fulltext

Journal of Science Education and Technology,Vol.10,No.3,2001

Do No Harm—A Comparison of the Effects of On-Line Vs.Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course

Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher,1,2Sherry McConnell,1and Michele Graham1

This paper presents the results of a study designed to examine the effects of distance delivery on

student performance and classroom interactions in an upper level science(Histology)course.

Outcomes were assessed by comparing performance on content pre-and posttests for students

enrolled in on-campus and on-line sections of the same course.Interactions were classi?ed

according to initiator,topic,and Bloom’s taxonomy level for content interactions.The resulting

patterns were analyzed to compare behaviors in different settings.It was found that although

the groups were indistinguishable in content knowledge at the outset of the study,by the end

of the semester,students in the on-line group signi?cantly out-performed their peers in the

on-campus section.The on-line settings had a greater proportion of high-level interactions

(according to Bloom’s taxonomy)than the on-campus setting.

KEY WORDS:Distance learning;on-line instruction;interactions;Bloom’s taxonomy;histology.

INTRODUCTION

When a new teaching technique is employed,it is essential to examine the potential risks associated with teaching in a different manner.If the new technique is to be adopted on a permanent basis,an in-depth assessment must be conducted to verify that “no harm is done”and students are not suffering any negative effects as a result of the innovation.On-line delivery is an example of an innovation whose effects have been severely criticized in recent times. College curriculum committees routinely question the academic rigor of distance-delivered courses, and there is a prevalent fear that the academic rigor of courses is being compromised in order to facilitate use of distance delivery.This concern is especially directed toward science courses,where the lack of hands-on laboratory sessions is fre-quently cited as a potential de?cit for learners(Carr, 2000).

1Anatomy W102,College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences,Colorado State University,Fort Collins,Colorado80523-1601.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed;e-mail:reginast@ https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,

The question of whether or not electronic me-dia can in?uence learning has been a subject of debate in the literature for over15years.Clark (1983,1994a,b)argues that“media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not in?uence student achievement...”(1983,p.445).In contrast,Kozma (1994b)states that“both media and methods in?u-ence learning and they frequently do it by in?uencing each other”(p.11).Based on all the arguments pre-sented by both parties(Clark,1983,1994a,b;Kozma, 1991,1994a,b),it can be concluded that the media it-self does not cause differences in learning,but does facilitate teaching methods that may affect learning.

In accordance with this theoretical perspective,the current study was designed not to compare the ef-fects of two different media on learning,but rather to examine how a new delivery medium affects teaching methods,as represented by classroom interactions.

A total of44students participated in the study.

All were enrolled in an upper level histology course at a large,land grant university in the Western US.Of these44students,11were enrolled in the on-line(dis-tance delivered)section of the course.These students completed the entire course,including all examina-tions at a distance,and did not participate in any type of on-campus instructional activity.In contrast,the 257

1059-0145/01/0900-0257$19.50/0C 2001Plenum Publishing Corporation

258Schoenfeld-Tacher,McConnell,and Graham

33students enrolled in the on-campus(traditional) section of the course met face-to-face in a classroom for three,50-min lecture periods per week and partici-pated in a3-hour,on-campus laboratory session each week.Students in the on-campus section only used the Internet to complete exams(administered in the same format as for the on-line section).

The speci?c objectives of this study were to

1.Determine if there was a difference in con-

tent achievement between students enrolled

in on-campus and on-line sections of Histol-

ogy(learner–content interaction).

2.Investigate the effect of computer-mediated

communication(CMC)on classroom interac-

tions(learner–learner and learner–instructor

interactions).

a)Examine the proportion of time devoted to

content interactions versus other types of

interactions in each setting.

b)Evaluate the quality of interactions based

on depth of thought(Bloom’s taxonomy)

3.Investigate how the presence or absence of

an instructor affected the number and type of

questions that occur in on-line group interac-

tions.

Bloom and Krathwohl(1956)developed a scheme to classify the levels and types of intellectual behavior important in learning.The resulting classi-?cation scheme is a taxonomy that consists of three domains:cognitive,psychomotor,and affective.The cognitive taxonomy classi?es questions based on their level of abstraction.Higher levels of abstraction are assumed to demonstrate increased depth of learning. It was therefore important to examine levels of ques-tioning taking place in the on-line Histology course in order to ensure the delivery medium did not harm students’learning by promoting lower level thinking at the expense of higher-order reasoning skills such as synthesis and analysis.

Another concern frequently associated with dis-tance delivery is the lack of classroom interactions. Moore and Kearsley(1996)de?ne three essential types of interaction within distance education envi-ronments.These are learner–content,learner–learner and learner–instructor interaction.Learner–content interaction describes the communication that occurs between the learner and the subject matter.These interactions enable the learners to construct their own knowledge by integrating new information into their preexisting mental structures.Due to its asyn-chronous design,on-line Histology was expected to provide students with a greater opportunity than a lec-ture class to engage in higher levels of thought,such as re?ection and deep processing,which Vygotsky (1978)deems as critical to learning and retention.

According to Moore and Kearsley(1996), learner–instructor interaction is necessary once the content has been presented in order to facilitate learner–content interactions.The instructor needs to provide opportunities for students to practice the con-cepts they have acquired and give students formative feedback on their progress,before assessing if instruc-tional objectives were met.This type of interaction was supported in the on-line Histology course through the use of frequent formative quizzes(referred to as bonehead quizzes)and on-line chat sessions moder-ated by the instructor(second author).These interac-tions helped the students assess their own progress in the course and encouraged further learner–content in-teractions.Another function of these activities was to facilitate learner–content interactions by elaborating on material with which students were having dif?culty.

Learner–learner interactions play an important pedagogical role in distance education,(Slavin,1996), as they provide opportunities for students to discuss the content with others,resulting in improved cog-nitive processing.During these interactions,student misconceptions are exposed and remedied during the negotiation of meaning that takes place while inter-acting with peers.The unique attributes of on-line en-vironments lead students to get to know each other more quickly than they would in a traditional envi-ronment(Kimbrough et al.,1998),a tendency that can be harnessed by instructors to promote creation of support networks and study groups.Students in on-line Histology demonstrated this tendency when they unexpectedly formed on-line study groups and orga-nized their own review sessions without the instruc-tor’s https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,ually,a student spontaneously assumed the role of moderator(typically ful?lled by the instructor)by leading with questions and remind-ing her classmates to stay focused on the content.Sim-ilar to the instructor-led sessions,students also called on each other to ask questions,pulling in students who were watching but not actively participating. METHODS

This study employed a combination of qualita-tive and quantitative methods to examine the ef-fects of computer-mediated communication on stu-dent learning.Observations were conducted in two sections(on-line and on-campus)of the same course,

Do No Harm:Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course259

taught by the same instructor during a single semester. Since the participating instructor had sole responsi-bility for the on-line section but was part of a teach-ing team for the on-campus course,this study exam-ined student achievement only for the instruction she designed and presented in both modalities.This spe-ci?c content was selected to avoid confounding the results by comparing instruction developed by differ-ent faculty,as noted by Clark(1983).Clark explains that a large portion of the favorable results attributed to media use may be caused by“systematic but un-controlled differences in content and/or method,con-tributed unintentionally by different teachers or de-signers”(p.448–49).

Participating students in both sections completed the same pretest,consisting of25multiple choice questions.The instructor presented the same mate-rial,using the same clinical examples in both situa-tions.Learning outcomes were assessed by student achievement on course exams.Identical exam ques-tions were asked of students in both sections,but at different times during the semester.A total of32mul-tiple choice questions were used to calculate a posttest score for each participant.Student scores on pre-and posttests were compared by t-tests and an analysis of covariance in order to determine if there were any dif-ferences in performance between students enrolled in each of the sections.

Classroom interactions were observed in three settings:on-campus lecture,on-line chat(instruc-tor present),and on-line review(instructor absent, student-organized study sessions).Throughout this paper,the term“chat”will be used to denote instructor-led synchronous sessions,while“review”will indicate the student-run synchronous sessions (instructor absent).Although student-content inter-action undoubtedly takes place in more situations, these settings were selected for their accessibility to the researchers.As a group,these settings represent a continuum of environments,from a very familiar structured setting(traditional lecture),to a novel un-structured setting(on-line review session organized and facilitated by students).

The on-line Histology course is structured us-ing the common concepts of lectures and laborato-ries as an organizational metaphor.WebCT was se-lected as the delivery software.At the end of each lecture,students are led to a quick self-assessment quiz about content learning.In the laboratories,stu-dents view microscope images captured at various powers(low,medium,high and oil immersion)to sim-ulate the process of moving a microscope objective.Four multiple-choice and laboratory identi?cation ex-aminations,each comprehensive,determine student grades in the course.During the spring semester2000, on-line Histology was offered concurrently with the on-campus course,with the same instructor in both courses(entirely for the on-line version,and for about a third of the on-campus course).

Transcripts of interactions in each setting were independently coded and analyzed by two of the au-thors who then cross-checked for reliability.An inter-action was de?ned as any utterance from a participant in the form of a question.Each question was coded into one of four topic categories:

?Content–any question directly pertaining to

course material

?Administrative–questions regarding adminis-

trative details of the course,such as due dates

for assignments

?Management–questions used to manage the

?ow of a class,such as prompting to move on

to the next topic.

?Social–all questions of a nonacademic nature.

Content questions were further classi?ed accord-ing to the demonstrated level of abstraction or depth of thought,in accordance with the de?nitions estab-lished in Bloom’s taxonomy(Bloom and Krathwohl, 1956):

?Knowledge–Simple recall or recognition of a

concept.

?Comprehension–Interpretation,translation.

At this level,the student must be able to

demonstrate use of abstraction when asked to.

?Application–Requires application of an ab-

straction to new problem without being shown

how to do it in a new situation.

?Analysis–Breaking down material into con-

stituent parts and detecting relationship of

these parts in the whole.

?Synthesis–Putting together parts and elements

to elucidate a previously poorly de?ned pattern

or structure.

?Evaluation–Judging the extent to which

ideas,solutions,methods,and materials satisfy

criteria.

Data were statistically analyzed via t-tests, ANCOVA and ANOVA.When appropriate,posthoc comparisons were conducted using the LSD test. An alpha value of.05was selected as the signi?-cance level for all tests.The data were analyzed us-ing each session as an independent observation.For

260Schoenfeld-Tacher,McConnell,and Graham

each session observed,the percentage of interactions in each category was computed.These percentages were then weighted according to the total number of interactions taking place in each session.

DATA SOURCES

Subjects for this study were students,enrolled in two sections(on-campus and on-line)of a Histol-ogy course at a4-year university,and their instructor. Eleven of the students agreeing to participate were enrolled in the on-line section and33in the on-campus section.

Data were collected from a combination of course exams,chat transcripts,and direct observa-tions(lecture).The classroom management software used to run the course generated chat transcripts and tracked student performance on both pre-and posttests.An observer manually recorded data on on-campus interactions.

RESULTS

Academic Outcomes

At the outset of the study,there was no statisti-cally signi?cant difference in academic performance between students in either section,as measured by a content pretest.However,posttest results were signif-icantly different(t=?2.032,p<.05),with students in the on-line section outperforming their counterparts in the on-campus session by an average of seven per-centage points(Table I).Since the on-line group had a slightly lower pretest mean,the observed cross-over effect was further examined through an analysis of co-variance(Table II).When the effects of pretest per-formance are controlled for(by using pretest scores as a covariate),the effect of instruction type(on-line vs.on-campus)on posttest scores is statistically sig-ni?cant(F=5.95,p<.05),with a small to medium effect size(η2=0.192)according to Cohen(1988). Table I.Academic Performance on Content Tests(Percentage Scores)for Students in Each Course Section

On-line On-campus

Test N M SD N M SD df t

Pretest610.679.352215.0911.51260.863 Posttest1180.1110.673172.7810.1540?2.03?

?p<.05.Table II.Analysis of Covariance of Posttest Scores as a Function of Course Section,With Pretest Scores as Covariate

Source df MS Fη2 Pretest Score(covariate)1 1.080.120.000 Course section1542.17 5.95?0.192 Error2591.15

?p<.05.

Rate of Interactions

The average rate of interactions was computed by dividing the total number of interactions in each setting by the total amount of time elapsed over all sessions.A one-way ANOVA(Table III)proved sig-ni?cant(F=6.07,p<.01),so a posthoc LSD test was conducted.As expected,the rates of interaction were signi?cantly higher in both on-line settings(review and chat)than for the on-campus lectures(Table IV). However,since the on-campus lectures were intended to present material,whereas the on-line sessions were intended to elaborate upon previously covered mate-rial,the signi?cance of these differences has limited practical implications.

Originator of Interactions

A one-way ANOVA(Table V)revealed a signif-icant difference(F=6.49,p<.001)in the percentage of interactions initiated by students and instructor in each setting.Posthoc tests showed students initiated a larger percentage of interactions(weighted aver-age,calculated using each session as an independent observation)during on-line class sessions than in on-campus sessions(Table VI).Within a setting,there was no signi?cant difference in the percentage of in-teractions initiated by the instructor or the students. Topic of Interactions

When the topic of interactions was examined, the greatest amount of content interactions oc-curred during on-campus sessions,whereas the largest Table III.One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for Rate of

Interactions by Setting

Source df SS MS F Between groups26328.513164.26 6.07??Within group2412521.03521.71

Total2618849.54

??p<.01.

Do No Harm:Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course261

Table IV.Mean Rates of Interactions and Standard Deviations

for Each Setting

Interactions per hour a Setting N M SD

On-line chat954.2929.36

On-line review841.2920.31

On-campus lecture1018.3117.45

a Posthoc tests determined that the average rates of interactions

per hour for on-line chat and on-line review sessions were not signi?cantly different from each other.However,both rates were found to be signi?cantly higher than the rate of interac-tions per hour for on-campus lecture sessions. percentage of social interactions took place during on-line review sessions(Table VII).A two-way ANOVA (Table VIII)was then conducted to examine the ef-fects of initiator(students or instructor)and setting (review,chat,or lecture)on the percentage of inter-actions devoted to each topic.Since signi?cant results were found for all topics at the p<.001level,posthoc tests(Table IX)were conducted to examine the pat-terns for each topic.Students were most likely to initi-ate content interactions in a lecture setting,followed by a chat,followed by a review.The instructor was more likely to initiate a content interaction in a lec-ture setting than in a chat.In both lecture and chat environments,students were more likely to initiate content interactions than the instructor.

It is interesting to note that no social interactions occurred in a lecture setting.Students and instructor were equally likely to initiate social interactions dur-ing chat sessions.When the frequency of social inter-actions generated by students was examined,it was found that a signi?cantly larger proportion was ini-tiated in review sessions than in chat sessions.The pattern of administrative interactions is unremark-able.When management interactions were examined, an interesting trend emerged.Students initiated more management interactions in review sessions than they did in chat sessions,and both amounts were greater than for lecture sessions.The instructor started more management interactions in chat sessions than in on-campus lectures.Whenever the instructor and Table V.One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for Initiator of Interactions by Setting,Using Weighted Data

Source df SS MS F

Between groups33973.061324.35 6.49???Within group346938.75204.08

Total3710991.81

???p<.001.Table VI.Average Rates of Interactions and Standard Deviations by Session,Using Weighted Data

Interactions per hour

Setting and initiator M SD LSD Posthoc On-line chat

a)students20.7913.83a>c;a=b

b)instructor33.5020.29b>d;b=a On-campus lecture

c)students 6.14 4.34c

d)instructor12.1714.70d

Level of Interactions

Further examination of content interactions showed that students in the lecture section generated larger percentages of interactions at both the lowest and highest levels than students in the other environ-ments(Table X).Approximately75%of interactions initiated by students in review sessions were low-level (knowledge and comprehension).The percentages of low and medium(application and analysis)questions asked by students in a class setting(on-line or on-campus)were similar to each other,but greater than those for review sessions.The only instance in which students initiated an appreciable percentage of high level(synthesis and evaluation)questions was the on-line class.The instructor asked a slightly greater percentage of low-level questions in the on-line class sessions than in the on-campus lectures.The differ-ences were more striking for medium and high level questions.The instructor initiated a much greater per-centage of medium-level questions in the on-campus environment and high-level questions in the on-line environment.A two-way ANOVA for level of ques-tioning by initiator and setting yielded signi?cant F values for all levels of questioning at the p<.001level (Table XI).Posthoc tests were performed for all possi-ble comparisons,however,only those of any practical value,such as comparing initiator effects across set-tings,or setting effect by initiator,are presented in Table XII.

Since the main focus of the study was on pat-terns of higher-level interactions,only those will be discussed further.Students were most likely to gener-ate questions at the synthesis level in chat sessions. They were most likely to initiate questions at the

262Schoenfeld-Tacher,McConnell,and Graham Table VII.Mean Percentage of Interactions per Session Observed in Each Category,by Environment

and Type of Initiator

Environment and person initiating the interaction

Student Instructor

On-line On-line On-campus On-line On-campus

Topic of interaction review class lecture class lecture

Management282003218

Social134040

Administrative36220

Content5670986282

evaluation level during lecture sessions than during review sessions,and least likely of all during chat ses-sions.The instructor posed more questions at both lev-els(synthesis and evaluation)during the chat sessions than during the lecture sessions.Within the lecture setting,the instructor was more likely to ask synthesis-level questions than the students were,but this trend was reversed for evaluation questions.In chat ses-sions,students and instructor were equally likely to pose synthesis questions,but the instructor initiated a greater amount of evaluation questions. DISCUSSION

When using a new or unique teaching medium, it is important to assess that medium and determine its effect on learners.Particularly important is to de-termine if the medium provides at least an equivalent learning experience to the current methods,and to discontinue its use if it has potential of“doing harm”(providing lesser or lower quality learning opportuni-ties).This study assessed the delivery and outcomes Table VIII.Analysis of Variance Summary for Topic by Initiator

and Setting

Variable(topic)

and source df SS MS F Content

between groups4109738.5727434.64123.23???within groups807179665.86222.63

Social

between groups417773.614443.4088.85???within groups80740358.2850.01 Administrative

between groups42385.22596.3053.02???within groups8079075.7311.25 Management

between groups454168.0013524.0092.99???within groups807117526.14145.63

???p<.001.of an upper division science course,Histology,in an on-line environment.

When the academic performance of students receiving the same instruction and given identical multiple-choice questions was compared,the on-line students demonstrated improved outcomes com-pared to their on-campus peers.

Greater levels of instructor–student interaction were observed in the on-line sessions,as re?ected in the rates of interaction for each setting.Although the difference in type of participant initiating the Table IX.Posthoc Test of Means and Standard Deviations

for Comparison for Five Types of Initiation on Four Topics

of Interaction

Topic and initiation

conditions M a SD LSD Posthoc Content

a)students review56.4116.44a

b)students chat70.4313.29b>d

c)students lecture98.04 6.79

d)instructor chat62.2817.04d

e)instructor lecture82.1410.02e

Social

f)students review12.4510.77f>g>h

g)students chat 4.40 4.83g=i

h)students lecture0.000.00

i)instructor chat 4.38 4.75i>j

j)instructor lecture0.000.00j=h

Administrative

k)students review 2.95 1.41l>k,m

l)students chat 5.67 4.42l>n

m)students lecture 1.96 6.79

n)instructor chat 1.75 3.72n>o

o)instructor lecture0.000.00o

Management

p)students review28.1812.70p>q>r

q)students chat19.4813.79q

r)students lecture0.000.00

s)instructor chat31.5812.16s>t

t)instructor lecture17.8610.02t>r

a The means are the average percentage of interactions per

session in each category.

Do No Harm:Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course263 Table X.Mean Percentage of Content Interactions per Session at Each Level,by Environment and Type

of Initiator,Using Weighted Data

Environment type and person initiating the interaction

Student Instructor

On-line On-line On-campus On-line On-campus

Question level and type review class lecture class lecture

Low

knowledge44.236.352.328.327.0

comprehension33.126.016.334.628.6

Medium

application9.616.815.714.425.5

analysis 3.610.613.7 6.315.6

High

synthesis 1.210.2010.3 3.3

evaluation0.60 2.00.80

interactions in each setting is not statistically signif-icant(Table XIII),students did generate a greater number of interactions in the on-line sessions,and did so without as much prompting as in the lecture sessions.Direct observations revealed that students in the on-campus lecture were reluctant to pose ques-tions even when prompted to do so by the instruc-tor.Though lesser in number,the interactions that occurred in the on-campus environment consisted of a greater percentage of content questions.There were no social interactions observed in the lecture setting, but the instructor was as likely to initiate a personal in-teraction as the students were during an on-line class. This demonstrates that face-to-face contact does not Table XI.Analysis of Variance Summary for Bloom’s Taxonomy Level of Questioning by Initiator and Setting

Variable(topic)and

source df SS MS F

Level1–Knowledge

between groups452987.2213246.8041.56???within groups807257215.69318.73

Level2–Comprehension

between groups419474.394868.6020.25???within groups807193997.49240.39

Level3–Application

between groups419600.884900.2238.89???within groups807101677.97126.00

Level4–Analysis

between groups414589.193647.3029.53???within groups80799670.33123.51

Level5–Synthesis

between groups415787.533946.88157.01???within groups80720286.0225.14

Level6–Evaluation

between groups4195.0048.75 6.57???within groups8075983.267.41

???p<.001.automatically foster interpersonal relationships be-tween students and instructors.These patterns,along with the sense of“bonding”reported by the distance students and the instructor,illustrate the importance of learner–instructor interactions and how these can be used to encourage student participation.The in-structor in?uenced the level of questions asked dur-ing on-line sessions.Her presence shifted the bulk of the questions from the lower levels seen in the review sessions to the more balanced distribution seen in the on-line class sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

No harm was done!The on-line delivery medium and teaching techniques it promoted led to improved academic outcomes relative to those observed in the lecture section,when measured by a content test. Based on these?ndings,it can be postulated that on-line delivery was a more effective method of facilitat-ing learner–content interaction and creating content learning opportunities at least equivalent to those available in the on-campus course.The design of this study did not allow for direct measurement of other types of outcomes,such as incidental learning,which may not have been re?ected in content test perfor-mance.However,the content?ndings alone are suf-?cient to justify continued delivery of the course and to counteract fears about the ef?cacy and validity of on-line course delivery.

The value of learner–learner interactions cannot be dismissed.Students generated more social interac-tions during review sessions than during on-line class sessions.These interactions enhanced camaraderie and fostered the creation of a community of learners,

264Schoenfeld-Tacher,McConnell,and Graham

Table XII.Posthoc Test of Means and Standard Deviations for Comparison for Five Types of Initiation on Six Levels of

Questioning

Level of questioning and

initiation conditions M a SD Posthoc

Knowledge

a)students review44.1817.05c>a>b

b)students chat36.3623.99b>d

c)students lecture52.2822.10

d)instructor chat28.3414.85d=e

e)instructor lecture27.0511.30c>e

Comprehension

f)students review33.0610.67f>h>g

g)students chat25.9513.53i>g

h)students lecture16.3413.98

i)instructor chat34.5819.83i>j

j)instructor lecture28.5918.73j>h

Application

k)students review9.64 6.25l,m>k

l)students chat16.8412.86l>n

m)students lecture15.688.33

n)instructor chat14.4310.61o>n

o)instructor lecture25.5218.95o>m

Analysis

p)students review 3.55 1.97q,r>p

q)students chat10.6217.54q>s

r)students lecture13.7319.92

s)instructor chat 6.28 4.58t>s

t)instructor lecture15.5515.94t=r

Synthesis

u)students review 1.220.89v>u,w

v)students chat10.24 5.67v=x

w)students lecture0.000.00

x)instructor chat10.287.39x>y

y)instructor lecture 3.29 5.08y>w

Evaluation

z)students review0.620.84bb>z>aa

aa)students chat0.000.00cc>aa

bb)students lecture 1.969.80

cc)instructor chat0.80 2.09cc>dd

dd)instructor lecture0.000.00bb>dd

a The means are the average percentage of interactions per

session in each category.

as supported by student comments in end-of-course surveys.A greater percentage of management inter-actions were observed during the review sessions, when the instructor was absent.During these sessions, a student spontaneously assumed the instructor’s role and acted as a facilitator/moderator,ensuring that personal interactions were kept to a reasonable level,and that review sessions primarily focused on content.

The overall trend in the distribution of questions among lower and higher levels was comparable for both the on-campus lectures and on-line classes,al-though the percentage of high-level questions asked by both students and instructor was greater in the

Table XIII.Frequency Counts and Total Percentages of Interactions Initiated by Students and Instructor in On-Line

Classes vs.On-Campus Lectures

Instructor Students Section Number Percentage Number Percentage

On-line22959.015941.0

On-campus10166.45133.6

χ2=2.54,p>.05,no signi?cant difference.

on-line sessions.This demonstrates that computer-mediated communication led to a shift towards high-level questions in a class-type environment.The use of computer-mediated communication created a more relaxed atmosphere in both of the on-line settings, where students were able to ask questions about a variety of topics.This greater freedom of expression may have been caused by the feeling of anonymity associated with participation in a chat room,or sim-ply because the communication protocols allowed the students more time to think about their questions than they would normally have in an on-campus situation. EDUCATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

While the literature is replete with studies demonstrating no signi?cant difference when two de-livery media are compared,(Russell,1999),this study makes a valuable contribution to the body of knowl-edge about distance education by considering the ef-fects of a delivery system on classroom interactions as opposed to simply comparing two media.This study also documents improved academic outcomes and motivation in the on-line environment consistent with Kozma’s(Kozma,1994a,b)claim that media does in-?uence learning.Kulik’s(Kulik et al.,1980)?ndings that computer-based instruction made signi?cant con-tributions to academic achievement among college students and improved their attitudes toward the sub-ject matter being studied also support the results of the present study.

Research from the International Data Corpora-tion(2000)predicts that there will be at least2.2mil-lion college students enrolled in distance learning courses by the year2002.However,the impact of distance delivery,particularly on learning in the sci-ences,is not yet clear.There is apparent need for asynchronously delivered science courses to meet the demands of students who cannot attend on-campus laboratories during the day.The issue of whether or not it is possible to teach science at a distance without

Do No Harm:Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course265

compromising academic rigor has been a topic of re-cent debate in publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education(Carr,2000).While various sugges-tions have been offered(O’Bannon et al.,2000)for integrating laboratories into on-line courses,the aca-demic outcomes of these innovations have not been assessed.This study demonstrates that it is possible to teach a science course(including laboratories)en-tirely on-line without any adverse effects on academic outcomes.

REFERENCES

Bloom,B.S.,and Krathwohl,D.R.(1956).Taxonomy of Educa-tional Objectives:The Classi?cation of Educational Goals,by

a Committee of College and University Examiners.Handbook

I:Cognitive Domain,Longmans,New York.

Carr,S.(2000,March10).Science instructors debate the ef?cacy of conducting lab courses online.The Chronicle of Higher Education[On-line].Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ free/2000/03/2000031001u.htm/(June,2000).

Clark,R.E.(1983).Reconsidering research on learning from me-dia.Review of Educational Research53:445–459.

Clark,R. E.(1994a).Media will never in?uence learning.

Educational Technology,Research and Development42(2): 21–29.

Clark,R.E.(1994b).Media and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,cational Technology, Research and Development42(3):7–10.Cohen,J.(1988).Statistical Power and Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences(2nd ed.),Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ.

International Data Corporation(2000).Distance Learning Takes Off,Fueled by Growth in Internet Access[On-line].

Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/Data/Consumer/content/ CSB020999PR.htm(July,2000).

Kimbrough,D.R.,Hochgurtel,B.D.,and Smith,S.S.(1998).Using internet relay chat to provide on-line tutorials in a distance-learning chemistry course.Journal of College Science Teaching 27:132–136.

Kozma,R.B.(1991).Learning with media.Review of Educational Research61(2):179–211.

Kozma,R.B.(1994a).Will media in?uence learning?Reframing the https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,cational Technology,Research and Develop-ment42(2):7–19.

Kozma,R.B.(1994b).A reply:Media and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,cational Technology,Research and Development42(3):11–14. Kulik,J.A.,Kulik,C.L.C.,and Cohen,P.A.(1980).Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching:A meta-analysis of?ndings.

Review of Educational Research50:525–544.

Moore,M.G.,and Kearsley,G.(1996).Distance Education:A Sys-tems View,Wadsworth,Belmont,CA.

O’Bannon,D.,Scott,J.,Gunderson,M.S.,and Noble,J.(2000).

Integrating laboratories into online distance educa-tion courses.Technology Source[On-line].Available at: https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ts/cases/2000-01a.asp(February,2000). Russell,T.L.(1999).The no signi?cant difference phenome-non[On-line].Available at:http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/ nosigni?cantdifference/(July,2000).

Slavin,R.(1996).Research on cooperative learning and achieve-ment.Contemporary Educational Psychology21:43–69. Vygotsky,L.(1978).Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Mental Processes,Harvard University Press,Cambridge,MA.

免费下载论文的数据库

转] 国外免费期刊全文数据库 转载自土人乙转载于2010年01月17日21:29 阅读(3) 评论(0) 分类：知识堂举报 国外免费期刊全文数据库 香港科技大学图书馆Dspace https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,t.hk/dspace 包括香港科技大学的学术论文、学位论文、研究报告等内容，均可免费获取全文。 Openj-gate https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ 提供4350种开放获取的期刊的数百万期刊全文文献。 加利福尼亚大学国际和区域数字馆藏 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/escholarship/ 加利福尼亚大学国际和区域数字馆藏研究项目。eScholarshipRepository主要提供已出版的期刊论文、未出版的研究手稿、会议文献以及其他连接出版物上的文章1万多篇，均可免费阅读。 剑桥大学机构知识库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ 由Cambridge University Library和University Computing Service维护，提供剑桥大学相关的期刊、学术论文、学位论文等电子资源。 发展中国家联合期刊库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,.br/ 非营利的电子出版物服务机构，提供来自发展中国家（如巴西、古巴、印度、印尼、肯尼亚、南非、乌干达、津巴布韦等）的开放获取的多种期刊的全文。 美国密西根大学论文库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/index.jsp 美国密西根大学论文库2万多篇期刊论文、技术报告、评论等文献全文。包含艺术学、生物学、社会科学、资源环境学等学科的相关论文，另还有博硕士论文。标识为OPEN的可以打开全文。 jfg CERN Document Server http://cdsweb.cern.ch/ 主要覆盖物理学（particle physics）及相关学科，提供360,000多篇全文文献，包括预印文献、期刊论文、图书、图片、学位论文等等。 kl ArXiv

四六级翻译30个常用句型

1)It is+形容词+that It is conceivable that knowledge plays an important role in our life. 可想而知，知识在我们的一生中扮演着一个重要的角色。 2)It is+形容词+to do/ doing She had said what it was necessary to say. 她已经说了一切有必要说的话。 3)祈使句/名词+and/ or Work hard, and you will finally be able to reach your destination. 努力工作，你就能实现自己的目标。 4)as+many/ much+名词+as It is said that visitors spend only half as much money in a day in Leeds as in Lon-don. 据说，游客每天在利兹的花销仅为在伦敦的一半。 5)倍数词+as+形容词+as The reservoir is three times as big as it was ten years ago. 这个水库的面积是十年前三倍。 6) 倍数词+ more +名词/形容词十than Smoking is so harmful to personal health that it kills seven times more people each year than automobile accidents. 吸烟对人体健康的危害极大，每年死于吸烟的人比死于车祸的人多七倍。 7)(not)as/ so...as(和……(不)一样)

这学期就用了!开题报告、文献检索账号、文献综述、外文翻译、抄袭检测软件

这学期就用了！开题报告、文献检索账号、文献综述、外文翻译、抄袭检测软件、论文目录，都在这了都在这了，有备无患，拿去吧！！来源：齐祥涛的日志 开题报告、文献综述、外文翻译、论文反抄袭软件、论文目录，就差论文正文了，其他都全了！！ 开题报告主要包括以下几个方面： （一）论文名称 论文名称就是课题的名字 第一，名称要准确、规范。准确就是论文的名称要把论文研究的问题是什么，研究的对象是什么交待清楚，论文的名称一定要和研究的内容相一致，不能太大，也不能太小，要准确地把你研究的对象、问题概括出来。 第二，名称要简洁，不能太长。不管是论文或者课题，名称都不能太长，能不要的字就尽量不要，一般不要超过20个字。 （二）论文研究的目的、意义 研究的目的、意义也就是为什么要研究、研究它有什么价值。这一般可以先从现实需要方面去论述，指出现实当中存在这个问题，需要去研究，去解决，本论文的研究有什么实际作用，然后，再写论文的理论和学术价值。这些都要写得具体一点，有针对性一点，不能漫无边际地空喊口号。主要内容包括：⑴研究的有关背景(课题的提出)：即根据什么、受什么启发而搞这项研究。⑵通过分析本地（校）的教育教学实际，指出为什么要研究该课题，研究的价值，要解决的问题。 （三）本论文国内外研究的历史和现状（文献综述）。 规范些应该有，如果是小课题可以省略。一般包括：掌握其研究的广度、深度、已取得的成果；寻找有待进一步研究的问题，从而确定本课题研究的平台(起点)、研究的特色或突破点。 （四）论文研究的指导思想 指导思想就是在宏观上应坚持什么方向，符合什么要求等，这个方向或要求可以是哲学、政治理论，也可以是政府的教育发展规划，也可以是有关研究问题的指导性意见等。 （五）论文写作的目标 论文写作的目标也就是课题最后要达到的具体目的,要解决哪些具体问题，也就是本论文研究要达到的预定目标：即本论文写作的目标定位，确定目标时要紧扣课题,用词要准确、精练、明了。 常见存在问题是：不写研究目标；目标扣题不紧；目标用词不准确；目标定得过高, 对预定的目标没有进行研究或无法进行研究。 确定论文写作目标时，一方面要考虑课题本身的要求，另一方面要考率实际的工作条件与工作水平。 （六）论文的基本内容

英语翻译常用句型

翻译中常见的句型 1．否定句型 1）部分否定。其否定意义只局限于整体中的一部分。其形式：“概括词all, every等+not+谓语动词”。常用于该句型词：all, both, everybody, everywhere, always, altogether, entirely, wholly等。 All is not gold that glitters. I do not wholly agree. 2) 完全否定。其形式：no, none 等否定词+肯定式谓语。常用于该句型词：no, none, nobody, nothing, nowhere, never, neither, nowhere, nowise, 等。还有一种句型：all等概括词+肯定式谓语+否定意义的词。 No words can describe the scene. 任何言词均不能描绘那景色。 All his plan came to nothing. 3)双重否定 a.主语+cannot+ help/refrain/keep + from + v-ing He could not help showing his pleasure.他不由得喜形于色。 b.主语+cannot+ but/choose but/ help but +do They can not choose but admit that they are wrong. c.(there be) not +主语+but+谓语 (There is )Nobody but has his faults. 人人都有缺点。 2．判断句型 1）强调判断句 a.主语+be+ no/none +other than/but +表语（强调内容） The tall figure that I saw was none other than our commander. b.主语+be+ nothing+(else)but/ else than/ less than+ 表语 Genius is nothing but labor and diligence.天才只不过是劳动加勤奋而已。 c.it is/was +强调部分+that/ who +从句 It is I who am to blame. 2) 正反判断句 a.主语+be +not+表语a, but +表语b What I admire in Columbus is not his discovered a world, but his having gone to search for it on the faith of an opinion. b.(it is) not… that(who) …, but…that (who) Not that we are afraid of them, but that they are afraid of us. 3)比较判断句： a.主语+be less+表语a +than表语b / more+表语b+表语a Experience shows that success is due less to abilities than to zeal. b.主语+be+表语b+ rather than+表语a He is an artist rather than a philosopher. c.主语+be+ not so much +表语a+ as+表语b It is so much advice as approval that he seeks. 他寻求的与其说是忠告，不如说是忠告。3．倍数表示句型： a.主语+be+倍数+that of 被比较对象/ as +形容词+as+被比较对象

英语翻译常用句型(加精)

英语翻译常考句型详解 1.It is not that…but that… 这不是说…，而是说… 「例文」It is not that the scales in the one case, and the balance in the other, differ in the principles of their construction or manner of working; but that the latter is much finer apparatus and of couse much more accurate in its measurement than the former. 「译文」这并不是说在一种情况下所使用的磅秤和在另一种情况下所使用的天平在构造原理上或工作方式上存在差别，而是说与前者相比，后者是一种更精密得多的装置，因而在计量上必然更加准确。 2.nothing else than 完全是，实在是 「例文」What the man said was nothing else than nonsense. 「译文」那个人讲的话完全是一派胡言。 3.as引导的特殊状语从句，翻译时做定语从句处理。 「例文」We hope the measures to control prices, as they have been taken by the government, will succeed. 「译文」我们希望，政府已经采取的控制物价的措施将取得成功。 4.名词+or+名词结构中，or后的名词是同位语，应译为即…；或者称…. 「例文」Moreover， technology includes techniques , or ways to do things , as well as the manchines that may or may not be necessary to apply them. 「译文」再者，除机器外技术还包括技艺，即制作方法，而运用这些记忆并不一定都需要机器。 5.more…than…结构有三种译法：than连接肯定形式的从句时，该从句译为否定句；在比较的基础上表示选择关系时，可译为与其说…不如说；进行同类比较时，译成比…更. 「例文」The complexity of the human situation and injustice of the social order demand far more fundamental changes in the basic structure of society itself than some politicians are willing to admit in their speeches. 「译文」人类社会形势的复杂性和社会制度的不公正性要求对社会基本结构进行彻底变革，而一些政客口头上是很不愿意承认这一点的。 「分析」这是一个主从复合句，连词than前为主句，than后为从句。虽然本句是进行程度上的比较，但从句意义是否定的， 故译成否定句。 6.no more …than 与not… any more than no more …than 与not… any more than同义，不可简单地看成是more …than的否定形式。具体地说，这一结构可能是带有一定的感情色彩的否定形式，也可能是一种较特殊的类比形式。其翻译方法有二；表示同类否定比较时，可译为不比…更或都…同样不；表示比喻关系时，可译为正如…不，…也不. 「例文」The food on the ship was no better than on any other ship on which Billy had sailed. 「译文」这条船上(供应的)食品并不如比利工作过的其他船上的(食品)好。(括号里的词是可以省略的。) 「分析」这是一个主从复合句、主句是The food …no better , than on any other ship 是省略了比较对象的比较状语从句，从句on which引导的定语从句修饰先行词ship.本句中no more… than用于同类否定的比较，可译为不如…. 7.not so much as与其说…不如说… 「例文」Science moves forward, they say, not so much through the insights of great men of genius as because of more ordinary things like improved techniques and tools. 「译文」新学派科学家说，科学的发展与其说源于天才伟人的真知灼见，不如说源于改进了的技术和工具等等更为普遍的东西。 「分析」这是一个主从复合句。插入语they say是主句，Science moves forward,……and tools是宾语从句。not so much……as 连接的是状语，as引导的状语从句中，由于上下文清楚，主谓语都省略了，即as(sciencemoves forward.)because of……not so much……as也可译为与其说……不如说……，它所表达的逻辑关系和more than有相似之处，也是在比较的基础上进行判断和选择，被比较的事物也同属一个范畴。所不同的是，more……than表示前重后轻的逻辑关系，而not so much… as和less than表示前轻后重的逻辑关系，这两个结构中信息重心落在句尾，因此不必倒过来译，只须按原文的词序顺译即可。

国外免费期刊全文数据库

国外免费期刊全文数据库（转载 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/474483189/blog/1258814676） 香港科技大学图书馆Dspace https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,t.hk/dspace https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,t.hk/dspace[/url] 包括香港科技大学的学术论文、学位论文、研究报告等内容，均可免费获取全文。Openj-gate https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/[/url] 提供4350种开放获取的期刊的数百万期刊全文文献。 加利福尼亚大学国际和区域数字馆藏 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/escholarship/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ escholarship/[/url] 加利福尼亚大学国际和区域数字馆藏研究项目。eScholarshipRepository主要提供已出版的期刊论文、未出版的研究手稿、会议文献以及其他连接出版物上的文章1万多篇，均可免费阅读。 剑桥大学机构知识库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/[/url] 由Cambridge University Library和University Computing Service维护，提供剑桥大学相关的期刊、学术论文、学位论文等电子资源。 发展中国家联合期刊库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,.br/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,.br/[/url] 非营利的电子出版物服务机构，提供来自发展中国家（如巴西、古巴、印度、印尼、肯尼亚、南非、乌干达、津巴布韦等）的开放获取的多种期刊的全文。 美国密西根大学论文库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/index.jsp https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/inde x.jsp[/url] 美国密西根大学论文库2万多篇期刊论文、技术报告、评论等文献全文。包含艺术学、生物学、社会科学、资源环境学等学科的相关论文，另还有博硕士论文。标识为OPEN 的可以打开全文。 jfg CERN Document Server http://cdsweb.cern.ch/http://cdsweb.cern.ch/[/url] 主要覆盖物理学（particle physics）及相关学科，提供360,000多篇全文文献，包括预印文献、期刊论文、图书、图片、学位论文等等。 kl ArXiv https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/[/url]

英语高考常用句型翻译

?高中英语常用50句句型翻译 1、你没有必要提前预定音乐会的票（need n.） There is no need for you to book the ticket for the concert in advance. 2、在专家面前班门弄斧是没有好处的(good n. show) It is no good showing off in the presence of so many experts. 3、如果你不能集中精神学习，熬夜是没有用的(use) It is no use staying up late if you can’t focus your attention on your study. 4、抱怨交通状况是浪费时间(waste) It’s a waste of time making complaints about the transportation system. 5、我觉得你有必要在应聘之前接受一些训练(it) I find it necessary for you to have some training before you apply for a new job. 6、我突然想起来我忘记提醒班长集合的时间了(occur) It suddenly occurred to me that i forgot to remind the monitor of the gathering time. 7、似乎John对於赢得胜利没有什麽信心，你最好对他说些鼓励的话 It seems that John is not very’d better say a few encouraging words to him. 8、第一眼见到她，我就忍不住爱上她了(the first time) The first time i saw her, i couldn’t help falling in love with her. 9、你在阅读上花时间越多，取得进步越大 The more time you spend in reading, the more rapid progress you will make. 10、他获得成功的原因是他从不丧失信心，从不半途而废(halfway) The reason why he achieved success was that he never lost heart and gave up halfway. 11、重要的不是你说些什麽而是你如何演讲(matter) What matters is not what’s in your speech but how you deliver your speech. 12、再努力一下，你就能成功(effort) Make another effort, and you’ll succeed. 13、尽管教学经验不足，他总是全力以赴的满足学生的需求(spare) In spite of the fact that he lacks teaching experience, he spares no effort to meet the demand of his student. 14、不可否认，他的勇气和坚持为他赢得了很高的声誉(deny)

国外论文免费下载网站

国外论文免费下载网站 香港科技大学图书馆Dspace https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,t.hk/dspace 包括香港科技大学的学术论文、学位论文、研究报告等内容，均可免费获取全文。 Openj-gate https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ 提供4350种开放获取的期刊的数百万期刊全文文献。 加利福尼亚大学国际和区域数字馆藏 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/escholarship/ 加利福尼亚大学国际和区域数字馆藏研究项目。eScholarshipRepository主要提供已出版的期刊论文、未出版的研究手稿、会议文献以及其他连接出版物上的文章1万多篇，均可免费阅读。 剑桥大学机构知识库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ 由Cambridge University Library和University Computing Service维护，提供剑桥大学相关的期刊、学术论文、学位论文等电子资源。 发展中国家联合期刊库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,.br/ 非营利的电子出版物服务机构，提供来自发展中国家（如巴西、古巴、印度、印尼、肯尼亚、南非、乌干达、津巴布韦等）的开放获取的多种期刊的全文。 美国密西根大学论文库 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/index.jsp 美国密西根大学论文库2万多篇期刊论文、技术报告、评论等文献全文。包含艺术学、生物学、社会科学、资源环境学等学科的相关论文，另还有博硕士论文。标识为OPEN的可以打开全文。 jfg CERN Document Server http://cdsweb.cern.ch/ 主要覆盖物理学（particle physics）及相关学科，提供360,000多篇全文文献，包括预印文献、期刊论文、图书、图片、学位论文等等。 kl ArXiv https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/ ArXiv是属于Cornell University的非盈利教育机构，面向物理学、数学、非线性科学、计算机科学和定量生物学等学科提供16种免费电子期刊的访问。

旅游的社会影响【外文翻译】

外文翻译 原文 The Social Impacts Of Tourism Material Source:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0e14362624.html,/1117/1/fulltext.pdf Author:A. J. Haley,Tim Snaith,Graham Miller Within tourism literature it has been widely-documented that urban tourism has been continually neglected as an area of research (Ashworth 1989), and consequently remains devoid of a developed understanding or research base (Law 1993; Page 1995). One of the explanations for this is that the uniqueness of individual cities makes reliable comparisons difficult, with a sizeable portion of the literature centered on individual case studies. Thus, this study responds to the call for the development of valid and reliable studies supported by longitudinal and comparative data collection techniques. The authors feel that research into social impact assessment has jumped too quickly from description to modeling and there is need to conduct studies that will provide longitudinal and comparative data. It was felt that without an approach of this nature, any proposed understanding would merely add to the fragmented picture of urban tourism research. Hence, the purpose of this study is to identify and examine the attitudes of residents in Bath, UK towards tourism development and the paper aims to establish a benchmark study for Bath, enabling future longitudinal and comparative analyses of host attitudes. It is also anticipated that future comparative analysis with other historic cities could establish a basis for theory development and the development of flexible modeling tools regarding the social impacts of tourism on residents of historic and related cities in the United Kingdom. Tourism Marketing Tourism Marketing means the tourism product or travel service providers in identifying the manufacturer on the basis of the needs of tourists, by identifying its target market and can provide the design of appropriate tourism products, services and projects to meet these market requirements process. Tourism Marketing integration of communication and dissemination of Focus. Tourism Brand Integrated Marketing is still the dominant form of tourism marketing.Tourism brand of integrated marketing, is the dominant form of tourism

六级翻译常用句型归纳汇总.

六级翻译常用句型归纳汇总 1. During the meeting,hardly had he begun to speak when the audience interrupted him.(他一开始说话,就被听众打断了 2. Surrounded by the police, the kidnappers had no choices but to surrender on the spot.(没有选择,只能投降 3. The concerned mother thrilled at the news of her son having been admitted to the university.(她的儿子被大学入取了 4. The lecture was so boring that the students couldn’t help yawning.(学生忍不住打起哈欠 5. I will be very grateful if you could be kind enough to give me a ride to school.(好心载我一程去学校 6. Unless you sign a contract with the insurance company for your goods, you are not entitled to a repayment for the goods damaged in delivery. (除非你和保险公司签订了货物保险合同 7. It is reported that local health organization was established 25 years ago(据说当地的卫生组织 25年前就成立了 8. Mr s.Smith shut the window lest the noise outside (should interfere with her son’s sleep(外面的噪声会影响她儿子睡觉 9. The new mayor was charged with failure to fulfill his promise to decrease the inflation rate(未能履行他降低通货膨胀率的承诺 10. When confronted with such question, my mind goes blank(每当我遇到这类问题,我脑袋一片空白 , and I can hardly remember my won date of birth.

论文参考方法

开题报告、文献综述、外文翻译、论文反抄袭软件、论文目录，就差论文正文了，其他都全了！！ 开题报告主要包括以下几个方面： （一）论文名称 论文名称就是课题的名字 第一，名称要准确、规范。准确就是论文的名称要把论文研究的问题是什么，研究的对象是什么交待清楚，论文的名称一定要和研究的内容相一致，不能太大，也不能太小，要准确地把你研究的对象、问题概括出来。 第二，名称要简洁，不能太长。不管是论文或者课题，名称都不能太长，能不要的字就尽量不要，一般不要超过20个字。 （二）论文研究的目的、意义 研究的目的、意义也就是为什么要研究、研究它有什么价值。这一般可以先从现实需要方面去论述，指出现实当中存在这个问题，需要去研究，去解决，本论文的研究有什么实际作用，然后，再写论文的理论和学术价值。这些都要写得具体一点，有针对性一点，不能漫无边际地空喊口号。主要内容包括：⑴研究的有关背景(课题的提出)：即根据什么、受什么启发而搞这项研究。⑵通过分析本地（校）的教育教学实际，指出为什么要研究该课题，研究的价值，要解决的问题。 （三）本论文国内外研究的历史和现状（文献综述）。 规范些应该有，如果是小课题可以省略。一般包括：掌握其研究的广度、深度、已取得的成果；寻找有待进一步研究的问题，从而确定本课题研究的平台(起点)、研究的特色或突破点。 （四）论文研究的指导思想 指导思想就是在宏观上应坚持什么方向，符合什么要求等，这个方向或要求可以是哲学、政治理论，也可以是政府的教育发展规划，也可以是有关研究问题的指导性意见等。 （五）论文写作的目标 论文写作的目标也就是课题最后要达到的具体目的,要解决哪些具体问题，也就是本论文研究要达到的预定目标：即本论文写作的目标定位，确定目标时要紧扣课题,用词要准确、精练、明了。 常见存在问题是：不写研究目标；目标扣题不紧；目标用词不准确；目标定得过高, 对预定的目标没有进行研究或无法进行研究。 确定论文写作目标时，一方面要考虑课题本身的要求，另一方面要考率实际的工作条件与工作水平。 （六）论文的基本内容

fulltext翻译

J Appl Electrochem (2009) 39:577-582 DOI 10.1007/s10800-008-9695-z ORIGINAL PAPER Electrochemical treatment of pharmaceutical azo dye amaranth from waste water Rajeev Jain . Nidhi Sharma . Keisham Radhapyari Received: 25 February 2008/Accepted: 13 0ctober 2008/Published online: I November 2008 @ Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract The electrochemical behavior of pharmaceuti- cal azo dye amaranth has been investigated in distilled water and Britton-Robinson buffer. One well-defined irreversible cathodic peak is observed. This may be attributed to the reduction of the -N=N- group. Calculation of the number of electrons transferred in the reduction process has been performed and a reduction mechanism proposed. Results indicate that the electrode process is diffusion controlled. The cathodic peak in the case of controlled potential electrolysis is found to reduce substantially with a decrease in color and absorbance. The reaction has first order kinetics with k value 5.75 x10-2 abs min-l. The effciency of different electrode materials (platinum and steel) for decolorisation is compared. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) decreases substan- tially from 2,680 t0 96 ppm at platinum and t0 142 ppm at steel. This translates t0 97% COD removal at platinum and 95% at steel. Keywords Electrochemical treatment . Amaranth Azo dye . Industrial effluents . CV, COD I Introduction Azo dyes continue to be a source of pollution from industrial processes which employ dyes to color paper, R. Jain . N. Sharma . K. Radhapyari School of Studies in Chemistry, Jiwaji University Gwalior 474011, India e-mail: raj eevj ain54 @ yahoo.co.in plastics, foodstuffs, pharmaceutical products, and natural and artificial fibers [1, 2]. It is reported that approximately 5 tonnes of dye discharge from dye and coloration industries every year [3]. The release of such compounds into the environment is of great concern due to their toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and bio-transformation products [4-6]. Hence. much research has focused on methods of azo dye destruction. Many treatment processes have been investigated extensively to treat wastewaters such as chemical precipitation [7], adsorption [8], biological treatment [9], photocatalytic degradation [10, 11], electro- catalytic oxidation [12], ozonation [13], Fentons' reaction

翻译常考句型

1.It is not that…but that… 这不是说…，而是说… 「例文」It is not that the scales in the one case, and the balance in the other, differ in the principles of their construction or manner of working; but that the latter is much finer apparatus and of couse much more accurate in its measurement than the former. 「译文」这并不是说在一种情况下所使用的磅秤和在另一种情况下所使用的天平在构造原理上或工作方式上存在差别，而是说与前者相比，后者是一种更精密得多的装置，因而在计量上必然更加准确。 2.nothing else than 完全是，实在是 「例文」What the man said was nothing else than nonsense. 「译文」那个人讲的话完全是一派胡言。 3.as引导的特殊状语从句，翻译时做定语从句处理。 「例文」We hope the measures to control prices, as they have been taken by the government, will succeed. 「译文」我们希望，政府已经采取的控制物价的措施将取得成功。 4.名词+or+名词结构中，or后的名词是同位语，应译为即…；或者称…. 「例文」Moreover，technology includes techniques , or ways to do things , as well as the manchines that may or may not be necessary to apply them. 「译文」再者，除机器外技术还包括技艺，即制作方法，而运用这些记忆并不一定都需要机器。 5.more…than…结构有三种译法：than连接肯定形式的从句时，该从句译为否定句；在比较的基础上表示选择关系时，可译为与其说…不如说；进行同类比较时，译成比…更. 「例文」The complexity of the human situation and injustice of the social order demand far more fundamental changes in the basic structure of society itself than some politicians are willing to admit in their speeches. 「译文」人类社会形势的复杂性和社会制度的不公正性要求对社会基本结构进行彻底变革，而一些政客口头上是很不愿意承认这一点的。 「分析」这是一个主从复合句，连词than前为主句，than后为从句。虽然本句是进行程度上的比较，但从句意义是否定的，故译成否定句。

常见句型翻译

常见句型翻译 定语从句的译法 I、译成前置定语 1. To be sure, a great rebuilding project would give jobs to many of those people who need them. 诚然，一个宏伟的重建计划也许能为许多需要工作的人提供就业机会。 2. This is the solider who just returned from the front. 这是刚从前线回来的战士。 3.成都, 一个你来了就不想离开的城市。 Chengdu—A city you will never want to say goodbye after arrival. 4. In recent years, however, people have begun to become aware that cities are also areas where there is a concentration of problems. 可是，近几年来人们开始意识到城市也是问题成堆的地方。 当然，有些起附加说明作用的非限制性定语从句，对先行词也有不同程度的修饰限制作用，有时也可以译为前置定语。 5. The sun, which had hidden all day, now came out in all its splendor. 那个整天躲在云层里的太阳,现在又光芒四射地露面了。 6. He liked his sister, who was warm and pleasant, but he did not like his brother, who was aloof and arrogant. 他喜欢热情愉快的妹妹，而不喜欢冷漠高傲的哥哥。 II . 译成后置定语 A、一些结构比较复杂，或者意思上有较强的独立性的限制性定语从句，通常可译为后置的并列句。采取这种译法往往要重复关系代词所代替的词，比如：有时可在此词之前加指示词“这”、“这些”或人称代词“他”、“他们”等等，来使译文明确。 7. This volume is prepared as examples for writing compositions which, as it were, has been taken as a difficult task. 本书旨在为写作提供范例，可以说写作是一个难题。 8. Matter is composed of molecules that are composed of atoms. 物质是由分子组成的，而分子又是由原子组成的。 9. But listen, I met a man, who said you could solve this problem. 听着，我遇见一个人，这个人说你是有权解决这个问题的。 10. Day light comes from the sun, which is a mass of hot, glowing gas. 日光来自太阳，太阳是一团炽热、发光的气体。 B、非限制性定语从句与先行词的关系不十分密切，只是对先行词加以说明，描述或解释，或对整个句子所陈述的事实或现象加以总结、补充说明，其前都有逗号分开。在汉译时一般译为后置并列分句。如： 11.He blamed me for everything, which I thought very unfair. 他把一切错误都归罪于我，我认为这很不公平。 12. These books, which are only a small part of my collection, I picked up in American. 这些书是我在美国买的,它们在我的藏书中只占一小部分。 13. She was very patient towards the children, which her husband seldom was. 她对孩子们很耐心，而她丈夫却很少这样。