As far as electronics go, the Educational version of TINA allows the instructor to insert faults so the students can "troubleshoot the circuit. The NIDA trainers have been around since the late 1970s, minus the computers of course.
There are many tools available. Creating useful lessons take TIME, no matter which venue you pursue. The power points, timed properly, are nothing more than an electronic kineographs.
In the 1980's I know of one school where the instructors were given four hours prep for each hour of lecture. The only way to improve on that is to create useful tools that can be used repeatedly with each session of the course, which you can modify with "newer" information.
As far as "cheat sheets" aka study guides aka notes ... I don't understand why one would leave their academic success to something they "found" on the internet without verifying each detail. I see it all the time in advancement competitions twice a year. Some don't read the references or take copious notes. Others explain their poor test performance on the "poor test taker" syndrome.
No one states they didn't prepare properly. Poor Test takers might not have the comprehension skills to identify the stem of the question and are easily fooled by the distractors in the multiple guess questions. I know my problem is reading too dam fast and missing key points in the question thus making stupid mistakes. Once one identifies their weakness, they can take steps to minimize it's effects.
There are many tools available. Creating useful lessons take TIME, no matter which venue you pursue. The power points, timed properly, are nothing more than an electronic kineographs.
In the 1980's I know of one school where the instructors were given four hours prep for each hour of lecture. The only way to improve on that is to create useful tools that can be used repeatedly with each session of the course, which you can modify with "newer" information.
As far as "cheat sheets" aka study guides aka notes ... I don't understand why one would leave their academic success to something they "found" on the internet without verifying each detail. I see it all the time in advancement competitions twice a year. Some don't read the references or take copious notes. Others explain their poor test performance on the "poor test taker" syndrome.
No one states they didn't prepare properly. Poor Test takers might not have the comprehension skills to identify the stem of the question and are easily fooled by the distractors in the multiple guess questions. I know my problem is reading too dam fast and missing key points in the question thus making stupid mistakes. Once one identifies their weakness, they can take steps to minimize it's effects.
