Effectiveness of Modern Teaching Methods; Evidence from Digital Learning Model of Modern Teaching Methods
AbstractThis paper elucidates the efficacy of three selected modern and innovative methods of learning by taking a group of 80 students of economics class at university level. Their opinion regarding three selected modern teaching methods was obtained through a questionnaire and statistical analysis of their opinion was carried out which indicated strong tendency towards mutual practice method as 40 out of 80 students (50%) declared it as very effective method of learning in the practice stage. On the other hand, 30 students (37.5%) opined that controlled practice method is moderately effective and 28 (35%) students opined that team practice method is slightly effective. After this analysis, students were put to practically learn use of econometric software ‘E Views’ through the same three selected methods. The digital model for their learning process was created using Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Assisted Software (CAQDAS). The statistical analysis of students’ opinion and digital analysis of practical learning process indicated that mutual practice is the most effective method of practice. It is because students learn better and fast when they are allowed to use their initiative and judgment. At the end, guidelines for effective teaching have been suggested.
Birdsall, N. (2005). Towards universal primary education: Investments, incentives, and institutions. European Journal of Education, 40, 337-349.
Broadhead, P. (2010). Play and learning in early childhood settings: Theory and practice, Sage, London, 203-209.
Corts, D. P. (2000). Assessing undergraduate satisfaction with an academic department. College Student Journal, 34(3), 399-408.
Fabian, H. (2009). Development and learning for young children, Sage, London, 133-169.
Ives, B. (2001).A preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic skills it training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Towards a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Jones, H. (1999). Research framework and dimensions for evaluating the effectiveness of educational systems on learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 17-27.
Lin, I. M. (2002). Innovative teaching - starting from the professional ethics of teachers. Secondary Education, 4, 36-49.
Siraj Blatchford, I. (2008). Understanding the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and progression in learning. Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 3–13.
Sylva, K. (2006). Assessing quality in the early years, Trentham Books Ltd, 36-76.
Teven, J. J. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46(1), 1-9.
Wu, C. S. (1987). Important concept and implementation strategy of creative teaching, Taiwan Education, 614.
Wood, E. (2005). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum, Paul Chapman, London, 56-72.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers editorial team at IFRD edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.