SPOC翻转课堂教学有效性的系统评价与元分析
|
摘要
近年来,翻转课堂成为高校信息化教学的主流模式。随着SPOC与翻转课堂的结合,对SPOC式翻转课堂教学效果的研究层出不穷,且大部分研究呈现教学效果良好的结论。但是,这些基于小样本的研究结论并不能作为推广SPOC翻转课堂的证据。因此,本研究采用系统评价方法对比分析SPOC翻转课堂与传统教学的教学效果,并通过元分析方法对其效应值进行统计分析,以便加大样本量,得出更为科学的结论。本研究通过检索2007年1月至2018年7月ERIC、Teacher Reference Center、Education Research Complete、Web of Science、中国知网、维普和万方等大型数据库以及Cochrane Collaboration Library、Campbell Collaboration Library、EPPI、WWC、System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (Open SIGLE)等在线研究平台,根据纳入排除标准排查所有对比分析SPOC翻转课堂与传统课堂教学有效性的量化研究,对纳入研究进行质量评价,对最终纳入的19项原始对照研究提取相关数据。本研究利用Rev Man Manager 5. 3软件进行元分析,结果显示:SPOC翻转课堂的考试成绩、知识理解能力、知识应用能力、自学能力、自我管理能力、学习动机均高于传统课堂; SPOC翻转课堂与传统课堂的及格率、优秀率、协作能力均无显著差异;学生对SPOC翻转课堂的学习兴趣、认真程度、学习参与度、满意度均较高。鉴于纳入研究的诸多局限性,该结论还有待进一步验证。
In recent years,the flipped classroom has become the mainstream mode of digital education in colleges. There are numerous research studies on SPOC flipped classroom instruction,and most of them show great potential. However,the small sample size of these studies cannot be used as strong evidence to promote the SPOC flipped classroom. Therefore,this study used systematic review method to compare and analyze the teaching effects of SPOC flipped classroom and traditional teaching in college and used meta-analysis method to conduct the statistical analysis of the effect values by homogeneity study,so as to increase the sample sizes to obtain the scientific conclusions. ERIC,Teacher Reference Center,Education Research Complete,Web of Science,CNKI,VIP and Wanfang databases,and many online research registration platform such as Cochrane Collaboration Library,Campbell Collaboration Library,EPPI,WWC and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe( OpenSIGLE) were searched from January2007 to July 2018. The reviewers screened all quantitative studies about the effectiveness of SPOC flipped classroom and traditional classroom teaching according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,assessed the quality and extracted the data from 19 original controlled studies included. RevMan Manager 5. 3 software was used to conduct meta-analysis. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the test scores,knowledge understanding ability,knowledge application ability,self-learning ability,self-management ability and learning motivation of SPOC flipped classroom were higher than traditional classroom. There was no significant difference in passing rate,excellent rate,and collaboration ability in the SPOC flipped classroom and traditional classroom teaching. Students had higher interest,seriousness,participation,and satisfaction in the SPOC flipped classroom. We conclude that there is no significant difference in achievement rate,and collaboration ability between SPOC flipped classroom and traditional classroom,but the SPOC flipped classroom outperforms the traditional one in terms of improving academic performance and some learning abilities. Students are more active and satisfied in the SPOC flipped classroom. Of course,this study has its own limitations,and further research is needed.
In recent years,the flipped classroom has become the mainstream mode of digital education in colleges. There are numerous research studies on SPOC flipped classroom instruction,and most of them show great potential. However,the small sample size of these studies cannot be used as strong evidence to promote the SPOC flipped classroom. Therefore,this study used systematic review method to compare and analyze the teaching effects of SPOC flipped classroom and traditional teaching in college and used meta-analysis method to conduct the statistical analysis of the effect values by homogeneity study,so as to increase the sample sizes to obtain the scientific conclusions. ERIC,Teacher Reference Center,Education Research Complete,Web of Science,CNKI,VIP and Wanfang databases,and many online research registration platform such as Cochrane Collaboration Library,Campbell Collaboration Library,EPPI,WWC and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe( OpenSIGLE) were searched from January2007 to July 2018. The reviewers screened all quantitative studies about the effectiveness of SPOC flipped classroom and traditional classroom teaching according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,assessed the quality and extracted the data from 19 original controlled studies included. RevMan Manager 5. 3 software was used to conduct meta-analysis. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the test scores,knowledge understanding ability,knowledge application ability,self-learning ability,self-management ability and learning motivation of SPOC flipped classroom were higher than traditional classroom. There was no significant difference in passing rate,excellent rate,and collaboration ability in the SPOC flipped classroom and traditional classroom teaching. Students had higher interest,seriousness,participation,and satisfaction in the SPOC flipped classroom. We conclude that there is no significant difference in achievement rate,and collaboration ability between SPOC flipped classroom and traditional classroom,but the SPOC flipped classroom outperforms the traditional one in terms of improving academic performance and some learning abilities. Students are more active and satisfied in the SPOC flipped classroom. Of course,this study has its own limitations,and further research is needed.
引文
[1]Casasola,T.,Nguyen,T.,Warschauer,M.,&Schenke,K.(2017)Can flipping the classroom work evidence from undergraduate chemistry[J].International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,29(3):421-435.
[2]陈丹(2015).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学策略研究与实践[D].杭州浙江工业大学硕士学位论文:40-53.
[3]丁晨阳,方小坤(2016).基于SPOC的单片机技术翻转课堂教学设计[J].中国教育技术装备,(18):41-43.
[4]方旭,高若宇(2016).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学应用:以“绩效技术导论”课程为例[J].现代教育技术,(9):86-92.
[5]何达倩(2018).基于SPOC的大学英语翻转课堂教学模式的实证研究[J].武汉交通职业学院学报,(1):55-59.
[6]胡立如,张宝辉(2016).翻转课堂与翻转学习:剖析“翻转”的有效性[J].远程教育杂志,34(4):52-58.
[7]胡永东,高宙宇(2017).基于SPOC的计算机网络课程翻转课堂教学实现[J].中国教育信息化,(2):28-32.
[8]江毅,何晓萍,万昆(2016).翻转课堂中协作学习的效果与策略研究[J].现代教育技术,26(3):80-86.
[9]李芳军,屈社明(2018).翻转课堂环境下大学生英语应用能力发展的动态交互模型及其实效性研究[J].外语教学,(5):75-80.
[10]李佩玲,常健博,许影,李思源,拜争刚(2015).如何撰写Campbell系统评价[J].中国循证医学杂志,15(5):617-620.
[11]厉兰洁,廖雪花,谭良,徐梦晨(2016).基于SPOC的C语言程序设计课程教学改革研究[J].计算机教育,(1):74-76.
[12]柳春艳,李秀霞,杨克虎(2018).发展中的循证教育学:多元特征与研究前景[J].图书与情报,(3):35-42.
[13]卢桂兵(2018).SPOC翻转课堂教学模式的构建与实验研究:以高校篮球专业课为例[J].兰州文理学院学报(自然科学版),(3):122-128.
[14]牛淑丽(2017).基于网易云课堂的SPOC翻转教学模式设计研究[D].石家庄:河北师范大学硕士学位论文:42-48.
[15]潘小青,侯春菊(2017).翻转课堂和互动教学在物理基础课程中的实践[J].物理与工程,(5):77-80+83.
[16]齐济(2017).基于现代学徒制的SPOC翻转课堂高职教学模式实践与研究[J].现代职业教育,(12):70-72.
[17]任静(2017).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学模式在现代教育技术课程中的实践研究[J].齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(8):185-188.
[18]桑宇霞(2015).基于“SPOC”的翻转课堂大学生学习经历与学习效果研究[D].南京大学硕士学位论文:62-76.
[19]邵佳佳(2016).基于SPOC翻转课堂教学模式在高职“会计电算化”课程应用研究[J].中国乡镇企业会计,(11):197-199.
[20]沈锐,金瑞华,郭伟红(2018).小规模限制性在线课程的翻转课堂在社区护理教学中的应用[J].中华护理教育,(1):26-29.
[21]史彦龙,杨淑心,华卫令,贾孝霞(2018).基于SPOC的高职数学混合式教学模式研究与实践:以高等数学课程为例[J].大学教育,(5):47-49.
[22]孙凤,高乐,杨智荣,詹思延(2018).偏倚风险评估系列:(五)非随机干预性研究[J].中华流行病学杂志,(3):374-381.
[23]唐滢,许敬琳(2016).翻转学习探究[J].江苏高教,(5):65-67.
[24]陶巍巍,陈正女,刘洋,姜桐桐(2017).小规模私密限制性在线课程教学对护生自主学习能力的影响[J].护理学杂志,(15):66-69.
[25]王济军(2018).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学模式及其效果研究:以“摄影基础”为例[J].现代远距离教育,(1):44-49.
[26]王永固,张庆(2014).MOOC:特征与学习机制[J].教育研究,35(9):112-120+133.
[27]谢红莲(2017).SPOC翻转教学促进英语自主学习能力发展实证研究[J].广东开放大学学报,(2):21-28.
[28]薛云,郑丽(2016).基于SPOC翻转课堂教学模式的探索与反思[J].中国电化教育,(5):132-137.
[29]杨克虎,李秀霞,拜争刚(2018).循证社会科学研究方法系统评价与Meta分析[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社:14-15.
[30]杨克虎(2018).循证社会科学的产生、发展与未来[J].图书与情报,(3):1-10.
[31]张迪(2018).翻转课堂在“土壤污染与防治”案例教学中的应用及效果研究[J].32:263-266.
[32]张杨,黄学平,白宝钢(2106).翻转课堂在培养4C人才中的探索与实践[J].大学教育,(9):20-21.
[33]张颖(2017).基于“SPOC+任务驱动”的翻转课堂模式研究[J].计算机教育,(1):131-135.
[34]赵海霞(2015).翻转课堂环境下深度协作知识建构的策略研究[J].远程教育杂志,33(3):11-18.
[2]陈丹(2015).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学策略研究与实践[D].杭州浙江工业大学硕士学位论文:40-53.
[3]丁晨阳,方小坤(2016).基于SPOC的单片机技术翻转课堂教学设计[J].中国教育技术装备,(18):41-43.
[4]方旭,高若宇(2016).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学应用:以“绩效技术导论”课程为例[J].现代教育技术,(9):86-92.
[5]何达倩(2018).基于SPOC的大学英语翻转课堂教学模式的实证研究[J].武汉交通职业学院学报,(1):55-59.
[6]胡立如,张宝辉(2016).翻转课堂与翻转学习:剖析“翻转”的有效性[J].远程教育杂志,34(4):52-58.
[7]胡永东,高宙宇(2017).基于SPOC的计算机网络课程翻转课堂教学实现[J].中国教育信息化,(2):28-32.
[8]江毅,何晓萍,万昆(2016).翻转课堂中协作学习的效果与策略研究[J].现代教育技术,26(3):80-86.
[9]李芳军,屈社明(2018).翻转课堂环境下大学生英语应用能力发展的动态交互模型及其实效性研究[J].外语教学,(5):75-80.
[10]李佩玲,常健博,许影,李思源,拜争刚(2015).如何撰写Campbell系统评价[J].中国循证医学杂志,15(5):617-620.
[11]厉兰洁,廖雪花,谭良,徐梦晨(2016).基于SPOC的C语言程序设计课程教学改革研究[J].计算机教育,(1):74-76.
[12]柳春艳,李秀霞,杨克虎(2018).发展中的循证教育学:多元特征与研究前景[J].图书与情报,(3):35-42.
[13]卢桂兵(2018).SPOC翻转课堂教学模式的构建与实验研究:以高校篮球专业课为例[J].兰州文理学院学报(自然科学版),(3):122-128.
[14]牛淑丽(2017).基于网易云课堂的SPOC翻转教学模式设计研究[D].石家庄:河北师范大学硕士学位论文:42-48.
[15]潘小青,侯春菊(2017).翻转课堂和互动教学在物理基础课程中的实践[J].物理与工程,(5):77-80+83.
[16]齐济(2017).基于现代学徒制的SPOC翻转课堂高职教学模式实践与研究[J].现代职业教育,(12):70-72.
[17]任静(2017).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学模式在现代教育技术课程中的实践研究[J].齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(8):185-188.
[18]桑宇霞(2015).基于“SPOC”的翻转课堂大学生学习经历与学习效果研究[D].南京大学硕士学位论文:62-76.
[19]邵佳佳(2016).基于SPOC翻转课堂教学模式在高职“会计电算化”课程应用研究[J].中国乡镇企业会计,(11):197-199.
[20]沈锐,金瑞华,郭伟红(2018).小规模限制性在线课程的翻转课堂在社区护理教学中的应用[J].中华护理教育,(1):26-29.
[21]史彦龙,杨淑心,华卫令,贾孝霞(2018).基于SPOC的高职数学混合式教学模式研究与实践:以高等数学课程为例[J].大学教育,(5):47-49.
[22]孙凤,高乐,杨智荣,詹思延(2018).偏倚风险评估系列:(五)非随机干预性研究[J].中华流行病学杂志,(3):374-381.
[23]唐滢,许敬琳(2016).翻转学习探究[J].江苏高教,(5):65-67.
[24]陶巍巍,陈正女,刘洋,姜桐桐(2017).小规模私密限制性在线课程教学对护生自主学习能力的影响[J].护理学杂志,(15):66-69.
[25]王济军(2018).基于SPOC的翻转课堂教学模式及其效果研究:以“摄影基础”为例[J].现代远距离教育,(1):44-49.
[26]王永固,张庆(2014).MOOC:特征与学习机制[J].教育研究,35(9):112-120+133.
[27]谢红莲(2017).SPOC翻转教学促进英语自主学习能力发展实证研究[J].广东开放大学学报,(2):21-28.
[28]薛云,郑丽(2016).基于SPOC翻转课堂教学模式的探索与反思[J].中国电化教育,(5):132-137.
[29]杨克虎,李秀霞,拜争刚(2018).循证社会科学研究方法系统评价与Meta分析[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社:14-15.
[30]杨克虎(2018).循证社会科学的产生、发展与未来[J].图书与情报,(3):1-10.
[31]张迪(2018).翻转课堂在“土壤污染与防治”案例教学中的应用及效果研究[J].32:263-266.
[32]张杨,黄学平,白宝钢(2106).翻转课堂在培养4C人才中的探索与实践[J].大学教育,(9):20-21.
[33]张颖(2017).基于“SPOC+任务驱动”的翻转课堂模式研究[J].计算机教育,(1):131-135.
[34]赵海霞(2015).翻转课堂环境下深度协作知识建构的策略研究[J].远程教育杂志,33(3):11-18.