User talk:Bluefoxicy/AggressiveTestEngine: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Ian Bicking (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'm currently using automated multiple-choice questions on an amateur radio training course ... the questions are not the training though, and if I was asked multiple times about a question that I got wrong, I'd probably continue to get it wrong, and that would reinforce my incorrectness. However, if you gave the right answer immediately after the failed question, this might cause learning ... but then it wouldn't be a test engine, but rather a training engine. -- JamesCameron |
I'm currently using automated multiple-choice questions on an amateur radio training course ... the questions are not the training though, and if I was asked multiple times about a question that I got wrong, I'd probably continue to get it wrong, and that would reinforce my incorrectness. However, if you gave the right answer immediately after the failed question, this might cause learning ... but then it wouldn't be a test engine, but rather a training engine. -- JamesCameron |
||
---- |
|||
A small flashcard web app (in Python, so could be locally hosted, or just made non-web, or simply remade since it's not a complex app): http://jtauber.com/quisition |
|||
I don't think the source is public, but I'm sure the author would be willing to open source it if asked. |
|||
I think it's a common pattern for flashcards. It trusts the student to determine if they got the answer right. Potentially typing an answer would give better results for some students, but I don't know. Relying on the student means relying on self-motivation. Though you can still give the student some motivation if you track the time and accuracy, and give them a target to reach. This way they can see their own progress over time. |
|||
This style of learning seems particularly well suited to vocabulary words. |
|||
-- [[User:Ian Bicking]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:55, 10 October 2006
Interesting premise, and my gut feel is that it would work, but "it is hoped" sounds a bit vague ... isn't there any research on this as a teaching method? -- JamesCameron
I'm currently using automated multiple-choice questions on an amateur radio training course ... the questions are not the training though, and if I was asked multiple times about a question that I got wrong, I'd probably continue to get it wrong, and that would reinforce my incorrectness. However, if you gave the right answer immediately after the failed question, this might cause learning ... but then it wouldn't be a test engine, but rather a training engine. -- JamesCameron
A small flashcard web app (in Python, so could be locally hosted, or just made non-web, or simply remade since it's not a complex app): http://jtauber.com/quisition
I don't think the source is public, but I'm sure the author would be willing to open source it if asked.
I think it's a common pattern for flashcards. It trusts the student to determine if they got the answer right. Potentially typing an answer would give better results for some students, but I don't know. Relying on the student means relying on self-motivation. Though you can still give the student some motivation if you track the time and accuracy, and give them a target to reach. This way they can see their own progress over time.
This style of learning seems particularly well suited to vocabulary words.