ERIC ED595176: The Role of Educational Research in Teaching Chemistry

ISSN: 2230-9926

Available online at http://www.journalijdr.com

IJDR

International Journal of Development Research
Vol. 09, Issue, 01, pp.25253-25257, January, 2019

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH IN TEACHING CHEMISTRY

1,*Adolfo Eduardo Obaya Valdivia, ‘Yolanda Marina Vargas-Rodriguez,
12Lucila Giammatteo and 3Citlali Ruiz Solérzano

1Department of MADEMS (Chemistry), Chemical Science, FES-Cuautitlan UNAM, Mexico
2Instituto Tecnoldgico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM), Mexico
3CCH Naucalpan UNAM, Mexico

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History:

Received 224 October, 2018
Received in revised form

19" November, 2018

Accepted 13"" December, 2018
Published online 30" January, 2019

Key Words:

Educational Research, Chemistry Teaching.

An overview of the relationship between educational research and teaching chemistry is
presented, covering the opportunity areas between production and science popularization
(dissemination of scientific knowledge). Knowledge apprehension and appropriation are also
discussed in the educational context of UNAM, in Facultad de Estudios SuperioresCuautitlan.
Links between scientific and pedagogical training are defined by considering educational research
as a means to broaden the theoretical and methodological options for chemistry teaching.

Copyright © 2019, Adolfo Eduardo Obaya Valdivia et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Citation: Adolfo Eduardo Obaya Valdivia, Yolanda Marina Vargas-Rodriguez, Lucila Giammatteo and Citlali Ruiz Solérzano, 2019. “The role of

educational research in teaching chemistry”, /nternational Journal of Development Research, 09, (01), 25253-25257.

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides an overview of certain opportunity areas
related to chemistry teaching in the current educational
context. If teaching processes are defined by content and ways
of teaching, then the educational practice supposes getting to
know reality, learning and the problems that arise within. This
extends the analysis of the teacher’s role and consequently, the
ways of educational research as a fundamental axis for teacher
training (Bizcarra, 2009). By constructing an object of study
that lays within real chemistry teaching processes,
circumstances in which experiences and proposals redefine the
teaching conditions are created. Having this in mind, it is
evident that our academic work with high — school and college
teachers needs to recognize the characteristics of teaching
practices and the main theoretical, technical and
epistemological issues.

A series of opportunities areas have been identified

e The social role of a science teacher

*Corresponding author: Adolfo Eduardo Obaya Valdivia
Department of MADEMS (Chemistry), Chemical Science, FES-Cuautitlan
UNAM, Mexico.

e Dissemination of scientific knowledge as information,
learning and construction.

e Lack of entailment between science teaching, history
and scientific phylosophy.

e Relationships between the teacher and educational
research (knowledge accumulation).

e Links between the teacher and _ the
investigation processes.

e Teacher’s efforts to
dimensions.

e The attempts to establish links between didactics,
scientific training and science production with a
theoretic — methodological approach to teaching that if
possible, guarantees the articulation to define new ways
of teaching science in general, and chemistry in
particular.

scientific

recognize teaching practice

Scientific knowledge dissemination plays an essential role to
replicate values, knowledge, abilities and attitudes that set up
conditions and life expectations, as well as job related
functions, investigation, and continuous feedback related to
content and ways of learning in institutions (Varilla, Ramos
and Carrizo, 2005). Teaching practice supposes being aware of
the reality, learning and the problems that arise as a start-up

25254

point to elaborate, enrich and restore curriculum, demanding a
commitment for didactics, reality being taken into account
(Onwuegbuzie and Collins, 2007). Chemistry didactics, upto
now, has been sheltered in the practice of educational models
that seem to be efficient but that encases several difficulties in
knowledge dissemination. This is due primarily to the lack of
clear comprehension-explanation mechanisms for those
theories that are being reproduced. A spectrum of obstacles is
then built, especially when ways or organizing scientific
rationality for knowledge dissemination are concerned (Obaya
and Delgadillo, 2001). Scientific reasoning and knowledge
accumulated by scientific research are key elements to
incorporate into teaching. If one wants to disseminate
organized information, it is necessary to teach people to think
of what they are receiving (knowledge thinking). Scientific
knowledge and its popularization acquire then relevance. A
fundamental aspect is to reproduce scientific training, based
upon reconstructing the logic beneath scientific thought.
Eventhough this has always been present in the classrooms, it
has been conditioned to the contents’ levels of information that
are taught within teaching practice and according to our
current reality (Olguin and Obaya, 2016). If all knowledge
supposes the presence of a socio.historical context, it should be
disseminated in such a way that the richness of the context in
which knowledge was achieved is considered without leaving
theory aside. Thus, the theoretical product and the logic with
which it was created are integrated. Theory of knowledge
considers that developing science means to accumulate
concluding statements about reality, which are tested, verified
or refuted.

Learning and Knowledge construction in Teaching

In Mexico, where most population is young, people need to be
involved at schools to contribute in scientific training
processes. When people learn to explain and apply their
knowledge of the physical world by practical means, they
extend an innate ability of perception and curiosity,
incrementing their abilities and needs for thinking, creating
and therefore, investigating. The protagonic responsability of
the students activity as a key element to learning has been
related to the tendency that considers the knowledge
construction process as an individual act. As such, it becomes
an exclusive product of the interaction between the subject and
the object of study, relatively far away from the influence of
other people, including teachers. Even if the self-structuring
activity is the basis of knowledge construction and has its own
intrinsic laws, it is not implied that the teachers functions and
psychopedagogical interventions have to be left aside. It
should be intrinsically linked to didactics so as to provide an
operational direction. More over, there are reasons to establish
that the teacher’s and the peers’influence make the student’s
activity structurant, having a bigger influence over his learning
(Espinoza and Salfate, 2006). This supposes displacing the
focus of the structurant activity as the object of study to the
interaction processes between the teacher, the students and the
content that trigger and promote the activity, not limiting only
to school learning but including change processes typically
linked to evolutional development as well. This shift has a
great relevance in the teacher’s role and his functions as a
learning guide or facilitator, since it is his duty to create
optimal conditions within the classroom. What should the
teacher do, in concrete, to guide and facilitate learning through
the problematization perspective? Despite the diversity of
proposals that didactics offers nowadays, it is imposible to

Adolfo Eduardo Obaya Valdivia et al. The role of educational research in teaching chemistry

provide one right answer to this and other questions. In this
way, difficulties that arise to implement and generalize
pedagogical practices inspired in constructivist principles are
evidenced in chemistry learning (GOmez-Moliné and Sanmarti,
1996). How many areas of opportunity related to scientific
training become apparent in chemistry didactics? How many
tasks are opened to the concretion of this pedagogical
discipline? It results evident that to generate a didactics
construction of chemistry from this new perspective, we need a
new learning proposal where dextresities, values, norms,
attitudes, interests are captured (Parga and Mora, 2014). In
many occasions, the student is pulled away from his own
thoughts and discoveries from his own learning. The teacher
not only does not precise the desired learning proposal, but he
also manifests the willingness of not inciding over the students
learning and gives way to his own learning process. By
identifying the self-structuring activity as the individual
activity, it is sometimes forgotten that the learning and
teaching processes are in essence interactive, with three
aspects that converge: the student that is involved in the
learning process, the object(s) of study that constitute the
learning content and the teacher that favors learning
(Schmelkes, 2001). Considering these three aspects, the basic
unit analysis of the learning-teaching process is not the
student’s individual activity anymore. Rather than that, we
need to consider the articulated activity of the student and the
teacher as a means to perform learning activities (Lopez,
Blanco and Serrano, 2017). The self-structuring activity of the
student is generated, developed and occurs as part of an
interpersonal activity.

Hence, the student’s activity that is at the basis of the
knowledge construction process is set within the interaction
teacher — content — student (Parga and Mora, 2014).
Educational research will then be confronted with two
prioritary areas of opportunity: identifying the guidelines and
interactive sequences that contribute to the knowledge
construction process, and showing, if possible, the mechanisms
by which the interaction teacher — student incides over the self-
structuring activity of the student as a consequence of
knowledge formal logic (Schmelkes, 1993). Thereby, in
Piaget’s theory, the cognitive development is conceived
fundamentally as the emergence of an individual’s internal
plan (the balance of operational structures) in such a way that
the interpersonal relationships, its characteristics and
repercussions depend on the level achieved in that emergence,
instead of being in its origin (Yilmaz, 2013). The challenge
consists of integrating in the same explanatory frame the
student’s self-structuring activity and the interactive processes.
Even if it is perceived that both aspects are intertwined, they
have not been integrated satisfactorily in an explanation of
school learning (Tojar and Serrano, 2000). A new chemistry
didactics should propose a pedagogical intervention that
resolves the articulation between reality appropriation
(apprehension) and knowledge appropriation (learning).

Enfasizing the apprehension processes of the subject
(student) implies

e Contrarresting the tendencies of conceptual blockages
and Foster the problematizing approach.

e Favoring critics to the accumulated knowledge, being
conscious that knowing a lot of theory does not
necessarily implies thinking about reality.

¢ Questioning scientific cosmovisions as an idea of a real
or absolute explanation.

25255

e Developing the observation
grouping that conducts to
knowledge.

e Setting basis for new angles to observe reality, new
concepts and ways of thinking as a product of
interacting with reality in the sense of interpreting what
is possible.

e Discovering ruptures and lead to gnoseological
conditions and constructing scientific reality.

in a _ methodological
recognize limits of

Possible relationships
methods

between content and _ teaching

Undoubtedly, one of the most common problems that
educational research does not consider are the links between
content and teaching methods, not only in chemistry but
education in general. It is a reality that after at least three
centuries, the questions: What knowledge is needed to be
disseminated? And How to disseminate it? are still a challenge
among our socio-cultural-educational context. Nowadays, the
relationship between content and teaching method includes
and synthesizes all the pedagogical issues (Pérez and Pessoa
de Carvalho, 2000). In the particular case of teaching
chemistry, the answers presented upto now are far from being
satisfactory. Paradogically, science has generated its own
myths and rituals. An example of this is precisely teaching
science, where the pretension of creating the scientific spirit in
students is still a wish. Moreover, it is considered that teaching
chemistry has not fulfilled its role and the gap between the
chemistry being made and the one disseminated in schools is
greater with time (Pérez y Pessoa de Carvalho, 2000). How do
we pretend to create scientific thinking, if we, chemistry
teachers settle with repeating knowledge without linking it to
the method that originated it? Why is chemistry taought in a
repetitive, memoristic and stereotyped way, forgetting its
structure and history? The questions What to teach? and How
to teach? cannot be posed without considering Why teaching?
and What to teach for? Deep down, What to teach? and How
to teach? are linked to what is knowledge? and How does a
person disseminates, constructs or appropriates knowledge?,
besides from What social and educational goals are met?
What determines content and method? And Under which
criteria is content selected and hierarched?

Some content and method notions in teaching

In order to understand the possible links between content and
method in teaching, we take as an initial premise
(Onwuegbuzie and Collins, 2007) that it is necessary to start
with unfixed concepts or unschematized since we are in a
dynamic situation at excellence. In this sense, we consider
three elements or conceptual resources that are determinant for
reflecting upon:

e The links between content and method in teaching can
be found in two essential moments: curricular and
classroom.

e The relationship between content and method can be
seen through the successive transpositions that occur in
the moments in which the knowledge that arises from
investigation becomes part of teaching.

e The dynamic between the links among content and
method can be perceived in the intergame posed
between two areas of rationality: the normativity and
the susbtantial.

International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 09, Issue, 01, pp. 25253-25257, January, 2019

The first element makes reference to the situation previous to
action, the formal curricular moment which is_ ideal,
hypothetical and concerned to the planning task. The teaching
moment constitutes the real and daily action, the in situ
teaching event. In the second element, the concept of
transposition allows us to observe that the content and method
undergo a series of adjustments or adequations in the moments
mentioned before, which include parameters such as the
subjectivity within selection, hierarchy and organization, as
well as the inerpretations that can be made in the planning and
the teaching processes (Espinoza and Salfate, 2006). The third
element is closely related to the previous one, allowing the
identification of two schemes: the implicit normative
rationality in the formal curriculum and the sustantive
rationality displayed in school practice, given by the
normativity. (Tojar and Serrano, 2000). Both schemes are
usually in conflict due to the teacher’s interpretation of his
daily tasks.

Classroom moments

The curricular proposal is reassessed in terms of the
interpretation that the teacher does from his knowledge,
experiences, the physical conditions of the classroom, the
students’ individual characteristics and the — students
heterogeinity during the pedagogical process (Giammatteo and
Obaya, 2018). Another fundamental transposition is found
here: the logic of the subject defined in the conceptual
structure is presented as the formal factor that orients the
process (Espinoza and Salfate, 2006). Nonetheless, even if not
altered, this represents the external content object to
communication and appropriation. This, in turn, is confronted
with the accumulated content from both teacher and student,
and it is this confrontation that defines the real logic of the
process. As can be noted, the relationship between the
subject’s logic and the process’s logic are presented as
articulated but they are not the same. The first one orients the
process and the second one determines the dynamic among
knowledge dissemination and appropriation. The logic of the
process is understood as a series of activities where
interventions and interactions between teacher and students
take place. These interactions are impossible to be predicted.
In this real dynamic situation, it is possible to identify links
between content and methods: from the teacher’s knowledge,
where content is linked to a sui generis way of dissemination
and the accumulated students‘knowledge, to sui generis
construction or appropriation, where the congruence among
both is more than ideal. We coincide with Gramsci in that “the
most fascinating content and methods become inert if the
teacher is not able to bring them to life”. We believe that
different logics are involved in dissemination and
appropriation, but both are articulated in a unique and lively
process. The act of teaching is essentially a creative event, and
therefore, original.

Scientific rationality in teaching

Considering the commitment to establish its own continuity,
scientific knowledge popularization becomes one of the
biggest problems in science. Therefore, getting someone closer
to scientific knowledge, incorporating it into learning,
facilitating its appropriation and internalization become
fundamental purposes that provide themselves objects of study
for scientific investigation which will require several levels
and dimensions in teaching.

25256

In consequence for chemistry, both the investigation methods
in teaching and cognitive methodologies and strategies for
science popularization are fundamental (Obaya and Delgadillo,
2001). In such a way, the problem of knowledge is not only the
production or application of scientific research. Rather than
that, the reflection for disseminating its contents in teaching,
coming up with several strategies for its preservation and
development, is required. Chemistry is rationally historical.
The explanation of knowledge determinations and
constructions within this discipline arises from the context in
which they were originated, considering the conditions of
rupture and continuity of scientific thought that are
conceptually established in scientific revolutions.

To establish the bonds between didactics and scientific
training, it is fundamental to reflect upon

e Scientific investigation
e Scientific investigation training
e Chemistry teaching

Nowadays, educational research in science teaching represents
the search for theoretical, methodological and _ technical
options. This orients didactics to an articulation with rational
processes which constructed science in differenet socio
historical contexts. In this way, teaching which contrasts
paradigms and gives answers to different questionings from
epistemologists would favor its development. As a starting
point, it is necessary to emphasize that educational research
does not try to solve the problems within scientific
investigation, but it does try to solve the following issues
(Artigue, 2003):

e Scientific knowledge popularization, supposing that
both trainer and trainee in relationship with content will
try to understand the rationale and formal logics of
knowledge construction, considering the social context
and reality conceptualization of the historic and
epistemologic dimensions.

e The problems related to search and theory specification,
focused on an explicative and qualitative analysis that
fulfills the basic theoretical investigations and
prioritizing the concepts and knowledge production that
the teacher generates in the classroom

e The interest of finding new links between pedagogy and
chemistry is due to the concerns that arise by observing
the didactics implications with scientific training and
knowledge popularization, recognizing that chemistry
has specific knowledge and formal deductive logics that
are configured by symbols, signs, signals, that establish
a particular language (Gomez-Moliné and Sanmarti,
2000) to which add up specific attitudes and abilities.
This exclusive epistemological process has been
scarcely revised in the different educational levels and it
is evident that it requires a bigger training process.

Based on the previous aspects, there are three elements to
be considered simultaneously

e To observe the students’ learning evolution within a
didactic sequence, identifying the most relevant
moments (progress, errors, blockages, restructurations,
regressions, etc.)

Adolfo Eduardo Obaya Valdivia et al. The role of educational research in teaching chemistry

e To dispose of a model that describes the psychological
processes implied in the students appropriation of the
content. In other words, to have a cognitive functioning
model that allows to formulate hypothesis regarding
knowledge construction reflecte don the learning
evolution. This element is key so that the interaction
analysis overcomes the characterized description. To
establish the interaction sequence that occurs during a
didactic sequence, contemplating the psychological
processes that occur in the cognitive functioning
including the different interaction categories.

Conclusion

The current panorama establishes a possible context for
educational research in teaching chemistry since the
dimensions and levels previously mentioned are an object of
study that try to explain the relationships between them,
considering the comprehension of historical conscience and
the incorporation of scientific reasoning while empowering the
sence of critical theory in its construction. This enhances the
critical use of theory, highlighting the social needs for science
popularization, diffusion and communications, tasks which are
priorily educational. School and didactics should teach
thinking, considering essential factors such as: curiosity,
intuition, perception and imagination as basis for analysis and
hypothesis construction (Burke and Onwuegbuzi,2004).
Consequently, contrasting leads way to creativity, reality
apprehension and knowledge appropriation to make scientific
investigation formative processes from the most basic parts of
the school system. In such a way, the dimension of teaching
chemistry emphasizes diverse investigation processes in
different school settings. As an example, the problems for
restructuring divisions of chemical knowledge in the
curriculum, the acknowledgment of procedures that select new
contents in scientific investigation to be incorporated in the
curriculum, the redefinition of science popularization
conditions in chemistry, the processes of educational
modernization among others were discussed. Among these
options, one of the most interesting ones is the integrated
teaching of chemistry that can adopt several forms and could
be discussed further in another essay.

REFERENCES

Artigue, M. 2003. ;Qué se puede aprender de la investigacién
educativa en el nivel universitario? Boletin de la Asociacion
Matematica Venezolana vol. X, No. 2, 117-131

Bizcarra, A.R. (Coordinador) 2009. Metodologia de la
Investigacion Educativa. Ed. La Muralla S.A. Madrid

Burke, J. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. 2004. Mixed Methods Research:
A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.Educational
Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7, 14-26

Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences.
European Journal of Education, 48, 311-325.

Espinoza, R. L. y Salfate, M.A. 2006. Transposicién didactica:
una aplicacion a la Quimica. Educacion Quimica, 17 (3) 328-
334

Giammatteo, L. and Obaya, A. 2018. Assessing Chemistry
Laboratory Skills Through a Competency based Approach in
High School Chemistry Course. Science Education
International Volume 29, Issue 2, 103-109.

Gomez-Moliné, M.R. y Sanmarti, N. 1996. La didactica de las
ciencias: una necesidad, Educacion Quimica, 7, [3], 156-168.

25257

Gomez-Moliné, M.R. y Sanmarti, N. 2000. Reflexiones sobre el
lenguaje de la ciencia y el aprendizaje, Educacioén Quimica,
11, [2], 266-273.

Lopez, G. M., Blanco, L.A. y Serrano, J.A. 2017. Valoracion de la
utilidad de la Quimica por estudiantes de Ingenieria Mecanica:
Efecto de una propuesta didactica. Educacioén Quimica, 28,(4)
14-21.

Obaya, A. y Delgadillo, G. 2001. La investigacion como principio
didactico. Educacion Quimica 14, (1) 10-16

Olguin, G. M.R. y Obaya, V.A. 2016. Desarrollo de habilidades
de pensamiento cientifico con los elementos quimicos.
EUTOPIA. Revista del Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades
para el Bachillerato. Cuarta época. Afio 9 No. 25. Julio-
diciembre de 2016. 115-120

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Collins, K.M.T. 2007. A Typology of
Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research.
The Qualitative Report Volume 12 Number 2 281-316.

Parga, L. D. y Mora, P.W. 2014. El PCK, un espacio de
diversidad tedrica: conceptos y experiencias unificadoras en
relacion con la didactica de los contenidos en quimica.
Educacion Quimica 25 (3) 332-342

International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 09, Issue, 01, pp. 25253-25257, January, 2019

Pérez, D.G. y Pessoa de Carvalho, A.M. 2000. Dificultades para
la incorporacion a la ensefianza de los hallazgos de la
investigacion e innovaciédn en didactica de las ciencias.
Educacion Quimica11 (2) 244-251

Schmelkes, S. 1993. Aspectos conceptuales y metodoldgicos de la
investigacion educativa. Dimension Educativa, 1, 15-22. Julio-
Diciembre.

Schmelkes, S. 2001. La combinacion de estrategias cuauntitativas
y cualitativas en la investigacion educativa: Reflexiones a
partir de tres estudios. Revista Electronica de Investigacion
Educativa 3, (2), 1-13

Tojar, J.C. y Serrano, J. 2000. Etica e Investigacion Educativa.
Revista ELectronica de Investigacion y EValuacion Educativa
Vol 6No. 2, 2-5

Varillas, A.E., Ramos, J.F. y Carrizo, M.A. 2005. Una propuesta
didactica innovadora con enfoque ciencia, tecnologia y
sociedad: el asbesto. Educacion Quimica16, (3) 450-455

Yilmaz, K. 2013. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative
research traditions.

3 2 28s 2 2 2K ok