主动学习,许多人认为一个激进的改变传统的教学方法,在过去的几年中已经受到了相当大的关注。工程教育,然而,仍然有一些怀疑,这些方法的必要性,因为学生已经通过作业和实验室“活跃”。此外,许多工程教师缺乏热情的教育文献梳理的答案和结果并不总是了解常见形式的主动学习不同于对方。也有缺点工程教师期望选择的几篇文章中看到积极的学习策略的有效性。读者必须澄清什么是被研究,作者测量和解读“是如何工作的。“然而,由于广泛的方法,属于主动学习的名字可能很难确定研究的主题。尽管如此,这个过程可以简化通过专注于常见的主动学习方法的核心元素。评估“工作”需要看广泛的学习成果,仔细解读数据,量化任何改善和报道的大小有什么构成“重大”改进[1]。评估的意义总是会解释,尽管它有助于看一下这两个统计等措施报告学习收益绝对价值和效应的大小。意识到教育研究的实际限制将寻求谨慎教育者希望采取一个教学实践与期望看到的结果类似的文献报道。教育研究告诉我们,平均人口研究和学习理论表明为什么会这样[1]。因此价值的文献中给出的结果是,他们提供信息,帮助教师确定参与教育研究的变量。更广泛的数据支持的干预,更像老师的学生测试人口和更好的可能性方法将为给定的教练工作
英国法夫论文代写:主动学习
Active learning, which many consider a radical change from traditional teaching methods, has received considerable attention over the past several years. For engineering education, however, there remains some skepticism as to the need for these methods since students are already "active" through homework assignments and laboratories. In addition, many engineering faculty lack the enthusiasm to comb the educational literature for answers and as a result do not always understand how the common forms of active learning differ from each other. There are also drawbacks for engineering faculty expecting to select a few articles to see the effectiveness of active learning strategies. It is imperative that readers clarify what is being studied and how the authors measure and interpret what "works." However, as a result of the wide range of methods that fall under the name of active learning it might be difficult to identify the subject of the study. Nonetheless, this process can be simplified by focusing on core elements of common active learning methods. Assessing "what works" requires looking at a broad range of learning outcomes, interpreting data carefully, quantifying the magnitude of any reported improvement and having some idea of what constitutes a "significant" improvement [1]. Assessing for significance will always be a matter of interpretation, although it is helpful to look at both statistical measures such as absolute values and effect sizes for reported learning gains. Being aware of the practical limitations of educational studies will seek to caution educators hoping to adopt an instructional practice with the expectation of seeing results similar to those reported in the literature. Educational studies tell us what worked, on average, for the populations examined and learning theories suggest why this might be so [1]. Therefore the value of the results presented in literature is that they provide information to help teachers identify the variables involved in educational studies. The more extensive the data supporting an intervention, the more a teacher's students resemble the test population and the better the odds are that the method will work for a given instructor
