Effect of context based REACT strategy on students’ conceptual understanding of heredity

Abstract

The teaching of conceptual understanding is a key objective in the field of science education. But students, on average, do not adequately understand the concepts in a large number of science subjects. This is the case with Ethiopia’s students as well. Additionally, conventional instruction is the primary method used by Ethiopian school teachers. This study looked into how tenth grade students’ conceptual grasp of heredity was affected by the context-based Relating, Experiencing, Applying, Cooperating, and Transferring (REACT) technique. A convergent embedded experimental design of a mixed-methods approach was employed. One hundred thirty-one students took part in the study. Students in treatment groups 1 and 2 were taught using the REACT technique and conventional instruction integrated with context-based activities, respectively. The pupils in the comparison group received conventional instruction. Semi-structured interviews, observation, and two-tier multiple-choice tests were used to gather the data. Three types of analysis were performed on the gathered data: narrative analysis, one-way ANOVA, and descriptive analysis. The outcome demonstrated that there were significant mean score differences favoring treatment group 2 between treatment group 2 and the comparison group. However, there was no significant difference between the comparison group and treatment group 1. This suggests that, compared to employing the context-based REACT strategy alone or conventional education alone, integrating conventional instruction with a context-based approach has a much stronger positive impact on students’ conceptual understanding.

Keywords:

• context-based approach
• conceptual understanding
• heredity

1. Introduction

Konicek-Moran and Keeley (2015) stated that one of the main aims of science education is to teach conceptual understanding. Klymkowsky and DeHaan (2010) define conceptual understanding as the skill to grasp the underlying logic, consequences, and application of a concept to a new context. Conceptual understanding means having a deep, flexible, and justified grasp of the basic scientific principles, aptitudes, and generalizations with rich links and connections, as well as being able to use and apply them to different domains of environmental science.

Mills (2016) observes that students often fail to understand most science concepts, including those in biology. This is also true for the Ethiopian situation. The results of the Third National Learning Assessment in Ethiopia (MoE, 2017) show that students do not meet the basic standard. In each of the five subjects (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and English), less than 50% of students achieved proficiency, with biology having the lowest mean score of 38.33. This result is below the minimum standard (50%) that the Ethiopian Education and Training Policy requires students to attain. In general, students did better at the knowledge level by memorizing facts and principles than comprehension and understanding (MoE, 2017). Memorizing information and doing well on knowledge tests does not mean that students understand the concepts (Mills, 2016).

Joshi and Verspoor (2013) and Prince et al. (2016) suggest that one of the factors that can hinder students’ understanding of science topics is the instructional method used to teach them. Science instruction often involves the teacher directly transmitting knowledge to the student (Joshi & Verspoor, 2013; Lee & Kim, 2019). Likewise, in Ethiopia, science education has long been dominated by poor pedagogical practices that are teacher-centered (Joshi & Verspoor, 2013; MoE, 2018). A teaching approach that fosters student engagement with what they are learning enhances science learning.

Moreover, van Moolenbroek and Boersma (2013) argue that problems with the curriculum can impede students’ conceptual understanding. They identify three main problems in the Dutch biology education system: a crowded curriculum, low relevance for students, and a lack of coherence. The Ethiopian curriculum has faced similar challenges in these areas (MoE, 2018).

Cimer (2012) suggests that the abstract nature of scientific topics can make them hard to understand conceptually. Biology is one of the science disciplines that is reported to be difficult (Cimer, 2012). Cimer (2012) explains that biology is difficult to understand for three reasons: (1) many biological concepts and phenomena are not visible to the naked eye; (2) students need to memorize biological facts to learn them; and (3) there is not enough time to focus on biological concepts because of a crowded curriculum. Students studying biology have to understand all kinds of macroscopic and microscopic scales. Moreover, learning to overcome difficulties is supported by complex sets of concepts and language (Podschuweit & Bernholt, 2018). The language of biology is hard for students to comprehend, and a biology course introduces a lot of new terminology (Cimer, 2012). Genetics is one of the more obscure biological topics that students have trouble with (Cimer, 2012).

If we want students to learn more effectively, we need to change the way we teach. It is important to identify the problems of conceptual understanding and evaluate them against measures to see if different teaching methods have improved students’ understanding. Teaching should be based on students’ experiences because there is a connection between student experience and biological concepts that can help students understand biological concepts (Gilbert et al., 2011). Teachers have to consider their students’ prior learning and help them integrate new information with their existing concepts in order to achieve the goal of student understanding as a result of instruction, which goes beyond memorization or knowledge (Tanner & Allen, 2005).

The concept-context approach was proposed by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) to address the three main problems with the curriculum that were mentioned before. Contexts have two functions in the concept-context approach: they link scientific concepts to situations and increase the relevance of the science curriculum by being chosen for the students. Therefore, it is recommended to put biological knowledge in context to help students appreciate the significance of biology. However, students can only develop an awareness of biology’s significance if they experience how biological knowledge is used in society. Moreover, by acquiring that biological knowledge, they will be better prepared to deal with some of the major challenges of the twenty-first century, such as health, sustainability, food security, and energy supply. According to van Moolenbroek and Boersma (2013), biological knowledge applied in social practice is specific to that practice and may differ from biological knowledge used in other social practices.

The context-based approach begins teaching based on the student’s everyday life experiences and interests (Bennett et al., 2007; Gilbert et al., 2011). The context based instructional approach helps students relate the situations they encounter in their daily lives to the content in the classroom. There has been a claim made that the context-based learning exercises help students retain the material better. Learning at the conceptual level happens when the student comprehends the material (Cabbar & Senel, 2020; Hasanah et al., 2019). According to the context-based learning method, learning should take place in a variety of social, cultural, and physical contexts that are conducive to conceptual learning (Cabbar & Senel, 2020). Group work is involved in the context-based approach to knowledge building. However, in the traditional learning process, the building of knowledge is done individually according to what each student grasps (Hasanah et al., 2019). Learning in groups gives students the chance to share ideas and opinions, listen to what others have to say, support each other, and gain collective knowledge.

2. Prior research on the impact of a context-based strategy on conceptual understanding

Several studies (e.g., Acar & Yaman, 2011; Karslı & Patan, 2016; Karsli & Saka, 2017) reported that students who experienced a context-based approach developed conceptual knowledge. Bennett et al. (2007), Gilbert et al. (2011) and Parchmann et al. (2006) reviewed 17 studies and found that context-based approaches are as effective as traditional methods in promoting knowledge of scientific concepts. However, context-based learning is criticized for the reason that the extra information in such a cultural frame would hinder conceptual learning because it would overshadow the scientific basics (Podschuweit & Bernholt, 2018). It supports a more abstract learning style that is intended to make it easier to identify and understand fundamental concepts. It follows that there is not enough evidence to claim that context-based learning has enhanced students’ conceptual knowledge so far. Inconsistent results have been attributed to various factors in the literature, such as the type of context (De Jong, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2011) or the teaching method used to implement the curricular materials (Kazeni & Onwu, 2013). According to a recent study by Podschuweit and Bernholt (2018), learners had difficulty integrating the contexts and concepts behind the presented contexts. This could be due to the short intervention period and the few topics that the students are exposed to. They suggested that extending intervention periods and learning opportunities could improve conceptual understanding and knowledge application in new situations. In summary, studies on the effects of a context-based instructional approach on conceptual understanding have produced mixed results. More research is needed to address these differences.

A prevalent obstacle faced by Ethiopian educators is connecting science lessons to the everyday experiences of their pupils (Debele, 2017). Teachers expect too much from their students’ ability to understand things on their own because they are reluctant to incorporate curriculum relevance into their teaching (Debele, 2017). Additionally, there is an abundance of knowledge, details, assumptions, and concepts in Ethiopian science curricula. This might help students memorize facts but discourage them from relating them to real-world situations. This demonstrates how fruitless the attempts made by Ethiopian schools to raise student engagement and meaningful learning appear to be (Negassa, 2014). According to scholars, science education should be based on context and culture, regardless of the method used to deliver it (Bennett et al., 2007; Gilbert et al., 2011; Parchmann et al., 2006). Put another way, it has been suggested that in order for students to draw connections between biology and real-world contextual examples, either these examples need to be given to them or they need to be directed toward them.

The literature discusses the lack of context-based learning in Ethiopian biology education and how it affects students’ understanding of genetic concepts. It also states that there is no research that connects context-based learning with conceptual understanding in Ethiopia and that the current study aims to fill this gap by using a social and sociocultural constructivist learning theory (Bennett et al., 2007; Gilbert et al., 2011; Parchmann et al., 2006). This study uses a context-based curriculum that links biology concepts with students’ everyday life experiences in grade 10 and employs the REACT strategies of relating, experiencing, applying, cooperating, and transferring. The use of REACT strategies involves putting what is being taught into practice, experiencing the new information, applying it to real-world scenarios, working with others to solve problems, and connecting the knowledge to an experience that the students will have in the future. This study poses two research questions: How do the treatment and comparison groups differ in their understanding of heredity concepts? How and to what extent did students’ conceptual understanding improve?

3. Methodology

3.1. Design

The researchers collected and analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data to investigate students’ conceptual understanding thoroughly and widely. In this study, the research design was a mixed-methods experimental (or intervention) design, which involves collecting and analyzing both types of data and integrating them within an experiment or intervention trial. In this research design, qualitative data was used to support the quantitative data from the participants (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Therefore, the researcher’s intention is to compare or merge the results from the two data types (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

In this research, the researcher compares the understanding of students who learned with a context-based teaching approach and those who learned with conventional teaching approaches. Random assignments were made to schools and whole (intact) classes as a treatment and comparison groups, but randomization of subjects to treatment was not possible in the aforementioned research design. There were three groups in the design: one comparison (CG) group and two treatment groups (TG). Group 1 learned with a context-based REACT strategy; Group 2 learned with context-based activities integrated with conventional instruction; and Group 3 learned with conventional instruction.

3.2. Population and sampling procedures

Every grade 10 student enrolled in government secondary schools in one town in Ethiopia made up the study’s sample. The schools and intact classes were randomly chosen for the study using a simple random sampling technique. One hundred thirty-one tenth-grade students (46 boys and 85 girls) from the selected government secondary schools participated in the study. The researchers obtained written consent from the participants, and their data was protected by privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity.

3.3. Data collection instruments

The data was collected using multiple-choice tests, semi-structured interviews, and class observation. The Genetic Conceptual Understanding Test (GCUT) was created following the three steps described in the literature (Treagust, 1988). There are two sections to the test: a multiple-choice content question based on factual assertions makes up the first level, and a collection of reasons linked to the first level is tested again in a multiple-choice format. The text mentions that the first level was assessed for their knowledge, while both levels were assessed for their conceptual understanding.

The conceptual understanding test was scored using a partial scoring method that was developed by Bao et al. (2018). The students score two points if they answer both levels correctly, one point if they answer only the first level correctly, and zero otherwise. The maximum score is 30, and the minimum is zero. The test was pilot-tested on Grade 11 students (36 boys and 64 girls) who learned genetics six months before the study. The text reveals the mean of the item discrimination indices was 0.46, and the item indices ranged from 0.23 to 0.61. The difficulty index of the test ranged from 0.19 to 0.48, and the mean of the difficulty indices was 0.39. Tsui and Treagust (2010) state that the test’s reliability coefficient, which was determined using Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.691, which is acceptable for a two-tier test. According to the text, some questions were enhanced in light of the pilot study’s findings. In addition to conducting interviews after the intervention, a multiple-choice test was given as a pre- and post-test. Class observation was also carried out during the intervention.

3.4. Instructional strategies

The intervention lasted for six weeks (3 periods per week) and covered four topics: chromosomes and genes, mitosis and meiosis, Mendelian genetics, and heredity and breeding. The school teachers implemented the intervention, and they were trained by the first author in a two-day workshop on how to use the developed context-based teaching materials. The teacher who taught the comparison group did not receive training but used the usual textbook. In treatment group 1, a context-based REACT strategy was used. The context was a social situation, which is model 4 according to Gilbert et al. (2011). This technique is broken down into five phases: (1) relating, (2) experiencing, (3) applying, (4) cooperating, and (5) transfer.

1. Relating: is learning by connecting the topic to one’s own life experiences or prior knowledge. For example, for the topic of heredity and breeding the activity used was:

“Beza is a grade 10 student who has the best flock of sheep to help her parents financially. Her sheep are known for giving twins and producing a lot of meat, so many people want to buy her flock from her. Do you have any animals in your home or among your neighbor’s that are considered the best and the worst? What makes these animals the best? How can you increase the number of these animals? Can you improve the qualities of the inferior animals to make them better? How?

2. Experiencing: learning by doing, or by investigation, finding, and creating, For example, using black and red pea seeds to show the pairing of dominant and recessive alleles, homozygous and heterozygous alleles Use a chart that shows the different contrasting observable characteristics of pea plants.

3.5. Steps to perform the activity

1. The teacher prepares 50 red and 50 black pea seeds.

2. The teacher informs the student that black seed color is dominant over red seed color, which is recessive.

3. Put all the seeds in the container and mix them.

One student took out two seeds from the container without observing them, and the class students categorized the seeds as black or red. Heterozygous or homozygous? And made a ratio.

3. Applying: A way of learning by doing is applying, which helps learners understand the concepts better and gives them a purpose for learning. For instance, the following activity was used to teach Mendelian inheritance in humans:

Almaz has blue eyes, but both of her parents have brown eyes, according to her. She said that her family used the Amharic saying “Zer keliguam yisbal” to describe her eye color. Think about the physical features of your friends, such as their skin color, hair type, and eye color. You may have noticed that each person has a different set of features. How do people get these various traits? Explain your answer. Can parents with brown eyes have a child with blue eyes? How can that happen? Why are parents and their children not identical to each other?

4. Cooperating: Is learning by sharing, responding, and communicating with other students. For example, the scenario and exercises used to teach about sex determination had the following information:

“There are six sons and no daughters between Henok and his wife Marta. They both want to have a daughter, but they are confused because they always have sons. Marta thinks that maybe it is her fault that she can only have sons. They choose to get a divorce and find other spouses. Do you suppose Marta, Henok, or neither of them is responsible for determining the sex of the children? Explain.”

5. Transferring: Involves using what you’ve learned in class to apply it to a fresh circumstance or new environment (Crawford, 2001). For the topic of heredity and breeding, the activities given at this stage were:

“Society and religion have judged and banned the marriage of siblings in human society. What do you think about the genetic principles behind this? a. Does genetics agree or disagree with the social norms, religious rules, and cultural practices on this matter? How come? b. Do you believe there are drawbacks to cross-breeding and selective breeding? How?

The teacher introduced the idea to the second treatment group at the start of the class and then the context was given as an example and called the concept-context approach. The contexts were offered in the form of a discussion. Then, the teacher moved from contextual discussion to the concept of heredity teaching, and the context presentation was also continued for better understanding. Here context is defined as the interplay between concepts and applications, named by Bennett et al. (2007), Gilbert et al. (2011), and Parchmann et al. (2006) as model 2. To ensure the implementation of reciprocal practices between concept and context, the researcher observed the intervention and discussed with the teacher how to modify the activity.

The traditional way of teaching in classrooms was teacher-centered. The teacher directly gave the definitions and principles of inheritance with a brief explanation. In this method, the teacher used lecturing and questioning. Students occasionally engaged in group conversations over the teacher’s questions. Students were not shown the real-life contexts, so they were unable to connect the concepts to actual circumstances. Even the pictures and diagrams in students’ textbooks were not used for clarity; therefore, most students relied on short notes from their exercise book given by the teacher to answer questions. The textbook’s question, which stresses memorizing, was the teacher’s main focus. The table below (Table 1) compares the three teaching methods used in the current study.

Table 1. Comparison of teaching methods

TG 1 REACT strategy	TG 2 Integrated strategy	CG Conventional strategy
Relating • Start the lesson by reminding the previous lesson. • Then introduce the lesson of the day. • The teacher needs to identify his learners’ misconception about the topic by giving context based activities.	Revision • Start the lesson by reminding the previous lesson. • Then introduce the lesson of the day.	Introduction • Start the lesson by reminding the previous lesson. • Then introducing the lesson of the day.
Experiencing: here students are expected to learn by doing, or through exploration, discovery, and invention.	Presenting • Presenting the concept of heredity and breeding to the students through lecturing. • Explain selective breeding and cross- breeding. • Teachers’ explanations allow students to discover new knowledge.	Presentation • Giving lectures about inbreeding and cross-breeding. • Solving problems related to breeding like those found in their textbook
Applying • The students are provided new contexts to enable them to apply the new concepts. • After solving the problems, the learners are required to interpret their results and create concepts by connecting it with real life or context	Applying • Linking the new concepts with students’ real life or context through experiencing the learners with the selective and cross breeding. • The students are provided with examples that enables them to apply the new concepts.	Summarization • Summarizing the main points of the lesson
Cooperating • The students are given time to think about and discuss in groups through sharing, communicating, and responding to the important concepts and reasoning skills.	Transferring • Here, the teacher encourages his students to use explanations in new situations, i.e, by providing another application allowing students to use their new knowledge.	Evaluation • Measuring whether the students understood the new information correctly • Oral questions, class work, homework, etc.
Transferring • Here, the teacher encourages his students to use explanations in new situations, i.e., by providing another application allowing students to use their new knowledge.	Evaluation • Measuring whether the students understood the new information correctly. • Oral questions, class work, etc. As homework, a problem like the one shown below is given to them.

4. Method of data analysis

The quantitative data was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics using version 20 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Normality, homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test at the 5% level of significance), independence of observations, and other prerequisites for parametric statistical analysis were verified, and they were all met (Seltman, 2018). Parametric tests like the paired t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were employed since the data supported the hypotheses. Narrative analysis was employed to analyze the qualitative data in order to triangulate the quantitative data. The presentation of quantitative statistical outcomes on a topic is the first step in integrating the results into a narrative debate. Next, we give qualitative results in the form of quotes about the same issue. Then comes a comment that explains how the qualitative quotes either support, contradict or add to the quantitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

5. Result

Pre-genetic conceptual understanding test (pre-GCUT) data showed a normal distribution (Kurtosis = −.454, Skewness = −.036), and the population of the groups’ variance of results was roughly identical (p = .42). For the post-genetic conceptual understanding test (post-GCUT), the Levene test findings are greater than.05 (p = .102). This indicates that group variances are the same. Additionally, data that was regularly distributed was indicated by skewness = 1.415 and kurtosis = 1.926 (Seltman, 2018). There is no correlation between the observations, so they are independent of each other. As a result, neither the paired t-test nor the ANOVA’s assumptions were broken. The following presents, explains, and interprets the findings of the GCUT pretest and posttest score analysis using descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and one-way ANOVA.

In the pre-GCUT period, there was no statistically significant mean difference between the groups according to the ANOVA analysis results (F (2, 128) =.988, p = .375). This indicates that prior to the intervention’s execution, the groups shared the same conceptual understanding (Table 2).

Table 2. Pre GCUT ANOVA analysis results among groups

	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	sig
Between Groups	11.532	2	5.77	.988	.375
With in Groups	747.307	128	5.84
Total	758.840	130

The impact of each instruction on students’ mental grasp of heredity was assessed using the paired sample t-test (Table 3). It demonstrates that the treatment and comparison groups’ mean scores for the pre- and post-tests differed significantly, with the post-test having a higher mean score. Students in the comparison group recorded comparatively low mean score differences (8.64) between pre and post tests, but students in treatment group but students in treatment group 2 reported higher mean score differences (10.72) between pre-test and post-test. Students in treatment group 1 scored in the middle of treatment group 2 and the comparison group. On the post-GCUT, the mean scores of TG 1 (14.53), TG 2 (15.53), and CG (13.12) differ. An ANOVA analysis was done to see if this whether the difference was noteworthy. The results of the indicated that groups that were exposed to various instructional techniques differed significantly from one another. Table 4 shows that F (2,128) = 5.67, p = 0.004.

Table 3. Comparison of pre-post results for each group through paired sample t-test

Group	Test	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean difference	Std. Deviation	T	df	Sig(2 tailed
TG 1	Pre-test Post-test	38	5.21 14.53	2.12 3.03	9.32	3.71	15.47	37	.000
TG 2	Pre-test Post-test	43	4.81 15.53	2.50 4.32	10.72	3.71	18.94	42	.000
CG	Pre-test Post-test	50	4.48 13.12	2.55 2.94	8.64	3.08	19.82	49	.000

Table 4. Post GCUT ANOVA analysis results among groups

Post-GCUT	Sum of squares	DF	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	137.083	2	68.541	5.670	.004
Within Groups	1547.451	128	12.089
Total	1684.534	130

However, the ANOVA statistics were unable to identify the groups in which the difference was discovered. To find the difference, a post-hoc analysis was carried out. TG 2 is substantially different from the comparison group but not significantly greater than TG 1, according to the post-hoc analysis result utilizing the Bonfferoni test (Table 5).

Table 5. Post-hoc analysis of GCUT-Post-test results

(I) Groups	(J) Groups	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.
TG 1	TG2	−1.009	.774	.476
	CG	1.406	.748	.175
TG 2	CG	2.415*	.723	.003

Semi-structured interview results were found to support the quantitative result. Students were asked, “Why was the pea plant selected for Mendel’s experiment?” in reference to Mendelian genetics. Three interviewees from each group outline their presumptions. For instance:

Pea plants are dicots that are easy to breed. They have chromosomes for inheritance, which means that they can pass on distinct qualities. The plants have easily observable contrasting traits, such as stem height, and they can grow and become productive quickly (Student 5, TG 1).

Mendel chose to use the pea plant because it contained genetic material in the form of DNA, had numerous characteristics, such as tall and short stems, green and yellow seed colors, and others, and was an easy-to-grow and maintain dicot plant. Although the plant naturally self-pollinated, Mendel also manually crossed-pollinated it in order to eliminate self-pollination (Student 5, TG 2).

Mendel selected pea plants for his studies due to their distinct visible characteristics. It is a dicot plant that may be readily cultivated in huge quantities in a short amount of time and contains genetic material (Student 5, CG).

The generic traits of pea plants, which Mendel did not use to choose the plant, were all mentioned by the interviewees. For instance, he did not take into account its dicot trait or the existence of genetic material. Mendel’s experiment confirms that genetic material is present in all living creatures, rather than using it as a criterion, as the number of cotyledons is not a factor in the experiment. Students in TG 2 examined qualities such as the existence of observable contrasts, the capacity for spontaneous self-pollination, and artificial cross-pollination through Mendel and short-lived plants. Students in TG 1 and CG listed two requirements along with two traits that the plant has in common. The TG 1 and TG 2 students thought about the kind of pollination that was crucial for employing cross-pollination to identify inherited characteristics like dominant and recessive features. This pure breeding also led to the development of the laws of dominance and segregation. The aforementioned finding seems to suggest that by elaborating on the function of cross-pollination, interviewees from TG 2 were able to better understand the principles of heredity.

When the intervention first started, the researchers saw that a large number of the students in each session were not confident when they reflected on their ideas and were only passive participants. Only the group leaders respond to the teacher’s query. During the intervention procedure, treatment group 1 demonstrated a progressive shift in how they responded to various activities in the classroom. When teaching students about heredity using the context-based REACT technique, a large number of them showed interest, actively participated, and interacted well with their classmates to complete the practical exercises and debate the provided subject. Students did, however, also note that “the method is good, but since the concepts are new to us, we faced a problem relating the activity given to the expected learning concepts.” The researchers’ observation that they referred to students and items by their names rather than by the term “hereditary” supported students saying. For instance, they did not employ terminology like chromatid and centromere in cell division activities. Instead of connecting the activities to anticipated themes, students have perceived them as games. Their curiosity might grow as a result, but their conceptual comprehension might not advance.

When they completed various tasks, students who were given context-based activities combined with conventional education gained confidence. Additionally, rather than referring to the students and items by name—which is why they were introduced at the start of the lesson—when they thought back on their ideas regarding the assigned assignments, they used the proper terminology in genetics. For instance, when participating in DNA replication tasks, students in treatment group 2 refer to all four nitrogen bases fully, saying adenine, guanine, thiamine, and cytosine, as opposed to treatment group 1 students who say A, G, T, and C. Conventional instruction taught students to be more passive listeners with poor interaction during the talk, showing less enthusiasm and participation. Group leaders speak as one, and the other members of the group pay attention to what they have to say.

6. Discussion

Students in treatment group 2 had a higher mean score for conceptual understanding than students in the other groups, according to the results of the descriptive statistics. The treatment group’s 1 mean score was somewhat higher than that of comparison group. The post-hoc analysis’s findings demonstrated that the groups’ conceptual comprehension differed statistically significantly, with treatment group 2 outperforming the comparison group. The results indicated that, albeit not significantly, students in treatment group 2 who were given context-based activities combined with traditional instruction outperformed students in treatment group 1 who were given context-based REACT method (Table 5).

Students in TG 1 who experienced context-based REACT strategies do not differ significantly from students in TG 2 and CG; F (2, 128) = 5.67, p = .476and F (2, 128) = 5.67, p = .175respectively. This finding supports some study results (e.g., Parchmann et al., 2006; Podschuweit & Bernholt, 2018), but contrasts with other study results (e.g., Acar & Yaman, 2011; Karslı & Patan, 2016; Karsli & Saka, 2017). This could be a result of the various national settings (De Jong, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2011). Furthermore, students’ lack of focus on the concepts when they are concentrated on the contexts may be the reason for the REACT strategy’s decreased effectiveness. Research has shown that when utilizing pure context-based learning (REACT approach), students may “get lost in context” and fail to meet the science learning objectives (Parchmann et al., 2006). Some have suggested that pupils do not always develop in their learning when they are taught in a context that is appropriate for them (Parchmann et al., 2006). However, when familiar contexts and level-appropriate real-world examples are presented, pupils become more involved and capable of participating in classes. According to Gilbert et al. (2011), the implementation of the context based approach in classes promotes student engagement and enjoyment, but it does not enhance their conceptual knowledge. This may be related to the age at which students take responsibility for their learning.

Students in TG 2, on the other hand, who participated in context-based activities in addition to traditional education, differed significantly from the comparison group F (2, 128) = 5.67, p = .003.This result is consistent with previous research (van Moolenbroek & Boersma, 2013). In the case of TG 2, the teacher guides students to return to the concept after discussing the context. This may be advantageous since the genetics concept was new to them; hence, it is the first to be incorporated into the curriculum at this grade level. Given that the subject of genetics is new to them and is the first to be included in the curriculum at this grade level, it could be useful. Students may find it easier to connect the concept to the context if it is introduced before the context is presented. One method for choosing learning objectives and structuring information is the concept-context approach (van Moolenbroek & Boersma, 2013). This could be crucial to achieving the goals specified for every unit and topic in the Ethiopian curriculum when it is implemented. In order for students to effectively apply their knowledge, it is suggested by Bennett et al. (2007), Gilbert et al. (2011) and Parchmann et al. (2006) that students need facts, concepts, principles, laws, and theories of science before they deal with problems related to real-life situations to better transfer the knowledge they have. Therefore, the activity that improves treatment group 2 students’ knowledge of those ideas may be a combination of concept-led and context-based activities.

Compared to the pupils in the two treatment groups, the students who received conventional education performed worse. The comparison group’s majority of students answered the first tier of the questions but did not get to the second, which required them to justify their original decision. This could be because students may gain knowledge but not fully comprehend the concept. The lecture style of biology instruction usually hinders students’ ability to understand the material well (Bao et al., 2018).

The results from the quantitative data are corroborated by the findings from a semi-structured interview and classroom observation. Even though the students in the various groups gained a better knowledge of the material, their explanations of the responses varied. The findings of the interviews revealed that members of treatment group 2 were very good at explaining questions by connecting their responses to real-world situations, demonstrating their grasp of genetic principles. While the TG1 students were clearly engaged in the classroom, however, their responses to the questions posed were not accurate, as the observation in the classroom attested to.

On the other hand, TG 2 pupils accurately and actively explained concepts. This study is the first of its kind to look at how a context-based strategy affects pupils’ conceptual understanding in an Ethiopian setting. It thus offers evidence that improving students’ comprehension of genetics may benefit from the integration of a context-based approach with conventional teaching. Furthermore, it shows that students’ conceptual knowledge may not be considerably improved by the REACT technique alone.

7. Conclusion

Based on the findings, we draw the conclusion that everyday thinking activities and lesson designs that draw from real-world situations aid in students’ development of conceptual knowledge. Even though every student started with the same conceptual comprehension, post-intervention test results revealed a significant distinction between the groups. This suggests that if improving students’ conceptual understanding is the aim, then the instruction should go beyond traditional methods. The current study’s findings provide credence to the idea that combining conventional teaching methods with a context-based approach can enhance students’ conceptual knowledge. Supporting the context-based approach with conventional teaching strategies is far preferable to using just one method. This is due to the possibility that activities rich in context can make up for the limitations of conventional instruction.

The study’s findings lead us to the conclusion that teaching students through activities based on Ethiopian syllables may be a better way for them to understand topics than rote learning. This is accomplished by having them ask “how and why” questions.

Nevertheless, the integrated teaching approach we employed outperformed the REACT strategy on its own. This could be a result of the study’s six-week duration and one chapter’s focus on genetics, since REACT needs extra time. It is suggested that semester- or annual-level intervention may be necessary in order to optimize the impact of the REACT method on students’ conceptual understanding.

8. Implication

Through higher education, there is a continuous effort to increase students’ conceptual understanding of science and its application to everyday life in primary and secondary schools. The current secondary school research points in a positive direction for creating and evaluating context-based learning resources that are combined with conventional education and have the potential to improve students’ conceptual comprehension. It is believed that after engaging in context-based learning, students will continue to apply what they have learned in class to real-world situations and will have a deeper comprehension of genetics. Most significantly, students will discuss and make judgments on social issues in society if they continue to learn using a context-based approach. It is important to stress the discussion of context-based activities so that students can practice problem-solving and decision-making in their everyday lives in addition to being able to solve difficulties. This implies that school teachers might benefit from implementing context-based instructional materials integrated with conventional instruction in their classrooms so as to improve students’ understanding of genetics. It might also be important to include context-based activities in biology curricula.

Additionally, it might be required to explicitly restate the fundamentals of science in order to achieve long-term understanding shifts. Lastly, all academic fields should take advantage of their unique contexts in order to foster a culture of context-based learning. The technique of a context-based approach appears to be well matched to the biology topic as a consequence of the discussions to help students become more focused and the reflection on making abilities relevant to current concerns in their everyday lives. Researchers and educators need to look into this more.

Ethical statement

All subjects gave their informed consent.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding sources.