这个模型可以引用任何教学方法,学生在小组合作朝着一个共同的目标。因此,合作学习可以看作是包括所有组的教学方法,包括合作学习[7]。相反,根据[4]一些作者区分协作和合作学习具有独特的历史发展和不同的哲学根源。然而,无论解释,协作学习的核心要素是学生的交互,而不是学习的重要性作为一个单独的活动。各种研究的结果之间有明显的一致性的问题上的合作如何影响学习的结果。在回顾168年的研究中,[8]发现合作提高学习成果相对于个人的工作。也发现类似的结果[9]看着37个研究的学生在科学、数学、工程和技术。实际关心的一个问题是与频率组工作改善的好处。研究”调查合并的影响小、中、大量的组工作成就”,[9]发现积极影响的大小与低,中,高组的时间是0.52,0.73和0.53,分别。因此,最高利益不存在大次组但介质次组。相比之下,更多的时间花在组织了然而产生最高的影响促进积极的学生的态度、较低、中、高的时间在群体效应大小的0.37,0.26,和0.77分别。作者还指出,态度的结果是基于研究的相对较少。
英国肯特大学论文代写:教学方法
This model can refer to any instructional method in which students work together in small groups toward a common goal. As such, collaborative learning can be viewed as encompassing all group-based instructional methods, including cooperative learning [7]. On the contrary, according to [4] some authors distinguish between collaborative and cooperative learning as having distinct historical developments and different philosophical roots. Nevertheless, regardless of the interpretation, the core element of collaborative learning is the importance of students' interactions rather than on learning as a solitary activity. There is clear consistency among the findings of various studies on the question of how collaboration influences learning outcomes. In a review of 168 studies, [8] found that cooperation improved learning outcomes relative to individual work across the board. Similar results were found by [9] who looked at 37 studies of students in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. A question of practical interest is whether the benefits of group work improve with frequency. In a study "investigating the effect of incorporating small, medium and large amounts of group work on achievement", [9] found the positive effect sizes associated with low, medium and high amount of time in groups to be 0.52, 0.73 and 0.53, respectively. Therefore, the highest benefit was not found for large time in groups but for medium time in groups. In contrast, more time spent in groups did however produce the highest effect on promoting positive students' attitudes, with low, medium and high amount of time in groups having effect sizes of 0.37, 0.26, and 0.77 respectively. The authors also noted that the attitudinal results were based on a relatively small number of studies.
