Development of an Inquiry-based Learning Unit for Enhancing High ...

T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

JOURNAL

of LEARNING Volume 18, Issue 10

Development of an Inquiry-based Learning Unit for Enhancing High-school Students’ Understanding of Animal Social Behavior Chanon Kowasupat, Piyachat Jittam, Namkang Sriwattanarothai, Pintip Ruenwongsa and Bhinyo Panijpan

www.Learning-Journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING http://www.Learning-Journal.com First published in 2012 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com ISSN: 1447-9494 © 2012 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2012 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact . THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Development of an Inquiry-based Learning Unit for Enhancing High-school Students’ Understanding of Animal Social Behavior Chanon Kowasupat, Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand Piyachat Jittam, Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand Namkang Sriwattanarothai, Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand Pintip Ruenwongsa, Mahidol University, Thailand Bhinyo Panijpan, Mahidol University, Thailand Abstract: Animal social behavior, an essential part of biology, involves the process and mechanism of how animals live in groups. Because it is a topic usually taught by the traditional method in a very abstract way, students end up having an inadequate understanding and even some misconceptions of it. This study, thus, aimed to develop a learning unit, based on the 5E learning model, to enhance highschool students’ understanding of some aspects of animal social behavior by using the Siamese fighting fish as a concrete example. Students were engaged by video clips on animal behavior together with other learning materials. They designed their own experiments, which involved observing fish behavior in tanks and constructed their own knowledge from data gathered and discussion in class. The experimental group was given the 5E learning unit, whereas the control group was taught traditionally, both with the same objectives. Student achievements were assessed by pre- and post- tests and their documents. Students participating in the 5E learning unit gained better conceptual understanding of animal social behavior as well as acquired science process skills. They had acquired positive attitudes toward the learning unit as evidenced by their reflections and semi-structured interviews. Keywords: Animal Social Behavior, Fighting Fish, High School Student, Inquiry-based Learning, 5E Learning Cycle

Introduction

A

NIMAL BEHAVIOR, AS highlighted by many biologists such as darwin, thorpe, tinbergen, lorenz and von Frisch, is the scientific study of what animals do and how and why they do these things (Ord, Martins, Thakur, Mane & Borner, 2005). Animals interact with other individuals around them in their environment. The study of animal social behavior reveals the process and mechanism of animals living in groups (Barnard, 2004). It has links to the human society. The study on social animal behavior contributes potentially to the understanding of social behavior such as aggression, territoriality, cooperation and reconciliation in human social group. Thus the study of animal social behavior is

The International Journal of Learning Volume 18, Issue 10, 2012, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494 © Common Ground, Chanon Kowasupat, Piyachat Jittam, Namkang Sriwattanarothai, Pintip Ruenwongsa, Bhinyo Panijpan, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

not only important as a scientific field on its own but also important as an education topic for promoting student understanding of human social interaction. Mindful of the relevance of animal social behavior, it is normally taught in biology classes both at high school and university levels. Wersinger and Martin (2009) proposed the study of social behavior in the laboratory class. Depending on objectives of the laboratory both invertebrates and vertebrates have been used (Daniel & Perelle, 1987; Jakob & Hodge, 2010; Pack, 2010; Smith, Scimeca & Mainous, 2011; Wilson-Sanders, 2011; Yamamuro, 2006). Besides animals such as rats (Whishaw & Kolb, 2005), fish have also been used as a model in many research studies on social learning (Laland, Atton & Webster, 2011; Rosenthal & Lobel, 2006). In fact there are student laboratories which employ fish for studying aspects of ethology and relevant behavior, for example, Nolan (2010) taught complex behavioral systems by using cichlid fish in display tanks. The Siamese fighting fish is one of the popular aquatic animals for use in social behavior lessons and it is convenient to obtain in most pet shops and also in the wild in or near the southeast Asian countries (Monvises, Nuangsaeng, Sriwattanarothai & Panijpan, 2009). They have been used in physiology and behavior laboratories as a good example for observing territorial behavior in the science classroom (Abante, 2005; Jeenthong, Kowasupat, Phichai, Ruenwongsa, Sriwattanarothai & Panijpan, 2011; Lynn, Egar, Walker, Sperry & Ramenofsky, 2007). There are websites with laboratory instructions for studying aggressive behavior and agonistic behavior of the fighting fish (Burke da Silva, Auburn, Hunter & Young, 2008; Foglia, 2005; Monvises, Ruenwongsa, Panijpan & Sriwattanarothai, 2010; Peck & Walker, 1991; Yasukawa, 2007). There are also laboratory exercises about fish schooling behavior; however, there is no report on student learning (Fisher & Novak, 1984; Glase, Zimmerman & Waldvogel, 1992). The fighting fish living in groups is also an interesting subject for study as reported by Elwood and Rainey (1983) and Inouye (1975). To our knowledge the topic of animal social behavior is usually delivered by traditional teaching instead of the students’ being provided the opportunity to observe and record data from real situations or discovery through experiments. More importantly, despite an increasing use of the 5E model in science education (National Research Council (NRC), 2006) the latter has not been introduced into the instruction of social behavior of animals, especially, in a laboratory exercise. This study aimed at using the Siamese fighting fish as a concrete, real life example, to develop an inquiry-based hands-on activity in a learning unit on animal social behavior. It was based on the 5E learning model by Balci, Cakiroglu and Tekkaya (2006) and Maier and Marek (2006) covering all essential features of the inquiry high-school classroom. The effectiveness of the unit on student learning achievement and their perception of the unit were investigated.

Theoretical Framework Inquiry is an active learning process based on the constructivist theory wherein the instruction emphasizes students’ doing things by themselves; whereas in the traditional class things would be done for them (Anderson, 2002; Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005). Inquiry is a pedagogical method that blends hands-on activities with student-centered discussion and explores concepts (Uno, 1990). Inquiry-based activities start with scientific questions, students doing the investigation, analyzing data and finally using the results to answer the questions (Bell,

168

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

Smetana & Binns, 2005). Consequently, the primary goal of this approach in science education is to develop an understanding of the nature of science by doing science and linking the newly acquired knowledge with student’s prior knowledge or experiences, in other words constructivism. Moreover, the approach must reflect the nature of scientific inquiry which is normally described as a method of asking questions, generating data through systematic observation or experimentation, thinking critically and logically about relationships between evidence and explanation, interpreting data and drawing conclusions (Anderson, 2002; Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005; Bybee, 2006a; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). It therefore helps students enhance their understanding of science concepts in various topics including those in biology (Tamir, 1983). To develop an inquiry-based lesson, the activity should be related to students’ prior knowledge or experiences (Anderson, 2002). The learning cycle approach, firstly developed by Robert Karplus, is an inquiry-based strategy; based on Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (Karplus, 1977). The learning cycle provides guidance to concepts by the teacher, and the students will discover the meaning of the concepts in question principally on their own (DeBoer, 1991; Lawson, 1986; Renner & Lawson, 1973). The student is faced with new knowledge and has to subsequently transform it to blend with existing mental structures. In the process students have to reach a stage of cognitive conflict or disequilibrium which motivates them to contemplate their initial conceptions and then construct their conceptual understandings (Abraham, 1998; Renner & Lawson, 1973). The learning cycle divides instruction into three phases: exploration, concept introduction, and concept application (Karplus, 1977; Lawson, 1986). The names for these phases have since been adapted and more phases have been added (Abraham, 1998), including the 4E (Friedrichsen, 2001), 5E (Balci, Cakiroglu & Tekkaya, 2006), and 7E (Eisencraft, 2003) models. The learning cycle approach has been shown to be robust in effectiveness in the science classroom pedagogy (Ates, 2005; Gillis & MacDougall, 2007; Lawson, 2001). Students explore, share and discuss data from science experiments, test different ideas while linking their learning with their own experiences (Allard & Barman, 1994; Renner & Lawson, 1973). The new and unexpected results usually pose a threat because they lead too often to disequilibrium (Renner & Lawson, 1973). The discomfort helps them to see the relation between the new knowledge and that previously learned (Abraham, 1998). The teacher provides additional activities, thus more opportunities, for students to apply their recently formed understanding to new situations (Lawson, 1986; Settlage, 2000). The social interaction in the learning process leads them to develop and change their mental frameworks (Renner & Lawson, 1973). The 5E learning model (engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation) has been used extensively in developing the learning unit for students at all levels. (Anderson, 2002; Balci, Cakiroglu & Tekkaya, 2006; Maier & Marek, 2006). The engagement step stimulates students by asking questions or producing some conflicts which arouse interest and lead them into the lesson. Exploration is a stage that the teacher should use structured, guided or open inquiry to let students find the answers by observing, collecting data, testing, predicting, and checking hypotheses. Explanation allows students to analyze and discuss data to create new knowledge and relate them to prior knowledge or experience. Elaboration is for asking additional questions or using activities to allow them to extend, develop or apply their new knowledge to other cases or situations. Evaluation is designed to assess and check their overall knowledge.

169

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

The 5E learning model has been shown to produce positive results in science teaching including biology. For example a 2-week 5E-based curriculum has been shown to help high school students grasp major concepts of evolution using dynamic, modern and relevant context of medicine (Beardsley, Stuhlsatz, Kruse, Eckstrand, Gordon & Odenwald, 2011). The high school students undergoing such intervention achieved gains similar to or greater than gains achieved by students at college level (Beardsley, Stuhlsatz, Kruse, Eckstrand, Gordon & Odenwald, 2011; Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; Abraham, Meir, Perry & Herron, 2009). Lessons that introduce factual knowledge as well as build concepts through the use of activities structured by 5E instructional model have been shown to enhance science teaching and student learning (Bybee, 2006b). Such an inquiry approach framework was designed for grades 9–11 in various scientific disciplines. Example in biological sciences are: the cell, behavior of organisms, biological evolution, molecular basis of heredity, matter, energy and organization in living systems, interdependence of organisms (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), 2000). Moreover, the 5E instructional model improves students understanding in many other biology topics such as enzyme (Jittam, Boonsiri, Promptmas, Sriwattanarothai, Archavarungson, Ruenwongsa & Panijpan, 2009), and evolution (Sriwattanarothai, Jittam, Ruenwongsa & Panijpan, 2009). It helps students enjoy science, understand content, and apply the scientific process and concepts to real world situations (Colburn & Clough, 1997; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004).

Research Questions This study was framed within these two research questions: 1. 2.

Can the 5E-based learning unit enhance high-school student understanding of animal social behavior? What are students’ perceptions of the developed learning unit?

Methodology Preliminary Survey of Students’ Understanding on Animal Social Behavior To our knowledge, there had been no reported survey of student understanding or misconception of animal social behavior. To conduct our survey, a test on animal social behavior was therefore developed by us to explore high-school student understanding of such a topic by using a two-tier format of Treagust (1986). This test was trialed with high school students who had already studied animal behavior, and with biology teachers who taught this topic. The survey also included instruction, student satisfaction, and problems arising. The results were then used to develop the learning unit on animal social behavior emphasizing main concepts including definitions and factors affecting behavior.

Development of the Learning Unit Data from the preliminary survey on student knowledge of animal social behavior together with their observation of fighting fish was used to design the learning unit based on the 5E learning cycle (Balci, Cakiroglu & Tekkaya, 2006). The activity in each of the five phases

170

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

is described in Table 1. The learning unit was validated by three experts: one in science and two in science education. The learning unit comprised hands-on activities on observation of a computer simulation of fish kept in tanks, video clips of relevant animal behaviors and related instructional media and activities together with guiding questions and discussion. There were two main handson activities for students to explore. For activity 1, students are to observe aggressive behavior of fighting fish in different conditions as an example of animal social behavior. Students are encouraged to link the observed results with their previous knowledge. Activity 2 is observation of territorial aggressivity in a group of fighting fish and compare it with another group of neon tetra fish displaying schooling behavior. Then the students are encouraged to extend and/or apply the knowledge gained to the behavior of animals in general. It was anticipated that after participating in the 5E learning unit the students would be able to construct some key concepts in animal social behavior. This learning unit covers contents on animal social behavior: visual communication, relevant factors influencing animals to express different social behaviors. During the learning process, the students collected data, interpreted and explained the data from the fish tank observations by themselves.

Participants The participants were two classes of grade 11 students from two schools in central Thailand. One class served as the control while the other class was the experimental group. Students in both schools are medium to low achievers by national testing and were taught only by the traditional method. Our previous experience with the students proved them to be generally passive learners. The teachers in both schools had similar biology background and used direct instruction in their classes. Both groups were taught the same contents based on the same learning objectives. The control group, however, was taught animal social behavior by traditional lecture and was supplemented with related articles on behavior of the fighting fish and other animals. The experimental group was in the 5E-based learning class which included the hands-on activities on fighting fish. The teacher in the experimental group was trained to deliver the material via inquiry according to Table 1.

Implementation of the 5E-Based Learning Unit The 5E-based learning unit was implemented in a 3-h biology class. The learning sequence comprised 5 phases as shown in Table 1. This activity allowed the students to be inquisitive and become self-directed learners. In all activities, the teacher acted as facilitator and guided students to become active inquirers and to ensure that students were on the right track. In the first phase students were engaged with the video clips and pictures of animal behaviors to arouse their curiosity and guide them in posing questions and making hypotheses. Students were also encouraged to design their own experiments to study aggressive behavior of the fighting fish and compare the social behavior between the two types of fish. This phase together with the explanation phase provided students with the science process skills in observing, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. In the process of sharing, discussing, and communicating their findings in class, the students were expected to build up their own knowledge as well as extend and apply the knowledge gained to other situations. In the final

171

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

phase, the students were expected to be able to assess their own knowledge and their friends’ to eliminate misconceptions and to promote an overall understanding of the whole class. Table 1: The 5E-based Learning Unit on Animal Social Behavior Objectives

Activity

Assessment Tools

To evaluate students’ • prior conceptual understanding (15 min)

Students took pre-conceptual test.

To engage students • into the learning unit (Engagement • phase) (20 min)

Students watched video clips and pictures • on animal behavior. Students used what they had seen from video clips and pictures and then discussed about innate and learned behavior using their prior knowledge. Students posed their own questions and set hypotheses related to animal behavior.

Classroom observation

Students worked in groups of five designing • their own experiments. Experiment 1, to observe aggressive beha- • vior of two fighting fish individually housed in two separate tanks. Students watched the video clips of aggressive behavior of other two fighting fish that were put together in the same tank. Experiment 2, to observe and compare social behavior between two groups of fish: ten fighting fish in one tank and ten neon tetra fish in the other tank. (Each group of the fish had lived together since they were born.) Students gathered, analyzed, and interpreted data.

Classroom observation Activity sheets

•

To experience the • hands-on activities (Exploration phase) • (40 min) •

•

•

172

•

Pre-conceptual test

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

To derive concepts • from observation (Explanation phase) • (40 min)

•

•

To extend students’ • knowledge (Elaboration phase) (25 min) • •

To evaluate students’ • conceptual under• standing (Evaluation phase) • (40 min)

Students shared what they had observed in • small groups and discussed the findings with peers. • Students wrote a group poster about their findings and shared with classmates in the form of the gallery walk. Students summarized what they had learned in small groups and answered the questions related to aggression and social behavior posed in the activity sheet, and then wrote a group report. Teacher wrapped up the discussion to ensure comprehension.

Student group presentations Student group reports

Students watched the video clips on a vari- • ety of animal behaviors and then discussed social behavior and communication between animals in general. Students constructed their own concepts on animal social behavior. Teacher wrapped up the discussion to ensure overall comprehension.

Classroom observation

Students took the post-conceptual test. • Students reflected on their perception, satisfaction and knowledge. • Volunteer students were interviewed. •

Post-conceptual test Student reflections Semi-structured interviews

Data Collection and Data Analysis The assessment tools used in this study were pre- and post- conceptual test, activity sheet, student group presentation, student group report, student perception, semi-structured interview, and classroom observation. 1. Pre-and Post-Conceptual Test The two-tier test used in the preliminary survey was modified for the pre- and post- conceptual test according to National Standard Science Curriculum (The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching and Technology (IPST), 2008). The three main concepts on animal social behavior are: 1) linking prior knowledge with new knowledge on animal behavior, 2) the meaning of animal social behavior, and 3) factors affecting animal social behavior display. The first

173

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

tier has four choices for the students to specify whether or not they think the item statement is correct or ambiguous or has no answer. In the second tier, students must briefly describe the reasons for their choice of the first tier answers or edit the statement to render it more correct. The latter should explore students’ inadequate understandings and misconceptions if any. 2. Activity Sheet There were two activity sheets for individual students to record their own fish tank observations. Activity sheet 1 was about the Siamese fighting fish general characteristics and their aggressive behavior in individual tanks. Activity sheet 2 was for observation of the group of fighting fish in one tank and neon tetra fish in another tank. These activity sheets were analyzed based on valid inferences from the text according to the thematic approach (Mutch, 2005) and were triangulated with other assessment tools. 3. Student Group Poster Presentation Each group of five students prepared their poster and presented to the class by the gallery walk method: each group took turns to observe and comment on other groups’ posters one by one. Teachers assessed students’ understanding on four criteria (Table 5) using a 5-point Likert scale where 5=excellent, 4=exemplary, 3=accomplished, 2=developing, 1=beginning. The most popular poster according to students’ votes was chosen for presentation to the class. Teacher used this step for discussing to the whole class about their observed results and animal social behavior concepts. 4. Student Group Report Each group of students used the knowledge gained from the previous session (presentation and discussion) for writing the group report. The laboratory report consisted of procedure, observed results from both hands-on activities, and discussion and conclusion. The report was scored based on a 5-point Likert scale. 5. Student Perception At the end of the unit, all students in the experimental class were asked to submit their reflection in response to the open-ended questions concerning the learning activities they had undergone, their acquired knowledge, satisfaction, and suggestions for improvement. 6. Semi-structured Interviews Five volunteer students were questioned face-to-face on the knowledge gained, opinions and suggestions about the learning unit. These interviews were audio-recorded. The interview dialogs were transcribed verbatim and then analyzed thematically.

174

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

7. Classroom Observation A video-camera was used to capture student interactions in both control and experimental group during the learning process. An audio-recorder was used to record conversations between teacher-student and student-student in each group during all activities. These data provided more information to be eventually triangulated with results from other assessment tools. All of these assessment tools were validated by experts, one in science and two in science education. The quantitative data in pre- and post-test was analyzed using paired-samples t-test with SPSS program version 17.0. The qualitative data on student reflection and other in-depth interview were analyzed using the thematic approach. Multiple data sources were used for triangulation to increase trustworthiness of this study.

Results Preliminary Survey A preliminary survey with Thai teachers in three schools revealed that most teachers had taught animal behavior only by the traditional lecture; though there was one school that used PowerPoint presentation together with some animal video clips as supplemented materials. Animal social behavior was deemed the second difficult topic to teach because there were only a few laboratories or hands-on activities with concrete examples that could help students understand. The students found it hard to link their limited prior experiences to what they were being taught for constructing new knowledge. A preliminary trial of the two-tier test was with 21 grade-11 students, who had been taught animal behavior topic by traditional lecture supplemented with some animal video clips. The results revealed that most students had inadequate understanding and even some misunderstandings of this topic. Fifty-five percent of the students showed misconceptions and partial conceptual understanding of animal social behavior, 46% of them had some problems about linking their prior knowledge with the new knowledge, and 34% of them had incorrect answers on factors affecting animal social behavior as follows: “Innate behavior and learned behavior are not relevant to the topic of social behavior.” “Living in groups does not help animals survive but it increases the risk of extinction.” “Animal social organization is not necessary for species survival because many animals can live in isolation and survive without displaying social behavior.” The results from the preliminary survey were then used to develop a learning unit suitable for enhancing high-school student understanding of animal social behavior.

175

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Students’ Conceptual Understanding Pre-and Post-Conceptual Test As shown in Table 2, the students in control and experimental group showed no significant difference in the pre-test mean scores (p < 0.001) on the three main concepts of animal social behavior. The lowest mean scores were found in items on linking prior knowledge with new knowledge (less than 50%) followed by meaning of animal social behavior and factors affecting animal social behavior display. Table 2: Comparison of Students’ Pre-and Post-test Mean Scores between the Control Group (n=20) and Experimental Group (n=17) Topic

%Pre-test (Mean ± S.D.) Control group

1. Linking prior knowledge with new knowledge (9 points)

3.15±1.79

2. Meaning of animal social behavior (9 points)

4.20±1.50

3. Factors affecting animal social behavior display (18 points)

10.85±3.16

Total (36 points)

18.20±5.20

%Post-test (Mean ± S.D.)

Experimental Experimental Control group group group 3.29±2.17

t = 0.22ns 3.94±1.98 ns

t = 0.45

9.12±3.00

t = 1.70ns 16.35±6.15

t = 0.99

ns

4.70±1.75

7.59±1.54

t = 5.28*** 5.05±1.67

6.71±1.26

t = 3.35** 11.25±2.77

15.06±1.92

t = 4.77*** 21.00±4.47

29.35±3.22

t = 6.41***

ns

No significant difference. ** Significant difference at p < 0.01 level. *** Significant difference at p < 0.001 level. After the intervention, the post-test mean scores in the three main concepts were higher than those of the pre-test in both control and experimental group but the increase was higher in the experimental group. The post-test mean scores of experimental group were significantly higher than those of control group in all three main concepts (Table 2, Figure 1). The highest increase was in the ability to link prior knowledge with new knowledge while meaning of animal social behavior was the lowest. It should be noted that the gained score on the item “factors affecting animal social behavior display” in the control group was only 0.4 while that in the experimental group was 5.94: this result is consistent with that in the preliminary survey that the students who had been traditionally taught the animal behavior topic still had incorrect and/or partial understanding of it. However, exposure to the hands-on activities resulted in higher gained score in the experimental group.

176

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

Figure 1: Student Mean Scores in Three Main Concepts of Post-conceptual Test The mean scores from the two activity sheets are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Each item was scored for content of the observation. The results in Table 3 show that the students had good observation skill in that they could describe appearance of fighting fish as well as aggressive display. The results suggested that the activity in the exploration step of the learning unit helped develop the observation skill. Table 3: Scores of Students’ Activity on Aggressive Behavior of Fighting Fish Content

Mean ± S.D.

General appearance of fighting fish (7 points)

7.00 ± 0.00

Species of fighting fish (3 points)

2.65 ± 0.29

Aggressive behavior of the two fighting fish in two adjacent tanks before/after removing the partition blocking their view (7 points)

6.15 ± 0.77

Aggressive behavior of two fighting fish in the same tanks (3 points)

2.94 ± 0.17

Total (20 points)

18.74 ± 1.00

In the second activity, the students observed the overall behavior of the neon tetra fish in one tank in comparison to the fighting fish in another tank. They were able to describe differences between the behavior listed on the table 4. However, they found it difficult to come up with other behaviors not specified for them.

177

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Table 4: Scores of Students’ Activity on Fish Group Behavior Observation

Mean ± S.D.

Social grouping (2 points)

1.94 ± 0.14

Swimming (2 points)

1.93 ± 0.17

Type of communication (2 points)

1.62 ± 0.25

Social organization (2 points)

1.82 ± 0.51

Other observed social behavior (2 points)

1.16 ± 0.94

Total (10 points)

8.47 ± 1.25

Students’ Group Poster Presentation Table 5 shows the scores of students’ poster presentation from four groups based on the four criteria. The first two criteria were assessed from analyzing and interpretation of data from the fish as well as the organization of the poster. The third criteria was on the ability to clearly present the work for better understanding of the audience. The fourth criteria measured how well they answered the questions posed by their classmates and teacher. The average score for all criteria in the four groups ranged from 3.25 to 4.75. The average score on contents was 4.25 in both topics. The highest score was in presentation while the lowest one was in answering questions. Table 5: Mean Scores of Students’ Group Poster Presentation Criteria

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Average (Mean ± S.D.)

1. Results and discussion on behavior of fighting fish (5 points)

4.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

4.25±0.50

2. Results and discussion on behavior of neon tetra fish (5 points)

5.0

4.0

3.0

5.0

4.25±0.97

3. Poster presentation (5 points)

5.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.75±0.50

4. Answering questions (5 points)

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

3.25±0.50

Average (5 points)

4.50

3.75

4.00

4.50

4.13±0.32

Students’ Group Report After poster presentation there was a wrap-up session by the teacher. The students then wrote the group report. The scores of group report were based on procedure, results, discussion

178

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

and conclusion as shown in Table 6. The average scores for all criteria of each group ranged from 3.75 to 4.75. The average score on the content part increased from 4.25 in poster (Table 5) to 4.75 in laboratory report (Table 6). The results suggested that students used the knowledge gained from group activity and poster presentation to write their reports (Table 6). Table 6: Mean Scores of Students’ Laboratory Report Criteria

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Average (Mean ± S.D.)

1. Procedure (5 points)

5.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

3.75±0.96

2. Results from activity 1 (5 points)

5.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.75±0.50

3. Results from activity 2 (5 points)

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.0

4.75±0.50

4. Discussion and conclusion (5 points)

4.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.50±0.58

Average (5 points)

4.75

4.00

4.50

4.50

4.44±0.31

Student Perception on the Learning Unit The students reflected their perceptions of the learning unit by expressing their opinions in writing in response to the open-ended questions based on the three criteria: knowledge, satisfaction, and improvement. The results indicated positive attitude of the students toward the learning unit. All of the students said that they liked the learning unit and 30% of them reflected their good impression and wished that other topics should be taught like this one. The students felt that the learning activities aroused their interest and they enjoyed learning in this manner. Examples of students’ quotations are as follows: “I do like this way of learning because I can gain knowledge and have fun and I am not bored like listening to the lecture.” “I enjoyed watching behavior of groups of fighting fish and neon tetra fish. I observed their behavior very closely, and later I could compare and contrast the social behavior of the two types of fish.” “Every lesson should have activity and instructional media like in this learning unit because it aroused my interest and stimulated my thirst of knowledge.” “The learning activities that allow sharing and discussing in group challenge me to learn.”

179

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

The students like the idea of exploring and discovering animal social behavior through real experiments making them understand easily with no confusion. “Observing live animals leads to better understanding compared to watching video clips and/ or reading textbooks.” “I learn and understand more aspects of animal social behavior by observing and discussing in this learning unit. I can link and apply this new knowledge with my prior knowledge as well as other topics.” The activity that the students liked most was to observe group behavior of the fighting fish and neon tetra fish, followed by observation of aggressive behavior of the fighting fish and the schooling of the neon tetra. The students said that the learning unit also helped them practice several science process skills. Examples of students’ quotations are as follows: “I practiced observation from watching and comparing group behavior of fighting fish and neon tetra fish.” “I had the opportunity to analyze, share, recheck, and discuss the observations with friends, and it made me learn more about animal social behavior with classmates.” The students were asked for suggestions for making this learning unit more effective and attractive. About 59% of the students felt that this learning unit needed no improvement. Nevertheless, about 61% of them suggested for more activities, for example, entertaining activities and games, and more experiments on other animals. Additionally, more information on research findings of animal social behavior should be given. For example: “I would like to have more activities, games and experiments or other kinds of animals apart from fish for observing their social behavior.”

Students’ Interview Results from interviewing of five volunteer students supported the results from students’ reflection in that the students favored the 5E learning unit together with the hands-on activities. They felt the unit helped them learn about animal social behavior with better understanding as well as helped construct the knowledge by doing the laboratory experiments. The students believed that fighting fish and neon tetra fish were good models for studying animal social behavior and the knowledge gained from this model could be extended to other animals. The students appreciated that all activities in the newly developed learning unit helped them conceptualize as well as build up knowledge on animal social behavior. Excerpts from the students are as follows: “Learning through the hands-on activities challenges me to construct my knowledge on animal social behavior.”

180

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

“By observing fish behavior, I learned by myself the relationship between innate and learned behavior through social interaction. I also gained knowledge on other factors affecting animal social behavior.” “It is amazing that the aggressive fighting fish can live in groups instead of as separate individuals as I thought before. It raised my curiosity level to find answers. I think that they might have set up their social hierarchy in their group from the day they were born.” “The fighting fish is beautiful and it is easy to define characteristics of aggressive behavior. Having an opportunity to watch them made me enjoy learning about animal social behavior.” “I do like to observe the behavior of the two types of fish. I will buy them from the pet shop and watch them again at home.” Moreover, the students also felt that they could apply the knowledge learned to other situations. “These two species of fishes are good for observing their contrasting social behavior. These two kinds can be representing typical social behavior. They can be extended to other kinds of animals.” “It challenged me to compare the differences in social behavior between groups of fighting fish and neon tetra fish. This can be applied to learning about social behavior of other animals.” Finally the students expressed appreciation of the learning activity in the unit. “This activity impressed me because my group mates and I helped each other to practice observation, comparison, analysis, and interpretation of data by ourselves, more or less independent of the teacher. We helped each other to observe and learned more about animal social behavior. I really love learning with activities.” “I wish to have other biology lessons with hands-on activities like this one rather than the traditional lecture because this study was enjoyable while enhancing learning at the same time. I am proud that I could learn, understand and construct knowledge by myself.” However, the students voiced that more time should be given. “More time should be allocated to this learning unit because it is very interesting and challenging. I need more time for close observation and gathering of data for more fruitful results. I enjoy this learning style very much.”

181

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Discussion This study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the newly developed 5E-based learning unit on animal social behavior, in which fish in tanks were used as a model for observation. The results clearly indicated that the learning achievement of the students in the experimental group was higher than those of the control group. Not only post-test mean scores in conceptual test were significantly higher, the students also developed science process skills and self-directed learning ability. It should be emphasized here that the same objectives were imposed on both groups. The only difference in the teaching-learning activity between the two groups was that the experimental group received the 5E-based hands-on activity while those in the control group were given the traditional lecture supplemented with articles on animal social behavior. Thus the success of the learning unit in enhancing students’ performance was mainly due to the well-designed and well-executed hands-on activities which helped students gain conceptual understanding and skills in the science process in a similar way to several other previous findings (Hofstein, Shore & Kipnis, 2004; Hogstrom, Ottander & Benckert, 2010; Keeratichamroen, Dechsri, Panijpan & Ruenwongsa, 2010; Sriwattanarothai, Jittam, Ruenwongsa & Panijpan, 2009). These results are consistent with previous research that active learning improved students’ achievement (Lord, 1997; Taraban, Box, Myers, Pollard & Bowen, 2007). The students in this study, both in control and experimental group, had previously inadequate knowledge and partial understanding to a similar extent about animal behavior, as evidenced by the pre-test score of the conceptual test. After the intervention, the percentage increased from pre-test to post-test was 36% in the 5E-learning unit while only 8% increase was found in the traditional learning group. The results indicated that the 5E-learning cycle helped student improve knowledge on animal social behavior. Firstly, the students were engaged by watching video clips and pictures of animal behavior to arouse their interest and stimulate their curiosity. Teacher also used guiding questions to help motivate students’ interest and bring them to a certain level of understanding about innate and learned behavior, process of displaying behavior and types of communication. The students were encouraged to think of examples relevant to their real life experience and share with class. They were then led to the exploration phase in which they observed the aggressive behavior of live fighting fish by designing their own experiments according to the guiding questions, some of which originated from the students. They observed the posturing of aggressiveness of the fighting fish in two adjacent tanks, before and after the partition between tanks was removed. A video clip of two fighting fish in the same tank was also provided to allow students observe whether the aggressive behavior of the fish would be similar in the two conditions. In this exploration phase, the students were involved in the second hands-on activity on observing and comparing the social behavior of groups of the two types of fish. The students were able to conclude that all neon tetra fish tend to move coordinately in same directions whereas the fighting fish are more individualistic and are less mobile. Some students interpreted from their prior knowledge and from activity that the fighting fish are more aggressive and less able to live together since they tend fight each other for their territory. Thus the neon tetra fish possess schooling behavior while the fighting fish exhibited individualistic territorial behavior. Nevertheless, fighting fish clutch mates that grow up together can live peacefully, albeit without schooling much. The relevance to human social behavior then becomes more obvious in that we also exhibit fight and fright resulting from neural and

182

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

hormonal changes similar to what occurs in these fish in terms of fin display and color change. Schooling of fish has an analogy in humans in terms of crowd behavior and the tendency to follow the masses. During the explanation step, each group of the students shared and discussed their findings with the class; during which teacher gave the necessary guiding questions to ensure correct understanding. Students were encouraged to raise questions from their experience. For example, one student raised the point for further discussion whether fighting fish that were brought up together since spawning could live together in peace. Some students said that different animals such as dogs and cats can also live together without fighting. They discussed whether these characteristics are innate or learned behavior. The students used the recorded data in their activity sheets as well as knowledge gained from sharing and discussing in preparing their poster for presentation. Surprisingly students with low scientific knowledge, after participating in the inquiry-based hands-on activity, could reach more abstract understanding. They could prepare a well-organized poster with substantive content and showed good communication in presenting the poster and answered the questions posed by the class, although some answers still indicated misconceptions. Nevertheless, the teacher helped correct their misunderstandings during the wrapping up session again. As a result, the students did quite well in writing the laboratory report. To lead the students to the next phase on elaboration, the instructors used video clips on a variety of animals familiar to students with relevant instructional media. The students were asked to further develop their knowledge that brought them to a higher level on the Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956). In the final phase on evaluation, the students showed their improvement of their understanding on animal social behavior as supported by the evaluation of students’ conceptual test, activity sheets, documents, and interactions in the classroom. The students were able to derive their own understanding and conceptualize the nature of animal social behavior by themselves. Examples of excerpts from the second tier of conceptual test supporting knowledge elaboration are as follows: “Dog’s howling, an innate behavior, is to communicate with others.” “Animal social behavior occurs when two or more animals live together, display their behavioral repertoire and respond to stimuli from others.” “If animals have different parental care, they will show different behaviors.” This finding corroborated other researchers that inquiry-based instruction in combination with the hands-on activity or laboratory experiment enhanced understanding of science concepts (Ates, 2005; Colburn, 2000; Lawson, 1995; Musheno & Lawson, 1999). However, some students still had some misunderstanding as evidenced by the two tier post-test. Additionally, the students who learned via this 5E learning unit not only did they have enhancement in their conceptual understanding, but also developed several science process skills such as observing, experimenting, critical thinking, analyzing, and predicting as mentioned earlier by several researcher (Ates, 2005; Brickman, Gormally, Armstrong & Hallar, 2009; Lawson, 1995). As mentioned in previous research, they acquired communication skill, presentation skill, and collaborative working skill as well (Brickman, Gormally, Armstrong & Hallar, 2009). Several research works have indicated that learning by doing help

183

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

students to acquire experimental skills (Ates, 2005; Kuhn, 1970). Additionally, the classroom was provided with a learning environment that enabled students to work and help each other. Thus, they gained communication and social skill in sharing knowledge with their classmates. Our inquiry-based learning unit also focused on cooperative hands-on activity in order to increase students’ achievement in knowledge, skill, and attitude (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Krystyniak & Heikkinen, 2007; Lawson, Abraham & Renner, 1989). The students had positive attitude toward this newly developed learning unit on animal social behavior as evidenced by their reflections, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations. An inquiry-based strategy has previously been shown to arouse students’ interest and thereby improve their learning (Park Rogers, 2009). They felt confident and proud to share, discuss, and show their own findings with classmates. Importantly, they found themselves becoming independent learners. They enjoyed this learning unit because they had the opportunity to be involved in various activities of their own design as well as experimenting with things close to their real life. Moreover, they were delighted that teacher conducted class by helping them as enthusiastic facilitator to guide and ask them guiding questions during learning rather than give them orders or ask them to strictly follow the cookbook type instructions. The results from this research suggested that the developed learning unit, which uses hands-on activities that relate to students’ everyday life and previous experiences, are effective for promoting learning environment and learning achievement. Students could easily use their prior knowledge to construct new knowledge. On the contrary, there are some negative feedbacks and suggestions from students. Some of them voiced about the constraint of time: they would like to have more time for experimenting and constructing all knowledge. This finding agreed with results from other studies that sufficient time should be allocated for effective inquiry-based learning and teaching (Deppeler, 2006; Jeenjenkit, Magee, Barman, Ruenwongsa & Panijpan, 2010; Newman, Abell, Hubbard, McDonald, Otaala, & Martini, 2004). Some of them suggested that more games or more experiments on other animals should be added into the learning package. Since the results were obtained from only small classes, higher numbers of students should be tried out to confirm the effectiveness of this developed learning unit. Skill test should be developed for assessing the improvement of student observation and science process skills. It has not escaped us also that the more superior learning skills among students cited here might just pertain to this particular topic only and may not be assumed for others. Regarding inquiry skill, bear in mind also that these students were exposed to this type of learning for only three hours, thus more exposure time is recommended for a larger variety of topics to achieve a better mastery. Nevertheless, this learning unit can be used as a guide for development of animal social behavior learning units for students at other levels or for 5E learning in other lessons.

Conclusion The findings in this study clearly show that the innovative learning unit with hands-on activities and based on the 5E learning model as framework significantly enhanced highschool students’ achievement on their animal social behavior learning. The students gained better content knowledge as judged by the experimental group’s mean scores, which were higher than those of the control group who learned animal social behavior via traditional lecture with only video clips and supplementary articles. There was an improvement in

184

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

conceptual understanding of overall main concepts. They could link prior knowledge to the new one, e.g., aggression, territoriality, group adhesiveness, and factors affecting behavior display. The guidance and scaffolding by the teachers, albeit in a short period of time, was helpful to enhance students’ understanding. Some important factors for the success of this learning unit were the competence of the teacher in carrying out the 5E learning process and their mastery of both content knowledge and effective pedagogy. Students helped each other in learning about animal social behavior and practice their observation skills. They improved in the ability to integrate their observations with their prior knowledge for acquiring better understanding on animal social behavior. Students were also satisfied with the newly developed learning unit, expressing that not only did the lesson help them to learn but also motivated them to carry out actual experiments and observations. Moreover they were most impressed with the hands-on activities, in which comparative observations were made between groups of aggressive fighting fish and the more peace-loving neon tetra fish, because the activities aroused their interest making it enjoyable and helping them to observe scientifically. It also gave them the opportunity to think individually and share their experiences with peers. This learning unit should replace the traditional animal social behavior classroom in high-schools or supplement the traditional class by providing students with experience in learning about animal social behavior more actively.

Acknowledgement This study is supported by the Office of Higher Education Commission and Mahidol University under the National Research Universities Initiative.

185

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

References Abante, M. E. (2005). Using a popular pet fish species to study territorial behavior. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 81–86. Abraham, M. R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 513–524). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Abraham, J.K., Meir, E., Perry, J., & Herron, J. C. (2009). Addressing undergraduate student misconceptions about natural selection with an interactive simulated laboratory. Evolution Education and Outreach, 2(3), 393–404. Allard, D. W., & Barman, C. R. (1994). The learning cycle as an alternative method for college science teaching. BioScience, 44(2), 99–101. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639. Ates, S. (2005). The effectiveness of the learning-cycle method on teaching DC circuits to prospective female and male science teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 213–227. Balci, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change texts as learning tools. The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 34(3), 199–203. Barnard, C. J. (2004). In Animal behaviour: Mechanism, development, function and evolution: Prentice Hall. Beardsley, P. M., Stuhlsatz, M. A. M., Kruse, R. A., Eckstrand, I. A., Gordon, S. D., & Odenwald, W. F. (2011). Evolution and medicine: An inquiry-based high school curriculum supplement. Evolution Education and Outreach, 4(4), 603–612. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). (2000). Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high school. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Brickman, P., Gormally, C., Armstrong, N., & Hallar., B. (2009). Effects of Inquiry-based Learning on Students’ Science Literacy Skills and Confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 3(2). Burke da Silva, K., Auburn, Z., Hunter, N., & Young, J. (2008). Engaging students and improving learning outcomes with inquiry based biology practical classes. In A. Hugman & K. Placing (Eds) Symposium Proceedings: Visualisation and Concept Development, UniServe Science, The University of Sydney, 24–29. Bybee, R. W. (2006a). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer. Bybee, R. W. (2006b). Enhancing science teaching and student learning: A BSCS perspective. Plenary address to the ACER Research Conference 2006, “Boosting science learning-what will it take”, Canberra. Colburn, A., & Clough, M. P. (1997). Implementing the learning cycle. Science Teacher, 64(5), 30–33. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44. Daniel, S. A., & Perelle, I. B. (1987). Undergraduate animal behavior program: Teaching and research. Zoo Biology, 6(3), 253–259.

186

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York and London: Teacher College Press. Deppeler, J. (2006). Improving inclusive practices in Australian schools: Creating conditions for university-school collaboration in inquiry. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 347–360. Eisencraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56–59. Elwood, R. W., & Rainey, C. J. (1983). Social organization and aggression within small groups of female Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Aggressive. Behavior, 9(4), 303–308. Fisher, R. L., & Novak, J. A. (1984). An experimental fish ethology unit. American Biology Teacher, 46(1), 23–30. Friedrichsen, P. M. (2001). Moving from hands-on to inquiry-based: A biology course for prospective elementary teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 63(8), 562–568. Foglia, K. B. (2005). Lab: Behavior of the Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens), Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/ rzimmerm/Zimmerman/APBiology/APbiologyAnimals/betta-behavior-activity.pdf Gillis, V. R., & MacDougall, G. (2007). Reading to learn science as an active process. The Science Teacher, 74(5), 45–50. Glase, J. C., Zimmerman, M. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (1992). Investigations in orientation behavior. In C. A. Goldman, S. E. Andrews, P. L. Huata & R. Ketchum (Eds.), Tested studies for laboratory teaching, 6. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop/Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twentyfirst century. Science Education. 88(1), 28–54. Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47–62. Hogstrom, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2010). Lab work and learning in secondary school chemistry: The importance of teacher and student interaction. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 505–523. Inouye, K. H. (1975). Modification of the dominance-subordination relationship in female Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. A thesis presented to the faculty of California State University, Fullerton in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Psychology. Jakob, E. M., & Hodge, M. (2010). Learning the skills of research: animal behavior exercises in the laboratory and field. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from http://www.sinauer.com/alcock9e/ sample/Alcock9e_Lab_Sample(Student).pdf Jeenjenkit, U., Magee, P. A., Barman, N., Ruenwongsa, P., & Panijpan, B. (2010). An inquiry learning unit for enhancing elementary pre-service teacher understanding of factors affecting chemical reaction rate. The International Journal of Learning, 17(10), 309–328. Jeenthong, T., Kowasupat, C., Phichai, P., Ruenwongsa, P., Sriwattanarothai, N., & Panijpan, B. (2011, July). Computer-based instructional games about aggression and courtship of the Siamese fighting fish. In Proceedings of the ThaiSim 2011-TS’11-3 rd Annual International Conference, Ayutthaya, Thailand. Jittam, P., Boonsiri, P., Promptmas, C., Sriwattanarothai, N., Archavarungson, N., Ruenwongsa, P., & Panijpan, B. (2009). Red seaweed enzyme-catalyzed bromination of bromophenol red: An inquiry-based kinetics laboratory experiment for undergraduates. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 99–105. Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169–175. Keeratichamroen, W., Dechsri, P., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwongsa, P. (2010). Enhancing student conceptualization of a combustion chemical reaction using the tapioca bomb activity: An inquirybased approach. The International Journal of Learning, 17(1), 275–292.

187

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Kuhn, D. J. (1970). Experiments with display patterns in the Siamese fighting fish. The American Biology Teacher, 32(2), 102–104. Krystyniak, R., & Heikkinen, H. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1160–1186. Laland, K. N., Atton, N., & Webster, M. M. (2011). From fish to fashion: Experimental and theoretical insights into the evolution of culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 958–968. Lawson, A. E. (1986). Integrating research on misconceptions, reasoning patterns and three types of learning cycles. Paper presented at the United States-Japan seminar on science education, Honolulu, HI. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lawson, A. E. (2001). Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. Journal of Biology Education, 35(4), 165–169. Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills [Monograph, Number One]. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Ks: National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Lord, T. R. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197–216. Lynn, S. E., Egar, J. M., Walker, B. G., Sperry, T. S., & Ramenofsky, M. (2007). Fish on Prozac: A simple non-invasive laboratory investigating the mechanisms of aggressive behaviour in Betta splendens. Advances in Physiological Education, 31, 358–363. Maier, S. J., & Marek, E. A. (2006). The learning cycle: A reintroduction. The Physics Teacher, 44(2), 109–113. Monvises, A., Nuangsaeng, B., Sriwattanarothai, N., & Panijpan, B. (2009). The Siamese fighting fish: Well-known generally but little-known scientifically. ScienceAsia, 35(1), 8–16. Monvises, A., Ruenwongsa, P., Panijpan, B., & Sriwattanarothai, N., (2010). A Siamese fighting fish learning unit for cooperative learning among primary students. The International Journal of Learning. 17(5), 231–246. Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23–37. Mutch, C. (2005). Doing educational research: A practitioner’s guide to getting started. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press. Newman, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257–279. Nolan, B. C. (2010). Laboratory class project: Using a cichlid fish display tank to teach students about complex behavioral systems. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 8(2), A86–A90. Ord, T. J., Martins, E. P., Thakur, S., Mane, K. K., & Borner, K. (2005). Trends in animal behaviour research (1968–2002): Ethoinformatics and the mining of library databases. Animal Behavior, 69(6), 1399–1413. Pack, A. A. (2010). The synergy of laboratory and field studies of dolphin behavior and cognition. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 23, 538–565. Park Rogers, M. A. (2009). Elementary preservice teachers’ experience with inquiry: Connecting evidence to explanation. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 47–61. Peck, W., & Walker, R. (1991). Behavior of the Siamese fighting fish. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.explorebiology.com/documents/ CIBT_ Fighting_Fish.pdf

188

KOWASUPAT, JITTAM, SRIWATTANAROTHAI, RUENWONGSA, PANIJPAN

Renner, J. W., & Lawson, A. E. (1973). Piagetian theory and instruction in physics. The Physics Teacher, 11(3), 165–169. Rosenthal, G. G., & Lobel, P. S. (2006). Communication. In K. A. Sloman, R. W. Wilson & S. Balshine (Eds.), Behaviour and Physiology of Fish, Vol. 24 (ed.), pp. 39–78). San Diego: Elsevier Inc. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Teacher Education, 84(1), 43–50. Smith, S. A., Scimeca, J. M., & Mainous, M. E. (2011). Culture and maintenance of selected invertebrates in the laboratory and classroom. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Journal, 52(2), 153–164. Sriwattanarothai, N., Jittam, P., Ruenwongsa, P., & Panijpan, B. (2009). From research on local materials to the learning of science: An inquiry-based laboratory for undergraduates. The International Journal of Learning, 16(6), 459–473. Tamir, P. (1983). Inquiry and the science teacher. Science Education, 67(5), 657–672. Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen, C. W. (2007). Effects of active-learning experiences on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 960–979. The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). (2008). The basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) Science. Retrieved Oct 31, 2009, from http://www3.ipst.ac.th/files_eng/SciCur_2008_ EngVersion.pdf. Treagust, D. F. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16(1), 199–207. Uno, G. E. (1990). Inquiry in the classroom. BioScience, 40(11), 841–843. Wersinger, S. R., & Martin, L. B. (2009). Optimization of laboratory conditions for the study of social behavior. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Journal, 50(1), 64–80. Whishaw, I. Q., & Kolb, B. (2005). The behavior of the laboratory rat: A handbook with tests. (pp. 362–370). New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson-Sanders, S. E. (2011). Invertebrate models for biomedical research, testing, and education. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Journal, 52(2), 126–152. Yamamuro, Y. (2006). Social behavior in laboratory rats: Applications for psycho-neuroethology studies. Journal of Animal Science, 77(4), 386–394. Yasukawa, K. (2007). Animal behavior laboratory 11. Paper was presented at the 2007 ABS annual meeting education workshop.

189

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

About the Authors Chanon Kowasupat Mr. Chanon Kowasupat is a Ph.D. candidate in Science and Technology Education at the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University. He was supported by the Office of Higher Education Commission (National University Research Grant allocated to Mahidol University) to do research work on a biology learning unit on diverse social behavior of fighting fish in Thailand. Piyachat Jittam Piyachat Jittam holds a M.Sc. in Biochemisty and a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Education. She is a Program Director of the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand. Namkang Sriwattanarothai Namkang Sriwattanarothai is a lecturer at the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand. Her research discipline is Life Science Education, specifically, in the topics of Behavior, Biodiversity, Evolution and Molecular Biology. Pintip Ruenwongsa Associate Professor Pintip Ruenwongsa is a past Program Director of Science and Technology Education (2004–2010) at the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University. She is currently affiliated with the Multidisciplinary Unit, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Thailand. Bhinyo Panijpan Associate Professor Bhinyo Panijpan is the founding and former Director of the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University. At present he works at the Multidisciplinary Unit, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University. He also the senior consultant to the Faculty of Science and The Institute for Innovative Learning of Mahidol University, Thailand.

190

Editors Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA

Editorial Advisory Board Michael Apple, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA David Barton, Lancaster University, Milton Keynes, UK Mario Bello, University of Science, Cuba Manuela du Bois-Reymond, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Robert Devillar, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, USA Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain Ruth Finnegan, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK James Paul Gee, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Los Angeles, USA Anne Hickling-Hudson, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Carey Jewitt, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA Andeas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Peter Kell, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA Gunther Kress, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Colin Lankshear, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia Kimberly Lawless, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA Sarah Michaels, Clark University, Worcester, USA Jeffrey Mok, Miyazaki International College, Miyazaki, Japan Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Ernest O’Neil, Ministry of Education, Sana’a, Yemen José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Miguel A. Pereyra, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Scott Poynting, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Angela Samuels, Montego Bay Community College, Montego Bay, Jamaica Michel Singh, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia Helen Smith, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Richard Sohmer, Clark University, Worcester, USA Brian Street, University of London, London, UK Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Gella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Cecile Walden, Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia Wang Yingjie, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Zhou Zuoyu, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Learning-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

The Learner Community This knowledge community is brought together by a common concern for learning and an interest to explore new educational possibilities. The community interacts through an innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round virtual relationships in a weblog, peer reviewed journal and book series—exploring the affordances of the new digital media. Members of this knowledge community include academics, teachers, administrators, policy makers and other education practitioners.

Conference Members of the Learner Community meet at The International Conference on Learning, held annually in different locations around the world, each selected for the particular role education is playing in social, cultural and economic change. In recent years, the Conference has been held at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia in 1999; RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia in 2000; the University of Athens, Spetses, Greece in 2001; Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China in 2002; Institute of Education, London University, London, UK in 2003; Institute of Pedagogical Sciences, Havana, Cuba in 2004; University of Granada, Granada, Spain in 2005; Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica in 2006; the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa in 2007; the University of Illinois, Chicago, USA in 2008; the University of Barcelona, Spain in 2009; Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong in 2010; and the University of Mauritius, Mauritius in 2011. In 2012, the Conference will be held at The Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe. Intellectually, our interests span the breath of the field of education. The Conference is a site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emerging scholars and teachers. Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtual participation in which community members can submit a video and/or slide presentation with voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in the Journal. Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

Publishing The Learner Community enables members to publish through three mediums. First, by participating in the Learning Conference, community members can enter a world of journal publication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums—a result of the responsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process. The International Journal of Learning provides a framework for double-blind peer review, enabling authors to publish into an academic journal of the highest standard. The second publication medium is through the book series The Learner, publishing cutting edge books on education in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and manuscript submissions are welcome. The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news updates from the Learner Community, as well as major developments in the field of education. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our email Newsletter.

Common Ground Publishing Journals AGING Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/

ARTS The International Journal of the Arts in Society. Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOK The International Journal of the Book Website: www.Book-Journal.com

CLIMATE CHANGE The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses Website: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT The International Journal of the Constructed Environment Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal

DESIGN Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal Website: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITY The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com

FOOD Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/

GLOBAL STUDIES The Global Studies Journal Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

HEALTH The International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIES The International Journal of the Humanities Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com

IMAGE The International Journal of the Image Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNING The International Journal of Learning. Website: www.Learning-Journal.com

MANAGEMENT The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management. Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUM The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum Website: www.Museum-Journal.com

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY The International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society Website: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY The International Journal of Science in Society Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com

SOCIAL SCIENCES The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWS Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of Urban and ExtraUrban Studies Website: www.SpacesJournal.com

SPORT AND SOCIETY The International Journal of Sport and Society Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal

SUSTAINABILITY The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com

TECHNOLOGY The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society Website: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/

UNIVERSITIES Journal of the World Universities Forum Website: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact [email protected]