排序方式： 共有4条查询结果，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
Magana Alejandra J. Elluri Sindhura Dasgupta Chandan Seah Ying Ying Madamanchi Aasakiran Boutin Mireille 《Journal of Science Education and Technology》2019,28(4):382-398
Journal of Science Education and Technology - In science and engineering education, the use of heuristics has been introduced as a way of understanding the world, and as a way to approach... 相似文献
2.
This article discusses “Universities of the Third Age”, whose function is quite distinct from established universities' traditional role in teaching, research, and community services. Consequently, there is an urgent need to develop a model of partnership between traditional universities and Universities of the Third Age, ensuring better training for educators working with senior citizens. Determining the roles of teachers, supervisors, and students will facilitate greater cooperation, and allow for a linkage of Universities of the Third Age (U3A) with traditional faculties of education, as well as further refinement of the theoretical and practical professional training of future educators of older people. 相似文献
3.
Single–subject formative evaluation appears to be a cost–effective strategy for improving instructional products. However, the criterion to use for selecting an appropriate test subject who could generate optimal feedback data for improving the instructional product remains a central concern among performance technologists. This article reports the results of a qualitative study of the effectiveness of the cognitive style construct field–dependent/independent as a student selection criterion in formative evaluation. In the study, we collected formative evaluation data from two field–dependent (FD) and two field–independent (FI) test subjects while they were individually interacting with a CAI package. We focused on four different sources of data: think–aloud protocols, researcher/subject interactions, informal observations, and debriefing interviews. Our analysis of the formative evaluation data indicates that the FI individuals were better test subjects than their FD counterparts. FI subjects showed a great deal of confidence in entering the formative evaluation process. Their feedback was abundant and precise and included specific suggestions for improving the material. They not only identified their own difficulties but also speculated about difficulties other students may encounter. In contrast, the FD subjects were anxious and demonstrated less confidence in approaching the evaluation activities. Frequent probing was necessary to trigger their reactions and generate their feedback. Their feedback data were vague, and more inferences were required for translating them into revision decisions. Both FD and FI subjects could identify major discrepancies in the presentation of the material (events of learning) as well as gross misconceptions in the processing of information. Although the FD and FI feedback data differ both qualitatively and quantitatively, no conflicting observation was made. 相似文献
4.
1