تأثیر به‌کارگیری نرم‌افزار آموزشی بر یادگیری فعال دانش‌آموزان در درس ریاضی (با رویکرد ساختن‌گرایی)

الموضوعات :

داریوش نوروزی ¹ (دانشیار گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی)
فرشیده ضامنی ² (استادیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری، ساری، ایران)
سهیلا شرف زاده ³ (کارشناس ارشد تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری، ساری، ایران)

تاريخ الإرسال : 02 الأحد , رجب, 1434 تاريخ التأكيد : 27 الجمعة , ذو الحجة, 1434 تاريخ الإصدار : 02 الخميس , رجب, 1435

الکلمات المفتاحية: درس ریاضی, پیشرفت تحصیلی, نرم‌افزار آموزشی, انگیزش تحصیلی, یادگیری خلاقانه, رویکرد ساختن‌گرایی,

ملخص المقالة :

هدف این پژوهش، بررسی تأثیر به کارگیری نرم‌افزار آموزشی بر یادگیری فعال درس ریاضی دانش‌آموزان پایه پنجم (با رویکرد ساختن‌گرایی) بوده است. روش پژوهش، از نوع شبه‌آزمایشی با طرح پیش‌آزمون ـ پس‌آزمون با دو گروه آزمایش و شاهد بوده است. جامعه آماری، کلیه دانش‌آموزان پایه پنجم ابتدایی در سال 1391، به تعداد 1278 نفر و نمونه آماری به تعداد 50 نفر بود که با روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای انتخاب شدند. برای بررسی پیشرفت تحصیلی، به طراحی سؤالات مداد ـ کاغذی در درس ریاضی پرداخته و ضریب پایایی سؤالات با اجرای آزمایشی، 85/0 محاسبه شد. برای تعیین انگیزش تحصیلی، از پرسش‌نامه استاندارد هارتر و برای سنجش یادگیری خلاقانه، از پرسش‌نامه استاندارد خلاقیت تورنس استفاده شد. آموزش توسط نرم‌افزار ActivInspire انجام شد. مراحل اجرایی برای تعیین تأثیر نرم‎افزار شامل اجرای پیش‌آزمون، بررسی همتا بودن دو گروه آزمایش و شاهد، آموزش توسط رسانه با نرم‌افزار ActivInspire، اجرای پس‌آزمون، و اجرای پرسش‌نامه ها بود. داده‌ها با استفاده از آزمون tدو گروه مستقل و با کمک نرم‌افزار SPSS مورد تجزیه و تحلیل واقع شد. نتایج نشان داد که به‌کارگیری نرم‌افزار آموزشی بر پیشرفت تحصیلی و افزایش انگیزه یادگیری فعال دانش‌آموزان در درس ریاضی مؤثر بوده، ولی بر یادگیری خلاقانه دانش‌آموزان در درس ریاضی تأثیری نداشته است.

المصادر:

1. Afzalnia, M. R. (2008). Design and introduction to learning resources and centers. Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).


2. Aghazadeh, M. (2010). Guide to new teaching methods. Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).


3. Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in the schools (2nd Ed.). Mahawah, N.J.: Lawrenxe Erlbaum Associates.


4. Bauman, M. L. (2012). Your successful preschooler: Ten traits children need to become confident and socially engaged. New York: Wiley.


5. Blummer, B. (2008). Digital literacy practies among youth populations: A review of the literature. Education Libraries, 31(1), 38-45.


6. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta – analysis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE). Retrieved from www.bestevidence.org


7. Child, D. (2004). Psychology and the teacher. London: Continuum.


8. Daneshfar, A. A. (2007). Teaching Method of Elementary Mathematics. Tehran: Afast. (in Persian).


9. Dodge, D. T. (2010). The creative curriculum for preschool: The foundation (Volume 1). Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.


10. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-12.


11. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom. Pearson Education: Boston.


12. Fard Danesh, H. (2009). Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology. Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).


13. Hadley, K. M., & Dorward, J. (2011). The relationship among elementary teachers mathematics' anxiety, mathematics instructional practices, and student mathematics achievement. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JOCI), 5(2), 27-44.


14. Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, Sh. Sh. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on constructivism approach. Computers and Education, 55, 1171-1182.


15. Isaacs, B. (2011). Bringing the Montessori approach to your early years practice. New York: Taylor & Francis.


16. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Curriculum models for preschool education: Theories and approaches to learning in the early years. Schooling, 2(1).


17. Maleki, H., & Garmaei, H. A. (2010). The status and application of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the primary school curriculum from the perspective of scholars and teachers in Tehran. Educational Innovations, 8(31), 37-52. (in Persian).


18. Merjl, B. (2003). Instructional design and learning theory (Translated by Shahroodi Langroodi). Book Collection of articles of the Human Sciences, Islamic Azad University, South Branch, 6, 21-72. (in Persian).


19. Micheletto, M. J. (2011). Conducting a classroom mini-experiment using an audience response system: Demonstrating the isolation effect. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(8). Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index. php/TLC/article/download/5313/5398


20. Miller, L. (2011). Theories and approaches to learning in the early years. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage


21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2011). Principles and standards for mathematics education. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from http://www.nctm.org/ standards/content.aspx?id


22. Nielsen, D. L. (2012). Effect of active learning theory on the motivation of school blindness and low vision in Texas. LID Academy - 2012 Texas Active Learning Conference, TX, June (19-20). Retrieved from http://www.tsbvi.edu/


23. Norozi, D., & Razavi, S. A. (2011). Principles of Instructional Design. Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).


24. Norozi, M., Zandi, F., & Mosavi Madany, F. (2008). Ranking the application of information technology in education-learning process in schools. Educational Innovations, 7(26), 9-34. (in Persian).


25. O’Donnel, A. M., Reeve, J., & Smith, J. K. (2007). Educational Psychology: Reflection for Action. USA: John Wiley.


26. Raeis Dana, F. (2011). Creativity of learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Growth, 8, 8-10. (in Persian).


27. Randel, B., Beesley, A. D., Apthorp, H., Clark, T. F., Wang , X., Cicchinelli, L. F., et al. (2011). Classroom assessment for student learning: Impact on elementary school mathematics in the central region. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE): U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/central/pdf/ REL_20114005.pdf


28. Razavi, S. A. (2005). Theoretical foundations of learning through film and television. Journal of Educational Technology Growth, 5, 32-34. (in Persian).


29. Robinson, K. (2012). All our future: Creativity, culture and education. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE).Retrieved from www.creativitycultureeducation.org


30. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). The role of teachers in facilitating situational interest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 37-72.


31. Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79-93.


32. Sajadi, S. S., & Khen, T. M. (2011). An evaluation of constructivism for learners with ADHD: Development of a constructivist pedagogy for special needs. European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS) May 30-31, Athens, Greece.


33. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: Role of theory and research design in disentangling meta- analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454-499.


34. Seif, A. A. (2010). Modern Educational Psychology, Psychology of Learning and Instruction. Tehran: Doran. (in Persian).


35. Serkan, N. (2011). Is constructivist learning environment really effective on learning and long-term knowledge retention in mathematics? Example of the infinity concept. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(1), 36-49.


36. Sharafzadeh, S. (2012). Investigation the effect of educational software design on the active learning of mathematics of students with constructivist Approach. Master Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch. (in Persian).


37. Sheikhzadeh, M., & Mehr Mohammadi, M. (2004). Educational software of elementary mathematics based on constructivist approach and evaluation of its effectiveness. Journal of Educational Innovations, 3(9), 32-48. (in Persian).


38. Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (8th Ed). New York: Pearson.


39. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 839-911.


40. Sterberg, R. (2010). Cognitive Psychology. (Translated by Kharrazi, S. K., & Hejazi, E.) Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).


41. Truman, S. (2011). A generative framework for creative learning: A tool for planning creative-collaborative tasks in the classroom. Border Crossing: Transnational Working Papers, No. 1101. Retrieved from http://www.regents. ac.uk/media/448147/1101_generative_framework_truman.pdf


42. Tuna, F. (2012a). Student's perspectives on active learning in geography: A case study of level of interest and usage in Turkey. European Journal of Educational studies, 4(2), 163-175.


43. Tuna, F. (2012b). Current situation and analysis of geography teachers’ active learning knowledge and Usage in Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(18), 393-400.


44. UNESCO. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers. Paris: UNESCO


45. Viliks, A., & Waker, R. (2007). Encyclopedia of Scientific Knowledge. (Translated by Amirsalehy Taleghani). Tehran: Danesh Pazhoh. (in Persian).


46. Woolf, B. P. (2010). A Roadmap for Education Technology. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/itt/files/2010/12/educ-tech-roadmap-nsf.pdf


47. Xanthopoulou, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2012). Play online, work better? Examining the spillover of active learning and transformational leadership. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79(7), 1328-1339.


48. Young, R. A., Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 373-388.