实地考察的功能:有限与全面实地考察课程之比较

Lauren Fine, Telyn Peterson, Mat D. Duerden, R. Nelson, J. Bennion
{"title":"实地考察的功能:有限与全面实地考察课程之比较","authors":"Lauren Fine, Telyn Peterson, Mat D. Duerden, R. Nelson, J. Bennion","doi":"10.1353/ROE.2016.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fieldwork, an experiential and outdoor component of a traditional lecture class, has been effective in improving students' content knowledge and attitudes. However, most studies of these courses use a full lecture course as the comparison group rather than comparing amounts or types of fieldwork. This study compares two classes that incorporate fieldwork (n = 18 and 12 participants, respectively) and uses both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze changes in content knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived value of the subject (entomology). Pre-and post-test scores suggest that information memorization is best taught in a traditional classroom environment. Qualitative data illustrate that the most meaningful parts of the intensive field study course are regular interaction, curriculum flexibility, and a constant connection with nature. Thus, the data suggest that more intensive field study leads to self-actualization, learning from others, ecological awareness, and flexible thinking.","PeriodicalId":269462,"journal":{"name":"Research in Outdoor Education","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Function of Field Study: Comparison of Limited and Full Field Experience Courses\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Fine, Telyn Peterson, Mat D. Duerden, R. Nelson, J. Bennion\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ROE.2016.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Fieldwork, an experiential and outdoor component of a traditional lecture class, has been effective in improving students' content knowledge and attitudes. However, most studies of these courses use a full lecture course as the comparison group rather than comparing amounts or types of fieldwork. This study compares two classes that incorporate fieldwork (n = 18 and 12 participants, respectively) and uses both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze changes in content knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived value of the subject (entomology). Pre-and post-test scores suggest that information memorization is best taught in a traditional classroom environment. Qualitative data illustrate that the most meaningful parts of the intensive field study course are regular interaction, curriculum flexibility, and a constant connection with nature. Thus, the data suggest that more intensive field study leads to self-actualization, learning from others, ecological awareness, and flexible thinking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Outdoor Education\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Outdoor Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ROE.2016.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Outdoor Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ROE.2016.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实地考察是传统课堂教学中一种体验式的户外活动,在提高学生的学习内容、知识和态度方面非常有效。然而,这些课程的大多数研究使用完整的讲座课程作为对照组,而不是比较实地考察的数量或类型。本研究比较了两个包含实地考察的班级(分别为18名和12名参与者),并使用定量和定性方法来分析内容知识、自我效能感和学科(昆虫学)感知价值的变化。测试前和测试后的分数表明,在传统的课堂环境中,信息记忆是最好的。定性数据表明,密集实地学习课程最有意义的部分是定期互动,课程灵活性和与自然的持续联系。因此,数据表明,更深入的实地研究导致自我实现,向他人学习,生态意识和灵活的思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Function of Field Study: Comparison of Limited and Full Field Experience Courses
Fieldwork, an experiential and outdoor component of a traditional lecture class, has been effective in improving students' content knowledge and attitudes. However, most studies of these courses use a full lecture course as the comparison group rather than comparing amounts or types of fieldwork. This study compares two classes that incorporate fieldwork (n = 18 and 12 participants, respectively) and uses both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze changes in content knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived value of the subject (entomology). Pre-and post-test scores suggest that information memorization is best taught in a traditional classroom environment. Qualitative data illustrate that the most meaningful parts of the intensive field study course are regular interaction, curriculum flexibility, and a constant connection with nature. Thus, the data suggest that more intensive field study leads to self-actualization, learning from others, ecological awareness, and flexible thinking.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Relationship Between Leadership Style and Group Cohesion in Outdoor Education The Unnecessary Prescription of Transcription: The Promise of Audio-coding in Interview Research Adolescent Sense of Belonging in Outdoor Adventure Education: The Influence of Conflict and Instructors Dynamic Horizons: A Research and Conceptual Summary of Outdoor Education by Chloe Humphreys (review) Exploring Motivations and Constraints of Minority Participation: College Outdoor Adventure Programs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1