Empirical observations in the classroom 


Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!



ЗНАЕТЕ ЛИ ВЫ?

Empirical observations in the classroom



Settings and participants

Fifteen training courses for adults, each involving different educators, learners and topics, were observed.

All the courses took place in classrooms in the city of Torino, Italy. Each lasted one to three days (mean: 1.5), divided into lessons of about four hours (range: 3–6) during which interactive games, classroom discussion and theoretical explanations took place. The topics ranged from project management to the use of computers to leadership, etc.; courses with different topics were chosen to avoid biases due to the contents.

The classroom contexts were very similar; present were the participants, the educators and the observers. The average attendance was 20 persons (range: 16-53) with a mean age of 40 years (range: 18-60), typically aiming at professional qualification or requalification.

The educators (one for each course) were eight women and seven men, with an average age of 43 years (range: 26-53). Eight of them had extensive professional experience (more than five years working in the field and/or a postgraduate degree in adult education). Neither the educators nor the participants were aware of the nature or the goals of the observations.

Observers, materials and methods

All the courses were observed by the same team of three judges. These were two psychologists and a senior student in psychology. One of them is a co-author of this paper; the other two were exclusively recruited for the observations, which they accepted to do as a favour to the authors or as part of their thesis.

The observers did not participate in the interactions; if questioned about their activities, they were to speak vaguely about 'the observation of group dynamics'. Their presence, however, appeared to be quickly forgotten.

The task of the observers was to fill in a copy of the scoring sheet every 30 minutes, evaluating each item on its Likert scale in reference to its progress during the previous half hour. As mentioned in the previous section, the Likert scale for each item ranged from 0 to 5. The educators were scored on the list of 31 relevant behaviours reported in Table 1; the participants were collectively scored on the levels of attention, participation and understanding as reported in Table 2. The scoring sheet, in other words, was a graphical rearrangement of these two tables.

The observers gave their scores independently. To improve inter-rater reliability, they were trained on a set of pre-test observations, analogous to those that they would conduct later, with ample opportunities for discussion and exchange of ideas. At the end of the training program, a high level of total agreement was achieved (Cohen’s k =.93).

 

Реферат

The article “Studying relations in the classroom” is taken from the research paper “Knowledge construction: The role of the teacher’s interpersonal attitudes” by D.Mate, A.Brizio and M.Tirassa. The authors describe four steps of the research design. According to this research, to study empirically the interpersonal attitudes of the educators it was fist necessary to identify suitable observable indexes, and then entertain appropriate mental attitudes of the learners, to use factor analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The researchers made a list of 31 behaviors that appear to be commonly enacted by educators during a lesson. They revealed attention, participation, and understanding as the manifest attitudes of the learners. Empirical observations in the classroom describe setting and participant, observers, materials and methods. The researchers give three goals of factors analysis and results of four factors they identified.

 

Аннотация

The article “Studying relations in the classroom” is taken from the research paper “Knowledge construction: The role of the teacher’s interpersonal attitudes” by D.Mate, A.Brizio and M.Tirassa. The authors describe four steps of

the research design to observe empirically the interpersonal; attitudes of the educators and the manifest attitudes of the learners. The researchers give three goals of factors analysis and results of four factors they identified.

 

Results

Factor analysis: Grouping behaviours into attitudes

We used factor analysis to group the educators' indexes, collected as described above, into more complex interpersonal attitudes. The underlying idea was that the minimal, instant-by-instant behaviours represent the visible manifestations of the more general interpersonal attitudes by which the educator frames and constructs her guidance of the classroom. Technically, these general attitudes may be viewed as latent variables that find their reflective indicators in the educator's behaviours.

Factor analysis may be useful in the search of a structure underlying a data matrix and for data reduction (Cohen 2001; Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2006; Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003). In this perspective, such a technique 'takes what the data give': it does not set a priori constraints on the estimation of the components or on the number of components to be extracted, and for many researcher this is its most appropriate application. The overall purpose of factor analysis is to find a way of condensing (summarizing) the information contained in a number of original variables into a smaller set of new, composite variables (factors) with a minimum loss of information. More specifically, our use of factor analysis had three goals:

(1) To identify the structure of the relation among the variables (R factor analysis: to analyse a set of variables to identify the dimensions that are latent and that are not easily observed).

(2) To identify representative variables from a much larger set of variables for use in subsequent multivariate analysis.

(3) To create an entirely new set of variables, much smaller in number, to partially or completely replace the original set of variables for inclusion in subsequent techniques (correlations).

 

To decide the number of factor to extract:

first we extracted the largest and best combinations of variables, and proceeded to the smaller, less understandable ones;

after the initial solution had been derived, we tried several more solutions;

finally, based on these further trials, the factor matrices were examined, and the best representation of the data was used to assist in determining the number of factors to extract.

 

While exact quantitative tools for deciding the number of factors to extract have not been developed, we used the most common stopping criteria:

Latent root criterion: we first used the most common technique, which consists in extracting the factors having latent roots or eigenvalues greater than 1 (all the factors with latent root less than 1 were considered insignificant);

after this first selection, in order to achieve the second and third goals described above, we looked at the factor loadings, because the number of factors is interrelated with an assessment of structure as is revealed in the interpretation phase;

then, we used the Percentage variance criterion to identify the best solution: the one that we found accounts for 59.50% of the total variance;

at the end of the process we opted for the rotation of factors to achieve a simpler, more theoretically meaningful pattern (Cohen, 2001);

the last stage of the analysis was the interpretation of factors using factors loadings, as discussed below.

 

The four factors which we identified as the most satisfactory solution were:

favouring cooperation;

directivity;

flexibility; and

focusing on the group.

 

Table 3 reports the eigenvalues and the variance explained for each factor. Table 4 reports the results of factor analysis with the relevant loadings for each item. In accordance with the literature (Cohen 2001), we considered loadings.50 significant, and loadings.80 extremely high, and assigned the label and the meaning to each factor based on the item that presented the highest absolute loading (Table 4).

Favouring cooperation

This factor reflects the teacher's ability to elicit, welcome, and value contributions and opinions from the audience. The behaviours that pertain to it and their respective loadings are:

reformulates a remark made by a participant (809); reformulates a question posed by a participant (785);leaves participants time to reflect and intervene (748);

talks incessantly (541)uses an example provided by a participant (513);is judgemental about the opinions expressed by participants (-.818); and

makes decision about activities and proceedings (876).

 

Taken together these variables suggest a general attitude of the educator’s to put herself on the same level with the participants in terms of personal contribution.

 

Directivity

This factor describes the educator’s tendency to compel agreement with her agenda or opinions. Its composing behaviours and their respective loadings are:

interrupts an on-topic intervention (843);

answers immediately a question posed by a participant (768);

expresses personal opinions (742);

talks incessantly (664); and

asks open question (732).

 

Taken together these variables suggest a tendency of the educator's to use her knowledge and dominant position to direct the proceedings without giving the learners space to contribute.

Flexibility

This factor describes the educator’s tendency to take the learners’views into account. The behaviours that are grouped here and their respective loadings are:

keeps the focus (737): this is referred to the educator’s ability to leave the learners free to explore new knowledge without losing focus;

moves and speaks in fluid, fluent and varied ways (676);

maintains a varied and fluent prosody (604).

Taken together these variables describe a flexible behaviour in the management of both the contents and the communicative channels.

Focusing on the group

This factor describes the educator’s tendency to focus on the group and to keep contact with it. The main behaviours and their respective loadings are:

uses first names (582);

reuses an example provided by a participant (491);

reuses an example taken from previous classroom history (457);

moves around in the classroom (405); and

uses a personal example (606).

Taken together these variables describe the educator's ability to stay connected to the participants and their contributions rather than on predefined schedules and flows.

Splitting the group of educators according to their level of expertise

After identifying the four main interpersonal attitudes of the educators we examined their correlations with the learners’ indexes.

We began considering possible differences related to the educator’s level of expertise. There is evidence in the literature that a teacher’s experience (Brekelmans, Wubbels, and den Brok 2002; Darling-Hammond and Sykes 2003; Monk and King 1994; Wenglinsky 2000) or her formal training (Wenglinsky 2002) may affect students’ achievement. We decided to consider expert teachers those who had more than 5 years as professionals and/or possessed a relevant postgraduate diploma. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test showed that the experts scored higher than the novices in cooperation (F = 123.804; p <.01), directivity (F = 5.448; p <.01) and flexibility (F = 5.449; p <.01). No significant difference was found in focusing on the group. Significant differences between the two groups of teachers were also found for attention (F = 90.89; p <.01), participation (F = 20.72; p <.01) and understanding (F = 123.804; p <.01) in the respective audiences.

These results are reported in Table 5.

We made separate correlation analyses for each subgroup of educators. The results are reported in Table 6.

Novices

The courses taught by novices showed a remarkable variability in both the educators’ and the learners’ indexes. This is in agreement with the literature to the effect that novices appear to be more sensitive to contextual factors, showing considerable differences in their management of interpersonal relations from class to class (Brekelmans, Wubbels, and den Brok 2002). The teachers' cooperative orientation correlated positively with the learners’ participation and attention (p <.001). Flexibility correlated positively with participation and inderstanding (p <.001). Directivity correlated negatively with attention and understanding. These data corroborate the hypothesis that the educator's cooperative and flexible attitude impacts positively on learning, while an authoritarian attitude impacts negatively.

Experts

The courses taught by experts showed a very low variability in teaching styles and high levels in the learners’ indexes, thus being apparently more successful. The teacher's directivity correlated negatively with participation (p <.001). Focusing on the group correlated positively with attention and understanding (p <.001). Flexibility correlated positively with attention and participation (p <.001). Cooperative orientation did not correlate significantly with any of the learners' indexes; however, this probably is due to the combination of high scores and low variability that these teachers exhibited (Slavin 1980, 1983).

 

Discussion

Overview

We presented the results of a set of empirical observations conducted during courses with adult participants. The researchers observed interactions in the classroom and scored indexes of the educators' behaviours and of the learners' attitudes.

We view attention, participation and understanding as individual, intrapersonal predispositions of a learner’s mind to move in new and appropriate directions. The educators’ attitudes − are instead relevant to interpersonal interaction: they may be viewed as predispositions to address the audience in certain ways. Both types of attitudes become manifest in the actors’ respective behaviours. Behaviours are the material counterpart of an actor’s plans and actions, which are in turn inspired by the actor’s attitudes and overarching mentality. To speak of “behaviours” is not a renouncement to constructivism and a return to realism. Actions, as opposed to mere body movements, exist only in the meanings that the actor and the possible observer(s) ascribe them. The meaning of any communicative and interpersonal action is the shared construction of the participants (Tirassa and Bosco 2008). The teachers and the learners whom we observed, as well as the observers themselves, shared a common socio-cultural heritage; unsurprisingly, they reckoned similar meanings in subjectively viewed classroom interactions: not because behaviours convey objective meanings, but because all human beings, or all human beings belonging to a certain context, share certain ways of viewing each other and the world.

There were three stages in the elaboration of the data collected. First we grouped some minimal behaviours that an educator may perform into more general interpersonal attitudes of hers. Then we compared the performance of expert and novice educators. Finally, we compared the educators’ interpersonal attitudes and the indexes of the learners’knowledge construction.

The four interpersonal attitudes

We used factor analysis to group the educators’ behaviours into four main interpersonal attitudes: favouring cooperation, directivity, flexibility and focusing on the group. Each may be represented as a continuum ranging from “seldom manifested” to “continually manifested”.

Favouring cooperation

Behind the many different actions by which an educator may affect and govern interactions and communication in the classroom is her attitude toward cooperation in the local situation. Cooperative interactions are characterised by a relaxed climate and uncomplicated communication. This factor reflects the teacher's ability to elicit, welcome, and value contributions and opinions from the audience. Among the behaviours which we coded, those that most clearly manifest a cooperative attitude are: to welcome and reformulate or reframe the remarks made by the participants, to reformulate the questions posed by the audience so to let the participants find an answer by themselves, to leave participants time to reflect individually or collectively and intervene and to reuse the examples and remarks provided by the audience. A non-cooperative attitude is manifested by behaviours such as to talk incessantly, to make decisions that do not take the group's desires and opinions into account, and to be judgemental about the audience's interventions.

Directivity

Leadership of a group may be exerted in different ways. This factor describes the educator’s tendency to compel the audience to agree with her agenda and opinions. This attitude becomes more manifest as the teacher answers questions immediately without leaving time for reflection, talks incessantly, expresses personal opinions and interrupts interventions even when learners are on-topic; it is less manifest when she poses open questions.

Flexibility

The teacher's agenda should take the learners’ views into account. A flexible attitude is manifested when the teacher values questions and comments even though they are not strictly on-topic, when she moves and speaks in fluid, fluent and variable ways, when she favours group discussion, and, since to be flexible does not mean going off-topic, this attitude also includes the ability to keep the focus on the main topic, for example by helping the participants to contribute to it.

Focusing on the group

This factor hints to the educator’s tendency to focus on the group and to maintain interpersonal contact with it. Among the behaviours that make such attitude manifest are to move around in the classroom, to use first names and to reuse the examples provided by the participants. These behaviours may also be viewed as signals of a low level of anxiety in the teacher, resulting in a greater capability on her part to focus on the group.

The first two factors, namely a cooperative orientation and a low directivity appear to be the most significant. The first alone accounts for as much as 29.10% of the total variance.

We are not suggesting that a list of behaviours like ours should be viewed as a recipe for success, that is, that it would be sufficient to reel off certain bodily movements or type of sentences, or to feign certain attitudes, to achieve professional success in the classroom. Experience may certainly help develop certain interactional routines, but a forced performance would probably be counterproductive. We believe that the general attitudes count more than the manifest behaviours: inasmuch as they have become part of how an educator views her professional world, her manifest moves will merely function as hints for the audience to move forward.

Expert versus novice educators

In accordance with the literature (e.g. Hogan, Rabinowitz, and Craven 2003; Wenglinsky 2002), we found evidence that expert and novice educators enact these four interpersonal attitudes differently.

There are two facets to any act of communication, respectively relevant to the contents and to the relation between the interlocutors (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson 1967). If we take it for granted that the average educator knows the matter she is teaching, as all those whom we observed did, the other factor that crucially influences the proceedings in the classroom is her ability to create and maintain a fruitful relationship with the participants.

Actually, a novice may be even more up-to-date than an expert regarding the technical contents of the course. Therefore, the difference between the two subgroups of educators appears to depend on the respective skills in conducting group interaction. This conclusion is also supported by the data from the subgroup of novices, within which those with the highest score at favouring cooperation also obtained the highest scores in the group's attention, participation and understanding.

 

The relation between the educators and the learners

Correlation analysis showed covariance of the educators' interpersonal attitudes and the learners’ levels of attention, participation and understanding. In particular, the higher the educator’s score was at favouring cooperation, the higher were all the indexes of the learners: the entire learning process is bolstered when the teacher stimulates active participation from the audience (Slavin 1980, 1983). Our results confirm the idea – common in the practice of adult education – that a cooperative climate is better in guiding the class toward a shared construction of knowledge (Goh and Fraser 2000). Favouring cooperation correlated with attention and participation, at least in the novices’ dataset, while the lack of such correlation in the subgroup of experts probably depends on the small variability in the relevant dataset.

A type of action that appeared to be important in favouring cooperation is the use of examples. Examples may be universal (that is, historical, generic, or abstract) or may be taken from the educator’s personal experience, from the previous experience of one of the participants as he reports it, or from the history of the previous events occurred in the classroom. The latter turned out to be particularly relevant to cooperation. Noteworthy events often happen in the classroom that may be taken as prototypical of certain concepts or of certain ways of the human beings. The educator can reinterpret and reuse them on a later occasion as examples of something she is discussing. Meaningful links are thus created from concepts that might otherwise appear abstract and unintelligible to real experiences that all participants share. This is one of the moments when the importance of cooperation in the collective and individual construction of knowledge shows most clearly.

Directivity correlated negatively with understanding in the subgroup of novices and with participation in the subgroup of experts. This is consistent with the paradigm of self-directed learning (Houle 1961; Merriam and Caffarella 1999; Tough 1967, 1971), which emphasises the importance of letting learners influence the learning process by negotiating their desires about its contents and dynamics with the teacher.

Flexibility correlated positively with participation and understanding in the subgroup of novices and with attention and participation in the subgroup of experts. When the participants have a degree of freedom in the management of the contents and of the overall agenda, they appear to be more inclined to pay attention to the ongoing interaction and they better understand the issues at hand. This is consistent with the idea that what really facilitates learners’ success is not whether their learning styles match or mismatch a specific teaching programme or strategy, or the teacher's cognitive characteristics, but the very process whereby personal learning styles are reckoned and taken into account (e.g. Coffield et al. 2004; Constantinidou and Baker 2002; Evans and Waring 2009; Glenn 2009; Massa and Mayer 2006; Pashler et al. 2009). Our results also confirm that, as is assumed in the paradigm of self-directed learning (Brookfield 2009), the more the learners are allowed to participate responsibly, the better their attitude is toward the construction of knowledge.

Adult learners need to feel involved as active participants during the entire learning process and able to negotiate the relevant decisions with the rest of the group and with the educator (Knowles 1980; Merriam 2001). The perception, both individual and collectively shared, that they are entitled to as much freedom in deciding the learning goals and strategies as possible, makes them jointly responsible with the educator for the ultimate results of the endeavour. The learners thus feel that they are the actual focus of the process (self-centred, self-directed learning) and that the educator is, truly, a facilitator. This motivates not only to move toward the ultimate desired results, but first and foremost to entertain a positive attitude toward the situation and to participate in its proceedings.

In the subgroup of expert teachers, focusing on the group correlated positively with attention and understanding. As mentioned above, this may be related to a low level of anxiety on their part. The educator's focus on the learners also helps the latter feel that they are at the centre of the process. This attitude appears to be the most difficult to control. Focusing on the group requires spotting the relevant cues from the dynamic flow of events, which requires a remarkable mastery of attention (Nideffer 1995). The point is not to be constantly focused on the other persons, but to constantly, effectively and efficiently use attention as a distributed, selective, divided, etc. capability. Less experienced educators may have a hard time attempting to do so, which showed in our data as the ineffectiveness of such attitude to influence the learners' indexes. Even the subgroups of experts showed a high variance in this attitude; unsurprisingly, those with the highest scores at focusing on the group were those with the strongest capability to influence the audience.

What skills of the educators’ are the most important?

A few specific conclusions can be drawn from our data about certain behaviours of the educators. For example, interrupting an intervention from the audience, whether on-topic or off-topic, appears to imply the denial that all contributions are in one way or another relevant and useful to the proceedings. Actually, any action that interrupts the expression of personal ideas may end up hampering learning: even if what a participant is saying is 'objectively' wrong or off-topic, it is important that the educator allows enough time for him to express it and for the rest of audience to understand and frame it. Sometimes, the best skill of the experienced educator is her use of silence.

The teacher can also reformulate a question to better frame it or to provide hints to the answer. The fear to be resisted here is that the audience may think that she just does not know what to say. Often, indeed, there is no right answer and the educator could only give her personal opinion; however, her goal should not be to have the audience agree only because they fail to see an alternative; furthermore, to provide an answer immediately would put them in a substantially passive role. The educator’s goal, instead, is to construct an appropriate answer together with the audience: this may turn out to be different to what she would have thought in a different context, but what really matters is to let the participants develop and consider their own results and knowledge. Of course, the educator is there to help in this process and may provide her preferred solution at the end of it.

Another moment when the educator values the participants’ contribution occurs when she welcomes a comment received and reframes or reformulates its contents, premises or consequences. After doing so, it also appears to be useful to ask the participant whether such reorganisation corresponds to what he actually meant. This way the participants become more aware of their individual and essential contributions to the construction of knowledge.

In the end, what appears to really matter is not to keep a close focus on or control of the topic at issue, but to maintain as strong a relation as possible with the ongoing psychological dynamics of the class.

Limitations and possible directions for further research

Overall, our findings support the idea, widely diffused in the socio-constructivist literature (Luria 1976, 1979; Vygotsky 1978; Vygotsky and Luria [1930] 1993) and elsewhere, that learning is a transformational process that takes place within an interpersonal context. What they specifically contribute is the empirical evidence that the interpersonal contexts – and, consequently, the learning process – can be influenced by the educator, and that there are many differences in how expert and novice teachers do so.

The main suggestion that we would like to advance, thus, is that it is possible to develop empirical research in the highly complex area of adult education and adult learning.

This said, we see a vast array of possible improvements to our research. Many variables were not included in the model and are therefore out of experimental control. We are also aware of the methodological limits that can be ascribed on the one hand to the small size of the observed sample and on the other hand to the comparative uniformity of the learning contexts we observed. Another limitation, which is instead intrinsic to the methodology we used, is that, despite the training session which the observers underwent, mistakes and misunderstandings in the scoring process cannot be excluded with certainty. It is also possible that we used too few indexes, or indexes that do not correspond exactly to the mental states of the participants. This again appears hardly avoidable. A different way to assess the same proceedings would be to directly interview the participants about their mental state; of course, however, it would be impossible to do so every half hour during classroom interaction. Finally, appropriate tests to evaluate actual learning should be developed and used.

 

Реферат

The article “Discussion” is taken from the research paper “Knowledge construction: The role of the teacher’s interpersonal attitudes” by D.Mate, A.Brizio and M.Tirassa. The authors summarize their research. They note that they designed three stages in elaboration of the data collection and used factor analysis to group the educator’s behaviors into the four main interpersonal attitudes: favoring cooperation, directivity, flexibility and focusing on the group. They found evidence that expert and novice educators enact these four interpersonal attitudes differently. The researchers define that correlation analysis showed covariance of the educators’ interpersonal attitudes and he learners’ level of attention, participation and understanding. The researchers reveal the most important skills of the educator are “use of silence”, “to reformulate a question to better frame it”, “to construct an appropriate answer together with audience.” They conclude that learning process can be influenced by the educator and it is possible to develop empirical research in the nightly complex area of adult education and adult learning and an appropriate test to evaluate actual learning should be developed and used.

 

Аннотация

The article “Discussion” is taken from the research paper “Knowledge construction: The role of the teacher’s interpersonal attitudes” by D.Mate, A.Brizio and M.Tirassa. The authors summarize their research. They give conclusion on the research design and four main interpersonal attitudes. They resume that learning process can be influenced by the educator and it is possible to develop empirical research in the nightly complex area of adult education and adult learning and an appropriate test to evaluate actual learning should be developed and used.

 

Реферат

The paper “Knowledge construction: the role of the teacher’s interpersonal attitudes” is taken from Reseach Papers from Education 26,2 pp 245-265/ by D.Mate, A.Brizio and M.Tirassa. The authors defined aim of this paper, steps of the research design gave results and conclusions of this paper. This research aimed at studying how the interpersonal attitudes of teachers may influence learning in adults classrooms. In terms of scientific methods they used factor analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The paper revealed the four main teacher’s interpersonal attitudes: favoring cooperation, directivity, flexibility and focusing on the group. The research showed covaration of the educators interpersonal attitudes and the learners’ level of attention, participation and understanding. The researchers revealed the most important skills of the educator are “use of silence”, “to reformulate a question to better frame it”, “to construct an appropriate answer together with audience” They conclude that learning process can be influenced by the educator and it is possible to develop empirical research in the nightly complex area of adult education and adult learning and an appropriate test to evaluate actual learning should be developed and used.

 

Аннотация

The paper “Knowledge construction: the role of the teacher’s interpersonal attitudes” is taken from Reseach Papers from Education 26,2 pp 245-265/ by D.Mate, A.Brizio and M.Tirassa. The authors defined aim of this paper< steps of the research design gave results and conclusions of this paper. The authors defined aim of this paper, steps of the research design gave results and conclusions of this paper. The paper revealed the four main teacher’s interpersonal

attitudes and the most important skills of the educator. The research showed covaration of the educators interpersonal attitudes and he learners’ level of attention, participation and understanding. The reserchers concluded that learning process can be influenced by the educator and it is possible to develop empirical research in the nightly complex area of adult education and adult learning and an appropriate test to evaluate actual learning should be developed and used.

 

 

 

Библиографический список

1. Агабекян, И.П. Английский язык для психологов: учеб. пособие / И.П. Агабекян, П.И. Коваленко, Ю.А. Кудряшова. – М.: ТК Велби, Изд-во Проспект, 2008. – 272 с.

2. Бочарова, Г.В. Психология. Тесты = Psychology. Tests / Г.В. Бочарова, М.Г. Степанова. – 2-е изд.,испр. – М.: Флинта: МПСИ, 2007. – 160 с.

3. Валеева, Р.З. English for beginners (учебное пособие по английскому языку для начинающих) / Р.З. Валеева. – Казань, Изд-во «Культура», 2012. – 168с.

4. Шафикова А.В. Аннотирование и реферирование текстов: учеб.-метод. пособие / А.В. Шафикова. – Казань: Изд-во «Познание» Института экономики, управления и права (г. Казань).

Интернет ресурсы

www.englishtips.org библиотека литературы на английском языке
www.onestopenglish.com сайт «One Stop English» - бесплатное виртуальное мультимедийное учебное пособие
http://www.fluent-english.ru образовательный проект Fluent English
http://www.native-english.ru образовательный проект Native English
http://www.schoolenglish.ru газета для изучающих английский язык School English
http://www.english.language.ru информационный портал для изучающих английский язык

 

 

Подписано в печать 20.10.14. Формат 60´90 1/16

Гарнитура Times New Roman Cyr, 14. Усл. печ. л. –. У.-изд. – 7,74

Тираж 100экз.

 

Типография «Познание» ИЭУП

Лицензия № 172 от 12.09.96 г.

420108, г. Казань, ул. Зайцева, д. 17



Поделиться:


Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-12-30; просмотров: 242; Нарушение авторского права страницы; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - 54.163.62.42 (0.127 с.)