دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات13
تعداد شماره‌ها200
تعداد مقالات2,008
تعداد مشاهده مقاله2,680,117
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله1,937,343
رنجبرفرد, مینا, زندوکیلی, مهشید. (1400). مقایسه‌ ارزشیابی سه روش آموزش مبتنی بازی، آموزش از طریق کار با نرم‌افزار تخصصی و آموزش سنتی از منظر دانشجویان. فناوری آموزش, 15(4), 635-647. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.4312.2359
مینا رنجبرفرد; مهشید زندوکیلی. "مقایسه‌ ارزشیابی سه روش آموزش مبتنی بازی، آموزش از طریق کار با نرم‌افزار تخصصی و آموزش سنتی از منظر دانشجویان". فناوری آموزش, 15, 4, 1400, 635-647. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.4312.2359
رنجبرفرد, مینا, زندوکیلی, مهشید. (1400). 'مقایسه‌ ارزشیابی سه روش آموزش مبتنی بازی، آموزش از طریق کار با نرم‌افزار تخصصی و آموزش سنتی از منظر دانشجویان', فناوری آموزش, 15(4), pp. 635-647. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.4312.2359
رنجبرفرد, مینا, زندوکیلی, مهشید. مقایسه‌ ارزشیابی سه روش آموزش مبتنی بازی، آموزش از طریق کار با نرم‌افزار تخصصی و آموزش سنتی از منظر دانشجویان. فناوری آموزش, 1400; 15(4): 635-647. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.4312.2359

مقایسه‌ ارزشیابی سه روش آموزش مبتنی بازی، آموزش از طریق کار با نرم‌افزار تخصصی و آموزش سنتی از منظر دانشجویان

فناوری آموزش
مقاله 2، دوره 15، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 60، مهر 1400، صفحه 635-647    اصل مقاله (1.93 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22061/tej.2021.4312.2359
نویسندگان
مینا رنجبرفرد* ؛ مهشید زندوکیلی
گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و اقتصادی، دانشگاه الزهراء(س)، تهران، ایران
تاریخ دریافت: 25 اسفند 1399،  تاریخ بازنگری: 05 مرداد 1400،  تاریخ پذیرش: 11 مرداد 1400 
چکیده
پیشینه و اهداف: امروزه حضور رایانه­ ها در کلاس­های آموزشی گسترش­ یافته ­است. لذا تهیه­ نرم ­افزارها و بازی­ های مناسب و انجام پژوهش ­هایی برای بررسی تأثیر آن­ها در امر آموزش و مقایسه آن­ها با روش­ آموزش سنتی (حضوری و استفاده از پاورپوینت) ضروری است. بااین­حال، ارزشیابی روش آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و روش­ آموزش از طریق کار با نرم­ افزار تخصصی در مقایسه با آموزش سنتی از جنبه های مختلف شامل انگیزه، رضایت، تعامل، لذت و یادگیری از منظر دانش­جویان بررسی نشده است. این پژوهش به مقایسه ارزشیابی روش­ های آموزش سنتی (حضوری و پاورپوینت)، آموزش ازطریق کار با نرم­ افزار تخصصی و آموزش مبتنی بر بازی از منظر دانشجویان می ­پردازد. ارزشیابی آموزشی هریک از این سه روش در یکی از درس ­های رشته مدیریت مالی با استفاده از سنجه ­هایی نظیر لذت، تعامل و غیره از منظر دانشجویان سنجیده ­شده ­است.
روش‌ها:‌ ابتدا با مطالعه ادبیات پژوهش در زمینه سه روش­ آموزشی شامل روش سنتی (حضوری و پاورپوینت)، روش آموزش از طریق کار با نرم ­افزار تخصصی و روش آموزش مبتنی بر بازی، چارچوب نظری و فرضیه­ پژوهش تشکیل شد. جامعه آماری، فراگیران درس تحلیل تکنیکال در مرکز مالی ایران و همچنین کانون کارگزاران بورس اوراق بهادار بودند که در مجموع 70 نفر را تشکیل می ­دادند و کل آنها مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. انتخاب این کلاس درس به دلیل امکان اجرای هرسه­ روش آموزشی در قلمروی زمانی انجام تحقیق صورت گرفت. داده ­های مربوط به ارزشیابی آموزشی هریک از سه روش، از طریق سه پرسش­نامه بسته با طیف 5 تایی لیکرت برای هریک از سه روش آموزشی جمع ­آوری شد. پرسش­نامه روش­ های سنتی و نرم­افزار پس از گذشت 3 جلسه از کلاس و پرسش‌نامه روش مبتنی بر بازی پس از 14 روز از اجرای بازی، که یکی از بازه­ های زمانی تعریف ­شده در بازی بود، توزیع شد. داده­ ها با استفاده از آمار توصیفی و آمار استنباطی و به کمک نرم ­افزار اس­پی­اس­اس و اکسل مورد تحلیل قرار­گرفت. برای تجزیه و تحلیل تفاوت در ارزشیابی روش­ های­ آموزشی مختلف از آزمون تی زوجی در سطح معناداری 005/0استفاده­ شد. قبل از انجام آزمون تی وابسته، نرمال­ بودن داده­ ها (با استفاده از آزمون کولموگروف_اسمیرنوف) بررسی  و تأیید شد.
یافته‌ها: در مقایسه روش آموزش سنتی و آموزش ازطریق کار با نرم ­افزار تخصصی، با توجه به سطح معناداری 000/0 و آماره t برابر 454/6-، می ­توان گفت آموزش از طریق نرم­ افزار بهتر بوده است. در مقایسه روش آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و آموزش از طریق کار با نرم ­افزار، با توجه به سطح معناداری 000/0 و آماره t برابر 097/6-، این نتیجه حاصل می­شود که آموزش مبتنی بر بازی بهتر بوده است. در مقایسه روش آموزش از طریق کار با نرم ­افزار و آموزش مبتنی بر بازی، با توجه به سطح معناداری 000/0 و آماره t برابر 861/4-، این نتیجه حاصل می­شود که آموزش مبتنی بر بازی بهتر بوده است. میانگین روش آموزش مبتنی بر بازی از هر دو روش دیگر بسیار بیشتر و قابل توجه است. این بدان معناست که آموزش ­گیرندگان با توجه به توانایی­ های خود از روش مبتنی بر بازی رضایت بیشتری داشته ­اند، آن را تعاملی ­تر می­دانند، از آن لذت بیشتری برده ­اند، انگیزه آنها را بالا برده است و آن را در یادگیری خود موثرتر دانسته ­اند.
نتیجه‌گیری: باتوجه به تفاوت چشم­گیر ارزشیابی روش آموزش مبتنی بربازی در مقایسه با دو روش دیگر، جا دارد که مؤسسات آموزشی، مدرسان و توسعه ­دهندگان بازی­های کامپیوتری، توجه بیشتری به آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و بازی­سازی با اهداف آموزشی داشته باشند. دست­کم با توجه به موضوع و محتوای درس، علاوه بر روش سنتی (حضوری و پاورپوینت) که روش متداولی در آموزش است، به‌کارگیری تلفیقی از روش­های آموزشی مختلف شامل آموزش از طریق کار با نرم ­افزارهای تخصصی و به­ویژه آموزش مبتنی بر بازی در کنار روش آموزش سنتی مفید خواهد بود و باعث افزایش میزان رضایت، یادگیری، انگیزه، توانایی، تعامل و لذت دانشجویان خواهد شد.
یکی از عمده ­ترین مشکلاتی که در این پژوهش وجود داشت، کمبود بازی­های آموزشی مرتبط با درس ­های آکادمیک بود. در نتیجه امکان بررسی تأثیر عناصر بازی (تابلوهای رهبر، امتیاز و مدال­ها و ...) در روش آموزش مبتنی ­بر بازی فراهم نشد. به دلیل عدم امکان اجرای بازی آموزشی مرتبط با درس­ های آکادمیک در قلمروی زمانی پژوهش، قلمرو مکانی پژوهش محدود به دو سازمان در استان تهران شد و جمع ­آوری اطلاعات از مؤسسات آموزشی دیگر و در کلاس­های درسی دیگر، امکان­پذیر نشد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
آموزش؛ آموزش از طریق کار با نرم افزار تخصصی؛ بازی سازی؛ آموزش مبتنی بر بازی؛ آموزش سنتی
موضوعات
فناوری آموزش
عنوان مقاله [English]
Comparing the evaluation of three educational methods including game-based education, education through working with professional software, and traditional education from the view point of students
نویسندگان [English]
M. Ranjbarfard؛ M. Zandvakili
Department of Management, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Background and Objectives: Today, the presence of computers in training classes has been expanded. Therefore, preparing appropriate software and games as well as conducting research to examine their impact on education and their comparison with the traditional teaching method (face-to-face and PowerPoint) is essential. However, a game-based and a professional software-based teaching method as compared to the traditional teaching method has not been evaluated from the perspective of the students including various aspects, such as motivation, satisfaction, interaction, pleasure and learning. This  study aims at making a comparison  between the evaluation of various teaching methods, including game-based , professional software-based , and traditional  teaching method. The evaluation of each of these three methods has been conducted from the perspective of the students in one of the courses of the field of Financial  Management, using measures such as pleasure and interaction.
Methods: First, the theoretical framework and the research hypothesis were determined based on the literature on three teaching methods, including game-based and professional software-based, and traditional teaching methods. The statistical population of this study comprised of 70 individuals who were undergraduate students of the course of technical analysis at the Financial Centre of Iran as well as at the Association of Stock Exchange Brokers. The selection of this course was due to the possibility of running all the three teaching methods in the time period of conducting this research. The evaluation data for each of these teaching methods were gathered, using a separate closed questionnaire (totally 3 questionnaires) with 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaires of the traditional and software teaching methods were distributed after 3 sessions of the classes had passed and the questionnaire of the game-based teaching method was distributed after 14 days of running the game (this was one of the time periods defined in the game). The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS and Excel. The paired t-test was used to analyze the differences in the evaluation of the three teaching methods at the significance level equal to 0.005. The normality of data was tested and confirmed by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test before running the paired t-test. 
Findings: In the comparison of professional software-based with the traditional teaching method  at the significance level of 0.000 and t= 6.454, it can be said that professional software-based teaching  was better. In the comparison of game-based with traditional teaching method at the significance level of 0.000 and t=6.097, it can be said that game-based teaching method was better. In the comparison of professional software-based with game-based teaching method,  at the significance level of 0.000 and t=4.861, it can be said that game-based teaching method was better. The mean for game-based teaching method was significantly much higher than that of the other teaching methods. This means that based on their ability, the students were more satisfied with the game-based teaching method; they regarded this method more interactive; they have enjoyed this teaching method more than the others; and this teaching method has increased their motivation, and they have regarded it more effective in their learning.
Conclusions: With respect to the significant difference in the evaluation of the game-based teaching method compared with other two teaching methods, it is recommended that the educational institutes, teachers and developers of computer games pay more attention to game-based teaching method and gamification with the teaching objectives. At least, based on the subject and content of the course, besides the traditional method (face-to-face and PowerPoint) which is a common method in teaching, use of a combination of various teaching methods including game-based professional software-based teaching method along with the traditional method can be beneficial and increase the level of satisfaction, learning, motivation, capability, interaction and pleasure of the students.  Lack of teaching games relevant to academic courses was one of the main challenges of this research. As a result, it was impossible to study the effect of game elements (such as leaderboards, scores, medals, …) in teaching through game-based method.  Due to the impossibility of running educational games related to academic courses in the time period in which the research was being conducted, the spatial scope of the research was limited to two organizations in Tehran province and it was impossible to gather data from other educational institutions and in other classrooms for the other courses.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Education, Education through software, Gamification, Game-based education, Traditional education
مراجع

[1] Hawkins S. Beyond the digital divide: Issues of access and economics. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences. 2005; 29 (2), 171-189.

[2] Jackson L, von Eye A, Barbatsis G, Biocca F, Fitzgerald H, Yong Z. The impact of Internet use on the other side of the digital divide. Communications of the ACM. 2004; 47 (7), 43-47.

[3] Newpher C, Deterding S, Dan Dixon n d. Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 2011 May 7-12: Vancouver, BC, Canada.

[4] Ezeani N S, Akpotohwo F C. Integrating information and communication technology (ICT) in accounting education instruction in Ekiti State Universities. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2014; 5(6): 195-204.

[5] Urh M, Vukovic G, Jereb E, Pintar R. The model for introduction of gamification into e-learning in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 197(3): 388–397.

[6] Oye N D, Shallsuku Z K, Iahad A N. The role of ICT in education: Focus on university undergraduates taking mathematics as a course. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 2012; 3: 136-143.

[7] Adeoye Y M, Oluwole, A F and Blessing L A. Appraising the role of information communication technology (ICT) as a change agent for higher education in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies. 2013; 5 (8): 177-183.

[8] Negi P S, Pandey A Ch. Impact of information technology on learning, teaching and human resource management in educational sector. International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications. 2011; 2(4): 65-72.

[9] Qandali et al. [The Effect of Using Pocket Electronic Software on Students' Motivation for High School Students]. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2014; 5 (2): 2-5. Persian.

[10] Nikolic V, Petkovic D, Denic N, Milovancevic M and Gavrilovic S. Appraisal and review of e-learning and ICT systems in teaching process. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2019; 513: 456-464.

[11] Niederhauser D S, & Stoddart T. Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2001; 17(1): 15–31.

[12] Dortaj F. [Comparison of the effects of two educational methods, “game–based and traditional teaching “on student’s motivation and educational improvement on methematic learning]. Journal of School Psychology. 2013; 2(4): 62-80. Persian.

[13] Karami A, Zareyi zavaraki E. [A Comparison of the effect of integrated education with traditional education on students' critical thoughts and their consent]. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2014; 4(4): 39-57. Persian.

[14] Mashhadi H. Comparison of the effect of collaborative teaching method with traditional teaching method on academic achievement of teachers teaching centers and their relationship with cognitive styles. Research institute of information technology and technology of Iran [master’s thesis]. Tehran: Tarbiat Moalem University; 2003.

[15] Nourian A, Nourian A, Ebnahmadi A. Akbarzadeh Bagheban A, Khoshnevisan M H. [A comparison of e-learning and traditional classroom instruction of dental public health for dental students of Shahid Beheshti dental school during 2010-2011]. Shahid Beheshti University Dental Journal. 2012; 30(3): 174-183. Persian.

[16] Azimi E, Jafari Harandi R, Mosapour S. [The effectiveness of computer educational games on educational improvement and attitude to learn sciences lesson]. Research in Curriculum. 2014; 2(51): 34-44. Persian.

[17] Panjeh Pour M. Effective factors in the efficient use of powerpoint software in providing specialized university courses [dissertation]. Isfahan: Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; 2009.

[18] Fathi F, Kordnoghabi R, Yaghobi A, Rashid KH. [Comparing the education with traditional methods and education with educational software in the levels of learning, understanding and application of mathematics and natural sciences in sixth grade female students in Khorramabad]. Research in School and Virtual Learning. 2019; 2 (26): 65-76. Persian.

[19] Shobeiri F. Preparation of third-grade high school educational aids software and its impact on the cognitive and emotional aspects of students. Education and training [master's thesis]. Tehran: Tarbiat Moalem University; 2007. Persian.

[20] Taghipour K, Mahmoudi F. [Identifying the instructional software in accordance with the developmental characteristics of pre-school learners]. Educational  Innovations. 2018; 68(17): 126-150. Persian.

[21] Robson K, Plangger K, Kietzmann J H, Mccarthy I, Pitt L. Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification. Business Horizons. 2015; 59(1): 29-36.

[22] Deterding S, Dan Dixon n d. Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts. GDC Serious Games Summit. 2011; 87: 1-4.

[23] Kuo M SH, Chuang T. How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination – An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 55(A): 16–27.

[24] Garcia-lopez E, Garcia-cabot, A. On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers & Education. 2016; 95: 99-113.

[25] Muntean C I. Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL: 2011: Babes-Bolyai University, Romania

[26] Maican, Catalin, Lixandroiu R, Constantin C. Interactivia.ro-A Study of a gamification Framework Using Zero-Cost tools. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 61: 186–197.

[27] Legaki N-Z, Xi N, Hamari J, Karpouzis K, kopoulos V. The effect of challenge-based gamification on learning: An experiment in the context of statistics education. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2020; 144.

[28] FilipeRodrigues L, Oliveira A, Rodrigues H. Main gamification concepts: A systematic mapping study. Heliyon. 2019; 6: 1-13.

[29] Hamari J, Harri S. Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Computers & Education. 2014; 65: 3025-3034.

[30] Coombes E, Jones A. Gamification of active travel to school: A pilot evaluation of the beat the street physical activity intervention. Health & Place. 2016; 39: 62–69.

[31] Lucassen G, ansen S. Gamification in consumer marketing - future or fallacy? Social and Behavioral Sciences.2014; 148: 194-202.

[32] Simoes J, Redondo R D, Vilas A F. A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 29(2): 345–353.

[33] Hofacker C F, Ruyter K D, Lurie N H, Manchanda P, Donaldson J. Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness.  Journal of Interactive Marketing. 2016; 34: 25–36.

[34] Albuquerque P, Nevskaya Y. The Impact of innovation and social interactions on product usage.  

[35] Seixas R, Sandro A, Jos I. Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016; 58: 48–63.

[36] Anderson- Mc Namee J K. The importance of play in early childhood development. MSU Extension Office.

[37] Subhash S, Cudney E A. Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 87: 192-206.

[38] Jagušt T, Boticki I, So H-J. Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners' math learning. Computers & Education. 2018; 125: 444-457.

[39] Han-Huei Tsay C, Kofinas A, Luo J. Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: An empirical study. Computers & Education. 2018; 121: 1-17.

[40] Toda A M, Carmo R M C, Silva A P, Bittencourt I I, Isotani S. An approach for planning and deploying gamification concepts with social networks within educational contexts. International Journal of Information Management. 2019; 46: 294-303.

[41] Roy R v, Zaman B. Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education. 2018; 127: 283-297.

[42] Rodrigues L F, Costa, C J, Oliveira A. Does ease-of-use contribute to the perception of enjoyment? A case of gamification in e-banking. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 61: 114–126.

[43] Wójcik J. Motivation for students: gamification in e-learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 65: 150-161.

[44] Díaz-Ramírez J. Gamification in engineering education – An empirical assessment on learning and game performance. Heliyon. 2020; 6(9).

[45] Landers R N, Armstrong M B. Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamification: An empirical test of the Technology-Enhanced Training Effectiveness Model. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 71: 499-507.

[46] Salehpour M.  A Comparision Study of the Effect of two educational methods “game-based and traditional teaching methods” on student’s motivation and mathematic educational improvement [master’s thesis]. Tehran: Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University; 2011.

[47] Karami A. Zarei Zavaraki, E. Comparison of the effect of integrated education with traditional education in critical thinking and Student Happiness. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2013; 4(4): 39-57.

[48] Fitz-Walter Z, Tjondronegoro D, Wyeth P. Orientation Passport: using gamification to engage university students. Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. 2011 November: 122-125.

[49] Shobeiri F. Preparing educational software of third grade high school physics lesson and its effect on cognitive and emotional aspects of students [master’s thesis]. Tehran: Tarbiat Moallem University; 2004.

[50] Koenig-Lewis N, Morgan M, and Palmer A. The effects of gamification on market research engagement and response. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 44(0):1–9.

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,496
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 686


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب