Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Main Article Content

Stefanos Poultsakiscorresponding author
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0867-2808
Stamatios Papadakis
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3184-1147
Michail Kalogiannakis
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9124-2245
Sarantos Psycharis
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6239-7731

Abstract

In the present study, we tried to find possible obstacles that Primary and Secondary education teachers face when managing Digital Learning Objects (DLOs) and/or Digital Simulation Tools (DST) in Science. One hundred seventy-six teachers from all over Greece answered the questionnaire. The results showed that the main reason for refusing to deal with DLOs and DSTs is the technological equipment. Also, the lack of adequate training level B 'results in about 25% of teachers not knowing the DSTs and 30% not knowing the DLOs. Factors such as the teaching experience, the specialty, the Pan-Hellenic examinations, the classes they teach, and the number of students they have per class negatively affect the teachers' attitude to get involved with the DLOs the DSTs. Finally, the negative attitude seems to be related to the lack of trust in the curriculum content as teachers prefer to search DLOs and DSTs on the internet connection. Further research with mixed methods of analysis would help to obtain satisfactory results.

Keywords
digital learning objects, digital experiment simulation tools, teacher’s attitudes, natural sciences

Article Details

How to Cite
Poultsakis, S., Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Psycharis, S. (2021). The management of Digital Learning Objects of Natural Sciences and Digital Experiment Simulation Tools by teachers. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 58-71. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.002

References

  1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Allyn & Bacon.
  2. Bahar, M. (1999). Investigation of biology students’ cognitive structure through word association tests, mind maps and structural communication grids (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow). https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655653
  3. Billings, D. M. (2010). Using reusable learning objects. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(2), 54-55. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20100126-08
  4. Bajzek, D., Burnette, J., & Brown, W. (2005, June). Building cognitively informed simulators utilizing multiple, linked representations which explain core concepts in modern biology. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 3773-3778). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  5. Boilevin, J. M., & Ravanis, K. (2007). L’´education scientifique et technologique `a l’´ecole obligatoire face `a la d´esaffection: recherches en didactique, dispositifs et r´ef´erences.
  6. Bradley, E. G., & Kendall, B. (2014). A review of computer simulations in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.43.1.b
  7. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st-century skills. In J. Bellanca and R. Brandt (eds), 21st century skills (Bloomington, IN Solution Tree Press), 51-76.
  8. Dodani, M. (2002). The dark side of object learning: Learning objects. Journal of Object Technology, 1(5), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2002.1.5.c3
  9. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.
  10. Haas, M., Ebner, M., & Sch¨on, S. (2018). Practical usage of OER material in the EFL classroom. In Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments (pp. 123-136). InTech-Open Access Publisher. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72452
  11. Haughey, M., & Muirhead, B. (2004). Evaluating learning objects for schools, e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 8(1). University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
  12. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x
  13. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20386
  14. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00059-2
  15. Kallou, S., & Kikilia, A. (2021). A transformative educational framework in tourism higher education through digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.005
  16. Kalogiannakis, M. (2008). From Learning to Use ICT to Use ICT for Learning: Technological Capabilities and Pedagogical Principles. In R. Kobayashi (Ed.), New Educational Technology, (pp. 13-42). New York: Nova Publishers.
  17. Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2008). Hybrid learning for women and socially sensitive groups for the promotion of digital literacy. In Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS / IASME International Conference on Engineering Education (EE’08), pp. 305-311. Heraklion, Greece, July 22-24, 2008.
  18. Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, St. (2017). Combining mobile technologies in environmental education: A Greek case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 11(2), 108-130. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2017.084272
  19. Kalogiannakis, M., Vassilakis, K., Alafodimos, C., Papadakis, S., Papachristos, D., & Zafeiri, E. (2009). Adult Education and Lifelong Learning. The case of GSAE (General Secretary for Adult Education) in Greece. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 2(4), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v2i4.981
  20. Kaufman, D., & Ireland, A. (2016). Enhancing teacher education with simulations. TechTrends, 60(3), 260-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0049-0
  21. Lim, E. M. (2015). The factors influencing young children’s social interaction in technology integration. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(4), 545-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.810484
  22. Maier, F. H., & Gr¨oßler, A. (2000). What are we talking about? A taxonomy of computer simulations to support learning. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 16(2), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1727(200022)16:2h135::AID-SDR193i3.0.CO;2-P
  23. Mooij, T. (2007). Design of educational and ICT conditions to integrate differences in learning: Contextual learning theory and a first transformation step in early education. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1499-1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.004
  24. Norman, S., & Porter, D. (2007). Designing Learning Objects for online learning. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Knowledge Series.
  25. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2021). Teaching mathematics with mobile devices and the Realistic Mathematical Education (RME) approach in Kindergarten. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.002
  26. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Sifaki, E., & Vidakis, N. (2017). Access moodle using smart mobile phones. A case study in a Greek University. In Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation, 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76908-0_36
  27. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Sifaki, E., & Vidakis, N. (2018). Evaluating Moodle use via Smart Mobile Phones. A case study in a Greek University. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies, 5(16). https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.10-4-2018.156382
  28. Papadakis, St., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., Kalogiannakis, M., & Vassilakis, K. (2021) Factors That Hinder In-Service Teachers from Incorporating Educational Robotics into Their Daily or Future Teaching Practice. In B. Csap´o and J. Uhomoibhi (Eds). Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021), 2, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010413900550063
  29. Papastergiou, M., & Mastrogiannis, I. (2021). Design, development and evaluation of open interactive learning objects for secondary school physical education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2981-3007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10390-2
  30. Petousi, V., & Sifaki, E. (2020). Contextualizing harm in the framework of research misconduct. Findings from discourse analysis of scientific publications. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 23(3/4), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2020.10037655
  31. Quinn, C., & Hobbs, S. (2000). Learning objects and instruction components. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 13-20.
  32. Ravanis, K. (2005). Les sciences physiques `a l’´ecole maternelle: un cDSTe sociocognitif pour la construction des connaissances et/ou le d´eveloppement des activit´es didactiques. International Review of Education, 51(2-3), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-005-1885-x
  33. Redfors, A., Hansson, L., Kyza, E. A., Nicolaidou, I., Asher, I., Tabak, I., Papadouris, N., & Avraam, C. (2014). CoReflect: Web-based inquiry learning environments on socio-scientific issues. In Topics and Trends in Current Science Education, 553-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_34
  34. Redmond, C., Davies, C., Cornally, D., Adam, E., Daly, O., Fegan, M., & O’Toole, M. (2018). Using reusable learning objects (RLOs) in wound care education: Undergraduate student nurse’s evaluation of their learning gain. Nurse education today, 60, 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.09.014
  35. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation-A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of computer assisted learning, 16(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00112.x
  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
  37. Sinclair, J., Joy, M., Yau, J. Y. K., & Hagan, S. (2013). A practice-oriented review of learning objects. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies, 6(2), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.6
  38. Sokolowski, A. (2013). Teaching the photoelectric effect inductively. Physics Education, 48(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/48/1/35
  39. Sotirova, E. M. (2020). Primary School Teacher’s Practices and Student’s Mental Representations: The Learning Objects option. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, 5(2), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3327
  40. Thompson, M., Owho-Ovuakporie, K., Robinson, K., Kim, Y. J., Slama, R., & Reich, J. (2019). Teacher moments: A digital simulation for preservice teachers to approximate parent-teacher conversations. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(3), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1587727
  41. Thulin, S. (2011). L¨arares tal och barns nyfikenhet: Kommunikation om naturvetenskapliga inneh°all i f¨orskolan. Department of Education, Communication and Learning; Institutionen f¨or pedagogik, kommunikation och l¨arande.
  42. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-DLOgining Science Education: Engaging Students in Science for Australia’s Future. Australian Education Review 51. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  43. Tzagkaraki, E., Papadakis, St., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Exploring the Use of Educational Robotics in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. In M. Malvezzi, D. Alimisis, & M. Moro (Eds). Education in & with Robotics to Foster 21st Century Skills. Proceedings of EDUROBOTICS 2020, Online Conference February, 25-26, 216-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_19
  44. Uluk¨ok, S., & Sari, U. (2016). The Effect of Simulation-Assisted Laboratory Applications on Pre- Service Teachers’ Attitudes towards Science Teaching. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 465-474. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040301
  45. Van Assche, F., & Vuorikari, R. (2006). A framework for quality of learning resources. In Handbook on quality and standardisation in E-learning (pp. 443-456). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32788-6_29
  46. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792-823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10112
  47. Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1741-1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239664