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



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。


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.


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


电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注