Flipping The Use of Science-Technology and Society Issues as Triggering Students' Motivation and Chemical Literacy
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to investigate the effect of the use of science, technology, and society (STS) issues through flipped and traditional learning environments on students’ motivation to learn chemistry as well as their chemical literacy (CL). Two freshman engineering classes totaling 89 students taught by the same instructor enrolled in a general chemistry course at a university were the sample of the study. The study had one intervention and one comparison group (CG); the groups were randomly assigned. The intervention group engaged in the STS issues through flipped learning environment while the CG engaged in the STS issues in a traditional setting. A motivation questionnaire was administered to the groups at the beginning and at the end of the treatment; in addition, CL items were administered at the end of semester. The treatment took one semester. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare groups on pre-test scores; then, multivariate analysis of covariance was used to reveal the effect of treatments on motivation, its factors, and CL. The results indicated that utilizing STS issues through the flipped learning environment was superior to traditional STS instruction on increasing students’ overall motivation score, intrinsic motivation, and relevance of chemistry. No significant difference was observed in CL scores. Further studies are suggested to investigate the impact of flipped STS interventions on higher-order thinking skills including socio-scientific reasoning.References
References
Abdâ€Elâ€Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science education, 82(4), 417-436.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bennett, J., Campbell, B., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2007). A systematic review of the effects on high school students of context-based and science-technology (STS) approaches to the teaching of science. York, UK: Department of Educational Studies the University of York. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http:// www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/EPPI/bennettsaarmste.pdf
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S. & Lubben, F. (2003). A systematic review of the effects of context-based and Science – Technology - Society STS approaches in the teaching of secondary science. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre
Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., De Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (9), 1063–1086.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33–43.
Cavas, B. (2011). Factors affecting the motivation of Turkish primary students for science learning. Science Education International, 22(1), 31-42.
Celik, S., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2006). The effect of a ‘Science, Technology and Society’course on prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 255-273.
Cigdemoglu, C., & Geban, O. (2015). Improving students’ chemical literacy levels on thermochemical and thermodynamics concepts through a context-based approach. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 302-317.
Cigdemoglu, C., Arslan, H. O., & Cam, A. (2017). Argumentation to foster pre-service science teachers’ knowledge, competency, and attitude on the domains of chemical literacy of acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 288-303.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 563–580.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–68.
De Jong, O. (2005). Research and teaching practice in chemical education: Living apart or together?. Chemical Education International, 6(1), Retrieved October 29, 2008 from ww.iupac.org/publications/cei.
DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.
Eryilmaz, M., & Cigdemoglu, C. (2019). Individual flipped learning and cooperative flipped learning: their effects on students’ performance, social, and computer anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 432-442.
Estes, M. D., Ingram, R., & Liu, J. C. (2014). A review of flipped classroom research, practice, and technologies. International HETL Review, Volume 4, Article 7.
European Commission, (2004), Europe needs more scientists: Report by the high level group on increasing human resources for science and technology, Brussels: European Commission.
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 63–71.
Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Proceedings of the 30th international conference on software engineering: Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. New York, NY: ACM.
Giamellaro, M. (2014). Primary contextualization of science learning through immersion in content-rich settings. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2848-2871.
Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context†in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.
Glynn, M. S, Aultman, L. P., & Owens, A. M. (2005). Motivation to learn in general education. The Journal of General Education, 54(2), 150-170.
Glynn, M. S., and Koballa, T. R., (2006). Motivation to Learn College Science. Handbook of college science teaching, Edit: Mintzes, J. J. & W. H. Leonard. VA: National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington, 25-32.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. Handbook of educational psychology, 77, 15-46.
Hofstein A., Eilks I. and Bybee R., (2010), Societal issues and their importance for relevant science education. In I. Eilks and B. Ralle (ed.), Contemporary science education (pp. 5–22), Aachen: Shaker.
Holbrook J., and Rannikma¨ e M., (2007), Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy, International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.
Jenkins, J. L., & Howard, E. M. (2019). Implementation of Modelling Instruction in a high school chemistry unit on energy and states of matter. Science Education International, 30(2).
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50.
King, D., Bellocchi, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2008). Making connections: learning and teaching chemistry in context. Reseach in Science Education, 38:365-384.
Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G., (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 75-102). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
Nentwig, P., Roennebeck, S., Schoeps, K., Rumann, S., & Carstensen, C. (2009). Performance and levels of contextualization in a selection of OECD countries in PISA 2006. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 897-908.
Niemiec C. and Ryan R. M., (2009), Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice, Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144.
OECD, (2009), PISA 2009 assessment framework—Key competenciesin reading, mathematics andscience, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Osborne J. and Dillon J., (2008), Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation, London: Nuffield Foundation.
Pallant, J., & Manual, S. S. (2007). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. In SPSS Survival manual. Open University Press.
Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). “Chemie im Kontextâ€: A symbiotic implementation of a contextâ€based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041-1062.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill
Rannikmae, M., Teppo, M., & Holbrook, J. (2010). Popularity and relevance of science education literacy: Using a context-based approach. Science Education International, 21(2), 116-125.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Motivation for achievement: Past, present, and future. Issues in Education, 6(1/2), 161-166.
Shwartz Y., Ben-Zvi R. and Hofstein A., (2005), The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’, International Journal of Science Teaching, 27, 323-344.
Sookoo-Singh, N., & Boisselle, L. N. (2018). How Does The “Flipped Classroom Model†Impact On Student Motivation And Academic Achievement In A Chemistry Classroom?. Science Education International, 29(4).
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J., & Bjorklund, S. (2001). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123–130.
Vaino K. and Holbrook J., and Rannikmae¨ M., (2012). Stimulating students’ intrinsic motivation for learning chemistry through the use of context-based learning modules. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 410–419.
Vázquez-Alonso, Ã., GarcÃa-Carmona, A., Manassero-Mas, M. A., & Bennassar-Roig, A. (2013). Spanish secondary-school science teachers’ beliefs about Science-Technology-Society (STS) Issues. Science & Education, 22(5), 1191-1218.
Vázquez Alonso, Ã., GarcÃa Carmona, A., Manassero Mas, M. A., & Bennà ssar Roig, A. (2014). Spanish students' conceptions about NOS and STS issues: A diagnostic study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10 (1), 33-45.
Yelamarthi, K., Member, S., & Drake, E. (2015). A flipped first-year digital circuits course for engineering and technology students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58, 179–186.
