AU2001268838A1 - Method of electronically producing a lesson plan - Google Patents
Method of electronically producing a lesson planInfo
- Publication number
- AU2001268838A1 AU2001268838A1 AU2001268838A AU2001268838A AU2001268838A1 AU 2001268838 A1 AU2001268838 A1 AU 2001268838A1 AU 2001268838 A AU2001268838 A AU 2001268838A AU 2001268838 A AU2001268838 A AU 2001268838A AU 2001268838 A1 AU2001268838 A1 AU 2001268838A1
- Authority
- AU
- Australia
- Prior art keywords
- page
- development
- lesson
- lesson plan
- educator
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Description
METHOD OF ELECTRONICALLY PRODUCING A LESSON PLAN
This invention relates to a method of electronically producing a
lesson plan. In particular, although not exclusively, it relates to a method
of electronically producing lesson plans and/or teaching units and the like
using a three-dimensional structure comprising different educational
frameworks and strategies.
BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION
One feature of most education systems is the wide range of
results achieved by its students. The possible causes of this variation are
numerous. For example, the standard of results could be due to the level
of funding that an educational establishment receives. This is likely to be
dependent on whether the establishment is publicly or privately funded
and directly affects the resources available to both students and
educators. The standards achieved by students from a particular
establishment are also likely to be influenced by the geographical location
of the establishment. For example, students attending an educational
establishment in a remote location frequently do not achieve as highly as
students attending a more centrally located one.
Another probable explanation of the broad results spectrum is the
standard of the educator delivering the lessons, lectures or the like.
Capabilities of educators vary both within and between educational
establishments. Their age, their own education, their experience, and the
length of time being an educator are some factors that may affect these
capabilities. These factors are also likely to affect an educator's drive
and enthusiasm and consequently the quality of the lesson, lecture or the
like that they deliver. In turn, this will affect the quality of education that
the students receive.
A further problem is how to fairly assess educators' capabilities.
Students' results are often used as an indicator of an educator's
effectiveness. However, students' results are often not an accurate
reflection of how well an educator teaches his or her students.
One way of attempting to raise standards and reduce the gap
between students' high and low results is to improve the capabilities of
educators. One method of doing this is for educators to employ a range
of teaching strategies. Various teaching strategies and concepts are
known and one of these is the Multiple Intelligences Model developed by
Howard Gardner, (Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
Gardner, Howard, New York, Basic Books A83) . Thomas Armstrong
(Thomas Armstrong, Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, 1 994,
Association for the Supervisor and Curriculum Development, Alexandria,
VA) is one such educator who has promoted Gardner's work in the
regular classroom - Helen- McGrath and Toni Noble (Seven Ways at
Once, Classroom Strategies based on the Seven Intelligences, Adison-
Wesler, Longman Australia Pty Ltd, 1 995) - combined Gardner's Multiple
Intelligences Model with Bloom's (Bloom, B. S. (Ed) (1 956) Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1 , cognitive domain, New York,
Toronto, Longmans, Green) -- taxonomy of thinking (or cognitive)
processes to produce another model. The Applicant has also developed
these strategies to produce a matrix of sentence stems that incorporates
thinking and intelligence skills, cooperative and collaborative strategies
and the multiple intelligences.
Prior to conducting a lesson, lecture or the like, educators often
prepare lesson plans, lecture notes or schedules or the like. Such a plan
or schedule may be followed by the educator in delivering the lesson.
Alternatively, the educator and/or students may follow it when carrying
out the lesson activities and exercises.
Such lesson plans or teaching units are often hand written and are
consequently time-consuming to produce and amend. For example, it is
likely that they must be completely re-written to incorporate even small
changes to the lesson plan or teaching unit. Another problem is that the
educator must rely on their own educational skills and experience to
prepare an appropriate and effective lesson plan or the like. The educator
does not have a framework of teaching techniques and strategies around
which to form the lesson plan.
One alternative method of producing a lesson plan or the like is to
use a word processing computer application. Although a word-processed
lesson plan may be easily amended to incorporate changes, in
comparison with a hand written version, a word processing computer
application still has the drawback of not supporting the educator with
teaching techniques and methods upon which to form the lesson plan.
Some educational software tools have been developed, but most
of these are aimed at teaching subjects to students. The Applicant is
unaware of educational software tools currently available to assist
educators in the preparation of lesson plans, teaching units and the like
that provide a framework of teaching techniques and strategies around
which the educator may structure the lesson plans.
Thus, current methods of preparing lesson plans are time
consuming to use and/or enslaving and/or only partially, if at all, use the
large range of teaching and educational concepts available.
Many educators are aware of the aforementioned educational
strategies and techniques, although there are many that are less familiar
with them or even unaware of them. However, all educators and
educational establishments would like to increase their teaching
effectiveness by making full use of these concepts and strategies in a
simple and efficient way. Educators wish to enhance their career
prospects by improving their professional skills and by using technology.
Furthermore, establishments are keen to effectively assess the standards
of their educators.
OBJECT OF THE INVENTION
It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of
electronically producing a lesson plan, teaching unit or the like.
It is a further object of the invention to provide a method of
5 electronically producing a lesson plan, teaching unit or the like, which
incorporates the three structural dimensions of cognitive levels, multiple
intelligences and teaching/thinking strategies.
Other objects will be evident from the following discussion.
10 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In one form, although it need not be the only, or indeed the broadest,
form, the invention resides in a method of electronically producing a
lesson plan including the steps of:
selecting at least one development page from a master matrix,
15 each development page representing at least one intelligence and at least.
one cognitive level;
generating at least one formulated question or activity in the
development page using sentence stems provided responsive to said
selection;
20 selecting at least one of the formulated questions or activities; and
processing said selections to produce a lesson plan or the like from the
selected formulated questions and/or activities.
2. Preferably, said step of producing a lesson plan is according to
pre-selected criteria relating to teacher objectives, student outcomes or
available resources, or any combination thereof.
Preferably, the pre-selections are provided in an overview page.
Preferably, the step of producing a lesson plan further includes the
step of selecting criteria governing the lesson plan from an overview
page.
The overview page may include one or more of each of the
following: a subject area or theme, a target group, a specific task, an
educator objective, a student outcome and/or a list of available resources.
The master matrix may include columns representing intelligences
and rows representing cognitive levels or teaching processes, or vice
versa. Preferably, the master matrix includes seven columns representing
intelligences and six rows representing cognitive levels or teaching
processes.
Each development page optionally includes a first row containing
at least some of the information specified in the overview page. Each
development page preferably includes a second row containing the
sentence stems or starters. The sentence starters combine the
intelligence and the cognitive level that the development page represents
on the master matrix. Each development page preferably further includes
a first column stating common verbs associated with the cognitive level
represented by the development page. Each development page
preferably further includes a second column comprising selectable
educational strategies. The strategies are preferably divided into
cognitive strategies and group/cooperative strategies. The second
column optionally includes a selectable page describing he selected
strategy.
Selecting the formulated questions and/or activities may further
include selecting a sequence in which the questions and/or activities
appear in the lesson plan or the like. Optionally, a number representing
a position occupied in the sequence by a question or activity may appear
in the master matrix in the development page from which it originated.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Preferred embodiments of the invention will now be described with
reference to the accompanying drawings, which are given by way of
example only, in which:
FIG 1 shows a master matrix;
FIG 2 shows one development page from the master matrix of FIG 1 ;
FIG 3 shows a first page of a lesson plan; and
FIG 4 shows an overview page.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
The electronic lesson planner of the present invention may be
accessed via the Internet or via an Intranet by means of a personal
computer (PC), a laptop computer or the like. The lesson planner may be
used online or it may be downloaded to the PC or laptop and used offline.
It is envisaged that, upon the payment of a subscription fee, educators
will be allocated a logon identification and password to allow access.
Alternatively, the lesson planner may be provided on a storage medium,
such as a CD, diskette or other storage device, whether portable or
otherwise.
An overview of the elements of the electronic lesson planner will
first be discussed followed by a detailed description of those elements.
The method of the present invention utilizes a master matrix 1 , as
shown in FIG 1 . Preferably, the master matrix 1 comprises seven
columns representing the aforementioned multiple intelligences 2 and six
rows representing cognitive levels 3. The multiple intelligences and
cognitive levels are known by those skilled in the art and the present
invention is not limited to the order in which they appear in the matrix.
Also, in an alternative embodiment, the columns may represent the
cognitive levels and the rows may represent the multiple intelligences.
Thus, the master matrix comprises 42 development pages 4, one
of which is shown in FIG 2. Each development page 4 comprises
prompting information, the nature of which being determined by the
position of the development page 4 in the master matrix 1 , i.e., the
multiple intelligence and cognitive level which the development page
represents. An educator is thus provided with a framework that aids and
supports the educator in formulating questions and activities for his or
her lessons.
Once the educator has compiled the desired questions and/or
activities in the desired development pages 4, the educator is able to
compose a lesson plan 5, as shown in FIG 3. The educator may select
some or all of the formulated questions/activities to appear in the lesson
plan. The educator may also choose the order in which the
questions/activities appear. The lesson plan may then be printed out for
use by the educator and/or the students..
Preferably, the method of the present invention also features a
overview page 6. A possible layout of the overview page is shown in FIG
4. Although the overview page 6 is not an essential feature in the
production of the lesson plan, one is preferably included. Accessing the
overview page 6 is preferably the first step in preparing the lesson plan.
The educator may specify various aspects of the lesson in the overview
page 6 and some or all of these aspects may appear in the master matrix
1 , the development pages 4 and/or the final lesson plan 5. With
reference to FIG 4, preferably, the overview page allows the educator to
specify a target group, such as a year group or class, and/or a title of the
lesson or teaching unit and/or a learning area or theme. The educator
may also specify the task to be completed, the educator's objectives and
desired student outcomes. The educator may also list the resources that
are available for use in teaching or studying the lesson plan.
Once the overview page details have been submitted, they may be
saved for future use and/or modification. A master matrix 1 based on
the overview page may then be accessed, as shown in FIG 1 . The
master matrix preferably includes the title, learning area or theme of the
lesson and the target group. The educator may now select one of the 42
development pages 4 to begin formulating his or her lesson plan.
The particular development page selected depends upon which
multiple intelligence 2 and which cognitive level 3 the educator wishes
to focus. For example, if the educator wants to focus on the cognitive
or thinking process of design and a - mathematical/logical intelligence, the
educator would select the development page at the intersection of the
relevant row and column. Once selected, the appropriate development
page 4 is displayed, as shown in FIG 2.
The development page assists and supports the educator in
formulating questions and activities that develop the selected cognitive
processes and intelligences. There are three main ways in which the
development page does this and these are described below.
Below a top row 7 that preferably displays the title of the lesson
plan and the target group, a second row 8 displays the selected
intelligence e.g. mathematical/logical. The second row also displays a
series of selectable sentence stems or starters 9. A sentence starter
forms a first part of a sentence that asks the student a question or
requests the student to participate in an activity. The sentence starters
9 either have been developed by the applicant or derived from generally
well used questions/activities employed by the educators and are a result
of combining aspects of the selected intelligence 2 with aspects of the
selected cognitive level or process 3. The sentence starters employ two
of the three dimensions that the electronic lesson planner encourages the
educator to use. Selecting one of the sentence starters 9 causes it to be
displayed in a working area 1 0 below the second row 8.
A column 1 1 on the left of the working area 1 0 indicates the
cognitive level or thinking process 3 in which the development page 4 is
located and in which the educator is operating. For example, the left
column 1 1 may have the title 'Remember', below which may be listed
common verbs 1 2 which are used within this cognitive level, such as
'list', 'name', 'locate', 'define', and the like.
A column 1 3 on the right of the working area 1 0 lists strategies
14 that may be utilized when formulating the questions, tasks and
activities of the lesson plan. The strategy column comprises the
categories of cognitive strategies 1 5 and group/collaborative strategies
1 6. Selecting one strategy category reveals a list of strategies that fall
into that category. Once a question, task or activity has been
formulated, selecting one of the listed strategies causes that strategy to
be displayed in the working area 1 0 after the formulated question, task
or activity.
If an educator is not familiar with a particular strategy, an
explanatory description of the strategy may be selected. This may be in
the form of a pop-up screen 1 7 or drop-down menu or the like.
Once the questions, tasks and/or activities for a particular
development page 4 have been formulated, they may be saved to the
master matrix 1 . With reference to FIG 1 , upon returning to the master
matrix, the relevant development page may include an indicator
representing one of the formulated questions or tasks. In one
embodiment, the development page includes at least the beginning 1 8 of
one of the questions formulated therein.
Once the educator has formulated all the questions (ikely to be
needed for their proposed lesson plan, the educator may select the exact
questions/activities that he or she wishes to appear in the final lesson
plan. The educator may also select the sequence in which they appear
in the final lesson plan. Each selected question/activity may be allocated
a number 1 9 corresponding to the position it will appear in the lesson
plan. The allocated number 1 may then be displayed in the matrix 1 to
indicate both its selection and its position in the final lesson plan. A
status bar or the like may also be displayed to indicate how many
questions/activities the. lesson planner currently contains and the
positions those questions/activities occupy.
A single operation may merge the overview page 6 with the
selected questions/activities to produce the final lesson plan 5, as shown
in FIG 3. In a preferred format, the details from the overview page
appear first followed by the questions/activities in the selected order.
The questions/activities appear as formulated in the development pages
4 including the cognitive level, the intelligence and the strategy utilized.
The overview page may also include an assessment standard for
evaluation purposes. The standard may be preset for particular
circumstances or may be changeable to allow adaptation to differing
circumstances. For example, an assessment standard for a particular
topic may be set for education at a particular level in a specified region.
This standard may be different in a different region or at a different level
and therefore can be altered to suit the situation.
Clearly the present invention is not limited to the aforementioned
layout of the lesson plan 5 or the layout of the overview page 6 or
development pages 4 which contribute thereto. Furthermore, it is
envisaged that the layout of the overview page information and the
layout of the development page questions/activities may differ from the
layout of the same information in the final lesson plan. It is envisaged
that any layouts that present the information in a clear and accessible
format would be suitable.
The grid format of the master matrix 1 is a convenient way of
representing the different combinations of cognitive levels 3 and multiple
intelligences 2. However, it is envisaged that there may be alternative
ways of representing such combinations that still fall within the scope of
the present invention.
The present invention allows the educator to amend any
information that he or she has entered at any stage of the production of
the lesson plan.
The electronic lesson planner may be used by an educator to
prepare their own lesson plans or teaching units. The stimulation
provided by the lesson planner should provide a rich source of material
for any learning situation.
Alternatively, an educator may use a lesson plan prepared by
another educator for his or her own lessons. For example, a head of
department may produce a lesson plan for a particular subject area and
year group that may be used by a number of other teachers in that
department.
The electronic lesson planner may also be used by a plurality of
educators to pool their ideas to produce a single lesson plan or a series
of lesson plans. Furthermore, by using the electronic lesson planner, it
is not necessary for all the educators to be together at one time. The
master matrix 1 indicates the learning areas for which questions/activities
have been formulated and those that have yet to be addressed.
An educator may select their own sequence of questions/activities
from the pool developed by a range of educators. The resultant lesson
plan can be tailored to their own style of teaching and thus, their own
individuality is being honoured. At the same time, an educator will not
only be including some of their own good ideas, but also those developed
by their colleagues.
Due to the online accessibility of the lesson planner, it may be
used by groups of educators within the same department, within a
school, within a group of schools and/or by educators around the world.
The electronic lesson planner may also be used by students to plan
their own lessons or parts of lessons, for their own personal assignments
and/or for an educator.
It is envisaged that the present invention would be suitable for all
types and levels of education and tuition. It is also envisaged that the
present invention may be specialized to suit a particular application. For
example, the electronic lesson planner may be tailored to produce lecture
programs and tutorials for corporate or industrial applications. It is also
envisaged that the electronic lesson planner could be translated into
languages other than English. It is further envisaged that the electronic
lesson planner could be adapted to incorporate new teaching methods
and the like, as they develop.
Clearly the method of the present invention overcomes the
problems of the prior art methods of producing a lesson plan. Changes
to lesson plans can be made quickly and easily and the educator can
systematically build up a portfolio of lesson planners that can be modified
from year to year, for example, to include changes to the curriculum.
Also, the electronic lesson planner provides a wide range of teaching
ideas and strategy-linked questions/activities to assist the educator in
producing comprehensive lesson plans.
However, the benefits of the electronic lesson planner are more
numerous than merely overcoming the problems associated with the prior
art.
At a glance, the master matrix 1 indicates the cognitive levels 3
and intelligences 2 that have been covered and those that are not being
addressed. The educator is thus guided to use a wider spread of
questions/activities and by doing so will reach more students more of the
time.
Since so many strategies are provided on each development page,
the educator is encouraged to place the focus of the lesson plan on the
students. The strategies consistently encourage the student to engage
in the learning process. Furthermore, the wide range of strategies is
likely to retain the attention of the student and contribute to their
motivation.
Evidently, the electronic lesson planner of the present invention is
an empowering tool. The educator will feel supported in preparing
lessons, lectures and the like and the combined input from a plurality of
educators will lead to a cross-fertilization of ideas. Armed with a
comprehensive lesson plan, the educator will be able to deliver their
lessons more confidently. The competency of the educator will be
demonstrated to the students who will also benefit from the improved
teaching techniques and ideas.
The competency and efforts, or otherwise, of educators will also
be demonstrated to the establishment by whom they are employed. The
electronic lesson planner enables the establishment to monito r which
educators are contributing to particular lesson plans and the like and on
which strategies and areas they are focussing. This is likely to provide
a more accurate assessment of the effectiveness and industriousness of
their educators.
Rather than the standard of education being jeopardized by lessons
of an unsatisfactory quality, the overall educational standard will be
raised by the present invention due to the availability of a wide range of
teaching. techniques and strategies that can easily be implemented.
The programming techniques required to implement the electronic
lesson planner are known to those skilled in the relevant art.
Throughout the specification the aim has been to describe the
preferred embodiments of the present invention without limiting the
invention to any one embodiment or specific collection of features.
Persons skilled in the relevant art may realize variations from the specific
embodiments that will nonetheless fall within the scope of the invention.
Claims (17)
1 . A method of electronically producing a lesson plan including the
steps of:
selecting at least one development page from a master
matrix, each development page representing at least one
intelligence and at least one cognitive level;
generating at least one formulated question or activity in the
development page using sentence stems provided responsive to
said selection;
selecting at least one of the formulated questions or
activities; and
processing said selections to produce a lesson plan or the
like from the selected formulated questions and/or activities.
2. The method of claim 1 , wherein said step of producing a lesson
plan is according to pre-selected criteria relating to teacher
objectives, student outcomes or available resources, or any
combination thereof.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein said pre-selections are provided
in an overview page.
4. The method of claim 3, further including the step of selecting
criteria governing the lesson plan from an overview page .
5. The method of claim 1 , wherein sard sentence stems are displayed
in the development page responsive to said selection.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein said overview page may include
one or more of each of the following: a subject area or theme, a
target group, a specific task, an educator objective, a student
outcome and/or a list of available resources.
7. The method of claim 1 , wherein said master matrix includes
columns representing intelligences and rows representing cognitive
levels or teaching processes, or vice versa.
8. The method of claim 1 , wherein the master matrix includes seven
intelligences and six cognitive levels or teaching processes.
9. The method of claim 3, wherein each development page includes
a first row containing at least some of the information specified in
the overview page.
10. The method of claim 1 , wherein each development page preferably
includes a second row containing said sentence stems or starters.
1 . The method of claim 1 , wherein said sentence stems combine said
intelligence level and said cognitive level that said development
page represents on said master matrix.
2. The method of claim 1 , wherein each development page further
includes a first column stating common verbs associated with said
cognitive level represented by said development page.
3. The method of claim 1 , wherein each development page further
includes a second column comprising selectable educational
strategies.
4. The method of claim 1 3, wherein said educational strategies are
divided into cognitive strategies and group/cooperative strategies.
5. The method of claim 1 3, wherein said second column includes a
selectable page describing said selected strategy.
6. The method of claim 1 , wherein said step of selecting said
formulated questions and/or activities further includes the step of
selecting a sequence in which said questions and/or activities
appear in said lesson plan or the like.
7. The method of claim 16, wherein a number representing a position
occupied in the sequence by said question or activity may appear
in the master matrix in the development page from which it
originated.
Applications Claiming Priority (4)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUPQ8520A AUPQ852000A0 (en) | 2000-07-03 | 2000-07-03 | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan |
| AUPQ8520 | 2000-07-03 | ||
| AU6883801A AU6883801A (en) | 2000-07-03 | 2001-07-03 | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan |
| PCT/AU2001/000798 WO2002003357A1 (en) | 2000-07-03 | 2001-07-03 | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| AU2001268838A1 true AU2001268838A1 (en) | 2002-04-11 |
| AU2001268838B2 AU2001268838B2 (en) | 2005-08-04 |
Family
ID=25635820
Family Applications (2)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| AU2001268838A Ceased AU2001268838B2 (en) | 2000-07-03 | 2001-07-03 | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan |
| AU6883801A Pending AU6883801A (en) | 2000-07-03 | 2001-07-03 | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan |
Family Applications After (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| AU6883801A Pending AU6883801A (en) | 2000-07-03 | 2001-07-03 | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| AU (2) | AU2001268838B2 (en) |
Family Cites Families (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5385475A (en) * | 1993-04-01 | 1995-01-31 | Rauland-Borg | Apparatus and method for generating and presenting an audio visual lesson plan |
| JP3234977B2 (en) * | 1997-08-08 | 2001-12-04 | 東光精機株式会社 | Method and system for creating teaching material for intellectual education and method and system for creating teaching material for intellectual training |
-
2001
- 2001-07-03 AU AU2001268838A patent/AU2001268838B2/en not_active Ceased
- 2001-07-03 AU AU6883801A patent/AU6883801A/en active Pending
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US20030175664A1 (en) | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan | |
| Tomlinson et al. | Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students through responsive planning & instruction | |
| Hartzler | A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs and their effects on student achievement | |
| Anderson et al. | Increasing teacher effectiveness | |
| WO2003100560A2 (en) | Learning system | |
| Al-Jarrah et al. | EFL Students' Attitude toward Using Metacognitive Strategies in Writing. | |
| Abdula et al. | The use of Moodle in the teaching of philosophy and distance learning | |
| Yoritomo et al. | Examining engineering writing instruction at a large research university through the lens of writing studies | |
| Mohammad et al. | Research on Multimodal College English Teaching Model Based on Genetic Algorithm | |
| Shick | Implementation of Technology in the Classroom. | |
| Gustavson | Using ILIAC to systematically plan and implement a library information literacy assessment program for freshman classes | |
| AU2001268838B2 (en) | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan | |
| Bekker et al. | Developing an online authoring tool to support teachers in designing 21st century design based education in primary school | |
| Palacio-Cayetano | Experience counts: Comparing inservice and preservice teachers technology-integration decisions | |
| Chatzikyriakou et al. | Needs analysis in EFL teaching in Greece, the teachers’ stance | |
| Chodhori et al. | EFL TEACHING IN INDONESIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: INSIGHTS INTO GENERATION Z | |
| Taukebayeva et al. | The impact of the use of digital technologies in teaching mathematics at school | |
| Jones | Integration of ICT in an initial teacher training course: Participants' views | |
| AU2001268838A1 (en) | Method of electronically producing a lesson plan | |
| Brodahl et al. | Applying and evaluating understanding-oriented ICT user training in upper secondary education | |
| Apriana et al. | Design and development of job sheets to facilitate independent learning in Workshop Practices and Engineering Drawing Subjects: A case study at Vocational Secondary School | |
| Wu et al. | A Hybrid Teaching Reform to Enhance Higher Order Thinking and Integrate Ideological and Political Objectives in an Environment | |
| Sharmin-Kabir et al. | Bridging the gap: Leveraging technology for rural para educator professional learning | |
| Siddique | Implementation of learner autonomy on EFL learners at tertiary level in Bangladesh | |
| Amuda et al. | Chemistry Education: New Trends, Best Practices, Opportunities and Challenges for Teaching Chemistry. |