customizr-pro domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/learni16/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114<\/p>\n
Harry Roy (2003) used pre- and post-testing to assess two methods of teaching mathematical problems associated with genetics to small classes (10 to 40 students):<\/p>\n
* studio classes – ‘a mixture of student exercises, instructor coaching, and sometimes laboratory experiments, draw their inspiration from the idea of interactive learning and generally take advantage of modern technology to delivery instructional materials’ (p. 3). Some materials did not lend themselves to interactive delivery, so traditional, lecture-style sessions were necessary.
\n* interactive lecture demonstration – students are asked to predict the outcome of a demonstration. The demonstration is then conducted with discussion of results and presentation of relevant theory.<\/p>\n
The measured gain in learning was significantly greater in the studio classes. Class averages for the studio method were higher: 85% vs 74%. The average for the studio class also had a lower standard deviation (10% vs 21%). These indicate that the studio classes had aided the poorer students.<\/p>\n
The author had hoped to find no difference between the teaching methods so that larger classes could be effectively accommodated by the interactive lecture demonstration method, allowing fewer deliveries of the unit each year! However, his findings did not support this hope. Although he suggests that his implementation of the interactive lecture might have been sub-optimal, ethical considerations for the students have driven him to retain the studio method.<\/p>\n