The Neurocognitive Constructivist Guided-Inquiry Based ... · to provide a perspective on modern...

The Neurocognitive Constructivist Guided-Inquiry Based Teaching Model For

Promoting Attention Abilitities

Niwat TORNEE

Faculty of Education

[email protected]

Tassanee BUNTERM

Faculty of Education

[email protected]

Supaporn MUCHIMAPURA

Faculty of Medicine

[email protected]

Keow Ngang TANG

International College, Khon Kaen University,

Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The main aim of this study was to examine the improvement in students’ attention abilit ies of Grade 11 students

after the intervention of neurocognitive constructivist guided-inquiry based (NCGI) and conventional structured

inquiry 5E (SI5E) teaching models to the experimental and control groups respectively. The NCGI teaching

model was developed by researchers. The obtained samples were 34 students in the experimental group and 31

students in control group who had been randomly selected from three classes of Grade 11 students in one

secondary school located in the northeastern of Thailand during the second semester of 2014 academic year.

Researchers employed a 2 (teaching model: NCGI vs SI5E) x 2 (time of measure: pretest vs posttest)

experimental design. Results of this study showed that there was no significant difference between groups on the

dependent variables before the intervention. However, the dependent variables namely the auditory attention,

visual attention (Thai letter) and visual attention (picture) were significantly differences between groups after the

intervention. The developed teaching model NCGI has been proofed to be successfully enhanced students’

attention abilities.

Keywords: Auditory attention, conventional structured inquiry 5E model (SI5E), neurocognitive constructivist

guided-inquiry based teaching model (NCGI), visual attention.

INTRODUCTION

Current national science standards require an inquiry-oriented approach to teaching that permits students to

experience science as an ‘active process’ that closely reflects the actual work of scientists (American Association

for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council, 2000, 2012). The expanding

frontiers of cognitive and neural sciences propose a new opportunity to create a more comprehensive theory of

human learning (Anderson, 2009). According to Anderson, the two emerging fields, namely neurocognitive

learning and constructivist philosophy of science teaching and learning to be a context for integrating a

neurocognitive model of information processing with modern perspectives on how students think and learn

scientific ideas and ways of knowing through inquiry. The constructivist philosophy science teaching and

learning has already become a major guiding model for instructional design in many subjects, particularly in the

science subject. In addition, teaching students with the concept of discovering, critical thinking, questioning, and

problem-solving skills are one of the main standards of science and technology teaching (Balĭm, 2009). Balĭm

believed that constructivist guided-inquiry approach should be used in which students learn more effectively by

constructing their own knowledge.

Cognitive function refers to an intellectual process by which one becomes aware of, perceives, or comprehends

ideas, involves all aspects of perception, thinking, reasoning, and remembering (Mosby’s Medical Dictionary,

2009). Advances in classroom curricula often come together with increased demands on students to have the

higher order of cognitive functions in practice (Srikoon, Bunterm, Nethanomsak & Tang, 2017). Papakostas

(2015) summarized that cognitive functioning is a broad construct involving attention (the ability to focus on a

stimulus of interest against a background of stimulus considered irrelevant and potentially

distracting),

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 475

immediate memory (the ability to remember something for a short time after it was presented), delayed memory

(the ability to recall something presented in the distant past), cognitive speed (the rate at which different mental

processes and tasks happen), and executive functioning (the ability to integrate sensory input and memory in

order to complete a task).

Attention represents “a set of cognitive abilities that allow living beings to cope with the enormous amount of

information flooding the sensory system, and to use this information in goal-directed and adaptive behavior”

(Klaver, 2009: 204). It is the cognitive process of selectively focused on one aspect of the environment while

ignoring other things and also been mentioned to as the allocation of processing resources (Fougnie, 2008).

Sarter, Bruno and Givens (2003: 247) summarized that the efficacy of practically every step in the learning

process, from the detection, selection, and filtering of sensory inputs to the manipulation of information in the

working memory store, and the construction of associational chains to recall and rehearse information and to

re-network it into a new context, has been conceptualized to are depending on attention functions and capacities.

According to Luck and Vecera (2002: 235), attention is an essential part of the information process which

involving the multiple dissociable cognitive processes and being related to each other. Therefore, attention can

influence working memory learning outcomes (Loaiza & McCabe, 2013). It is needed for removing unwanted

sensory inputs or irrelevant behavioral tasks and is worthwhile when some cognitive system or process receives

too many inputs. Attention can function to limit the number of inputs and allow processing to stay in an effective

way (Vecera & Rizzo, 2003).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The main aim of this study is to investigate the attention abilities after the intervention of both teaching models,

namely neurocognitive constructivist guided-inquiry based model (NCGI) and conventional structured inquiry

5E model (SI5E). The attention abilities are the auditory attention, visual attention (Thai letter), and visual

attention (picture). All teaching models are used to provide opportunities for teacher and students to learn how

the student’s knowledge, cognition, emotions interact with environments and how both variations occurred

through learning process (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2015). Current thought in educational neuroscience is blended

to provide a perspective on modern learning theory and teaching model, especially in relation to some emergent

ideas in correlations and patterns in the neurocognitive processing of information that focus on attention for

improving students’ learning abilities (Anderson, 2009).

Neurocognitive constructivist guided-inquiry (NCGI) teaching model

NCGI teaching model was developed by researchers and used to teach the experimental group. The syntax of

NCGI teaching model consists of seven steps as follow: (i) Teacher introduces emotional arousal; (ii) Students

set their learning goals; (iii) Students are encouraged to express their ideas or their prior knowledge as a baseline

for making a connection with new knowledge; (iv) Teacher provides opportunities for students to present their

knowledge by utilizing their multi-sensory in diverse aspects through hands-on activities or complex tasks.

Students show their understanding by inquiring, exploring, and using the problem-solving skills to conduct the

experiments or solve their problems. Teacher provides scaffolding, facilities, and assists students while they are

doing their tasks to maximize their competencies; (v) Students construct their own knowledge by making the

connections between the new knowledge and their prior knowledge or linking the classroom content to the

community; (vi) Teacher practices some executive function tasks using the learned content, and (vii) teacher

applies various strategies to monitor and evaluate students’ learning. Students are encouraged to revise and

reflect on the learning activities in order to detect any misconception occurred.

Structural inquiry 5E (SI5E)

On the other hand, the conventional SI5E teaching model was used to teach the control group. This SI5E model

is the teaching model recommended by Thailand Ministry of Education and supported by the Institute for the

Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) (2012) in a standard classroom. The syntax of SI5E

model consists of the five steps: (i) Engagement: Teacher introduces the topic that is intended to study, asks the

students to make a specific topic, and interact with the material; (ii) Exploration: Teacher motivates the students

to do experiment according to the proper laboratory manual procedure. Teacher explains the procedure for the

inquiry method, followed by the preparation of apparatus while students perform the experiment and analyze the

collected data; (iii) Explanation: Students are requested to prepare the experiment results and present the results

to the class; (iv) Elaboration: Teacher questions the students with a prepared set of applied questions that relating

directly to the topic of their previous investigation, and (vi) Evaluation: Teacher observes and takes notes of the

students’ performance including their discussion, the way they answer the questions, and how they conduct the

actual experiment (Bunterm et al., 2014).



Attention abilities

Sternberg (2012) introduced attention is comprised of sustained attention, focus attention, selective attention, and

divided attention. The process of attention begins with alertness, selected attention, and executive control. Based

on the reviews of Sieb (1990) and further supported by Sternberg (2012), attention can be defined as the brain

areas involved in attention are in the prefrontal association cortex (PAC). As a result of the PAC mechanisms,

only one sensory stimulus activates the orientation, alerting, awareness, arousal, and cognitive systems and then,

therefore, attention occurs. Furthermore, Gray, Rogers, Martinussen, and Tannock (2015) have determined the

working memory mediates the pathway between attention and subsequent learning outcomes.

Previous research findings revealed that attention is the most essential information process because it includes

organizing information into a coherent structure and optimizing conceptual understanding (Mayer, Kim, & Park,

2011; Yang & Chang, 2015). In addition, past researchers (Loaiza & McCabe, 2013; Yang & Chang, 2015) have

proved that attention influences working memory outcomes. This is further supported by a recent study (Srikoon

et al., 2017) indicated that the learner brain findings are powerful for education only insofar as they have assisted

to change our perspective of how learning and development happen. Previous studies demonstrated the strong

relationship between working memory and science achievement (Danili & Reid, 2004; Gathercole, Pickering,

Knight & Stegmann, 2004; Tsaparlis, 2005). In addition, it has been reported that working memory also showed

the positive correlation with chemistry problem test (Tsaparlis, 2005). Ropovik (2014) found that working

memory accounts for about 63 percent of the variation in the ability to learn.The variables in this study are

elucidated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY The main purpose of this study was to explore the influence of using NCGI teaching model on attention abilities

compared to using SI5E teaching model. This research is a subsequent study after the developed NCGI teaching

model was verified by the three experts in science education before implementing the actual study. More

specifically, the study sought to achieve the following purposes:

i. To identify Grade 11 students’ auditory attention and visual attention in both experimental and control

groups before and after implementing NCGI and SI5E teaching models respectively.

ii. To study the differences between experimental group and control group in their auditory attention and

visual attention.

METHOD

Research design and participants of the study

A 2 (teaching model: NCGI vs SI5E) x 2 (time of measure: pretest vs posttest) experimental design was

employed in this study. The NCGI model was developed and implemented in the experimental group while the

SI5E model was used in the control group. Participants’ attention abilities were assessed in both groups before

and after interventions. The participants were randomly selected from a total of 65 Grade 11 students from three

NCGI teaching

model

SI5E teaching model

Auditory attention

Visual attention

(Thai letter)

Visual attention

(picture)



classes in a secondary school located at northeastern of Thailand during the second semester of 2014 academic

year. The selected participants were equally distributed into the experimental and control groups after

considering their gender and age. In order to remain the homogeneous, there were 34 students in experimental

group (male students = 10; Mage = 16.74, SD = .56) and 31 students in control group (male students = 5, Mage =

16.77, SD = .42). This was to ensure that both groups were no differences either in their age (t(63) = .31) or their

gender as well (X2 = 1.62). This experimental design was employed in order to investigate the variation or

changes in the attention abilities after the intervention of teaching model (NCGI or SI5E). In another word, this

design is considered as a true experiment because it is generally associated with the conditions that directly

affect the variation.

Research instrument

Attention battery test was used as research instrument. All the tests were administered in the Thai language to

ensure the participants were clear about the questions. All the tests had been evaluated the goodness of fit test for

construct validity as well as test-retest for testing the reliability by Bunterm et al. (2013). The attention battery

test used to measure participants’ audio and visual attention. Audio attention was measured by sound attention

battery test while visual attention was measured by letter attention battery test and dot attention battery test.

Sound attention battery test was comprised of three sub-tests, namely simple task sound, sustained sound, and

selected choice sound. In the simple task sound sub-test, the stimuli were sound frequency ‘500Hz’. Participant

was given 50 trials and they were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when they heard the sound (test-retest

reliability value = 0.954). In the sustained sound sub-test, the stimuli were sound three kinds of frequency: 500,

1000, and 2000 Hz. The target stimulus was sound frequency ‘500Hz’. Participants were given 50 trials and

were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when they heard the target sound. The occurrence of the target stimulus was

20 percent. The occurrence of each distracter stimulus was 40 percent (test-retest reliability value = 0.946). In

the selected choice sound sub-test, the target stimuli were 500Hz and 1000Hzsound. Participants were asked to

press ‘1’ if the stimulus was 500Hz and press ‘2’ if the stimulus was 1000Hz. Participants were given 50 trials.

Test-retest reliability value was 0.822. The letter attention battery test and the dot attention battery test were

covering the same pattern of their four sub-tests. For example, the letter attention battery test including simple

task letter, focus letter, sustained letter and select choice letter while the dot attention battery test including

simple task dot, focus dot, sustained dot and select choice dot. Participants were given 50 trials for each sub-test.

In the simple task letter sub-test, the stimulus was a Thai alphabet “ถ”. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when the stimulus appeared on the screen (test-retest reliability value = 0.955). In the focus letter

sub-test, the stimuli were two Thai alphabets “ถ” and “ภ”. “ถ” was the target stimulus; “ภ” was the distracter. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when the target stimulus appeared on the screen (occurrence of

the target stimulus was 20%, test-retest reliability value =0.938).In the sustained letter sub-test, the stimuli were

44 Thai alphabets. The target stimulus was “ถ”. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when the target stimulus appeared on the screen (occurrence of the target stimulus was 20%, test-retest reliability value =0.959).

In the select choice letter sub-test, the target stimuli were two Thai alphabets “ถ” and “ภ”. Participants were

asked to immediately press ‘1’ when “ถ” appeared and press ‘2’ when “ภ” appeared on the screen (test-retest reliability value =0.966).

In the simple task dot sub-test, participants were asked to press ‘1’ when a dot appeared in the upper left-hand

side of a two by two grid (test-retest reliability value = 0.979). In the focus dot sub-test, the stimuli were two

pictures, a dot appeared in the upper left-hand side of a two by two grid and a dot appeared in the upper

right-hand side of a two by two grid. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ when a dot appeared in the upper

left-hand side of a two by two grid. The target occurred in 20 percent of trials. Test-retest reliability value =

0.976. In the sustained dot sub-test, the target stimulus was a dot appeared in the upper left- hand side of a two

by two grid. The distracters were a dot that appeared in other locations of a two by two grid. Participants were

asked to press ‘1’ when the target stimulus appeared on the screen. The target occurred in 20 percent of trials

(test-retest reliability value = 0.966). In the select choices dot sub-test, the target stimuli were a dot appeared in

the upper left-hand side of a two by two grid and a dot appeared in the upper right-hand side of a two by two

grid. Participants were asked to immediately press ‘1’ when the first stimulus (upper left-hand dot) appeared and

press ‘2’ when the second stimulus (upper right-hand dot) appeared on the screen. Test-retest reliability value

=0.970.



RESULTS Researchers used a 2x2 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine whether the developed NCGI teaching model would enhance the Grade 11 students’ attention abilities better than using conventional

SI5E teaching model. As the samples comprised of two groups, the researchers had to consider the

following assumptions before the groups were treated equally. The first assumption was that there should be

no outliers. The second assumption was that the all the dependent variables should be approximately normally

distributed for each group and, finally, there was the homogeneity of variances. The results of this study

are presented in accordance with the research aim that is indicated above and proposed in three sections

according to the groups of dependent variables, namely auditory, visual (Thai letter), and visual (picture)

attention. The findings are presented in two parts namely descriptive and inferential findings. The initial

findings emphasize on the attention abilities of Grade 11 students before and after using the NCGI and

SI5E teaching models in their science educational instruction. This is followed by evaluating the variation

occurred from these two teaching models on Grade 11 students’ attention abilities.

Attention was the dependent variable which consisted of two aspects, namely auditory attention and

visual attention. The auditory attention variable was measured from these three tests: Simple sound, sustained

sound, and select choices sound. Since the Box’s M test was significant, so the level of significant was set

at .001. There were significant main effects of pedagogical condition and time of measure, both of which

were qualified by a significant pedagogical condition x time interaction effect, F(3,61) = 61,523, p< .001;

Pillai's Trace = .752; 2= .752, observed power = 1.000. The univariate tests showed significant interaction

effect for all three auditory attention tests. The interaction effect for simple sound, F(1,63) = 91.106,2= .591; sustained sound ,F(1,63) = 113.164,2= .642, and select choices sound, F(1,63) =23.742,2= .274, were significance at p< .001. The results from pairwise t-tests of pretest showed that there were no

group differences in all sub-tests of auditory attention variable. Table 1 indicates that the descriptive and

inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test performances revealed a better improvement in the experimental

group who followed the NCGI teaching model compared to the control group who followed SI5E teaching

model.

Table 1. Descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test for auditory attention

Dependent

variables

Experimental group (N=34) Control group (N=31) Indepen-

dent t-test

Pre-test Post-test Paired t

test

(df = N-1)


test

(df =

N-1)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Simple sound

(range: 0-50)

27.29 3.958 41.09 3.334 21.323** 25.84 3.992 29.87 3.948 5.024** 1.475

12.413**

Sustained sound

(range: 0-50)

28.53 3.816 40.00 3.348 18.391** 27.26 3.633 29.00 3.899 2.598** 1.373

12.233**

Select choice

sound (range:

0-50)

28.85 2.298 36.85 1.438 18.492** 28.55 2.307 33.58 1.996 11.806*

*

.533

7.632**

**p<.01; *p<.05

On the other hand, visual attention was measured in two parts: Thai letter and picture. There were four tests used

to collect the accumulated data related to visual attention letter variable, namely simple letter, focus

letter, sustained letter, and select choices letter. The Box's M = 55.590 (p=.087) showed the observed

covariance matrices of the dependent variables were equal across groups. The data were appropriate to

analyze with this technique. There were significant main effects of pedagogical condition and time of

measure, both of which were qualified by a significant pedagogical condition x time interaction effect, F(4,60)

= 57.302, p< .001, Pillai's Trace = .793,2= .793, observed power = 1.000. The univariate tests showed

significant interaction effect for all four visual attention tests. The interaction effect for simple letter, F(1,63) =

24.605,2= .281;focus letter, F(1,63) = 121.755,2= .659); sustained letter, F(1,63) = 47.033,2= .427; and

select choices letter, F(1,63) =19.944,2= .240, were significance at p< .001.

The results from pairwise t-tests of pretest showed that there were no group differences in all sub-tests of

the visual attention (Thai letter) variable. Table 2 shows that the descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-

test vs post-test visual attention (Thai letter) performances revealed a better improvement in the

experimental group who followed the NCGI teaching model compared to the control group who followed SI5E

teaching model.



Table 2. Descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test for visual attention (Thai letter) Dependent

variables

Experimental group (N=34) Control group (N=31) Inde-pen-

dent t-test


test

(df = N-1)


test

(df =

N-1)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Simple letter

(range: 0-50)

31.12 2.226 37.85 1.438 16.695** 30.74 2.206 34.52 1.913 8.545** .683

7.994**

Focus letter

(range: 0-50)

30.53 3.816 39.00 3.348 13.581** 29.29 3.617 29.32 3.219 .078 1.340

11.855**

Sustained

letter(range: 0-50)

28.15 2.002 31.85 1.258 10.034** 28.00 1.673 28.42 .923 1.416 .320

12.441**

Select choice letter

(range: 0-50)

29.74 2.538 35.79 1.431 13.158** 29.10 2.371 32.58 1.996 10.533*

*

1.045

7.509**

**p<.01; *p<.05

The other part of visual attention was picture. There were also four tests used to collect the accumulated data

related to visual attention picture variable, namely simple dot, focus dot, sustained dot, and select choices dot.

Since the Box’s M test was significant, so the level of significant was set at .001. There were significant main

effects of pedagogical condition and time of measure, both of which were qualified by a significant pedagogical

condition x time interaction effect, F(4,60) = 70.904, p< .001, Pillai's Trace = .825,2= .825, observed power =

1.000. The univariate tests showed significant interaction effect for all dependent measures. The interaction

effect for simple dot, F(1,63) = 24.367,2= .279;focus dot, F(1,63) = 90.290,2= .589, sustained Dot, F(1,63) =

44.741,2= .415, and select choices dot, F(1,63) =20.135,2= .242, were significance at p< .001.

The results from pairwise t-tests of pretest showed that there were no group differences in all sub-tests of the

visual attention (picture) variable. Table 3 shows that the descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs

post-test visual attention (picture) performances revealed a better improvement in the experimental group who

followed the NCGI teaching model compared to the control group who followed SI5E teaching model.

Table 3. Descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test for visual attention (picture) Dependent

variables

Experimental group (N=34) Control group (N=31) Inde-pen-

dent t-test


test

(df = N-1)


test

(df =

N-1)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Simple dot (range:

0-50)

38.21 2.267 42.00 1.255 8.697** 37.87 2.172 38.55 2.063 1.600 .607

8.055**

Focus dot (range:

0-50)

30.76 1.478 40.00 3.348 15.867** 30.19 3.229 29.06 3.366 -1.951 .902

13.118**

Sustained

dot(range: 0-50)

29.88 1.788 32.91 1.311 9.904** 29.26 1.483 29.52 1.151 1.000 1.524

11.049**

Select choice dot

(range: 0-50)

30.91 2.006 34.71 1.404 10.462** 30.29 2.209 31.65 1.907 4.900** 1.189

7.413**

**p<.01; *p<.05

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that Grade 11 students who were exposed to the neurocognitive constructivism

and more guided formed of inquiry teaching model showed greater improvements in their attention tests

compared to their peers who were taught using the conventional structured inquiry teaching model. This result

correlates with Srikoon et al.’s (2017) findings. Srikoon et al. revealed that the overall attention, working

memory, and mood conditioning have been improved after the intervention of neurocognitive-based teaching

model compared to the conventional structured inquiry model among the Grade 9 students in a high school

located in Mahasarakham province, Thailand. This finding is also consistent with the past research findings

from Rattanavongsa, Bunterm, Wattanathorn and Muchimapura (2013), Srikoon and Bunterm (2016), Uppasai

and Bunterm (2015), Wangpoomyai, Bunterm, Wattanathorn and Muchimapura (2012), Wannatong,



Bunterm, and Wannanon, (2013), Wuekprakhon, Bunterm, Wattanathorn, and Muchimapura (2010), and

Thorell, Lindqvist, Bergman, Bohlin and Klingberg (2009).

Researchers introduce this NCGI teaching model consists of several elements which have enabled students to

move from structured to guided inquiry coupled with neurocognitive learning theory. The NCGI teaching model

has provided students’ gradual experience through different levels of inquiry thus motivating cognitive

functioning abilities. The teacher is a key figure in implementing inquiry processes from the structured to the

guided inquiry level. It is, therefore, imperative that teachers participate in the inquiry teaching program as they

also develop professionally (Zion & Mendelovici, 2012). According to Zion and Mendelovici, learning by

inquiry is a vital step in developing a scientifically literate, critically, logically and creatively thinking student.

This present study examined the effectiveness of the developed NCGI teaching model to enhance attention

abilities of students. The current results helped to confirm the structural aspects of the school-related skills,

attention abilities are able to be improved by a fascinating way that experience sculpts brain systems into their

mature state (Byrnes & Vu, 2015). For education to truly benefit from these findings in a durable, deep way, for

the full implications to become apparent, teachers must examine closely the theory on which good practice is

built, to reconcile the new and exciting evidence with the developed NCGI teaching model. For example,

affective and social neuroscience findings suggest, however, that emotion and cognition, body and mind, work

together with students of all ages (Immordino-Yang, 2011).

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, O.R. (2009). Neurocognitive theory and constructivism in science education: A review of

neurobiological, cognitive and cultural perspectives. Brunei Int. J. of Sci. & Math. Edu., 1(1), 1-32.

Balĭm, A.G. (2009). The effects of discovery learning on students’ success and inquiry learning skills. Journal of

Educational Research, 35, 1-20.

Bunterm,T., Ketchatturat,J., Samranjai, J., Methaneethorn, J., Wattanathorn, J.,…Werachairatana, S. (2013). Rai

ngankhwamkawnakrungthi song khrongkarnvijaireung

“Karnpạttanakhreungmuewạdsamattanasmongdanphutṭhipạnỵachabạbphasathai” [The second progress

report of the research program “The Development of Cognitive Function Battery Test: Thai Version”].

(Unpublished paper presented to the committee of National Research Council of Thailand, 2013, Dec.

13).

Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng, J.L.K., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., & Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do

different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes? A comparison between guided and

structured inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1937-1959, doi:

10.1080/09500693.2014.886347.

Byrnes, J.P., & Vu, L.T. (2015). Educational neuroscience: Definitional, methodological, and interpretive issues.

WIREs CognSci 2015. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1345

Danili, E.,& Reid, N. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two

cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22, 203-226.

Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. In N.B. Johansen (Ed.), New

Research on Short-Term Memory. Nova Science. Retrieved from

www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/students/fougnidl/Fougnie-chap1.pdf

Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z.(2004). Working memory skills and educational

attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 18, 1-16.

Gray, S.A., Rogers, M., Martinussen, R., Tannock, R. (2015). Longitudinal relations among inattention, working

memory, and academic achievement: Testing mediation and the moderating role of gender. Retrieved

from https://peerj.com/articles/939/

Immordino-Yang, M.H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00713.x

Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (2012). Science measurement and assessment.

Bangkok: V. Print Co., Ltd.

Joyce, B., Weil, M.,& Calhoun, E. (2015).Models of teaching (9thed.). USA: Pearson Education.

Klaver, P. (2009). Attention. In M.D. Binder, N. Hirokawa, & U. Windhorst (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of

Neuroscience, 1. Verlag: Springer.

Loaiza, V.M., & McCabe, D.P. (2012). Temporal-contextual processing in working memory: Evidence from

delayed cued recall and delayed free recall tests. Memory & Cognition, 40, 191-203.



Luck, S.J., &Vecera, S.P. (2002). Attention. In Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471214426.pas0106/abstract.

Mayer, J.S., Kim, J., & Park, S. (2011). Enhancing visual working memory encoding: The role of target novelty.

Visual Cognition, 19(7), 865-885. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2011.594459

Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. (2009). Elsevier. Retrieved from

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cognitive+function.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching

and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,

and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Papakostas, G.I. (2015). Components of cognitive functioning and their measurement. J. Clin Psychiatry,

76(6):e16PMID: 26132678. Retrieved from

http://www.cmeinstitute.com/Psychlopedia/Pages/depression/23cdp/sec2/section.aspx

Rattanavongsa, C., Bunterm, T., Wattanathorn, J., & Muchimapura, S. (2013). Effects of open inquiry learning

approach on stress levels, working memory, critical thinking, and high school physics learning outcomes.

European Journal of Social Sciences, 36(4), 553-564.

Ropovik, I. (2014). Do executive functions predict the ability to learn problem-solving principles? Intelligence,

44, 64-74.

Sarter, M., Bruno, J.P., & Givens, B. (2003). Attentional functions of cortical cholinergic inputs: What does it

mean for learning and memory? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 80(3), 245-256.

Sieb, R.A. (1990). A brain mechanism for attention. Medical Hypotheses, 33(3), 145-153.

Srikoon, S., &Bunterm, T. (2016). Pholkarn chai roopbabkarnruenkarnsornthi chai vijai pen tharnpasarnkubnaw

kid prasartvithayasuksasartthimee tor pholsamrit thang karnruenkwamtung jai laekwam jam khana tam

ngarn. [The effect of integrated research based with educational neuroscience instructional model on

achievement, attention, and working memory]. North Eastern Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 11(1), 1-20.

Srikoon, S., Bunterm, T., Nethanomsak, T., & Tang, K.N. (2017). The effect of neurocognitive-based model and

conventional model on learners’ attention, working memory and mood: A comparative study. Malaysian

Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 83-110.

Steinberg, R.J. (2012). Cognition (6th ed.). Canada: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.

Thorell, L.B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman, N.S., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of

executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12(1), 106-113. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x.

Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: A

correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors. Research in Science & Technological

Education, 23, 125-148.

Uppasai, S., &Bunterm, T. (2015).Pholkarn chai roopbabkarnsorn tam naw kid constructivism lae metacognition

roumkumkwamrooprasartvithayasuksasart pen tharnpuepattanakwamkoujaikam sab vithayasartsukkapap.

[The effect of the teaching model base on constructivism, metacognition, and educational neuroscience

for enhancing the students’ ability in health science terminology]. North Eastern Thai Journal of

Neuroscience, 10(3), 19-33.

Vecera, S.P., & Rizzo, M. (2003). Spatial attention: Normal processes and their breakdown. Neurologic Clinic of

North America, 21, 575-607.

Wangpoomyai, P., Bunterm, T., Wattanathorn, J., & Muchimapura, S. (2012).

Pholkarnjudkijakamkarnruenroobabseubsor ha kwamroo ban perdthimee tor

radubkwamkriedkwamjamkhana tam ngarnkwamsamartnaikarnkaepunhalaepholkarnruenroovicha

physics khongnukruenchunmattayomsuksa pee thi 4. [Effects of Open Inquiry Learning Approach on

Stress Level, Working Memory, Problem Solving Ability, and Physics Learning Outcomes of

Mathayomsuksa IV Students]. North Eastern Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 7(2), 32-47.

Wannatong, K., Bunterm, B., &Wannanon, P. (2013).Pholsạmrit thang karnreunvithayasart,

samathanasamongcherngphuttipạnya, laepholngarn sang sun khongnugreunthī reunroo dui karn chai sue

pahupassathi chai kwamrooprasartvithayasart pen tharnpracobkarnsorn. [Science Achievement, Cognitive

Function and Creative Innovation of Students Learningwith Neuroscience-Based Multi-Sensory Media

Associated With Traditional Approach]. North Eastern Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 8(2), 56-69.

Wuekprakhon, S., Bunterm, T., Wattanathorn, J., &Muchimapura, S. (2010). Phol hon karnjudkarnruenroo duo

chai krongngarn pen tharnkhongnukruenitdubmatthayomsuksa pee thi 4 tor Working Memory. [The

Effect of Project Based Learning on MatthayomSuksa 4 Students’ Working Memory]. North Eastern

Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 5(3), 211-219.

Yang, H.Y., & Chang, C.C. (2015). The effect of attention cueing on science text learning. Tech Know Learn.

doi: 101007/s10758-015-9264-6



Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science

Education International, 23(4), 383-399.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University

Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission, through the Cluster of Research to Enhance

the Quality of Basic Education.



The Neurocognitive Constructivist Guided-Inquiry Based ... · to provide a perspective on modern...

Documents

Transcript of The Neurocognitive Constructivist Guided-Inquiry Based ... · to provide a perspective on modern...