dc.description.abstractalternative |
The purpose of the study
1. To develop the instructional system of fundamental physics using lesson analysis
2. To evaluate the study result of fundamental physics, to compare the students’ learning achievement and attitude of students both pre and post of studying, to study the satisfaction with the instructional system of fundamental physics from the study
Research Instruments
1. Learning achievement test on fundamental physics in undergraduate level
2. Attitude Test (Questionnaire)
3. Satisfaction Questionnaire on the instructional system of fundamental physics in undergraduate level
All three research instruments have Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient more than 0.80 Subjects of the study
The instructors and students of fundamental physics classes at undergraduate level at Burapha University Chanthaburi campus, Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University and Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi during 2013-2014. They were divided into two groups: a research group for instrumental design consisted of 10 instructors and 251 students, and a pilot group for implemental and developmental group
consisted of 6 instructors and 215 students.
Research Method
1. The study of current teaching and learning problems at undergraduate level using documents and related research, an interview with the instructors, the interview with respected persons in education field, a discussion with the instructors and students in focus group, a written reflection about their experienced problems from those who are studying the fundamental physics class or those who had studied the fundamental physics classes in undergraduate level. Then results were analyzed and concluded as the current problems of fundamental physics instructional system at undergraduate level and the possible guideline for the management of the fundamental physics instructional system at undergraduate
level.
2. The design of the fundamental physics instructional system at undergraduate level was constructed. The design then was criticized and developed using the focused groups from the instructors and students of fundamental physics from three mentioned university. It was also analyzed by respected persons in physics from various universities in all aspects.
3. The implementation of the instructional system of fundamental physics with unit analysis with three small pilot groups: 18 agricultural technology students from Burapha University Chanthaburi campus, 12 applied biology from Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, and 16 statistics students, 13 agriculture students from Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University. There was one instructor with one or two teaching assistants to collect the data and observe the students’ learning behaviors. Teaching in each experiment. The length of continual experiment in all process took about eight hours or one day in non-classes weekends only. The picked dates are suitable for experiment atmosphere with the least or without disturbances. Then, the evaluation of the experiment was conducted using the comparison of the students’ learning achievements. The
comparison of pre and post attitudes towards physics class and satisfaction. Then the development of the system was conducted.
4. The implementation of the instructional system of fundamental physics with unit analysis with two regular classes at Burapha University Chanthaburi campus at two continual semesters. The medium subject group was 28 gems and jewelry students and the big subject group was 128 marine technology students. After that, the evaluation of the experiment was conducted using the comparison of the students’ learning achievements. The comparison of pre and post attitudes towards physics class and satisfaction. The final development of the system was
conducted.
The results of the study
1. The instructional system of fundamental physics in undergraduate level results from this study were as followed:
Target group:
The system was designed to be suitable for students with physics potential in low and intermediate level. They had the learning’s concentrations; and they were also readily followed the suggestions. As a result, they would be able to comprehend physics subject and pass the exam. In general, they were more than 60% of the students in this group out of the total students from the whole class. The rest were the students with physics potential in upper-intermediate level and the students with no concentration.
Theoretical framework:
The designed system was based on the theory of adult learning and Ausubel’s the theory of meaning verbal learning. It was appropriate with the
students’ age.
Flexibility:
The system was able to apply and adjust with all fundamental physics classes or general physics classes in all aspects at any university. Moreover, it was also been able to apply the educational fundaments, guidelines, theory, techniques, with the information and communication technology (ICT). Structure of the system:
The system was consisted of three main units: an input unit, a process unit,
and an output unit respectively. The detail of each unit was as followed:
Input unit was the result of students’ learning achievement as the
instructors expected.
Process unit was combined with nine steps.
Step 1. The instructor analyzed the contextual aspects and prepared
Thai Qualification Framework for Higher Education .
Step 2. The instructor aligned the students’ attitude towards
physics with appropriate methods as the instructor designed with an emphasis on
the importance of physics on field of study and daily life as well.
Step 3. The instructor introduced the system and the
implementation of the system was allowed. The students used the system under
the control and suggestion of the instructor. In this way, the students had
experienced with the instructional system and been able to implement it by
themselves.
Step 4. The instructor analyzed the content in each topic/each time, designed learning activities and the evaluation. They were designed to suit with the theory of adult learning and Ausubel’s the theory of meaning verbal learning. The instructor also wrote the mapping of learning management as he/she was specialized. It must conform to Step 5-8.
Step 5. The instructor told the summary of each unit content together with the objective, the benefits and the evaluation to the students.
Step 6. The students would study in advance as designed activities in Step 4 together with self formative assessment.
Step 7. The instructor gave the lecture as designed in class activities in step 4 and evaluation.
Step 8. The students repeated to understand the activities as the instructors designed in step 4 and evaluation.
Step 9. The instructor evaluated and assessed for summative assessment.
Step 10. The instructor and the students were analyzed the instructional system to develop it in the next time. Then, there was the repetition of step 4-10 in each topic/each time. The instructor must control, direct, follow, observe, support, motivate the students as an individual and also as a group.
Output Unit was the last unit that the instructor collected all mentioned steps to analyze and evaluate the system. The result had to be learning’s
achievement, attitudes towards physics subject and other students’ related achievement e.g. learning’s achievement in 21 century.
2. The comparison of pre and post learning achievement with all three small pilot groups with the control of any disturbances has arranged. The medium and the big subject group in regular class throughout the whole semester showed that there was significant difference in all post-class group at .05. Also, the amount of more than 80 % of students had higher mean score of 50% in the final exam.
3. The comparison of all students’ groups showed that they had low attitude words physics before the experiment. However, the result showed that they had medium attitude after the experiment. There was a significant different at .05.
4. The result of questionnaires concerning the satisfaction with the instructional system of fundamental physics in undergraduate level showed that they had “very” satisfied with the system. This was the same path with the results of interviews and teachers’ assessments at the end of each semester. Students concluded that they liked this instructional system; it was very fun; it was selfstudied subject; we knew where should be developed in order to get the better learning outcome |
en |