Development of Argumentation and Analytical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with Diff erent Science Learning Outcomes who Learned Socioscientifi c Issues using Mixed Methods Based on the Adapted Brain-Based Learning and the Traditional Learning Approaches

Abstract

This research aimed to compare eff ects of learning socioscientifi c issue using the mixed methods based on the adapted brain-based learning and the traditional learning approaches on argumentation and analytical thinking abilities of 60 Mathayomsuksa 3 students with diff erent science learning outcomes. They were selected from 2 classes, using the cluster random sampling technique, and were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group 1 learned using the mixed methods based on the adapted brain-based learning and the experimental group 2 learned using the traditional learning approach. Instruments for the research included: 1) learning plan socioscientifi c using the mixed methods based on the adapted brain based learning and the traditional learning approaches, 2) argumentation tests and 3) an analytical thinking test. The collected data were analyzed for testing hypotheses by means of the Paired T-test and the F-test (Two-way MANCOVA and ANCOVA). The research fi ndings found that the students as a whole and as classifi ed according to science learning outcomes who learned the socioscientifi c issues using the mixed methods based on the adapted brain based-learning and the traditional learning approaches showed developments of argumentation and showed gains in analytical thinking abilities in general and in each aspect from before learning. There were statistical interactions of science learning outcomes with learning model only on analytical thinking abilities as a whole and in the subscale of analysis of relationship, in which the students with high science learning outcomes who learned the socioscientifi c issues using the mixed methods based on the adapted brain-based learning approach had more argumentation abilities and analytical thinking abilities than other group students, and evidenced more analytical thinking abilities as a whole and in each aspect than the counterpart students. However, the students with diff erent science learning outcomes did not show diff erent argumentation abilities.