Эффективность преподавания физики через призму субъективной оценки умственных усилий учащихся

14. Jong T. de (2006) Computer Simulations: Technological Advances in Inquiry Learning. Science, vol. 312, pp. 532-533.

15. Jong T. de (2010) Cognitive Load Theory, Educational Research, and Instructional Design: Some Food for Thought. Instructional Science, vol. 38, no 2, pp. 105-134. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.

16. Kalyuga S. (2008) Managing Cognitive Load in Adaptive Multimedia Learning. New York: Hershey.

17. Kalyuga S. (2009) Cognitive Load Factors in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners. New York: Nova Science.

18. Kant J. M., Scheiter K., Oschatz K. (2017) How to Sequence Video Modeling Examples and Inquiry Tasks to Foster Scientific Reasoning. Learning and Instruction, vol. 52, pp. 46-58. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.005.

19. Kirschner P. A. (2002) Cognitive Load Theory: Implications of Cognitive Load Theory on the Design of Learning. Learning and Instruction, vol. 12, pp. 1-10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7 (accessed 10 July 2019).

20. Kostic A. (2006) Kognitivna Psihologija [Cognitive Psychology]. Belgrade: Educational institution and remedies.

21. Kuhn J., Vogt P. (2013) Smartphones as Experimental Tools: Different Methods to Determine the Gravitational Acceleration in Classroom Physics by Using Everyday Devices. European Journal of Physics Education, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 47-58.

22. Lee H., Plass J. L., Homer B. D. (2006) Optimizing Cognitive Load for Learning from Computer-Based Science Simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 98, no 4, pp. 902-913.

23. Liu C. Y., Wu C. J., Wong W. K., Lien Y. W., Chao T. K. (2017) Scientific Modeling with Mobile Devices in High School Physics Labs. Computers & Education, vol. 105, pp. 44-56. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.compe- du.2016.11.004 (accessed 10 July 2019).

24. Mayer R. E. (2001) Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University.

25. Mayer R. E., Moreno R., Boire M., Vagge S. (1999) Maximizing Constructivist Learning from Multimedia Communications by Minimizing Cognitive Load. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 91, no 4, pp. 638-643.

26. McKagan S.B., Perkins K. K., Dubson M. et al. (2008) Developing and Researching PhET Simulations for Teaching Quantum Mechanics. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/papers/QMsims.pdf (accessed 10 July 2019).

27. Merrienboer J. J.G. van, Sweller J. (2005) Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 17, no 2, pp. 147-177. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.

28. Miller J. D. (1998) The Measurement of Civic Scientific. Public Understanding of Science, no 7, pp. 203-223.

29. Muller D. A. (2008) Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education (PhD Thesis). Sydney: University of Sydney. Available at: http://www.physics. usyd.edu.au/super/theses/PhD%28Muller%29.pdf (accessed 10 July 2019).

30. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

31. Odadzic V., Miljanovic T., Mandic D., Pribicevic T., Zupanec V. (2017) Effectiveness of the Use of Educational Software in Teaching Biology. Croatian Journal of Education, vol. 19, no 1, pp. 11-43.

32. Paas F., Merrienboer J. van (1993) The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 35, no 4, pp. 737-743.

33. Paas F., Tuovinen J. E., Merrienboer J. J. van, Darabi A. A. (2005) A Motivational Perspective on the Relation between Mental Effort and Performance: Optimizing Learner Involvement in Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no 3, pp. 25-34. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02504795 (accessed 10 July 2019).

34. Paas F., Tuovinen J. E., Tabbers H., Gerven P. W. van (2003) Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no 1, pp. 63-71. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15326985EP3801_8 (accessed 10 July 2019).

35. Plass J. L., Homer B. D., Hayward E. O. (2009) Design Factors for Educationally Effective Animations and Simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 21, no 1, pp. 31-61. doi: 10.1007/s12528-009-9011-x.

36. Radulovic B., Stojanovic M. (2015) Determination Instructions Efficiency of Teaching Methods in Teaching Physics in the Case of Teaching Unit “Viscosity. Newtonian and Stokes Law”. Acta Didactica Napocensia, vol. 8, no 2, pp. 61-68.

37. Radulovic B., Stojanovic M., Zupanec V. (2016) The Effects of Laboratory In- quire-Based Experiments and Computer Simulations on High School Students' Performance and Cognitive Load in Physics Teaching. Zbornik Ins- tituta za Pedagoska Istrazivanja, vol. 48, no 2, pp. 264-283. doi: 10.2298/ ZIPI1602264R.

38. Schwerdt G., Wuppermann A. C. (2011) Is Traditional Teaching Really All that Bad? A Within-Student Between-Subject Approach. Economics of Education Review, vol. 30, no 2, pp. 365-379. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.11.005 (accessed 10 July 2019).

39. Stamenkovski S., Zajkov O. (2014) Seventh Grade students' Qualitative Understanding of the Concept of Mass Influenced by Real Experiments and Virtual Experiments. European Journal of Physics Education, vol. 5, no 2, pp. 6-16.

40. Steinberg R. N. (2000) Computers in Teaching Science: To Simulate or Not to Simulate? American Journal of Physics, vol. 68, no S1, pp. S37-S41.

41. Sweller J. (1994) Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design. Learning and Instruction, vol. 4, pp 295-312. Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 (accessed 10 July 2019).

42. Sweller J., Ayres P., Kalyuga S. (2011) Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.

43. Sweller J., Chandler P. (1994) Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction, no 12, pp. 185-233.

44. Trees A. R., Jackson M. H. (2007) The Learning Environment in Clicker Classrooms: Student Processes of Learning and Involvement in Large University-Level Courses Using Student Response Systems. Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no 1, pp. 21-40. doi: 10.1080/17439880601141179.

45. Vollmer M., Mцllmann K. P. (2011) Low Cost Hands-On Experiments for Physics Teaching. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, vol. 6, suppl. I, pp. 3-9.

46. Wang J., Jou M. (2016) Qualitative Investigation on the Views of Inquiry Teaching Based upon the Cloud Learning Environment of High School Physics Teachers from Beijing, Taipei, and Chicago. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 60, July, pp. 212-222. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj. chb.2016.02.003 (accessed 10 July 2019).

47. Zacharia Z. (2003) Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions of Science Teachers Regarding the Educational Use of Computer Simulations and Inquiry-Based Experiments in Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 40, no 8, pp. 792-823.

48. Zacharia Z., Anderson O. R. (2003) The Effects of an Interactive Computer-Based Simulation Prior to Performing a Laboratory Inquiry-Based Experiment on Students' Conceptual Understanding of Physics. American Journal of Physics, vol. 71, no 6, pp. 618-629. doi: 10.1119/1.1566427.

49. Zajkov O., Mitrevski B. (2012) Video Measurements: Quantity or Quality. European Journal of Physics Education, vol. 3, no 4, pp. 34-43.

50. Zupanec V., Miljanovic T., Pribicevic T. (2013) Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Learning in Biology Teaching in Primary Schools in Serbia. Journal of the Institute for Educational Research, vol. 45, no 2, pp. 422-444.

51. Zupanec V., Radulovic B., Pribicevic T., Miljanovic T., Zdravkovic V. (2018) Determination of Educational Efficiency and Students' Involvement in the Flipped Biology Classroom in Primary School. Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol. 17, no 1, pp. 162-176.

Приложение

Примеры заданий для итогового тестирования

После каждого вопроса оцените (по шкале от 1 до 5), насколько сложной вам показалась задача: 1 -- очень легко; 2 -- легко; 3 -- не сложно и не легко; 4 -- сложно; 5 -- очень сложно.

1. Вязкость является следствием:

A) силы притяжения между молекулами в одном слое

B) силы отталкивания между молекулами в одном слое

C) движения жидкости

D) ничего из перечисленного

2. Что такое сила адгезии?

A) Сила притяжения между одинаковыми молекулами

B) Сила притяжения между разными молекулами

C) Сила отталкивания между одинаковыми молекулами

D) Сила отталкивания между разными молекулами

4. Почему трудно разъединить две смоченные водой стеклянные пластинки?

A) Из-за поверхностного натяжения

B) Из-за вязкости

C) Из-за капиллярной силы

D) Из-за плотности

6. Почему молекулы на поверхности жидкости обладают дополнительной потенциальной энергией?

A) Поскольку результирующие силы между молекулами равны нулю

B) Поскольку результирующие силы между молекулами не равны нулю

C) Из-за большей силы вязкого трения

D) Из-за более высокой скорости движения молекулЕсли бросить камень в озеро, в какое время года он быстрее утонет: зимой, когда температура воды ниже, или летом, когда вода теплее?

A) Зимой

B) Летом

C) Температура не влияет на скорость движения камня в воде

D) Ни зимой, ни летом

10. Почему капли масла на поверхности горячего супа имеют круглую форму?

A) Из-за поверхностного натяжения

B) Из-за вязкости

C) Из-за капиллярной силы

D) Из-за плотности

13. Может ли вода проходить через крупное сито, не оставляя капель?

A) Капли останутся из-за когезии

B) Капли останутся из-за адгезии

C) Капли не останутся из-за агрегатного состояния

D) Капли не останутся из-за плотности

Размещено на Allbest.ru