The constructionism and neurocognitive-based teaching model for promoting science learning outcomes and creative thinking

The current education system requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in facing economic, technological, social and personal challenges. Responding to the challenges of the twenty-first century, with its complex environmental, social and economic forces, requires students to be creative, innovative and adaptable, with the motivation, confidence and skills to use critical and creative thinking decisively. In particular, teaching and learning science in this new age requires a new teaching model. This means an interactive and creative education based on individual needs and abilities (Markovic, 2012).

Most teachers teach science primarily through lectures and textbooks that are dominated by facts and algorithmic processes, rather than by concepts, principles and evidence-based ways of thinking. This is despite ample evidence that many students gain little new knowledge from traditional lectures (Hrepic, Zollman & Rebello, 2007). Reformers in science education have promoted the idea that students should be engaged in the excitement of science. They should be helped to discover the value of evidence-based reasoning and higher-order cognitive skills, and taught to become innovative problem solvers (Nelson, 2008; Perkins & Wieman, 2008).

The constructionism and neurocognitive-based teaching model utilizes two emerging fields, namely: neurocognitive learning theory and the constructivist philosophy of science teaching and learning. Neurocognitive learning theory is a synthesis of three traditionally separate components of inquiry such as (i) neurophysiology with an emphasis on the biological bases of brain and neutral activity; (ii) cognitive science with a focus on information processing and the internal presentation of experience, and (iii) learning theory that explains how we cumulatively interact with, and adapt to, our environment (Anderson, 2009).

According to Anderson (2009), the application of this teaching model to analyse inquiry based science learning has to go through the following process: (i) Action-reaction loops in brain functioning; (ii) Brain functional modules and their integrated activity during science learning; (iii) The role of attention and perception during inquiry learning; (iv) Knowledge networking and frontal lobe executive functions; (v) Scientific reasoning and frontal lobe activity; (vii) Inquiry learning cycle phases and frontal lobe cognitive functions, and (viii) A word about creativity, multi-modal representations and inquiry learning.

As indicated in the Framework for 21st Century Learning, learners must master a blend of content knowledge, specific skills, expertise and literacy in order to succeed in their work and life (http://www.p21.org/ourwork/p21-framework). Implementing all of these skills requires the development of core academic subject knowledge and understanding among all learners. In other words, those learners who can think critically and communicate effectively must build on a base of core academic subject knowledge. Within the context of core knowledge instruction, learners must also learn essential skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration.

Creativity and innovation capabilities are recognized as fundamental to becoming successful learners by the Australian Council on Education (MCEETYA, 2008). According to the TAP Report (2005), science, as a major source of discovery and economic development, must be taught to cultivate the skilled scientists and engineers needed to create tomorrow’s innovation; thus maintaining the country’s competitiveness in the twenty-first century.

According to Gilbert (2005), former conceptions of knowledge, minds and learning no longer serve a world where what teachers know is less important than what teachers are able to do with knowledge in different contexts, and where their capacity for learning far outweighs the importance of their ability to follow rules. Therefore, schools and teachers need to thoughtfully and intentionally design learning environments and tasks in which teachers can explore issues that are relevant, and develop pedagogies that are effective for a knowledge era (Friesen, 2009). As a result, teachers need to develop new teaching strategies and acquire new expertise to design and facilitate meaningful learning, in particular, in sciences. Preparing science teachers for the 21st century requires a close look at what it means to teach and learn in increasingly networked, technology-rich, digital classrooms. If teachers have good science instruction they are able to teach science effectively, and process skills will be emphasized more in the classroom (Saribas & Bayram, 2009).

A construction education system encourages critical thinking and an inquiring mind, but the education system in Thailand is still not capable of offering these skills to students. This is because the classroom teaching remains very much teacher-centred, while learners are blamed for lacking talent and are denied the right to develop themselves (Chotiphatphaisal, 2014). The international study by the Office of the Education Council and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in collaboration with the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009 indicated that the average score for Thai students is 425, while the average international score is 501. This means that Thailand was ranked 47th out of a total of 65 countries (The Institute of the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology-ISPT, 2010). On top of that, results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) revealed that Thai students scored 471 out of an international average score as 500 in terms of their knowledge and scientific skills at a basic educational level. In other words, Thai students were ranked 23rd out of a total of 50 countries (The Institute of the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology-ISPT, 2009).

Constructionism and Neurocognitive-based Teaching Model

The medical definition of neurocognitive is related or involved cognitive functioning, and is associated to the structures and processes of the central nervous system (http://www.meriam-webster.com/medical/neurocognitive). Neurophysiology is focused on the biological aspects of brain and neural activity, while cognitive science highlights information processing and internal representation of experience. In addition, learning theory is used to explain how students cumulatively interact and adapt to their environments. Anderson (2009) proposed that neurocognitive learning theory is a synthesis of neurophysiology, cognitive science and learning theory. To what extent do these three components provide mutually reinforcing explanations of students’ learning? As a result, teachers are able to understand and predict to enhance students’ learning.

Hence, a neurocognitive model is defined as an information processing learning theory that is used to explain in terms of neurocognitive science. According to Anderson (2009), neurocognitive-based learning covers the following procedures. Firstly, perceptions of sensory input from students’ five senses formed by their prior experiences, and modified in relation to prior stored information in their long term memory. The affective states influence how the incoming sensory data are perceived and integrated with prior knowledge, thus the working memory takes responsibility in doing these processes. Secondly, the brain processes multiple information inputs almost at the same time. Thirdly, decision making and response patterns are weighted by emotion, and finally the appropriate response is selected and actualized by motor pathways. According to this neurocognitive based teaching model, teachers have to: promote their students’ affective states in order to keep their continual attention; focus on the appropriate connection between prior knowledge and new knowledge; promote executive function, especially working memory, for shaping and reworking in relation to their prior stored information; and use multi-sensory media or hands-on experiments as much as possible.

On the other hand, a constructionism learning theory is defined as one where students construct mental models in order to understand the world around them. Therefore, constructionism is connected with experiential learning and builds upon Jean Piaget’s epistemological theory of constructivism (Cakir, 2008). In this sense, constructionism advocates student-centred, discovery learning where students use information they already know to acquire more knowledge (Alesandrini& Larson, 2002). Alesandrini and Larson further emphasized that students learn through their involvement in project-based learning where they make connections between different ideas and areas of knowledge facilitated by teachers through coaching rather than using lectures or step-by-step guidance. Further, constructionism holds that learning can happen most effectively when students are active in making tangible objects in the real world.

Constructionism has been introduced to Thai teachers as one of the learning centred teaching paradigms. Although, as mentioned by Israsena et al. (2014), the constructionism approach has been implemented in some schools, villages and organizations in Thailand since 1997, it is unpopular in most ordinary Thai schools. Israsena et al. theorized a transformative learning model consisting of five main components such as curiosity, motivation, planning, execution and conclusion, after experiencing this approach for more than 15 years.

Anderson (1992) proposed the interrelationships between the constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Anderson, Love and Tsai (2014: 467) concluded that integrating a neuroscience, cognitive science and constructivist perspectives into science and mathematics learning had a significant impact. Since Papert’s constructionism was rooted from Piaget’s constructivism, but focused on the art of learning, or ‘learning to learn’, and on the significance of making things in learning (Ackermann, 2004), constructionists believe that students themselves are able to construct knowledge and understand the environment. They have experiences and use tools (i.e. computers) in learning to make them understand better (Ackermann, 2001).

Since the intention is to promote the ability for creative thinking, the best way to know whether or not students can construct their own knowledge, is by the active construction of something, using certain useful technology in today’s digital world. Therefore, researchers gave students in both groups the opportunity to begin an interesting project by themselves, the opportunity to present ideas and creations, and the time to continue their projects. In this way, the constructionism idea was selected to develop our teaching model. Scott, Leritz and Mumford (2004) found that effective creative training programmes focused on the development of cognitive skills and skills in real life application. Consequently, a neurocognitive learning model can be a base for developing our students’ cognitive skills. In this study, the researchers developed this constructionism and neurocognitive-based teaching model by using constructionism based on neurocognitive learning theory as one of the ways to implement educational neuroscience to improve students’ learning outcomes, and one that enhances students to be creative thinkers with the ability to create innovation.

The main ideas used as the basis in this model were:

Student-centred paradigm - students construct their own knowledge and learn together from people and the environment. Students do hands-on activities, interact with the external meaningful environment, make a connection between pieces of prior knowledge and newly-learned knowledge to construct their own new knowledge, and exchange their knowledge with others;
Use of technology as a tool to seek out information and construct their knowledge;
Less stress or more enjoyable learning (emotional conditions influencing the selection and format of the response), multi-sensory learning, and the importance of executive function.

Aim of the Study

This study aimed to examine the effects of the constructionism and neurocognitive-based teaching model on students’ science learning outcomes and creative thinking.