การเปรียบเทียบผลการเรียนประเด็นปัญหาทางสังคมที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการใช้วิทยาศาสตร์โดยใช้การเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามรูปแบบของ Lin และ Mintzes และการเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามวัฏจักรการเรียนรู้ 5 ขั้นที่มีต่อความสามารถในการโต้แย้งและการคิดวิเคราะห์ของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีท
Article Sidebar
เผยแพร่แล้ว:
ก.ย. 9, 2018
คำสำคัญ:
ประเด็นปัญหาทางสังคมที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการใช้วิทยาศาสตร์: การโต้แย้ง: การคิดวิเคราะห์: การเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามรูปแบบของ Lin และ Mintzes: การเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามวัฎจักรการเรียนรู้ 5E
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
การวจิ ยั นี้มคี วามมงุ่ หมายเพือ่ ศึกษาเปรยี บเทยี บความสามารถในการโตแ้ ยง้ และการคิดวเิ คราะห ์ หลงั เรยี นประเดน็ ปญั หาทางสงั คม
ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการใช้วิทยาศาสตร์ของนักเรียนโดยส่วนรวมและจำแนกตามแรงจูงใจใฝ่สัมฤทธิ์และรูปแบบการเรียน กลุ่มตัวอย่างเป็น
นักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 6 จำนวน 63 คน โดยแบ่งนักเรียนออกเป็น 2 กลุ่ม ได้แก่ กลุ่มที่ 1 จำนวน 30 คน เรียนโดยใช้การเรียน
แบบผสมผสานตามรูปแบบของ Lin และMintzes และกลุ่มที่ 2 จำนวน 33 คน เรียนโดยใช้การเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามวัฏจักรการ
เรียนรู้ 5E เครื่องมือที่ใช้ในการวิจัยประกอบด้วย 1) แผนการจัดการเรียนรู้ประเด็นปัญหาทางสังคมที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการใช้วิทยาศาสตร์
3เรื่อง คือการปลูกถ่ายอวัยวะ พลังงานนิวเคลียร์ และ Facebook : สื่อสังคมออนไลน์ ใช้เวลาสอน 3 ชั่วโมง ต่อสัปดาห์ 2) แบบทดสอบ
ความสามารถการโต้แย้ง 3) แบบทดสอบการวัดการคิดวิเคราะห์การทดสอบสมมติฐานใช้ Paired t-test และ F-test (one-way
ANCOVA Two-way MANOVA และ ANCOVA) ผลการวิจัยพบว่า นักเรียนโดยส่วนรวมและจำแนกตามแรงจูงใจใฝ่สัมฤทธิ์หลัง
เรียนประเด็นปัญหาทางสังคมที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการใช้วิทยาศาสตร์โดยใช้การเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามรูปแบบของ Lin และ Mintzes และ
การเรียนแบบผสมผสานตามวัฏจักรการเรียนรู้ 5 ขั้นมีการพัฒนาความสามารถในการโต้แย้งเพิ่มขึ้นจากการสอบครั้งที่ 1-4 และมีการ
คิดวิเคราะห์โดยรวมและเป็นรายด้านทั้ง 3 ด้าน เพิ่มขึ้นจากก่อนเรียน (p < .001) นักเรียนที่มีแรงจูงใจใฝ่สัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนสูง
มีเฉพาะความสามารถในการคิดวิเคราะห์โดยรวมและเป็นรายด้านมากกว่านักเรียนที่มีแรงจูงใจใฝ่สัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนตํ่า (p < .001)
ส่วนนักเรียนที่เรียนด้วยแบบผสมผสานตามรูปแบบของ Lin และ Mintzes และแบบผสมผสานตามวัฏจักรการเรียนรู้ 5E มีความ
สามารถในการโต้แย้งและการคิดวิเคราะห์โดยรวมและรายด้านทั้ง 3 ด้าน ไม่แตกต่างกัน (p = .760) นอกจากนี้ไม่มีปฏิสัมพันธ์ระหว่าง
แรงจูงใจใฝ่สัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนและรูปแบบการเรียนต่อความสามารถในการโต้แย้งและการคิดวิเคราะห์โดยรวมและรายด้าน (p≥ .026)
Article Details
บท
บทความวิจัย
1. บทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ทุกเรื่องได้รับการตรวจทางวิชาการโดยผู้ประเมินอิสระ ผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ (Peer Review) สาขาที่เกี่ยวข้อง อย่างน้อย 3 ท่าน ในรูปแบบ Double blind review
2. ข้อคิดเห็นใด ๆ ของบทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ในวารสารมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏมหาสารคาม นี้เป็นของผู้เขียน คณะผู้จัดทำวารสารไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย
3. กองบรรณาธิการวารสารมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏมหาสารคาม ไม่สงวนสิทธิ์การคัดลอกแต่ให้อ้างอิงแสดงที่มา
References
[1] Suksingam,Paitoon. (1991) “Science Values vs.
Teaching Science”, Journal of Srinakharinwirot
University MahaSarakham. 10(2) : 60-74 ; July -
December.
[2] Department of Academic Affairs. (2001) Basic
Curriculum Second Edition. Bangkok : The
printer, the shipping company and the shipping
company.
[3] Suksingam,Paitoon. (2007) Science Teaching.
Mahasarakham : MahaSarakham University.
[4] Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and
Technology Ministry of Education. (2010).
Teacher’s Guide for Teaching Science, Department
of Science.Bangkok : The Teachers Council
LatPhrao.
[5] Suksingam,Paitoon. (1987). “Educational Philosophy
and Curriculum Development”, Journal of Research
and Learning Development. 2(1) : 1-7 ; January
- June, 1987 kh.
[6] Yager, R.E. and P. Tamir.(1993). Constructivism and
Science Education Reform,” ScienceEducation
International. 4(1) : 145-151 ; March.
[7] Ministry of Education. (2009). Indicators and Core
Curriculum of Science Department according to
Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2008.
Bangkok : Agricultural Cooperative Federation of
Thailand.
[8] Tamir P. (1993) . “Inquiry and the Science Teacher,”
Science Education. 67(5) : 657-672 ; October.
[9] Carin, A.A. (1997) Teaching Modern Science. 7thed.
New Jersey : Prentice-Hall.
[10] Yager, R.E. and P. Tamir.(1993). “Constructivism
and Science Education Reform,” ScienceEducation
International. 4(1) : 145-151 ; March.
[11] Aikenhead, G. (1994). “Consequences to Learning
Science Through STS : A Research Perspective,”
STS Education : International Perspective on
Reform. New York : Columbia University.
[12] Zeidler, D.L., and Nichols, B.H.(2009)“Socioscientific
Issues : Theory and Practice,” Journal of Elementary
Science Education. 21(2) : 49 - 58.
[13] Khun, D., Udell and W. (2003). “The Development
of Argument Skills,” Child Development.2 : 1245-
1260.
[14] Driver, R. and others. (2000). “Establishing the
Norms of Scientific ArgumentationinClassroom,”
Science Education. 84 : 287-312.
[15] Charoenwongsak,Kriengsak. (2001). Analytical
thinking. Bangkok : Success Media Company.
[16] Sariwat,Lakkana. (2006). Analytical thinking.
Bangkok : Odean Store.
[17] Saiyos, Luan and Saiyos, Angkana. (2000). Think
Processing. Bangkok : Praepittaya.
[18] Kamutchat, Punnee. (2004). Comparison of
teaching results by learning cycle model and
IPSTAR model With regard to basic scientific
process skills and scientific attitudes Mathayom
suksa 2 students. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[19] Lin, Shu-Sheng and Joel J. Mintzes.(2010).
“Learning Argumentation Skills through Instruction
in Socioscientific Issues,” The Effect of Ability
Level. Taiwan : National Science Council,
[20] Lewis, S.E. (2003). Issue-Based Teaching in Science
Education. From
[21] Kongkaew, Prapussorn. (2011). Comparisons of the
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues on
Argumentation and Critical Thinking Abilites of
Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with Different
Genders. M.Ed. Thesis :MahaSarakham
University.
[21] Wisetvohan, Banjongsak. (2011). Comparisons of
Effects of Socioscientific Issues on Argumentation
and Critical Thinking of Mathayomsaksas 4
Students with Different Science Learning
Outcomes. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[22] Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science
and Technology. (2002). Conduct of Science
Department according to Core Curriculum for
Basic Education 2001. Bangkok : The Teachers
Council LatPhrao.
[23] Sattabut, Suthada. (2005). Comparison of teaching
results by learning cycle model and IPSTAR
model With regard to basic scientific process
skills and scientific attitudesMathayomsuksa
2 students. M.Ed. Thesis :MahaSarakham
University.
[23] Deekarnkon, Sombat. (2004). Teaching results
using a 5-cycle learning cycle on basic scientific
process skills Of Mathayomsuksa 1 students.
M.Ed. Independent Study : MahaSarakham
University.
[23] Wonghom, Sumalee.(2005). Comparison of teaching
results using a 5-cycle learning cycle Approach
Using Metacognitive Techniques on Misconception
Change of Some Physics Concepts and
Integrated Science Process Skills of Mathayomsuksa
1. M.Ed. Thesis : Maha Sarakham University.
[23] Sudtae, Sodsri. (2005). Comparison of teaching
results by learning cycle model and IPSTAR
model With regard to basic scientific process
skills and scientific attitudes Mathayomsuksa 3
students. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[23] Kanlayaloet, Yothin. (2005). Comparison of teaching
results by learning cycle model and IPSTAR
model With regard to basic scientific process
skills and scientific attitudesMathayomsuksa 2
students. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[24] Praditthaen, Sukunya. (2012). Comparisons of the
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Via the
Mixed Method and the Conventional Learning
Method on Argumentation and Analytical
Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with
Different Achievement Motives. M.Ed. Science
Education : Mahasarakham University.
[25]Champahan, Nikorn. (2012). Comparisons of Effects
Learning SociosciencificIsseus Using the Mixed
Method and the Conventional Method of Instruction
on Argumentation and Critical Thinking Abilities
of Mathayomsuksa 5 Students with Different
Learning Achievement Motives.M.Ed. Science
Education : Mahasarakham University.
[26] Outtaranakorn, Anamika. (2007). Comparisons of
Effects of the 7E - Learning Cycle with Metacognitive
Techniques and the 5E - Leaning Cycle on
Alternative Conceptions of Biology Concepts :
Respiration, Respiration and Photosynthesis, and
Photosynthesis, and Critical Thinking Abilities
of Mattayomsuksa 5 Students with Different
Genders. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasara
kham University.
[27] Charamat, Cheewarut. (2013). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using
the Mixed Methods based on the 7E - Learning
Cycle with Metacognitive Techniques and the
Traditional Learning Approach on Argumentation
and Critical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 4
Students with the Different Achievement Motives.
M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[28]Seerasongnern, Surasak. (2014). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using
the Mixed Methods Based on the Scientific
Method and the 7-E Learning Cycle Approach on
Argumentation and Analytical Thinking of Mat
thayomsuksa 3 Students with Different
Achievement Motives. M.Ed. Science Education:
Mahasarakham University.
[29] Simon, S.,Osborne, J., and Erduran, S. (2006).
“Learning to Teach Argumentation : Research and
Development in the Science Classroom,”
International Journal of Science Education. 28
(2-3) : 235-260.
[30] Dawson, V.M. and Venville, G. (2008) “Teaching
Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation
Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School
Genetics,” Research in Science Education. 38(1)
: 67-90.
[31] Khotchomphu, Saowanee. (2011). Comparisons of
the Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues on
Argumentation and Critical Thinking of
Mattayomsuksa6 Students with Different
Genders. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[32] Tasipeht, Nadsupuk. (2011). Comparisons of Effects
of Learning Socioscientific Issues on Argumentation
and Logical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 5
Students with Different Science Learning
Outcomes. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[33] Kettara, Khongmanee.(2011). Comparisons of
Argumentation Abilities and Critical Thinking
Abilities Socioscientific Issues of Mathayomsuksa
1 Students with Different Science Learning
Outcomes. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[34] Pasingsee, Jittana. (2012). comparisons of the
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Via the
Mixed Method and the Conventional Learning
Method on Argumentation and Critical Thinking
of Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with Different
Achievement Motives. M.Ed. Science Education
: Mahasarakham University.
[35] Nonthamat, Chaiyon. (2011). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Using the Good Science
Thinking Moves with Metacognitive Techniques
on Changing Alternative Conceptions of Some
Physics Concepts : Work, Energy, and Momentum
and Analytical Thinking of Matthayomsuksa 5
Students with Different Achievement Motivations.
M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[36] Piaget, J. (1964). “Cognitive Development in
Children,” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 2(1) : 170-186 ; September.
[37] Rabideau, S. (2009). Effects of chievement
Motivation on Behavior.
[38] Seerasongnern, Ketkanog. (2014). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using
the Mixed Methods Based on the Scientific
Method and the 7-E Learning Cycle Approach on
Argumentation and Critical Thinking of Prathom
suksa 6 Students with Different Achievement
Motivations. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[39] Gibson, S. E. (2002). “Using a Problem Based,
Multimedia Enhanced Approach in Learning about
Teaching,” Australian Journal of Educational
Technology. 18(3) : 394-409.
[40] Lewis, S.E. (2003). Issue-Based Teaching in Science
Education.
[41] Simon, S.,Osborne, J., and Erduran, S. (2006)
“Learning to Teach Argumentation : Research and
Development in the Science Classroom,”
International Journal of Science Education. 28(2-
3) : 235-260.
[42] Dawson, V.M. and Venville, G. (2008) “Teaching
Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation
Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School
Genetics,” Research in Science Education. 38(1) :
67-90.
[43] Simon, Sadler T.D. (2002). Socioscientific Issue
Research and Its Relevance for Science Education.
http://www.eric.ed.gov> 2013.
Teaching Science”, Journal of Srinakharinwirot
University MahaSarakham. 10(2) : 60-74 ; July -
December.
[2] Department of Academic Affairs. (2001) Basic
Curriculum Second Edition. Bangkok : The
printer, the shipping company and the shipping
company.
[3] Suksingam,Paitoon. (2007) Science Teaching.
Mahasarakham : MahaSarakham University.
[4] Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and
Technology Ministry of Education. (2010).
Teacher’s Guide for Teaching Science, Department
of Science.Bangkok : The Teachers Council
LatPhrao.
[5] Suksingam,Paitoon. (1987). “Educational Philosophy
and Curriculum Development”, Journal of Research
and Learning Development. 2(1) : 1-7 ; January
- June, 1987 kh.
[6] Yager, R.E. and P. Tamir.(1993). Constructivism and
Science Education Reform,” ScienceEducation
International. 4(1) : 145-151 ; March.
[7] Ministry of Education. (2009). Indicators and Core
Curriculum of Science Department according to
Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2008.
Bangkok : Agricultural Cooperative Federation of
Thailand.
[8] Tamir P. (1993) . “Inquiry and the Science Teacher,”
Science Education. 67(5) : 657-672 ; October.
[9] Carin, A.A. (1997) Teaching Modern Science. 7thed.
New Jersey : Prentice-Hall.
[10] Yager, R.E. and P. Tamir.(1993). “Constructivism
and Science Education Reform,” ScienceEducation
International. 4(1) : 145-151 ; March.
[11] Aikenhead, G. (1994). “Consequences to Learning
Science Through STS : A Research Perspective,”
STS Education : International Perspective on
Reform. New York : Columbia University.
[12] Zeidler, D.L., and Nichols, B.H.(2009)“Socioscientific
Issues : Theory and Practice,” Journal of Elementary
Science Education. 21(2) : 49 - 58.
[13] Khun, D., Udell and W. (2003). “The Development
of Argument Skills,” Child Development.2 : 1245-
1260.
[14] Driver, R. and others. (2000). “Establishing the
Norms of Scientific ArgumentationinClassroom,”
Science Education. 84 : 287-312.
[15] Charoenwongsak,Kriengsak. (2001). Analytical
thinking. Bangkok : Success Media Company.
[16] Sariwat,Lakkana. (2006). Analytical thinking.
Bangkok : Odean Store.
[17] Saiyos, Luan and Saiyos, Angkana. (2000). Think
Processing. Bangkok : Praepittaya.
[18] Kamutchat, Punnee. (2004). Comparison of
teaching results by learning cycle model and
IPSTAR model With regard to basic scientific
process skills and scientific attitudes Mathayom
suksa 2 students. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[19] Lin, Shu-Sheng and Joel J. Mintzes.(2010).
“Learning Argumentation Skills through Instruction
in Socioscientific Issues,” The Effect of Ability
Level. Taiwan : National Science Council,
[20] Lewis, S.E. (2003). Issue-Based Teaching in Science
Education. From
[21] Kongkaew, Prapussorn. (2011). Comparisons of the
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues on
Argumentation and Critical Thinking Abilites of
Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with Different
Genders. M.Ed. Thesis :MahaSarakham
University.
[21] Wisetvohan, Banjongsak. (2011). Comparisons of
Effects of Socioscientific Issues on Argumentation
and Critical Thinking of Mathayomsaksas 4
Students with Different Science Learning
Outcomes. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[22] Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science
and Technology. (2002). Conduct of Science
Department according to Core Curriculum for
Basic Education 2001. Bangkok : The Teachers
Council LatPhrao.
[23] Sattabut, Suthada. (2005). Comparison of teaching
results by learning cycle model and IPSTAR
model With regard to basic scientific process
skills and scientific attitudesMathayomsuksa
2 students. M.Ed. Thesis :MahaSarakham
University.
[23] Deekarnkon, Sombat. (2004). Teaching results
using a 5-cycle learning cycle on basic scientific
process skills Of Mathayomsuksa 1 students.
M.Ed. Independent Study : MahaSarakham
University.
[23] Wonghom, Sumalee.(2005). Comparison of teaching
results using a 5-cycle learning cycle Approach
Using Metacognitive Techniques on Misconception
Change of Some Physics Concepts and
Integrated Science Process Skills of Mathayomsuksa
1. M.Ed. Thesis : Maha Sarakham University.
[23] Sudtae, Sodsri. (2005). Comparison of teaching
results by learning cycle model and IPSTAR
model With regard to basic scientific process
skills and scientific attitudes Mathayomsuksa 3
students. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[23] Kanlayaloet, Yothin. (2005). Comparison of teaching
results by learning cycle model and IPSTAR
model With regard to basic scientific process
skills and scientific attitudesMathayomsuksa 2
students. M.Ed. Thesis : MahaSarakham
University.
[24] Praditthaen, Sukunya. (2012). Comparisons of the
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Via the
Mixed Method and the Conventional Learning
Method on Argumentation and Analytical
Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with
Different Achievement Motives. M.Ed. Science
Education : Mahasarakham University.
[25]Champahan, Nikorn. (2012). Comparisons of Effects
Learning SociosciencificIsseus Using the Mixed
Method and the Conventional Method of Instruction
on Argumentation and Critical Thinking Abilities
of Mathayomsuksa 5 Students with Different
Learning Achievement Motives.M.Ed. Science
Education : Mahasarakham University.
[26] Outtaranakorn, Anamika. (2007). Comparisons of
Effects of the 7E - Learning Cycle with Metacognitive
Techniques and the 5E - Leaning Cycle on
Alternative Conceptions of Biology Concepts :
Respiration, Respiration and Photosynthesis, and
Photosynthesis, and Critical Thinking Abilities
of Mattayomsuksa 5 Students with Different
Genders. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasara
kham University.
[27] Charamat, Cheewarut. (2013). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using
the Mixed Methods based on the 7E - Learning
Cycle with Metacognitive Techniques and the
Traditional Learning Approach on Argumentation
and Critical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 4
Students with the Different Achievement Motives.
M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[28]Seerasongnern, Surasak. (2014). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using
the Mixed Methods Based on the Scientific
Method and the 7-E Learning Cycle Approach on
Argumentation and Analytical Thinking of Mat
thayomsuksa 3 Students with Different
Achievement Motives. M.Ed. Science Education:
Mahasarakham University.
[29] Simon, S.,Osborne, J., and Erduran, S. (2006).
“Learning to Teach Argumentation : Research and
Development in the Science Classroom,”
International Journal of Science Education. 28
(2-3) : 235-260.
[30] Dawson, V.M. and Venville, G. (2008) “Teaching
Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation
Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School
Genetics,” Research in Science Education. 38(1)
: 67-90.
[31] Khotchomphu, Saowanee. (2011). Comparisons of
the Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues on
Argumentation and Critical Thinking of
Mattayomsuksa6 Students with Different
Genders. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[32] Tasipeht, Nadsupuk. (2011). Comparisons of Effects
of Learning Socioscientific Issues on Argumentation
and Logical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 5
Students with Different Science Learning
Outcomes. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[33] Kettara, Khongmanee.(2011). Comparisons of
Argumentation Abilities and Critical Thinking
Abilities Socioscientific Issues of Mathayomsuksa
1 Students with Different Science Learning
Outcomes. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[34] Pasingsee, Jittana. (2012). comparisons of the
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Via the
Mixed Method and the Conventional Learning
Method on Argumentation and Critical Thinking
of Mathayomsuksa 3 Students with Different
Achievement Motives. M.Ed. Science Education
: Mahasarakham University.
[35] Nonthamat, Chaiyon. (2011). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Using the Good Science
Thinking Moves with Metacognitive Techniques
on Changing Alternative Conceptions of Some
Physics Concepts : Work, Energy, and Momentum
and Analytical Thinking of Matthayomsuksa 5
Students with Different Achievement Motivations.
M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[36] Piaget, J. (1964). “Cognitive Development in
Children,” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 2(1) : 170-186 ; September.
[37] Rabideau, S. (2009). Effects of chievement
Motivation on Behavior.
[38] Seerasongnern, Ketkanog. (2014). Comparisons of
Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using
the Mixed Methods Based on the Scientific
Method and the 7-E Learning Cycle Approach on
Argumentation and Critical Thinking of Prathom
suksa 6 Students with Different Achievement
Motivations. M.Ed. Science Education : Mahasarakham
University.
[39] Gibson, S. E. (2002). “Using a Problem Based,
Multimedia Enhanced Approach in Learning about
Teaching,” Australian Journal of Educational
Technology. 18(3) : 394-409.
[40] Lewis, S.E. (2003). Issue-Based Teaching in Science
Education.
[41] Simon, S.,Osborne, J., and Erduran, S. (2006)
“Learning to Teach Argumentation : Research and
Development in the Science Classroom,”
International Journal of Science Education. 28(2-
3) : 235-260.
[42] Dawson, V.M. and Venville, G. (2008) “Teaching
Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation
Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School
Genetics,” Research in Science Education. 38(1) :
67-90.
[43] Simon, Sadler T.D. (2002). Socioscientific Issue
Research and Its Relevance for Science Education.
http://www.eric.ed.gov> 2013.