Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 1992. / Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

No description available.

In a series of five experiments, the effectiveness of using worked examples to teach grade 8 and 9 students the process of translating a written sentence into an algebraic equation, was examined from a cognitive load perspective. The first experiment compared the use of worked examples with a problemsolving strategy. Both for higher and lower levels of prior knowledge in mathematics, the worked examples format group performed significantly better than the problemsolving group. In experiment 2 the worked examples format was compared with an ??algorithm?? method for teaching students to write equations. No significant differences were found in performance on similar questions at either the higher or the lower levels of prior knowledge. However, for transfer questions and questions testing understanding, the performance of the worked examples format was significantly better than that of the algorithm format for the higher level of prior knowledge, though differences were not significant for the lower level. In experiment 3 worked examples using two different methods of checking the translation, the ??comparison?? method and the ??substitution?? method, were compared. No significant differences were found between the two methods for either knowledge group. In experiments 4 and 5 it was shown that grade 8 and 9 students were initially disadvantaged by the inclusion of a checking method. However, after a more substantial period of acquisition, for the students with a lower level of prior knowledge, those who received checking instructions performed significantly better than did those who did not receive such instructions. In contrast, higher knowledge students were continually disadvantaged by the inclusion of a checking method. Higher knowledge students receiving checking instructions experienced a significantly higher cognitive load than did those not receiving them, as shown by a measure of mental effort. The positive effect of checking for lower knowledge students and the negative effect for higher knowledge students in this domain is a further example of the expertise reversal effect. Evidence was found that the inclusion of checking instructions led to a redundancy effect for higher knowledge learners and caused retroactive inhibition for all learners.

In a series of five experiments, the effectiveness of using worked examples to teach grade 8 and 9 students the process of translating a written sentence into an algebraic equation, was examined from a cognitive load perspective. The first experiment compared the use of worked examples with a problemsolving strategy. Both for higher and lower levels of prior knowledge in mathematics, the worked examples format group performed significantly better than the problemsolving group. In experiment 2 the worked examples format was compared with an ??algorithm?? method for teaching students to write equations. No significant differences were found in performance on similar questions at either the higher or the lower levels of prior knowledge. However, for transfer questions and questions testing understanding, the performance of the worked examples format was significantly better than that of the algorithm format for the higher level of prior knowledge, though differences were not significant for the lower level. In experiment 3 worked examples using two different methods of checking the translation, the ??comparison?? method and the ??substitution?? method, were compared. No significant differences were found between the two methods for either knowledge group. In experiments 4 and 5 it was shown that grade 8 and 9 students were initially disadvantaged by the inclusion of a checking method. However, after a more substantial period of acquisition, for the students with a lower level of prior knowledge, those who received checking instructions performed significantly better than did those who did not receive such instructions. In contrast, higher knowledge students were continually disadvantaged by the inclusion of a checking method. Higher knowledge students receiving checking instructions experienced a significantly higher cognitive load than did those not receiving them, as shown by a measure of mental effort. The positive effect of checking for lower knowledge students and the negative effect for higher knowledge students in this domain is a further example of the expertise reversal effect. Evidence was found that the inclusion of checking instructions led to a redundancy effect for higher knowledge learners and caused retroactive inhibition for all learners.

Thesis PlanA (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 2000. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains xvi, 183 p. : ill. (some col.). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 160-173).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Notre Dame, 2006. / Thesis directed by John G. Borkowski for the Department of Psychology. "April 2006." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 67-72).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, May, 2007. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2006. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file viewed on (May 2, 2007) Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

The purpose of this study was to compare the flipped and traditional classroom pedagogies in relation to retention, critical thinking skills, and student engagement as measured by the multiple choice and short answer questions on the final exams, course evaluations, and CUCEI scores. Radiologic technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation therapists play vital roles in both diagnostic and therapeutic applications in patient care. Employers today are seeking graduates who know more, are better able to apply this knowledge, and solve more challenging problems (McLean, et al., 2016). This quasi-experimental study aimed to compare the flipped and traditional classroom pedagogies at increasing retention and critical thinking skills, as measured by final exams, and student engagement, as measured by course evaluations. The model was delivered and assessed for 61 radiation science students at Virginia Commonwealth University’s College of Health Professions Radiation Science program. Based on numerical results for the final exam and College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), no significant difference in critical thinking skills, retention, or student engagement was observed between the flipped and traditional pedagogies for radiation science students. For the purpose of this study, pedagogy referred to the application of a method of teaching, the flipped or traditional classroom, in relation to constructs of the Cognitive Learning Theory (CLT). For this study retention is defined as the amount of information that a student can retain for the length of a semester, 15 weeks. Critical thinking is defined as the students’ successful ability to take several concepts and put them together to make an analysis of a given situation. Student engagement for this study was defined as the level of attention and interest for the material being taught. Further analysis of the results indicated that the demographics (gender, age, years in college, and race) did not affect preference for flipped or traditional pedagogy. Statistically significant results on the CUCEI subcategories of satisfaction and innovation indicate that students found the flipped classroom more enjoyable and innovative than the traditional classroom. These results support professor exploration of different teaching pedagogies that they are comfortable with. Further studies are needed to ensure model validity and generalizability of findings.