مقایسه تأثیر روش تدریس همیاری ( مشارکتی)، اکتشافی و سخنرانی بر پیشرفت تحصیلی و نگرش نسبت به درس فیزیک

محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی

مرجان عبیری ¹ (1کارشناس ارشد روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه گیلان، گیلان، ایران)
عباس صادقی ² (2 دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه گیلان، گیلان، ایران)
مهناز خسرو جاوید ³ (3 استادیار گروه روان‌شناسی ، دانشگاه گیلان، گیلان، ایران)
نادر افقی ⁴ (4استادیار گروه علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه گیلان، گیلان، ایران)

تاریخ دریافت : 1396/07/25 تاریخ پذیرش : 1396/07/25 تاریخ انتشار : 1393/07/01

کلید واژه: نگرش, روش تدریس همیاری, روش تدریس اکتشافی, پیشرفت تحصیلی, روش تدریس سخنرانی,

چکیده مقاله :

هدف پژوهش حاضر، مقایسه تأثیر روش تدریس همیاری (مشارکتی)، اکتشافی و سخنرانی در پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان و نگرش آنها نسبت به درس فیزیک است. جامعه پژوهشی، کل دانش‌آموزان دختر سال اول متوسطه منطقه سنگر است. پروهش حاضر یک پژوهش شبه آزمایشی از نوع طرح گروه کنترل نابرابر است. نمونه پژوهش شامل 28 نفر تحت پوشش تدریس همیاری، 28 نفر تحت پوشش تدریس اکتشافی و 22 نفر تحت پوشش تدریس سخنرانی بود که به صورت غیر تصادفی (در دسترس) انتخاب شدند. برنامه‌های آموزشی در طی 14 هفته توسط پژوهشگر اجرا گردید. ابزارهای به کار گرفته شده در این پژوهش، آزمون پیشرفت تحصیلی و آزمون سنجش نگرش نسبت به درس فیزیک بود که هر دو محقق ساخته بودند و روایی آنها توسط اساتید رشته فیزیک و علوم اجتماعی تأیید شد و پایایی آزمون سنجش نگرش در یک مطالعه مقدماتی ضریب آلفای 86/0 بدست آمده است. برای تجزیه و تحلیل آماری داده‌های پژوهش، از آزمون t، تحلیل واریانس یک طرفه (anova)یک طرفه برای سه گروه مستقل استفاده شد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان دادند که بین دو روش تدریس همیاری و اکتشافی در پیشرفت تحصیلی در درس فیزیک تفاوت معنادار وجود داشت که میانگین نمرات تفاوت گروه همیاری بالاتر از گروه اکتشافی بود ولی بین گروه‌های دیگر دو به دو تفاوت معناداری وجود نداشت. همچنین بین دو روش تدریس اکتشافی و سخنرانی و اکتشافی و همیاری و همیاری از نظر نگرش نسبت به درس فیزیک تفاوت معناداری وجود داشت. همچنین بین نمره پیش آزمون و پس آزمون آزمودنی‌های گروه همیاری تفاوت معنادار وجود داشت اما بین نمره پیش آزمون و پس آزمون آزمودنی‌های گروه اکتشافی و سخنرانی تفاوت معناداری وجود نداشت.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of cooperative method, discovery method and lecture method for students learning development and outlook toward physics. All of the first grad students of the Sanger high school are as the statistical population. This research is of semi-experimental one with non-equal controlling group. The sample of the study has consisted of 28, 28, 22 students treated with cooperative method, discovery method and lecture method. The procedure of choosing the sample was nonrandom (convenience) methodical. The educational treatment was conducted during 14 weeks by the researcher. The tools being used in this study were achievement and attitude assessment test in physics, which both were researcher-made. The validity of these tools was verified by professors of social science and physics. During a pilot study, the reliability of attitude assessment test was calculated α= 0/86. The statistical procedures used in the data analysis were t-test and Anova. The finding of the study revealed that the mean difference of scores of the students treated with cooperative method was higher than the grades of students treated with discovery method. However, there was no significant difference between any other two groups compared with each other. Furthermore, there was a significant difference between discovery and lecture teaching method, and discovery and cooperative teaching method with regard to students’ attitude toward physics. Moreover, there was a significant difference between cooperative participants score and no significant difference in pre-test and post-test of the participants score in discovery and lecture group.

منابع و مأخذ:

Shabani, Hassan (2008) Educational Skills (Teaching Techniques and Methods[ Persian] Ashena, Mahshid (2009) Survey of some Factors Affecting on Physics 1, Education and Laberatory. Physic Education Magazine. Number 82 [Persian] Ayyoobi, Mohammad (1999) Comparison Cooperative and Classic Learning (Usual) on Academic Achievement and Female Students Self-team Third Secondary Grafe in Human Science of 10 Region of Tehran Education System.[Persian] Pakizeh, Ali (1998) Survey of Affection of Cooperative Learning on Students Academic Perferman Self-concept. M.A Dessertation. Shiraz University John,Piaget [Persian] 1996)Psychology and Education. Translator: Mohammad Ali Kardan.Tehran: Tehran UniversityPublications.[Persian] Jouce, Bruce and Wiel Marshal (2006) Full Text of Teaching New Patterns. Translator: Mohammad Reza Behrangi.[Persian] Samadi, Shal, Esmaeel (2001) Comparison of Affection of Cooperative Education with (Persian) Teaching Method (Speech) in Academic Achievement Arabic Lesson.In First Year of Guidence Education in Masal in 2001 Academic Year.TarbiatMoalem University.[Persian] Sayrafi,Nahid (1998) Affecting of Cooperation Based Teaching Method, Academic Achievement and Attribution Styles of Students[Persian] Assaren, Alireza(1999) Pievand. Monthly Educational Journal.Number 233. [Persian] Karimi, Morteza,(2012)Ghasr, Mohammad Zadeh, Afshari (Affecting Cooperative Teaching Method of Grouping and Student Academic Achievement in Secondary School in Mashhad City. Research on Curriculum Journal.Ninth Year.2th Period Number33 Esfahan. [Persian] Kanani, Shahnaz(2000) Comparison of Affection of Cooperative Teaching with Classic Teaching(Lecture) on Academic Achievement of Female and Male Students of Secondary Education First Year of Rasht City. AlamehTabatabie University. [Persian] Gale, Merdis and Yonrg, Walter (2005) Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Educational Sciences and Psychology First and Second Volume. Translator:Ahmad Reza Nasr and et.al. ShahidBeheshti University of Tehran.[Persian] Hamedani, Zohreh. Haghani, Fariba-Liaghatdar, Mohammad Javad(2012) Comparison of Affection of Learning Through Cooperation with Lecture Teaching Method and Question &Answer Teaching Method on Biology Academic Achievement. Research on Curriculum Jounal. 8thYear. Second Period.Number 30.Esfehan.[Persian] Alleman, J. &Brophy, J. (1992).college students reports of learning activities experienced in elementary school social studies. EDRS Clearinghouse.EDD365583. Berding, J. W. A. (2000). John Deweys Philosophy of education: Education experience and curriculum. Biknell-Holmes, T.& Hoffman, P.S. (2000). Elicit, engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in library instrucation. Reference Services Review. 28(4), 313-323. Chambers, D.W. (1971).Putting down the discovery learning hypothesis. Educational Technology. 11(3), 54-59. Chung, Y & Kane, G. (2000).The effects of cooperative learning on achievement and science learning attitudes in middle school biology class. Department of Science Education, 28(3), 192-201. Cohen, E. (1986/1994b). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers CollegePress.USA EffandiZakaria. (2003). KesanPembelajaranKoperatifKeAtasPelajarMatrikulasi.TesisDoktorFalsafah. UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia. Effandi, Z, Zanaton, I. (2007). Promoting Cooperation Learning in Science and Mathematics Education: A Malaysian Perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematice, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35-39. Fong Ho, F, Boo, H.(2007). Cooperative Learning: Exploring Its Effectiveness in the Physics Classeoom. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 47(6). Gillies, R, Khan, A. (2008). The effect of teacher discourse on Student's discourse, problem-solving and reasoning during cooperative learning, International Journal of Education Research, 47(6), 323-340. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981a). The integration of the handi-capped into the regular classroom: Effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 344-353. Johnson, R. & Johnson, D. (2001). What is Cooperative Learning? The Cooperative Learning center at The University of Minnesota. Johnston, J & McClelland, G. (2004). The investigation of the compatibility of Students learning preferences with a pilot peer learning program in an undergraduate Physics course. Physics Department, University of Limerick, Ireland. Mabie, R & Baker, M. (1996). A comparison of experiential instructional strategies upon the science process skills of urban elementary students. Journal of Agricultural Education.37(2), 1-7. MazlanIbrahin. (2002). AmalanpembelajarankoperatifolehgurugurndankesankeatassikappelajarterhadapmatematikProjekPenyelidikanSarjanaPendidikan. UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia. Nelson, B. &Frayer, D. (1972, April). Discovery Learning versus expository learning: New insight in to an old controversy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Peterson, S.E.& Miller, J. A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students experiences during cooperative learning and larg-group instruction, The Journal Research, 97(3), 123-133. Sharan, S.(2002). Differentiating methods of cooperative learning in reseaech and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 106-116. Stevens, R. J, Slavin, R.E, Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comperhention strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), P. P, 8-16. Stark, R, Krause, U, Mandi , H.(2009). The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19, 158-170. ZainumbtIsmaon(2003). KesanPembelajaranKoperatif Model STAD KeAtasSikapdanPersepiMuridTahun Lima Dalam Mata PelajaranMatematik KBSR. ProjekSarjanaPendidikanUniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia

_||_