تأثیر آموزش زیست شناسی به روش تفکر استقرایی بر افزایش خلاقیت دانش‌آموزان
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسیسعید ویسی 1 , صدف ایمانی 2 , رسول کرد نوقابی 3 , مهران فرهادی 4 , بهروز بهروز 5
1 - 1 کارشناس ارشد روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران
2 - 2 کارشناس ارشد روان‌شناسی تربیتی، مشاوره مرکز کاهش آسیب‌های اجتماعی، اراک، ایران
3 - 3 دانشیار روان‌شناسی تربیتی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران
4 - 4 استادیار روان‌شناسی سلامت، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران
5 - 5 مدرس گروه روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، اصفهان، ایران
کلید واژه: زیست شناسی, تفکر استقرایی, خلاقیت,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف این پژوهش، شناسایی اثربخشی روش تدریس تفکر استقرایی بر افزایش خلاقیت دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه دوم متوسطه شهر همدان در درس زیست شناسی بود. طرح پژوهشی مورد استفاد از نوع آزمایشی با دو گروه آزمایش و کنترل همراه با پیش آزمون و پس آزمون با انتخاب تصادفی بود. جامعه آماری آن کلیه دانش‌آموزان پسر پایه دوم مقطع متوسطه دبیرستان‌های روزانه و دولتی شهر همدان و روش نمونه‌گیری از نوع خوشه‌ای است. در چهارچوب طرح آزمایشی 60 نفر از دانش‌آموزان به صورت تصادفی در دو گروه 30 نفری قرار گرفتند. در ابتدا از آزمودنی‌ها پیش آزمون با آزمون خلاقیت Abedi, 1993)) به عمل آمد. طرح آزمایشی طی 7 جلسه اجرا شد و پس از اتمام جلسات آموزشی از هر دو گروه پس آزمون (آزمون خلاقیت عابدی) به عمل آمد. به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها در تمامی فرضیه‌ها از تجزیه و تحلیل واریانس چند متغیره (MANOVA) و نرم افزار spss 21 استفاده شد. آموزش به روش تفکر استقرایی بر رشد خلاقیت دانش‌آموزان معنادار بود (01/0p < ، 1df=، (F=32/22 . همچنین به کارگیری این روش تدریس بر رشد قابلیت بسط (01/0p < ، 1df=، (F=27/13 ، سیالی (01/0p < ، 1df=، (F=23/14 ، ابتکار (01/0p < ، 1df=، (F=51/16 ، انعطاف پذیری (01/0p < ، 1df=، (F=90/9 معنادار بود.
Focusing on the male students in second grade of high school, in Hamadan, this essay is to identify how inductive thinking method can affect on the students’ creativity. The method being used, in this research, was of the experimental one, having both experimental and control groups as well as pre and post tests, randomly being chosen. All male students in second grade of state high school were the consistent parts of the statistical population sampling method was of clustering type.60 students, randomly being divided into two groups of 30, were selected. In order to test the students’ creativity, at first, a pre-test (Abedi 1993) was given. Then, seven training sessions were held. Having passed these sessions, the students, in both groups, were given Abedi’s creativity test, as the post-test. Both multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and Spss21 software have been used to analyze the data. The findings showed that there is a significant relationship between teaching inductively and creativity (F=22/32, df=1, p>0/01). This very teaching method, also, is significantly related with the capability of development(F=13/27,df=1, p>0/01), mobility(F=14/23,df=1, p>0/01), creativity(F=16/51,df=1, p>0/01) and flexibility(F=9/90,df=1, p>0/01).
Abedi. J. (1993). Creativity and new Method in measurement it. .Journah Psycho Researchs.NO 2 & 3. [ Persian]. Abozari, R. (1997). Investigate the impact of training by inductive thinking Method on progression academic in crouse sicence Students of Tehran city in crouse Persian langua in academic year 90-9. A dissertation for the degree of MA in the Tarbiat moalem university. Tarbiat moalem university. [ Persian]. Acar B. &Tarhan L.(2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students understanding of metallic bonding.Res. Sci. Edu. 38, 401-420. Amabile, T.M.(1996). Creativity in context. Oxford. UK: West View. Ashrafi, S,. Jehanseir, KH. (2011). The Impact Inductive and Analogical Teaching Methods on Students Mathematic Scores in Islamic Azad University if Maragheh. Research in Curriculum Planning. Vol 8. No 1, 2(continus 28, 29). PP. 62-71. [ Persian]. Berg, R.(2000). Social constructions of creativity in a middle school math classroom. Available on:www. Designworlds. Com/ creativity. Bruner, J.S.(1996). The Culture of education Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press. Cheistopher, D. A. , Joseph, A. T, Susan, M. K, Janet, .(2010). The Relative Effects and Equity of Inquiry-Based and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students Konwledge Reasoning, and Argumentation. Journal of Reaserch In Science Teaching. Vol. 47 , No 3, PP. 276-301. Cropley. J, Arthur.(2001). Creativity in education and learning.A guide for teachers and educators.Kogan page, London. Demircioglu. G. Ayas. A. &Demircioglu.H.(2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and bases. Chem. Edu. Res Pract, 6, 36-51. Dewey J.(1982). How we think. Lexington Mass: Health. El-Nemr , M. A. (1979) Meta-analysis of the outcomes of teaching biology as inquiry. Unpoblished doctoral disertition, boulder: University Colorado. GhasemPoorMoghadam, H. (2008). by Inductive Thinking Method in Tranining of Persian language. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. Vol. 39. Winter, 2008. [ Persian]. Goodlad.J. (1983). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Heflich, D., Dixon, J., & Davis, K. (2001). Taking It to the Field: The Authentic Intergration of Mathematics and Technology in Inquiry-Bases Science Instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Vol.20, No. 1, P.99 Joyee, B.(1990). Models of teaching (3rd. ed.). New jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Karami, A. (2005).Abedi Creativity Questionaier. Ravansanji Publication Center. Tehran.[ Persian]. Kras, S., Doris, J. (1998). The Tranining of Creativity behavior and clever capacity on the students.(translate by Mojtaba Javadian). Mash,had: Astan Ghods Razavi. [ Persian]. Londraville, R., Niewiarowski, P., Laipply, r., & Owens, K.(2002). Inquiry-Bases Laboratorories for Introductory Biology.The Society for Intergrative and Comprative Biology, Vol. 42, N. 6, P. 1267. Magnussen , L. Inshida , D , Itono , J . (2000). The use of inquiry based learning . J . of nursing education , 39 , 8 , pp. 360-364. Marvin, k. & Harold, M. (1967). Discovery learning, creativity, and inductive teaching program. Psychology Reports, N.20, PP. 867-876. Mayer, R & Moreno, R. (2003).Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educatinal Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. Mccreary , C . L., M. F .Golde , and R . Koese(2006). Peer instruction in general chemistery laboratory: assessment of student learning. Journal Of Chemical Education 83(5): 804-10. Mirkamali, S. M., Khorshidi, A. (2009). Foctors effective on Creativity students primary school of Gillan city. Journal Psychology and Education Vol. 39, NO 2, 20. Pp. 51-75. [ Persian]. Parsa. A. (1995). “the impact of training by Inductive and Analogical Teaching Methods on Students, high schools of Shiraz city in crouse Persian language. A dissertation for the degree of MA in the Shiraz university. Shiraz university. [ Persian]. Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1992). Student Strategies for Learning from a Computational Enviorment. Inc. Prince, M. J. ,Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive Teaching and learning methods: Definitions ,Comparrisons, and Research Bases. Journal of Engineering Education; Apr 2006; 95; 2; proQuest Education Journal, pg.1230. Quinn F.(2000). The peinciples and practice of nurse education. London: Chapman and Hall co. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher education, second ed., London: Taylor and nFrancis, Inc. Renzulli, S, Josep. Barbe, B. Walter. (1975). Psychology and education of the gifted.New York, invington publishers, Inc. Rodriguez, I., & Bethel, L.J.(1993). An inquiry approach to science and language teaching. Of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 291-96. Saeif, a. (2008). Modern Educational Psychology(Psychology of Learning and Instraction). Sixth Edition. Dowran Publighing Company. Tehran. Winter, 2008. [ Persian]. Schlenker, R., &Schlenker, K. (2000).Intergrating Science, Mathematic, and Sociology in a Inquiry-Bases Study of Changing Population Density. Science Activities, Vol. 36, No. 4, P.16 Sirotnik, K. A. (1981): What You See Is What You Get: A Summary of Observation in Over 1000 Elementary and Secondary Classroom, A Study of Schooling in the U.S. (Technical Report Services No, 29): Los Angels. CA: Ucla School of Education. Smith, G. J. W& carlsson, L.M.(1990).The creativity process: A functional model based on empirical studies from childhood to middle age. Madison, CT: international universities press. Inc Torrance E.P. (1974). Direction Manual and scoring Guide figural test book at B. personnel pressing Lexington, Massachusetts. PP. 1-42. Torrance E.P. (1990). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Manual for scoring and interpreting results(Verbal. Froms A and B). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Trotter, T., Jones, M. (2003) Relationships Between Inquiry-Bases Teaching and Physics Sceince Standardized Test Scores, School Sceince and Mathematics Association, Vol. 103, 7, P.345. Willings David, A. (1994).: Mind of Talent Caved In, In, Giffted Education International Vol, 10, PP, 16-21. Worthen, B. (1968). A study of discovery and expository presentation: Implications for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 19 , 223-242. Zhou Ke.(2008). An Inductive Approach to English Grammar Teaching. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Students Vol.12.
_||_