Advertisement

A Comparison of Thailand and New Zealand Students’ Ideas About Energy Related to Technological and Societal Issues

  • Chokchai YuenyongEmail author
  • Alister Jones
  • Naruemon Yutakom
Article

Abstract

This study is a cross-cultural comparison between the ideas of 49 Thai Grade 9 students and the 30 New Zealand Grade 9 students (approximately 15 years old), about energy related to technological and societal issues. Students’ ideas were explored using the Questionnaire for exploring Students’ ideas about Energy, Technological, and Societal issues (QSETS). The QSETS questionnaire gave students the opportunity to express their ideas about energy related to societal and technological issues. Both groups of students were presented with the same set of issues, but specific places were related to each student’s own country. The study reveals some interesting student ideas that might be generated from engaging in different contexts. It seemed that the 15-year-old students had difficulty in perceiving the relationship between the study of society and energy. Around 50% of both groups of students did not understand, and did not know enough about, questions which referred to the relationship between society and energy. Thai and New Zealand students held different values in decision-making. Thai students placed value on decisionmaking concerning the development of the country. They strongly believed in scientific application for solving social problems. New Zealand students valued decision-making in relation to environmental issues. They were not quite sure that scientific knowledge could solve problems. They thought that science applications caused damage to the environment. This study has implications for the development of teaching approaches in different countries.

Key words

energy New Zealand technological and societal issues Thailand 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspective on reform (pp. 169–186). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G.S. & Ryan, A.G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on Science-Technology-Society’ (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingle, W.H. & Gaskell, P.J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bybee, R.W. (1985). The Sisyphean question in science education: What should the scientifically and technologically literate person know, value and do-as a citizen? In R.W. Bybee (Ed.), Science-technology-society 1985 NSTA yearbook (pp. 79–93). Washington, D.C., USA: National Teacher Association.Google Scholar
  5. de Vries, M.J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the ‘technology is applied science’ paradigm. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Asoko, H. Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duit, R. (1981). Students’ notion about the energy concept – before and after physics instruction. In W. Jung, H. Pfundt & Rhoneck (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop ‘Problems concerning students’ representation of physics and chemistry knowledge’ (pp. 268–319). Ludwigsburg, West Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school — empirical results from the Philippines and West Germany. Physics Education, 19, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fry, G. W. (2002). The evolution of educational reform in Thailand. Paper presented at the second International Forum. Organized by the Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC), September 2–5, 2002. Available: http://www.worldedreform.com/intercon2/fly.pdf, January 10, 2004.
  11. Griffiths, D., Stiring, W.D. & Weldon, K.L. (1998). Understanding data: Principles & practice of statistics. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, K. (1997). Science and technology as social relations towards a philosophy of technology for liberal education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hargreaves, J., Barker, M. & Bell, B. (1997). Everywhere, nowhere: environmental education in New Zealand classrooms. Science and Mathematics Education Papers, 109–127.Google Scholar
  14. Hodson, D. & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33–41.Google Scholar
  15. Hongladarom, S. (2002). Science in Thai society and culture. Bangkok: Institute of Academic Development.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, A. (2003). The development of a national curriculum in technology for New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nation Master (2004). Available: http://www.nationmaster.com/country, May 31, 2004.
  20. National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) (2002). Government of Thailand the nine national economic and social development plan (2002–2006). Bangkok, Thailand: Kurusapa Press.Google Scholar
  21. Packer, M.J. & Goicoecha, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pitiyanuwat, S. & Sujiva, S. (2000). Civics and values education in Thailand: Documentary analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(1), 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pitiyanuwat, S. & Anantrasirichai, A. (2002). Curriculum and learning reform in Thailand. Paper presented at Invitational Curriculum Policy Seminar: School Based Curriculum Renewal for the Knowledge Society Developing Capacity for New Times, Hong Kong, 14–16 November 2002. Available: http://ci-lab.ied.edu.hk/cyluk/ICP/Curriculum_and_Learning_Reform_in_Thailand.pdf, January 07, 2004.
  24. Premasiri, P.D. (1996). Humanization of development: A Theravada Buddhist perspective. In B. Saraswati (Ed.), Interface of cultural identity development. New Delhi: IGNCA and D. K. Printworld Pvt. Ltd., Available: http://ignca.nic.in/ls_03005.htm, January 10, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Ratcliffe, M. (1995). Adolescent decision-making, by individuals and groups, about science-related societal issues. In G. Westford, J. Osborne & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 126–140). London, UK: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenthal, R.D. (1989). Two approaches to science-technology-society (S-T-S) education. Science Education, 73(5), 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sengsook, R. (1997). A study of mathayomsuksa 1–6 studentsconceptions of energy in Donchimpleepittayacom school, Amphoe Bangnumpeaw, Changwat Chachoengsao: A case study. Bangkok, Thailand: Thesis of Master Degree in Science Teaching, Kasetsart University.Google Scholar
  28. Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: How students think in two domains. International Journal of Science Education, 5, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tan, M.C. (1988). Towards relevance in science education: Philippine context. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Titthummo, J. (2004). The development of mind (Pattana Jitta) Available: http://www.jarun.org/42-10.htm, March 14, 2004.
  31. Trumper, R. (1990). Being constructive: an alternative approach to the teaching of the energy concept — part one. International Journal of Science Education, 12(4), 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wertsch, J.V. (1995). The needs for action in sociocultural research. In J.V. Wertsch, P.D. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56–74). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wisadavet, W. (1996). Cultural identity and development process in Thailand. In B. Saraswati (Ed.), Interface of cultural identity development. New Delhi: IGNCA and D. K. Printworld Pvt. Ltd., Available: http://ignca.nic.in/ls_03022.htm, January 10, 2004.Google Scholar
  34. Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. London, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chokchai Yuenyong
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Alister Jones
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Naruemon Yutakom
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Science Education Program, Faculty of EducationKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  2. 2.Center for Science and Technology Education ResearchThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationKasetsart UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations