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

The results of this study showed that there was no significant difference between groups on the dependent variables, except science process skills before the intervention. However, after the intervention, all dependent variables, namely the three science learning outcomes and creative thinking in the experimental group, were significantly higher than the control group. On this line of reasoning, the developed teaching model is found to have a more significant effect on the overall science learning outcomes and creative thinking of students than the traditional model. The results of this study are found to be consistent with several previous findings about constructivism (Ayaz & Sekerci, 2015; Bogar, Kalender & Sarikaya, 2012; Qarareh, 2016) and also the constructionism learning model (Triantafyllou & Timcenko, 2013; Stager, 2005).

The results of this study indicated that there was a significant different effect from the two teaching models. As a result, great emphasis has been placed on science teachers to use effective teaching models to improve students’ learning and creative thinking. With the passage of time, the importance of science teachers’ teaching styles is being rolled-out perhaps and they are taking initiatives to improve their teaching strategies, using an appropriate teaching model, to improve students’ learning and thinking skills (Jalbani, 2014).

Science teachers used to give instruction via the conventional teaching model, while the role of science teachers in the constructionism neurocognitive-based teaching model is to create a productive context for learning, including preparing multisensory material, scaffolding, consulting, giving time, collaboration, and doing ahead with the coming needs of student as suggested by Stager (2010). The students’ role in the constructionism neurocognitive-based teaching model is to share their ideas with each other and cooperate in making something shareable, thus involving in open inquiry learning. While their roles in the conventional teaching model is doing an experiment in-group following workbook instruction or learning via structured inquiry. This result is supported by previous researchers who found advantages in utilizing the open inquiry learning approach (Bunterm et al., 2014; Rachahoon, Bunterm, Wattanathorn & Muchimapura, 2011; Rattanawongsa, Bunterm, Wattanathorn & Muchimapura, 2013; Vangpoomyai, Bunterm, Wattanathorn & Muchimapura, 2012) and the multi-sensory approach (Wannathong, Bunterm & Wannanon, 2013).

The common features seen to promote creativity were flexibility in the pedagogical environment, where the teacher creates an environment that provides students opportunities for ideas and expression, and promotes good attitudes towards creative thinking, particularly an open-mindedness to receive new initiatives. This result is supported by Davies et al. (2013) who emphasized an important feature of the pedagogic environment, which can promote creativity, is the nature of the relationship between teachers and students, including high expectations, mutual respect, modelling of creative attitudes, flexibility and dialogue.

The current situation of research on neurocognitive-based learning is still at an initial stage. Though there are many studies about Brain-Based Learning, some researchers prefer not to use this term as it is tied to more over claim believes that still not proof in neuroscience or sometimes misconceptions and seem to be more business. Many studies have found the effects of cognitive functions such as working memory, attention and executive functions on learning outcomes (Dehn, 2008). Further studies are now discovering how the brain works in processing information. Most are done by neuroscientists or neurocognitive psychologists. Ridderinkhof, van den Wildenberg, Segalowitz and Carter (2004), from departments of psychology in four universities made a review of recent progress in cognitive neuroscience and examined some of the main constituent processes of cognitive control involved in dynamic decision making: goal directed action selection, response activation and inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. However, teachers still know little of how to apply this knowledge of neuroscience in their classrooms.

In Thailand, this field of study is at an early stage. Some educational researchers have tried to develop teaching models that incorporate the concepts of working memory, attention and executive functions in their teaching models. The results confirmed that students in experimental groups who learned science via a teaching model based on some concepts from a neurocognitive-based learning theory performed better than students in a control group (Srikoon & Bunterm, 2016; Uppasai & Bunterm, 2015; Wannatong, Bunterm & Wannanon, 2013).

It is concluded that the developed constructionism and neurocognitive based teaching model, which is based on the theoretical foundation of neurocognitive learning theory and constructionism learning theory, is able to enhance the science learning outcomes and creative thinking of Grade 11 students. As a high-impact educational practice shown in this study, the benefits of these two learning theories are being recognized as an important teaching model. Maintaining a productive constructionism and neurocognitive-based teaching model requires not only the dedication of the participating science teachers, but also the establishment of a culture across schools that encourages the application of these two learning theories and provides a network of support for the teaching community. The constructionism and neurocognitive-based teaching model proposed in this paper and used in the case study, show a positive impact on students’ science learning outcomes and their creative thinking. Further work that includes developing this teaching model with more direct and indirect assessment is a necessity.