أثر نموذج تدريسي قائم على منحى STEM الموجه بالجدل العلمي في تصحيح التصورات البديلة للمفاهيم العلمية لدى طلاب الصف السادس الابتدائي
الكلمات المفتاحية:
تعليم STEM، الجدل العلمي، نموذج تولمن، التصورات البديلة، الأنظمة البيئية
الملخص
هدف هذا البحث إلى تقصّي فاعلية نموذج تدريسي قائم على منحى STEM والموجه بالجدل العلمي في تصحيح التصورات البديلة المرتبطة بمفاهيم الأنظمة البيئية، لدى طلاب الصف السادس الابتدائي.
استخدم البحث المنهج الكمي ذو التصميم شبه التجريبي. تكونت العينة من (62) طالبًا وُزِّعوا إلى مجموعتين: تجريبية درست باستخدام النموذج المقترح، وضابطة درست الطريقة المعتمدة الواردة في دليل المعلم المتمثلة في دورة التعلم الخماسية، وطُوِّر دليل للمعلم لوحدة «الأنظمة البيئية ومواردها» في ضوء التكامل بين مراحل STEMومكونات نموذج تولمن للجدل العلمي. شملت أدوات البحث اختبارًا تشخيصيًا للتصورات البديلة. وتم التحقق من صدق الأدوات وثباتها باستخدام معاملات الاتساق الداخلي والتحليلات الإحصائية المناسبة.
النتائج: أظهرت النتائج فروقًا دالة إحصائيًا عند مستوى (α ≤ 0.05) لصالح المجموعة التجريبية في تصحيح التصورات البديلة، مع تحقق حجم أثر كبير.
الخلاصة: تؤكد النتائج فاعلية دمج الجدل العلمي ضمن سياق STEMفي تعزيز الفهم المنظومي للمفاهيم البيئية، وتدعم تبني النماذج التدريسية التكاملية في مناهج العلوم.
المراجع
1. الدغيدي، هبة وسيد، شيرين والنجدي، محمد. (2022). العلوم والتقنية والهندسة والرياضيات (STEM): مدخل تكاملي للتعلم. في فهد الشايع (محرر)، المرجع في تعلم العلوم وتعليمها من النظرية إلى التطبيق (ص ص. 401-419). دار جامعة الملك سعود.
2. العنزي، فياض والبلوشي، محمد والغافري، علي. (2022). المفاهيم والتغيير المفاهيمي في تعلم العلوم. في فهد الشايع (محرر)، المرجع في تعلم العلوم وتعليمها من النظرية إلى التطبيق (ص ص. 83-117). دار جامعة الملك سعود.
3. المالكي، سعد سفران حسن، ومطاوع، ضياء الدين محمد عطية. (2020). فاعلية استخدام النموذج التوليدي البنائي في تصويب التصورات البديلة لبعض مفاهيم المادة والطاقة لدى طلاب الصف الثاني المتوسط. المجلة المصرية للتربية العلمية، 23(3)، 1-44.
4. النادي، آية فاروق عبدالفتاح. (2023). فاعلية استراتيجية البنتاجون في مادة العلوم لتنمية التفكير المنظومي ومتعة التعلم لدى تلاميذ المرحلة الإعدادية. مجلة كلية التربية، مج 34،ع 135. 706-611مسترجعاً من http://search.mandumah.com/Record/1438364
5. هيئة تقويم التعليم والتدريب. (2019). تقرير نتائج المملكة العربية السعودية في الدراسة الدولية TIMSS 2019. وزارة التعليم، الرياض.
6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
7. Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students' conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1
8. Chesky, N. Z., & Wolfmeyer, M. R. (2015). Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137535467
9. Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 49–70). Routledge.
10. Chuaytanee, N. (2019). The development of STEM education integrated argumentation learning model (6E+A) to enhance STEM problem solving skills of undergraduate students [Doctoral dissertation, Srinakharinwirot University]. http://ir-ithesis.swu.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/573/1/gs561120027.pdf
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Dönmez, İ., Gülen, S., & Ayaz, M. (2022). Impact of argumentation-based STEM activities on ongoing STEM motivation. Journal for STEM Education Research, 5, 78–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00062-2
13. Francis, E. (2021). Effects of conceptual change texts and concept mapping on students’ achievement in chemistry in delta state. (dissertation). Delta State University. Retrieved 2024.
14. García-García, J., Rodríguez-Nieto, C. A., Salgado-Beltrán, G., & Zavaleta-Bautista, A. (2025). Alternative conceptions emerging in pre-university students while making mathematical connections in derivative and integral tasks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(8), em2685. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16732
15. Gülen, S. (2018). Determination the effect of STEM integrated argumentation based science learning approach in solving daily life problems. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i4.4087
16. Gülen, S., & Yaman, S. (2019). The effect of integration of STEM disciplines into Toulmin's argumentation model on students' academic achievement, reflective thinking, and psychomotor skills. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(2), 76–95.
17. Ha, V. T., Chung, L. H., Hanh, N. V., & Hai, B. M. (2023). Teaching science using argumentation-supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and conventional didactic methods: Differences in the learning outcomes of middle school students. Education Sciences, 13(3), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030247
18. Hasanah, U. (2020). The effectiveness of STEM education for overcoming students' misconceptions in high school physics: Engineering viewpoint. Science Education International, 31(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i1.1
19. Hasançebi, F. Y., Güner, Ö., Kutru, C., & Hasançebi, M. (2021). Impact of STEM integrated argumentation-based inquiry applications on students' academic success, reflective thinking and creative thinking skills. Participatory Educational Research, 8(4), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.90.8.4
20. Hikmah, I. S., Tukiran, T., & Nasrudin, H. (2023). Validity of student worksheets based on model argument driven inquiry integrated by STEM to train students' argumentation ability and self-efficacy in chemical equilibrium material. International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(4), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i4.300
21. Huang, B., Jong, M. S. Y., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., & Jiang, M. Y. C. (2022). Promoting secondary students' twenty-first century skills and STEM career interests through a crossover program of STEM and community service education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 903252. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.903252
22. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
23. Koparan, T., Yıldız, C., Köğce, D., & Güven, B. (2010). The effect of conceptual change approach on 9th grade students’ achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3926–3931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.618.
24. Kuhn, M., & McDermott, M. (2017). Methods and strategies: Using argument-based inquiry strategies for STEM infused science teaching. Science and Children, 54(5), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc17_054_05_80
25. Le, H. C., Nguyen, V. H., & Nguyen, T. L. (2023). Integrated STEM approaches and associated outcomes of K-12 student learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(3), 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030297
26. Li, X., Wang, W., & Li, Y. (2022). Systematically reviewing the potential of scientific argumentation to promote multidimensional conceptual change in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 44(7), 1165–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2070787.
27. Madu, B. C. (2015). Effect of cognitive conflict instructional strategy on students' conceptual change in physics. SAGE Open, 5(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015594662
28. Mathis, C. A., Siverling, E. A., Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Teachers' incorporation of argumentation to support engineering learning in STEM integration curricula. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163
29. Menke, J., Drimalla, J., Welji, S. N., Alibek, A., Tembe, N., Foutz, T., & Conner, A. (2024). Support for collective argumentation in integrated STEM: A study of elementary teachers' practice. School Science and Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18312
30. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K–12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.
31. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/
32. Ningtyas, P. K., Widarti, H. R., Parlan, P., Rahayu, S., & Dasna, I. W. (2024). Enhancing students' abilities and skills through science learning integrated STEM: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 12(5), 1161–1181. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4292
33. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
34. OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
35. Patil, S., Chavan, R., & Khandagale, V. (2019). Identification of misconceptions in science: Tools, techniques & skills for teachers. International Journal of Scientific Research and Review, 8(6), 466–472.
36. PISA Science Framework. (2018). PISA 2018 science framework. In PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
37. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
38. Putri, M. A. N., & Dwikoranto, D. (2022). Implementation of STEM integrated project-based learning (PjBL) to improve problem-solving skills. Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 10(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v10i1.12231
39. Ristanto, R. H., Suryanda, A., & Indraswari, L. A. (2023). The development of Ecosystem Misconception Diagnostic Test. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 12(4), 2246.
40. Rustaman, N. Y. (2020). The role of STEM-DSLM in facilitating students' conceptual change and preventing misconception in life sciences. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(4), 042038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042038
41. Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition, 124(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005
42. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
43. Soeharto, S. (2021). Effectiveness of STEM-based science learning to overcome the students' misconceptions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(2), 223–246.
44. Stanja, J., Gritz, W., Krugel, J., Hoppe, A., & Dannemann, S. (2023). Formative assessment strategies for students' conceptions: The potential of learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13288
45. Suganda, T., Kaniawati, I., Samsudin, A., & Siahaan, P. (2023). Building students' scientific argumentation skills through the model ADI integrated STEM approach and formative assessment. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2600(1), 050056. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0125798
46. Toma, R. B., Yánez-Pérez, I., & Meneses-Villagrá, J. Á. (2024). Towards a socio-constructivist didactic model for integrated STEM education. Interchange, 55(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09513-2
47. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). Routledge.
48. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
2. العنزي، فياض والبلوشي، محمد والغافري، علي. (2022). المفاهيم والتغيير المفاهيمي في تعلم العلوم. في فهد الشايع (محرر)، المرجع في تعلم العلوم وتعليمها من النظرية إلى التطبيق (ص ص. 83-117). دار جامعة الملك سعود.
3. المالكي، سعد سفران حسن، ومطاوع، ضياء الدين محمد عطية. (2020). فاعلية استخدام النموذج التوليدي البنائي في تصويب التصورات البديلة لبعض مفاهيم المادة والطاقة لدى طلاب الصف الثاني المتوسط. المجلة المصرية للتربية العلمية، 23(3)، 1-44.
4. النادي، آية فاروق عبدالفتاح. (2023). فاعلية استراتيجية البنتاجون في مادة العلوم لتنمية التفكير المنظومي ومتعة التعلم لدى تلاميذ المرحلة الإعدادية. مجلة كلية التربية، مج 34،ع 135. 706-611مسترجعاً من http://search.mandumah.com/Record/1438364
5. هيئة تقويم التعليم والتدريب. (2019). تقرير نتائج المملكة العربية السعودية في الدراسة الدولية TIMSS 2019. وزارة التعليم، الرياض.
6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
7. Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students' conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1
8. Chesky, N. Z., & Wolfmeyer, M. R. (2015). Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137535467
9. Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 49–70). Routledge.
10. Chuaytanee, N. (2019). The development of STEM education integrated argumentation learning model (6E+A) to enhance STEM problem solving skills of undergraduate students [Doctoral dissertation, Srinakharinwirot University]. http://ir-ithesis.swu.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/573/1/gs561120027.pdf
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Dönmez, İ., Gülen, S., & Ayaz, M. (2022). Impact of argumentation-based STEM activities on ongoing STEM motivation. Journal for STEM Education Research, 5, 78–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00062-2
13. Francis, E. (2021). Effects of conceptual change texts and concept mapping on students’ achievement in chemistry in delta state. (dissertation). Delta State University. Retrieved 2024.
14. García-García, J., Rodríguez-Nieto, C. A., Salgado-Beltrán, G., & Zavaleta-Bautista, A. (2025). Alternative conceptions emerging in pre-university students while making mathematical connections in derivative and integral tasks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(8), em2685. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16732
15. Gülen, S. (2018). Determination the effect of STEM integrated argumentation based science learning approach in solving daily life problems. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i4.4087
16. Gülen, S., & Yaman, S. (2019). The effect of integration of STEM disciplines into Toulmin's argumentation model on students' academic achievement, reflective thinking, and psychomotor skills. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(2), 76–95.
17. Ha, V. T., Chung, L. H., Hanh, N. V., & Hai, B. M. (2023). Teaching science using argumentation-supported 5E-STEM, 5E-STEM, and conventional didactic methods: Differences in the learning outcomes of middle school students. Education Sciences, 13(3), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030247
18. Hasanah, U. (2020). The effectiveness of STEM education for overcoming students' misconceptions in high school physics: Engineering viewpoint. Science Education International, 31(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i1.1
19. Hasançebi, F. Y., Güner, Ö., Kutru, C., & Hasançebi, M. (2021). Impact of STEM integrated argumentation-based inquiry applications on students' academic success, reflective thinking and creative thinking skills. Participatory Educational Research, 8(4), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.90.8.4
20. Hikmah, I. S., Tukiran, T., & Nasrudin, H. (2023). Validity of student worksheets based on model argument driven inquiry integrated by STEM to train students' argumentation ability and self-efficacy in chemical equilibrium material. International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(4), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i4.300
21. Huang, B., Jong, M. S. Y., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., & Jiang, M. Y. C. (2022). Promoting secondary students' twenty-first century skills and STEM career interests through a crossover program of STEM and community service education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 903252. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.903252
22. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
23. Koparan, T., Yıldız, C., Köğce, D., & Güven, B. (2010). The effect of conceptual change approach on 9th grade students’ achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3926–3931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.618.
24. Kuhn, M., & McDermott, M. (2017). Methods and strategies: Using argument-based inquiry strategies for STEM infused science teaching. Science and Children, 54(5), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc17_054_05_80
25. Le, H. C., Nguyen, V. H., & Nguyen, T. L. (2023). Integrated STEM approaches and associated outcomes of K-12 student learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(3), 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030297
26. Li, X., Wang, W., & Li, Y. (2022). Systematically reviewing the potential of scientific argumentation to promote multidimensional conceptual change in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 44(7), 1165–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2070787.
27. Madu, B. C. (2015). Effect of cognitive conflict instructional strategy on students' conceptual change in physics. SAGE Open, 5(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015594662
28. Mathis, C. A., Siverling, E. A., Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Teachers' incorporation of argumentation to support engineering learning in STEM integration curricula. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163
29. Menke, J., Drimalla, J., Welji, S. N., Alibek, A., Tembe, N., Foutz, T., & Conner, A. (2024). Support for collective argumentation in integrated STEM: A study of elementary teachers' practice. School Science and Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18312
30. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K–12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.
31. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/
32. Ningtyas, P. K., Widarti, H. R., Parlan, P., Rahayu, S., & Dasna, I. W. (2024). Enhancing students' abilities and skills through science learning integrated STEM: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 12(5), 1161–1181. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4292
33. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
34. OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
35. Patil, S., Chavan, R., & Khandagale, V. (2019). Identification of misconceptions in science: Tools, techniques & skills for teachers. International Journal of Scientific Research and Review, 8(6), 466–472.
36. PISA Science Framework. (2018). PISA 2018 science framework. In PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
37. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
38. Putri, M. A. N., & Dwikoranto, D. (2022). Implementation of STEM integrated project-based learning (PjBL) to improve problem-solving skills. Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 10(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v10i1.12231
39. Ristanto, R. H., Suryanda, A., & Indraswari, L. A. (2023). The development of Ecosystem Misconception Diagnostic Test. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 12(4), 2246.
40. Rustaman, N. Y. (2020). The role of STEM-DSLM in facilitating students' conceptual change and preventing misconception in life sciences. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(4), 042038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042038
41. Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition, 124(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005
42. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
43. Soeharto, S. (2021). Effectiveness of STEM-based science learning to overcome the students' misconceptions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(2), 223–246.
44. Stanja, J., Gritz, W., Krugel, J., Hoppe, A., & Dannemann, S. (2023). Formative assessment strategies for students' conceptions: The potential of learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13288
45. Suganda, T., Kaniawati, I., Samsudin, A., & Siahaan, P. (2023). Building students' scientific argumentation skills through the model ADI integrated STEM approach and formative assessment. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2600(1), 050056. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0125798
46. Toma, R. B., Yánez-Pérez, I., & Meneses-Villagrá, J. Á. (2024). Towards a socio-constructivist didactic model for integrated STEM education. Interchange, 55(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09513-2
47. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). Routledge.
48. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
منشور
2026-02-28
كيفية الاقتباس
باسل العتيبي, & د. صالح النفيسة. (2026). أثر نموذج تدريسي قائم على منحى STEM الموجه بالجدل العلمي في تصحيح التصورات البديلة للمفاهيم العلمية لدى طلاب الصف السادس الابتدائي. Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences, (129), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.33193/JALHSS.129.2026.1630
إصدار
القسم
المقالات
الحقوق الفكرية (c) 2026 باسل العتيبي , د. صالح النفيسة
هذا العمل مرخص حسب الرخصة Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
