Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 365–384 | Cite as

Making Connections: Learning and Teaching Chemistry in Context

  • Donna King
  • Alberto Bellocchi
  • Stephen M. Ritchie
Article

Abstract

Even though several studies have reported positive attitudinal outcomes from context-based chemistry programs, methodological obstacles have prevented researchers from comparing satisfactorily the chemistry-learning outcomes between students who experience a context-based program with those who experience a content-driven program. In this narrative inquiry we are able to address the question: how do the recalled experiences of a student and her teacher in context-based and concept-based chemistry programs compare? From the student’s unique perspective of experiencing both programs with the same teacher, we have constructed our collective account around four themes; namely, the extent to which the student makes connections between chemistry concepts and real-world contexts, developing research independence through engaging in extended experimental investigations related to contexts, learning chemistry concepts through contexts, and conceptual sequencing in a context-based program. The student reported real-world connections between chemistry concepts and contexts, found her engagement in the context-driven tasks interesting and productive, and identified connected sequences of concepts across the contexts studied. Despite difficulties for teachers who are required to shift pedagogies, the student’s lived experiences and outcomes from a context-based program provide some encouragement in working through these issues.

Keywords

Context-based approach Chemistry curriculum Teaching and learning Narrative inquiry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Emeritus Professor Peter Fensham for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Chemical Society [ACS] (2001). Chemistry in context (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Banks, P. (1997). Students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. MA thesis, University of York, York, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, M. (2000). A comparison of NEAB and Salters A-level chemistry: Student views and achievements. MA thesis, University of York, York, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (2000). Students’ reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1171–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton, A. C., & Darkside, (2005). Greater objectivity through local knowledge. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.) Auto/biography and auto/ethnography: Praxis of research method (pp. 23–47). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Beasley, W., & Butler, J. (2002). Implementation of context-based science within the freedoms offered by Queensland Schooling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Australian Science and Education Research Association Conference, Townsville, Queensland, July.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, J. (2005). Bringing science to life: The research evidence on teaching science in context. York, UK: Department of Educational Studies, The University of York Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/ResearchPaperSeries/Contexts%20booklet.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, J., Campbell, B., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2007). A systematic review of the effects on high school students of context-based and science-technology (STS) approaches to the teaching of science. York, UK: Department of Educational Studies The University of York. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/EPPI/bennettsaarmste.pdf.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: What are they and what are their effects? In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.) Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165–184). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brockmeier, J., & Harré, R. (1997). Narrative: Problems and promises of an alternative paradigm. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(4), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavalcante, P. S., Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (1997). The effect of various kinds of lesson on conceptual understanding in science. Research in Science and Technology Education, 15(2), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Eijkelhof, H. M. C., & Lijnse, P. L. (1998). The role of research and development to improve STS education: Experiences form the PLON-project. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (1997). Narrative research: Political issues and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(1), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedler, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). Life in science laboratory classrooms at secondary level. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.) The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 337–356). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, H., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  21. Gutwill-Wise, J. (2001). The Impact of active and context-based learning in introductory chemistry courses: An early evaluation of the modular approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(5), 684–690.Google Scholar
  22. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.Google Scholar
  24. Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 247–264.Google Scholar
  25. Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1017–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Key, M. E. (1998). Student perceptions of chemical industry: Influences of course syllabi, teachers, first hand experience: Doctoral thesis, University of York, York, UK.Google Scholar
  28. King, D. (2007). Teacher beliefs and constraints in implementing a context-based approach in chemistry. Teaching Science, 53(1), 14–18.Google Scholar
  29. King, D., & Ritchie, S. M. (2007, April). Implementing a context-based approach in a chemistry class: Successes and dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  30. Kortland, J. (2005). Physics in personal, social and scientific contexts: A retrospective view on the Dutch Physics Curriculum Development Project PLON. In P. Nentwig, & D. Waddington (Eds.) Making it relevant. Context-based learning of science (pp. 67–89). Munchen, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  31. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lye, H., Fry, M., & Hart, C. (2001). What does it mean to teach physics in ‘context’? A first case study. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(3), 16–22.Google Scholar
  33. Okebukola, P. A. O. (1986). An investigation of some factors affecting students’ attitudes toward laboratory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 86, 531–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1991). Teaching for transfer. In A. L. Costa (Ed.) Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (Revised Edition, Volume 1) (pp. 215–223). Alexandria, VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  35. Personal Narratives Group (1989). Interpreting women’s lives: Feminist theory and personal narratives. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  37. Queensland Studies Authority (2004). Chemistry: Extended trial pilot syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Studies Authority.Google Scholar
  38. Ramsden, J. M. (1997). How does a context-based approach influence understanding of key chemical ideas at 16+? International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riessman, C. K. (2002). Narrative analysis. In A. M. Huberman, & M. B. Miles (Eds.) The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 217–270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Rigano, D. L., & Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Students’ thinking in a chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 24, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodrigues, S. (1993). The role and effect of context in learning form six oxidation and reduction concepts by female students. Doctoral thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  43. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Auto/biography and auto/ethnography: Finding the generalized other in the self. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.) Auto/biography and auto/ethnography: Praxis of research method (pp. 3–16). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualised chemistry education: The American experience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 977–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherin, B., Edelson, D., & Brown, M. (2004). On the content of task-structured science curricula. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.) Scientific inquiry and the nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 221–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Skinner, R. (1994). Creative technology projects in science: The CREST model. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40(4), 26–30.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, L. A., & Bitner, B. L. (1993). Comparisons of formal operations: Students enrolled in ChemCom versus a traditional chemistry course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, April 1993, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, M., & Matthews, P. (2000). Science, technology and society in transition year: A pilot study. Irish Educational Studies, 19, 107–119.Google Scholar
  49. Sutman, F., & Bruce, M. (1992). Chemistry in the community – ChemCom: A five year evaluation. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(7), 564–567.Google Scholar
  50. Tobin, K. (2000). Becoming an urban science educator. Research in Science Education, 30(1), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsai, C.-C. (2000). The effects of STS-oriented instructions on female tenth graders’ cognitive structure outcomes and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1099–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. (Australian Education Review, 51). Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  53. University of York Science Education Group [UYSEG] (2000). Salters advanced chemistry, chemical storylines, chemical ideas, activities and assessment and teachers’ guide (2nd ed.). York/Oxford, UK: UYSEG/Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
  54. Vignouli, V., Hart, C., & Fry, M. (2002). What does it mean to teach physics ‘in context’? A second case study. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(3), 6–13.Google Scholar
  55. Wierstra, R. F. A. (1984). A study on classroom environment and on cognitive and affective outcomes of the PLON-curriculum. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 10, 273–282.Google Scholar
  56. Wilkinson, J. W. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of the contextual approach to teaching VCE physics. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(2), 58–69.Google Scholar
  57. Winther, A. A., & Volk, T. L. (1994). Comparing achievement of inner-city high school students in traditional versus STS-based chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 501–505.Google Scholar
  58. Yager, R. E., & Weld, J. D. (1999). Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa Project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zoller, U., Donn, S., Wild, R., & Beckett, P. (1991). Students’ versus their teachers’ beliefs and positions on science/technology/society-oriented issues. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zoller, U., Ebenezer, J. V., Morley, K., Paras, S., Sandberg, V., West, C., et al. (1990). Goal attainment in science-technology (S/T/S) education and reality: The case of British Columbia. Science Education, 74, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donna King
    • 1
  • Alberto Bellocchi
    • 1
  • Stephen M. Ritchie
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations