• Sri RahayuEmail author
  • A. L. Chandrasegaran
  • David F. Treagust
  • Masakazu Kita
  • Suhadi Ibnu


This study was a mixed quantitative–qualitative research to evaluate the efficacy of a designed student-centred instructional (DSCI) program for teaching about acids and bases. The teaching innovation was designed based on constructivist, hands-on inquiry and context-based approaches and implemented in seven 45-min lessons with a class of 36 grade 11 students (experimental group) from a public senior high school in Indonesia. Another class of 38 students (comparison group) from the same school was instructed using a traditional teacher-centred approach. Data were obtained using a (1) 12-item achievement test on acids and bases that was administered to both groups as a pretest and a posttest, (2) self-evaluation 13-item questionnaire on students’ perceptions of their competence and confidence in carrying out the inquiry activities that was administered to the experimental group and (3) 3-item open-ended questionnaire on students’ perceptions of the instructional process using the DSCI that was administered to the experimental group. The results of the study showed that the teaching innovation was effective in improving students’ understanding of acid–base concepts with significant difference between the two groups on the posttest mean scores. Moreover, the effectiveness of the innovation was supported by an increase in students’ interest in learning science as indicated by their (1) positive perceptions of their engagement and competence in doing inquiry activities, (2) positive perceptions of the learning environment and (3) positive outcome expectations. The findings have implications for chemistry teaching in any institution with similar achieving students as well as for the professional development of teachers.


constructivist approach context-based approach inquiry approach interest perceptions student achievement student-centred instruction teaching effectiveness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2010_9272_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.4 mb)
ESM 1 (DOC 1406 kb)


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D. F. & Tuan, H.-L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainley, M. (2004). What do we know about student motivation and engagement? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bass, J. E., Constant, T. L. & Carin, A. A. (2009). Methods for teaching science as inquiry (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, K. C. (2006). The status of constructivism in chemical education research and its relationship to the teaching and learning of the concept of idealization in chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 8, 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chiappetta, E. L. & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: Developing fundamental knowledge and skills for teaching (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Deboer, E. G. (2006). Historical perspective on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 17–35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Germann, P. J. & Aram, R. J. (1996). Student’s performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 773–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S. & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonzales P., Calsyn, C., Jocelyn L., Mak K., Kastberg D., Arafeh S., Williams T., & Tsen, W. (2000). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999 (NCES 2001-028). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from
  15. Hughes, G. & Hay, D. (2001). Use of concept mapping to integrate the different perspectives of designers and other stakeholders in the development of e-learning materials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 557–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kousathana, M., Demerouti, M. & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Instructional misconceptions in acid-base equilibria: An analysis from a history and philosophy of science perspective. Science & Education, 14, 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D. & Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective (NCES 2005-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  18. LeRoy, K. & Lee, O. (2008). What research says about science assessment with English language learners. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspective from research and practise (pp. 341–355). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  19. Liang, L. L. & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Loyen, S. M. & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lumpe, A. T. (1995). Peer interaction in science concept development and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 302–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Badan Nasional Standard Pendidikan [National Education Standards Agency]. (2007). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional republik Indonesia nomor 41 tahun 2007 tentang standar proses untuk satuan pendidikan dasar dan menengah [Republic of Indonesia National Ministry of Education Regulations No. 41 of 2007: Standard procedure for unifying elementary and secondary education]. Jakarta, Indonesia: BNSP [Author].Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pearsall, J. (1999). The concise Oxford dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experiences. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 977–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sidi, I. J. (2008). Synergy of curriculum and the national examination. Paper presented at national seminar on the national examination conducted by the Quality Insurance Board, Middle East of Java, Semarang, Indonesia.
  28. Spencer, J. N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and pedagogical basis. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 566–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  30. Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R. & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lesson learned. Science Education, 89, 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wise, K. C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: What works? Clearing House, 69, 337–338.Google Scholar
  32. Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R. & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sri Rahayu
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. L. Chandrasegaran
    • 2
  • David F. Treagust
    • 2
  • Masakazu Kita
    • 3
  • Suhadi Ibnu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics & ScienceState University of MalangMalangIndonesia
  2. 2.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Natural Science Department, Faculty of EducationOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations