محیط یادگیری ترکیبی: اثربخشی استفاده همزمان از آزمایش‌های واقعی و مجازی بر مهارت استدلال علمی دانش‌آموزان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

2 گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

10.22034/trj.2023.62850

چکیده

این مطالعه با هدف بررسی اثر آزمایش‌های واقعی، مجازی، و ترکیبی بر تفکر سیستمی شاگردان که به صورت استدلال علّی بروز پیدا می‌کند، انجام گرفته است. پزوهش به روش کمی و با رویکرد نیمه آزمایشی انجام گرفت. جامعه آماری دانش آموزان پایه یازدهم دوره متوسطه دوم شهر اهواز بودند که نمونه 80 نفری از آنان کاوشگری علمی با موضوع جریان الکتریکی را به سه صورت آزمایش واقعی (24 نفر)، مجازی (28 نفر) ، و ترکیب آن دو (28 نفر) تجربه کردند. یادگیری مفاهیم و مهارت تفکر سیستمی شاگردان به کمک آزمون‌ استاندارد DIRECT قبل و بعد از فعالیت کاوشگری اندازه‌گیری شد. پاسخ‌ها ابتدا کدگذاری، و سپس نمره‌گذاری شدند. از تحلیل کواریانس برای مقایسه میانگین گروه‌ها استفاده شد. کاوشگری واقعی (اندازه اثر 54/0) و مجازی (انداز اثر 60/0) تقریبا به یک اندازه باعث یادگیری مفاهیم علمی شدند، اما شاگردان در شرایط ترکیبی (اندازه اثر 79/0) بهتر از شرایط تک آزمایشی یاد می‌گرفتند. سهم بیشتر نمره شاگردان در هر سه تجربه یادگیری مربوط به سطح دانش امور واقعی و روندی بود و نمره‌ کمتری در سطوح بالای یادگیری مانند استدلال یا تفکر سیستمی داشتند. کاوشگری چه به صورت واقعی، چه مجازی، و چه ترکیبی، به خودی خود نتوانست دانش‌آموزان را وادار به استدلال منسجم و بازنگری مدل ذهنی خودشان کند. کاوشگری بدون فعالیت مکمل آن یعنی مدل‌سازی نمی‌تواند به ارتقا مهارت استدلال شاگردان کمک زیادی کند. پیشنهاد می‌شود کاوشگری در کلاس درس به صورت ترکیب آزمایش واقعی و مجازی توسط معلمان با رویکرد مبتنی بر مدل‌سازی انجام بگیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Hybrid Learning Environment: The Effectiveness of Simultaneous Use of Real And Virtual Experiments on Students' Scientific Reasoning Skill

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mojtaba Jahanifar 1
  • Amir Masnavi 2
1 Assistant professor, Department of Education, shahid chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Department of education, shahid chamran university of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده [English]

Understanding science, and having high-level thinking skills are essential skills for living in today's world. To improve such skills, science education standards around the world, and curricula of different countries, including Canada, Australia, and England, as well as the national curriculum of Iran, suggest inquiry-based learning.; but in the past 20 years, digital technologies such as virtual experiments have been used to improve, and even in some cases replace real experiments. Also, a combination of real and virtual experiments enhances conceptual understanding more than single experimental formats, however, this is a question that has remained unanswered so far and that is whether the combination of virtual and real laboratories will also affect other cognitive processes of students such as thinking and reasoning or not. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to clarify the role of using real, virtual, and combined real and virtual experiments on improving systemic thinking with the subject of electric currents.
In this study, 80 male high school students in Ahvaz who were studying in the eleventh grade of in the academic year 1402-1401 were selected by available sampling. The level of learning of the participants from the subject of electric currents, as well as their systemic thinking skills, were measured using the standard tool "Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuit Concepts Test" or DIRECT. First, the students' scores in the pre-test and post-test of DIRECT were collected. Some answers were for the multiple-choice section and some answers were for the descriptive section. The correct answer to the multiple-choice section had a score of one, and the wrong answer had a score of zero for the student. To eliminate the effect of pre-test (memory retention of response), one-way analysis of covariance was used. In this method, the effect of pre-test scores on post-test scores is first predicted by simple linear regression and then removed; after removing the effect of pre-test, the difference between post-test mean of groups is examined by analysis of variance.
The findings showed that the real learning environment and conducting inquiry in real laboratories had the most impact on students' real-world knowledge. Real-world knowledge is the knowledge of the elements that learners need to become familiar with a scientific field or solve problems related to it. This knowledge is the same as the knowledge of scientific terms and expressions, along with places and events in the real world. According to this definition and considering the characteristics of the real learning environment, the greater impact of real experiments on the better growth of students' real-world knowledge is justifiable. The low impact of the virtual learning environment on students' real-world knowledge and their procedural knowledge can also be understood from this perspective, because the real and sensory connection of students with the phenomenon in question in virtual learning environments will cause less impact of this environment on students' real-world knowledge. The superiority of the virtual learning environment over the real one can be well seen in the greater effectiveness of virtual experiments on their conceptual knowledge in this study. According to the findings, the virtual learning environment had the highest effect size (i.e. 0.61) on the growth of students' conceptual knowledge. In response to this research question that whether the combined learning environment could help improve students' physics knowledge, it should be said that combining real and virtual experiments in class and creating a combined learning environment could have a better effect and improve all types of knowledge well. The effectiveness of the combined learning environment showed that this environment, due to taking advantage of the features of both the real and virtual worlds simultaneously, could affect both real and procedural knowledge, as well as conceptual knowledge, and show its superiority over single learning environments, real or virtual. The findings showed that none of the learning environments used in the study, which were all based on scientific inquiry, could improve students' causal coherence skills. The lowest effect size in this study was related to the effectiveness of real (effect size 0.33), virtual (effect size 0.41) and combined (effect size 0.42) environments on causal coherence dimension in systemic thinking skill. Causal coherence is creating an accurate relationship and strong connection between reasoning components, and explaining phenomena using evidence, while using scientific and reality-based reasons.
The added value of this research is that it recommends the use of learning environments to improve knowledge in a classified way, so that according to the findings of this study, it can be concluded that for improving students' real-world and procedural knowledge, it is appropriate to use real learning environments and for improving conceptual knowledge, it is better to use a combination of real and virtual experiments. In the meantime, the continuous and creative use of classroom space for observation and real experimentation and the effective use of interactive simulations and virtual laboratories to show hidden aspects of many phenomena along with the real environment will help improve all types of knowledge in physics. The combined use of real and virtual learning environments, if accompanied by a suitable curriculum, will turn the class into the most equipped scientific laboratory for conducting inquiry. Inquiry without its complementary activity, namely modeling, cannot help students achieve high levels of thinking, and in this regard, the role of teachers as facilitators can be prominent and constructive. It is suggested that inquiry in class be performed by teachers with a model-based approach using a combination of real and virtual experiments. More attention of teacher training centers to science education standards that are stated in the national curriculum, and including inquiry and modeling activities in it for teacher training, reviewing the content of curriculum based on real and virtual learning environments based on inquiry, holding training courses for better use of teachers and students from virtual laboratories, reviewing the science curriculum of the second high school (physics, chemistry, biology) with a focus on scientific modeling, equipping classes, workshops, and laboratories with new technologies, can all provide the ground for implementing inquiry-based teaching methods and their effectiveness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Virtual Education
  • Science Education
  • Modeling
  • Causal Reasoning
  • Hybrid Environment
Alkhaldi, T., Pranata, I., & Athauda, R. I. (2016). A review of contemporary virtual and remote laboratory implementations: observations and findings. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0068-z
Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2014). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing : a revision of Bloom’s. In  TA  - TT  - (Pearson ne). Pearson. https://doi.org/LK  - https://worldcat.org/title/864384105
Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of Earth System education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
Aulia, E. V., Poedjiastoeti, S., & Agustini, R. (2018). The Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry-based Learning Material on Students’ Science Literacy Skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1), 12049. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012049
Blatti, J., Garcia, J., Cave, D., Monge, F., Cuccinello, A., Portillo, J., Juarez, B., Chan, E., & Schwebel, F. (2019). Systems Thinking in Science Education and Outreach toward a Sustainable Future. Journal of Chemical Education, 96. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00318
Bozzo, G., Lopez, V., Couso, D., & Monti, F. (2022). Combining real and virtual activities about electrostatic interactions in primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 44(18), 2704–2723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2149284
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
Byrne, J., Heavey, C., & Byrne, P. J. (2010). A review of Web-based simulation and supporting tools. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 18(3), 253–276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2009.09.013
De Andrade, V., Shwartz, Y., Freire, S., & Baptista, M. (2022). Students’ mechanistic reasoning in practice: Enabling functions of drawing, gestures and talk. Science Education, 106(1), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21685
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
Dickes, A. C., Sengupta, P., Farris, A. M. Y. V., & Basu, S. (2016). Development of Mechanistic Reasoning and Multilevel Explanations of Ecology in Third Grade Using Agent-Based Models. Science Education, 100(4), 734–776. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21217
Durlak, J. (2009). How to Select, Calculate, and Interpret Effect Sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34, 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004
Elmoazen, R., Saqr, M., Khalil, M., & Wasson, B. (2023). Learning analytics in virtual laboratories: a systematic literature review of empirical research. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00244-y
Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1614813
Eshach, H., Lin, T.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Misconception of sound and conceptual change: A cross-sectional study on students’ materialistic thinking of sound. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 664–684. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21435
Flegr, S., Kuhn, J., & Scheiter, K. (2023). When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: Combining real and virtual experiments in science education. Computers & Education, 197, 104745. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104745
Gilissen, M. G. R., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Bringing systems thinking into the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1253–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1755741
Harrison, V., Kemp, R., Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2021). SPSS for Psychologists. In SPSS for Psychologists. Red Globe Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57923-2
Haskel-Ittah, M. (2023). Explanatory black boxes and mechanistic reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 915–933. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21817
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution Theory for Glass’s Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 6–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21187
Inkinen, J., Klager, C., Juuti, K., Schneider, B., Salmela-Aro, K., Krajcik, J., & Lavonen, J. (2020). High school students’ situational engagement associated with scientific practices in designed science learning situations. Science Education, 104(4), 667–692. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21570
Iseki, H. (2020). Cohen’s kappa statistics as a convenient means to identify accurate SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody tests. MedRxiv, 2020.06.13.20130070. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.13.20130070
Jahanifar, M., & Hormozi Nejad, M. (2023). Improving students’ causal reasoning skills with the computer modelling. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 17(3), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2023.9401.2841
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Crujeiras, B., Taber, K. S., & Akpan, B. (2017). Science education. New directions in mathematics and science education: Vol. null (null (ed.)).
Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating Opportunities for Students to Show What They Know: The Role of Scaffolding in Assessment Tasks. Science Education, 98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21123
Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & de Jong, T. (2019). Using Hands-On and Virtual Laboratories Alone or Together―Which Works Better for Acquiring Knowledge and Skills? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9762-0
Kind, P., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education? Science Education, 101(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251
Lazenby, K., & Becker, N. M. (2021). Evaluation of the students’ understanding of models in science (SUMS) for use in undergraduate chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00084A
López, V., & Pintó, R. (2017). Identifying secondary-school students’ difficulties when reading visual representations displayed in physics simulations. International Journal of Science Education, 39(10), 1353–1380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1332441
Margunayasa, I. G., Dantes, N., Marhaeni, A., & Suastra, I. W. (2019). The Effect of Guided Inquiry Learning and Cognitive Style on Science Learning Achievement. International Journal of Instruction.
Momsen, J., Speth, E. B., Wyse, S., & Long, T. (2022). Using Systems and Systems Thinking to Unify Biology Education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2), es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0118
Nguyen, H., & Santagata, R. (2021). Impact of computer modeling on learning and teaching systems thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(5), 661–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21674
Osborne, J., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Handbook of Research on Science Education: Vol. null (null (ed.)).
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2150754
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9011-x
Raven, S., & Wenner, J. A. (2023). Science at the center: Meaningful science learning in a preschool classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(3), 484–514. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21807
S., S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C., & Sinha, S. (2017). Systems learning with a conceptual representation: A quasi-experimental study. Instructional Science, 45(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9392-y
Sadideen, H., Hamaoui, K., Saadeddin, M., & Kneebone, R. (2012). Simulators and the simulation environment: Getting the balance right in simulation-based surgical education. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.08.010
Sarabando, C., Cravino, J. P., & Soares, A. A. (2014). Contribution of a Computer Simulation to Students’ Learning of the Physics Concepts of Weight and Mass. Procedia Technology, 13, 112–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.015
Sjøberg, M., Furberg, A., & Knain, E. (2023). Undergraduate biology students’ model-based reasoning in the laboratory: Exploring the role of drawings, talk, and gestures. Science Education, 107(1), 124–148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21765
Stanny, C. J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom’s Taxonomy: What Measurable Verbs Can and Cannot Say about Student Learning. Education Sciences, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040037
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson. http://queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/login?url=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qub/detail.action?docID=5581921
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Aranda, G., Ferguson, J., & Gorur, R. (2020). Drawing to reason and learn in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21590
Usman, M., Suyanta, & Huda, K. (2021). Virtual lab as distance learning media to enhance student’s science process skill during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882(1), 12126. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012126
Wang, T.-L., & Tseng, Y.-K. (2016). The Comparative Effectiveness of Physical, Virtual, and Virtual-Physical Manipulatives on Third-Grade Students’ Science Achievement and Conceptual Understanding of Evaporation and Condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9774-2
Widiyatmoko, A. (2018). The Effectiveness of Simulation in Science Learning on Conceptual Understanding : A Literature Review.
Widodo, W., Rosdiana, L., Fauziah, A. M., & Suryanti. (2018). Revealing Student’s Multiple-Misconception on Electric Circuits. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1108(1), 12088. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012088
Wilcox, R. R. (2022). Chapter 12 - ANCOVA (R. R. B. T.-I. to R. E. and H. T. (Fifth E. Wilcox (ed.); pp. 773–826). Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820098-8.00018-X
Wörner, S., Becker, S., Küchemann, S., Scheiter, K., & Kuhn, J. (2022). Development and validation of the ray optics in converging lenses concept inventory. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 18(2), 20131. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020131
Wörner, S., Kuhn, J., & Scheiter, K. (2022). The Best of Two Worlds: A Systematic Review on Combining Real and Virtual Experiments in Science Education. Review of Educational Research, 92(6), 911–952. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221079417
Xu, X., Allen, W., Miao, Z., Yao, J., Sha, L., & Chen, Y. (2018). Exploration of an interactive “Virtual and Actual Combined” teaching mode in medical developmental biology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 46. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21174
Zacharia, Z., & Michael, M. (2016). Using Physical and Virtual Manipulatives to Improve Primary School Students’ Understanding of Concepts of Electric Circuits (pp. 125–140). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22933-1_12