Comparison Study Between Lecture, Discussion and Collaboration Methods in Learning of the Concept of Basic Electric Circuits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/fp9fmx12Keywords:
Lecture method,, discussion, collaboration, concept understanding, basic electric circuit.Abstract
Electricity contributes to technological development so that there is an industrial revolution
4.0 in the 21st century era. Basic electric circuits (BEC) is a subject matter that must be mastered by students who pursue Electrical engineering technical competence in the Vocational Technical School (VTS). The teaching method plays an important role in the learning activities of BEC in the classroom. The use of appropriate teaching methods can help students understand the concepts of BEC subject matter. In Indonesia, there are still many teachers using the lecture method in learning activities so students often have difficulty learning the BEC concept. This study aims to conduct a study to compare lecture, discussion and collaboration methods in BEC learning activities. Participants in this study consisted of 79 students and 3 teachers. The research method is an experiment to compare the effectiveness of lecture, discussion, and collaboration methods. Data analysis uses Covariance Analysis (Ancova) to compare teaching methods and N-Gain Score testing to study the effectiveness of teaching methods in learning BEC concept.
Downloads
References
1. Teachers About The Functions of The Elements of A Simple Electric Circuit. Eur J Phys Educ 10(2):36–52.
2. Korganci N, Miron C, Dafinei A, Antohe S. (2015). The Importance of Inquiry-Based Learning on Electric Circuit Models for Conceptual Understanding. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 191:2463–2468.
3. Ate , S. & Polat M. (2005). Elektrik devreleri konusundaki kavram yan lg lar n giderilmesinde ö renme evreleri metodunun etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egit Fakültesi Derg 28:39–47.
4. Küçüközer H, Kocakülah S. (2007). Secondary School Students’ Misconceptions about Simple Electric Circuits. Online Submiss 4(1):101–115.
5. 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.
6. Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L. & Hieggelke CJ. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. Am J Phys 69:12–23.
7. Turgut, U., Gurbuz, F., & Turgut G. (2011). An investigation 10th grade students’ misconceptions about electric current. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:1965–1971.
8. Construction in Science. Annual Meeting of American Education Research Association (LA), pp 14–15.
9. Hung W. (2006). The 3C3R Model: A Conceptual Framework for Designing Problems in PBL. Interdiscip J Probl Learn 1(1):55–77.
10. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia ZC. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science (80- ) 340(6130):305–308.
11. .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.
12. Engelhardt P, Beichner R. (2004). Students Understanding of Direct Current Resistive Electrical Forces. Am J Phys 72(1):98–115.
13. Kapartzianis A, Kriek J. (2014). Conceptual Change Activities Alleviating Misconceptions About Electric Circuits. J Balt Sci Educ 13(3).
14. Lee, Y., & Law N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. Int J Sci Educ 23(2):111–149.
15. Psillos, D., Tiberghien, A., & Koumaras P. (1988). Voltage presented as a primary concept in an introductory teaching sequence on DC circuits. Int J Sci Educ 10(1):29–43.
16. Shipstone DM, et al. (1988). A study of students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries. Int J Sci Educ 10(3):303–316.
17. Taber, K. S., de Tra ord, T., & Quail T. (2006). Conceptual resources for constructing the concepts of electricity: The role of models, analogies and imagination. Phys Educ 41(2):155–160.
18. Widodo, W., Rosdiana, I., Fauziah, A. M. & S. (2019). Revealing Student’s Multiple-Misconception on Electric Circuits. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. J Phys Conf Ser. Available at: doi: 10.1088/1742- 6596/1108/1/012088.
19. Kock, Z., Taconis, R., Bolhuis, S., & Gravemeijer K. (2013). Some key issues in creating inquiry-based instructional practices that aim at the understanding of simple electric circuits. Res Sci Educ 43:579–597.
20. Sanda, A. A., & Mazila EA. (2017). The Effect of Lecture and Discussion Methods of Teaching on Learner’s Performance in Social Studies in Continuing Education Institution Borno State, Nigeria. Frontiers of Knowledge Journal Series. Int J Educ Educ Res 1(1):1–40.
21. 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.
22. Stewart-Wingfield, S., & Black GS. (2005). Active versus passive course designs: The impact on student outcomes. J Educ Bus:119–125.
23. Abdulbaki, K., Suhaimi., M., Alsaqqaf, A., & Jawad W. (2018). The Use of the Discussion Method at University: Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. Int J High Educ 7(6):118–128.
24. Veselinovska, S. S., Gudeva, L. K., & Djokic M. (2011). The effect of teaching methods on cognitive achievement in biology studying. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:2521–2527.
25. Ganyaupfu EM. (2013). Teaching methods and students’ academic performance. Int J Humanit Soc Sci Invent 2(9):29–35.
26. 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.
27. McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki M. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston).
28. 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.
29. 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).
30. Smith, L., & Renzulli J. (1984). Learning style preferences: A practical approach for classroom teachers. Theory Pract 23(1):44‐50.
31. Godleski E. (1984). Learning style compatibility of engineering students and faculty. Proceedings Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia).
32. Felder, R., & Silverman L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ 78(7):674–681.
33. Dorestani A. (2005). Is interactive learning superior to traditional lecturing in economics courses? Humanomics 21:1–20.
34. Van Eynde, D. F., & Spencer RW. (1988). Lecture versus experiential learning: Their different effects on long-term memory. Organ Behav Teach Rev 12:52–58.
35. Serva, M. A., & Fuller MA. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. J Manag Educ 28:19– 38.
36. Kaur G. (2011). Study and Analysis of Lecture Model of Teaching. Int J Educ Plan Adm 1(1):9–13.
37. Capon N& KD. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning. Cognition and instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum. Cognition and Instruction (Lawrence Erlbaum), pp 61– 79.
38. Rahman, F., Khalil, J. K., Jumani, N. B., Ajmal, M., Malik, M. A., & Sharif M. (2011). Impact of Discussion Method on Students Performance. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2(7):84–94.
39. Yusuf, H. O., Guga, A., & Ibrahim A. (2016). Discussion method and its effect on the performance of students in reading comprehension in secondary schools in plateau state, Nigeria. Eur J Open Educ E-learning Stud 1(1):128–140.
40. Perkins, D. V., & Saris RN. (2001). A ‘jigsaw classroom’ technique for undergraduate statistics courses.
41. Brookfield, S. D. & Perskill S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
42. Oyedeji OA. (1996). Assessing gender factor in some science and mathematics texts in Nigeria. Zimbabwe J Educ Res 8(1):45–53.
43. Yusuf HO. (2012). Fundamentals of curriculum and instruction (Joyce Publishers, Kaduna).
44. Abdulbaki, K., Suhaimi, M., Alsaqqaf, A., & Jawad W. (2018). Impact of using the lecture method on teaching English at university. Eur J Educ Stud 4(5):285–302.
45. Ross JA. (2008). Explanation giving and receiving in cooperative learning groups. (R. Gillies, A. Ashman, & J. Terwel, Eds.) (Springer, New York, NY).
46. Rotenberg R. (2010). The art and craft of college teaching: a guide for new professors and graduates (Routledge, London).
47. Yoder, J. & Hochevar C. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teach Psychol 32(2):91–95.
48. . Austin JE. (2000). Principles for Partnership. J Lead to Lead 18:44–50.
49. Jenni, R.W. & Mauriel J. (2004). Cooperation and collaboration: Reality or rhetoric? nternational J Leadersh Educ 7(2):181–195.
50. Laal, Marjan & Laal M. (2012). Collaborative learning: What is it? Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 31:491 – 495.
51. Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge J Educ 48(1):103–122.
52. Pugach, M.C. & Johnson LJ. (1995). Collaborative practitioners collaborative school (Love Company Publishing, Denver, Colorado; USA), p 178.
53. Gokhale AA. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. J Technol Educ.
54. Popov, V., Brinkman, D., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., Kuznetsov, A., & Noroozi O. (2012). Multicultural student group work in higher education. Int J Intercult Relations 36:302–317.
55. Gillies, R., & Boyle M. (2010). Teachers’ reactions on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teach Teach Educ 26:933–940.
56. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. Int J Educ Res 39:153–172.
57. Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman A. (2012). Examining pre-service teacher competence in lesson planning pertaining to collaborative learning. J Curric Stud 44:349–379.
58. Pedersen, S., & Liu M. (2003). Teachers’ Beliefs about Issues in the Implementation of a Student- centered Learning Environment. Educ Technol Res Dev 51(2):57–76.
59. 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.
60. Abdu-Raheem BO. (2011). Effects of discussion method on secondary school students‘ achievement and retention in social studies. Eur J Educ Stud 3(2):293–301.
61. Olutola AT. (2017). Effect of Discussion Teaching Method on Senior Secondary School Students’ Performance in English Language in Dutsinma, Katsina State, Nigeria. SURJ,11, 85-95 Research Gate, Retrieved March 29, 2019. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/.
62. Hussain SS. (1994). Taleem-o-nisab aur tareeq-e-tadrees (Rahbar Publisher, Karachi).
63. Gage, N. L & Berlinar CD. (1988). Educational psychology (4th ed) (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Mullhall, P., McKittrick, B., & Gunstone R. (2001). A Perspective on the Resolution of Confusions in the Teaching of Electricity. Res Sci Educ 31:575–587.
67. Hart C. (2008). Models in physics, models for physics learning, and why the distinction may matter in the case of electric circuits. Res Sci Educ 38:529–544.
68. Duit, R., & Schechker MT. (2007). Teaching physics. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education (Routledge, New York), pp 599–629.
69. 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.
70. 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.
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.
