تاثیر تکالیف ساختاریافته و نیمه‌ساختاریافته بر درگیرسازی رفتاری و انگیزشی دانشجویان کارشناسی رشته علوم تربیتی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران

2 علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش با هدف بررسی تاثیر نوع تکالیف ساختار‌یافته و نیمه‌ساختاریافته بر درگیرسازی رفتاری و انگیزشی دانشجویان رشته علوم تربیتی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا در سال تحصیلی 96‌-‌95 انجام شد. روش پژوهش از نوع شبه آزمایشی با طرح پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون با استفاده از گروه‌ کنترل و آزمایش بود. جامعه آماری شامل کلیه دانشجویان رشته علوم تربیتی دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا در سال تحصیلی 96-‌95 و حجم نمونه نیز 30نفر از دانشجویان رشته علوم تربیتی بود که به صورت انتساب تصادفی در دو گروه 15 نفره، یک گروه با تکالیف ساختار‌یافته و گروه دیگر با تکالیف نیمه‌ساختاریافته قرار گرفتند. برای گردآوری اطلاعات از پرسشنامه‌ی درگیرسازی تینیو (2009) استفاده شد. روایی پرسشنامه درگیرسازی تحصیلی از طریق روایی محتوایی و صوری، و پایایی پرسشنامه با استفاده از آلفای کرونباخ در کل 0.96 و در زیر مولفه‌ها برای بخش درگیرسازی رفتاری 0.90 و درگیرسازی هیجانی0.92 بدست آمد.. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها از شاخص آمار توصیفی شامل فراوانی، میانگین و انحراف معیار و آمار استنباطی شامل آزمون t مستقل و آزمون تحلیل کواریانس استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که تأثیر نوع تکلیف (ساختار‌یافته، نیمه‌ساختاریافته) بر درگیرسازی رفتاری و هیجانی دانشجویان یکسان است و تفاوتی بین نوع تکلیف با درگیرسازی رفتاری و هیجانی وجود ندارد.

چکیده تصویری

تاثیر تکالیف ساختاریافته و نیمه‌ساختاریافته بر درگیرسازی رفتاری و انگیزشی دانشجویان کارشناسی رشته علوم تربیتی

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Structured and semi-structured Tasks on Behavioral and Motivational Engagement of Undergraduate Students in Educational Science

نویسندگان [English]

  • maryam pourjamshidi 1
  • elham jamor 2
1 Faculty Humanities Sciences, University of Bu-Ali-Sinai, Hamedan
2 Faculty Humanities Sciences, University of Bu-Ali-Sinai, Hamedan
چکیده [English]

This research has been conducted in an attempt to examine the effect of type of Structured and Semi-Structured tasks on the behavioral engagement and emotional engagement of Educational Science students’ discipline in academic year 2016-17. The research is a quasi-experimental one and is performed using the pre-test, post-test method with a control group. Participants in the study were 30 students of Bu-Ali Sina University in the field Educational Science selected by convenience sampling procedure which 15 of them were in a structured tasks group and 15 others in semi-structured homeworks. Data was collected by Thinou's Involvement Questionnaire (2009). Validity of this questionnaire has been stablished through content validity and formalism, and reliability of the questionnaire in the internal consistency of the questionnaire, using Cronbach's alpha was 0.96 and in the sub-components this value for behavioral involvement was 0.90 and emotional involvement 0.92, To analyze the data, descriptive statistics including frequency, mean, standard deviation and inferential statistics including independent sample t-test and covariance analysis test were used. The results revealed that there is no difference between the type of structured and semi-structured tasks and student emotional and behavioral engagement.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tasks
  • Structured
  • Semi-Structure
  • Behavioral
  • Engagement

[1] Bonabi Mubarak, Z (2005). Study of the inter-subject and inter-subject relations of (academic motivation, Self- efficacy and homework value and . . .) in the first year students of Ahvaz high school students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ahwaz University. [in Persian[

[2] Zahiri, A A., Shahini Village, M., Haghighi Mobarakeh, J.(2011). The causal relationships of previous academic performance and doing homework With the next academic performance by self-efficacy mediation for learning and accountability in schoolchildren, girls and boys of Ahvaz high schools. Journal of Education and Learning. 18 (1). [in Persian[

[3] Earle, R. S. (1992). Homework as an instructional event. Educational technology, 35(4), 36-47.

[4] Shyirebaggy, N,. Wackily, N. (2013). Students' attitude towards the homework and its relation to Task Management Strategies. Journal of Learning and Education Studies, 5 (2), pp. 112-87 . [in Persian[

[5] Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement?. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1-62.

[6] Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155-165.

[7] Mitchell, L., Carbone, A. 2011. A typology of task characteristics and their effects on student engagement. International. Journal of Educational Research. 50. 257–270.

[8] Saif , A.A (2013). Modern psychology, Learning and teaching Psychology. Tehran: Rozesh. Printing 55. [in Persian[

[9] Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All Problems are Not Equal: Implications for Problem Based Learning. Interdisciplinary. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 10-13.

[10] Victoria Smy Marie Cahillane Piers MacLean , (2017),"Sensemaking and metacognitive prompting in ill-structured problems", The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Vol. 33 )3( pp. 186 – 199.

[11] Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York, USA: The Macmillan Company.

[12] Mitchell, L., Carbone, A. 2011. A typology of task characteristics and their effects on student engagement. International Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 50(5-6). 257–270.

[13]Jordan, W. J., Lara, J., McPartland, J. M. (1994, August). Exploring the complexity of early dropout causal structures. Report No. 48. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University.

[14]Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

[15]Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A.A., Sherin, B.L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 31(2). 270– 289.

[16] Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

[17] Clark, J, Dimartino, J.(2004). A Prescription for engagement. Principar Leadership, 4(8), 19- 23.

[18] Fuladvand, K., Soltani, M., Fathi Ashtiani, Z., Sha'a'i, Z. (2012). Psychometric Properties of Tinoy's Engagement Questionnaire. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3 (8). [in Persian[

[19] Fredricks, A. J., Blumenfeld, C. P., & Paris, H. A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

[20] Tinio, M. F. O. (2009). Academic Engagement Scale for Grade School Students. The assessment Handbook. 64-75.

[21] Jasmine, G. Gregory A. D.liem, Andrew J. Martin & Susan C. (2012). Academic motivation, self concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1111-1122.

[22]Lenn brink, E. A. & penterich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy belief in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and writing quarterly. 19, 119 -130.

[23] Chapman E.(2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 13. 123-128.

[24] Fredricks, A. J., Blumenfeld, C. P., & Paris, H. A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

[25] Hui, C., Lee, C. and Niu, X. (2010). “The moderating effects of polychronicity and achievement striving on the relationship between task variety and organization-based self-esteem of mid-level managers in China”, Human Relations, 63 (9). 1395-416.

[26] Willms, J. (2005). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

[27] Saber, S,. Pashashriifi., H (2013); Prediction of educational engagement dimensions based on identity styles in female primary school students of Tehran high schools, Journal of Research in Curriculum Planning., 2(11), 72-85. [in Persian].

[28] Ahouchakh, N. (2015). Investigating the effect of traditional and combined education on the academic engagement of female students in the basic sciences lesson of the seventh year of primary education. Unpublished master’s thesis. Bu-Ali sina University. [in Persian].

[29] Davodi, S. (2012). Presenting the Prediction Model of Academic Achievement with Emphasizing the Mediate Role of Cognitive, Motivational and Behavioral Engagement. Research in School and Virtual Learning. 1(1), 1 37-47.

[30 Judge Tabatabai, M., Shahabi, R., Alibazi, H.,Torkan, R.A. (2011). A structural model of relationships between parenting, academic engagement and academic achievement. Journal of Psychological applied research. 2(4). 17-30.

[31] Zerang, R. (2008). The relationship between learning styles and academic engagement with students' academic performance in. Unpublished master’s thesis. Mashhad University. [in Persian].

[32] Arnold B. Bakker a, Evangelia Demerouti b, Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. (80). 555–564.

[33] Michel, J., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., Pagani, L.S. (2008). School Engagement Trajetories and Their Differential Predictive Relation to Dropout, Journal of School Issues, 64, )(1), 21-40.

[34] Richard L. Millera, Robert F. Ryceka, Krista Fritsona(2011). The effects of high impact learning experiences on student engagemen, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 15 (2011) 53–59.

[35] Johnmarshall. R., Hyungshim J., Dan C., Soohyun, J., Jon B. (2004). Creative methods in transforming education using human resources .Motivation and Emotion, 28) 2(147-169.

[36] Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 70-83.

[37] Pintrich, P. R., Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Merrill.

[38] Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

[39] Newmann, F. (1992). Higher-order thinking and prospects for classroom thoughtfulness. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 62 91). New York, USA: Teachers College Press.

[40] Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of facebook use: participation in facebook activities and student engagement. Computers and Education , 58: 162-171.

[41] Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A.A., Sherin, B.L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 270– 289.

[42] Johnmarshall, R., Hyungshim, J., Dan Carrell, S. J. (2004), Motivation and Emotion, 28 (2), pages 147-169 56.

[43]Carbone, A. (2007). Principles for designing programming tasks: How task characteristics influence students learning of programming. Melbourne: Monash University.

[44] Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers' conceptions of student engagement: engagement learning or in schooling?. Teaching and Teacher Education , 27, 367-380.