کارایی آموزش مبتنی بر اثرات بار شناختی در درس علوم تجربی مورد مطالعه: دانش‌آموزان پایة سوم مقطع ابتدایی
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی
1 - استادیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، ایران.
کلید واژه: کارایی, پیشرفت تحصیلی, بار شناختی, آموزش مبتنی بر اثرات بارشناختی,
چکیده مقاله :
این پژوهش با هدف بررسی کارایی آموزش مبتنی بر اثرات بار شناختی در درس علوم تجربی پایة سوم ابتدایی انجام شد. روش پژوهش، شبه آزمایشی و از نوع طرح دو گروهی با پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون بود. جامعة آماری این پژوهش شامل همة دانش‌آموزان دختر پایة سوم ابتدایی شهر کرمانشاه در سال تحصیلی 97-98 بود که دو کلاس به روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس (39 نفر گروه آزمایش و 38 نفر گروه کنترل) انتخاب شدند که در گروه کنترل فراگیران به شیوة مرسوم درس‌های مذکور را یاد می‌گرفتند و در گروه آزمایشی، مطالب درسی بر اساس اثرات بار شناختی (اثر مثال حل شده، اثر تکمیل مسئله، اثر تقسیم توجه، اثر مجرای حسی، اثر افزونگی) به دانش‌آموزان ارائه شد. برای اندازه گیری میزان کارایی از آزمون معلم ساخته پیشرفت تحصیلی درس علوم تجربی و پرسشنامة خودگزارش‌دهی بار شناختی پاس و ون مرینبوئر (Paas &Van Merriënboer,1993) استفاده شد. تأیید روایی ابزار معلم ساخته بر اساس روایی محتوایی و نظر متخصصین و پایایی آن به شیوة کودر ریچادسون21 انجام شد که در پیش‌آزمون عدد 91/0 و در پس‌آزمون عدد 72/0 به دست آمد. برای تحلیل داده‌های آماری از تحلیل کوواریانس چند راهه (MANCOVA)، نمره z و آزمون t مستقل به کمک نرم‌افزار SPSS22 بهره گرفته شد. نتایج به دست آمده نشان داد که بین دو روش آموزش مبتنی بر اثرات بار شناختی و روش سنتی از نظر میزان کارایی تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد (001/0>p)، به این معنا که میزان پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزانی که از طریق برنامة آموزشی مبتنی بر اثرات بار شناختی آموزش دیده بودند، بالاتر از دانش‌آموزان آموزش‌دیده با روش تدریس مرسوم و متداول بود. همچنین دانش‌آموزان گروه آزمایش بار شناختی کم‌تری از دانش‌آموزان گروه کنترل تجربه کردند.
This research was conducted with the aim of to investigate the efficiency of teaching based on the effects of cognitive load on the experimental science of elementary third grade. A quasi-experimental research design was utilized. The statistical population of this study included all female students of Kermanshah's 3rd elementary school in the academic year of 2017-2018. Two classes were selected using available sampling (Experimental N = 39 and Control N =38). In the control group, traditionally, students learned the lessons, and in the experimental and in the experimental group, students were presented content based on the cognitive load effects (Worked Example Effect and Completion Problem Effect, Attention Split Effect, Modality Effect, Redundancy effect). The efficiency of educational program was evaluated by a test of academic achievement in sciences and the one item Subjective Rating Scale (SRS) developed by Paas and Van Merrienboer (1993) was used to measure stu-dents’ cognitive load for both experimental and control group students. Confirmation of the validity of the academic achievement tool was based on the content validity and opinion of the experts and its reliability was done in the Richardson 21 method, which was 0.91 in the pre-test and 0.72 in the post-test. To analyze the statistical data, statistical descriptive statistics and inferential statistics including multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), z score and independent t-test were used by SPSS software version 22.used. The results showed that there is a significant difference between the two methods of teaching based on the effects of cognitive load and traditional method in terms of efficiency (p <0.001), which means that the academic achievement level of students who through the educational program Trained cognitive effects were higher than those trained by conventional and conventional teaching methods. Also, students in the experimental group experienced a lower cognitive load of control group students.
Abdi, A. & Rostami,.M.(2018).The Effect of instruction based on the Cognitive Load Theory effects on academic achievement, perceived cognitive load and motivation to learning in Sciences subject. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation. 10(40), 43–67. [Persian].
Afgani Dahlan, J. (2016). Performance, Mental Effort, and Efficiency of Multimedia-Based Discovery Learning in Mathematics Learning. IJCAS; 3(10), 29-39.
Amirteimouri MH, Zare M. (2015). Cognitive load and instructional multimedia. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University press;. [In Persian].
Atkinson, R., Derry, S., Renkl, A., &Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.
Brunstein, A., Betts, S., & Anderson, J. R. (2009). Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 790-802.
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2005). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Cooper G, Sweller J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer.J Educ Psychol; 79(4):347-362.
Jalani, N. H., &Chee sern, L. (2014). Effects of example-problem based learning on transfer performance in Circuit Theory. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 6(2), 28–37.
Jalani, N. H., &Chee sern, L. (2015). The Example-Problem-Based Learning Model: Applying Cognitive Load Theory.Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 872-880.
Kalyuga S. (2009) Cognitive load factors in instructional design for advanced learners. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Mahbubi T, Zare H, Sarmadi MR, Fardanesh H, Feyzi A.(2012) Effect principles of instructional design on cognitive load topics learning in multimedia learning environments. Journal of higher education curriculum studies; 3 (6): 29-46. [Persian]
McLaren, B, M., van Gog, T., Ganoe, C., Karabinos, M., Yaron, D. (2016). The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 87-99
Sweller J, Chandler P, Tierney P, Cooper M. (1990).Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. J Exp Psychol; 119(2): 176- 192
Mosaramezani S, Kanani E, Velayati E. (2013).the effect of Cognitive load control on memory and retention English grammar. New Thoughts on Education. (9) 1.105-131. [Persian]
Mousavi, S., Low, R., &Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.
Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 35(4), 737-743.
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.
Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15-22.
Rostami, M.; Talepasand, M. & Mohammadifar, A.(2017). Effectiveness of Educational Program Based Cognitive Load in Learning Efficiency of Algebra Concepts Among 7th Grade Girl Students in Tehran. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences; 10(4): 322-333. [In Persian].
Salari, M. & Amirtimori, MH. (2017). Investigating the Effect of Four Elemental Design Patterns on Excess Cognitive Exercise and Complex Learning. Quarterly of Educatinal Psychology. Allameh Tabataba’i University. Vol. 13, No. 44. 173- 197;. [In Persian].
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory in perspective. Cognitive Load Theory, 237-242.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 71-81.
Trafton, J. G., & Reiser, B. J. (1993). The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1017-1022). Boulder, CO:
Takir, A, &Aksu, M., (2012). The Effect of an Instruction Designed by Cognitive Load Theory Principles on 7th Grade Students’ Achievement in Algebra Topics and Cognitive Load .Journal of Creative Education (3) 2, 232-240.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 3964.
Van Merriënboer, J., &Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.
Zare M, Salari M, Sarikhani R.(2016) The impact of educational strategies of cognitive load theory on extraneous cognitive load and learning in physiology course. J Med Edu Dev 2016; 9(22): 44-52.
Zare, M. Sarikhani, R. Mehraban, J. & Salari, M. (2015). Comparison of the Effect of Beybee and Traditional Teaching Methods on Creativity and Cognition in the Chemistry Course. Scientific Journal of Invention and Creativity in the Humanities. 5 (2): 55- 76. [Persian]
Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(3), 137-166.
Trafton, j.G, Reiser, B.J. (1993). The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition. In proceeding of the fifteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society.
_||_