Skip to main content

Bangladeshi Science Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Perceived Current Practices in Promoting Science Education Through a Context-Based, Socio-scientific Framework

Abstract

The paper reports a study that seeks to develop an instrument so as to explore Bangladeshi science teachers’ perceived importance and perceived current practices, geared to the inclusion of four suggested areas of focus within a context-based, socio-scientific framework—student motivation, scientific problem-solving, socio-scientific decision-making and a beyond school, active informed citizenry concern. The study, taking into consideration the influence of different realities in the Bangladesh context (large class size, gender stereotypes and inadequate teacher development programmes), was conducted in 2 stages involving first piloting of a devised instrument with participant teachers involved in an international ‘We Act’ project which sought to promote socio-scientific activism. Expert validation and Cronbach Alpha test were carried out to establish the validity and reliability of the instrument. The actual implementation of the revised instrument was with purposefully chosen Bangladeshi science teachers. The results showed the participant Bangladeshi science teachers’ comparatively higher perceived importance, yet lower perceived current practice of incorporating different orientations associated to a context-based, socio-scientific framework. The results also revealed the influence of large class size, professional development programmes and gender factors on Bangladeshi science teachers’ perception. The significance of the study lies in emphasising the need for a more socio-scientific approach to Bangladesh science education and initiating professional development programmes for enabling teachers to perceive the role of science education to promote citizens who are able to meet the social needs as indicated in the constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Al Amin, M., & Greenwood, J. (2018). The examination system in Bangladesh and its impact: On curriculum, students, teachers and society. Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2019). Science by streetlight and the OECD’s measure of global competence: A new yardstick for internationalisation? Policy Futures in Education, 17(6), 677–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318819246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baptista, M., Reis, P., & Andrade, V. (2018). Let’s save the bees! An environmental activism initiative in elementary school. Visions for Sustainability, 9, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barrett, S. E., & Nieswandt, M. (2010). Teaching about ethics through socioscientific issues in physics and chemistry: Teacher candidates’ beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 380–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bathgate, M., & Schunn, C. (2017). The psychological characteristics of experiences that influence science motivation and content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2402–2432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1386807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baviskar, S. N., Todd Hartle, R., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berne, B. (2014). Progression in ethical reasoning when addressing socio-scientific issues in biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2958–2977. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.941957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhattacharya, D., Barua, L., & Islam, S. (2018). Exploring the state of youth in the SDG context how is Bangladesh doing? Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), 0(10), 145. https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/9071/CPD-Working-Paper-119-Exploring-the-State-of-Youth-in-the-SDG-Context.pdf?sequence=1.

  11. Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bruner, J. S. (2009). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, Y.-C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 29(2), 331–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00111-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chisamya, G., DeJaeghere, J., Kendall, N., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Gender and education for all: Progress and problems in achieving gender equity. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students’ online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chowdhury, S. K., & Ahmed, S. S. (2013). Exploring the side effects of assessment in secondary schools and its impact on students: Perspective from Bangladesh. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(9), 380–390.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chowdhury, Tapashi Binte Mahmud, & Siddique, M. N. A. (2017). An Explorative Study on the Null Secondary Science Curriculum in Bangladesh. Science Education International, 28(2), 147–155.

  18. Chowdhury, T. B.M., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2020). Addressing sustainable development: Promoting active informed citizenry through trans-contextual science education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(8), 3259. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083259.

  19. Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S.-N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism?

  21. Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What is inquiry-based science teaching and learning? In Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and learning (pp. 1–23). Springer.

  22. Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational technology, 33(5), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 2, 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of mind and Behavior, 1, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Donnelly, K., & Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian curriculum: Final report. Australian Government, Canberra: Department of Education and Training, 294. https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_national_curriculum_final_report.pdf.

  27. Dorph, R., Bathgate, M. E., Schunn, C. D., & Cannady, M. A. (2018). When I grow up: The relationship of science learning activation to STEM career preferences. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 1034–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1360532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Farhana, Z., Tanni, S. A., Shabnam, S., & Chowdhury, S. A. (2020). Secondary education during lockdown situation due to Covid-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: Teachers’ response on online classes. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(20), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.7176/jep/11-20-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Galvão, C., Reis, P., Freire, S., & Almeida, P. (2011). Enhancing the popularity and the relevance of science teaching in Portuguese science classes. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9184-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Giri, V., & Paily, M. U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29(3), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gray, A. J. (1997). Constructivist teaching and learning. Saskatchewan School Trustees Association.

  34. Hackling, M. W., Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. J. (2001). The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(4), 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting socio-scientific issues for teaching. Science & Education, 28(6–7), 639–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. He, X., Deng, Y., Yu, S., & Wang, H. (2020). The influence of context on the large-scale assessment of high school students’ epistemic cognition of scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 29(1), 7–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00088-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hiskes, A. L., & Hiskes, R. P. (2019). Science, technology, and policy decisions. In Science, Technology, and Policy Decisions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429305504.

  38. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hodson, D. (2014). Becoming part of the solution: Learning about activism, learning through activism, learning from activism. In J. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist Science and Technology Education. (pp. 67–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4360-1_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.

  41. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, recontextualisation--A science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. Contemporary Science Education, 69–82.

  42. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2014). The Philosophy and Approach on which the PROFILES Project is Based. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 9–29.

  43. Hossain, M. Z. (2019). Implementation of grade 8 science curriculum 2012 in Bangladesh: Challenges and way forward. Journal of Education and Research, 9(2), 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hsu, Y.-S., & Lin, S.-S. (2017). Prompting students to make socioscientific decisions: Embedding metacognitive guidance in an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1312036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Huda, A. K. M. S. (1997). The constitution of Bangladesh (Vol. 1). Rita Court.

  46. Huitt, W. (2009). Humanism and open education. Educational Psychology Interactive.

  47. Jackson, L. N. (2020). Paths to learning: Teaching for engagement in college. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention27(1).

  48. Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: the case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientific reasoning. Science & Education, 28(6), 605–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kang, J., Keinonen, T., Simon, S., Rannikmäe, M., Soobard, R., & Direito, I. (2019). Scenario evaluation with relevance and interest (SERI): Development and validation of a scenario measurement tool for context-based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1317–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9930-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Karakolidis, A., Pitsia, V., & Emvalotis, A. (2019). The case of high motivation and low achievement in science: What is the role of students’ epistemic beliefs? International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1457–1474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1612121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kaya, S., Erduran, S., Birdthistle, N., & McCormack, O. (2018). Looking at the social aspects of nature of science in science education through a new lens: the role of economics and entrepreneurship. Science and Education, 27(5–6), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9990-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kilinc, A., Kelly, T., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., Kartal, T., Sonmez, A., & Demirbag, M. (2017). Stickers to facts, imposers, democracy advocators, and committed impartialists: Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teacher’s roles in socioscientific discourses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9682-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim, J. (2020). Problematizing global educational governance of OECD PISA: Student achievement, categorization, and social inclusion and exclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(14), 1483–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1732928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils” ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Koster, E., & de Regt, H. W. (2020). Science and values in undergraduate education. Science & Education, 29(1), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00093-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Krange, I., Silseth, K., & Pierroux, P. (2020). Peers, teachers and guides: A study of three conditions for scaffolding conceptual learning in science centers. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9905-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Labouta, H. I., Kenny, N. A., Li, R., Anikovskiy, M., Reid, L., & Cramb, D. T. (2018). Learning science by doing science: An authentic science process-learning model in postsecondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1476–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1484966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079–2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mahtab, N. (2007). Women in Bangladesh, from inequality to empowerment. AH Development Publishing House.

  63. Marques, A. R., & Reis, P. (2017). Based collective activism through the production and dissemination of vodcasts about environmental pollution in the 8th grade. Sisyphus-Journal of Education, 5(2), 116–137.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Maslow, A. H. (1989). A theory of human motivation. Readings in Managerial Psychology, 20, 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Mim, S. A. (2015). ‘Can women science teachers be role models?’Challenging gender stereotypes of science and masculinity. MA thesis. International Institute of Social Studies (ISS). Erasmus~….

  66. Ministry of Education of Bangladesh. (2010). National education policy, 2010. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. https://moedu.gov.bd/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Itemid=416.

  67. Morris, H. (2014). Socioscientific issues and multidisciplinarity in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.848493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral–ethical character and science education: EcoJustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. J. Tippins, M. P. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. D. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of EcoJustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems. (pp. 105–128). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Nadira, S., Shixiang, L., & Chen, X. (2020). SWOT analysis of the management and operation of secondary education system in Dhaka city of Bangladesh. International Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 8(4), 80. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsts.20200804.11.

  70. Nam, Y., & Chen, Y.-C. (2017). Promoting argumentative practice in socio-scientific issues through a science inquiry activity. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3431–3461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nathan, A. J., & Scobell, A. (2012). How China sees America. In Foreign Affairs (Vol. 91, Issue 5). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

  72. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

  73. OECD. (2004). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD Publishing.

  74. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Ready to learn: Students’ engagement, drive and self-beliefs (volume III). In Pisa: Vol. III. OECD, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201170-en.

  75. OECD. (2020). PISA 2018 results (volume VI). https://doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679-en.

  76. Oh, P. S. (2019). Features of modeling-based abductive reasoning as a disciplinary practice of inquiry in earth science. Science & Education, 28(6), 731–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00058-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ottander, C., & Ekborg, M. (2012). Students’ experience of working with socioscientific issues - a quantitative study in secondary school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1147–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9238-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Controversial issues - Teachers’ attitudes and practices in the context of citizenship education. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Owens, D. C., Petitt, D. N., Lally, D., & Forbes, C. T. (2020a). Cultivating water literacy in STEM education: Undergraduates’ socio-scientific reasoning about socio-hydrologic issues. Water, 12(10), 2857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Barlow, A. T., & Smith-Walters, C. (2020b). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Parchmann, I., Blonder, R., & Broman, K. (2017). Context-based chemistry learning: the relevance of chemistry for citizenship and responsible research and innovation. (pp. 25–39). The Case of Science and Geography.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Pfenninger, S. E., & Polz, S. (2018). Foreign language learning in the third age: A pilot feasibility study on cognitive, socio-affective and linguistic drivers and benefits in relation to previous bilingualism of the learner. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Podschuweit, S., & Bernholt, S. (2018). Composition-effects of context-based learning opportunities on students’ understanding of energy. Research in Science Education, 48(4), 717–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Pritchard, A. (2017). Ways of learning: Learning theories for the classroom. Routledge.

  87. Prodhan, M. (2016). The present situation of education system in Bangladesh and scope for improvement. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Rahman, M., et al. (2018a). Exploring science teachers’ perception of classroom assessment in secondary schools of Bangladesh. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(9), 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Rahman, M., et al. (2018b). Exploring teachers practices of classroom assessment in secondary science classes in Bangladesh. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 274–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Rahman, M., et al. (2018c). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of classroom assessment in secondary school science classes in Bangladesh. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 7(6), 254–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Rahman, M., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Teachers’ classroom practice to develop student’s english writing skills at primary level of Bangladesh. Online Submission, 9(1), 6–15.

  92. Rahman, M. S. (2019). Teachers’ peer support: Difference between perception and practice. Teacher Development, 23(1), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2018.1488765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Reis, P. (2014). Promoting students’ collective socio-scientific activism: Teachers’ perspectives. In Activist science and technology education (pp. 547–574). Springer.

  94. Reis, P., Tinoca, L., Baptista, M., & Linhares, E. (2020). The impact of student-curated exhibitions about socio-scientific issues on students’ perceptions regarding their competences and the science classes. Sustainability, 12(7), 2796.

  95. Reiss, M. J. (2020). But who is it for? The history of school science in England. Science & Education, 29(5), 1441–1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00132-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Rind, I. A., Mari, M. A., & Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2019). Analysing the impact of external examination on teaching and learning of English at the secondary level education. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1574947.

  97. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being in schools: Research and observations from self-determination theory. Handbook of Motivation at School, 96.

  98. Saifuddin, S. M., Dyke, L. S., & Rasouli, M. (2013). Gender and careers: A study of persistence in engineering education in Bangladesh. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 28(4), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2013-0009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues—development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291–2313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.920550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Salta, K., & Koulougliotis, D. (2020). Domain specificity of motivation: Chemistry and physics learning among undergraduate students of three academic majors. International Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1708511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Sarkar, M. A. (2012). Promotion of scientific literacy in Bangladesh: Teachers’ perspectives, practices and challenges. Monash University.

  102. Sarkar, M., & Corrigan, D. (2014). Promotion of scientific literacy: Bangladeshi teachers’ perspectives and practices. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 162–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Sarkar, M., & Corrigan, D. (2012). Teaching for scientific literacy: Bangladeshi teachers’ perspectives, practices and challenges. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Schiepe-Tiska, A., Roczen, N., Müller, K., Prenzel, M., & Osborne, J. (2016). Science-related outcomes: Attitudes, motivation, value beliefs, strategies. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing Contexts of Learning: An International Perspective (pp. 301–329). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_12.

  105. Schunk, D H, Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in Education 3rd ed Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson.

  106. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Schunk, Dale H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective sixth edition. Pearson.

  108. Sengul, O., Enderle, P. J., & Schwartz, R. S. (2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: Linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: What we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Science teaching and students’ attitudes and aspirations: The importance of conveying the applications and relevance of science. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sincer, I., Severiens, S., & Volman, M. (2019). Teaching diversity in citizenship education: Context-related teacher understandings and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Sloam, J. (2014). New voice, less equal: The civic and political engagement of young people in the United States and Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 47(5), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Sutter, A. M., Dauer, J. M., & Forbes, C. T. (2018). Application of construal level and value-belief norm theories to undergraduate decision-making on a wildlife socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 1058–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1467064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Swirski, H., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2018). Does interest have an expiration date? An analysis of students’ questions as resources for context-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1136–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Taconis, R., & den Brok, P. (2016). Teachers creating context-based learning environments in science. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  116. Tsai, C.-Y., & Jack, B. M. (2019). Antecedent factors influencing ethics-related social and socio-scientific learning enjoyment. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1139–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1595215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. UNESCO. (2005). World decade of education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-development.

  118. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. United Nations General Assembly New York.

  119. University Grants Commission of Bangladesh. (2017). Higher Education Achivement 2018. http://www.ugc.gov.bd/site/publications/cd2520f1-b21a-4946-a7b8-207c2af0c2b6/বাংলাদেশে-উচ্চশিক্ষায়-অর্জন-২০০৯-২০১৮-।.

  120. Uskola, A., Maguregi, G., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: A university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311–2333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903501736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Vos, M. A., Taconis, R., Jochems, W. M., & Pilot, A. (2016). Interaction between teachers and teaching materials: Creating a context-based learning environment in a chemistry classroom. In Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments in Science (pp. 125–143). Brill Sense.

  122. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

  123. Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  124. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 57–88.

  126. Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Xiao, S. (2018). Rhetorical use of inscriptions in students’ written arguments about socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9730-y.

  128. Yacoubian, H. A., & Khishfe, R. (2018). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: A dialogue between two researchers. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Yahaya, J. M., Nurulazam, A., & Karpudewan, M. (2016). College students’ attitudes towards sexually themed science content: A socioscientific issues approach to resolution. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1174–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1174349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Yoon, J., Jo, T.-J., & Kang, S.-J. (2020). A study on the possibility of the relationship among group creativity, empathy, and scientific inquiry ability of elementary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2113–2125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1813347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. (pp. 201–216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_10.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  132. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to TBM Chowdhury.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 The responses from the ‘We Act’ teachers involved in the pilot study
Table 7 Cronbach Alpha values from the pilot study for individual items
Table 8 Split case analysis of Bangladeshi participant science teachers’ responses based on the gender of teacher and gender of student

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chowdhury, T., Holbrook, J., Reis, P. et al. Bangladeshi Science Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Perceived Current Practices in Promoting Science Education Through a Context-Based, Socio-scientific Framework. Sci & Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00236-9

Download citation