ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Teaching the Societal Dimension of Chemistry Using a Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Lesson Plan Based on Bioethanol Usage Timo Feierabend and Ingo Eilks* Department of Biology and Chemistry, and the Institute for the Didactics of the Sciences (IDN)—Chemistry Education, University of Bremen, 28334 Bremen, Germany ABSTRACT: This paper discusses a chemistry lesson plan based on the use of ethanol as an alternative and renewable energy source. The lessons were developed by participatory action research and follow a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching. This approach specifically focuses on the handling of scientific and technological issues within society. The course of the lessons, the experiences documented by teacher and student feedback, and the general importance of the societal dimension of chemistry education are all reflected upon. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Alcohols
lthough educational theory provides much evidence for the stronger inclusion of societal issues into the teaching of chemistry,1 the societal dimension of chemistry and its applications into chemistry education still belong to a field which needs to be further improved.2,3 The need for a stronger inclusion of societal issues may be motivated because of different perspectives: for example, the concept of scientific literacy for all students, the ideas of activity theory, or the German concept of Allgemeinbildung (e.g., refs 3 7). But such motivation can also stem from different national science education standards. For example, a stronger focus on promoting students’ capabilities in communication and the evaluation of chemistry in its embedded nature in society can be derived through AAAS8 and NRC9 in the United States, the KMK10 in Germany, or the National Curriculum11 in the U.K. These initiatives try to shape education by defining output-oriented standards, instead of detailed syllabi, and focus on skills such as analysis, problem solving, reasoning and communication. In an example from the U.K.11 that is representative of similar efforts concerning science, these initiatives articulate a more thorough focus on (ref 11, p 70):
diets.12 All of these topics have been used both as access points for learning essential chemistry knowledge, and to promote general skills in communication and evaluation concerning the interplay of science, society, and an individual’s life. The literature reports12 that this approach has shown great potential for motivating students and led to intensive, on-task discussions about chemistry and its technical applications within its societal framework. This paper describes one further example dealing with the use of bioethanol as an alternative fuel source for cars. Aside from learning the essential chemistry of alcohols and their technical uses as fuels, the lesson plan focuses on socio-critical reflection about the decision-making processes occurring in political debates. This lesson plan aims to have students reach balanced decisions by combining experimental chemistry learning with role-playing that mirrors societal practices similar to the processes taking place in parliamentary committees. In this paper, we discuss the scientific background, a theoretical framework for this teaching approach, the lesson plan as developed by participatory action research, and the experiences in its application.
[H]ow major scientific ideas contribute to technological change—impacting on industry, business and medicine and improving quality of life. Pupils recognise the cultural significance of science and trace its worldwide development. They learn to question and discuss science-based issues that may affect their own lives, the direction of society and the future of the world.
’ THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK On the basis of a lesson plan for biodiesel usage developed roughly 10 years ago, Eilks13,16 described a new conceptual approach to chemistry education in Germany and entitled it “a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching”. This approach fits in the tradition of STS (science, technology, and society) curricula in its current debate about using more thoroughly controversial socio-scientific issues as a context for contemporary science education.6,17 Thus considered, socio-scientific issues-based teaching is a specific form of context-based science education that requires specific characteristics for selecting suitable context to foster general educational objectives, namely, those for preparing students for participation in society. (To better understand this connection, see the
A
To contribute to this development, the socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons has been developed over the last 10 years in Germany.12 It has already been applied to more than 10 different curricular topics (e.g., see refs 12 15). The range of these applications covers a vast spectrum, reaching from the technical-ecological evaluation of biodiesel as a fuel, to the controversy on the overuse of alcohol-containing drink mixes (Alcopops) by juveniles, and stretching to the debate on the promises and dangers of low-fat and low-carbohydrate Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: July 08, 2011 1250
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Figure 1. Elements of the conceptual framework of the socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching.
• The lessons stem from authentic, current problems being controversially discussed in society with an actual presence in newspapers and other media sources. Only those issues are chosen that allow authentic differences of opinion to be expressed during the public debate by different media, stakeholders, or pressure groups. These differing perspectives are used to provoke questions and discussions among students. • A textual approach to the problem is introduced by the use of authentic media artifacts: newspaper articles, brochures printed by pressure groups, or reports broadcasted by television stations. • The chosen topics must allow for real decisions to be negotiated. Issues are inappropriate whenever only onesided solutions are possible or acceptable because of scientific, ethical, or sociological reasons. Activities within the lesson plan challenge students to make up their own minds and express their opinions on the topic in an open forum. Such conditions make it possible to express one’s personal point of view without being judged, censored, or condemned as an outsider by the rest of the group. • Lesson plans are structured using methods of open, learnercentered instruction, for example: forms of cooperative learning such as the “jigsaw classroom” or the “learning at stations” method (see below). Discussion techniques are implemented to draw out and encourage different points of view, to recognize exactly how contrary various opinions can be, and to see how such points of view are presented, promoted, and manipulated within society at large. • The only appropriate issues for discussion (in chemistry lessons) are those where an approach aiming at chemistry
discussion in ref 17.) Our approach aims at fostering students’ positive attitudes to chemistry and chemistry teaching, and promoting a broader range of educational goals. The intention was to promote education in the sense of the German concept of Allgemeinbildung (“general education”; for one English-language characterization of this nuanced pedagogical term, see ref 12, p 232). Allgemeinbildung means the preparation of young people so that they can become responsible citizens who are able to recognize and care for their own needs and interests within a democratic society. This approach promotes the readiness to live in a modern society based on science and technology (e.g., refs 3 5). It consequently follows the shift of “education through science” instead, or in addition to, “science through education” as discussed by Holbrook and Rannikmae.6 The core objectives of the socio-critical, problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching are to: • Increase students’ interest in science and technology, and to display the relevance of science in societal discussions and decision-making • Make students aware of their own interests, motivate students to develop self-interest (either as consumers or within political decision making), and stimulate individual decision-making processes • Promote students’ competency in the critical use of information and in their reflection upon why, when, and how science-related information is used by affected groups or for public purposes • Promote students’ active science learning motivated through relevant and contentious socio-scientific issues Using various examples and beginning with Eilks,13,16 we previously outlined several key elements of our socio-critical, problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching:12 1251
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
Journal of Chemical Education content learning is also possible. This allows essential chemistry content learning and lab work to be introduced and discussed via a given topic, as both of these aspects are also necessary for understanding societal discussions. Figure 1 provides an overview of the key elements of this teaching approach. These key elements also allow for reflections upon whether—and to what extent—a topic has the potential to be used for this teaching approach. The elements also allow a look at whether a specific topic can contribute to the abovementioned orientation on chemistry teaching. In short, the teaching approach must begin with societally relevant, current, authentic, and controversially debated issues within society, which potentially allow for open discussions and open decisionmaking processes. This is in line with Sadler, who described the most fruitful settings for science education as:18 [T]hose which encourage personal connections between students and the issues discussed, explicitly address the value of justifying claims and expose the importance of attending to contradictory opinions.
’ THE CONTROVERSY BEHIND BIOETHANOL AS A FUEL SOURCE The traffic and transportation sector in many industrialized countries constitutes the second-largest drain on energy resources. Approximately one-third of Germany’s total energy consumption (∼60 million tons of fuel a year; crude oil products constitute >50% of this amount) occurs in the transport sector. This is why fuel additives and substitutes for crude oil-based energy sources in the transport sector are viewed as an important issue for (i) better protecting Earth’s climate; (ii) conserving vanishing crude oil resources; and (iii) reducing dependency upon petroleum imports. Biofuels have been increasingly discussed as an alternative technology for promoting all three of these political interests, in Europe as well as in the United States. One of the advantages inherent in biofuels (e.g., biodiesel, bioethanol, and biomethanol) is their far-reaching carbon dioxide neutrality. It should, however, not be forgotten that the carbon dioxide that is set free during the production process reduces such fuels’ overall CO2 neutrality. Nevertheless, the plant matter used to manufacture biofuels initially absorbs carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, which is then re-released in more or less the same quantities upon combustion of biofuels. Overall, biofuel usage can potentially reduce the emissions of climate-relevant gases. From a chemistry point of view, bioethanol and “regular” ethanol are indistinguishable. In fact, most of this widely used industrial alcohol is currently produced via the fermentation process and can more or less also be viewed as bioethanol. The major sources of raw materials for the manufacture of ethanol in Germany are sugar beets, wheat, and rye. In other countries, other sources are used, for example, sugarcane in Brazil and corn in the United States (e.g., refs 19 and 20). The fuel sector now represents the world’s largest market for ethanol and currently absorbs approximately two-thirds of total ethanol supply. Ethanol in cars can be used either in its pure form or as an additive to conventional gasoline. Up to now, conventional fuels in Europe were allowed to contain up to 5% ethanol (so-called “E5”) as a fuel additive, a level that is supposed to be raised to 10% (“E10”) in the near future. Such an increase is, however, not entirely unproblematic, because ethanol can swell under the conditions found in a typical combustion engine if its
ARTICLE
hoses and seals are not composed of sufficiently resistant material. Metal parts can also be damaged by corrosion; therefore, certain modifications must be undertaken to avoid such operational problems. Nevertheless, the technology is already commercially available and is relatively inexpensive. Alternately, the use of pure ethanol in motors specifically designed for this purpose is also technologically feasible for pure ethanol, for example, those sold in Brazilian auto markets, or the flexible fuel technology that allows ethanol and conventional fuels to be blended in different ratios for fuel purposes. There are, however, very few models that burn pure ethanol available in German markets. This is because such motors only make sense where a high level of ethanol availability exists: a situation currently found only in the United States, Brazil, and Sweden. The use of ethanol as a fuel makes sense in those cases where the ecological advantages are not trumped by loss of efficiency or economic disadvantages. Yet the technical aspects are much easier to evaluate than the ecological. The energy content of various fuels is very easy to compare: the energy value of ethanol (22.7 MJ L 1) is considerably less than that of gasoline (31 MJ L 1). This translates into 20 30% more ethanol per tank, despite a higher level of efficiency, in comparison to gasoline, in order to achieve the same fuel performance. The price of manufacturing is also economically relevant, as it currently is less expensive to produce gasoline. At present, ethanol is simply not competitive, even with the sale of byproduct from its production as a positive side benefit. In Europe, the only way to achieve competitiveness with other fuelstuffs would be a waiver of the petroleum and environmental taxes levied on all fuels. But this situation is strongly dependent upon the level of market development and on the tax regulations in different countries. We can see this by using the example of Brazil, where the use of ethanol technology in cars is widespread and popular. Bioethanol usage is supported by the extremely cheap production of ethanol, a good distribution network, and high levels of political support. Even more important than the questions of efficiency and cost are the ecological reasons that are commonly cited for the use of renewable resources. It would appear logical that the wide-scale use of renewable energy sources can aid in delivering a positive environmental balance. Whenever the topic of renewable energy sources is broached, however, biofuel proponents frequently overlook two important factors in their first rush of enthusiasm: (i) the unavoidable fertilizers necessary to achieve feasible plant biomass levels; and (ii) the consumption of additional resources and energy both during biomass production and the refining processes. The results of relevant studies in these areas are tendentially positive in nature, but they are not always uniform in their conclusions. For this reason, the production of bioethanol from wheat receives a negative net energy balance in most case studies, whereas the same ethanol from sugar beets is given a slightly positive value. Even when we focus exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, the results are mixed. Older studies conclude that bioethanol additives from wheat or sugar beets and the saved amounts of carbon dioxide are compensated for by the production and emission of other greenhouse gases. A positive balance is described for modern processes; however, much higher costs are required to achieve such a result. In any case, the use of bioethanol fuels is more complex than both the technical side and the evaluation of the ecological aspects of such usage suggest (see refs 13 and 16). Evaluating bioethanol also analyzes the manner in which it is produced and looks at which effects its production can have in the ecological or 1252
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
Journal of Chemical Education social domain. Wherever bioethanol is viewed as a developmental technology for emerging economies like Brazil, the other costs must also be kept in mind. We must remember that sugarcane production should not take place at the expense of clear-cutting pre-existing rainforest ecosystems. It should also take place under acceptable social standards that do not exploit the working class to benefit a small oligarchy of politicians and transnational corporations. Additionally, we must consider the global costs of this emerging new technology, for example, using corn or wheat in great amounts to produce biofuels versus using such key national resources for food. Soaring corn and wheat prices on the world market will negatively impact entire national economies, curtail social freedoms, and affect people’s abilities to feed their families if more affluent countries import either foreign grain or the biofuel products manufactured from it. All in all, evaluation turns into a very complex task. Nevertheless, we will now deal with this new, chemistry-based technology, which society and the individual have to decide upon and which can be included in chemistry courses on varying challenging levels (e.g., refs 21 and 22).
’ A LESSON PLAN ON BIOETHANOL AS A FUEL The following lesson plan was structured for grade 10 or 11 (age range 15 16 years) secondary school chemistry classes in Germany. To meet Germany’s official syllabus standards for the teaching of chemistry, the lesson plan deals with essential chemistry of alcohols, fermentation, and the examples of the technical use of specific organic compounds. The lesson plan was
Figure 2. Overview of the lesson plan.
ARTICLE
developed by chemistry educators from the university cooperating with practicing teachers in schools using participatory action research (PAR). PAR is a collaborative design in which science educators and practicing teachers cyclically develop teaching practices in order to develop better curricula and to understand its effects. In this framework, both groups are bringing together their different kinds of expertise. The external researchers focus on bringing input from current educational research, organizing and coordinating the research process, developing and justifying the changes in practice, and take care of methodological issues for evaluating their effects. The teachers concentrate their efforts on translating the new methodological elements into their practice, testing the changed approaches, and taking care of feasibility. Nevertheless, all decisions of changes are jointly negotiated between both groups.23 Figure 2 provides an overview of the lesson plan structure. The textual approach to the socio-scientific issue of bioethanol use as a fuel was structured parallel to an article from a special edition of a German political magazine Der Spiegel.24 Similar articles can easily be found in different magazines, the Internet, or daily newspapers. An example from the United States is “The Paradox of Global Famine and Global Obesity”, a syndicated article by Tim Williams.25 The article chosen here discussed the use of bioethanol as a fuel and touches upon the controversial views stemming from this topic. The competition between food and fuel production is discussed. It is then tied to the issue of rising food prices in Mexico, which are a direct result of reduced U.S. corn exports to Mexico owing to the emerging production of bioethanol in the United States. Further questions are also generated by this interrelatedness, which pull the chemical, technical, socio-economic, and ethical dimensions of the topic into the spotlight. As a base for later understanding the debate and evaluation of the bioethanol use, students start by learning about basic chemistry and technological issues behind the issue. This is done in a combination of a theoretical and an experimental phase. In this instance, the jigsaw classroom method26 and the learning at stations mode27 were combined (Figure 3). In the first phase, structures of the ethanol molecule and other alcohols were introduced, including the synthesis of ethanol through the fermentation process and distillation. These topics, in addition to the occurrence of ethanol in everyday situations, were learned and then cemented in the expert round portion of the jigsaw classroom (Figure 3). The work was based on texts and the learners were divided in two teams with each team composed of three separate groups of students. The jigsaw classroom did not
Figure 3. Components for learning the essentials from chemistry and technology. 1253
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 4. Structure of the panel of experts for the role-playing game.
follow the typical set of steps in the ongoing teaching situation.26 Instead, the expert groups subsequently continued on to a learning-at-stations exercise containing a total of six stations. Each of the expert groups was able to completely finish two of the stations based on their own theoretical knowledge from the previous phase of expert group work. The remaining four stations were also completed by each group, but at a much more rudimentary level. In the final round of the jigsaw classroom, each of the experts presented his or her two in-depth topics. The experts aided the other members of the group in evaluating these stations from the learning at stations lab, because the others had not completed these two topics in-depth as they had themselves. The most important pieces of knowledge from both the jigsaw classroom and the learning-at-stations exercise were summarized using a series of nine questions. One question per expert topic and experiment station was included. This phase was concluded with a task-based exercise, which demonstrated whether the learners had understood the content and could use it to solve a new problem. The second half of the lesson plan deals with the controversy surrounding the use of bioethanol. This phase specifically addresses learning about the societal dimension of this new, emerging technology and strives to promote students’ communication and evaluation skills. The learning in this phase is structured around a role-playing game (Figure 4), which has already been shown to be fruitful and an enrichment of normal chemistry courses.28 The game mimics the decision-making processes found in parliamentary committees. At the heart of this method lies giving all interested parties a fair and equal chance to present their own positions on a given issue. The role playing starts by giving the students a fictitious constitutional amendment that is being debated by a parliament. The scenario introduces a legal proposal, which would require
ARTICLE
that all conventional fuel mixtures for automobiles contain at least 30% bioethanol. This proposal must be discussed by the parliamentary panel responsible for Research and the Evaluation of Technology before it can be brought before the fictitious parliament. This committee—composed of the learners themselves—must formulate and defend a course of action to be taken, which has been supported by the experts’ input. The different expert groups of students from the jigsaw phase, now assigned to different roles like technology, agriculture, developmental aid, and industry, must testify as experts in front of the parliamentary panel during the hearing. They are forced to contend not only with the problems of bioethanol production, but also with the other expert groups, who have differing viewpoints on the subject. Each group receives two pages of basic information of a technical nature, which also provide a particular position to take on their topic. When choosing these pages, it is very important for the teacher to select a compact format, so that students are not overwhelmed by a sea of information, thus, losing their perspective. Nevertheless, the students are also offered a selection of Internet pages to be used at their discretion (e.g., ref 29), because the work of self-sufficient information compilation and summarizing should not be completely taken out of their hands. The learners must learn to filter out the most important points of any information provided to them, while ignoring irrelevant information. A fifth group comprises the parliamentary panel itself, and—similar to a real political committee of experts—receives another sort of information packet. The panel does not have to memorize all of the facts, but rather builds up an overview of the various expert groups, their capabilities, and their possible hidden agendas. This allows the panel to ask critical and specifically targeted questions. In this phase, the technology experts profit from their knowledge of combustion engines, which they gained during the phase presenting the science and technology background of ethanol. Questions about motor usage, conversion or retrofitting, and availability are very decisive for this group. The agriculture experts have to be able to demonstrate the chances and risks involved with increasing grain production levels in order to manufacture bioethanol. In this case, the topics are monocultures, erosion, and ecological balance. The experts for developmental aid must be familiar with the current, top-producing countries of ethanol in the world, for example, Brazil. They have to be clear about ecological and, above all else, social problems coupled with ethanol production. The economic experts put the domestic economy and its condition center-stage. It is necessary for them to categorize exactly where and what the potential for bioethanol is in Germany, the European Union, or the United States, for example, and to have a good grasp of the economic side of the question. Within the hearing, the experts present their arguments one after the other to the committee panel. The experts themselves decide which of their arguments they wish to present in the given time span (5 min maximum). The same amount of time is given to all of the groups for their presentation and any follow-up questioning that occurs. The committee decides whether to follow up on these arguments and which questions to pose to the expert groups. It is therefore very important that the panel communicates with one another and carefully determines which questions to ask. The other three groups remain observers in this situation. On the basis of the hearing, the committee then discusses the trustworthiness, possible controversies, and areas of overlap 1254
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
Journal of Chemical Education between the various positions. The recommendation of the committee stems directly from this discussion and the members must be able to summarize exactly how they arrived at their conclusions, which arguments are stronger than the others, and which position should be viewed as more credible under certain circumstances. When the session is over, each of the four groups has the opportunity to respond to the decision, including the possibility of asking why specific arguments were not written into the committee’s official finding. The last phase of the unit is composed of a meta-reflection on both the role-playing exercise and about the unit as a whole. The meta-reflection focuses a reflection on the process, performance, and learning process, rather than to be a reflection on the topic and its evaluation itself. The actors all speak about how they felt in their roles and describe how they experienced the situation in the roleplaying scene. Then, the observers (in this case all of the other students) talk about their own impressions and how they experienced the actors’ efforts. It is very important in this situation that no direct criticism is expressed and that criteria are established in advance which overlap with the learning goals of the lesson plan. The students should also learn how to view their own roles from the outside and to evaluate their own performance. Inside of the framework of this evaluation, the relevance of this topic for everyday life should be touched upon again, in order to make clear the meaning of chemistry in everyone’s life.
’ EXPERIENCES FROM THE TEACHING UNIT This lesson plan was developed by a group of teachers and then cyclically optimized in a PAR project.23 Data were collected from the teachers’ group discussion within meetings of the action research group. Feedback from students was collected using a combination of an open-response questionnaire and a questionnaire eliciting Likert-scale responses. Teachers’ Feedback
In the teachers’ opinion as it is monitored within the feedback discussions during the regular meetings of the actions research group, the lesson plan was greeted with high levels of interest by their students. Especially highlighted were the intensity and quality found in the discussion phase. It was noted that students brought arguments not just from those learned in the lessons, but also from Internet sources and others taken from their everyday life outside of school. One teacher went so far as to say that the level of argumentation was unexpectedly high and the socio-critical aspects were well thought out. It was also stressed that the meta-reflection must make it abundantly clear to the learners that a binding decision is the result of the political debate surrounding a committee of experts, which effects the entire society. Even in the case that new evidence or arguments arise after the decision is made, they will generally not have any influence on political decisions after the fact. Students’ Feedback
Independent of the teachers’ feedback, the students were administered both an open-response and a Likert-type questionnaire (N = 93). The open-response form asked for students’ evaluation of the main things they learned within the teaching unit. Most of the students listed subject-based content, for example “the properties of alcohols” or “fermentation”. A few of the learners also specially listed a topic that seemed to be new to them: the function of engines in cars. There were, however, many participants who expressed an opinion that they had learned much about the process of evaluation. These students
ARTICLE
gave answers such as: “critical thinking about things where the answer had previously seemed so clear”, or “reflecting upon the environment and social problems”. But, in contrast to Eilks,16 about one-third of students provided reflections centered exclusively on the cognitive, subject-matter domain. The second open-response question asked for an evaluation of the lessons. Answers throughout contained such responses as “interesting”, “informative”, and “fun”. In general, these final remarks show that the students found the overall approach in the lesson plan to be a very positive change for chemistry lessons, especially the possibility for autonomous work and work in groups. There were, however, some signs of uncertainty in some answers, for example: “I am not sure if that belongs in chemistry class”, or “swerves from the regular content of normal chemistry, in other words, much of the knowledge touches upon other disciplines”. These students realized, belatedly, that they had discovered the (unbidden for them) interdisciplinary nature of the subject and their criticism was that a conventional form of teaching might possibly have taught them more (in the sense of purely learning more subject-matter content). In the third question, participants were asked to express their own position and whether they would purchase bioethanol if the price were the same as conventional fuels. The majority of the classes favored a switch to bioethanol. Their arguments included an economic boost, ecological wholesomeness, or even the relatively convincing arguments from the discussion phase of the lesson. There were, however, a few students who were undecided and did not want to express an opinion. One wrote: “Both positions have advantages and disadvantages! I don’t really care either way, as long as the environment and humanity are considered.” Such measured opinions occurred frequently and indicate the development of a critically thought-out posture. This observation support findings reported from studies on related lesson plans.16 The responses to the four-step Likert-type questionnaire support the previous statements made to the open-response questions. Students viewed the group work aspect of cooperative learning at the beginning of the unit as especially positive. For the most part, almost all of the participants agreed at least partially that they had enjoyed the lessons that they had achieved together with their classmates. In fact, 50% of the students agreed totally to this statement. The same was the case for the statement that the teaching methods employed in this unit made the classes more fun and less boring. Although a few students showed clearly that the discussion phase was a foreign concept in chemistry lessons, only about 5% of the students did not enjoy the role-playing game. The rest felt that they had learned something during this phase. Only 20% of the students agreed somewhat with these negative feelings (of not enjoying the role-playing game) and a larger portion, ∼75% of the students, stated that they absolutely did not agree with this idea. The subject-matter content of the unit was also viewed positively. Over 95% of the students agreed at least partially that they had been personally interested in the subject matter that had been presented in the lessons. Half of the students agreed totally or mostly with this statement. Roughly 90% of all students stated that they at least partially agreed that the teaching unit had made them think more about the use of bioethanol as a fuel. A large portion of over 95% at least partially agreed that they viewed bioethanol in a different light than they had before taking part in the lessons. The overall assessment of the lessons by the teachers and students was very positive. The process of more critically reflecting upon renewable resources had clearly been strengthened in many of the participants. Only a few 1255
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
Journal of Chemical Education students stated that their opinion about bioethanol had not changed.
’ SUMMARY The lesson plan described here shows that chemistry lessons can be expanded in motivating and attractive ways, by (i) more thoroughly including authentic and controversial societal issues; and (ii) giving voice in the chemistry classroom to the societal dimension of chemistry applications. It is possible to employ structured discussion about a controversial societal topic to spark the motivation to learn chemistry and also to encourage the processes of evaluation and self-reflection in the classroom. We believe that just such an approach can enrich teaching through the use of specifically chosen and prepared examples. The sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching12 can provide the necessary framework for such lesson plans and has already proven itself in a range of tested lessons. Despite criticism expressed by some of the students that too little “chemistry” had been included, the necessity of such teaching methods cannot be overlooked. Such a statement should make us doubly cautious that our students may have a restricted belief that chemistry and chemistry teaching are a simple collection of scientific facts and theories that need to be learned by rote. For chemistry as a science, as a branch of industry, or as a socio-cultural entity, such an interdisciplinary contemplation and evaluation of its consequences have long been an immanent problem. Chemistry teaching should reflect this through carefully selected applications and their societal evaluation.
ARTICLE
(15) Marks, R.; Eilks, I. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 129–141. (16) Eilks, I. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2002, 3, 67–75. (17) Hofstein, A.; Eilks, I.; Bybee, R. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. [Online First]. DOI: 10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9. Published online: Jan 11, 2011. (18) Sadler, T. D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 513–536. (19) Oliver, W. R.; Kempton, R. J.; Conner, H. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 49–51. (20) Epstein, J. L.; Vieira, M.; Aryal, B.; Vera, N.; Solis, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 708–710. (21) Pietro, W. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 579–581. (22) Wagner, E. P.; Koehle, M. A.; Moyle, T. M.; Lambert, P. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 711–713. (23) Eilks, I.; Ralle, B. In Research in Chemical Education—What Does This Mean?; Ralle, B., Eilks, I., Eds.: Shaker: Aachen, 2002; pp 87 98. (24) Brown, L. Spiegel Special 2007: Sprit f€ur die Welt. http://www. spiegel.de/spiegelspecial/0,1518,474490,00.html (accessed Jun 2011). (25) Williams, T. The Paradox of Global Famine and Global Obesity. http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-tampa-bay/theparadox-of-global-famine-and-global-obesity (accessed Jun 2011). (26) Eilks, I. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 313–320. (27) Eilks, I. Sci. Educ. Int. 2002, 13, 11–18. (28) Smythe, A. M.; Higgins, D. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 241–244. (29) Uffelmann, E. S. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 220–222.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
’ REFERENCES (1) Sadler, T. D. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2009, 45, 1–42. (2) Shwartz, Y.; Ben-Zvi-R.; Hofstein, A. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1557–1561. (3) Hofstein, A.; Eilks, I.; Bybee, R. In Contemporary Science Education; Eilks, I., Ralle, B., Eds.; Shaker: Aachen, Germany, 2010. (4) Elmose, S.; Roth, W.-M. J. Curr. Stud. 2005, 37, 11–34. (5) Roth, W.-M.; Lee, S. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 263–291. (6) Holbrook, J.; Rannikm€ae, M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2007, 29, 1347–1362. (7) Sadler, T. D.; Zeidler, D. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009, 46, 909–921. (8) American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for Science Literacy; Oxford University Press: New York, 1993. (9) National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (10) Kultusminister, K. Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie f€ur den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss; Luchterhand, Wolters Kluwer Deutschland: M€unchen, 2004. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Bildungsstandards-Chemie.pdf (accessed Jun 2011). (11) Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science in respect of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Key Stages) (England); The Stationery Office Limited: Norwich, U.K., 2004. (12) Marks, R.; Eilks, I. Int. J. Environm. Sci. Educ. 2009, 4, 231–245. (13) Eilks, I. Sci. Educ. Int. 2000, 11, 16–21. (14) Marks, R.; Bertram, S.; Eilks, I. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9, 267–276. 1256
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed1009706 |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250–1256
