مقایسه تأثیر یادگیری الکترونیکی مبتنی بر رویکرد سازنده‌گرایی با یادگیری مشارکتی بر عملکرد شناختی دانشجویان

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت آموزشی

شقایق رضاپناه ¹ (کارشناس ارشد برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری، ساری، ایران)
مسعود احمدی ² (استادیار گروه مدیریت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری، ساری، ایران)

تاریخ دریافت : 1393/02/25 تاریخ پذیرش : 1393/07/25 تاریخ انتشار : 1394/02/11

کلید واژه: یادگیری الکترونیکی, یادگیری مشارکتی, عملکرد شناختی, رویکرد سازنده‌گرایی,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش، با هدف مقایسه تأثیر یادگیری الکترونیکی مبتنی بر رویکرد سازنده‌گرایی با یادگیری مشارکتی بر میزان عملکرد شناختی دانشجویان دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری در سال 1392 انجام شد. روش پژوهش، شبه آزمایشی بود. جامعه آماری، شامل دانشجویان رشته برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی به تعداد 125 نفر بود. از میان آنها، 44 نفر (دو کلاس 22 نفره) به صورت تصادفی خوشه‌ای (بدون تفکیک جنسیت) به عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها برای سنجش عملکرد شناختی، پرسش‌نامه حاوی سؤالات چندگزینه‌ای پایان دوره با پایایی 80/0 بود که به صورت پس‌آزمون برای دو گروه آزمایش و کنترل مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از آمار توصیفی شامل فراوانی، درصد، میانگین و انحراف معیار و آمار استنباطی شامل آزمون t گروه‌های مستقل انجام شده است. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن بود که عملکرد شناختی در گروه الکترونیکی با رویکرد سازنده‌گرایی بالاتر از گروه مشارکتی می‌باشد. هم‌چنین در عملکرد شناختی دو گروه الکترونیکی و مشارکتی در بین مردان تفاوت معناداری وجود نداشت، ولی در بین زنان تفاوت معناداری مشاهده شد. علاوه بر آن، عملکرد شناختی به تفکیک سابقه کار و رشته‌های تحصیلی در دو گروه دارای تفاوت معناداری نبود.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This study aimed at comparing the impact of constructivist-oriented E-learning with collaborative learning on the cognitive function of students at Islamic Azad University of Sari Branch in 2012-2013. This study adopted a quasi-experimental design. The statistical population consisted of 125 male and female students at 2 educational planning classes, among whom 44 subjects (in two 22 individual gender-based classes) were chosen as the sample based on random cluster sampling. The data collection tool to measure the cognitive function was a final multiple choice exam questionnaire with a reliability of α=0.80 applied as a post-test for both experimental and control groups. The data were analyzed via descriptive statistics (including frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation) and the inferential statistics (including independent two-sample test) using SPSS software. The results of the study showed that cognitive function in electronics group with constructivist approach was higher than that of the collaborative group. Also, there was no significant difference for cognitive function among men in both groups, but there was a significant difference among women in both groups and no meaningful difference was found for cognitive function by separating work experience and the educational majors in the two groups.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Babai, M. (2010). Introduction to e-learning (1st edition). Tehran: Chapar (Iranian Institute of Information Science and Technology). (in Persian).


2. Barrow, L., Markman, L., & Rouse, C. E. (2009). Technology edge: The educational benefits of computer-aided instruction. American Economic Journal, Economic Policy, 1)1), 52-74.


3. Dadfar, R. (2010). Comparing the effects of individual and collaborative learning on the growth rate of social skills of third-year university students of human sciences in Lyran city. M. A. Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch. (in Persian).


4. Dadgostarnya, M., & Vafamehr, V. (2010). Comparable training and physical examination combined with E-learning approach in addition to training in small groups with the method of teaching small groups. Iranian Journal of Medical Education (Mashhad), 10(1), 11-18. (in Persian).


5. Deryakulu, D., Buyukozturk, S., & Ozcinar, H. (2009). Predictors of academic achievement of student ICT teachers with different learning styles. International Journal of Human and Social Science, 3(10), 689-695.


6. Elliot, S. (2010). Multimedia in schools: A study of web-based animation effectiveness. Retrieved from http://center.uoregon.edu.


7. Fardanesh, H. (1999). A critical comparison of systematic and constructive approaches to instructional design. Modarres Humanities Quarterly, 3(3), 139-149. (in Persian).


8. Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers and students verbal behaviors during cooperative and mall group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271-287.


9. Jonassen, D. H. (1991) .Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Journal of Educationol Research, 39(3), 5-14.


10. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia supported predict-observe-explain tasks in social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427-453.


11. Keramaty, M. (2006). Studying cooperative learning effects on social skills development and academic achievement of 5th grade math of Kannani Town. Psychology and Education, 1(37), 39-55. (in Persian).


12. Kutnick, P., Ota, C., & Berdondini, L. (2008). Improving the effects of group working in classrooms with young school-aged children: Facilitating attainment, interaction and classroom activity. Learning & Instruction, 18(1), 83-95.


13. Lockias, Ch. (2012). A constructivist approach to the design and delivery of an online professional development course of the iearn online course. Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 23-48.


14. Maghamynia, S. (2010). The impact of e-media in promoting primary students teaching and learning in gonbad city. M.A. Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch. (in Persian).


15. Mashayekh, F. (2010). The position of pedagogy in E-learning quality. Efficient Schools, 9(3), 20-22. (in Persian).


16. Miker, F. (2011). The roles of information communication technologies in education review article with emphasis to the computer and internet. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 6(2),1-14.


17. Msrabady, J., Golamazad, S., & Ostovar, N. (2012). The Influence of teaching methods as dividing students into advanced groups (STAD) on the indices of cognitive, affective and cognitive in learning math. Educational Innovations, 41(11), 29-50. (in Persian).


18. Naghshineh, N. (2002). E-learning (photocopied version). Tehran University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. (in Persian).


19. Oludipe, D., & Awokoy, J. O. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning teaching strategy on the reduction of students anxiety for learning chemistry. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(1), 30-36.


20. Owusu, K. A., Monney, K. A., Appiah, J. Y., & Wilmot, E. M. (2010). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on performance of senior high school biology students in Ghana. Computers and Education, 55(2), 904-910.


21. Pakizeh, A. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on student achievement & self-concept. M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University. (in Persian).


22. Sabiston, P. (2000). An inquiry into criteria that identity quality adult web-based learning. M.A. Dissertation, Canada, Royal Roads University.


23. Seif, A. (2011). Modern educational psychology, psychology of learning and teaching (11th ed). Tehran: Doran. (in Persian).


24. Sherbaf, S. (2009). An efficient method for dynamic collaborative teaching at Shahroud Industrial University. Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 169-178. (in Persian).


25. Taghipurzaheer, A. (2006). Introduction to educational & curriculum planning. (36th ed). Tehran: Agah. (in Persian).


26. Zohourian, M., Memarzade, H., & Vasily, A. (2009). Comparison of the effects of three methods of teaching speech, HBM and e-learning on college students' knowledge and attitudes in relation to the application of Isfahan influencing factors for cardiovascular disease prevention. Journal of Medical Education Development Center, 5(3), 40. (in Persian).