با همکاری مشترک دانشگاه پیام نور و انجمن مطالعات برنامه درسی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد آموزش محیط‌زیست، گروه برنامه ‏ریزی، مدیریت و آموزش محیط‌زیست، دانشکده محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه تهران

2 استاد گروه برنامه ‏ریزی، مدیریت و آموزش محیط‌زیست، دانشکده محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر مقایسه و پایش اثربخشی روش تدریس مشارکتی مبتنی بر الگوی تقسیم‏بندی دانش‏آموزان به گروه‏های پیشرفت (STAD) و آموزش سنتی در مباحث محیط‌زیست شهری است. این پژوهش از نوع شبه آزمایشی با طرح پیش‏آزمون-پس‏آزمون با دو گروه آزمایشی مشارکتی و سنتی می‏باشد. جامعه آماری شامل دانش‏آموزان پسر مقطع چهارم ابتدایی شهر اهواز است که جهت نمونه‏گیری از روش خوشه‏ای تصادفی استفاده شد. حجم نمونه شامل 58 نفر می‏باشد که 30 و 28 نفر آن‏ها به ترتیب در گروه آزمایشی مشارکتی STAD و گروه آزمایشی سنتی قرار گرفتند. همسان بودن گروه‏ها از طریق اجرای پیش‏آزمون سنجیده شد و پایایی آزمون از طریق محاسبه ضریب آلفای کرونباخ 84/0 به دست آمد. روش‏های یادگیری به مدت 3 هفته متوالی اجرا شد و یک هفته و سپس یک‏ ماه پس از پایان مداخله پس‏آزمون به عمل آمد. نمرات با استفاده از آزمون t مستقل و همبسته مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفتند. نتایج تحلیل داده‏ها نشان داد که میزان آگاهی از مباحث محیط‌زیست شهری در میان دانش‏آموزانی که به روش مشارکتی STAD آموزش دیده بودند، در سطح معناداری بالاتر از دانش‏آموزان آموزش‌دیده به روش سنتی بود. همچنین نتایج حاصل از پایش اثربخشی، برتری روش مشارکتی STAD را نسبت به روش آموزش سنتی تأیید نمود. پیشنهاد می‏شـود، دست‌اندرکاران نظـام آموزشـی بـا برگزاری آموزش ‏های ضمن خدمت بـرای آموزگـاران، آنها را با روش‏های مختلف یـادگیری مـشارکتی به‌ویژه در مورد مسائل محیط‌زیستی آشنا سازند تا از این طریق، روحیه همفکری، تبادل‌نظر و نگرش مثبت نسبت به محیط‌زیست در میان دانش‏آموزان افزایش یابد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effectiveness of the STAD Training Method in Learning the Environmental Issues in Elementary Education

نویسندگان [English]

  • Atousa Soleimani 1
  • Ahmad Nohegar 2

1 M.Sc in Environmental Education, Department of Environmental Education, Management and Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Education, Management and Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Abstract: The purpose of this study was two compare and monitoring STAD cooperative method and traditional teaching on urban environmental issues. This study is a quasi-experimental study with pre-test and post-test with two experimental groups. The statistical population was elementary school's fourth-grade male students of Ahvaz city. For sampling, random cluster sampling was used. The sample size included 58 that were 30 in STAD cooperative group and 28 in the traditional group. To equalize the members of groups pre-test were done, and reliability was calculated through Cronbach's alpha 0.84. The learning method for three consecutive weeks. First, the post-test was conducted after a week and then after a month of training. Results were analyzed by independent samples t-test and paired-sample t-test. The analysis showed that urban's environmental awareness in the STAD group was significantly higher than the traditional group. Also, the result of monitoring effectiveness confirmed that STAD cooperative learning is better than the traditional teaching method. It's suggested that Through community-based training courses on environmental issues for teachers, it increased the mentality and positive attitudes among students.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban Environmental Education
  • STAD Cooperative Learning
  • Traditional Teaching
  • Monitoring of Effectiveness
Aaronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). “The Jigsaw Classroom”. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage Publication.
Bayraktar, G. (2011). “The effect of cooperative learning on students' approach to general gymnastics course and academic achievements. Educational research and reviews, 6(1), 62.
Behrangi., M.R. & Aghayari, T. (2004). “Developing the traditional instruction based on Jig-Saw cooperative model of teaching”. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations. 10(3), 35-53 [In Persian].
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). “Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom Third Edition”. Teachers College Press, Colombia university, New York & London.
DeVries, D. L., & Edwards, K. J. (1973). “Learning games and student teams: Their effects on classroom process”. American Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 307-318.
Faizy., A. Mesrabadi., J. & Zavar, T. (2015). “Meta-analysis of the effects on group teaching methods on academic returns”. Studies in learning and instruction, 2(6), 1-31 [In Persian].
Fonseca, B. A., & Chi, M. T. (2011). “Instruction based on self-explanation”. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 296-321.
Ganji, M., Zahed-Babelan, A. and MoeiniKia, M., (2012). “Meta-analysis of studies carried out regarding the role of teaching models in students' academic achievement”. Journal of School Psychology, 1(1), 93-107. [In Persian]
Glass, G. V. (1982). “Meta‐analysis: An approach to the synthesis of research results”. Journal of research in science teaching, 19(2), 93-112.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). “Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning”. Review of educational research, 49(1), 51-69.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). “Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning”. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). “Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis”. Psychological bulletin, 89(1), 47.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Stanne, M.B. (2000). “Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis”. http://www.cooperation. org/pages/cl-methods.html.
Kalaian, S. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2014). “A meta-analytic review of studies of the effectiveness of small-group learning methods on statistics achievement”. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(1), 1-20.
Kangan, S. (1991). “Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers”. Languna Niguel, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., & Dochy, F. (2013). “A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?”. Educational Research Review, 10, 133-149.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). “Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? ”. American psychologist, 59(1), 14.
McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). “Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama‐Sniezek’s review”. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 107-117.
Meiboudi, H., Shobeiri, S.M., Arjmandi, R., & Babaei Semiromi, F.A. (2015). “New approach to environmental education for kids in Mashhad”. Journal of Technology of Education.1(9), 77-87 [In Persian].
Mizuno, M. (2011). “Cooperative Learning for Fostering Knowledge Construction in Japanese High School, In: Comparative Education in Teacher Training, Education Policy, Social Inclusion, History of Education Edited by N. Popov, C. Wolhuter, M. Mihova & J. Ogunleye”. Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society & Bureau for Educational Services. (9), 119-124.
Ostovar, N., Gholamazad., S. & Mesrabadi, J., (2012). “Effectiveness of student teams achievement divisions (STAD) Method on cognitive, emotional and metacognitive indicators in mathematics learning”. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 41(11), 29-50 [In Persian].
Prince, M. (2004). “Does active learning work? A review of the research”. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231.
Sajadi., F. & Sha’bani, E.A. (2014). “New Patterns and Methods of History Teaching”. Monthly journal of geography and history, 193(18), 2-8 [In Persian].
Saylan, C., & Blumstein, D. (2011). “The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it)”. Univ of California Press. 5(5): e120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050120.
Shachar, H., & Fischer, S. (2004). “Cooperative learning and the achievement of motivation and perceptions of students in 11th grade chemistry classes”. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 69-87.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1976). “Small-Group Teaching”. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Shobeiri., S.M. & Shamsi, S.Z. (2015). “An analysis of the interdisciplinary curriculum of the evironmental education in higher education”. Interdiciplinary Studies in the Humanities (Iranian Journal of Cultural Research). 3(7), 127-145. [In Persian]
Slavin, R. E. (1978). “Student teams and comparison among equals: Effects on academic performance and student attitudes”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 532-538.
Slavin, R. E. (2011). “Instruction based on cooperative learning. Handbook of research on learning and instruction”. Johns Hopkins University, U.S.
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., & Madden, N. A. (1984). “Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors”. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 409-422.
Yazdanipour., N. Yousefi., A. & Haghani, F. (2009). “The Effect of Teaching in Project-Cooperative Method on Academic Achievement of Senior Girl Students in Foolad Shahr High Schools, in Terms of Statistics and Modeling”. Research in curriculum planning. 22(23), 85-98 [In Persian].
Zakaria, E. (2007). “Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: a Malaysian perspective”. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ, 3(1):35–39.