Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE DIDACTIC CAPABILITIES OF DIGITAL PLATFORMS IN PHYSICS EDUCATION

Authors: Gulmira Mirzaeva;

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE DIDACTIC CAPABILITIES OF DIGITAL PLATFORMS IN PHYSICS EDUCATION

Abstract

This article examines the evaluation criteria for determining the didactic capabilities of digital platforms in physics education. The study focuses on how platforms such as PhET, GeoGebra, Algodoo, Easy Java Simulations, Moodle, Google Classroom, Kahoot, Quizizz, Zoom, Google Meet, and Google Forms can be assessed according to pedagogical purpose, scientific accuracy, visualization, interactivity, feedback, differentiation, monitoring, and methodological integration. The article argues that the effectiveness of digital platforms depends not only on technical functions but also on their alignment with learning objectives, the nature of physical concepts, students’ cognitive needs, and the teacher’s instructional design.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback