بررسی کیفی اصول حاکم بر طراحی آموزشی مبتنی بر نظریة انعطاف‌پذیری شناختی در ترکیب با راهبردهای داربست‌سازی
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسیعباس تقی زاده 1 , جواد حاتمی 2 , مریم قاسمی 3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری تکنولوژی آموزشی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، ایران.
2 - دانشیار علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، ایران.
3 - دانشجوی دکتری تکنولوژی آموزشی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، ایران.
کلید واژه: مسائل پیچیده, داربست‌سازی, یادگیری مبتنی بر مورد, نظریه انعطاف‌پذیری شناختی, رویکرد سازنده گرایی,
چکیده مقاله :
ارائه موضوعات پیچیده از طریق رویکردهای آموزش خطی با مشکلاتی همراه است زیرا هر چه حوزه محتوایی پیچیده‌تر می‌شود، از ساختار و تجانس کمتر و نیز به همپوشانی بیشتر با سایر حوزه‌های دانش دچار می‌گردد. بدین منظور، اسپیرو و همکاران مدعی‌اند محیط‌های آموزشی طراحی شده بایستی بر پیچیدگی جهان واقعی و ساختارنایافتگی بسیاری از حوزه‌های دانش تأکید کند. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی کیفی اصول حاکم بر طراحی آموزشی مبتنی بر نظریه انعطاف‌پذیری شناختی در ترکیب با راهبردهای داربست‌سازی در محیط‌های یادگیری مبتنی بر رایانه، انجام شد. روش تحقیق، تحلیل محتوای کیفی (استقرایی) بود. جامعة آماری پژوهش، شامل کلیة منابع و مقالات نمایه شده در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی (84 منبع) در بازه زمانی 2015-1991 مرتبط با نظریه‌های انعطاف‌پذیری شناختی و داربست‌سازی بود. نمونه‌برداری از این منابع با روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انجام گرفت و درنهایت الگوی طراحی آموزشی پیشنهادی مبتنی بر نظریه انعطاف‌پذیری شناختی مبتنی بر 9 اصل در ترکیب با راهبردهای داربست‌سازی ارائه گردید. ازآنجایی‌که نظریه انعطاف‌پذیری شناختی عموماً برای کسب دانش پیشرفته ارائه شده است، لذا از الگوی فوق می‌توان برای طراحی آموزش‌ها برای فراگیران در سطوح تحصیلی متوسطه به بالا استفاده نمود.
Presenting complex domains of knowledge through traditional linear models of instruction, is problematic because as content areas becomes more complex, the domain of knowledge becomes more ill structured, non-uniform, and overlapping with other domains. For this, Spiro & et al. argue that learning environments should emphasize ‘‘the real-world complexity and ill-structuredness of many knowledge domains. The aim of this research was qualitative study of the principles of educational design based on cognitive flexibility theory in combination with scaffolding strategies in computer-based learning environments. Qualitative content analysis method was used in this research. The study population included all resources and related articles indexed in scientific databases during 1991-2015(84resource) related to the 2 theories of this study. A sample through Purposive sampling was selected and finally the proposed educational design model based on cognitive flexibility theory with 9 principles in combination with scaffolding strategies was presented. Since cognitive flexibility theory is generally presented for advanced knowledge acquirement, the proposed model can be used for educational design for learners at high school levels and upper.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology,96(3), 523–535.
Barab SA, Sadler TD, Heiselt C, Hickey D, Zuiker S (2007) Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. J Sci Educ Technol 16:59–82.
Belland, B., Glazewski, K., & Richardson, J. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401–422.
Bell Ph, Linn MC. (2000) Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. IntJ Sci Educ.;22(8):797-817.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using Internet. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1207–1217.
Bull, K., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & GriYn, J. (1999). Processes for developing scaVolding in a computer
mediated learning environment. In Rural special education for the new millennium (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429765).
Cepni, S., Tas, E., &Kose, S. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science.Computers & Education, 46, 192–205.
Chieu, V. M. (2007). An Operational Approach for Building Learning Environments Supporting Cognitive Flexibility. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (3), 32-46.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.
Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939–954.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
[Fazeli A, Karami M. (2015) Teacher training students' experiences of instructional designing based on the constructivism approach. Research in curriculum planning.2 (18):140-150]
Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., &Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds:Mastering complexity, individually, and in groups. InKoschmann T. (Eds.), CSCL: Theory and practice of anemerging paradigm, Mahweh: Erlbaum, 25–44.
[Firoozy,Z, Karami, M, Karshaky, H, Saeedi Rezvani, M(2013.)Johnson’s constructive pattern impact in problem-based learning on the attitude, satisfaction and learning in in-service training programs for teachers. Research in curriculum planning.2 (12):36-52]
Fisch, S. M. (2005). Making educational computer games "educational". In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp.56-61). NY: ACM Press.
Gazit, E., Yair, Y., & Chen, D. (2005).Emerging conceptual understanding of complex astronomical phenomena by using a virtual solar system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 459–470.
Ge, X., & Er, N. (2005). An online support system to scaffold real-world problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(3), 139 – 157.
Hannafin M., Land S.M. & Oliver K. (1999) Open learning environments: foundations, methods, and models. In Instructional Design Theories and Models (ed. C. Reigeluth), pp. 115-140. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Harmer AJ, Cates WM (2007) Designing for learner engagement in middle school science: technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Comput Schools 24:105–124.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance.Educational Psychology, 21 (5),5–23.
Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving.Instructional Science, 38(6),523–550.
Kauffman, D. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139–162.
Ketelhut D, Nelson BC, Clarke J, Dede C (2010) A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. Br J EducTechnol 41:56–68.
Kim M.C. & Hannafin M.J. (2011) Scaffolding problem solving in technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs): bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education 56, 403–417.
Lajoie SP, Guerrera C, Munsie SD, Lavigne NC(2001).Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instruct Sci.;29(2):155-86.
Lee EYC, Chan CKK, Van Aalst J. (2006) Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. Int J Comput Support Collabor Learn.;1(1):57-87.
Miyake N, Norman DA (1979) To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known. J Verbal Learn VerbalBehav 18:357–364
Moreno R, Valdez A. (2007) Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. J Educ Psychol.99(1):194-206.
Pass, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32:1-8.
Puntambekar S. & Hubscher R. (2005) Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist 40, 1–12.
Park S, Lim J. (2007) Promoting positive emotion in multimedia learning using visual illustrations. J Educ Multimed Hypermed. 16(2):141-62.
Pedersen S, Liu M. (2002) The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. J Educ Comput Res.26(4):353-80
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 213 – 314.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers & Education, 44(1), 1–34.
Sandoval WA. (2003) Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. J Learn Sci.;12(1):5-52.
Scheiter K.&Gerjets P. (2007) Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review 19, 285–307.
Schraw G. (2007) The use of computer-based learning environments for understanding and improving self-regulation. Metacognition and Learning2, 169–176.
Shapiro,A.M. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Education Tech Research Dev (2008) 56:29–44
Simons KD, Klein JD(2007) The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instruct Sci. 35(1):41-72.
Spiro RJ, Collins BP, Thota JJ, Feltovich PJ (2003) Cognitive flexibility theory: hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. EducTechnol 45(5):5–10.
Spiro RJ, Coulson RL, Feltovich PJ, Anderson DK (1988) Cognitive flexibility theory: advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Tech. Rep. No. 441). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Spiro, R. J., &Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In Nix, D. & Spiro, R. J. (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia, Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 163–205.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991, May). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism,and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. EducationalTechnology, 31, 24–33.
Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: students online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75–104.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry, & Applied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers and Education, 48(3), 362–382.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437 – 463.
Ziedler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV (2005) Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci Educ 89:357–377
Zydney, J. M. (2010). The effect of multiple scaffolding tools on students’ understanding, consideration of different perspectives, and misconceptions of a complex problem. Computers & Education 54(2): 360–370.
Zydney.J. Grincewicz.A. (2011). The Use of Video Cases in a Multimedia Learning Environment for Facilitating High School Students’ Inquiry into a Problem from Varying Perspectives. J Sci Educ Technol. 20:715–728.
_||_