The Effect of Personalization in Physics Teaching

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Nov 15, 2016
Updated: 2016-11-15
Versions:
2016-11-15 (2)

Main Article Content

Ozlem Cakir
Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Science, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Ankara, Turkey
Sebahattin Cakmak
Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Science, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Ankara, Turkey
Fatma Yilmaz
Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Science, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

The objective of this study is to propound whether personalized teaching affect achievement in accordance with Physics word problems and whether achievement in Physics differ according to different learning modalities. The study is an experimental study conducted using posttest control group design. Experimental and control group had been taught the subject, motion (projectiles) on Earth in Physics lesson for three weeks. However, personalized instruction was used in experimental group and traditional instruction was applied to control group. At the end of the program, students’ achievements were determined using posttests. Study group is formed with 59 10th grade students and it consists of 36 girls and 23 boys who were selected from a high school in Ankara. To be able to apply personalized teaching, information like the names of students’ favorite subject, best friend, favorite animal, favorite fruit and food and the name of the secondary school they had graduated as well as some student information like their name and surname, gender, the name of parents and siblings were taken through information form. Ten questions in course books related to Motion on Earth (projectiles) existed in tenth grade Physics lesson education program were personalized by the field experts and used in measuring achievement. Learning Modality Inventory developed by Simsek (2002) was used in determining students’ learning modalities.  At the end of the research, there was not a significant difference between the group who had taken personalized questions and the group with non-personalized questions. It was seen that there was no significant difference between the achievement of solving personalized and non-personalized Physics word problems in terms of gender and learning modalities.     

 

Keywords: Personalization of teaching; Learning modality; Students’ interests.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Cakir, O., Cakmak, S., & Yilmaz, F. (2016). The Effect of Personalization in Physics Teaching. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(4). Retrieved from https://un-pub.eu/ojs/index.php/pntsbs/article/view/1165 (Original work published January 12, 2017)
Issue
Vol. 2 No. 4 (2016): Selected Papers of 4th International Conference on Education ICED-2015
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

References

Anand, P. G. and Ross, S. M. (1987). Using Computer Assisted Instruction to Personalize Arithmetic Materials for Elementary School Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (1), 72-78.

Bates, E. T and Wiest, L. R. (2004)Impact of Personalization of Mathematical Word Problems on Student Performance. The Mathematics Educator, 14(2), 17–26.

Baylari, A. & Montazer, Gh.A. (2009). Design a Personalized E-Learning -System Based on Item Response Theory and Artificial Neural Network Approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8013-8021. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.080.

d'Ailly, H.H., Simpson, J., and MacKinnon, G.E. (1997). Where Should "You" Go in a Math Compare Problem? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 562-567.

Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S.M., and Morrison, G.R. (1991). The Role of Rewording and Context Personalization in the Solving of Mathematical Word Problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 61-68.

Diack, A. (2004). Innovation and Personalised Learning. Education Review, 18 (1), 49-55.

Hart, J. M. (1996). The Effect of Personalized Word Problems. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2 (8), 504- 505.

Herndon, J. N. (1987). Learner Interests, Achievement, and Continuing Motivation in Instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 10 (3), 11-14.

Jonassen, D.H. and Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning and Instruction. New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher, 6-7.

Karagiannidis, C., Sampson, D., and Cardinali, F. (2001). Integrating Adaptive Educational Content into Different Courses and Curricula. Educational Technology and Society 4(3).

Ku, H. Y. and Sullivan, H. J. (2002). Student Performance and Attitudes Using Personalized Mathematics Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (1), 21–34.

Ku, H.-Y. and Sullivan, H.J. (2000). Personalization of Mathematics Word Problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3),49-59.

Kuzgun, Y. & Deryakulu, D. (2004). Bireysel Farklılıklar ve Egitime Yansımaları. (Edt. Yıldız Kuzgun & Deniz Deryakulu). Egitimde Bireysel Farklılıklar. 1-11, Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dagıtım.

Lopez, C.L. and Sullivan, H.J. (1992). Effect of Personalization of Instructional Context on the Achievement and Attitudes of Hispanic Students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 5-13.

Lopez, C.L. and Sullivan, H.J. (1991). Effects of Personalized Math Instruction for Hispanic Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(1), 95-100.

Ozarslan, Y. (2010). Kisisellestirilmis Ogrenme Ortamı Olarak IPTV. Uluslararası Egitim Teknolojileri 2010 (International Educational Technology), Nisan 2010. İstanbul.

Ozerbas, M. A. (2010). Egitim Teknolojisi Ogelerinin Sistem Kuramları Acısından Degerlendirilmesi.Ataturk Universitesi Kazım Karabekir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi (Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty), 11.

Ross, S. M. and Anand, P. G. (1987). A Computer-Based Strategy for Personalizing Verbal Problems in Teaching Mathematics. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35 (3), 151-162.

Ross, S. M., McCormick, D. & Krisak, N. (1985). Adapting thethematic context of mathematical problems to students’interests: Individual versus group-based strategies, Journal of Educational Research, 79(1).

Ross, S.M. (1983). Increasing the Meaningfulness of Quantitative Material by Adapting Context to Student Background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (4), 519-529.

Ross, S.M., McCormick, D., Krisak, N. and Anand, P.G. (1985). Personalizing Context in Teaching Mathematical Concepts: TeacherManaged and Computer-Assisted Models. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(3), 169-178.

Sampson, D., Karagiannidis, C. & Kinshuk (2002). Personalised Learning: Educational, Technological and Standardisation Perspective. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 4, 24-39.

Simsek, N. (2002). BIG 16 Ogrenme Bicemleri Envanteri. Egitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama,1(1), 33-47.

Xu, D. & Wang, H. (2006). Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments. Decision Support Systems, 42, 825– 843.