Comparisons of Effects of Learning Socioscientific Issues Using the Mixed Methods Based on the Lin and Mintzes Method and the 5-E Learning Cycle Approach on Argumentation and Analytical Thinking of Matthayomsuksa 6 Students with Different Achievement Moti
Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 9, 2018
Keywords:
Socioscientific Issues: Argumentation: Analytical Thinking: the Mixed Methods Based on the Lin and Mintzes Method: the Mixed Methods Based on 5-E Learning Cycle Approach
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to study and compare argumentation and analytical thinking abilities of the students
after learning socioscientific issues as a whole and as classified according to achievement motives and
learning methods, Sixty Mattayomsuksa 6 students from 2 classes were randomly selected for the study : the
first group of 30 students learned using the mixed methods based on the Lin and Mintzes method and the
second group of 33 students using the mixed methods based on 5-E learning cycle approach. Instruments
for the research included : 1) learning plans on 3 socioscientific issues : Organ Transplantation, Nuclear
Energyand Facebook : Social media each for 3 hours of learning in a week 2) argumentation tests ; and 3)
the nalyticalthinking test. The dependent t-test and the F-test (one-way ANCOVA Two-way MANOVAand
ANCOVA) were employed for testing hypotheses. The research findings for all that the students as a whole
and as classified according to achievement motives who learned the socioscientific issues using the mixed
methods based on the Lin and Mintzes method and the 5-E learning cycle approach showed developments
of argumentation abilities from the 1st test to the 4th test; and showed gains in analytical thinking in general
and in each subscale from before learning (p < .001). Also, the high achievement motivestudents indicated
more analytical thinking in all and in each subscale than the low achievement motivestudents (p < .001).
Whereas two groups of the students did not show different argumentation abilities and analytical thinking
abilities as a whole and in 3 subscales (p = .076). Otherwise, there were no statistical interactions of the two
independent variables on argumentation and analytical thinking in our all and in each subscale(p≥ .026)
Article Details
Section
Research Articles
1. All articles undergo a thorough with at least three reviewers evaluating their suitability within the respective field of study, during the double-blind review.
2. The views expressed by individual authors do not represent the official views of the Editorial Boards of RMUJ: The author of each articie is responsible for all its contents.
3. The Editorial Boards do not reserve the copyrights. but proper citations need to be made.
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
org/education/lewis.html> 2013.
[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.
education/lewis.html> 2013.
[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.