当前位置:
X-MOL 学术
›
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A comparison of online and traditional chemistry lecture and lab
Chemistry Education Research and Practice ( IF 3 ) Pub Date : 2017-12-18 00:00:00 , DOI: 10.1039/c7rp00173h E. K. Faulconer 1, 2, 3 , J. C. Griffith 1, 2, 3 , B. L. Wood 1, 2, 3 , S. Acharyya 1, 2, 3 , D. L. Roberts 1, 2, 3
Chemistry Education Research and Practice ( IF 3 ) Pub Date : 2017-12-18 00:00:00 , DOI: 10.1039/c7rp00173h E. K. Faulconer 1, 2, 3 , J. C. Griffith 1, 2, 3 , B. L. Wood 1, 2, 3 , S. Acharyya 1, 2, 3 , D. L. Roberts 1, 2, 3
Affiliation
While the equivalence between online and traditional classrooms has been well researched, very little effort has been expended to do such comparisons for college level introductory chemistry. The existing literature has only one study that investigated chemistry lectures at an entire course level as opposed to particular course components such as individual topics or exams. Regarding lab courses, only one study is available and it involves moderating variables that are largely uncontrolled. In this work, we compared the student pass rates, withdrawal rates, and grade distributions between asynchronous online and traditional formats of an introductory chemistry lecture as well as its associated lab course. The study was based on the 823 university records available for the 2015–2016 academic year. Student pass and withdrawal rates between the two modes were quite similar and did not appear to be statistically significant. However, grade distributions for both the lecture and lab differed between the two learning modes, showing significant statistical associations. Online students were more likely to earn As in both lecture and lab while traditional in-person students were more likely to earn Cs or Ds. Further research should include replication of this study with a larger data set. Additionally, this study should be repeated in three to five years to determine if advances in course design, standardization and delivery platforms further reduce or eliminate differences between learning modes. Future studies should also use qualitative tools for a better understanding of why students fail or withdraw from courses.
中文翻译:
在线和传统化学讲座和实验室的比较
尽管已经对在线教室和传统教室之间的等效性进行了充分研究,但很少花精力来进行此类比较以用于大学水平的入门化学。现有文献中只有一项研究是在整个课程级别上对化学讲座进行调查的,而与个别主题或考试等特定课程组成部分相反。关于实验室课程,只有一项研究可用,并且涉及调节很大程度上不受控制的变量。在这项工作中,我们比较了异步在线和传统化学入门课程及其相关实验课程的学生通过率,退学率和成绩分布。这项研究基于2015–2016学年的823份大学记录。两种模式之间的学生及格率和退学率非常相似,并且在统计学上没有显着意义。但是,在两种学习模式之间,课堂和课堂的成绩分布有所不同,显示出显着的统计关联。在线学生在课堂和实验室中都更有可能赚取“ A”,而传统的面对面学生则更有可能获得“ C”或“ D”。进一步的研究应包括该研究具有较大数据集的复制。此外,应该在三到五年内重复这项研究,以确定课程设计,标准化和授课平台方面的进步是否进一步减少或消除了学习模式之间的差异。未来的研究也应使用定性工具,以更好地了解学生为什么会失败或退出课程。
更新日期:2017-12-18
中文翻译:
在线和传统化学讲座和实验室的比较
尽管已经对在线教室和传统教室之间的等效性进行了充分研究,但很少花精力来进行此类比较以用于大学水平的入门化学。现有文献中只有一项研究是在整个课程级别上对化学讲座进行调查的,而与个别主题或考试等特定课程组成部分相反。关于实验室课程,只有一项研究可用,并且涉及调节很大程度上不受控制的变量。在这项工作中,我们比较了异步在线和传统化学入门课程及其相关实验课程的学生通过率,退学率和成绩分布。这项研究基于2015–2016学年的823份大学记录。两种模式之间的学生及格率和退学率非常相似,并且在统计学上没有显着意义。但是,在两种学习模式之间,课堂和课堂的成绩分布有所不同,显示出显着的统计关联。在线学生在课堂和实验室中都更有可能赚取“ A”,而传统的面对面学生则更有可能获得“ C”或“ D”。进一步的研究应包括该研究具有较大数据集的复制。此外,应该在三到五年内重复这项研究,以确定课程设计,标准化和授课平台方面的进步是否进一步减少或消除了学习模式之间的差异。未来的研究也应使用定性工具,以更好地了解学生为什么会失败或退出课程。