![]() We discuss reasons for teachers' overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement.Īctive learning Co-constructive learning Cognitive engagement Collaborative learning Constructive learning.Ĭopyright © 2018 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. This paper discusses a 5-year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers' understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers' classroom implementation, (d) modes of students' enacted behaviors, and (e) students' learning outcomes. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. There was a slight downward trend in repo rate uncertainty prior to the inception of the ON RRP operations which became much steeper after the operations had started. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co-generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. The implied volatility of repo rate forecast revisions, the uncertainty measure from our empirical model, is plotted in Figure 1. ![]() ![]() ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students' engagement based on their behaviors. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |