509
/
/
%
1%.
$
=5 -
, / (!,
,
,
.$) /1
&%
,
9
9
1
:
(
8?-< 5
/
&
&
/ ;
(#
)
*
3 1
8? 6
~ 8
(non-science context)
$
&
/ ;
(#
)
4
9
&
3
Q
9
1
%
8? 6
~ 8
(science context)
$
&
/ ; (#
)
x
&
58
&%
&
58
&%
&
58
&%
4
9
/
&
&
&%
/
/
&
,
%
%
*
&%
/
D..
,
1
/-& .
100
76,5
80
60
40
58,8
35,3
23,5
20
5,9
0
:
&
"
>$
J !+
H' 1. ;.
(-$
% % /, &%
,
/%
35,3%
%
76,5%
,
% /
58,8% 23,5%.
510
100
76,5
80
60
52,9
47,1
40
23,5
20
0
:
"
&
!
>$
!
H' 2. A (
(non-science context)
% %
, &%
,
/%
47,1%
%
76,5%
,
%
52,9% 23,5%.
100
85,3
80
60
40
14,7
20
0
"
&
!
>$
!
H' 3. A (
(science context)
% %
, &%
, 9
0
/
85,3% .
$
,
-
9
%
*
&
D..,
/
+
2:
%,
, %,
+
3:
,
* ,
,
+
4: &
, ,
, 9
%
+
5: %/,
, /, %/
+
6:
%,
* %,
,
%
%
/
/
/ &
%
/
/.
&%
-
511
,5
,5
,
'
% /
,
(.&
91
9
9
)
? (.&
&
9
)
/ (
& &
)
? (.&
1 )
%
-(
(.&
%,
* %,
,
%
)
1
2
3
4
5
658
9
%
/
9 9
/ &
% /
%
/
& % &
. "
, 9
%/
% %
/
%
&
% &
% * %
. ,
9
/
1
/
9
.
$5
(<
$
"
%
17
50,0
14
41,2
3
8,8
34
100,0
(<
$
"
%
31
91,2
3
8,8
34
100,0
. +
2
2
9 /
$5
(<
$
"
%
4
11,8
6
3
9
12
34
17,6
8,8
26,5
35,3
100,0
(<
$
"
%
22
64,7
3
8,8
3
8,8
2
5,9
2
5,9
2
5,9
34
100,0
512
E %
E/ %
Total
$5
(<
$
"
%
4
11,8
30
88,2
34
100,0
(<
$
"
%
25
73,5
9
26,5
34
100,0
/
. $
2 9
%
/%
(73,5%)
/
&
&%
2
2*
9
%
*
50% (*
2
)
% % /
&
% &
3
% (17,6%),
\ % * (26,5%)
6 9
(35,3%).
%
*
% &
%
(64,7%).
$
,
-
/
%
/
%
*
D..
*
%
/
*
513
: 5 <55
<
8
8
\
% L
vchristi@ece.uth.gr
0
+
&
9
D
% (Dawson, 2000. Gardner, 1985. Gough, 2002. Sjberg,
2002).
9
1
9%
(Hussler & Hoffmann, 2000. Schibeci & Riley, 1986. Siegel & Ranney, 2003).
Q
9
& D
%
*
9 %
9
%,
%. 4
&
%
%
1
%
%,
,
,
%
%
1% (Dawson, 2000, Schibeci & Lee, 2003. Song & Kim, 1999),
D.. (Boylan, Hill, Wallace & Wheeler, 1992. Finson, 2002. Fung, 2002).
,
%0
%
/
& &
%
9
*%
&
*
&
*
&
D..
(Finson, 2002).
$
% *
%
&
%
&% &
%
9%
&
%
%
. 4
%
&
&% DAST (Draw a Scientist Test, 9
/
%
)
.. .)
8.
9
(
, 1
% 9
),
/
,
**
(Finson, 2002.
Mason, Kahle & Gardner, 1991. Newton & Newton, 1998. Rosenthal, 1993. Schibeci & Riley, 1986),
(Fung, 2002. Mays, 2001. She, 1998.
Song & Kim, 1999. Sumrall, 1995),
(Quita, 2003. Rubin, Bar & Cohen,
2003).
%
9:
,
9
%
(Rubin et
al., 2003),
9
/ 9
%
(Song & Kim,
1999)
&
*
/
,
&
(Finson, 2002. Rubin et al., 2003).
%
9
%
&
.
, 9
%
&
%
%,
&1
9
1
8
&
,
514
&
9
&
/
.
4 09
&1
%
,
% &1
&
.
&
, 9
9
%:
9
%
%,
,
9,
**
,
9
(She, 1998).
$ &
% /
&
. 6
%
&
%
%
/% %
:
=
%
%;
=&
% 9
%
1
,
%
9
;
&
%;
;
j5
j
8 5
+
&
9
/ %
% *
(
, 2005. $
, 2009. \
, 6 &
, 2006)
*
(
1%, 2006. 1
, 2009)
. $
&%
&
DAST
(Chambers, 1983. She, 1998).
&
*
%
9
.
& %
&
%
9
1 &
9
&.
C
&
&
%
&
%
*
.
%
9
(* .
2),
,
(* .
3) . . + %
&
1
9
% ( 1, 3, 4), &
&
(
, * .
4)
&
*
9
, **
(* .
3),
9% , %
(* .
4).
&
9
1
1.
& % 0
1
%
, % & /
(8 .
4). + %
&
(.&.
4) 9
. '
& 9
1
% %
&9
(.&. 9
,
,
, 1
3)
9
(1
%
,
3).
515
0
1:
%
&9
($&
% 8 3)
0
2: "
%
*
($&
%
8 '
)
,
%
&
(* .
1, 3
4),
(* .
2) %.
&
&
1 %
9
1
1
%
.
4
%
&
.
91
9
& 9
&
*
/
*
*
. ,
9
% 9
516
0
3: N
%
, 9
, *
, *
9
($&
%
$ 3)
0
4: N
%
,
, *
, *
,
&
1 ($&
% '
)
%
:
9
&% D
(D
,
\, 8
, "
), 9
1 4,
&
(
),
(* .
5),
,
&
. $
1
%
1 (.&. &,
).
/1
9
1
&
(
)
9
% &
, * .
5).
517
0
5: "
*
1
($&
%
" "
)
H
%
0
%,
&
.
& &
,
, 9
%,
, 9
,
%, , , %
9
(.&.
0
9
0 1%
).
,
&
, ,
&,
%, %
.
/
&
&
.
(5
&
/
Q
%
*
%.
&
&
(
),
9
9%
%
&
&
.
4
%
0
%,
&
1
&
-
. $
,
9
*
D
%
&
)
&
9 9
/
%
(.&. ,
).
&
*
%
.
6 *
&
%
&
,
/
%
%
9
.
D
1
%
%
.
518
$
,
%
%
%
.
0 /
,
0
*
(
,
%
)
/
, %
,
9 %
. 4
9%
%
(
9
,
3
..). N
*
*
1% / &
& %
% 1%,
%
(
, 9
9 ..)
1
9
,
%
,
/
*
(Finson, 2002. Rubin et al., 2003. Song & Kim, 1999).
$
*
D
,
%
(
%
/
,
, &% ),
%
*
,
.. (Mason et al., 1991. Thomas & Hairston, 2003).
O
&
*
. $
%,
*%
(
)
%,
&
%0
%
%
%
. *%
&
* ( 9%
,
1%
9
,
..)
%
%
%0
%
&
* /.
0
%
%
%
/
%
9
(Moseley & Norris, 1999).
**
/
%0
%
Q
,
&
%
%
% %
.
%
9
9
&
%0 (
* , & , 6
6
1% , ..),
%
9%
%
9
9
D
& ,
.
C56
, . (2005). * " $ . $
#
/
.
&
%
. 8 :
% L
.
Boylan, C. R., Hill, D. M., Wallace, A. R., & Wheeler, A. E. (1992). Beyond stereotypes. Science
Education, 76(5), 465-476.
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist Test. Science
Education, 67(2), 255-265.
Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys and girls interests in science: have they changed since
1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 557-570.
Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What do we do and do not know after fifty years of
drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335-345.
Fung, Y. Y. H. (2002). A comparative study of Primary and Secondary School Students Images of
Scientists. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 199-213.
519
Gardner, P. L. (1985). Students interest in science and technology: An international overview. $ M.
Lehrke, L. Hoffmann & P. L. Gardner (Eds.), Interest in Science and Technology Education (Kiel:
Institute for Science Education), 15-34.
Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: a different agenda for environmental and science education.
International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1201-1215.
Hussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for Physics education: Development,
comparison with students interests, and impact on students achievement and self-concept. Science
Education, 84, 689-705.
Mason, C. L., Kahle, J. B., & Gardner, A. L. (1991). Draw-A-Scientist Test: Future implications.
School Science and Mathematics, 91(5), 193-198.
Mays, A. (2001). Student stereotypes of scientists: Can they be changed? Retrieved May 18, 2007,
from http://www.bamaed.ua.edu/~amays/actionresearch.htm.
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students: A pilot study.
Science, 126, 384-390.
Moseley, C., & Norris, D. (1999). Preservice teachers' views of scientists. Science and Children, 37,
50-53.
Newton, L. D., & Newton, P. D. (1998). Primary childrens conceptions of science and the scientist: Is
the impact of a National Curriculum breaking down the stereotype? International Journal of
Science Education, 20(9), 1137-1149.
1%, '. (2006). A
.
. 3
%
.
:
%.
1
, . (2009). *
.
# /
/: ! $ #$
.
#$# . 3
%
.
:
%.
Quita, I. N. (2003). What is a scientist? Perspectives of Teachers of Color. Multicultural Education,
Fall 2003, 29-31.
Rosenthal, D. B. (1993). Images of scientists: A comparison of biology and liberal studies majors.
School Science and Mathematics, 93(4), 212-216.
Rubin, E., Bar, V., & Cohen, A. (2003). The images of Scientists and Science among Hebrew- and
Arabic-speaking pre-service teachers in Israel. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7),
821-846.
$
, ". (2009). *
. $
# /
/: ! $ #$
.. 3
%
. 8 :
% L
.
Schibeci, R., & Lee, L. (2003). Portrayals of Science and Scientists, and Science for Citizenship.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(2), 177-192.
Schibeci, R. A., & Riley, J. P. (1986). Influence of students background and perceptions on science
attitudes and achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 177-187.
She, H. C. (1998). Gender and grade level differences in Taiwan students stereotypes of science and
scientists. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(2), 125-135.
Siegel, M. A., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Developing the Changes in Attitude about the Relevance of
Science (CARS) questionnaire and assessing two high school science classes. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 40, 757-775.
Sjberg, S. (2002). Science and technology education in Europe: Current challenges and possible
solutions. Connect: UNESCO International Science, Technology, and Environmental Education
Newsletter, 27, 1-5.
Song, J., & Kim, K. S. (1999). How Korean students see scientists: the images of the scientist.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 957-977.
Sumrall, W. J. (1995). Reasons for the perceived images of scientists by race and gender of students in
grades 1-7. School Science and Mathematics, 95(2), 83-90.
Thomas, J. A., & Hairston, R. V. (2003). Adolescent Students Images of an Environmental Scientist:
An Opportunity for Constructivist Teaching. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7 (4).
\
, 8., 6, D., &
, . (2006).
1
%
; $ . $
(.), $ 6. &
.:
% #
@ 3 @ ;
F$ #
$ 6. &
. (&|6&), (. 361-367). %
: } & .
520
To
521
522
$55 /# %
/
/=
8
3
% 6
$59
+
4.=.
*
:
&
*
,
,
* %
.
, &
% 09
&
(& )
&
, %
- " $
..
$
/
%
,
%.
8?-
:
,
4.=., &
%
.
0
4 9%,
,
%
,
%
40
(
% 40
&
&
).
20 &
%
&
%
3
*
/. 6
% 9%,
4.=.
*
%
( &
)
%
9%
*
&%
. C,
/
:
%
,
9
% *
,
* %
,
&
&
&
/. H
4.=.
%
:
%
,
0
0,
%
4.=.,
.
+
(
)
&
&
%
,
: 9
1
/
/
,
, 9
,
&,
1
,
*
, "
. $
, & 3
%
9
/
"
&
. $ & 3
%
&
9
,
% /
. 4 0
%
%
0 (
&1
%
*
, ,
*
) &
&
&
. 4
(
,
0, 9
,
* 0,) *
%, ,
, &
%
% & % /
&
.
$
&
,
/ &
%0
,
%
%
,
&%
%
/
%
, -
.
9
8
9
$ 3
%
, " (
)
,
9
/
9
/
1
523
* . +
%0
&
9 :
&
,
%
,
%
& %
%. +
%0 ,
-
/. +
%0
**
%:
/
(
% %
/
)
%
,
%
&
,
*
.. 4
/
-
%
&
%,
&
%
,
,
&
*
,
/ &
%0.
%,
,
**
, &,
%
9 (&*)
,
,
%
%, &
9,
%
. T
*
, -
,.
,
%,
% %
% %
%
% (Brousseau 1982, 1986, 1986a,
1986b).
+
%0,
,
3
%
9
D
%,
6
% 8
.
0
,
6
,
9
,
%. Q,
,
3,2
9
( 3
2).
,
1
3,2 (
%
/ 3,2x3,2)
9,4 (
9=3x3
4=2x2). $
**
3,2x3,2=10,24,
&1
3,2
/
( 3
2),
&
&
. &
,
/
,
2,17
2,3. ,
,
/
"
, 1
/
%
*
, ,
*
, ,
,
8,345
8,346 %
&
1
&
.
&,
*
,
3
*
.
(
%
*
1
* ).
& 1%,
%
*
,
3
*
,
9
. /
(
%
*
, %
, 9
1
)
9
*
1
&
9
,
9
. 4 3
% 6
(
) &
%
%
,
"
9
%.
%
0
%
:
%
1
. C,
* , %
&
%,
9
#.
9
1
. 4
0
%
&
(
%
/% )
,
*
. 4
%
0 9
*
% (
,
,
& ). $ ,
9
%
,
/
,
%
&
9
%
9
. "
,
%
/
524
&%
*
.
%0
D
%:
(
& ),
,
*
9
%
9
,
. /% *
:
9%
9
/,
%
* *
% (
9,
9%
, 9
&
,
),
.
9
8
, \
.
+
%0
. +
%0
-
%
9
- &
9
"
"
&
.
4
0 9
-
&
-
0
%
%. A,
,
* ,
0
% %
%
/
, **
&%
0
. $
%
0 '
% (ibid, Vergnaud G. [1981]).
6
& * ( %
)
%
% 1
. C
9
. 6
,
* %
&
%. +
,
/
&,
/
%
&
%
&
.
& *
* (9
&
,
4=, %
/
%)
9
9
&
%0
*
9
. * &
0 ,
. A
0
% (
& ) &
&% &%
/ &
,
%
%
(Fishbein [1982])
9
%
&
.
+
%0,
& &
&
,
&
' (
%0)
!
'
%
(Tall [1985])
9
1
%. H
/
% 9
,
O. O
%0
& '
'
%
**
%
9%. E/
,
*
3
%
* &
,
,
%
, 9
%0
.
$
01
,
9
%0
%,
,
. H
% &
'
&%
%0
,
&
*
% /:
%
%0
-
% 9
#. $.
,
9
%0
,
,
*
/
&
%
, %
%
.
4
%0
%
,
525
9
55
Q
0,
,
&
1
9%
0. O & 9
Pea R. D. [1984]
&
&
9
9
& *
(syntax, semantics)
&
(
,
),
'
%
/
H.Y. A
9
...
0
%
9
*
*
*
- &
%. A,
,
&
:
...
EMVADON:= VASIS * YPSOS
READLN (VASIS);
READLN (YPSOS);
WRITELN (EMVADON);
...
1
* 0
(
8
4
* VASIS
YPSOS
&
),
*
32 (Pea R. D. [1984], Dagdilelis V. [1986a, 1986b]). H
%
%
**
%
& %
&
H.Y.
T 9
&
:
-
&
&
9 &,
- &
&
&
9
-
&
**
9
& *
1
&
/
. +
*
' 0
* %
&
(
*
% *
0
)
(
**
) 9
(
% HY
)
& %
, &
*
&
' 0
% &
%
( Pea R. D. [1984]
*
&
%
).
O
9
,
, 9
/
9
1
&
%
&
- & '
% .
N 9
9
9
1
&
:
&% *&
,
&
(
,
Dagdilelis V. [1986a, 1986b, 1990], Mejias B. [1986], Rogalski J. [1985], Soloway E. et als [1982,
1986, 1996]).
T
9
9
,
%
1
. T
%0
&% *& -
526
(Dagdilelis V. [1989])
*
%.
T
9
9
&
:
%
9
1
&
; H
9
%.
A
9
*
:
&
%
,
&
60%
*
(3
8. [2003]). H
, &
9
&
9
,
&,
&% *&.
T
/
( &
&
& 11/2 &) 1
&%
*&. E/
,
1%
/
%
&%
*&
9
%
.
E, '
,
9
*
.
$
01
,
0.
) H
0
9
,
9
%
&
9
-
%
1
-
%
: it looks at the program all at once because it is so fast
&
%
%
&%
(Pea [1984], . 4).
*) H
% 9%
9 (
%
'
HY)
* %
9
% 1%
HY (
" 9
") 9
1
/
4=
9
.
) T
&
*
0
9
%
**
9
(%, , &
),
1
* %
*
.
H
. Y&
; M
%
%.
*
, ,
&
0
/ 10-15
.
,
. O
%
1
%
$$ $
(invariances)
%
(
Papadakos Nikos
[1988]). O Lesuisse R. [1983]
%
1%
,
*
%
,
'
9
1
. O Lesuisse
527
%
0
%
-
9
&
%
%
.
?
5
&
, /
%
&
% %
.
8
3
%,
,
:
%
% *
%
,
* &
,
*
%
1,
&,
%-
%. H
/
,
%
0,
&
,
* . +
% **
%0
,
%0
&
.
$
,
/
%
(%
%
,
0
). $
%
9
%
0
, % * 0
%
. ,
%,
,
%
4.=.). +
& 9
&
,
, 9 1 0
1%
. 4
%
9
,
%,
%,
%
*
*
. 4
9
% 0
%
/ &%
. H
% **
* 0%
,
%
* 0
.
*
*
9
9,
*
,
1%
,
1% * 0%
:
528
%
& 0%
(
%
1 *
,
) ,
. "
,
,
% * 0,
1% * 0
:
10
5,
;
4
8; 4
* 0
,
%
.
4 %
%
*%
4.=. 4
9
,
9
%
%0
. +
/%
%0
,
,
9
,
6
, D
%
9%
.
$
&
,
,
%
9
,
*
/
&,
&
%0
. +
* %
,
&
/
*
%0
&
, *%
4.=. &
* 0
9
. $
&
*
%
9 % 1 ,
.
8*
,
9
%
%
&
&.
4
%
%,
&
%0
.
&
%0
,
%0
.
C, 9
%
,
%,
%
%
&
&
%
,
,
.
C56
1. Brousseau G. [1982] Les objets de la didactique des Mathmatiques: Ingnierie didactique, Actes
de la II cole d't, Orlans.
2. Brousseau G. [1986a] Fondements et mthodes de la didactique des mathmatiques, Recherches en
didactique des mathmatiques, vol. 7.2, . 33-115.
3. Brousseau G. [1986b] Etude locale des processus d'acquissition en situations scolaires,
Enseignement lmentaire des mathmatiques, n 18, ed, IREM de Bordeaux.
4. Brousseau G. [1986] L'observation des activits didactiques, Revue Francaise de Pdagogie, no 45,
. 10-140.
529
5. 3
8. [2003] +
%0
91
530
. +
/
,
9
%
,
% &
=/% 3
*
/ $&
%
, 4 ,
%.
2
%
&
,
"
, 4 , %.
531
3. +
%
9
9
.
. 4
& *
"
* &
9*%
9
9*%
.
+
12 - 15
9
&
%
&
%.
% 9 1%
0
&
*
1
9
.
6
&
9
/
%
% 0,
9
%
&
&
&
*
,
9
/
/
%
,
9
/
9
,
9
*
9
%
*
& *
/
9
*
.
3. 0
8 5 <
&
#
8#/
"
3
%
*
. $1
%
&
%
%
/
& % /.
% &
&
%
de facto
&
&
%
*
% & .
&
&
,
/
.
+ *
&
9
9
, ,
%
. Q, # /
&
9
, ,
, ,
, ,
&1
,
1
9, *
1
,
1
, *9
,
1
9
& %
&
9. $
&
% 9
/ . +
9
1
&
%
%
&
*
. ,
&
9
1
*
.
+
9 8# /
9
0
%
%..
9
1
&
,
,
&%
%
,
%
%
1
,
*
%
% 9.
9
/
&
% %
1
1
% % %
%
&.
$
*&
/
&
1%
%,
,
%,
,
,
&
*
/
3
=&
&
# /
'
.
532
, 8&
. 1
& /
1
,
* &
%.
/
&
* %
9
/ &
& *&
.
&
1
%
. +
%
9
%
%
/ /,
*%
% 9,
%
/
%
.
/
/
,
*%
/%
.
4.<
=<5
55
9 &
1
1
&
9
9 1 /
& % /.
,
&
&
*
. 4
%
%
.
&
9 %
&
9
% 9
,
%
0
/
,
$
9%
9%
9
&
%. &
%
1
%
& &
&1
&
. 6
*
9
&
*
. , &
0
8 /. +
/
%
1
.
5. (5
4
%
&
& 9
%
%
%
. $
%
%
.
533
=
85 <
0?~
5<
5=
8
/'/10
1'%%)(0
"'
,8
8;
%*'
/8
0%(
,5 58
5
0
8
534
# "
), 1
9
.
,
/%
(
)
,
/
% (
.
%,
9%
%
),
&
%
*
9,
(
/
, &% ,
)
1
,
*
0.
4 &
&
,
,
&
,
%
3
*
.
,
9
% & %
%
&
,
% 309/1976, 9
&
*
& / (#, 8#
"#) "
. 4
%
& , /
1993
"
& . 1997-98
&,
/ %
. 4
,
&%
.
C (
%
%
%
,
&
%
/ (
.
'
, D 1540 8#/99). Q,
&
*
,
,
&1
,
&
&
% %
. $9
535
%
,
/
5-6 9
1%
.
4 %
(
)
/
%
,
%
%,
0
%
&,
0,
%
.
*
9
, *
&
, ,
. ,
%,
%
,
1 *
%
,
% &
%,
%
&.
,
9
%.
,
,
&
,
9
, &%
&
*
,
,
9
.
&
,
9
, &
9
&
&
,
&%
. $
1 %
,
& %
% .
4 &
1
,
& 0
* .
&
-
**
,
&
/
%
& *
1%
/. & **
1 , &
. \1
**
#
%
*
&
&
9. "
%
&
(
, **
, , 9, internet)
. $ ,
&%
.
&
% &% & (internet),
1
9
/
/
.
,
&
,
&
* &,
.
91
9%
',
* %
,
1%
. 6
, *
%
9
,
.
,
1
9
&
%
%
,
,
%
(
%
),
& Q
. "%
/
%
,
&
536
* %
9
1
.
&% %
*
. $
,
&
/
9
1
&
/
,
%
9
.
-
%
-
,
,
9
, 9
%.
4
%
9
&,
,
/
*
. $ 4,
**
& %
/
& %
&
, *
%
& %
& %
,
,
/
*
.
%5
4
,
&
,
/
1
&%
%
%
0
&
,
% (
&
%
&
** ,
9
%
& &
)
&%
.
9
,
&
,
,
1
&%
%
&%
%
&, /
/
/
,
&
/
*
/
&%
.
/
,
,
/
,
. 4
*
0
/
, /
* ,
,
/%
%
.
#
%
& **
,
* \%
%
9
%
. 4
%
537
9 & &
%
&% 9
%. +
%,
1
&
.
Q
,
O
&
,
%!"
. 3
9,
/%
9
,
&
,
/
.
8#
%
%
%
4 &
%
'
0
&, /
&
,
%
%/ (
,
/ ,
/). $ &
&
%
,
&
,
& &%
.!.
=L. + & /
&
/
,
&
9
& %
, *
,
1
%
% (
&
,
,
%
,
%
,
.
9
%
,
9
1
9
9
% :
1
/ %
(
&
,
9
/
0
)
%
1
& . &
&
9%
&
%
.
538
0
&
/
%,
%
%: &
.
4
/ ** % &%
%
% 9
(internet) & %
** %,
/
/
%
. H
1
& .
*
%&
/.
/ /
9 %,
.
H
&
&
.
**
+38
*
,
&%1 *
9
,
%
&%
% **
%.
$5 0
= $5 =
4 0
9 % 9
,
,
*
%
9
,
&
,
9 9
%
,
, &
%
.
$9
&
$& $*
# 3
3
*
%
,
9
&
"
'
3
,
'
,
60%,
%
/
&
.
Q
*
,
/
&
,
&
&,
9
%
&
&
*
.
$
9
9
%
/,
%
%
. +
%
&
*
&
& & &
4/
%.
/ & /.
/
%
%
%
, &
*%
9
%. Q&
9
,
**
,
*
%
. 6 %
/
&
&%
/1,
9
,
*
%
9%
.
$5 0
8
&
%
%
,
&
%
.
1
&%
&
&
.
,
&
& ,
1
&%
%
,
1
.
8
1 %
,
%
,
, %
/
%
.
539
,
4
/
.
%
9
/
**
9%
1%,
/
9%
.
9%
/
*
. "
&
,
/%
%
,
&
&
,
/
%
, .
*
. +
*
/%
%
(
/, /
%
&)
9
,
&
&.
,
,
%
%
, &
9 & ** . ,
0 & % %
/
*
,
.
&
%
/
9
,
% 1
,
%
**
/
%
**
9
.
$&
5,
%
0
. $
%
,
%
&
9 ,
0
&
,
. *
1
&
(
&,
* %,
%0, , &
%
/ ),
9
.
/
,
&
/
%
.
,
9
% %, * %
1
, %
-
-
&
&% ,
%%
,
9 /
&
.
/
9,
9
&1
%
,
&
.
H
, 1
?
5
,
<
.
05
'
*
0
9
1
,
%
*
.
,
&
* %
1
. 4
&
% *
,
.
* %
&1
/
. 4
9
,
, 9
1
/
%
.
(5,
&
# '
1
. "
,
/%
&
%
,
*
.
540
/
"
'
. $
&%
,
9
.
9
,
%.
1. 0
+
*
&
,
& . 4
, ,
,
,
&
.
3
%
*%
1
.
%
9
/%
;
9
&
;
9
;
9
%
;
9
&
1
,
9
/ /% (
&
).
%
&
&
& %
&
. $
%
%
/
%,
%
/ &
1
&
,
&1
/
%
. Q
/
.
; $
9,
1-3 &
.
; $
9,
3-7 &
.
; $
9,
7-12 &
.
; $
/
9,
12-20.
+
% ' "
*
&
.
8
12 ,
&
& ,
, * .
1
541
9
9
*
.
$
&
*
.
; $
1
-
; "
&%
* % ,
/,
/
.
&
&
% 0
&
,
&
%
,
& &
.
!
&%
Bruner 9
&
. +
%
& %,
. $
%
/
9
,
/
1
.
6 *
&
,
&
9
. &
1%
&
/
, .
$
:
3
%
.
6
%
.
.
%
.
3
9
.
3
Project.
4
&
1
&
%
; H
.
; L
&
&
/
.
"
/
&
&. 4
%
.
& . Q
%
&
& *
.
6 *
&
&
* %
1
. 6
%
, &
1 .
542
/
1
.
4
% 1
&:
1. 8
%
&%
.
%
/
%
%
.
2. 4
% ( /). 6
&
9%
, &
,
* %
.
3. $
%
&
9 &
.
,
1%.
4. +
% 1
&%
0
&%. 6
%
9%
%.
$ %
. $
(
& ** ) 9
9
%
.
%.
1. $
% 9
%
.
2. %
.
3. $
1% & %.
4. %
%
.
5.
.
6. Q
**
9
.
7. $
%
.
8. 3
& &.
9.
%.
10. 3
%
.
11.
9%
.
$
. !
&
9
.
}
9 * %
&
9
.
1%
9 % &
&
, 0
,
.
* %
.
(
&
)
/
9
%
%
9
%
%
.
543
$
%
6
&
%
$
%
9
%
%
%
%
$
%
9
3
%
0
1: /5 85
5
8
05
544
) #. +
%
. *
&1
*%
&
*
1
,
*%
*
. +
%
O
% %
,
. $ **
& 9
&
&%
%
/
.
4. 0
85
$ %
%
.
9
% &
,
%
*%
/
.
1. ;# .
$
,
%
1
9
&
&
*. 6
% *
&
&
9%
. Q&
9%
9.
+
%
1 9.
9
3
1% 9
3
1% 9
.
3
% 9
&
.
3
1
.
3
/ 9
%
.
+
%
*%
/
* %
9 }
9%
&
*
9.
9 }
/%
1%
.
% 9%
9
%
1 9
4/=
9%.
9 }
9
% 9.
& % ** %,
%
1%
** .
9 }
1
9
(**
sites 9 9).
6
&
/
9
,
&
8
.
545
9 "
/ 9
%
% %
*%
.
%
9
,
,
, . ..
2. &#
#
.
+
&
%
9 & . \
9
& . $
%
%
%
*
9
1
.
$
&
%
/
%. 6
9
%.
$
1
1
4 %
&
.
=&
%.
4 %
*
9
%
+
%
/
% %
(
%
) *%
. $
9
9%. $
1%
1
& . H
9
,
1%
9
&
,
1
%
%, .&.
,
% , . ..
3. ; $ #. $.
9
9
&
&
*
9%
. 6
/
& . L
&
%
&
%
.
1%
&
.
*
*
/ /
.
"
*%
%
*
1%
%
&
. L
*
%
(&
& /)
%
1
1 / / &
&
.
%
%
&
,
%
. 6
*
&
,
*
.
+
1
4
9 &
.
546
4 %
&
&
%
"
*%
%
9 }
9
/
%
&
&% % .
9 }
/ /
9
&
&
*
*
(
)
%
&
.
5.
#
.
$.
/%
%
%
(
) & &
%. $ &
&
%
. $
%
9
&
%,
%
.
*
& &
.
3
&
,
9
% &
.
"
/
* %
%
9
%
/%
& &
. $
**
%
&
**
%
&
%
/
/%
%.
6. ;# . #
$
H
& &
,
%
&%
%
.
/
%
. 6
&
9%
9
, *
1
9
1
9
%
.
(
9) 1
9
&%
.
* %
1
3
%
3 1
&
3 1
&
3 1
& 9
.
+
%
*%
/
* %
9 /%
%
%
9
%
,
9
&%
9 $
/%
&
* %
/&
9 $
&
/%
9
&
.
&
9
9
,
9 9
. 9
547
,
%
.
7. ?
4
%
*
& (
&
)
.
}
5 5 . 3
12
% &
& /
*
. $
9% /. 6
%
(
9)
/.
/.
%
1
*
.
%. }
(
)
%
&
(.&.
9 %
9
*)
$
1
1
3
9
&
.
3
&
.
$
& &
%
"
/
* %
%
9 "
* %
9 & &%
*
&
%,
*
(&
)
. }
*
9
/
%.
9 H
9
&
1
( *
)
%
&%
.
8.
#
# #
.
6 * 9
%
&%
,
%
&%
9%
%
%
. 4
%
& 9%
&
%
%
(
%)
. $
1
.
&
.
$
* %
3
%.
3
.
"
*%
/
%
548
9 L
/
% & ( **
%
& 9
&)
/%
&
.
9 !
&%
%
. $
%
&
(
&
$
#
-
#
)
%
1
%. 6
9%
%,
%
9
%
1%
(
9
%, &
, . ..)
.
9. @
$.
H
(
&
).
6
1
9
&
& . 6 %
%
& &
. 6
1%,
&
/.
$
* %
1
3
*%
(
9
).
3
&.
"
*%
%
9
/
9
%
,
.
,
*%
9
& (
10 ).
9 L
/
&. "
&
0,
&
%
.
L
&
*
,
/
&
.
5. /
$ &
$
(...$.)
%
&
1
.
&
. "
/
%
.
/%
.
,
,
* % ,.
549
+
%
. &
1%
*
550
"
}., &
"
** 6
%, +38, 2005.
"
}., &
"
**
%, +38, 2005.
4 N., / %
/ #
+ &
, . , 1983.
" ., B#
$
$
, . 8*
H
, 1989.
3, ;!# @#$#, . %
, 1981
D
\, B#$#, .
1%, 1977.
D
\, A ;!#
, . Gutenberg, 1986.
Bigge 6., $
%, .
, 1990.
Hopf D.,
; &#
, .
, 1989.
Maley D., The Maryland Plan, New York: Bruce Inc., 1973.
Frey ., A
Project, .
, 1986.
*
&
9
9
.
!
9
1
. * %
( 0 / , . ..) %
(
%
). $
*%
& %
.
&
%,
%, .. $
9
/%
3
%
.
6
%
.
.
%
.
3
9
.
3
Project.
4
&
1
,
%
.
/
:
; H
.
; L
&
&
/
.
"
/
* %
1
& %
%,
%.
/.
}
. Bacon 16
,
Rousseau 18 , ..
0 &
&
&
%
%
. $
&
20
Dewey
9
(.
+
&
Dewey
&1
9 4
0
/.
9 4 *
*
%
9% 9
* .
9 +
*
&
%
9
%.
551
$
0
Dewey &
&
9
&
20
& &
%
.
$ 2
20
9
1
A% Maryland Plan,
&
&
&
*&
.
%,
&
(
)
&
.
% 0
A
!(
.
!
#
#
$
Q
9
&
#
8# "
,
'
.
Q /
"
&
*&
9
%
+
%
&
.
&%
&
&
*
1
,
.
z
z
z
z
/
%
& % / /
3 1
% &
$9
%
,
9
%
%
9
"
.
9
&1
%
%
&
9
D
%, \
,
. .. $
&
.
%
Q
&
/,
%
,
/
&%
.
552
4 /
%
%
%
%
.
"
1
/ * %
,
%
9
/
&%
.
&
%
/,
3. /
0
85
+
@ # (L%
)
@
. $
9 %
,
%
%
.
.
%
1
&
,
*%
/
. L
%
*%
%,
/
1
*
. $
&
9
0 &
%
*%
% .
3.1 $556 j5
9%
&
%
%
. 4
(.&. *%
) % *
.
/
%
1
.
6
1. &
$
.
"
%
&%
(% ),
&%
* (/
/)
1
. 6
%
,
%
%
.
$
%
$
* ,
.
$
%
.
"
*%
%
9 2-3
9 L
/%
9 L
%
.
9 L
1%
*
/%
.
553
L
&
.
&
*
%
&
,
9
&
.
2. &# $ ($
.
!
*
%
,
/
%. 4 %
%
*
%
%.
+
1
4 %
&
&
.
=&
%.
$
%
&
/
/
% %
. 6
/%
%
%
1%
&
. 6
*%
% 1%
/
%.
&
*
,
1%
%
/
*
.
3. F #
.
9
%
%/
%
/
9 &
. + 9
*%
% *
.
&
% &
9% 9
.
+
1
&
9
3
/
"
*%
%
9 }
9%
&
*
9.
9 }
1
9
(**
sites). 6
&
/
9
,
&
6 .
4. (# .
9
/
&%
. L
/
%
&%
/ 9
%
%
. $
%
9 &
9%,
/
&
9
*
* %
1
.
$
&
%
9.
4 % % 9 &1
% % .
%
*%
%
/
9.
554
%
,
/%
9
. $
/%
9
9
.
9
% &
. +
%
. L
/ %
/.
9
&
.
1
& %,
(.&. 0,
%,
* %
, . ..)
H
%
%
,
%
/
. 6
&
,
%
%
.
6. @
H
%
. $
%
%
&
. 6
9%
&. 6
%
9
%
&
%.
}
1
%
"
.
%
* %
,
+
.
3
&.
3
&
%
"
*%
%
/
% & 0
. L
/ 9
*
.
3.2 $5 j5
$
%
*%
%
. $
(
9%
).
555
1. ;
(
"
9
&
%
/.
%
*
,
%
.
$
Q
%
/
&
% &
*%
% &
/
*%
% .
$
/%
.
3
0
/
%0 %
3
&
%
/
4 &
%
/
*
/
%
. "
*%
%
1
% &
9 %
/
%
.
9
%
&%
%
.
9
%
%
2.
#
$.
$
/
&
/ . +
&%
/
%
.
$
1
/%
3
& &.
3
9 &
.
3
.
"
&
9%
, /
9
1
* %
,
&
"
. "
*%
%
,
/
.
3.
#
$
$
. ( $.
9 &
%
/
,
&%
% . 4
/
%
*
%
%
,
9 *%
%
%
*%
&% %
0
%
. $
/
9
%
/
4
1
9
% (*
&
"
).
}
%
,
Q
*
%
%
/.
%
%
%
9
%, /
%
. "
%
%
(&
).
556
4. %
9
%
/
&%
/
%
. $
&%
9
%
* %
9
.
%
& &%
(
/,
, . ..).
%0 %.
$
% & / /
9
.
%0 % &
%
,
. +
1
%0 % &
*
.
"
*%
%
&%
%
/% &%
9
&
% &
.
9 +
%
/
9 +
.
9 +
/.
5. & ( #
$ ;
6 %0 %
&%
/
,
%
&% %
0
. $
9%
/
%. L
/
%
%
.
$
9
1
/%
1
%
*
/
%
/
%
"
*%
%
/%
/
%. !
&%
/
/
%
.
0
&%
&%
EXCEL *%
%
9%
(
).
% 9%
9
%
&
%
.
4. %5
.
4
%
&
'
& ,
.
z $
*
. 3
9
&
.
z $
9
%
.
%
.
*
& ,
%
%
&
.
4.1 5 5
$
1
9
%
9
. $
557
/
. +
&
. L
/
(/
). +
1
9
9 }
%
. L
1
*
,
,
. L
%
&.
9
/
*
. 4
*
%
. L
/
%,
9
.
%
9 2-3
%
/%
1
.
9
%
&
. $ "
&
9%
&
.
&
&
% %. L
,
&
. +
%
9
%
( *%
)
.
9 3
.
1
"
,
&%
9
1-2
..
%
. 9
&
9
& /%
%
%
,
%
*
%
(%
)
9%
. +
,
&
2
. $
%
%
9
&
/ /
%
.
/. \%
%
.
9
%
%
/. L
%
*%
%
*
1
&
& .
'
*
%,
%
%
&% %
0
%
. Q
*
*
%
*
. "
%
*
9 (
9
%
).
/ %
&
9
% (
558
%
.
/1
9
%
. +
&
9 &
,
&
/ %
. 9 %
.
"9
/. !
1
9% % (.&. 0,
%,
* %
, . ..) "
9%,
&
%
%
%9
&
,
/.
+
% &
. =
,
1
&
%
. 4
%
*
&
9
.
5. (5
$
Q
%
&
'
.
1
9
%
.
0 &
%
*%
.
%
/
%
%
& % &.
6
%
*
.
$
%
%
*%
1
% & *
.
$
%
%
=
%,
?5
(
)
%.
7. C56
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
"
}., &
"
** 6
%, +38, 2005.
4 N., / %
/ #
+ &
, . , 1983.
4 }., 8 "., &
'
, +38, 2001
Maley D., The Maryland Plan, New York: Bruce Inc., 1973.
Frey ., A
Project, .
, 1986.
559
560
&
#/ " '
*
.
/1
!
%
%
%
&
/
!
.
4
%
9
.
0"%0(
1.01!+#%
- $& , 6
, /, %
,
,
%, /
%
, 4
*
.
1
/ 9
.
3.$'",( $0&'0*%0"!"
+
&
*:
9
,
%
,
*
.
4.$&%%)%( ( % 5
5
, 8,
.)
+
9:
-$
%
%
-6 * 0
% .
-
9
%,
&
5.$0&'-
4 0
* % %
, ,
.
6
9
.
6.0'()!)
4
%,
*
/%:
6.1.
* %
.+ (
%
*)
8.6
* (/, /
,
)
6.2. =
,
%,
-
* 9 **
9
.
6.5.
;
9
;
6.6.
1
( &
* )
1
&
*
&
.
+
1
(% &
)
.
6.7. H
1
1
/
, 9
%.
.&.
,
Q
,
561
9
% / /
%
* %
7.2. +
&
9
,
&
*
**
9
. /
*
7.3.
$&
,
9
9
.
8.0&0#"',% 0&%(
6
,
*
/%:
8.1.\
*
& & (*).
8.2.
*
(&
%
,
%,
. .) % O
(
,
. .)
%
&%
%
.
8.3.
9
/
% % Q
.
8,4.
%
*
%
,
.
8.5.D
9
(6
%
)
: 1-2 9
='! ! 6$
3-4 9
'$4 +=
!G6+$
2-3 9
+'$6
=&
*
8.6.
* /
,
%
%.
9
&
9
1
%
1
9
% ,
.
.
9.(#$0&(-$&%(0'(
9.1.
,
9
. =& &
/
/
/
* %;
% &.
9.2. &% %
0
&%
"
% %
9.3. \% ,
9
.
9.4.
%
"
% &
* .
10.C'C'%)&+'
*
** % (
Internet, ),
&%
.
"
** , %
9
:
9
,
, ,
,
.
562
$'",( 1'%%)((
(%'*0' (
C%'
0&0#"(
(#" :100
1.01!+#%
2.'%( (
0&0#"(
3.$0&'0*%0"
4.$&%%)%(
5.$0&'-
(%'*0' (
0&0#"(
C%'
(#" :100
6.5 $5
85
6.6 $5
5~
8
6.7 5 85
(%'*0' (
0&0#"(
C%'
(#" :100
7. 0!&',% 0&%(
(14)
7.1 '5
5
<
10
7.2. %5
<5=
(%'*0' (
0&0#"(
C%'
(#" :100
8.0&0#"',%
0&%(
(47)
8.1 *5
5
5
C%'
1'%%)((
$&&(0'(
C%'
1'%%)((
$&&(0'(
C%'
1'%%)((
$&&(0'(
C%'
1'%%)((
$&&(0'(
563
8.2.,
8
8.3.08
5
10
8.4.$
55
10
15
8.6.
(%'*0' (
0&0#"(
C%'
(#" :100
(11)
9.1 ,
5
C%'
1'%%)((
$&&(0'(
C%%)'
(#" 100:
(#" 20:
120
100
80
"*#?&)
(256)
60
40
5
20
0
19
10
11
12
13
14
15
+*"(;
564
16
21
18
14
14
17
18
19
19
20
16%
43%
41%
05
610
1115
1620
8%
8%
2%
28%
16
17
18
19
565
~ 5~
12
"
'
johntzortzakis@gmail.com
$0&'-
$
1
%
&
'
*
1
\
9 . 9
&%
&
,
%,
%
%
&
. 9
%
&
9
&
.
9!
(
: / #
'
, `# ., , &#
, @
!.
1. 0'()!)
$
%
&
/
" '
%
. +
,
/ ,
0
,
%
*
9
9
& &.
9
& , &
9
/
, ,
, &
. D
&
* *
*
&
(
)
*
0
/
9
.
2. /'/(,' %# %( (% ""0'% #,0'%
4
%
' &1
. $ ,
&
,
1
3
9
%. +
,
/. 6
%
,
&
,
%
0
,
%
,
0
&
,
. $
9%,
%
,
&
%
.
9
1
TPS (think, pair, share),
(fussing with
definition),
(brainstorming)
&
9
$ ,
&
,
%
%
9
* 0
+
. )
9 %
,
8)
,
&1
%
&
&
,
&
9
&
")
&1
%
&
,
&
&
,
* 9
,
&
9
&
. H
*
9
9
& &,
9%
%.
,
566
&
%
, 9
9%
%, % &
.
3. *&%)&+( 0""%'!"
4 \
9
. =1
%
&
0
% (
* %
,
%
)
&
%.
, &
%.
3.1. % "%',%( *&(
+
&
%
,
&1
% 1
. "
/ *
,
9
. 4
*
,
%
%. + &
} & (mind map).
9 % &%,
% (
)
Tony Buzan, 6 8
1970. 6
9
, *
0
& ,
%
*
9
, %
, 9
/ /,
%
*1. ,
%
9
. $ 9
, 9
,
%
,
,
. + 9 &%: % &
9 "
&
% / %
. "
% / 5 10
9 /.
/
5
10
9
/." "
&
1%
&1 .
&
9
1
2,
1
&
"
9
%
*
%
.
6
&
%
&
,
/ *
,
% 1
,
&1
/
/1
& . $
, 9
%
,
9, %
.
567
1. } &
%
"
9
$#3
2. } &
%
6
%
(
,
, 9
%
/ . +
&
&
%
&
&,
/ *
/
% .
3. } &
&
%
( 1)
9
&
&
,
%
1%
9/
& &
. 6
% %
&
*%
&
%
% /
. 4 %
&
: 1
...; %
&
5 &
&%
568
4. } &
&
(
)
9
/
&
5. 4
&
0
, &%
% . $ 9
%,
6. } &
&
(
1
9
0;)
/
* %
7. } &
/
$
8 9
} &
&1
%
9%
*
. , 9
10 9
&
% } &
9
(
%) %
0 }% &
9,
$
569
8. } &
9
9%
9. } &
9 ,
%,
10. } &
9 }% \
9
,
*
&
/ . +
/
/
%
,
9 %
. +
9
,
1
(1
). + &
,
&,
% 9
&
%
/
9 &
&. 4
9
/ % &
9
}% &
9,
} & &
,
&
&
. "
,
&
% ,
&
9% . +
/
& 9
/
9
,
&
,
*1
&
9. 6
&
1
9
&
%,
&
&
,
,
&1
%
&.
&
&
%
9%
,
*1
. + 9
9 ,
,
1
570
11. &
9 (
%)
12. &
9
%
13. &
9 % &
9
3.3. % /')& &%(
%
&
%
%
.
&
Herman Goldstine,
John von Neumann 1947
91
&
%
. \
&
9
9
%
&
571
14. "
%
15. 3
%
** "
$
&
, ',
% &
&
9%
%
, 9
16
17.
16. 3
%
9
%
9%
572
17. 3
%
9
%
%
%
3.4. *&%)&+( 0""%'!" (" 1'%%)(
+
&% \
9 , 9%
}, &, 9%
%,
&
%
. 4 .&.
&
&
&
%
&
&
,
&
%
%
. 4
/
% &% &
,
&
1
%%
, 1
/
&% &
%
. $
&
&
/
9
/ (
, % . .). $
1
%
*
/
%.
$
.&. &,
,
9
1
9 &,
9
&. $
%
&
(rubric),
%
9 *
, 9
%
9
9
,
*
. "
%
& %
:
3%
&: +
&
%
. 4
% ,
&
,
% %
&.
$
: 4
/ %
/
&1 . + &
&
%
&%
/ . 4
%
/ .
$&
&: 4 &% , &,
&
&,
&
/
9
1
.
4
&%
&
&.
&%
%
*
,
9
,
&
. $
&
&
, 9 /
&%
,
/ . $
18
9
9%
/
,
'
&%
&. +
*
&
&
& .
573
18.
9%
/ &%
&
4. 0!&' ( $%$( "%%(#"(
$9
0
& Howard Gardner, &
. $
L
% } (Multiple Intelligence)
9
&
,
/%: " %, '%-6
%,
6
%, +%, $
%, 3
%, %, D
%, =
/
%,
%
4%.
,
,
&
,
,
&
. Q
,
9
19, *
Businessballs.com
&%
9
%,
&
,
%
,
/
Lickert .
19.
%
20. $
Pearson
$
110
'
,
9
20. D
,
% &
9
,
9
&
,
&
9
,
574
&
/
. $
, 9
&
Pearson
9
&
&
Gardner,
%
&
19. D
&
&
,
%, &
&
&
,
&% &
. &
&% \
9
,
/
&
.
6. C'C'%)&+'
6
4., L
/ 3
.8, $
3
, %
2000
6
4., +
% 3
6, %
2000
6
4., L
/ 3
, : & % / &,
,
&
, , %
1999
L., 6
3
!, %
1991
Buzan Tony & Barry, To ** &
9
, %
2007
Buzan Tony, How to Mind Map, Harper Collins Publishers, USA 2002
8
6
, + &
. %
2001
9 6
%, 6
&, %
1996
8
&
D%, $
3
, 3
%
4 %
6,
%
2007
: 9
9
%, 2, 8
% Q, 6
!!.5,
%
2006
D 1, D
6., % \
9: 6
%
*
,
http://www.etpe.gr/files/proceedings/uploads1/b411.pdf
"
%
, .
. /
\
3
/
6
9%
"
,
http://hermes.di.uoa.gr/lab/CVs/papers%5Cpapanikolaou%5Cdidactics05-conceptmap-GGPG.pdf
T
&1
&, http://www.mycoted.com/ Mind_Mapping
How to mind map,
o http://www.studygs.net/mapping/
o http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~rwilliams/teaching.htm
o http://www.ssdd.uce.ac.uk/learner/studyskills/mindmaps.htm
o http://www.support4learning.org.uk/education/concept_maps_and_mind_maps.cfm
University of Minesota, Assessment & Evaluation Mind Map, http://dmc.umn.edu/
activities/mindmap/
575
*&( !" 0*"%%)'!" Web 2.0. )' 0'!( !" !" (%
( 0*"%%)'(
)
~ 5~
12
"
'
johntzortzakis@gmail.com
$0&'-
$
1
%
&
'
*
1
/ & Web 2.0
.
9
&%
(wikis),
(blog)
9 (Google documents),
%
%
&
. 9
%
%
&%
& . 4
9% ,
&
.
9!
(
: / #
'
, Web 2.0, wiki, blog, Google documents,
.
1. 0'()!)
$
%
&
/
" '
%
.
, &
. "
*
,
,
,
*%
,
%
%
.
/,
&
%
&,
&
9
.
%,
. "
&
&
& Web 2.0
&
.
2. %' 0*"%%)'0( Web 2.0
+ & Web 2.0
%
/%
(social software/social networks). + social software &
%
%
9% . 4
9
& (&
)
%
9 &
(
&
),
9
%
9. 3
%
&%
,
1
&
*
&. /
%
% 9%
,
&
social software
9 %
&
*
& 9. + wikipedia
/%:
social software
,
%
1
%
&
online .
9
&
&%. $
,
&%
&
9
%
&% . $
9
%
576
0. 4
&
&
*
1%
.
,
3
,
&
&%
9
%
&
9
/
%&
.
+ Web 2.0 &
9
1
0
/
O'Reilly
MediaLive International +*
2004. + Web 2.0
9
Internet (World Wide Web)
9%
9 on-line. $
, Web 2.0
&%
9
9
. + &
&
9
&
*
World Wide Web
%
&
%
9
..
&
9
Web 2.0
:
wikis
Web logs
&%
9
.
2.1. TA Clog
Q
Weblog,
9
blog,
&
&%
&
%
(
%
)
1
9 & % . Q
blog ,
%,
%
(
%
9 & %
9
). $
2 9
blog &
'.
Blog
9
&
% %
&
,
9
, %, %
%
online
.
1. blog &
Q
&
blog
1 , ,
blog,
&
.
blog
1
9
9,
* % %&. =&
&
&
/
&,
blog
1
& &
. $
, blog (WebLog)
. 3
,
&%
&
,
% ,
9
&
.
2.2. TA Wikis
Wiki'
&%
,
9
, %
/
/ & %
,
9 &
9%
.
%
wiki
%
9%.
wikis
%, 9
9%
&%.
&
577
2. Wikipedia, t
wiki
Q
wiki
%
& *
&%
1% 9. Q
&
&
wiki
&%
wiki,
,
1
&.
wikis
&
& %
&%. $
, wiki
. 3
,
&%
.
&
,
9
&
9
(revisions).
2.2. TA Google Documents
&%
&
Google
&
9
Word, 9
Excel,
Powerpoint,
,
* &
,
/
&%
% &. 3
%
%
9%
9.
&%
9,
,
/
9.
3. /'/(,' %# %( ( 0*"%%)'( (% ""0'% #,0'%
4
%
' &1
. $ ,
&
,
1
3
9
%. +
,
/. 6
%
,
&
,
%
0
,
%
,
0
&
,
. $
9%,
%
,
&
%
. 4
578
, &
,
/
,
/
%
9
%
9 . "
&1
&
&
9
/1
%
, &
&
&
. $
& Web 2.0
&
&
. 4
%
Project
%
%
. &
%
&
,
&
%
% %
*
(
81-82 / &%),
&
1
Project, &%
&
%
,
&% 9 %
%
. +
&
(3
2 &
*
)
%
. "
%
&
% 9%
&
,
12
LAN
&
.
3.1. 1'%$%'( !" Web 2.0 (% ""0'% #,0'%
"
%
&
&
& 9
wikis
blog.
wiki
9
3
4, *
%
texnoschool.pbwiki.com,
&
9
.
*
%
%
wiki,
9%
,
%
9 excel,
. Q&
&
9
9
&
%
/.
&
,
**
.
3. wiki
% &
579
4. +
9
blog
9
1, &
&
. 8
%
Zanneio2007.blogspot.com,
* &
%
%
. 3
, &
%
%,
, 9
5.
5. %
% blog
3
&%,
, %
% &
%
*
,
*
&% /. 3
099 9
, &.
*
*
.
wiki
6,
%
&
,
9%
%
,
&1
/1
.
580
6. $
%
%
.
"
&
/
,
%
9 Google documents. +
&
*
,
,
&
. Q
,
%
&
'
,
9
&
%
,
&
&
.
3.2. % %/',% PROJECT
4
%
, &
%
%
4
%
*
1
&
%
% ,
project. C Project
& 9 & 0 &
1
9
&
9
)
&
. H
9
,
0
9 (report) &
&
9
(
)
&
*. &
,
&
9
&
,
9
&%
(applet),
1
%
1
, 9
,
9
9
.
%
,
1
9
(wikis). &
9 9
581
wiki
% & 9
9
.
\
wiki 1
.
&
blog 9
%
%
%
,
%
.$
,
1 wiki, 9
7,
&
&
0
,
,
&
.
1
9 wikis.K
0
9 (report) &
&
9
&
*,
,
&
,
&
*
9
*
9
&%
.
$
%
7. $
Wikis
$
%
&
1 wiki,
%
, 9
8. "
,
&
%
*
9 . $ , wiki,
& /&%
,
*1
. "
%
/
wikis,
% 4/=. 4
*
1
. $
*
9
9
9
,
9
,
*
9
,
0
,
, wiki
/
&
9
/
.
8: 3
WEB 2.0.
582
Q,
9 9
,
9
&
9
/% 9
.
9
% 9
9
9
/ 9
&
, 9
/ 9
,
.
$
%
,
9%
,
9
/
/
,
9
&
,
9%
wiki
.
%
/
&
%
%
*
. ,
%/
,
-
/
*
9
, 099
/
&%
1%
.
5. ",0+'!(
%
&
'
,
'. $
&% & Web 2.0
. +
&
&
,
&%
& .
&% & Web 2.0.
9
,
,
6. C'C'%)&+'
C:
Web 2.0: The Future of the Internet and Technology Economy and How Entrepreneurs, Investors,
Executives & Consumers Can Take Ad (Execenablers) by Dermot A. McCormack ISBN: 1587622009
Pragmatic Ajax : A Web 2.0 Primer by Justin Gehtland ISBN: 0976694085
Social Software of Accounting and Information Systems by Norman B. MacIntosh ISBN:
0471905437
Computer Networks: Webs of Communication for Language Teaching in Pennington, M. C. (ed) The
Power of CALL, Hoffman, R. (1996) Houston: Athelstan
Blog: %
.
6
. (2006). }9
Internet:
http://www.pi-schools.gr/download/programs/Oloimero/oloimero_03_05/eishghseis_hmer_05/
GenikoSxima.pdf
http://a.wholelottanothing.org/features/2003/12/social_software.html
http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2003/05/my_working_definition_of_social_
software.shtml
http://Web2.wsj2.com/review_of_the_years_best_Web_20_explanations.htm
http://www.Web2con.com/
http://www.paulgraham.com/Web20.html
http://www.alevin.com/Weblog/archives/cat_social_software.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/
583
9
9
,
. 4
/,
&
9 ,
&
&%
/
.
%
&%
. 6
,
%
,
&
1 9
&
*
. +
%
1
*
9
* %
& ,
9
1
% % (
,
).
&
%
.
4 &
%
%
9%
%
,
9
1
. +
%
*
%
,
/
. +
% 1
9 *%
.
,
9
%:
584
$565
.
09<
.
(
~
&
%
.
(=
1,
.
,
%
/
9
%
.
+
%
#
. &'
'
#
,
"
.
,
9
%:
x
~ ? 9
.
08 ,
.
05
*
.
6~
%
&
%
1%
.
$ 5
5
%
.
%
.
%
/ .
&
%
%.
%
.
*
*%
9
:
1. 0 8 565
,
%
.
*%
:
x
4
1%
9
.
4
9
/ 9%
.
4
9% 9
%
/ %
/ ( &).
585
4
/
%,
%
&%
.
9
:
x
4 /
%
.
4
%
& ** .
4
/
.
%).
*%
:
x
4
%.
4
9
.
4
/ /, 9
%
&
%-
%
099
.
4
(1 % 2
%
) * .
+
.
4
/
%,
%
&%
.
9
:
x
4
%
%.
4
.
4
%
(9
,
,
*
,
, ..)
4
/
.
586
+
% 9.
4
( , e-mail % 9
)
&
.
4
% 0 &
%
,
.
4
/ 9
.
4
% 9
,
9
.
4
/
%
%
&%
.
9
:
x
4
1% 9
%
%.
4
/
.
4. 08
85
*
%
(
,
%
,
%
).
I.
$
*%
:
}
& % & (
, %
,
%
, 9
%, )
}
.
}
&
,
1
(
,
,
, &
,
/ )
6 %/
1%, &
,
,
%
0
%
.
4
/
%
%
&%
.
9
:
4
/
.
II.
$
9%
%
.
*%
:
}
&
%.
}
,
9
.
}
/
9%
.
}
9
-9
%.
587
/
%
%
&
&
%
.
9
:
4
%
.
4
%
% 9
% 9
.
4
/
.
III.
%
%
.
*%
:
4 %
.
$&
/, *%
%.
+
.
4 %
.
4
9%
( ,
,
,
,
)
.
+
%
% &
&
,
%
&% .
/
%
%
&
&%
%.
9
:
588
4
* %
9
& &
&%
.
+
%.
4
/
.