Advertisement

Reframing Chemistry Learning: The Use of Student-Generated Contexts

  • Edwehna Elinore S. PadernaEmail author
  • Rosanelia T. Yangco
  • Marlene B. Ferido
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents a teaching approach that focuses on student-generated contexts and how its use can reframe both chemistry teaching and learning. The eight phases of the Student-Generated Contexts Teaching Approach (SCTA) model—Introduction, Context Generation, Decision, Implementation, Presentation, Discussion, Reflection, and Context Regeneration—are described in terms of individual and collaborative context generation. To determine the nature of the contexts the students themselves generated, decision logs, reflection papers, and audio-recording transcripts were content-analyzed. The emerging themes on the nature of the contexts are: (1) source of the context; (2) level of the context; and (3) student engagement in the context. Sixty-five Grade 10 chemistry students comprised the two heterogeneous intact classes: one group was exposed to Individual Student-Generated Contexts Teaching Approach and another group was exposed to Collaborative Student-Generated Contexts Teaching Approach. The topics covered in the study included acids and bases, neutralization reactions, reduction–oxidation reactions, electrochemical cells, and electroplating. In this chapter, the contexts generated by the two groups are compared in terms of fluency, flexibility, and complexity. Finally, the benefits of using student-generated contexts in the teaching and learning of chemistry are discussed.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you very much to: Philippine Department of Science and Technology for the Ph.D. Scholarship; University of the Philippines Diliman Chancellor Michael L. Tan for the Dissertation Aid and the Research Dissemination Grant; University of the Philippines Diliman Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Development through its Vice-Chancellor Fidel R. Nemenzo for the Dissertation Grant; and U.P. College of Education Scholarship Committee for the Dissertation Grant.

References

  1. Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39, 523–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belt, S. T., Leisvik, M. J., Hyde, A. J., & Overton, T. L. (2005). Using a context-based approach to undergraduate chemistry teaching—a case study for introductory physical chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Child Trends Data Bank. (2013). Science proficiency: Indicators on children and youth. https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/10_Science_Proficiency.pdf. Acccessed December, 2018.
  4. Department of Education. (2013). K-12 curriculum (Science). Pasig City: Bureau of Secondary Education, Philippines Department of Education.Google Scholar
  5. Gagnon, G. W., Jr., & Collay, M. (2006). Constructivist learning design. California: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hill, G., & Holman, J. (2000). Chemistry in context (5th ed.). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.Google Scholar
  7. Holman, J., & Pilling, G. (2004). Thermodynamics in context: A case study of contextualized teaching for undergraduates. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(3), 373–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hsieh, Y. J., & Cifuentes, L. (2003). A cross-cultural study of the effect of student-generated visualization on middle school students’ science concept learning in Texas and Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. King, D. (2007). Teacher beliefs and constraints in implementing a context-based approach in chemistry. Teaching Science, 53(1), 14–18.Google Scholar
  10. Liu, Y.-H., & Yu, F.-Y. (2004). Active learning through student generated questions in physics experimental classrooms. Paper presented at International Conference on Engineering Education, October 2004, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. National Academy of Sciences. (2017). National science education standards: An overview. Retrieved from http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/htmloverview.html.
  12. Nelson, G. D. (2001). Remarks on the release of the NAEP 2000 science assessment results. AAAS Project 2061. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/press/rl011120a.htm.
  13. Nentwig, P. M., Demuth, R., Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., & Ralle, B. (2007). Chemie im context: Situating learning in relevant contexts while systematically developing basic chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(9), 1439–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Palmer, D. (1997). The effect of context on students’ reasoning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 681–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Rayner, A. (2005). Reflections on context-based science teaching: A case study of physics for students of physiotherapy. In Uniserve science blended learning symposium proceedings. Retrieved from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/procs/wshop10/2005Rayner.pdf.
  18. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spier-Dance, L., Mayer-Smith, J., Dance, N., & Khan, S. (2005). The role of student-generated analogies in promoting conceptual understanding for undergraduate chemistry students. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sutman, F. X., & Bruce, M. H. (1992). Chemistry in the community: A five-year evaluation. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(7), 564–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Szeto, A. K. (2008). Teaching science content, concepts and processes with contexts. In Ideas on Teaching. Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning, National University of Singapore. http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Ideas/iot100.htm Accessed December, 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwehna Elinore S. Paderna
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rosanelia T. Yangco
    • 1
  • Marlene B. Ferido
    • 2
  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of the PhilippinesDilimanPhilippines
  2. 2.National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education DevelopmentUniversity of the PhilippinesDilimanPhilippines

Personalised recommendations