• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Comparative analysis of a nontraditional general chemistry textbook and selected traditional textbooks used in Texas community colleges.
【24h】

Comparative analysis of a nontraditional general chemistry textbook and selected traditional textbooks used in Texas community colleges.

机译：对非传统通用化学教科书和德克萨斯社区大学使用的某些传统教科书的比较分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The purpose of this study was to analyze questions within the chapters of a nontraditional general chemistry textbook and the four general chemistry textbooks most widely used by Texas community colleges in order to determine if the questions require higher- or lower-order thinking according to Bloom's taxonomy. The study employed quantitative methods. Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) was utilized as the main instrument in the study. Additional tools were used to help classify the questions into the proper category of the taxonomy (McBeath, 1992; Metfessel, Michael, & Kirsner, 1969).;The top four general chemistry textbooks used in Texas community colleges and Chemistry: A Project of the American Chemical Society (Bell et al., 2005) were analyzed during the fall semester of 2010 in order to categorize the questions within the chapters into one of the six levels of Bloom's taxonomy. Two coders were used to assess reliability. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential methods. The descriptive method involved calculation of the frequencies and percentages of coded questions from the books as belonging to the six categories of the taxonomy. Questions were dichotomized into higher- and lower-order thinking questions.;The inferential methods involved chi-square tests of association to determine if there were statistically significant differences among the four traditional college general chemistry textbooks in the proportions of higher- and lower-order questions and if there were statistically significant differences between the nontraditional chemistry textbook and the four traditional general chemistry textbooks. Findings indicated statistically significant differences among the four textbooks frequently used in Texas community colleges in the number of higher- and lower-level questions. Statistically significant differences were also found among the four textbooks and the nontraditional textbook. After the analysis of the data, conclusions were drawn, implications for practice were delineated, and recommendations for future research were given.
机译：这项研究的目的是分析非传统普通化学教科书和德克萨斯社区大学最广泛使用的四种普通化学教科书中的问题，以便根据Bloom的分类法确定问题是需要高阶还是低阶思维。该研究采用定量方法。 Bloom的分类法（Bloom，Engelhart，Furst，Hill和Krathwohl，1956年）被用作研究的主要工具。使用了其他工具来帮助将问题分类到分类学的适当类别中（McBeath，1992; Metfessel，Michael，＆Kirsner，1969）。为了将各章中的问题归类为Bloom的分类法的六个级别之一，在2010年秋季学期对American Chemical Society（Bell等，2005）进行了分析。使用两个编码器来评估可靠性。使用描述性和推论方法分析数据。描述性方法涉及计算书籍中属于六个分类法的编码问题的频率和百分比。将问题分为高阶和低阶思维问题；推理方法包括卡方检验，以确定四种传统的大学普通化学教科书在高低阶的比例上是否存在统计学上的显着差异问题，以及非传统化学教科书与四本传统常规化学教科书之间在统计上是否存在显着差异。调查结果表明，得克萨斯州社区大学经常使用的四本教科书在较高和较低级别的问题数量上在统计学上有显着差异。在四本教科书和非传统教科书之间也发现了统计学上的显着差异。在对数据进行分析之后，得出结论，描述了对实践的意义，并提出了对未来研究的建议。

著录项

  • 作者

    Salvato, Steven Walter.;

  • 作者单位

    Texas A&M University - Commerce.;

  • 授予单位 Texas A&M University - Commerce.;
  • 学科 Education Sciences.;Education Community College.;Education Higher.
  • 学位 Ed.D.
  • 年度 2011
  • 页码 189 p.
  • 总页数 189
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号