Feldstein et al. (2012) found that students in courses using open text terjemahan - Feldstein et al. (2012) found that students in courses using open text Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

Feldstein et al. (2012) found that

Feldstein et al. (2012) found that students in courses using open textbooks
typically had higher grades and lower failure and withdrawal rates than those in
courses with traditional textbooks. However, they did note significant limitations to
their study suggesting that they provided only interesting data to be more rigorously
pursued in the future.
Similarly, a case study presented by Hilton et al. (2013) focused on four math
classes at Scottsdale Community College. These classes used the same departmental
exam for each course for several years, which allowed faculty members to compare
how students did on department exams when OER were used as compared with
previous semesters. OER replaced traditional learning materials in fall 2012, and
student results at the end of this semester were approximately the same as those
obtained by students in fall 2011 and fall 2010.
Pawlyshyn et al. (2013) found that when OER material was integrated into the
math courses at Mercy College, student learning significantly increased. The pass
rates of math courses increased from 63.6 % in fall 2011 (when traditional learning
materials were employed) to 68.9 % in fall 2012 when all courses were taught with
OER. Similarly, students who were enrolled in OER versions of a reading course
performed better than their peers who enrolled in the same course using non-OER
materials.
Recent research indicates that a majority of faculty members perceive OER to be
of approximately the same quality as traditional textbooks. Allen and Seaman
(2014) surveyed 2144 college professors regarding OER. Of the 34 % (729) who
were aware of OER, 61.5 % indicated OER had about the same ‘‘trusted quality’’ as
traditional resources, 26.3 % said that traditional resources were superior, and
12.1 % said that OER were superior. Similarly, 68.2 % said that the ‘‘proven
efficacy’’ were about the same, 16.5 % said that OER had superior efficacy, and
15.3 % said that traditional resources had superior efficacy.
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
Feldstein et al. (2012) found that students in courses using open textbookstypically had higher grades and lower failure and withdrawal rates than those incourses with traditional textbooks. However, they did note significant limitations totheir study suggesting that they provided only interesting data to be more rigorouslypursued in the future.Similarly, a case study presented by Hilton et al. (2013) focused on four mathclasses at Scottsdale Community College. These classes used the same departmentalexam for each course for several years, which allowed faculty members to comparehow students did on department exams when OER were used as compared withprevious semesters. OER replaced traditional learning materials in fall 2012, andstudent results at the end of this semester were approximately the same as thoseobtained by students in fall 2011 and fall 2010.Pawlyshyn et al. (2013) found that when OER material was integrated into themath courses at Mercy College, student learning significantly increased. The passrates of math courses increased from 63.6 % in fall 2011 (when traditional learningmaterials were employed) to 68.9 % in fall 2012 when all courses were taught withOER. Similarly, students who were enrolled in OER versions of a reading courseperformed better than their peers who enrolled in the same course using non-OERmaterials.Recent research indicates that a majority of faculty members perceive OER to beof approximately the same quality as traditional textbooks. Allen and Seaman(2014) surveyed 2144 college professors regarding OER. Of the 34 % (729) whowere aware of OER, 61.5 % indicated OER had about the same ‘‘trusted quality’’ astraditional resources, 26.3 % said that traditional resources were superior, and12.1 % said that OER were superior. Similarly, 68.2 % said that the ‘‘provenefficacy’’ were about the same, 16.5 % said that OER had superior efficacy, and15.3 % said that traditional resources had superior efficacy.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
Feldstein et al. Ditemukan (2012) bahwa siswa di program menggunakan buku teks terbuka
biasanya memiliki nilai yang lebih tinggi dan lebih rendah tingkat kegagalan dan penarikan dibandingkan dengan
kursus dengan buku teks tradisional. Namun, mereka mencatat keterbatasan yang signifikan untuk
studi mereka menunjukkan bahwa mereka memberikan data hanya menarik untuk lebih ketat
dikejar di masa depan.
Demikian pula, sebuah studi kasus yang disajikan oleh Hilton et al. (2013) difokuskan pada empat matematika
kelas di Scottsdale Community College. Kelas-kelas ini menggunakan departemen yang sama
ujian untuk setiap kursus selama beberapa tahun, yang memungkinkan anggota fakultas untuk membandingkan
bagaimana siswa lakukan pada ujian departemen ketika OER digunakan dibandingkan dengan
semester sebelumnya. OER diganti bahan pembelajaran tradisional pada musim gugur 2012, dan
hasil siswa pada akhir semester ini adalah kurang lebih sama dengan yang
diperoleh siswa pada musim gugur 2011 dan jatuh 2010.
Pawlyshyn et al. (2013) menemukan bahwa ketika bahan OER telah diintegrasikan ke dalam
kursus matematika di Mercy College, belajar siswa meningkat secara signifikan. Lulus
tingkat kursus matematika meningkat dari 63,6% pada musim gugur 2011 (ketika belajar tradisional
bahan dipekerjakan) ke 68,9% pada musim gugur 2012 ketika seluruh materi diberikan dengan
OER. Demikian pula, siswa yang terdaftar dalam versi OER dari kursus membaca
dilakukan lebih baik daripada rekan-rekan mereka yang terdaftar dalam kursus yang sama menggunakan non-OER
bahan.
Penelitian terbaru menunjukkan bahwa mayoritas anggota fakultas memandang OER ​​menjadi
sekitar kualitas yang sama seperti tradisional buku teks. Allen dan Seaman
(2014) yang disurvei 2.144 dosen mengenai OER. Dari 34% (729) yang
menyadari OER, 61,5% menunjukkan OER memiliki tentang '' kualitas terpercaya 'sama' sebagai
sumber tradisional, 26,3% mengatakan bahwa sumber tradisional yang unggul, dan
12,1% mengatakan bahwa OER yang unggul. Demikian pula, 68,2% mengatakan bahwa '' terbukti
khasiat '' yang hampir sama, 16,5% mengatakan bahwa OER memiliki khasiat yang unggul, dan
15,3% mengatakan bahwa sumber daya tradisional memiliki khasiat yang unggul.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: