Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies

Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies

Comparing the Effect of Teaching Method based on Dick & Carey Instructional Design Model and Bybee Instructional Design Model on Students’ Motivation and Learning

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mahboobeh Mehrvarz
Khadijeh Aliabadi
Samaneh Abdol
Mahsa Moradi
Abstract
The aim of this study is comparing the effect of Dick & Carey instructional design model And Bybee instructional design model on students’ motivation and learning. The method of this study is Quasi-experimental and the research plan is pretest-posttest with two groups. The statistical society of this study included all female students in first year of high school in Shiraz. The statistical sample in this study was 54 female students and the available sampling was used. The data collection instrument was Herman's promotion motivation questionnaire and researcher-made learning test and in order to calculate the motivation questionnaire reliability, the Cronbach's Alfa method was used that its value was 0.87 and In order to calculate the reliability of learning test the Kuder Richardson 20 was used with the value of. /73. For data analysis, Covariance statistical test was used and the results showed that there is no difference between the Dick & Carey and Bybee methods in the rate of motivation, but there is a significant difference between Dick & Carey and Bybee methods in rate of learning and the Bybee method is more effective on students learning.
Keywords
Bybee’s instructional design model
Dick & Carey’s instructional design model
Instructional design model
motivation and learning

  1. منابع

    1. حیدری، حسین (1384). تأثیر دو روش (5E) وسنتی بر پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان کلاس پنجم ابتدایی در درس علوم شهرستان قائمشهر در سال تحصیلی 84-83. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
    2. رضوی، عباس (1390). مباحث نوین در فناوری آموزشی. اهواز: دانشگاه شهید چمران.
    3. صفوی، امان‌الله (1390). روش‌ها، فنون و الگوهای تدریس. تهران: سمت.
    4. قاضی طباطبایی، محمود؛ حاتمی، جواد؛ فردانش، هاشم؛ مجدانیان، آذر و اسلامی، زهرا (1388). مقایسه اثربخشی طراحی آموزشی ملهم از سه نظریه رفتارگرایی، شناخت‌گرایی و ساخت‌گرایی در تغییر نگرش‌های اجتماعی، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی روانشناسی دانشگاه تبریز، 4 (13)
    5. کرمی، مرتضی؛ فردانش، هاشم؛ عباسپور، عباس (1388). مقایسه اثربخشی الگوهای طراحی آموزشی سیستمی و سازنده‌گرا در آموزش مدیران. دوفصلنامه مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی در نظام‌های آموزشی، 2 (3): 9-30.
    6. مالکی، مائده (1389). تأثیر الگوی طراحی آموزشی گانیه و پنج مرحله‌ای بایبی در آموزش مبتنی بر شبکه بر یادگیری، یادداری وانگیزش دانشجویان. فصلنامه روان‌شناسی تربیتی، 5 (15).
    7. مرادی، مهسا (1391). مقایسه تأثیر روش آموزش مبتنی بر الگوی پنج مرحله‌ای بایبی و سنتی بر خلاقیت ویادگیری دانش‌آموزان سال سوم راهنمایی در درس علوم در سال تحصیلی 91-90. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
      1. Abdoli Sejzi, A. & Aris, B. B. (2012). International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (ICTLHE 2012) in conjunction with RCEE & RHED. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (2012) 426 – 431.
      2. Açish, S. (2010). An evaluation of activities designed in accordance with the 5Emodel by would-be science teachers. Retrieved January 2012 from http://www. Sciencedirect. Com.
      3. Akbulut, Y. (2007). Implications of two well-known models for instructional designers in distance education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp. Turkish online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2): 5.
      4. Bello, H. & Aliyu, U. O. (2012). Effect of Dick and Carey instructional model on the performance of electrical/electronic technology education students in some selected concepts in technical colleges of northern Nigeria. Educational Research, 3, (3): 277-283.
      5. Boddy, N.; Watson, K. & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five e’s: a referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33: 27-42.
      6. Bybee, W. Rodger (2009). The bscs 5E instructional model and v2st century skills. Available online at www.Sciencedirect.Com.
      7. Bybee, R. W.; Taylor, J. A.; Gardner, A.; Scotter, P. V.; Powell, J. C. & Westbrook, A. (2006a). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. A Report Prepared for the Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. Executive Summary. Colorado Springs: BSCS.
      8. Ceylan, E. (2008). Effects of 5E learning cycle model on understanding of stat of matter and solubility concepts.
      9. Dick, W.; Carey, L. & James, O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction. (6th Ed.). Allyn Bacon.
      10. Emamrizi, C.; Najafipour, M. & MirshahJafari, E. (2013). The effect of the active teaching method on the academic achievement in the Religious concept. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83: 204 – 207.
      11. Ergin, I. (2012). Constructivist approach based 5E model and usability instructional physics.Vol. 6, No: 4.
      12. Fazelian, p.; Naveh ebrahim, A. & Soraghi, S. (2010). The effect of 5E instructional design model on learning and reention of sciences for middle class students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5: 140–143.
      13. Gopal, T. (2008). Integration of the BSCS 5E instructional method and technology in an anatomy and physiology lab. Doctoral dissertation, Southern Mississippi University.
      14. Hirumi, A. (2013).Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking & Problem Solving. ASTD Annual Conference Dallas, Texas May 19-22.
      15. Karsli, Fethiye & Ayas, Alipaşa. (2014). Developing a Laboratory Activity by Using 5e Learning Model on Student Learning of Factors Affecting the Reaction Rate and Improving Scientific Process Skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143: 663 – 668.
      16. Kaveevivitchai, C. (2008). Enhancing nursing students’ skills in vital signs assessment by using multimedia computer-assisted learning with integrated content of anatomy and Physiology. Retrieved January 2012 from http:// www.sciencedirect.com.
      17. Melton, B.; Zience, A.; Leonard, S.; Pick, E. & Thomasson, L. (2003). A Comparison of Behaviorist and Constructivist-Based Teaching Methods in Psychomotor instruction. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 53 (1).
      18. Merrill, M. D. (1992).Constructivism and instructional design: A conversation Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
      19. Miller, C. K. & Peterson, R. L. (2003). Creating a positive climate: cooperative learning, safe & responsive school. Available online at:www.indianaedu/safeschl/cooperative-learning.pdf.
      20. Newby, D. E. (2004). Using inquiry to connect young learners to science. Available online at www.Sciencedirect.Com.
      21. Oakley, B.; Felder, R. M.; Brent, R. & Elhajj, I. (2004). Student Centered Learning. 2 (1): 9-31. Available online at: http://www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/papers/oakleypaper(jscl).pdf.
      22. Puacharearn, p. & Fisher, D. (2004). The effectiveness of cooperative learning integrated with constructivist teaching on improving learning environment in the secondary school science classrooms. Paper presented at the IASCE conference. carlton hotel, 21-25.
      23. Tucker, D. (2002). The Application of Dick and Carey systems approach model to a macromedia flash tutorial. Master’s Project Instructional Design and Technology.4. Available online at: http://www.learningdomain.com/MEdHOME2/InstructionalDesign/Dick_Carey.Application.pdf.
      24. Tuna, A.; Kacar, A. (2013). The effect of 5E learning cycle model in teaching trigonometry on students’ academic achievement and the permanent of their knowledge. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4 (1), Article: 07.
      25. Tyagi, K. & Verma, I. (2013). Influence of Constructivism in Teaching on Academic Achievement of Primary Students. Journal of Education & Research for Sustainable Development (JERSD). 1 (1).
      26. Yadigaroglu & Demircioglu, (2012). The effect of activities based on 5e model on grade 10 students understanding of gas concept. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47: 634 – 637