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

Ackermann, E. K. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference? Constructivism: Uses and perspectives in education, (1). Retrieved from http://www. learning.media.mit.edu.

Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. Chapter published in: A learning zone of one's own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments [M. Tokoro and L.Steels (Eds.).] Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington, DC. IOS Press, Part 1. Chapt 2. pp. 15-37. Retrieved from http://www.learning.media.mit.edu.

Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers bridge to constructivism. The Clearing House, 119-121.

Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1037-1058.

Anderson, O. R. (2009). Neurocognitive theory and constructivism in science education: A review of neurobiological, cognitive and cultural perspectives. Brunei International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 1/1, 1-32.

Anderson, O. R., Love, B. C., and Tsai, M.-J. (2014). Neuroscience perspectives for Science and Mathematics learning in technology-enhanced learning environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 467- 474.

Ayaz, M. F., & Sekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 143-156.

Bogar, Y., Kalender, S., & Sarikaya, M. (2012). The effects of constructive learning method on students’ academic achievement, retention of knowledge, gender and attitudes towards science course in “matter of structure and characteristics” unit. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 46, 1766-1770.

Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng, L.K.J., 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.

Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in Science and their implications for Science Pedagogy: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206. Retrieved from EBSCO host.

Chotiphatphaisal, N. (2014). Confused Thai educators. Retrieved from: http://www.newmandala.org.

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-91.

Dehn, M. J. (2008). Working memory and academic learning. New Jersey: Wiley.

Everitt, B. S., & Dunn, G. (1991). Applied multivariate data analysis, 219-220. London: Edward Arnold.

Framework for 21st Century Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/ourwork/p21-framework

Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching Effectiveness: A Framework and Rubric. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.

Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.

Goswami, U. (2015). Children’s Cognitive Development and Learning. New York: Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Robello, N. S. (2007). Comparing students’ and experts’ understanding of the content of a lecture. Journal Science Educational Technology, 16, 213-224.

Israsena, P., Wongviriyawong, C., Sipitakiat, A., Tutiyaphuengprasert, N., Tantikul, T., Limpiti, N., Rattanathavorn, I., & Cheamsawat, S. (2014). Constructionism in Thailand and its transformative effect on the lifelong learning process. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK6jZBJ7PXU&index=11&list=UUldlJvVdukFpWdImz3NDCA

Jalbani, L.N. (2014). The impact of effective teaching strategies on the students’ academic performance and learning outcome: A literature review. GRIN Verlag, Germany: Open Publishing GmbH.

Khalid, A., & Azeem, M. (2012). Constructivist Vs traditional: Effective instructional approach in teacher education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(5), 170-177.

Markovic, M.R. (2012). Creative education and new learning as means of encouraging creativity, original thinking and entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.worldacademy.org.

MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australian. Melbourne: Australian Council on Education.

Nelson, C.E. (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access. Retrieved from http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/icn027v1.pdf.[PubMed].

Olson, C. L. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 579-586.

Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008).Innovative teaching to promote innovative thinking. In R.L. DeHaan & K.M.V. Narayan (Eds.), Education for innovation: Implications for India, China and America (pp. 181-210). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Qarareh, A. O. (2016). The effect of using the constructivist learning model in teaching science on the achievement and scientific thinking of 8th Grade students. International Education Studies, 9(7), 178.doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n7p178.

Rachahoon, K., Bunterm, T., Wattanathorn, J., & Muchimapura, S. (2011). The effect of the open inquiry learning activity on the stress level, learning outcomes, and multiple intelligences. North-Eastern Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 6(4), 34-48.

Rattanawongsa, J., 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.

Ridderinkhof, K. R., van den Wildenberg, W.P.M., Segalowitz, S. J., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: The role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain and Cognition, 56 (2004), 129–140.

Saribas, D., & Bayram, H. (2009). Is it possible to improve science process skills and attitudes towards chemistry through the development of metacognitive skills embedded within a motivated chemistry lab? A self-regulated learning approach. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(2009), 61-72.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E. & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361-388.

Srikoon, S., & Bunterm, T. (2016). 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.

Stager, G. (2005). Papertian constructionism and the design of productive context for learning. In Plennary Session Paper – EuroLogo X Warsaw, Poland, 28-31August 2005. Retrieved from www.stager.org/articles/eurologo20 05.pdf.

Stager, G. (2010). A Constructionist Approach to Teaching with Robotics. In Proceedings of Constructionism and Creativity Conference, Paris, France, 16-20 August 2010. Ratislava, Slovakia: Library and Publishing Center, Comenius University.

Tap Report. (2005). 2005 Tap Report. Retrieved from http://www.tap2015.org/about/TAP_report2.pdf.

The Institute of the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (ISPT). (2009). Quality of Thai student learning: The synthesis of PISA and TIMSS 2007. Bangkok: IPST.

The Institute of the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (ISPT). (2010). PISA 2009 Assessment of Reading, Mathematics and Science: Executive summary. Bangkok: ArunPress.

Triantafyllou, E., & Timcenko, O. (2013). Applying constructionism and problem based learning for developing dynamic educational material for mathematics at undergraduate university level. In Proceedings of the 4th International Research Symposium on PBL 2013: PBL across cultures. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (pp. 335 - 340). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.

Uppasai, S., & Bunterm, T. (2015). 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.

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

Wannapiroon, P. (2014). Development of research-based blended learning model to enhance graduate students’ research competency and critical thinking skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 486-490, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.361.

Wannathong, K., Bunterm, T., & Wannanon, P. (2013). Students’ science achievement, cognitive functions, and creative innovation after learning by multi-sensory media associated with traditional approach. North-Eastern Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 8(2), 56-69.

Wilkin, C. L. (2014). Enhancing the AIS curriculum: Integration of a research-led, problem-based learning task. Journal of Accounting Education, 32(2), 185–199, doi: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2014.04.001.

Wongpratum, S. (2000). The construction of creative thinking test in science for PrathomSuksa Five and Six students.(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Khon Kaen University: Thailand.