• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

您的教学策略很重要:参与度如何影响健康信息素养教学中的应用。

Your teaching strategy matters: how engagement impacts application in health information literacy instruction.

作者信息

Johnson Heather A, Barrett Laura

出版信息

J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):44-48. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.8.

DOI:10.5195/jmla.2017.8
PMID:28096745
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5234460/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare two pedagogical methods, active learning and passive instruction, to determine which is more useful in helping students to achieve the learning outcomes in a one-hour research skills instructional session.

METHODS

Two groups of high school students attended an instructional session to learn about consumer health resources and strategies to enhance their searching skills. The first group received passive instruction, and the second engaged in active learning. We assessed both groups' learning using 2 methods with differing complexity. A total of 59 students attended the instructional sessions (passive instruction, n=28; active learning, n=31).

RESULTS

We found that the active learning group scored more favorably in four assessment categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Active learning may help students engage with and develop a meaningful understanding of several resources in a single session. Moreover, when using a complex teaching strategy, librarians should be mindful to gauge learning using an equally complex assessment method.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较两种教学方法,即主动学习和被动讲授,以确定在一小时的研究技能教学课程中,哪种方法在帮助学生实现学习成果方面更有用。

方法

两组高中生参加了一个教学课程,学习消费者健康资源以及提高搜索技能的策略。第一组接受被动讲授,第二组进行主动学习。我们使用两种不同复杂程度的方法评估两组的学习情况。共有59名学生参加了教学课程(被动讲授组,n = 28;主动学习组,n = 31)。

结果

我们发现主动学习组在四个评估类别中得分更高。

结论

主动学习可能有助于学生在单个课程中参与并对多种资源形成有意义的理解。此外,在使用复杂的教学策略时,图书馆员应注意使用同样复杂的评估方法来衡量学习情况。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba95/5234460/b493848cb1c2/jmla-105-44f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba95/5234460/b493848cb1c2/jmla-105-44f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba95/5234460/b493848cb1c2/jmla-105-44f1.jpg

相似文献

1
Your teaching strategy matters: how engagement impacts application in health information literacy instruction.您的教学策略很重要:参与度如何影响健康信息素养教学中的应用。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):44-48. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.8.
2
[Training, the key to improving eHealth literacy of upper secondary school students].[培训,提高高中生电子健康素养的关键]
Gac Sanit. 2018 Jan-Feb;32(1):48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.12.005. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
3
Engaging students in active learning: use of a blog and audience response system.让学生参与主动学习:博客和观众反应系统的应用
Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(1):12-8. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2011.540206.
4
Assessment of knowledge and skills in information literacy instruction for rehabilitation sciences students: a scoping review.康复科学专业学生信息素养教学的知识与技能评估:一项范围综述
J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):15-37. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.227. Epub 2018 Jan 2.
5
Developing information literacy skills in pre-registration nurses: an experimental study of teaching methods.培养注册护士的信息素养技能:教学方法的实验研究。
Nurse Educ Today. 2013 Feb;33(2):103-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.12.003. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
6
Educational Outcomes of Small-Group Discussion Versus Traditional Lecture Format in Dental Students' Learning and Skills Acquisition.小组讨论与传统讲座形式在牙科学生学习和技能获取方面的教育成果
J Dent Educ. 2016 Apr;80(4):459-65.
7
Better learning through instructional science: a health literacy case study in "how to teach so learners can learn".通过教学科学实现更好的学习:“如何教学才能让学习者学会”中的健康素养案例研究
Health Promot Pract. 2012 Sep;13(5):648-56. doi: 10.1177/1524839911432928. Epub 2012 Mar 27.
8
Evaluating effectiveness of small group information literacy instruction for Undergraduate Medical Education students using a pre- and post-survey study design.采用前后调查研究设计评估针对本科医学教育学生的小组信息素养教学的有效性。
Health Info Libr J. 2015 Jun;32(2):120-30. doi: 10.1111/hir.12098. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
9
Addressing health literacy: the experiences of undergraduate nursing students.解决健康素养问题:本科护生的经验。
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Mar;19(5-6):794-802. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02991.x.
10
Comparison of three instructional methods for teaching cardiopulmonary resuscitation and use of an automatic external defibrillator to high school students.三种向高中生教授心肺复苏术及自动体外除颤器使用方法的教学方法比较。
Resuscitation. 2006 Jun;69(3):443-53. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.08.020. Epub 2006 May 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Digital Tools in Behavior Change Support Education in Health and Other Students: A Systematic Review.行为改变支持教育中的数字工具对健康及其他专业学生的影响:一项系统综述
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Dec 21;10(1):1. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10010001.
2
The Student Engagement Effect of Team-Based Learning on Student Pharmacists.基于团队学习对学生药剂师的学生参与度的影响。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2022 Jun;86(5):8567. doi: 10.5688/ajpe8567. Epub 2021 Sep 14.
3
A pilot project to increase health literacy among youth from seasonal farmworker families in rural eastern North Carolina: a qualitative exploration of implementation and impact.

本文引用的文献

1
Identifying key features of effective active learning: the effects of writing and peer discussion.识别有效主动学习的关键特征:写作与同伴讨论的效果
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014 Fall;13(3):469-77. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0242.
2
Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions.同伴讨论与教师讲解相结合能提高学生课堂概念问题学习效果。
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011 Spring;10(1):55-63. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101.
3
A tool for measuring active learning in the classroom.一种用于衡量课堂中主动学习情况的工具。
一项提高北卡罗来纳州东部农村季节性农业工人家庭青少年健康素养的试点项目:对实施和影响的定性探索。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Apr;107(2):179-186. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2019.560. Epub 2019 Apr 1.
4
Highlighting a valuable dimension in health care librarianship: A systematic review.凸显医疗保健图书馆事业的一个重要维度:一项系统综述。
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018 May 27;32:42. doi: 10.14196/mjiri.32.42. eCollection 2018.
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 Oct 15;71(5):85. doi: 10.5688/aj710585.