نواندیشی در آموزش و یادگیری

نواندیشی در آموزش و یادگیری

تحلیل نحوه پاسخ‌دهی دانش‌آموزان به محتوای درسی با رویکرد سازنده‌گرایی( یک مطالعه موردی)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکترای برنامه ریزی درسی ،دانشگاه آزاد،ایران ،واحدلامرد.
2 استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
مقدمه و هدف: سازنده‌گرایی به عنوان رویکردی کنش‌گرا در یادگیری، به دانش‌آموزان این امکان را می‌دهد که بر اساس دانش موجود خود برای درک عمیق‌تر و به کارگیری مفاهیم جدید فعالیت کنند. این مقاله نحوه پاسخ‌دهی دانش‌آموزان ابتدایی به محتوای درسی با رویکرد سازنده‌گرایی را بررسی می‌کند.
روش شناسی پژوهش: دراین تحقیق میزان نحوه پاسخ دهی دانش آموزان به محتوای درسی با رویکرد سازنده گرایی تحلیل شد. جامعه آماری شامل دانش‌آموزان پایه‌های چهارم، پنجم و ششم دبستان است. به‌طور خاص، از مجموع 5181 دانش‌آموز پایه چهارم، 5153 دانش‌آموز پایه پنجم و 5021 دانش‌آموز پایه ششم، به‌صورت تصادفی 1217 نفر انتخاب شده‌اند. این انتخاب تصادفی به منظور تضمین تنوع و نمایندگی مناسب از جامعه آماری انجام شده است. ابزار گردآوری مشاهده می باشد و عبارت است از شناسایی، نام گذاری، مقایسه، توصیف و ثبت آنچه که روی می دهد.
یافته­ ها: نتایج نشان داد که دانش‌آموزان با مشارکت در فعالیت‌های گروهی و پروژه‌های عملی تعامل بیشتری دارند که منجر به درک عمیق‌تر مفاهیم درسی می‌شود. همچنین، فعالیت‌های سازنده گرایانه به افزایش انگیزه و مشارکت دانش‌آموزان کمک کرده و بهبود قابل توجهی در یادگیری و فهم محتوای درسی به همراه داشته است.
بحث و نتیجه­ گیری: این یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند که روش‌های سازنده‌گرایانه می‌توانند به طور مؤثری در ارتقاء کیفیت آموزشی و توسعه مهارت‌های شناختی و اجتماعی دانش‌آموزان مؤثر واقع شوند. این پژوهش به بررسی ابعاد جدیدی از سازنده‌گرایی در آموزش ابتدایی می‌پردازد و تأکید می‌کند که محیط‌های یادگیری باید به گونه‌ای طراحی شوند که ساخت دانش توسط دانش‌آموزان را پشتیبانی کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Analyzing Students’ Response Patterns to Curriculum Content through a Constructivist Approach: A Case Study

نویسندگان English

Mohsen Ghanbari shavari 1
Eshagh Shirinkam 2
1 PhD student,Department of Educational Sciences, Lam.C., Islamic Azad University, Lamard , Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction: Constructivism, as an action-oriented approach to learning, allows students to work on their existing knowledge for deeper understanding and application of new concepts. This article examines how elementary school students respond to lesson content with a constructivist approach.
research methodology: In this study, the extent to which students responded to the course content was analyzed with a constructivist approach. The statistical population includes students in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of primary school. Specifically, 1217 people were randomly selected from a total of 5181 fourth grade students, 5153 fifth grade students, and 5021 sixth grade students. This random selection was done to ensure diversity and appropriate representation of the statistical population. The data collection tool is observation and consists of identifying, naming, comparing, describing, and recording what happens..
Findings: The results that students achieve by participating in group activities and hands-on projects show that they can better understand course concepts. Constructivist activities help to increase students' participation and contribute to learning.
Conclusion: These findings show that constructivist methods can be effective in improving educational quality and developing students' cognitive and social skills. This research investigates new dimensions of constructivism in elementary education and emphasizes that learning environments should be designed in a way that supports the construction of knowledge by students.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Constructivism
Responsiveness
Course Content Analysis
A. Zainab and Abdulhian, Maryam (2018). The constructivist teaching model is a way to improve the teaching of mathematics, the third conference on education and application. Kermanshah. [In Persian].
Ahmadi, Saha; Shabkhiz, Zahra and Malii, Turan (2018). Mathematics education based on constructivism, National Conference of Professional Research in Psychology and Counseling with The approach of new achievements in educational and behavioral sciences “from the teacher’s point of view”, Minab. [In Persian].
Aviram, M. (2000). Beyond constructivism: autonomyoriented education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 19, 465-489.
Azermi Bostanabad, Karima, & Javadipour, Mohammad. (2021). Application of teaching method based on constructivist approach in secondary schools, Vol. 18, No. 2, Serial 34 Autumn & Winter 2022, pp. 1-12 [In Persian].
Bassamtbar, Seyyed Mohammad Ali and Hashemimghadam, Seyed Shamshaldin (2017). The position of constructivism components in the mathematics curriculum of the first year of high school in Iran and presentation A model to achieve the desired level, the 6th National Conference on Sustainable Development in Educational Sciences and Psychology, Social and Cultural Studies, Tehran. [In Persian].
Beck, S. J., & colleagues. (2000). The effects of constructivist teaching on student learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 1-10.
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). Project-Based Learning in the Math Classroom. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(4), 115-129.
Beverly A. Ebo, EdD. MEd, BS (2018). Constructivism or Behaviorism: What is the Best Method to Teach Special Needs Students? J Healthc Sci Humanit, 8(2), 45–56.
Brook, J., & Brooks, M. (1999). The courage to Be Constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57, 19-24.
Davis, B. (2017). Constructivist Teaching in Primary Schools. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 345-355.
Edutopia. (2019). Case Studies in Constructivist Learning. Retrieved from Edutopia.org.
Fardanesh, Hashem Sheikhi Fini, Ali Akbar. (2008). An introduction to constructivism in psychology and educational sciences. Publication: Al-Zahra Humanities Year: 1381 | Course: 12 | Number: 42 Pages: 125-146 [In Persian].
Fazeli, A., & Karami, M. (2015). Teacher students’ experiences of teaching design based on a constructivist approach. Journal of Research in Curriculum Planning, No 18, pp 140-150 [In Persian].
Gredler, M., & Green, S. (2002). A review and analysis of constructivism for school-based practice. School Psychology Review, 31(1), 53–70.
Gurses, A., Dogar, C., & Gunes, K. (2015). A New Approach for Learning: Interactive Direct Teaching Based Constructivist Learning (IDTBCL). Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2384-2389.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.
Jackson, R. S. (2006). Using constructivist methods to teach social studies to special education students. Masters of Arts in Teaching, Graduate Division of Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan.
Jonasson, C. (1991). Evaluating Constructivist Learning. Educational Technology, 31(9).
Karal, H., & Reisoglu, I. (2009). The impact of constructivist learning environments on students’ critical thinking skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9(1), 215-230.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Khaki Zahra, Parsamanesh Nilofar (2021). An overview of the effect of constructivist approach on elementary school students’ math learning. Conference: International Conference on Educational Sciences, Psychology, Sports Sciences and Physical Education Year: 1400 [In Persian].
Konishi, H. (2023). Learning and Applying Constructivist Approaches to Elementary Classrooms. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 31-43.
Larochelle, Marie; Bednarz, Nadine; & Garrison, Jim. (1998). Constructivism and education. Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, A. (2003). Teacher educators and student-directed learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 29-44.
Mansouri, Cyrus; Karmi, Morteza, & Abedini Beltrak, Mayment. (2013). Investigating the application of the teaching method based on the constructivist approach in Higher education: a case study of the social sciences department of the University Mazandaran. Curriculum Researches of Shiraz University, Number 34, pp 27-47 [In Persian].
Miller, Patricia H. (2011). Psychological theories of development from childhood to adulthood (translated by Parviz Sharifi Awadi & Mohammad Reza Shahi). Tehran: Nesharish [In Persian].
Parsa, Abdullah, & Sakti, Parviz. (2008). Examining the simple and multiple relationships of constructionism in the classroom and the way of implementing the curriculum (teaching and evaluation approaches) with students’ learning approaches in undergraduate courses. 12th year, number 4 March 1384, Page 147-184 [In Persian].
Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Saif, Ali Akbar. (2013). Modern educational psychology, psychology of learning and education. The seventh edition. Tehran: Doran [In Persian].
Smeda, N., Rakoczy, J., & Glahn, C. (2014). The impact of digital storytelling on student engagement and learning in a case study of digital storytelling in Australia. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 45-67.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. Autodesk Foundation.
Uroš Ocepek (2009). Exploring the relation between learning style models and preferred multimedia types.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in Education. In T. Husen, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (supplementary vol., pp. 162-163). Oxford: Pergamon.
Wabo, B. (2018). Constructivism or behaviorism: Which is the best approach for teaching students with special needs? Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 45-60.
Westwood, Peter Stuart. (2001). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.