The effect of the slowmation technique on attitudes towards social studies lessons, active learning, and metacognitive awareness

Abstract

The role and importance of technology applications in increasing the cognitive and affective learning of students have been accepted. For this reason, it has been considered important to use different materials and various educational technologies in the preparation of active learning environments. In this context, the effect of the use of the slowmation technique in primary school Social Studies Courses on students' attitudes, active learning, and metacognitive awareness was investigated in this study. The sample of the study, in which a quasi-experimental design was used, consisted of 4th-grade primary school students. The social studies attitude scale, active learning process scale, and metacognitive awareness scale for children were used. During the 5-week practices, slowmation covering different subjects were prepared. Parametric analyses were applied to the data obtained during the application process. According to the analyses performed, the slowmation technique was effective in improving the attitudes towards and active learning of the Social Studies Course. Based on the findings, the limitations of the slowmation technique were mentioned, long-term studies were suggested, and it was suggested to investigate the issue of permanence.

Keywords

• metacognitive awareness
• primary school
• slowmation
• social studies attitude

References

1. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Aktif öğrenme [Active learning]. Education World Publications.
2. Atalay, N., Dilek, Ş., & Boyacı, B. (2019). Slowmation application in development of learning and innovation skills of students in science course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(5), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019553347
3. Bakar, M. A. A., & Ismail, N. (2020). Technology integrated with metacognitive regulation approach to enhance students’ mastery and creating effective learning in mathematics. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 6(2), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v6i2.1249
4. Brown, A.L. (1977). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. Technical Report No. 47. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Brown, J. (2011). The impact of student created slowmation on the teaching and learning of primary science. [Unpublished master dissertation]. Edith Cowan University.
6. Brown, J., Murcia, K., & Hackling, M. (2013). Slowmation: a multimodal strategy for engaging children with primary science. Teaching Science, 59(4), 14-20.
7. Burak, D. (2020). İlkokul sosyal bilgiler öğretimine yönelik uyarlanabilir bir öğrenme ortamının tasarlanması, uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi [Designing, implementing and evaluating an adaptive learning environment for primary school social studies teaching]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Anadolu University. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabi- istatistik, araştirma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Pegem Academy.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Academy.

9. Cautinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and academic success. Educate, 7(1), 39–47.
10. Chan, C. W. H., Tang, F. W. K., Chow, K. M., & Wong, C. L. (2021). Enhancing generic capabilities and metacognitive awareness of first-year nursing students using active learning strategy. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00601-7 PMID:34022878
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Curry, K., & Cherner, T. (2016). Social studies in the modern era: a case study of effective teachers’ use of literacy and technology. The Social Studies, 107(4), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2016.1146650
13. Çelik, T. (2020). Dijital çağda sosyal bilgiler öğretmeni yetiştirme: Bir eylem araştırması. [Training teachers of social studies in the digital age: an action study]. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 38, 211–229.
14. Celik, T. (2021). Examination of sample course design studies performed by pre-service social studies teachers by using digital technologies. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 209–228.
15. Dearnley, C., & Matthew, B. (2007). Factors that contribute to undergraduate student success. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 377–391.
16. Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition – A domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1511279
17. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435-447.
18. Devadason, R.P., Toh, S.C., & Abbas, M. (2012). Student construction activity for improved learning: Effectiveness of slowmation in the learning of moon phases. Global Journal on Technology, 1, 496-501.
19. Donkin, R., & Kynn, M. (2021). Does the learning space matter? An evaluation of active learning in a purpose-built technology-rich collaboration studio. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 133–146.
20. Dunlosky, J. & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. Sage.
21. Dündar, H., & Aksoy, N. (2010). Kavram analizi stratejisinin öğrencilerin kavram öğrenme başarısı ve hayat bilgisi dersine ilişkin tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of concept analysis strategy on students achievement in learning concept and their attitude towards life studies]. Academic Perspective Journal, 21, 1–27.
22. Eugène, C. (2006). How to teach at the university level through an active learning approach? Consequences for teaching basic electrical measurements. Measurement, 39(10), 936–946.
23. Erdogan, E., & Serefli, B. (2021). Use of technology in social studies teaching: the journey of five teachers. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 27, 232–256. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.27.11
24. Everson, H. T., Smodlaka, I. & Tobias, S. (1994). Exploring the relationship of test anxiety and metacognition on reading test performance: A cognitive analysis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 7, 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809408248395
25. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425
26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
27. Flavell, J.H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 15–23.
28. Fleming, D. S. (2000). A teacher’s guide to project-based learning. ERIC Report No:ED469734.
29. Gama, C. (2001). Investigating the effects of training in metacognition in an ınteractive learning environment: design of an empirical study. In B. Zayas & C. Gama (Eds.). Proceedings of the 5th Human Centred Technology Postgraduate Workshop, Brighton.
30. Gonzalez Nieto, N. A. (2017). Active learning and metacognitive competences to achieve the transfer of learning in secondary education. Revista De Investigacion Educativa De La Escuela De Graduados En Educacion, 7(14), 19–25.
31. Gündüzalp, C. (2021). Web 2.0 araçları ile zenginleştirilmiş çevrimiçi öğrenmenin öğrencilerin üst bilişsel ve yaratıcı düşünme becerilerine etkisi [The effect of online learning enriched with web 2.0 tools on students' metacognitive and creative thinking skills]. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 10(3), 1158–1177.
32. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri felsefe - yöntem - analiz [Research methods in social sciences philosophy-method-analysis]. Seçkin Publishing.
33. Green, A. J., Tanford, S., & Swift, A. (2018). Determinants of student satisfaction with using ınstructional technology: the role of active learning. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2017.1413381
34. Hager, C. (2013). Modeling DNA structure and processes through animation and kinesthetic visualizations. [Published master dissertation], Michigan State University.
35. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12.
36. Hatta, P., Aristyagama, Y., Yuana, R. & Yulisetiani, S. (2020). Active learning strategies in synchronous online learning for elementary school students. Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education, 4(2), 86-93.
37. Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of samr and tpack for reflection on technology ıntegration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
38. Hoban, G. & Ferry, B. (2006). Teaching science concepts in higher education classes with slowmation animation (slowmation). World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education,1641-1646.
39. Hoban, G. & Nielsen, W. (2010). The 5 Rs: a new teaching approach to encourage slowmations (studentgenerated animations) of science concepts. Teaching Science, 56 (3), 33-38.
40. Hoban, G. (2005). From claymation to slowmation: A teaching procedure to develop students’ science understandings. Teaching Science,51(2), 26-30.
41. Hoban, G. (2007). Using slowmation to engage preservice elementary teachers in understanding science content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 75–91.
42. Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2012). Learning science through creating a “slowmation”: a case study of preservice primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 119-146.
43. Holloway, P., Kenna, T., Linehan, D., O’Connor, R., Bradley, H., O’Mahony, B., & Pinkham, R. (2021). Active learning using a smartphone app: Analysing land use patterns in Cork City, Ireland. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(1), 47-62. Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45.
44. Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç) A ve B Formları: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and factor structure of turkish versions of the metacognitive awareness ınventory for children (Jr. MAI) - A and B forms]. Turkish Psychological Articles, 10(20), 87–103.
45. Kidman, G., Keast, S., & Cooper, R. (2012). Responding to the 5Rs: An alternate perspective of slowmation. Teaching Science, 58(2), 26–32.
46. Koca, N., & Daşdemir, İ. (2016). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde yeni bir teknoloji coğrafi bilgi sistemleri. [A new technology for social sciences teaching geographic information system]. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 50, 483-496.
47. Krutka, D. G., Metzger, S. A., & Seitz, R. Z. (2022). Technology inevitably involves trade-offs: the framing of technology in social studies standards. Theory and Research in Social Education.
48. Lee, J. (1999). Incorporating active learning into a web-based ethics course. Available: http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/FIE99.html
49. Maguth, B. M. (2012). In defense of the social studies: social studies programs in STEM education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 65–90.
50. Mills, R., Tomas, L., Whiteford, C., & Lewthwaite, B. (2018). Developing middle school students’ ınterest in learning science and geology through slowmation. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1501–1520.
51. Mills, R., Tomas, L., Whiteford, C., & Lewthwaite, B. (2020). Developing middle school students’ ınterest in learning science and geology through slowmation. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1501–1520.
52. Mou, T. Y., Kao, C. P., Lin, H. H., & Yin, Z. X. (2021). From action to slowmation: enhancing preschoolers’ story comprehension ability and learning intention. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1231–1243.
53. Mutekwe, E. (2015). Higher education and the social media technology: a dilemma unfolding in ınstitutions of higher learning. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(3), 119–133.
54. Nicol, A. A., Owens, S. M., Le Coze, S. S. C. L., MacIntyre, A., & Eastwood, C. (2018). Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 253–265.
55. Nielsen, W. & Hoban, G. (2015). Designing a digital teaching resource to explain phases of the moon: a case study of preservice elementary teachers making a slowmation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (9), 1207-1233.
56. Occelli, M., Romano, L. G., Valeiras, N., & Willging, P. A. (2017). Animating cell division (mitosis): a didactic proposal with the slowmation technique. Revista Eureka, 14(2), 398–409.
57. Ochsner, K. (2010). Lights, camera, action research: the effects of didactic digital movie making on students’ twenty-first century learning skills and science content in the middle school classroom. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Arizona State University.
58. Özabacı, N., & Olgun, A. (2011). Bilgisayar destekli fen bilgisi öğretiminin fen bilgisi dersine ilişkin tutum, bilişüstü beceriler ve fen bilgisi başarısı üzerine bir çalışma [A study on computer based science and technology education on students’ attitudes, master learning skills and achivement]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(37), 93–107.
59. Özcan, E. (2019). İlkokul 4. sınıf sosyal bilgiler dersi tarih konularının aktif öğrenme modeliyle öğretilmesine ilişkin bir eylem araştırması [An action research on teaching history subjects with active learning model in primary school 4th grade social studies lesson]. International Journal of Scholars in Education, 2(1), 58-74.
60. Özkaya, A., Aydoğdu, M., & Çağıran, İ. (2016). Üstbilişsel ve internet tabanlı üstbilişsel öğretim yöntemlerinin öğrencilerin hücre bölünmesi ve kalıtım konusundaki tutumlarına ve üstbilişsel düşünme düzeylerine etkisi [The effects of metacognitive and web based metacognitive methods students’ attitudes and metacognitive thinking levels in heredity and cell division issue]. Education and Society in the 21st Century, 5(13), 133-159.
61. Paige, K., Bentley, B., & Dobson, S. (2016). Slowmation: A twenty-first century educational tool for science and mathematics pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 1–15.
62. Pantiwati, Y., & Husamah. (2017). Self and peer assessments in active learning model to increase metacognitive awareness and cognitive abilities. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 185–202.
63. Pappa, D., Makropoulos, C., & Pitsilis, V. (2017). Technology-medıated actıve learnıng: concept, perspectıves and challenges. In L. Chova, A. Martinez, & I. Torres (Eds.), 9TH International Conference on Educatıon and New Learnıng Technologies (pp. 6527–6532), Spain.
64. Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771.
65. Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019). Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483–500.
66. Russel, A. T., Comello, R. J., & Lee, D. W. (2007). Teaching strategies promoting active learning in healthcare education. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1–3.
67. Shepherd, A., Hoban, G., & Dixon, R. (2013). Using slowmation to develop the social skills of primary school students with mild intellectual disabilities: Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 150–168.
68. Shieh, R.S. (2012) The impact of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) implementation on student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context. Computers & Education 59(2), 206–14.
69. Singhal, R., Kumar, A., Singh, H., Fuller, S., & Gill, S. S. (2021). Digital device-based active learning approach using virtual community classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(5), 1007–1033.
70. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79.
71. Teng, F. (2021). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426.
72. Ulu Kalın, Ö. & Topkaya, Y. (2017). İlkokul 4. Sınıf sosyal bilgiler dersine yönelik tutum ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability of the attitude scale towards fourthgrade social studies course]. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Insitute, 14(37), 14–22.
73. Ünlü, B., & Yangın, S. (2020). Dijital öykülerle desteklenmiş sosyal bilgiler dersinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi [Effect of social studies course supported with digital stories on critical thinking skills of students]. Recep Tayyip Erdogan Universtiy Journal of Social Sciences, 6(11), 1–29.
74. Wagener, B. (2013). Autogenic training, metacognition and higher education. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Education Psychology, 33(7), 849-861.
75. Wieking, B. A. (2016). Technology Integration and Student Learning Motivation. [Unpublished master dissertation], Northwestern College.
76. Wilson, J. (1999, November). Defining metacognition: A step towards recognising metacognition as a worthwhile part of the curriculum. In paper presented AARE Conference, Melbourne.