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