• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 2
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

Exploring the close relationships of people with learning disabilities : a qualitative study

Sullivan, Faye Ellen January 2012 (has links)
Introduction: Interpersonal relationships are beneficial for people with a learning disability (PWLD), acting as a protective barrier against transition difficulties, social stigma and negative outcomes such as physical and mental health problems. The social networks of PWLD are, however, often more restricted than those of the general population. There has been very little research which has explored the views and experiences of PWLD about their social and sexual relationships. A systematic review of the qualitative research surrounding the sexual relationships of PWLD was conducted. Eleven studies were reviewed, which revealed five themes: ‘A lack of knowledge regarding sexual relationships’, ‘Sexual relationships as restricted and regulated’, ‘Sexual relationships perceived as wrong’, ‘Sexual relationships being desired’, and ‘Sex as a negative experience’. Positive developments in the attitudes of others and supports were described, but the impact and influence of stigma, assumption, ignorance and a lack of autonomy regarding sexual relationships were dominantly reported. However, the findings of the reviewed studies must be considered with caution due to methodological limitations. The current study aimed to build on the existing qualitative research by exploring the experiences and perceptions of both sexual and close relationships for PWLD. Method: Data were gathered from ten PWLD using one to one semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Results: Five super-ordinate themes were identified; ‘Relationships feeling safe and being useful’, ‘Who’s in charge?’, ‘Struggling for an ordinary life’, ‘Touching people in relationships’ and ‘Hidden feelings’. The findings were shared with participants who confirmed their relevance in the lives of PWLD. ‘Touching people in relationships’ is presented separately within a journal article format. Discussion: The findings suggest that fundamental components of close relationships were feeling safe and receiving some form of positive gain. The lack of agency participants experienced limited the development of these aspects, whilst also preventing the ability to live an ‘ordinary existence’, which included physically intimate relationships for many individuals. Finally, participant’s feelings were generally unclear, which could be related to being interviewed by a relative stranger or emotional expression difficulties. Based upon these findings it is considered that those who support PWLD should focus their assistance on addressing negative attitudes and redressing the power imbalance to facilitate an ‘ordinary existence’ for these individuals, which may indirectly enable them to naturally develop safe and useful relationships. It is also possible that reducing the barriers and stigma surrounding close relationships would open up communication regarding this area, which could indirectly promote PWLD ability to express their emotions regarding relationships. Conclusions: The research provides a greater insight into the lived experience of close relationships for PWLD. Participants valued close relationships that were safe and useful, but their ability to develop and maintain these was described as being restricted by other people and service rules. It is proposed that those supporting PWLD need to balance protective action against the freedom and choice required to develop and maintain close relationships, as restricting the already limited social networks of this population will negatively impact upon their quality of life.
2

A dimensão interativa na relação pedagógica em regime b-learning: perspectivas de alunos do curso de mestrado em Ciências da Educação (Tecnologia Educativa) na Universidade do Minho / The interpersonal dimension in B-learning pedagogical relationship: Perspectives of Masters in Educational Technology Students at University of Minho.

Conceição, Silvia Carla 03 October 2011 (has links)
Esta tese discute a importância da dimensão interativa na relação pedagógica no b-learning. Por dimensão interativa entende-se um conjunto de elementos que proporcionam aprendizagens satisfatórias, levando-se em conta, não só os aspectos pedagógicos, mas também os aspectos organizacionais e tecnológicos. O estudo processa-se ao longo de dois semestres (2010/11) com alunos do Curso de Mestrado em Ciências da Educação, área de especialização de Tecnologia Educativa, do Instituto de Educação da Universidade do Minho. Trata-se de uma pesquisa do tipo exploratória, de natureza predominantemente qualitativa, construída por meio de estudo de caso. No sentindo de situar o trabalho no campo das Ciências da Educação, numa perspectiva psicossocial, tem-se como pistas de investigação a psicologia sócio-histórica e a comunicação como processo social. Desta forma, interligam-se os conceitos de relação interpessoal, interação, comunicação e linguagem. Para análise dos dados, fez-se o cruzamento de informações de diversos instrumentos de pesquisa (questionários e interações síncronas nos chats) e recorreu-se, como suportes teóricos de análise, aos axiomas da comunicação, apresentados por Watzlawich, Beavin e Jackson (1967); às competências comunicativas docentes de Bitti e Zani (1997) e às categorias de valores docentes de Almeida (2002) - uma releitura baseada nas conferências de Ítalo Calvino (1995). Os resultados emergentes deste estudo apontam para as dimensões: relacional, comunicativa, cognitiva e tecnológica, nesta ordem de importância, como dimensões interativas importantes nas relações pedagógicas b-learning (componente presencial) e relacional, comunicativa, tecnológica e cognitiva (componente online). Por meio dos indicadores, que definiram as dimensões, foi possível identificar características/requisitos docentes que os alunos consideram fundamentais na relação pedagógica presencial, a saber: Afetividade, Atitude, Proximidade e Interação/Interatividade (dimensão relacional); Linguagem Verbal, Papel do Professo, Linguagem Não-Verbal, Respostas/Feedback e Disponibilidade (dimensão comunicativa); Planejamento e Domínio dos Conteúdos (dimensão cognitiva); e Domínio e Uso das Tecnologias e Recursos Físicos, Materiais e Técnicos (dimensão tecnológica). Em se tratando da relação pedagógica online, tem-se basicamente os mesmos indicadores, com exceção do indicador Domínio dos Conteúdos. Destacam-se para o componente presencial, os indicadores Atitude e Afetividade (dimensão relacional), Linguagem Verbal (dimensão comunicativa), Planejamento (dimensão cognitiva), e Domínio e Uso das Tecnologias (dimensão tecnológica). Já para o componente online, tem-se Interação/Interatividade (dimensão relacional), Papel do Professor (dimensão comunicativa), Domínio e Uso das Tecnologias (dimensão tecnólogica) e Planejamento (dimensão tecnológica). De maneira geral, observa-se que há diferenças entre componentes presencial e online, quanto à ordem de importância dos indicadores. Valoriza-se mais a Atitude e Afetividade no presencial e Interação/Interatividade no online (dimensão relacional). Na dimensão comunicativa, preza-se como fundamental o Papel do Professor, no presencial, e Interação/Interatividade, no online. Para as dimensões cognitiva e tecnológica, reconhece-se os mesmos indicadores tanto no presencial como no online, qual sejam: Planejamento e Domínio dos Conteúdos, atentando-se para a mudança de posições em que a dimensão cognitiva aparece na 3ª posição, no presencial, e na 4ª posição, no online, e a dimensão tecnológica aparece na 4ª posição, no presencial, e na 3ª no online. Para além desses dados, ao se fazer a relação das dimensões já mencionadas com as variáveis sexo, idade e formação não se percebem diferenças significativas. / This thesis refers to the importance of pedagogical relationship in interactive blended learning. Interactive dimension is understood here as a set of elements that provide satisfactory learning, taking into account pedagogical aspects but also organizational and technological aspects. The study took place over two semesters (2010/11) with students from the Master in Educational Sciences, specialization in Educational Technology, Institute of Education, University of Minho. It is an exploratory type research, predominantly qualitative in nature, built through a case study. In order to situate the work in the field of Education Sciences, from a psychosocial perspective, we have taken, as an investigative lead, the socio-historical psychology and communication as a social process. Thus, the concepts of interpersonal relationship, interaction, communication and language are interconnected. For data analysis, it was done the crossing of information from various research instruments (questionnaires and synchronous interactions in chat rooms) and, as theoretical analysis supports, were used the axioms of communication, presented by Watzlawich, Beavin and Jackson (1967), the communication skills of teachers Bitty and Zani(1997) and Almeida (2003) categories of teaching values,, a reading based on lectures by Italo Calvino (1995). The results emerging from this study indicate the communicative, cognitive and technological dimensions,, in that order of importance, as important dimensions of interactive learning in b-learning pedagogical relationships (classroom component) and relational, communicative, and cognitive technology (online component). Through the indicators, which define the dimensions, it was possible to identify the teaching features / requirements that students consider important in classroom teaching relationship. They are: Affection, Attitude, Proximity and Interaction / Interactivity (relational dimension), Verbal, Role of the Teacher, non-verbal language, Responses / Feedback and availability (communication dimension), planning and content area (cognitive dimension), and, Domain and Use of Physical Resources and Technologies, Materials and Technical resources (technological dimension. In the case of online pedagogical relationship we have got the same indicators, with the exception of the Mastery of Content indicator. As to classroom component, the indicators Attitude and Affect (relational dimension), Verbal (communication dimension), Planning (cognitive dimension), and control and use of technology (technological dimension) are highlighted. As to online component, instead,, we have the indicators Interaction / Interactivity (relational dimension), Role of the Teacher (communication dimension), Use and Mastery of Technologies (technological dimension), and Planning (technological dimension). In general we observe that there are differences, between classroom and online components, as to the order of importance of indicators. Attitude and Affect in the classroom and Interaction / Interactivity in online (relational dimension) are more valued. In the communication dimension, the role of teacher is appreciated as fundamental in classroom learning, whereas Interaction / Interactivity is in online. As to cognitive and technological dimensions , the same indicators are recognized in both classroom and online, namely Planning and Mastery of Content, paying attention to the change of positions, where the cognitive dimension appears in 3rd position in classroom, and 4th in online, and the technological dimension appears in 4th position in classroom and 3rd in online. Beyond these data, when making the relationship between the dimensions mentioned above with the variables sex, age and education, we do not realize significant differences.
3

A dimensão interativa na relação pedagógica em regime b-learning: perspectivas de alunos do curso de mestrado em Ciências da Educação (Tecnologia Educativa) na Universidade do Minho / The interpersonal dimension in B-learning pedagogical relationship: Perspectives of Masters in Educational Technology Students at University of Minho.

Silvia Carla Conceição 03 October 2011 (has links)
Esta tese discute a importância da dimensão interativa na relação pedagógica no b-learning. Por dimensão interativa entende-se um conjunto de elementos que proporcionam aprendizagens satisfatórias, levando-se em conta, não só os aspectos pedagógicos, mas também os aspectos organizacionais e tecnológicos. O estudo processa-se ao longo de dois semestres (2010/11) com alunos do Curso de Mestrado em Ciências da Educação, área de especialização de Tecnologia Educativa, do Instituto de Educação da Universidade do Minho. Trata-se de uma pesquisa do tipo exploratória, de natureza predominantemente qualitativa, construída por meio de estudo de caso. No sentindo de situar o trabalho no campo das Ciências da Educação, numa perspectiva psicossocial, tem-se como pistas de investigação a psicologia sócio-histórica e a comunicação como processo social. Desta forma, interligam-se os conceitos de relação interpessoal, interação, comunicação e linguagem. Para análise dos dados, fez-se o cruzamento de informações de diversos instrumentos de pesquisa (questionários e interações síncronas nos chats) e recorreu-se, como suportes teóricos de análise, aos axiomas da comunicação, apresentados por Watzlawich, Beavin e Jackson (1967); às competências comunicativas docentes de Bitti e Zani (1997) e às categorias de valores docentes de Almeida (2002) - uma releitura baseada nas conferências de Ítalo Calvino (1995). Os resultados emergentes deste estudo apontam para as dimensões: relacional, comunicativa, cognitiva e tecnológica, nesta ordem de importância, como dimensões interativas importantes nas relações pedagógicas b-learning (componente presencial) e relacional, comunicativa, tecnológica e cognitiva (componente online). Por meio dos indicadores, que definiram as dimensões, foi possível identificar características/requisitos docentes que os alunos consideram fundamentais na relação pedagógica presencial, a saber: Afetividade, Atitude, Proximidade e Interação/Interatividade (dimensão relacional); Linguagem Verbal, Papel do Professo, Linguagem Não-Verbal, Respostas/Feedback e Disponibilidade (dimensão comunicativa); Planejamento e Domínio dos Conteúdos (dimensão cognitiva); e Domínio e Uso das Tecnologias e Recursos Físicos, Materiais e Técnicos (dimensão tecnológica). Em se tratando da relação pedagógica online, tem-se basicamente os mesmos indicadores, com exceção do indicador Domínio dos Conteúdos. Destacam-se para o componente presencial, os indicadores Atitude e Afetividade (dimensão relacional), Linguagem Verbal (dimensão comunicativa), Planejamento (dimensão cognitiva), e Domínio e Uso das Tecnologias (dimensão tecnológica). Já para o componente online, tem-se Interação/Interatividade (dimensão relacional), Papel do Professor (dimensão comunicativa), Domínio e Uso das Tecnologias (dimensão tecnólogica) e Planejamento (dimensão tecnológica). De maneira geral, observa-se que há diferenças entre componentes presencial e online, quanto à ordem de importância dos indicadores. Valoriza-se mais a Atitude e Afetividade no presencial e Interação/Interatividade no online (dimensão relacional). Na dimensão comunicativa, preza-se como fundamental o Papel do Professor, no presencial, e Interação/Interatividade, no online. Para as dimensões cognitiva e tecnológica, reconhece-se os mesmos indicadores tanto no presencial como no online, qual sejam: Planejamento e Domínio dos Conteúdos, atentando-se para a mudança de posições em que a dimensão cognitiva aparece na 3ª posição, no presencial, e na 4ª posição, no online, e a dimensão tecnológica aparece na 4ª posição, no presencial, e na 3ª no online. Para além desses dados, ao se fazer a relação das dimensões já mencionadas com as variáveis sexo, idade e formação não se percebem diferenças significativas. / This thesis refers to the importance of pedagogical relationship in interactive blended learning. Interactive dimension is understood here as a set of elements that provide satisfactory learning, taking into account pedagogical aspects but also organizational and technological aspects. The study took place over two semesters (2010/11) with students from the Master in Educational Sciences, specialization in Educational Technology, Institute of Education, University of Minho. It is an exploratory type research, predominantly qualitative in nature, built through a case study. In order to situate the work in the field of Education Sciences, from a psychosocial perspective, we have taken, as an investigative lead, the socio-historical psychology and communication as a social process. Thus, the concepts of interpersonal relationship, interaction, communication and language are interconnected. For data analysis, it was done the crossing of information from various research instruments (questionnaires and synchronous interactions in chat rooms) and, as theoretical analysis supports, were used the axioms of communication, presented by Watzlawich, Beavin and Jackson (1967), the communication skills of teachers Bitty and Zani(1997) and Almeida (2003) categories of teaching values,, a reading based on lectures by Italo Calvino (1995). The results emerging from this study indicate the communicative, cognitive and technological dimensions,, in that order of importance, as important dimensions of interactive learning in b-learning pedagogical relationships (classroom component) and relational, communicative, and cognitive technology (online component). Through the indicators, which define the dimensions, it was possible to identify the teaching features / requirements that students consider important in classroom teaching relationship. They are: Affection, Attitude, Proximity and Interaction / Interactivity (relational dimension), Verbal, Role of the Teacher, non-verbal language, Responses / Feedback and availability (communication dimension), planning and content area (cognitive dimension), and, Domain and Use of Physical Resources and Technologies, Materials and Technical resources (technological dimension. In the case of online pedagogical relationship we have got the same indicators, with the exception of the Mastery of Content indicator. As to classroom component, the indicators Attitude and Affect (relational dimension), Verbal (communication dimension), Planning (cognitive dimension), and control and use of technology (technological dimension) are highlighted. As to online component, instead,, we have the indicators Interaction / Interactivity (relational dimension), Role of the Teacher (communication dimension), Use and Mastery of Technologies (technological dimension), and Planning (technological dimension). In general we observe that there are differences, between classroom and online components, as to the order of importance of indicators. Attitude and Affect in the classroom and Interaction / Interactivity in online (relational dimension) are more valued. In the communication dimension, the role of teacher is appreciated as fundamental in classroom learning, whereas Interaction / Interactivity is in online. As to cognitive and technological dimensions , the same indicators are recognized in both classroom and online, namely Planning and Mastery of Content, paying attention to the change of positions, where the cognitive dimension appears in 3rd position in classroom, and 4th in online, and the technological dimension appears in 4th position in classroom and 3rd in online. Beyond these data, when making the relationship between the dimensions mentioned above with the variables sex, age and education, we do not realize significant differences.
4

Eine Chance für die Bildung von Glaubensidentität?: Gemeinsame Mahlzeiten und die Kommunikation des Evangeliums in der Jugendarbeit / An opportunity for the formation of faith identity?: communal meals and communicating the Gospel in work with the youth

Kalinski, Elke 11 1900 (has links)
Summaries in German and English / Text in German / Die vorliegende, in der Praktischen Theologie respektive Religionspädagogik verfasste Arbeit fragt nach einem geeigneten Rahmen, in dem religiöse Lernprozesse für Heranwachsende entstehen können, mit dem primären Ziel der Identitätsstiftung durch den christlichen Glauben. In dieser Untersuchung ist der Gedanke leitend, dass wahres Menschsein nur als Existenz im Gegenüber und in Beziehung zu Gott verstanden werden kann. Es wird argumentiert, dass Lernen nicht nur einen kognitiven Prozess darstellt, aber dass "Lernen in Beziehung" einen Beitrag zur Daseinsdeutung und Identitätsbildung leistet. Maßgebend ist dabei der Gedanke, dass nicht der Mensch den Glauben bewirkt, sondern Gott. Hinsichtlich meiner interdisziplinären Forschungen wurde deutlich, Essen in Gemeinschaft fördert aufgrund seiner impliziten Werte die Gesprächskultur des Glaubens und daher die Kommunikation des Evangeliums; wo Heranwachsende sich vor Gott und in Gemeinschaft mit Gott neu verstehen können; ganz wesentlich ist das Verständnis des „Sein-in-Gemeinschaft“ und das Vertrauen, Gott sichert seine Gegenwart und Gemeinschaft auf dem Weg des Lebens zu. / In this study processes of learning for teenagers are explored with a view to the formation of faith identity. The study is done within Practical Theology and Religious Education, but perspectives from other disciplines are also investigated. The underlying premise of the study is that humans cannot forge faith – faith comes through existence before God and a relationship with God. It is argued that learning does not come through cognitive processes only, but that "learning in relationships" contributes to understanding one's existence and the formation of the own identity. From an interdisciplinary perspective it is shown that communal meals foster relationships and promote a culture of discussion, therefore opening up the possibility of discussing the faith and of communicating the Gospel in an atmosphere of community; where young people could come to a new understanding of themselves before God and in relationship with God and others; where their faith identity could be formed. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology

Page generated in 0.1266 seconds