Education assignment 代写: 技术辅助学习与学习

Education assignment 代写: 技术辅助学习与学习

Education assignment 代写:  技术辅助学习与学习

本文作者比较的方法对科技辅助学习和扩展先前的研究包括在试图获得较少的模棱两可的结果纵向电场实验。此外,作者试图定义术语“技术辅助学习”作为一种媒介,以支持和提高学习,而不是把它作为一个替代更传统的方法。他们是否为技术辅助学习平台,可以为学习者的学习成果包括成功有效的研究是基于一个学习系统(网站),支持香港在追求学习英语的大学生。

近年来,技术辅助学习已成为商业培训和学术界的一个重要组成部分。机构已经实施了技术辅助学习平台,努力提高学习和教学(Kwan等。P.1)。虽然持续增长的领域仍然有关注,如何有效的这样一个平台,以及它的作用在学生的学习成果(艾伦,2006)。尽管从任何地点访问内容的好处,为科技成果辅助学习如ladyshewsky研究(2004)导致了模棱两可的结果。平台已经推出的机构没有可理解的数据,以建议是否技术辅助学习是一种有效的学习手段。

为了获得更多的可理解的数据支持了Jen Hwa Hu等人的技术辅助学习。(2007)其他如Larkin Budny研究的延伸(2005)来支持他们的假设。作者还利用库伯等人的(1990)学习风格模型,并在一个互动的网上英语网站进行了纵向现场实验。

Introduction

In recent years technology-assisted learning has become an essential component for commercial training and academia. Institutions have implemented technology-assisted learning platforms in an effort to enhance learning and teaching (Kwan et al. p.1). Although an area of continual growth there are still concerns over how effective such a platform can be as well as its role in student learning outcomes (Allen, 2006). Despite the benefits of accessing content from any location, research into the outcomes of technology-assisted learning such as Ladyshewsky (2004) has lead to ambiguous results. Platforms have been launched by institutions without comprehensible data to suggest whether technology-assisted learning is an effective means of learning.

In an attempt to obtain more comprehensible data to support technology-assisted learning Jen-Hwa Hu et al. (2007) extend studies conducted by others such as Larkin and Budny (2005) to support their hypotheses. The authors also make use of Kolb et al.’S (1990) Learning Style Model and carry out a longitudinal field experiment on an interactive online English website.

Methods

Jen-Hwa Hu et al. (2007) adopt several data collection techniques and research methods to support their hypotheses (of which there are seven) including study design, dependent variables and measurements, control-groups, treatment-groups and data collection.

Quantitative approaches include setting the subjects (students) an English Language test based upon the Likert scale of assessment. They also set the subjects an individual assessment based on strict scripting and questioning. The authors proceeded to collect the data and took the average from each individuals test scores to approximate objective learning effectiveness. They assessed the results and used the data to support the idea that technology-assisted learning is more successful than face-to-face methods of learning.

Despite some quantitative approaches, the authors have made significant use of subjects to support their hypotheses and thus it is clear that this paper relies mostly on qualitative methodologies. The authors utilise the learning system already in place and randomly place the students into testing groups dependent on their timetabled lessons. They then proceed to give each group a program of study.

The control-group was taught using the face-to-face method whereas the treatment-group had access to online material to support their face-to-face sessions. The authors claim that by randomly placing students into groups based upon nothing more than the student’s allocated lesson times it should ensure the results are not biased toward their outcomes. However, Jen-Hwa Hu et al.’S (2007) research can be scrutinised based upon the way in which they chose to place students into groups. Even though they created two random groups of students and later in their paper revealed that one group (face-to-face group) leaned toward abstract and reflective learning compared with the technology-assisted learning group, the authors did not assess the student’s levels of autonomy, intelligence or indeed their understanding of the English language.

The English language course, as noted by the authors is a compulsory component of any university degree taken in the Hong Kong University. By failing to factor in this element when placing students into groups could have lead to biased results. Although intentions were made obvious by the authors to keep these groups as random as possible, this particular variable could have had a significant impact on the outcome of learning effectiveness. Evidently this significant variable was not quantified.

Additionally, upon discovering that the groups were biased in their formation i.e. one group had a favoured learning style which is key to assessing the effectiveness of learning and student outcomes, the authors did not change the groups or repeat their experiment for a second time with could of lead to weighted results in favour of their predetermined outcomes.

Education assignment 代写:  技术辅助学习与学习

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注