Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 1015–1034 | Cite as

Views of teacher candidates about slowmation: Biology units sample

  • Murat GençEmail author
Article
  • 222 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to discover the views of teacher candidates on the use of Slowmation in education. Fifty-one students from the Primary School Teaching Program took part in the study. An explanatory approach to the combined method, which enables both quantitative and qualitative research, was used in the study. In order to collect the quantitative data, the teacher candidates were surveyed using the Slowmation Opinion Scale. For the collection of the qualitative data, six of the teacher candidates were asked semi-structured questions during a focus group interview. The teacher candidates prepared slowmations devoted to elementary 4th and 5th grade biology subjects. The prepared slowmations were presented and the survey was carried out. In light of the data obtained, a focus group interview was conducted and the data compiled from the scale was expanded. According to the data, the student teachers defined the slowmations as enjoyable, rewarding, educational, creative, informative and stimulating. According to the qualitative data, on the other hand, they remarked that slowmations should be used in accordance with course requirements and would be more effective when implemented on groups of younger learners. They also stated that preparing slowmations had been difficult initially, particularly in the designing of the subject to be presented.

Keywords

Improving classroom teaching Primary education Simulations Teaching/learning strategies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the preservice teachers who participated in this study. I also wish to thank the referees and editors for their suggestions for improvements to the original manuscript.

References

  1. Alvarenga, C. E. A., Ginestié, J., & Brandt-Pomares, P. (2017). How and why Brazilian and French teachers use learning objects. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 1973–2000.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9523-8.Google Scholar
  2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPACK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.Google Scholar
  3. Anohina, A. (2005). Analysis of terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 91–102.Google Scholar
  4. Arıcı, N., & Dalkılıç, E. (2006). Animasyonların bilgisayar destekli öğretime katkısı: Bir uygulama örneği. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 421–430.Google Scholar
  5. Bagui, J. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hipermedia, 7(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  6. Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117–139.Google Scholar
  7. Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Science education in primary schools: is an animation worth a thousand pictures? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 608–620.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9315-2.Google Scholar
  8. Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: its effect on students’ thinking and motivation. Computers & Education, 56(3), 839–846.Google Scholar
  9. Bayram, K. (2012). Animasyon kullanımının öğretmen adaylarının genel kimya dersindeki erişilerine, tutumlarına ve kalıcılık düzeylerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, J. (2001). Science with attitude: the perennial problem of pupil’s responses to science. School Science Review, 82(300), 59–70.Google Scholar
  11. Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E. W., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., Manea, M., Kärki, A., & Rosmalen, P. V. (2014). A narrative literature review of games, animations and simulations to teach research methods and statistics. Computers & Education, 74(2014), 1–14.Google Scholar
  12. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Windschitl, M. A. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(12), 16581660.Google Scholar
  13. Çepni, S., Taş, E., & Köse, S. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computer & Education, 46(2), 192–205.Google Scholar
  14. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C.-C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193.Google Scholar
  15. Chang, C.-C. (2001). Study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning portfolio. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 435–458.Google Scholar
  16. Cinkaya-Avşaroğlu, Z. (2011). İlköğretim 6. 7. 8. sınıfları fen ve teknoloji dersinde bilgisayar animasyonunun akademik başarıya etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.Google Scholar
  17. Coye, R. W., & Stonebraker, P. W. (1994). The effectiveness of personal computers in operations management education. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(12), 35–46.Google Scholar
  18. Daşdemir, İ. (2006). Animasyon kullanımının ilköğretim fen bilgisi dersinde akademik başarıya ve kalıcılığa olan etkisi.Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.Google Scholar
  19. Daşdemir, İ. (2013). The effect of use of animations on the academic achıevements of the students, retention of the knowledge learned, and the scientific process skills. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(4), 1287–1304.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.Google Scholar
  21. DeCoursey, C. A. (2012). Trialing cartoons: teachers’ attitudes towards animation as an ELT instructional tool. Computers & Education, 59(2), 436–448.Google Scholar
  22. Dündar, S. K. (2013). Üç boyutlu (3D) animasyon çalışmalarında gerçekçilik kavramının incelenmesi ve bir uygulama çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü, Ankara.Google Scholar
  23. Ekici, E., & Ekici, F. (2011). Fen eğitiminde bilişim teknolojilerinden faydalanmanin yeni ve etkili bir yolu: “Yavaş geçişli animasyonlar”. İlköğretim Online, 10(2), 1–9.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferguson, N. H., & Chapmen, S. R. (1993). Computer-assisted instruction for introductory genetics. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 22, 145–152.Google Scholar
  25. Fleer, M. (2017). Digital role-play: the changing conditions of children’s play in preschool settings. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(1), 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1247456.Google Scholar
  26. Fleer, M., & Hoban, G. (2012). Using 'Slowmation' for intentional teaching in early childhood centres: possibilities and imaginings. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(3), 61–70.Google Scholar
  27. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  28. Fridberg, M., & Redfors, A. (2018). Children’s collaborative learning in science scaffolded by tablets. In S. J. Danby et al. (Eds.), Digital ChildhoodsTechnologies and Children’s Everyday Lives , International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 22 (pp. 101–115). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Genç, M. (2013). Views of prospective teachers about computer animations: cell and tissues sample. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 288–300.Google Scholar
  30. Genç, M., & Genç, T. (2013). Öğretmenlerin Mesleki Gelişmeleri Takip Etme Durumları; Fatih Projesi Örneği. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 14(2), 61–78.Google Scholar
  31. Göktaş, Y., Yıldırım, S., & Yıldırım, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.Google Scholar
  32. Gorsky, P., & Finegold, M. (1992). Using computer simulations to restructure students’ conceptions of force. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
  33. Gülbahar, Y. (2008). ICT usage in higher education: A case study on preservice teachers and instructors. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 7(1) Article 3), 32–37.Google Scholar
  34. Haggas, A. M., & Hantula, D. A. (2002). Think or click? Student preference for overt vs. covert responding in web-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 165–172.Google Scholar
  35. Hoban, G. F. (2009). Facilitating learner-generated animations with slowmation. In L. Lockyer, S. J. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: issues, applications, and technologies (pp. 312–329). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  36. Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2010). The 5 Rs: a new teaching approach to encourage slowmations (student-generated animations) of science concepts. Teaching Science, 56(3), 33–37.Google Scholar
  37. Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2012). Using “Slowmation” to enable preservice primary teachers to create multimodal representations of science concepts. Research in Science Education, 42, 1101–1119.Google Scholar
  38. Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2013). Learning science through creating a ‘slowmation’: a case study of preservice primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 119–146.Google Scholar
  39. Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Creating a narrated stop-motion animation to explain science: the affordances of "slowmation" for generating discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 68–78.Google Scholar
  40. Hoban, G. F., Macdonald, D. C. & Ferry, B. (2009). Improving preservice teachers' science knowledge by creating, reviewing and publishing slowmations to TeacherTube. SITE 2009 - Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3133–3140). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  41. Hoban, G., Loughran, G., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 985–1009.Google Scholar
  42. Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 803–821.Google Scholar
  43. Hyun, E. (2005). A study of 5- to 6-year-old children’s peer dynamics and dialectical learning in a computer-based technology-rich classroom environment. Computers & Education, 44(1), 69–91.Google Scholar
  44. İsman, A., Evirgen, H., & Çengel M. (2008). Sakarya Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğünde çalışan öğretmene adaylarının internet kullanım bariyerleri. VIII Uluslararası Eğitim Teknolojileri Konferansı. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.Google Scholar
  45. Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 413–429.Google Scholar
  46. Kervin, K. (2007). Exploring the use of slow motion animation (slowmation) as a teaching strategy to develop year 4 students' understandings of equivalent fractions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 100–106.Google Scholar
  47. Kidman, G., Keast, S., & Cooper, R. (2013). Enhancing preservice teacher learning through slowmation animation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 846–855.Google Scholar
  48. King, K. P. (1999). The motion picture in science education: “one hundred percent efficiency”. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(3), 211–226.Google Scholar
  49. Kiraz, E., & Ozdemir, D. (2006). The relationship between educational ideologies and technology acceptance in preservice teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 152–165.Google Scholar
  50. Kocak-Usluel, Y. (2007). Can ICT usage make a difference on student teachers' information literacy self-efficacy? Library & Information Science Research, 29(1), 92–102.Google Scholar
  51. Lee, K. M., Nicoll, G., & Brooks, D. W. (2004). A comparison of ınquiry and worked example web-based instruction using physlets. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 81–88.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, M., Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003–2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.Google Scholar
  53. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, 265–275.Google Scholar
  54. Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650–658.Google Scholar
  55. Lin, T. J., Duh, H. B. L., Li, N., Wang, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). An investigation of learners’ collaborative knowledge construction performances and behavior patterns in an augmented reality simulation system. Computers & Education, 68, 314–321.Google Scholar
  56. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 727–758.Google Scholar
  57. Loughran, J., Berry, A., Cooper, R., Keast, S., & Hoban, G. (2012). Preservice teachers learning about teaching for conceptual change through slowmation. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  58. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning Instruction, 13, 157–176.Google Scholar
  59. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273–292.Google Scholar
  60. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.Google Scholar
  62. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99.Google Scholar
  63. McKnight, A., Hoban, G., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Using Slowmation for animated storytelling to represent non-aboriginal preservice teachers' awareness of "relatedness to country". Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 41–54.Google Scholar
  64. Metin, M., Birişçi, S., & Coşkun, K. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretim teknolojilerine yönelik tutumlarının farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(4), 1345–1364.Google Scholar
  65. Nielsen, W., & Hoban, G. (2015). Designing a digital teaching resource to explain phases of the moon: a case study of Preservice elementary teachers making a Slowmation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1207–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21242.Google Scholar
  66. O’Day, D. H. (2006). Animated cell biology: a quick and easy method for making effective, highquality teaching animations. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5, 255–263.Google Scholar
  67. Olde, C. V., & Jong, T. D. (2004). Student-generated assignments about electrical circuits in a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 859–873.Google Scholar
  68. Önal, N. T., & Söndür, D. G. (2017). I like technology usage in lessons and animations in science! The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 55, 97–118.  https://doi.org/10.9761/JASSS6941.Google Scholar
  69. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.Google Scholar
  70. Özmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6th grade students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation during phase changes. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1114–1126.Google Scholar
  71. Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, H., & Demircioğlu, G. (2009). The effects of conceptual change texts accompanied with animations on overcoming11th grade students’ alternative conceptions of chemical bonding. Computers & Education, 52(3), 681–695.Google Scholar
  72. Pekdağ, B. (2005). Fen eğitiminde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 86–94.Google Scholar
  73. Ploetzner, R., & Schlag, S. (2013). Strategic learning from expository animations: short-and mid-term effects. Computers & Education, 69, 159–168.Google Scholar
  74. Podell, D. M., Kaminsky, S., & Cusimano, V. (1993). The effects of microcomputer laboratory approach to physical science instruction on student motivation. Computers in the Schools, 9(2), 65–73.Google Scholar
  75. Powel, J. V., Aeby, V. G., & Carpenter-Aeby, T. A. (2003). Comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction. Computers & Education, 40(2), 183–191.Google Scholar
  76. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.Google Scholar
  77. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers and Education, 54(1), 103–112.Google Scholar
  78. Shepherd, A., Hoban, G., & Dixon, R. (2013). Using slowmation to develop the social skills of primary school students with mild intellectual disabilities: Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 150–168.Google Scholar
  79. Siva, S. R., & Tung, B. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: a study in web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(3), 191–199.Google Scholar
  80. Spotts, J., & Dwyer, F. M. (1996). The effect of computer-generated animation on student achievement of different types of educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(4), 365–375.Google Scholar
  81. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning Instruction, 4, 295–312.Google Scholar
  82. Taşçı, G., Yaman, M., & Soran, H. (2010). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin öğretimde yeni teknolojileri kullanma durumlarının incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 38, 267–278.Google Scholar
  83. Taylor, M., Duffy, S., & Hughes, G. (2007). The use of animation in higher education teaching tosupport students with dyslexia. Computer & Education, 49(1), 25–35.Google Scholar
  84. Tjaden, B. J., & Martin, C. D. (1995). Learning effects of computer-assisted instruction on college students. Computers & Education, 24(4), 221–227.Google Scholar
  85. Tsai, C.-C., & Chou, C. (2002). Diagnosing students’ alternative conceptions in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 157–165.Google Scholar
  86. Tsai, M.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: the role of internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
  87. Tytler, R. (2008). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).Google Scholar
  88. Vermaat, H., Kramers-Pals, H., & Schank, P. (2003). The use of animations in chemical education. In Proceedings of the International Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 430–441). Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  89. Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S., & Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computerbased instruction: theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 465–477.Google Scholar
  90. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521–534.Google Scholar
  91. Wishart, J. (2017). Exploring how creating stop-motion animations supports student teachers in learning to teach science. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(1–2), 88–101.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1291316.Google Scholar
  92. Wood, D., Underwood, J., & Avis, P. (1999). Integrated learning systems in the classroom. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 91–108.Google Scholar
  93. Yalçınalp, S., Goban, O., & Özkan, I. (1995). Effectiveness of using computer-assisted supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 1083–1095.Google Scholar
  94. Youssef, B. B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2008). Video slow-motion: a shared methodological approach. International Journal of Computational Science, 2(1), 61–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Science EducationDuzce UniversityDuzceTurkey

Personalised recommendations