Case study of Singarpore's CORENET project

合集下载

教育游戏化:将课堂变成一场协同冒险游戏——以Classcraft为例

28 |
PUBLISHING REFERENCE
海外市场
“对战”形式完成教学评测。学生按时完成任务可以获得奖励，并用来升级角色的经验值（Experience Points，XP）——这将使其角色提高战斗水平并学习新的技能。如果一个学生违反了课堂纪律，就会失去生命值，甚至最终导致角色在“对战”中失败。如果学生获得经验值点数，对相应角色及其团队都有益处；相反，如果一个学生失去了生命值点数，其团队的其他成员角色也会受到伤害，并且大家必须完成各种额外任务。无论如何，学生们需要共同努力才能使团队获得成功。一般而言，没有学生愿意自己的不当行为损害团队利益，导致他人失败。游戏团队中，学生还可以帮助彼此成长。例如，如果学生的虚拟角色是一名战士，而队友因为上课迟到面临生命值点数降低，则该学生可以通过完成额外的学习任务来挽救队友。学生知道他们在课堂上的行为会影响整个团队的进度、这会激励他们强化课堂上的积极行为和团队合作，提升课堂学习效率。 Classcraft 每个月都会发布新的故事情节和场景供教育工作者选择，帮助提升学生的课堂参与感 [19]。除了在预制故事中添加课程任务外，Classcraft 还允许教师自己编写课程，通过上传不同的学习任务来教授不同的科目。根据在课堂活动中收集的数据，教师还可以查看学生的行为并进行分析。
是以游戏软件为基础的学习，教育游戏（Educational Games）的设
计与开发是当前研究的主流方向。教育游戏模糊了学习与游戏、正式学习与非正式学习的边界 [13]；但是有别于教育游戏的软件性质（见表
1），教育游戏化是一套解决方案，服务于教育情境中的各类问题，
如激发学习者动机和兴趣、引导学习者面对学业失败、激发其学校生
研究表明，随着游戏在当代文化中的地位日益提高，其在教育中能够扮演的角色也越来越多样化。 Classcraft 作为受到游戏启发开发的教育解决方案，它对于学习的积极作用和游戏非常相似。

学生应不应该使用手机搜作业辩论赛英语作文

学生应不应该使用手机搜作业辩论赛英语作文全文共10篇示例，供读者参考篇1Should Students Use Phones to Search for Homework: A DebateHey guys, today we are going to talk about whether students should use phones to search for homework. This is a really important topic because a lot of us use our phones for everything, including homework! But is it a good idea? Let's debate!First, let's talk about why students should use phones to search for homework. One reason is that phones make it really easy to find information quickly. When we have a question about our homework, all we have to do is type it into our phones and we can find the answer right away. This saves us a lot of time and makes it easier to finish our homework faster. Plus, phones have a lot of cool apps that can help us with our homework, like calculator apps and dictionary apps.But on the other hand, some people might say that students shouldn't use their phones to search for homework. They mightsay that phones are distracting and can make it harder for us to focus on our work. They might also say that using phones too much can be bad for our eyes and our brains. And some teachers might even say that using phones to search for homework is a form of cheating because we are not doing the work ourselves.So, what do you guys think? Should students use phones to search for homework? It's a tough question, but I think it depends on how we use our phones. If we use them responsibly and only use them when we really need help, then it can be a good thing. But if we are constantly on our phones and using them as a crutch, then maybe we should try to do our homework without them.In conclusion, using phones to search for homework can be helpful, but we need to be careful not to rely on them too much. We still need to do our own work and think for ourselves. So, let's keep using our phones for homework, but let's also remember to use our brains too! Thanks for listening, guys! Remember, it's important to think for ourselves and not just rely on our phones for everything. Let's keep learning and growing every day!篇2Should students use phones to search for homework? This is a heated debate among students, parents, and teachers. Some people believe that using phones for homework can be beneficial, while others think it may cause distractions and hinder learning.In my opinion, students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework. Firstly, phones are a convenient tool for accessing information quickly and easily. When students have questions or need help with their homework, they can simply search for the answers on their phones instead of spending hours flipping through textbooks or asking their parents for help. This can save time and make the learning process more efficient.Secondly, using phones to search for homework can help students develop important skills such as critical thinking and research skills. By searching for information online, students learn how to evaluate sources, analyze information, and synthesize knowledge. These skills are essential for academic success and can be applied to other areas of life as well.Moreover, using phones for homework can make learning more engaging and interactive. There are many educational apps and websites that can help students understand difficult concepts, practice skills, and even collaborate with classmates.This can make learning more fun and effective, leading to better academic performance.However, it is important for students to use phones responsibly and in moderation. Excessive phone use can lead to distractions, procrastination, and even addiction. Therefore, parents and teachers should set limits on phone use and encourage students to balance their time between online and offline activities.In conclusion, I believe that students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework. Phones can be powerful tools for learning and can help students develop important skills. However, it is important for students to use phones responsibly and in moderation. By striking a balance between online and offline activities, students can make the most of their devices and enhance their learning experience.篇3Should Students Use Phones to Search for Homework: DebateToday, let's talk about whether students should use smartphones to search for homework. This is a hot topic and there are different opinions. Some people think it's a good ideabecause it can help students find information quickly and easily. Others think it's a bad idea because students may get distracted by other things on their phones.First of all, let's talk about why some people think it's a good idea for students to use phones to search for homework. They believe that phones can be a useful tool for gathering information. For example, if a student needs to research a topic for a science project, they can easily find articles and videos online using their phone. This can help them learn more about the topic and improve their understanding.In addition, using phones to search for homework can also help students develop their technology skills. In today's digital age, it's important for students to be able to navigate online resources and use technology effectively. By using their phones to search for homework, students can become more comfortable with technology and learn how to find reliable sources of information.On the other hand, some people believe that students should not use phones to search for homework. They argue that phones can be a distraction and may prevent students from focusing on their work. For example, if a student is supposed to be researching a history project but spends their time textingfriends or playing games on their phone, they may not complete their homework on time.Another concern is that students may rely too heavily on their phones for information. Instead of thinking critically and consulting multiple sources, students may simply accept the first answer they find online. This could lead to shallow understanding of the material and prevent students from developing important research skills.In conclusion, the debate over whether students should use phones to search for homework is ongoing. While smartphones can be a valuable tool for gathering information and developing technology skills, they can also be a distraction and inhibit critical thinking. It's important for students to use their phones responsibly and strike a balance between using technology for learning and avoiding distractions.篇4In my opinion, students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework.First of all, phones can be a great tool for gathering information quickly. When we have a question about our homework, we can simply type it into a search engine and findthe answer in seconds. This can save us a lot of time and help us to complete our work more efficiently.Secondly, using phones to search for homework can help us to learn independently. Instead of relying on our teachers or parents for help all the time, we can take initiative to find the information ourselves. This can improve our problem-solving skills and make us more self-sufficient learners.Additionally, phones can provide us with access to a wide range of resources. For example, we can watch educational videos, read articles, or use educational apps to deepen our understanding of a topic. This can enhance our learning experience and help us to excel in our studies.However, it is important for students to use phones responsibly. We should not rely on them too heavily and remember to cross-check the information we find online. We should also limit our screen time and take breaks to avoid eye strain and fatigue.Overall, I believe that students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework as long as they do so responsibly. It can be a valuable tool for learning and can help us to become more independent and resourceful students. Thank you.篇5Should students use cellphones to search for homework? Let's debate!Yes, we should use cellphones to search for homework because it is convenient and quick. When we have a question about our homework, we can easily look it up on our phones and find the answer in just a few seconds. This helps us to learn faster and understand the material better. In addition, using our phones to search for homework allows us to access a wide range of resources, such as educational websites and online tutorials, which can provide us with valuable information and support.No, we should not use cellphones to search for homework because it can be distracting. When we have our phones with us, we may be tempted to check social media or play games instead of focusing on our homework. This can lead to procrastination and poor academic performance. In addition, relying too much on our phones to search for homework can make us lazy and dependent on technology. It is important for us to develop our critical thinking and problem-solving skills by figuring out the answers on our own.In conclusion, while using cellphones to search for homework can be helpful in some ways, it is important for students to use them responsibly and without getting distracted. We should strike a balance between using technology as a tool to support our learning and developing our own skills and knowledge. Ultimately, the choice is up to each individual student and their own personal preferences and study habits.篇6Should Students Use Phones to Search for Homework? DebateHello everyone, today we are going to have a debate on whether students should use phones to search for homework. I am in favor of using phones to search for homework because it is convenient and can help us learn more effectively.First of all, using phones to search for homework can save us a lot of time. Instead of spending hours searching through books and notes, we can simply type in a few keywords on our phones and find the information we need in a matter of minutes. This way, we can finish our homework faster and have more time to relax and do other things we enjoy.Secondly, using phones to search for homework allows us to access a wide range of resources. We can find not only textbook information but also online articles, videos, and interactive quizzes that can help us better understand the material. This variety of resources can make learning more interesting and engaging, and help us retain the information better.Additionally, using phones to search for homework encourages independent learning. Instead of relying solely on our teachers or parents for help, we can take charge of our own learning by looking up information on our own. This can help us develop critical thinking skills and become more self-sufficient learners.In conclusion, I believe that students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework. It can save time, provide access to a variety of resources, and encourage independent learning. Thank you for listening.I hope my argument has convinced you that using phones to search for homework is beneficial for students. Let's embrace technology and use it to enhance our learning experience. Thank you.篇7Title: Should students use smartphones to search for homework debateHello everyone! Today, I want to talk about whether students should use smartphones to search for homework. In my opinion, I believe that it can be both good and bad.Firstly, using smartphones to search for homework can be very convenient. We can easily find information on the internet and learn more about the topic we are studying. It can help us understand the subject better and improve our grades. It also saves time because we don't have to go to the library or search through books.However, there are also some drawbacks to using smartphones for homework. It can be distracting because we might get tempted to check social media or play games instead of doing our homework. It can also make us lazy because we rely too much on the internet for information instead of thinking for ourselves.In conclusion, I think that students should be allowed to use smartphones to search for homework, but we should also be responsible and use it wisely. We should set limits on how much time we spend on our phones and make sure to focus on our schoolwork. By doing this, we can benefit from the advantages ofusing smartphones while avoiding the drawbacks. Thank you for listening!篇8As a primary school student, I believe that students should be allowed to use their phones to search for homework. There are many reasons why this can be beneficial for students.Firstly, using a phone to search for homework can help us find information quickly and easily. Sometimes, the textbook doesn't have all the information we need, and using the internet can provide us with extra resources to help us understand the topic better. This can make learning more interesting and engaging for us.Secondly, using a phone to search for homework can help us develop our digital skills. In today's world, technology is becoming more and more important, and being able to use a phone to search for information is a valuable skill that we can use in the future. By using our phones for homework, we can improve our ability to navigate the internet and find reliable sources of information.Finally, using a phone to search for homework can help us become more independent learners. Instead of relying on ourteachers or parents to provide us with all the information we need, we can take control of our own learning by using our phones to research and find the answers ourselves. This can help us develop important skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving.In conclusion, I believe that students should be allowed to use their phones to search for homework. It can help us find information quickly and easily, develop our digital skills, and become more independent learners. So let's embrace the technology and use our phones to help us learn and grow.篇9Should students use phones to search for homework?Yes, I think students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework. There are many reasons why this is a good idea. First of all, using a phone to search for homework can be much faster than using a book or asking a teacher. If a student has a question about their homework, they can quickly look it up on their phone and find the answer right away.Secondly, using a phone to search for homework can help students to learn new things. Sometimes when I search for homework on my phone, I come across interesting informationthat I wouldn't have found in a book. This helps me to learn more about the topic and expand my knowledge.Another reason why students should be allowed to use phones to search for homework is that it can help them to be more independent. When I use my phone to search for homework, I don't have to rely on my parents or teachers to help me. This makes me feel more confident and capable of doing my work on my own.In conclusion, I think students should definitely be allowed to use phones to search for homework. It can help them to save time, learn new things, and become more independent. So next time someone says that we shouldn't use phones for homework, remember all the benefits it can bring!篇10Should students use smartphones to search for homework?Teacher: Good morning, students. Today we are going to have a debate on whether students should use smartphones to search for homework. Let's start by hearing from the team who supports this idea.Supporting team: Thank you, teacher. We believe that students should be allowed to use smartphones to search for homework. In this digital age, smartphones are an essential tool for learning. They provide access to a vast amount of information that can help students with their homework. Using smartphones to search for homework allows students to learn independently and at their own pace. It also fosters creativity and critical thinking skills as students learn to navigate through different sources of information.Opposing team: We disagree with the idea of students using smartphones to search for homework. While smartphones can be useful for certain tasks, relying too heavily on them for homework can have negative consequences. Students may become dependent on smartphones and neglect developing important skills such as time management and problem-solving. Additionally, the internet is not always a reliable source of information, and students may come across inaccurate or inappropriate content while searching for homework.Supporting team: We understand the concerns of the opposing team, but we believe that with proper guidance and supervision, students can use smartphones responsibly for homework. Teachers play a crucial role in teaching students howto effectively use smartphones for learning. By setting clear guidelines and expectations, teachers can help students develop the necessary skills to navigate the internet safely and efficiently.Opposing team: While we agree that smartphones can be a useful tool for learning, we believe that there are better alternatives to searching for homework. Students can benefit more from engaging in discussions, conducting experiments, or doing hands-on activities to enhance their understanding of the subject. Using smartphones to search for homework may limit students' learning to surface-level information and prevent them from developing a deeper understanding of the material.Teacher: Thank you to both teams for your insights. Now, let's open the floor for questions from the audience.Student 1: I have a question for the supporting team. How can students ensure that the information they find on smartphones is accurate and reliable?Supporting team: That's a great question. Students can verify the credibility of the information by cross-referencing multiple sources, checking the author's credentials, and evaluating the accuracy of the information based on reliable sources. Teachers can also provide guidance on how to evaluate online sources and identify credible information.Student 2: And a question for the opposing team. What are some alternative ways that students can use to research homework without relying on smartphones?Opposing team: There are many alternatives to using smartphones for homework research. Students can use textbooks, library resources, academic journals, and educational websites to gather information. They can also consult with teachers, classmates, or experts in the field to deepen their understanding of the subject.Teacher: Thank you, students, for your thoughtful questions. It's clear that there are valid points on both sides of the debate. As students, it's important to be critical thinkers and weigh the pros and cons of using smartphones for homework. Ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of each individual student and their teachers to determine the most effective approach to learning. Thank you for participating in this debate.。

英语作文-集成电路设计行业：从初学者到专家的必备技能

英语作文-集成电路设计行业：从初学者到专家的必备技能The journey from a novice to an expert in the field of integrated circuit (IC) design is marked by the acquisition of a diverse set of skills, ranging from theoretical knowledge to practical application. Integrated circuits, the bedrock of modern electronics, are found in everything from smartphones to spacecraft. The complexity of designing these microscopic marvels can be daunting, but with the right approach, it is possible to master this domain.Understanding the fundamentals of semiconductor physics is the cornerstone of IC design. One must be well-versed in the behavior of electrons within various materials and the principles of current flow and voltage. This knowledge forms the basis for comprehending how transistors, the fundamental building blocks of ICs, operate. A solid grasp of digital logic design is also crucial. This involves learning how to create complex functions and algorithms using simple logic gates.As one progresses, familiarity with electronic design automation (EDA) tools becomes essential. These sophisticated software suites assist designers in creating and simulating complex circuit designs before they are fabricated. Proficiency in programming languages such as VHDL or Verilog is necessary, as they are used to describe the hardware in a manner that EDA tools can interpret.Another key skill is the ability to perform analog design. Unlike digital circuits, which operate at fixed voltage levels, analog circuits deal with a continuous range of values, making them vital for interfacing with the real world. Designing analog circuits requires a deep understanding of operational amplifiers, resistors, capacitors, and other components.As expertise grows, one must also learn about the manufacturing process. Knowledge of lithography, etching, doping, and other fabrication techniques is important to understand the constraints and possibilities of physical IC design. This includeslearning about different materials such as silicon, gallium arsenide, and silicon carbide, each with its own set of properties and uses.Thermal management is another critical area. As ICs operate, they generate heat, which can affect performance and reliability. Designers must learn how to manage heat through proper circuit design and the use of heat sinks or other cooling methods.Testing and validation are the final steps in the IC design process. A designer must be adept at creating test scenarios to ensure that the IC performs as intended under all conditions. This involves both software simulations and physical testing using oscilloscopes, multimeters, and other equipment.In conclusion, becoming an expert in IC design requires a blend of theoretical knowledge and practical skills. It demands a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation to the rapid technological advancements in the field. With dedication and the right approach, the transition from a beginner to a specialist in IC design is not only possible but also incredibly rewarding, opening doors to a world of innovation and creativity. 。

APPLE CASE STUDY

Case Study of Apple, Inc.: how Apple executes its businesses model to control digital content through legal and technological means1IntroductionThis article is intended to assist teaching a business law elective concentrating on e-commerce and internet law and technology with an entrepreneurial approach through emphasizing the interaction between technology, business and law. Faculty who wish to incorporate active learning approaches to an e-commerce or internet technology and law course should find this work most beneficial as it will yield engaged students able to truly understand the significance of legal issues that arise with technology and the ability to address these issues in business enterprises following their classroom experience. It is reported that “students learn best when they are actively involved in and responsible for their own leaning.”2 This exercise is meant to create a forum for active learning along with a context for this experience. “At a basic level, undergraduate law courses inform students about key legal concepts and foundation principles. Students absorb legal concepts better when faculty provide a context or foundation for the review of complex legal materials.”3 With this in mind, students first study business models of current businesses in the technology sector. Students consider their products and services and future plans all as components of any business models in an attempt to analyze what works – companies producing revenue forproducts/services in high demand; and why it works – typically, because these companies create superior, innovative products/services that customers will choose over competitors,’ as well as pay for those products/services. Even if thebusinesses’ products/services are given away free to customers (think Google search queries), companies still produce revenue from (in this example) selling online display ads to third-parties. Through each aspect in a company’s development phase, again with a focus on how technology is a means to accomplish business goals, students quickly discover that the current legal environment lags behind rapid developments in business. This is attributable to the fact that advances in technology applications and innovations outpace legal developments – that law responds to the technology business environment.This case study is completed after a thorough study of a number of topics so that students’ knowledge in these areas allows them to apply it to a real and familiar subject: iPods and the iTunes Music Store. Students first focus on a company’s initial organization phase including how it starts up and what are its products/services. Students then address the legal issues relevant to a company’s start-up phase including: Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets, Patents, and Contracts. At the end of this unit of study and in an effort to elicit a more sophisticated comprehension of these topics, students work in groups on a Case Study of Apple, Inc., in which they refer back to legal concepts and business strategies studied early in the course, in order to achieve an in-depth understanding of and context for an understanding of how Apple exploits them and how they contribute to Apple’s success. This course concludes with an inventory of the technology Apple deploys, and how it protects this technology through enforcement of intellectual property rights.This course material has been developed and Apple was selected as a vehicle for a case study because the students already are conversant with this technology and the company. It frees students to concentrate on the legal significance of the company’s business and technology strategies. The concepts are presented in a way that resonates with students’ experiences – there is a familiar framework for the materials and this promotes insight and understanding beyond mere abstract academic learning. Specifically, students learn to recognize how each of these components contributes to an aspect of the company’s business plan and thus the company’s success. Through the course materials and case study exercise, students analyze and learn how a company develops a business model, deploys technology, and then uses intellectual property laws as well as contract law, to successfully execute its business plan. This article describes the process and methodology for teaching intellectual property, contracts and entrepreneurial business strategies. The course content is outlined, followed by a discussion of a case study synthesizing all of these course components, and supplemented by discussion points for instructors.I. Course Content:For teaching a course focusing on technology and law with an entrepreneurial approach, we devote the first weeks to developing proficiency in the subject matter of the course. Students read about technology companies, with an emphasis on how technology produces revenue as an end-product or service, or where it contributes to producing revenue as an underlyingcomponent of a product or service. After students understand the role of technology in a successful enterprise, students then turn their attention to the‘building blocks’ or assets of a technology company – the intellectual property (IP), and finally, the exploitation of those assets – the sale or licensing of that IP. There is an emphasis on both skill development and critical thinking in this course, as students learn skills such as registering and checking the legal status IP, use of IP as an asset and for defensive purposes, as well as evaluating IP through the study of cases, statutes, and current developments in the field. It is vital that instructors incorporate international legal materials into the study of IP which is especially impacted by the global economy. For example, registration of the iTunes mark in the U.S. is enforceable only within the U.S., and extraterritorial registration and enforcement of IP rights requires additional legal steps. Study of each form of IP includes domestic as well as international components in case readings, statutes and treaties.a.)TrademarksStudents are assigned readings and cases on Trademarks. Then students are asked to develop a name for a hypothetical business as well as how to register and brand it. Further, students develop a domain name strategy for this mark; and then consider it strategically – what rights mark owners have, including how to protect as well as exploit marks.b.)CopyrightsStudents next study readings and cases on Copyrights. Students are asked to identify business assets that are covered by copyright. They learn how to register a copyright and what rights copyright owners have. They again, learn how to protect copyrights, exploit their value, as well as how to control uses of their copyrights by others. Further, students learn how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act gives ever greater protections to copyright owners and how thislaw strengthens copyright owners’ claims as against users.c.)PatentsStudents next study readings and cases on Patents. As with the other forms of IP, students learn what is statutory subject matter for patents, how to file for patents, and what rights this confers on patentholders. Students are asked to identify business assets potentially covered by patents, and to find out if they are in fact patented. Students learn that unlike trademarks and copyrights, patenting offers more legal protections. Venture capitalists typically evaluate a start-ups’ patent portfolios first, as this is a seen as a crucial gauge of a company’s viability.d.)Trade SecretsStudents then study that final form of IP with readings and cases on Trade Secrets. This is an often underappreciated form of IP, but one which has actually risen in importance, especially as to those companies which need to quickly innovate and market new technology, or modify and update their technology frequently.4 In fact because of the recent Supreme Court ruling in KSR Int’l Co.v. Teleflex, Inc., companies will perhaps be more inclined to protect their IP as a trade secret rather than seeking patent protection because the Supreme Court raised the threshold for non-obviousness.5e.)Contracts and LicensingThe next course topic students cover is Contracts and Licensing, which represents the culmination of the course materials. This course assumes a basic understanding of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, etc.) that students presumably learned in an Introduction to the Legal Environment course, so the emphasis here is on the transactional aspect of contracts and licensing, especially on End-User License Agreements [EULAs], which are now more typically known as Software License Agreements [SLAs]. They are also known as technology transfer agreements. Students are asked to identify companies who would potentially be interested in the purchase or license of the IP assets, and then develop agreements for their sale or transfer. These agreements again have an offensive and defensive posture, as they are meant to translate the IP into revenue, and protect these assets from unauthorized uses and users. Transactional law concerns the process of exploiting the IP through the sale or licensing of these assets. SLAs represent the vehicle for this, and significantly too serve as the medium for content owners to maintain control over uses of the content.f..)AntitrustFinally, students study reading and cases on antitrust issues. While this may not seem to follow, antitrust law addresses agreements too – and concerns illegal agreements in restraint of trade. To the extent agreements are unlawful, antitrust law provides a vehicle for resolution of those issues. In a sense, antitrust law is sort of an off-set to the contracts and licensing agreements. Students are asked to identify practices that restrain trade, typically found where businesses do not compete on price or quality and instead rely on restrictive agreements to inhibit competition. While contracts and licensing are of course legal agreements, software is a non-rival product and highly susceptible to monopoly control, potentially triggering antitrust complaints by competitors and subsequent review by regulators.6Following a comprehensive study of these subjects, students have the components necessary to work on a case study of a technology company, in an effort to have them achieve a more meaningful understanding of how IP and contract law fit into a company’s business model, especially one which relies heavily on technology, where company assets are both physical and digital format, and the distribution involves both traditional retail and internet delivery platforms.II. Case Study Materials and Process:The MP3 technology is thoroughly familiar to students and instructors can capture students’ knowledge of this technology, and use it as a vehicle toeducate students about the interaction of this technology with business and law. Students acquire a more thorough understanding of the materials as they have a familiar platform from which to study these subjects. Students are asked to bring in their iPods, along with a print-out of Apple’s iTunes Terms of Service. (Students work in groups, and it has always been the case that at least one student owns an iPod and is an iTunes user and which is sufficient for this purpose.) Students receive a class exercise to complete in the form of an inventory and questionnaire to complete regarding Apple’s iPod, and its iTunes Music Store [iTMS] software. Students have access to iPods, as well as computers, where they download the iTMS software. They also use their class notes, text, cases and class materials as a reference guide. There are five parts to the inventory/questionnaire. Students first study every physical component of the iPod, including the appearance and design of the product, even the packaging, instructions, logos and symbols, all of which are covered by some forms of IP. Further, they look at the iTMS site and consider how that too is protected by some form of IP. Students inventory all of the above, and identify what form of IP it is potentially and probably covered by. For example, students realize that for Trademarks, the company must have a trademark in the names, for example: Apple, iPod, iTMS. Then they are asked who might want to use these names; what uses are legitimate, and what uses are infringing. For example, to the extent an aspect of the iPod product design is functional, it is covered by patent law; to the extent the product design is nonfunctional, it is covered by trademark law. Again, students are asked about uses.Students are then asked to find when both national and international legal protections expire as to each form of IP they’ve identified. For this students go to various websites, including sites such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, the Library of Congress’s Copyright Office and the Patent and Trademark Office. Typically students first notice that many competitors’ products ‘play off’ of the iPod, including its distinctive name and appearance. For example, students will find when they work on a trademark search that companies have already registered names potentially confusingly similar to the iPod name. As another example, they’ll find that different forms of IP have different terms of protection, that copyrights have a defined term of protection, while trademarks last potentially forever. While this is covered in most business law texts, through this exercise, these issues become ‘real’ to the students, and they gain insight as to how IP is an asset and managers must craft offensive and defensive strategies to manage their IP portfolio domestically and internationally.The next three parts of the inventory address the iTMS Software License Agreement (SLA). Students have hard copies of the SLA, those terms users are asked to agree to as a condition precedent of receipt of the software. This is often the first time students will have taken the time to read these agreements despite having agreed to many such agreements already.7 With their current foundation in IP though at this point they actually understand and appreciate the importance of the iTMS SLA as a business strategy. Students are asked to identify and classify each point of the SLA. For example, when the Terms of Service, Clause 13a provides, “No portion of the Service may be reproduced inany form or by any means. You agree not to modify…sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in any manner….,”8 students identify and classify what form of IP that this clause refers to, and what uses it impacts.The fourth aspect of the Case Study asks students to identify instances of where the SLA’s terms provides users with a different set of rights from those provided in the various IP laws. By way of example, in Clause 13a cited in the previous paragraph, students will figure out that Apple’s agreement limits users’ fair use rights. Students begin to see then how contract law interacts with, and in many instances, encloses IP. This is when the students really begin to piece the business model together, and how business, technology and law interact to create a successful company strategy.Finally students are asked to reflect on how it is that Apple can, and does, control content and uses, and then to describe how this impacts innovation and free-market competition, in ways that potentially violate the antitrust laws. Students have so much relevant personal knowledge on these points, and can easily describe how their iPod is unable to do some function that they think it should be able to do. For example, students will say that they cannot interoperate Microsoft’s Zune MP3 player with Apple’s iTMS. And they often say report that they aren’t allowed to make their desired number of copies of a song they could have made had they been starting with a CD version of that same song. They also complain about the copy protection on downloaded songs.Students begin to realize that these restrictions are not inherent in the software and hardware; rather they exist within this technology as a function of the goals of Apple’s business model and legal strategy.After completion of the five-part inventory, students summarize their findings and describe how Apple relies on a legal structure – how it makes use of IP and contract laws – to deploy its technology and achieve success in its business model for competing in the digital media business. Students realize that Apple’s business model for both its hardware and software sales relies on a three-point plan: (1) distribution deals for licensing content from the music labels;(2) integration of is proprietary hardware and software (that excludes other companies) and (3) its ability to control uses and users’ rights through its SLA. Following the students’ findings, and as a way for the student groups to receive feedback on the quality and thoroughness of their work, instructors may lecture on any or all of these points, which build towards a detailed understanding of how Apple integrates technology and law in its business model.III. Discussion Points:The following section describes all facets of Apple’s business model, including how the technology works, and how Apple manages its IP as well as its contracts with content providers, and its agreement (the SLA) withcustomers/users. Discussion of this material is most appropriate after students conduct their own investigation and complete the case study.A.The Business’s Products & Services: Apple introduced its now-signature product, the iPod in 20019, and a pay-per-song service, iTMS just two years later.10 The iPod was an instant success, becoming the default for the MP3 player consumer electronics product category, because of its design and rich features, including capacity, download speed, and ease of use. The iTMS service likewise represented an industry breakthrough in an era defined by (1) free music download services like the illegal, now-defunct KaZaA, and original Napster (which offered low-quality, mainly pirated recordings), and (2) subscription services like the now-defunct PressPlay (which locked in users to fees, and limited uses of the content).11 Apple co-founder and CEO Mr. Steven Jobs’ intent with the MP3 product and iTunes service was to create an online environment closely resembling the physical environment and experience of purchasing music at a shop, because as he noted, “[p]eople want to buy downloads like they buy CDs.”12 It was at once, revolutionary, and obvious – importantly, it closely mimics the way users search p2p for music online, seamlessly integrating the hardware and software. In advance of the launch, he signed unprecedented deals with the five major music labels – BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner (now four due to the Sony-BMG merger), to distribute their songs online – and collectively, they control over 70% of the world’s music.13The iTMS service began with 200,000 tracks, now up to 3.5 million tracks; and they’ve sold in excess of 3 billion songs.14 Apple charges 99 cents per download – low enough to generate users’ acceptance (or at the least, not too much resistance), and high enough for labels’ acceptance. Apple has captured approximately 70% of the global market for digital music downloads.15 iTMS is currently selling 5 million songs a day.16 Global market share for the iPod device is more difficult to determine because, while sales are increasing, the market is expanding, the number of manufacturers is expanding, combined with the phenomenon that the digital music player market is morphing, to incorporate musicphones (hence Apple’s recent launch of its iPhone product).17B.The Technology – Patents, Trade Secrets, Standards, Licenses, Royalties:Apple’s business model for its iTMS and iPods sales relies on: (i) distribution deals for licensing others’ content; (ii) integration of proprietary hardware and software (Apple’s proprietary platform the iTMS playable only on Apple’s proprietary iPod players); and (iii) its ability to tightly circumscribe users’ rights based on three points of control: copyright laws, contracts and technology measures.(i)The distribution deals:As to these, the specifics are not published, but clearly the labels placed conditions for content control, and it is equally clear that Apple benefits from these conditions. According to Mr. Jobs, “a key provision of our agreements withthe music companies is that if our DRM [Digital Rights Management] system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalogue from our iTunes store.18” The labels make money as their licensing deal generates revenue, and by demand for similar deals from other sites. Apple makes money as users log onto iTMS for the legal purchase of genuine content. Consider the scenario where there is no control of content, if the labels did not require conditions on the control of content, and Apple did not create any of its own controls for the content: the first user would purchase the content, and then re-distribute that content free, and unlimitedly to all other p2p users. Then there is no significant benefit to the Apple-label licensing deal. The labels’ content distribution deal is significantly compromised; and Apple fares no better – it makes no money from the iTMS (except of course, 99 cents for the 1st and – in theory – only purchased download of each track).(ii)Integration of proprietary hardware and software:Apple has fashioned a ‘go it alone’ strategy,’ for the time-being, keeping iTMS as a closed and unlicensed system, attracting a market with a loyal following. Specifically, Apple first created a digital music player, the iPod, now, a family of iPod MP3 products. Later, Apple created the software, the iTMS site, for the legal purchase of content provided by others. It developed a proprietary DRM system it calls ‘FairPlay,’ that “envelopes each song purchased…in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.”19 Andto prevent illegal copies (which would violate the Apple-labels deal, and represent lost Apple revenue), it required that the “DRM system must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music.”20 “[H]ere’s how FairPlay works: When you buy songs at the iTunes Music Store, you can play them on one – and only one – line of portable player, the iPod. And when you buy an iPod, you can play copy-protected songs bought from one – and only one – online music store, the iTunes Music Store.”21 Put another way, FairPlay iTunes songs will not play on anyone else’s (i.e., Sony or Microsoft) hardware. This architecture of control is executed “’top to bottom’ with proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music.”22 The FairPlay DRM is managed as a company Trade Secret.A brief background on the technology is useful because technological means are one of the methods of content control that at the foundation of Apple’s business model. Audio files are digitized and compressed before they are transferred. Many readers are familiar with the popular format known as MP3.23 The internet’s fundamental architecture is peer-to-peer so this provides the means of transfer and distribution, and the MP3 format facilitates the near-instantaneous transfer of audio files to the extent users have bandwidth capacity. For its format, Apple chose to adopt AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) technology, also known as MP4. AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer [FhG], AT&T, Sony and Nokia.24 Sony also uses this format in its PlayStation.25 AAC is known for its superior performance and sound quality. Significantly, and in contrast to MP3 files,26 no patent license fees or royaltypayments are due on the distribution of MP4-encoded files, but fees are due for developers of end-user coder and/or decoder products.27 Every Apple-licensed file is saved in AAC format, and then further encoded with Apple’s proprietary DRM, FairPlay, a digital rights management encryption scheme. FairPlay is based on technology Apple licenses from the creator, Veridisc.The FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) algorithm works by “generating random encryption keys for each title purchased” and then it automatically stores the keys in the user's computer and iPod. The keys are used to decrypt the AAC file to access and play the content. Further, users are required to authorize and de-authorize every computer they want to play titles on.”28 FairPlay does not affect the copy-ability of the file; rather it is used to manage the decryption of the content.FairPlay manages uses, and administers a level of copy protection that apparently is agreeable to both Apple and the labels. It is an open question of course, if the level of copy protection is appropriate as to users, who generate all sorts of euphemisms for ‘FairPlay,’29 and ‘DRM.’30 In fact, what Apple calls iTunes ‘features,’ are what users call ‘limitations.’ It is critical to sort out what FairPlay permits, and what it doesn’t; and then, consider: if it’s not a permitted use, what users are doing anyway with the content; and how users are creating ‘work-arounds,’ and/or ‘hacks,’ in order to use the content as they wish.FairPlay allows these uses for its tracks:•Tracks may be copied to any number of iPods;•Tracks may be played simultaneously on up to five authorized computers every 24 hours by sharing over a local network using Apple’s (again)closed, proprietary system, the Digital Audio Access Protocol [DAAP] – in streaming-format only;•Tracks may be copied to an audio CD any number of times. (This CD may then be ripped or burned, but it does not attain first sale status, and it may not be leased, lent or distributed);•iTunes playlist may be copied to a CD up to seven times, before it has to be changed.31FairPlay does not allow these uses for its tracks:•Track may not be played on a non-iPod player;•Restricts back-up copies: Songs can only be copied to five computers;•Restricts converting to other formats: Songs only sold in AAC with Apple DRM, FairPlay;•Limits portable player compatibility to iPod and other Apple devices only;•No remixing: Cannot edit, excerpt, or otherwise sample songs;•Users may not write AAC files to a data CD-RW and listen to these tracks on a compatible car or home stereo;•Users may not copy them to Personal Digital Assistants [PDAs] (i.e., Palm, BlackBerry devices, etc.);•Users may not stream tracks from personal computers to their home stereos over their home networks.3233Note though, that users may upload to their iTunes Library playlists any content, even content that did not originate from the iTMS, so that users’ playlists typically contain a mix of files that are in a variety of digital formats. Users can burn these tracks to an audio CD, then rip them back into their iTunes library using iTunes’ CD import feature, and convert the selection to MP3, unencumbered by the AAC-FairPlay scheme. Also, iTunes 4.0 users could freely access shared music over the internet but Apple removed this feature.34 The content downloaded from iTMS, because of this AAC+FairPlay scheme, is playable only on Apple’s proprietary players – the iPod family of devices. This integration provides customers with a seamless user experience, from purchase to use. Apple’s business model relies on this integration of software that may or may not be profitable, with its hardware that is profitable. Integration though, in this case, means a corresponding lack of interoperabilityacross the marketplace. So for example, users may not play iTMS content on Microsoft’s Zune, or Sony’s MP3 players, because no portable player aside from Apple’s supports Apple’s FairPlay – its proprietary DRM – that it has not licensed to anyone else. This lack of interoperability may be a key part of Apple’s business model, for it helps maintain digital download market share, and thus is instrumental in the plan to make this unit profitable. But keeping this system proprietary and closed has real costs – it is clear that this lack of interoperability raises antitrust concerns, and has become the central basis for the lawsuit,35 as well as the regulatory inquiries now directed at Apple.36(iii)Apple tightly circumscribes users’ rights based on three points of control: Apple relies on contract laws, IP laws, and technology measures in combination as a strategy to govern users’ actions with respect to purchased content. Apple’s digital content business model thrives because of this three-part regime.Contract Laws: In the purchase of software, users are actually purchasing a license to use the software. They do not own the software itself, in the same way for example, that’s comparable to ownership rights in physical goods such as desks, or even cars. As such, courts construe the parties’ software transaction not as a sale, but rather as a license agreement between the parties defining their respective rights and responsibilities.37 Further, licensing agreements are considered contracts which are subject matter for state-law regulation. Apple deploys these in a format students may characterize as: those ubiquitous,。

2023年考研英语试卷

1、The recent study on climate change emphasizes the urgent need for ________ in order to mitigate its severe impacts.A. sustainable development practicesB. increased consumption of fossil fuelsC. ignoring environmental regulationsD. prioritizing economic growth over ecology (答案：A)2、In the context of global trade, the term "tariff" refers to ________.A. a tax imposed on imported or exported goodsB. a subsidy provided to domestic producersC. an agreement to eliminate trade barriersD. the free flow of goods and services without restrictions (答案：A)3、Which of the following statements best describes the concept of "cultural relativism"?A. All cultures are equally advanced and should be judged by universal standards.B. Cultural practices should be evaluated within their own cultural context.C. Some cultures are inherently better than others.D. Cultural differences are irrelevant in today's globalized world. (答案：B)4、The author's primary purpose in writing the passage is to ________.A. argue against the use of technology in educationB. advocate for the integration of technology into classroomsC. describe the historical evolution of educational toolsD. analyze the negative effects of technology on student learning (答案：B)5、The phrase "the tipping point" in the passage refers to ________.A. the moment when a minor change leads to a significant effectB. the highest point of achievement in a particular fieldC. a gradual and steady process of improvementD. the initial stage of a project's development (答案：A)6、According to the article, which of the following is NOT a challenge faced by remote workers?A. Maintaining a healthy work-life balanceB. Limited opportunities for social interactionC. Increased productivity due to fewer distractionsD. Difficulties in separating work and personal spaces (答案：C)7、The research highlights the importance of ________ in enhancing team collaboration and innovation.A. strict hierarchical structuresB. open communication channelsC. individual competition within teamsD. minimizing face-to-face interactions (答案：B)8、In the field of artificial intelligence, "machine learning" involves ________.A. programming computers to perform specific tasks without adaptationB. enabling computers to learn and improve from data without being explicitly programmedC. using pre-determined algorithms for all problem-solving scenariosD. relying solely on human input for decision-making processes (答案：B)9、The main argument presented in the passage is that ________.A. renewable energy sources are not yet reliable enoughB. investing in renewable energy is crucial for sustainable developmentC. fossil fuels remain the most efficient energy sourceD. technological advancements have made traditional energy sources obsolete (答案：B)10、Which of the following best explains the concept of "digital footprint"?A. The physical space occupied by digital devicesB. The trail of data left behind by online activitiesC. The speed of internet connectionD. The amount of storage space on a digital device (答案：B)。

21世纪学生核心能力的深度探讨英文版

21世纪学生核心能力的深度探讨英文版In-Depth Exploration of 21st Century Student Core CompetenciesThe 21st century has brought about a significant shift in the skills and competencies required for students to succeed in a rapidly changing world. As technology continues to advance and global challenges become more complex, it is essential for students to develop a diverse set of core competencies to thrive in the modern landscape.One key competency for 21st century students is critical thinking. This involves the ability to analyze information, evaluate arguments, and make informed decisions. By honing their critical thinking skills, students can navigate the vast amount of information available to them and separate fact from opinion.Another crucial competency is creativity. In a world that values innovation and originality, students must be able to think outside the box and come up with unique solutions to problems. By fostering theircreativity, students can unleash their full potential and make a positive impact on the world around them.Collaboration is also an essential competency for 21st century students. In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability to work effectively with others is key to success. By learning how to communicate, compromise, and collaborate, students can build strong relationships and achieve common goals.Communication skills are another vital competency for students in the 21st century. Whether it's conveying ideas effectively, listening actively, or presenting information clearly, strong communication skills are essential in both personal and professional settings. By honing their communication skills, students can build rapport, resolve conflicts, and inspire others.Adaptability is a critical competency for students in a rapidly changing world. With technology evolving at a rapid pace and global challenges constantly shifting, students must be able to adapt to new situations and embrace change. By cultivating their adaptability,students can thrive in any environment and overcome obstacles with resilience.Lastly, emotional intelligence is an important competency for 21st century students. This involves the ability to understand and manage one's own emotions, as well as empathize with others. By developing their emotional intelligence, students can build strong relationships, resolve conflicts, and lead with compassion.In conclusion, the core competencies required for 21st century students are diverse and multifaceted. By focusing on critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, adaptability, and emotional intelligence, students can develop the skills they need to succeed in an ever-changing world.。

NuffieldScienceTeachingProject：纳菲尔德科学教学计划

N UFFIELD S CIENCE T EACHING P ROJECTSelect bibliography and archival sourcesThe bibliography does not attempt to be exhaustive. References in the synthetic accounts and reviews will provide more information. W ARING‟S notes are especially helpful in this regard, for both published and unpublished sources, up to about 1978. The bibliography prepared by D AWSON & L ETTON is helpful in identifying studies, especially by higher degree students, that may not be found in standard literature searches. For later studies, see the lists of theses published from time to time in Studies in science education. Published schemes of work, laboratory guides, text and other material for pupils and teachers are not listed here.The records of the Chelsea College part of the pr oject are in the Archives of King‟s College London, in 591 boxes (including one outsize) and 2 files. The collection contains records of the Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project (NFSTP), 1949-1993 but mainly dating from the 1960s and 1970s, including general administrative papers, 1961-1974; the Secondary Science Education Programme, 1965-1974; the Junior Science Project, 1960-1974; the Combined Science Project, 1964-1970; A-level in Physical Sciences, 1955-1974; Physics A- and O-level, 1963-1972; Chemistry O-level, 1962-1974; Chemistry A-level, 1962-1974; Biology O-level, 1962-c1973; Biology A-level, 1963-1972; records relating to publications, also including material on NFSTP administration, 1949-1992; published texts, 1960-1993; and film loops and accompanying teaching notes, 1966-1978, for various subjects and age groups. A detailed catalogue is available at(/depsta/iss/archives/collect/1nu30-0.html)for each of the headings:∙STP Science Teaching Project -- General Administrative Papers∙SS Secondary Science Education Programme∙JSP Junior Science Project∙CSP Combined Science Project∙ALPS A-level in Physical Sciences∙PAL, POL Physics A- and O-level∙COL, COL/NCR Chemistry O-level∙CAL Chemistry A-level∙BOL Biology O-level∙BAL Biology A-level∙TEXT Published texts∙PBN Publications∙/FL Film loops∙Because the project involved practising scientists as advisers and providers of material, a wide range of archives is likely to contain some relevant items. For example, Professor A J Cain‟s papers contain (an unknown amount) of correspondence with William Anderson, the publication manager based at Chelsea (/library/mole/c/cain.htm#boxfolder1); the papers of W.L Bragg at the Royal Institution contain some material; and the papers of BunnyDowdeswell held at the University of Bath contain material related to his invo lvement with the biology projects (/html/1128-ncuacs83499.htm).A LEXANDER, D. Nuffield Secondary Science: an evaluation. London: Macmillan,1974.A TKIN, M. J., andB LACK, P. J. Inside science education reform. New York: TeachersCollege Press. 2003.In some personal reflections, Paul Black illustrates a number of importantcurriculum issues by reference to his involvement with Nuffield projects.D AWSON, B. E., and L ETTON, K. M. Science education research and developmentabstracts. London: Royal Society Chemistry. Volume 1, 1889, volume 2, 1992.Volume 2 contains an index to the whole work. The list of higher degreetheses is especially useful, but the word …Nuffield‟ does not necessarilyappear in the title of every relevant thesis, e.g. Harding 1975 (q.v.).D ORLING, G. …Nuffield Coordinated Sciences: aims and history‟, Physics education,23: 207-211, 1988.F AIRBROTHER, R. W., and S WAIN, J. R. L., …The assessment of project work inNuffield Advanced Biology and Nuffield Advanced Physical Science‟,Educational research, February, vol. 19: 92-99, 1977.G IVENS, N. …Curriculum Materials as a Vehicle for Innovation: A Case Study of theNuffield Design and Technology Proje ct‟, Research in science andtechnological education, 18:71-83, 2000.H ARDING,J.M.M.…Communication and support for change in school scienceeducation‟, Doctoral Thesis, University of London (Chelsea College), 1975.H ARGREAVES, J., and H ARGREA VES, T. …Some Models of School Science in BritishCurriculum Projects, and Their Implications for STS Teaching at the Secondary Level‟, Social studies of science, 13: 569-604, 1983.H OLFORD, D.…Nuffield Combined Science: Teams for the Seventies, Themes forEigh ties?‟, Education 3-13, 9(1):38-42, 1981.I NGLE, R. B. …Nuffield Chemistry in Britain 1961-1982. Part I. Development andReception of the O-Level Publications by the Teaching Profession‟, Scienceeducation, 68:523-39, 1984.–––, …–––, Part II. Evaluation and Revision of O-Level Publications‟, Science education, 68:541-61, 1984.K ELLY, P. J. …Evaluation studies of the Nuffield A-level Biology trials. 1. Overall achievements of students‟, Journal of biological education,5:315–27, 1971.–––, …––– 2. Evaluat ion of specific objectives‟, –––, 6:29–40, 1972.–––, …–––3. Student characteristics and achievement‟, –––, 6:99-107, 1972.–––, …–––4. School characteristics and achievement‟, –––, 6:197–205, 1972.–––, …–––5. Students after the trials‟, –––, 6:259–66, 1972.L EWIS, J. L. …A Nuffield view of physics‟, Physics education, 12:70-73, 1977.–––, …16+ Examination for Nuffield Physics‟, Physics education, 16:157-60, 1981.L UCAS, A. M. and C HISMAN, D. G. A review of British science curriculum projects: implications for curriculum developers. Columbus: Ohio State University ERC Information Analysis Center for Science Mathematics and EnvironmentalEducation. 1973.The report, primarily descriptive accounts aimed at the science educationcommunity of the United States, concentrates on projects that producedmaterials for secondary science courses that “integrate the specialsciences”. There are chapters on Nuffield Combined Science and NuffieldSecondary Science. The accounts of other projects and brief accounts ofthe educational systems in Britain at the time allow the projects to beplaced in context.M EYER, G. R. …Reactions of pupils to Nuffield Science Teaching Projects trail materials in England at the Ordinary level of the General Certificate ofEducatio n‟, Journal of research in science teaching, 7:283–302, 1970.S HAYER, M. …Nuffield combined science: do the pupils understand it?‟, School science review, December, vol. 60:, 210-223, 1978.S TEVENS, P. …On the Nuffield Philosophy of Science‟, Journal of philosophy of education,12:99-111, 1978.T AWNEY, D. A. …Evaluation and science curriculum projects in the U.K.‟, Studies in science education, 3:31–54, 1976.Summarises, contrasts and compares published evaluations of five sciencecurriculum projects in a useful discussion of general issues of evaluation,and helps situate the approaches to the two Nuffield projects: NuffieldSecondary Science (Alexander, 1974) and Nuffield A-level Biology(Kelly (1971 –72) q.v..T EBBUTT, M. J. Teachers' Views about the Nuffield Advanced Physics Course‟, Physics education, 16: 228-33, 1981.W ARING, Mary. Social pressures and curriculum innovation: a study of the Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project. London: Methuen. 1979Deals with the various political, social and education factors influencingthe foundation of the Project, details of its execution, and its outcomes. O-level Chemistry is the major exemplar in this analysis.W ASTNEDGE, R. …Nuffield Junior Science: fifteen years on‟, Primary education review, Number 19, 10-12, Spring 1984.Arthur Lucas, November 2006。

formative assessment and the design of instructional systems

120 linkages are then identified. These in turn are shown to have implications for the design of instructional systems which are intended to develop the ability of students to exercise executive control over their own productive activities, and eventually to become independent and fully self-monitoring.
Introduction
This article is about the nature and function of formative assessment in the development of expertise. It is relevant to a wide variety of instructional systems in which student outcomes are appraised qualitatively using multiple criteria. The focus is on judgments about the quality of studentts, how they are made, how they may be refined, and how they may be put to use in bringing about improvement. The article is prompted by two overlapping concerns. The first is with the lack of a general theory of feedback and formative assessment in complex learning settings. The second concern follows from the common but puzzling observation that even when teachers provide students with valid and reliable judgments about the quality of their work, improvement does not necessarily follow. Students often show little or no growth or development despite regular, accurate feedback. The concern itself is with whether some learners fail to acquire expertise because of specific deficiencies in the instructional system associated with formative assessment. The discussion begins with definitions of feedback, formative assessment and qualitative judgments. This is followed by an analysis of certain patterns in teacher-student assessment interactions. A number of causal and conditional

Becoming a Scientist The Role of Undergraduate Research in Students ’ Cognitive, Personal,

Becoming a Scientist:The Roleof Undergraduate Research in Students’Cognitive,Personal, and Professional DevelopmentANNE-BARRIE HUNTER,SANDRA URSEN,ELAINE SEYMOUR Ethnography&Evaluation Research,Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences,University of Colorado,Campus Box580,Boulder,CO80309,USAReceived9November2005;revised2May2006;accepted2June2006DOI10.1002/sce.20173Published online12October2006in Wiley InterScience().ABSTRACT:In this ethnographic study of summer undergraduate research(UR)expe-riences at four liberal arts colleges,where faculty and students work collaboratively on aproject of mutual interest in an apprenticeship of authentic science research work,analysisof the accounts of faculty and student participants yields comparative insights into thestructural elements of this form of UR program and its beneﬁts for parison ofthe perspectives of faculty and their students revealed considerable agreement on the nature,range,and extent of students’UR gains.Speciﬁc student gains relating to the process of “becoming a scientist”were described and illustrated by both groups.Faculty framed these gains as part of professional socialization into the sciences.In contrast,students emphasizedtheir personal and intellectual development,with little awareness of their socialization intoprofessional practice.Viewing studyﬁndings through the lens of social constructivist learn-ing theories demonstrates that the characteristics of these UR programs,how faculty practiceUR in these colleges,and students’outcomes—including cognitive and personal growth and the development of a professional identity—strongly exemplify many facets of these theo-ries,particularly,student-centered and situated learning as part of cognitive apprenticeshipin a community of practice.C 2006Wiley Periodicals,Inc.Sci Ed91:36–74,2007Correspondence to:Anne-Barrie Hunter;e-mail:abhunter@Contract grant sponsor:NSF-ROLE grant(#NSF PR REC-0087611):“Pilot Study to Establish the Nature and Impact of Effective Undergraduate Research Experiences on Learning,Attitudes and Career Choice.”Contract grant sponsor:Howard Hughes Medical Institute special projects grant,“Establishing the Processes and Mediating Factors that Contribute to Signiﬁcant Outcomes in Undergraduate Research Experiences for both Students and Faculty:A Second Stage Study.”This paper was edited by former Editor Nancy W.Brickhouse.C 2006Wiley Periodicals,Inc.BECOMING A SCIENTIST37INTRODUCTIONIn1998,the Boyer Commission Report challenged United States’research universities to make research-based learning the standard of students’college education.Funding agencies and organizations promoting college science education have also strongly recommended that institutions of higher education provide greater opportunities for authentic,interdis-ciplinary,and student-centered learning(National Research Council,1999,2000,2003a, 2003b;National Science Foundation[NSF],2000,2003a).In line with these recommen-dations,tremendous resources are expended to provide undergraduates with opportunities to participate in faculty-mentored,hands-on research(e.g.,the NSF-sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates[REU]program,Howard Hughes Medical Institute Science Education Initiatives).Notwithstanding widespread belief in the value of undergraduate research(UR)for stu-dents’education and career development,it is only recently that research and evaluation studies have produced results that begin to throw light on the beneﬁts to students,faculty,or institutions that are generated by UR opportunities(Bauer&Bennett,2003;Lopatto,2004a; Russell,2005;Seymour,Hunter,Laursen,&DeAntoni,2004;Ward,Bennett,&Bauer, 2002;Zydney,Bennett,Shahid,&Bauer,2002a,2002b).Other reports focus on the effects of UR experiences on retention,persistence,and promotion of science career pathways for underrepresented groups(Adhikari&Nolan,2002;Barlow&Villarejo,2004;Hathaway, Nagda,&Gregerman,2002;Nagda et al.,1998).It is encouraging toﬁnd strong convergence as to the types of gains reported by these studies(Hunter,Laursen,&Seymour,2006).How-ever,we note limited or no discussion of some of the stronger gains that we document,such as students’personal and professional growth(Hunter et al.,2006;Seymour et al.,2004) and signiﬁcant variation in how particular gains(especially intellectual gains)are deﬁned. Ongoing and current debates in the academic literature concerning how learning occurs, how students develop intellectually and personally during their college years,and how communities of practice encourage these types of growth posit effective practices and the processes of students’cognitive,epistemological,and interpersonal and intrapersonal de-velopment.Although a variety of theoretical papers and research studies exploring these topics are widely published,with the exception of a short article for Project Kaleidoscope (Lopatto,2004b),none has yet focused on intensive,summer apprentice-style UR experi-ences as a model to investigate the validity of these debates.1Findings from this research study to establish the nature and range of beneﬁts from UR experiences in the sciences,and in particular,results from a comparative analysis of faculty and students’perceptions of gains from UR experiences,inform these theoretical discussions and bolsterﬁndings from empirical studies in different but related areas(i.e.,careers research,workplace learning, graduate training)on student learning,cognitive and personal growth,the development of professional identity,and how communities of practice contribute to these processes. This article will presentﬁndings from our faculty andﬁrst-round student data sets that manifest the concepts and theories underpinning constructivist learning,development of professional identity,and how apprentice-style UR experience operates as an effective community of practice.As these bodies of theory are central tenets of current science education reform efforts,empirical evidence that provides clearer understanding of the actual practices and outcomes of these approaches inform national science education pol-icy concerns for institutions of higher learning to increase diversity in science,numbers of students majoring in science,technology,engineering,or mathematics(STEM)disci-plines,student retention in undergraduate and graduate STEM programs and their entry 1David Lopatto was co-P.I.on this study and conducted quantitative survey research on the basis of our qualitativeﬁndings at the same four liberal arts colleges.Science Education DOI10.1002/sce38HUNTER ET AL.into science careers,and,ultimately,the production of greater numbers of professional scientists.To frame discussion ofﬁndings from this research,we present a brief review of theory on student learning,communities of practice,and the development of personal and professional identity germane to our data.CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING,COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE,AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENTApprentice-style URﬁts a theoretical model of learning advanced by constructivism, in which learning is a process of integrating new knowledge with prior knowledge such that knowledge is continually constructed and reconstructed by the individual.Vygotsky’s social constructivist approach presented the notion of“the zone of proximal development,”referencing the potential of students’ability to learn and problem solve beyond their current knowledge level through careful guidance from and collaboration with an adult or group of more able peers(Vygotsky,1978).According to Green(2005),Vygotsky’s learning model moved beyond theories of“staged development”(i.e.,Piaget)and“led the way for educators to consider ways of working with others beyond the traditional didactic model”(p.294).In social constructivism,learning is student centered and“situated.”Situated learning,the hallmark of cultural and critical studies education theorists(Freire,1990; Giroux,1988;Shor,1987),takes into account students’own ways of making meaning and frames meaning-making as a negotiated,social,and contextual process.Crucial to student-centered learning is the role of educator as a“facilitator”of learning.In constructivist pedagogy,the teacher is engaged with the student in a two-way,dialog-ical sharing of meaning construction based upon an activity of mutual ve and Wenger(1991)and Wenger(1998)extended tenets of social constructivism into a model of learning built upon“communities of practice.”In a community of practice“newcomers”are socialized into the practice of the community(in this case,science research)through mutual engagement with,and direction and support from an“old-timer.”Lave and Wenger’s development of the concept and practice of this model centers on students’“legitimate pe-ripheral participation.”This construct describes the process whereby a novice is slowly,but increasingly,inducted into the knowledge and skills(both overt and tacit)of a particular practice under the guidance and expertise of the master.Legitimate peripheral participation requires that students actively participate in the authentic practice of the community,as this is the process by which the novice moves from the periphery toward full membership in the community(Lave&Wenger,1991).Similar to Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice, Brown,Collins,and Duguid(1989)and Farmer,Buckmaster,and LeGrand(1992)describe “cognitive apprenticeships.”A cognitive apprenticeship“starts with deliberate instruction by someone who acts as a model;it then proceeds to model-guided trials by practition-ers who progressively assume more responsibility for their learning”(Farmer et al.,1992, p.42).However,these latter authors especially emphasize the importance of students’ongoing opportunities for self-expression and reﬂective thinking facilitated by an“expert other”as necessary to effective legitimate peripheral participation.Beyond gains in understanding and exercising the practical and cultural knowledge of a community of practice,Brown et al.(1989)discuss the beneﬁts of cognitive ap-prenticeship in helping learners to deal capably with ambiguity and uncertainty—a trait particularly relevant to conducting science research.In their view,cognitive apprenticeship “teaches individuals how to think and act satisfactorily in practice.It transmits useful, reliable knowledge based on the consensual agreement of the practitioners,about how to deal with situations,particularly those that are ill-deﬁned,complex and risky.It teachesScience Education DOI10.1002/sceBECOMING A SCIENTIST39‘knowledge-in-action’that is‘situated”’(quoted in Farmer et al.,1992,p.42).Green(2005) points out that Bowden and Marton(1998,2004)also characterize effective communities of practice as teaching skills that prepare apprentices to negotiate undeﬁned“spaces of learning”:“the‘expert other’...does not necessarily‘know’the answers in a traditional sense,but rather is willing to support collaborative learning focused on the‘unknown fu-ture.’In other words,the‘inﬂuential other’takes learning...to spaces where the journey itself is unknown to everyone”(p.295).Such conceptions of communities of practice are strikingly apposite to the processes of learning and growth that we have found among UR students,particularly in their understanding of the nature of scientiﬁc knowledge and in their capacity to confront the inherent difﬁculties of science research.These same issues are central to Baxter Magolda’s research on young adult development. The“epistemological reﬂection”(ER)model developed from her research posits four categories of intellectual development from simplistic to complex thinking:from“absolute knowing”(where students understand knowledge to be certain and view it as residing in an outside authority)to“transitional knowing”(where students believe that some knowledge is less than absolute and focus onﬁnding ways to search for truth),then to“independent knowing”(where students believe that most knowledge is less than absolute and individuals can think for themselves),and lastly to“contextual knowing”(where knowledge is shaped by the context in which it is situated and its veracity is debated according to its context) (Baxter Magolda,2004).In this model,epistemological development is closely tied to development of identity. The ER model of“ways of knowing”gradually shifts from an externally directed view of knowing to one that is internally directed.It is this epistemological shift that frames a student’s cognitive and personal development—where knowing and sense of self shift from external sources to reliance upon one’s own internal assessment of knowing and identity. This process of identity development is referred to as“self-authorship”and is supported by a constructivist-developmental pedagogy based on“validating students as knowers, situating learning in students’experience,and deﬁning learning as mutually constructed meaning”(Baxter Magolda,1999,p.26).Baxter Magolda’s research provides examples of pedagogical practice that support the development of self-authorship,including learning through scientiﬁc inquiry.As in other social constructivist learning models,the teacher as facilitator is crucial to students’cognitive and personal development:Helping students make personal sense of the construction of knowledge claims and engagingstudents in knowledge construction from their own perspectives involves validating thestudents as knowers and situating learning in the students’own perspectives.Becoming socialized into the ways of knowing of the scientiﬁc community and participating in thediscipline’s collective knowledge creation effort involves mutually constructing meaning.(Baxter Magolda,1999,p.105)Here Baxter Magolda’s constructivist-developmental pedagogy converges with Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice,but more clearly emphasizes students’development of identity as part of the professional socialization process.Use of constructivist learning theory and pedagogies,including communities of practice, are plainly evident in the UR model as it is structured and practiced at the four institutions participating in this study,as we describe next.As such,the gains identiﬁed by student and faculty research advisors actively engaged in apprentice-style learning and teaching provide a means to test these theories and models and offer the opportunity to examine the processes,whereby these beneﬁts are generated,including students’development of a professional identity.Science Education DOI10.1002/sce40HUNTER ET AL.THE APPRENTICESHIP MODEL FOR UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Effective UR is deﬁned as,“an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline”(NSF,2003b, p.9).In the“best practice”of UR,the student draws on the“mentor’s expertise and resources...and the student is encouraged to take primary responsibility for the project and to provide substantial input into its direction”(American Chemical Society’s Committee on Professional Training,quoted in Wenzel,2003,p.1).Undergraduate research,as practiced in the four liberal arts colleges in this study,is based upon this apprenticeship model of learning:student researchers work collaboratively with faculty in conducting authentic, original research.In these colleges,students typically underwent a competitive application process(even when a faculty member directly invited a student to participate).After sorting applications, and ranking students’research preferences,faculty interviewed students to assure a good match between the student’s interests and the faculty member’s research and also between the faculty member and the student.Generally,once all application materials were reviewed (i.e.,students’statements of interest,course transcripts,grade point averages[GPA]), faculty negotiated as a group to distribute successful applicants among the available summer research advisors.Students were paid a stipend for their full-time work with faculty for 10weeks over summer.Depending on the amount of funding available and individual research needs,faculty research advisors supervised one or more students.Typically,a faculty research advisor worked with two students for the summer,but many worked with three or four,or even larger groups.In most cases,student researchers were assigned to work on predetermined facets of faculty research projects:each student project was open ended,but deﬁned,so that a student had a reasonable chance of completing it in the short time frame and of producing useful results.Faculty research advisors described the importance of choosing a project appropriate to the student’s“level,”taking into account their students’interests,knowledge, and abilities and aiming to stretch their capacities,but not beyond students’reach.Research advisors were often willing to integrate students’speciﬁc interests into the design of their research projects.Faculty research advisors described the intensive nature of getting their student re-searchers“up and running”in the beginning weeks of the program.Orienting students to the laboratory and to the project,providing students with relevant background information and literature,and teaching them the various skills and instrumentation necessary to work effectively required adaptability to meet students at an array of preparation levels,advance planning,and a good deal of their time.Faculty engaged in directing UR discussed their role as facilitators of students’learning.In the beginning weeks of the project,faculty advisors often worked one-on-one with their students.They provided instruction,gave “mini-lectures,”explained step by step why and how processes were done in particular ways—all the time modeling how science research is done.When necessary,they closely guided students,but wherever possible,provided latitude for and encouraged students’own initiative and experimentation.As the summer progressed,faculty noted that,based on growing hands-on experience,students gained conﬁdence(to a greater or lesser degree)in their abilities,and gradually and increasingly became self-directed and able,or even eager, to work independently.Although most faculty research advisors described regular contact with their student researchers,most did not work side by side with their students everyday.Many research advisors held a weekly meeting to review progress,discuss problems,and make sure students(and the projects)were on the right track.At points in the research work,facultyScience Education DOI10.1002/sceBECOMING A SCIENTIST41 could focus on other tasks while students worked more independently,and the former were available as necessary.When students encountered problems with the research,faculty would serve as a sounding board while students described their efforts to resolve difﬁculties. Faculty gave suggestions for methods that students could try themselves,and when problems seemed insurmountable to students,faculty would troubleshoot with them toﬁnd a way to move the project forward.Faculty research advisors working with two or more student researchers often used the research peer group to further their students’development.Some faculty relied on more-senior student researchers to help guide new ones.Having multiple students working in the laboratory(whether or not on the same project)also gave student researchers an extra resource to draw upon when questions arose or they needed help.In some cases,several faculty members(from the same or different departments)scheduled weekly meetings for group discussion of their research monly,faculty assigned articles for students to summarize and present to the rest of the group.Toward the end of summer, weekly meetings were often devoted to students’practice of their presentations so that the research advisor and other students could provide constructive criticism.At the end of summer,with few exceptions,student researchers attended a campus-wide UR conference, where they presented posters and shared their research with peers,faculty,and institution administrators.Undergraduate research programs in these liberal arts colleges also offered a series of seminars andﬁeld trips that explored various science careers,discussed the process of choosing and applying to graduate schools,and other topics that focused on students’professional development.We thus found that,at these four liberal arts colleges,the practice of UR embodies the principles of the apprenticeship model of learning where students engage in active,hands-on experience of doing science research in collaboration with and under the auspices of a faculty research advisor.RESEARCH DESIGNThis qualitative study was designed to address fundamental questions about the beneﬁts (and costs)of undergraduate engagement in faculty-mentored,authentic research under-taken outside of class work,about which the existing literature offers fewﬁndings and many untested hypotheses.2Longitudinal and comparative,this study explores:•what students identify as the beneﬁts of UR—both following the experience,and inthe longer term(particularly career outcomes);•what gains faculty advisors observe in their student researchers and how their view of gains converges with or diverges from those of their students;•the beneﬁts and costs to faculty of their engagement in UR;•what,if anything,is lost by students who do not participate in UR;and•the processes by which gains to students are generated.This study was undertaken at four liberal arts colleges with a strong history of UR.All four offer UR in three core sciences—physics,chemistry,and biology—with additional programs in other STEMﬁelds,including(at different campuses)computer science,engi-neering,biochemistry,mathematics,and psychology.In the apprenticeship model of UR practiced at these colleges,faculty alone directed students in research;however,in the few2An extensive review and discussion of the literature on UR is presented in Seymour et al.(2004). Science Education DOI10.1002/sce42HUNTER ET AL.instances where faculty conducted research at a nearby institution,some students did have contact with post docs,graduate students,or senior laboratory technicians who assisted in the research as well.We interviewed a cohort of(largely)“rising seniors”who were engaged in UR in summer2000on the four campuses(N=76).They were interviewed for a second time shortly before their graduation in spring2001(N=69),and a third time as graduates in 2003–2004(N=55).The faculty advisors(N=55)working with this cohort of students were also interviewed in summer2000,as were nine administrators with long experience of UR programs at their schools.We also interviewed a comparison group of students(N=62)who had not done UR. They were interviewed as graduating seniors in spring2001,and again as graduates in 2003–2004(N=25).A comparison group(N=16)of faculty who did not conduct UR in summer2000was also interviewed.Interview protocols focused upon the nature,value,and career consequences of UR experiences,and the methods by which these were achieved.3After classifying the range of beneﬁts claimed in the literature,we constructed a“gains”checklist to discuss with all participants“what faculty think students may gain from undergraduate research.”Dur-ing the interview,UR students were asked to describe the gains from their research experience(or by other means).If,toward the end of the interview,a student had not mentioned a gain identiﬁed on our“checklist,”the student was queried as to whether he or she could claim to have gained the beneﬁt and was invited to add further com-ment.Students also mentioned gains they had made that were not included in the list. With slight alterations in the protocol,we invited comments on the same list of possi-ble gains from students who had not experienced UR,and solicited information about gains from other types of experience.All students were asked to expand on their an-swers,to highlight gains most signiﬁcant to them,and to describe the sources of any beneﬁts.In the second set of interviews,the same students(nearing graduation)were asked to reﬂect back on their research experiences as undergraduates,and to comment on the rel-ative importance of their research-derived gains,both for the careers they planned and for other aspects of their lives.In theﬁnal set of interviews,they were asked to of-fer a retrospective summary of the origins of their career plans and the role that UR and other factors had played in them,and to comment on the longer term effects of their UR experiences—especially the consequences for their career choices and progress, including their current educational or professional engagement.Again,the sources of gains cited were explored;especially gains that were identiﬁed by some students as arising from UR experiences but may also arise from other aspects of their college education.The total of367interviews represents more than13,000pages of text data.We are currently analyzing other aspects of the data and will reportﬁndings on additional topics, including the beneﬁts and costs to faculty of their participation in UR and longitudinal and comparative outcomes of students’career choices.This article discussesﬁndings from a comparative analysis of all faculty and administrator interviews(N=80),withﬁndings from theﬁrst-round UR student interviews(N=76),and provides empirical evidence of the role of UR experiences in encouraging the intellectual,personal,and professional development of student researchers,and how the apprenticeship modelﬁts theoretical discussions on these topics.3The protocol is available by request to the authors via abhunter@.Science Education DOI10.1002/sceBECOMING A SCIENTIST43METHODS OF DATA TRANSCRIPTION,CODING,AND ANAL YSISOur methods of data collection and analysis are ethnographic,rooted in theoretical work and methodological traditions from sociology,anthropology,and social psychol-ogy(Berger&Luckman,1967;Blumer,1969;Garﬁnkel,1967;Mead,1934;Schutz& Luckman,1974).Classically,qualitative studies such as ethnographies precede survey or experimental work,particularly where existing knowledge is limited,because these meth-ods of research can uncover and explore issues that shape informants’thinking and actions. Good qualitative software computer programs are now available that allow for the multiple, overlapping,and nested coding of a large volume of text data to a high degree of complexity, thus enabling ethnographers to disentangle patterns in large data sets and to reportﬁndings using descriptive statistics.Although conditions for statistical signiﬁcance are rarely met, the results from analysis of text data gathered by careful sampling and consistency in data coding can be very powerful.Interviews took between60and90minutes.Taped interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim into a word-processing program and submitted to“The Ethnograph,”a qualitative computer software program(Seidel,1998).Each transcript was searched for information bearing upon the research questions.In this type of analysis,text segments referencing issues of different type are tagged by code names.Codes are not preconceived,but empirical:each new code references a discrete idea not previously raised.Interviewees also offer information in spontaneous narratives and examples,and may make several points in the same passage,each of which is separately coded.As transcripts are coded,both the codes and their associated passages are entered into“The Ethnograph,”creating a data set for each interview group(eight,in this study). Code words and their deﬁnitions are concurrently collected in a codebook.Groups of codes that cluster around particular themes are assigned and grouped by“parent”codes.Because an idea that is encapsulated by a code may relate to more than one theme,code words are often assigned multiple parent codes.Thus,a branching and interconnected structure of codes and parents emerges from the text data,which,at any point in time,represents the state of the analysis.As information is commonly embedded in speakers’accounts of their experience rather than offered in abstract statements,transcripts can be checked for internal consistency;that is,between the opinions or explanations offered by informants,their descriptions of events, and the reﬂections and feelings these evoke.Ongoing discussions between members of our research group continually reviewed the types of observations arising from the data sets to assess and reﬁne category deﬁnitions and assure content validity.The clustered codes and parents and their relationships deﬁne themes of the qualita-tive analysis.In addition,frequency of use can be counted for codes across a data set, and for important subsets(e.g.,gender),using conservative counting conventions that are designed to avoid overestimation of the weight of particular opinions.Together,these frequencies describe the relative weighting of issues in participants’collective report. As they are drawn from targeted,intentional samples,rather than from random samples, these frequencies are not subjected to tests for statistical signiﬁcance.They hypothesize the strength of particular variables and their relationships that may later be tested by random sample surveys or by other means.However,theﬁndings in this study are un-usually strong because of near-complete participation by members of each group under study.Before presentingﬁndings from this study,we provide an overview of the results of our comparative analysis and describe the evolution of our analysis of the student interview data as a result of emergentﬁndings from analysis of the faculty interview data.Science Education DOI10.1002/sce。

科学与学术欺诈英语作文

科学与学术欺诈英语作文Title: Academic Integrity: Combating Fraud in Science。

In the realm of academia and science, integrity serves as the bedrock upon which knowledge is built and trust is maintained. However, as the pursuit of academic excellence intensifies, so too does the temptation to engage in fraudulent practices. Academic fraud not only undermines the credibility of scholarly work but also jeopardizes the foundation of scientific progress. Hence, it is imperative to delve into the causes, consequences, and solutions to this pressing issue.One of the primary drivers of academic fraud is the intense pressure to publish. In today's competitive academic environment, researchers face immense scrutiny to produce groundbreaking findings and publish them in prestigious journals. This pressure can lead some individuals to cut corners, fabricate data, or manipulate results to meet publication targets. Moreover, the emphasison quantity over quality incentivizes researchers to prioritize publication metrics, such as the h-index, over the integrity of their work.Another contributing factor is the "publish or perish" culture prevalent in academia. Job security, funding opportunities, and career advancement often hinge on the number and impact of publications. Consequently, researchers may resort to unethical practices to bolster their publication record, perpetuating a cycle of fraudulence in pursuit of professional success.Furthermore, the lack of effective oversight and accountability mechanisms within the academic community exacerbates the problem of academic fraud. Peer review, while essential for maintaining the quality of scholarly work, is not foolproof and may fail to detect instances of fraud or misconduct. Moreover, the pressure to maintain collaborative relationships and avoid confrontation can deter colleagues from scrutinizing each other's work rigorously.The consequences of academic fraud extend far beyond individual reputations; they erode the trust and integrity of the entire scientific enterprise. When fraudulent research is published and disseminated, it not only misleads other researchers but also undermines public confidence in science. Instances of high-profile academic fraud, such as the case of Diederik Stapel, have tarnished the reputation of entire academic fields and raised questions about the reliability of scientific findings.To combat academic fraud effectively, a multifaceted approach is necessary. First and foremost, fostering a culture of integrity and ethical conduct within academia is paramount. Institutions must prioritize values such as honesty, transparency, and accountability in their research practices. This can be achieved through education and training programs that emphasize the importance of research integrity and provide researchers with the necessary tools to navigate ethical dilemmas.Additionally, promoting open science practices can enhance transparency and accountability in research. Openaccess publishing, data sharing, and preregistration of studies can help mitigate the risk of fraud by enabling greater scrutiny and replication of research findings. Moreover, embracing diverse perspectives and encouraging constructive criticism within the academic community can facilitate the detection and prevention of fraudulent practices.Furthermore, enhancing the rigor and robustness of peer review processes is essential for safeguarding theintegrity of scholarly publications. Implementing measures such as double-blind peer review, post-publication peer review, and cross-disciplinary collaboration can help minimize bias and ensure the accuracy and validity of research findings.In conclusion, academic fraud poses a significantthreat to the integrity and credibility of scientific research. Addressing the root causes of fraudulence, fostering a culture of integrity, and implementing rigorous oversight mechanisms are essential steps toward combating this pervasive issue. By upholding the principles ofhonesty, transparency, and accountability, the academic community can uphold its commitment to advancing knowledge and serving the greater good.。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

3. THE TRADITIONAL BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS
Traditionally, the whole construction process comprises four distinct sequential stages. Tbey are design, tender documentation and selection, construction, and handover and maintenance. In the first stage, the key activities of design consist of developing concept and schematic designs, and obtaining planning approvals. As planning approvals are granted by the various regulatory bodies, the building owner through the appointed design consultant (or the Qualified Person) needs to submit the building plans to these bodies separately to apply for the approvals. Tbe complex process of submitting the application, checking against planning requirements, evaluating the proposal, re-submission for non-compliance and issuing approval
2. AlM OF THE PAPER
Tbe paper aims to describe the Government to Business infrastructure projects developed and implemented in Singapore through a discussion of their benefits dቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱrived from the re-engineered IT-enabled processes as weil as the feedback obtained from a survey ofthe users ofthe new IT infrastructure.
E-Government for Construction: The Case of Singapore's CORENET Project
Bee-HuaGoh
Department of Building, Scbool of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore bdggobbb@.sg Abstract. In 1999, tbe Singapore Government envisioned a need to transform the construction industry through tbe Construction 21 Blueprint by a strategic vision. In line witb tbe broader plan to develop Singapore into a knowledgcdriven economy, tbis industry aspires to become 'a World Class Builder in tbe Knowledge Age'. And earlier, as part oftbe IT 2000 master plan for Singapore, tbe Construction Real Estate Network (CORENET) project has been set up in July 1993 to serve as a major information technology (IT) initiative. The goal of CORENET is to "re-enginecr the business processes of the construction industry to achieve a quantum leap in tumaround time, productivity and quality." Specifically, its efforts are targeted at deveJoping a set of infrastructure and industry projects, involving various govemment agencies and other industry players, to meet tbis goal. On the infrastructure projects, one tbrust looks at providing Govemment to Business infrastructure to facilitate electronic building plans submission, checking and approval processes. Applying tbe concept of process re-engineering tbrough the adoption of IT to tbe traditional building plans submission, checking and approval processes, tbe CORENET has now an infrastructure for: (i) One-stop Submission (OSSC) of building plans for approval; (ii) Buildable Design Appraisal (eBDAS); and (iii) Integrated Building Plan (lBP) and Integrated Building Services Plan (IBS) checking. The prevailing success and benefits of the tbree implemented projects are examined and discussed in relation to tbeir re-engineered IT-enabled processes as weil as feedback from a survey oftbe industry. Keywords: Business proeess reengineering, lnter-Enterprise interoperation, Strategie business transformation, Workjlow model
Please use thefollowingformat when dring this dIOpter
Goh. B.-H., 2007, in IFIP International Federation fOT Information Processing, Volume 254. Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Infonnation Systems TI Volume I. eds. L. Xu. Tjoa A .. Chaudhry S. (Boston: SpringerL pp. 327336.
ii) provide Government to Business infrastructure to facilitate electronic building plans submission, checking and approval processes; iii) provide Business to Business enablers to facilitate building project collaborations and business transactions; iv) provide a set of standards to improve business communications; and v) provide aseries of promotional, training and incentive programmes to create awareness and encourage adoption. Tbe key Government to Business infrastructure projects completed to date is the One-Stop Submission Centre (OSSC), the Electronic Buildable Design Appraisal System (eBDAS) and the Integrated Building Plan and Building Service Plan Checking System (IBPIIBS). Other infrastructure projects to be developed include the Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS), the Integrated Structural Plan Checking System (ISP) and the Design Objects Library (DOL).
1. SINGAPORE'S CORENET
In January 1991, the National Computer Board (now IDA) initiated the IT 2000 study to examine how IT can create new competitive advantages and enhance the quality of life in Singapore. As such, the study group known as CORENET (Construction and Real Estate NETwork) was set up in July 1993. Since then, CORENET has come a long way to become a major IT initiative led by the Ministrv of National Development and driven by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) in coIIaboration with other public and private organizations. Tbe goal of CORENET is to "re-engineer the business processes of the construction industry to achieve aquanturn leap in tumaround time, productivity and quality." In order to