Станко М. Цвјетићанин, Универзитет у Новом Саду, Педагошки факултет у Сомбору, Сомбор, Србија, имејл: stankocvjeticanin@gmail.com
Мирјана Т. Маричић, Универзитет у Новом Саду, Педагошки факултет у Сомбору, Сомбор, Србија

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
DOI: 10.5937/inovacije2201075C

Резиме: Обезбеђивање оптималног (одговарајућег) нивоа инструктивног вођења у настави природних наука у почетном образовању од изузетног је значаја за правилно усвајање знања и њихову примену. Циљ овог рада је да се испита допринос примене директне у односу на индиректну хандс-он (енг. hands-on) инструкцију на постигнућа ученика о кретању и својствима материјала на часовима интегрисаних природних наука (часови предмета Свет око нас и Природа и друштво). Задаци истраживања усмерени су на: упоредну анализу квалитета знања ученика стеченог уз примену директне у односу на индиректну хандс-он инструкцију, као и анализу трајности тог знања. У истраживању су примењене: метода теоријске анализе, дескриптивно-аналитичка метода и експериментална метода. Техника истраживања је тестирање, а инструмент тестови провере знања (пре-тест, пост-тест и ре-тест). Узорак истраживања чинила су 94 ученика трећег разреда основне школе, распоређена у две групе: Е1 (примена индиректне хандс-он инструкције) и Е2 групу (примена директне хандс-он инструкције). Резултати истраживања показали су да су ученици Е1 групе остварили нешто квалитетнија и трајнија знања о кретању и својствима материјала у односу на ученике Е2 групе. Међутим, значајна разлика између њихових постигнућа уочена је само на когнитивном нивоу евалуирам на пост-тесту. Ово наводи на закључак да при реализацији садржаја о кретању и својствима материјала у трећем разреду треба примењивати обе врсте хандс-он инструкције. При томе већу предност треба дати индиректној у односу на директну хандс-он инструкцију, јер поред нешто већих постигнућа пружа ученицима и већи степен самосталног истраживачког и експерименталног рада.

Кључне речи: директна и индиректна хандс-он инструкција, интегрисане природне науке, постигнућа ученика, први циклус основног образовања и васпитања.

Abstract: Ensuring the optimal (adequate) level of instructional guidance in teaching natural sciences in primary education is of utmost importance for the proper acquisition and application of knowledge. The goal of this paper is to examine the contribution of direct hands-on instruction relative to an indirect one on student achievement regarding the movement and properties of materials in classes of integrated natural sciences (classes of the World around Us and Science and Social Studies). The research tasks include a comparative analysis of the quality of students’ knowledge acquired with the application of direct in relation to indirect hands-on instruction, as well as the analysis of the permanence of that knowledge. The following methods were used in the research: theoretical analysis method, descriptive-analytical method, and experimental method. The research technique is testing, and the instrument is knowledge tests (pre-test, post-test, and re-test). The research sample consisted of 94 students of the third grade of primary school, divided into two groups: E1 (application of indirect hands-on instruction) and E2 group (application of direct hands-on instruction). The results of the research indicate that the students of the E1 group achieved somewhat better and more lasting knowledge about the movement and properties of materials in relation to the students of the E2 group. However, a significant difference between their achievements was observed only at the cognitive level evaluated in the post-test. This leads to the conclusion that both types of hands-on instructions should be applied in the third grade when teaching the content related to the movement and properties of materials. In addition, greater preference should be given to indirect over direct hands-on instruction because it not only provides an opportunity for students to have better achievement, but also it enables a greater degree of independent research and experimental work.

Keywords: direct and indirect hands-on instruction, integrated natural sciences, student achievement, first cycle of primary education.

Литература

• Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J. & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (1), 1–18. DOI: 10.1037/a0021017
• 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.
• Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2001). Epistemologically authentic scientific reasoning. In: Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D. & Okada, T. (Eds.). Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (351–392). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Cohen, M. T. (2008). The Effect of Direct Instruction versus Discovery Learning on the Understanding of Science Lessons by Second Grade Students. Retrieved May 5, 2021. from www: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/nera_2008/30
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. R. (2018). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
• Crowe, A., Dirks, C. & Pat Wenderoth, M. (2008). Biology in bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 7 (4), 368–381. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
• Cvjetićanin, S. (2017). Metodika nastave prirodnih nauka. Sombor: Pedagoški fakultet u Somboru.
• Cvjetićanin, S. & Maričić, M. (2017). The contribution of demonstration and student-led experiments on the students’ knowledge quality in the third grade of primary school. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (5), 634–650.
• Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91 (3), 384–397. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20194
• Eysink, T. & De Jong, T. (2012). Does Instructional Approach Matter? How Elaboration Plays a Crucial Role in Multimedia Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21 (4), 583–625. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2011.611776
• Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90 (3), 453–467. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20130
• Glynn, S., Britton, B. & Yeany, R. (2012). Psychology of learning science. Oxon: Routledge.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Golan Duncan, R. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. DOI: 10.1080/00461520701263368
• Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. (2004). The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty First Century. Science Education, 88 (1), 28–54. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10106
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75–86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
• Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42 (2), 109–113. DOI: 10.1080/00461520701263376
• Kyun, S., Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2013). The effect of worked examples when learning to write essays in English literature. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (3), 385–408. DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2012.727884
• Lazonder, A. W. & Egberink, A. (2013). Children’s acquisition and use of the control-of-variables strategy: effects of explicit and implicit instructional guidance. Instructional Science, 42 (2), 291–304. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9284-3
• Logar, A. & Savec Ferk, V. (2011). Students’ hands-on experimental work vs lecture demonstration in teaching elementary school chemistry. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 58 (4), 866–875.
• Loibl, K. & Rummel, N. (2013). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42 (3), 305–326. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5
• Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B. & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology. Journal of Educational Research Technology and Development, 53 (4), 41–55. DOI: 10.1007/BF02504684
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S. i Anđić, B. (2018). Stavovi učitelja o primeni heurističke nastave u početnom obrazovanju u prirodnim naukama. Inovacije u nastavi, 3, 96–107. DOI: 10.5937/inovacije1803096M
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S. i Anđić, B. (2019). Teacher-demonstration and student hands-on experiments in teaching integrated sciences. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 5 (18), 768–779. DOI: 10.33225/jbse/19.18.768.
• Matlen, B. J. & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41 (3), 621-634. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z
• McKee-Vickie, K., Williamson, M. & Ruebush, E. (2007). Effects of Demonstration Laboratory on Student Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (5), 395–400. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-007-9064-4
• Putica, K., Trivić, D. (2019). Efekti primene metode učenja putem rešavanja problema u nastavi prirodnih nauka. Inovacije u nastavi, 4, 21–31. DOI: 10.5937/inovacije1904021P
• Randler, C. & Hulde, M. (2007). Hands-on versus teacher-centered experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25 (3), 329–338. DOI: 10.1080/02635140701535091
• Robbins, S., Schwartz, B. & Wasserman, E. (2001). Psychology of learning and behavior. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Singh, S. & Yaduvanshi, S. (2015). Constructivism in Science Classroom: Why and How. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5 (3), 1–5.
• Stull, A. T. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (4), 808–820. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808
• Sukariasih, L. (2017). Development of Integrated Natural Science Teaching Materials Webbed Type with Applying Discourse Analysis on Students Grade VIII in Physics Class. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1 (840), 1–8. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/846/1/012028
• Zhang, L. (2018). Withholding answers during хандс-он scientific investigations? Comparing effects on developing students’ scientific knowledge, reasoning, and application. International Journal of Science Education, 46 (4), 459–469. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1429692
• Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students’ learning of energy-related science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60, 199–205. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.001
• Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27 (2), 172–223. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001

Извори

• Kukić, M., Aćimović, M. (2016). Svet oko nas 2 – Radna sveska za drugi razred osnovne škole. Čačak: Pčelica.
• Matanović, V., Vlahović, B., Joksimović, S. i Đurđević, M. (2015). Priroda i društvo 3b – Radna sveska za 3. razred osnovne škole. Beograd: Eduka d.o.o.
• Munitlak, M., Šikl-Erski, A. i Holond, A. (2016). Priroda i društvo 3 – Radna sveska za treći razred osnovne škole. Beograd: Novi Logos.
• Ralić-Žeželj, R. (2016). Maša i Raša – Priroda i društvo – Radna sveska za treći razred osnovne škole. Beograd: Klett.
• Stokanović, Lj., Lukić, G. (2016). Svet oko nas 2 – Radna sveska za drugi razred osnovne škole. Beograd: Novi Logos.
• Životić, B. (2016). Maša i Raša – Svet oko nas 2 – Radna sveska za drugi razred osnovne škole. Beograd: Klett.