International Journal of Social Science & Economic Research
Submit Paper

Title:
DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHING MODELS THAT ENHANCE THE SCIENTIFIC REASONING CAPABILITIES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Authors:
Sawangjit Treeporn, Asst. Prof. Dr. Decha Suppapittayaporn, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Virapong Saeng-Xuto and Asst. Prof. Dr. Kreetha Kaewkong

|| ||

Sawangjit Treeporn, Asst. Prof. Dr. Decha Suppapittayaporn, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Virapong Saeng-Xuto and Asst. Prof. Dr. Kreetha Kaewkong
Ph.D. Candidate (Education), Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

MLA 8
Treeporn, Sawangjit, et al. "DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHING MODELS THAT ENHANCE THE SCIENTIFIC REASONING CAPABILITIES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, vol. 6, no. 2, Feb. 2021, pp. 565-587, doi:10.46609/IJSSER.2021.v06i02.012. Accessed Feb. 2021.
APA 6
Treeporn, S., Suppapittayaporn, A., Saeng-Xuto, A., & Kaewkong, A. (2021, February). DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHING MODELS THAT ENHANCE THE SCIENTIFIC REASONING CAPABILITIES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, 6(2), 565-587. doi:10.46609/IJSSER.2021.v06i02.012
Chicago
Treeporn, Sawangjit, Asst. Prof. Dr. Decha Suppapittayaporn, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Virapong Saeng-Xuto, and Asst. Prof. Dr. Kreetha Kaewkong. "DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHING MODELS THAT ENHANCE THE SCIENTIFIC REASONING CAPABILITIES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research 6, no. 2 (February 2021), 565-587. Accessed February, 2021. doi:10.46609/IJSSER.2021.v06i02.012.

References

[1]. Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, L., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., and Wu, N. (2009). Physics: Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586–587.
[2]. Berland, L. K., McNeill, K. L., Pelletier, P., & Krajcik, J. (2017). Engaging in argument from evidence. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 229– 257). Arlington, TX: National Science Teacher Association.
[3]. Chaicharoen, S. (2008). Educational technology and teaching system development. Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University.
[4]. Dennick, R. (2016). Constructivism: Reflections on twenty five years teaching the constructivist approach in medical education. International Journal of Medical Education, 7, 200–5.
[5]. Develaki, M. (2017).Using computer simulations for promoting model-based reasoning. Epistemological and educational dimensions. Science & Education, 26, 1001–10027.
[6]. Ding, L., Wei, X., & Mollohan, K. (2016). Does higher education improve student scientific reasoning skills?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 619–634.
[7]. Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education meta-analysis evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6), 333–349.
[8]. Fabby, C., & Koenig, K. (2015). Examining the relationship of scientific reasoning with physics problem solving. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 16(4), 141–144.
[9]. Fischer, F., Kollara, I., Uferb, S., Sodiana, B., Hussmannc, H., Pekruna, R., Eberlea, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 5, 28– 45.
[10]. Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[11]. Gotwals, A. W., Songer, N. B., & Bullard, L. (2012). Assessing students' progressing abilities to construct scientific explanations. Learning progressions in science, (183– 210)
[12]. Ibrahim, B., Ding, L., Mollohan, K. N., & Stammen, A. (2016). Scientific Reasoning: Theory
[13]. evidence coordination in physics-based and non-physics-based tasks. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(2), 93–105.
[14]. Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2017). Course Manual Basic Science Courses Primary level. Bangkok: Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology.
[15]. Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2017). Research Report of TIMSS Project 2015. Bangkok: Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology.
[16]. Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 64–73.
[17]. Joyce, B.R. and Weil, M. (1996). Model of teaching (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
[18]. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching (8thed.). New York: Courtesy of Reece Galleries.
[19]. Jufri, A. W., Setiadi, S., & Sripatmi, D. (2016). Scientific Reasoning Ability of Prospective Student Teacher in The Excellence Program of Mathematics and Science Teacher Education in University of Mataram. Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 69-74.
[20]. Krajcik, J. & McNeill, K. L. (2015). Developing and assessing scientific explanation tasks. In Gunstone, R. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 285-291). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
[21]. Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Development origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–127.
[22]. Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 569-617.
[23]. Lawson, A. E. (2000). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning Revised Edition. Arizona State University.
[24]. Lee, C. Q., & She, H. C. (2010).Facilitating students’ conceptual change and scientific reasoning involving the unit of combustion. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 479–504.
[25]. Martin, M., Mullis, I., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
[26]. Marusic, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 301–326.
[27]. McNeil, K. & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. A. Luft, R. L. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington: NSTA press.
[28]. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy.
[29]. Piekny, J., & Maehler, C. (2013). Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis generation skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 153–179.
[30]. Peters, E. (2012). Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 31– 35.
[31]. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing One Premise of Scientific Inquiry in Science Classrooms: Examining Student, Scientific Explanations and Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583-608.
[32]. Saylor, Galen J., William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis. (1981). Curriculum Planning for Better Teacher and Learning (4th ed.). New York : Holt Rinehart and Winston.
[33]. She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91–119.
[34]. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Sinatra, G. M. (2011). A structural equation model of conceptual change in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 901–918.
[35]. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (updated edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[36]. Wilson, C., Taylor, J., Kowalski, S., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry?based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276– 301.
[37]. Yang, H.-T., & Wang, K.-H. (2014). A teaching model for scaffolding 4th grade students’ scientific explanation writing. Science Education, 44, 531–548.
[38]. Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific Reasoning and Epistemological Commitments: Coordination of Theory and Evidence Among College Science Students. Journal of research in science teaching, 47(9), 1064-1093.
[39]. Zhou S., Han J., Koenig K., A., Pi Y., Li D., & Bao L. (2016). Assessment of Scientific Reasoning: The Raplinger Effects of Task Context, Data, and Design on Student Reasoning in Control of Variables. Think. Skills Creat., 19, 175–187.
[40]. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and
[41]. middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–22.

Abstract:
This research aims to 1) create a teaching model that enhances the scientific reasoning capabilities of senior high school students, and 2) study the effect of using teaching patterns on the ability to reason scientifically. Samples include fourth-grade students at Phusangwittayakhom School in Phayao Province, 14 persons in the second semester of the academic year 2019.This is obtained by a specific selection of research instruments include teaching formats and a measure of the scientific reasoning capabilities of curved motion, and analyze the data by looking for averages, standard deviations, and finding influence sizes. The results showed that the improved teaching model consisted of (1) principles, (2) aim, (3) the four learning processes include concept test, observation, discussion, elaboration, and discussion, and (4) measurement and evaluation. The results of a teaching model that enhanced the ability to reason scientifically showed that projectile 1 movement had an influence size of 2.0, projectile 2 movement has an influence size of 2.1, horizontal circular movement the influence size is 1.7, and vertical circular movements, the influence is 0.5.Considering the composition of scientific reasoning as a whole, it found that claims were the most identifiable element of 75.77, followed by evidence accounted for 54.08 percent, and reasoning accounted for 20.92 percent respectively.

IJSSER is Member of