ZASTUPLJENOST TEORIJA UČENJA U DIZAJNU ELEKTRONSKIH KURSEVA U KONTEKSTU VISOKOG OBRAZOVANJA

Nauka i nastava u vaspitno-obrazovnom kontekstu (2020), (str. 147-164)

AUTOR(I): BILJANA D. ĐORIĆ

E-ADRESA: biljana.djoric@ftn.kg.ac.rs

Download Full Pdf 

DOI:10.46793/STEC20.147DJ

SAŽETAK:

Elektronsko učenje zasnovano je na brojnim psihološkim i pedagoškim teorijama učenja zbog čega njihova implementacija u kontekstu instrukcionog dizajna u velikoj meri može uticati na organizaciju i sadržaj e-kurseva. Različitost u sadržajima pojedinih nastavnih oblasti, iziskuje i različite pristupe u oblikovanju okruženja za učenje. Zbog toga, cilj ovog pilot istraživanja je ispitivanje zastupljenosti teorija učenja u dizajnu e-kurseva u kontekstu visokog obrazovanja. Za potrebe istraživanja kreiran je instrument koji je pilotiran na uzorku od 20 nastavnika i saradnika Fakulteta tehničkih nauka u Čačku, Univerziteta u Kragujevcu. Upitnikom su obuhvaćene sledeće teorije učenja: bihejviorističke teorije, individualni i socijalni konstruktivizam, kognitivizam i enaktivizam. Rezultati ovog istraživanja ukazali su na to da nastavnici i saradnici daju statistički različite procene zastupljenosti pojedinih teorija učenja u svojim e-kursevima, mada ove razlike ne postoje između svih pore- đenih kategorija. Najviše su zastupljeni principi individualnog kon- struktivizma, a najmanje socijalnog konstruktivizma i enaktivizma. Na osnovu dobijenih rezultata, u radu su prikazane pedagoške i istraživačke implikacije radi detaljnijeg ispitivanja i shvatanja premeta istraživanja.

KLJUČNE REČI:

teorije učenja, e-učenje, konstruktivizam, kognitivizam

LITERATURA:

  • Awwad, A. A. A. (2013). Piagetʼs Theory of Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(9), 106–129.
  • Baddeley,  A.  (2000).  The  episodic  buffer:  a  new  component  of  working  memory?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(11), 417–423.
  • Bateman, D. (2006). Doing futures: futures education and enactivism. In ATEA 2006: Making teaching public: reforms in teacher education: Proceedings of the 2006 ATEA Conference, The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle (2–10). Australian Teacher Education Association.
  • Begg, A. (2013). Interpreting enactivism for learning and teaching. Education sciences & society, 4(1), 81–96.
  • Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D. & Baharum, N. A. (2018). A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences: MJMS, 25(6), 85.
  • Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotskyʼs educational theory in cultural context, 1, 39–64.
  • Chen, S. J. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of  interactive  online  learning, 6(1), 72–86.
  • Collis, B. & Margaryan, A. (2005). Design criteria for work‐based learning: Merrillʼs First Principles of Instruction expanded. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 725–738.
  • Collis, B., Margaryan, A. & Amory, M. (2005). Multiple perspectives on blended learning design. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 12–21.
  • Edgar, D. W. (2012). Learning theories and historical events affecting instructional design in education: Recitation literacy toward extraction literacy practices. Sage Open, 2(4), 1–9.
  • Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on theories of learning. In B. Sriraman i L. English (eds.): Theories of mathematics education (39–47). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-4_4.
  • Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.
  • Fleming, J. S. (2004). Psychological Perspectives on Human Development. Retrieved June 1, 2020 from the World Wide Web http://swppr.org/Textbook/Contents.html.
  • Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C. & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course evaluations  to  improve  instruction  and  complex   learning   in   higher  education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 115–136.
  • Isman, A. (2011). Instructional Design in Education: New Model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 10(1), 136–142.
  • Joubish, M. F. & Khurram, M. A. (2011). Cognitive Development in Jean Piaget’s Work and its Implications for Teachers. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(8), 1260– 1265.
  • Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.
  • Kuzmanović, B. (2016). Implementacija teorija učenja u dizajnu elektronskih kurseva. (Objavljen master rad). Čačak: Univerzitet u Kragujevcu: Fakultet tehničkih nauka u Čačku.
  • Li, Q. & Winchester, I. (2014). Enactivism and Freedom Education. Trends in interdisciplinary studies. AVANT – Enactivism: Arguments & Applications, 2, 113–136.
  • Li, Q., Clark, B. & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in  enactivism:  A  paradigm   shift?. British   Journal   of   Educational Technology, 41(3), 403–419.
  • Lutz, S. & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67–90.
  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M. & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.
  • Mayer,  R.  E.  &  Moreno,  R.  (2002).  Animation  as  an  aid  to   multimedia   learning. Educational psychology review, 14(1), 87–99.
  • Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory. Retrieved June 1, 2020 from the World Wide Web https://etad.usask.ca/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm.
  • Ozcelik, E. & Yildirim, S. (2005). Factors influencing the use of cognitive tools in web- based learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 295– 308.
  • Pešikan, A. (2010). Savremeni pogled na prirodu školskog učenja i nastave: socio konstruktivističko gledište i njegove praktične implikacije. Psihološka istraživanja, XIII(2), 157–184.
  • Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U. & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence‐oriented design of learning – Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 747–762.
  • Soomro, K. A., Zai, S. Y. & Jafri, I. H. (2015). Competence and usage of Web 2.0 technologies by higher education faculty. Educational media international, 52(4), 284–295.
  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123−138.
  • Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53–55.
  • Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60.
  • Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary educational technology, 1(1), 1–16.