Effectiveness of Teachers’ Creative Skills Using Analogy in Learning of the Concept of Basic Electric Circuits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/b71ggb05Keywords:
Creative teaching skills,, analogy, concept understanding, basic electric circuits.Abstract
Basic electric circuits (BEC) are major subject matter in the Electricity Skills Engineering competency study program at the Vocational Technical School (VTS) in Indonesia. Because electricity is an abstract phenomenon, resulting in students often have difficulty learning BEC which results in a misunderstanding of concepts or known as misconceptions. One factor occurs misconceptions because teachers use conventional teaching. Creative teaching skills using analogy are methods of teaching to change students' misconceptions on BEC subject matter. The research objective is to compare the creative skills of teaching using analogies with conventional teaching. This study uses a quasi-experimental method. The research subjects were 67 students who attended the VTS Electricity Engineering competence consisting of 34 students as an experimental group, and 33 students as a control group. Research findings indicate the experimental group is more effective than the conventional group.
Downloads
References
1. Duit R. (1991). On The Role of Analogies and Metaphors in Learning Science. Sci Educ 75:649–672.
2. Goris T V. (2016). Common Misunderstandings of Electricity: Analysis of Interview Responses of Electrical Engineering Technology Students. Int J Eng Pedagog 6(1):4–10.
3. Korganci, N., Mirona, C., Dafineia, A., & Antohea S. (2015). The Importance of Inquiry-Based Learning on Electric Circuit Models for Conceptual Understanding. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 191:2463–2468.
4. Ausubel D, Novak JD, Hanesian H. (1978). Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View (Holt, Rineheart & Winston, Inc, New York).
5. Duit R, von Rhöneck C. (1998). Learning and understanding of key concepts in electricity. A. Tiberghien, Jossem, E., Barajas, J. (Ed.), Connecting research in physics education (pp. 1-10). Ohio: ICPE Books. Connect Res Phys Educ with Teach Educ 1:1–6.
6. Othman M. (2013). Analysis Keperluan Pelajar, Guru dan Kandungan Untuk Pembangunan E-Bahan Instruksional Mata Pelajaran Pengajian Kejuruteraan Elektrik Dan Elektronik Tingkatan Empat. Available at: http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/id/eprint/4175.
7. Aboagye GK. (2009). Comparison of learning cycle and traditional teaching approaches on students’ understanding of selected concepts in electricity.
8. Li YW. (2016). Transforming Conventional Teaching Classroom to Learner-Centred Teaching Classroom Using Multimedia-Mediated Learning Module. Int J Inf Educ Technol 6(2):105–112.
9. Tanggaard L. (2011). Stories about creative teaching and productive learning. Eur J Teach Educ 34(2):219– 232.
10. Rinkevich JL. (2011). Creative teaching: Why it matters and where to begin. Clear House A J Educ Strateg Issues Ideas 84(5):219–223.
11. Ambrose D. (2005). Creativity in teaching: Essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Creat across domains Faces muse:281–298.
12. Horng J, Hong J, ChanLin L, Chang S, Chu H. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. Int J Consum Stud 29(4):352–358.
13. Rosser, R. A., & Nicholson GL. (1984). Educational Psychology, Principles in Praise ed Little Brown (Springer, Boston).
14. Hammer D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. Am J Phys 64(10):1316–1325.
15. Gunstone D, McKittrick B, Milhall P. (2009). A Procedure for Developing Conceptual Understanding. Prosiding PEEL Conference. Australia: Monash University.
16. Jaakkola T, Watt A. (2011). Finnish physical education teachers’ self-reported use and perceptions of Mosston and Ashworth’s teaching styles. J Teach Phys Educ 30(3):248–262.
17. McDermott L., Shaffer P. (1992). Research as A Guide for Curriculum Development: An Example From Introductory Electricity. Part II: Design of Instructional Strategies. Am J Phys 60:994–1003.
18. Alexander C., Sadiku MN. (2009). Fundamentals of Electric Circuits, fourth edition (McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, New York).
19. J.Bird. (2003). Electrical Circuit Theory and Technology, second edition (Newnes, Oxford).
20. Bilal E, Erol M. (2009). Investigating Students’ Conceptions of Some Electricity Concepts. Lat Am J Phys Educ
21. Timmermann D, Kautz C. (2014). Investigating student learning of the voltage and potential concepts in introductory electrical engineering. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings (IEEE), pp 1–4.
22. Ugur G, Dilber R, Senpolat Y, Duzgun B. (2008). The effects of analogy on students’ understanding of direct current circuits and attitudes towards physics lessons. Int J Environ Sci Educ 3(3).
23. Chiu MH, Lin JW. (2002). Using multiple analogies for investigating fourth graders’ conceptual change in electricity. Chinese J Res Sci Educ 10(2):109–134.
24. Engelhardt P, Beichner R. (2004). Students Understanding of Direct Current Resistive Electrical Forces. Am J Phys 72(1):98–115.
25. Heller PM, Finley FN. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity.
26. Kapartzianis A, Kriek J. (2014). Conceptual Change Activities Alleviating Misconceptions About Electric Circuits. J Balt Sci Educ 13(3).
27. Küçüközer H, Kocakülah S. (2007). Secondary School Students’ Misconceptions about Simple Electric Circuits. Online Submiss 4(1):101–115.
28. Kollöffel B, Jong T de. (2013). Conceptual Understanding of Electrical Circuits in Secondary Vocational Engineering Education: Combining Traditional Instruction with Inquiry learning in a virtual lab. J Eng Educ 102(3):375–393.
29. Osborne R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current’, New Zealand Science Teacher, 29. This Work
is also discussed Osborne, R Freyberg, P(Eds)(1985) Learn Sci Implic Child Sci London, Heinemann:21– 26.
30. Shipstone DM, et al. (1988). A study of students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries. Int J Sci Educ 10(3):303–316.
31. Pardhan H, Bano Y. (2001). Science teachers’ alternate conceptions about direct-currents. Int J Sci Educ 23(3):301–318.
32. Chen Tan CY. (2004). Teaching, case teaching method, and the teaching model is built. Hunan Norm Univ Educ Sci J 3:57–59.
33. Dimitrios, B., Labros, S., Nikolaos, K., Maria, K., & Athanasios K. (2013). Traditional Teaching Methods VS. Teaching Through The Application of Information and Communicating Field: Quo Vadis? Eur Sci J 9(28):73–101.
34. Shen Wen-jie ZQ. (2002). Seminar Mode for Postgraduates. Acad Degrees Grad Educ 7(3):4.
35. Kao, F-C., Wang, S-R., & Huang T-H. (2010). The Design of Circuit-Measuring Collaborative Learning System with Embedded Broker. Int J Comput Sci Issues 7(1–3):8–17.
36. Angura MT. (2018). Impact of Cooperative Instructional Strategies and Conventional Teaching Methods on Students Achievement and Interest in Upper Basic Education Science and Technology in Nigeria International Journal of Innovative Research & Development. J Innov Res Dev 7(2):38–45.
37. Yang Li-Niang DJ. (2005). Seminar: Training graduate students scientific research ability of the effective way. China’s Geol Educ 3:5–7.
38. Stewart-Wingfield, S., & Black GS. (2005). Active versus passive course designs: The impact on student outcomes. J Educ Bus:119–125.
39. McCarthy JP, Anderson L. (2000). Active Learning Techniques Versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science. Innov High Educ 24(4):279–294.
40. Teemant A. (2010). ESL student perspectives on university classroom testing practices. J Scholarsh Teach Learn 10(3):89–105.
41. Felder, R., & Silverman L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ 78(7):674–681.
42. Mokhtar FA. (2016). Rethinking Conventional Teaching In Language Learning And Proposing Edmodo As Intervention: A Qualitative Analysis. Malaysian Online J Educ Technol 4(2):22–37.
43. Oxford R. (1990). Evidence from research on language learning styles and strategies in Georgetown University Round Table on language and linguistics. (Georgetown University Pres, Washington, DC).
44. Hackathorn, J., Solomon, E. D., & Blankmeyer KL. (2011). Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques. J Eff Teach 11(2):40–54.
45. Ghavifekr, S. & Rosdy WAW. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. Int J Res Educ Sci 1(2):175–191.
46. Michel, N., Cater III, J. J., & Varela O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student outcomes. Hum Resour Dev Q 20(4):397–418.
47. Whetten, D. A., & Clark SC. (1996). An integrated model for teaching management skills. J Manag Educ 20:152–181.
48. Bezrukov, Y. I., & Cherepanov MM. (2012). Interactive teaching methodology: Collaboration of teacher and student (English). Russ Juridical J Ross Juridiceskij Z 86(5):61–65.
49. Bramwell, G., Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F. R., Kronish, N., & Chennabathni R. Creative teacher. Roeper Rev 33(1):228–238.
50. Cheng, Y.-Y., Wang, W.-C., Liu, K.-S., & Chen Y-L. (2010). Effects of association instruction on fourth graders’ poetic creativity in Taiwan. Creat Res J 22(2):228–235.
51. Sternberg RJ. (2015). Teaching for creativity: The sounds of silence. Psychol Aesthetics, Creat Arts 9(2):115.
52. Stojanova B. (2010). Development of creativity as a basic task of the modern educational system 2(2), 3395– 3400. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2(2):3395–3400.
53. Morais, M. F., & Azevedo I. (2011). What is a Creative Teacher and What is a Creative Pupil? Perceptions Teach Procedia Soc Behav Sci 12:330–339.
54. Cheung, W. M., Tse, S. K., & Tsang HW. (2003). Teaching creative writing skills to primary children in Hong-Kong: Discordance between the views and practices of language teachers. J Creat Behav 37:77–98.
55. Sawyer KR. (2010). Learning for creativity. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.) ed Press CU (New York, NY).
56. Craft A. (2011). Approaches to creativity in education in the United Kingdom. In J. Sefton-Green P. Thomson K. Jones and L. Bresler (Eds.) ed Routledge (New York, NY).
57. Jeffrey B. (2006). Creative teaching and learning: Towards a common discourse and practice. Cambridge J Educ 36(3):399–414.
58. Fredricka Reisman F. (2013). Creativity: Process, Product, Personality, Environment & Technology. Int Conf Knowledge, Innov Enterp. Available at: http://www.kiecon.org/Creativity_ed_ReismanF_2013.pdf.
59. . Gentner, D., & Smith L. (2012). Analogical reasoning. In V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Coll, R., & Treagust D. (2001). Learners use of analogy and alternative conceptions for chemical bonding 48(1), 24-32. Aust Sci Teach J 48(1):24–32.
60. Glynn SM. (2008). Making science concepts meaningful to students: Teaching with analogies. In S. Mikelskis-Seifert, U. Reingelband & M. Brückman (Eds.). Four Decades of Research in Science Education: From Curriculum Development to Quality Improvement (Waxmann, Germany), pp 113–125.
61. Cruz-Hastenreiter R. (2015). Analogies in High School Classes on Quantum Physics. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 167(2015):38–43.
62. Aubusson, P. J., & Fogwill S. (2006). Roleplay as analogical modeling in science. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.). Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (Springer, Dordrecht, the
63. Körhasan, N. D., & Hıdır M. (2019). How should textbook analogies be used in teaching physics. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. doi:DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010109.
64. Gentner, D., & Smith L. (2012). Analogical reasoning. In V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.) (Elsevier, Oxford, UK).
65. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Fowler S. (2007). Analogies: Explanatory tools in web-basedd science instruction. Educ Technol 48(5):45–50.
66. Glynn, S.M. & T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. J Res Sci Teach 35(10):1129–1149.
67. Devecioglu-Kaymakci Y. (2016). Embedding Analogical Reasoning into 5E Learning Model: A Study of Chiu, M. H., & Lin JW. (2005). Promoting fourth-graders’ conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. J Res Sci Teach 42(4):429–464.
68. Glynn SM. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J).
69. Aykutlu, I., & Şen AI. (2011). Using analogies in determining and overcoming high school students’ misconceptions about electric current. Necatibey Fac Educ Electron J Sci Math Educ 5(2):221–250.
70. Dilber, R., & Düzgün B. (2008). Effectiveness of analogy on students’ success and elimination of misconceptions. Lat Am J Phys Edu 2(3):174–183.
71. Cosgrove M. (1995). A study of science in the making as students generate an analogy for electricity. Int J
72. May, D., Hammer, D., & Roy P. (2006). Children’s analogical reasoning in a Third-Grade science discussion. Sci Educ 90:316–330.
73. Hake, R R. (1999). Analyzing Change/Gain Scores Area-D American Education Research Association’s Decision. Meas Res Methodol. Available at: http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange- Gain.pdf.
74. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson ZF. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bull 39,7:3–7.
75. Diaz, D. P., & Cartnal RB. (1999). Students’ Learning Styles in Two Classes: Online Distance Learning and Equivalent On-Campus. Coll Teach 47(4):130–135.
76. P MC. (2001). Tales from tooting: a reflection on the first year of the MBBS graduate entry programme at St. George’s Hospital Medical School. Med Educ 35:1144–1149.
77. Ayodele O. (2014). Effects Of Interactive Engagement And Analogy Enhanced Instructional Strategies On Self-Efficacy Of Senior Secondary School Chemistry Students. Res J Educ 2:6.
78. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust DF. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers’ analogical explanations. J Res Sci Teach 31:227–242.
79. Ponto H, Tasiam FJ, Wonggo D. (2018). Designing affective domain evaluation instrument for basics Electrical Subject in Vocational High School. Int J Eng Technol 7(25):395–398.
80. Kob, C. G. C., Abdullah, A. S., Norizan, N. A. A., & Shamsuddin H. (2019). Effects of Learning Aid (KIT) on Student Performance for Electric Circuits Topics. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 9(1):320–330.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
