Understanding acid-base concepts: Evaluating the efficacy of a senior high school student-centred instructional program in Indonesia

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1439-1458

  Rahayu, Sri ^a   Chandrasegaran, A L ^b   Treagust, David F ^b   Kita, Masakazu ^c   Ibnu, Suhadi ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF MALANG   (Indonesia)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

constructivist approach; context based approach; inquiry approach; interest; perceptions; student achievement; student centred instruction; teaching effectiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 82755187406     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-010-9272-x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D. F. & Tuan, H.-L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419.
2. Ainley, M. (2004). What do we know about student motivation and engagement? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Melbourne, Australia.
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
4. Bass, J. E., Constant, T. L. & Carin, A. A. (2009). Methods for teaching science as inquiry (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Berg, K. C. (2006). The status of constructivism in chemical education research and its relationship to the teaching and learning of the concept of idealization in chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 8, 153-176.
6. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Chiappetta, E. L. & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: Developing fundamental knowledge and skills for teaching (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Deboer, E. G. (2006). Historical perspective on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 17-35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
10. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Germann, P. J. & Aram, R. J. (1996). Student's performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 773-798.
12. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S. & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475-499.
13. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of 'context' in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.
14. Gonzales P., Calsyn, C., Jocelyn L., Mak K., Kastberg D., Arafeh S., Williams T., & Tsen, W. (2000). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U. S. perspective, 1995 and 1999 (NCES 2001-028). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://nces. ed. gov/timss/timss-r.
15. Hughes, G. & Hay, D. (2001). Use of concept mapping to integrate the different perspectives of designers and other stakeholders in the development of e-learning materials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 557-569.
16. Kousathana, M., Demerouti, M. & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Instructional misconceptions in acid-base equilibria: An analysis from a history and philosophy of science perspective. Science & Education, 14, 173-193.
17. Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D. & Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U. S. perspective (NCES 2005-003). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics.
18. LeRoy, K. & Lee, O. (2008). What research says about science assessment with English language learners. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspective from research and practise (pp. 341-355). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
19. Liang, L. L. & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143-1162.
20. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
21. Loyen, S. M. & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351-357.
22. Lumpe, A. T. (1995). Peer interaction in science concept development and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 302-309.
23. Badan Nasional Standard Pendidikan [National Education Standards Agency]. (2007). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional republik Indonesia nomor 41 tahun 2007 tentang standar proses untuk satuan pendidikan dasar dan menengah [Republic of Indonesia National Ministry of Education Regulations No. 41 of 2007: Standard procedure for unifying elementary and secondary education]. Jakarta, Indonesia: BNSP [Author].
24. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Pearsall, J. (1999). The concise Oxford dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experiences. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 977-998.
27. Sidi, I. J. (2008). Synergy of curriculum and the national examination. Paper presented at national seminar on the national examination conducted by the Quality Insurance Board, Middle East of Java, Semarang, Indonesia. http://sawali. info/2008/08/30/ujian-nasional-un-jalan-terus/.
28. Spencer, J. N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and pedagogical basis. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 566-569.
29. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30. Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R. & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lesson learned. Science Education, 89, 879-900.
31. Wise, K. C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: What works? Clearing House, 69, 337-338.
32. Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R. & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081-1094.