FIZIKA DARSLARIDA INTERFAOL METODLAR ORQALI O‘QUVCHILARNING O‘QUV MOTIVATSIYASINI OSHIRISH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/6d9wvr73Kalit so‘zlar:
fizika ta’limi, interfaol metodlar, o‘quv motivatsiyasi, faol ta’lim, Peer Instruction, Think–Pair–Share, mustaqil fikrlash, hamkorlikdagi ta’lim, fanga qiziqish, pedagogik texnologiya.Abstrak
Ushbu maqolada fizika darslarida interfaol metodlardan foydalanish orqali o‘quvchilarning o‘quv motivatsiyasini oshirishning pedagogik va metodik imkoniyatlari tahlil qilingan. Tadqiqotda interfaol ta’limning o‘quvchilarni dars jarayoniga faol jalb etish, fizika faniga qiziqishni kuchaytirish, mustaqil ishlashga intilishni rivojlantirish, o‘z imkoniyatlariga bo‘lgan ishonchni mustahkamlash hamda hamkorlikdagi faoliyatni qo‘llab-quvvatlashdagi o‘rni yoritilgan. Qiyosiy-pedagogik tahlil asosida “Aqliy hujum”, Think–Pair–Share, Peer Instruction, kichik guruhlarda ishlash, muammoli savollar va vaziyatli topshiriqlarning fizika darslaridagi didaktik imkoniyatlari ko‘rib chiqilgan. Tahlil natijalari interfaol metodlarning samaradorligi ularni ko‘p qo‘llash bilan emas, balki darsning maqsadi, mavzuning mazmuni va o‘quvchilarning individual xususiyatlariga mos holda tanlash bilan belgilanishini ko‘rsatadi. Maqolada o‘quv motivatsiyasi fanga qiziqish, darsdagi faollik, mustaqil ishlashga intilish, o‘z imkoniyatlariga ishonch va hamkorlikdagi faoliyat mezonlari asosida tavsiflangan.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Hake R. R. Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses // American Journal of Physics. – 1998. – Vol. 66, No. 1. – P. 64–74. – DOI: 10.1119/1.18809
2. Crouch C. H., Mazur E. Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results // American Journal of Physics. – 2001. – Vol. 69, No. 9. – P. 970–977. – DOI: 10.1119/1.1374249
3. Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., Smith M. K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M. P. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. – 2014. – Vol. 111, No. 23. – P. 8410–8415. – DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
4. Prince M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research // Journal of Engineering Education. – 2004. – Vol. 93, No. 3. – P. 223–231. – DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
5. Glynn S. M., Brickman P., Armstrong N., Taasoobshirazi G. Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with Science Majors and Nonscience Majors // Journal of Research in Science Teaching. – 2011. – Vol. 48, No. 10. – P. 1159–1176. – DOI: 10.1002/tea.20442
6. Dou R., Brewe E., Potvin G., Zwolak J., Hazari Z. Understanding the Development of Interest and Self-Efficacy in Active-Learning Undergraduate Physics Courses // International Journal of Science Education. – 2018. – Vol. 40, No. 13. – P. 1587–1605. – DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1488088
7. Davenport J. R. A. et al. Impact of an Active Learning Physics Workshop on Secondary School Students’ Self-Efficacy and Ability // Physical Review Physics Education Research. – 2020. – Vol. 16. – Article 020126. – DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020126
8. DeMonbrun M. et al. Student Satisfaction in Interactive Engagement-Based Physics Classes // Physical Review Physics Education Research. – 2016. – Vol. 12. – Article 020125. – DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020125
