Matching web.2 applications with Bloom's revised taxonomy and 5E educational design model

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Information Technology in Higher Education, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty member of the Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The recent studies shows that the field of education has a potential to embrace instructional technology and Web 2.0 applications. This research as a part of an ongoing process of collaborative enquiry between the researchers and teachers in a Teachers Professional Learning Community (TPLC) of marivan city. These meetings were held on a monthly basis during the academic year in 1395-1396. The purpose of this research is to matching web.2 applications with Bloom's revised taxonomy and 5E educational design model for teaching. The research was conducted using a qualitative approach based on the phenomenological strategy. The result of the research is the design of a table of Web applications based on bloom’s revised taxonomy and 5E educational design model. This table can be made more complete by subsequent research by other researchers. The experiences of these teachers can prove useful to other teachers looking to integrate Web 2.0 into their instruction.

Keywords

References

چراغ ملایی, لیلا.، کدیور, پروین و صرامی, غلامرضا. (1393). استفاده از شبکه‌های اجتماعی مجازی در آموزش- فرصت‌ها و چالش‌ها، اندیشه های نوین تربیتی، 10 (3)، 29-51. doi: 10.22051/jontoe.2015.375
حیدری، هاشم (1383). بررسی تاثیر طراحی اموزشی مبتنی بر 5e و روش سنتی بر پیشرفت تحصیلی دانشجویان. پاین نامه دانشجویی دوره کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
رضوی، عباس (1390). مباحث نوین در فناوری آموزشی. اهواز: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید چمران
فردانش، هاشم (1390). مبانی نظری تکنولوژی آموزشی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
کریمی، کیوان.، فردانش، هاشم و عباسپور، احمد (1382). بررسی تاثیر الگوهای طراحی اموزشی مبتنی بر ساختن گرایی بر آموزش مدیران. فصلنامه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی شهری، (2)3، 9-30.
کراسول، جان دبلیو (1390). روش‌های پژوهش ترکیبی، ترجمه دکتر علیرضا کیامنش و دکتر جاوید سرابی. تهران: آییژ
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.
Anderson, L. W., D. R. Krathwohl and B. S. Bloom. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, complete ed., edited by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl. New York: Longman.
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.
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.
Callaghan, N., and M. Bower. (2012). “Learning through Social Networking Sites—The Critical Role of the Teacher.” Educational Media International 49, no. 1: 1 –17.
Cheragh molaei, l., kadivar, p, and zarami, gh (2015). Using virtual social network in education: challenges and profit. New approaches educational, (10)3, 29-51, doi: 10.22051/jontoe.2015.375
Creswell, j.h. (2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Translated: Hassan danaie fard. Tehran: saffar publication. [In pearsian].
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Doolittle, P. E., and D. Hicks. (2003). “Constructivism as a Theoretical Foundation for the Use of Technology in Social Studies.” Theory & Research in Social Education 31, no. 1: 71–103.
Eber, P. A., and T. S. Parker. (2011). “Assessing Student Learning: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy.” Human Service Education 27, no. 1: 45–53.
Fardanesh. H. (2008). Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology. Tehran: samt [in Persian].
Friedman, A. M., & Hicks, D. (2006). Guest editorial: The state of the field: Technology, social studies, and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 246-258.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24; 21(1).
Haidari, H. (2004). Effect of both traditional and 5e methods on students' academic achievement. Master's Thesis, Allameh Tabataba'i University. [in pearsian]
Halawi, L. A., R. V. McCarthy, and S. Pires. (2009). “An Evaluation of E-Learning on the Basis of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Education for Business 84, no. 6: 374–80.
Heafner, T. L., and A. M. Friedman. (2008). “Wikis and Constructivism in Secondary Social Studies: Fostering a Deeper Understanding.” Computers in the Schools 25, no. ¾: 288–302.
Hirumi, A. (2013).Grounding e-Learning Interactions to facilitate Critical Thinking & Problem Solving. ASTD Annual Conference Dallas, Texas May 19-22.
Holcomb, L. B., and C. M. Beal. (2011). “Capitalizing on Web 2.0 in the Social Studies Context.” TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning 54, no. 4: 28–33.
Holcomb, L. B., C. Beal, and A. Robertson. (2009). “Using Web 2.0 to Support Learning in the Social Studies Context.” Social Studies Research & Practice 4, no. 3: 44 55.
Holcomb, L., C. Beal, and J. K. Lee. (2011). “Supersizing Social Studies through the Use of Web 2.0 Technologies.” Social Studies Research & Practice 6, no. 3: 102 11.
Jideani, V. A., and I. A. Jideani. (2012). “Alignment of Assessment Objectives with Instructional Objectives Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy— The Case for Food Science and Technology Education.” Journal of Food Science Education 11, no. 3: 34–42.
Karami, m; fardanesh, h. and abbaspoor, a. (2008). Comparison of the effectiveness of educational and constructive educational design patterns in the training of managers. Journal of Urban management and planning. 2 (3) .9-30 [in pearsian]
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.
King, R. (2011). “Metacognition: Information Literacy and Web 2.0 as an Instructional Tool.” Currents in Teaching and Learning, 11, no. 2: 22–32.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview.” Theory into Practice 41, no. 4: 212.
Martorella, P. H. (1997). “Technology and Social Studies or which way to the sleeping giant.” Theory & Research in Social Education 24, no. 4: 511–14.
Okello-Obura, C., & Ssekitto, F. (2015). Web 2.0 technologies application in teaching and learning by Makerere University academic staff.
Razavi. A. (2011). New topics in teaching technology. Ahvaz: shahid Chamran University [in Persian].
Roberts, S. L., and B. M. Butler. (2014). “Consumers and Producers in the Social Studies Classroom: How Web 2.0 Technology Can Break the Cycle of “‘Teachers and Machines.’” In Digital Social Studies, edited by W. Russel, 147–66. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing,
Scheuerell, S. (2010). “Virtual Warrensburg: Using Cooperative Learning and the Internet in the Social Studies Classroom.” Social Studies 101, no. 5: 194–99.
Sugrue, B. (2002). “Problems with Bloom’s Taxonomy.” Performance Express December.
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).
VanFossen, P. J. (2001). “Degree of Internet/WWW Use and Barriers to Use among Secondary Social Studies Teachers.” International Journal of Instructional Media 28, no. 1: 57–74.
Wheeler, S. (2012). “Bloom and Bust.” Learning with Es. June 22, 2012. http:// steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2012/06/bloom-and-bust.html.
Wilson, E. K., Wright, V. H., Inman, C. T., & Matherson, L. H. (2011). Retooling the social studies classroom for the current generation. The Social Studies, 102(2), 65-72.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics