Comparing Traditional and Studio Courses through FCI Gains and Losses
Comparing Traditional and Studio Courses through FCI Gains and Losses
复制标题
通过 FCI 的得失比较传统课程和工作室课程
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Pond
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jacquelyn J. Chini;J. Pond
我们分析了来自5500多名学生的数据，这些学生跨越了一个机构内的多个学期和教师，以探索在不同的教学方法（包括传统的讲座/实验课程、讲座支持的“迷你工作室”和工作室课程）中，“力量概念清单”得分的得失是如何变化的。我们观察到，随着考试前分数的增加，收益增加和损失减少的趋势，最初在各个机构中观察到，扩展到一个机构内的个人学生效应。测试前分数与得失之间的相关性在更少指导的教学策略中最不明显，比如工作室。此外，我们发现与传统课程相比，工作室型课程的得失相似或有所改善。这些趋势反驳了新手需要强力指导的说法。
We analyze data from over 5500 students, spanning multiple semesters and instructors within a single institution, to explore how Gains and Losses in Force Concept Inventory scores vary between instructional approaches, including traditional lecture/laboratory courses, lecture-supported “mini-studio” and studio courses. We observe that the trend for Gain to increase and Loss to decrease with increasing pre-test score, initially observed across institutions, extends to individual student effects within an institution. The correlations between pre-test score and Gain/Loss were least pronounced for more minimally guided instructional strategies, such as studio. Additionally, we find similar or improved Gains and Losses for studio-type courses compared to traditional courses. These trends argue against the claim that novices require strongly guided instruction.