Measuring the Effect of Problem-Based Learning Instructional Program on Reflective Thinking Development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study aimed at measuring effect of using problem-based learning (PBL) on reflective thinking development for tenth grade students in Jordan schools. The study sample consisted of 70 students divided randomly into two groups; experimental (36) and control (34) students. To collect study data, a reflective thinking test (RTT) was used to measure effect of instructional program on experimental group. The means, standard deviations and One-Way-ANCOVA analysis were calculated to verify significance of differences between means in both groups. The results showed a positive effect of PBL as significantly helpful strategy in promoting students' reflective thinking. While there is more research to be conducted, finding of this study concludes by outlining suggestions for creating an environment that encourages problem-based learning at Jordanian schools. Keywords: Problem-based learning; reflective thinking; solving; learning processes; educational programs; secondary school students. ********** Our schools need to implement learning strategies of modern education to be transformed from its traditional to non-traditional (progressive) role. One of progressive school goals is to develop higher-order thinking and inquiry skills among students to construct effective mental maps or models and paradigms to help them acquire a system of knowledge, skills, values, and applying and developing it to be positive change agents in their communities (Marzano, 1988; Resnick & Hall, 1998; Costa & Kallick, 2000; Duffy, 2009). Problem-based learning (PBL) is considered one of effective strategies that this study tackles and which contribute to development of students cognitive and meta- cognitive thinking skills. The roots of PBL can be traced to progressive movement and cognitive school of psychology, which holds a vision that education is a process that aims at developing strategic learner and teacher. Thus, content and required strategies should be meaningful, integrated, transferable, and developable (Delisle, 1997). Historically, Howard B arrows, a pioneer in development of PBL, first developed strategy in McMaster University in Canada. This strategy was used for enhancing students' abilities in Medicine College to think and deal with health problems in different situations and circumstances. After proving its success in medical field, Barrows's strategy caused a revolution in education (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). Currently, it is used at nearly most medical colleges worldwide, at schools from K-12, and for training teachers to implement it to help students develop their thinking skills and solve their problems through learning content of school curricula (Delisle, 1997). Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) defined PBL, as the learning that results from process of working toward understanding or solving a problem ( p. 18). That is principle behind PBL. It is a methodology that situates learning in complex and meaningful problems that are framed in authentic contexts (Hmelo, 1994). Students work in small groups to acquire conceptual knowledge and procedural skills needed to develop one or more plausible solutions to each of problems creatively and cooperatively presented to them (Savery & Duffy, 1995; Barrows, 1996; Wee; Kek & Sim, 2001; Cotic & Zuljan, 2009). According to Delisle (1997), using PBL releases a teacher from limitations of school curricula. For a teacher who uses PBL, any incident, whether inside or outside school can formulate an effective PBL problem. There is no limit to variety of purposes behind PBL problems. Teachers can develop problems to address students' interest or lives, curriculum, school and community improvement or to solve interpersonal problems in classroom. Problems can be designed for a particular content area or interdisciplinary curriculum; they can be designed by individual teacher or collaboratively for team teaching. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».