<p>The purpose of this study was to investigate into the praxis based sociocultural tools that are utilized to enhance language development in early childhood education. Four pre-school teachers were involved in this study. Two were recruited from an independent pre-school "Maria Montessori", practicing the pedagogical philosophy developed by Maria Montessori. Two were from a public pre-school herein named "Kvasten", which has no official philosophy but where the teachers (like in many Swedish pre-schools) work in a general alignment with the principles of Reggio Emilia pedagogics. The theoretical fundament of the study lies in the general theories of language development and education of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotskij, and the comparative element mainly concerns the variations in pedagogical praxis between the two pre-schools, and the way the teachers reason about language development. No attempt is made to systematically compare the general merits of the Maria Montessori method and the Reggio Emilia philosophy in enhancing early childhood language development.</p><p>The empirical material consists of interviews and observations. The research method used draws on qualitative methodology in the observations and in the interviews with pre-school teachers. The study confirms that language is considered to be an important part of early development by all teachers interviewed, and this was also confirmed by the observations conducted in the two pre-school settings. The early childhood teachers in this study work actively and consciously to stimulate the children’s language development. The data analysis demonstrates that the pedagogues used various working methods and different educational materials in order to stimulate the children’s language development skills. At the same time the study shows that the teachers’ methods of education differed slightly depending on the varying possibilities and opportunities provided in the two pre-schools.</p>

The purpose of this study was to investigate into the praxis based sociocultural tools that are utilized to enhance language development in early childhood education. Four pre-school teachers were involved in this study. Two were recruited from an independent pre-school "Maria Montessori", practicing the pedagogical philosophy developed by Maria Montessori. Two were from a public pre-school herein named "Kvasten", which has no official philosophy but where the teachers (like in many Swedish pre-schools) work in a general alignment with the principles of Reggio Emilia pedagogics. The theoretical fundament of the study lies in the general theories of language development and education of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotskij, and the comparative element mainly concerns the variations in pedagogical praxis between the two pre-schools, and the way the teachers reason about language development. No attempt is made to systematically compare the general merits of the Maria Montessori method and the Reggio Emilia philosophy in enhancing early childhood language development. The empirical material consists of interviews and observations. The research method used draws on qualitative methodology in the observations and in the interviews with pre-school teachers. The study confirms that language is considered to be an important part of early development by all teachers interviewed, and this was also confirmed by the observations conducted in the two pre-school settings. The early childhood teachers in this study work actively and consciously to stimulate the children’s language development. The data analysis demonstrates that the pedagogues used various working methods and different educational materials in order to stimulate the children’s language development skills. At the same time the study shows that the teachers’ methods of education differed slightly depending on the varying possibilities and opportunities provided in the two pre-schools.

<p>The active learning literature lacks systematic investigations into whether the amount of active learning implemented in class and the ordering of lecture and active learning make a difference in how much students learn in STEM disciplines. Therefore, I investigated how the dosage amount and schedule of lecture and active learning affect student learning of science content. The first experiment involved 146 subjects who learned about biological taxonomies through either a lecture (100% lecture/0% active learning) or an active learning activity (0% lecture/100% active learning). Results indicated that subjects in the pure lecture condition scored 20.27 percentage points higher on the posttest as compared to the pure active learning condition; these results held across different question types. Further, the pure lecture condition did not significantly differ from the pure active learning condition on subjects’ judgements of learning and their satisfaction with the instructional mode they received. The second experiment involved 219 subjects who learned about biological taxonomies through a lecture, a lecture and active learning activity that were interspersed (alternation between lecture and the active learning activity), or a lecture and active learning activity that were blocked (all lecture done before the active learning activity). Results indicated that subjects in the interspersed condition scored significantly higher than subjects in the blocked and pure lecture conditions (by 10.96 and 13.95 percentage points, respectively); these results generally held across different question types. Further, the pure lecture condition was significantly lower than the interspersed and blocked conditions on subjects’ judgements of learning and their satisfaction with the lecture. Based on these two experiments, it may not be a question of whether to choose lecture or active learning but rather a question of how to integrate them to maximize their benefits.</p>

Ce mémoire propose une étude du thème de l’enfance et du concept d’infantia que contient la philosophie de Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998). Puisque la notion ne se laisse pas réduire au concept tardif d’infantia, ce mémoire mobilise les travaux de Lyotard depuis sa période militante (1954-1966) et ses premières œuvres, où l’enfance se laisse déduire, jusqu’à ses derniers textes, où il la conceptualise explicitement. Suivant la piste de la notion, nous argumentons qu’elle ne représente pas qu’un fil rouge dans sa pensée mais qu’elle fait aussi signe vers l’existence, dans l’œuvre de Lyotard, d’une philosophie de l’enfance et de l’éducation à part entière. Ainsi, nous soutenons qu’au-delà du repère qu’incarne le concept pluriel d’enfance pour les études lyotardiennes, il comporte également des intuitions pertinentes et fécondes pour permettre aux sciences de l’éducation et aux études sur l’enfance (Childhood Studies) de sortir de l’impasse dans laquelle elles se trouvent actuellement. En effet, il nous apparait que la conception de l’enfance que nous propose le texte lyotardien s’offre comme un contrepoint nécessaire à la conception développementale qui est aujourd’hui hégémonique en éducation ainsi qu’en études sur l’enfance, et qu’elle invite à une reconfiguration tout aussi essentielle de la rencontre pédagogique. S’inscrivant en faux contre l’impératif de performativité et le paradigme de l’efficacité qui dominent les sciences de l’éducation, Lyotard nous permet de penser une éducation attentive aux exigences éthiques de la relation pédagogique, affranchie de la logique de la reproduction, et donc génératrice de sens. / This thesis addresses the theme of childhood and the concept of infantia in the philosophy of JeanFrançois Lyotard (1924-1988). Since the notion cannot be confined to the late concept of infantia, this paper draws on Lyotard's work from his activist days (1954-1966) and early works, where childhood can be inferred, to his later texts, where he explicitly conceptualizes it. Tracking down the concept, we argue that childhood is not only an underlying thread of his oeuvre, but that it also heralds the existence of a genuine philosophy of childhood and education in Lyotard's work. Thus, we argue that beyond the key figure that the plural concept of childhood embodies for Lyotardian studies, it also offers relevant and fruitful intuitions to enable educational sciences and Childhood Studies to break out of the deadlock in which they are currently caught. Indeed, Lyotard's concept of childhood strikes us as a necessary counterpoint to the developmental approach that is currently hegemonic in education and childhood studies, and as an invitation to an equally essential reconfiguration of pedagogical encounters. Taking a stand against the imperative of performativity and the paradigm of effective pedagogy that dominates educational sciences, Lyotard allows us to contemplate an education that would be attentive to the ethical demands of the pedagogical relationship, liberated from the logic of reproduction, and therefore generative of meaning.

No description available.