Situated Experiments in Organizations Transplanting the Lab to the Field

Situated Experiments in Organizations Transplanting the Lab to the Field
Situated Experiments in Organizations Transplanting the Lab to the Field

https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,

Journal of Management

DOI: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.11.001

2004; 30; 703 Journal of Management Jerald Greenberg and Edward C. Tomlinson Situated Experiments in Organizations: Transplanting the Lab to the Field https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/703

The online version of this article can be found at: Published by:https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of Management Additional services and information for

https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,/subscriptions Subscriptions:

https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,/cgi/content/refs/30/5/703SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): (this article cites 27 articles hosted on the Citations

Situated Experiments in Organizations:

Transplanting the Lab to the Field

Jerald Greenberg?

Department of Management and Human Resources,Fisher College of Business,

The Ohio State University,2100Neil Avenue,Columbus,OH43210,USA

Edward C.Tomlinson

Department of Management and Human Resources,Fisher College of Business,

The Ohio State University,2100Neil Avenue,Columbus,OH43210,USA Received4September2003;received in revised form13November2003;accepted26November2003

Available online15June2004

Both laboratory and?eld experiments have limitations that likely account for the recent decline in their usage among organizational researchers.In this article,we introduce situated exper-iments as an experimental approach that optimizes the strengths of both laboratory and?eld experiments in organizational research while mitigating the weaknesses of each.We highlight four recently published studies using situated experiments.Drawing on these examples,we illustrate how the proper use of situated experiments can minimize threats to internal validity and ensure the ethical treatment of research participants.

?2004Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.

In their quest to isolate the causal impact of key variables on various behaviors and atti-tudes of interest,organizational researchers long have relied on the experimental method as one of their primary data-gathering techniques(Stone-Romero,Weaver&Glenar,1995). This popularity is predicated on the belief that experiments are well suited to providing stringent evidence of causal relationships and are designed to eliminate plausible alter-native effects(Smith,2000).Therefore,it is not surprising that the experiment has been touted as“the most powerful technique available for demonstrating causal relationships be-tween variables”(Jones,1985:282)and the“preferred mode for the observation of nature”(Rosenthal,1967:356).

Despite these bold proclamations,there has been a decline in the publication of exper-imental studies by organizational scientists in recent years,both those conducted in the

?Corresponding author.Tel.:+16142929829;fax:+17405487965.

E-mail addresses:Greenberg@https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,(J.Greenberg),Tomlinson.41@https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,(E.C.Tomlinson).

0149-2063/$–see front matter?2004Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.11.001

704J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

laboratory and the?eld.This is evidenced by Scandura and Williams’s(2000)analysis of the research methods used in articles appearing in the Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly,and the Journal of Management for two3-year periods a decade apart,1985–1987and1995–1997.These investigators reported a signi?cant de-crease in the percentage of empirical studies published using laboratory experiments from 10.70percent in1985–1987to4.90percent in1995–1997.Also decreasing,although not signi?cantly,was the incidence of?eld experiments during this same period:from3.90 percent to2.20percent.

Along with these trends in the publication of empirical journal articles,it also is in-structive to examine differences in the inclusion of chapters on the experimental method in major books published during the past four decades.As recently as the1970s and 1980s,for example,chapters on the experimental method appeared in books on organiza-tional research methods(Fisher,1984),and handbooks devoted to organizational behavior (Blackburn,1987)and industrial-organizational psychology(Fromkin&Streufert,1976). However,more current handbooks dedicated to organizational behavior(Golembiewski, 2000),personnel psychology(Anderson,Ones&Sinangil,2002),organizational psychology(Anderson,Ones,Sinangil&Viswesvaran,2002),industrial and organiza-tional psychology(Dunnette&Hough,1990),and even research methods in industrial and organizational psychology(Rogelberg,2002)have failed to devote a single chapter to ex-perimentation.Such omissions,together with the decline in empirical articles using the experimental method,indicate that lab and?eld experiments have fallen out of favor among organizational scientists.

This decline in popularity of experiments appears to be based on four major factors.First, as noted by Stone-Romero et al.(1995),modern computer programs performing covariance structure analyses(e.g.,Amos,EQS and LISREL)provide an alternative method of assess-ing the plausibility of models positing causality on the basis of covariation between observed variables(Skrondal&Rabe-Hesketh,2004).A second and related consideration is that data analyzed using covariance structure analysis generally are collected using questionnaires, which tend to be far easier to administer than complex experimental manipulations.This is especially so among samples of people currently employed in organizations.Third,we also note what Mook(1983)has referred to as“a misplaced preoccupation with external validity”(p.379),which has led some scientists(e.g.,Gordon,Slade&Schmitt,1986)to re-ject experiments involving the use of college students on the grounds that such investigations lack generalizability to non-student samples.Finally,there also are ethical considerations. Speci?cally,many laboratory experiments involve the use of deception,which is a practice to which some scientists have objected on moral grounds(e.g.,Baumrind,1985).As Seeman (1969)observed some35years ago,if scienti?c knowledge“is won at the cost of some essential humanness in one person’s relationship to another,perhaps the price is too high”(p.1028).Related to this ethical concern is the allied practical consideration that scien-tists may face challenges justifying some experimental manipulations to their universities’institutional review boards(e.g.,Chastain&Landrum,1999).

Although we acknowledge these considerations,we are concerned about the potential ex-tinction of experimental research in organizations—or,at least,voids created by continued declines in its use.Speci?cally,we fear that by reducing the prominence of the experi-mental method in the organizational scientist’s research toolkit we are restricting the range

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724705 of questions that we are capable of investigating as well as the quality of the insight we are inclined to derive about human behavior in organizations.In this regard,we echo the sentiment of Scandura and Williams(2000)that this state of affairs is“disheartening”and that it“doesn’t bode well for the future of management research”(p.1261).Our primary concern is epistemological in https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,ly,we must keep in mind the principle purpose of experimental research in organizations—namely,to understand the psychological pro-cesses underlying organizational phenomena.To us,this must remain a key objective of organizational scientists.After all,one of the major reasons for conducting experimental re-search is not to determine what actually happens in the?eld,but to test inductively derived hypotheses regarding what might happen under certain conditions(Greenberg&Folger, 1988).For this purpose,no research technique is superior to the experiment.

Needed is an experimental research method that satis?es many of the concerns of those who have rejected it.In addition to being methodologically rigorous,this technique also must be ethically appropriate,and a source of insight into real organizational processes.We offer the situated experiment as such an approach.A situated experiment is a laboratory-type experiment conducted in a natural setting,such as an organization.Situated experiments result from transplanting the typical laboratory experiment into the?eld,making adjust-ments that capitalize on the richness of the naturalistic environments in which they occur. Such research involves using both carefully controlled independent variables of the type that typically appear only in the laboratory in addition to more complex independent vari-ables that may be found only in naturalistic settings.Likewise,situated experiments may use both dependent variables that are exclusive to the experiment as well as those that occur naturally.

In the present article we will describe the nature of situated experiments in depth,sharing as examples four such studies conducted by the senior author appearing in three recently pub-lished articles(Chen,Brockner&Greenberg,2003,Study2;Greenberg,2002;Greenberg &Roberge,in press).Drawing on these examples,we then juxtapose situated experiments with lab and?eld experiments to highlight their unique features.We conclude by discussing two key issues,which although are central to all social science research,manifest them-selves in special ways in situated experiments—minimizing threats to internal validity and the ethical treatment of research participants.To set the stage for this discussion,we begin by comparing experiments conducted in the laboratory and in the workplace.

Laboratory and Field Experimentation in Organizational Research

Over100years ago,bicycling enthusiast Norman Triplett made a curious observation—cyclists performed better when racing against others on the same track than when racing against the clock.Because Triplett also was a social scientist,he recognized that a key way to explain this phenomenon was to test hypotheses about the presence or absence of others on task performance by isolating variables of interest under controlled conditions.To do so,he didn’t go to the bicycle track,but instead invited people to a laboratory where they performed a different competitive task that also involved repetitive physical movements—winding spools of line onto?shing reels.This investigation(Triplett,1897–1898)was important not only because it provided the earliest evidence of the now widely recognized social

706J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

facilitation effect(Gurrin&Innes,1993),but also because it was one of the?rst systematic efforts to investigate a social phenomenon under controlled laboratory conditions.Little could Triplett have imagined how strongly experimental research would dominate as a means of studying social phenomenon in the century that followed his modest contribution (Higbee,Lott&Graves,1976).

Three features of experimental research makes it especially well-suited to isolating and testing the effects of variables of interest:(1)the grouping of participants for comparison purposes,(2)researcher-administered manipulation of conditions within those groupings, and(3)control over extraneous in?uences that might affect the dependent variable(Cook& Campbell,1976).By systematically isolating the effects of interest,experimental research provides evidence of causal relationships not afforded by nonexperimental research.As such,experimental research has been acknowledged for its capacity to test inferences drawn from theory as well as to“hunt for phenomena”(Fromkin&Streufert,1976:429)—that is, to see if something can occur under certain circumstances.

Laboratory Experiments

As Festinger(1971)described them over three decades ago,laboratory experiments occur when“the investigator creates a situation with the exact conditions he[or she]wants to have and in which he[or she]controls some,and manipulates other,variables”(p.9).They are,“experimental events[that]occur at the discretion of the experimenter”(Weick,1965: 198).Most experiments in management and related?elds are conducted in the laboratory (Sackett&Larson,1990;Scandura&Williams,2000).The vast majority of these are impact experiments—that is,experiments in which a researcher measures participants’reactions to situations that they have created for purposes of in?uencing them(Aronson,Brewer& Carlsmith,1985).

Some impact experiments,referred to as simulations,create rich environments by faith-fully replicating key characteristics of settings of interest(Weick,1965).A classic example is the complex simulation study by Pritchard,Dunnette and Jorgenson(1972).These ex-perimenters hired part-time workers for several weeks to staff a company created solely for purposes of testing hypotheses about people’s reactions to inequitable payment.A more recent example may be seen in the research on team learning using an elaborate military simulation task(Ellis,Hollenbeck,Ilgen,Porter,West&Moon,2003).

The prototypical impact experiment,however,is far less https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,ually,the behavior of college students is measured as they respond to settings devoid of contextual cues that are not of interest to the researcher(for some recent examples,see Folkes&Whang,2003; Kuhn&Yockey,2003).This involves intentionally creating arti?cial conditions in an effort to isolate variables of interest from extraneous variables that might affect the dependent variable(Mook,1983).Studies of this type sometimes are criticized on the grounds that they lack realism(Babbie,1975)—that is,the experimental laboratory does not emulate key features found outside the laboratory,such as in organizations(Fromkin&Streufert, 1976).Thus,although laboratory experiments are widely regarded for the opportunities they provide to control variables of interest,it also has been argued that their arti?ciality and lack of generalizability limits their usefulness in studying organizational phenomena (Fromkin&Streufert,1976).

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724707 Field Experiments

In contrast,given that?eld experiments are conducted in naturalistic settings,they are not subject to the same criticisms of arti?ciality and lack of generalizability.However, because it is dif?cult,if not impossible,to control the impact of variables in a?eld exper-iment,they tend to lack the same high degree of control found in most lab experiments. As explained in one popular textbook,?eld experiments may be seen as an“attempt to achieve a balance between control and naturalism in research by studying people’s natural behavioral responses to manipulated independent variables in natural settings”(Whitley, 1996:370).Some of the best-known social science studies are experiments conducted in naturalistic settings.Sherif’s ingenious“Robber’s Cave”?eld experiment on building inter-group relations(Sherif,Harvey,White,Hood&Sherif,1961),the classic Hawthorne studies of work productivity conducted by Mayo(1933)and his associates(Roethlisberger& Dickson,1939),Milgram’s(1963)“shocking”laboratory studies on obedience to author-ity,and the controversial Stanford experiments simulating a prison environment(Zimbardo, Haney,Banks&Jaffe,1973)stand out as visible examples because of the keen insight they provide into social phenomena.

Despite their compelling nature,such investigations are more likely to be acknowledged for their historic value than emulated for their methodological rigor or their ethical treatment of research participants.Indeed,limitations associated with their lack of randomization and control over extraneous variables(Jones,1990)and their potential abuse of human subjects in some cases(Diener&Crandall,1978)suggest that such investigations today would be unlikely to pass the muster of either an editorial review board or an institutional review board.Accordingly,such fascinating studies tend to be relegated to the history sections of our textbooks.

As modern concerns about methodological rigor and respect for the rights of human re-search participants have developed,they appear to have taken a casualty in their wake—the naturalistic research experiment(Scandura&Williams,1990).With their disappearance has come a widespread belief that many social science experiments“just aren’t that inter-esting anymore”(Reis&Stiller,1992).Although we readily acknowledge and endorse the importance of rigor and ethics in conducting research,we object to the wholesale rejection of experimentation in organizations that appears to have occurred among organizational scientists as a backlash against such concerns.

As we see it,this is precisely where situated experiments enter the picture.They represent an opportunity to create the best of both worlds by bringing the rigor and control of the laboratory to the natural realism of the?eld.We now will endeavor to illustrate this point by describing four recent situated experiments.

Examples of Situated Experiments

In presenting these examples,we are not claiming that ours are the only situated ex-periments ever conducted.Indeed,some classic?eld experiments(e.g.,Matarazzo,Wiens, Jackson&Manaugh,1970)and experimental simulations(e.g.,Pritchard et al.,1972)con-tain many of the same features of situated experiments.Our intent in this section is simply

708J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

to illustrate by way of examples with which we are intimately familiar some of the de?ning characteristics of situated experiments and key issues associated with them.

Greenberg(2002):Employee Theft Situated Experiment

This situated experiment was designed to assess the effects of various naturalistic vari-ables and manipulated variables on employee theft.Participants were customer service representatives who worked in one of two branch of?ces in different parts of the United States.One of the of?ces had an ethics program in place for approximately6months before the study began.Among other things,this consisted of giving employees at least10hours of training in ethical principles,behavioral expectations in keeping with the company’s code of ethics,practice in making ethical decisions,and training in procedures to be followed in seeking advice on ethical matters.Employees working at the other of?ce,which served as the control group,were given no such training.This constituted a naturalistic independent variable insofar as it differentiated between participants on the basis of a naturally occurring treatment.

This manipulation is of interest in several respects.Notably,although the researcher capitalized on the presence or absence of the ethics program at different locations as de-termined by the company,he did not create this difference for the bene?t of the research itself.This has the ethical bene?t of separating the researcher from any potential conse-quences associated with adverse reactions to the intervention(e.g.,disruption caused by rejection of the ethics program among workers)as well as problems linked to withhold-ing the intervention from some location(e.g.,spikes in inventory shrinkage in the con-trol group).At the same time,there is a drawback of conducting the experiment in this https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,ly,the decision to launch the ethics program in one location as opposed to another was not determined at random by the experimenter.Rather,as might be expected, this was a matter of logistical convenience for the company.Such a violation of random assignment is not atypical in?eld experiments(West,Biesanz&Pitts,2003),and there-fore may be expected as well in situated experiments using naturalistic manipulations of this type.This poses a potential threat to internal validity insofar as pre-experimental dif-ferences in theft levels might have led to the decision to implement the ethics program in one location as opposed to another.In the present instance,the company’s position was that this was not the case and that the decision was dictated only by logistical con-cerns.

It also is important to note that it was not possible from this manipulation to determine which of the several elements of the ethics program accounted for the results.In other words, the multidimensional nature of the naturalistic independent variable created a confounding between components of that variable.This confounding was not considered problematic for theory-testing because the research was designed to differentiate between the overall presence or absence of an ethics program with all its naturalistic elements intact.Finding that employees stole less from employers when their of?ce had an ethics program in place than when it had no such program,it would be instructive for future researchers to re?ne the multifaceted independent variable used in this study by assessing the unique impact of its individual components.Doing so requires comparing the effectiveness of ethics programs that include or exclude various elements across samples of otherwise equivalent workers

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724709 and settings,a large-scale naturalistic experiment that would be very dif?cult to be able to conduct.

Greenberg(2002)also tapped a naturally occurring individual difference between emplo-yees—level of cognitive moral development.Approximately two months before the study was conducted,the short form of the Social Re?ections Measure(SRM-SF;Gibbs,Basinger &Fuller,1992)was administered to a large group of employees from the company.Par-ticipants in the study were volunteers from this larger pretested group.Although this type of procedure is routinely followed in research on individual differences,Greenberg(2002) took an additional step because the protocol for scoring responses to the Gibbs et al.(1992) measure involves interpreting open-ended responses.To be sensitive to the possibility that local norms may dictate speci?c interpretations of these responses,the researcher arranged for scoring to be performed by four of?cials from the company whose employees were studied.These of?cials were blind to the research and to the identity of the participants. Although they were carefully trained in Gibbs et al.’s(1992)clearly speci?ed scoring pro-tocol,it was considered a potential safeguard to use raters who were capable of interpreting any work-speci?c responses that may have been made.

The research procedure was modeled after an earlier laboratory experiment by the same author(Greenberg,1993).This involved inviting participants to take a certain amount of money as payment for completing a questionnaire.Taking amounts in excess of this stated amount was considered theft.The investigator manipulated information about the sponsor of the task,stating either that it was the company or a few individual managers.This procedure constituted the“laboratory”component of this situated experiment.

As is typical in any experiment conducted in a university laboratory,participants in the Greenberg(2002)situated experiment were thoroughly debriefed about the study before being dismissed.Typically,college students require only limited explanation as to why they participated in a study because the reason is almost always the same:They were required to ful?ll a class requirement.In a work setting,however,no such expectations exist,thereby prompting the need for an explicit explanation as to why the unusual expe-rience was created for employees.In this case,that explanation was straightforward:The company conspired with the researcher to create temptations and opportunities to steal, ironically,to provide a basis for subsequent training in adhering to ethical standards.As it worked out,these training sessions,which were conducted several months after the study was over,proved highly bene?cial insofar as the trainer(who also was the researcher who conducted the research at the company)was able to draw on the?ndings of the research to illustrate various points about the impact of individual and situational determinants of employee theft.In fact,it was with the speci?c intent of demonstrating these points that organizational of?cials agreed to conducting the study.Although objective data were not available to support this claim,all involved agreed that these experiences(which the company came to regard as“pretraining experiential exercises”)proved invaluable in this regard.

Greenberg and Roberge(in press):Mindless Excuses Situated Experiment

Greenberg and Roberge(in press)report the results of two situated experiments assessing the conditions under which workers accepted“mindless”apologies for underpayment—

710J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

that is,content-free messages containing stray characters.Both studies manipulated the extent to which apologies contained mindless content in conjunction with the degree of underpayment created.In Experiment1,participants were led to believe that the source of their underpayment was a supervisor from their own company in all cases.Experiment2 added the source of the underpayment as an additional independent variable:At one level, the source also was a supervisor(as held constant in Experiment1);at another level,it was said to be a stranger conducting research by an outside?rm for its own use.From the company’s perspective,the investigation constituted an exercise designed to demon-strate the importance of clear communication and fair payment on workplace behavior, which were major topics subsequently covered in a training session conducted by the re-searcher.

The participants in both studies were customer service representatives from the same parent company whose employees participated in the study by Greenberg(2002).How-ever,participants in the Greenberg and Roberge(in press)experiments were from different of?ces located in different US cities.Accordingly,the possibility of cross-experimental contamination within the“subject pool”was unlikely.This is an important consideration when conducting situated experiments in organizations.Unlike college students,who may be expected to move on over time to classes that do not require research participation,em-ployees are likely to remain on their jobs for a while,thereby increasing the chances that they will participate in multiple studies if the same research site is tapped repeatedly.This may be problematic if it runs the risk of creating“professional subjects”who are unlikely to be representative of a broader sample(Carlston&Cohen,1980),and also because it intro-duces a source of bias resulting from potential carry-over experiences from earlier research participation(Kruglanski,1975).

In Experiment1,employees volunteered to complete a questionnaire sponsored by their company after work hours in exchange for$10.After completing the task,they were given information manipulating the degree to which they would be underpaid,accompanied by an apology for that underpayment that varied with respect to the degree to which it contained interpretable content.The primary dependent variable was assessments of the fairness of the pay received for performing this task.To varying degrees,this pay was less than promised, thereby providing an opportunity to examine the effects of different degrees of underpay-ment.The nature of the independent and dependent variables and the manner in which this study was conducted were such that it could have been performed in a laboratory setting outside the workplace.That is to say,none of the variables capitalized on unique features of the work setting.

However,the follow-up investigation,Greenberg and Roberge’s(in press)Experiment 2,explicitly capitalized on nature of the work setting by introducing a third variable—the nature of participants’relationship with the source of underpayment.Speci?cally,the per-son responsible for the underpayment was described either as an agent of the organization (replicating Experiment1),or a stranger with whom they had no connection whatsoever. Although conceivably such a manipulation could have been carried out in a university lab-oratory(e.g.,by indicating that the pay came from one’s professor as opposed to some other anonymous source),the work setting made it possible to introduce this variable in a highly natural manner.This is because workers in the company studied were accustomed to having opportunities to complete questionnaires after work in exchange for$10.This

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724711 expectation heightened the salience of the underpayment manipulation because it was not only a violation of the stated pay rate,but also of prevailing normative standards.More-over,because workers in this company were used to completing questionnaires adminis-tered by different sponsors,this manipulation of the source of underpayment was likely to be salient without arousing suspicion about its authenticity,as might have occurred in a university lab.Cast in general terms,this study capitalized on naturalistic differences in conditions and expectations of the participants,which is a unique bene?t of situated experiments.

Although several of the participants in the Greenberg and Roberge experiments completed questionnaires on earlier occasions,it is important to note that cross-study contamination was unlikely.We say this because these employees’previous questionnaire experiences were affectively neutral and unrelated to the nature of these investigations.The greatest potential threats of contamination stemmed from participants’sharing their experiences with coworkers.However,several experimental safeguards were incorporated into the procedure to avoid this problem.

First,only one experimental session was conducted in each of the of?ces involved in the research(three different of?ces in Experiment1,and two different of?ces in Experiment 2,all of which were located in cities distant from one another).Thus,even if participants shared their experiences with coworkers in their own facilities,these others were not going to participate in the research.

Second,the employees involved in the research had no formal contact with their coun-terparts in other of?ces,thereby precluding the possibility that they would be able to share their experiences,which would potentially bias the results by introducing time-of-study as a confounding variable(for a discussion of the potential problems of what Gergen,1973,has called enlightenment effects,see Greenberg&Folger,1988,pp.157–159).Third,to further minimize the unlikely possibility that information about the studies would be transmitted between participants in the different of?ces,no mention was made of the fact that research was going to be conducted elsewhere.In addition,to minimize the period within which information may have been communicated between of?ces,the time between experimental sessions was purposely kept at a minimum(in Experiment1,the study was administered at three different of?ces within one workweek and in Experiment2,the study was conducted at two different of?ces within three days).Moreover,Experiment2was conducted only three weeks after the last experimental session was run in Experiment1.

Insofar as the participants in these situated experiments were underpaid in the course of the study,the same ethical considerations noted in conjunction with Greenberg(2002) apply in this case as well.Notably,although participants in some conditions were led to believe that they would be paid less than the promised,normatively appropriate,amount, they actually were paid in full before leaving the experimental setting.As in any laboratory setting in which participants are intentionally misled,Greenberg and Roberge(in press)fully explained the necessity of using deception to the workers who participated in their research as part of the debrie?ng procedure.As in the case of Greenberg(2002),the deception used here was relatively benign and any potential distress caused by underpayment was very short-lived.In this case as well,post-experimental questionnaires revealed that participants were not distressed about the procedure used and readily claimed to understand the need for deception in the experiment and the study’s value to themselves and the company.

712J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

Chen et al.(2003,Study2):Situated Experiment on the Effects of Status on the Relationship between Outcome Favorability and Procedural Fairness

Study2in Chen et al.(2003)presents the results of another situated experiment.This investigation was conducted to examine the nature of the interactive relationship between the favorability of rewards received and the fairness of the procedures used to determine those rewards as a function of the relative status of the individuals.This investigation introduced relative status as a moderator of the well-established interactive relationship between outcome favorability and procedural fairness(Brockner&Weisenfeld,1996). This investigation was performed on site at a?nancial services company as part of a training program focusing of the fair treatment of coworkers.Speci?cally,it was a pre-training experience upon which the experimenter drew for purposes of illustrating various principles of organizational justice in a training session in which participants were involved several weeks later.The researcher conducted both the experiment and the training session in conjunction with management’s wishes to develop methods for enhancing employees’fair treatment of one another.Speci?cally,the company was interested in demonstrating to employees some of the factors that led their colleagues to be interested in seeking them out or to avoid them as teammates.

Participants were customer service representatives and supervisors who worked at the same of?ce of a?nancial services company.In this organization’s status hierarchy,the supervisors were one level above the customer service representatives.The study was con-ducted in conjunction with an effort to determine how quickly employees could compute consumers’credit scores using a new computer program on which all received earlier train-ing.Unlike the questionnaire tasks performed by participants in Greenberg(2002)and Greenberg and Roberge(in press),this task was“real”insofar as actual performance was measured on a task that had high face validity to participants.

Employees participating in the study were told that they would be paired randomly with one of the other people in the room with whom they would be competing on the credit-scoring task.On a computer screen they were informed of the other person’s job title,but not his or her identity.As a result,participants could tell only that they were working against another individual whose status either was higher than theirs,lower than theirs,or equal to theirs, but not exactly who this person was.To guard against bias associated with knowledge of that person,individual names were not shared.This procedure illustrates a unique bene?t of a situated experiment:The levels of the independent variable capitalized on naturalistic differences(participants recognized the other’s actually higher,lower,or equal status), but the manner in which participants were assigned to conditions in which they believed they were interacting with another of higher,lower,or equal status was accomplished in a completely random fashion.

The dependent variable was of the type used in most experimental studies—a question-naire.In this case,the instrument assessed participants’desires to work with that same partner on another project.After this measure was completed(along with several others constituting the manipulation checks),participants were debriefed and all were given the same amount of reward.Debrie?ng consisted of explaining the nature of the study,including the fact that they were misled about their relative outcomes and the nature of the procedures by which they were determined.

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724713 Internal validity was enhanced by assigning participants to combinations of conditions at random.Likewise,the internal validity of the relative status manipulation was enhanced by the fact that these status differences were salient and that participants were well aware of them(as con?rmed in manipulation checks).Although there is some potential confounding between the other person’s status and other aspects of that individual’s identity,this possi-bility was minimized by the fact that the other person could have been any one of four other people.Moreover,because all the individuals involved worked in different departments,the chances were reduced that salient aspects of those individuals’identities were known to the participants.

It is important to note that participants in Chen et al.(2003,Study2)were volunteers who agreed to help assess the new credit-scoring system.This was,in fact,what they did.In contrast to the bogus questionnaire task performed by participants in the Greenberg(2002) situated experiment,performance on this research task was of value to the company.Because the study was performed during working hours,no concerns were aroused about having to pay overtime.The most serious ethical concern in this study was the false information pre-sented regarding outcome quantity and procedure,and this was both minor and short-lived.

Distinguishing Situated Experiments from Laboratory Experiments and

Field Experiments

These examples illustrate four key features of situated experiments that distinguish them from laboratory experiments and?eld experiments:(1)participants’level of awareness of experimental participation,(2)opportunities for random assignment,quality of manipu-lations,and control over variables,(3)the arti?ciality of the research setting,and(4)the purpose of the research(for a summary,see Table1).

Awareness of Experiment

By de?nition,participants in a lab experiment know that they are participating in a research study.This has been documented to result in any of a variety of subject role ar-Table1

Comparisons between lab experiments,?eld experiments,and situated experiments on key criteria

Criterion Laboratory experiments Field experiments Situated experiments Participants’awareness of

participation in research

High Low Relatively low

Opportunities for random assignment High Low High for some variables,low

for others

Quality of manipulations Precise Imprecise Precise Control over variables High Low High

Arti?ciality of research setting High Low High for some variables,low

for others

Principal bene?ciary of the research Researcher(and

students,if properly

debriefed)

Researcher Researcher,organization,

and employees

714J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

tifacts,such as the tendency for participants to be highly anxious(Kruglanski,1975),or to behave intentionally in a manner either contrary with or in keeping with their expec-tations about what is expected of them(Cook,Bean,Calder,Frey,Krovetz&Reisman, 1970)—all of which may bias the results(for a review,see Greenberg&Folger,1988, Chapter6).By contrast,participants in most?eld experiments have no awareness that they are involved in an experiment,thereby precluding the opportunity for them to bias their responses.

Participants in situated experiments fall between these two extremes.They are aware that they are involved in some kind of special activity,which may trigger some nominal levels of arousal.However,because participants are unlikely to be aware of the actual experi-mental aspect of this event,they would not have any opportunity to bias their responses in any systematic fashion.This was the case in all four of the situated experiments described here.In these situated experiments,as often is done in university laboratories,the true purpose of the research was disguised.Speci?cally,the ostensible purpose of the investiga-tions described here either was to complete a questionnaire(Greenberg,2002;Greenberg& Roberge,in press)or to assess performance on a new work procedure(Chen et al.,2003). As a result,there was no opportunity for participants to be aware of the actual research itself.

Opportunities for Random Assignment,Quality of Manipulations,and Control over Variables

The opportunity to assign participants to conditions at random in an effort to hold constant the effects of variables other than the independent variable is the sine qua non of the laboratory https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,b experiments also offer researchers the opportunity to manipulate their independent variables precisely and to have control over extraneous variables.These characteristics can enhance the internal validity of a lab experiment—not automatically,but if properly conducted(Brewer,2000).

By contrast,random assignment to conditions in?eld experiments is likely to be far more limited in the case of most variables—in which case,the researcher would be said to be conducting a quasiexperiment(see Greenberg&Folger,1988,Chapter5).Moreover,?eld experimentation is likely to suffer from imprecise manipulations and give researchers only limited control over key variables of interest.

Again,situated experiments represent a point somewhere between these extremes.For those variables that are under the direct control of the experimenter,random assignment is indeed possible.This would be the case for all variables except those that are not under the experimenter’s direct control(although there are not likely to be many,there may be a few). This,of course,depends on the exact nature of the experiment.In fact,in the examples of situated experiments presented here,only one variable(presence or absence of an ethics program)in one experiment(Greenberg,2002)was not under the experimenter’s control. All other variables in all other studies were precisely manipulated and carefully controlled.

Arti?ciality of Research Setting

As noted earlier,although some researchers explicitly attempt to replicate key ele-ments of organizations in their research settings,most others do not.That is,instead

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724715 of creating mundane realism(i.e.,a situation that resembles some aspects of some set-ting of interest),they focus on creating experimental realism(i.e.,conditions likely to have an immediate effect on research participants)(Carlsmith,Ellsworth&Aronson, 1976).This follows from the argument that what is most important when it comes to testing theory is faithfully operationalizing the variables of theoretical interest regardless of whether or not these duplicate the characteristics of any particular non-laboratory set-ting(Berkowitz&Donnerstein,1982).Hence,it has been argued that arti?ciality in ex-periments is not merely acceptable,but desirable(Henshel,1980)—or,as Berkowitz and Donnerstein(1982)put it,“arti?ciality is the strength and not the weakness of experiments”(p.256).

A key consideration in this regard concerns the scope of the theories being tested.In the case of an applied?eld,such as management,researchers are inclined to be inter-ested in testing theories that specify certain elements of a setting,such as a work group or an organization.In this case,testing theories may well require that the setting not be arti?cial with respect to those elements.Rather,they may need to be studied in their nat-ural environments.In other words,although arti?ciality with respect to some variables may be desirable,mundane realism is precisely what is necessary to examine the effects of other variables.Several examples of this may be seen in the situated experiments de-scribed here.For example,Greenberg(2002)studied the presence or absence of an ethics program,Greenberg and Roberge(in press)studied reactions to underpayment caused by familiar or unfamiliar organizational agents,and Chen et al.(2003)examined the reactions to people who differed with respect to their organizational status.The validity of efforts to replicate these variables outside of an actual organizational context surely would be questionable.

Bene?ts of Conducting the Research to the Participating Organization

In the case of scienti?cally oriented research,the researcher’s major(if not sole)concern is likely to be insight into the theory or phenomenon under investigation.Although this applies as well to scholars conducting situated experiments,the setting in which such research is conducted promotes sensitivity to the interests of other stakeholders as well—speci?cally, the organization and its employees.

Interestingly,the researcher’s theoretically based interest in conducting the investigation may or may not be shared by of?cials of the host organization.For them,there is likely to be a far more immediate return—an opportunity to demonstrate some key phenomenon that subsequently will facilitate important organizational training.This was the case for all four situated experiments described here.Speci?cally,what constituted a scienti?c ex-periment for the researcher was perceived as a valuable pretraining exercise for the host organizations—and in one case(Chen et al.,2003),an opportunity to collect valuable nor-mative data about task performance.Among the participants,the bene?ts of the research experience are different still.For them,the immediate bene?t comes from receiving extra pay,rewards,or time off regular work assignments.Of course,this is in addition to any long-term bene?ts linked to being trained or the abstract bene?ts of understanding the phe-nomena being researched.In short,we believe that properly conducted situated experiments may be a win-win-win experience.

716J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

Internal Validity in Situated Experiments

Many of the characteristics of situated experiments that make them unique(e.g.,parti-cipant-workers’ongoing opportunities for communication and their advance knowledge of one another)also render them potentially vulnerable to internal validity threats.We now will identify several such threats along with ways of minimizing them.

Potential Violations of the Stable-Unit-Treatment-Value-Assumption

One of the potential bene?ts of situated experiments is that they allow for random as-signment of participants to most,if not all,conditions.Randomization makes it possible to attain unbiased estimates of the causal effects of variables as long as the stable-unit-treatment-value-assumption(SUTV A)is met(West et al.,2000).This requires satisfying two conditions.First,the randomization procedure must be inert—that is,the manner by which participants are assigned to conditions itself cannot affect in any way participants’responses to the treatments received.The SUTV A would be violated,for example,if par-ticipants were led to believe that they were selected to participate in a particular condition on some nonrandom basis(e.g.,because of their special skills).The second criterion for satisfying the SUTV A is that participants’responses not be affected by their knowledge of the treatments others receive(except,of course,insofar as this itself may constitute a treatment).This would be the case,for example,if participants had some idea that their colleagues in other conditions were getting paid differently.

The potential to violate each of these conditions strikes us as real possibilities in the case of situated experiments.After all,because participation in research is not typically part of the work experience,it may be tempting to induce participation by somehow leading employees to believe that they were specially selected.Doing so would violate the SUTV A. In addition,it’s easy to envision that employees who otherwise may feel fairly paid for performing an experimental task may come to feel relatively underpaid upon learning that people in another group are getting paid more for doing the same work.This too would violate the SUTV A.

West and his associates(2002)note that“If participants are not aware of the random assignment and are only aware of the nature of the experimental condition in which they participate,the likelihood that SUTV A will be met is greatly increased”(p.48).To meet this assumption,thereby yielding unbiased estimates of causal effects,these authors recommend geographically isolating participants.This was precisely what was done in the two situated experiments by Greenberg and Roberge(in press)and the one by Greenberg(2002),in which parts of the experiments that were conducted at different times also were conducted at different locations.

Group Administration of Treatments

In?eld experiments it is not unusual for researchers to administer different treatments to different groups of participants.As insightful as such?eld experiments may be,the practice of administering treatments to entire groups is potentially problematic insofar as it fails to ensure that the responses of members of each treatment group are truly independent(West

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724717 et al.,2000).This nonindependence,in turn,leads to arti?cially reduced estimates of the standard errors of the effects,effectively in?ating the chance of Type1error(Barcikowski, 1981).

Because they capitalize on naturalistic differences,situated experiments are at risk for this problem.Consider,for example,Greenberg’s(2002)study of employee theft.In this case, it appeared safe to assume that differences in participants’levels of cognitive moral devel-opment were evenly distributed between the two locations studied.Moreover,information about the victim of the theft was randomized on an individual basis.However,because the naturalistic manipulation of ethics program occurred between groups,noninterdependence cannot be assumed.In this particular case,however,because the intraclass correlation was low(.04),and because the level of alpha selected for signi?cance testing was more extreme than usual(p<.001),it is unlikely that the null hypothesis regarding this variable was rejected prematurely.A more sophisticated way of avoiding this potential problem when testing hypotheses about naturalistic group-level effects is by using hierarchical linear mod-eling techniques that make appropriate corrections for the degree of noninterdependence within groups(e.g.,Kreft&DeLeeuw,1998).

Better yet,whenever possible,researchers should follow the practice of administering conditions to individuals completely randomly within group settings as done in some of the situated experiments described here.For example,in Study2of Chen et al.(2003)and in both studies conducted by Greenberg and Roberge(in press),all independent variables were administered on a completely randomized basis to individuals via computer terminals that were not visible to others during the group administration of the study.In other words, although participants assembled in groups,the independent variables were not administered on this basis,but rather,individually.Insofar as the unit of analysis was the individual,this procedure was appropriate.

Breakdown of Randomization

The situated experiments described here were brief studies of the type typically conducted in the laboratory.Although we envision that most situated experiments will be of this type, it also is possible for them to be more complex and longitudinal in nature.This would be the case,for example,if a researcher had groups of workers in different locations play a negotiation game with one another over an extended period of time.Researchers conducting situated experiments of this type need to be aware of breakdown of randomization a potential threat to internal validity that does not arise in the hour-long pretraining exercises about which we have been speaking—breakdown of randomization.

Although highly informative,large-scale?eld experiments conducted at multiple research sites often run the risk of breakdown of randomization particularly when people other than the researcher(e.g.,of?cials of the organization studied)are responsible for the treatments (Boruch,McSweeny&Soderstrom,1978).This occurs all too frequently,for example,in epidemiological research when physicians required to administer drugs to certain patients fail to do so(e.g.,Kopans,1994).This problem may be avoided in situated experiments in precisely the same manner that has been recommended in the case of?eld experiments—that is,by carefully monitoring the randomization process and the treatments received by each participant in the study(Braucht&Rieichardt,1993).

718J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

Creating Opportunities to Enhance Internal Validity

Thus far,we have discussed potential threats to internal validity associated with situated experiments and ways of overcoming them.In addition,we also should note that situated experiments may have associated with them several features that enhance internal validity, at least if capitalized upon in appropriate fashion.Several examples may be seen in the situated experiments presented here.

First,it may be possible in situated experiments to capitalize on the unique features of the research settings by involving organizational of?cials in the research process.For example, Greenberg(2002)did this by using executives from the company within which the data were collected to participate in the scoring of the cognitive moral development measure.As noted earlier,this was done in an effort to facilitate the interpretation of any company-speci?c responses that may have been made.

Second,by capitalizing on naturalistic qualities of the work environment,situated exper-iments provide opportunities to embed methodological features that otherwise may arouse suspicion in the laboratory.Greenberg’s(2002)use of a bowl of pennies on the training room table to study employee theft is a good example.Because participants were accustomed to using this bowl of pennies for other training exercises,its use in this situated experiment was unlikely to cause bias induced by suspicion,as sometimes occurs in the laboratory(e.g., Greenberg&Folger,1988).This is not to say,of course,that any apparatus or any manip-ulation in a?eld setting automatically provides this assurance.Rather,by capitalizing on their natural occurrence,researchers have a good opportunity to camou?age manipulations and measurements of interest to them.

Third,we note that situated experiments provide good opportunities to enhance internal validity by studying complex naturalistic variables in a highly controlled manner.Differ-ences in employee status,as studied in Chen et al.’s(2003)Study2represent one such example.In this case,the status differences between employees were“real”insofar as they re?ected actual differences between employees in the same company among whom they had meaning.To manipulate status in a laboratory,as sometimes has been done by giving participants feedback about the status of others(e.g.,Jones,Gergen&Jones,1963)is surely less meaningful,thereby raising questions about the internal validity of the manipulation(if not also its salience).We acknowledge that the practice of using“real other employees”to manipulate status runs the risk of introducing confounds associated with feelings about the individual others involved in the study—who,because they are known—cannot be made to be neutral with respect to all other variables.To minimize this problem,Chen et al.(2003) created a situation in which the status of the other individual involved in the study was known although his or her exact identity was unclear because it could have been one of several others with whom the participants did not have a direct reporting relationship.

Ethical Considerations in Situated Experiments

Although it is important to consider the ethical treatment of participants in all research investigations,special ethical considerations are involved in situated experiments.These involve the role of deception and the nature of the debrie?ng procedure.

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724719 Deception

Involvement in research experiences among workers must be completely voluntary,ap-propriately compensated,and be recognized as a valuable,if not also enjoyable,experience. Indications to the contrary should be taken as grounds for not doing the research,or terminat-ing the study if it already began.Even if company of?cials believe that the experience may be “good for them,”it is the scientist’s ethical and legal obligation to avoid doing anything that might jeopardize the employer–employee relationship.After all,the underlying purpose of any organizational research is to improve the lot of management and employees.Conduct-ing research that threatens to jeopardize the well-being of any individual or the company renders that investigation unjusti?able on the grounds that its costs far outweigh its bene?ts. This raises the matter of deceiving employees in the course of a situated experiment. For many years,experimental social psychologists raised questions about the messages they were sending about their profession by routinely deceiving participants in laboratory research.As Vinacke(1954)challenged his colleagues a half-century ago,“What sort of reputation does a laboratory which relies heavily on deceit have in the university and the community where it operates?”and“what possible effects can there be on[the public’s] attitude toward psychologists...?”(p.155).

To be sure,the same type of question may be raised about situated experiments in orga-nizations in which deception occurs.In this case,however,the question takes a different form,and one with a decidedly more immediate impact—namely,what is the long-term impact of deceiving employees?Given the widespread importance of developing trust be-tween employers and employees(Miller,2001),it is reasonable to ask why employers may be willing to breach that trust in the course of conducting an experiment.In the case of the situated experiments reported here(and in any that may be done),the answer is clear: Trust was not violated.In contrast to social psychologists who expressed concern about the public image of their profession created by repeated use of deception(Baumrind,1985)—not to mention,the validity of research?ndings predicated on this technique(Aronson& Carlsmith,1968)—the practice of deceiving research participants in the workplace is new and not widespread(yet,at least).Thus,it is unlikely that participants will come to a situated experiment with preconceived expectations that they will be deceived.

To be ethically aware,however,organizational researchers must consider the possibility that employees’trust in their employers may be eroded by the decision to deceive them in the course of the study.However,we advocate that the nature of the deception used in situated experiments should be so benign in magnitude,so short-lived,and so thoroughly debriefed as to not jeopardize trust.This was the case in all the situated experiments described here. These considerations,although important,are not signi?cantly different than those raised about any experiment involving human participants conducted in a university laboratory. When conducting an experiment in an organization,however,their importance is magni?ed by virtue of the ongoing and sometimes delicate nature of the relationship between employ-ers and employees.In fact,we caution against conducting situated experiments involving deception in any organizations in which the relationship between labor and management is strained.Thus,if the overall level of trust between people in an organization is already low, it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to threaten relationships further by introducing deceptive practices,no matter how benign or ultimately effective they may be.

720J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724

Debrie?ng

The process of debrie?ng research participants involves not only revealing any deceptions used in the course of the study,but also fully explaining the nature of the investigation itself (for an overview of this process,see Greenberg&Folger,1988,Chapter8).The need to debrief employees who participated in a situated experiment is somewhat different from the need to debrief undergraduate student volunteers who participate in research to ful?ll a course requirement.This is predicated on two major differences between the incentives for participating in research in each of the settings.

First,in the case of college students,research participation typically is justi?ed on the grounds that it provides a useful educational experience,and the bene?ts gleaned from of this experience represent a major form of compensation to the participant for the time spent.By contrast,employees may have little reason to expect to receive an“educational experience”as part of their regular work activities—even such extra-role behaviors as volunteering to complete a survey,as in Greenberg(2002).Second,whereas college students typically are required to participate in experimental research to ful?ll a course requirement and know that they are involved in a research study,employees in situated experiments typically get involved as volunteers and do not recognize the research aspect of their activities. In fact,participants in Greenberg’s(2002)situated experiment were led to believe that any“research”in which they were involved had to do with the bogus questionnaire they completed as a cover-story for underpaying them.

Justifying such deception on ethical grounds raises several considerations.As in any research study,the nature of the experience for participants who are“kept in the dark”should be such that participants would not object to it even if they had complete information (Greenberg&Folger,1988).This was done by Greenberg(2002)by conducting a pilot study in which a thorough description of the procedure to be used was presented to another group of workers who were not involved in the research.Responses to questionnaires and in-person interviews con?rmed that there was no reason to suspect that any employees would have reason to feel negative about the experience.Also,as noted earlier,the educational bene?ts to the employer should be considerable.Because Greenberg’s(2002)?ndings were used to facilitate training in the ethics program,the study was widely considered a useful educational experience.

Unlike college students who typically are“paid back”with knowledge,employees are working for a living,so any time they spend participating in research should be compen-sated at their usual rate of pay(or overtime,if indicated).Indeed,workers involved in the studies by Greenberg’s(2002)and by Greenberg and Roberge(in press)were compensated for their extra hour spent on their jobs.Likewise,participants in Chen et al.(2003,Study2) were paid all the tickets promised to them in advance.Moreover,we must consider differ-ences in the normative expectations surrounding each setting.Although it is widely believed that there is some bene?t to students for participating in research,making the experience worthwhile for them,some small degree of coercion is expected in student–teacher rela-tionships.After all,it is normatively appropriate for professors to dictate class requirements in a manner that gives students no voice in the process.By contrast,in recent years work-ers have become less likely to accept openly coercive tactics.This is especially important given the importance of preserving the relationship between workers and their managers.

J.Greenberg,E.C.Tomlinson/Journal of Management200430(5)703–724721 Therefore,when conducting situated experiments it is possible under no circumstances to tolerate coercion.

Conclusion

Research methodologists have long advocated that as behavioral scientists,our mission is not to rely on only one single research technique,but rather,to examine corroborating evidence from studies using multiple research methods with offsetting?aws(McGrath, 1982;Webb,Campbell,Schwartz&Sechrest,1966).In this regard,we believe that the situated experiment is one method that deserves a prominent place in the methodological toolkit of organizational scientists.We hope that by pointing out the potential bene?ts of situated experiments,future researchers will consider using them to investigate important phenomena.We believe that such efforts will result in research that ultimately bene?ts the advancement of science(by virtue of its theoretical value)and immediately bene?ts the organizations within which the research is conducted(by virtue of its applied value as an exercise).

References

Anderson,N.,Ones,D.S.,&Sinangil,H.K.(Eds.).2002.Handbook of industrial,work,and organizational psychology.Vol.1:Personnel psychology.Newbury Park,CA:Sage.

Anderson,N.,Ones,D.S.,Sinangil,H.K.,&Viswesvaran,C.(Eds.).2002.Handbook of industrial,work,and organizational psychology.Vol.2:Organizational psychology.Newbury Park,CA:Sage.

Aronson,E.,Brewer,M.,&Carlsmith,J.M.1985.Experimentation in social psychology.In G.Lindzey&E.

Aronson(Eds.),The handbook of social psychology:3rd ed.,V ol.1,441–486.New York:Random House. Aronson,E.,&Carlsmith,J.M.1968.Experimentation in social psychology.In G.Lindzey&E.Aronson,(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology:2nd ed.,V ol.2,1–79.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Babbie,E.R.1975.The practice of social research.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.

Barcikowski,R.S.1981.Statistical power with group mean as the unit of analysis.Journal of Educational Statistics, 6:267–285.

Baumrind,D.1985.Research using intentional deception:Ethical issues revisited.American Psychologist,40: 165–174.

Berkowitz,L.,&Donnerstein,E.1982.External validity is more than skin deep:Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments.American Psychologist,37:245–257.

Blackburn,R.S.1987.Experimental design in organizational settings.In J.W.Lorsch(Ed.),Handbook of organizational behavior:126–139.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice Hall.

Boruch,R.F.,McSweeny,A.J.,&Soderstrom,E.J.1978.Randomized?eld experiments for program planning, development,and evaluation.Evaluation Quarterly,2:655–695.

Braucht,G.N.,&Rieichardt,C.S.1993.A computerized approach to trickle-process,random assignment.

Evaluation Review,17:79–90.

Brewer,M.B.2000.Research design and issues of validity.In H.T.Reis&C.M.Judd(Eds.),Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology:3–16.New York:Cambridge University Press. Brockner,J.,&Wiesenfeld,B.M.1996.An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions:The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.Psychological Bulletin,120:189–208.

Carlsmith,J.M.,Ellsworth,P.C.,&Aronson,E.A.1976.Methods of research in social psychology.Wadsworth, CA:Addison-Wesley.

Carlston,D.C.,&Cohen,J.L.1980.A closer examination of subject roles.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,38:857–870.

小学joinin剑桥英语单词汇总

JOIN IN 学生用书1 Word List Starter Unit 1.Good afternoon 下午好 2.Good evening 晚上好 3.Good morning 早上好 4.Good night 晚安 5.Stand 站立 Unit 1 6.count [kaunt] (依次)点数 7.javascript:;eight [eit] 八 8.eleven [i'levn] 十一 9.four [f?:] 四 10.five [faiv] 五 11.flag [fl?g] 旗 12.guess [ges] 猜 13.jump [d??mp] 跳 14.nine [nain] 九 15.number ['n?mb?] 数字 16.one [w?n] 一 17.seven ['sevn] 七 18.six [siks] 六 19.ten [ten] 十 20.three [θri:] 三 21.twelve [twelv] 十二 22.two [tu:] 二 23.your [ju?] 你的 24.zero ['zi?r?u] 零、你们的 Unit 2 25.black [bl?k] 黑色26.blue [blu:] 蓝色 27.car [kɑ:] 小汽车 28.colour ['k?l?] 颜色 29.door [d?:] 门 30.favourite [feiv?rit]javascript:; 特别喜爱的 31.green [gri:n] 绿色 32.jeep [d?i:p] 吉普车 33.orange ['?:rind?] 橙黄色 34.pin k [pi?k] 粉红色 35.please [pli:z] 请 36.purple ['p?:pl] 紫色 37.red [red] 红色 38.white [wait] 白色 39.yellow ['jel?u] 黄色 Unit 3 40.blackboard ['bl?kb?:d] 黑板 41.book [buk] 书 42.chair [t???] 椅子 43.desk [desk] 桌子 44.pen [pen] 钢笔 45.pencil ['pensl] 铅笔 46.pencil case [keis] 笔盒 47.ruler ['ru:l?] 尺、直尺 48.schoolbag [sku:l] 书包 49.tree [tri:] 树 50.window ['wind?u] 窗、窗口 Unit 4 51.brown [braun] 棕色 52.cat [k?t] 猫

让多媒体技术为小学英语教学插上翅膀

让多媒体技术为小学英语教学插上翅膀 摘要:随着科学技术的发展,多媒体技术应用的领域越来越广,在小学英语课堂中的应用给课堂带来了新的面貌,它以生动形象的画面、鲜明多姿的色彩、直观清楚的演示在教育领域逐渐取代传统教学方式,与传统教学方式相比较,多媒体教学有着无法比拟的优势。 关键词:多媒体技术小学英语课堂 正文: 科技日新月异,伴随着科技的进步,多媒体技术也日趋成熟,逐渐地应用到了教育领域,多媒体技术的使用,使得教育领域发生了巨大的变化。多媒体技术贯穿了现代教育中的各个方面,各个学科,新教学手段(媒介)取代旧的就学手段这是教育发展的必然要求,多媒体运用到课堂,使得教育更具时代色彩,这也是事物发展的客观规律。 多媒体技术运用到小学英语教学中,对此我有切身感受,它颠覆了我们传统的教学方式,使得过去单一的教学模式因注入科技成果的运用而发生质的飞跃,如今的英语课堂用“高效优质”、“多姿多彩”、“有声有色”、“精彩纷呈”等这样的词语来形容并不为过。 一、利用多媒体充分调动学生学习积极性 多媒体技术就是利用电脑把文字、图形、影象、动画、声音及视频等媒体信息都数位化,并将其整合在一定的交互式界面上,使电脑具有交互展示不同媒体形态的能力,多媒体技术具有声形俱全与图文并茂的特点,能使一些枯燥抽象的概念、复杂的变化过程、现象各异的运动形式直观而形象地显现在学生面前。。传统的教学手段只有简单的板书和口述,新课标要求教师的角色转换,传统教学中教师是主导,而新课标要求学生的主体地位,教师应该是课堂的组织者。而多媒体技术在英语课堂中的应用就是组织者教师与主体学生联系的一个纽带。而这个纽带不像传统教学的填鸭式教育手段,而是多姿多彩,有声有色的多媒体教学,这样的教学方式,能引起了学生们极大的学习兴趣,而兴趣是最好的老师,有了兴趣他们就愿意用心学,花时间去学,甚至自觉地学,这样久儿久之,就能将

小学英语自我介绍简单七篇-最新范文

小学英语自我介绍简单七篇 小学的时候我们就开始学习英语了,用英语进行自我介绍是我们值得骄傲的哦,以下是小编为大家带来的小学英语自我介绍简单,欢迎大家参考。 小学英语自我介绍1 Goodafternoon, teachers! Today, I`m very happy to make a speech here. Now, let me introduce myself. My name is ZhuRuijie. My English name is Molly. I`m 12. I come from Class1 Grade 6 of TongPu No.2 Primary School. I`m an active girl. I like playing basketball. Because I think it`s very interesting. I`d like to eat potatoes. They`re tasty. My favourite colour is green. And I like math best. It`s fun. On weekend, I like reading books in my room. I have a happy family. My father is tall and strong.My mother is hard-working and tall, too. My brother is smart. And I`m a good student. My dream is

to be a teacher, because I want to help the poor children in the future. Thank you for listening! Please remember me! 小学英语自我介绍2 Hello,everyone,Iamagirl,mynameisAliceGreenIaminClasstwoGrad efive,Iamveryoutgoing,Icandomanyhousework,suchascooking,swe epingthefloor,andIlikesinginganddancing,IamgoodatpiayingSoc cer,IhopeIcanmakegoodfriendswithyou.Thankyou! 小学英语自我介绍3 Hi, boys and girls, good morning, it is my plearsure to take this change to introduce myself, my name is ---, i am 10 years old. About my family, there are 4 people in my family, father, mother, brother and me, my father and mother are all very kind, welcome you to visit my family if you have time! I am a very outgoing girl(boy), I like reading、playing games and listening to music, of course, I also like to make friends with all the

joinin剑桥小学英语

Join In剑桥小学英语(改编版)入门阶段Unit 1Hello,hello第1单元嗨,嗨 and mime. 1 听,模仿 Stand up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 站起来说"嗨" 拍手坐下来 Good. Let's do up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 好. 我们来再做一遍.站起来说"嗨"拍手坐下来 the pictures. 2 再听一遍给图画编号. up "hello" hands down 1 站起来 2 说"嗨" 3 拍手 4 坐下来说 3. A ,what's yourname 3 一首歌嗨,你叫什么名字 Hello. , what's yourname Hello. Hello. 嗨. 嗨. 嗨, 你叫什么名字嗨,嗨. Hello, what's yourname I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello,hello.嗨, 你叫什么名字我叫托比. 我叫托比 . 嗨,嗨,嗨. I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello, let's go! 我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨, 我们一起! Hello. , what's yourname I'm 'm Toby. 嗨.嗨.嗨, 你叫什么名字我叫托比.我叫托比. Hello,hello,hello. I'm 'm Toby. Hello,hello,let's go! 嗨,嗨,嗨.我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨,我们一起! 4 Listen and stick 4 听和指 What's your name I'm Bob. 你叫什么名字我叫鲍勃. What's your name I'm Rita. What's your name I'm Nick. 你叫什么名字我叫丽塔. 你叫什么名字我叫尼克. What's your name I'm Lisa. 你叫什么名字我叫利萨. 5. A story-Pit'sskateboard. 5 一个故事-彼德的滑板. Pa:Hello,Pit. Pa:好,彼德. Pi:Hello,:What's this Pi:嗨,帕特.Pa:这是什么 Pi:My new :Look!Pi:Goodbye,Pat! Pi:这是我的新滑板.Pi:看!Pi:再见,帕特! Pa:Bye-bye,Pit!Pi:Help!Help!pi:Bye-bye,skateboard! Pa:再见,彼德!Pi:救命!救命!Pi:再见,滑板! Unit 16. Let's learnand act 第1单元6 我们来边学边表演.

小学生英语自我介绍演讲稿五篇

小学生英语自我介绍演讲稿五篇 小学生英语自我介绍演讲稿(1) Good afternoon, teachers! My name is YangXiaodan. I`m 11 now. I`m from Class2 Grade 5 of TongPu No.2 Primary School. My English teacher is Miss Sun. She`s quiet and kind. She`s short and young. My good friend is ZhangBingbing. She`s 12. She`s tall and pretty. We`re in the same class. We both like English very much. I like painting , listening to music, playing computer games and reading books. My favourite food is chicken. It`s tasty and yummy. I often do my homework and read books on Saturdays. This is me. Please remember YangXiaodan. Thank you very much! 小学生英语自我介绍演讲稿(2) Hi everybody, my name is XX ,what’s your name? I’m 11 years old, how old are you? My favourite sport is swimming, what’s your favourite sport? My favourite food is hamburgers,what food do you like?

Join In剑桥小学英语.doc

Join In剑桥小学英语(改编版)入门阶段 Unit 1Hello,hello第1单元嗨,嗨 1.Listen and mime. 1 听,模仿 Stand up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 站起来说"嗨" 拍手坐下来 Good. Let's do itagain.Stand up Say 'hello' Slap hands Sit down 好. 我们来再做一遍.站起来说"嗨"拍手坐下来 2.listen again.Number the pictures. 2 再听一遍给图画编号. 1.Stand up 2.Say "hello" 3.Slap hands 4.Sit down 1 站起来 2 说"嗨" 3 拍手 4 坐下来说 3. A song.Hello,what's yourname? 3 一首歌嗨,你叫什么名字? Hello. Hello.Hello, what's yourname? Hello. Hello. 嗨. 嗨. 嗨, 你叫什么名字? 嗨,嗨. Hello, what's yourname? I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello,hello. 嗨, 你叫什么名字? 我叫托比. 我叫托比 . 嗨,嗨,嗨. I'm Toby. I'm Toby. Hello,hello, let's go! 我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨, 我们一起! Hello. Hello.Hello, what's yourname? I'm Toby.I'm Toby. 嗨.嗨.嗨, 你叫什么名字? 我叫托比.我叫托比. Hello,hello,hello. I'm Toby.I'm Toby. Hello,hello,let's go! 嗨,嗨,嗨.我是托比. 我是托比. 嗨,嗨,我们一起! 4 Listen and stick 4 听和指 What's your name? I'm Bob. 你叫什么名字? 我叫鲍勃. What's your name ? I'm Rita. What's your name ? I'm Nick. 你叫什么名字? 我叫丽塔. 你叫什么名字? 我叫尼克. What's your name ? I'm Lisa. 你叫什么名字? 我叫利萨. 5. A story-Pit'sskateboard. 5 一个故事-彼德的滑板. Pa:Hello,Pit. Pa:好,彼德. Pi:Hello,Pat.Pa:What's this? Pi:嗨,帕特.Pa:这是什么? Pi:My new skateboard.Pi:Look!Pi:Goodbye,Pat! Pi:这是我的新滑板.Pi:看!Pi:再见,帕特! Pa:Bye-bye,Pit!Pi:Help!Help!pi:Bye-bye,skateboard! Pa:再见,彼德!Pi:救命!救命!Pi:再见,滑板! Unit 16. Let's learnand act 第1单元6 我们来边学边表演.

常用标点符号用法简表.doc

常用标点符号用法简表 标点符号栏目对每一种汉语标点符号都有详细分析,下表中未完全添加链接,请需要的同学或朋友到该栏目查询。名称符号用法说明举例句号。表示一句话完了之后的停顿。中国共产党是全中国人民的领导核心。逗号,表示一句话中间的停顿。全世界各国人民的正义斗争,都是互相支持的。顿号、表示句中并列的词或词组之间的停顿。能源是发展农业、工业、国防、科学技术和提高人民生活的重要物质基础。分号;表示一句话中并列分句之间的停顿。不批判唯心论,就不能发展唯物论;不批判形而上学,就不能发展唯物辩证法。冒号:用以提示下文。马克思主义哲学告诉我们:正确的认识来源于社会实践。问号?用在问句之后。是谁创造了人类?是我们劳动群众。感情号①!1.表示强烈的感情。2.表示感叹句末尾的停顿。战无不胜的马克思主义、列宁主义、毛泽东思想万岁!引号 ②“ ” ‘ ’ ╗╚ ┐└1.表示引用的部分。毛泽东同志在《论十大关系》一文中说:“我们要调动一切直接的和间接的力量,为把我国建设成为一个强大的社会主义国家而奋斗。”2.表示特定的称谓或需要着重指出的部分。他们当中许多人是身体好、学习好、工作好的“三好”学生。 3.表示讽刺或否定的意思。这伙政治骗子恬不知耻地自封为“理论家”。括号③()表示文中注释的部分。这篇小说环境描写十分出色,它的描写(无论是野外,或是室内)处处与故事的发展扣得很紧。省略号④……表示文中省略的部分。这个县办工厂现在可以生产车床、电机、变压器、水泵、电线……上百种产品。破折号⑤——1.表示底下是解释、说明的部

分,有括号的作用。知识的问题是一个科学问题,来不得半点的虚伪和骄 傲,决定地需要的倒是其反面——诚实和谦逊的态度。2.表示意思的递进。 团结——批评和自我批评——团结3.表示意思的转折。很白很亮的一堆洋 钱!而且是他的——现在不见了!连接号⑥—1.表示时间、地点、数目等 的起止。抗日战争时期(1937-1945年)“北京—上海”直达快车2.表 示相关的人或事物的联系。亚洲—太平洋地区书名号⑦《》〈〉表示 书籍、文件、报刊、文章等的名称。《矛盾论》《中华人民共和国宪法》《人 民日报》《红旗》杂志《学习〈为人民服务〉》间隔号·1.表示月份和日期 之间的分界。一二·九运动2.表示某些民族人名中的音界。诺尔曼·白求 恩着重号.表示文中需要强调的部分。学习马克思列宁主义,要按照毛泽 东同志倡导的方法,理论联系实际。······

让多媒体走进小学英语课堂

让多媒体走进小学英语课堂 多媒体技术整合于英语学科教学,主动适应课程的发展,并与其和谐自然融为一体。作为课程改革不可或缺的条件,多媒体技术在教学中的飞速发展,必将使教师更新教学观念,营造学习环境,完善教学模式,变革评价方法,促进科学与人文统一,让课堂更精彩。那么,多媒体技术在小学英语教学过程中到底有什么作用呢?笔者认为主要表现在以下几个方面: 一、运用多媒体,激发学习兴趣 托尔斯泰说:“成功的教学所需要的不是强制而是激发学生兴趣。”培养学生学习英语的兴趣无疑是小学英语教学的关键所在。学生只有对自己感兴趣的东西才会开动脑筋、积极思考,外国学者在研究可靠学习发生的条件时指出:学生只能学到那些他们有兴趣的东西,在缺乏适当的环境﹑背景和铺垫的时候,学习不能发生。因此,在教学中要重视培养和引导学生学习英语的兴趣爱好。现代信息技术具有形象性﹑直观性﹑色彩鲜艳﹑图像逼真等特点,能将抽象的教学内容变成具体的视听形象,激发情趣,调动学生多种感官同时参与,从而激发学生的学习兴趣,使学生从多角度轻松舒畅地接受知识,并使其记忆长久。 二、运用多媒体,突破教学难点 小学生的思维正处在由具体形象向抽象思维过渡的时期,而有些教学内容之所以成为学生学习的难点就是因为缺乏语境而显得不具体。如果仅凭教师的描述和讲解,往往是教师花了很大精力,教学效果却事倍功半。而运用多媒体演示就能够突破时空限制,化静为动,使抽象的概念具体化、形象化,不仅突破了教材的难点,还可以加深学生对教学内容的理解和掌握,从而提高教学效率,达到事半功倍的效果。 例如:在教学“in、on、behind、under、near”这几个表示空间关系的方位介词时,我利用多媒体设计了这样的动画:通过点按鼠标,一只小猫一会儿跳到书桌上,一会儿藏在桌子里,一会儿蹦到书桌下,一会儿躲到桌子后,一会儿又窜到桌子旁。随着小猫的位置移动,电脑会问:Where is the cat?这样连续演示几次,学生通过观察、思考,就能快速地回答:It’s on the desk\in the desk\under the desk……,动画刺激了学生的感官,诱发了思维,难点不仅易于突出,更易于突破。 三、运用多媒体,提高创新能力 创新能力是未来人才的重要素质,是一个民族兴旺发达的灵魂。因此发挥每个学生潜在的创造因素,培养学生的创新能力,是当前教育工作者研究的重要课题。要想培养创新能力,就要力求使学生处于动眼、动手、动口的主体激活状态。多媒体技术对文本、图形、声音、动画和视频等信息具有集成处理的能力,使教学手段趋于全方位、多层次,它能加速学生感知过程,促进认识深化、加深理解、

小学生英文自我介绍及故事(精选多篇)

小学生英文自我介绍及故事(精选多篇) 第一篇:小学生英文自我介绍 good afternoon everyone! my name is max. my chinese name is dong li zhen. i am six years old. i am in the primary school of jinling high school hexi branch.my family have four people. one,myfather, his name is dongning, he is a worker; two,my mother, her name is liqing,she is a housewife; three,my pet yoyo ,he is a dog; there is one more. now let me see….oh,yes,that is me! i love my family. i have many toys,a car ,a helicopter, two balls, three jumpropes. i like jumpropes best of all,because i jumprope very good. i have a pencilcase ,it’s bule. i have an brown eraser. i have five pencils,they are many colors, and one ruler,it’s white. i like english,i like speak english thank you! 第二篇:小学生英文自我介绍 自我介绍 各位老师好,我叫邵子豪,今年15岁,现在是红星海学校初中二年级学生。 我是一个善良、自信、幽默、乐于助人的阳光男孩,平时我喜欢和同学一起打篮球,还喜欢和爸爸谈古论今,我自引以为豪的是我有一个善解人意的妈妈和博学多才的爸爸,我为我生活在这样一个充满爱和民主的家庭中感到幸福! hello , teachers: mynameisshaoziha o. i’mfifteenyearsold. istudy in hongxinghaimiddeleschool..iamingradetwonow. iamakind,confident,humourousandhelpfulboy..ilikeplaying basketballwithmyfriends. andialsoliketotalkaboutthehsitoryandthecurrent newswithmyfather. i amveryproudofmyfatherandmymotherbecauseoftheirknowledge.

常用标点符号用法含义

一、基本定义 句子,前后都有停顿,并带有一定的句调,表示相对完整的意义。句子前后或中间的停顿,在口头语言中,表现出来就是时间间隔,在书面语言中,就用标点符号来表示。一般来说,汉语中的句子分以下几种: 陈述句: 用来说明事实的句子。 祈使句: 用来要求听话人做某件事情的句子。 疑问句: 用来提出问题的句子。 感叹句: 用来抒发某种强烈感情的句子。 复句、分句: 意思上有密切联系的小句子组织在一起构成一个大句子。这样的大句子叫复句,复句中的每个小句子叫分句。 构成句子的语言单位是词语,即词和短语(词组)。词即最小的能独立运用的语言单位。短语,即由两个或两个以上的词按一定的语法规则组成的表达一定意义的语言单位,也叫词组。 标点符号是书面语言的有机组成部分,是书面语言不可缺少的辅助工具。它帮助人们确切地表达思想感情和理解书面语言。 二、用法简表 名称

句号① 问号符号用法说明。?1.用于陈述句的末尾。 2.用于语气舒缓的祈使句末尾。 1.用于疑问句的末尾。 2.用于反问句的末尾。 1.用于感叹句的末尾。 叹号! 2.用于语气强烈的祈使句末尾。 3.用于语气强烈的反问句末尾。举例 xx是xx的首都。 请您稍等一下。 他叫什么名字? 难道你不了解我吗?为祖国的繁荣昌盛而奋斗!停止射击! 我哪里比得上他呀! 1.句子内部主语与谓语之间如需停顿,用逗号。我们看得见的星星,绝大多数是恒星。 2.句子内部动词与宾语之间如需停顿,用逗号。应该看到,科学需要一个人贡献出毕生的精力。 3.句子内部状语后边如需停顿,用逗号。对于这个城市,他并不陌生。 4.复句内各分句之间的停顿,除了有时要用分号据说苏州园林有一百多处,我到过的不外,都要用逗号。过十多处。 顿号、用于句子内部并列词语之间的停顿。

五年级下英语月考试卷全能练考Joinin剑桥英语(无答案)

五年级下英语月考试卷-全能练考-Join in剑桥英语 姓名:日期:总分:100 一、根据意思,写出单词。(10′) Fanny:Jackie, ________[猜] my animal,my ________最喜欢的 animal.OK? Jackie:Ok!Mm…Has it got a nose? Fanny:Yes,it’s got a big long nose,…and two long ________[牙齿]. Jackie:Does it live in ________[美国]? Fanny:No,no.It lives ________[在] Africa and Asia. Jackie:Can it ________[飞]? Fanny:I’m sorry it can’t. Jackie:Is it big? Fanny:Yes,it’s very big and ________[重的]. Jackie:What ________[颜色] is it?Is it white or ________[黑色]? Fanny:It’s white. Jackie:Oh,I see.It’s ________[大象]. 二、找出不同类的单词。(10′) ()1 A.sofa B.table C.check ()2 A.noodle https://www.360docs.net/doc/943238052.html,k C.way ()3 A.fish B.wolf C.lion ()4 A.bike B.car C.write ()5 A.tree B.farm C.grass ()6 A.big B.small C.other ( )7 A.eat B.listen C.brown

多媒体对小学英语教学的作用.docx

一、多媒体的设计要符合学生认知规律多媒体的设计应依据学生学习的需求来分析,并采用解决问题的最佳方案,使教学效果达到最优化。 多媒体教学的手段能化被动为主动,化生硬为生动,化抽象为直观,化理论为实践。 根据小学生的认知规律,他们缺乏坚实的理论基础,但直观的操作演示可以弥补这项弱点,可以帮助他们更好地理解和掌握。 对此,学者们已渐有共识这种直观生动的教学形式极大地激发了学生的学习兴趣,也引发了学生丰富的想象力和创造力。 在教学设计过程中,一方面,要运用多媒体的功能优势,将课本中抽象原理形象化,从而激发学生学习的兴趣,提高学习效果;另一方面必须让教学过程符合学生的认知规律,要多为学生创设动手操作的机会。 例如,在教学?一课时,我利用多媒体设计了一次动物聚会,森林里有很多小动物,有些通过图片来呈现,有些通过动画来呈现。 我带领学生边欣赏多媒体演示边复习了小动物的单词,然后引导学生猜每种小动物都来了几个,通过猜测的方式,强调复数的用法。 这里我使用了链接的方式,让学生像在欣赏魔术表演一样,使其出于好奇而变得主动。 通过设计符合学生知识基础和认知能力的多媒体教学内容,不仅能够激发学生学习的积极性和主动性,而且能够促进学生对知识的自我建构和内化。 此外,考虑到学生的年龄特点,在每节课的教学过程中我还格外重视评价的作用,而多媒体技术在这方面也表现出独特的优势。

不论是学习单词、句型,还是与电脑进行互动交流,每个知识点 都有图案背景,并提供过程性评价,随之出现的评价语言和动画无不让学生兴奋异常。 这种符合学生认知规律和个性化特征的内容设计与反馈,不仅使学生们感受到获得成功的喜悦,更达到了快乐交互学习的目的。 二、多媒体的应用要适时、适度和适量信息技术整合于课程不是 简单地将信息技术应用于教学,而是高层次地融合与主动适应。 必须改变传统的单一辅助教学的观点,创造数字化的学习环境,创设主动学习情景,创设条件让学生最大限度地接触信息技术,让信息技术成为学生强大的认知工具,最终达到改善学习的目的。 为保证多媒体与英语教学有效的融合,充分发挥多媒体技术应用的效果,在利用多媒体进行教学设计过程中,要遵循适时、适度和适量的原则,即在恰当的时间选择合适的媒体,适量地呈现教学内容。 在设计多媒体的过程中,要把握教学时机,不同的教学内容和教学环节,决定了多媒体运用的最佳时机也不同,精心策划才能妙笔生花,不能为使用多媒体而使用,不要一味追求手段的先进性、豪华性,而造成课堂教学过程中的画蛇添足。 这就要求教师熟悉多媒体的功能和常用多媒体的种类、特点,以便在教学设计和应用过程中将多媒体与课程学习进行有效地融合,最终提高课堂教学效果。 例如,在学习?这一知识点时,传统的英语课常常是借助钟表或模型来解释某一时刻,讲解整点、几点几分、差几分几点。

剑桥小学英语Join_In

《剑桥小学英语Join In ——Book 3 下学期》教材教法分析2012-03-12 18:50:43| 分类:JOIN IN 教案| 标签:|字号大中小订阅. 一、学情分析: 作为毕业班的学生,六年级的孩子在英语学习上具有非常显著的特点: 1、因为教材的编排体系和课时不足,某些知识学生已遗忘,知识回生的现象很突出。 2、有的学生因受学习习惯及学习能力的制约,有些知识掌握较差,学生学习个体的差异性,学习情况参差不齐、两级分化的情况明显,对英语感兴趣的孩子很喜欢英语,不喜欢英语的孩子很难学进去了。 3、六年级的孩子已经进入青春前期,他们跟三、四、五年级的孩子相比已经有了很大的不同。他们自尊心强,好胜心强,集体荣誉感也强,有自己的评判标准和思想,对知识的学习趋于理性化,更有自主学习的欲望和探索的要求。 六年级学生在英语学习上的两极分化已经给教师的教学带来很大的挑战,在教学中教师要注意引导学生调整学习方式: 1、注重培养学生自主学习的态度 如何抓住学习课堂上的学习注意力,吸引他们的视线,保持他们高涨的学习激情,注重过程的趣味化和学习内容的简易化。 2、给予学生独立思考的空间。 3、鼓励学生坚持课前预习、课后复习的好习惯。 六年级教材中的单词、句子量比较多,难点也比较多,学生课前回家预习,不懂的地方查英汉词典或者其它资料,上课可以达到事半功倍的效果,课后复习也可以很好的消化课堂上的内容。 4、注意培养学生合作学习的习惯。 5、重在培养学生探究的能力:学习内容以问题的方式呈现、留给学生更多的发展空间。 二、教材分析: (一).教材特点: 1.以学生为主体,全面提高学生的素质。

小学简单英语自我介绍范文(精选3篇)

小学简单英语自我介绍范文(精选3篇) 小学简单英语自我介绍范文 当换了一个新环境后,我们难以避免地要作出自我介绍,自我介绍可以满足我们渴望得到尊重的心理。但是自我介绍有什么要求呢?下面是收集整理的小学简单英语自我介绍范文,仅供参考,希望能够帮助到大家。 小学简单英语自我介绍1 Good afternoon, teachers! I`m very happy to introduce myself here. I`m Scott. My Chinese name is SunZijing. I`m 13. I`m from Class1 Grade 6 of TongPu No.2 Primary School. I have many hobbies, such as playing ping-pong, playing badminton, listening to music, reading magazines and so on. My favourite food is chicken. It`s tasty and yummy. So I`m very strong. I`m a naughty boy. I always play tricks. And I just like staying in my room and reading books. But I have a dream, I want to be a car-designer. Because I`m a car fan.This is me. Please remember SunZijing! Thank you very much! 小学简单英语自我介绍2 Goodafternoon, teachers! Today, I`m very happy to make a speech here. Now, let me introduce myself. My name is ZhuRuijie.

剑桥小学英语join in五年级测试卷

五 年 级 英 语 测 试 卷 学校 班级 姓名 听力部分(共20分) 一、Listen and colour . 听数字,涂颜色。(5分) 二、 Listen and tick . 听录音,在相应的格子里打“√”。 (6分) 三、Listen and number.听录音,标序号。(9分) pig fox lion cow snake duck

sheep 笔试部分(共80分) 一、Write the questions.将完整的句子写在下面的横线上。(10分) got it Has eyes on a farm it live sheep a it other animals eat it it Is 二、Look and choose.看看它们是谁,将字母填入括号内。(8分) A. B. C. D.

E. F. G. H. ( ) pig ( ) fox ( ) sheep ( ) cat ( ) snake ( ) lion ( ) mouse ( ) elephant 三、Look at the pictures and write the questions.看图片,根据答语写出相应的问题。(10分) No,it doesn’t. Yes,it is.

Yes,it does. Yes,it has. Yes,it does. 四、Choose the right answer.选择正确的答案。(18分) 1、it live on a farm? 2. it fly?

3. it a cow? 4. it eat chicken? 5. you swim? 6. you all right? 五、Fill in the numbers.对话排序。(6分) Goodbye. Two apples , please. 45P , please. Thank you.

小学生英语自我介绍演讲稿带翻译

小学生英语自我介绍演讲稿带翻译 篇一:小学英语自我介绍演讲稿 Good morning everyone! Today I am very happy to make a speech(演讲) here. Now, let me introduce myself. My name is Chen Qiuxiang. I am from Dingcheng center Primary School. I live in our school from Monday to Friday. At school, I study Chinese, Math, English, Music, Computer, and so on. I like all of them. I am a monitor, so I often help my teacher take care of my class. I think I am a good help. And I like Monday best because we have English, music, computer and on Tuesdays. There are four seasons in a year , but my favourite season is summer. Because I can wear my beautiful dress . When I am at home, I often help my mother do some housework. For example, wash clothes , clean the bedroom, do the dishes and so on . and my mother says I am a good help, too. In my spare time, I have many hobbies. I like reading books , going hiking, flying kites .But I like singing best, and my favourite English song is “The more we get

(完整版)剑桥小学英语Joinin六年级复习题(二)2-3单元.doc

2011-2012 学年度上学期六年级复习题(Unit2-Unit3 ) 一、听力部分 1、听录音排序 ( ) () ()() () 2、听录音,找出与你所听到的单词属同一类的单词 () 1. A. spaceman B. pond C . tiger () 2. A.mascots B. potato C . jeans () 3. A. door B. behind C . golden () 4. A. sometimes B. shop C . prince () 5. A. chair B. who C . sell 3、听录音,将下面人物与他的梦连线 Sarah Tim Juliet Jenny Peter 4、听短文,请在属于Mr. Brown的物品下面打√ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5、听问句选答句 () 1. A. Yes, I am B. Yes, I have C . Yes, you do () 2. A.Pink B. A friendship band C . Yes. () 3. A. OK B. Bye-bye. C . Thanks, too. () 4. A. Monday. B. Some juice. C . Kitty. () 5. A. I ’ve got a shookbag. B. I ’m a student. C . It has got a round face. 6、听短文,选择正确答案 () 1. Where is Xiaoqing from? She is from . A.Hebei B. Hubei C . Hunan () 2. She goes to school at . A.7:00 B.7:30 C . 7:15 () 3. How many classes in the afternoon? classes. A. four B. three C . two () 4. Where is Xiaoqing at twelve o ’clock? She is . A. at home B. at school C .in the park () 5. What does she do from seven to half past eight? She . A.watches TV B. reads the book C. does homework

三年级下学期英语(Joinin剑桥英语)全册单元知识点归纳整理-

Starter Unit Good to see you again知识总结 一. 短语 1. dance with me 和我一起跳舞 2. sing with me 和我一起唱歌 3. clap your hands 拍拍你的手 4. jump up high 高高跳起 5.shake your arms and your legs晃晃你的胳膊和腿 6. bend your knees 弯曲你的膝盖 7. touch your toes 触摸你的脚趾8. stand nose to nose鼻子贴鼻子站 二. 句子 1. ---Good morning. 早上好。 ---Good morning, Mr Li. 早上好,李老师。 2. ---Good afternoon. 下午好。 ---Good afternoon, Mr Brown. 下午好,布朗先生。 3. ---Good evening,Lisa. 晚上好,丽莎。 ---Good evening, Bob. 晚上好,鲍勃。 4. ---Good night. 晚安。 ----Good night. 晚安。 5. ---What’s your name? 你叫什么名字? ---I’m Bob./ My name is Bob. 我叫鲍勃。 6. ---Open the window, please. 请打开窗户。 ---Yes ,Miss. 好的,老师。 7. ---What colour is it? 它是什么颜色? 它是蓝红白混合的。 ---It’s blue, red and white. 皮特的桌子上是什么? 8. ---What’s on Pit’s table? ---A schoolbag, an eraser and two books. 一个书包,一个橡皮和两本书。 9. ---What time is it? 几点钟? 两点钟。 ---It’s two. 10.---What’s this? 这是什么? ---My guitar. 我的吉他。

相关文档
最新文档