Comparison of the Effects of Emergency Distance and Face-to-Face Education Applications on Students' Analytical Thinking Skills in Science Course: Example of Energy Transformations and Environmental Science Unit

Hayal Kocabaş
{"title":"Comparison of the Effects of Emergency Distance and Face-to-Face Education Applications on Students' Analytical Thinking Skills in Science Course: Example of Energy Transformations and Environmental Science Unit","authors":"Hayal Kocabaş","doi":"10.33828/sei.v33.i4.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to compare the analytical thinking skills of 8th grade students who received emergency distance and face-to-face education in a science course and to get student ideas concerning emergency distance education. An unequal control group model from the quasi-experimental models was used in the study. The study group consisted of 39 students. 15 students who received energy transformations and environmental science unit as emergency distance education constituted the first group and 24 students who received face-to-face education constituted the second group. The data were collected with ATAT, TATDL, and SOF. In conclusion, it was determined that the cognitive success of the students who received face-to-face education based on analytical thinking improved more. The ability to adapt analytical thinking to daily life developed equally in both groups. While the students who received emergency distance education did not express a negative opinion about the activities carried out in the teaching process, they stated negative opinions about the realization of this process online, such as internet shortage, lack of communication tools, noise, occasional power cuts, inefficiency compared to face-to-face education, difficulty in understanding the lesson, difficulty in speaking in front of the screen, inability of the teacher to be effective in distance education, and inability to experiment together. However, there were also students who expressed a positive opinion that the course was productive, interesting, calm, more comfortable than face-to-face education and safer to protect from the disease. As a result, it is thought that emergency distance education cannot replace face-to-face education; however, it is an effective education process that can be applied to prevent students from being completely disconnected from school and education during periods when lessons cannot be continued due to extraordinary circumstances such as pandemic.","PeriodicalId":156311,"journal":{"name":"Science Education International","volume":"03 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Education International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v33.i4.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the analytical thinking skills of 8th grade students who received emergency distance and face-to-face education in a science course and to get student ideas concerning emergency distance education. An unequal control group model from the quasi-experimental models was used in the study. The study group consisted of 39 students. 15 students who received energy transformations and environmental science unit as emergency distance education constituted the first group and 24 students who received face-to-face education constituted the second group. The data were collected with ATAT, TATDL, and SOF. In conclusion, it was determined that the cognitive success of the students who received face-to-face education based on analytical thinking improved more. The ability to adapt analytical thinking to daily life developed equally in both groups. While the students who received emergency distance education did not express a negative opinion about the activities carried out in the teaching process, they stated negative opinions about the realization of this process online, such as internet shortage, lack of communication tools, noise, occasional power cuts, inefficiency compared to face-to-face education, difficulty in understanding the lesson, difficulty in speaking in front of the screen, inability of the teacher to be effective in distance education, and inability to experiment together. However, there were also students who expressed a positive opinion that the course was productive, interesting, calm, more comfortable than face-to-face education and safer to protect from the disease. As a result, it is thought that emergency distance education cannot replace face-to-face education; however, it is an effective education process that can be applied to prevent students from being completely disconnected from school and education during periods when lessons cannot be continued due to extraordinary circumstances such as pandemic.
紧急远程与面对面教学对科学课学生分析思维能力的影响比较——以能源转化与环境科学单元为例
本研究的目的是比较八年级学生在科学课程中接受紧急远程教育和面对面教育的分析思维能力,了解学生对紧急远程教育的看法。采用准实验模型中的不相等对照组模型。研究小组由39名学生组成。第一组为接受能源转化与环境科学单元急诊远程教育的15名学生,第二组为接受面授教育的24名学生。数据采用ATAT、TATDL和SOF采集。综上所述,我们确定接受基于分析性思维的面对面教育的学生的认知成功提高更多。两组人的分析思维适应日常生活的能力都得到了同样的发展。虽然接受紧急远程教育的学生没有对教学过程中开展的活动表达负面意见,但他们对在线实现这一过程表达了负面意见,例如互联网短缺,缺乏通信工具,噪音,偶尔停电,与面对面教育相比效率低下,难以理解课程,难以在屏幕前发言,教师不能有效地进行远程教育,不能一起进行实验。然而,也有学生表达了积极的意见,认为课程富有成效,有趣,平静,比面对面的教育更舒适,更安全,可以预防疾病。因此,认为应急远程教育不能取代面授教育;然而,这是一个有效的教育过程,可用于防止学生在由于流行病等特殊情况而无法继续上课时完全与学校和教育脱节。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信