made didactic lectures as one of the teaching- learning methods of choice by many medical universities worldwide . However, in an outcome based curriculum, teachers’ role goes beyond that of an information provider. Hence, adopting lectureclasses to achieve student learning outcomes such as, acquiring critical thinking, problem solving, and analytical and self-directed learning skills is challenging. In addition, students’ learning styles may vary in a class room. Students’ may prefer various modes of learning styles like visual, auditory, kinesthetic, reading and writing, including combinations of various modes of learning styles . Hence, lectureclasses must be fine-tuned to meet the requirement of all students.
There were no statistically significant differences between the four lectures in issues of ROLM (P = 0.440), RLVG (P = 0.268), RUVAR (P = 0.144), and RPFLH (P = 0.073). However, there was a statistically significant difference observed in RFOLC (0.045) among lectures (Table 4). Of the current study participants, only 70 (21%) think that the topic delivered as a lecture class can be discussed better in some other method. Although the majority (271 [79%]) of the participants feel the lecture was the best method for this topic, only 24 (7%) of 341 students suggested methods that can be adapted to improve the quality of the teach- ing and learning. Suggested methods are using videos, using a whiteboard, providing take-home tasks, and changing the lan- guage of delivery (Table 5). Only 8 (2%) students recommend methods for overall improvement of the quality of the lectureclasses. Those recommendations were using videos, using a whiteboard, optimizing the slide presentation, and improving interaction (Table 6).
Larger courses tend to be conducted as “lecture-centric”, with limited opportunities for students to interact with the instructor (Boyer, 1987). It is generally agreed that a shift in large-class format from “lecture-centric” to “active learning” is desirable for student learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Prince, 2004). Improvements in student engagement and/or learning have been reported through use of more active learning methods utilizing student response systems (Addison, Wright, & Milner, 2009; Cain, Black, & Rohr, 2009; Crossgrove & Curran, 2008; Gauci, et al., 2009; Judson & Sawada, 2002) and collaborative projects (Roberts, 2005; Skala, Slater, & Adams, 2000; Suchman, et al., 2000). Moreover, there is growing evidence that personal response systems (PRS) can improve engagement (Addison,
Peer instruction was developed to provide a mechanism for introducing effective pedagogy into lectureclasses without having to make acute changes to course content or organization (Mazur, 1997). Peer instruction introduces the use of conceptual multiple choice questions, conceptests, that are initially analyzed by students working alone, and then in a pair or a small group. This technique and has been effectively used in STEM disciplines such as physics and chemistry (e.g., Mazur, 1997; Kovac, 1999); however, there have been few reports on the use of conceptests in the geosciences (McConnell et al., 2003; Greer and Heaney, 2004) and no attempts to examine the: 1. Integration of peer instruction into the wide variety of geoscience classes; 2. Use of different student response methods; and, 3. Contrasts among institutions with academically distinct student populations. This paper describes the classroom procedures employed, as well as instructor and student qualitative and quantitative responses to the introduction of peer instruction into introductory geoscience courses. This study utilized several different student response methods to answer conceptests at higher education institutions across the United States representing a variety of student populations. Our data show that instructors easily integrated conceptests into instruction and that their use measurably improved student comprehension, attendance and enthusiasm.
BIO 1144 GENERAL BIOLOGY II, Lecture and Laboratory - A combined lecture and laboratory course for science majors that reinforces concepts introduced in BIO 1134 General Biology I, while emphasizing the diversity of life. Topics covered include evolution, classification, ecology, detailed consideration of each group of organisms and viruses, study of animals and plants including their basic anatomy and physiology. Labs associated with this course contain experiments and exercises that reinforce the principles introduced in lectureclasses. (Course description change effective Fall 2011)
The use of technology in hospitality education is becoming more of a commonplace; yet, globally it is not widely used in large lectureclasses. In today’s hospitality learning world, there is an opportunity to influence a new way of looking at the learning models that is more in line with our diverse student population. Education quests for innovative approaches to help the learners gain knowledge then apply it to the hospitality industry. Kose (2012) suggests that the time is now to blend better educational methods,
The survey consisted of twelve multiple-choice questions and four short answer questions. The first three multiple-choice questions asked where the students received the information about the survey, what their class standing was, and what science classes they have taken. The fourth and fifth questions asked how often PowerPoint and white/chalk boards are used in the participant’s science classes. This helped the researchers ensure that both methods were used in the participant’s science classes. The sixth and seventh questions asked how often participants copy PowerPoint and chalk/white board notes word for word. This was to give the researchers insight as to whether or not there is a difference in the way notes are taken depending on the type of lecture presentation that is used. The eighth, ninth, and tenth questions all asked participants to choose which type of lecture they felt was most effective for exam review, comprehending material, and keeping their attention. This was to help the researchers better understand why participants preferred a certain type of lecture presentation. The eleventh and twelfth questions were meant to show which method students preferred overall and which they felt best enhanced their experience in science lectureclasses. These questions were the most directly attached to the research question. The four short answer questions were valuable because they allowed participants to expand on why they liked and disliked both methods of lecture. The short answer questions were randomized so that participants were not led in either a PowerPoint or chalk/white board direction. The short answer questions were asked in a way that encouraged participants to share at least one thing they liked about PowerPoints and chalk/white boards and one thing they disliked about PowerPoints and chalk/white boards.
The proforma had three main sections. The first section contained general information of the subjects like age, sex, pre-medical qualifying exam, residence, the class XII learning medium, etc. The approximate monthly family income and the number of family members were also enquired about, to get an idea about their socio-economic statuses, by calculation with the help of the modified Prasad’s scale. The second section dealt with a two point scoring system (below satisfactory and above satisfactory) for six parameters which explored the comfort of the lecture venue. The parameters were accommodation, black-board visibility from the last bench, lighting, teacher audibility from the last bench, ventilation and the temperature-cum-humidity control. The third section was the single best response type multiple choice questions on the preference of the teaching media, lecture hours/day, lectureclasses/week, timing of the lectureclasses, breaks between the lectureclasses, notification of the class routine in advance, parity of the lecture topics with the practical classes, the utility of taking class notes, attendance records and sudden tests, as well as the language problems in the lectureclasses, if any. At the end of this section, an open ended question was also placed, to record their suggestions.
The major changes implemented in 2012 were to the assessment for the unit. In response to student feedback and the lecturer’s reflections, a few key changes were made. Assessment A1 (see Table 3) was removed and kept only as a practical class exercise. Also, assessment A2 was modified so that students only needed to propose one level concept, rather than two. Assessment A4 was also removed, as students had required earlier, ongoing, and more immediate feedback on their progress. In place of assessment items A1 and A4, a participation mark for the practical classes was introduced instead. Students could gain a maximum of 35% of their grade for the unit by participating in practical classes, which included completing set exercises, participating in discussions, and working effectively with their teams on their projects. Another key change to the assessment was that students were required to clearly separate out the theoretical justifications in their proposals and design documents by using text boxes. In this way, the design could be kept clean and emulate a professional document, but still include the necessary theoretical
Argument analysis. A second key component of critical and higher-order thinking is the ability to fairly and thoroughly analyze text (e.g., Blessing & Blessing, 2010). Argument analysis refers to the evaluation of the validity and credibility of arguments as well as a general skepticism towards statements of knowledge (Blessing & Blessing, 2010; Gold et al., 2002; McPeck, 1990; Missimer, 1986; Moore, 1989; Paul et al., 1993). Argument analysis includes assertions or propositions followed by facts or principles, which are given in evidence to support the assertions (Bensley, 2010; Bensley, Crowe, Bernhardt, Buckner, & Allman, 2010; Beyer, 1985; Toulmin, Ricke, & Jarki, 1984; Scriven, 1976). Blessing and Blessing (2010) found that students who practiced dissecting and evaluating arguments achieved higher gains in general critical thinking skills than students who did not. Adam and Manson (2014) found that students who engaged in an argument activity were better at critically evaluating an infomercial with obvious flaws in its claims than students who received lecture instruction.
 H.I. Okagbue, P.E. Oguntunde, P.O. Ugwoke, A.A. Opanuga “Classes of Ordinary Differential Equations Obtained for the Probability Functions of Exponentiated Generalized Exponential Distribution,” In Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science: Proceedings of The World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2017, 25-27 October, 2017, San Francisco, U.S.A., pp 192-197.
Lecture notes will be posted (in PowerPoint format only) on Blackboard ~24 hours before each lecture. Within one week following the lecture, an optional quiz based on the week’s lecture will be posted on Blackboard. The quiz will allow students to i) assess their basic understanding of the lecture content, ii) think critically and creatively about lecture content, as well as apply lecture content to novel situations and problems, and iii) prepare for Term Tests and Final Exam. Students are strongly encouraged to discuss these quizzes with the course instructor when they encounter any difficulties, whether by email or during office hours (preferably).
The relevant metadata can be automatically gathered from lecture videos by using appropriate analysis techniques. They can help a user to find and to understand lecture contents more efficiently, and the learning effectiveness can be improved. We present an approach for automated video indexing and video search in large lecture video archive. We extract outline of lecture from visual resources and organize videos based on contents.
class definitions, purpose statements Obtaining classes from the class di- agram is an almost mechanical affair. Each box is translated accord- ing to a standard recipe. Containment arrows correspond to the type specifications of fields; refinement arrows become implements spec- ifications; and all boxes, except for those of interfaces, are equipped with a constructor. You must add a one-line purpose statement to each class that explains which information the class represents or a short paragraph that explains the entire collection of classes. As rep- resentations become complex, these explanations should provide de- tailed explanations for the move from information to data (and back). Only one part in his step needs your full attention: whether a field should have the same value for all instances of this class. If so, use an initialization equation with the field; otherwise, add the field as a parameter to the constructor and add an equation of the shape this. field = field to the constructor.
The present study was an attempt to demonstrate an innovative model to curriculum developers, educators and teachers, as well as researchers to overcome the important obstacles in teacher professional development. In this study, it was investigated if the flipped professional development would make any significant difference in the experimental and control group engagements and their attitudes toward flipped professional development. The results indicated significant higher perceived classroom engagement in flipped professional development. The participants reported a preference for the flipped approach over traditional/lecture-based teaching confirming other findings Hardin et.al, (2016). From the above presented data analysis, it can be found that novice English teachers involved in the present study preferred the innovative idea of flipped professional development because flipped classroom helped teachers become more engaged in learning process, as mentioned by Vaughan (2014). Teachers’ questionnaire revealed an increase in their perceived engagement, which confirmed the