Abstract
Chemistry curricula as a whole, or single lesson plans can use different approaches towards the learning of chemistry. Some are arranged parallel to academic chemistry; others provide meaningful contexts to motivate the learning of chemistry. Chemistry curriculum approaches can stem from the structure of the discipline, or history of chemistry, via everyday life contexts, industrial applications, or environmental issues, towards socio-scientific issues. This chapter suggests that every chemistry curriculum and even every single lesson plan uses one of these approaches. Each approach has a different justification, each one has different potential for promoting a certain set of objectives. One has to be aware, that by selecting one of the approaches the curriculum also gives the learner a certain emphasis towards chemistry. An overview about the different objectives and justifications is given to provide a range of possibilities for structuring chemistry curricula.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atkin, M. J., & Black, P. J. (2003). Inside science education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Benett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters-approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 999–1015.
Black, P. J., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.
Breiting, S., Mayer, M., & Mogensen, F. (2005). Quality criteria for ESD-schools. Vienna: ENSI.
Bruner, J. (1962). The process of education. Harvard: Harvard University.
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). Evaluating plastics to promote Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 93–102.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary school chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 59–68.
De Boer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. Columbia: Teachers College Press.
De Jong, O. (2006). Making chemistry meaningful: conditions for successful context-based teaching. Educación Química, 17, 215–226.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching, and students’ first views on it. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3, 67–75.
Eilks, I. (2012). Teachers’ ways through the particulate nature of matter in lower secondary chemistry teaching: A continued change of different models vs. a coherent conceptual structure? In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (eds.), Concepts of matter in science education. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).
Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2012). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In C. Bruguière, P. Clément, & A. Tiberghien (eds.), Book of selected presentations, ESERA Conference Lyon 2011 (forthcoming).
Elmose, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 11–34.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Teaching the societal dimension of chemistry using a socio-critical and problem-oriented lesson plan on bioethanol usage. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1250–1256.
Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–976.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.
Harms, N. C., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher. Washington: NSTA.
Hart, C. (2002). Framing curriculum discursively: Theoretical perspectives on the experience of VCE physics. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1055–1077.
Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: A pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.
Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1017–1039.
Holbrook, J. (1998). Operationalising scientific and technological literacy – A new approach to science teaching. Science Education International, 9, 13–18.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.
Holman, J. (1986). Science and technology in society. General guide for teachers. Hatfield Herts: ASE.
Holman, J. (1987). Resources or courses? Contrasting approaches to the introduction of industry and technology to the secondary curriculum. School Science Review, 68, 432–437.
Johnstone, A. H. (1981). Chemical education research-facts, findings and consequences. Chemistry in Britain, 17, 130–135.
Johnstone, A. H. (2006).Chemical education in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 49–63.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 386–434). Hillsdale: Lawremce Erlbaum.
KMK (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss. München: Luchterhand.
Kyburz-Graber, R., Nagel, U., & Odermatt, F. (eds.) (2010). Handeln statt hoffen. Materialien zur Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung für die Sekundarstufe 1. Zug: Klett.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4, 131–145.
Marks, R., Bertram, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on potato crisps, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons – A case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 267–276.
Mc Comas, W. F. (2004). The nature of science in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Merrill, R. J., & Ridgway. D. W. (1969). The CHEMStudy curriculum improvement project. San Fransisco: W. H. Freeman.
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty-first century science: insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1499–1521.
Nentwig, P., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Ralle, B., & Demuth, R. (2007). Chemie im Kontext – A new approach to teaching chemistry, its principles and first evaluation data. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1439–1444.
Newton, D. P. (1988). Relevance and science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 7–12.
National Curriculum (2004). National Curriculum handbook for secondary teachers in England. London: QCDA.
NRC (National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
OECD (2006). OECD programme for international studies assessment (PISA) on line. www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf.
Parchmann, I., Grâsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). Chemie im Kontext – A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041–1062.
Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1087–1112.
Rauch, F. (2002). The potential of Education for Sustainable Development for reform in schools. Environmental Education Research, 8, 43–52.
Rauch, F. (2004). Education for sustainability: A regulative idea and trigger for innovation. In W. Scott & S. Gough (eds.), Key issues in sustainable development and learning: A critical review (pp. 149–151). London: Roudlege Falmer.
Reid, N. (2000). The presentation of chemistry logically or application-led. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1, 381–392.
Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphasis” in science education. Science Education, 66, 243–260.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans: The project 2061. New York: Oxford University.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T.D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921.
Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experience. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 977–998.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (eds.) (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
UNESCO. (2006). Framework for the UNDESD international implementaton scheme. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Berkel, B. (2005). The structure of current school chemistry. Utrecht: cdβ.
Van Berkel, B., De Vos, W., Verdonk, A. H., & Pilot, A. (2000). Normal science education and its dangers: The case of school chemistry. Science & Education, 9, 123–159.
Van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 421–447). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationship between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 156–1717.
Wandersee, J. H., & Baudoin Griffard, P. (2002). The history of chemistry: Potential and actual contributions to chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Just, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based oractice (pp. 29–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ware, S., & Tinnesand, M. (2005). Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom): Chemistry for future citizens. In P. Nentwig, & D. Waddington (eds.), Making it relevant: Context-based learning of science (pp. 91–120). Munster: Waxmann.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eilks, I., Rauch, F., Ralle, B., Hofstein, A. (2013). How to Allocate the Chemistry Curriculum Between Science and Society. In: Eilks, I., Hofstein, A. (eds) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_1
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6209-140-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)
