The Effect of Student Collaboration in Solving Physics Problems Using an Online Interactive Response System

Yıl 2017, , 385 - 394, 15.07.2017

Nuri Balta Mohammad Hamza Awedh

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.3.385

Öz

Advanced technology helps educational institutes to improve student learning performance and outcomes. In this study, our aim is to measure and assess student engagement and collaborative learning in engineering classes when using online technology in solving physics problems. The interactive response system used in this study is a collaborative learning tool that allows teachers to monitor their students’ response and progress in real time. Our results indicated that students have highly positive attitude toward using the interactive response system as a tool in education in order to improve collaborative learning and student engagement in classes. Consequently, student-learning performance has been improved considerably, and technology was successfully incorporated in engineering classes

Anahtar Kelimeler

Interactive response system, Collaborative learning, Online technology, Solving physics problems

Kaynakça

• Akgunduz, D. (2016). A Research about the Placement of the Top Thousand Students in STEM Fields in Turkey between 2000 and 2014. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(7), 1365–1377. http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1518a
• Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: the quality of computer-mediated interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31–43.
• Anthony, D., Smith, S. W., & Williamson, T. (2009). Reputation and reliability in collective goods: The case of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Rationality and Society,21, 283–306.
• Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2014). Using Socrative and Smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3(4), 17–24.
• Balta, N. and Guvercin, S. (2016). Increasing Undergraduate Students' Exam Performances In Statistics Course Using Software Socrative. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (Special Issue), 314-321
• Balta, N., Mason, A. J., & Singh, C. (2016). Surveying Turkish high school and university students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010129. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010129
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110.
• Boettcher, J.V. (2003). Course management systems and learning principles: Getting to know each other. Campus Technology, 16(12), 33-34.
• Boser, R. A. and Daugherty, M. K. (1998). Students’ attitudes toward technology in selected technology education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 4-18.
• Brush, T. A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 5–18.
• Coco, D. M, & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17-24.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
• Dakka, S. M. (2015). Using Socrative to Enhance In-Class Student Engagement and Collaboration. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4(.3), 13-19.
• Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for Teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2nd edition.
• Deichman, J. (2014). Socrative 2.0. Knowledge Quest, 43(2), 72.
• Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Student Response System): A Report. The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher, 6(3), 1801-1813.
• Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
• Giancoli, D. C. (2000). Physics for scientists and engineers (Vol. 3). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
• Gomez-Sanchez, E., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Vega-Gorgojo, G., Asensio-Perez, J. I., & Dimitriadis, Y. A. (2009). Conceptual framework for design, technological support and evaluation of collaborative learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 557-568.
• Gonzalez-Gonzalez, C., & Blanco-Izquierdo, F. (2012). Designing social videogames for educational uses. Computers & Education, 58, 250–262.
• Kaya, A., & Balta, N. (2016). Taking Advantages of Technologies : Using the Socrative in English Language Teaching Classes. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(3), 4–12.
• Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of clickers in the classroom: teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556-561.
• Latchem, C., Ozkul, A. E., Aydin, C. H., & Mutlu, M. E. (2006). The Open Education System, Anadolu University, Turkey: e‐transformation in a mega‐university. Open Learning, 21(3), 221–235. http://doi.org/10.1080/02680510600953203
• Lee, K., Tsai, P. S., Chai, C. S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Students' perceptions of self‐directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 425-437.
• Matthew, A. (2012). Managing distraction and attention in diverse cohorts: 21st century challenges to law student engagement. Queensland U. Tech. L. & Just. J., 12, 45.
• Miller, K. (2014). Socrative. The Charleston Advisor, 15(4), 42–45. http://doi.org/10.5260/chara.15.4.42
• Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Student responses to collaborating and learning in a web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 34–47. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00157.x
• Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative versus cooperative learning. Available at http://colccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/a_definition_of_collaborative_vs_cooperative_learning.pdf
• Peng, S. S., & Bailey, J. P. (1977). Differences between vertical transfers and native students in four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 7(2), 145–154. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00981752
• Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7
• Rippel, M., Schaefer, D., Mistee, F., & Panchal, J. H. (2009). Fostering collaborative learning and educational mass customization in a graduate level engineering design course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 729-744.
• Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International journal of educational research, 39(1), 99-111.
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.
• Serway, R. A. (1996). Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publ.
• Stump, G. S., Hilpert, J. C., Husman, J., Chung, W. T., & Kim, W. (2011). Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 475-497.
• Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory research and practice. Boston: Ally & Bacon.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Fifth ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Turner, D. (2015). Psychosocial aspects of engagement with social media and digital technology—personal thoughts from the frontier. Smart Learning, 73.
• Wicks, D. A., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K. & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a Faculty Learning Community. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 53-62.
• Zafar, B., Mueen, A., Awedh, M., & Balubaid, M. (2014). Game-based learning with native language hint and their effects on student academic performance in a Saudi Arabia community college. Computer in Education, 1(4), 371-384.