Formation of cognitive activity of technical university students using elements of blended learning in the study of quantum physics

  • Diana Arkad`evna Denisova Moscow State University of Food Production, Moscow, Russian Federation.
  • Natalia Gennadyevna Levanova Togliatti State University, Togliatti, Russian Federation.
  • Irina Vladimirovna Evgrafova State Marine Technical University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
  • Alexander Sergeyevich Verkhovod Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation.


The study aims to analyze the expediency of using the capabilities of LMS Moodle for the implementation of blended learning in physics at a technical university in the study of quantum physics. The opportunities presented by the Moodle online environment are analyzed. It is demonstrated that online learning combined with in-person learning greatly improves learning outcomes. An instrument for e-learning in quantum physics in the Moodle environment is described and its educational capabilities are determined. The article examines the method of creating computer models using Easy Gif Animator. Modeling is examined as a means of promoting the formation of students’ cognitive activity. The use of modeling and thought experiments contributes to enhancing students’ understanding of real-life experiments and theories in physics. The study results support the hypothesis that the introduction of an electronic learning component in teaching quantum physics will increase students’ cognitive activity levels.

Biografia do Autor

Diana Arkad`evna Denisova, Moscow State University of Food Production, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Natalia Gennadyevna Levanova, Togliatti State University, Togliatti, Russian Federation.
Irina Vladimirovna Evgrafova, State Marine Technical University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Alexander Sergeyevich Verkhovod, Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation.


Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41, 32-44.

Araujo, A., & Silva, I. P. (2020). Maker culture and educational robotics in physics teaching: developing an automated traffic light in high school. Journal of Research and Knowledge Spreading, 1(1), e11654.

Boelens, R., Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers & Education, 120, 197-212.

Bowyer, J., & Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 23, 17-26.

Cracker, D. (2006). Attitudes towards science of Students enrolled in Introductory Level Science Courses UW-L. Journal of Undergraduate Research, IX, 1-6.

Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended Learning: An Innovative Approach. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 129-136.

De George-Walker, L., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 1-13.

Demirer, V., & Sahin, I. (2013). Effect of blended learning environment on transfer of learning: An experimental study. The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 518–529.

Dudin, M. N., Bezbakh, V. V., Galkina, M. V., Rusakova, E. P., & Zinkovsky, S. B. (2019). Stimulating Innovation Activity in Enterprises within the Metallurgical Sector: the Russian and International Experience. TEM Journal-Technology Education Management Informatics, 8(4), 1366-1370.

Dudin, M. N., & Shishalova, Yu. S. (2019). Development of Effective Education and Training System in the Context of the Transition to International Accreditation. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 8(1), 118-127.

Engelbertink, M. M. J., Kelders, S. M., Woudt-Mittendorff, K. M., & Westerhof, G. J. (2020). Participatory design of persuasive technology in a blended learning course: A qualitative study. The Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4115-4138.

Eryilmaz, A., Yildiz, I., & Akin, S. (2011). Investigating of Relationship between Attitudes towards Physics Laboratories, Motivation and Amotivation for the Class Engagement. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, Jan.(Special), 59-64.

Evans, J. C., Yip, H., Chan, K., Armatas, C., & Tse, A. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: professional development in a Hong Kong university. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(4), 1-14.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In: Bonk, C. J., Graham, Ch. R. (Eds.). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publ., pp. 3–21.

Guido, R. M. D. (2013). Attitude and Motivation towards Learning Physics. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 2(11), 2087-2094.

Henze, I., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2007). The change of science teachers’ personal knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of science education reform. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1819–1846.

Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and Representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, 325-336.

Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 121-140.

Judrups, J. (2015). Analysis of knowledge management and e-learning integration models. Procedia Computer Science, 43, 154-162.

Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273–1292.

Kim, K. - J., Bonk, C. J., & Oh, E. J. (2008). The Present and Future State of Blended Learning in Workplace Learning Settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 5-16.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.

Launer, R. (2010). Five assumptions on blended learning: What is important to make blended learning a successful concept? In: Tsang, P., Cheung, S. K. S., Lee, V.
S. K., Huang, R. (Eds.). Hybrid Learning. ICHL 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6248. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 9-15.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635–679.

Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185-204.

Lim, C. P., & Wang, L. (2017). Blended learning for quality higher education: selected case studies on implementation from Asia-Pacific. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok Office, 314 p.

Lowe, D. (2013). Roadmap of a blended learning model for online faculty development. Invited feature article in Distance Education Report, 17(6), 1-7.

Ma, C. - M., Chao, C. - M., & Cheng, B. - W. (2013). Integrating Technology Acceptance Model and Task-technology Fit into Blended E-learning System. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(5), 736–742.

Mansvelt, J., Suddaby, G., O'Hara, D., & Gilbert, A. (2009). Professional development: Assuring quality in e-learning policy and practice. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 233-249.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.

Morrison, M. (1998). Modelling Nature: Between Physics and the Physical World. Philosophia Naturalis, 35, 65-85.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.

Napier, N., Dekhane, S., & Smith, S. (2011). Transitioning to blended learning: Understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asychronous Online Learning, 15(1), 20-32.

Oproiu, G. C. (2015). A Study about Using E-learning Platform (Moodle) in Univeristy Teaching Process. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 426-432.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.

Oliveira, A. M., Gerevini, A. M., & Strohschoen, A. A. G. (2017). Diário de bordo: uma ferramenta metodológica para o desenvolvimento da alfabetização científica. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 10(22), 119-132.

Pavel, A. P., Fruth, A., & Neacsu, M. N. (2015). ICT and E-Learning: Catalysts for Innovation and Quality in Higher Education. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 704–711.

Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7–18.

Poon, J. (2013). Blended learning: An institutional approach for enhancing students' learning experiences. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 271-288.
Rooney, J. E. (2003). Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and meetings. Association Management, 55(5), 26-32.

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-13.

Rodrigues, B. M., Santos, J. E. B., & Vasconcelos, C. A. (2020). Conceptions of undergraduate students in Chemistry on the use of interactive interfaces in and for the activities developed in the distance course. Journal of Research and Knowledge Spreading, 1(1), e11649.

Sanchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632-1640.

Sarmadi, M. R., Farajollahi, M., Saeidipour, B., & Ahmadifar, M. (2016). The impact of lecturers' thinking styles on students' creativity in distance higher education. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 105-117.

Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83-94.

Shan, J. (2012). Design of an Online Learning Platform with Moodle. In: The 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE 2012), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1710-1714.

Shaw, L., & Kennepohl, D. (2013). Student and faculty outcomes of undergraduate science research projects by geographically dispersed students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5), 69-81.

Santos, J. E. B. (2020). Cartographic narratives: the teaching of mathematics and ICT. Journal of Research and Knowledge Spreading, 1(1), e11645

Snir, J., Smith, C. L., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794–830.

Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended Learning Improves Science Education. Cell, 162(5), 933–936.

Swenson, P. W., & Redmond, P. A. (2009). Online, hybrid, and blended coursework and the practice of technology-integrated teaching and learning within teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 3-10.

Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2015). Examining workload models in online and blended teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 5-15.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

Woods, R., Baker, J. D., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 7(4), 281-297.
Como Citar
Denisova, D. A., Levanova, N. G., Evgrafova, I. V., & Verkhovod, A. S. (2021). Formation of cognitive activity of technical university students using elements of blended learning in the study of quantum physics. Revista Tempos E Espaços Em Educação, 14(33), e15296.
Publicação Contínua