MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W13904709 · doi:10.1177/070674376200700406

Educational studies in heat and power technology : how students learn with multimedia tools and problem-based learning

2005· article· en· W13904709 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yacine Abbes

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychiatric Association Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueExperimental Learning in Engineering
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultimediaComputer scienceEducational technologyMathematics educationPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Higher education is undergoing continuous changes and new learning tools and methods are implemented. Researchers in education do not always agree upon the effectiveness of some of the methods introduced into engineering education. The present thesis consists of two case studies on educational methods introduced at the Department of Energy Technology, at Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden. The qualitative research methodology has been used in case one and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology has been used in the second case. The sources of evidences consisted of: unstructured interviews, analysis of video recording, questionnaires, and analysis of a variety of documents. In the first case, an educational program in heat and power technology was analysed. The second case consists in an in-depth study of group dynamics in a Problem –Based Learning course. These studies showed that the learning approach adopted by students depends strongly on the way they view the particular learning tool or method. The first case study revealed the existence of two types of learners. Surfacelearners follow the structure suggested by the designers of the multimedia program. This category of learners focuses only on the material available in the program. Deep-learners go beyond the information and the structure suggested in the program and combine different learning tools in their learning. These students do not follow the structure of the tutorials’ of the multimedia program. This study showed that students who had a strong view how to learn with a multimedia program or a learning method benefited less from the learning tools available. Students with weak views on how to learn from educational program or leaning tool benefit less from the presentation and engage in more surface learning. Self-motivated learners use the multimedia presentation in novel ways and crosscheck the information given with other material. The second study showed that students have unclear and weak views on how to learn with student-directed Problem- Based Learning model. Four types of learners were identified in Problem-Based Learning project: Leaders, Key Actors, Common Students and Social Loafers. Leaders and Key Actors are self-motivated individuals and participate most in the projects. Students who viewed themselves or were viewed as leaders were held responsible to take most of the decisions and students expected them to work more than the average student. Students who viewed themselves as common team members expected a lower workload than leaders’. Key Actors are self-motivated students who do not view themselves as separate from other group members but who participate more than others. Leaders learned more group and social processes, that they did not fully take part in, while common students learned more from the project management aspects that they did not take part in. The study also found that Problem-Based Learning groups can become very cohesive, and can develop distorted views on how to learn with Problem-Based Learning, and un-common group dynamics phenomena such as groupthink can occur in Problem-Based Learning setting.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,066
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,613

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychiatric Association JournalMême sujetExperimental Learning in EngineeringTravaux en français237 207