Бранко В. Анђић, Универзитет Црне Горе, Природно-математички факултет у Подгорици, имејл:  brankoan01@gmail.com
Станко М. Цвјетићанин, Универзитет у Новом Саду, Педагошки факултет у Сомбору
Мирјана Т. Маричић, Универзитет у Новом Саду, Педагошки факултет у Сомбору
Данијела Д. Стешевић, Универзитет Црне Горе, Природно-математички факултет у Подгорици
Иновације у настави, XXXI, 2018/4, стр. 46–59

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
doi: 10.5937/inovacije1804046A

Резиме: Традиционална настава, која је доминантно заступљена у настави биологије у основним и средњим школама, један је од главних разлога за појаву тзв. слепила за биљке код ученика. Модернизација наставних метода могла би умањити ову појаву код ученика. Циљ истраживања је испитати допринос примене креираног дигиталног дихотомног кључа (ДДК) и инструктивистичког (традиционалног) метода (ИМ) на квалитет и трајност знања ученика осмог разреда о Систематици и класификацији биљака. У истраживању се испитује и мишљење ученика о доприносу ДДК на њихова знања и мотивацију за учење ботаничких садржаја. У истраживању је учествовало сто двадесет ученика осмог разреда из Црне Горе (12–13 година), који су били подељени у две групе: К (садржаје су учили помоћу ИМ) и Е (исте садржаје су учили помоћу ДДК). Квалитет знања ученика након реализације садржаја испитан је посттестом, док је трајност знања испитана ретестом. Мишљења ученика испитана су анкетом. Резултати истраживања показали су да је ДДК допринео већем квалитету и трајности знања ученика у односу на ИМ на когнитивним нивоима: анализа, евалуација и синтеза. Ученици Е групе имају позитивно мишљење о доприносу примене ДДК на квалитет њихових ботаничких знања и већу мотивацију за проучавање биљног света. При реализацији наведених ботаничких садржаја предност треба дати ДДК у односу на ИМ.
Кључне речи: ботаничка знања, дигитални дихотомни кључеви, инструктивистички метод, ученици основне школе.

Summary: Traditional teaching, which is predominantly represented in the teaching of biology in primary and secondary schools, is one of the main reasons for the emergence of the plant blindness among students. Modernization of teaching methods could reduce this phenomenon among students. The aim of the research is to examine the contribution of the created digital dichotomous key (DDK) and instructive (traditional) methods to the quality and durability of eighth-grade students’ knowledge of the Systematics and Classification of Plants. The research also examines the students’ opinion on the contribution of DDK to their knowledge and motivation for learning botanical contents. The research involved the participation of one hundred twenty students of the eighth grade from Montenegro (12-13 years old), who were divided into two groups: K (contents were taught by IM) and E (the same contents were taught by DDK). The quality of students’ knowledge after content realization was tested with post-test, while the durability of knowledge was tested by the retest. Students opinions are examined by the survey. The results of the research showed that DDK contributed to the higher quality and durability of students’ knowledge in relation to IM at cognitive levels: analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Sstudents of the E group have a positive opinion on the contribution of the DDK to the quality of their botanical knowledge and a greater motivation for studying the plant world. In the realization of the aforementioned botanical contents, priority should be given to DKK in relation to IM.
Keywords: botanical knowledge, digital dichotomous keys, constructivist method, elementary school students.

Литература

• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman Publishing.
• Antić, M. G., Bajd, B., Ferbar, J., Krnel, D. & Pečar, M. (2000). Okolje in jaz 2: spoznavanje okolja za 2. razred devetletne osnovne šole. Ljubljana: Modrijan.
• ttenborough, D. (1995). Private life of plants. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
• Babić, N. (2007). Kompetencije i obrazovanje učitelja. U: Babić, N. (ur.). Zbornik radova znanstvenog skupa Kompetencije i kompetentnost učitelja (23–66). Učiteljski fakultet Sveučilišta J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku i Kherson State University, Ukraine. Ukraine: Kherson State.
• Bajd, B., Mati, D. & Mati, P. T. (2002). Določanje polžev in školjk z uporabo preprostega biološkega ključa: moje prve školjke in polži. Naravoslovna solnica. 6 (3), 9–13.
• Balick, M. J. & Cox, P. A. R. (1996). Plants People and Culture. New York: The science of ethnobotany. Scientific American Library.
• Bayne, D., Evans, D., Llewellyn-Jones, J. & Shalders, J. (1998). Byokeys. London: Blackie and Son Ltd.
• Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education. 39 (2), 63–67.
• Blair, D. (2009). The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. Journal of Environmental Education. 40 (2), 15–38.
• Blamey, M. & Grey-Wilson, C. (1993). Mediterranean Wild Flowers. London: Harper Collins.
• Brasher, J. (2006). The southern rocky mountain interactive flora (SRMIF) and factors correlated with recognition of plants and mammals (unpublished dissertation). Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado.
• Brew, A. & Jewell, E. (2011). Enhancing quality learning through experiences of research-based learning: implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development. 17 (1), 47–58.
• Bromham, L. & Oprandi, P. (2006). Evolution online: using a virtual learning environment to develop active learning in undergraduates. Journal of Biological Education. 41 (1), 21–25.
• Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: the Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Campbell, K. R., Wilson, S. B., Wilson, P. C. & He, Z. (2011). Interactive Online Tools for Teaching Plant Identification. HortTechnology. 21 (2), 504–508.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S. & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In Handbook of Competence and Motivation. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Cvjetićanin, S., Pećanac, R., Sakač, M., Đurendić-Brenesel, M. (2013). Computer Application in the Initial Education of Children in Natural Sciences. Croatian Journal of Education. 15 (1), 87–108.
• Deci, E. L. & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrin-sic motivation. In: Elliot, A. J. & Dweck, C. J. (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation (579-598). New York: Guilford Press.
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology. 49 (2), 14–23.
• Domac, R. (1972). Mala flora Hrvatske i susjednih područja. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
• Efe, H. A. & Efe, R. (2011). Evaluating the effect of computer simulations on secondary biology instruction: An application of Bloom’s taxonomy. Scientific Research and Essays. 6 (10), 2137–2146.
• Frisch, J., Unwin, K. M. & Saunders, G. (2010). Name That Plant! Overcoming Plant Blindness and Developing a Sense of Place Using Science and Environmental Education. In: The Inclusion of Environmental Education in Science Teacher Education. Bodzin, A. M., Shiner K. B., Weaver, S. (Eds.). New York: Springer.
  Huang, Y. M., Lin, Y. T. & Cheng, S. C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education. 54 (1), 47–58.
• Jukić, R. (2013). Konstruktivizam kao poveznica poučavanja sadržaja prirodoznanstvenih i društvenih predmeta. Pedagogijska istraživanja. 10 (2), 241–263.
• Kara, Y. & Yesilyurt, S. (2007). Comparing the impacts of tutorial and edutainment software programs on students’ achievements, misconceptions, and attitudes towards biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 17 (19), 32–41.
• Kirby, S., Cornish, H. & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (31), 10681–10686.
• Knight, K. & Davies, R. S. (2014). Using a Mobile Dichotomous Key iPad application as a scaffolding tool in a museum setting. Interactive Learning Environments. 24 (4), 814–828.
• Lock, R. (1995). Biology and the environment – A changing perspective? Or there’s wolves in them there woods. Journal of Biological Education. 29 (1), 3–4.
• Mandić, D. (2001). Informaciona tehnologija u obrazovanju. Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet.
• Mandić, D. (2003). Didaktičko-informatičke inovacije u obrazovanju. Beograd. Mediagraf.
• Marsh, E. J., Lozito, J. P., Umanath, S., Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. (2012). Using Verification Feedback to Correct Errors Made on a Multiple-Choice Test. Memory. 20 (6), 645–53.
• Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Mićanović, V. (2007). Osavremenjivanje početne nastave matematike primenom računara. Pedagoška stvarnost. 2 (7), 733–748.
• Niklanović, M. (2014). Biologija 8 – priručnik za nastavnike. Podgorica: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
• Pany, P. (2014). Students’ interest in useful plants: A potential key to counteract plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin. 60 (1), 18–27.
• Paraskevopoulos, S., Padeliadu, S. & Zafiropoulos, K. (1998). Environmental knowledge of elementary school students in Greece. The Journal of Environmental Education. 29 (3), 55–60.
• Patrick, P. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students name? Where do they see them?. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 20 (5), 630–642.
• Petrović, D., Ojdanić, M., Malidžan, D. (2015). Biologija 8 – udžbenik i radna sveska. Podgorica: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
• Pfeiffer, V. D., Scheiter, I. K. & Gemballa, S. (2012). Comparing and Combining Traditional Teaching Approaches and the Use of Video Clips for Learning How to Identify Species in an Aquarium. Journal of Biological Education. 46 (3), 140–148.
• Popov, V. A. (2006). Avtomatizirovannaya sistema obucheniya i kontrolya znanij. Metodicheskoe posobie. Ekaterinburg: UGLTU.
• Predmetni program Biologija VIII razred osnovne škole (2012). Zavod za školstvo Crne Gore, broj 1.”Pobjeda”, Podgorica.
• Randler, C. (2008). Teaching Species Identification – A Prerequisite for Learning Biodiversity and Understanding Ecology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 4 (3), 223–231.
• Randler, C. & Zehender, I. (2006). Effectiveness of Reptile Species Identification – a Comparison of a Dichotomous Key with an Identification Book. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2 (3), 55–65.
• Rodek, S. (2011). Novi mediji i nova kultura učenja. Napredak. 15 (1), 9–28.
• Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science. 17 (3), 249–255.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 55 (1), 68–78.
• Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S. & Przybylski, A. K. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation Emotion. 3 (30), 344–360.
• Schaal, S., Grübmeyer, S. & Matt, M. (2012). Outdoors and Online-inquiry with Mobile Devices in Pre-Service Science Teacher Education. World Journal on Educational Technology. 4 (2), 113–125.
• Schussler, E. E. & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It’s not easy being green: student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education. 42 (3), 112–119.
• Silva, H., Pinho, R., Lopes, L., Nogueira, A. J. & Silveira, P. (2011). Illustrated Plant Identification Keys: An Interactive Tool to Learn Botany. Computers & Education. 56 (4), 969–973.
• Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching Machines. Science. 2 (128), 969–77.
• Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B. & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.) (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: The Falmer Press.
• Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Talking about Plants-comments of Primary School Groups Looking at Plant Exhibits in a Botanical Garden. Journal of Biological Education. 36 (1), 27–34.
• Uno, G. E. (2009). Botanical literacy: What and how should students learn about plants. American Journal of Botany. 96 (10), 1753–1759.
• Uum M. S. J., Verhoeff, R. P. & Marieke, P. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education. 38 (3), 450–469.
• Vilotijević, M., Vilotijević, N. (2014). Vrednovanje kvaliteta rezultata i procesa učenja. Inovacije u nastavi. 27 (2), 21–30.
• Voskresenski, K., Glušac, D. (2007). Metodika nastave informatike. Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Tehnički fakultet „Mihajlo Pupin“.
• Wandersee, J. H. & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher. 61 (2), 82–86.
• Wandersee, J. H. & Schussler, E. E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin. 47 (1), 2–9.
• Wigfield, A. L. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25 (1), 68–81.
• Zehender, C. (2006). Teaching Species Identification – A Prerequisite for Learning Biodiversity and Understanding Ecology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 4 (3), 223–231.
• Župenac, V. (2013). Efikasnost programirane nastave biologije uz pomoć kompjutera u osnovnoj školi (doktorska disertacija). Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu.

Copyright © 2018 by the authors, licensee Teacher Education Faculty University of Belgrade, SERBIA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited.