منابع مشابه
on the comparison of keyword and semantic-context methods of learning new vocabulary meaning
the rationale behind the present study is that particular learning strategies produce more effective results when applied together. the present study tried to investigate the efficiency of the semantic-context strategy alone with a technique called, keyword method. to clarify the point, the current study seeked to find answer to the following question: are the keyword and semantic-context metho...
15 صفحه اولComparing Strengths and Weaknesses of Learning Theories
Introduction: Medical education is changing. Therefore, teachers need to evaluate their performance and try to maximize learning. Learning theories can provide insight in this important issue. This study aimed to review the strengths and weaknesses of learning theories including behavioral, cognitive and humanistic theories. Methods: In this study, some literatures related to learning theories...
متن کاملComparing Abductive Theories
This paper introduces two methods for comparing explanation power of different abductive theories. One is comparing explainability for observations, and the other is comparing explanation contents for observations. Those two measures are represented by generality relations over abductive theories. The generality relations are naturally related to the notion of abductive equivalence introduced b...
متن کاملComparing Theories of Institutional Change
This paper compares some recent theoretical approaches to conceptualizing institutional change, in an effort to clarify areas of consensus and disagreement regarding the causes, process, and outcomes of institutional change. We do not attempt to build a “new” theory, and our survey is not intended to be comprehensive. Among the theories we discuss, some emphasize spontaneous evolutionary proces...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Journal of Semantics
سال: 1984
ISSN: 0167-5133,1477-4593
DOI: 10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1