| Session | ||
16 SES 05.5 A: General Poster Session
General Poster Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
16. ICT in Education and Training
Poster Improving Ability to Understand and Prove Concepts in Nerve Impulse Transmission in StudentsNTS USING PEAR DECK LEARNING APPOACH. NIS school in Karaganda, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:The purpose of this research study was to improve the ability of students to prove concepts in nerve impulse generation and transmission topics using the Pear Deck learning approach. The objectives of this research study were to use the Pear Deck learning approach to explain the neuron's shape and position in relation to its activities and describe how mechanoreceptors react to stimulus pressure and how nerve impulses are transmitted via the PNS and CNS. Pear Deck Learning is a technique of active participation strategy that involves students in different ways. Pear deck is straightforward and fosters a collaborative environment between the teacher and the students. In today’s education world, students require more engaging, interactive, and thought-provoking learning interactions, especially in today’s technological world. Pear Deck Learning is a powerful ecosystem of education tools that monitors progress, offers real-time feedback, and provides differentiated instruction and gamified practice that keeps students engaged and excelling. Pear Deck Learning allows the students to interact with the presentation by answering questions, sharing their thinking, giving short structured questions, drawing, and following along during the teacher’s presentation so it makes engagement a lot and it is more fun for students to have this interactive experience. As a teacher, one can add questions on the PowerPoint slides while teaching and lock students’ screens so they can focus on what you are teaching. One can incorporate a student-paced option which is beneficial for small group instructions that students can complete independently. The audio option is beneficial for students who are slower in reading and pronunciation of terminologies. The teacher dashboard allows one to view students’ responses and provide feedback on their progress in real-time. Multiple choice questions can be used in all kinds of ways like checking for understanding, determining what students already know, or providing them with a choice about where they want to go next. For the group that went through the Pear Deck Learning lessons, the results showed that fifteen students out of twenty (75 %) achieved 70 % or higher scores on their work on the formative assessment questions. For the group that did not study through Pear Deck Learning the results showed that seven students out of twenty (35 %) achieved 70 % or higher scores on their work on the formative assessment questions. This was an indication that this group of students could not answer questions that required them to prove the concepts of the neuron’s structures, functions, location; and nerve impulse transmission between the PNS and CNS. According to the research study, the majority of the student’s ability to prove concepts of the human nervous system was in a good category and above. Therefore, if the concept taught has a higher complexity than the lower complexity concept the Pear Dear learning approach can allow a strong association between thinking level and the capacity to verify concepts. Some recommendations for Biology teachers include being innovative and creative to diversify instructional aids based on current scientific research, technology, and psychosocial factors. For example, by using animation, videos, and research articles in Pear Deck Learning to explain abstract and microscopic concepts. Stand-alone learning utilities allow students to study at their own pace either in or out of school hours and gain knowledge beyond the textbook content. This pedagogical technique should begin in preschool or elementary school. If necessary, the Pear Deck learning technique can be repeated in the following classes with minimal customization. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This is a descriptive research study that used random sampling of two groups of a total of sixty A-level Biology students in grade 11, in Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karaganda, who are studying about human nervous system as part of their Biology curriculum requirement. This study involved students to interactively learning and answer questions on the level of understanding of the topic of Nerve impulse generation and transmission and a formative test of the topic which contains eight structured questions following Bloom’s taxonomy higher order thinking levels. The two grade 11 class groups are randomly sampled from four grade 11 class groups to complete both research instruments. For Pear Deck interactive questions, students were offered rubrics with criteria for evaluation. With rubrics, students could evaluate not only themselves but also the work of other students and give 2 suggestions for improvement and 1 good point. This allowed students to properly organize their work and simulate the mechanism of formation and transmission of a nerve impulse successfully, linking everything into a cohesive whole. Rubrics are used for both formative assessment (in-process feedback to be used for improvement) and summative assessment (evaluation of student learning after an assignment or project). Essentially, a rubric is a tool for communication between instructor and student. Students assess their work using the rubric more effectively and submit the rubric with their assignment. This is a great basis for deep discussion about which aspects they can improve or change. The learning process was done with the Pear Deck learning approach for 6 lessons. During the first lesson, students learned the concepts about neuron structures, functions, and locations in the human body by logging on to their laptops and joining the interactive Pear Deck PowerPoint slides presented by the teacher. They learned of the mechanoreceptors (Pacinian corpuscles) and their reaction to changing stimulus, and pressure. In the second lesson, they learned the initiation and transmission of the action potential in myelinated neurons and the connection between the structure and function of the cholinergic synapse. In the next three lessons, using the Pear Deck guidelines of the rubric, they worked in groups, discussed, prepared, and presented their understanding and analysis of the transmission of nerve impulses in the human nervous system. In the last lesson, they answered the formative assessment questions and filled in the questionnaire. Another group was taught without the Peak Deck learning approach and formative assessment given. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings A higher percentage of students that were under the Very Poor category were taught without the Pear Deck Learning strategy (B) at 6.67% compared to those taught with the Pear Deck Learning strategy (A) at 3.33%. The average score achieved for the Fair category was higher in group A than in B at 46.67% and 26.67% respectively. In the Very Good category, the percentage of students was higher with those taught with the Pear Deck Learning strategy (A) at 10.00% compared to those taught without the Pear Deck Learning strategy at 0.00%. For the group that went through the Pear Deck lessons, the formative assessment results show that fifteen students out of twenty (75 %) got 70 % or above marks on their work on the worksheet. For the group that did not study by Pear Deck Learning, the results show that seven students out of twenty (35 %) got 70 % or above marks on their work on the formative assessment worksheet. This is an indication that this group of students could not answer questions that required them to prove the concepts of the neuron’s structures, functions, location; and nerve impulse transmission along the PNS and CNS. In the control group, students were not offered the use of Pear Deck guidelines rubrics and they went through the whole mechanism in parts and did not do the Pear Deck presentation at the end, which would help to visualize and see the relationship between the work of the parts of the neuron. They could not answer questions where it was asked to provide evidence. We recommend using the Pear Deck guidelines rubric presentation to improve students' understanding of different concepts as a whole so that they can bring evidence to their answers through analysis and evaluation. References [1] Owens M.T., Tanner K.D. Teaching as Brain changing: Exploring Connections between Neuroscience and Innovative Teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2017 Summer; 16(2). [2] Marzano R. J. and Heflebower T. Grades that show what know. 2011 69 34-9 [3] Goff E, Reindl K, Johnson C, McClean P, Offerdahl J, Schroeder N, and White A 2017 Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 45 226 – 34 [4 Lazarowitz R and Penso S 1992 J. Of Biological Education, 26 215–23 [5] Lestari D, Mulyani S E S, and Susanti R 2016 J. of Innovative Science Education 5 83–93 [6] Cavalho J C Q, Beltramini L M, and Bossolan N R S 2018 J. of Biological Education 53 205-16 [7] Louca L T, and Zacharia Z C 2012 Educational Review 64 471-92 [8] Fretz E B, Wu H K, Zhang B, Davis E A, Krajcik J S, and Soloway E 2002 Res. in Sci. [9] Larson-Green J. (2024, January) Engaging instruction and powerful practice. https://www.peardeck.com/products/pear-deck-and-pear-practice 16. ICT in Education and Training
Poster Pupils' Opinions on Sharing Privacy and Personal Data on the Internet, Social Networks and Other Online Services Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic Presenting Author:With the increasing use of information and communication technologies, cybercrimes against children have also increased. Online risky behavior can take many forms: making personal data available to other subjects, sharing visual material with the general public, engaging in online discussions with sexual undertones and vulgar comments, and establishing new friendships with unknown people (Ybarra et al., 2007; Kopecký et al., 2021). Wylęgły (2021) mentions anonymity as a possible risky aspect of leading potentially to the development of cybercrime, an unlimited range of users, and the universality of Internet access. Kopecký et al. (2020) also consider, among other things, the use of fictitious identities, so-called equality of status, synchronous and asynchronous online communication, and social multiplicity in communication with an undetermined number of users to be risky. The very issue of sharing has thus gained attention in recent years not only in the field of law (Lavorgna et al., 2023; Bezáková et al., 2021) but also in the field of pedagogical sciences (Brosch, 2018; Kopecký et al., 2020; Kopecký et al., 2023). This contribution focuses on the experiences and possible risks of sharing among lower secondary school pupils in the Czech Republic. Sharing adolescents' data on social networks can bring, in addition to positive benefits, specific threats, such as threats to privacy, integrity, the right to one's own identity, and personality development. It can negatively affect not only privacy but also a good name, the very development of personality and image (Ordóñez Pineda & Calva Jiménez, 2020). Sharing, which can be defined as the publication of much detailed information about adolescents in the form of photos, videos, and posts through social media, can violate children's privacy (Brosh, 2018) and lead to several other negative phenomena, such as frustration (Ouvrein & Verswijvel, 2019) or child abuse as a tool for creating extremist and hateful content (Kopecký et al., 2020). In the field of pedagogical research, children's privacy is associated with the protection of personal data and is often linked to the issue of sharing, which violates children's privacy (Brosh, 2018; Kopecký et al., 2020; Kopecký et al., 2023), but also another possible risks such as exclusion from the collective due to the inability to use the Internet, the risk of increasing aggression, sexual coercion, threats to privacy, identity theft, and new forms of surveillance and exploitation are mentioned. General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework (up to 600 words) Research questions and problems: • What do students think about sharing information and other content (photos, videos, etc.) about their privacy and personal data on the Internet, social networks, and other online services? • What is the students' opinion about the possible risks of sharing information and other content about their privacy and personal data on the Internet, social networks, and other online services? • What experience do students have with sharing information and other content about their privacy and personal data on the Internet, social networks, and other online services? The main goal of the contribution is to find out and describe the basic aspects, topics and experiences of elementary school students connected with sharing privacy and personal data on the Internet, social networks and other on-line services. Sub-research objectives: • To find out the opinions of pupils in terms of how they constitute and shape opinions on sharing privacy and personal data in cyberspace • Analyze the students' opinions Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research design: Qualitative research design Research method: Interpretative phenomenological analysis - IPA Data collection method: Semi-structured interview - through open-ended questions with the aim to leave room for respondents' self-expression. IPA method: (Šuráňová In: Gulová, Šíp, 2013, pp. 109-111) 1. Transcription of interviews and their repeated reading. 2. Taking notes and writing down observations on interviews (descriptive, linguistic, conceptual). 3. Development of identified themes. 4. Searching for relationships between discovered topics. 5. Moving on to the next case – new terminology and the language of the next respondent. 6. Finding themes (patterns) across cases. Analysis phases: (Šuráňová In: Gulová, Šíp, 2013, pp. 109-111) 1. Transcription and reading of respondents' statements - analysis of statements and statements from individual respondents. 2. Recognizing and identifying themes and patterns emerging from the conversation, focusing on similarities, differences, standard features, etc. 3. Developing a dialogue between the researcher and the coded data about the respondents' connotations. 4. Developing structure, patterns, and relationships between individual topics. 5. The use of supervision, collaboration with the respondent, or audit to verify and develop the coherence and acceptability of interpretations. 6. Transcription and documentation of source citations – list of individual topics (graphically, in a simple structure or table). 7. Reflection of perceptions, concepts, and processes that influenced the interpretation of data analysis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Expected outputs – goals oriented towards practical application On an intellectual level, the aim is to point out the relevance and importance of the topic of sharing private and personal data in cyberspace among pupils and, above all, their opinions on sharing not only by themselves but also by those around them (parents, teachers, classmates, friends, and other persons), which can result in the emergence and development of risky phenomena such as cyber bullying, cyber grooming, etc. The information obtained from the semi-structured interviews and their subsequent analysis can be used to prevent risky phenomena in cyberspace, develop pupils' critical thinking, and develop digital literacy. The knowledge gained through this research will contribute to researchers' understanding of sharing privacy and personal data and possible risky phenomena. References Bezáková, Z., Madleňák, A., & Švec, M. (2021). Security risks of sharing content based on minors by their family members on social media in times of technology interference. Media Literacy and Academic Research: scientific journal, 4(1), 53-69. Brosch, A. (2018). Sharenting – Why Do Parents Violate Their Children’s Privacy? The New Educational Review, 54(4), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2018.54.4.06 Gulová, L., & Šíp, R. (Eds.). (2013). Výzkumné metody v pedagogické praxi. Grada. Kopecky, K., Szotkowski, R., Aznar-Díaz, I., & Romero-Rodríguez, J. -M. (2020). The phenomenon of sharenting and its risks in the online environment. Experiences from Czech Republic and Spain. Children and Youth Services Review, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104812 Kopecký, K., Szotkowski, R., & Dobešová, P. (2021). Riziková komunikace a seznamování českých dětí v kyberprostoru. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. Kopecký, K., Szotkowski, R., Mičková, H., & Nováková, A. (2022). Sharenting u českých rodičů: výzkumná zpráva. Centrum prevence rizikové virtuální komunikace, Pedagogická fakulta Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci. https://e-bezpeci.cz/index.php/ke-stazeni/vyzkumne-zpravy/158-sharenting-u-ceskych-rodicu-2022/file Kopecký, K., Szotkowski, R., Mičková, H., & Krejčí, V. (2023). Sharenting among Czech parents and its risks. Pediatrie pro praxi, 24(1), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.36290/ped.2023.011 Lavorgna, A., Ugwudike, P., & Tartari, M. (2023). Online sharenting: Identifying existing vulnerabilities and demystifying media reported crime risks. Sage Journals, 19(4). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590221148448 Ordóñez Pineda, L., & Calva Jiménez, S. (2020). Amenazas a la privacidad de los menores de edad a partir del Sharenting. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 9(2), 105-130. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-2584.2020.55333 Ouvrein, G., & Verswijvel, K. (2019). Sharenting: Parental adoration or public humiliation? A focus group study on adolescents' experiences with sharenting against the background of their own impression management. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 319-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.011 Wylęgły, K. (2021). The Internet - a risk-taking space for university students. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(1), 413-425. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2021.1.413.425 Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2007). Internet Prevention Messages. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(2). https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.2.138D | ||