Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bringing Science to Life

Research Evidence

  • Chapter
Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments in Science

Part of the book series: Advances in Learning Environments Research ((ALER))

Abstract

This chapter addresses four important areas in the use and effects of context-based approaches in the teaching of science. The first part of the chapter considers the nature of context-based approaches. The second part of the chapter draws on a synthesis of a range of research studies to explore the impact of context-based approaches on student’s cognitive and affective responses to science ideas. The third part of the chapter considers some of the issues raised by the review on research into the effects of context-based approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology education in Australian education (ACER Research Monograph 63). Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  3. *Banks, P. (1997). Students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium (Unpublished MA thesis). University of York, York.

    Google Scholar 

  4. *Barber, M. (2000). A comparison of NEAB and Salters’ A-level chemistry: Students’ views and achievements (Unpublished MA thesis). University of York, York.

    Google Scholar 

  5. *Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between Salters’ and traditional A-level chemistry students’ understanding of basic chemical ideas (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of York, York.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2005). Systematic reviews of research in science education: Rigour or rigidity? International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. *Ben-Zvi, R. (1999). Non-science oriented students and the second law of thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1251–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Castano, C. (2008). Socio-scientific discussions as a way to improve the comprehension of science and the understanding of the interrelation between species and the environment. Research in Science Education, 38, 565–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service programme for Korean science teachers with an emphasis on science-technology-society. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1021–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects (Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture). London: The Teacher Training Agency (TTA).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harland, J., & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers’ continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-service Education, 23(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hillage, L., Pearson, R., Anderson, A., & Tamkin, P. (1998). Excellence in research on schools. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Industry Canada. (2007). Mobilizing science and technology to Canada’s advantage. Retrieved from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/h_00856.html

    Google Scholar 

  19. *Key, M.-B. (1998). Students’ perceptions of chemical industry; influences of course syllabi, teachers, firsthand experience (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of York, York.

    Google Scholar 

  20. *Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Dlamini. B. (1997). Achievement of Swazi students learning science through everyday technology. Journal of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, 1, 26–40.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lubben, F., Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., & Robinson, A. (2004). A systematic review of the effects of context-based and Science-Technology-Society (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science on boys and girls, and on lower ability students. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov.statistics/seind10

  23. Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Science, technology and industry scoreboard. Paris: OECD Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Parchmann, I., & Luecken, M. (2010, February). Context-based learning for students and teachers: Professional development by participating in school innovation projects. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre, York.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, R. D., Ralle, B., & The ChiK Project Group. (2006). “ChemieImKontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  29. *Ramsden, J. M. (1997). How does a context-based approach influence understanding of key chemical ideas at 16+? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 697–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Roberts, G. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics, skills. London: HM Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  31. *Rubba, P. A., McGuyer, M., & Wahlund, T. M. (1991). The effects of infusing STS vignettes into the genetics unit of biology on learner outcomes in STS and genetics: A report of two investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 537–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sainsbury, T. L. (2007). The race to the top. A review of government’s science and innovation policies. Norwich: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education): A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education. Oslo: Dept. of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2001). Scientific enquiry in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. *Smith, G., & Matthews, P. (2000). Science, technology and society in transition year: A pilot study. Irish Educational Studies, 19, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. *Smith, L. A., & Bitner, B. L. (1993, April). Comparison of formal operations: Students enrolled in ChemCom versus a traditional chemistry course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, Kansas City, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  37. The Royal Society. (2008). Science and mathematics education, 14–19. A state of the nation report. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Torgerson, C., & Torgerson, D. (2001). The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(3), 316–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. *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 

  41. *Wierstra, R. F. A., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Student perception and appraisal of the learning environment: Core concepts in the evaluation of the PLON physics curriculum. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. *Zoller, U., Ebenezer, J. V., Morley, K., Paras, S., Sandberg, V., West, C., Wolthers. T., & Tan, S. H. (1990). Goal attainment in science-technology-society (S/T/S) education and reality: The case of British Columbia. Science Education, 74, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of York, UK

    Judith Bennett

Authors
  1. Judith Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands

    R. Taconis

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands

    P. den Brok

  3. Utrecht University, Netherlands

    A. Pilot

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bennett, J. (2016). Bringing Science to Life. In: Taconis, R., Brok, P.d., Pilot, A. (eds) Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments in Science. Advances in Learning Environments Research. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-684-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-684-2_2

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-684-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation