The IT-CSTP Teaching Model for Developing Scientific Thinking and Attitudes toward Science Learning on the Topic of Sound for Grade 11 Students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aimed to 1) study the instructional approach based on the IT-CSTP teaching model for developing scientific thinking and attitudes toward science learning regarding the topic of "Sound," and 2) examine the effects of implementing the IT-CSTP teaching model on these two variables. The study employed action research. Participants consisted of 30 Grade 11 students, selected through purposive sampling. Research instruments included 1) lesson plans, 2) learning reflection forms, 3) a scientific thinking test, 4) a scientific thinking behavior assessment, 5) an attitude toward science questionnaire, and 6) worksheets. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and percentage. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis, and the trustworthiness of the data was verified through triangulation. Results were as follows: 1) The instructional approach based on the IT-CSTP teaching model emphasizes the integration of intelligent technologies, digital laboratories, online teaching platforms, and artificial intelligence into learning activities. Teachers should facilitate authentic problem-based situations that encourage students to investigate, discuss, argue, construct models, experiment, and apply knowledge in new contexts, as this systematic approach enhances student engagement while concurrently developing scientific thinking and positive attitudes toward science. 2) Results of the implementation indicated that students’ scientific thinking continuously improved across the action research cycles. After the intervention, students achieved an average scientific thinking score of 77.30%, which was at a very high level. In addition, students’ attitudes toward science learning were also at a very high level, with an average score of 88.80%.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in the Journal it is the responsibility of the author of the article, and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team.
References
กฤษฎาวุฒิ ไชยวุฒิ และ กัลทิมา พิชัย. (2564). การศึกษาผลสัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนและเจตคติต่อการเรียนวิทยาศาสตร์ของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 2 โรงเรียนบ้านหนองปลามัน. วารสารบัณฑิตศึกษามหาจุฬาขอนแก่น, 8(3), 151-161. สืบค้นจาก https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/ index.php/jg-mcukk/article/view/250196/169860
วรรณทิพา รอดแรงค้า และ พิมพันธ์ เดชะคุปต์. (2542). การพัฒนาการคิดของครูด้วยกิจกรรมทักษะกระบวนการทางวิทยาศาสตร์. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 2). กรุงเทพฯ: สถาบันพัฒนาคุณภาพวิชาการ.
สถาบันส่งเสริมการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี. (2555). การวัดผลประเมินผลวิทยาศาสตร์. กรุงเทพฯ: ซีเอ็ดยูเคชั่น.
อุษณีย์ สีนนลี มณีรัตน์ และ สุมาลี ชัยเจริญ. (2567). การพัฒนาโมเดลสิ่งแวดล้อมการเรียนรู้ตามแนวคอนสตรัคติวิสต์ ที่ส่งเสริมการคิดเชิงวิทยาศาสตร์ สำหรับนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 1. วารสารรัชตภาคย์, 18(59), 417-435. สืบค้นจาก https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/RJPJ/article/view/271813
Adey, P. (2006). A model for the professional development of teachers of thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.07.002
Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2023). The impact of physics education technology (PhET) interactive simulation-based learning on motivation and academic achievement among Malawian physics students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10010-3
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1996). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Penguin Books.
De Bono, E. (1982). De Bono's Thinking Course. London: British Broadcasting.
Feuerstein, R., Rand. Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller. R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hollabaugh, M. (1995). Physics problem solving in cooperative learning groups. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Huang, L., Zhou, X. & Zhu, W. (2025). The teaching model (IT-CSTP) for integrating intelligent technology into scientific thinking cultivation in physics: A practical study for high school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 35(1), 27-44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-025-10225-0
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1998). The action research planner. (3rd ed.). Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop?. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 497-523). West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kuslan, L. I., & Stone, A. H. (1969). Teaching children science: An inquiry approach. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
McGuinness, C., Eakin, A., Curry, C., & Sheehy, N. (2007). Building thinking skills in thinking classrooms: ACTS in Northern Ireland. In 13th International Conference on Thinking, 13(1), 109-114. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/32949578/Building_thinking_skills_
in_thinking_classrooms_ACTS_in_Northern_Ireland
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 136-314). Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
OECD (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Schafersman, S. D. (1997). An introduction to science: Scientific thinking and the scientific method. Ohio: Department of Geology, Miami University.
Shayer, M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 465-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00092-6
Tripp, D. H. (1980). The evaluation of the De Bono (CoRT) thinking project: Some theoretical issues. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 6(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(80)90020-6
Zimmerman, C., & Croker, S. (2014). A prospective cognition analysis of scientific thinking and the implications for teaching and learning science. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13(2), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.13.2.245