混合式学习、混合式学习还是面对面学习:哪一种在纠正误解方面更有效?

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
N. Hermita, Erlisnawati Erlisnawati, J. A. Alim, Z. H. Putra, I. Mahartika, U. Sulistiyo
{"title":"混合式学习、混合式学习还是面对面学习:哪一种在纠正误解方面更有效?","authors":"N. Hermita, Erlisnawati Erlisnawati, J. A. Alim, Z. H. Putra, I. Mahartika, U. Sulistiyo","doi":"10.1108/qae-02-2023-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to investigate the effectiveness of hybrid learning, blended learning and face-to-face learning in remediating misconceptions among primary school teacher education students.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis research uses a quasi-experimental design, using a quantitative approach. Data were collected from 99 students using a pretest and posttest four-tier test.\n\n\nFindings\nHybrid learning proved to be the most effective, achieving a remarkable 90.32% success rate in remediating students’ misconceptions, surpassing blended learning and face-to-face learning methods.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe data come from a single Indonesian university and focuses only on a science concept; therefore, the scope of findings may be limited.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe research suggests that applying the conceptual change (CC) model in all learning types, particularly hybrid learning, effectively remediates misconceptions. Educators can use this insight to design impactful teaching strategies that combine online and traditional components, accommodating diverse learning styles and needs.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis research suggests that applying CC model in all learning types is actually able to remediate misconceptions, though hybrid learning is found to be the most effective one.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study addresses a research gap by investigating the effectiveness of different learning modes in rectifying misconceptions. Although prior studies have explored learning modes, few have directly compared hybrid, blended and face-to-face learning in correcting misconceptions. The findings offer insights for effective teaching strategies to address STEM-related misconceptions, benefiting educators in optimizing their approaches. Furthermore, the study’s implications extend to the broader academic community, contributing to evidence-based teaching practices in science education and the development of effective strategies for addressing misconceptions in STEM courses.\n","PeriodicalId":46734,"journal":{"name":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hybrid learning, blended learning or face-to-face learning: which one is more effective in remediating misconception?\",\"authors\":\"N. Hermita, Erlisnawati Erlisnawati, J. A. Alim, Z. H. Putra, I. Mahartika, U. Sulistiyo\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qae-02-2023-0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to investigate the effectiveness of hybrid learning, blended learning and face-to-face learning in remediating misconceptions among primary school teacher education students.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis research uses a quasi-experimental design, using a quantitative approach. Data were collected from 99 students using a pretest and posttest four-tier test.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nHybrid learning proved to be the most effective, achieving a remarkable 90.32% success rate in remediating students’ misconceptions, surpassing blended learning and face-to-face learning methods.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe data come from a single Indonesian university and focuses only on a science concept; therefore, the scope of findings may be limited.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe research suggests that applying the conceptual change (CC) model in all learning types, particularly hybrid learning, effectively remediates misconceptions. Educators can use this insight to design impactful teaching strategies that combine online and traditional components, accommodating diverse learning styles and needs.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThis research suggests that applying CC model in all learning types is actually able to remediate misconceptions, though hybrid learning is found to be the most effective one.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis study addresses a research gap by investigating the effectiveness of different learning modes in rectifying misconceptions. Although prior studies have explored learning modes, few have directly compared hybrid, blended and face-to-face learning in correcting misconceptions. The findings offer insights for effective teaching strategies to address STEM-related misconceptions, benefiting educators in optimizing their approaches. Furthermore, the study’s implications extend to the broader academic community, contributing to evidence-based teaching practices in science education and the development of effective strategies for addressing misconceptions in STEM courses.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":46734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-02-2023-0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-02-2023-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨混合学习、混合学习和面对面学习对小学教师教育学生误解矫正的效果。设计/方法/方法本研究采用准实验设计,采用定量方法。采用前测和后测四层测试对99名学生进行数据收集。发现混合式学习最有效,纠正学生误解的成功率高达90.32%,超过混合式学习和面对面学习。研究局限性/启示:数据来自一所印度尼西亚大学,只关注一个科学概念;因此,调查结果的范围可能有限。实践意义研究表明,将概念变化(CC)模型应用于所有学习类型,特别是混合学习,可以有效地纠正误解。教育工作者可以利用这种洞察力来设计有效的教学策略,将在线和传统组件结合起来,适应不同的学习风格和需求。社会意义本研究表明,在所有学习类型中应用CC模型实际上能够纠正误解,尽管混合学习被发现是最有效的一种。原创性/价值本研究通过调查不同学习模式在纠正误解方面的有效性来填补研究空白。虽然之前的研究对学习模式进行了探索,但很少有研究直接比较混合学习、混合学习和面对面学习在纠正误解方面的效果。研究结果为有效的教学策略提供了见解,以解决与stem相关的误解,有利于教育工作者优化他们的方法。此外,该研究的影响延伸到更广泛的学术界,有助于科学教育中的循证教学实践,并为解决STEM课程中的误解制定有效策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hybrid learning, blended learning or face-to-face learning: which one is more effective in remediating misconception?
Purpose This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of hybrid learning, blended learning and face-to-face learning in remediating misconceptions among primary school teacher education students. Design/methodology/approach This research uses a quasi-experimental design, using a quantitative approach. Data were collected from 99 students using a pretest and posttest four-tier test. Findings Hybrid learning proved to be the most effective, achieving a remarkable 90.32% success rate in remediating students’ misconceptions, surpassing blended learning and face-to-face learning methods. Research limitations/implications The data come from a single Indonesian university and focuses only on a science concept; therefore, the scope of findings may be limited. Practical implications The research suggests that applying the conceptual change (CC) model in all learning types, particularly hybrid learning, effectively remediates misconceptions. Educators can use this insight to design impactful teaching strategies that combine online and traditional components, accommodating diverse learning styles and needs. Social implications This research suggests that applying CC model in all learning types is actually able to remediate misconceptions, though hybrid learning is found to be the most effective one. Originality/value This study addresses a research gap by investigating the effectiveness of different learning modes in rectifying misconceptions. Although prior studies have explored learning modes, few have directly compared hybrid, blended and face-to-face learning in correcting misconceptions. The findings offer insights for effective teaching strategies to address STEM-related misconceptions, benefiting educators in optimizing their approaches. Furthermore, the study’s implications extend to the broader academic community, contributing to evidence-based teaching practices in science education and the development of effective strategies for addressing misconceptions in STEM courses.
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
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: QAE publishes original empirical or theoretical articles on Quality Assurance issues, including dimensions and indicators of Quality and Quality Improvement, as applicable to education at all levels, including pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher and professional education. Periodically, QAE also publishes systematic reviews, research syntheses and assessment policy articles on topics of current significance. As an international journal, QAE seeks submissions on topics that have global relevance. Article submissions could pertain to the following areas integral to QAE''s mission: -organizational or program development, change and improvement -educational testing or assessment programs -evaluation of educational innovations, programs and projects -school efficiency assessments -standards, reforms, accountability, accreditation, and audits in education -tools, criteria and methods for examining or assuring quality
×
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