搜档网
当前位置:搜档网 › “putting in your time“faculty experiences in the process of promotion to professor

“putting in your time“faculty experiences in the process of promotion to professor

“Putting in your time ”:Faculty Experiences in the Process of Promotion to Professor

Susan K.Gardner &Amy Blackstone

#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The rank of professor or “full ”professor represents the highest status possible for faculty members,and it is generally gained by attaining professional expertise and a national or international reputation.Beyond this,however,little is known about these individuals or the promotion process at this level.In this qualitative study of 10faculty members at one research university in the United States,we sought to understand the experiences of individuals who had sought promotion to full professor.Through a socialization lens,we found that issues of time,a lack of clarity,and gender disparity were concerns for these faculty members.

Keywords Full professor .Promotion .Socialization

Faculty members at the rank of professor or “full professor ”have generally attained an advanced level of expertise in their fields (Finnegan &Hyle,2009)and a national or international reputation for this expertise as evidenced through scholarship (Long et al.1993;Miller,1987).The rank of professor is imbued with increased status,prestige,and influence,not to mention higher salaries (Light et al.1990;Long et al.,1993;Perna,2002).As such,the failure to promote a deserving faculty member to the rank of professor may DOI

10.1007/s10755-012-9252-x

Susan K.Gardner is Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of Maine.She received her Ph.D.in Higher Education from Washington State University.Her research interests focus on the intersections of the individual experience within the organizational settings of higher education.She can be reached at susan.k.gardner@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,

Amy Blackstone is Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of Maine.She received her Ph.D.in Sociology from the University of Minnesota.Her research interests include the experiences of voluntarily childless adults and workers'experiences of and responses to sexual harassment.She can be reached at amy.blackstone@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,

S.K.Gardner (*)

Higher Education,University of Maine,336Merrill Hall,Orono,ME 04469-5749,USA

e-mail:susan.k.gardner@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,

A.Blackstone

Department of Sociology,University of Maine,Orono,ME 04469-5749,USA

e-mail:amy.blackstone@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,

result in a loss of that individual to a different institution(Long et al.,1993)or professional discouragement for that individual,given that mobility between institutions is growing increasingly difficult in many disciplines.Despite having ascended to the highest tier of the professorial ranking system and an arguably influential role in higher education institu-tions,persons at the rank of professor and the process to gain this rank have been largely neglected in the literature on faculty and the faculty experience.

While focus has been placed on the experiences of those seeking promotion from assistant to associate professor,there has been little attention given to the experiences of faculty who seek promotion to“full.”From what literature exists,we know that the promotion process to the rank of professor is fraught with even more ambiguity than what surrounds the tenure and promotion process to the rank of associate professor(Buch et al. 2011;Youn&Price,2009).Yet,we know little about the faculty experience of applying for promotion or the individual outcomes of such applications,particularly when they are not initially successful.The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of10faculty members in their quest to attain the rank of professor at one institution.We begin with an overview of the literature relating to the promotion process and then explain the methods utilized in the study.We report the findings of the study;discuss them in relation to the extant literature;and offer implications for policy,practice,and future research. Literature Review

Baldwin et al.(2008)alluded to the dearth of research about mid-career faculty,stating that this lack of attention is symptomatic of how many of these faculty members may feel on their campuses.The scholarly literature related to full professors and the promotion expe-rience for those who seek the rank focuses upon(a)the lack of clarity of the process(Buch et al.,2011;Youn&Price,2009),(b)the gender imbalances at the rank of professor(Easterly &Pemberton,2008;Long et al.,1993;Misra et al.2010,2011)and the disproportionate amount of time to attain the rank of professor between men and women(Modern Language Association,2006).We discuss these themes below.

A Lack of Clarity

Regarding the tenure and promotion process for assistant professors,Tierney and Bensimon (1996)remarked,“Although the goal is clear–to achieve tenure–the process one should follow to achieve this goal is ambiguous”(p.39).Moreover,they are not alone in their assessment of the tenure process as ambiguous(e.g.,Marshall&Rothgeb,2012;Ward& Wolf-Wendel,2004;Williams&Williams,2006).If a certain level of ambiguity character-izes the tenure process for assistant professors,then it is likely that a lack of clarity also exists for those who seek promotion to full professor.

While it is commonly accepted that the amount of time one spends in rank before seeking promotion to associate professor is traditionally six or seven years(Clark,1987;Schuster& Finkelstein,2006),there is no such general standard when one considers the promotion to full professor.Clark(1987)described this delayed timetable as“perhaps after ten,twelve,or fifteen years”(p.212).While institutional type influences the promotion to full professor,it is more often merit-based at leading private and public institutions rather than seniority-based as one might find in community colleges and lower ranked public institutions(Clark, 1987).When promotion to full is considered only as a function of time,you“wait your time”(Clark,1987,p.215),or you“put in your time”(Finkelstein,1984,p.60).When promotion

is merit-based,however,one typical route is to employ a lengthy evaluation of the faculty member in relation to a national or international reputation(Clark,1987),which is often evaluated by external review.Either way,the timetable for the application process is rarely,if ever,delineated(Clark,1987).The concept of time is a significant factor in the promotion to full professor and is highlighted in the sparse literature that exists(Long et al.,1993; Rosenfeld,1991).Long et al.summarized,“Time in rank and the number of publications in rank are the most important factors determining rates of promotion”(p.719).

While the triumvirate of teaching,research,and service still reigns supreme in most faculty work-lives(Schuster&Finkelstein,2006),the emphasis put on one aspect over another in the quest to attain full professorship varies also by institutional type(Clark,1987). In one of few studies focusing on such details,Tuckman(1990)examined the probability of gaining the rank of professor in relation to teaching experience,public service,degree level, and experience,finding that the probability of promotion to professor rose in relation to the number of scholarly articles published but to a lesser degree than those seeking promotion to associate professor.Interestingly,Tuckman also found that outstanding teaching had no significant effect on the probability for promotion to full professor and only a small increase of probability in relation to service.He argued,“The academic rewards clearly accrue to those who publish”(p.127).

In turn,what is often most emphasized for those seeking promotion to full professor at research-oriented institutions is that of a national or international scholarly reputation(Link et al.2008),which is generally evidenced through publications in prestigious journals or citations of one’s work(Fishe,1998).The extent to which one must be cited or published to attain an international reputation,however,is rarely defined explicitly.Given this ambiguity, the extent to which reviewers agree or disagree about what defines a national or international reputation could be even more fundamental to promotion decisions than one’s actual https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,ler(1987)emphasized,“Promotion criteria focus more on the merit of the instructor’s professional and scholarly contributions and promise;the criteria for tenure decisions focus more on the long-term worth of the instructor to the institution”(p.92, emphasis in original).

A corresponding issue that arises in the literature is the“terminal associate professor,”or one who either opts out of going forward for promotion to full professor or is so advised(Clark,1987;Miller,1987).Unlike the process for the assistant professor when tenure is likely to be an issue,the promotion to full professor can be attempted multiple times at the same institution or never attempted at all.The promotion to full professor is also set apart from that for the assistant professor as it does not usually correspond to a loss of one’s position should promotion not occur.To date,no known literature exists that speaks to the experiences of those who have attempted the promotion to professor and were not successful.

Gender Imbalance

The other area of the existing literature related to the promotion to full professor has identified a gender imbalance present in the rank.Many scholars have commented on this imbalance (Easterly&Pemberton,2008;Long et al.,1993;Misra et al.,2010;Misra et al.,2011;Schuster &Finkelstein,2006),and the numbers bear out these disparities.Women at the rank of professor in four-year institutions constituted only26%of the total in2009-2010(U.S. Department of Education,2010).Buch et al.(2011)explained that women faculty members “stand still at associate”(p.39).Moreover,when they finally do advance to full professor,it may have taken up to24.2%longer than for men(Modern Language Association,2006).

The reasons for this disparity are not easily pinpointed.Several scholars have examined the likelihood of men and women faculty members attaining the rank of full professor, controlling for productivity,social capital,and familial status(Long et al.,1993;Perna, 2001,2005),finding no significant differences between genders.What has been implicated as a possible cause,however,is how men and women faculty members spend their time (Misra et al.,2010).Women at the associate level are more likely to spend more time on teaching and service than on research(Link et al.,2008;Misra et al.,2011)and are likely to give more time to family-related responsibilities(Grant et al.2000;Ward&Wolf-Wendel, 2004).It is also well documented that female associate professors are much less satisfied in their academic roles than their male counterparts(Trower,2011).Buch et al.(2011)found that10%of the men in their study reported hesitancy about seeking promotion to full whereas30%of the women reported this uncertainty(Buch et al.,2011).While this gender disparity clearly exists,previous studies have typically only focused on national-level data and not the individual-level experience or perspective.

Theoretical Framework:Socialization

In this study we utilized the lens of socialization in order to understand better the process by which one comes to apply for promotion to full professor.Socialization can be defined as the process through which individuals learn the values,attitudes,norms,knowledge and behav-iors to be accepted into a particular organizational culture,in this case,academia(Merton, 1957;Tierney,1997;Tierney&Bensimon,1996;Tierney&Rhoads,1994).Tierney and Rhoads stated,“It is the socialization of an individual that makes up the sum total of values and norms that directs a person’s daily responses and behavior patterns”(p.xiii).In academia,socialization occurs through both implicit and explicit actions.Implicit socializa-tion more often occurs spontaneously and is difficult to pinpoint whereas explicit socializa-tion is easily observable and organized in cultural structures(Tierney&Rhoads,1994).For example,faculty members may be implicitly socialized and learn that attending only certain kinds of meetings is valued whereas they might be explicitly socialized to a particular teaching technique through a faculty development program.

Socialization is often also seen as a two-phase process,initial entry and role contin-uance(Tierney&Bensimon,1996).Initial entry occurs when the individual enters the organization or,in our case,the assistant professor enters the academic institution and begins to“learn the ropes”of the department,discipline,institution,and the profession. While anticipatory socialization will occur during graduate school for many academics, which allows for the student to begin acquiring the values,norms,attitudes,and beliefs of the discipline and the profession,the transmission of the particular attitudes,actions, and values of the institution and department in which they are employed will occur in the early months and years of their faculty appointments(Tierney&Rhoads,1994).The second phase,or the one in which associate professors often finds themselves,is the role continuance phase,or the time after which the individual faculty member is situated in the institution.The role continuance phase can be then be considered as the time after probation ends or tenure has been granted.

Socialization in organizational settings can also be described as occurring through different dimensions or strategies,including(a)collective versus individual,(b)formal versus informal,(c)random versus sequential,(d)fixed versus variable,(e)serial versus disjunctive,and(f)investiture versus divestiture(Tierney&Bensimon,1996;Van Maanen, 1978),as presented in Table1.

In sum,when comparing the socialization processes of faculty seeking promotion to associate professor with tenure to those seeking promotion to full professor,we see some similarities but,more importantly,several key differences.While both processes have an emphasis on individual strategies and divestiture,the promotion to full process is more ambiguous on each of the remaining socialization dimensions outlined by Tierney and Rhoads (1994)and Van Maanen (1978).

Therefore,when one views the promotion to full professor process through the lens of socialization,it is apparent that at most institutions it is imbued with an individual strategy that is informal and random.Rarely are timetables spelled out,resulting in a variable process;and,while increasing emphasis is being placed on mentoring for those seeking full professor status (Buch et al.,2011),it has traditionally been a disjunctive process.Finally,given the recent studies that have pointed to the dissatisfaction of associate professors across the United States,often due to increased service and teaching expectations after tenure (Jaschik,2012;Trower,2011),a divestiture process may also be in play for those who seek to advance to full professor.More specifically,associate professors may be placed in a situation of doing more of what Van Maanen (1978)referred to as the “dirty work ”of the organization;and they are thus less able to concentrate on the duties often associated with achieving promotion,like scholarship or research.Tierney and Rhoads (1994)explained:

Individual socialization typically is associated with organizational hierarchies where the organization ’s participant must learn certain skills,attitudes,and values to handle complex tasks before moving on to a higher status.Passage to a higher status involves winning the approval of organizational gatekeepers who evaluate each participant on an individual basis.(p.38)

Table 1Socialization strategies

Socialization Strategy Description of Strategy

Examples in Faculty Role Collective

Group faces a common set of experiences together New faculty orientation

Individual

Individual is socialized alone Formal

New recruit separated from existing members of organization to participate in designated activities New faculty workshop series Informal

Individual learns through trial and error Random

Progression of unclear or ambiguous steps leading to a target goal or role Tenure-promotion process Sequential

Occurs through identifiable,clear steps to achieve the goal Fixed

Precise timetable for moving through organizational roles Six years in assistant professor role Variable

Vague and unclear timetables Serial

Planned training of individuals by senior members of the organization Faculty mentoring program Disjunctive

A lack of role models available to guide individual Investiture

Affirming and welcoming practices to highlight diverse experiences of individual Divestiture Attempts to strip away the characteristics of the

individual that do not mesh with the

organization ’s culture Harassment of newcomers;paying of dues

Finally,it is important to discuss the socialization process as it occurs for underrepre-sented groups in academia.Tierney and Rhoads(1994)and Tierney and Bensimon(1996) pointed out the differential experience of women and faculty of color in higher education. These individuals are more likely to receive an inadequate anticipatory socialization expe-rience in graduate school,often as a result of weak mentoring relationships,thereby resulting in fewer networking opportunities,divergent priorities,and additional work demands. Faculty members of color and women in underrepresented fields may face additional work demands as a result of cultural taxation or being a tokenized member of one’s group,and they may be asked to do additional service or provide mentoring to students from that group (Tierney&Bensimon,1996).Consequently,individuals from these groups may face an accumulated disadvantage over time(Clark&Corcoran,1986).

The theoretical framework of socialization allows for a deeper understanding of the process to attain promotion to full professor and factors that may influence an unsuccessful attempt.Indeed,this perspective is largely missing in the literature about full professors and their experiences in attempting to attain the rank.While we know that gender imbalance exists at the rank of full professor and that the process is ambiguous,we know little else about this specific rank.Importantly,the voices of those who have experienced the process are missing from the literature.

Method

Our research question was as follows.“What are the experiences of faculty members at one institution who sought promotion to full professor?”Following Maxwell’s(1996)under-standing of qualitative research and its purposes,we utilized this approach in order to:

&Understand“the meaning,for participants in the study,of the events,situations,and actions they are involved with and of the accounts that they give of their lives and experiences”(p.17)

&Understand“the particular context within with the participants act,and the influence that this context has on their actions”(p.17)

&Identify“unanticipated phenomena and influences

&Understand“the process by which events and actions take place”

As such,we focused our examination in one institutional setting,hereafter referred to as Land Grant University,or LGU.LGU is a mid-sized public institution located in the United States with aspirations to grow its research profile.The faculty ranks at LGU reflect the predominately White institution(7%faculty of color)with an uneven gender balance in the associate and full professor ranks(41%women and20%women,respectively)and an almost equal proportion of women to men at the assistant professor rank(48%women).

The participants were10faculty members who had attempted the promotion process to full professor at LGU.The10faculty members had responded to an email that was sent to all associate and full professors at LGU in the fall of2011,which invited response from those who had attempted or had been discouraged from the promotion process to full professor. We were purposeful in including both associate and full ranks as we wanted to understand the experiences of those who had attempted to be promoted but were unsuccessful as well as those who had been successful.As presented in Table2,the10faculty members included six men and four women,including two faculty members of color.The faculty members also represented disciplinary diversity,with six in STEM fields,one in the social sciences,and three in the humanities.

Table2Participant demographics

Participant Gender Race Disciplinary Group First Experience Eventually Received

Promotion

1Man White Social Sciences Discouraged but applied Yes

2Man White Humanities Discouraged but applied Yes

3Man Non-White STEM Withdrew and reapplied Yes

4Woman White STEM Withdrew Not yet

5Woman Non-White STEM Withdrew and reapplied Yes

6Man White Humanities Rejected and reapplied Yes

7Man White STEM Withdrew No–will not reapply 8Man White Humanities Rejected and reapplied Yes

9Woman White STEM Rejected and reapplied Yes

10Woman White STEM Withdrew Not yet Of the10,seven had been promoted at the time we spoke.Three had been rejected the first time they applied but later reapplied and were successful,two had been discouraged from applying but applied anyway,and five had withdrawn their initial applications.Of the five who withdrew,two eventually reapplied and were promoted;two have not yet reapplied but plan to do so,and the final individual has decided never to reapply.The mean number of years of service at LGU was19.8.The average number of years before these individuals sought promotion was12.5from the time of their initial hire,or approximately6.5years after being promoted to associate professor.

After obtaining informed consent,we conducted face-to-face interviews with the10 individuals.Guided by a semi-structured protocol that asked the participants to provide details of their promotion process,the interviews lasted60to120minutes,were audio-taped, and then transcribed verbatim.We analyzed the transcripts using the constant comparative method(Glaser,1978)and utilizing NVivo software.In particular,we used Glaser’s(1978) steps in data analysis,wherein first we open-coded to understand the larger dynamics at work in the faculty members’perceptions of their disciplinary and paradigmatic differences, resulting in a set of themes.Then,we coded further to make explicit the connections between the themes that emerged and corresponded with the framework of socialization (Tierney&Rhoads,1994).Finally,a third round of coding allowed us to search for concepts that tied into the themes(Strauss&Corbin,1998)that had emerged from the interviews.We obtained trustworthiness of the data collected and reliability of subsequent analysis through peer debriefing,during which both researchers separately coded and then compared codes and themes to verify analysis.

Findings

Three main themes emerged from our analysis,and we present the findings below:(a) timing,(b)a lack of clarity,and(c)a gendered experience.

Timing

As is mentioned in the existing literature,the issue of time loomed largely in the discussions with interviewees.Specific questions reoccurred.When?How long to wait?And when is too soon?

Six of the10participants talked about waiting a particular amount of time before submitting their applications for full professor.This amount of time varied by discipline, and in only two departments was it explicitly outlined.A humanities faculty member explained,“I waited the minimum for the department[name]guidelines,which state that you can come up for full in your third year after receiving tenure.”The STEM faculty member commented,“We are required to have12years of teaching.So I couldn’t have gone up for full before12years.”

In the other eight departments,however,the timing of the application was not stated;and the faculty members made decisions about when to apply for full based on what they saw others had done.One STEM faculty member commented,“I had gotten tenure in’95,and it was eight years;and I thought I was pretty productive.And that’s probably about the normal length of time in our department anyway.”Another STEM faculty member explained her experience:

When I was approaching the beginning of my fourth or fifth year I talked to a few people,mostly in my department and my department chair at the time,about going up for full.He said,“I don’t see any problems with you going for full,but I would really encourage you to wait until the requisite time interval.”I said,“There isn’t a requisite time interval for full.”

When this faculty member probed further about this“requisite time interval,”her department chair explained:

He said,“Well,I just know that there are some people in the department.”And I know who he was talking about.It was another woman in our department who is really just a bear,especially with other women in the department.He just said that he anticipated that she would not give me a hard time about going up after the six year interval,but that if I went,in his words,“early,”that he could foresee her giving me a hard time.

And his reaction was,“Why do that to yourself?Is there a reason you need to hurry and be full?”

These faculty members recognized that one had to put in one’s time to be promoted. Indeed,time appeared to be a more important criterion in some departments than the evaluation of applicants’professional accomplishments.One person quipped,“Time is really the key.Is it something that you sort of deserve from being here long enough?”

In turn,the idea of“hurrying”and submitting one’s application“too soon”arose in the majority of the faculty members’conversations,particularly since only two departments had explicit expectations about timeline.The fear around submitting too early was one that was based on not wanting to“make waves.”A social science faculty member saw a colleague before him wait to apply because“I think he didn’t want to make waves.I think he was being a good soldier and waiting his time.”He explained,“I think there’s a less explicit,or maybe a little less strong,expectation about full that you’re expected to wait until you’re not going to raise any eyebrows when you go up.”Paradoxically,when some waited the time that was either implied or expected,they were told,as was one STEM faculty member,“After I submitted my package and I talked to people outside the department,one person said,‘Oh, no,you should have gone up earlier.’”

Lack of Clarity

Seven of the10faculty members repeatedly spoke to the lack of clarity around the expect-ations for promotion to full professor.All of them,with the exception of the one person in

the teaching-focused STEM department,talked about the need to have teaching,research, and service evaluated in their applications.However,the extent to which these three areas were valued varied greatly by discipline.For example,a social scientist assumed the evaluation would be weighted heavily toward high quality and impactful publications in top rated journals.He felt he had met this criterion,but his first application was rejected.A STEM faculty member explained the perception of the criteria in his department:“Well,the criteria have nothing specific,but it’s really clear that teaching plays very little,if any,role. Service plays very little,if any,role;it just doesn’t count.”Another STEM faculty member had written a highly cited book but was later told,“Books have absolutely no weight.I was told by my department chair of12years not to waste my time writing books.”Another STEM faculty member was angry that he was expected to do something that he was never hired to do and said,“I specifically was hired to teach a lot.Then my peer committee gives me shit for not having a steady stream of graduate students.I don’t do that kind of work.”

When expectations were more clearly spelled out,there were still issues that arose.This lack of clarity led to quite diverse interpretations within departments of their own criteria.A humanities faculty member discussed his department’s guidelines,saying, They’re not that explicit.They use words like“normally,”but there are no numbers.I think it’s something like“substantial amounts of research.”It’s been discussed at other times that to come up for tenure one needs either a book or a handful of articles.How many fingers you have on that hand is a big question mark.So,it was my under-standing that to come up for full one would probably need double that amount,but we don’t have[anything explicit].I think again it says“substantial publications.”

Similarly,a social scientist was dumbfounded when his first application to full professor was denied.“The implied expectation in our department is that10[publications]will be a minimum to go up for full,and I think at the time I had13or14in refereed journals,”he explained.

What was ultimately problematic when faculty members sought full and were denied, then,was there were no criteria upon which to base these decisions.A social science faculty member shared with us the letter,which informed him that his application had been rejected. He read,“Some members expressed concern that due to his brief time at the associate rank he had not fully met all departmental criteria in the areas of teaching and service,”but,he explained,“We don’t really have criteria in teaching and service.”Often nebulous feedback was provided to those who had been denied the promotion.For example,half of the faculty members mentioned a“reputation for excellence”as a criterion for promotion to full; however,one STEM faculty member was told after being rejected the first time,“I guess the rationale[my department chair]gave was that to be full professor you had to be excellent,and I was average.”

However,when asked if clearer criteria would be helpful,only two faculty members agreed.A STEM faculty member said,“Our department has fought pretty hard to be vague but that also leaves some room for unprofessional behaviors.”A humanities professor said,“In my department we’d never agree on any language that was more specific.”Even more disturbing was a STEM faculty member who,when asked about the helpfulness of specific criteria,rebutted,“No,because I don’t think there’s any one of our faculty who has ever looked at the criteria.I don’t know where it is.I don’t think anybody’s ever seen it.”Another STEM faculty member lamented:

I guess the thing that was the worst for me was that I was taken by surprise;that I

thought,since I was exceeding the criteria for post-tenure,that it was a logical next step.There were things I didn’t realize I was supposed to be doing.

Thus,it is perhaps not surprising that,when asked how these experiences impacted their job satisfaction,all participants remarked it that it had influenced their satisfaction on some level.It was common to hear phrases such as“pissed off,”“embittered,”and downright “anger.”A STEM professor explained how he worked to remove this anger:“I remember telling myself that,if I can’t get over this,I gotta get out of here because I’m not going to live with that kind of stress in my life and angst and resentment.”More often,faculty members talked about how it affected their productivity.A STEM participant described herself as“…less-motivated.I considered just skating through for the rest of my years,not really caring and just doing the bare minimum until I retire.”

A Gendered Experience

While the issue of gender did not come up in every interview we conducted,we were aware of differences based on gender in participants’responses.For example,three of the four women were quick to point out gendered differences in their experiences;and one STEM woman pointed out that there had never been any women promoted to full professor in her area before she applied and was ultimately asked to withdraw her application.She described what she observed,“I saw one woman who had tried three times to get promoted and didn’t get it every time....I saw the men getting promoted only.”Another STEM woman,who had worked extensively on women’s issues within STEM,was also told to withdraw her application before it went through the process. She explained,“It’s very common for women in[STEM]who devote time and energy to this[kind of service work]to have this happen.”She continued,“But the piece that’s directly holding two things in opposition is,if you address difficult issues like this,you will not be meeting the social demands of a male audience.”Clearly she felt that the important service work she was doing to increase awareness and retention of women in STEM was ultimately what was keeping her back in her primarily male-dominated STEM department.

Another STEM woman described how the initial refusal of her application was framed within her largely male-dominated field and institution:

I think at one point I was the woman on every damned committee on this campus

because I was a woman in the sciences.There were very few of us.So[name],from [other STEM department],and I,we saw each other coming and going.If I wasn’t on the committee,she was.And we both did a lot of committee time,clear on up through state committees….But[once my application was rejected],so I pulled myself right out of all of that stuff.I just resigned right and left from everything,except the stuff in my own college and my own department.So,yeah,it affected my job,but maybe for the better.I actually became more focused.

One other STEM woman in a male-dominated department explained how she felt she was perceived whenever she approached the department chair about her concerns in the department:

But when I go to him and I say I have a problem with this,or I want to discuss this, he’s just like,“Eh,you worry too much.”And it really makes me feel like an idiot,that I’m overly dramatic,that I’m being a hysterical woman,you know.And I said,“I know you don’t mean to be dismissive,but you’re really making me feel like you’re not taking me seriously,and a lot of it has to do with my gender.”And he said,“That’s ridiculous.”

Yet another STEM woman explained how she had been treated disparately at the time of her first application for promotion and was denied:

It was very interesting because[name],who was at the time in[a social science field], he and I came in the same year.Our records were very similar.We had both been very productive as junior faculty and all of this kind of thing,identical ages,and his went flying through.And he came back to me and he said,“I just can’t imagine how they can do that.”

Interestingly,a male professor in the humanities discussed how he saw gender playing out in his initial refusal of promotion while he saw a woman with a lesser record being promoted: And the other thing,of course,is the degree of political correctness.I mean,even as that term is passé,it isn’t gone completely.That’s what I find interesting:the complaints.Don’t get me wrong,I know people.You know,my woman,um,my wife,is in[another humanities]department;we met here.I’m a strong supporter of women getting treated equally,but only equally.I am not in favor of special treatment, unless there are compelling reasons.Certainly,one could make exceptions,I don’t dispute that.But the idea that all of the women,or many of the women,in the campus are discriminated against may be true,but in my experience it’s just the opposite.

Beyond these examples,it was perhaps even more interesting that it was more often men than women who chose to apply for the promotion even when they had been discouraged from doing so by department chairs and their peers.Women were more apt to listen to this advice and wait,even if later they were told they should not have done so.Men,like one in social science,were more likely to respond thusly,“I really think that if you’ve put in the work,and you deserve it,then you should do it.And you shouldn’t care about whose toes get stepped on.”However,women,who had been advised to withdraw–such as a STEM woman–stated,“I left with tears thinking:Forget it,I’ll never try.”

Discussion

The experiences of these10faculty members at one research institution tell the untold story of those who seek promotion to full professor.From our analysis of the interviews and with the framework of socialization(Tierney&Bensimon,1996;Tierney&Rhoads,1994),we were able to highlight several issues that arose in these faculty members’experiences that speak to the existing literature.

First,it was apparent that both the individual departments and the overall institution studied had a socialization process for gaining full professor that was at once individual, informal,random,variable,and disjunctive(Van Maanen,1978).For example,faculty members reported having to rely on observing others to understand when to apply for promotion but were also quite aware of others who had failed before them.Even in the two departments where more fixed and sequential guidelines were provided,the faculty members found themselves failing in their first attempt at promotion.As a disjunctive process,no mentoring existed in any of the departments to assist these individuals in understanding the largely unclear expectations.Similarly,the participants seemed generally unaware of others progressing through the process at the same time as they were.If they had been aware,it might have resulted in a more collectively beneficial experience Second,it was noteworthy that three of the four women discussed disparate experiences when compared to their male counterparts.Only two of the four women eventually received

promotion to full professor,and even they discussed disparities in their experiences.While none of the women in our study pinpointed blatant gender discrimination or sexism,there is nonetheless the feeling that“the problem is not one of overt sexism or discrimination but rather that unwelcoming climates are created by unconscious actions that take on gendered meanings”(Tierney&Bensimon,1996,p.81).These women talked about doing work that was not valued because of its gendered focus or being asked to provide more service because of their solo status,particularly in the STEM areas.In the literature,this kind of work has been referred to as “smile work”and“mom work.”Smile work,or a culturally imposed strategy that women and faculty members of color use to fit into departments with a tradition of White,male dominance, is often seen as the“symbolic management of behavior to present oneself as being pleasing and agreeable”(Tierney&Bensimon,1996,p.83).Often these behaviors appear non-threatening to a dominant majority in one’s department.“Mom work,”or“the imposition of nurturing and caretaking roles on women”(Tierney&Bensimon,1996,p.85)is similar to the idea of“smile work”in that the term has been used to describe women being asked or expected to take on more advising of students or even be more nurturing,forgiving,or more disclosing with students when compared to their male peers.Faculty members of color may be asked to advise students of color,advise them in student organizations,or serve on committees so as to represent“diversity”(Tierney&Bensimon,1996).Given the fact that persons from these groups are more often engaged in service and teaching demands when compared to their White male counterparts(Kulis et al.2002;Tierney&Bensimon,1996),these characterizations are not far off-mark at LGU.

Regrettably,women and faculty members of color may also feel limited in their aspirations for promotion not only by a lack of role models at a given institution but perhaps also because of what Steele et al.(2002)referred to as stereotype threat as a result of interpreting one’s group image negatively.While generally seen in Steele et al.’s work on the performance of African American students and women in mathematics,some of the implications stemming from negative perceptions of one’s gender or race,particularly when present in an environment of underrepresentation(i.e.,women in a male-dominated STEM department),may also explain some of the issues of hesitancy in pursuing promotion.Certainly,future research could explore these dynamics as well as different constructs upon differing demographic groups. Implications

LGU is not anomalous.Indeed,it would not be a stretch to say that LGU represents a typical research institution in regard to its lack of formal policy and structure for promotion to full professor.While most institutions have been persuaded by the voluminous reports and research on the need for more mentoring and guidance for the tenure process(Matusov&Hampel,2008), this concept has not yet funneled into current thinking about the promotion process.Instead,LGU mirrors peers in providing no formal mentoring,little structure,no timetable,and few professional development opportunities to assist its associate professors in gaining the rank of full professor. Instead,vague and unclear guidelines often hindered the faculty members’success in the process, resulting in not only repeated applications but also a general feeling of dissatisfaction and disgruntlement,not to mention a lack of motivation to continue one’s work.Of course,the purpose of this study was to seek out the experiences of those faculty members who chose to stay at the institution,despite their negative experiences with the promotion process.There may be others who left LGU after a similar experience;but,without a clear system of exit interviewing, LGU’s administration and faculty members are left with little opportunity to understand the impact these experiences might have had.

Institutions like LGU would be well served to consider how to socialize their faculty members so as to prepare them better for promotion to full professor.Instituting a mentoring system and a series of workshops or professional development opportunities would go far in providing a more collective and serial socialization experience.Similarly, department criteria could be considered that might more specifically detail the number of years one might wait until promotion to full professor as well as the explicit expectations to attain the rank.While faculty members may be loathe to develop specific criteria, research has demonstrated that more explicit criteria result in higher levels of faculty satisfaction and success,particularly for women and faculty members of color(Lamont et al.2004).Without this kind of support,institutions like LGU may end up with more disgruntled,dissatisfied faculty members.When one considers the institutional investment already made in faculty members who have worked their way up through the ranks to seek professorship,faculty dissatisfaction is not a minor concern.Job dissatisfaction is the ultimate predictor of actual turnover(Johnsrud&Heck,1994;Smart,1990).Given today’s economic climate and lack of resources to hire new faculty and the resulting lack of mobility of faculty,losing the expertise,leadership,and knowledge of our associate professors is a major concern for everyone.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study added to the sparse literature about the process of promotion to professor,it was nevertheless not without limitations.The unique context of one institution and the small sample of study participants reduce the generalizability of the findings.Moreover,because of the self-selected sample the findings could represent the perspectives of individuals who may have had overly negative experiences.The inferences drawn from the small,self-selected sample,reflecting gender and disciplinary differences,are,by their nature,limited in scope.

Future studies could continue to explore the process of application to full professor and the experiences of those who engage in it in different contexts and with different constitu-ents.How do those at differing institutional types experience the process?Do expectations differ by institutional type?How do participants from particular disciplines perceive see the promotion process?How do those evaluating the applications view a successful applicant? What are the experiences of those who sought the rank and were immediately successful? How do faculty members from underrepresented groups experience the process?One could also compare and contrast how faculty members from diverse backgrounds have experi-enced the promotion process.These are simply a few of the many questions that could add to our understanding of this largely under-examined area of academia.Perhaps through a deeper understanding of these faculty members and the process,academia will be able to provide more individuals to lead its departments and institutions in the future. Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation ADV ANCE-IT Award#HRD-1008498.

References

Baldwin,R.G.,DeZure,D.,Shaw,A.,&Moretto,K.(2008).Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university:Implications for faculty and academic leaders.Change,40(5),46–55.

Buch,K.,Huet,Y.,Rorrer,A.,&Roberson,L.(2011).Removing the barriers to full professor:A mentoring program for associate professors.Change,43(6),38–45.

Clark,B.R.(1987).The academic life:Small worlds,different worlds.Princeton,NJ:Carnegie Foundation. Clark,S.M.,&Corcoran,M.(1986).Perspectives on the professional socialization of women faculty:A case of accumulative disadvantage?Journal of Higher Education,57,20–43.

Easterly,D.,&Pemberton,C.L.(2008).Understanding barriers and supports to proposal writing as perceived by female associate professors:Achieving promotion to professor.Research Management Review,16(1), 1–17.

Finkelstein,M.J.(1984).The American academic profession:A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II.Columbus,OH:Ohio State University Press.

Finnegan,D.E.,&Hyle,A.E.(2009).Assistant to“full”:Rank and the development of expertise.Teachers College Record,111,443–479.

Fishe,R.P.H.(1998).What are the research standards for full professor of finance?Journal of Finance,53, 1053–1079.

Glaser,B.(1978).Theoretical sensitivity:Advances in the methodology of grounded https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,l Valley,CA: Sociology Press.

Grant,L.,Kennelly,I.,&Ward,K.B.(2000).Revisiting the gender,marriage,and parenthood puzzle in scientific careers.Women's Studies Quarterly,1–2,62–85.

Jaschik,S.(2012,June4).Associate professors less satisfied than those at other ranks,survey finds,Inside Higher Ed.Retrieved from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,/news/2012/06/04/associate-professors-less-satisfied-those-other-ranks-survey-finds

Johnsrud,L.K.,&Heck,R.H.(1994).A university's faculty:Identifying who will leave and who will stay.

Journal for Higher Education Management,10(1),71–84.

Kulis,S.,Sicotte,D.,&Collins,S.(2002).More than a pipeline problem:Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines.Research in Higher Education,43,657–691. Lamont,M.,Kalev,A.,Bowden,S.,&Fosse,E.(2004).Recruiting,promoting,and retaining women academics:Lessons from the literature.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.

Light,D.W.,Marsden,L.R.,&Corl,T.C.(1990).A framework for academic careers.In M.J.Finkelstein (Ed.),ASHE reader on faculty and faculty issues in colleges and universities(pp.98–105).Needham Heights,MA:Ginn Press.

Link,A.N.,Swann,C.A.,&Bozeman,B.(2008).A time allocation study of university faculty.Economics of Education Review,27,363–374.

Long,J.S.,Allison,P.D.,&McGinnis,R.(1993).Rank advancement in academic careers:Sex differences and the effects of productivity.American Sociological Review,58,703–722.

Marshall,B.W.,&Rothgeb,J.M.(2012).So you want tenure?Factors affecting tenure decisions in political science departments.Political Science&Politics,44,571–577.

Matusov,E.,&Hampel,R.(2008,January-February).Two approaches to tenure and promotion criteria.

Academe,94(1),37-39.Retrieved from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/JF/Feat/ matu.htm

Maxwell,J.A.(1996).Qualitative research design:An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage. Merton,R.K.(1957).Social theory and social structure.New York,NY:The Free Press.

Miller,R.I.(1987).Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure.San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass. Misra,J.,Lundquist,J.,Holmes,E.,&Agiomavritis,S.(2010).Associate professors and gendered barriers to advancement.Amherst,MA:University of Massachusetts.

Misra,J.,Lundquist,J.H.,Holmes,E.,&Agiomavritis,S.(2011).The ivory ceiling of service work.

Academe,97(1),22-26.Retrieved from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/JF/Feat/ misr.htm

Modern Language Association.(2006).Standing still:The associate professor survey.Washington,DC: Author.

Perna,L.W.(2001).Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion.Research in Higher Education, 42,541–567.

Perna,L.W.(2002).Tenure and promotion.In A.M.M.Aleman&K.A.Renn(Eds.),Women in higher education:An encyclopedia(pp.440–445).Santa Barbara,CA:ABC-CLIO.

Perna,L.W.(2005).Sex differences in faculty tenure and promotion:The contribution of family ties.

Research in Higher Education,46,277–307.

Rosenfeld,R.A.(1991).Outcome analysis of academic careers.Durham,NC:University of North Carolina. Schuster,J.H.,&Finkelstein,M.J.(2006).The American faculty:The restructuring of academic work and careers.Baltimore,MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smart,J.C.(1990).A causal model of faculty turnover intentions.Research in Higher Education,31,405–424.

Steele,C.M.,Spencer,S.J.,&Aronson,J.(2002).Contending with group image:The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,34,379–440. Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1998).Basics of qualitative research:Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory(2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.

Tierney,W.G.(1997).Organizational socialization in higher education.Journal of Higher Education,68,1–

16.

Tierney,W.G.,&Bensimon,E.M.(1996).Promotion and tenure:Community and socialization in academe.

Albany,NY:State University of New York Press.

Tierney,W.G.,&Rhoads,R.A.(1994).Enhancing promotion,tenure and beyond:Faculty socialization as a cultural process.Washington,DC:George Washington University.

Trower,C.A.(2011).Senior faculty satisfaction:Perceptions of associate and full professors at seven public research universities.Cambridge,MA:TIAA-CREF Institute.

Tuckman,H.P.(1990).The academic reward structure in American higher education.In M.J.Finkelstein (Ed.),ASHE reader on faculty and faculty issues in colleges and universities(pp.119–137).Needham Heights,MA:Ginn Press.

U.S.Department of Education.(2010).Number of full-time instructional staff at Title IV degree-granting institutions by academic rank,control and level of institution,and gender:United States.Washington DC:Author.

Van Maanen,J.(1978).People processing:Strategies of organizational https://www.sodocs.net/doc/ed9152274.html,anizational Dynam-ics,7,19–36.

Ward,K.A.,&Wolf-Wendel,L.(2004).Academic motherhood:Managing complex roles in research universities.The Review of Higher Education,27,233–257.

Williams,B.,&Williams,S.(2006).Perceptions of African American male junior faculty on promotion and tenure:Implications for community building and social capital.Teachers College Record,108,287–315. Youn,T.I.K.,&Price,T.M.(2009).Learning from the experience of others:The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions.Journal of Higher Education,80,204–237.

三年级语文:《春天的雨点》说课稿(参考文本)

( 语文教案 ) 学校:_________________________ 年级:_________________________ 教师:_________________________ 教案设计 / 精品文档 / 文字可改 三年级语文:《春天的雨点》说 课稿(参考文本) Chinese is known as the "Mother of Encyclopedias", which is the best interpretation of it, so learning Chinese is very important.

三年级语文:《春天的雨点》说课稿(参考 文本) 一、教材分析 《春天的雨点》是义务教材第八册第四单元的一篇写人记叙文。文章记叙了乌汉娜老师为上课走神的学生达丽玛补课并护送她回家的事,赞扬了乌汉娜老师关心爱护这位学生的祟高的职业道德。全文按事情的发展顺序分两条思路写。一为达丽玛“走神”——“知错后悔”——“发誓”——“专心”。二为乌汉娜老师“发现”、“补课”——“放心”——“护送”。两者互为因果,相辅相成。文章对乌汉娜老师这个主要人物,主要是通过外在行为、语言、神态的描述,她的思想认识、心理活动没有提及。 再从整个单元来看,抓住重点词句,理解课文内容是单元的阅读训练重点。阅读教学以培养学生的独立阅读能力和良好的阅读习

惯为要义,阅读能力的核心是培养语感能力。语感能力的形成从根本上说,不是通过教师传授获得的,而是学生自己在一定的情境下,借助他人帮助,利用学习资源,通过意义建构的方式习得的。所以在课堂上为学生创设一定的情境,可以更好的唤起学生的情感体验,培养学生对语言文字的感悟能力。《春天的雨点》这篇课文是一篇充满浓浓师生情的课文。“情”是课文的灵魂,如何让学生通过语言文字去感悟这种师生情呢?我想,通过创设情境,领悟课文情感是一种方法。我对本课第二课时的教学做了如下的设想。 二、教学目标: 1、学会9个生字;读写“补课、竭力”等词语,理解“竭力、发誓”等词语的意思。 2、学会运用读书记号学习课文的方法。 3 、能根据课后作业第3题的提示,给课文分段。 4、懂得学习要专心致志,感受教师对学生的关心和爱护。 课时安排:2课时 第一课时:按课后习题要求一自学课文,做读书记号,学习部

带数字的童谣、儿歌

1、一线两线三四线,五六七八九十线。千条线,万条线,掉进河里都不见。 2、一二三四五,上山打老虎,老虎没打着,打到小松鼠。松鼠有几只,让我数 一数,数来又数去,一二三四五。 3、一二三,爬上山,四五六,翻筋斗,七八九,拍皮球,十个手指头就是一双 手。 4、一片一片又一片,两片三片四五片。六片七片八九片,飞入芦花都不见。——《飞雪》 5、拍手歌 你拍一,我拍一,天天早起练身体。 你拍二,我拍二,天天都要带手绢。 你拍三,我拍三,洗澡以后换衬衫。 你拍四,我拍四,消灭苍蝇和蚊子。 你拍五,我拍五,有痰不要随地吐。 你拍六,我拍六,瓜皮果核不乱丢。 你拍七,我拍七,吃饭细嚼别着急。 你拍八,我拍八,勤剪指甲常刷牙。 你拍九,我拍九,吃饭以前要洗手。 你拍十,我拍十,脏的东西不要吃。 6、一只小鸟叫喳喳,两只青蛙叫呱呱; 三只小猪哼呀呀,四匹小马呱哒哒; 五个娃娃笑哈哈,分吃一个大西瓜。 7、一只蛤蟆一张嘴,两只眼睛四条腿,扑通扑通跳下水。 两只蛤蟆两张嘴,四只眼睛八条腿,扑通扑通跳下水。 8、初一一条线,初二看得见,初三初四像镰刀,十五十六大团圆。 9、一九二九不出手,三九四九冰上走,五九六九隔河看杨柳,七九河开,八九雁来,九九加一九,耕牛遍地走。 10、“1”和许多一只一只青蛙跳下水,河里许多青蛙做游戏;一只一只大雁飞上天,天上许多大雁排成行;一只一只老鼠上灯台,桌上许多老鼠偷香油;一只一只猴子爬上树,树上许多猴子荡秋千;一条一条鲤鱼跃出水,海里许多鲤鱼跳龙门。 11、1 2 3 4 5你拍一,我拍一,一只小猪笑嘻嘻。你拍二,我拍二,两只蝴蝶在一块儿。你拍三,我拍三,三只老虎爬上山。你拍四,我拍四,四只猴子吃桃子。你拍五,我拍五,五只花猫捉老鼠。 12、6 7 8 9 10六七八九十数字五兄弟,拉手照镜子,模样真神气,六像哨子声音响,七像镰刀割麦忙,八像麻花味道香,九像气球飞天上,十像香肠加鸡蛋。

生产部个人年度工作总结

编号: 生产部个人年度工作总结 甲方: 乙方: 签订日期:年月日 X X公司

篇一: 20XX年度在紧张忙碌中过去了,在这辞旧迎新之际,我作为生产经理代表生产部门将半年来生产质量各方面的工作作以简要总结,同时祝愿公司在新的年度里更上一层楼! 一、生产质量方面:从6月份在生产系统工作开始,就目前生产部门的现状作了大量的制度改革和完善,使得车间管理不断合理化。主要表现在以下几个方面: 1、生产现场整理整顿:就当时的生产现场环境,通过开会和6s 管理方面的知识培训,大家对生产现场的管理有了正确的认识,并积极配合,使生产现场比较以前更加清爽、整齐,各种产品,用具摆放规范有序。 2、开展质量管理培训:从销售部反馈到生产部的客户投诉信息,生产部积极主动找原因和更好的改进方法。并召集生产全体员工进行pdca质量管理培训,让大家都有质量管理意识和责任感。通过多次的质量管理培训,员工们的质量细节控制和工作水平有了明显的提高。

3、成立专项工作日:为了确保公司产品质量满足客户要求,生产部门成立了质量管理日(每周二为公司的质量分析日)。针对质量分析会上大家提出来的问题,生产经理牵头负责在一周内给予解决或者上报技术部叶总来处理解决,并在下次质量会上向大家做出提出来问题的解决办法和处理结果。如此一来,公司产品方面有了全新的改进,客户的满意度不断提升。 4、开展质量活动月:通过质量管理月活动的开展,充分体现全面质量管理的重要性,全方位培养员工们对生产过程中细节的控制,提升员工们的质量意识和客户意识,从而向实现一起飞跃、鼎造精品的企业方针靠近!通过9月份对“一楼质量提升活动月”的开展,充分体现金加工全面质量管理的重要性,全方位培养员工们对生产过程中各细节的控制,提升员工们的质量意识和客户意识,实现从根本意义上的对一楼配件库存产品的质量改进! 5、过程方法和细节管理:生产系统的漏洞就是在工艺方面、流程方面、细节方面做的远远不够。如生产过程没有流程卡,没有图纸,没有记录,没有统计,导致生产效率无法统计,员工水平无法评定。面对这一现象,从8月份开始,车间执行主管下单流程卡到位法、统计工作法和员工生产日记法。这样一来,员工们的工作和质量都能清楚的表现在表格上,质量合格率也能在表格上看到。通过几个月的坚持,员工们自检产品行成了好的习惯,加工配件的质量明显提升。

我和春天有个约会的作文

我和春天有个约会的作文 导读:篇一:我和春天有个约会 四月的微风洋溢着热情与欢笑。徜徉于春日那柔媚的阳光,看鲜花初放,听鸟儿鸣唱。走进如诗如画的美丽长卷,去约会春天。 路边,绿是春的诗篇。萌动的新绿,悄悄探出泥土,攀上枝头,在缠绵的春径里尽情蔓延。偶尔几点小花,几只蝴蝶,让这绿色也多变,新鲜...... 街头,姑娘是春的信息。褪去冗赘的长衫、厚靴,着上各色衣衫长裙。少女们,或腮边的一抹红,或眼眸的一瞥绿,或颈间的一丝蓝,无一不传递着春的讯息。 田间,春是老农的期盼。一张黝黑的脸庞,挂着憨憨的笑容,头戴草帽,半遮着脸,举起锄头,一下一下,在田间绘出春的芬芳。远处传来一声低沉的闷响,是老牛在为春天歌唱。田埂上孩子们赤裸着双脚,如勤劳的小蜜蜂一趟趟往返与肥料堆和地头,用手提,用肩扛,用铲掀,一桶桶,一堆堆,散发着刺鼻的农生肥味,一点点变小,洒遍泥土的每一个角落。 广场,孩子是春的使者。奔跑,喧闹,风筝在我们手中飞扬,天空让我们放飞梦想。轻盈的步伐,口中的笑,一一讲述着春的故事。弟弟妹妹们迎着春日的朝阳,抬头,那目光好像丝丝春风拂入我们的心间,眼神之中还略带点焦急,它似乎渲染着每个人的心情也跟着活跃起来。出发的时刻,而老师也一反往常的严肃,像孩子一样无忧无虑地玩了起来。广场上笑声穿梭,飞向天际。春摇曳着葱绿的裙裾,

一步三回头,微笑着频频向我招手,留下一路落英缤纷。我感觉到,那春日梦般的气息! 篇二:我和春天有个约会 春天,这南方总是乍暖还寒,料料峭峭,诗人说她是一位多情的江南女子独自多愁善感,这让多情的我难免也心潮荡漾了。 惊蛰一过,我失望的的发现,季节并未从冬天的尾巴上掉落下来,干燥的土地上仍是布满了枯草荒枝;也不知是在默等谁的赴约,柳絮黯然低垂,长日慢慢里已是神色憔悴。为了盛迎阳春的来临,一道强烈的阳光顷然洒下;户外的人们好像刚从寒冬的被窝里钻出来,来不及适应这突然变亮的白昼,个个脸色醺醺然眯起了惺忪般的眼缝;面对世人的倦色,艳阳似乎察觉到了自己的冒昧造访不合时宜,竟也拘谨似的泛起微凉。高空被白亮的阳光一染如洗,不见一点云迹,好像一张微蓝的白纸被无尽的铺张,正中裸露着一圈给太阳灼烧得惨白的疤痕。这就是楚天吗?这就是江南的春天吗?我总觉得它少了点什么,就好像明明是一壶酒,却被暗中兑成了水。也许今年的春天变得矜持了吧,故意放缓了脚步,我只得心中如此自慰。 日子过去了一日又是一日,时间像流水一样自顾地前行着;在日历上细算着天数,我目视着清明的临近,内心蛰伏的情愫再一次蠢蠢欲动。不知是谁凌驾东君而来,未见其面却闻玉鸣清啼,阵阵珑璁空绝如唱;杨柳“碧玉妆成一树高,万条垂下绿丝绦”,好似专门来引诱东君的主人现身竟也舞弄起了身姿,莺莺燕燕也赶热闹似的伴其左右上下欢跃,“淑气催黄鸟,晴光转绿萍,”也许是被这愉悦的气氛

最新北师大版三年级语文下册第一二单元测试题及答案

最新北师大版三年级语文下册第一二单元测试题及答案 第1~2单元达标测试卷 亲情春天的脚步 时间:90分钟满分:100分 基础达标我会做 一、字词积累。(26分) 1.给加点字选择正确的读音,画“____”。(6分) 懂.得(dǒn dǒng)漆.黑(xīqī)跌.倒(diēshī) 沉醉.(zuìzhuì) 建筑.(gǒng zhù) 仿佛.(fófú) 2.请用“√”标出带点字的正确读音。(6分) (1)这件事我们要先调.(diào tiáo)查,然后才能进行调.(diào tiáo) 解。 (2)妈妈用抹.(māmǒ)布把芳芳在桌子上涂抹.(māmǒ)的东西擦 干净了。 (3)那个蒙.(ménɡměnɡ)古族人是我的启蒙.(ménɡměnɡ)老师。3.看拼音,写词语。(8分) 4.选择合适的词语填空。(6分)

渴望愿望希望 (1)成为一名海军一直是我心底的(),因此我的风筝是一顶 水兵帽。 (2)达丽玛多像一只()飞出笼子的小鸟。 (3)我真()爸爸早点回来。 飘扬飘舞飘洒 (4)补课完毕,她才看到窗外正()着细细的雨丝。 (5)五星红旗在空中迎风()。 (6)几片黄叶在秋风中自由自在地()。 二、句子训练。(6分) 1.乌罕娜老师的伞被一个外地的兽医借走了。(改为“把”字句) ________________________________________________________ 2.看见老师出来了,达丽玛的笑脸像绽开的花朵。(仿写比喻句) ________________________________________________________ 3.妈妈一下子搂住冬冬,激动地说:“这是我收到的最好的生日礼物。”(仿写句子,前面写人物动作,后面写人物说的话) ________________________________________________________ 综合训练我能行 三、语言感悟。(10分) 1.我能把有关春天的四字词语补充完整。(8分) 春回()()春意()()()()春色 春光()() 鸟()花() 莺()燕()

描写春天的儿歌

春天走来了 春天悄悄走来了,它在哪里我知道:它在柳枝当秋千,它在风筝尾上摇,它在小鸟嘴里啼,它在桃花瓣上笑。它用温柔的小手,帮我脱掉厚棉袄。 春天来了吗? 春天来了吗?去问桃树上的鲜花。春天来了吗?去问柳枝上的嫩芽。春天来了吗?去问池塘里的花花鸭。春天来了吗?去问梁上的燕子妈妈。 迎春花 大道旁,山坡上,风雪里,摇铃铛。星星花儿队伍长,一闪一闪闪金光。要问这是欢迎谁?大家欢迎春姑娘。 春天到 冰雪融化,春天来到, 成群的燕子喳喳叫, 青青草儿绿,红红花儿笑, 小朋友们乐得直叫好。

春天说了些什么? 春天说了些什么? 花儿那么听话,都开了; 春天说了些什么? 小燕子那么听话,都飞回来了; 春天说了些什么? 小朋友那么高兴,都去春游了。 春风 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走近小草,轻轻一亲,小草醒了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走进树林,轻轻一吹,树叶绿了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走到田野,轻轻一挥,麦苗高了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走进花园,轻轻一唱,花儿开了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走到河边,轻轻一摸,冰融化了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走到学校,小朋友笑了:“春天到了”。 春风吹 春风吹,吹绿了柳树, 吹红了桃花,吹醒了青蛙, 吹来了燕子,吹得小雨轻轻下, 我们都来种丝瓜。 春雨

滴答滴答小下雨啦。 种子说:“下吧下吧,我要发芽。”麦苗说:“下吧下吧,我要长大。”小朋友说:“下吧下吧,我要种瓜。” 滴答滴答小下雨啦 春日 (宋朱熹) 胜日寻芳泗水滨, 无边光景一时新。 等闲识得东风面, 万紫千红总是春。 春晓(唐孟浩然) 春眠不觉晓, 处处闻啼鸟, 夜来风雨声, 花落知多少。 绝句(唐杜甫) 两个黄鹂鸣翠柳, 一行白鹭上青天。 窗含西岭千秋雪,

生产部经理年终工作总结

生产部经理年终工作总结 20XX年,在公司的正确领导下,在各兄弟部门的支持下,我根据公司的工作精神与工作部署,结合生产部经理的岗位职责与工作实际,创新工作思路、转变工作作风,认真踏实努力工作,较好地完成了各项生产工作任务,取得一定成绩。现将20XX年工作情况具体总结如下: 一、生产任务完成情况 20XX年,我带领生产部干部员工团结协作,齐心协力,认真努力工作,较好地完成了生产任务,生产运行正常,无生产安全事故,全年完成XXX台柴油发电机组生产任务。 二、全年采取的主要工作措施 (一)加强思想教育,提高员工凝聚力 20XX年,我切实加强对员工的思想工作,开展国情、厂情教育,培养员工的感恩心。通过开展思想教育工作,使生产部每个员工树立正确的世界观、人生观和价值观,提高思想政治觉悟,热爱企业,热爱工作岗位,做到心往一处想,劲往一处使,增强执行力,提高工作效率,确保完成公司下达的生产任务。 (二)加强设备管理,确保生产正常进行 设备是重要的生产工具,对于完成生产任务,提高柴油发电机组质量具有极其重要作用。我切实加强设备管理,一是教育员

工要爱惜设备,按操作要领使用设备,精心维护设备,保持设备的完好率和正常运行。二是开展设备使用、保养辅导,利用晨会、班会等方式对员工进行辅导,使他们懂设备结构,懂设备检查的作用及方法,懂设备的维护保养,懂设备操作规程。在工作中,使用好设备,保养好设备,稳定设备功能,确保设备正常运行,满足生产需要。 (三)加强质量管理,确保产品质量合格 我知道我们企业技术力量比较薄弱,产品质量上不去,返工较多。所以,我作为生产部经理,特别注重质量,为此把产品质量放在工作的首位,提高每个员工质量意识,认识产品标准和质量的重要性以及对企业的影响。我从抓质量的基础性工作做起,在生产过程中牢记“质量是生命,生产保质量”的思想,坚决杜绝质量事故。开展质量问题“大反思、大排查、大整治”活动,制定质量问题排查整治和督促检查方案,针对柴油发电机组的质量特点,明确质量工作责任、目标、任务、内容和监督检查措施,落实质量排查、登记、整治、督办、验收等每个环节的工作要求,切实做到质量排查彻底、督促检查到位、整治责任明确、跟踪督办有力。通过这些措施,达到及时发现质量隐患,及时整治质量问题,防止出现质量事故,确保柴油发电机组质量合格,增强柴油发电机组的质量信誉,从而促进企业的发展,也给员工带来实

幼儿园大班体育《我和春天有个约会》教案模板范文

幼儿园大班体育《我和春天有个约会》教案模板范文 教材简解: 学习快速跑,快跑时会闪躲,不碰撞,并且在游戏时培养幼儿一定的自我保护意识,是大班年龄段的幼儿进行体育锻炼内容和目标之一。怎样根据幼儿身体动作的发展水平,在原有的技能和方法上给予幼儿更多的运动经验和体验,激起他们活动的兴趣,并发展幼儿自主合作游戏的能力,是设计该体育活动的重点考虑所在。 为了不受"教师教什么,幼儿学什么"这种传统教学模式的束缚,我采用了"幼儿探索、尝试错误--问题讨论--教师小结--再次尝试--问题讨论--掌握基本要领--游戏竞赛"的理念来组织活动过程。通过一系列的活动,让幼儿亲自尝试,不断摸索放风筝的最佳方法,逐渐掌握技巧,增强自我保护意识,同时还有意识地培养幼儿的探索精神。 目标预设: 1、教会幼儿放风筝的正确方法,练习快速跑,学习协调与他人的距离,体会其中的乐趣。 2、学会按一定的规则放风筝,提高幼儿基本动作的灵活性,快跑时会闪躲,不碰撞,培养幼儿一定的自我保护意识。 3、感受春天的美好,激发幼儿热爱春天的情感。 重点、难点: 1、练习快速跑,学习协调与他人的距离。 2、学会按一定的规则放风筝,提高幼儿基本动作的灵活性,快跑时会闪躲,不碰撞。 设计理念: 绝大多数幼儿参加体育活动,首先是由于好奇心引起的。其目的是为了好玩,他们还不能自觉意识到体育最本质的东西,他们对练习内容的动作要领和方法很不注意,并且不感兴趣、往往只追求运动过程中的各种新异刺激,浓烈的运动气氛和重重的趣味情境为最大的满足。根据幼儿的这种心理需求,我把体育教学内容尽可能地寓于有情节、有角色、有竞赛因素的游戏之中,让幼儿在"乐趣"中进行体育锻炼。 设计思路: 俗语说:一年之计在于春,一日之计在于晨。春天是个万物复苏、朝气蓬勃、令人精神爽朗的季节。在这个美丽、温暖的春天里,为一同感受春天带给我们的欢快,我经常与孩子们一起聊聊"春天里的开心事",在交谈中了解到,幼儿对放风筝活动很感兴趣,周末常常和家人、朋友一起去公园放风筝。于是我抓住幼儿的这一兴趣点,在主题活动"我在春天里"中,结合大班幼儿的年龄特点,设计了《我和春天有个约会》这一活动。通过活动培养幼儿发现问题、解决问题的能力,使幼儿在活动中能够尝试失败,敢于面对困难,挑战自我的精神。同时,感受春天的美好,激发他们热爱春天的情感。

春天的雨点阅读答案

春天的雨点阅读答案 禾苗是需要雨露滋润的,孩子是需要老师的关爱和教诲才能成长的。本文讲的就是一个老师关心爱护学生的故事。阅读本文时,要认真地体会反映人物情感和文章中心的句子。 达丽玛坐在教室的板凳上,圆溜溜的一双眼睛正望着老师乌汉娜,但是她的心正和春风一起,游荡到大草原上去了。达丽玛,这个问题你来回答。乌汉娜从四十二双眼睛里,发现了达丽玛这双走了神的眼睛。达丽玛站起来,无法回答,脸羞得红红的。放学后,你到办公室来,我给你补这堂课。达丽玛坐下来,竭力忍住,才没让眼泪掉下来。 孩子们活蹦乱跳地背着书包放学了,达丽玛低着头走进了办公室。乌汉娜让达丽玛坐在自己身边,像是对着四十二位学生,又开始讲课了。达丽玛望着老师(严厉严肃)的面容,认真的表情,心里发誓:上课再也不能让心跑向大草原了。她把老师的每一句话都印在心里&& 补课完毕,她才看见窗外(飘洒飘扬)着细细的春雨。 老师,下雨了达丽玛惊奇地问。你没看见闪电吗没听见雷声吗乌汉娜问。达丽玛摇摇头。你什么都没听见乌汉娜又问。老师,我只听见您给我讲课了。是呀,她只听到老师沙哑的嗓音,只看到老师发干的嘴唇,哪注意到闪电、雷声乌汉娜忘记了一切疲劳,压抑住心头的激动:哦,达丽玛&&你会学好,我放心了&& 二十一岁的乌汉娜解开蒙古袍衣襟,把十岁的达丽玛搂在身旁,在绵绵春雨中,送孩子回到家,然后扭身走了。达丽玛摸着自己干干的衣服,依在门前(深情深沉)地望着老师的背影在细雨朦胧中远去&&春天的雨点,落在草原上,草原上正萌发着蓬勃的(生气生机)。春天的雨点儿,仿佛也落在达丽玛心里。 思考练习 1.划去文章中括号里不恰当的词语。 2.用仿佛写一句话。 仿佛____________________________________ 3.把文章分成三段,在段尾用‖表示,并概括出第一、二段的段意。 第一段__________________________________ 第二段__________________________________ 4.本文有一句话既点了题,又点出了文章的中心思想,在原文中用__________画出来。 5.文章是从哪些方面写乌汉娜老师关心爱护学生达丽玛的

10首经典六一儿歌童谣

10首经典六一儿歌童谣 各位读友大家好,此文档由网络收集而来,欢迎您下载,谢谢 一分钱 我在马路边捡到一分钱 把它交到警察叔叔手里边 叔叔拿着钱范文网[***] 对我把头点 我高兴地说了声 叔叔再见 丢手绢 丢手绢丢手绢 轻轻的放在小朋友的后面 大家不要告诉他 快点快点抓住他快点快点抓住他 丢手绢课件下载[***]丢手绢 轻轻的放在小朋友的后面 大家不要告诉他大家不要告诉他 啦啦啦啦啦啦..................... 快点快点抓住他快点快点抓住他

找朋友 找呀找呀找朋友我要找个好朋友 敬个礼呀范文网[***]鞠个躬笑嘻嘻呀握握手 你是我的好朋友嘿嘿嘿 找呀找呀找朋友我要找个好朋友 敬个礼呀鞠个躬笑嘻嘻呀握握手 你是我的好朋友嘿嘿嘿你是我的好朋友 找呀找呀找朋友我要找个好朋友 敬个礼呀鞠个躬笑嘻嘻呀握握手 你是我的好朋友 小兔子乖乖 小兔子乖乖把门儿开开 快点儿开开我要进来 不开不开我不开妈妈不回来谁来也不开 小兔课件下载[***]子乖乖把门儿开开快点儿开开我要进来 就开就开我就开妈妈回来了 我就把门开 小燕子

小燕子穿花衣 年年春天来这里 我问燕子你为啥来 燕子说这里的春天最美丽 小燕子告诉你 今年这里更美丽 我们盖起了大工厂 装上了新机器 欢迎你长期住在这里 采蘑菇的小姑娘 采蘑菇的小姑娘 背着一个大竹筐 清晨光着小脚丫 走遍森林和山冈 她采的蘑菇最多 多得像范文网[***]那星星数不清她采的蘑菇最大 大得像那小伞装满筐 噻箩箩哩噻箩箩哩噻 噻箩箩箩 噻箩箩箩哩噻 谁不知这山里的蘑菇香

她却不肯尝一尝 攒到赶集的那一天 赶快课件下载[***]背到集市上换上一把小镰刀 再加上几块棒棒糖 和那小伙伴一起 把劳动的幸福来分享 让我们荡起双桨 让我们荡起双桨 小船儿推开波浪 海面倒映着美丽的白塔 四面环绕着绿树红墙 小船儿轻轻 飘荡在水中 迎面吹来凉爽的风 小船儿轻轻飘荡在水中 迎面吹来凉爽的风 迎面吹来凉爽的风 世上只有妈妈好 世上只有妈妈好 世上只有妈妈好 有妈的孩子像个宝

2020年生产部部长工作总结

生产部部长工作总结 职责与工作任务: 1.根据公司发展战略,制定完善公司的各类生产管理制度,包括生产现场的管理制度及安全生产管理制度; 2.根据公司年度经营目标,组织编制公司的月/季/半年/年度生产目标计划,根据销售订单制定各生产分厂(公司)的月度生产计划,并负责监督实施,确保完成生产计划任务; 3.负责做好公司的生产调度工作; 4.指导各分厂(公司)的生产管理工作; 5.及时编制公司生产统计报表,并提交月/季/半年/年度工作总结; 6.参与外协件的合同评审及对外协供方评审; 7.负责设备及能源管理; 8.监督各分厂(公司)严格执行安全生产管理制度;

9.负责公司各类物资(原、辅材料、零部件、外协品及成品等)的仓储管理(出入库)及物流配送工作; 10.负责生产盘点工作; 11.负责生产部团队建设工作。做好本部门人员的培训、考核评价及激励工作; 12.按时完成公司主管领导交办的其它工作任务;定期向上级作述职报告。 任职资格: 大学专科以上 铸造、热处理、机械、电机或管理类相关专业 接受过企业管理、生产现场管理、质量管理体系、标准化、财务等方面相关知识的培训 5年以上生产一线管理工作经验,2年以上生产部管理经验

通晓企业管理、生产管理、成本管理、质量管理体系相关知识;具备铸造、热处理、机电、机加工、法律等专业方面的知识 熟悉本公司各类产品的生产工艺流程,生产现场管理经验丰富;熟悉主要产品的质量标准;具备相关专业的知识;沟通协调能力强,团队协作精神良好。 年龄30~50岁男性身体健康,有特殊能力者可适当放宽条件 待遇: 年薪制:5~10万元/年,公司有良好的职务和薪酬晋升机制和完善的考核制度; 报名须知: 1、你在上直接应聘该职位; 2、将您的个人档案投递到我公司邮箱:lzjianghanghr@ 3、将您的个人简历传真至公司

(完整版)我和春天有个约会诗歌朗诵会主持词

“我和春天有个约会”诗歌朗诵会主持词 男:敬爱的老师们: 女:亲爱的同学们: 合:大家下午好! 男:明媚的春光,诗意的亭西。今天,我们怀着春天的爱,唱出我们心中的歌,女:和煦的春风,优美的诗歌。今天,我们怀着春天的情,为美丽的春天喝彩。男:亭西小学“我和春天有个约会”诗歌朗诵会 合:现——在——开——始。 男:春天已经来临,你是否早已脱掉厚重的棉衣,在温暖和煦的春风中拥抱自然? 女:春天已经来临,你是否邀上你的同学好友,品味春天诗词的无限意蕴?首先,请欣赏各班的诗歌齐诵: 男:诗歌齐诵顺序如下: 一年级: 《春居》《春风吹》二年级:《春雨》《春天是这样来的》 三年级:《早春呈水部张十八员外》《春夜喜雨》四年级:《江南春》《清明》 五年级:《春望》《早春》《渔歌子》六年级:《钱塘湖春行》《面朝大海,春暖花开》 男:从大家的精彩朗诵里,我们仿佛置身于青山绿水的五彩画卷中,感受到万物竞吐芳芬的春日气息。 女:让我们学会用一双发现美的眼睛,去寻找、感受春天给我们带来的多姿多彩。请欣赏王乐天、姚洁等同学的诗歌朗诵: 一年级:姚洁《春天到》 二年级:王乐天古诗《春晓》 三年级:吴佳函古诗《春日》《游园不值》 四年级:印陈兰《春》 五年级:朱振宇《风从我指尖穿过》 六年级:曹雨佳《油菜花》 男:风里有花香,风里有鸟鸣,风里有歌声,风里还有我们对生活美好的期冀和祝福。让我们再次用热烈的掌声感谢他们的精彩表演。 女:一二年级的小朋友还两人一组,一起朗诵关于春天的儿歌,在他们童稚天真的儿歌声里,你们是否回忆起童年的美好?请欣赏儿歌二人诵,大家掌声欢迎。一年级:顾盈俞晨烨《春天》二年级:沈羌杰范雪柯《柳树醒醒》 男:随风袅娜的雪白梨花,灼灼飘逸的粉红桃花,灿烂如金的黄色菜花构成了一幅迷人的乡间画卷。 女:让我们唱起春天的歌谣,走进这绚丽的春天里。请欣赏三、四年级的诗歌二人诵。大家掌声欢迎。 三年级:高钰雯、戴王鑫儿歌《打翻了》《春天的歌谣》 四年级:于飞燕、施滔滔《春天的歌谣》

六年级语文:春天的雨点(教学实录)

小学语文标准教材 六年级语文:春天的雨点(教学 实录) People need to communicate and communicate with each other, and language is the bridge of human communication and the link. 学校:______________________ 班级:______________________ 科目:______________________ 教师:______________________

--- 专业教学设计系列下载即可用 --- 六年级语文:春天的雨点(教学实录) 一、教学目标 1、学会运用读书记号学习课文的方法。 2、学会12个生字,理解21个词语的意思。 3、懂得学习要专心致志,感受教师对学生的关心和爱护。 二、教学重点与难点 1、运用读书记号阅读课文。 2、理解课文中描写人物语言、行动和心理的词句。三、教学过程(一)、古诗导入 1、大家都已学过了《春晓》,我们再来一起背一下好吗? 2、揭示课题,古往今来,赞美春天、春雨的诗篇举不胜举。今天,我们学习的这篇课文,赞美的是什么呢?(二)、自学课文,并检查自学情况

自学课文要求: 1、自由朗读课文,按课后习题1的要求做读书记号。 2、联系上下文或运用工具学习生字新词。 3、想想课文主要写了谁的什么事。 检查自学情况: 1、出示生字新词,让学生自由地读读,议议,记记。 师点拨重点:唇(chǘn),不能读成chén (晨)竭(念jié,不念jí) 2、提出不理解的词句,酌情处理。 3、课文主要写了谁?她们之间发生了什么事? (三)、给课文分段 我们在第七册已经学过了好几种给课文分段的方法,还记得吗? 请自选一种分段方法给课文分段 1,按事情发展顺序给课文分段,2 按时间变换顺序给课文分段, 3 按地点变换顺序给课文分段,

儿歌童谣j经典版本

1月:1. 过年少白呼呼,呼呼,雪花飘噼叭,噼叭,放鞭炮;咚锵,咚锵,玩龙灯;哈哈!哈哈!过年了! 2. 新年到新年到,新年到,提花灯,看花炮。小娃娃,长一岁,走路不用妈妈抱 3. 小剪刀小剪刀,张嘴巴,不吃鱼,不吃虾,爱吃娃娃的长指甲 4. 骑大马小娃娃,骑大马,呱哒呱哒呱哒呱。骑到外婆家,外婆对她笑哈哈。小弟弟买巧克力 5. 小弟弟,上街去,买了两块巧克力。一块留给自己吃,一块送到妈嘴里。 6. 小老鼠上灯台小老鼠,上灯台,偷油吃,下不来。喵喵喵,猫来了,叽哩咕噜滚下来。 7. 拍手歌手手,拍拍,拍拍,手手。妈妈,拍手,娃娃,拍手。妈妈,娃娃,拍拍手,拍拍手。 8. 金钩钩金钩钩,银钩钩,说话要算数,不然是小狗。金钩钩,银钩钩,说话要算数,请你伸出小手手。一二三,勾呀勾呀勾三勾! 9. 看我摸拍手掌,看我摸,我不摸呀你别摸。我摸耳朵你也摸耳朵。我摸鼻子你也摸鼻子。我摸眼睛你也摸眼睛。我摸脑袋你也摸脑袋。10. 10. 小猫樊发稼小猫小猫,本领真大,一生下来,就会画画。画的什么画?喏,五个瓣的梅花。11. 11. 小鼓咚咚咚我的小鼓咚咚咚,我说话儿它都懂,我说小鼓响三下,我的小鼓:咚、咚、咚。哎哟哟,这不行,宝宝睡在小床中,我的小鼓别响了,小鼓说声:懂、懂、懂! 12. 布娃娃,别生气布娃娃,你别生气,我来给你赔个礼。刚才不该发脾气,使劲把你扔在地。弄脏了你的新花衣,摔得你脸上都是泥。一定还很疼吧?真是对不起!衣服脏了我给你拍,脸儿脏了我给你洗。哪儿疼了我给你揉揉,从今以后,我要爱护你。13. 13. 一只小鸡叽叽叽一只小鸡叽叽叽;二只小狗汪汪汪;三只绵羊咩咩咩;四只老鼠吱吱吱;五只鹁鸪咕咕咕;六只青蛙咯咯咯;七只蟋蟀唧唧唧;八只小鸭呷呷呷;九只斑鸠啾啾啾。 14. 两只小猫两只小猫,上山偷桃,一只上树,一只放哨。听见狗叫,汪汪汪汪,下来就跑,被狗赶上,一顿好咬。咬去皮,咬去毛,咬去两个尾巴梢,疼得小猫"妙妙妙"。 15. 千颗星千颗星,万颗星,点点星,点点明,一闪一闪亮晶晶,闪闪烁烁数不清。 16. 手指谣食指拇指碰碰,做只小鸡叫叫:叽,叽,叽。食指中指并拢,做把剪刀玩玩:嚓,嚓,嚓。五个手指捏紧,做个拳头敲敲:咚,咚,咚。伸出拇指翘翘,夸你戴上红花:好,好,好。小指小指钩钩,我们笑笑跳跳:嘻,嘻,嘻。小手小手拍拍,大家歌儿唱唱:妙,妙,妙。 17. 拉勾勾你出手,我出手,小拇指头拉勾勾。拉勾勾,拉勾勾,咱们都是好朋友。 18. 雪老头雪老头,做年糕,磨了粉,往下倒,倒在地上,大家都不要。 19. 做早操小朋友,起得早,一二三四做早操,先学鸟儿飞,再学马儿跑,天天做操身体好。 20. 拉大锯拉大锯,扯大锯,外婆家,唱大戏。妈妈去,爸爸去,小宝宝,也要去。拉大锯,扯大锯,你过来,我过去。拉一把,扯一把,小宝宝,快长大。 21. 指甲长了指甲长了不剪掉,又象小狗又象猫,小手伸给奶奶瞧,吓了奶奶一大跳。 22. 手指歌两个拇指弯弯腰,点点头。两个食指变公鸡,斗一斗。两个小指钩一钩,做朋友。两个手掌碰一碰,拍拍手。 23. 23.堆雪人北风吹,雪花飘,堆雪人,真热闹。两个胡桃当眼珠,辣椒鼻子朝上翘。太阳不出它微笑。太阳出来它没了。 24. 24.笑小鸡怎么笑:"叽叽叽!"鸭子怎么笑:"呷呷呷!"青蛙怎么笑:"呱呱呱!"娃娃怎么笑:"哈哈哈!"

练习题1

练习1、 一、按要求填空。(3分) 学校有“金、杨、王、张、孙、胡、费、高、徐”几位老师,按音序表中的顺序排列,排在最前的应是______老师,排在最后的是______老师,排在第五位的是_____老师。 二、字词句部分。 1、补充词语。(12分) 心悦()服腾云()雾喜出()外身()其境深情厚()寸草春()()然而生不()而同雪中送()死而后()()学步气()吁吁 2、选出加点词语在句中的意思。(5分) ①、久别重逢,同学们显得格外亲热。() ②、卡车装不下,我们格外找了一辆大车。() 备选答案:①格子以外②额外、另外③超乎寻常④规格、格式 ③、这孩子大大的眼睛,看上去怪精神的。() ④、雷锋精神永远激励着我们每一个少先队员。() ⑤、我们要领会这次会议的精神。() 备选答案:①宗旨、主要的意义②活跃、有生气。③人的思想④指人的意识、思维活动和一般心理状态 3、根据句子的意思,用“望”字写七个词语,再分别填入句中括号里。(不能重复。)(7分) ①五位壮士屹立在狼牙山顶峰,()着群众和部队主力远去的方向。 ②对未来,他充满了()。 ③家里虽穷,但他非常()读书。 ④实现四个现代化,是全国人民的共同()。 ⑤我们要珍惜幸福的学习生活,决不辜负党对我们的() ⑥旧社会,劳动人民的生活没有()。 ⑦去北海公园过队日,是我们()已久的一项活动。 4、用“——”画出下列各组中不是同一类的词语。(4分) ①足球排球棒球气球网球 ②武断勇敢坚强坚定机智 ③曲艺电影歌舞报纸戏剧 ④四川云南广州江苏西藏 5、按要求写句子。(4分) ①用一个比喻句写出老师育人的辛苦。 _________________________________________________________ ②小草出土。(写成拟人句) _________________________________________________________ 6、下列各句不是病句的,请打“√”,是病句的请在原句上修改。(5分) ①万里长城、赵州桥、黄河都是我国古代的伟大工程。( ) ②语文对我很感兴趣,所以上语文课我总是特别用心。( ) ③通过一个学期的不懈努力,使我的学习成绩有了很大的提高。( ) ④自然老师带我们到野外采集了许多植物和昆虫标本。( )

关于春天的儿歌童谣修订稿

关于春天的儿歌童谣集团标准化工作小组 [Q8QX9QT-X8QQB8Q8-NQ8QJ8-M8QMN]

关于春天的儿歌童谣(20首) 2012-03-17 11:38:30|?分类:|举报|字号订阅 (为了方便集体诵读,请家长互相帮忙给孩子打印一份) 欢乐在春天 雪花儿翩翩,雨滴儿甜甜。阳光呀艳艳,露珠儿点点。 大地呀母亲,生命呀眷眷,鲜花呀开遍, 礼花呀满天,朋友啊无眠,欢乐在春天 春天到 春天到,春天到, 花儿朵朵开口笑。 草儿绿,鸟儿叫, 蝴蝶蜜蜂齐舞蹈。 春天到 树上的小鸟,叫呀叫呀, 地上的嫩草,钻哪钻哪, 迎春的花儿,开啦开啦, 柳树的枝条,摇啊摇啊。 找春天 小鱼儿,蹦蹦跳, 要把春天找。 柳姑娘,笑了笑: “小鱼小鱼你别找, 春天就在我辫梢。” 春天真好 春天的花,春天的草, 春天的杨柳扭着细腰。 春天的水,春天的鸟, 春天的蜜蜂跳着舞蹈。 春天的路,春天的桥, 春天的灯笼赶着热闹。 春天的歌,春天的笑, 春天的风筝飞得很高。 春天真美,春天真好, 幸福的童年把春天拥抱。 春风 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走近小草,轻轻一亲,小草醒了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走进树林,轻轻一吹,树叶绿了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走到田野,轻轻一挥,麦苗高了。

春风春风,脚步轻轻,走进花园,轻轻一唱,花儿开了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走到河边,轻轻一摸,冰融化了。 春风春风,脚步轻轻,走到校园,小朋友笑了:“春天到了”。春风 春风有一张神奇的嘴巴, 它轻轻一吹: 吹绿了柳树, 吹红了桃花, 吹来了燕子, 吹醒了青蛙; 还吹得小雨, 轻轻地下…… 春风吹 春风吹, 春风吹, 吹绿了柳树, 吹红了桃花, 吹醒了青蛙, 吹来了燕子, 吹得小雨轻轻下, 我们都来种丝瓜。 春雨 小雨小雨沙沙沙, 落在田野里, 苗儿笑哈哈, 喝了小雨的水, 慢慢长高了 小雨小雨沙沙沙, 落在池塘边, 青蛙呱呱叫, 用了小雨的水, 身子光滑滑, 有了新衣服, 心里乐哈哈。 小雨沙沙 小雨小雨沙沙, 大地大地蒙纱。 雨打绿叶噼啪, 落在水面滴答。 快,快,捡个泡泡回家。 春雨 滴答滴答小下雨啦。 种子说:“下吧下吧,我要发芽。” 麦苗说:“下吧下吧,我要长大。” 小朋友说:“下吧下吧,我要种瓜。” 滴答滴答小下雨啦。

企业生产部年终工作总结

企业生产部年终工作总结 最近发表了一篇名为《企业生产部年终工作总结》的范文,觉得有用就收藏了,为了方便大家的阅读。 企业生产部年终工作总结年终工作总结指的是对过去的一年某一时期或某项工作的成绩、经验和存在的问题的总回顾、评价和结论。它是推动工作前进的重要依据,是寻找工作规律的重要手段,是培养、提高工作能力的重要途径,是团结群众争取领导支持的好渠道。 年终工作总结、述职报告等相关内容,为生产部进行年终工作总结提供参考。 光阴似箭,日月如梭,2011年在不知不觉中已悄悄过去;迟旧迎新,虎去

兔来,我们即将迎来新的一年。回顾2011年工作,虽没有南非世界杯的激情,没有上海世博会的精彩;但也不缺少量点,比如公司成功通过ISO90001认证。在过去的一年中,生产部在上级领导的大力支持和各部门的密切配合与部门全体员工的共同努力下,顺利地完成了公司下达的各项生产任务。现对生产部门一年来的工作予以回顾和总结如下: 一、工作业绩 1.生产方面 1).产量:生产部在公司领导的指示和马副总的引导下,各车间团结努力配合,生产部门力挑重担,在公司产品型号多变、批量小、技术资料不完善的情况下,进行了一些工艺上的新摸索与试验,克服了材料质量波动,客户质量标准大幅提高、订单交期紧且不稳定等困难,共完成销售订单724单(见附表一)。 月份 1月2月3月4月5月6月7月8月9月10月11月12月合计

66 13 20 98 97 55 77 63 80 58 72 75 774 订单量 表一销售订单完成统计表 2).销售计划完成:人们经常说“顾客是上帝”,要满足顾客的要求,光有良好的产品质量和优惠的价格还远远不够,还需要交期作保证;尤其是我公司生产的大部分配件都是销于国内市场情况下,因此生产部合理调整生产计划,生管排出《周生产计划表》,车间排出《日生产流程表》,每天完成《生产日报表》的统计,经常协调沟通,有效地控制生产进度,利用有限资源,克服订单数量小,颜色规格多等客观因素,加班加点,及时满足客户交期.为提高客户对公司的信誉度打下了良好的基础。从4月-12月统计,生产部销计划完成及时率平均%(见附表二)。 表二销信计划完成及时率 月份1月2月3月4月5月6月7月8月9月10月11月12月平均完成率

我和春天有个约会活动方案

“我和春天有个约会”亲子绘画活动方案活动意图: 阳春三月,幼儿园附近的田野里开满了油菜花,花香四溢。清明节案后,家长带着孩子外出走进大自然,亲近大自然,感受到了大自然的美丽,动植物在春天的各种不同的变化,吸引孩子去观察、探索,引起了他们浓厚的兴趣。幼儿园组织幼儿开展“我和春天有个约会”活动。 在此基础上,为了激发幼儿表现美、创造美的情感,体验自由表达和亲子创作的快乐,培养孩子"热爱大自然,保护环境"的意识,传递共建"周北是我家,环保靠大家"的理念,制定中班“我和春天有个约会”亲子绘画活动。 活动时间:2016年4月8日上午9:00-10:40 活动地点:幼儿园操场 参与人员:中班幼儿及家长 活动准备: 1.每个家庭准备长80厘米、宽60厘米的画纸(幼儿园准备)勾线笔、24色油画棒、擦手的毛巾或湿巾各一。 2.优美的背景轻音乐。3、活动前各班召开家长动员大会,讲活动须知:(1)活动中不允许带食品,确保保持场地的卫生。由于场地有限,所以每个孩子只允许一个家长陪同参加,另一个可以在一旁进行拍照,活动结束后欢迎摄影高手将照片发给老师! 活动过程: 一、教师交代亲子绘画活动意图 二、讲解制作方法,进行制作 1. 2.家长与幼儿进行创新制作。 三、手工完成并简单的深透环保知识 一、幼儿亲子律动操《手拉着手一起走》 二、《爱我你就画画我》亲子美术活动 1、“一年之计在于春”,春天预示着新的希望、新的起点。春意盎然、春色暖人之际,我园也迎来了又一次全新内容的大型亲子活动。让我们尽情享受、欢乐开怀。在这个时刻,我们的爸爸妈妈们也回到了童年,和孩子一起享

受画画的乐趣,所以,无论有多忙,无论有多累,都要陪孩子欢度这也许是一生中唯一的美术创意! 2、宣布主题:我和春天有个约会 3、活动须知:在活动中要充分注意和孩子的协作,在给孩子给予帮助的同时也要尊重孩子的想法,积极配合,不要自作主张将活动全程包办,那样就失去了活动的意义。家长也要充分利用难得的活动和孩子多沟通,多交流,让孩子感受无与伦比的关爱和呵护。 4、讲解活动流程:请家长和小朋友一起先商量绘画的内容和布局,然后亲子协作,在互相帮助的氛围中完成作品的绘画、涂色,表现春天的美丽、环境保护的重要性。 5、放轻音乐,各班幼儿和家长,在教师的带领下到规定的场地中领纸开始作画。教师全面指导,并进行拍照。 6、在展示板上展示作品,并合影留念。 三:结束。 感谢家长的大力支持与配合!通过本次亲子绘画活动,不仅使家长又一次的走入了我们的活动,了解了幼儿园活动的丰富多彩,也使家长和孩子之间的感情的到了进一步的融合与激荡,同时也使我们周北幼儿园“家长-学校工作”的新模式达到了多方共赢的良好效果!中班年级组《我和春天有个约会》亲子绘画活动到此结束,请各班老师将幼儿带回,家长退场,各班工作人员留下清场。(放轻音乐) 活动反思: 本次活动准备工作充分,包括材料的准备,幼儿经验的积累,家长的联系工作,场地安排等,因此活动效果价位理想,既让家长对幼儿园的工作更加了解和支持,对幼儿的发展水平有了更是心中有数,也明确了幼儿的发展方向,有利于家长对孩子因势利导,增进亲子情感;同时,有利于幼儿园工作的开展。如果能把活动计划提前告知家长,家长带孩子外出时能更有计划性,相信作品更能体现孩子活动的轨迹。

春天的雨点教学反思.

春天的雨点教学反思 2019-05-13 篇一:春天的雨点教学反思范文 我把这篇文章放到我班进行试讲,出乎我意料的是这篇文章并没有没有我想象的那么难以理解。大部分学生都能感受到老师与学生之间的真挚感情。但是理解都不深刻,有些同学理解了不会用语言表达感情。 第一、这可能与同学们的认知水平有关,如果放到五六年级我想学生们会有更深的体会,语言表达更上一个层次,体现出情感深入,也是课堂的高潮。 第二、新课标中指出语文教学最重的指向是语言文字的运用。而我现在的课堂几乎就是以课文理解为主朝向的是人文,与语言文字的运用结合较少。这也是我现阶段正在努力改进的目标。 本堂课中我自认为比较成功的事:第一、在整个课堂教学中,我注意营造以读为本的学习氛围,给学生充足的朗读文章的时间,运用自己喜欢的方式读、指名读课文,到默读、有感情地朗读重点句子边读边谈体会,学生在读中感悟到了课文所表达的师生间那真挚的情感。第二、春天的雨点的含义,学生表述的一知半解,我索性直接告诉了学生,我认为这比学生懵懵懂懂的更好。 篇二:《春天的雨点》教学设计 陕西省宝鸡市高新区千河镇黄贺小学李继红 【教材依据】 北师大版小学语文三年级下册第二单元“春天的脚步”第三课《春天的雨点》 【设计思路】 指导思想:本册教材以《全日制义务教育语文课程标准实验教科书》为依据,致力于构建开放的、富有活力的教材体系,倡导自主、合作、探究的学习方式,全面提高学生的语文素养,培养创新精神和实践能力,促进每个学生的全面发展,为他们的终身学习、生活和工作,在语文方面奠定基础。 设计理念:在阅读中引发疑问,在质疑中学会探究,在探究中求得感悟。 教材分析: 《春天的雨点》选自北师大版小学三年级下册第二单元,它是一篇写人。记叙了学生达丽玛在上课溜号之后,老师为其补课并在雨中将其送回家,从而

相关主题