| مشخصات مقاله | |
| ترجمه عنوان مقاله | بررسی رویکردهای آموزشی و انواع دانش ریاضی در بازی های آموزشی: فراتحلیل و بررسی انتقادی |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Examining pedagogical approaches and types of mathematics knowledge in educational games: A meta-analysis and critical review |
| انتشار | مقاله سال ۲۰۲۲ |
| تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | ۱۵ صفحه |
| هزینه | دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد. |
| پایگاه داده | نشریه الزویر |
| نوع نگارش مقاله |
مقاله مروری (Review Article) |
| مقاله بیس | این مقاله بیس میباشد |
| نمایه (index) | Scopus – Master Journals List – JCR |
| نوع مقاله | ISI |
| فرمت مقاله انگلیسی | |
| ایمپکت فاکتور(IF) |
۷٫۸۰۳ در سال ۲۰۲۰ |
| شاخص H_index | ۶۶ در سال ۲۰۲۰ |
| شاخص SJR | ۳٫۲۷۷ در سال ۲۰۲۰ |
| شناسه ISSN | ۱۷۴۷-۹۳۸X |
| شاخص Quartile (چارک) | Q1 در سال ۲۰۲۰ |
| فرضیه | ندارد |
| مدل مفهومی | دارد |
| پرسشنامه | ندارد |
| متغیر | دارد |
| رفرنس | دارد |
| رشته های مرتبط | علوم تربیتی |
| گرایش های مرتبط | تحقیقات آموزشی، تکنولوژی آموزشی |
| نوع ارائه مقاله |
ژورنال |
| مجله | بررسی تحقیقات آموزشی – Educational Research Review |
| دانشگاه | McGill University, Canada |
| کلمات کلیدی | رویکردهای آموزشی، دانش ریاضی، اثربخشی، بازی های ریاضی، متاآنالیز |
| کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی | Pedagogical approaches, Math knowledge, Effectiveness, Math games, Meta-analysis |
| شناسه دیجیتال – doi |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100428 |
| کد محصول | E16073 |
| وضعیت ترجمه مقاله | ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید. |
| دانلود رایگان مقاله | دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
| سفارش ترجمه این مقاله | سفارش ترجمه این مقاله |
| فهرست مطالب مقاله: |
| Abstract Keywords Introduction Literature review Purpose Method Results Discussion Limitations Future directions CRediT author statement Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest Research involving human participants and/or animals Informed consent Appendix A. Supplementary data References |
| بخشی از متن مقاله: |
| ABSTRACT This meta-analysis systematically reviewed math game studies published between 2010 and 2020 and evaluated them with respect to a) the type of pedogeological foundations inherent in games using Kebritchi and Hirumi’s (2008) framework, b) the type of mathematics knowledge they facilitated (Bisanz & LeFevre, 1990; Rittle-Johnson, 2017), and c) their effect on math learning. Only 23 out of 26 studies used games based on a clear pedagogical approach and many studies measured multiple knowledge types. A direct instructional approach was most often used in games to target factual knowledge and resulted in an overall medium sized effect (g = 0.58), whereas procedural and conceptual knowledge were used by games using three types of pedagogical approach: experiential, discovery, and constructivist approaches but with mixed effect sizes. Overall, behaviorally oriented pedagogies are still dominant in math games and the effectiveness of each pedagogical approach varies as a function of knowledge type. Introduction The ever-changing technological landscape is transforming how people live and communicate with each other; as a result, technology has become ubiquitous in the lives of today’s children (Prensky, 2001a). Previous studies have shown how connected children are with interactive media (Lenhart, Smith, Anderson, Duggan, & Perrin, 2015; Rideout & Robb, 2019): for instance, it has been found that 72% of teenagers play videogames (Lenhart et al., 2015) and teens spend an average of 7 and half hours a day on entertainment media, not including time spent at school or on homework (Rideout & Robb, 2019). Additionally, a recent social policy report published by the Society for Research on Child Development (Blumberg et al., 2019) found in a survey of children under 8 that usage of interactive games is about 25 min daily, with little usage before age 2. Despite this high level of usage and growing interest among teens, adolescents, and younger children, it appears that educators have yet to take full advantage of learning technologies for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics subjects. Yet, the past decade has also seen rapid development and adoption of educational games in classrooms and these educational games have the potential to improve learning and instruction (Clark, Tanner-Smith, & Killingsworth, 2016; F.A.S, 2006; Wouters and van Oostendorp, 2013). Although research has supported the use of games as pedagogical tools (Boyle et al., 2016; Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013; Outhwaite, Faulder, Gulliford, & Pitchford, 2019), how educators approach learning and delivering curricula via games varies in effectiveness (Olney, Herrington, & Verenikina, 2008). |