skip to main content
10.1145/3206129.3239436acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicemtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

High School Students' Attitudes about Socioscientific Issues Contextualized in Inquiry-based Chemistry Instruction

Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The aim of this research was to examine high school students' attitudes about socioscientific issues contextualized in inquiry-based chemistry instruction. The research was conducted on high school students studying chemistry in two different schools in Indonesia. The researchers first taught the chemistry subjects through inquiry-based instruction contextualized by socioscientific issues and then conducted the research. Sequential explanatory design, one of the mixed-method research approaches, was used to conduct the research. Quantitative data was collected from 71 students using questionnaire (R= 0.828), followed by collecting qualitative data using semi-structured interview from 8 selected students. The data was analized descriptively. The results of the study revealed that high school students had positive attitudes about socioscientific issues contextualized in inquiry-based chemistry instruction for all attributes of interest, perceived ability, value and commitent.

References

  1. Rahayu, S. 2017. Promoting the 21st century scientific literacy skills through innovative chemistry instruction. Development of Chemical Education in 21st Century Learning: Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Chemical Education (ISCE) 2017, Yogyakarta, 12-13 September 2017. Yogyakarta: AIP Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ezenwa, V. I. 1993. A comparable Study of the Effectiveness of Concept mapping and Guided Discovery Teaching Strategies on Students' Understanding of Selected Chemistry Concepts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, ABU Zaria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kemendikbud. 2014. Konsep dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013{Power Point Slides}. Retrieved from https://kemdikbud.go.id/kemdikbud/dokumen/Paparan/Paparan%20Wamendik.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sadler, T.D. 2009. Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ekborg, M. Ottander, C., Silfver, E. & Simon, S. 2013. Teachers' experience of working with socioscientific issues: A large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599--617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ozden, M. 2015. Prospective Elementary School Teachers' Views about Socioscientific Issues: A Concurrent Parallel Design Study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3):333--354. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068052Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Topcu, M. S. 2010. Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Fatchiyatun, N. 2015. Keefektifan Model Pembelajaran Inkuiri Semi Terbuka (Coupled Inquiry) dan Inkuiri Terbimbing (Guided Inquiry) dalam Mengembangkan Literasi Sains Siswa SMA Kelas XI Pada Materi Kimia. Tesis tidak diterbitkan. Universitas Negeri Malang: Malang.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. OECD. 2006. Assessing Scientifc, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECDGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. Mccrae, B. & Laurie, R. 2009. Pisa 2006: Assessment of Scientific Literacy. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 46 (8): 865--883.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Woodford, C. R. 1979. The Importance of Affective Domain in the Education of Physical Educator. QUEST, 31(2), 285--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. McLeod, D. B. 1992. Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575--596). New York: MacmillanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collin, S. 2003. Attitude toward science: a riview of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9):1049--1079.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665--683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Yahaya, J M., Nurulazam, A., & Karpudewan, M. 2016. College Students' Attitude toward Sexually Themed Science Content: A Socioscientific Issues Approach to Resolution. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (7): 1174--1196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rahayu, S. 2015. Evaluating the Affective Dimension in Chemistry Education. In Affective Dimension in Chemistry Education. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1: 29--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Maaß, K. & Artigue, M. 2013. Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: a synthesis, ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), p. 779--795.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Branch, J. & Oberg, D. 2004. Focus on Inquiry: A Teacher Guide To Implement Inquiry Learning. Alberta: Alberta LearningGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang, J., & Wen, S. 2010. Examining reflective thinking: a study of changes in methods students' conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Palmer, D. 2002. Factors contributing to attitude exchange amongst preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 86(1), 122--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Shamsudin, N. M., Abdullah, N., & Yaamat, N. 2013. Strategies of Teaching Science Using an Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE) by Novice Chemistry Teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90: 583--592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Hanson, D. M. 2005. Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning Activity. In S. W. Beyerlein & D. K. Apple (Eds.), Faculty Guidedbook-A Comprehensie Tool for Improving Faculty Performance (pages: 381--384). Lisle, IL: Pasific Crest.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadler, T. D., & Donnely, L A. 2007. Socioscientific Argumentation: The Effect Of Content Knowledge And Morality. International Journal Of Science Education, 28 (12): 1463--1488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sadler, T. D. 2011. Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. 2003. Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD. 2006. Assessing Scientifc, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECDGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Cresswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research Fourth Edition. Pearson Education, inc.: Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahoney, M. P. 2010. Students' Attitudes Toward STEM: Development Of An Instrument For High School STEM Based Programs. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1): 24--32. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ 906158.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Yager, S.O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. 2006. The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(5), 248--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ocak, M. A. 2006. The Relationship Between Gender And Students' Attitude And Experience Of Using A Mathematical Software Program (MATLAB). Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(2): 124--129. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik /makaleler/262-published.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Pluck, G. & Johnson, H. 2011. Stimulating Curiosity to Enhance Learning. Education Science and Psychology, 2(19). Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/74470Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson, D. 2006. Instructor Guide to Process-Duided-Inquiry Learning. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, et al. 1996. Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning Goals, Future Consequences, Pleasing Others, and Perceived Ability. Contemprary Educational Psychology, 21(28): 388--422.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Hassan, G. (2008). Attitudes toward science among Australian tertiary and secondary school students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 129--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Woodruff, A. D. & Divesta, F. J. 2015. The Relationship between Values, Concepts, and Attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 8(4): 645--659.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Fletcher, A. 2003. Meaningful Student Involvement: A Guide To Inclusive School Change {PDF}. Retrieved from https://soundout.org/wp-content/.../07/MSI_Guide _to_Inclusive_School_Change.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. High School Students' Attitudes about Socioscientific Issues Contextualized in Inquiry-based Chemistry Instruction

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICEMT '18: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology
      July 2018
      127 pages
      ISBN:9781450365253
      DOI:10.1145/3206129

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      © 2018 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 July 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader