Getting Involved: Context-Based Learning in Chemistry Education - Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education - page 58

that science knowledge on its own is not enough for this: it has to be connected to
other domains and it is guided by norms and ethical issues as well.
In summary, the module links personal interests and attitudes with a scientific
understanding and thereby raises the level of argumentation both in class and also
outside the classroom. Cognitive understanding is the foundation for such debates
and is applied on a “need-to-know basis.”

3.3 Example 3: Tap Water or Mineral Water: Decision
Making and Attitudes

This unit focuses on the idea of combining necessary chemistry content with a
relevant personal decision: should you prefer tap water or bottled mineral water for
drinking? The unit is based on teaching materials developed by two teachers
(T. Guenkel and W. Muenzinger) who designed a sequence with lab work and
useful information framed by the abovementioned question. The content of the unit
is based on the students interests, as they pose the research questions and organize

the work. Various experiments (e.g., How do minerals or CO 2 get into water? How
can we measure the amount of minerals? Which water tastes better?) and informa-
tion (Which minerals are healthy? What does the information on the labels mean?)
are offered. The activities allow a high degree of autonomy for the students
throughout the lessons and build upon their personal interests to enhance motiva-
tion. The unit ends with a role-play where students are divided into groups (e.g.,
nutritional advisers, producer of mineral water, local water supplier, etc.). In these
groups, they relate chemistry knowledge and the given position of the interest group
they have chosen. In a symposium, they discuss the advantages and disadvantages
of the two types of water.
In a pre/posttest design (before the unit and after lab work and role-play), all
students were asked to give a personal report of their choice between the two kinds
of water and to provide reasons for their choice. Decision-making processes were
analyzed by the qualitative content analysis method (Mayring, 2000 ). The aim was
to clarify the extent to which students use science knowledge in their reasoning on
socio-scientific issues (Aikenhead, 2006 ; Kolstø & Ratcliffe, 2007 ). The literature
shows that students often make little use of newly acquired scientific evidence, even
if tests prove that the content itself was learned during the lessons (Kortland, 2001 ;
Ratcliffe, 1997 ). In our view, that might be due to the interference of emotional and
affective aspects of a topic.
A detailed discussion of the empirical data is given elsewhere (Menthe, 2006 ,
2012 ). For the purpose of this article, two findings are particularly interesting:

'

1. We only found a very small number of students changing their opinion toward
tap water or mineral water during the series of lessons even in cases where the
students

' arguments were not supported by—or even were in conflict with—the