Question

请英语高手们帮帮忙~看看这两段怎么翻译啊（一）

The question is why is it so difficult to move the process of inquiry through to resolution? Is this an artifact of the inquiry model, the contrived nature of the educational context, the communication medium, or perhaps it is the nature of the task and teaching presence (design, facilitation, and direction)? There is evidence that this pervasive finding may have more to do with aspects of teaching presence, than it is to the other possible factors. Meyer observes that integration and resolution is more demanding than exploration and, as a result, increased time for reflection is required. More specifically, she states that, "Faculty need to be more directive in their assignments... [24]." Similarly, Celentin [20] concluded that the reason discussions do not reach the highest levels of inquiry is "strictly related to the role of the tutor". Others have also speculated that the role of the instructor is a major factor

In another study by Meyer, she noted that "the question initiating each of the online discussions influenced the level of the responses from students" [26]. There is evidence that the questions or tasks "play an important role in the type of cognitive activity evident in the discussions" [30]. When questions specifically asked students to engage in practical applications, discussions did progress to the synthesis and resolution phase. Interestingly, it was suggested that confirmation did not come from the group; the individual confirmed or rejected their own solutions [30]. If there are no shared goals requiring a collaborative solution or artifact, the transcripts of online discourse will not reveal discourse that has moved to the resolution phase. Individual reflection may take place and, if required, solutions may be posted, but there will not be any discourse. Thus, in addition to teaching presence dimensions such as facilitation and direction, as noted previously, well designed tasks are also important to see evidence of resolution in a community of inquiry.

Answer 1

问题是,为何如此难以移动过程中通过决议,调查吗?这是一个神器的询价模型、做作的自然的教育背景、通信中,也许这是大自然的任务和教学存在(设计、推动和方向)吗?有证据表明,这种普遍的发现可能有更多的教学等方面入手,比其他可能的因素。迈耶观察,集成和分辨率是比探索,因此,增加了思考的时间是必需的。更确切地说,她声称,“教师需要更多的指令,在他们的作业……(24)。”同样的,Celentin(20)断定原因的讨论还没有达到最高水平的提问是“严格相关的作用的导师”。其他国家也可以推测所扮演的角色,教练是主要因素

在另一项研究则由梅耶,她指出,“问题引发的在线讨论影响学生的反馈”(26)。有证据表明,这个问题或任务”中扮演重要角色的认知活动类型的讨论”明显地在30]。当问题特别要求学生从事实际的应用,讨论了对合成进展和分辨率的阶段。有趣的是,这意味着确认没有来自集团;个人证实或拒绝了他们自己的解决方案(30)。如果没有共同的目标需要一个协作解决的成绩单副本或神器,并不会揭示网络话语的语篇的决议已经开始阶段。个人反射可能发生,如果需要的话,必须公布,但不会有任何话语。因此,除了教学存在维度如协作和方向,如先前所设计的任务,也是重要的证据中看到决议的一个社区的询价,则甚为感谢。

我的妈呀！它刺激了！

Answer 2

题是，为什么如此难以移动的调查过程中，通过的决议？这是该调查模式，教育方面的人为性质的工件，通讯媒介，或者它是教学的任务和存在的（设计，便利化和方向）的性质？有证据表明，这一普遍存在的发现可能会更多地与教学存在的问题，比它的其他可能因素。迈耶认为，一体化和决议是更严苛的要求探索和，因此，增加了反思的时候是必需的。更具体地说，她指出，“学院需要更多地在他们的任务指令... [24]。”同样，Celentin [20]的结论是，讨论的原因没有达到调查的最高水平是“完全与导师的作用”。其他人也猜测，老师的作用是一个重要因素

迈耶在另一个研究中，她指出，“问题发起的网上讨论影响到每一个学生的反应水平”[26]。有证据表明，问题或任务“玩在认知活动的讨论明显键入一个重要的角色”[30]。当问题的特别要求学生进行实际应用，讨论没有取得进展的合成和解决阶段。有趣的是，有人建议，确认没有从小组来;个人确认或拒绝了他们自己的解决方案[30]。如果没有共同的目标，需要一个协作解决方案或工件，网上话语的记录不会透露的话语中已经转移到该决议阶段。个别反射可能发生，如果需要，可以张贴的解决方案，但不会有任何话语。因此，除了教学存在的方面，例如促进和方向，如前所述，精心设计的任务也很重要看到一个调查社区决议的证据。