Interaction between teachers and teaching materials : on the
implementation of context-based chemistry education
Citation for published version (APA):
Vos, M. A. J. (2010). Interaction between teachers and teaching materials : on the implementation of context-based chemistry education. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR684861
DOI:
10.6100/IR684861
Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2010 Document Version:
Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication:
• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.
• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.
• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
www.tue.nl/taverne
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:
openaccess@tue.nl
providing details and we will investigate your claim.
Interaction between teachers and teaching
materials
On the implementation of context-based
chemistry education
and facilitated by the
In cooperation with the Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education of the
In the context of the research school
(Inter University Centre for Educational Research)
© Vos, M.A.J.
A catalogue record is available from the Eindhoven University of Technology Library
ISBN: 978-90-386-2305-4, NUR: 741 Cover design: Paul van Oosterhout Printed by: Printservice TU/e
Interaction between teachers and teaching materials:
On the implementation of context-based chemistry education
PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, op gezag van de
rector magnificus, prof.dr.ir. C.J. van Duijn, voor een
commissie aangewezen door het College voor
Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen
op donderdag 30 september 2010 om 16.00 uur
door
Martin Anton Jozef Vos
prof.dr. W.M.G. Jochems
en
prof.dr. A. Pilot
Copromotor:
dr. R. Taconis
Dankwoord
9
Chapter 1: Introduction and research overview
13
1.1 Problem statement: Teacher-material interaction as
perspective on implementation 13
1.2 Context-based chemistry education 15
1.3 Teachers and educational innovation 17
1.4 Focus of the dissertation 19
1.5 Need for analytical framework 21
1.6 Research overview 22
1.7 References 25
Chapter 2: Developing and testing a framework for case-
analysis
31
2.1 Introduction 33
2.2 Context-based teaching materials 35
2.3 Teachers and implementing context-based chemistry
Education 36
2.4 Basis and outline of the framework for analysis 37
2.4.1 Levels of abstraction for teachers’ thinking and acting 39 2.4.2 Curriculum representations 40 2.4.3 Description of the analytical framework 41 2.4.4 Concept of curriculum emphasis and instructional functions 43 2.4.5 Procedure for using the analytical framework 45
2.5 The empirical study 52
2.5.1 Method 52
2.5.2 Participants 54
2.6 Results of the empirical study 54
2.6.1 Validity 54
2.6.2 Reliability 59
2.6.3 Practicability 61
2.7 Conclusion and discussion 62
previous experience of context-based chemistry education
71
3.1 Introduction 73
3.2 Theoretical perspective 74
3.2.1 Features of context-based chemistry units 74 3.2.2 Analysing classroom implementation 75
3.2.3 Framework for analysis 76
3.3 Method 79
3.3.1 Format of the unit 79
3.3.2 Participants 80
3.3.3 Data collection and data analysis 81
3.4 Results 83
3.4.1 The intended curriculum 83
3.4.2 The operational curriculum 85
3.4.3 The perceived curriculum 88
3.4.4 Similarities and differences between the three cases 91
3.5 Discussion and conclusions 94
3.6 References 97
Chapter 4: Implementation by senior teachers with different
degrees of experience of context-based chemistry education103
4.1 Introduction 105
4.2 Theoretical perspective 105
4.3 Method 110
4.3.1 Procedure for data collection and data analysis 110 4.3.2 Selection of teaching materials 112
4.3.3 Participants 112
4.4 Results 113
4.4.1 Intended curriculum 113
4.4.2 Operational curriculum 120
4.4.3 Perceived curriculum 124
4.4.4 Overview of the four cases 128
4.5 Conclusions 129
4.6 Discussion and implications 133
experience of the context-based chemistry unit in use
139
5.1 Introduction 141
5.2 Theoretical Perspective 143
5.2.1 Factor 1: Coherent design of the teaching materials 144 5.2.2 Factor 2: Support and skills on a concrete level 145 5.2.3 Factor 3: Competence in understanding the materials 147 5.2.4 Factor 4: Value congruence 148
5.3 Method 150
5.3.1 Selection of teaching material and teachers 150 5.3.2 Procedure for data collection and data analysis 151
5.4 Results 152
5.4.1 The intended curriculum: Coherency of the design 152 5.4.2 The operational curriculum 153 5.4.3 The perceived curriculum: Factors influencing
implementation process 156
5.5 Summary of the findings 159
5.6 Conclusions 162
5.7 Discussion 163
5.8 References 166
Chapter 6: Lessons learned and reflections
171
6.1 Overview of the research project 171
6.2 Reflections on the analytical framework 173
6.2.1 Main features of the analytical framework and
its scientific value 173
6.2.2 The methodology of data analysis based
on the analytical framework 180
6.3 Reflections on the findings of the case studies 186
6.3.1 Factor 1: Coherent design of the teaching materials 186 6.3.2 Factor 2: Support and skills on a concrete level 188 6.3.3 Factor 3: Competence in understanding the materials 190 6.3.4 Factor 4: Value congruence 193 6.3.5 Reflections on the limitations of the studies 194
6.4.1 Recommendations for teachers 196 6.4.2 Recommendations for teacher educators
and professional development 197 6.4.3 Recommendations for curriculum designers 199 6.4.4 Recommendations for educational researchers 200 6.4.5 Recommendations for policymakers 202
6.5 References 203
Summary
209
Samenvatting
215
List of publications
223
Curriculum Vitae
225
9
Het is zover, het doel is bereikt. Met het schrijven van het dankwoord wordt een boeiende weg vol uitdagingen en mooie momenten afgesloten. Het is tijd om even stil te staan, terug te kijken en te genieten.
Promoveren gaf mij de mogelijkheid me ruim vier jaar lang te verdiepen in een onderwerp dat mij uiterst interesseert. Maar zeker zo belangrijk was de mogelijkheid om vele interessante mensen te ontmoeten van wie ik, ieder op hun eigen manier, veel heb mogen leren. Niet alleen betreffende het onderwerp van mijn proefschrift en het doen van onderzoek, maar vooral ook hoe je als mens kunt ontwikkelen. Gaandeweg merk je dat niet zozeer je omgeving verandert maar dat je zelf verandert en groeit door alle ervaringen die je opdoet. Het was een lange weg, die al startte voor ik dit promotie-onderzoek begon en die naar ik aanneem nog een mooi vervolg zal krijgen. Velen wil ik bedanken, het zal echter niet lukken iedereen bij naam noemen. Onderweg, waar dan ook, ben ik vele mensen tegengekomen die door een terloopse opmerking of een geïnteresseerde blik mij precies dat ene zetje in een bepaalde richting hebben gegeven waardoor ik gekomen ben waar ik nu ben. Ik wil daarom in de eerste plaats al die mensen bedanken die mij, vaak zonder dat zij het zelf beseften, dat ene belangrijke zetje gaven.
Uiterst belangrijk zijn mijn promotoren geweest, twee zeer uiteenlopende persoonlijkheden zonder wiens bijdrage mijn onderzoek geheel anders verlopen zou zijn.
Albert, jouw nieuwsgierigheid naar alles en oprecht persoonlijke betrokkenheid hebben mij ontzettend veel geleerd over didactiek, ontwerpen, innovaties en wat al niet meer. Inspirerend vind ik hoe jij steeds weer open staat voor nieuwe ideeën en bereid bent te blijven leren. Bedankt voor al je input en je tomeloze ‘nachtelijke’ inzet.
Wim, zonder jou was ik hoogstwaarschijnlijk nog lang niet klaar. Door jouw inbreng werd promoveren plots een heldere een overzichtelijke weg. Ik hoop nog veel gebruik te kunnen maken van jouw doelmatige manier van werken, waarbij de gedachte ‘om ergens te komen, moet je keuzes maken’ een belangrijke les voor mij is. Bedankt voor het coördineren van mijn traject en aan te dringen op het maken van keuzes en daar dan bij te blijven.
10
Ruurd, als co-promotor zul je het niet altijd makkelijk met mij hebben gehad. Van jou heb ik geleerd altijd kritisch te blijven en dat kritische vragen altijd hun waarde hebben, ook al komen ze op sommige momenten niet gelegen. Bedankt voor het doorploeteren van mijn schrijfsels.
Jan en Rutger, jullie zijn zeer belangrijk geweest bij het opstarten van mijn onderzoek na het overlijden van Johan van der Sanden. Ik heb het als zeer waardevol ervaren dat jullie mij hebben geholpen door het geven van eerste aanwijzingen op een weg waarvan ik nog niet wist waar die heen zou leiden. Fontys Hogescholen, en met name de raad van bestuur, hebben mij geleerd waar het tonen van lef je kan brengen, maar ook dat met het zetten van een eerste stap je er nog niet bent! Bedankt voor het financieren van mijn onderzoek en de mogelijkheid actief mee te denken in het vormgeven van het promotiebeleid. Hiervoor wil ik ook de Fontys Graduate School bedanken. Gies, Ron, Kirsten en collega’s van de promovendicommissie, bedankt voor alle inzet en steun. Jullie hebben getoond dat ergens voor gaan betekent mensen en ideeën te blijven steunen ook al loopt het niet helemaal zoals vooraf gedacht.
Als promovendus heb je vaak het gevoel dat je alleen op weg bent, maar gelukkig volgen velen een parallelle route zodat je dan samen kunt optrekken. In mijn geval is dat grote groep Fontys-promovendi geweest. In het bijzonder belangrijk zijn mijn collega-promovendi in Tilburg en promovendi van het eerste uur in Eindhoven; Maud, Mariska, Ellen, Femke, Gijs, Alexander, Zeger, Geeke, Irene, Ellen, Maaike, Kariene en Ralf. Samen hebben we uitgevogeld wat dat promoveren eigenlijk is. Zonder jullie zou het begin al een onoverbrugbare barrière hebben geleken. Ik heb het als zeer boeiend ervaren met jullie op te trekken en van jullie te leren door alle overeenkomsten en verschillen in ons onderzoek. Dit maakte het mogelijk een brede kijk op het onderzoek te behouden. Ik ben er trots op dat de meeste van ons de eindstreep hebben gehaald of tenminste in zicht hebben. Dat hebben we toch maar samen gedaan. Zeger, bedankt dat je mij als paranimf bij de verdediging wilt bijstaan.
FLOT is als mijn thuishaven belangrijk geweest voor mijn onderzoek. Allereerst wil ik iedereen en met name Sanneke, Ilona, Hans, Joke en Henny
11
bedanken voor alle oprechte interesse en inzet. En natuurlijk niet te vergeten het team NaSkTe en zijn studenten. Bij jullie voelde ik me direct op mijn plaats en was er altijd de mogelijkheid van gedachten te wisselen en die aan jullie rijke ervaring te toetsen. In het bijzonder wil ik Guido, Kennedy, Jan, Jan en Rutger noemen. Bedankt voor het vertrouwen om mij naar eigen inzicht cursussen te laten geven. Ik hoop nog veel met jullie samen te werken, waar en hoe dan ook.
Buiten mijn vaste werkplekken heb ik ook met veel mensen mogen werken die direct of indirect een belangrijke inhoudelijke bijdrage hebben geleverd. De NVOX-schrijfgroep, alweer ruim 3 jaar schrijven we artikelen voor onze serie ‘Contexten in …’. Onze discussies leveren me iedere keer weer nieuwe inzichten op. Lisette, bedankt dat ik van jouw lesmateriaal en docenten gebruik mocht maken. We moeten er samen ook maar eens een publicatie over schrijven.
Lieber Bernd, lieber David, vielen herzlichen Dank für Eure nette Aufnahme in Dortmund und Eure Gastfreundschaft. Unsere Diskussionen über “Chemie im Kontext”, der durch Euch ermöglichte Kontakt mit den örtlichen Lehrern und die Unterrichtsbesuche waren sehr nützlich für mich. Ich habe viel gelernt und Neues gesehen, was ich auch zu Hause in den Niederlanden einbringen kann. Bernd, ich fühle mich geehrt, dass Sie in meiner Promotionskommssion sind. David, ich hoffe, dass wir in Zukunft noch viel zusammen arbeiten werden. Auf ein baldiges Wiedersehen in Kassel!
Alle docenten, in Nederland en Duitsland, die hebben meegewerkt aan mijn onderzoek. Zonder jullie was dit proefschrift niet mogelijk geweest. Ik vind het mooi te zien hoe ieder op zijn eigen unieke manier zijn lessen vorm geeft. Als onderzoeker en als docent heb ik daar veel van geleerd.
FIsme-chemiedidactici, Marijn, Gjalt, Ria, Fridolin, Nienke en Astrid. Af en toe kwam ik aanvliegen, nu ben ik echt geland. We zagen elkaar vooral tijdens congressen en bijeenkomsten waarbij serieus praten en veel, erg veel, lachen altijd tot diep in de nacht doorging. Gek genoeg had ik na een afspraak met Albert in BBL meestal slechts tijd voor een haastige groet. Gelukkig heb ik nu volop tijd om dat goed te maken als volwaardig lid van ‘onze’ groep.
Nieuwe collega’s van De Nieuwste School in Tilburg. Ik heb geen moment geaarzeld toen mij gevraagd werd jullie collega te worden. Het was de nieuwe uitdagende omgeving die ik zocht. Wilbert, Patrick, Hans, Mark, in korte tijd
12
heb ik al veel van jullie en van de leerlingen geleerd. Ik hoop dat ik mijn bijdrage kan leveren aan de ontwikkeling van de school.
Promoveren kan je niet als je directe omgeving je niet steunt in de weg die je aflegt, als je niet alle ervaringen kunt delen of als je niet af en toe afgeleid wordt zodat je beseft dat er naast promoveren ook nog een hele wereld bestaat. Familie, schoonfamilie en vrienden, zonder ieder bij naam te hoeven noemen wil ik jullie daarvoor bedanken.
ADnD-ers en Asserpark 15c-ers, het is heel bijzonder zulke vrienden te hebben. Ook al heeft de weg vanuit Wageningen ons alle kanten opgeleid, we trekken nog altijd samen verder en lukt het ons nog altijd regelmatig bij elkaar te komen voor een spel of gewoon voor de gezelligheid en een biertje.
Paul, bedankt voor het ontwerpen van de kaft, het verraste me niet dat je direct ja zei. Het eerste ontwerp was meteen raak!
Pa, Ma, jullie hebben me geleerd altijd kritisch op mezelf te zijn en het beste uit mezelf te halen. Jullie hebben ervoor gezorgd dat ik goed voorbereid vanuit het vertrouwde thuis de wijde wereld in kon trekken. De weg van promoveren wordt al geplaveid lang voordat je begint. Zus en broers, door jullie bevond ik me al van jongs af aan in een uniek gezelschap. Ik heb viermaal kunnen afkijken hoe jullie je weg zochten om daarna mijn eigen weg te vinden. Ingrid, als grote zus ben je misschien nog wel het meest de wegbereider geweest door mij voor te gaan naar Wageningen en door te promoveren. Geen wonder dus dat je me nu terzijde staat als paranimf. Kristel, ik kan me niet voorstellen dat dit zonder jou zou zijn gelukt. Bedankt voor al het luisteren, meedenken en me te laten merken dat het belangrijk is te blijven praten als het me even tegenzit. Een doel is bereikt, maar de weg loopt door met volop mogelijkheden samen nog vele dromen te verwezenlijken. Ik ben benieuwd welke wegen we allemaal nog samen zullen bewandelen. In Arne hebben we in ieder geval al een bijzondere metgezel. We hebben een boeiend leven, de weg loopt door!
13
CHAPTER 1
Introduction and research overview
1.1 Problem statement: teacher-material interaction as perspective on implementation
The research in this dissertation focuses on the implementation of context-based teaching materials by teachers in their classroom practices, and specifically whether those materials are used by teachers in line with the intentions of the designers. Context-based approaches for teaching science are becoming widely used in upper secondary education. It is suggested by policymakers and educational researchers that a context-based curriculum might solve problems which in industrialised western countries are experienced in the more traditional educational approaches (Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Driessen & Meinema, 2003).
In order to support context-based teaching in classroom practice, new curricula are needed which are based on this new vision for science education. This means that completely new teaching materials have to be developed from new design principles (Pilot & Bulte, 2006). Context-based education also implies new requirements for teachers. Their role in the classroom is changing from the traditional role of an instructor passing on knowledge to that of a coach facilitating students' self-regulated learning. New teaching activities should be acquired and old routines should be adapted to the new situation or abandoned. Hence, teachers are facing a far-reaching learning process. However, it is recognised that teachers’ professional development in terms of educational innovation is not easy to accomplish (Coenders, Terlouw & Dijkstra, 2008).
Designers and educational researchers primarily focus on optimising the approach in order to facilitate students’ learning processes by developing new instructional materials, with only limited reference to the teachers who have to work with these materials (Altrichter, 2005; Eilks & Ralle, 2002). It depends
14
on teachers, however, how these materials will be implemented in classroom practice. It can hardly be expected that teachers who are unfamiliar with the new approach will be able to bring the new teaching materials into classroom practice according to the ideas of context-based teaching unless they have the opportunity to learn how to use the materials.
The research described in this dissertation has several aims centred on optimising the implementation process of context-based materials. First, it seeks to deepen insight into the characteristics of context-based teaching materials that facilitate or hinder their implementation by teachers. Second, it focuses on the requirements for teachers that facilitate or hinder the adequate implementation of innovative teaching materials. The insights into the interaction between teachers and teaching materials will contribute to the design process of new teaching materials and to pre- and in-service teacher development.
As a (novice) teacher I was aware that the teaching materials I was using were based on a well-thought-out design but I found it difficult to understand and put into action the underlying pedagogical concepts without being given the time and support to understand how to implement them. It is all too easy to blame teachers for not being able to implement teaching materials as intended under such circumstances. It may be helpful if materials are carefully designed to support their implementation by the teacher. This is supported by the literature stating that curriculum developers have often failed to take into account the teachers, the students, and the culture in which the new curriculum is to be embedded (cf. Van Driel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). In the light of these considerations this dissertation focuses on the implementation of innovative context-based teaching materials in classroom practice by teachers who are not familiar with context-based education. The study of this implementation process is approached from two perspectives: that of the designers, who want to see their intentions with the teaching materials reflected in classroom practice, and that of the teachers who have to implement these innovative materials in their daily practices. The latter have their own routines and conceptions about teaching chemistry while also taking into account the situation in which they are working, their own needs and those of their students.
15
1.2 Context-based chemistry education
Secondary chemistry education in western industrialised countries faces a transition from a content-oriented curriculum towards a context-based curriculum (Nentwig & Waddington, 2005; Pilot & Bulte, 2006; Schwartz, 2006; Bennett, Lubben & Hogarth, 2007). For western industrialised countries, current content-oriented curricula give an outdated view of chemistry as a scientific discipline and its role in society. Students consider it hard to master and of little value to their lives and careers (Osborne & Dillon, 2008; De Vos, Bulte & Pilot, 2002). The introduction of context-based chemistry education is intended to challenge these problems, given a new vision of science education, the acknowledgement that content should be renewed and new insights into the pedagogy of teaching science.
Context-based chemistry education is intended to be relevant to all students. It no longer focuses solely on delivering a strong basis for academic study of chemistry by offering a cumulative and static body of theoretical knowledge that explains how the world works and a set of scientific skills to produce this knowledge. It also intends to show the relevance of chemistry for society and daily life by addressing societal issues and technological developments. It aims to focus on how knowledge is constructed in the scientific discipline of chemistry by letting the students experience ‘doing’ chemistry, for which they need to develop a coherent use of specific chemical language, as this is used in professional communities.
The current content-oriented curricula are known to be overloaded, to consist of isolated facts and to hinder transfer (Gilbert, 2006). Within context-based curricula, contexts can be used as the starting-point and anchor for learning new concepts, thereby giving meaning to the content. This requires that the context provides ‘a coherent structural meaning for something new that is set within a broader perspective’ (Gilbert, 2006, p. 960). This contrasts with more traditional approaches that cover scientific ideas first, before looking at applications. Contexts are intended to provide a rationale for selecting representative chemistry content. Using the need-to-know principle for students (Bulte, Westbroek, De Jong & Pilot, 2006), it is decided what concepts, relations and procedures will be addressed in the educational unit, selecting only those that are needed with respect to the context. Knowledge acquisition on the basis of the need-to-know principle should enable students
16
to develop a coherent mental schema, helping to give meaning to what they are learning about chemistry. This should also enable transfer, assisting students to relate their knowledge about the world they live in to the domain of chemistry. Building on students’ prior knowledge, contexts based on authentic situations will show the strong and complex connections that exist between chemistry and societal and personal concerns. It is expected that students will gradually expand their knowledge of the different chemical concepts, which will gradually be brought to a more abstract and theoretical level, as they progress through the curriculum.
Unique to context-based curricula is the intended active participation of students in the teaching-learning process (Parchmann et al., 2006). From the perspective of students’ motivation and the relevance of what they learn about chemistry, self-regulated learning activities are central to the teaching-learning strategy. The notion of self-regulated teaching-learning refers to students taking control and responsibility for their own learning process by actively regulating their mental learning activities in order to achieve their study goals. For teachers this means that they have to step back in controlling students’ learning activities (Hoekstra, Brekelmans, Beijaard & Korthagen, 2009). Students’ learning activities are organised via the use of context as what is called a ‘focal event’. A focal event is a central event within the design of a teaching unit that is meant to orient students’ attention on learning tasks, enabling them to develop coherent chemical knowledge (Gilbert, 2006). Examples of context-based curricula are ‘Chemie im Kontext’ in Germany (Nentwig, Parchmann, Demuth, Gräsel & Ralle, 2005), ‘Salters Advanced Chemistry’ programme (Campbell et al., 1994) and ‘Science for Public Understanding’ (Nuffield Curriculum Centre) in the UK, and ‘Contextualized chemistry education’ (Schwartz, 2006) and ‘Twenty-first century science’ courses (Ratcliffe & Millar, 2009) in the US. In the Netherlands such a context-based curriculum is currently introduced in upper secondary education in chemistry, physics and biology, giving rise to a range of teaching units on which the entire new curriculum will be based (Kuiper, Folmer, Ottevanger & Bruning, 2009; Kuiper, 2009).
17
1.3 Teachers and educational innovation
It largely depends on teachers how innovative teaching materials will be implemented in classroom practice. They are the most important agents in shaping education and bringing about change and innovation in educational practices (Bakkenes, Vermunt & Wubbels, in press; Van Driel et al., 2001; Bennett, Gräsel, Parchmann & Waddington, 2005). Curriculum innovation requires teachers to be prepared to change and to be motivated to take part (Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Innovations in education, however, are often experienced by teachers as top-down. The common practice is for new teaching materials to be developed by a relatively small group of curriculum designers according to an innovative vision postulated by policymakers, leaving teachers to execute the ideas of others but without giving them the opportunity to bring in their own ideas and experiences and with only limited possibilities for training on how to do it (Stolk, Bulte, De Jong & Pilot, 2009a; Van Driel et al., 2001). Too often, educational innovations have failed because they did not recognise the need for teacher learning (cf. Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008). When the new material is used, teaching activities, routines and beliefs about teaching, based on experiences with the current curriculum, are no longer adequate and should be adapted for teaching according to a new pedagogy with which teachers are unfamiliar. They also have to teach content that was not part of the curriculum before or that is structured in a completely new way. Bringing sustainable change in educational practices during innovations requires a complex, far-reaching, and time-consuming learning process (Fullan, 2001). Teachers need to develop a new vision, to adjust to the new pedagogy, to understand what the innovation is good for, to develop the skills to bring the innovation into classroom practice and to reflect on their experiences in order to learn (Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Therefore, it seems wise to involve teachers actively as co-designers of new teaching materials (Schwab, 1983; Marsh, 2004), via a so-called symbiotic implementation strategy (Altrichter, 2005). The intention is twofold; giving the teachers the role of designer will result in the development of teaching materials which are recognisable by other teachers and closely linked to their belief systems. This will reduce the feeling among teachers of being forced to change their practices, and can avoid incongruence between what is intended and what occurs in classroom practice. Additionally, acting as designers will
18
help teachers to develop their thinking about curriculum materials and empower them to shape their own classroom practice. Teachers’ knowledge, skills, beliefs, and attitudes about an innovation may be rather superficial before they experience the consequences of an innovation in practice (Van den Akker, 1994). The development of their vision should be strongly related to their own experiences. Change in the classroom will only occur if it is connected to own experience (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992; Huberman, 1985). Through design activities, teachers can gain commitment and ownership with respect to educational change, thus enabling a substantial innovation regarding the change in their knowledge, skills, beliefs, attitudes about chemistry teaching, and getting acquainted with new subject matter (Stolk et al., 2009a, b).
Even when such a symbiotic implementation strategy is used, however, it is inevitable that a majority of teachers will not be actively involved in the design process and will have limited or no experience with context-based education before they actually have to implement the new materials. For most teachers, their work is concentrated in the classroom during teaching, and they have limited opportunities for professionalisation. They usually will not take part in producing the materials. This implies that (informal) learning of educational change is mostly situated in their daily practice during the interaction with the new teaching materials, instead of (formal) learning via teacher professionalisation programmes (Hoekstra et al., 2009; Davis & Krajcik, 2005). This places high demands on the new materials; the teaching materials should be designed to be educative for both teachers and students (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Schneider, Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2005; Ball & Cohen, 1999).
Overall, educational innovation brings new requirements for teachers to be able to implement the new teaching materials as intended. They have to become acquainted with the specific demands of the innovation; in the perspective adopted by this dissertation this means that they have to get acquainted with a new vision, pedagogy and content according to the context-based approach.
19
1.4 Focus of the dissertation
This dissertation focuses on the implementation of context-based teaching materials in classroom practice. The interaction of teachers with the innovative teaching materials is a central issue. The main research question is: What are the characteristics of the interaction between innovative context-based materials and teachers that hinder or facilitate classroom implementation as intended by the designers?
Since 1997, the ‘Chemie im Kontext’ project group in Germany worked on the design and evaluation of innovative context-based teaching materials and on professionalisation courses on how to use those materials. In the Netherlands, a ministerial committee acknowledged the problems with the current chemistry curriculum (Van Koten et al., 2002), and recommended the redesign of the curriculum according to a context-based approach (Driessen & Meinema, 2003). It is expected that from 2013 all Dutch secondary schools will have to implement the new curriculum. In Germany and the Netherlands similar curriculum innovations are also ongoing for biology and physics in upper secondary education. In both countries the teaching materials are designed in close cooperation with teachers. It has been recognised that teachers are no longer solely executers of the teaching materials and should be able to evaluate, adapt, and enact teaching materials in the light of their own unique needs, those of their students, and according to the situations in which they work (Forbes & Davis, 2008).
The majority of teachers are still not involved in designing activities, however, which implies that they have limited or no experience with context-based teaching materials (Kuiper et al., 2009; Fussangel, Schellenbach-Zell & Gräsel, 2008). This means that teachers are implementing in their current teaching programmes materials which are not familiar to them and for which they were offered no or very limited professionalisation courses. For most teachers the new context-based approach requires a profound shift in their teaching and in their thinking about teaching and learning. What they know about and do with the materials is mostly based on their interpretations of the materials and is influenced by the specific requirements of the situation in which they are using those materials.
20
This dissertation studies chemistry teachers in their daily practices who are getting more familiar with new context-based teaching materials in the classroom. The classroom implementation of teaching materials from two context-based curricula is therefore analysed. The first curriculum involves the ‘concept-context-approach’ for upper secondary chemistry education in the Netherlands (Chapters 3 and 5). The second curriculum involves the ‘Chemie im Kontext’ project in Germany (Chapter 4). The materials from these curricula are selected on the basis of being the ‘ideal’ designs, representative for current developments in context-based chemistry education. By studying the implementation processes in the Netherlands and Germany it is possible to analyse innovations in progress, allowing the observation of teachers who are becoming acquainted with a new approach to teaching. Pre-academic schools (‘Gymnasium’ in Germany, ‘VWO’ in the Netherlands) and classes with 16-17-year-old students (‘11de Stufe’ in Germany, ‘5e klas’ in the Netherlands) are the object of study.
Understanding the interaction between innovative teaching materials and the knowledge, beliefs and skills of teachers can inform the design principles for developing such teaching materials. Curriculum designers are confronted with the difficult task of establishing coherency between the initial intentions of a curriculum and its actual implementation in the classroom (Pilot & Bulte, 2006). Understanding the teacher-material interaction is also relevant in defining the needs for the professional development of teachers who are (relatively) inexperienced with these materials.
21
1.5 Need for analytical framework
Investigating the implementation process of innovative context-based teaching materials from the perspective of both the designer and the teacher places a number of demands on the method for conducting the research. In order to answer the main research question, analysis of the implementation process should allow the following:
1. describing the coherence of the design of the teaching materials with its specific context-based features,
2. investigating the characteristics of teachers who are implementing the materials, taking into account their knowledge, beliefs, skills and the development of those,
3. evaluating the actual implementation in classroom practice, in order to compare this with the designers’ intentions for the materials.
To meet these demands different fields of educational research come together. A lot of research has been carried out on successful implementation of innovative curricula, providing valuable insights for analysis. Research on educational change depicts the human participants as change agents in learning organisations (Senge, 1990; Fullan, 2001). It is acknowledged that teachers’ conceptions, beliefs and knowledge are of eminent importance in achieving change in the classroom (Pajares, 1992; Van Driel et al., 2001). Research on curriculum development provides insight into design principles for teaching-learning strategies. One of the difficulties in the design of teaching materials, however, is the dilemma in terms of the quantity of instruction: if instructions are too strict teachers may lose their sense of ownership; if instructions are lacking, teachers do not know what to do (Pinto, 2005).
The literature, however, does not provide ready-made instruments for analysis of the implementation process that focuses on the interaction between the perspectives and activities of designers and the learning process of the teachers, including the change of vision regarding the curriculum goals and emphases. For this reason, an analytical framework has to be developed to integrate insights of educational research on the implementation of innovative curricula and the role of teachers in this process.
22
1.6 Research overview
In this section, we present short descriptions of each chapter, depicting the focus in each. The chapters are presented in the form of separate articles in chronological order of the studies. Each chapter represents a step in answering the main research question, describing the evolving insight into the factors hindering or facilitating implementation as intended. The chapters build on each other by focusing on different aspects while incorporating insights from earlier research. For this reason, each chapter contains a specific research question with its own focus.
Chapter 2: Developing and testing a framework for case analysis
This chapter describes the development of a framework for analysing the interaction between teachers and innovative context-based teaching materials during their implementation in classroom practice. The research question addressed in this chapter is:
Can we construct a framework for analysis of the interaction between innovative context-based materials and teachers which will provide insight into hindrance or facilitation of implementation as intended by the designers? After an examination of the criteria which a productive framework should meet and a description of the theories on which it is founded, the procedure for data collection and data analysis is described. Finally, the use of the framework is illustrated by a pilot study to determine its quality and usability. This study makes it clear that applying the framework and its procedure for data collection and data analysis results in valid and reliable insights. It appeared to be a practicable tool for describing the complex implementation process, taking into account the perspectives of both the designers and the teachers. Therefore, it is concluded that the framework is adequate for use in a series of case studies, which are described in the following chapters.
Chapter 3: Implementation of a teaching unit by senior teachers without experience of context-based education
This chapter describes how three Dutch teachers, experienced in teaching chemistry but without previous experience of context-based education, implemented an ‘ideal’ context-based teaching unit (‘Learning to Inquire’, ‘5 VWO’). The research question addressed is:
23
To what extent is the selected context-based unit implemented adequately by experienced teachers with no previous experience with context-based education and which factors in teachers and material hindered or facilitated adequate implementation?
Two hypotheses guided the research:
1. Instructions for the use of the teaching materials, supporting teachers in the implementation of concrete teaching activities, facilitate implementation as intended.
2. ‘Value congruence’ between teachers’ conceptions and designers’ intentions facilitates implementation as intended.
The implementation by three senior teachers is studied by means of the procedure for data collection and data analysis as described in chapter 2. For these senior teachers, novices in using context-based teaching materials, the first hypothesis could not be rejected; the data emphasise the importance of a coherent design which embeds instructions via the use of context as a focal event. As regards the second hypothesis it is concluded that value (in)congruence had a limited impact on implementation in the case of teachers implementing the new teaching materials for the first time.
Chapter 4: Implementation of ‘Chemie im Kontext’ teaching materials by senior teachers with different degrees of experience of context-based education
This chapter examines the implementation of typical ‘Chemie im Kontext’ teaching materials by four German teachers. They are experienced in teaching chemistry but they differ in degrees of experience of context-based education, from novice to expert with many years of classroom experience with these materials. The research question addressed in this chapter is: To what extent are the selected ‘Chemie im Kontext’ teaching materials implemented adequately by experienced teachers with different degrees of experience of context-based education and which factors in teachers and material hindered or facilitated adequate implementation?
Building on the results of the previous chapter the two hypotheses are further elaborated.
With regard to the hypothesis on adequate support for concrete teaching activities it is found that teachers need instructions provided via a coherent
24
use of the context and an adequate repertoire of teaching activities to implement the materials as intended.
With regard to the hypothesis on value congruence it is found that although the results of the previous chapter indicated that value incongruence had a limited impact on implementation this is not the case if teachers have previous experience of the context-based materials. Then value incongruence will hinder implementation since these teachers will tend to adapt the materials according to their own values.
Chapter 5: Implementation of a teaching unit by senior teachers with experience of this specific unit in previous years
In this chapter we consider implementation by teachers with experience of the specific unit they are using. First, four factors are described on basis of the results in the previous chapters. The first two factors, ‘coherent design’ and ‘support and skills on a concrete level’ are expected to be of minor influence on the implementation process adopted by teachers who already have experience of this specific unit. Therefore this chapter focuses more specifically on the factors ‘competence in understanding the materials’ and ‘value congruence’. These two factors are adduced from the hypothesis on value congruence in the previous chapters. The research question addressed in this chapter is:
To what extent and in what way do the factors ‘competence in understanding the materials’ and ‘value congruence’ in the characteristics of experienced teachers and material hinder or facilitate the intended implementation of context-based chemistry education?
We describe how the same unit as in chapter 3 is implemented by two teachers who used that unit in the year(s) before. Results indicate that both the factors ‘competence in understanding the materials’ and ‘value congruence’ influence implementation. It appears that to facilitate adequate implementation teachers need the competence to understand the materials and that congruence in values between teachers and designers’ intentions exists.
25
Chapter 6: Lessons learned and reflection
This chapter summarises lessons learned throughout the study. It reflects on both the findings and the research methodology. First, a critical reflection on the analytical framework and how it performed in the various studies is described, followed by a discussion on the relevance and meaning of the four factors that are identified as influencing implementation; i.e. ‘a coherent design of the materials’, ‘support and skills on a concrete level’, ‘competence in understanding the materials’ and ‘value congruence’. Finally, implications are formulated in the form of recommendations to stakeholders for whom the results of the research in this dissertation are expected to be relevant. The stakeholders addressed are teachers, teacher educators, curriculum designers, educational researchers and policymakers.
1.7 References
Altrichter, H. (2005). Curriculum implementation – limiting and facilitating factors. In P. Nentwig & D. Waddington (Eds.), Making it relevant (pp. 121-153). Munich: Waxmann.
Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J.D., & Wubbels, T. (in press). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction.
Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Skyes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning professional: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett J., Gräsel, C., Parchmann I., & Waddington D. (2005). Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1521-1547.
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. 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.
26
Campbell, B., Lazonby, J., Millar, R., Nicolson, P., Ramsden, J., & Waddington, D. (1994). Science: The Salters’ approach – A case study of the processes of large scale development. Science Education, 78(5), 415-448.
Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., & Dijkstra, S. (2008). Assessing teachers’ beliefs to facilitate the transition to a new chemistry curriculum: What do the teachers want? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 317-335.
Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J.S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
De Vos, W., Bulte, A.M.W., & Pilot, A. (2002). Chemistry curricula for general education: Analysis and elements of a design. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 102-124). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Driessen, H.P.W., & Meinema, H.A. (2003). Chemistry between concepts and context, designing for renewal. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO, Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling. Retrieved from http://www.nieuwescheikunde.nl Eilks I., & Ralle B. (2002). Participatory action research in chemical education,
in B. Ralle and I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical education - what does it mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
Forbes, C.T., & Davis, E.A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909-940.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd edition). London: Cassell.
Fullan, M.G., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. In A. Hargreaves & M.G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fussangel, K., Schellenbach-Zell, J., & Gräsel, C. (2008). Die Verbreitung von Chemie im Kontext: Entwicklung der symbiotischen Implementationstrategie. In R. Demuth, C. Graesel, I.Parchmann & B. Ralle (Eds.), Chemie im Kontext, Von der Innovation zur nachhaltigen Verbreitung eines Unterrichtskoncepts. Munich, Germany: Waxmann Gilbert, J.K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education.
27
Hoekstra, A., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experienced teachers’ informal learning: Learning activities and changes in behavior and cognition. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25, 663-673. Huberman, M. (1985). What knowledge is of most worth to teachers? A
knowledge use perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 251-262. Kuiper, W. (2009). Curriculumevaluatie en Verantwoorde Vernieuwing van
Bètaonderwijs. [Curriculum Evaluation and Justified Innovation of Science Education] Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO, Stichting Leerplan-ontwikkeling.
Kuiper, W., Folmer, E., Ottevanger, W., & Bruning, L. (2009) Curriculumevalutie Bètaonderwijs Tweede Fase; Vernieuwings - en invoeringservaringen in 4havo/vwo. [Curriculum evaluation secondary science education; experiences of innovation and implementation process] Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO, Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling. Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: the key to
educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 226-234.
Marsh C. J. (2004), Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: Routledge Falmer.
Nentwig, P., & Waddington, D. (Eds.). (2005). Context-based learning of science: Making it relevant. Munich, Germany: Waxmann.
Nentwig, P., Parchmann, I., Demuth, R., Gräsel, C., & Ralle, B. (2005). Chemie im Kontext – From situated learning in relevant contexts to a systematic development of basic chemical concepts. In P. Nentwig & D. Waddington (Eds.), Making it relevant (pp. 121-153). Munich, Germany: Waxmann. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical
reflections. London: King’s College London.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralle, B., & the CHiK Project Group. (2006). “Chemie im Kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041-1062.
Pilot, A., & Bulte, A.M.W. (2006). The use of ‘contexts’ as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education. 28(9), 1087-1112.
28
Pinto, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89, 1-12.
Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2009). Teaching for understanding of science in context: Evidence from the pilot trials of the Twenty First Century Science Courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 945-959.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 283-312.
Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13, 239-265.
Schwartz, A.T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: the American experience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 977-998. Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning
organization. USA: Doubleday.
Shulman, L., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.
Stolk, M.J., Bulte, A.M.W., De Jong, O. , & Pilot, A. (2009a). Strategies for a professional development programme: empowering teachers for context-based chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 154-163.
Stolk, M.J., Bulte, A.M.W., De Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2009b). Towards a framework for a professional development programme: empowering teachers for context-based chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 164-175.
Van den Akker, J. J. H. (1994), Designing innovations from an implementation perspective. In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of education (pp. 1491-1494). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development
and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158.
Van Koten, G., Kruijff, B., Driessen, H.P.W., Kerkstra, & A., Meinema, H.A. (2002). Building chemistry, a blueprint to initiate renewal of chemistry programme in upper secondary education in the Netherlands. Enschede, SLO, Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling. (www.nieuwescheikunde.nl/ international/).
31
CHAPTER 2
1Developing and testing a framework for case-analysis
In this chapter a framework is presented for analysing the interaction between teaching materials and teachers, and for evaluating the adequacy of the resulting implementation of context-based pedagogy in chemistry classroom practice. The framework was founded in the work of Goodlad (1979), Van Hiele (1986), Roberts (1982) and Vermunt and Verloop (1999). It should be sensitive to the problems specific for the implementation of new context-based science education and for professional development of teachers.
Its use and value are shown in an empirical study. The framework proved to produce a reliable and valid insight in the relations between teaching materials and teachers and in the classroom implementation. Additionally, results on classroom implementation are presented as to illustrate what kind of understanding can be expected when this framework is applied in more extensive multi-case studies.
1
This chapter is published as: Vos, M.A.J., Taconis, R., Jochems, W.M.G., & Pilot, A. (2010). Teachers implementing context-based teaching materials: A framework for case-analysis in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,11, 193-206.
32
Teachers implementing context-based teaching materials: a
framework for case-analysis in chemistry
Abstract
We present a framework for analysing the interaction between context-based teaching material and teachers, and for evaluating the adequacy of the resulting implementation of context-based pedagogy in chemistry classroom practice. The development of the framework is described, including an account of its theoretical foundations. The framework needs to be sensitive to the problems specific to the implementation of new context-based science education and the professional development of teachers. An effective procedure is described for the collection and analysis of the data with subsequent focus on the designers’ intentions with the context-based teaching materials, the teachers’ perceptions of the materials and the resulting classroom practice. The framework’s use and value are shown in an empirical study. The framework proved to produce reliable and valid insight into the relations between teaching material and the teachers, and in the classroom implementation. Additionally, results on classroom implementation are presented to illustrate the kind of understanding can be expected when this framework is applied in more extensive multi-case studies.
33
2.1 Introduction
In many western industrialised countries chemistry education in secondary education is unpopular with students. They consider it hard to master and of little value to their lives and careers (Osborne and Dillon, 2008). Within chemistry curricula important problems are identified (De Vos et al., 2002; Gilbert, 2006). In line with these international findings, a ministerial committee in the Netherlands (Van Koten et al., 2002) concluded that the curriculum gives an outdated view of chemistry as a scientific discipline and of its role for society. It was also found to be overloaded, to consist of isolated facts and not facilitating the transfer of knowledge. Overall, chemistry curricula worldwide (and the way of teaching) are not successful in inspiring and motivating the students, which results in students losing their interest and curiosity for the natural sciences. It suits neither the small group of students interested in further education in chemistry nor the majority of students who are not.
These problems were interpreted as related to the content-oriented nature of chemistry curricula, which were recognised to be no longer adequate. A world-wide trend is visible towards the implementation of so-called context-based curricula. The central feature of these curricula are small teaching units, which typically consist of 10-12 lessons concerned with one context and the chemical concepts associated with it (Pilot and Bulte, 2006). These units are designed to fulfil the diverse needs of students, society and science (Driessen and Meinema, 2003; Osborne and Dillon, 2008). Implementation of these units should result in a transformation of the educational practice from a content-oriented into a context-based practice in chemistry classrooms. This innovation process is currently going on in Dutch upper secondary chemistry education, moving it towards a context-based approach (Van Koten et al., 2002). New teaching materials will be implemented gradually by all teachers. In order to produce a context-based educational practice (Bulte et al., 2006) adequate classroom implementation of the new teaching materials by teachers relatively unfamiliar with the ideas of context-based education is critical. It is a far from trivial task for these teachers to succeed in creating a context-based practice, and it is known that such innovations ultimately rely
34
on the teachers (Spillane, 1999; Borko, 2004). Based on international studies, Bulte and Pilot (2006) indicated that further investigations of the way teachers are dealing with innovative teaching materials are necessary.
Therefore a key question is: ‘what characteristics of the teaching materials and the way teachers are informed or prepared hinder or facilitate adequate classroom implementation?’ Once identified, these characteristics can be used to optimise the future development of teaching materials, pre- and in-service training of teachers, and ultimately the implementation by optimising the interaction between teacher and teaching material.
This chapter describes the development of a framework for analysing the classroom implementation of context-based chemistry materials. The framework should characterise classroom implementation and allow the identification of the characteristics of materials, teachers and teacher-briefings that are critical for successful implementation. Hence, it should be sensitive to the characteristics specific to the implementation of context-based education in classroom practice. By viewing implementation from both the perspectives of the teachers and of the design of the teaching materials, the framework will provide a detailed insight into how the interaction between the two influences classroom practice. To assess its value, a study of the quality of the framework is needed. Once established, the framework will be used in a series of case studies in western European countries on the classroom implementation of context-based chemistry education.
First, the research setting, the introduction of context-based teaching materials in chemistry education, is described as a background for the functions of the framework and to describe the diverse demands it should fulfill. After the description of the theories underlying the framework, we will describe the framework in detail and the procedure proposed to apply it. These will be used in a study that evaluates the applicability of the framework and the validity and reliability of the research outcomes. Additionally, results on classroom implementation are presented to illustrate the kind of understanding that can be expected when this framework is applied in more extensive multi-case studies.
35
2.2 Context-based teaching materials
The Dutch approach to context-based chemistry education is based on international developments, and the new curriculum shows major similarities to context-based approaches developed in other countries. Since 2002, for example, teachers in Germany, in cooperation with universities, have been working with teaching units in the project ‘Chemie im Kontext’ (ChiK) (Nentwig et al., 2005). In the UK too, there is extensive experience with context-based education in to the ‘Salters’ Advanced Chemistry’ program (Campbell et al., 1994) and ‘Science for Public Understanding’ (Nuffield Curriculum Centre). And in the US there is experience with ‘Contextualized chemistry education’ (Schwartz, 2006) and recently with ‘Twenty first century science’ courses (Ratcliffe and Millar, 2009).
The central issue in context-based chemistry education is the use of contexts as the starting point and anchor for learning new concepts, thereby giving meaning to the chemical content. This requires that the context provides “a coherent structural meaning for something new that is set within a broader perspective” (Gilbert, 2006, p. 960). A context should be relevant and recognisable for students. It should address their questions on a need-to-know basis, should build on their existing need-to-knowledge, and should aim at an increasing involvement of students in the teaching-learning process (Bennett et al., 2005; Bulte et al., 2006; Bennett et al., 2007).
Context-based chemistry approaches focus on doing chemistry and on the relevance of chemistry for society, not on the transmission of a static body of knowledge (Bulte and Pilot, 2006). In terms of Roberts (1982) and Van Driel et al. (2005) this implies that within context-based chemistry education the ‘Knowledge Development in Chemistry’ (KDC) and the ‘Chemistry, Technology and Society’ (CTS) emphases will be more important than in the existing programme.
A context-based approach also implies an increased orientation on student-centred activities instead of teacher-student-centred activities. New ways of, for instance, motivating, instructing, and judging the students are introduced. This implies that instructional functions, as described by Shuell (1996) and Vermunt and Verloop (1999), have to be achieved in a new way and this requires the appropriate knowledge and skills from the teachers.
36
2.3 Teachers and implementing context-based chemistry education The critical role of teachers for a curriculum innovation to be successful is known from international research. Any change or transformation in classroom practices ultimately relies on teachers (Spillane, 1999; Borko, 2004). Teachers tend to incorporate new programmes into a largely unaltered practice because their ways of thinking about their practice is more closely linked to their belief system than to the new curriculum mandates (Yerrick ,et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2002). A support system for teachers during the process of implementation is crucial. In general, two key-factors were identified by Harland and Kinder (1997) as essential: provision of new knowledge and skills, and the opportunity to move towards value congruence in terms of what the designers of the materials and the teachers perceive as good practice. Building on these, teachers can develop a sense of ownership over the innovative teaching materials and would be empowered to change their curriculum (Stolk et al., 2006).
The transformation of content-oriented chemistry education into context-based chemistry education presents specific problems for implementation. It requires the vast majority of teachers to reconceptualise their teaching practice and to teach new content in a new way, since the KDC- or CTS-emphases are new for them (Roberts, 1982; Van Driel et al., 2005). It also implies a shift in their primary task towards organising, facilitating, and guiding students’ learning processes and away from transmitting knowledge (Van Driel et al., 2005).
In the intended innovation the ideas of policy-makers and designers are to be translated into classroom practice through new teaching materials. Communications on the background and rationale of the materials are needed to facilitate adequate classroom implementation. Moreover, the teaching materials may vary in their approach to ‘context-based education’ and in the way these ideas were developed into the materials. It is therefore most likely that adequate classroom implementation of new materials will only occur after explicit or implicit learning by the teacher. And it may require more than one cycle of applying the materials and reflecting on the experiences with it before teachers become comfortable in using it (Borko, 2004; Davis and Krajcik, 2005).
37
In summary, it is far from evident that new context-based materials will be implemented (at once) as intended by the designers. What actually will happen in the classroom is largely determined by the interaction between the new innovative teaching materials, the information and support provided, and the knowledge, beliefs and skills of the teachers. Therefore, an analysis of the classroom implementation of the context-based teaching materials can provide a crucial contribution to the evaluation and optimisation of the innovation as a whole. Such an evaluation requires a framework that allows: 1. to evaluate to what extent the actual educational practice follows the
context-based rationale,
2. to indicate specifically causes of apparent incoherencies, and
3. to indicate design characteristics and circumstances beneficial for classroom implementation as intended.
The key issue addressed in this chapter is:
Can we construct a framework for the analysis of the interaction between innovative context-based materials and teachers, which will provide insight into hindrance or facilitation of implementation as intended by the designers? 2.4 Basis and outline of the framework for analysis
A starting point in designing such a framework for analysis is a clear inventory of the demands it should meet. General considerations as well as expectations on what problems may hinder classroom implementation are taken into account.
First, the framework should support the description of the designers’ intentions with the materials, the teachers’ perceptions of it and the actual educational practice in ‘parallel terms’ as to allow the direct comparison between these three. Goodlad (1979) have described such a framework using the concept ‘levels of curriculum representations’, which is generally accepted and is a sound starting point for the design of the framework. Secondly, we hypothesise that smooth implementation as intended is threatened by any incoherency that may exist between the intentions of the designers and the actual teaching material. In such situations confusion may result. The framework should reflect the results of (a lack of) clear communication about the rationale followed in the design of the materials.
