The Neurocognitive Constructivist Guided-Inquiry Based Teaching Model For
Promoting Attention Abilitities
Niwat TORNEE
Faculty of Education
Tassanee BUNTERM
Faculty of Education
Supaporn MUCHIMAPURA
Faculty of Medicine
Keow Ngang TANG
International College, Khon Kaen University,
Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
ABSTRACT
The main aim of this study was to examine the improvement in students’ attention abilit ies of Grade 11 students
after the intervention of neurocognitive constructivist guided-inquiry based (NCGI) and conventional structured
inquiry 5E (SI5E) teaching models to the experimental and control groups respectively. The NCGI teaching
model was developed by researchers. The obtained samples were 34 students in the experimental group and 31
students in control group who had been randomly selected from three classes of Grade 11 students in one
secondary school located in the northeastern of Thailand during the second semester of 2014 academic year.
Researchers employed a 2 (teaching model: NCGI vs SI5E) x 2 (time of measure: pretest vs posttest)
experimental design. Results of this study showed that there was no significant difference between groups on the
dependent variables before the intervention. However, the dependent variables namely the auditory attention,
visual attention (Thai letter) and visual attention (picture) were significantly differences between groups after the
intervention. The developed teaching model NCGI has been proofed to be successfully enhanced students’
attention abilities.
Keywords: Auditory attention, conventional structured inquiry 5E model (SI5E), neurocognitive constructivist
guided-inquiry based teaching model (NCGI), visual attention.
INTRODUCTION
Current national science standards require an inquiry-oriented approach to teaching that permits students to
experience science as an ‘active process’ that closely reflects the actual work of scientists (American Association
for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council, 2000, 2012). The expanding
frontiers of cognitive and neural sciences propose a new opportunity to create a more comprehensive theory of
human learning (Anderson, 2009). According to Anderson, the two emerging fields, namely neurocognitive
learning and constructivist philosophy of science teaching and learning to be a context for integrating a
neurocognitive model of information processing with modern perspectives on how students think and learn
scientific ideas and ways of knowing through inquiry. The constructivist philosophy science teaching and
learning has already become a major guiding model for instructional design in many subjects, particularly in the
science subject. In addition, teaching students with the concept of discovering, critical thinking, questioning, and
problem-solving skills are one of the main standards of science and technology teaching (Balĭm, 2009). Balĭm
believed that constructivist guided-inquiry approach should be used in which students learn more effectively by
constructing their own knowledge.
Cognitive function refers to an intellectual process by which one becomes aware of, perceives, or comprehends
ideas, involves all aspects of perception, thinking, reasoning, and remembering (Mosby’s Medical Dictionary,
2009). Advances in classroom curricula often come together with increased demands on students to have the
higher order of cognitive functions in practice (Srikoon, Bunterm, Nethanomsak & Tang, 2017). Papakostas
(2015) summarized that cognitive functioning is a broad construct involving attention (the ability to focus on a
stimulus of interest against a background of stimulus considered irrelevant and potentially
distracting),
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 475
immediate memory (the ability to remember something for a short time after it was presented), delayed memory
(the ability to recall something presented in the distant past), cognitive speed (the rate at which different mental
processes and tasks happen), and executive functioning (the ability to integrate sensory input and memory in
order to complete a task).
Attention represents “a set of cognitive abilities that allow living beings to cope with the enormous amount of
information flooding the sensory system, and to use this information in goal-directed and adaptive behavior”
(Klaver, 2009: 204). It is the cognitive process of selectively focused on one aspect of the environment while
ignoring other things and also been mentioned to as the allocation of processing resources (Fougnie, 2008).
Sarter, Bruno and Givens (2003: 247) summarized that the efficacy of practically every step in the learning
process, from the detection, selection, and filtering of sensory inputs to the manipulation of information in the
working memory store, and the construction of associational chains to recall and rehearse information and to
re-network it into a new context, has been conceptualized to are depending on attention functions and capacities.
According to Luck and Vecera (2002: 235), attention is an essential part of the information process which
involving the multiple dissociable cognitive processes and being related to each other. Therefore, attention can
influence working memory learning outcomes (Loaiza & McCabe, 2013). It is needed for removing unwanted
sensory inputs or irrelevant behavioral tasks and is worthwhile when some cognitive system or process receives
too many inputs. Attention can function to limit the number of inputs and allow processing to stay in an effective
way (Vecera & Rizzo, 2003).
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The main aim of this study is to investigate the attention abilities after the intervention of both teaching models,
namely neurocognitive constructivist guided-inquiry based model (NCGI) and conventional structured inquiry
5E model (SI5E). The attention abilities are the auditory attention, visual attention (Thai letter), and visual
attention (picture). All teaching models are used to provide opportunities for teacher and students to learn how
the student’s knowledge, cognition, emotions interact with environments and how both variations occurred
through learning process (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2015). Current thought in educational neuroscience is blended
to provide a perspective on modern learning theory and teaching model, especially in relation to some emergent
ideas in correlations and patterns in the neurocognitive processing of information that focus on attention for
improving students’ learning abilities (Anderson, 2009).
Neurocognitive constructivist guided-inquiry (NCGI) teaching model
NCGI teaching model was developed by researchers and used to teach the experimental group. The syntax of
NCGI teaching model consists of seven steps as follow: (i) Teacher introduces emotional arousal; (ii) Students
set their learning goals; (iii) Students are encouraged to express their ideas or their prior knowledge as a baseline
for making a connection with new knowledge; (iv) Teacher provides opportunities for students to present their
knowledge by utilizing their multi-sensory in diverse aspects through hands-on activities or complex tasks.
Students show their understanding by inquiring, exploring, and using the problem-solving skills to conduct the
experiments or solve their problems. Teacher provides scaffolding, facilities, and assists students while they are
doing their tasks to maximize their competencies; (v) Students construct their own knowledge by making the
connections between the new knowledge and their prior knowledge or linking the classroom content to the
community; (vi) Teacher practices some executive function tasks using the learned content, and (vii) teacher
applies various strategies to monitor and evaluate students’ learning. Students are encouraged to revise and
reflect on the learning activities in order to detect any misconception occurred.
Structural inquiry 5E (SI5E)
On the other hand, the conventional SI5E teaching model was used to teach the control group. This SI5E model
is the teaching model recommended by Thailand Ministry of Education and supported by the Institute for the
Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) (2012) in a standard classroom. The syntax of SI5E
model consists of the five steps: (i) Engagement: Teacher introduces the topic that is intended to study, asks the
students to make a specific topic, and interact with the material; (ii) Exploration: Teacher motivates the students
to do experiment according to the proper laboratory manual procedure. Teacher explains the procedure for the
inquiry method, followed by the preparation of apparatus while students perform the experiment and analyze the
collected data; (iii) Explanation: Students are requested to prepare the experiment results and present the results
to the class; (iv) Elaboration: Teacher questions the students with a prepared set of applied questions that relating
directly to the topic of their previous investigation, and (vi) Evaluation: Teacher observes and takes notes of the
students’ performance including their discussion, the way they answer the questions, and how they conduct the
actual experiment (Bunterm et al., 2014).
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 476
Attention abilities
Sternberg (2012) introduced attention is comprised of sustained attention, focus attention, selective attention, and
divided attention. The process of attention begins with alertness, selected attention, and executive control. Based
on the reviews of Sieb (1990) and further supported by Sternberg (2012), attention can be defined as the brain
areas involved in attention are in the prefrontal association cortex (PAC). As a result of the PAC mechanisms,
only one sensory stimulus activates the orientation, alerting, awareness, arousal, and cognitive systems and then,
therefore, attention occurs. Furthermore, Gray, Rogers, Martinussen, and Tannock (2015) have determined the
working memory mediates the pathway between attention and subsequent learning outcomes.
Previous research findings revealed that attention is the most essential information process because it includes
organizing information into a coherent structure and optimizing conceptual understanding (Mayer, Kim, & Park,
2011; Yang & Chang, 2015). In addition, past researchers (Loaiza & McCabe, 2013; Yang & Chang, 2015) have
proved that attention influences working memory outcomes. This is further supported by a recent study (Srikoon
et al., 2017) indicated that the learner brain findings are powerful for education only insofar as they have assisted
to change our perspective of how learning and development happen. Previous studies demonstrated the strong
relationship between working memory and science achievement (Danili & Reid, 2004; Gathercole, Pickering,
Knight & Stegmann, 2004; Tsaparlis, 2005). In addition, it has been reported that working memory also showed
the positive correlation with chemistry problem test (Tsaparlis, 2005). Ropovik (2014) found that working
memory accounts for about 63 percent of the variation in the ability to learn.The variables in this study are
elucidated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
PURPOSES OF THE STUDY The main purpose of this study was to explore the influence of using NCGI teaching model on attention abilities
compared to using SI5E teaching model. This research is a subsequent study after the developed NCGI teaching
model was verified by the three experts in science education before implementing the actual study. More
specifically, the study sought to achieve the following purposes:
i. To identify Grade 11 students’ auditory attention and visual attention in both experimental and control
groups before and after implementing NCGI and SI5E teaching models respectively.
ii. To study the differences between experimental group and control group in their auditory attention and
visual attention.
METHOD
Research design and participants of the study
A 2 (teaching model: NCGI vs SI5E) x 2 (time of measure: pretest vs posttest) experimental design was
employed in this study. The NCGI model was developed and implemented in the experimental group while the
SI5E model was used in the control group. Participants’ attention abilities were assessed in both groups before
and after interventions. The participants were randomly selected from a total of 65 Grade 11 students from three
NCGI teaching
model
SI5E teaching model
Auditory attention
Visual attention
(Thai letter)
Visual attention
(picture)
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 477
classes in a secondary school located at northeastern of Thailand during the second semester of 2014 academic
year. The selected participants were equally distributed into the experimental and control groups after
considering their gender and age. In order to remain the homogeneous, there were 34 students in experimental
group (male students = 10; Mage = 16.74, SD = .56) and 31 students in control group (male students = 5, Mage =
16.77, SD = .42). This was to ensure that both groups were no differences either in their age (t(63) = .31) or their
gender as well (X2 = 1.62). This experimental design was employed in order to investigate the variation or
changes in the attention abilities after the intervention of teaching model (NCGI or SI5E). In another word, this
design is considered as a true experiment because it is generally associated with the conditions that directly
affect the variation.
Research instrument
Attention battery test was used as research instrument. All the tests were administered in the Thai language to
ensure the participants were clear about the questions. All the tests had been evaluated the goodness of fit test for
construct validity as well as test-retest for testing the reliability by Bunterm et al. (2013). The attention battery
test used to measure participants’ audio and visual attention. Audio attention was measured by sound attention
battery test while visual attention was measured by letter attention battery test and dot attention battery test.
Sound attention battery test was comprised of three sub-tests, namely simple task sound, sustained sound, and
selected choice sound. In the simple task sound sub-test, the stimuli were sound frequency ‘500Hz’. Participant
was given 50 trials and they were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when they heard the sound (test-retest
reliability value = 0.954). In the sustained sound sub-test, the stimuli were sound three kinds of frequency: 500,
1000, and 2000 Hz. The target stimulus was sound frequency ‘500Hz’. Participants were given 50 trials and
were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when they heard the target sound. The occurrence of the target stimulus was
20 percent. The occurrence of each distracter stimulus was 40 percent (test-retest reliability value = 0.946). In
the selected choice sound sub-test, the target stimuli were 500Hz and 1000Hzsound. Participants were asked to
press ‘1’ if the stimulus was 500Hz and press ‘2’ if the stimulus was 1000Hz. Participants were given 50 trials.
Test-retest reliability value was 0.822. The letter attention battery test and the dot attention battery test were
covering the same pattern of their four sub-tests. For example, the letter attention battery test including simple
task letter, focus letter, sustained letter and select choice letter while the dot attention battery test including
simple task dot, focus dot, sustained dot and select choice dot. Participants were given 50 trials for each sub-test.
In the simple task letter sub-test, the stimulus was a Thai alphabet “ถ”. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when the stimulus appeared on the screen (test-retest reliability value = 0.955). In the focus letter
sub-test, the stimuli were two Thai alphabets “ถ” and “ภ”. “ถ” was the target stimulus; “ภ” was the distracter. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when the target stimulus appeared on the screen (occurrence of
the target stimulus was 20%, test-retest reliability value =0.938).In the sustained letter sub-test, the stimuli were
44 Thai alphabets. The target stimulus was “ถ”. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ immediately when the target stimulus appeared on the screen (occurrence of the target stimulus was 20%, test-retest reliability value =0.959).
In the select choice letter sub-test, the target stimuli were two Thai alphabets “ถ” and “ภ”. Participants were
asked to immediately press ‘1’ when “ถ” appeared and press ‘2’ when “ภ” appeared on the screen (test-retest reliability value =0.966).
In the simple task dot sub-test, participants were asked to press ‘1’ when a dot appeared in the upper left-hand
side of a two by two grid (test-retest reliability value = 0.979). In the focus dot sub-test, the stimuli were two
pictures, a dot appeared in the upper left-hand side of a two by two grid and a dot appeared in the upper
right-hand side of a two by two grid. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ when a dot appeared in the upper
left-hand side of a two by two grid. The target occurred in 20 percent of trials. Test-retest reliability value =
0.976. In the sustained dot sub-test, the target stimulus was a dot appeared in the upper left- hand side of a two
by two grid. The distracters were a dot that appeared in other locations of a two by two grid. Participants were
asked to press ‘1’ when the target stimulus appeared on the screen. The target occurred in 20 percent of trials
(test-retest reliability value = 0.966). In the select choices dot sub-test, the target stimuli were a dot appeared in
the upper left-hand side of a two by two grid and a dot appeared in the upper right-hand side of a two by two
grid. Participants were asked to immediately press ‘1’ when the first stimulus (upper left-hand dot) appeared and
press ‘2’ when the second stimulus (upper right-hand dot) appeared on the screen. Test-retest reliability value
=0.970.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 478
RESULTS Researchers used a 2x2 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine whether the developed NCGI teaching model would enhance the Grade 11 students’ attention abilities better than using conventional
SI5E teaching model. As the samples comprised of two groups, the researchers had to consider the
following assumptions before the groups were treated equally. The first assumption was that there should be
no outliers. The second assumption was that the all the dependent variables should be approximately normally
distributed for each group and, finally, there was the homogeneity of variances. The results of this study
are presented in accordance with the research aim that is indicated above and proposed in three sections
according to the groups of dependent variables, namely auditory, visual (Thai letter), and visual (picture)
attention. The findings are presented in two parts namely descriptive and inferential findings. The initial
findings emphasize on the attention abilities of Grade 11 students before and after using the NCGI and
SI5E teaching models in their science educational instruction. This is followed by evaluating the variation
occurred from these two teaching models on Grade 11 students’ attention abilities.
Attention was the dependent variable which consisted of two aspects, namely auditory attention and
visual attention. The auditory attention variable was measured from these three tests: Simple sound, sustained
sound, and select choices sound. Since the Box’s M test was significant, so the level of significant was set
at .001. There were significant main effects of pedagogical condition and time of measure, both of which
were qualified by a significant pedagogical condition x time interaction effect, F(3,61) = 61,523, p< .001;
Pillai's Trace = .752; 2= .752, observed power = 1.000. The univariate tests showed significant interaction
effect for all three auditory attention tests. The interaction effect for simple sound, F(1,63) = 91.106,2= .591; sustained sound ,F(1,63) = 113.164,2= .642, and select choices sound, F(1,63) =23.742,2= .274, were significance at p< .001. The results from pairwise t-tests of pretest showed that there were no
group differences in all sub-tests of auditory attention variable. Table 1 indicates that the descriptive and
inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test performances revealed a better improvement in the experimental
group who followed the NCGI teaching model compared to the control group who followed SI5E teaching
model.
Table 1. Descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test for auditory attention
Dependent
variables
Experimental group (N=34) Control group (N=31) Indepen-
dent t-test
Pre-test Post-test Paired t
test
(df = N-1)
Pre-test Post-test Paired t
test
(df =
N-1)
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Simple sound
(range: 0-50)
27.29 3.958 41.09 3.334 21.323** 25.84 3.992 29.87 3.948 5.024** 1.475
12.413**
Sustained sound
(range: 0-50)
28.53 3.816 40.00 3.348 18.391** 27.26 3.633 29.00 3.899 2.598** 1.373
12.233**
Select choice
sound (range:
0-50)
28.85 2.298 36.85 1.438 18.492** 28.55 2.307 33.58 1.996 11.806*
*
.533
7.632**
**p<.01; *p<.05
On the other hand, visual attention was measured in two parts: Thai letter and picture. There were four tests used
to collect the accumulated data related to visual attention letter variable, namely simple letter, focus
letter, sustained letter, and select choices letter. The Box's M = 55.590 (p=.087) showed the observed
covariance matrices of the dependent variables were equal across groups. The data were appropriate to
analyze with this technique. There were significant main effects of pedagogical condition and time of
measure, both of which were qualified by a significant pedagogical condition x time interaction effect, F(4,60)
= 57.302, p< .001, Pillai's Trace = .793,2= .793, observed power = 1.000. The univariate tests showed
significant interaction effect for all four visual attention tests. The interaction effect for simple letter, F(1,63) =
24.605,2= .281;focus letter, F(1,63) = 121.755,2= .659); sustained letter, F(1,63) = 47.033,2= .427; and
select choices letter, F(1,63) =19.944,2= .240, were significance at p< .001.
The results from pairwise t-tests of pretest showed that there were no group differences in all sub-tests of
the visual attention (Thai letter) variable. Table 2 shows that the descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-
test vs post-test visual attention (Thai letter) performances revealed a better improvement in the
experimental group who followed the NCGI teaching model compared to the control group who followed SI5E
teaching model.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 479
Table 2. Descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test for visual attention (Thai letter) Dependent
variables
Experimental group (N=34) Control group (N=31) Inde-pen-
dent t-test
Pre-test Post-test Paired t
test
(df = N-1)
Pre-test Post-test Paired t
test
(df =
N-1)
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Simple letter
(range: 0-50)
31.12 2.226 37.85 1.438 16.695** 30.74 2.206 34.52 1.913 8.545** .683
7.994**
Focus letter
(range: 0-50)
30.53 3.816 39.00 3.348 13.581** 29.29 3.617 29.32 3.219 .078 1.340
11.855**
Sustained
letter(range: 0-50)
28.15 2.002 31.85 1.258 10.034** 28.00 1.673 28.42 .923 1.416 .320
12.441**
Select choice letter
(range: 0-50)
29.74 2.538 35.79 1.431 13.158** 29.10 2.371 32.58 1.996 10.533*
*
1.045
7.509**
**p<.01; *p<.05
The other part of visual attention was picture. There were also four tests used to collect the accumulated data
related to visual attention picture variable, namely simple dot, focus dot, sustained dot, and select choices dot.
Since the Box’s M test was significant, so the level of significant was set at .001. There were significant main
effects of pedagogical condition and time of measure, both of which were qualified by a significant pedagogical
condition x time interaction effect, F(4,60) = 70.904, p< .001, Pillai's Trace = .825,2= .825, observed power =
1.000. The univariate tests showed significant interaction effect for all dependent measures. The interaction
effect for simple dot, F(1,63) = 24.367,2= .279;focus dot, F(1,63) = 90.290,2= .589, sustained Dot, F(1,63) =
44.741,2= .415, and select choices dot, F(1,63) =20.135,2= .242, were significance at p< .001.
The results from pairwise t-tests of pretest showed that there were no group differences in all sub-tests of the
visual attention (picture) variable. Table 3 shows that the descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs
post-test visual attention (picture) performances revealed a better improvement in the experimental group who
followed the NCGI teaching model compared to the control group who followed SI5E teaching model.
Table 3. Descriptive and inferential statistics of pre-test vs post-test for visual attention (picture) Dependent
variables
Experimental group (N=34) Control group (N=31) Inde-pen-
dent t-test
Pre-test Post-test Paired t
test
(df = N-1)
Pre-test Post-test Paired t
test
(df =
N-1)
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Simple dot (range:
0-50)
38.21 2.267 42.00 1.255 8.697** 37.87 2.172 38.55 2.063 1.600 .607
8.055**
Focus dot (range:
0-50)
30.76 1.478 40.00 3.348 15.867** 30.19 3.229 29.06 3.366 -1.951 .902
13.118**
Sustained
dot(range: 0-50)
29.88 1.788 32.91 1.311 9.904** 29.26 1.483 29.52 1.151 1.000 1.524
11.049**
Select choice dot
(range: 0-50)
30.91 2.006 34.71 1.404 10.462** 30.29 2.209 31.65 1.907 4.900** 1.189
7.413**
**p<.01; *p<.05
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that Grade 11 students who were exposed to the neurocognitive constructivism
and more guided formed of inquiry teaching model showed greater improvements in their attention tests
compared to their peers who were taught using the conventional structured inquiry teaching model. This result
correlates with Srikoon et al.’s (2017) findings. Srikoon et al. revealed that the overall attention, working
memory, and mood conditioning have been improved after the intervention of neurocognitive-based teaching
model compared to the conventional structured inquiry model among the Grade 9 students in a high school
located in Mahasarakham province, Thailand. This finding is also consistent with the past research findings
from Rattanavongsa, Bunterm, Wattanathorn and Muchimapura (2013), Srikoon and Bunterm (2016), Uppasai
and Bunterm (2015), Wangpoomyai, Bunterm, Wattanathorn and Muchimapura (2012), Wannatong,
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 480
Bunterm, and Wannanon, (2013), Wuekprakhon, Bunterm, Wattanathorn, and Muchimapura (2010), and
Thorell, Lindqvist, Bergman, Bohlin and Klingberg (2009).
Researchers introduce this NCGI teaching model consists of several elements which have enabled students to
move from structured to guided inquiry coupled with neurocognitive learning theory. The NCGI teaching model
has provided students’ gradual experience through different levels of inquiry thus motivating cognitive
functioning abilities. The teacher is a key figure in implementing inquiry processes from the structured to the
guided inquiry level. It is, therefore, imperative that teachers participate in the inquiry teaching program as they
also develop professionally (Zion & Mendelovici, 2012). According to Zion and Mendelovici, learning by
inquiry is a vital step in developing a scientifically literate, critically, logically and creatively thinking student.
This present study examined the effectiveness of the developed NCGI teaching model to enhance attention
abilities of students. The current results helped to confirm the structural aspects of the school-related skills,
attention abilities are able to be improved by a fascinating way that experience sculpts brain systems into their
mature state (Byrnes & Vu, 2015). For education to truly benefit from these findings in a durable, deep way, for
the full implications to become apparent, teachers must examine closely the theory on which good practice is
built, to reconcile the new and exciting evidence with the developed NCGI teaching model. For example,
affective and social neuroscience findings suggest, however, that emotion and cognition, body and mind, work
together with students of all ages (Immordino-Yang, 2011).
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, O.R. (2009). Neurocognitive theory and constructivism in science education: A review of
neurobiological, cognitive and cultural perspectives. Brunei Int. J. of Sci. & Math. Edu., 1(1), 1-32.
Balĭm, A.G. (2009). The effects of discovery learning on students’ success and inquiry learning skills. Journal of
Educational Research, 35, 1-20.
Bunterm,T., Ketchatturat,J., Samranjai, J., Methaneethorn, J., Wattanathorn, J.,…Werachairatana, S. (2013). Rai
ngankhwamkawnakrungthi song khrongkarnvijaireung
“Karnpạttanakhreungmuewạdsamattanasmongdanphutṭhipạnỵachabạbphasathai” [The second progress
report of the research program “The Development of Cognitive Function Battery Test: Thai Version”].
(Unpublished paper presented to the committee of National Research Council of Thailand, 2013, Dec.
13).
Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng, J.L.K., 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.
Byrnes, J.P., & Vu, L.T. (2015). Educational neuroscience: Definitional, methodological, and interpretive issues.
WIREs CognSci 2015. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1345
Danili, E.,& Reid, N. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two
cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22, 203-226.
Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. In N.B. Johansen (Ed.), New
Research on Short-Term Memory. Nova Science. Retrieved from
www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/students/fougnidl/Fougnie-chap1.pdf
Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z.(2004). Working memory skills and educational
attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 18, 1-16.
Gray, S.A., Rogers, M., Martinussen, R., Tannock, R. (2015). Longitudinal relations among inattention, working
memory, and academic achievement: Testing mediation and the moderating role of gender. Retrieved
from https://peerj.com/articles/939/
Immordino-Yang, M.H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00713.x
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (2012). Science measurement and assessment.
Bangkok: V. Print Co., Ltd.
Joyce, B., Weil, M.,& Calhoun, E. (2015).Models of teaching (9thed.). USA: Pearson Education.
Klaver, P. (2009). Attention. In M.D. Binder, N. Hirokawa, & U. Windhorst (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of
Neuroscience, 1. Verlag: Springer.
Loaiza, V.M., & McCabe, D.P. (2012). Temporal-contextual processing in working memory: Evidence from
delayed cued recall and delayed free recall tests. Memory & Cognition, 40, 191-203.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 481
Luck, S.J., &Vecera, S.P. (2002). Attention. In Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471214426.pas0106/abstract.
Mayer, J.S., Kim, J., & Park, S. (2011). Enhancing visual working memory encoding: The role of target novelty.
Visual Cognition, 19(7), 865-885. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2011.594459
Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. (2009). Elsevier. Retrieved from
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cognitive+function.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching
and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Papakostas, G.I. (2015). Components of cognitive functioning and their measurement. J. Clin Psychiatry,
76(6):e16PMID: 26132678. Retrieved from
http://www.cmeinstitute.com/Psychlopedia/Pages/depression/23cdp/sec2/section.aspx
Rattanavongsa, C., 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.
Ropovik, I. (2014). Do executive functions predict the ability to learn problem-solving principles? Intelligence,
44, 64-74.
Sarter, M., Bruno, J.P., & Givens, B. (2003). Attentional functions of cortical cholinergic inputs: What does it
mean for learning and memory? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 80(3), 245-256.
Sieb, R.A. (1990). A brain mechanism for attention. Medical Hypotheses, 33(3), 145-153.
Srikoon, S., &Bunterm, T. (2016). Pholkarn chai roopbabkarnruenkarnsornthi chai vijai pen tharnpasarnkubnaw
kid prasartvithayasuksasartthimee tor pholsamrit thang karnruenkwamtung jai laekwam jam khana tam
ngarn. [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.
Srikoon, S., Bunterm, T., Nethanomsak, T., & Tang, K.N. (2017). The effect of neurocognitive-based model and
conventional model on learners’ attention, working memory and mood: A comparative study. Malaysian
Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 83-110.
Steinberg, R.J. (2012). Cognition (6th ed.). Canada: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.
Thorell, L.B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman, N.S., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of
executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12(1), 106-113. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x.
Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: A
correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors. Research in Science & Technological
Education, 23, 125-148.
Uppasai, S., &Bunterm, T. (2015).Pholkarn chai roopbabkarnsorn tam naw kid constructivism lae metacognition
roumkumkwamrooprasartvithayasuksasart pen tharnpuepattanakwamkoujaikam sab vithayasartsukkapap.
[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.
Vecera, S.P., & Rizzo, M. (2003). Spatial attention: Normal processes and their breakdown. Neurologic Clinic of
North America, 21, 575-607.
Wangpoomyai, P., Bunterm, T., Wattanathorn, J., & Muchimapura, S. (2012).
Pholkarnjudkijakamkarnruenroobabseubsor ha kwamroo ban perdthimee tor
radubkwamkriedkwamjamkhana tam ngarnkwamsamartnaikarnkaepunhalaepholkarnruenroovicha
physics khongnukruenchunmattayomsuksa pee thi 4. [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.
Wannatong, K., Bunterm, B., &Wannanon, P. (2013).Pholsạmrit thang karnreunvithayasart,
samathanasamongcherngphuttipạnya, laepholngarn sang sun khongnugreunthī reunroo dui karn chai sue
pahupassathi chai kwamrooprasartvithayasart pen tharnpracobkarnsorn. [Science Achievement, Cognitive
Function and Creative Innovation of Students Learningwith Neuroscience-Based Multi-Sensory Media
Associated With Traditional Approach]. North Eastern Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 8(2), 56-69.
Wuekprakhon, S., Bunterm, T., Wattanathorn, J., &Muchimapura, S. (2010). Phol hon karnjudkarnruenroo duo
chai krongngarn pen tharnkhongnukruenitdubmatthayomsuksa pee thi 4 tor Working Memory. [The
Effect of Project Based Learning on MatthayomSuksa 4 Students’ Working Memory]. North Eastern
Thai Journal of Neuroscience, 5(3), 211-219.
Yang, H.Y., & Chang, C.C. (2015). The effect of attention cueing on science text learning. Tech Know Learn.
doi: 101007/s10758-015-9264-6
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 482
Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science
Education International, 23(4), 383-399.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Higher Education Research Promotion and National Research University
Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission, through the Cluster of Research to Enhance
the Quality of Basic Education.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 483