与 IPS 相比,CPS 能否更好地帮助八年级学生解决电磁学方面的问题,缩小高分学生与 低分学生之间的差距?

IF 4.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jiun-Wei Guo, Hsiao-Ching She, Meng-Jun Chen, Pei-Yi Tsai
{"title":"与 IPS 相比,CPS 能否更好地帮助八年级学生解决电磁学方面的问题,缩小高分学生与 低分学生之间的差距?","authors":"Jiun-Wei Guo, Hsiao-Ching She, Meng-Jun Chen, Pei-Yi Tsai","doi":"10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The individual problem-solving (IPS) and collaborative problem-solving (CPS) have received a lot of attention, yet little research has been conducted to investigate whether CPS and IPS are equally effective in improving students’ understanding of physics concepts, problem-solving abilities, and minimizing achievement gaps. Therefore, the present study developed two types of online electromagnetism problem solving programs with simulation—IPS and CPS—for 8th grade students over five class sessions. Students in the CPS group significantly outperformed those in the IPS group on their performance of physics problem solving test and online problem-solving solution, while IPS and CPS both affected their physics concept test performance to the same degree. The CPS group allocated more time to the online problem-solving solution, evidence-based reasoning, simulation and data reporting than the IPS group. Both CPS and IPS affected high-achievers' problem-solving performance to the same extent. Nonetheless, CPS was more effective in maximizing low-achievers' problem-solving performance and minimizing the discrepancy between high- and low-achievers than IPS, possibly because low-achievers in CPS group requested and received more support from high-achieving students. Regression analysis indicated that students' online problem-solving solution significantly predict their posttest performance in the physics concept test and physics problem-solving test.</p>","PeriodicalId":47189,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can CPS better prepare 8th graders for problem-solving in electromagnetism and bridging the gap between high- and low-achievers than IPS?\",\"authors\":\"Jiun-Wei Guo, Hsiao-Ching She, Meng-Jun Chen, Pei-Yi Tsai\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The individual problem-solving (IPS) and collaborative problem-solving (CPS) have received a lot of attention, yet little research has been conducted to investigate whether CPS and IPS are equally effective in improving students’ understanding of physics concepts, problem-solving abilities, and minimizing achievement gaps. Therefore, the present study developed two types of online electromagnetism problem solving programs with simulation—IPS and CPS—for 8th grade students over five class sessions. Students in the CPS group significantly outperformed those in the IPS group on their performance of physics problem solving test and online problem-solving solution, while IPS and CPS both affected their physics concept test performance to the same degree. The CPS group allocated more time to the online problem-solving solution, evidence-based reasoning, simulation and data reporting than the IPS group. Both CPS and IPS affected high-achievers' problem-solving performance to the same extent. Nonetheless, CPS was more effective in maximizing low-achievers' problem-solving performance and minimizing the discrepancy between high- and low-achievers than IPS, possibly because low-achievers in CPS group requested and received more support from high-achieving students. Regression analysis indicated that students' online problem-solving solution significantly predict their posttest performance in the physics concept test and physics problem-solving test.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09407-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个人问题解决(IPS)和协作问题解决(CPS)受到了广泛关注,但很少有研究探讨 CPS 和 IPS 在提高学生对物理概念的理解、问题解决能力以及缩小成绩差距方面是否同样有效。因此,本研究为八年级学生开发了两种模拟在线电磁学问题解决程序--IPS 和 CPS,共五节课。CPS组学生在物理解题测试和在线解题的成绩上明显优于IPS组,而IPS和CPS对物理概念测试成绩的影响程度相同。与 IPS 组相比,CPS 组分配给在线解题方案、循证推理、模拟和数据报告的时间更多。CPS 和 IPS 对高分学生解题能力的影响程度相同。然而,与 IPS 相比,CPS 能更有效地提高低成绩学生的解题成绩,并缩小高低成绩学生之间的差距,这可能是因为 CPS 组的低成绩学生要求并得到了高成绩学生的更多支持。回归分析表明,学生的在线解题方法能显著预测他们在物理概念测试和物理解题测试中的后测成绩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Can CPS better prepare 8th graders for problem-solving in electromagnetism and bridging the gap between high- and low-achievers than IPS?

Can CPS better prepare 8th graders for problem-solving in electromagnetism and bridging the gap between high- and low-achievers than IPS?

The individual problem-solving (IPS) and collaborative problem-solving (CPS) have received a lot of attention, yet little research has been conducted to investigate whether CPS and IPS are equally effective in improving students’ understanding of physics concepts, problem-solving abilities, and minimizing achievement gaps. Therefore, the present study developed two types of online electromagnetism problem solving programs with simulation—IPS and CPS—for 8th grade students over five class sessions. Students in the CPS group significantly outperformed those in the IPS group on their performance of physics problem solving test and online problem-solving solution, while IPS and CPS both affected their physics concept test performance to the same degree. The CPS group allocated more time to the online problem-solving solution, evidence-based reasoning, simulation and data reporting than the IPS group. Both CPS and IPS affected high-achievers' problem-solving performance to the same extent. Nonetheless, CPS was more effective in maximizing low-achievers' problem-solving performance and minimizing the discrepancy between high- and low-achievers than IPS, possibly because low-achievers in CPS group requested and received more support from high-achieving students. Regression analysis indicated that students' online problem-solving solution significantly predict their posttest performance in the physics concept test and physics problem-solving test.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
18.60%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: An official publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences, the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (IJCSCL) fosters a deep understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). The journal serves as a forum for experts from such disciplines as education, computer science, information technology, psychology, communications, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and business. Articles investigate how to design the technological settings for collaboration and how people learn in the context of collaborative activity.
×
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