论文标题
合适的工作工具:将主动学习技术与学习目标相匹配
The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Active Learning Techniques to Learning Objectives
论文作者
论文摘要
活跃的学习包括许多多种技术,这些技术积极吸引学生的理解。由于这种差异,不同的主动学习技术可能最适合实现不同的学习目标。我们研究学生对一系列主动学习技术的看法(包括Python模拟和互动游戏)和一些传统技术(例如讲座)。我们发现,学生认为他们与所有技术相当积极地积极参与,尽管更多的是那些具有沉重的成绩和一些积极学习技巧的技术,而且他们报告说,除了需要对研究想法征求同伴建议的任务,但他们享受了最有效的学习技巧。所有技术都被评为实现六个学习目标中的每一个相对有效,但可以改变范围。最传统的技术(例如考试)因实现与低阶认知能力相关的目标,记住概念而被评为最高。相比之下,一些积极的学习技术(例如课堂演示文稿和Python模拟)因实现与高级认知能力相关的目标而被评为最高,包括学习研究,尽管讲座也为这些目标表现出色。其他技术 - 目标匹配是直观的;例如,辩论被评为理解问题的利弊,而小组讨论被评为协作学习。我们的结果支持以下想法:不同的教学技术最适合不同的结果,这意味着在课程设计中,多种技术的混合可能是最佳的。
Active learning comprises many varied techniques that engage students actively in the construction of their understanding. Because of this variation, different active learning techniques may be best suited to achieving different learning objectives. We study students' perceptions of a set of active learning techniques (including a Python simulation and an interactive game) and some traditional techniques (like lecture). We find that students felt they engaged fairly actively with all of the techniques, though more with those with a heavy grade weight and some of the active learning techniques, and they reported enjoying the active learning techniques the most except for an assignment that required soliciting peer advice on a research idea. All of the techniques were rated as relatively effective for achieving each of six learning objectives, but to varying extents. The most traditional techniques like exams were rated highest for achieving an objective associated with lower order cognitive skills, remembering concepts. In contrast, some active learning techniques like class presentations and the Python simulation were rated highest for achieving objectives related to higher order cognitive skills, including learning to conduct research, though lectures also performed surprisingly well for these objectives. Other technique-objective matches are intuitive; for example, the debate is rated highly for understanding pros and cons of an issue, and small group discussion is rated highly for collaborative learning. Our results support the idea that different teaching techniques are best suited for different outcomes, which implies that a mix of techniques may be optimal in course design.