Titlebook: Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin; Jenaro Guisasola,Kristina Zuza Book 2020 The Editor(s) (if appli

architect

書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin影響因子(影響力)學科排名




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin網(wǎng)絡公開度




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin網(wǎng)絡公開度學科排名




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin被引頻次




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin被引頻次學科排名




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin年度引用




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin年度引用學科排名




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin讀者反饋




書目名稱Research and Innovation in Physics Education: Two Sides of the Same Coin讀者反饋學科排名

安定

Gorazd Planin?i?ent years have served to underline the deficiencies and excesses of markets and financial systems. Economic restructuring and market expansion that have occurred as a result of market liberalization policies have created new patterns of wealth and poverty as well as shifts in the levels and patterns

容易懂得

Claudio Fazioical (and ongoing) impact of gender on the development of no.Drawing both on historical accounts of the emotions and on contemporary affect theory, this book explores the intersection of social constructions of sex and gender with the development of norms for emotive speech in literary texts from th

協(xié)定

窩轉(zhuǎn)脊椎動物

Knut Neumannary subject. This nostalgia is manifested in both sides of recurrent feminist debates between procedural and substantive models of autonomy, in which the agency of the feminist subject is defined in terms of a ‘choosers’ or ‘losers’ paradigm. It can be traced in a range of arguments in feminist ethi

jaundiced

María Gabriela Lorenzoas to empower women and make them ‘a(chǎn)gents’ rather than ‘victims’; however, recasting the debate as one of ‘women’s choices’ has tended to obscure, and even justify, injustice. The focus on ‘choice’ has silenced other ethical concerns – in particular concerns about the ethics of practices and about t

CHOKE

Mila Kryjevskaia,Nathaniel Grosznts two ongoing methodological dilemmas.? How does conceiving women’s texts as collaborations between authors, readers, annotators, editors, printers, and patrons uphold or disrupt current understandings of authorship? And how does reconceiving such texts as collaborative illuminate some of the unre

babble

Jenaro Guisasola,Kristina Zuza,Jaume Ametller,Paulo Sarriugartelaborative” in the form they have come down to us because our best records of them, in the absence of recording devices, are usually contemporary transcriptions by auditors. These are often lively and quite similar from one transcriber to another, which suggests that the transcriptions are fairly fa

終止

發(fā)芽

Ed van den Berg,Aernout van Rossum,Jeroen Grijsen,Henk Pol,Jan van der Veennts two ongoing methodological dilemmas.? How does conceiving women’s texts as collaborations between authors, readers, annotators, editors, printers, and patrons uphold or disrupt current understandings of authorship? And how does reconceiving such texts as collaborative illuminate some of the unre