تاثیر سه روش تدریس آزمایشگاه مجازی، آزمایشگاه واقعی و روش سنتی بر انگیزش تحصیلی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزش پزشکی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

2 دانشیار تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی،تهران، ایران

3 استادیار گروه روانشناسی بالینی، ، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

10.22054/jti.2020.3214.1068

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی تأثیر برگزاری آزمایشگاه مجازی، آزمایشگاه واقعی و آموزش به روش سنتی (سخنرانی) بر انگیزش تحصیلی دانش‏آموزان در درس فیزیک و آزمایشگاه بود. نمونه پژوهش از میان دانش‏آموزان دختر رشته ریاضی و فیزیک سال سوم مقطع دبیرستان انتخاب و محتوای درسی الکتریسیته در نظر گرفته شده است. نمونه موردنظر از طریق نمونه‏گیری تصادفی انتخاب و شامل 45 نفر بودند که در قالب سه گروه موردبررسی قرار گرفتند. طرح پژوهش حاضر از نوع نیمه آزمایشی بود. ابزار گردآوری اطلاعات پرسشنامه SMQ بوده است. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از تحلیل نشان داد که بین سه گروه در مؤلفه‏های انگیزش تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد و میانگین اغلب مؤلفه‏های انگیزش در گروه آزمایشگاه مجازی بیشتر از دو گروه آزمایشگاه واقعی و آموزش به روش سنتی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation of affecting three teaching methods of virtual laboratory, real laboratory and the conventional method on motivation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Haniye Mastour 1
  • Mohammad Reza Nili 2
  • Maryam Moghadasin 3
2 Associate professor's Allameh Tabatabai University
3 PhD of measurement and assessment
چکیده [English]

Abstract:

The present research aim is to investigate the effect of holding the virtual laboratory, real laboratory, and education by the conventional method (lecture) on students' motivation in physics and laboratory lessons. The research sample has been selected among girl students of mathematics and physics branch in the third year of high school curriculum choice and syllabus of the electricity has been considered. The considered sample was selected through the random sampling and consisted of 45 persons that were investigated in the form of three groups.
The present research design is of quasi-experimental type. The instrument of data collection has been SMQ4 questionnaire. The obtained results of analysis showed that there is a significant difference among three groups in components of motivation and average of most components of motivation is more in the group of virtual laboratory than two groups of the real laboratory and education by the traditional method.

Keywords: motivation, virtual laboratory, real laboratory, the computerized simulation

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • motivation
  • virtual laboratory
  • real laboratory
  • Computerized Simulation
 

Altun, E., Demirdağ, B., Feyzioğlu, B., Ateş, A., & Çobanoğlu, İ. (2009). Developing an interactive virtual chemistry laboratory enriched with constructivist learning activities for secondary schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences1(1), 1895-1898.

Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2011). The TriLab, a novel ICT based triple access mode laboratory education model. Computers & Education56(1), 262-274.

Bozkurt, E., & Ilik, A. (2010). The effect of computer simulations over students’ beliefs on physics and physics success. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences2(2), 4587-4591.

Chini, J. J., Carmichael, A., Rebello, N. S., Gire, E., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Comparing students’ performance with physical and virtual manipulatives in a simple machines curriculum. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Denver, Colorado, USA: Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21-29.

De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of educational research68(2), 179-201.

Farrokhnia, M. R. (2009). Investigating the effect of holding the laboratory virtually and comprehensively on learning, skill and incentive' students of Tehran Rajaee Martyr University in the lesson of electricity laboratory and comparing it with the common method of holding laboratory. MA Thesis of University of Rajai teacher training.

Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (2007). Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development. Covent Garden, London.

Gibson, D., & Baek, Y. (2009). Digital simulations for improving education. United States of America: Information Science Reference

Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. J. (2006). Motivation to Learn College Science: A Handbook of College Science Teaching.

Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology2, 571-581.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science education88(1), 28-54.

Iqbal, A., Kankaanranta, M., & Neittaanmäki, P. (2010). Experiences and motivations of the young for participation in virtual worlds. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences2(2), 3190-3197.

Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & education36(2), 183-204.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education4(2), 193-212.

Kiamanesh, A., & Pourasghar, N. (2006). The role of math self concept, math motivation, math pervious achievement and sex on math achievement. The Journal of Education and Psychology, ShahidChamran University, 13(2), 77-94.

Kirschner, P. A., & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives. Higher education17(1), 81-98.

Moenikia, M., & Zahed-Babelan, A. (2010). A study of simple and multiple relations between mathematics attitude, academic motivation and intelligence quotient with mathematics achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences2(2), 1537-1542.

Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)38(3), 7-es.

McComas, W. F. (1997). The Nature of the Laboratory Experience: A Guide for Describing, Classifying, and Enhancing Hands-On Activities. CSTA Journal6, 9.

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in science education50(1), 85-129.

Niedderer, H., & Psillos, D. (2003). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory. Kluwer Academic.

Saleh, Sedghpour, B., and Gholamrezaei, F. (2013). The role of the knowlege computerized games on the achievement incentive and academic achievement in mathematics according to pre-knowledge of language and mathematics in students. Journal of Information and Communication Technology in Education, 3(3), 113-89.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2010). The Theories of Personality.

Seif, A. (2009). Modern Education Psychology. Tehran: Doran Pub. (in Persian).

Slavin, R. E. (2008). Educational Psychology.

Sever, S., Yurumezoglu, K., & Oguz-Unver, A. (2010). Comparison teaching strategies of videotaped and demonstration experiments in inquiry-based science education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences2(2), 5619-5624.

Song, H., & Kidd, T. (2010). Human performance and instructional technology. United States of America: Information Science Reference.

Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-173.

Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and instruction21(3), 317-331.

Zeyer, A., Çetin‐Dindar, A., Md Zain, A. N., Juriševič, M., Devetak, I., & Odermatt, F. (2013). Systemizing: A cross‐cultural constant for motivation to learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching50(9), 1047-1067.