Effects of Simulation Based Cooperative Learning on Physics Achievement, Science Process Skills, Attitudes Towards Physics and Usage of Interactive Whiteboards

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 57 - 65, 15.01.2018

Ali Çetin

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.375173

Cited By: 4

Öz

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of simulation based cooperative learning on students’ physics achievements, science process skills, attitudes towards physics and interactive whiteboards. In experimental group (n=24), while students taught with Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) method with the integration of simulations in electricity subject, in control group (n=25), traditional learning supported by simulations. Students’ responses were analyzed by using t-test and content analysis. In the findings of the study high school students in simulation based cooperative learning environments (Cohen’s d=1.86) have higher effect size than in traditional learning environments supported with simulations, between these two methods there were no statistically significant difference on students’ science process skills, attitude towards physics lesson and usage of interactive whiteboards. As a conclusion, simulation based cooperative learning positively affected students’ physics achievements more than traditional learning and both techniques made small differences on students’ science process skills, attitudes towards physics and usage of interactive whiteboards.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Simulation Based Learning, Cooperative Learning, Physics Education

Simulasyon Destekli İşbirliğine Dayalı Öğrenme Yönteminin Fizik Başarısına, Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerine, Fizik ve Akıllı Tahta Kullanımına Yönelik Tutumlara Etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı simülasyon destekli işbirliğine dayalı öğrenme yönteminin öğrencilerin fizik başarıları, bilimsel süreç becerileri, fizik ve akıllı tahta kullanımına yönelik tutumları üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Deney grubundaki öğrencilerle (N=25) elektrik konusunda simülasyonların entegre edildiği ‘Öğrenci Takımları Başarı Bölümleri’ tekniği, kontrol grubunda (N=24) ise simülasyonlarla desteklenmiş geleneksel öğretim yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilerin cevapları t-testi ve içerik analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulgularında lise öğrencilerinin simulasyon destekli işbirlikli ortamlarda (Cohen’s d=1.86) elde ettikleri başarı puanlarının sadece simulasyon kullanılan geleneksel öğrenme ortamlarına (Cohen’s d=1.09) göre daha yüksek etki büyüklüğüne sahip olduğu, bu iki yöntem arasında öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinde, fizik dersine ve akıllı tahta kullanımlarına yönelik tutumlarında anlamlı farklılık olmadığı görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak, simülasyon destekli işbirliğine dayalı öğrenme yönteminin öğrencilerin fizik başarılarını geleneksel yönteme göre olumlu yönde daha fazla etkilediği, her iki yöntemin de öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinde, fizik ve akıllı tahta kullanımına yönelik tutumlarında küçük bir etki yarattığı ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Simülasyon Destekli Öğrenme, İşbirliğine Dayalı Öğrenme, Fizik Eğitimi

Kaynakça

• Aytaç, T. (2013). Interactive Whiteboard factor in Education: Students’ points of view and their problems. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(20), 1907-1915.
• Balfakih N. M. A. (2003). The Effectiveness of Student Team-Achievement Division (STAD) for Teaching High School Chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605-624.
• Bitner, N. & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating Technology into the Classroom: Eight Keys to Success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.
• Capar, G. & Tarim, K. (2015). Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2, 553–559.
• Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,42(2), 21-29.
• Chen, W., Hua, S. & Ge. S. S. Consensus-based distributed cooperative learning control for a group of discrete-time nonlinear multi-agent systems using neural Networks. Automatica, 50(9), 2254–2268.
• Çetin, A. (2013). Mode-Method Interaction: The Effects of Inquiry vs. Expository and Blended vs. Face-to-Face Instruction on 9th Grade Students’ Achievement in, Science Process Skills in and Attitudes Towards Physics. PhD Thesis of Middle East Technical University, Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Ankara.
• Çelik, H.C. & Gündüz, S. (2015). Öğrencilerin matematik dersinde akıllı tahta kullanımına yönelik tutumların çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25:157-174.
• Eun, K. & Young, K. H. (2017). Effects of Simulation-based Education Combined Team-based Learning on Self-directed Learning, Communication Skills, Nursing Performance Confidence and Team Efficacy in Nursing Students 2017Journal Of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing24139-50
• Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1107–1149.
• Ghristensen, R. (2002). Effects of Technology Integration Education on the Attitudes of Teachers and Students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411-433.
• Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R.,Velle, L., McFarlane, A., Ruthven, K. &Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical Approaches for Technology-Integrated Science Teaching. Compters & Education, 48 (1), 137-152.
• Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M. & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer Simulations in the High School: Students’ Cognitive Stages, Science Process Skills and Academic Achievement in Microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.
• Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S. & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits in Simulation Only and Simulation-Laboratory Contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71-93.
• Jimoyiannis, A. & Komis, V. (2001). Computer Simulations in Physics Teaching and Learning: A Case Study On Students’ Understanding of Projectory Motion. Computer & Education, 36 (2001), 183-204.
• Karacop A, Doymus K (2013) Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science and Educational Technology 22(2),186–203.
• Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P. & Keinonen, T. (2014). The Effects of Scaffolded Simulation-Based Inquiry Learning on Fifth-Graders’ Representations of the Greenhouse Effect. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 406-424.
• National Research Council. (2011). Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations. Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, Margaret A. Honey and Margaret L. Hilton, Eds. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Newmann, F. M. & Thompson, J. A. (1987). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement in Secondary Schools: A Summary of Research. ERIC Document no: ED288853
• Martin, D.J. (2006). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth Marek, A.E. (2008). What the learning cycle? Journal of Elementary Education, 20(3), 63-69.
• Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H. B. & Ayaş, C. (2013). The Use of Tablet PC and Interactive Board from the Perspectives of Teachers and Students: Evaluation of the FATİH Project. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1815-1822
• Palomares, M.D. & Chisvert, T. M. (2016). Cooperative Learning: a Methodological Innovation in Teacher Training. Cultura Y Educacıon, 28(2), 378-395.
• Parveen, Q. (2012). Effect of Cooperative Learning on Achievement of Students in General Science at Secondary Level. International Education Studies, 5(2), 154-158.
• Phillips, M. E. & Graeff, T. R. (2014) Using an in-class simulation in the first accounting class: moving from surface to deep learning, Journal of Education for Business, 89(5), 241–247.
• Podolefsky, N. S., Adams, W. K., Lancaster, K. & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Characterizing Complexity of Computer Simulations and Implications for Student Learning. Paper presented to the 2010 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR.
• Ramasundarm, V., Grunwald, S., Mangeot, A., Comerford, N.B., & Bliss, C.M. (2005). Development of an environmental virtual field laboratory. Computers, 45, 21–34.
• Romero, C. & Martinez, E. (2012). Sımulatıon-Based Teaching in a Course of Fluid Mechanics. Paper presented to the 4Th International Conference On Education And New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, SPAIN.
• Sarı, U. & Güven, G.B. (2013). The Effect of Interactive Whiteboard Supported InquiryBased Learning on Achievement and Motivation in Physics and Views of Prospective Teachers Toward the Instruction. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7 (2), 110-143.
• Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology IN schools (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.
• Smetana, L. K. & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A Critical Review of the Literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370.
• onger, N.B. (2007). Digital resources or cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471–491). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Shaw, E. L. & Okey, J. R. (1985). Effects of Microcomputer Simulations on Achievement and Attitudes of Middle School Students, April 15-18,1985. 58th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 143-150, Indiana, French Lick Springs.
• Taşlıdere, E. (2007). The effects of conceptual approach and combined reading study strategy on students’ achievement and attitudes towards physics. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Tataroğlu, B. & Erduran, A. (2010). The Development of Attitude Scale Towards Interactive Whiteboard in Mathematics Course. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(3), 233-250.
• Temiz, B. K. (2007). Assesing Science Process Skills in Physics Teaching. PhD Thesis of Gazi University, Institute of Educatianol Science, Ankara.
• Tlhoaele, M., Suhre, C. & Hofman, A. (2016). Using Technology-Enhanced, Cooperative, Group-Project Learning for Student Comprehension and Academic Performance. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41 (3), 263-278.
• Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Karadağ, E. & Orhan, S. (2015). The Factors Affecting Acceptance and Use of Interactive Whiteboard Within the Scope of FATİH Project: A Structural Equation Model Based on the United Theory Acceptance and Use of Technology. Computers & Education, 81(February 2015), 169-178.
• Vaughan, W. (2002) . Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement and Attitude Among Students of Color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 359-364.
• Yelon, S. (2006). Face-to-face or online? Choosing the medium in blended training. Performance Improvement, 45(3), 22-26.