تأثیر آموزش زیست شناسی به روش تفکر استقرایی بر سطوح یادگیری درس زیست شناسی دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه دوم متوسطه
الموضوعات : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسیسعید ویسی کهره 1 , رسول کردنوقابی 2 , مهران فرهادی 3
1 - 1کارشناس ارشد روانشناسی تربیتی. دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان، همدان، ایران
2 - 2دانشیار گروه روانشناسی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان، همدان، ایران
3 - 3استادیار گروه روانشناسی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان، همدان، ایران
الکلمات المفتاحية: سطوح یادگیری, زیست شناسی, تفکر استقرایی,
ملخص المقالة :
هدف پژوهش شناسایی اثربخشی روش تدریس تفکر استقرایی بر سطوح یادگیری (یادآوری، فهمیدن، کاربستن) دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه دوم متوسطه شهر همدان در درس زیست شناسی بود. طرح پژوهشی مورد استفاد از نوع آزمایشی(چهارگروهی سولومون) بود. جامعه آماری این پژوهش کلیه دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه دوم مقطع متوسطه دبیرستان‌های روزانه و دولتی شهر همدان و روش نمونه‌گیری از نوع خوشه‌ای است. در این طرح از پرسشنامه محقق ساخته پیشرفت تحصیلی 30 سؤالی از نوع چهار گزینه‌ای (با روایی محتوایی) استفاده شد که 10 سؤال اول آزمون را یادآوری (میزان یادگیری) و 20 سؤال بعد آزمون پیشرفت تحصیلی را فهمیدن و کاربستن (عمق یادگیری) اندازه‌گیری می‌کرد. در طرح آزمایشی 80 نفر از دانش‌آموزان به صورت تصادفی در چهار گروه (دوگروه کنترل و دو گروه آزمایشی) 20 نفری قرار گرفتند. در ابتدا از آزمودنی‌ها با استفاده از آزمون محقق ساخته پیشرفت تحصیلی پیش آزمون به عمل آمد. طرح آزمایشی طی 7 جلسه اجرا شد و پس از اتمام جلسات آموزشی از هر چهار گروه پس آزمون (آزمون محقق ساخته پیشرفت تحصیلی) به عمل آمد. به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها در تمامی فرضیه‌ها از تجزیه و تحلیل واریانس چند متغیره (مانووا) استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد آموزش به روش تفکر استقرایی بر میزان یادگیری (سطح یادآوری) دانش‌آموزان معنادار بود. ولی به کارگیری این روش تدریس بر عمق یادگیری (سطوح فهمیدن و کاربستن) معنادار نبود. بنابراین روش تدریس تفکر استقرایی میزان یادگیری دانش‌آموزان را در درس زیست‌شناسی افزایش می‌دهد اما نمی‌تواند عمق یادگیری آنان را ارتقا دهد.
Abozari, R. (1998). Investigate the impact of training by inductive thinking Method on progression academic in crouse sicence Students of Tehran city. A dissertation for the degree of MA in the Tarbiat moalem university. Tarbiat moalem university. [ Persian]. Ashrafi, S,. Jehanseir, KH. (2011). The Impact Inductive and Analogical Teaching Methods on Students Mathematic Scores in Islamic Azad University if Maragheh. Research in Curriculum Planning. Vol 8. No 1, 2(continus 28, 29). PP. 62-71. [ Persian]. Baveja, B. (1988) An exploratory study of the use of information-processing models of teaching in secondary school biology science classes. PH.D. thesis, Delhi, india: Delhi university. Bay , M. J . R .Staver ,T. Bryan , and J.B.Hale. (1990). Sceince instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching .Journal Of Research In Science Teaching 29(6) : 555-700 Behrabgi, M. (1997). New models of teaching. Journal of Educational Research. Tehran, Institute for Educational Research, Tarbiat Moallem University. [ Persian]. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bruner, J.S.(1996). The Culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Hardvard University Press. Cheistopher, D. A. , Joseph, A. T, Susan, M. K, Janet, .(2010). The Relative Effects and Equity of Inquiry-Based and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students Konwledge Reasoning, and Argumentation. Journal of Reaserch In Science Teaching. Vol. 47 , No 3, PP. 276-301. Cropley. J, Arthur.(2001). Creativity in education and learning.A guide for teachers and educators.Kogan page, London. Does, R.F. (1997). An Action research Study of Effectiveness of problem-Bases Learning in Promoting Acquistion and Retention of Konwledge. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, Vol.13, pp. 535-568. Elefant. E. (1980).Deaf children in an inquiry training program. Volta review, 82, 271-279. El-Nemr , M. A. (1979) Meta-analysis of the outcomes of teaching biology as inquiry. Unpoblished doctoral disertition, boulder: University Colorado. Farahani, M. (2005). Introduction to qualitative evaluation of learner learned. Tehran. Publication Moasese Farhangi Monadi Tarbiat[Persian]. Farajola, K.H. (2003). Impact of teaching Inductive Thinking Method in learning Persian grammar. Piyke Noor. Vol, 2. N. 2. PP; 120-124. [Persian]. Feeley, T. (1972). The concepts of inquiry in the social studies.Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Felder, R.M., and Brent, R. (2001). Effective Strategeis for Cooperative Learning.The journal of Cooperative and Collaboration in College Teaching. Vol. 10, No.2, PP. 69-75. Felder, R.M., and Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual development of science and engineering students and challeges, Journal Enger. Education, 93, 69-277. Fencl, H., and K. Scheel.(2005). Engaging students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1): 20-24. GhasemPoorMoghadam, H. (2008). Inductive Thinking Method in Tranining of Persian language. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. Vol. 39. Winter, 2008. [ Persian]. Gijbels, D., Dochy , F., Van den Bossche, P., &Segers, M. (2005). Effects of Problem-Bases Learning: A Meta-Analysis from the Angle of Assessment. Review of Education Reasearch, Vol. 75, No.1, PP. 27-61. Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (1994). Frist Year university students understanding of photosynthesis, their study strategies and learning context. American Biology Teacher, 56, 274-279. Heflich, D., Dixon, J., & Davis, K. (2001). Taking It to the Field: The Authentic Intergration of Mathematics and Technology in Inquiry-Bases Science Instruction.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Vol.20, No. 1, P.99 Hejazi, S.H. (1997). The impact Inductive Teaching Method in progression academic in crouse sicence grade five Students. A dissertation for the degree of MA in the Tehran university. [Persian]. Hillocks, G.(1987) Synthesis of research on teaching writing, Educational learship, 44(8): 71-82. Hung, W., Bailey, J.H., &Janassen, D.H. (2003). Exploring the Tensions of Problem-Bases Learning: Insights from Reasearch. In D.S. Konwledge and D.C. Sharp, eds., Problem-Bases Learning in the Information Age, New Direction for Teaching Learning #95, San Francisco:Jossey Bass, pp. 13-23. Jacinta, A. O. Nkasiobi(2011). Inquiry Instructional Method and The School Science Curriculum. Current Research Journal Of Social Sciences.3(3): 188_198. Jalil, P.A.(2006). Aprocedual Problem in Laboratory teaching: Experiment and Explain, or vice versa? Journal of Chemical Education 83(1): 159-63. Janson, D.W., Janson, R.T., Stanne, M.E. (2000). Cooperative Learning methods: A Meta-Analysis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning center. Lewis, S.E., Lewis.(2005). Department from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education 82(1): 135-39. Londraville, R., Niewiarowski, P., Laipply, r., & Owens, K.(2002). Inquiry-Bases Laboratorories for Introductory Biology. The Society for Intergrative and Comprative Biology, Vol. 42, N. 6, P. 1267. Magnussen , L. Inshida , D , Itono , J . (2000). The use of inquiry based learning . J . of nursing education , 39 , 8 , pp. 360-364. Maye, R& Moreno, R(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. Mccreary , C . L., M. F .Golde , and R . Koese(2006). Peer instruction in general chemistery laboratory: assessment of student learning. Journal Of Chemical Education 83(5): 804-10. Hasani, M. (2005). Descriptive evaluation of the implementation guide. Tehran. Publication Asare Moaser.[Persian]. Hasani, M., Kazemi, Y. (2004). Plan Descriptive evaluation(objectives, principles, and practices). Tehran. Publication Asare Moaser.[Persian]. Nasrabadi, H.B., Noruzi, R.A. (2005). The extent of reaching the cognitive objectives in science classroom using traditional and inquiry methods of instruction. A Publication of The Institute for Educational Research Ministry of Education The Islamic Republic of IraVol. 21, No. 4. PP;87-109. [ Persian]. Oakley, B., felder, R.M., Brent, R., &Elhaji, I. (2004). Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams. The Journal of Students Centered Learning, Vol. 2, NO. 1, PP. 9-34. Parsa. A. (2005).The impact of training by Inductive and Analogical Teaching Methods on Students, high schools of Shiraz city in crouse Persian language. A dissertation for the degree of MA in the Shiraz university. Shiraz university. [ Persian]. Prince, M. J., Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Reasearch Bases. Journal of Engineering Education: Apr 2006: 95, 2: ProQuest Education Journal, Pg. 123. Rastegar, T. (2003). Evaluation of in-service training. Tehran. Publication Moasese Farhangi Monadi Tarbiat[Persian]. Roth, W. M. (1994). Student views of collaborative concept mapping: An Emancipatory Reasearch Project. Science Education, 78(1), 1-34. Schlenker, R., &Schlenker, K. (2000). Intergrating Science, Mathematic, and Sociology in a Inquiry-Bases Study of Changing Population Density. Science Activities, Vol. 36, No. 4, P.16. Schrenker, G. (1976). The effects of an inquiry-development program on elementary schoolchildrens science learning. PH.D thesis, New York University. Sharp, D.M.M., & Primrose, C.S. (2003). The Virtual Family: An Evaluation of an Innovative Approach Using Problem-Bases Learning to Integrate Curriculum Themes in a Nursing Undergraduate Programme. Nurse Education Today, Vol. 23, PP. 219-225. Smith, D. (1996). A Meta-Analysis of Students Outcomes Attributable to of Teaching of Science a Compared to Traditional Methodology, ph.D.Dissertation, Temple University, Departmen Education. Smith, M. L. (1980) Effects of Aesthetics Education on Basic Skills Learning. Boulder CO: Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado. Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., & Donovan, S. (1997). Effects of Small-Group Learning on undergraduates in Science Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Madison, Wisconsin: National Institute for science Education. Taba, H. (1966). Teaching Strategies and cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Children(cooperative Research Project 2404). San Francisco state College. Taba, H. (1967). Teacher Handbook for Elementary School studies. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Ternzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, Cl., Parente, J.M., &Bjorklund, S.A. (2001). Coolaborative Learning vs. lecture/Discussion: Students Reported Learning Gains. Journal of Engineerning Education, Vol. 90, No.1, PP. 123-130. Trotter, T., Jones, M. (2003) Relationships Between Inquiry-Bases Teaching and Physics Sceince Standardized Test Scores, School Sceince and Mathematics Association, Vol. 103, 7, P.345. Vernon, D.T.A., & Blake, R.L.(1993). Does problem-Bases Lesrning Work? A Meta-Analysis of Evalutive Research, Academic medicine, Vol. 68, pp. 550-563. Voss. B. A. (1982). Summary of research in science education. Columbus, Oh.: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathemathic, and Enviormental Education. Worthen, B. (1968). A study of discovery and expository presentation: Implications for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 19 , 223-242. Zhou Ke.(2008). An Inductive Approach to English Grammar Teaching. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Students Vol.12.
_||_