- ข้อความ
- ประวัติศาสตร์
equivalent on basic characteristics
equivalent on basic characteristics. They included a participant questionnaire,
a comprehension pretest, a spatial ability test, and a
motivation questionnaire. The participant questionnaire solicited information
concerning the students’ age and sex. The comprehension
pretest consisted of 25 multiple-choice items and was intended to
assess students’ prior-knowledge of information covered in the text.
Students’ spatial ability was measured with a 10 multiple-choice
paper-folding items taken from a battery of cognitive tests developed
by Ekstrom, French, and Harman (1976). The motivation
questionnaire assessed students’ current motivation for doing the
learning task after reading the instructions before the lesson. It consisted
of nine items from the challenge and interest subscales of the
Questionnaire on CurrentMotivation (QCM) developed by Rheinberg,
Vollmeyer, and Burns (2001). Cognitive load by means of invested
mental effortwas measured using the 7-point subjective rating scale
developed by Paas (1992), which ranges from (1) very low mental
effort to (7) very high mental effort. Cognitive load by means of perceived
task difficultywas measured using the 7-point subjective rating
scale developed by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1999), which
ranges from (1) very easy to (7) very difficult. These subjective measures
have been criticized for assessing cognitive load with only single
items (e.g., Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). However, several studies
showed the effectiveness of the rating scale by showing that the variation
in learners’ cognitive load ratings depended on variations in
task complexity or instructional design (for overviews see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Van Gog & Paas, 2008). In
this regard, Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2011) conclude that “the
simple subjective rating scale, regardless of thewording used (mental
effort or difficulty), has, perhaps surprisingly, been shown to be the
most sensitive measure available to differentiate the cognitive load
imposed by different instructional procedures” (p. 74). For that reason
and due to the economic applicability we decided to use this kind
of cognitive load measurement, while acknowledging the limitations
of a short, self-report instrument.
The two learning booklets each included a science text on the
biology of the influenza. The text explained the causal steps regarding
an infection with influenza and regarding the immune
response, which is an unfamiliar subject for eighth graders in higher
track secondary schools due to the German curriculum. The text consisted
of approximately 850 words (in German) and was divided into
seven paragraphs (as shown in Table 1).
The drawing version of the booklet contained seven pairs of facing
pages with a text paragraph on the left page and a two-part drawing
prompt on the right page. The first part of the drawing prompt included
a legend showing all the relevant elements (in total eight
elements) for drawing a picture for that text paragraph (as shown
in the top of Fig. 1). The second part of the drawing prompt included
a partly pre-drawn background for students’ drawing (as
shown in the bottom of Fig. 1). Overall, students had to make seven
drawings, i.e., one drawing to each paragraph.
The control version of the learning booklet contained four pairs
of facing pages with one of the seven text paragraph on each page.
Students in both groups learned with exactly the same text material.
To make sure that students in the control group learned
with the same amount of information as students in the drawing
group, all elements of the drawing prompt as well as the spatial
relations between these elements were also described in the science
text.
The two posttests intended to assess the learning outcomes were
a comprehension posttest and a drawing posttest. The comprehension
posttest (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) consisted of 25 multiplechoice
items (the same items as in the comprehension pretest) and
was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the factual and
conceptual information covered in the text as well as their ability
to transfer what was presented to new situations. An item example
is “T-helper cells do not only recognize viruses, but also agents that
are extraneous to the body. Which medication would you administer
to a patient, who has received a new kidney? (a) a medicine
that suppresses the immune response of the body, (b) a medicine
that activates the immune response of the body, (c) a medicine that
contains antigens, or (d) amedicine that contains blood of the kidney
donor” [(a) is the correct answer]. The drawing test (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.81) was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the
conceptual information presented in the science text by means of
drawing. That is, students had to reproduce the main ideas given
in the text by drawing. It consisted of three drawing items, in which
students were asked to draw sketches depicting key concepts of the
text and their spatial relations. An item example for the drawing
test is “How does an influenza virus invade a cell, and how is it reproduced?”
The science text, the drawing prompt and the learning
outcome tests were constructed by the first author in cooperation
with a biology teacher. The materials were adapted from
Schwamborn et al. (2010); however, using another science domain,
and including measures of individual learning times and cognitive
load.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were tested in the schools’ classrooms. Within their
classes, they were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.
Groups were tested in separate classrooms, in order to insure that
students in the drawing group did not feel rushed when students
in the control group completed the task early. Each student was
seated at an individual desk. First, students were given the participant
questionnaire and the comprehension pretest to complete at
their own rate. Second, students filled in the paper-folding test with
a 3 min time limit. Third, students were given instructional booklets
corresponding to their assigned group. After they had read the
instructions for reading the booklets, students’ current motivation
for doing the learning taskwas assessed. Next, students started learning
with the text material corresponding to their treatment group.
Students were instructed to carefully read the text on the biology
of the influenza in order to comprehend the material. Students in
the drawing condition were instructed to read the text and additionally
to draw pictures for each text paragraph using the drawing
prompt representing the main ideas of each text paragraph. That
is, students had to use the pictorial elements given in the legend
such as the virus as templates for their own paper-pencil based
drawing across the pre-dawn background. Students in the control
group were instructed to read the text for comprehension, but were
not instructed to engage in drawing. Students in both groups learned
at their own pace, whereby individual learning time was measured
by the instructors in the classrooms. Fourth, in order to ensure
comparable testing procedures after finishing learning with the
whole learning material, students in both groups directly rated the
amount of mental effort he or she had invested during learning and
the amount of difficulty he or she had perceived during learning.
Fifth, students received the comprehension posttest consisting of
a comprehension pretest, a spatial ability test, and a
motivation questionnaire. The participant questionnaire solicited information
concerning the students’ age and sex. The comprehension
pretest consisted of 25 multiple-choice items and was intended to
assess students’ prior-knowledge of information covered in the text.
Students’ spatial ability was measured with a 10 multiple-choice
paper-folding items taken from a battery of cognitive tests developed
by Ekstrom, French, and Harman (1976). The motivation
questionnaire assessed students’ current motivation for doing the
learning task after reading the instructions before the lesson. It consisted
of nine items from the challenge and interest subscales of the
Questionnaire on CurrentMotivation (QCM) developed by Rheinberg,
Vollmeyer, and Burns (2001). Cognitive load by means of invested
mental effortwas measured using the 7-point subjective rating scale
developed by Paas (1992), which ranges from (1) very low mental
effort to (7) very high mental effort. Cognitive load by means of perceived
task difficultywas measured using the 7-point subjective rating
scale developed by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1999), which
ranges from (1) very easy to (7) very difficult. These subjective measures
have been criticized for assessing cognitive load with only single
items (e.g., Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). However, several studies
showed the effectiveness of the rating scale by showing that the variation
in learners’ cognitive load ratings depended on variations in
task complexity or instructional design (for overviews see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Van Gog & Paas, 2008). In
this regard, Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2011) conclude that “the
simple subjective rating scale, regardless of thewording used (mental
effort or difficulty), has, perhaps surprisingly, been shown to be the
most sensitive measure available to differentiate the cognitive load
imposed by different instructional procedures” (p. 74). For that reason
and due to the economic applicability we decided to use this kind
of cognitive load measurement, while acknowledging the limitations
of a short, self-report instrument.
The two learning booklets each included a science text on the
biology of the influenza. The text explained the causal steps regarding
an infection with influenza and regarding the immune
response, which is an unfamiliar subject for eighth graders in higher
track secondary schools due to the German curriculum. The text consisted
of approximately 850 words (in German) and was divided into
seven paragraphs (as shown in Table 1).
The drawing version of the booklet contained seven pairs of facing
pages with a text paragraph on the left page and a two-part drawing
prompt on the right page. The first part of the drawing prompt included
a legend showing all the relevant elements (in total eight
elements) for drawing a picture for that text paragraph (as shown
in the top of Fig. 1). The second part of the drawing prompt included
a partly pre-drawn background for students’ drawing (as
shown in the bottom of Fig. 1). Overall, students had to make seven
drawings, i.e., one drawing to each paragraph.
The control version of the learning booklet contained four pairs
of facing pages with one of the seven text paragraph on each page.
Students in both groups learned with exactly the same text material.
To make sure that students in the control group learned
with the same amount of information as students in the drawing
group, all elements of the drawing prompt as well as the spatial
relations between these elements were also described in the science
text.
The two posttests intended to assess the learning outcomes were
a comprehension posttest and a drawing posttest. The comprehension
posttest (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) consisted of 25 multiplechoice
items (the same items as in the comprehension pretest) and
was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the factual and
conceptual information covered in the text as well as their ability
to transfer what was presented to new situations. An item example
is “T-helper cells do not only recognize viruses, but also agents that
are extraneous to the body. Which medication would you administer
to a patient, who has received a new kidney? (a) a medicine
that suppresses the immune response of the body, (b) a medicine
that activates the immune response of the body, (c) a medicine that
contains antigens, or (d) amedicine that contains blood of the kidney
donor” [(a) is the correct answer]. The drawing test (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.81) was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the
conceptual information presented in the science text by means of
drawing. That is, students had to reproduce the main ideas given
in the text by drawing. It consisted of three drawing items, in which
students were asked to draw sketches depicting key concepts of the
text and their spatial relations. An item example for the drawing
test is “How does an influenza virus invade a cell, and how is it reproduced?”
The science text, the drawing prompt and the learning
outcome tests were constructed by the first author in cooperation
with a biology teacher. The materials were adapted from
Schwamborn et al. (2010); however, using another science domain,
and including measures of individual learning times and cognitive
load.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were tested in the schools’ classrooms. Within their
classes, they were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.
Groups were tested in separate classrooms, in order to insure that
students in the drawing group did not feel rushed when students
in the control group completed the task early. Each student was
seated at an individual desk. First, students were given the participant
questionnaire and the comprehension pretest to complete at
their own rate. Second, students filled in the paper-folding test with
a 3 min time limit. Third, students were given instructional booklets
corresponding to their assigned group. After they had read the
instructions for reading the booklets, students’ current motivation
for doing the learning taskwas assessed. Next, students started learning
with the text material corresponding to their treatment group.
Students were instructed to carefully read the text on the biology
of the influenza in order to comprehend the material. Students in
the drawing condition were instructed to read the text and additionally
to draw pictures for each text paragraph using the drawing
prompt representing the main ideas of each text paragraph. That
is, students had to use the pictorial elements given in the legend
such as the virus as templates for their own paper-pencil based
drawing across the pre-dawn background. Students in the control
group were instructed to read the text for comprehension, but were
not instructed to engage in drawing. Students in both groups learned
at their own pace, whereby individual learning time was measured
by the instructors in the classrooms. Fourth, in order to ensure
comparable testing procedures after finishing learning with the
whole learning material, students in both groups directly rated the
amount of mental effort he or she had invested during learning and
the amount of difficulty he or she had perceived during learning.
Fifth, students received the comprehension posttest consisting of
0/5000
เทียบเท่ากับลักษณะพื้นฐาน จะรวมแบบสอบถามผู้เข้าร่วมpretest ทำความเข้าใจ การทดสอบความสามารถในพื้นที่ และแบบสอบถามแรงจูงใจ แบบสอบถามที่ผู้เรียนร้องขอข้อมูลเกี่ยวข้องกับอายุและเพศของนักเรียน การทำความเข้าใจประกอบด้วย 25 รายการ multiple-choice pretest และมีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อประเมินนักเรียนก่อนรู้ข้อมูลที่ครอบคลุมอยู่ในข้อความนักเรียนความสามารถในพื้นที่ถูกวัด ด้วยสิบ multiple-choiceพัฒนามาจากการทดสอบรับรู้สินค้าพับกระดาษโดย Ekstrom ฝรั่งเศส และ Harman (1976) แรงจูงใจแบบสอบถามประเมินแรงจูงใจที่ปัจจุบันนักเรียนสำหรับการทำการงานเรียนรู้หลังจากอ่านคำแนะนำก่อนเรียน มันประกอบด้วย9 รายการจาก subscales ท้าทายและดอกเบี้ยของการแบบสอบถามบน CurrentMotivation (QCM) พัฒนา โดย RheinbergVollmeyer และเบิร์น (2001) โหลดรับรู้ผ่านการลงทุนeffortwas จิตที่วัดโดยใช้มาตราส่วนประเมินตามอัตวิสัย 7 จุดพัฒนา โดย Paas (1992), ซึ่งมีตั้งแต่ (1) มากจิตใจต่ำพยายามพยายามจิตสูงมาก (7) โหลดรับรู้ผ่านการมองเห็นdifficultywas งานวัดโดยใช้คะแนนตามอัตวิสัย 7 จุดระดับพัฒนา โดย Kalyuga, Chandler และ Sweller (1999), ซึ่งช่วงจาก (1) ง่ายไป (7) ยากมาก มาตรการเหล่านี้ตามอัตวิสัยมีการวิพากษ์วิจารณ์การประเมินรับรู้โหลดแบบเดี่ยวเท่านั้นรายการ (เช่น Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003) อย่างไรก็ตาม การศึกษาหลายแสดงให้เห็นประสิทธิภาพของระดับคะแนนตามที่แสดงการเปลี่ยนแปลงในโหลดรับรู้ของผู้เรียนจัดอันดับขึ้นอยู่กับรูปแบบในความซับซ้อนของงานหรือการออกแบบการสอน (สำหรับดูภาพรวม PaasTuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003 ตู้สนามและ Paas, 2008) ในนี้สัมมาคารวะ Sweller ออ และ Kalyuga (2011) ที่สรุป "การจัดอันดับตามอัตวิสัยอย่างขนาด ไม่ใช้ thewording (จิตความพยายามหรือความยากลำบาก), ได้ บางทีจู่ ๆ การแสดงต้องการวัดสำคัญที่สุดจะแตกโหลดรับรู้กำหนด โดยวิธีการสอนแตกต่างกัน" (p. 74) สำหรับเหตุผลที่และเนื่องจากความเกี่ยวข้องของเศรษฐกิจ เราตัดสินใจที่จะใช้ชนิดนี้วัดโหลดรับรู้ ในขณะที่ยอมรับข้อจำกัดตนเองรายงานตราสารของระยะสั้นสองเรียนเล่มละรวมข้อวิทยาศาสตร์การชีววิทยาของไข้หวัดใหญ่ ข้อความที่อธิบายขั้นตอนเชิงสาเหตุเกี่ยวกับติดเชื้อไข้หวัดใหญ่ และเกี่ยวข้อง กับภูมิคุ้มกันตอบ ซึ่งเป็นที่คุ้นเคยสำหรับนักเรียนชั้นที่แปดในเรื่องสูงติดตามโรงเรียนมัธยมเนื่องจากหลักสูตรภาษาเยอรมัน ประกอบด้วยข้อความของประมาณ 850 คำ (ในภาษาเยอรมัน) และถูกแบ่งออกเป็นย่อหน้า 7 (ดังแสดงในตารางที่ 1)รุ่นหนังสือวาดอยู่เจ็ดคู่หันหน้าเข้าหาหน้า ด้วยข้อความย่อหน้าบนหน้าซ้ายและสองส่วนรูปวาดถามหน้าขวา ส่วนแรกของรูปวาดที่แสดงพร้อมท์ให้รวมคำอธิบายแผนภูมิแสดงองค์ประกอบที่เกี่ยวข้องทั้งหมด (รวมแปดองค์ประกอบ) สำหรับการวาดรูปสำหรับย่อหน้าข้อความ (ตามที่แสดงด้านบนของ Fig. 1) ส่วนสองของรูปวาดที่แสดงพร้อมท์ให้รวมพื้นหลังบางส่วนออกก่อนสำหรับนักวาดเป็นแสดงด้านล่างของ Fig. 1) คำ นักเรียนได้ทำให้เซเว่นภาพวาด เช่น หนึ่งวาดแต่ละย่อหน้ารุ่นควบคุมหนังสือเรียนมีอยู่ 4 คู่ของหน้าของย่อหน้าข้อความเจ็ดในแต่ละหน้านักเรียนทั้งกลุ่มได้เรียนรู้ ด้วยว่าวัสดุเดียวกับที่ข้อความเพื่อให้แน่ใจว่า นักเรียนกลุ่มควบคุมเรียนรู้มีจำนวนข้อมูลนักเรียนวาดรูปเดียวกันกลุ่ม องค์ประกอบทั้งหมดของรูปวาดให้เป็นพื้นที่ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างองค์ประกอบเหล่านี้ยังถูกอธิบายในศาสตร์ข้อความPosttests สองวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อประเมินผลลัพธ์การเรียนรู้ได้posttest ทำความเข้าใจและ posttest วาด การทำความเข้าใจposttest (อัลฟาของ Cronbach = 0.83) ประกอบด้วย 25 multiplechoiceรายการ (รายการเดียวใน pretest ทำความเข้าใจ) และมีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อประเมินความเข้าใจของนักเรียนของที่จริง และข้อมูลแนวคิดที่ครอบคลุมอยู่ในข้อความที่เป็นความสามารถในการการถ่ายโอนสิ่งนำเสนอกับสถานการณ์ใหม่ ตัวอย่างสินค้าเป็น "เซลล์ผู้ช่วย T ไม่เพียงรู้จักไวรัส แต่แทนที่จะไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับร่างกาย คุณจัดการการใช้ยาที่to a patient, who has received a new kidney? (a) a medicinethat suppresses the immune response of the body, (b) a medicinethat activates the immune response of the body, (c) a medicine thatcontains antigens, or (d) amedicine that contains blood of the kidneydonor” [(a) is the correct answer]. The drawing test (Cronbach’salpha = 0.81) was intended to assess students’ comprehension of theconceptual information presented in the science text by means ofdrawing. That is, students had to reproduce the main ideas givenin the text by drawing. It consisted of three drawing items, in whichstudents were asked to draw sketches depicting key concepts of thetext and their spatial relations. An item example for the drawingtest is “How does an influenza virus invade a cell, and how is it reproduced?”The science text, the drawing prompt and the learningoutcome tests were constructed by the first author in cooperationwith a biology teacher. The materials were adapted fromSchwamborn et al. (2010); however, using another science domain,and including measures of individual learning times and cognitiveload.2.3. ProcedureParticipants were tested in the schools’ classrooms. Within theirclasses, they were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.Groups were tested in separate classrooms, in order to insure thatstudents in the drawing group did not feel rushed when studentsin the control group completed the task early. Each student wasนั่งที่โต๊ะแต่ละตัว ครั้งแรก นักเรียนได้รับผู้เข้าร่วมแบบสอบถามและ pretest ทำความเข้าใจให้สมบูรณ์ที่อัตราของตนเอง สอง นักเรียนกรอกข้อมูลการทดสอบพับกระดาษด้วยจำกัดเวลา 3 นาที ที่สาม นักเรียนได้รับงานสอนที่สอดคล้องกับการกำหนดกลุ่ม หลังจากที่พวกเขาได้อ่านคำแนะนำสำหรับการอ่านแบบหนังสือ นักเรียนปัจจุบันแรงจูงใจสำหรับการทำ taskwas การเรียนรู้ที่ประเมิน ถัดไป นักเรียนที่เริ่มเรียนรู้ด้วยวัสดุข้อความที่สอดคล้องกับการรักษาของพวกเขานักเรียนได้รับคำแนะนำอย่างระมัดระวังอ่านข้อความในชีววิทยาของไข้หวัดใหญ่เพื่อเข้าใจวัสดุ นักเรียนในเงื่อนไขรูปวาดถูกสั่งให้อ่านข้อความ และนอกจากนี้วาดภาพในแต่ละย่อหน้าข้อความโดยใช้รูปวาดแสดงความคิดหลักของแต่ละย่อหน้าข้อความพร้อมต์ ว่ามี นักเรียนมีการใช้องค์ประกอบจำในตำนานเช่นไวรัสเป็นต้นแบบสำหรับตนกระดาษดินสอตามวาดภาพในพื้นหลังก่อนรุ่งอรุณ นักเรียนในการควบคุมกลุ่มถูกสั่งให้อ่านข้อความสำหรับทำความเข้าใจ แต่ถูกรับคำแนะนำในการวาดไม่ นักเรียนทั้งกลุ่มที่เรียนรู้ที่ก้าวของตนเอง โดยมีวัดเวลาการเรียนรู้โดยผู้สอนในห้องเรียน สี่ เพื่อให้แน่ใจสามารถเปรียบเทียบวิธีการทดสอบหลังจากเสร็จสิ้นการเรียนรู้ด้วยการทั้งวัสดุการเรียนรู้ นักเรียนทั้งสองกลุ่มโดยตรงอันดับจิตใจเขาหรือเธอได้ลงทุนในระหว่างเรียน และจำนวนปัญหาที่เขาหรือเธอได้รับรู้ในระหว่างเรียนห้า นักศึกษารับ posttest ความเข้าใจประกอบด้วย
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
equivalent on basic characteristics. They included a participant questionnaire,
a comprehension pretest, a spatial ability test, and a
motivation questionnaire. The participant questionnaire solicited information
concerning the students’ age and sex. The comprehension
pretest consisted of 25 multiple-choice items and was intended to
assess students’ prior-knowledge of information covered in the text.
Students’ spatial ability was measured with a 10 multiple-choice
paper-folding items taken from a battery of cognitive tests developed
by Ekstrom, French, and Harman (1976). The motivation
questionnaire assessed students’ current motivation for doing the
learning task after reading the instructions before the lesson. It consisted
of nine items from the challenge and interest subscales of the
Questionnaire on CurrentMotivation (QCM) developed by Rheinberg,
Vollmeyer, and Burns (2001). Cognitive load by means of invested
mental effortwas measured using the 7-point subjective rating scale
developed by Paas (1992), which ranges from (1) very low mental
effort to (7) very high mental effort. Cognitive load by means of perceived
task difficultywas measured using the 7-point subjective rating
scale developed by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1999), which
ranges from (1) very easy to (7) very difficult. These subjective measures
have been criticized for assessing cognitive load with only single
items (e.g., Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). However, several studies
showed the effectiveness of the rating scale by showing that the variation
in learners’ cognitive load ratings depended on variations in
task complexity or instructional design (for overviews see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Van Gog & Paas, 2008). In
this regard, Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2011) conclude that “the
simple subjective rating scale, regardless of thewording used (mental
effort or difficulty), has, perhaps surprisingly, been shown to be the
most sensitive measure available to differentiate the cognitive load
imposed by different instructional procedures” (p. 74). For that reason
and due to the economic applicability we decided to use this kind
of cognitive load measurement, while acknowledging the limitations
of a short, self-report instrument.
The two learning booklets each included a science text on the
biology of the influenza. The text explained the causal steps regarding
an infection with influenza and regarding the immune
response, which is an unfamiliar subject for eighth graders in higher
track secondary schools due to the German curriculum. The text consisted
of approximately 850 words (in German) and was divided into
seven paragraphs (as shown in Table 1).
The drawing version of the booklet contained seven pairs of facing
pages with a text paragraph on the left page and a two-part drawing
prompt on the right page. The first part of the drawing prompt included
a legend showing all the relevant elements (in total eight
elements) for drawing a picture for that text paragraph (as shown
in the top of Fig. 1). The second part of the drawing prompt included
a partly pre-drawn background for students’ drawing (as
shown in the bottom of Fig. 1). Overall, students had to make seven
drawings, i.e., one drawing to each paragraph.
The control version of the learning booklet contained four pairs
of facing pages with one of the seven text paragraph on each page.
Students in both groups learned with exactly the same text material.
To make sure that students in the control group learned
with the same amount of information as students in the drawing
group, all elements of the drawing prompt as well as the spatial
relations between these elements were also described in the science
text.
The two posttests intended to assess the learning outcomes were
a comprehension posttest and a drawing posttest. The comprehension
posttest (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) consisted of 25 multiplechoice
items (the same items as in the comprehension pretest) and
was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the factual and
conceptual information covered in the text as well as their ability
to transfer what was presented to new situations. An item example
is “T-helper cells do not only recognize viruses, but also agents that
are extraneous to the body. Which medication would you administer
to a patient, who has received a new kidney? (a) a medicine
that suppresses the immune response of the body, (b) a medicine
that activates the immune response of the body, (c) a medicine that
contains antigens, or (d) amedicine that contains blood of the kidney
donor” [(a) is the correct answer]. The drawing test (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.81) was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the
conceptual information presented in the science text by means of
drawing. That is, students had to reproduce the main ideas given
in the text by drawing. It consisted of three drawing items, in which
students were asked to draw sketches depicting key concepts of the
text and their spatial relations. An item example for the drawing
test is “How does an influenza virus invade a cell, and how is it reproduced?”
The science text, the drawing prompt and the learning
outcome tests were constructed by the first author in cooperation
with a biology teacher. The materials were adapted from
Schwamborn et al. (2010); however, using another science domain,
and including measures of individual learning times and cognitive
load.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were tested in the schools’ classrooms. Within their
classes, they were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.
Groups were tested in separate classrooms, in order to insure that
students in the drawing group did not feel rushed when students
in the control group completed the task early. Each student was
seated at an individual desk. First, students were given the participant
questionnaire and the comprehension pretest to complete at
their own rate. Second, students filled in the paper-folding test with
a 3 min time limit. Third, students were given instructional booklets
corresponding to their assigned group. After they had read the
instructions for reading the booklets, students’ current motivation
for doing the learning taskwas assessed. Next, students started learning
with the text material corresponding to their treatment group.
Students were instructed to carefully read the text on the biology
of the influenza in order to comprehend the material. Students in
the drawing condition were instructed to read the text and additionally
to draw pictures for each text paragraph using the drawing
prompt representing the main ideas of each text paragraph. That
is, students had to use the pictorial elements given in the legend
such as the virus as templates for their own paper-pencil based
drawing across the pre-dawn background. Students in the control
group were instructed to read the text for comprehension, but were
not instructed to engage in drawing. Students in both groups learned
at their own pace, whereby individual learning time was measured
by the instructors in the classrooms. Fourth, in order to ensure
comparable testing procedures after finishing learning with the
whole learning material, students in both groups directly rated the
amount of mental effort he or she had invested during learning and
the amount of difficulty he or she had perceived during learning.
Fifth, students received the comprehension posttest consisting of
a comprehension pretest, a spatial ability test, and a
motivation questionnaire. The participant questionnaire solicited information
concerning the students’ age and sex. The comprehension
pretest consisted of 25 multiple-choice items and was intended to
assess students’ prior-knowledge of information covered in the text.
Students’ spatial ability was measured with a 10 multiple-choice
paper-folding items taken from a battery of cognitive tests developed
by Ekstrom, French, and Harman (1976). The motivation
questionnaire assessed students’ current motivation for doing the
learning task after reading the instructions before the lesson. It consisted
of nine items from the challenge and interest subscales of the
Questionnaire on CurrentMotivation (QCM) developed by Rheinberg,
Vollmeyer, and Burns (2001). Cognitive load by means of invested
mental effortwas measured using the 7-point subjective rating scale
developed by Paas (1992), which ranges from (1) very low mental
effort to (7) very high mental effort. Cognitive load by means of perceived
task difficultywas measured using the 7-point subjective rating
scale developed by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1999), which
ranges from (1) very easy to (7) very difficult. These subjective measures
have been criticized for assessing cognitive load with only single
items (e.g., Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). However, several studies
showed the effectiveness of the rating scale by showing that the variation
in learners’ cognitive load ratings depended on variations in
task complexity or instructional design (for overviews see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Van Gog & Paas, 2008). In
this regard, Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2011) conclude that “the
simple subjective rating scale, regardless of thewording used (mental
effort or difficulty), has, perhaps surprisingly, been shown to be the
most sensitive measure available to differentiate the cognitive load
imposed by different instructional procedures” (p. 74). For that reason
and due to the economic applicability we decided to use this kind
of cognitive load measurement, while acknowledging the limitations
of a short, self-report instrument.
The two learning booklets each included a science text on the
biology of the influenza. The text explained the causal steps regarding
an infection with influenza and regarding the immune
response, which is an unfamiliar subject for eighth graders in higher
track secondary schools due to the German curriculum. The text consisted
of approximately 850 words (in German) and was divided into
seven paragraphs (as shown in Table 1).
The drawing version of the booklet contained seven pairs of facing
pages with a text paragraph on the left page and a two-part drawing
prompt on the right page. The first part of the drawing prompt included
a legend showing all the relevant elements (in total eight
elements) for drawing a picture for that text paragraph (as shown
in the top of Fig. 1). The second part of the drawing prompt included
a partly pre-drawn background for students’ drawing (as
shown in the bottom of Fig. 1). Overall, students had to make seven
drawings, i.e., one drawing to each paragraph.
The control version of the learning booklet contained four pairs
of facing pages with one of the seven text paragraph on each page.
Students in both groups learned with exactly the same text material.
To make sure that students in the control group learned
with the same amount of information as students in the drawing
group, all elements of the drawing prompt as well as the spatial
relations between these elements were also described in the science
text.
The two posttests intended to assess the learning outcomes were
a comprehension posttest and a drawing posttest. The comprehension
posttest (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) consisted of 25 multiplechoice
items (the same items as in the comprehension pretest) and
was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the factual and
conceptual information covered in the text as well as their ability
to transfer what was presented to new situations. An item example
is “T-helper cells do not only recognize viruses, but also agents that
are extraneous to the body. Which medication would you administer
to a patient, who has received a new kidney? (a) a medicine
that suppresses the immune response of the body, (b) a medicine
that activates the immune response of the body, (c) a medicine that
contains antigens, or (d) amedicine that contains blood of the kidney
donor” [(a) is the correct answer]. The drawing test (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.81) was intended to assess students’ comprehension of the
conceptual information presented in the science text by means of
drawing. That is, students had to reproduce the main ideas given
in the text by drawing. It consisted of three drawing items, in which
students were asked to draw sketches depicting key concepts of the
text and their spatial relations. An item example for the drawing
test is “How does an influenza virus invade a cell, and how is it reproduced?”
The science text, the drawing prompt and the learning
outcome tests were constructed by the first author in cooperation
with a biology teacher. The materials were adapted from
Schwamborn et al. (2010); however, using another science domain,
and including measures of individual learning times and cognitive
load.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were tested in the schools’ classrooms. Within their
classes, they were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.
Groups were tested in separate classrooms, in order to insure that
students in the drawing group did not feel rushed when students
in the control group completed the task early. Each student was
seated at an individual desk. First, students were given the participant
questionnaire and the comprehension pretest to complete at
their own rate. Second, students filled in the paper-folding test with
a 3 min time limit. Third, students were given instructional booklets
corresponding to their assigned group. After they had read the
instructions for reading the booklets, students’ current motivation
for doing the learning taskwas assessed. Next, students started learning
with the text material corresponding to their treatment group.
Students were instructed to carefully read the text on the biology
of the influenza in order to comprehend the material. Students in
the drawing condition were instructed to read the text and additionally
to draw pictures for each text paragraph using the drawing
prompt representing the main ideas of each text paragraph. That
is, students had to use the pictorial elements given in the legend
such as the virus as templates for their own paper-pencil based
drawing across the pre-dawn background. Students in the control
group were instructed to read the text for comprehension, but were
not instructed to engage in drawing. Students in both groups learned
at their own pace, whereby individual learning time was measured
by the instructors in the classrooms. Fourth, in order to ensure
comparable testing procedures after finishing learning with the
whole learning material, students in both groups directly rated the
amount of mental effort he or she had invested during learning and
the amount of difficulty he or she had perceived during learning.
Fifth, students received the comprehension posttest consisting of
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
equivalent on basic characteristics. They included a participant questionnaire,
a comprehension pretest, a spatial ability test, and a
motivation questionnaire. The participant questionnaire solicited information
concerning the students’ age and sex. The comprehension
pretest consisted of 25 multiple-choice items and was intended to
ประเมินความรู้เดิมของนักเรียน ข้อมูลที่กล่าวถึงในข้อความ .
นักเรียนวัดความสามารถด้านมิติสัมพันธ์แบบพับกระดาษกับ 10
สินค้าถ่ายจากแบตเตอรี่ของการทดสอบการคิดพัฒนา
โดยเอ็กสเตริม ฝรั่งเศส และ Harman ( 1976 ) แรงจูงใจแรงจูงใจของนักเรียน แบบสอบถามประเมินปัจจุบัน
งานทำหลังจากการเรียนการอ่านคำแนะนำก่อนบทเรียนมันประกอบด้วย
รายการจากความท้าทายและน่าสนใจของ
โดยแบบสอบถาม currentmotivation เก้า ( QCM ) ที่พัฒนาโดย Rheinberg
vollmeyer , และการเผาไหม้ ( 2001 ) การโหลดด้วยวิธีการลงทุน
จิต effortwas วัดโดยใช้ 7-point อัตนัยมาตราส่วน
พัฒนาโดย PaaS ( 1992 ) ซึ่งช่วงจาก ( 1 ) ต่ำมากจิต
ความพยายาม ( 7 ) สูงมาก ความพยายามของจิต Cognitive load by means of perceived
task difficultywas measured using the 7-point subjective rating
scale developed by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1999), which
ranges from (1) very easy to (7) very difficult. These subjective measures
have been criticized for assessing cognitive load with only single
items (e.g., Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). However, several studies
showed the effectiveness of the rating scale by showing that the variation
in learners’ cognitive load ratings depended on variations in
task complexity or instructional design (for overviews see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Van Gog & Paas, 2008). In
this regard, Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2011) conclude that “the
simple subjective rating scale,ไม่ว่า thewording ใช้ ( ความพยายามทางจิต
หรือยาก ) ได้ บางทีน่าแปลกใจที่ถูกแสดงเป็นวัดที่มีความแตกต่างที่บอบบางที่สุด
โหลดการบังคับโดยขั้นตอนการสอนที่แตกต่าง " ( หน้า 74 ) สำหรับเหตุผลที่
และเนื่องจากเศรษฐกิจมาส เราตัดสินใจที่จะใช้ชนิดของการวัด
โหลด รับรู้ ในขณะที่ยอมรับข้อจำกัด
ของสั้น self-report instrument.
The two learning booklets each included a science text on the
biology of the influenza. The text explained the causal steps regarding
an infection with influenza and regarding the immune
response, which is an unfamiliar subject for eighth graders in higher
track secondary schools due to the German curriculum. The text consisted
of approximately 850 words (in German) and was divided into
seven paragraphs (as shown in Table 1).
The drawing version of the booklet contained seven pairs of facing
pages with a text paragraph on the left page and a two-part drawing
prompt on the right page. The first part of the drawing prompt included
a legend showing all the relevant elements (in total eight
a comprehension pretest, a spatial ability test, and a
motivation questionnaire. The participant questionnaire solicited information
concerning the students’ age and sex. The comprehension
pretest consisted of 25 multiple-choice items and was intended to
ประเมินความรู้เดิมของนักเรียน ข้อมูลที่กล่าวถึงในข้อความ .
นักเรียนวัดความสามารถด้านมิติสัมพันธ์แบบพับกระดาษกับ 10
สินค้าถ่ายจากแบตเตอรี่ของการทดสอบการคิดพัฒนา
โดยเอ็กสเตริม ฝรั่งเศส และ Harman ( 1976 ) แรงจูงใจแรงจูงใจของนักเรียน แบบสอบถามประเมินปัจจุบัน
งานทำหลังจากการเรียนการอ่านคำแนะนำก่อนบทเรียนมันประกอบด้วย
รายการจากความท้าทายและน่าสนใจของ
โดยแบบสอบถาม currentmotivation เก้า ( QCM ) ที่พัฒนาโดย Rheinberg
vollmeyer , และการเผาไหม้ ( 2001 ) การโหลดด้วยวิธีการลงทุน
จิต effortwas วัดโดยใช้ 7-point อัตนัยมาตราส่วน
พัฒนาโดย PaaS ( 1992 ) ซึ่งช่วงจาก ( 1 ) ต่ำมากจิต
ความพยายาม ( 7 ) สูงมาก ความพยายามของจิต Cognitive load by means of perceived
task difficultywas measured using the 7-point subjective rating
scale developed by Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1999), which
ranges from (1) very easy to (7) very difficult. These subjective measures
have been criticized for assessing cognitive load with only single
items (e.g., Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). However, several studies
showed the effectiveness of the rating scale by showing that the variation
in learners’ cognitive load ratings depended on variations in
task complexity or instructional design (for overviews see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Van Gog & Paas, 2008). In
this regard, Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga (2011) conclude that “the
simple subjective rating scale,ไม่ว่า thewording ใช้ ( ความพยายามทางจิต
หรือยาก ) ได้ บางทีน่าแปลกใจที่ถูกแสดงเป็นวัดที่มีความแตกต่างที่บอบบางที่สุด
โหลดการบังคับโดยขั้นตอนการสอนที่แตกต่าง " ( หน้า 74 ) สำหรับเหตุผลที่
และเนื่องจากเศรษฐกิจมาส เราตัดสินใจที่จะใช้ชนิดของการวัด
โหลด รับรู้ ในขณะที่ยอมรับข้อจำกัด
ของสั้น self-report instrument.
The two learning booklets each included a science text on the
biology of the influenza. The text explained the causal steps regarding
an infection with influenza and regarding the immune
response, which is an unfamiliar subject for eighth graders in higher
track secondary schools due to the German curriculum. The text consisted
of approximately 850 words (in German) and was divided into
seven paragraphs (as shown in Table 1).
The drawing version of the booklet contained seven pairs of facing
pages with a text paragraph on the left page and a two-part drawing
prompt on the right page. The first part of the drawing prompt included
a legend showing all the relevant elements (in total eight
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ภาษาอื่น ๆ
การสนับสนุนเครื่องมือแปลภาษา: กรีก, กันนาดา, กาลิเชียน, คลิงออน, คอร์สิกา, คาซัค, คาตาลัน, คินยารวันดา, คีร์กิซ, คุชราต, จอร์เจีย, จีน, จีนดั้งเดิม, ชวา, ชิเชวา, ซามัว, ซีบัวโน, ซุนดา, ซูลู, ญี่ปุ่น, ดัตช์, ตรวจหาภาษา, ตุรกี, ทมิฬ, ทาจิก, ทาทาร์, นอร์เวย์, บอสเนีย, บัลแกเรีย, บาสก์, ปัญจาป, ฝรั่งเศส, พาชตู, ฟริเชียน, ฟินแลนด์, ฟิลิปปินส์, ภาษาอินโดนีเซี, มองโกเลีย, มัลทีส, มาซีโดเนีย, มาราฐี, มาลากาซี, มาลายาลัม, มาเลย์, ม้ง, ยิดดิช, ยูเครน, รัสเซีย, ละติน, ลักเซมเบิร์ก, ลัตเวีย, ลาว, ลิทัวเนีย, สวาฮิลี, สวีเดน, สิงหล, สินธี, สเปน, สโลวัก, สโลวีเนีย, อังกฤษ, อัมฮาริก, อาร์เซอร์ไบจัน, อาร์เมเนีย, อาหรับ, อิกโบ, อิตาลี, อุยกูร์, อุสเบกิสถาน, อูรดู, ฮังการี, ฮัวซา, ฮาวาย, ฮินดี, ฮีบรู, เกลิกสกอต, เกาหลี, เขมร, เคิร์ด, เช็ก, เซอร์เบียน, เซโซโท, เดนมาร์ก, เตลูกู, เติร์กเมน, เนปาล, เบงกอล, เบลารุส, เปอร์เซีย, เมารี, เมียนมา (พม่า), เยอรมัน, เวลส์, เวียดนาม, เอสเปอแรนโต, เอสโทเนีย, เฮติครีโอล, แอฟริกา, แอลเบเนีย, โคซา, โครเอเชีย, โชนา, โซมาลี, โปรตุเกส, โปแลนด์, โยรูบา, โรมาเนีย, โอเดีย (โอริยา), ไทย, ไอซ์แลนด์, ไอร์แลนด์, การแปลภาษา.
- รวมทั้งหลีกเลี่ยงภาษี กับผลโทษที่พวกเขาจ
- ความกดดัน
- ใจหมด
- ตำรวจนายนั้นมองดูพวกเขา ชายเจ้าของร่มก็เ
- รักมากนะ
- เอกอังกฤษ
- อาหารกลางวัน
- We speak later about the time ok
- คริสเตียโน โรนัลโด เกิดเมื่อวันที่ 5 กุม
- ประเพณีตักบาตรเทโวโรหณะ
- When I see you I mean
- โปรดนำมาไว้ที่ส่วนกลาง
- thankthanks
- นม
- OMG..............I was the one who was j
- ฉันกินแล้ว
- hi dear nice day
- i am feeling you now darling
- ค้นหา
- จะเห็นได้จากเหตุการณ์การเรียกร้องประชาธิ
- So it's not Boston.
- challenging environment where I can serv
- สืบทอดประเพณี
- มาแยลู
