Preferences and Reasoning of 14-15 year-old Students in Relation to Natural or Synthetic Products in Different Contexts: Influence of an Instructional Module

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Mario Caracuel González, Alicia Benarroch Benarroch, Teresa Lupión Cobos, Ángel Blanco López
{"title":"Preferences and Reasoning of 14-15 year-old Students in Relation to Natural or Synthetic Products in Different Contexts: Influence of an Instructional Module","authors":"Mario Caracuel González, Alicia Benarroch Benarroch, Teresa Lupión Cobos, Ángel Blanco López","doi":"10.1007/s11165-024-10166-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study addresses the issue of preference for natural versus synthetic products in different contexts, specifically food, medicines, and cosmetics. Participants were 52 students aged 14-15 years from two schools. We analysed the choices and justifications offered by 28 students from one of the schools before and after receiving an instructional module (nine 60-minute lessons over three weeks) focused on decision-making about natural and processed foods. The goal of instruction was not to guide them towards a particular preference (natural or processed foods) but rather to enable them to make well-reasoned and more scientifically-informed decisions. Transfer of learning to the contexts of medicines and cosmetics was also examined. The responses of students in this experimental group were compared with those of 24 comparison students from the other school who did not receive the instruction. Results suggested that the teaching received by the comparison group (based solely on the standard science curriculum in Spain) does not encourage students to abandon assumptions regarding the inherent superiority of natural products, or to justify their preferences in ways that may be considered <i>on-target</i> with respect to the secondary-level science curriculum<i>.</i> By contrast, a shift towards more scientifically informed choices and reasoning was observed following participation in the instructional module. However, there was limited evidence of transfer of learning from the food context to the other two contexts considered. Only in the medicines context did the experimental group show minor improvements at post-test, suggesting that students perceive greater similarity between food and medicines than between food and cosmetics.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":"209 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10166-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study addresses the issue of preference for natural versus synthetic products in different contexts, specifically food, medicines, and cosmetics. Participants were 52 students aged 14-15 years from two schools. We analysed the choices and justifications offered by 28 students from one of the schools before and after receiving an instructional module (nine 60-minute lessons over three weeks) focused on decision-making about natural and processed foods. The goal of instruction was not to guide them towards a particular preference (natural or processed foods) but rather to enable them to make well-reasoned and more scientifically-informed decisions. Transfer of learning to the contexts of medicines and cosmetics was also examined. The responses of students in this experimental group were compared with those of 24 comparison students from the other school who did not receive the instruction. Results suggested that the teaching received by the comparison group (based solely on the standard science curriculum in Spain) does not encourage students to abandon assumptions regarding the inherent superiority of natural products, or to justify their preferences in ways that may be considered on-target with respect to the secondary-level science curriculum. By contrast, a shift towards more scientifically informed choices and reasoning was observed following participation in the instructional module. However, there was limited evidence of transfer of learning from the food context to the other two contexts considered. Only in the medicines context did the experimental group show minor improvements at post-test, suggesting that students perceive greater similarity between food and medicines than between food and cosmetics.

Abstract Image

14-15 岁学生在不同情境下对天然或合成产品的偏好和推理:教学模块的影响
本研究探讨了在不同情况下,特别是在食品、药品和化妆品方面,人们对天然产品和合成产品的偏好问题。研究对象是来自两所学校的 52 名 14-15 岁学生。我们分析了其中一所学校的 28 名学生在接受以天然食品和加工食品决策为主题的教学模块(三周内九节课,每节课 60 分钟)前后的选择和理由。教学的目的不是引导他们选择某种特定的偏好(天然食品或加工食品),而是使他们能够做出有理有据、更有科学依据的决定。此外,还考察了将所学知识迁移到药品和化妆品方面的情况。实验组学生的反应与来自另一所学校的 24 名未接受教学的对比学生的反应进行了比较。结果表明,对比组学生所接受的教学(完全基于西班牙的标准科学课程)并没有鼓励学生放弃关于天然产品固有优越性的假设,也没有鼓励他们以中学科学课程的目标方式来证明自己的偏好。与此相反,在参加教学模块后,观察到学生的选择和推理更有科学依据。然而,从食品情境到其他两个情境的学习迁移证据有限。只有在药品情境中,实验组的学生在后测试中略有进步,这表明学生认为食品和药品之间的相似性大于食品和化妆品之间的相似性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research in Science Education
Research in Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: 2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021 2020 Impact Factor: 5.439 Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus 2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership. RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal. You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research: Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know. RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted. The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers. Empircal contributions are: Theoretically or conceptually grounded; Relevant to science education theory and practice; Highlight limitations of the study; and Identify possible future research opportunities. From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks. Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is: No longer than 6000 words, including references. Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability; Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education; Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE. While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信