تحلیل محتوای تمرین‌های کتاب علوم تجربی پایه هفتم دوره اوّل متوسطه بر مبنای الگوی کاوشگری ساچمن

پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی

مقاله 7، دوره 14، شماره 54، آذر 1396، صفحه 75-87   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

راضیه کریمی^{* 1}؛ محسن خادمی²

¹دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

²استادیار بخش مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

هدف از این تحقیق تحلیل محتوای تمرین‌های کتاب علوم تجربی پایه هفتم دوره اوّل متوسطه بر اساس الگوی کاوشگری ساچمن بود. روش این پژوهش توصیفی از نوع تحلیل محتوا و جامعه آماری این پژوهش کلیه تمرین‌های (فعالیت، گفت‌وگو کنید، اطلاعات جمع‌آوری کنید، خود را بیازمایید، فکر کنید، آزمایش کنید) کتاب علوم تجربی پایه هفتم دوره اوّل متوسطه بود. واحد ثبت در این پژوهش تمرین و ملاک تحلیل محتوا مراحل کاوشگری ساچمن بود. نتایج نشان داد که از 156 تمرین کتاب تنها 49 تمرین (31 درصد) مطابق الگوی کاوشگری بود؛ از میان شش نوع تمرین، آزمایش کنید با 97/48 درصد و گفت‌وگو کنید و همچنین خود را بیازمایید با صفر درصد به ترتیب بیشترین و کمترین درصد را در میان تمرین‌های مرتبط با کاوشگری به خود اختصاص دادند. سایر نتایج نشان داد که در این 49 تمرین، بیشترین حضور به مرحله گردآوری داده‌ها (آزمایشگری) با 69/34 درصد و کمترین حضور به مرحله جمع‌آوری اطلاعات (تأیید) با 08/4 درصد و سپس مرحله فرضیه‌سازی با 20/10 درصد مربوط می‌شد. در مجموع، نتایج نشان داد که در تمرین‌های کتاب به الگوی کاوشگری توجه کمی شده است؛ این یافته لزوم توجه بیشتر به الگوی کاوشگری در تدوین کتاب و آماده کردن دانش‌آموز برای زندگی واقعی را نشان می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

پایه هفتم؛ تحلیل محتوا؛ کاوشگری؛ کتاب علوم تجربی

مراجع

Abdi, A. (2014). The Effect of Inquiry-based Learning Method on Students’ Academic Achievement in Science Course. Universal Journal of Educational Research 2, 1, 37-41.

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology,103, 1–18.

Amir Ahmadi, Y.; Iravani, Sh. & Sharafi, M. R. (2012). Content analysis of science textbook of the elementary school fifth grade based on Dewey' s problem-solving model. Research in Curriculum Planning, 9, 8, 86-95.

Asadian, S. & Habibi Azar, A. (2013). Investing the effectiveness of training- based science curriculum with research-based science curriculum in elementary school. Behavioral science Journal. 9-23.

Baraei, A. Behrooz Mahram, B. & Kareshak, H. (2014). The status of problem-solving process in the contents of elementary sciences textbooks' exercises. Research in Curriculum Planning, 10, 12, 1-10.

Bateman, W. (1990). Open to Question: The Art of Teaching and Learning by Inquiry, San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.

Barrow, L. H. (2006). ‘A brief history of inquiry: from dewey to standards’, Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 265.

Beam, M. (2010). A Comparison of Didactic and Inquiry TeachingMethods in a Rural Community College Earth Science Course. A Dissertation: College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of science apprenticeship programmer on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

Daglas, h. C. (2009). Curriculum research: toward a frame work for research-based curricula. Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,5, 20.

Fallahi, V. & Saber Nya, M. (2011). Content analysis of reading and writing textbooks of the primary school of Iran regard in UNICEF's Decuple Values. Social and Behavioral Sciences,15, 471–474.

Friesen, S. (2010). Uncomfortable bedfellows: Discipline-based inquiry and standardized examinations. Teacher Librarian, 37, 6.

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H. & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching. Review of EducationalResearch, 82, 300–329.

Gao, S. & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralized curriculum and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers' experiences in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 1-11.

Gillies, R., Nichols, K., Burgh, G.,& Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two strategic and meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children’s explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93–106.

Gormally, C.; Brickman, P.; Hallar, B. Armstrong, N. (2009).Effects of Inquiry-based Learning on Students’ Science Literacy Skills and Confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3, 2. 1-22.

Husseini Yazdi, A. & Ahmadiyan, M. (2015). Contently analyzing the experimental science textbook of primary schools: Based on the types of lesson questions. Reaserch in curriculum Planning, 11, 16, 132-147.

Hwang, G., Chiu, L. & Chen. Ch. (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to improving students' inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses. Computers & Education, 81 13-25.

Lee, V.S., ed. (2004).Teaching and Learning through Inquiry, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Lee, A. & Boyle, P. (2008). Quality Assurance for learning and teaching: A systematic perspective. Ideas on teaching, 6.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 4, 474–496.

Nourian, M. (2013). Practical guide of elementary books content analysis. Tehran: Shura.

National Science Teachers Association (2007). NSTA position statement. The Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations in Science Instruction [Electronic Version]. From http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide forteaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell. P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 3-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education(pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Karimzadegan, H. &Hossein Meiboudi, H. (2012). Exploration of environmental literacy in science education curriculum in primary schools in Iran. Social and Behavioral Sciences,46, 404 – 409.

Oliver, R. (2007). Exploring an inquiry-based learning approach with first-year students in a large undergraduate class. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 3-15.

Olson, S. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000).Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: Aguide for teaching and learning. National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Ostadhasanlou, H., Faraji Khiavi, Z. & Shokrollahi, R. (2012). Content Analysis of science books in grades four and five based on Merrill's taxonomy of educational objectives. Research in Curriculum Planning, 9, 6, 116-130.

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal ofEngineering Education, 95,2, 123-138.

Prince, M., & Felder, R. M. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 14-20.

Roberts, P., & Kellough, R. D. (2000). A guide for developing interdisciplinary thematic units. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Palmer, W. (2003). Simple, surprising, useful? Three questions for judging teaching methods. Journal of Pedagogy, 3,2, 285-7.

Salimi, l. & Osareh, A. R. (2013). Content analysis of second grade guidance school experimental science on the basis of Gilford innovation factors. Invention and Innovation in Humanistic Science. 2, 4, 73-102.

Shabani, H. (2008). Advanced Teaching Methods.Tehran: Samt.

Shabani, H. (2012). Educational Skills (methods and techniques of teaching). Tehran: Samt.

Shahmohammadi, N. (2013). Content Analysis of Elementary Science Text Books Based on the Achievment Motivation Constructs. Social and Behavioral Sciences,84, 426-430.

Slunt, M. K., & Giancarlo, C. L. (2004). Student-centered learning: A comparison of two different methods of instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 985-988.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: the impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18,3, 3349–3422.

Supasorn, S & Lordkam, A. (2014).Enhancement of Grade 7 students’ learning achievement of the matter separation by using inquiry learning activities. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 739-743.

Wang, H., & Posey, L. (2011). An inquiry-based linear algebra class, online submission, US-China Education Review, B 4, 489-494.

Yadegarzadeh, Gh. & Askari, A. (2012). Evaluation of Elementary school Science Curriculum according to Hamadan Province Teachers and Education Experts: An application of Akker's curriculm components. Journal of curriculum Studies, 6, 23, 132-161.

Yosefzadeh, M.; Rezai, Y. & Ghobadi Mohtaram, A. (2012). The effects of inquiry-based method on philosophical thinking skills of fifth grade students in experimental science. Training and Learning, 1, 39-52.