 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 19, Issue 2, Article 3 (Dec., 2018) |
The qualitative findings of the study reveal that both experimental and control group students have acquired a better understanding of the effects of concentration and catalyst on the rate of reaction after going through the treatment. The findings show that experimental group students' understanding seems to be more explicit and scientifically acceptable. Further, the quantitative findings substantiated the qualitative outcome. The ability of experimental group students to be more specific in explaining the observations probably is due to the understanding that they have attained from the context provided to them prior to each investigation. The context permitted the students to understand the concept well. When the same concepts were investigated using practical laboratory work the knowledge derived from the context was applied in understanding the observations and findings of the experiments (Seery, 2015). It was noticed that students who graduated from a traditional education environment who does not have any learning related to their real life tend to be confused about their understanding (Ng & Nguyen, 2006). In a different study, context or issue provided at some point forced the students to extend the classroom learning to the application beyond that (Joel et al., 2016). They try to seek the connection between the knowledge obtained in the classroom and how the knowledge is turned into real-life applications. These had resulted rather than simply memorizing the knowledge to reason the validity of the knowledge itself (Kurt & Ayas, 2012). This is another possible reason why the context-based approach encourages better learning among the students.
On the contrary, control group students have understood the concept quite well however their responses portray that they memorized the information and reproduced it in answering the questions posed to them. Memorization happens due to the rhetoric teaching. The usual way of solely performing investigations following a recipe like procedures consequently forced the students into memorizing and recalling of facts. As Bristow (2000) said, this happens because hands-on activities in science made the students have better understanding compared to the students who were taught using lecture base method. Alternatively, it has also been said that context-based pedagogy creates a better learning situation that probably will result in students understanding (de Putter-Smits, Taconis, & Jochems, 2013). Perhaps, the nature of CBGCEs which required the students to investigate the context followed with engaging in hands-on activities explain the reasons for the experimental group students to have a better understanding.
Parrish (2007) asserted that green chemistry experiment encourages students to monitor their own learning experiences. In this study, the integration of a particular context relevant to the green chemistry experiment had further enhanced the properties of green chemistry as suggested by Parrish (2007). The CBGCEs permitted the students do have their own learning experiences by relating to the real-life issue. On the other hand, control group students carried out the experiments based on chemicals available in the laboratory unable to justify the relevance of the experiments that they have engaged. Parrish's (2007) argument about green chemistry was further supported by Prescott (2013). According to Prescott (2013), students were able to connect green chemistry experiments they had learned to the general chemistry concepts. Through having a context prior to the experiment as in CBGCEs substantiate the claim made by Prescott. Cacciatore and Sevian (2006) showed that green chemistry experiments indirectly made students spending more time writing scientific communication and reports. Students who carry out green chemistry experiments spent more time because they can relate the issue to their real-life context. They tend to think far, organize data well and produce good writing. When more time is spent in thinking over and over about an issue made them actively critical of the issue. Similar, students exposed to CBGCEs in this study spent more time pondering over the context. As a result, they were critical of the context.
From the theoretical perspective, constructivist and activity theory which CBGCEs experiments were based on profoundly explains the possibilities of the experimental group students' ability to be more specific. When the students engaged in CBGCEs experiments the six elements of activity theory: subject, objects, rules, instrument, community, a division of labor and outcome were inherently executed. The community of learners (also the subject) collaboratively involved in executing the experiments (objects) adhering to the rules and task assigned based on the division of labors. In which during the execution of the six elements the students at all the points actively participated in the learning. New mental structure of knowledge was constructed from learning involving all the elements of activity theory (Engeström, 1987). According to Engeström (1987), moving from actions to activity expands the learning at the macro level. The expanding of learning made them more focused on the learning process through collaborative networking with students, teachers, and community.
