The effect of the slowmation technique on attitudes towards social studies lessons, active learning, and metacognitive awareness
Abstract
The role and importance of technology applications in increasing the cognitive and affective learning of students have been accepted. For this reason, it has been considered important to use different materials and various educational technologies in the preparation of active learning environments. In this context, the effect of the use of the slowmation technique in primary school social studies courses on students' attitudes, active learning, and metacognitive awareness was investigated in this study. The sample of the study, in which a quasi-experimental design was used, consisted of 4th-grade primary school students. The social studies attitude scale, active learning process scale, and metacognitive awareness scale for children were used. During the 5-week practices, slowmation covering different subjects was prepared. Parametric analyses were applied to the data obtained during the application process. According to the analyses performed, the slowmation technique was effective in improving the attitudes towards and active learning of the social studies course. Based on the findings, the limitations of the slowmation technique were mentioned, long-term studies were suggested, and it was suggested to investigate the issue of permanence.
keywords:metacognitive awareness, primary school, slowmation, social studies attitude
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Aktif öğrenme [Active learning]. İzmir: Education World Publications.
Akpunar, B. (2011). The effect of webblog based instruction on the metacognition levels of of preservice teachers. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technolog, 7(2), 38–45.
Bakar, A., Tüzün, H., & Çağıltay, K. (2008). Öğrencilerin eğitsel bilgisayar oyunu kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri: Sosyal bilgiler dersi örneği [Students’ opinions of educational computer game utilization: a social studies course case]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35, 27–37.
Bakar, M. A. A., & Ismail, N. (2020). Technology integrated with metacognitive regulation approach to enhance students’ mastery and creating effective learning in mathematics. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 6(2), 125–128.
Baltacı, M., & Akpınar, B. (2011). Web tabanlı öğretimin öğrenenlerin üstbiliş farkındalık düzeyine etkisi [The effect of web based ınstruction on the metacognition awareness levels of learners]. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(16), 319–333.
Barth, J. L. (1991). Elemantary and junior high-middle school social studies curriculum, activities and materials. Lanham: University Press of America.
Beck, D., & Eno, J. (2012). Signature pedagogy: a literature review of social studies and technology research. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 70–94.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (pp.263-340). New York: Wiley
Brown, A.L. (1977). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition. Technical Report No. 47. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, J. (2011). The impact of student created slowmation on the teaching and learning of primary science. Unpublished master dissertation. Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia.
Brown, J., Murcia, K., & Hackling, M. (2013). Slowmation: a multimodal strategy for engaging children with primary science. Teaching Science, 59(4), 14-20.
Burak, D. (2020). İlkokul sosyal bilgiler öğretimine yönelik uyarlanabilir bir öğrenme ortamının tasarlanması, uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi [Designing, implementıng and evaluating an adaptive learning environment for primary school social studies teaching]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabi- istatistik, araştirma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
Callan, G. L., Marchant, G. J., Finch, W. H., & German, R. L. (2016). Metacognition, strategies, achievement, and demographics: Relationships across countries. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(5), 1485–1502.
Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem solving of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–19.
Cautinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and academic success. Educate, 7(1), 39–47.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Coorey, J. (2016). Active learning methods and technology: Strategies for design education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 35(3), 337–347.
Çelik, T. (2020). Dijital çağda sosyal bilgiler öğretmeni yetiştirme: Bir eylem araştırması. [Training teachers of social studies in the digital age: an action study]. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 38, 211–229.
Dearnley, C., & Matthew, B. (2007). Factors that contribute to undergraduate student success. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 377–391.
Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition – A domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 123–139.
Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition-a domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 123-139.
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435-447.
Devadason, R.P., Toh, S.C., & Abbas, M. (2012). Student construction activity for improved learning: effectiveness of slowmation in the learning of moon phases. Global Journal on Technology, 1, 496-501.
Donkin, R., & Kynn, M. (2021). Does the learning space matter? An evaluation of active learning in a purpose-built technology-rich collaboration studio. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 133–146.
Duman, B., & Atar, E. (2004). Data show teknolojisinin coğrafya dersinde soyut konuların öğretilmesinde öğrencilerin akademik başarısı ve motivasyon üzerine etkisi [The effect of data show technology on academic success and motıvatıon of students in teaching abstract subjects in geography study]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(4), 85-89.
Dunlosky, J. & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. Sage Publications.
Dündar, H., & Aksoy, N. (2010). Kavram analizi stratejisinin öğrencilerin kavram öğrenme başarısı ve hayat bilgisi dersine ilişkin tutumlarına etkisi [The Effect of concept analysis strategy on students achievement in learning concept and their attitude towards life studies]. Academıc Perspectıve Journal, 21, 1–27.
Eugène, C. (2006). How to teach at the university level through an active learning approach? Consequences for teaching basic electrical measurements. Measurement, 39(10), 936–946.
Everson, H. T., Smodlaka, I. & Tobias, S. (1994). Exploring the relationship of test anxiety and metacognition on reading test performance: a cognitive analysis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 7, 85-96.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Flavell, J.H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 15–23.
Fleming, D. S. (2000). A teacher’s guide to project-based learning. ERIC Report No:ED469734.
Gama, C. (2001). Investigating the effects of training in metacognition in an ınteractive learning environment: design of an empirical study. In B. Zayas & C. Gama (Eds.). Proceedings of the 5th Human Centred Technology Postgraduate Workshop, Brighton.
Gündüzalp, C. (2021). Web 2.0 araçları ile zenginleştirilmiş çevrimiçi öğrenmenin öğrencilerin üst bilişsel ve yaratıcı düşünme becerilerine etkisi [The Effect of online learning enriched with web 2.0 tools on students' metacognitive and creative thinking skills]. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 10(3), 1158–1177.
Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri felsefe - yöntem - analiz [Research methods in social sciences philosophy-method-analysis]. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
Hager, C. (2013). Modeling DNA structure and processes through animation and kinesthetic visualizations. Published master dissertation, Michigan State University.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12.
Hartman, H. (1998). Metacognition in teaching and learning: an introduction. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 1–3.
Hatta, P., Aristyagama, Y., Yuana, R. & Yulisetiani, S. (2020). Active learning strategies in synchronous online learning for elementary school students. Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education, 4(2), 86-93.
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of samr and tpack for reflection on technology ıntegration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.
Hoban, G. & Ferry, B. (2006). Teaching science concepts in higher education classes with slow motion animation (slowmation). World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education,1641-1646.
Hoban, G. & Nielsen, W. (2010). The 5 Rs: a new teaching approach to encourage slowmations (studentgenerated animations) of science concepts. Teaching Science, 56 (3), 33-38.
Hoban, G. (2005). From claymation to slowmation: a teaching procedure to develop students’ science understandings. Teaching Science,51(2), 26-30.
Hoban, G. (2007). Using slowmation to engage preservice elementary teachers in understanding science content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 75–91.
Hoban, G. (2008). Lights, camera, action! using slowmation as a common teaching approach to promote a school learning community. In A.
Samaras, C. Beck, A. Freese & C. Kosnik (Eds.) Learning communities in practice (pp. 45-58). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2012). Learning science through creating a “slowmation”: a case study of preservice primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 119-146.
Holcomb, L. B., & Beal, C. M. (2010). Capitalizing on web 2.0 in the social studies context. TechTrends, 54(4), 28–33.
Holloway, P., Kenna, T., Linehan, D., O’Connor, R., Bradley, H., O’Mahony, B., & Pinkham, R. (2021). Active learning using a smartphone app: Analysing land use patterns in Cork City, Ireland. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(1), 47-62.
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Hong, N.S., & Shia, R. (2001, April). The influence of metacognitive self-regulation and ability levels on problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, USA.
Jayawardana, C., Hewagamage, P., & Hirakawa, M. (2001). Personalization tools for active learning in digital libraries. The Journal of Academic Media Librarianship, 8(1), 1–19.
Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç) A ve B Formları: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and factor structure of turkish versions of the metacognitive awareness ınventory for children (Jr. MAI) - A and B forms]. Turkish Psychological Articles, 10(20), 87–103.
Kervin, K. (2007). Exploring the use of slow motion animation (slowmation) as a teaching strategy to develop year 4 students’ understandings of equivalent fractions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 100–106.
Kidman, G., Keast, S., & Cooper, R. (2012). Responding to the 5Rs: an alternate perspective of slowmation. Teaching Science, 58(2), 26–32.
Koca, N., & Daşdemir, İ. (2016). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde yeni bir teknoloji coğrafi bilgi sistemleri. [A new technology for social sciences teaching geographic informatıon system]. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 50, 483-496.
Lee, J. (1999). Incorporating active learning into a web-based ethics course. Available: http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/FIE99.html
Maguth, B. M., List, J. S., & Wunderle, M. (2015). Teaching social studies with video games. The Social Studies, 106(1), 32–36.
Mattson, K. (2005). Why “active learning” can be perilous to the profession. Academe, 91(1), 23–26.
Mckay, M. A (1999). A comparison of the effects of procedural and metacognition ınstruction on the transfer of computer software skills. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Norman, University of Oklahoma.
Mills, R., Tomas, L., Whiteford, C., & Lewthwaite, B. (2020). Developing middle school students’ ınterest in learning science and geology through slowmation. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1501–1520.
Ministry of National Education (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 4, 5, 6 ve 7. Sınıflar) [Social studies curriculum (primary and secondary school 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th grades], Ankara: National Publishing.
Mou, T. Y., Kao, C. P., Lin, H. H., & Yin, Z. X. (2021). From action to slowmation: enhancing preschoolers’ story comprehension ability and learning intention. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1231–1243.
Nielsen, W. & Hoban, G. (2015). Designing a digital teaching resource to explain phases of the moon: a case study of preservice elementary teachers making a slowmation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (9), 1207-1233.
Norman, G. (2004). What’s the active ıngredient in active learning? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9(1), 1–3.
Occelli, M., Romano, L. G., Valeiras, N., & Willging, P. A. (2017). Animating cell division (mitosis): a didactic proposal with the slowmation technique. Revista Eureka, 14(2), 398–409.
Ochsner, K. (2010). Lights, camera, action research: the effects of didactic digital movie making on students’ twenty-first century learning skills and science content in the middle school classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, USA.
Özabacı, N., & Olgun, A. (2011). Bilgisayar destekli fen bilgisi öğretiminin fen bilgisi dersine ilişkin tutum,bilişüstü beceriler ve fen bilgisi başarısı üzerine bir çalışma [A study on computer based science and technology education on students’ attitudes, master learning skills and achivement]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(37), 93–107.
Özcan, E. (2019). İlkokul 4. sınıf sosyal bilgiler dersi tarih konularının aktif öğrenme modeliyle öğretilmesine ilişkin bir eylem araştırması [An action research on teaching history subjects with active learning model in primary school 4th grade social studies lesson]. International Journal of Scholars in Education, 2(1), 58-74.
Özkaya, A., Aydoğdu, M., & Çağıran, İ. (2016). Üstbilişsel ve internet tabanlı üstbilişsel öğretim yöntemlerinin öğrencilerin hücre bölünmesi ve kalıtım konusundaki tutumlarına ve üstbilişsel düşünme düzeylerine etkisi [The effects of metacognitive and web based metacognitive methods students’ attitudes and metacognitive thinking levels in heredity and cell division issue]. Education and Society in the 21st Century, 5(13), 133-159.
Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019). Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483–500.
Poitras, E., Lajoie, S., & Hong, Y. J. (2012). The design of technology-rich learning environments as metacognitive tools in history education. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1033–1061.
Rice, M. L., & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90(1), 28–33.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49.
Russel, A. T., Comello, R. J., & Lee, D. W. (2007). Teaching strategies promoting active learning in healthcare education. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1–3.
Saban, A. (2002). Öğrenme öğretme süreci [Learning teaching process new theory and approach]. Ankara: Nobel Academy.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.
Shepherd, A., Hoban, G., & Dixon, R. (2013). Using slowmation to develop the social skills of primary school students with mild intellectual disabilities: Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 150–168.
Singhal, R., Kumar, A., Singh, H., Fuller, S., & Gill, S. S. (2021). Digital device-based active learning approach using virtual community classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(5), 1007–1033.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79.
Sperling, R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and selfregulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139.
Şahiner, D. G. S. (2008). İlköğretim sosyal bilgiler dersinde aktif öğrenme tekniklerinin demokratik tutumları ve ders başarısına etkisi [The effect of social science ınstruction based on active learning method toward democratic attitudes and achievement]. Unpublished master's thesis. Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
Teng, F. (2021). Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System, 97, 102426.
Turan, İ. (2010). Student attitudes toward technology enhanced history education comparison between Turkish and American students. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 1(1), 152–167.
Ulu Kalın, Ö. & Topkaya, Y. (2017). İlkokul 4. sınıf sosyal bilgiler dersine yönelik tutum ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability of the attitude scale towards fourthgrade social studies course]. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Insitute, 14(37), 14–22.
Ünlü, B., & Yangın, S. (2020). Dijital öykülerle desteklenmiş sosyal bilgiler dersinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi [Effect of social studies course supported with digital stories on critical thinking skills of students]. Recep Tayyip Erdogan Universtiy Journal of Social Sciences, 6(11), 1–29.
Wagener, B. (2013). Autogenic training, metacognition and higher education. Educational Psychology: An Internation Journal of Experimental Education Psychology, 33(7), 849-861.
Wang, V. C. X., & Hitch, L. (2017). Is active learning via internet technologies possible? International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 7(2), 48–59.
Wieking, B. A. (2016). Technology Integration and Student Learning Motivation. Unpublished master dissertation, Northwestern College, Orange City.
Wilson, J. (1999, November). Defining metacognition: a step towards recognising metacognition as a worthwhile part of the curriculum. In Paper presented AARE Conference, Melbourne.
Wolfe, S., & Flewitt, R. (2010). New technologies, new multimodal literacy practices and young children’s metacognitive development. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 387–399.
Yalavuz, G. (2006). Türkiye’de tarih öğretiminde aktif yöntemin uygulanışı [Application of the active method in history teaching in Turkey]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–10.
Zohar, A., & David, A.B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2022.176
Refbacks
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Modern Education Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.