Teacher and student engagement when using learning materials based on the context of cutting-edge chemistry research

ABSTRACT

Background

Although cutting-edge chemistry research can be an interesting and motivating context for students in pre-university education, few characteristics of supportive and effective learning materials based on such contexts are available.

Purpose

In this study we investigated the design, implementation, and evaluation of context-based learning materials for both teachers and students. Specifically, we studied the characteristics of learning materials situated in the context of cutting-edge chemistry research that are supportive (have educative and usable features) for teachers and effective (have features that foster understanding and motivation) for students.

Sample

The designed learning materials were piloted by three teachers in four tenth-grade pre-university chemistry classes at three schools in The Netherlands.

Design and methods

The learning materials are shaped by the 5E instructional model and are situated in the context of research on early cancer diagnosis. In this exploratory, small-scale, mixed-methods study, data on teacher and student use of these learning materials were collected through teacher and student group interviews, student pre- and post-tests, and learner self-reports.

Results

This study shows that the piloted learning materials have features that are simultaneously supportive for teachers and effective for students. We identified several features that made the materials educative and usable for teachers, and that fostered student understanding and motivation.

Conclusion

We conclude that the cutting-edge research context used to situate the learning materials was valuable, and that the teachers in the study were eager to implement these types of materials in their regular practice. In addition, the materials contributed to student motivation and student understanding, and supported teacher learning. This study also describes crucial features that teachers and students valued in the design of the learning materials, which can help in designing other learning materials based on cutting-edge research.

KEYWORDS:

• Context-based learning
• cutting-edge research
• educative materials
• chemistry education
• student motivation

Introduction

Research has shown that students are more motivated (King, Bellocchi, and Ritchie 2008), improve their attitude towards science (Bennett, Lubben, and Hogarth 2007), and learn more about the nature of science when context-based learning materials are used (Çam and Geban 2011). Context-based learning uses student-centered and problem-based activities focusing on relevant real-world problems (Rose 2012). Although many different contexts are used in chemistry teaching, few of them foreground cutting-edge chemistry research. At the same time, research has shown that such contexts can be motivating and relevant for pre-university students (Gilbert 2006). As cutting-edge research as a context relates to ‘topics and people’s activities which are considered of importance to the lives of communities within that society’ (Gilbert, Bulte, and Pilot 2011, 824), it meets the following crucial criteria: (1) setting of focal events, (2) behavioral environment, (3) specific language, and (4) extra-situational background knowledge (Gilbert 2006; Gilbert, Bulte, and Pilot 2011). Each of these four criteria is elaborated upon below.

The setting of focal events means that the provided context should be motivating for students by relating to a community of practice in which they feel they can be of value. The behavioral environment addresses a task that is typical for the science domain in relation to the setting. The use of specific language intends to teach students the language (or graphs, models, etc.) used in the provided setting. It is vital that the context connects with students’ prior knowledge, thereby relating to relevant extra-situational background knowledge. The learning materials used in this study met these criteria, because they engaged pre-university students in cutting-edge chemistry research on early cancer diagnosis, stimulated students to think as a researcher to develop understanding of the detection of tumor DNA, used language and representations as used by chemistry scientists, and connected existing and new knowledge on cancer, biochemistry and chemical bonding.

It seems understandable that pre-university chemistry learning is rarely situated in the rich and meaningful contexts of cutting-edge research, given the lack of curriculum materials to facilitate such teaching and learning. When seeking to situate chemistry learning in that way, some guidance can be derived from existing context-based curricula, for example, the Salters approach (Bennett and Lubben 2006; Burton et al. 1995) and the German ‘Chemie im Kontext’ [Chemistry in Context] materials (Nentwig et al. 2007). In the latter, the materials differentiate between the learning phases of contact, curiosity, elaboration, and nexus, resembling the more internationally recognized 5E instructional model (Bybee et al. 2006), which distinguishes five phases (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate). This model has been applied in the design of many learning materials, including context-based learning materials (e.g. Apotheker 2019; Kurup, Levinson, and Li 2021). Although research has been conducted on the use of context-based learning materials based on the 5E instructional model, the majority of these studies determined learning effects quantitatively in quasi-experimental designs. For example, research on a module on fuel gauges showed that there were positive effects on student success and attitude (Ültay and Ültay 2012). Furthermore, research on a module on the historical development of car engines showed that the combination of the 5E instructional model and a context-based approach improved students’ conceptual understanding and student engagement (Çigdemoglu and Geban 2015). These authors suggested also studying the effect of the combination of a context-based approach and the 5E instructional model qualitatively for other contexts and other chemistry topics.

As the use of the 5E instructional model in context-based education has shown promise, further explanation of this model and its relation to context-based education is called for. In this section, we further elaborate on the phases of the 5E instructional model and relate them to the existing literature on context-based education. The engage phase prompts students to recognize and become interested in the situation (Gilbert, Bulte, and Pilot 2011), by activating prior knowledge, prompting students’ curiosity, organizing student thinking, and eliciting alternative conceptions. Subsequently, in the explore phase, students build on concepts they are familiar with; they are given the opportunity to generate new ideas, to scout new possibilities and questions, and to design and perform a preliminary investigation. Next, deeper learning takes place in the explain phase, during which new concepts are introduced in ways that focus on core concepts (Ummels et al. 2015) and consistently use specific language for the topic (Gilbert, Bulte, and Pilot 2011). During the elaborate phase, in which students are challenged to apply their knowledge and to transfer it to a new context, students are stimulated to interconnect concepts (Ummels et al. 2015), and to use their extra-situational background knowledge (Gilbert, Bulte, and Pilot 2011). Finally, knowledge of concepts and competences are assessed, student progress is evaluated, and students check whether they completed the learning goals in the evaluation phase.

While the implementation of a context-based approach within the 5E instructional model provides guidance for teachers (Çigdemoglu and Geban 2015), and the value of these phases has been described in the literature (Bybee et al. 2006), less attention has been given to the characteristics of materials that can support teachers in enacting such a combination. To support teachers in the use of (new) context-based approaches, learning materials should engage teachers in terms of professional development (Davis and Krajcik 2005). Therefore, it is essential that the learning materials are educative for teachers (Ball and Cohen 1996): They need to support anticipating and interpreting student learning, foster knowledge of subject matter, show curricular coherence, visualize underlying design ideas, and promote pedagogical design capacity (Brown and Edelson 2003; Davis and Krajcik 2005).

The present study investigates the design, enactment, and evaluation of context-based learning materials, with regard to their use by both teachers and students in three Dutch schools. Specifically, it studies the supportive characteristics for teachers and the effective characteristics for students that assist chemistry teaching and learning when it is situated in the context of cutting-edge chemistry research, and shaped by the 5E instructional model.

Theoretical framework

Figure 1 provides a framework for the supportive and effective characteristics of learning materials with cutting-edge research as the context, and the interactions between them.

Figure 1. Overview of the desirable features of the learning materials and their interactions.

Supportive for teachers

Educative materials are those that support not only student learning, but also teacher learning (Schneider and Krajcik 2002). In such materials, elements that foster teacher learning attend to subject matter, curriculum, assessment, and scientific practices. First, to support teacher learning of the subject matter, it is important to include content beyond the student level in the teacher materials (Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018). Second, clear formulation of the learning goals (Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018) and explicit references to the (national) curriculum as well as relevant textbook content can support teachers. Third, support for assessment is necessary, and educative materials provide information to help teachers anticipate student thinking and (alternative) conceptions (Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018) and provide constructive feedback. Fourth, information about (rationales underlying) teaching strategies and representations, as well as information about just-in-time learning, can contribute to the teaching of scientific practices (Davis and Krajcik 2005).

At the same time, learning materials need to be usable in regular practice (Janssen et al. 2013), which requires instrumentality, congruence and cost-effectiveness. From an instrumentality standpoint, it is essential that materials communicate what type of strategy is being chosen, how this strategy works, why this strategy was chosen and what learning goal(s) it corresponds with (Davis et al. 2017; Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018; Vos et al. 2011). Additionally, information on the time and resources required is also crucial (Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018). Further, teaching and learning materials need to be congruent with the existing values and convictions of the user (Doyle and Ponder 1977). This often requires providing suggestions for customization and examples of teachers’ productive adaptations, so that teachers can envision possibilities for use of the learning materials in ways that are relevant to their own circumstances and educational vision (Davis et al. 2017; Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018) but also align with the goals of the learning materials. Finally, the materials must be cost-effective. This means that the time and resources a teacher needs to successfully implement new learning materials should be proportional to the expected yield (Doyle and Ponder 1977).

Effective for students

Effective materials contribute to fostering student understanding and student motivation. For the former, activating students’ prior knowledge is crucial (Dochy, Segers, and Buehl 1999). The materials should focus on the core concepts and stimulate students to understand and connect them (Ummels et al. 2015). Further, student materials should be student-friendly, for example, by including multiple forms of support that highlight key ideas, clear definitions, and additional information needed to complete tasks (Davis et al. 2017; Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018). With regard to motivation, the materials need to use a relevant context, which should not be too general and aligns tightly with the intended learning goals (Vos et al. 2011). Further, contexts with societally relevant implications are more likely to motivate learners (King, Bellocchi, and Ritchie 2008), as are student-centered activities. Student-student interactions and student-controlled learning activities need to be emphasized (King 2012; Vos et al. 2011), which can be done by encouraging group work. For example, cooperative learning activities, which can lead to a better understanding of concepts (Eymur and Geban 2017), can be used. Finally, inquiry-based activities, based on real-world problems and creating a need-to-know (King 2012), can positively influence student motivation.

Focus of the study

Context-based learning has shown promise (Gilbert 2006), but not without the support of learning materials (Davis and Krajcik 2005). Yet there are few examples of such materials for context-based learning in general (Ummels et al. 2015), and for cutting-edge research in particular. Educational designers struggle to create materials that simultaneously contain educative and usable features, and features that foster student understanding and motivation. This is often because achieving one of these features requires a trade-off with another. It is therefore crucial to understand:

What features of context-based learning materials centered on cutting-edge chemistry research are supportive for teachers and effective for students?

Methods

Context and participants

This exploratory study took place in the Netherlands, where research from the Molecular Nanofabrication department, at the University Twente was used as the context for the learning materials (Movilli et al. 2018). Together with researchers, teachers, and teacher educators, activities for learning about chemical bonding were situated in cutting-edge research on early cancer diagnosis. Supportive materials were created for upper secondary pre-university education, which can be used by chemistry teachers nationwide and make use of the 5E instructional model (Bybee et al. 2006). Teachers spend three to five lessons on this unit, which is one to two lessons more than is normally spent on chemical bonding. Besides chemical bonding, students also learn about scientific inquiry. As suggested by Vos et al. (2011), the learning materials offer concrete, well-described teaching activities that follow logically from the context, communicate crucial aspects explicitly, and the context matches the intended learning goals. Figure 2 provides an overview of the design of the learning activities supported by the materials. Appendix A provides two (translated) examples of activities and corresponding teacher support. The first activity is from the engage phase, and the second activity is from the explain phase. Full (Dutch-language) learning materials are available upon request.

Figure 2. Overview of the learning activities supported by teacher and learner materials.

The learning materials were piloted with four tenth-grade pre-university chemistry classes whose three teachers volunteered to try the new materials. Both teachers and students were informed about the research and gave their consent to participate in this study. As shown in Table 1, all teachers were male, had at least 4 years of teaching experience, and their classes worked on the activities for a total of 240–250 minutes.

Table 1. Characteristics of the participating teachers.

Teacher^a	Sex	Years of teaching experience	Number of students	Time spent in class (lessons x minutes)
Andrew	male	4	30	5 x 50
Ben	male	> 20	17, 15^b	3 x 80 (each class)
Chris	male	15	16	5 x 50

^aNames are pseudonyms. ^bTwo classes participated in the research.

Data sources

Data were collected through teacher and student interviews, student pre- and post-tests, and learner self-reports. Semi-structured teacher interviews were held individually with Andrew and Ben after they used the learning materials (Chris could not be interviewed due to personal circumstances). Examples of interview items are given in Appendix B. At each school, five to eight students were selected by the teacher to take part in a group interview. These were held at the school after the Early Cancer Diagnosis module was completed. The pre- and post-tests focused on students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts (covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, micro-macro thinking) and scientific inquiry. The pre- and post-tests were carried out online, and included one question for each of these four concepts. The questions on hydrogen bonding and micro-macro thinking were also followed by an item in which students had to indicate their confidence in how well they had answered the question. The pre- and post-test items were similar, the maximum possible score was 16 points (4 for each concept) and was scored by the researchers. Two pre-test items can be found in Appendix C; the original pre- and post-tests are available upon request. During the evaluate phase, learner self-reports were completed. The students indicated whether they had mastered 10 learning goals about chemical bonding (covalent bonding [2], hydrogen bonding [2], micro-macro thinking [2]) and scientific inquiry [4]) on a 4-point Likert scale (see Figure 3 for the wording of the items).

Figure 3. Diagram showing results of the learner self-reports (n = 52). The 10 learning goals are organized under four categories: Covalent bonding, Hydrogen bonding, Micro-macro thinking, Scientific inquiry.

Further, classroom observations were undertaken as secondary data. Though not analyzed directly, these provided contextual information that helped interpret the primary source data. Table 2 provides an overview of the primary data sources in relation to the features of the research question.

Table 2. Primary data sources in relation to key characteristics and features.

Characteristic	Feature	Individual teacher interviews n = 2	Student participants in group interviews n = 18	Pre- and post-tests n = 42	Learner self-reports n = 52
Supportive for teachers	Educative features	T
	Usable features	T
Effective for students	Features fostering student understanding	T	S	S	S
	Features fostering student motivation	T	S

T represents teacher data; S represents student data.

Data analysis

Audio recordings of both the teacher and student group interviews were transcribed using Amberscript© software, and manually polished for accuracy. Quotes from the interviews have been translated from the Dutch. Transcripts from both kinds of interviews were deductively coded for the elements described in the theoretical framework and summarized in Figure 1. The mean and the median pre-test scores were calculated. Because they showed a non-normal distribution, the pre- and post-tests were compared using the Wilcoxson signed-rank test. For the learner self-reports, descriptive statistics were calculated.

Results

Supportive for teachers

Educative materials

Insights into the educative nature of the materials were derived from the interviews with Andrew and Ben. Here, the focus was on whether and how the materials fostered the teacher’s development of understanding related to the subject matter, curriculum, assessment, and scientific practices. Andrew had no questions about the learning goals that were presented, but indicated that he was somewhat uncomfortable with the subject matter. Although he had enough knowledge on chemical bonding, he did not really like biochemistry, and felt rather insecure about it. However, he said that the detailed answers, drawings, explanations, and appendices in the teacher guide helped him to understand the context and the underlying biochemistry concepts. On the other hand, Ben felt comfortable with the subject matter. He mentioned that he mainly used the student materials, and searched for more information on the internet. Regarding the context, he felt he only learned some details (e.g. the specific detection method) about early cancer diagnosis.

In addition, using these context-based materials made Andrew think about his teaching habits. He asked himself how he could link concepts more to contexts in his teaching, as he felt that it is crucial for students to be intrinsically motivated by the context. Referring to these materials, he said, ‘I now see that the embedding of contexts is important’. He also noted that it is important that the learning materials are not too easy. He said they should be challenging for students who want it, but also offer support for students who need it.

As to understanding the curriculum, both teachers indicated they replaced part of a textbook chapter with the learning materials, as suggested in the teacher guide. They both thought that the learning materials were aligned with the standards for tenth-grade chemical bonding, but Andrew wondered whether the learning materials fit there in terms of difficulty, because biochemistry is normally taught in twelfth grade. Looking back on this teaching experience, he thought he should have anchored the learning materials more in the curriculum at the start and end of the lesson series. Ben said that the learning materials give a more complete definition of hydrogen bonding than the regular textbook. He argued that textbooks are too conservative on their definition of hydrogen bonding (only hydrogen bonding between OH-groups, NH₂-groups and HF, whereas the learning materials also presented the oxygen atom of a carbonyl group as a hydrogen bond acceptor). He explained that he chose to use these learning materials because he was not satisfied with the way the textbook presents chemical bonding concepts, and said he wanted to try teaching this topic in another way. However, he noted that students got a bit confused when they returned to the book, Ben said he now really sees the added value of this type of learning materials. He felt that chemistry education should not be about learning chemical concepts (e.g. hydrogen bonding), but about learning a certain level of abstraction (e.g. micro-macro thinking), and using it in new situations.

With regard to assessment, Andrew learned about students’ understanding through formative classroom assessment, for instance, the results from the concept maps, and the questions students asked. Similarly, Ben saw that students worked enthusiastically on the assignments, and that students discussed their answers in their group. By walking along the groups and listening to their conversations, he got a good picture of students’ understanding, and could give feedback informally.

To improve scientific practices, the learning materials provided activities for designing, carrying out, and evaluating an experiment. When his class was working on designing the experiment, Andrew noticed that students only needed a little push to find a proper method. For example, repeating the question or asking supportive questions such as ‘What is really the question?’ really helped the students. He appreciated discussion of the reliability of the experimental results as a crucial aspect included in the teacher guide. Ben thought that the instructions that the students received to present the results of the experiment as if it were a medical report was a valuable example of a useful strategy for context-based work. Although the difficulty of the assignments increased during the lessons, Andrew only offered explanations when students specifically asked for them. He said that when students did not understand the assignment, he helped them by asking questions, as was suggested in the teacher guide. On the other hand, Ben explained some concepts to the class, for instance, polar bonds, in the same way he would do when teaching from the textbook.

Usable materials

Usability data were also derived from the teacher interviews. As described previously, in the teacher interviews attention was given to how instrumental, congruent, and cost-effective teachers found the learning materials to be. With regard to instrumentality, Andrew chose one of the teaching plans offered in the teacher guide and followed that plan. He assumed that the context would remain central and all crucial aspects would be covered in that plan. Ben also used the teacher guide for planning the lessons. He regarded the context as interesting, and perceived that all assignments were related to it. Both teachers indicated that they could work in a proper way with the learning materials. Andrew thought the teacher guide was clearly understandable, and gave him sufficient background information. Ben also encountered no problems or ambiguities in the learning materials. However, he felt that the materials were sometimes a bit talkative, and he would have liked some more visualizations to support conceptual understanding, but did not find them.

As to congruence, Andrew indicated that he is not experienced in working with context-based learning materials, but he likes to try new materials and is open to changing. Ben indicated that he has some experience in working with context-based learning materials in chemistry education. Ben said that, as time went on, he stopped talking about ‘cancer diagnosis’ and changed it to ‘tumor diagnosis’, because he felt a bit uncomfortable: ‘At a certain moment I couldn’t say the word cancer anymore, and um, and after a lesson, one student told me that she did not like using the word “cancer”’. Andrew indicated that he learned that the 5E model can be a useful model. He felt that working in groups during multiple lessons on the same topic is worth repeating. Despite teaching all classes at the end of the afternoon, Ben observed that students were working more enthusiastically on the assignments than when working on assignments from the regular textbook. He attributed this to the types of assignments, which led to more student involvement.

Concerning cost-effectiveness, Andrew thought that it was an intense learning experience, both for the students and for himself. He truly appreciated the added value of learning in a cutting-edge chemistry research context, and would like to use similar learning materials for other topics. Yet, he found it hard to estimate the ratio between invested time and learning yield, because some of the (biochemistry) concepts in the learning materials are usually taught in twelfth grade. Andrew wondered if these students will learn biochemistry more easily in 2 years’ time. Ben also clearly saw added value in these learning materials. He related this to the motivated way in which the students worked, the choice of the context, and making students think about scientific research. This explained why Ben did not mind using one or two lessons more than he would normally do when teaching chemical bonding.

Effective for students

As described earlier, the materials are designed to foster student understanding and student motivation. For the former, four data sources were used, namely pre- and post-tests (n = 42), learner self-reports (n = 52), student group interviews (n = 3) and teacher interviews (n = 2). For the latter, we used student group interviews and teacher interviews.

Fostering student understanding

This section is organized by the two main facets of fostering student understanding that were described in the theoretical framework, namely relating to understanding core concepts or being student friendly. Relating to understanding core concepts, as can be seen in Table 3, students showed an increase in understanding on all questions. The increase in scores was significant for each item, as well as the test as a whole. Effect sizes were large for all items (> 0.5), except for ‘scientific inquiry’, which had a medium effect size (> 0.3). The student interviews confirmed that students had learned about chemical bonding and scientific inquiry: ‘I learned how researchers recognize tumor DNA, and also what all these types of bonds are’.

Table 3. Results of the Wilcoxson signed-rank test for the pre- and post-tests (n = 42). The maximum score for each item was 4 points (complete test 16 points).

Item	Number of positive differences	Number of ties	Number of negative differences	Z-value	Asymptotic sigma (2-tailed)	Average score pre-test	Average score post-test	Median pre-test	Median post-test	Effect size
Covalent bonding	28	12	2	4.532	0.000	0.45/4.00	2.07/4.00	0.00	2.00	0.699
Hydrogen bonding	26	13	3	4.193	0.000	0.29/4.00	1.57/4.00	0.00	2.00	0.647
Micro-macro thinking	28	8	6	3.990	0.000	0.46/4.00	1.58/4.00	0.00	1.00	0.616
Scientific Inquiry	15	21	6	2.052	0.040	2.29/4.00	3.05/4.00	4.00	4.00	0.317
Complete test	38	3	1	5.377	0.000	3.49/16.00	8.27/16.00	4.00	8.75	0.830

As shown in Figure 3, 32 students said that they knew what covalent and non-covalent bonds are, yet only half of them answered the question on covalent and non-covalent bonds (question 5 in Appendix C) correctly. It shows that most students perceived that they had learned the difference between covalent and non-covalent bonding, and were able to explain this. Additionally, post-test results revealed that 28 students know that hydrogen bonding takes place between a hydrogen and an oxygen atom. However, 23 students did not distinguish hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom (question 3, Figure 2 in Appendix C) from hydrogen atoms bonded to a carbon atom (question 3, Figure 4 in Appendix C). Interestingly, 31 students indicated that they were certain about their answer. Furthermore, the vast majority of students (n = 40) said they knew which atoms can form hydrogen bonds and that they could draw hydrogen bonds. Supporting the learner self-reports, students said that they had learned about hydrogen bonding, and thought they could apply this in another context. On the other hand, some students said that they did not understand hydrogen bonding until they read the textbook. Similarly, the teacher interviews showed that the teachers thought that students had learned mainly about hydrogen bonding; other types of bonding were less visible in the learning materials. Also, only about a fifth (n = 11) thought that they could explain and apply the properties of these bonds on the micro- and macro-levels. Additionally, a little more than half of the students (n = 31) expected to be able to design and conduct an experiment. Students also said that they had learned to think logically about designing experiments, which explained their agreement with the learning goals about scientific inquiry. Students also learned about cancer diagnosis, and how research works in practice.

Figure 4. Overview of the main findings in relation to supportive and effective characteristics.

With regard to student friendliness, several students mentioned that they found it useful that each phase started with the learning goals, but not all students evaluated the learning goals: ‘I did not complete the table, but the exercises did help understanding’. Andrew found that the assignments required a different, more abstract way of thinking, and regarded the learning materials as challenging, but doable for the students who really want to make the effort. However, several students felt that the teacher did not create enough time to answer questions or give explanations. Ben felt that students could work smoothly on the assignments, because he saw students working when he walked through the classroom, and saw what students wrote down. Furthermore, the majority of the students liked to work in this way: ‘It was not super easy; it was challenging!’ Some students found the assignments very clear, specific and extensive, and mentioned that the structure of the learning materials was obvious: ‘Normally it becomes unclear very quickly, but now I found it quite clear what and how to do it’. Others found the explanations in the text complicated, and got stuck on assignments. In addition, most students agreed that parts of the introductory video were difficult and hard to understand. Andrew saw that some parts of the learning materials were quite difficult for his students. The questions students asked, the work pace of the group, and the interactions in the group showed him that the gap between students’ knowledge and the information in the learning materials was sometimes too large.

Fostering student motivation

The student interviews provided information about the relevance of the context, group work and scientific inquiry. First, student data showed that students found the context interesting, topical and intense: ‘Everyone knows someone who has had to deal with cancer’. They found it interesting, because it gives a broader view, and assignments are linked to one big topic. Students felt more like they were doing something relevant and applicable: ‘Because you can use the knowledge, it is more important than I previously thought’. Furthermore, some students mentioned that the context helped to put chemical bonding into a broader perspective.

Second, most students had a positive experience of working in groups. Students said that they liked the group work, because they could solve problems together, discuss the answers, help each other when someone did not understand it, and it was more sociable: ‘I liked that when I didn’t get it, I could easily discuss it with my group’. On the other hand, some students were not so positive about working in groups; they would rather work alone or in pairs, because they felt that would be more effective.

Third, students said that they liked the experiment, understood that researchers also work in teams, and had learned to think logically about designing experiments. Because the learning materials, and specifically the assignments, were all related to one topic, students noticed that they really needed to understand the assignments and the underlying theory before they could continue to the next assignment. Although students mentioned that they liked it, the students in Andrew’s class and Chris’s class agreed that some more help from the teacher while working on the assignments would be useful.

The findings above were confirmed by the teacher interviews. Both Andrew and Ben saw that students found the context appealing. Andrew attributed this to the learning materials being related to daily life. By telling a personal story related to the learning materials, he easily connected with the students. Furthermore, Andrew and Ben thought it was clear to the students that the learning materials were about cutting-edge research.

Ben said that his students had lively conversations; he felt that this was caused by the types of assignments in the learning materials. He observed that students were more involved, because they had to think longer about questions and also give their opinion. This way of working may also have contributed to student motivation. Ben concluded that the student groups worked on their own, and did not need much teacher encouragement. Andrew saw some student groups work on their own, too, but he also observed groups that did not do much work. He mentioned that the layout of the classroom (non-movable tables) might be a reason for this, along with students who had to work in a group with students they did not like and the difficulty of some assignments.

Conclusions

The present study set out to understand ‘What features of context-based learning materials centered on cutting-edge chemistry research are supportive for teachers and effective for students?’ To answer this question, we piloted context-based learning materials shaped by the 5E instructional model and using a cutting-edge chemistry research context. Figure 4 recaps the main findings in relation to the features elaborated in the theoretical framework. These will be discussed in answering the research question.

Supportive for teachers

This study showed that several features of the learning materials were educative for teachers. Consistent with the existing literature (Janssen et al. 2013; Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018), we found that detailed answers, specific visualizations, explanations and background information in the teacher guide were particularly helpful for understanding the new context. However, an important implication of this study is that attention should be given to specific visualizations in learning materials based on cutting-edge research, (e.g. animations, applets) to be able to foster deeper student understanding (Höffler and Leutner 2007). This is particularly important because readily available visualizations are more generic, and are rarely suitable for making the context-specific connections desired.

As suggested earlier by Çigdemoglu and Geban (2015), clearly described and specific teacher actions, as part of the 5E instructional model, provided structure and helped teachers in using the learning materials as intended. Although the data suggested that teachers used the learning materials as intended by the designers, further research is needed to conclude that this was due to the use of the 5E instructional model and the detailed teacher guide. Furthermore, the inclusion of different types of activities in combination with the context provided the teachers with new insights about what was feasible and interesting for students. It also made teachers evaluate their regular practice, and see the possibilities and added value of using cutting-edge research as a context. Moreover, thinking about how to use learning materials can help develop teachers’ pedagogical design capacity (Beyer and Davis 2012; Brown 2011).

For teachers to understand the underlying rationale behind learning materials, it is necessary that teachers intuitively feel how to use them (Vos et al. 2011). In this study, we found that the following usable features need to be present to do so. First, the teacher guide must be clearly understandable. By this, we mean that the materials need to include clear, specific and challenging assignments. In addition, different strategies must be offered for teachers to use to support students who find the context itself too complex, such as supportive questions, visualizations, or references to the textbook. Furthermore, the teaching plans that are offered need to be realistic, which means that the activities can be completed in the time proposed in the teacher guide. This finding is consistent with that of Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney (2018), who stated that information about time is crucial. Another feature is that the context, assignments and concepts must be aligned (Roblin, Schunn, and McKenney 2018); this alignment is provided by the clear structure of the 5E instructional model. Furthermore, to be cost-effective (Doyle and Ponder 1977), the concepts students learn should fit in the existing curriculum, and preferably replace part of the regular textbook. Although cutting-edge research as a context has distinct added value, what concepts need to be incorporated in the learning materials when selecting a context should be kept in mind.

Effective for students

We have seen that the materials are effective for students, as they contribute to student understanding. Although we cannot claim that students have a better understanding of chemical bonding concepts than when using a traditional teaching approach, we do see that students gain understanding of these concepts. In addition, based on the teacher perceptions of student learning, we cautiously conclude that student understanding was not inferior to business-as-usual lessons. We have found that student understanding can be fostered by several features. First, the findings confirm previous research demonstrating that early and consistent connections from the context to prior knowledge are made (Taber 2001). With complex content, it helps if these connections are gradually increased. Second, providing learning goals at the beginning of each 5E phase was considered useful. However, we found that a number of students found it hard to estimate whether they had mastered these learning objectives or not. This might be caused by the lack of specific requirements, or the way students used the learning goals (Jiang and Elen 2011). Therefore, we infer that it is helpful to look critically at the formulated learning goals, and to include more opportunities for formative assessment alongside the pre- and post-tests, and that intermediate learner self-reports including evaluation elements may be useful. Third, the 5E phases provided an understandable structure and specific assignments for students, which stimulated students to understand and to relate relevant extra-situational background knowledge (Gilbert 2006) on cancer to new knowledge on chemical bonding. However, for some students the assignments and the context itself were unclear or too difficult, and more assistance from the teacher or returning to the regular textbook would be helpful. So, to promote just-in-time learning (Riel 2000), we suggest including supportive questions that can help the students while working in their group, and optional references to certain assignments or explanatory texts in the regular textbook. Fourth, as shown in other research (Sesen and Tarhan 2013), the combination of learning concepts and scientific inquiry contributed to student understanding. This may be because a behavioral environment (Gilbert 2006) in which students needed to think as researchers was created.

Regarding student motivation, we see that cutting-edge research contexts are relevant for students, which agrees with the suggestions provided by Gilbert (2006). Most students found the context interesting, because it provides a broader perspective on chemistry and cutting-edge research. Furthermore, most students thought that the assignments were clear, specific and challenging; in particular, designing and conducting the experiment positively affected student motivation. However, some students’ motivation decreased, because they found the assignments to be too complicated. As students’ prior knowledge, talents, and background are different, it would be interesting to consider how to provide differentiation in context-based learning materials. In this way, context-based learning materials can be made more meaningful and challenging for all students (Van Vorst and Aydogmus 2021). In addition, working in research teams generally increased student motivation, but some groups did not work effectively. Hence, it is necessary to provide guidance on how to compose the groups (Gillies 2003), and about considering the lay-out of the classroom.

Methodological reflections and recommendations

The results must be considered in light of the affordances and limitations of the methods used. First, while the exploratory, small-scale, mixed-methods approach was useful for answering the research question, the generalizability of the findings is limited. This was exacerbated by missing data, some of which were collected by teachers. To reduce missing data, we suggest collecting data online as much as possible and providing teachers with clear visualizations of the present/missing data.

Second, as teachers participated voluntarily, a motivational bias might be present. While voluntary participation is ecologically valid (since teachers generally can choose whether to use particular learning materials or not), future studies could reduce this bias by attempting to identify and recruit teachers who are initially hesitant.

Third, teacher interviews were held one to two weeks after using the learning materials. While the results showed that teachers were able to reflect on the overarching goals and results of the lesson series, fine-grained details on individual lessons were lacking. Future research could benefit from debriefing shortly after the lesson, for instance, by using an app in which teachers answer a few quick questions after class before turning their attention elsewhere, or once the day’s lessons are finished.

It is also noteworthy that, although the early cancer diagnosis context was motivating for most students, it was disturbing for one or two. Therefore, when designing learning materials based on cutting-edge research, the context needs to be considered carefully and guidance for attending to sensitivities should be provided in the teacher materials.

Significance of the study

Data from this study indicate that the features outlined in the framework (Figure 1) were found to be present in the Early Cancer Diagnosis module materials and that the materials yielded the anticipated benefits for teachers and learners. As such, the design framework constitutes a theoretical contribution of this study, as it articulates supportive and effective characteristics of learning materials using cutting-edge research as a context. The strength of the framework is that it provides design criteria for learning materials that are supportive (educative and usable) for teachers as well as effective (fostering understanding and motivation) for students. Further elaboration of this framework would be useful for creating additional materials based on similar contexts. This seems like an important step to take, in light of the fact that teachers are asking for support to integrate cutting-edge research as contexts in their lessons. Further, the learning materials created in this study can be used as a worked example of how to realize context-based learning based on cutting-edge research through materials that embody the supportive and effective characteristics described in the framework. Given that focusing on cutting-edge research seemed particularly motivating for students and teachers, we cautiously conclude that in this study we made some small but important steps towards revealing how educative materials can act as a kind of catalytic tool supporting curiosity and teachers’ eagerness to develop their lessons further.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank prof. dr. ir. Jurriaan Huskens and dr. Jacopo Movilli for valuable insights and discussions about the cutting-edge research context that is embedded in the learning materials. We would also like to thank the participating teachers and their students for using the learning materials and participating in the research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap [Dudoc].

Appendix A

In this appendix, two (translated) activities from the learning materials on early cancer diagnosis are shown. The text that is not italicized is provided in both the student materials and the teacher guide; the italicized text is provided solely in the teacher guide.

Assignment 1

Draw a concept map with the concept ‘cancer diagnosis’ at the center.

Use the information from the video and things you already know about cancer and cancer diagnosis.

The concept map should be made by the student research team together on a separate piece of paper (preferably A3 format or larger).

Scientific literature shows that drawing a concept map (word-web of concepts) contributes to connecting new concepts to existing knowledge. In addition, concept mapping can organize student thinking.

Walk among the teams while students are working on the concept map. Do not point at students’ mistakes, but ask questions (if necessary) to stimulate students. It would be good if the concept map also identifies the challenges of tumor DNA detection (as mentioned in the video). When student concept maps lack these challenges, try to make students aware of this by asking questions and referring to the video.

An example of a concept map is shown below:

Assignment 19 ☼TIP

Explain why the temperature should be higher to denaturate double-stranded DNA with a high percentage of G and C than to denaturate double-stranded DNA with a high percentage of A and T.

This is an assignment that requires insight. Students need to link properties on the micro-level (difference in number of hydrogen bonds between the base pairs) via the meso-level (denaturation of double-stranded DNA) to the macro-level (required temperature).

Adenine and thymine are connected by two hydrogen bonds and cytosine and guanine are connected by three hydrogen bonds.

Thus, there are more / stronger intermolecular forces between C and G. The forces between C and G are stronger and therefore more energy is required to denature the (C-G-rich) strands and a higher temperature is necessary.

Appendix B

Semi-structured interviews for teachers (all cells) and students (grey cells only)

Table

	Feature		Example questions
Supportive for teachers	Educative features	Foster development of understanding of subject matter, curriculum, assessment and practices	Did you use the extra materials to understand the scientific background?
			Was it clear how to assess students’ products?
			Was it clear where materials linked with national curriculum/textbooks?
			Did you help students when designing an experiment?
	Usable features	Instrumental	Is the link with the context clear throughout the learning materials?
			Did you use activities/strategies that you had not used before?
			Is it clear why a certain strategy was included?
		Congruent	Was it clear how to implement the described strategies?
			Were there enough possibilities to use alternative activities?
		Cost-effectiveness	Were the learning results worth the invested time?
Effective for students	Features fostering student understanding	Core concepts	Did students understand the concepts?
		Student-friendly	Were the activities clear to students?
	Features fostering student motivation	Relevant context	Did students find the context interesting?
		Student-centered activities	Did students work effectively in groups?
		Inquiry-based activities	Were students motivated to work in this way?

Appendix C

Two items from the pre-test

3. In which figure(s) are only correct hydrogen bonds shown? Select one or more options.

1. In Figure 1

2. In Figure 2

3. In Figure 3

4. In Figure 4

5. Indicate in the table below whether the bond described is covalent or non-covalent. Mark the appropriate column.

Table

Description	Covalent bond	Non-covalent bond	I don’t know
Between two carbon atoms in an ethane molecule
Between two oxygen molecules
Between a carbon atom and a hydrogen atom in an ethane molecule
Between a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom in a water molecule
Between two water molecules