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

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 استادیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری، ساری، ایران

3 کارشناس ارشد تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ساری، ساری، ایران

چکیده

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 پرسش‌نامه‏ها 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.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Using Educational Software on Students’ Active Learning of Mathematics: A Constructivist Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Dariush Noroozi 1
  • Farshideh Zameni 2
  • Soheila Sharafzadeh 3
1 Associate Professor, Allameh Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch, Sari, Iran
3 M.A. Graduate of Educational Technology, Islamic Azad University, Sari Branch, Sari, Iran
چکیده [English]

The purpose of the present research was to investigate the effect of using educational software on the fifth grade students’ active learning of mathematics course in Babol City (with a constructivist approach). The method of research was quasi-experimental with a pre-test/post-test design with a control group and an experimental group. The statistical population included all 1287 fifth grade students in 2012, among whom a total of 50 students were selected through cluster random sampling method. In order to assess the participants’ academic achievement, a paper and pencil test of mathematics was designed. The reliability coefficient of the test was estimated in a pilot study to be 0.85. To determine the subjects’ degree of academic motivation, and to assess their creative learning, Harter’s standard questionnaire and Torrance’s standard questionnaire of creativity were used, respectively. The participants were taught through using ActivInspire software. The implementation phases of the study included giving the pre-test, verifying the homogeneity of the two groups (control and experimental), teaching via media using ActivInspire software, giving the post-test and completing the questionnaire. The data were analyzed in SPSS software by taking independent t test. Results of the analysis revealed that using the educational software was effective on the subjects’ academic achievement and improved their motivation for active learning of mathematics, but it did not have influence on their creative learning of mathematics.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • educational software
  • mathematics
  • academic achievement
  • academic motivation
  • creative learning
  • constructivism approach
  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.