10–11-SINFLARDA ORGANIK KIMYONI O‘QITISHDA OLIMPIADA TOPSHIRIQLARI VA STEAM YONDASHUVINI INTEGRATSIYALASH: USNCO TOPSHIRIQLARI KONTENT-TAHLILIGA ASOSLANGAN METODIK MODEL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/dg3n9440Kalit so‘zlar:
organik kimyo, kimyo olimpiadasi, STEAM ta’limi, loyiha asosida o‘qitish, organik sintez, kompetensiyaviy baholash, muhandislik loyihasi.Abstrak
Maqolada 10–11-sinflarda organik kimyoni o‘qitishda olimpiada topshiriqlari va STEAM yondashuvini integratsiyalashning nazariy-metodik asoslari ishlab chiqildi. Tadqiqot materiali sifatida American Chemical Society tomonidan e’lon qilingan 2022–2025-yillardagi USNCO National Exam Part I ning “Organic/Biochemistry” blokidagi 24 ta topshiriq kontent-tahlildan o‘tkazildi. Kodlash jarayonida 19 ta (79,2 %) organik, 4 ta (16,7 %) biokimyoviy va 1 ta (4,2 %) gibrid topshiriq ajratildi. Muallif tomonidan amalga oshirilgan kodlash natijalariga ko‘ra, barcha topshiriqlar yopiq test formatida bo‘lsa-da, ulardan 22 tasi molekulyar yoki raqamli modellashtirish faoliyatiga, 17 tasi tajriba yoki virtual laboratoriya faoliyatiga, 10 tasi esa muhandislik optimallashtirish faoliyatiga aylantirish uchun mos deb baholandi. Olimpiada topshirig‘ini ochiq STEAM loyihasiga aylantirishning sakkiz bosqichli algoritmi va dastlabki 100 ballik kompetensiyaviy baholash tizimi taklif etildi. Modelni ekspertiza, pilot sinov va kvazi-eksperimental tadqiqot orqali validatsiyalash dasturi asoslandi. Tadqiqotda empirik pedagogik intervensiya natijalari taqdim etilmaydi.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Fung F. M., Putala M., Holzhauser P., Somsook E., Hernandez C. Celebrating the Golden Jubilee of the International Chemistry Olympiad: Back to Where It All Began // Journal of Chemical Education. – 2018. – Vol. 95, № 2. – P. 193–197. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00603.
2. Bybee R. W. The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. – Arlington, VA: NSTA Press, 2013. – 116 p.
3. National Research Council. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. – Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
4. Krajcik J. S., Blumenfeld P. C. Project-Based Learning // The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences / ed. by R. K. Sawyer. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. – P. 317–334.
5. Bell S. Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future // The Clearing House. – 2010. – Vol. 83, № 2. – P. 39–43. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415.
6. Prince M. J., Felder R. M. Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases // Journal of Engineering Education. – 2006. – Vol. 95, № 2. – P. 123–138. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x.
7. Perignat E., Katz-Buonincontro J. STEAM in Practice and Research: An Integrative Literature Review // Thinking Skills and Creativity. – 2019. – Vol. 31. – P. 31–43. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002.
8. Henriksen D. Full STEAM Ahead: Creativity in Excellent STEM Teaching Practices // The STEAM Journal. – 2014. – Vol. 1, № 2. – Article 15. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15.
9. Quigley C. F., Herro D., Jamil F. M. Developing a Conceptual Model of STEAM Teaching Practices // School Science and Mathematics. – 2017. – Vol. 117, № 1–2. – P. 1–12. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12201.
10. Conradty C., Sotiriou S. A., Bogner F. X. How Creativity in STEAM Modules Intervenes with Self-Efficacy and Motivation // Education Sciences. – 2020. – Vol. 10, № 3. – Article 70. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030070.
11. Mejias S., Thompson N., Sedas R. M., Rosin M., Soep E. The Trouble with STEAM and Why We Use It Anyway // Science Education. – 2021. – Vol. 105, № 2. – P. 209–231. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21605.
12. Overton T., Potter N., Leng C. A Study of Approaches to Solving Open-Ended Problems in Chemistry // Chemistry Education Research and Practice. – 2013. – Vol. 14. – P. 468–475. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00028A.
13. Cooper M. M., Stowe R. L. Chemistry Education Research: From Personal Empiricism to Evidence, Theory, and Informed Practice // Chemical Reviews. – 2018. – Vol. 118, № 12. – P. 6053–6087. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00020.
14. Johnstone A. H. Why Is Science Difficult to Learn? Things Are Seldom What They Seem // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. – 1991. – Vol. 7, № 2. – P. 75–83. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.
15. Hanwell M. D., Curtis D. E., Lonie D. C., Vandermeersch T., Zurek E., Hutchison G. R. Avogadro: An Advanced Semantic Chemical Editor, Visualization, and Analysis Platform // Journal of Cheminformatics. – 2012. – Vol. 4. – Article 17. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-4-17.
16. Anastas P. T., Warner J. C. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice. – New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. – 135 p.
17. Black P., Wiliam D. Assessment and Classroom Learning // Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. – 1998. – Vol. 5, № 1. – P. 7–74. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
18. Hattie J., Timperley H. The Power of Feedback // Review of Educational Research. – 2007. – Vol. 77, № 1. – P. 81–112. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
19. Brookhart S. M. How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. – Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2013. – 159 p.
20. Polit D. F., Beck C. T., Owen S. V. Is the CVI an Acceptable Indicator of Content Validity? Appraisal and Recommendations // Research in Nursing & Health. – 2007. – Vol. 30, № 4. – P. 459–467. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199.
21. Koo T. K., Li M. Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research // Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. – 2016. – Vol. 15, № 2. – P. 155–163. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
22. McHugh M. L. Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic // Biochemia Medica. – 2012. – Vol. 22, № 3. – P. 276–282. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031.
23. OECD. OECD Learning Compass 2030. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
24. UNESCO. Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. – Paris: UNESCO, 2021.
25. Kasneci E., Sessler K., Küchemann S., Bannert M., Dementieva D., Fischer F. et al. ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education // Learning and Individual Differences. – 2023. – Vol. 103. – Article 102274. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
26. Mishra P., Warr M., Islam R. TPACK in the Age of ChatGPT and Generative AI // Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. – 2023. – Vol. 39, № 4. – P. 235–251. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480.
27. Milano S., McGrane J. A., Leonelli S. Large Language Models Challenge the Future of Higher Education // Nature Machine Intelligence. – 2023. – Vol. 5. – P. 333–334. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00644-2.
28. American Chemical Society. Prepare for Olympiad Exams: U.S. National Chemistry Olympiad National Exam Part I, 2022–2025, and Exam Information. – Washington, DC: ACS, 2026. – URL: https://www.acs.org/education/olympiad/prepare-for-exams.html (accessed: 12 July 2026).
29. Bianchi G., Pisiotis U., Cabrera Giraldez M. GreenComp: The European Sustainability Competence Framework. – Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.2760/13286.
30. OECD. PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023.
31. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education – A Tool on Whose Terms? – Paris: UNESCO, 2023.
32. UNESCO. Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. – Paris: UNESCO, 2023.