Teaching Science Using Argumentation-Supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods: Differences in the Learning Outcomes of Middle School Students
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Review of Related Literature
2.1. Teaching Science Using the 5E-STEM Model and Associated Outcomes of K-12 Student Learning in the Science Curriculum
2.2. Teaching Science Using the Argumentation-Supported STEM Model and Associated Outcomes of K-12 Student Learning in the Science Curriculum
- -
- Claim: Opinions or explanations for the solution of the problem.
- -
- Data: Events or observations used to support the claim.
- -
- Warrant: These are the reasons why the data support the claim.
2.3. The Combination of 5E-STEM and Argumentation-Supported STEM Models Applied in the Science Curriculum
2.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses
3. Methodology
3.1. Design
3.2. Participants
3.3. Experimental Units
3.4. Instruments
- -
- Learning achievement: STEM education emphasizes the importance of integrating a large amount of content from individual STEM subjects to help students connect ideas across disciplines and to solve real-world problems. However, integrated STEM-oriented courses should also focus on learning goals and standards so as not to inadvertently reduce student performance in those subjects in the curriculum [31]. Therefore, a post-test for the students’ learning achievement in the “Separating Mixtures” unit was developed based on the learning standards of the 6th grade Natural Science course in Vietnam (Appendix A). However, the learning of skills was not reflected in the test scores. Test scores were used as observed data for students’ learning achievement in the “Separating Mixtures” unit.
- -
- Learning motivation: Keller’s ARCS model was used as the basis for developing a learning motivation questionnaire using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The questionnaire consists of four sub-groups including attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. A total of 16 questions were developed to measure students’ learning motivation in the “Separating Mixtures” unit. Cronbach’s α reliability tests were used to measure the internal consistency of the overall questionnaire and each sub-group. The α values of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction were 0.87, 0.78, 0.87, and 0.82, respectively, and the α value of the overall questionnaire was 0.94 (Table 1). Because all values were above 0.7, the internal consistency of the learning motivation questionnaire was acceptable.
- -
- Learning interest: The three-dimensional model of students’ learning interest proposed by [32] was used to build a questionnaire with three sub-groups including cognitive attention, learning emotion, and thinking activity, using a 5-point Likert-type scale. A total of 12 questions were developed to measure students’ learning interest in the “Separating Mixtures” unit. The α values of cognitive attention, learning emotion, and thinking activity were 0.85, 0.88, and 0.87, respectively, and the α value of the overall questionnaire was 0.95 (Table 2). Because all values were above 0.7, the internal consistency of the learning interest questionnaire was acceptable.
- -
- Higher-order thinking skills: The questionnaire measuring students’ higher-order thinking skills developed by [33] was used and modified in this study. The questionnaire focused on three sub-groups including collaboration tendency, critical thinking awareness, and problem-solving tendency. A total of 12 questions were developed to measure students’ higher-order thinking skills in the “Separating Mixtures” unit. The α values of collaboration tendency, critical thinking awareness, and problem-solving tendency were 0.86, 0.87, and 0.85, respectively, and the α value of the overall questionnaire was 0.94 (Table 3). Because all values were above 0.7, the internal consistency of the higher-order thinking skills questionnaire was acceptable.
Code | Item | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|
A | Attention (A = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4) | 0.87 |
A1 | The problem situation of the “Separating Mixtures” unit was attractive, interesting and challenging. | |
A2 | I was engrossed in the whole process of solving the problem of separating mixtures. | |
A3 | The hands-on activities in the “Separating Mixtures” unit were fun to do. | |
A4 | The discussion activities were very lively and active. | |
R | Relevance (R = R1 + R2 + R3 + R4) | 0.78 |
R1 | Teaching content and activities were relevant to real life and personal experiences. | |
R2 | Teaching content and activities were related to using knowledge of many subjects, such as technology and math. | |
R3 | Teaching activities encouraged different ideas or solutions to the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
R4 | I have seen careers related to the “Separating Mixtures” unit. | |
C | Confidence (C = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4) | 0.87 |
C1 | I feel confident in solving any problem related to the separating mixtures, for example “separating sugar and sand”. | |
C2 | I feel confident to offer ideas and solutions for separating mixtures, for example separating sugar and sand. | |
C3 | I feel confident that I can practice separating mixtures from my ideas and solutions. | |
C4 | I feel confident in discussing ideas and solutions to the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
S | Satisfaction (S = S1 + S2 + S3 + S4) | 0.82 |
S1 | I was satisfied with the problem situation and problem solving process. | |
S2 | I was satisfied with the knowledge gained. | |
S3 | I was satisfied with the practices of separating mixtures | |
S4 | I was satisfied with the discussion for separating mixtures. | |
Overall scale | 0.94 |
Code | Item | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|
CA | Cognitive Attention (CA = CA1 + CA2 + CA3 + CA4) | 0.85 |
CA1 | I paid more attention to this lesson than the previous lessons. | |
CA2 | I paid attention selectively to ideas and solutions that work for the problem of separating mixtures. | |
CA3 | I focused on listening, thinking rationally about the ideas and solutions in the discussions. | |
CA4 | I participated actively in the discussions. | |
LE | Learning Emotion (LE = LE1 + LE2 + LE3 + LE4) | 0.88 |
LE1 | I enjoyed the problem situation in this lesson. | |
LE2 | I feel the lesson content was very useful. | |
LE3 | I enjoyed participating in hands-on activities. | |
LE4 | I enjoyed participating in discussion. | |
TA | Thinking Activity (TA = TA1 + TA2 + TA3 + TA4) | 0.87 |
TA1 | I feel this lesson improved my reasoning and problem-solving skills. | |
TA2 | I was actively thinking about more efficient solutions to the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
TA3 | I was interested in being able to use what I learned in one unit into another unit or course, such as technology, math. | |
TA4 | I was interested in learning about careers related to this lesson. | |
Overall scale | 0.95 |
Code | Item | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|
CT | Collaboration Tendency (CT = CT1 + CT2 + CT3 + CT4) | 0.86 |
CT1 | I tried my best to complete the common task well. | |
CT2 | I cooperated actively to accomplish the common task. | |
CT3 | While working together with other students, I communicated well with them. | |
CT4 | The tasks were properly assigned to each member. | |
CTA | Critical Thinking Awareness (CTA = CTA1 + CTA2 + CTA3 + CTA4) | 0.87 |
CTA1 | I pondered whether what I learned to be appropriate for the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
CTA2 | I thought of other possible solutions to the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
CTA3 | I considered the different opinions to determine a reasonable solution to the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
CTA4 | I provided arguments for the plausibility of my solution in the problem situation of separating mixtures. | |
PST | Problem-Solving Tendency (PST = PST1 + PST2 + PST3 + PST4) | 0.85 |
PST1 | I believe that I am capable of solving other problem situations of separating mixtures which I may encounter. | |
PST2 | I believe I can independently solve the problem situations of separating mixtures in this lesson. | |
PST3 | When encountering other problem situations, I am willing to face and solve them. | |
PST4 | I will always do my best to solve the problem which I may encounter. | |
Overall scale | 0.94 |
3.5. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. RQ1: How Did Students’ Learning Achievements Differ between Teaching Science Using A-5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods?
4.2. RQ2: How Did Students’ Learning Motivation Differ between Teaching Science Using A-5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods?
4.3. RQ3: How Did Students’ Learning Interest Differ between Teaching Science Using A-5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods?
4.4. RQ4: How Did Students’ Higher-Order Thinking Skills Differ between Teaching Science Using A-5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods?
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Implications for Practice
6.2. Limitations of This Study and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Learning Achievement Scale
References
- Brown, R.; Brown, J.; Reardon, K.; Merrill, C. Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technol. Eng. Teach. 2011, 70, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Roehrig, G.H.; Dare, E.A.; Ellis, J.A.; Ring-Whalen, E. Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 2021, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.; Kelley, T.R.; Mentzer, N.; Knowles, J.G. Community of Practice in Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Literature Review. J. STEM Teach. Educ. 2021, 56, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batdi, V.; Talan, T.; Semerci, C. Meta-analytic and meta-thematic analysis of STEM education. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 2019, 7, 382–399. [Google Scholar]
- Kelley, T.R.; Knowles, J.G. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2016, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Long, N.T.; Yen, N.T.H.; Van Hanh, N. The Role of Experiential Learning and Engineering Design Process in K-12 STEM Education. Int. J. Educ. Pract. 2020, 8, 720–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K.; Maynard, N.; Berry, A.; Stephenson, T.; Spiteri, T.; Corrigan, D.; Mansfield, J.; Ellerton, P.; Smith, T. Principles of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in STEM Education: Using Expert Wisdom and Research to Frame Educational Practice. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acar, D.; Tertemiz, N.; Taşdemir, A. The effects of STEM training on the academic achievement of 4th graders in science and mathematics and their views on STEM training teachers. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 2018, 10, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morrison, J. Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. TIES (Teaching Inst. Excell. STEM) 2006, 20, 2–7. [Google Scholar]
- Thibaut, L.; Ceuppens, S.; De Loof, H.; De Meester, J.; Goovaerts, L.; Struyf, A.; Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Dehaene, W.; Deprez, J.; De Cock, M. Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. Eur. J. STEM Educ. 2018, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rennie, L.; Venville, G.; Wallace, J. Making STEM curriculum useful, relevant, and motivating for students. In STEM Education in the Junior Secondary; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eroğlu, S.; Bektaş, O. The effect of 5E-based STEM education on academic achievement, scientific creativity, and views on the nature of science. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2022, 98, 102181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gülen, S.; Yaman, S. The Effect of Integration of STEM Disciplines into Toulmin’s Argumentation Model on Students’ Academic Achievement, Reflective Thinking, and Psychomotor Skills. J. Turkish Sci. Educ. 2019, 16, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bybee, R.W. Using the BSCS 5E instructional model to introduce STEM disciplines. Sci. Child. 2019, 56, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulen, S. Argumentation Integrated STEM Activity. In Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2021; Kiray, S.A., Tomevska-Ilievska, E., Eds.; ISRES Publishing: Konya, Turkey, 2021; pp. 306–323. [Google Scholar]
- Dönmez, İ.; Gülen, S.; Ayaz, M. Impact of Argumentation-based STEM activities on ongoing STEM motivation. J. STEM Educ. Res. 2022, 5, 78–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siverling, E.A.; Suazo-Flores, E.; Mathis, C.A.; Moore, T.J. Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design-based STEM integration. Sch. Sci. Math. 2019, 119, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gülen, S. Determination the effect of STEM integrated argumentation based science learning approach in solving daily life problems. World J. Educ. Technol. Curr. Issues 2018, 10, 266–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hasançebi, F.; Güner, Ö.; Kutru, C.; Hasancebi, M. Impact of Stem Integrated Argumentation-Based Inquiry Applications on Students’ Academic Success, Reflective Thinking and Creative Thinking Skills. Particip. Educ. Res. 2021, 8, 274–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathis, C.A.; Siverling, E.A.; Glancy, A.W.; Moore, T.J. Teachers’ incorporation of argumentation to support engineering learning in STEM integration curricula. J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res. 2017, 7, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bybee, R.W.; Taylor, J.A.; Gardner, A.; Van Scotter, P.; Powell, J.C.; Westbrook, A.; Landes, N. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Color. Springs, Co BSCS 2006, 5, 88–98. [Google Scholar]
- Koyunlu Ünlü, Z.; Dökme, İ. A systematic review of 5E model in science education: Proposing a skill-based STEM instructional model within the 21-st century skills. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2022, 44, 2110–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, L.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Cheng, H.-T. Effect of a STEM-Oriented Course on Students’ Marine Science Motivation, Interest, and Achievements. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2021, 20, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ültay, N.; Zivali, A.; Yilmaz, H.; Bak, H.K.; Yilmaz, K.; Topatan, M.; Kara, P.G. STEM-Focused Activities to Support Student Learning in Primary School Science. J. Sci. Learn. 2020, 3, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasanah, U. The Impacts of STEM Instruction on Strengthening High School Students’ Reasoning Skills. Sci. Educ. Int. 2020, 31, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahrudin, A.; Alisia, G.; Saregar, A.; Asyhari, A.; Anugrah, A.; Susilowati, N.E. The Effectiveness of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Inquiry Learning for 15-16 Years Old Students Based on K-13 Indonesian Curriculum: The Impact on the Critical Thinking Skills. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2021, 10, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.-P.; Jen, E. Integrating Nanotechnology in the Science Curriculum for Elementary High-Ability Students in Taiwan: Evidenced-Based Lessons. Roeper Rev. 2020, 42, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulut, B.; Arikan, I. Argumentation-Based Learning in Social Studies Teaching. J. Educ. Learn. 2019, 8, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yildirim, B.; Turk, C. The effectiveness of argumentation-assisted STEM practices. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 2018, 13, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cortina, J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearson, G. National academies piece on integrated STEM. J. Educ. Res. 2017, 110, 224–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Z.; Jingying, C.; Guangshuai, W.; Mengyi, L. A three-dimensional model of student interest during learning using multimodal fusion with natural sensing technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 30, 1117–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, D.; Hwang, G.-J.; Chang, S.-C.; Wang, S.-Y. Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: A peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 3281–3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.K. Understanding one-way ANOVA using conceptual figures. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2017, 70, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, L.J.; Abdi, H. Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test. Encycl. Res. Des. 2010, 218, 840–853. [Google Scholar]
Group | N | Mean | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
6A3 (A-5E-STEM) | 40 | 7.938 | 0.2230 | 7.486 | 8.389 |
6A4 (5E-STEM) | 40 | 7.125 | 0.2605 | 6.598 | 7.652 |
6A11 (Conventional Didactic) | 40 | 5.463 | 0.2987 | 4.858 | 6.067 |
Total | 120 | 6.842 | 0.1775 | 6.490 | 7.193 |
F = 23.085, p = 0.00 |
(I) Groups | (J) Groups | Mean Difference (I − J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||
6A3 | 6A4 | 0.8125 | 0.3713 | 0.031 | 0.077 | 1.548 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 2.4750 | 0.3713 | 0.000 | 1.740 | 3.210 |
6A4 | 6A11 | 1.6625 | 0.3713 | 0.000 | 0.927 | 2.398 |
Observed Variable | Mean | Std. Error | 95% CI for Mean | ANOVA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||
Attention | 6A3 | 17.180 | 0.486 | 16.198 | 18.162 | F = 31.044 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.150 | 0.188 | 13.770 | 14.530 | ||
6A11 | 12.025 | 0.614 | 10.782 | 13.268 | ||
Relevance | 6A3 | 16.928 | 0.470 | 15.977 | 17.880 | F = 22.135 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 13.910 | 0.174 | 13.559 | 14.261 | ||
6A11 | 12.772 | 0.611 | 11.536 | 14.009 | ||
Confidence | 6A3 | 16.585 | 0.593 | 15.386 | 17.784 | F = 12.826 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 13.875 | 0.193 | 13.484 | 14.266 | ||
6A11 | 12.622 | 0.756 | 11.094 | 14.150 | ||
Satisfaction | 6A3 | 17.360 | 0.454 | 16.443 | 18.278 | F = 16.620 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.125 | 0.203 | 13.714 | 14.536 | ||
6A11 | 13.589 | 0.710 | 12.152 | 15.025 |
Observed Variable | (I) Groups | (J) Groups | Mean Difference (I − J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||||
Attention | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.030 | 0.658 | 0.000 | 1.728 | 4.332 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 5.155 | 0.658 | 0.000 | 3.853 | 6.457 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 2.125 | 0.658 | 0.002 | 0.823 | 3.427 | |
Relevance | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.018 | 0.646 | 0.000 | 1.740 | 4.297 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 4.156 | 0.646 | 0.000 | 2.878 | 5.435 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 1.138 | 0.646 | 0.081 | −0.141 | 2.416 | |
Confidence | 6A3 | 6A4 | 2.710 | 0.800 | 0.001 | 1.126 | 4.294 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 3.963 | 0.800 | 0.000 | 2.379 | 5.547 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 1.253 | 0.800 | 0.120 | −0.331 | 2.837 | |
Satisfaction | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.235 | 0.708 | 0.000 | 1.833 | 4.637 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 3.771 | 0.708 | 0.000 | 2.370 | 5.173 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 0.536 | 0.708 | 0.450 | −0.865 | 1.938 |
Observed Variable | Mean | Std. Error | 95% CI for Mean | ANOVA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||
Cognitive Attention | 6A3 | 17.350 | 0.363 | 16.617 | 18.083 | F = 33.354 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.175 | 0.118 | 13.936 | 14.414 | ||
6A11 | 12.150 | 0.687 | 10.760 | 13.540 | ||
Learning Emotion | 6A3 | 17.975 | 0.417 | 17.132 | 18.818 | F = 29.741 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.400 | 0.159 | 14.078 | 14.722 | ||
6A11 | 12.647 | 0.738 | 11.154 | 14.139 | ||
Thinking Activity | 6A3 | 17.325 | 0.398 | 16.521 | 18.129 | F = 35.080 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 13.900 | 0.159 | 13.578 | 14.222 | ||
6A11 | 11.575 | 0.729 | 10.100 | 13.050 |
Observed Variable | (I) Groups | (J) Groups | Mean Difference (I − J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||||
Cognitive Attention | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.175 | 0.642 | 0.000 | 1.904 | 4.446 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 5.200 | 0.642 | 0.000 | 3.929 | 6.471 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 2.025 | 0.642 | 0.002 | .754 | 3.296 | |
Learning Emotion | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.575 | 0.704 | 0.000 | 2.180 | 4.970 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 5.329 | 0.704 | 0.000 | 3.934 | 6.723 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 1.754 | 0.704 | 0.014 | .359 | 3.148 | |
Thinking Activity | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.425 | 0.691 | 0.000 | 2.057 | 4.793 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 5.750 | 0.691 | 0.000 | 4.382 | 7.118 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 2.325 | 0.691 | 0.001 | 0.957 | 3.693 |
Observed Variable | Mean | Std. Error | 95% CI for Mean | ANOVA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||
Collaboration Tendency | 6A3 | 17.400 | 0.438 | 16.514 | 18.286 | F = 27.752 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.050 | 0.172 | 13.703 | 14.397 | ||
6A11 | 12.425 | 0.689 | 11.032 | 13.818 | ||
Critical Thinking Awareness | 6A3 | 17.275 | 0.399 | 16.469 | 18.081 | F = 38.248 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.025 | 0.127 | 13.769 | 14.281 | ||
6A11 | 11.850 | 0.640 | 10.555 | 13.145 | ||
Problem-Solving Tendency | 6A3 | 17.625 | 0.363 | 16.891 | 18.359 | F = 33.258 p = 0.00 |
6A4 | 14.200 | 0.172 | 13.851 | 14.549 | ||
6A11 | 12.400 | 0.689 | 11.007 | 13.793 |
Observed variable | (I) Groups | (J) Groups | Mean Difference (I − J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||||
Collaboration Tendency | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.350 | 0.681 | 0.000 | 2.001 | 4.699 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 4.975 | 0.681 | 0.000 | 3.626 | 6.324 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 1.625 | 0.681 | 0.019 | 0.276 | 2.974 | |
Critical Thinking Awareness | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.250 | 0.624 | 0.000 | 2.014 | 4.486 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 5.425 | 0.624 | 0.000 | 4.189 | 6.661 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 2.175 | 0.624 | 0.001 | 0.939 | 3.411 | |
Problem-Solving Tendency | 6A3 | 6A4 | 3.425 | 0.651 | 0.000 | 2.136 | 4.714 |
6A3 | 6A11 | 5.225 | 0.651 | 0.000 | 3.936 | 6.514 | |
6A4 | 6A11 | 1.800 | 0.651 | 0.007 | 0.511 | 3.089 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ha, V.T.; Chung, L.H.; Hanh, N.V.; Hai, B.M. Teaching Science Using Argumentation-Supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods: Differences in the Learning Outcomes of Middle School Students. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030247
Ha VT, Chung LH, Hanh NV, Hai BM. Teaching Science Using Argumentation-Supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods: Differences in the Learning Outcomes of Middle School Students. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(3):247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030247
Chicago/Turabian StyleHa, Vu Thi, Le Hong Chung, Nguyen Van Hanh, and Bui Minh Hai. 2023. "Teaching Science Using Argumentation-Supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods: Differences in the Learning Outcomes of Middle School Students" Education Sciences 13, no. 3: 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030247
APA StyleHa, V. T., Chung, L. H., Hanh, N. V., & Hai, B. M. (2023). Teaching Science Using Argumentation-Supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and Conventional Didactic Methods: Differences in the Learning Outcomes of Middle School Students. Education Sciences, 13(3), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030247