Fostering inclusive learning: customized kits in chemistry education and their influence on self-efficacy, attitudes and achievements
Enas
Easa
ab and
Ron
Blonder
*a
aDepartment of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. E-mail: Ron.blonder@weizmann.ac.il
bScience Teaching Department, Achva Academic College, Israel
First published on 8th July 2024
Abstract
Inclusion of a diverse group of students, both regular learners and learners with special needs in chemistry classrooms is an important goal of chemistry educators. However, alternative conceptions in chemistry among high-school students can be a barrier for completing the learning process in the classroom, especially in a heterogeneous class. This study aimed to examine differentiated instruction (DI) in a chemistry classroom. We evaluated how customized pedagogical kits (CPKs) for DI, which aim to overcome alternative conceptions found during chemistry instruction, affected students and teachers. This paper presents the findings of a mixed-method study that was conducted with 9 high-school chemistry teachers, and 551 chemistry students. We used a pre-post questionnaire to investigate the impact of CPKs on teachers’ and students’ self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes towards chemistry and differentiated instruction, in addition to students’ achievements. The findings indicated the significantly higher averages of self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes towards DI in chemistry among teachers and high-school students, in addition to the significantly higher performance of students in chemistry tasks after implementing CPKs in classrooms. Being aware of the limitations of DI, we discussed customized pedagogical kits as a means that can support better inclusion in chemistry education.
Introduction
Chemistry is considered a difficult subject to teach. Many difficulties stand in the way of chemistry teaching; they can be divided into three aspects (Matuk et al., 2015): (1) the chemistry subject (e.g., the chemical nature of combining abstract theoretical concepts); this requires the learner to understand and connect the macroscopic level of understanding with the microscopic level throughout the symbolic level of understanding (Johnstone, 1991; De Jong et al., 2013). (2) The chemistry teachers, who often adhere to traditional instruction methods, mostly frontal lectures (Blonder and Waldman, 2019), lack the ability, qualifications, and requisite skills to monitor the state of their students' learning in heterogeneous classrooms. Often teachers believe that some students are incapable of learning chemistry (Orgill et al., 2021). Therefore, they might feel that they do not have to teach all the students; consequently, these teachers have low self-efficacy, which is influenced by their success and failure to advance their students (Blonder et al., 2014); eventually, it influences their motivation to teach (Kousa and Aksela, 2019). (3) The chemistry students. Some students hold alternative conceptions regarding chemistry concepts.† These alternative conceptions may hinder their understanding and learning, but they are part of the learning process (Ausubel et al., 1968). Consequently, in recent years there has been a decline in the number of chemistry students in high schools and universities (Sirhan, 2007; Mahdi, 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to change to an inclusive form of teaching that will suit all students in heterogeneous classes, and work with teachers to improve their skills and perceptions regarding their students’ ability (Barber and Mourshed, 2007). Better academic outcomes for a wide variety of students occur in inclusive classrooms (Salend and Duhaney, 2011; Cosier et al., 2013). Moreover, students with different abilities (Sözbilir, 2016; Kizilaslan et al., 2019; Okcu and Sozbilir, 2019) benefit when teachers, adopt a flexible and responsive instruction approach based on assessment, progress monitoring, developed programs, materials, and pedagogical activities that incorporate the necessary support to address students' desired goals (Fuchs et al., 2010). Various strategies and interventions are aimed at promoting inclusivity in teaching, ranging from differentiated instruction (DI) to collaborative learning methods (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011).In accordance, the current paper focused on DI strategy for inclusive teaching, which emphasizes that a high-quality chemistry teacher should diagnose students' comprehension and alternative conceptions by using appropriate diagnostic questionnaires and adapt the teaching sequence to students' individual needs and go beyond merely accommodating learners with special needs. It involves creating an environment where all students feel valued, supported, and can participate fully in their learning experiences (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011). Such activities must provide students with customized pedagogical activities, adjusted to their learning profile and skills; teachers should continually monitor their teaching and provide students with feedback on their learning.
Integrating DI in chemistry teaching may lead to improving students' learning experiences and could result in a significant and successful learning process. This approach is aligned with the numerous education researchers who indicated that the teaching and learning processes occurring in a heterogeneous classroom eventually advance and foster social integration (Konstantinou-Katzi et al., 2013; Valiandes, 2015).
Underlying the DI approach is the recognition that a class is characterized by heterogeneity. This results in an educational and social stance that encourages diverse students to learn, achieve more, and connect with a large variety of classmates (Stoll et al., 2005). DI requires teaching the syllabus in several ways (Hess and Kelly, 2007). Every student, no matter how weak or excellent, should find his/her place in a heterogeneous classroom that offers learning opportunities, and enables personal, social, and learning development (Benny and Blonder, 2016).
To address the challenge of teaching chemistry in a heterogeneous class, curriculum-based Customized Pedagogical Kits (CPKs) have been developed by experienced chemistry teachers and chemistry education researchers (Easa and Blonder, 2022). Each CPK diagnoses students’ alternative conceptions and utilizes diverse teaching strategies. The CPKs are based on the “response to intervention” (RTI) model used in special education. The RTI model offers a systematic approach to identify students' academic and behavioral needs and deliver targeted interventions to support and promote their learning (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2006). According to the model, the students’ comprehension is continuously diagnosed and evaluated to determine further interventions that would lead to better response and comprehension of the learned contents (Vaughn et al., 2005). The RTI supports teachers’ efforts to cope with pedagogical and technical difficulties in diverse special education classes. On the other hand, there are critiques on the RTI approach, which suggest that although RTI may offer some benefits in terms of early intervention and targeted support, its implementation must be critically examined to ensure that it truly promotes inclusive education for all students, rather than reinforcing exclusionary practices (e.g., Ferri, 2012).
In this study, RTI theory utilizes the implementation of DI strategies integrated in Customized Pedagogical Kits (CPKs) detailed in Easa and Blonder (2022), as tiered interventions to address the different chemistry students' learning needs and to mitigate the impact of alternative chemistry conceptions that students hold. The present study is aimed at examining how the CPKs, for customized chemistry teaching and learning, contributed to students’ achievements and beliefs. It focuses on the self-efficacy beliefs for learning and teaching chemistry as well as the attitudes towards chemistry and DI. We will describe the validation process of the research questionnaires and apply them to evaluate the effect of CPKs on students and on the teachers who apply them.
Rationale
Göransson and Nilholm (2014) discussed the lack of a consensus on the definition of inclusive education, noting that this conceptual ambiguity hinders effective research and practice. Additionally, they identified in empirical studies shortcomings such as methodological limitations and a tendency to focus on descriptive issues rather than on explanatory research. Therefore, in the current study, which suggests one approach of matching DI and inclusive instruction, we hope to contribute to the clarity in enacting inclusive education and to address empirical gaps to advance our understanding and implementation in this critical area of education.Moreover, the literature is rich in research papers that provide evidence of common alternative conceptions in chemistry (e.g., Nakhleh, 1992; Stavy, 1995; Tsaparlis et al., 2018). However, only a few papers suggest potential tools to address students’ alternative conceptions and describe their actual impact (Sirhan, 2007; Üce and Ceyhan, 2019). Therefore, there is a need to provide empirical evidence of the impact of practical tools on students’ performance, attitudes, and self-efficacy, due to their close relationship with learning outcomes and instructional strategies, and because they are key indicators of the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in supporting diverse learners (Bandura, 1997; Tomlinson and Allan, 2000; Hattie, 2009), whereas interest, motivation, and engagement are often considered as outcomes or mediators rather than direct targets of instructional interventions.
To address this gap, this paper describes how the pedagogical agents in CPKs affect the teachers' and students’ beliefs (attitudes and self-efficacy) in addition to students’ alternative conceptions and achievements in chemistry tasks.
First, we describe the theoretical framework of this pedagogical approach. Then, we present a literature review to introduce variables that may be influenced by the implementation of the DI pedagogy.
Theoretical framework
The two theoretical frameworks that guided the current study, Constructivism (Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978) and the Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986).Constructivism and alternative conceptions in chemistry
Constructivist theories posit that learners actively construct their knowledge and understanding by interacting with their environment, as well as social interactions and prior experiences (Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). In the context of chemistry education, constructivist perspectives advance our understanding of how students develop conceptual understanding through alternative conceptions about chemical concepts and phenomena. Addressing these alternative conceptions is crucial for effective teaching and learning in chemistry. By incorporating constructivist principles, this study aims to identify and address students' alternative conceptions by implementing DI strategies, using designated CPKs, which were designed to address different alternative conceptions in a heterogeneous chemistry classroom setting (Easa and Blonder, 2022).Differentiated instruction (DI)
Differentiated Instruction (DI) is an instructional approach that recognizes the diverse learning needs, interests, and readiness levels of students within a classroom (Tomlinson, 2001). DI aims to provide multiple pathways for students to engage in and master content by tailoring instruction, materials, and assessments to individual learning profiles. Given the heterogeneity of students' backgrounds and abilities, DI can serve as a key component of inclusive teaching practices in chemistry education. By dynamically addressing students' varied learning needs through DI and by paying attention to avoid segregation, educators can create supportive learning environments that foster academic success for all students.Social cognitive theory (SCT)
Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) provides a foundational framework for understanding human behavior, emphasizing the reciprocal interaction between individuals, their behavior, and their environment (Bandura, 1986). Within the context of this study, SCT explores teachers' and students' attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs towards chemistry education and Differentiated Instruction (DI). According to SCT, individuals' beliefs about their own capabilities (self-efficacy) influence their motivation, effort, and perseverance, which in turn, impact their performance and outcomes. Teachers' and students' self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes towards chemistry and DI are essential factors to consider in implementing effective instructional strategies, such as the use of Customized Pedagogical Kits (CPKs) and promoting positive learning experiences.Teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs play a critical role in shaping their instructional practices, the classroom climate, and students' learning experiences (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Positive attitudes towards chemistry education and teachers’ confidence in their ability to implement DI strategies are essential for them to effectively engage students and address their diverse learning needs. By assessing teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy regarding chemistry instruction and DI, this study explores the factors influencing the implementation of CPKs and their impact on instructional quality and student outcomes.
Sector (Arab vs. Jewish) and Gender
The sector‡ (Arab and Jewish in the Israeli context) and the gender of students may also influence their attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic outcomes in chemistry education. Previous research suggested that students' perceptions of science subjects and their self-efficacy may vary based on their gender and cultural background (Said, 2007; Shernof et al., 2017). By considering these factors, this study seeks to understand how sector and gender may interact with the implementation of CPKs and their effects on students' attitudes, self-efficacy, and academic achievement in chemistry.By integrating Social Cognitive Theory, Constructivism, Alternative Conceptions in Chemistry, Differentiated Instruction (DI), Response to Intervention (RTI) theory, teachers' attitudes, and self-efficacy, as well as considering the influence of the sector (Arab vs. Jewish) and gender, this theoretical framework serves a useful lens for examining the implementation and effects of CPKs in chemistry education. Drawing on these theoretical perspectives, this study aims to deepen our understanding of effective instructional practices, promote inclusive teaching strategies, and enhance students' learning experiences and academic achievement in chemistry classrooms.
Background
Class heterogeneity has many dimensions. It includes a variety of students’ learning abilities, prior knowledge, family background, socioeconomic background, gender and learning preferences, race, learning difficulties, language problems, and more (Grant, 1988; Knopper, 1988; Mehan, 1989). In education research, heterogeneity is used in terms of mixed ability classrooms as well as for teaching regular and additional needs learners (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011; Valiandes, 2015; Kizilaslan et al., 2020). Consequently, classes are becoming increasingly heterogeneous (Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2012); therefore, meeting the needs of all learners in these heterogeneous classes is an urgent concern in education (Konstantinou-Katzi et al., 2013; Stinken-Rösner et al., 2020). To be able to be an inclusive teacher, teachers need knowledge and training in how to teach chemistry in heterogeneous classrooms (Mumba et al., 2015). In addition, teachers often do not know their students well enough to identify their needs (Woollacott et al., 2014). Many teachers at different education levels find themselves unprepared to adjust their teaching to provide opportunities for all learners with different needs. Therefore, more research, training, and teaching models for DI are required at all levels of science teacher education (Kousa and Aksela, 2019; Kosel et al., 2024), in addition to ongoing reflection, collaboration, and professional development to continuously improve and refine inclusive practices within educational contexts (Stinken-Rösner et al., 2020). The essential role of a teacher is to adjust the teaching to meet the needs of different students rather than avoiding difficult topics (Sirhan, 2007; Morgan, 2014). In differentiated teaching, the various needs of students are considered by differentiating between the “content, process, product, and learning environment” (Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2012). A teacher can give DI to an entire class, group, or to just one individual (Thakur, 2014). Curriculum materials can be modified by supplementing, simplifying, or altering the content (Janney and Snell, 2006). For example, low-achieving students can benefit from tiered material that has the same content and minimum concepts; however, the depth of the content, activities, and outcomes can differ, depending on the students’ skills (Richards and Omdal, 2007).Differentiated Instruction offers an approach to meet the diverse needs of students in classrooms (Janney and Snell, 2006). However, although it provides numerous benefits such as individualized learning, enhanced engagement, and support for diverse learners (Valiandes, 2015), it also poses challenges such as the risk of segregation, arousal of envy, and increased workload for teachers. Therefore, it is essential for educators to approach DI carefully, considering both its advantages and limitations, in order to create inclusive and equitable learning environments. In the present study, the term differentiation is used within the developed CPK framework by applying a variety of differentiated teaching strategies and pedagogical activities, aiming to address different alternative conceptions (Tomlinson et al., 2003), all intended to enhance students’ chemistry understanding.
Addressing students’ alternative conceptions
Alternative conceptions are common hurdles in science education, particularly in the field of chemistry, where abstract concepts can often be challenging for students to grasp. Acknowledging and addressing these alternative conceptions are crucial for effective teaching and learning. Identifying students’ alternative conceptions is the first step in creating an effective pedagogical intervention to address them. Several studies emphasized the importance of formative assessment techniques such as concept inventories, interviews, and classroom observations to identify prevalent alternative conceptions (Taber, 2020). By pinpointing specific alternative conceptions, educators can tailor their instructional strategies accordingly. Over time, a variety of strategies have been proposed to address students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry and science education. One common approach is conceptual change instruction, which involves challenging existing alternative conceptions and replacing them with accurate scientific concepts (Duit and Treagust, 2003). This approach often utilizes hands-on activities, simulations, guided inquiry, and a predict-observe-explain (POE) strategy to facilitate conceptual restructuring (Limon, 2001). Another effective treatment involves the use of analogies and everyday examples to connect abstract scientific concepts to students' prior knowledge and experiences (Talanquer, 2011). By providing relatable contexts, educators can help students overcome alternative conceptions and develop a deeper understanding of complex scientific ideas.In addition to targeted treatments, various pedagogical activities have been shown to effectively address students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry and science education. Peer instruction, for example, encourages student collaboration and discussion, allowing them to confront and correct alternative conceptions through peer interaction (Crouch and Mazur, 2001). Modeling and visualization tools also play a crucial role in addressing alternative conceptions by providing students with concrete representations of abstract concepts (Gilbert and Treagust, 2009). Interactive simulations, molecular modeling kits, and virtual laboratories enable students to manipulate variables, observe outcomes, and foster a deeper understanding of scientific principles. Only a few studies presented complete sets of pedagogical activities and treatments to reduce students' alternative conceptions in science and chemistry, and even fewer studies presented empirical research that indicates the actual effect of these sets on students and reducing alternative conceptions (Sirhan, 2007; Üce and Ceyhan, 2019).
Response to intervention (RTI) model
RTI is a general education intervention model for students who have been identified as ‘at risk’ because of their academic or behavioral problems. These students are provided with intervention measures aimed at eliminating or considerably reducing their risk status (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006). The theory behind RTI is that regular education teachers can identify a student's problems accurately and can address them before they become pervasive enough to refer the student to special education (Snider and Roehl, 2007; Ebbers et al., 2010).A school working according to the RTI model will continuously carry out the following processes: identify a student at risk who is having learning difficulties, provide customized instruction, monitor progress, and modify the type and intensity of the adjustments according to the student's response to the intervention. After the monitoring, a targeted intervention is customized for each student. Students who resisted an intervention (those who do not progress in their learning compared to their classmates), despite the assistance provided, are then referred to a special educational framework appropriate for them outside the classroom (Mask et al., 2010).
Alternative conceptions, the customized pedagogical kits (CPKs), and the intervention model
In the present research, the intervention model, aimed to address students’ alternative conceptions, is based on the RTI model, which consists of four stages: (1) regular classroom instruction of a chemistry concept, (2) a diagnostic task to detect alternative conceptions among students, (3) implementation of the pedagogical treatments, and (4) an evaluation task to examine their effectiveness (Easa and Blonder, 2022). After applying this sequence, if students continue to experience difficulties and do not respond as expected to the pedagogical treatments, the teacher decides whether to transition students to a new learning unit or provide small group tutoring (Mask et al., 2010).To address the difficulties that teachers and students face while teaching as well as learning chemistry, a set of CPKs, which follow the high-school chemistry curriculum in Israel, have been developed. The CPKs consist of a diagnostic task to determine the alternative conceptions that students may have regarding the subject matter, a set of learning activities, based on DI teaching strategies to address and overcome each different alternative conception (addressed as treatments), and an evaluation task to evaluate the effect of the different pedagogical activities. In addition, the kits have a teacher's guide that describes the didactic teaching considerations and recommendations for the teachers, which are relevant to the kit's content (Easa and Blonder, 2022).
The pedagogical activities of the CPKs are based on a multifaceted approach that combines a variety of teaching strategies, effective identification techniques, targeted treatments, and pedagogical activities (e.g., conceptual change instruction, analogical reasoning, peer instruction, and visualization tools) to ensure that they meet the diverse learning profiles and the additional needs of different students in a heterogeneous class and allow each student to progress according to his or her individual pace.
To demonstrate the nature of the CPKs, we will describe one kit called “Path of the Sword” (Aviran et al., 2020). This kit was designed to (1) diagnose alternative conceptions prevalent in the topics “the state of matter” and “the melting point” and (2) propose learning activities to help students overcome these alternative conceptions, and (3) an evaluation task.
The diagnostic task included a multiple-choice question and an open-ended question. After students answer the questions, the teacher directs them to an appropriate learning activity according to the alternative conception that was revealed by the diagnostic task, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
 | ||
| Fig. 1 The rationale of the CPK “Path of the Sword”. The opening diagnostic task, the diagnosed alternative conceptions, and the rationale of the pedagogical activities that were designed to address them. | ||
The first three choices in the diagnostic task, presented in Fig. 1, depict different common alternative conceptions of students. Option 1, “Cool the liquid iron to a temperature lower than 0 °C”, diagnoses the alternative conception that the melting point of all substances is 0 °C (like water). Option 2, “Cool the liquid iron to a temperature higher than the melting point”, diagnoses the alternative conception that a change in the state of matter occurs above critical points (e.g., the melting point). Option 3, “Cool the liquid iron to a temperature higher than the freezing point”, resembles option 2, but hides an additional alternative conception – that the melting and freezing points are not the same. Option 4 is the correct answer. In the open-ended question the students are requested to justify their choice. The explanations provide more evidence for the teacher regarding the conception the students hold.
After students answered the questions, the teacher directs them, along with other students, to an appropriate learning activity. Each activity was designed to address the alternative conceptions, revealed by that choice or to provide enrichment activity to students who exhibited an accurate conceptual understanding (Fig. 1).
A detailed description of a second CPK about redox reaction was published and included all the pedagogical treatments for the use of chemistry teachers (Easa and Blonder, 2022).
Teachers’ beliefs and DI
Beliefs are associated with various terms: motivation, self-efficacy, self-esteem and self-confidence, attitudes, self-awareness, and role perception (Jones and Carter, 2007; Kousa and Aksela, 2019). Moreover, according to many studies, beliefs affect people's practices (e.g., Van Driel et al., 1998; Bryan, 2012). Here, we will refer to beliefs that relate to self-efficacy and attitudes towards DI.Creating a differentiated educational environment largely depends on the existence of an inclusive culture (Booth et al., 2002; Avargil et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) and learning environments that support inclusive learning (Baumann and Melle, 2019; Kieserling and Melle, 2019). To create an inclusive culture, one must investigate the attitudes and self-efficacy of all those involved in the educational context, especially the teachers. Research has indicated that teachers’ beliefs affect their practices (Van Driel et al., 2007). Negative teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and DI would cause unsuccessful attempts of inclusion or worse, and prevent DI from being implemented (Lombardi et al., 2015). In contrast, positive teachers’ attitudes contribute to more effective teaching strategies and improved learning environments (Sharma et al., 2008; Mazurek and Winzer, 2011).
To create an effective learning environment, teachers not only need to foster inclusive, differentiating values and positive attitudes—they also need to believe that they can use inclusive strategies. Teachers' attitudes toward DI and inclusion are positively influenced by their sense of self-efficacy as experienced teachers (Murray et al., 2011; Hosford and O'Sullivan, 2016). The concept of self-efficacy is usually defined as a person's belief in their abilities (Bandura, 1997). Several studies (e.g., Hofman and Kilimo, 2014) found that teachers who have more positive attitudes towards special education students have greater faith in their teaching abilities and are therefore more supportive of inclusion and DI. In addition, there is evidence that teachers with high levels of self-efficacy are open to new ideas and methods and are also less reluctant to address the individual needs of students in their educational practice (Leyser et al., 2011; Hofman and Kilimo, 2014).
Studies have argued that a relationship exists between teachers' beliefs about heterogeneity and students' learning (Gordon et al., 2010). However, teachers lack the essential knowledge and skills needed to apply pedagogies that can address the variety of students’ regular and additional needs in a heterogeneous class (Norman et al., 1998; Markic and Abels, 2014; Benny and Blonder, 2018). Therefore, they need to develop their knowledge about inclusion teaching in heterogenous classes and to increase their sense of self-efficacy to address heterogeneous learners (Avramidis et al., 2000; Lambe and Bones, 2006).
Students’ beliefs and achievement in chemistry with DI
Attitudes: almost all relevant literature agrees that an attitude is the tendency to think, feel, or act positively or negatively towards objects in our environment (Petty and Krosnick, 1995). Studies have shown that many students hold negative stereotypes regarding science and scientists. Consequently, this adversely affects their attitudes towards science, their choice of scientific trends, and their future choice of science-related professions (Osborne et al., 2003).A wide range of factors influence students’ formation of attitudes towards science; these factors include gender, preference for professions, attitudes of society towards science, curricula, teaching methods, teachers' beliefs towards science, teachers’ ability to relate their lesson to the daily life experiences of students, prior knowledge, and the cognitive styles of students (e.g., Kaplan and Cornell, 2005; Khan and Ali, 2012). Furthermore, studies have revealed that a considerable number of students have negative attitudes towards chemistry and low motivation to learn it, which in turn, results in their poor performance or achievement in chemistry (e.g., Sirhan, 2007; Woldeamanuel, 2019). Studies also suggest that a relationship exists between methods of instruction and students’ attitudes. Students who have a negative attitude towards chemistry lack motivation to engage in class, whereas students who have a positive attitude towards it are motivated to engage in class (Xu et al., 2012; Potvin and Hasni, 2014).
Self-efficacy is the belief that people have regarding their abilities and the results of their efforts in different situations. These beliefs affect a person's behavior, choices, efforts, ability to cope, and perseverance in various life tasks. Self-efficacy is influenced by personal experiences, model-based experiences, verbal persuasion, as well as physical and emotional responses (Bandura et al., 1987).
Several studies argued that chemistry is perceived as one of the most difficult scientific disciplines to learn (Dori and Hameiri, 2003; De Jong et al., 2013). Students have difficulties in understanding chemistry (Risch, 2010; Broman et al., 2011) and consequently, their attitudes towards it, their self-efficacy and achievement are adversely affected. Therefore, DI methods can serve as a tool that assists various students with different learning profiles and who have difficulty in learning and understanding chemistry (Tomlinson, 2015); this also affects their attitudes and beliefs toward it.
Gender and sector
There is a consensus that the use of science-oriented activities may affect students of all genders attitudes regarding the relevance of science in today's life (Siegel and Ranney, 2003). Support for this claim can be found in the findings of Trumper (2006), who found a connection between students' appreciation of the science profession and their achievements across a gender spectrum and in both sectors – Arabic and Jewish. However, several researchers contend that boys are more likely to study science, whereas girls identify more with social sciences, but sometimes with biology and chemistry subjects, when aiming for a medical career (Jones et al., 2000). In addition, there is no gender difference regarding the decline of interest in science in the transition from elementary to middle school and high school (Cheung, 2009; Çalik et al., 2015). These studies also reported gender differences in attitudes towards science and technology, with boys' attitudes being more positive than those of girls; this gap grows with the age of the students (Jarvis and Pell, 2005; Sadler et al., 2012; Hacieminoglu, 2016). On the other hand, when discussing gender differences in achievements in STEM fields such as science, mathematics, technology, and engineering, it is important to consider recent data from large-scale assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). These assessments provided valuable insights into the performance of students across different countries and enabled a more comprehensive understanding of gender gaps in STEM education.According to the most recent PISA reports, although gender differences exist in STEM achievement in many countries, the magnitude and direction of these differences vary. For instance, in PISA 2018, the OECD average gender gap in science was relatively small, with boys scoring slightly higher than girls, on average. Israel students’ average achievements in literacy, mathematics, and science were lower than the OECD countries’ averages. PISA 2022 reported that boys' achievements were higher than girls' achievements in mathematics, whereas girls' achievements were higher in science and literacy. Furthermore, Arab students’ achievements in science have increased; in contrast, Jewish students’ achievements in mathematics have increased (OECD, 2023).
The recent TIMSS data also provide insights into gender differences in STEM achievement across countries. Although overall performance in mathematics and science has improved globally, gender disparities persist in some regions. For example, in TIMSS 2019, although some countries like Singapore and Japan showed relatively small gender differences in mathematics and science achievement, other countries exhibited larger disparities, with boys outperforming girls in STEM subjects (Mullis et al., 2020). In Israel, on the other hand, gaps have been recorded in science achievements among Arabic and Jewish students, notably in the Arabic students. An interesting finding was the significant differences in achievements in favor of boys in Hebrew-speaking society and of girls in Arabic-speaking society (OECD, 2019).
Research goals and questions
This study aimed to examine the impact of implementing the CPKs on students’ and teachers’ beliefs as well as on students’ outcomes. We therefore posed the following questions:1. How, and to what extent, do the CPKs affect high-school chemistry teachers in the following aspects: A. Self-efficacy beliefs and B. Attitudes towards DI?
2. How, and to what extent, do the CPKs affect high-school chemistry students in the following aspects: A. Achievements in chemistry (indicated by their scores in the diagnostic and evaluation tasks in the CPKs), B. Self-efficacy beliefs, and C. Attitudes towards DI?
3. To what extent do students’ self-efficacy and attitudes explain the differences in students’ achievement in chemistry tasks before and after implementing the CPKs?
Research hypotheses
Based on the literature review presented above, we posed the following hypotheses:1. Chemistry teachers will be found to be significantly and positively affected after implementing the CPK regarding the following aspects: A. Self-efficacy and B. Attitudes towards DI.
2. Chemistry students’ achievements will be found to be significantly and positively affected after implementing the CPK regarding the following aspects: A. Achievements in evaluating chemistry tasks, B. Self-efficacy, and C. Attitudes towards DI.
3. Students’ self-efficacy in learning chemistry, attitudes towards DI, and attitudes towards chemistry will explain significantly and positively the higher percentage of the variances in students' achievements in chemistry tasks after their CPK experience.
Methodology
Samples
1. The experimental group of 205 students (whole classes), who had learned using the CPKs in class and had filled out the pre and the post self-efficacy and attitudes questionnaires in addition to completing the diagnostic task before implementing the CPKs, and the evaluation task after implementing the CPKs.
2. The control group of 346 students (whole classes), who did not learn using the CPKs but had completed the diagnostic task at the beginning and the end of the instruction. They were taught by the same teachers of the experimental group.
Study design
We applied a pre-post design known as a repeated measures design and examined the impact of the intervention by comparing the self-efficacy and attitudes of the same group of teachers before and after the intervention (the internal control group) (see Fig. 2).
 | ||
| Fig. 2 Research design of the experimental and control groups with and without using CPK in chemistry teaching. | ||
The self-efficacy and attitudes sequence
The students in the experimental group filled out a pre-attitudes and self-efficacy questionnaire before the intervention (learning by the CPKs). A few days later, and after they had learned by the CPKs, the students filled-out the post-questionnaire. Here, we also applied a pre-post design (repeated measures) to examine the impact of the intervention by comparing the self-efficacy and attitudes of the experimental student group before and after the intervention (the internal control group). However, a different design was applied to measure students’ achievements.The achievement sequence
To study the effect of the CPKs on students’ achievements, an external control group was created. The experimental group were taught using the CPKs to overcome their alternative conceptions, revealed by the diagnostic assignment. The control group students were taught by their teachers without using the CPKs. For both groups, learning about the impact of the intervention on students’ achievements was done by comparing their achievements in the diagnostic (pre) and the evaluation (post) tasks.Research tools and data analysis
This is a mixed study that utilized both quantitative and qualitative research tools. The quantitative tools were close-ended attitude questionnaires for teachers and students and are described elsewhere (Easa and Blonder, 2023) as well as diagnostic tasks to examine students’ alternative conceptions regarding different chemical concepts (Easa and Blonder, 2022). The qualitative tools consisted of structured interviews for teachers and students.(1) Pre-post questionnaire for assessing the attitudes (AT) and self-efficacy (SE) of chemistry teachers. A nine-point Likert scale (where 1 = not at all, 9 = to a large extent) questionnaire of 36 items with, alternatively, a Cronbach's alpha reliability of (AT (α) = 0.93), (SE (α) = 0.95). Wilcoxon tests were conducted to compare the pre-post questionnaires. The choice of the Wilcoxon statistical test was made because of the size of the teachers' sample (N = 9).
(2) Pre-post questionnaire for assessing students’ attitudes and self-efficacy. The students’ questionnaire consisted of 55 items measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a large extent), with, alternatively, Cronbach's alpha reliability of (AT (α) = 0.98), (SE (α) = 0.91). T-tests were conducted for two dependent samples to compare the pre-post questionnaires.
(3) A diagnostic task that was given to students before they had experienced the CPKs or the conventional instruction, to identify alternative conceptions regarding the chemistry topic being studied, which was assessed according to a fixed rubric with scores that ranged from 0–100.
(4) An evaluation task that was given to the students a few days after they had experienced the CPKs or the conventional instruction, using the same format as the diagnostic task, regarding the topics being studied. The evaluation task is relevant to the same alternative conceptions that were found among students using the diagnostic task, but it is not identical. It was scored according to a fixed rubric with scores that ranged from 0–100, the same as in the diagnostic task (see Table 1). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the impact of the intervention on students’ achievement compared to the control group students.
| Answer | Low performance 50% | Average performance 75% | High performance 100% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (incorrect) | – Picking the correct answer and writing a non-logical reasoning of the choice, or wrong reasoning. | Picking the correct answer and writing a non-satisfying reasoning of the choice. | Picking the correct answer and writing a logical reasoning of the choice. |
| 2 (incorrect) | – Picking the correct answer without writing a reasoning of the choice. | ||
| 3 (incorrect) | – Picking an incorrect answer and writing a logical or satisfying reasoning of the choice. | ||
| 4 (correct) |
Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to increase the reliability of the quantitative findings and to find explanations for findings obtained from the questionnaires. It was possible to conduct an interview of this type in a relatively short time (half an hour) and thus increase the number of interviews in the study (Shkedi, 2003). The interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis method according to predetermined categories within the variables of the quantitative data of the study, using a deductive (top-down) approach (Elmore, 1995; Matland, 1995), and a mortality analysis method.(5) A pre-post structured teachers’ interview, which was conducted before activating the CPKs and afterwards. The interview consisted of questions that explore three main categories: (1) general beliefs about DI (e.g., “What do you expect from CPKs that you will implement in the classroom?”), (2) diagnostics in teaching (“What do you think about diagnosing students to improve their learning? Please explain”), and (3) beliefs towards the students' learning processes and understanding in relation to DI (“Will the activities help you better understand the students and their difficulties regarding the educational material in general?”). The full protocol is detailed in Appendix 1. The same questions were asked again after the CPKs were implemented to guide teachers’ reflection on the implementation. The full protocol is detailed in Appendix 2.
(6) A pre-post structured students’ interview, which was conducted before and after the students had experienced CPK. The interview consisted of questions that explored four key categories: (1) attitudes towards chemistry (e.g., “Why did you decide to study chemistry? Do you intend to continue studying chemistry in the future?”), (2) attitudes towards DI (e.g., “Is it appropriate for all students in the class to learn using the same method? What do you suggest the teacher should do so that all students understand chemistry?”), and (3) regarding diagnostics in teaching (e.g., “Do you think that use of diagnostics when studying chemistry is important for teaching so that the teacher can help all the students understand or determine what they do not understand?”), a sense of self-efficacy in learning chemistry regarding DI (e.g., “Did the activity help the students feel more able to understand chemistry and succeed in performing tasks?”). The full protocol is detailed in Appendix 3. The same questions were asked again after the CPKs were implemented. The full protocol is detailed in Appendix 4.
Ethical considerations
The research received both approvals of the ethics committee for science teaching at the authors Institute – WIS-IRB-Education, and the Chief Scientist of the Israeli Ministry of Education (no. 10387).Results
We present the results according to the research questions for the teachers and the students.Teachers
| Variable | Time | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | Pre | 5.53 | 0.81 |
| Post | 7.13 | 0.86 | |
| Attitudes | Pre | 5.02 | 0.80 |
| Post | 6.61 | 0.98 | |
In a descriptive analysis of the teachers' interviews, more references, descriptions, and details were found regarding their sense of self-efficacy in teaching chemistry and regarding practices that support it in the classroom after activating the CPKs, compared with the interviews that took place before the activation. The results of the thematic analysis are presented according to the predetermined categories.
Analysis of the teachers’ interviews indicated mainly positive statements expressing their attitudes regarding DI after activating the CPKs, compared with their attitudes expressed before the activation. When the teachers were asked about their expectations of DI, they emphasized three things: (1) responding to the difficulty of dealing with diverse students in the class, (2) its important contribution to their pedagogical and practical toolbox as teachers, and (3) its important contribution to the interpersonal relations in the classroom, both at the level of teacher–student relations and at the level of student–student relations.
Students
A t-test was conducted to determine whether there are differences among students regarding self-efficacy for learning chemistry by DI and their attitudes towards DI, before and after experiencing the CPKs. Significant differences were found between the two measurements both regarding the self-efficacy t(204) = −15.81, p < 0.001, and the attitudes t(204) = −12.50, p < 0.001. That is, self-efficacy and attitudes increased after the intervention (Table 3).| Variable | Time | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy – SE | Pre | 3.44 | 0.78 |
| Post | 4.51 | 0.69 | |
| Attitudes – AT | Pre | 3.67 | 0.52 |
| Post | 4.21 | 0.36 | |
| Post | 4.28 | 0.46 | |
The interviews pointed to the relationship between the cognitive characteristics of motivation to study chemistry, the feeling of self-efficacy, and the ability to learn. The interviews also revealed differences in students' awareness of this relationship, due to the success they had experienced while engaging in the classroom activities. For example, one student referred to the effectiveness of the CPK she had experienced, how it contributed to her understanding of the subject, and how the realization of the understanding affected her self-efficacy beliefs in understanding future chemistry subjects.
The interviews indicated an increased mentioning by students of the mutual relationships in the classroom, the teacher–student relationships, and the student–student relationships after experiencing the CPKs. The students were asked about their preference for working in a group while performing the activities. Most of them preferred working in a group. They said that working in a group assisted them in dealing with difficulties at work, in a task or in understanding in general. In addition, the students said that group work created an atmosphere of solidarity, identification, and increases social relationships, and that it constitutes a change in routine, compared with regular classes. These components are essential for creating an inclusive learning environment.
General beliefs about DI: “After the experiment was successful and I knew what to do, I felt that I was in control and understood more. Therefore, I felt that I liked chemistry more”.
| Variable | Study group | Time | n | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Achievements | Experiment | Pre | 205 | 76.78 | 27.59 |
| Post | 205 | 86.81 | 16.27 | ||
| Control | Pre | 346 | 78.26 | 25.35 | |
| Post | 346 | 77.54 | 21.68 |
Pre-experiencing the CPKs. To test the hypothesis that the students’ variables would better explain the variances in students’ achievements after experiencing the CPKs than before, a hierarchical regression was performed.
In the first step, three demographic variables were included: gender, sector, and scores in the diagnostic task. The second step included the attitudes and students' self-efficacy.
Table 5 shows that the first step in the regression was significant, when a difference was found between Jews and non-Jews in achievements favoring the Jews. In contrast, in the second step the regression remained significant, although the contribution of the second step in the regression was not found to be significant. None of the variables entered in the regression in the second step were found to be significant and did not explain the variance in achievements. Thus, the achievements among Jewish students are higher than the achievements among non-Jewish students. Moreover, Table 5 shows that the variables explained, non-significantly, 10% of the variances in students’ achievements, as detailed in the table in Appendix 5.
| Step | Variables | B | SE. B | Beta | T | Sig. | R 2 (%) | ΔR2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | −3.269 | 3.075 | −0.073 | −1.063 | 0.289 | ||
| Sector | 11.939 | 2.957 | 0.276 | 4.037 | ![[0 with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0030_0332.gif) ![[. with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_002e_0332.gif) |
|||
| Scores | 2.213 | 2.837 | 0.053 | 0.780 | 0.436 | ![[* with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_002a_0332.gif) ![[7 with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0037_0332.gif) ![[8 with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0038_0332.gif) |
||
| 2 | Gender | −2.065 | 3.234 | −0.046 | −0.639 | 0.524 | ||
| Sector | 12.557 | 3.032 | 0.290 | 4.142 | |
|||
| Pre-self-efficacy (SE) | 8.537 | 7.213 | 0.305 | 1.184 | 0.238 | ![[9 with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0039_0332.gif) |
1.9 |
Post-implementation of CPKs. To test the hypothesis that students’ variables would better explain the variances in students’ achievements after experiencing the CPKs than before, a hierarchical regression was performed. In the first step, three demographic variables were created: gender, sector, and scores. The second step included the attitudes and the students' self-efficacy. In the third step, the attitudes and the students' self-efficacy were included in the regression. Finally, in the fourth and final step, pre-student achievement was regressed. Table 6 shows that the first step in the regression was significant, when a difference was found between Jews and non-Jews regarding achievements favoring the Jews. The second step in the regression was not found to be significant and the measures of pre-attitudes and self-efficacy in the study did not predict the post-achievements. The third step in the regression was found to be significant when the attitudes towards the importance of chemistry (AIC) and the attitudes towards the non-frontal instruction methods (ANFTMC) were found to be significant. Finally, the fourth step was found to be significant when the pre-achievement in the study was found to have a significant effect on post-student achievement afterwards. In this step the variables that were found to be significant earlier, except for the sector variable, were no longer found to be significant. Thus, the achievements among Jewish students are higher than the achievements among non-Jewish students. Furthermore, the post-student's self-efficacy, attitudes, and sector explained 12% of their achievement variances. This means that the hypothesis was confirmed (see Table 6), as detailed table in Appendix 6.
| Step | Variables | B | SE. B | Beta | t | Sig. | R 2 (%) | ΔR2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | −3.504 | 2.273 | −0.104 | −1.541 | 0.125 | ||
| Sector | 10.398 | 2.186 | 0.320 | 4.756 | |
|||
| Scores | 1.022 | 2.097 | 0.033 | 0.487 | 0.627 | ![[1 with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0031_0332.gif) ![[5 with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0035_0332.gif) |
||
| 2 | Gender | −3.031 | 2.400 | −0.090 | −1.263 | 0.208 | ||
| Sector | 11.031 | 2.250 | 0.339 | 4.902 | |
|||
| Post self-efficacy (SE) | 2.468 | 5.353 | 0.118 | 0.461 | 0.645 | |
1.2 | |
| 3 | Gender | −2.870 | 2.400 | −0.085 | −1.196 | 0.233 | ||
| Sector | 11.558 | 2.485 | 0.356 | 4.651 | |
|||
| Pre-attitudes (AT) | 11.422 | 4.432 | 0.349 | 2.577 | |
|||
| Pre-self-efficacy (SE) | −3.139 | 7.040 | −0.131 | −0.446 | 0.656 | |
4.1 |
Discussion
The research aims to examine the effect of CPKs on students' performance in chemistry tasks regarding their alternative conceptions in chemistry contents, as well as their and the teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. Research hypotheses were confirmed, which will be discussed next.Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching chemistry with DI
The study hypothesis was that after implementing the CPKs, teachers' sense of self-efficacy would be statistically significantly higher than before the implementation. The findings were on par with the hypothesis, and it was confirmed. A possible explanation for these findings lies in the connection between DI and the teachers' sense of self-efficacy (Suprayogi et al., 2017). Teachers' experience in conducting customized teaching within their chemistry classroom contributed to their practical skills and their ability to reach all students in a heterogeneous chemistry class (Richards, 2008). This included contribution to their classroom management skills, their teaching strategies, and addressed their need for a higher quality environment. This change is related to the interaction that teachers have with their students and the interactions between the students, and student involvement while teachers activate the CPK (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2006; Zee and Koomen, 2016). Teachers' experience in using the customized teaching kits was challenging, but as they experienced success with it in the classroom with their students, their sense of self-efficacy grew (Bandura, 1997; Blonder and Waldman, 2019; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). The relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and students' perception of difficulty is positively correlated. Thus, teachers' confidence in their abilities is crucial for implementing inclusive teaching practices in classrooms (Avramidis et al., 2000; Konstantinou-Katzi et al., 2013). Furthermore, we posit that implementation of the CPKs, through the integration of various teaching strategies and methods, enriched teachers' instructional repertoire. It exposed them to diverse tools and techniques for managing student heterogeneity and addressing alternative conceptions. This addressed a significant gap in the field, since teachers often are unaware of the available resources for accommodating diversity in their classrooms (Spektor-Levy and Yifrach, 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2012; Smit and Humpert, 2012), and experience insufficient professional support in their ongoing development to effectively manage such challenges (Markic and Abels, 2014; Benny and Blonder, 2018). Furthermore, Suprayogi and colleagues (2017) found that 39% of the variability in the extent of teachers’ application of personalized teaching in the classroom was related to the variables of teachers' self-efficacy and class size. Support for this was found in the present study. Many teachers emphasized in their interviews the difficulty associated with the size of the classrooms, and the large number of students studying in them, in most high schools in Israel, which may make it difficult to implement and conduct assessments. We believe that the nature, structure, and the activation mechanism of personalized teaching assessments that teachers have employed in their classrooms have addressed this difficulty. This is because the reference to students in the session is a reference to small groups of students who are divided according to the alternative conceptions with which they have been diagnosed. This way of working has made the whole classroom more limited teaching centers, consisting of 5–6 students at most (Thakur, 2014), and it is a way for acceptable classroom conduct in teaching chemistry and science in general. This feature helped teachers feel more confident in implementing differential teaching, addressing students' regular and additional needs, and even increased their ability to use kits, improve their teaching activities, and adapt them to diverse learners in the classroom (Summers and Falco, 2018).Another possible explanation for the increase in teachers’ sense of self-efficacy’ from a different perspective relates to the activation of personalized teaching assessments, which consist of diverse pedagogical activities involving technology, play, and active learning while individually and in groups, and in contributing to students' understanding (Bennett et al., 2007). This result, which improved students' performance and their experiences of success during assessment sessions, led to a decrease in the degree of difficulty in the classrooms, and consequently, the teachers' sense of self-efficacy increased (Avramidis et al., 2000).
The sense of self-efficacy is a factor that influences teachers' teaching practices (Maeng and Bell, 2015). The sense of self-efficacy can predict teachers use of personalized classroom instruction, as Ramli and Nurahimah (2020) found in their study. We hypothesize that experience in activating CPKs in chemistry classrooms may provide teachers with experience in DI practices, produce more successful teaching experiences, and instill more confidence in their ability to teach using this pedagogy. In this way, their sense of self-efficacy will increase and lead to openness and willingness to apply it (Allinder, 1994; Evers et al., 2002). Therefore, early experience in collaborative teaching has a positive effect on teachers’ ability to teach science (Burns et al., 2014), and their willingness to teach by more innovative methods (Tillema and Imants, 1995; Avramidis et al., 2000; Konstantinou-Katzi et al., 2013), increase their love of teaching, confidence in their ability to teach in diverse classes, and manage an effective functioning classroom (Blonder et al., 2014).
Furthermore, teachers were able to overcome the difficulty of implementing DI in heterogeneous classrooms along with the lack of suitable training (Lambe and Bones, 2006; Gordon et al., 2010; Blonder et al., 2014) by applying the already-developed CPKs, which they obtained from the study team, in addition to the guidance and instructions they had concerning its operation within the classrooms. This helped them address the regular and additional needs of a variety of students in the classroom, which resulted in positive experiences among the students and better achievements, and as a result, the teachers' self-efficacy beliefs increased (Easa and Blonder, 2022).
Teachers’ attitudes towards DI
The hypothesis of the study in this context was that teachers' attitudes towards DI would be found to be statistically significantly higher after implementing CPKs than before it. The results confirmed this hypothesis. A possible explanation for this finding lies in the study of Kopmann and Zeinz (2016), who found a significant positive correlation between teachers' attitudes and applying conclusive and heterogeneous practices. Research has shown that teachers' attitudes are an essential factor influencing their teaching abilities in heterogeneous classes, and in implementing inclusive teaching (Butler and Shibaz, 2008; Hartwig and Schwabe, 2018). Here we found that teachers' experience within the CPKs, along with that of their students, has influenced their attitudes for the better, probably due to the teaching methods, materials, and pedagogical activities that were included in the kits, which were found appropriate for them. This is in line with Lamba and Bones (Lambe and Bones, 2006), who found that sometimes the negative attitudes of teachers can result from inappropriate teaching methods and materials. Moreover, we believe that enabling DI tutoring in classrooms by using CPKs has increased teachers' experience in teaching diverse lessons or in using adapted tutoring on a regular basis, thus making their attitudes more positive towards teaching and consequently, their ability to teach diverse students (Avramidis et al., 2000; Konstantinou-Katzi et al., 2013). In addition, activating the CPKs in classrooms has exposed teachers to the availability of valid pedagogical tools to address students' alternative conceptions and has contributed to more effective teaching strategies and improved learning environments; therefore, their attitudes have improved (Sharma et al., 2008; Mazurek and Winzer, 2011).We also believe that activating CPKs has affected teachers' sense of self-efficacy, as mentioned previously, and as a result, their attitudes have improved. Support for this can be found in several studies (Murray et al., 2011; Hosford and O'Sullivan, 2016), which argue that to cultivate positive attitudes, teachers must also believe in themselves and be able to use inclusive strategies. That means that teachers' attitudes toward inclusive teaching are favorably influenced by their sense of self-efficacy as experienced teachers. Moreover, professional development for teachers influences the extent to which DI can be applied in classrooms, because, according to Hartwig and Swab as well as a teachers’ knowledge development model (Hartwig and Schwabe, 2018; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019), attitudes are the median variable, within teacher training and are important for implementing DI in classrooms. Therefore, we believe that applying DI can greatly benefit if an effort is made in training the teachers. The CPK implementation expands the teachers’ toolbox, leading to an improvement in their attitudes, and as a result, it increases the extent that DI is practiced and more CPKs are utilized in classrooms.
Students’ achievements in chemistry with DI
The study hypothesis in this context was that the achievement of students who had experienced CPKs would be significantly higher than those who had experienced conventional traditional teaching (without CPKs). The results show that the average achievement of those students who had experienced CPKs (in the assessment task) was M = 86.81, compared with before experiencing the CPKs, which was M = 76.78, whereas the control students had M = 78.26, compared with M = 77.54. That is, the hypothesis was confirmed, since the achievements of the experimental group regarding DI were significantly higher. We believe that a possible explanation for these findings lies in the nature of the CPKs; they consist of pedagogical sessions and activities that have tailored teaching strategies for conceptual understanding, resulting in a joyful and appropriate experience for students, ranging from generally low-performing students to high-performing ones (Valiande and Koutselini, 2009; De Neve et al., 2016). This experience has led to an improvement in students’ performance, and therefore, an improvement in their conceptual perceptions and understanding of concepts. Thus, it had a positive effect on their achievement (Tulbure, 2011), compared with a traditional teaching style, where there has been a decline in students' conceptual understanding (Beloshitskii and Dushkin, 2005). Considering recent research, improving students’ performance in chemistry is an important result of conducting inclusive teaching (Deri et al., 2018). We believe that the CPK activities are tailored to address students' alternative conceptions or difficulties in understanding chemistry concepts as much as can be expected. The measure of its effectiveness lies in the assessment tasks and students’ performance, compared with the diagnostic tasks. The findings that the students achieved significantly higher scores in the assessment tasks, after experiencing the CPKs, indicates that these experiences were indeed successful and achieved their goals.Predicting students’ achievement with DI
We expected that chemistry students’ self-efficacy in learning, attitudes towards DI, and attitudes towards chemistry after implementing CPK would explain why the variances in students' achievements in chemistry tasks were higher than before the implementation.The study findings indicated that students’ variables (sector, gender, sense of self-efficacy, and attitudes), with the sector variable being the only variable that was significant, explain 10% of the variances in students' achievement before experiencing the CPKs, compared with 12% of the variances after the implementation. In contrast, the students’ variables in both study periods together explain 51% of the variances in achievement, when the only significant variables were pre-student achievement and the sector. Thus, it can be concluded, as in previous studies, that attitudes toward DI and the sense of self-efficacy are factors that positively affect students’ achievement. Therefore, we believe it is very important to invest resources and efforts in supporting and assisting teacher training to implement the DI pedagogy, increase the use of these factors, and promote DI use. Moreover, it is very important to help teachers understand how their students learn in the context of self-efficacy theory, to help them find a mediating formula to cultivate students’ skills through customized practices in the classroom. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have reported how students' belief system variables, such as science evaluation and attitudes towards science, have affected student achievement (Solano-Flores and Soltero-González, 2011; Tucci et al., 2016; McKinney and Cook, 2018). Further evidence comes from the study of Eltahir et al. (2021), who investigated the effect of using the DI-adapted teaching strategy on middle-school students' achievement in science courses, and their attitudes towards it. Their results indicated that there were significant differences between the groups in favor of the group that studied using DI, regarding the positive attitudes toward it.
Clearly, the implementation of CPKs was successful in influencing students’ performance. Moreover, the CPKs incorporated a variety of teaching methods and strategies for hands-on activities as well as inquiry-based activities and group work (Blonder and Sakhnini, 2012; Chen et al., 2014). Students had positive experiences, and as a result, their alternative conceptions, attitudes towards chemistry, towards DI, and their self-efficacy beliefs were positively affected (Vishnumolakala et al., 2017).
Research limitations
This study examined the influence of the CPKs that were implemented once in each chemistry class. The results show that they had a significant impact on both the teachers and students. However, we wish to emphasize the need to implement more than one CPK in each class, to better evaluate the effect of the CPKs on students’ and teachers’ characteristics.The teachers’ sample consisted of only female participants.
Research contribution and conclusions
Owing to the increasing heterogeneity of students in chemistry classrooms, the question of how teachers can successfully deal with this heterogeneity has become a central question. As a result, policymakers and researchers are calling on teachers to adapt their teaching to the diverse learning and the additional needs of the students in their classrooms to ensure a meaningful education for all. Thus, teachers were requested to move away from a “One-size-fits-all” approach, as suggested by UNESCO (2017). They are encouraged to employ various approaches to accommodate diverse abilities and preferences. This enables all students to participate and promotes them based on their current skills as effectively as possible. Additionally, it encourages the initiation of joint learning situations, according to Rott and Marohn (2018). One of these approaches is the DI approach, which with careful use, offers a promising approach to meet the diverse needs of students in classrooms (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). Although it provides numerous benefits such as individualized learning, enhanced engagement, and support for diverse learners, it also poses challenges such as the risk of segregation, arousal of envy, and increased workload for teachers. Therefore, it is essential for educators to approach DI thoughtfully, considering both its advantages and limitations, to create inclusive and equitable learning environments (Banks, 2008) as well as to ensure a fair education system and effective teaching (OECD, 2012; Dixon et al., 2014). Moreover, chemistry and science have a central and unique status in the Israeli education system in general, and in the life of Arab society and its culture (Herrera, 2007; Huleihil and Huleihil, 2016). Thus, this study is designed to investigate the effects of using the DI strategy on high-school students' achievement in chemistry and their attitudes and sense of self-efficacy. The main finding is that using DI pedagogy, by implementing the CPKs, had a positive effect on student achievements, students’ and teachers’ attitudes, and their sense of self-efficacy. Therefore, this study significantly contributes to knowledge in the field because it is one of only a few studies that have empirically examined the impact of a teaching intervention that applies DI in high-school chemistry, and investigated the application of the RTI approach, which was developed primarily for special education, in high-school chemistry classes. Finally, it is one of only a few studies that offer a complete pedagogical strategy for overcoming students’ alternative conceptions and difficulties, within the CPKs.Regarding the teachers, the CPKs, which consist of diagnostic tasks and tailored pedagogical strategies to overcome students’ alternative conceptions, can assist them to better understand students’ difficulties, and teach chemistry contents by more varied and interesting methods, by applying the DI teaching strategies. Moreover, the CPKs are ready-made; therefore, teachers do not need to develop customized pedagogical activities to teach chemistry and can overcome students’ alternative conceptions on their own. We believe that the CPKs we have developed can serve as effective instructional tools in inclusive classrooms. They can also provide a foundation for future action research. This research could greatly contribute to integrated chemistry education specifically, and to integrated science education in general. The CPKs can be used in particular parts or as a whole kit. This approach is similar to a few other interventions described in the relevant literature, such as those by Rott and Marohn (2018). Therefore, it is advisable to provide in-service and pre-service teachers with a wide range of opportunities to apply the CPKs by holding workshops, seminars, and professional development frameworks for entire chemistry teams in schools to train them properly, efficiently, and effectively.
Data availability
Data collected from human participants, described in the paper are not available for confidentiality reasons.Appendices
Appendix 1. Teachers’ pre-interview questionnaire
– What are your expectations about the care system you will implement in class?– Do you think that the activities will contribute to your relationship with your students?
– Do you think that the activities will require a lot of investment from you regarding preparation?
– Do you think that the activities will contribute more to your relationship with certain students? Who are they and why?
– Will the activities help you understand more about the students and their difficulties as well as the educational material in general?
– What do you think about diagnosing students to improve their teaching and learning?
– Do you think that diagnostics can contribute to improving the learning and teaching of chemistry?
– What do you think about the diagnostic tasks? Do they meet your expectations? Do they achieve their goals? Do you recommend that teachers use the diagnostic tasks?
– How about personalized instruction?
– Do you think that exposure to personalized teaching methods using the treatment kits contributes to a change in your teaching?
– Did your relationship with your students’ learning process influence your thinking about teaching chemistry and regarding your view of teaching chemistry?
– Do you think that working with these activities helps you feel more confident in teaching chemistry?
– Do you think that the activities will help you to teach chemistry?
– Do you think that the activities (CPK) will affect the toolbox you have to teach chemistry?
– Do these types of kits help teachers deal with students' difficulties in learning chemistry?
– Do you think that assessment in itself is a complete teaching method?
– Can the treatment kit be a way of teaching chemistry daily or just a learning summary method?
– Do you think that this therapy kit meets the needs of a variety of students?
– Will the activities and assessment affect how you see yourself as a teacher in the classroom?
– Do you think that you have enough training and tools to implement personalized instruction? Explain.!
– What do you think about the professional development that exists today in the teaching of chemistry regarding diagnosis and personalized teaching?
Appendix 2. Teachers’ post-interview questionnaire
– How did you feel about preparing for today's activities?– How did you feel about the activities regarding your relationship with your students?
– To what extent did the activities affect you in terms of preparation?
– Did you feel that the activities contributed more to your relationship with certain students? Who are they and why?
– Did the activities help you understand more about the students and their difficulties as well as the material studied in general?
– What do you think about diagnosing students to improve their teaching and learning?
– Do you think that diagnostics contributed to improving the learning and teaching of chemistry?
– What do you think about the diagnostic tasks? Did they meet your expectations, and did they achieve their goals? Do you recommend that teachers use the diagnostic tasks?
– How about personalized instruction?
– How did exposure to personalized teaching methods in the treatment kits contribute to your teaching and to your attitude towards your students’ learning? Did it influence your view about teaching chemistry?
– How did these activities affect your self-confidence in teaching chemistry?
– How did the activities affect your ability to teach chemistry?
– Did the activities (CPK) affect the toolbox you have in teaching chemistry? Explain. Was there a deficiency or something else lacking? How do these kits help teachers deal with students' difficulties in learning chemistry?
– Do you think that the treatment kit can be a way of teaching or just a learning summary method?
– Do you think that this kit meets the needs of the diverse students in your class?
– Did the activities and diagnosis affect how you see yourself as a teacher in the classroom?
– Do you think that you have enough training and tools to implement personalized instruction?
– What is your opinion about the professional development that exists today in teaching chemistry regarding diagnosis and personalized teaching?
Appendix 3. Students’ pre-interview questionnaire
– What is your name? Which class?– How many years have you been studying chemistry?
– Why did you decide to study chemistry? Do you intend to continue studying chemistry in the future?
– What do you think about chemistry? Is it an important profession in our lives? Why?
– Is chemistry a difficult subject or can you understand it easily? Is it enough to listen to the teacher in class to understand it?
– Do you think that it is appropriate for all the students in class to learn by the same method? What do you suggest the teacher should do so that all students will understand chemistry, and that the teacher will consider the differences between the students?
– How do you feel when the teacher teaches with one method for the whole class, which is not enough; do you need something else to understand?
– Do you think that the teachers are doing enough to reach all the students, so that they will understand the material?
– How do you feel about the difference between the teacher always explaining and teaching using the blackboard and teaching in other ways including using technological and alternative methods? How do you feel about using both methods?
– What do you prefer when you study and don't understand something: dealing with the material alone or studying in a group with discussions that can help you understand? Where do you feel more comfortable? Is a homogeneous or heterogeneous group more helpful?
– Have you noticed students who were not interested in studying chemistry at first and then, because of the teacher and what he did, the student changed his mind and became interested in chemistry and increased his motivation?
– If you could choose to study in a class with a chemistry teacher who teaches in methods adapted to the students, beginning with activities and alternative methods so that everyone can understand, and a class with a teacher who teaches using the same method for everyone, with the help of the board and explanations in words only, what would you choose?
– In your opinion, is diagnosis in studying chemistry important for teaching so that the teacher can help all the students understand or determine what do they not understand?
– When a teacher tries to teach you using a suitable method, does it affect your relationship? Will you feel differently towards the teacher? Will you feel differently about your ability to learn and understand chemistry? Do you feel better when studying chemistry when the teacher tries everything to make you understand using any method that suits you?
Appendix 4. Students’ post-interview questionnaire
– How many tasks did you do today?– How did you feel at work regarding today's activities?
– Would you like to participate in more activities?
– What do you prefer, to work in groups or individual, private work and why?
– Did you feel that the activities contributed to improving your relationship with the teacher?
– Did you feel that the activities contributed to improving your relationships with other students?
– Did the activities contribute to your understanding of chemistry?
– Did the activities change your opinion about chemistry?
– What do you think about diagnostic tasks? Is diagnosis in chemistry important to help the teacher and students better understand?
– Do you recommend that students perform the diagnostic tasks?
– How does the personalized teaching method make you feel?
– Did working in these activities help you feel more confident about studying chemistry?
– Did the activities help you feel that you could understand or learn chemistry?
– Do you prefer that the teacher teach you this way in class most of the time or only after you study the material the usual way and thus summarize the material? Explain why.
– Has the teacher's role in these activities changed compared with his role in regular classes? How did it differ?
Appendix 5. Percentage of variances that explained student achievement according to the variables that were studied before implementing the CPKs. Th main results are highlighted
| Step | Variables | B | SE. B | Beta | t | Sig. | R 2 (%) | R 2 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | −3.269 | 3.075 | −0.073 | −1.063 | 0.289 | |||
| Sector | 11.939 | 2.957 | 0.276 | 4.037 | 0.000 | ||||
| Scores | 2.213 | 2.837 | 0.053 | 0.780 | 0.436 | 7.8*** | 7.8*** | ||
| 2 | Gender | −2.065 | 3.234 | −0.046 | −0.639 | 0.524 | |||
| Sector | 12.557 | 3.032 | 0.290 | 4.142 | 0.000 | ||||
| Scores | 1.496 | 2.911 | 0.036 | 0.514 | 0.608 | ||||
| Attitudes towards the importance of Chemistry | AIC | 3.051 | 3.317 | 0.108 | 0.920 | 0.359 | |||
| Attitudes towards DI | ADI | −4.034 | 3.107 | −0.126 | −1.298 | 0.196 | |||
| Attitudes towards non-frontal instruction methods in Chemistry | ANFTMC | −0.802 | 4.743 | −0.020 | −0.169 | 0.866 | |||
| Self-Efficacy performance in Chemistry | SEPC | −5.718 | 5.810 | −0.226 | −0.984 | 0.326 | |||
| Self-Efficacy emotional state in Chemistry | SEEC | 8.537 | 7.213 | 0.305 | 1.184 | 0.238 | 9.7*** | 1.9 |
Appendix 6. Percentage of variances that explained student achievement by the study's variables after implementing the CPKs. The main results are highlighted
| Step | Variables | B | SE. B | Beta | t | Sig. | R 2 (%) | ΔR2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | −3.504 | 2.273 | −0.104 | −1.541 | 0.125 | ||
| Sector | 10.398 | 2.186 | 0.320 | 4.756 | 0.000 | |||
| Scores | 1.022 | 2.097 | 0.033 | 0.487 | 0.627 | 10.5*** | 10.5*** | |
| 2 | Gender | −3.031 | 2.400 | −0.090 | −1.263 | 0.208 | ||
| Sector | 11.031 | 2.250 | 0.339 | 4.902 | 0.000 | |||
| Grades | 0.847 | 2.160 | 0.027 | 0.392 | 0.696 | |||
| AIC – B | 1.264 | 2.462 | 0.059 | 0.514 | 0.608 | |||
| ADI – B | −2.188 | 2.306 | −0.091 | −0.949 | 0.344 | |||
| ANFTMC – B | 0.205 | 3.520 | 0.007 | 0.058 | 0.954 | |||
| SEPC – B | −0.166 | 4.312 | −0.009 | −0.038 | 0.969 | |||
| SEEC – B | 2.468 | 5.353 | 0.118 | 0.461 | 0.645 | **11.7 | 1.2 | |
| 3 | Gender | −2.870 | 2.400 | −0.085 | −1.196 | 0.233 | ||
| Sector | 11.558 | 2.485 | 0.356 | 4.651 | 0.000 | |||
| Scores | 0.291 | 2.229 | 0.009 | 0.131 | 0.896 | |||
| AIC – B | −5.825 | 3.652 | −0.274 | −1.595 | 0.112 | |||
| ADI – B | −3.131 | 3.295 | −0.131 | −0.950 | 0.343 | |||
| ANFTMC – B | 8.613 | 4.854 | 0.284 | 1.774 | 0.078 | |||
| SEPC – B | −1.247 | 5.234 | −0.066 | −0.238 | 0.812 | |||
| SEEC – B | 3.201 | 6.564 | 0.153 | 0.488 | 0.626 | |||
| AIC – A | 11.422 | 4.432 | 0.349 | 2.577 | 0.011 | |||
| ADI – A | 1.792 | 4.284 | 0.069 | 0.418 | 0.676 | |||
| ANFTMC – A | −12.228 | 5.850 | −0.251 | −2.090 | 0.038 | |||
| SEPC – A | 2.482 | 5.462 | 0.116 | 0.454 | 0.650 | |||
| SEEC – A | −3.139 | 7.040 | −0.131 | −0.446 | 0.656 | 15.8*** | 4.1 | |
| 4 | Gender | −1.868 | 1.839 | −0.055 | −1.016 | 0.311 | ||
| Sector | 5.131 | 1.980 | 0.158 | 2.591 | 0.010 | |||
| Scores | −0.179 | 1.706 | −0.006 | −0.105 | 0.917 | |||
| AIC – B | −3.215 | 2.803 | −0.151 | −1.147 | 0.253 | |||
| ADI – B | −0.058 | 2.535 | −0.002 | −0.023 | 0.982 | |||
| ANFTMC – B | 3.034 | 3.745 | 0.100 | 0.810 | 0.419 | |||
| SEPC – B | −0.613 | 4.006 | −0.032 | −0.153 | 0.879 | |||
| SEEC – B | 1.286 | 5.026 | 0.061 | 0.256 | 0.798 | |||
| AIC – A | 5.449 | 3.430 | 0.167 | 1.588 | 0.114 | |||
| ADI – A | −0.872 | 3.287 | −0.033 | −0.265 | 0.791 | |||
| ANFTMC – A | −4.243 | 4.529 | −0.087 | −0.937 | 0.350 | |||
| SEPC – A | 5.889 | 4.191 | 0.275 | 1.405 | 0.162 | |||
| SEEC – A | −4.959 | 5.390 | −0.206 | −0.920 | 0.359 | |||
| Scores – B | 0.483 | 0.041 | 0.643 | 11.666 | 0.000 | 51.0*** | 35.2*** |
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.Acknowledgements
The authors are part of the Development Team for the CPKs and would like to thank the other members of the team: Sara Akons, Shelley Rap, Ruth Waldman, Dvora Katchevich, Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, Miriam Carmi, Nurit Decalo and Esty Zemler from the Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science.Research funding: The research was supported by the Trump Foundation (154, 246).
References
- Allinder R. M., (1994), The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants, Teacher Educ. Special Educ., 17(2), 86–95.
- Ausubel D. P., Novak J. D. and Hanesian H., (1968), Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New York: holt, Rinehart and Winston, vol. 6.
- Avargil S., Herscovitz O. and Dori Y. J., (2012), Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 21(2), 207–225.
- Aviran E., Easa E., Livne S. and Blonder R., (2020), Implementation of a personalized online learning system towards creating hybrid learning and teaching in chemistry classes, in Early warning systems and targeted interventions for student success in online courses, IGI Global, pp. 90–111 DOI:10.4018/978-1-7998-5074-8.ch005.
- Avramidis E., Bayliss P. and Burden R., (2000), Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school, Teach. Teacher Educ., 16(3), 277–293.
- Bandura A., (1986), The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory, J. Soc. Clin. Psychol., 4(3), 359–373.
- Bandura A., (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
- Bandura A., (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: W.H. Freeman.
- Bandura A., O'Leary A., Taylor C. B., Gauthier J. and Gossard D., (1987), Perceived self-efficacy and pain control: opioid and nonopioid mechanisms, J. Personality Social Psychol., 53(3), 563.
- Banks J. A., (2008), Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age, Educ. Res., 37(3), 129–139.
- Barber, M. and Mourshed M., (2007), How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top, McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top.
- Baumann T. and Melle I., (2019), Evaluation of a digital UDL-based learning environment in inclusive chemistry education, Chem. Teacher Int., 1(2), 1–12 DOI:10.1515/cti-2018-0026.
- Beloshitskii A. V. and Dushkin A. V., (2005), An experiment in differentiated instruction in a higher technical educational institution, Russian Educ. Society, 47(9), 54–61.
- Bennett J., Lubben F. and Hogarth S., (2007), Bringing science to life: a synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching, Sci. Educ., 91(3), 347–370.
- Benny N. and Blonder R., (2016), Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers, Educ. Res. Int., 2016, 2742905 DOI:10.1155/2016/2742905.
- Benny N. and Blonder R., (2018), Interactions of chemistry teachers with gifted students in a regular high-school chemistry classroom, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(1), 122–134 10.1039/C7RP00127D.
- Blonder R., Benny N. and Jones M. G., (2014), Teaching self-efficacy of science teachers, The Role of Science Teachers' Beliefs in International Classrooms, Brill, pp. 1–15.
- Blonder R. and Sakhnini S., (2012), Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary school by using a variety of teaching methods, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 500–516 10.1039/C2RP20026K.
- Blonder R. and Waldman R., (2019), The role of a WhatsApp group of a professional learning community of chemistry teachers in the development of their knowledge. Mobile technologies in educational organizations, IGI Global. Codex Higher Education, pp. 117–140, https://dataonderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14650.
- Booth T., Ainscow M., Black-Hawkins K., Vaughan M. and Shaw L., (2002), Index for inclusion, Developing learning and participation in schools, vol. 2.
- Broman K., Ekborg M. and Johnels D., (2011), Chemistry in crisis? Perspectives on teaching and learning chemistry in Swedish upper secondary schools, NorDiNa: Nordic Studies Sci. Educ., 7(1), 43–60.
- Bryan L. A., (2012), Research on science teacher beliefs, Second international handbook of science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–495.
- Burns M., Pierson E. and Reddy S., (2014), Working together: How teachers teach and students learn in collaborative learning environments, Int. J. Instruction, 7(1), 17–32.
- Butler R. and Shibaz L., (2008), Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students' perceptions of instructional practices and students' help seeking and cheating, Learn. Instruction, 18(5), 453–467.
- Çalik M., Ültay N., Kolomuc A. and Aytar A., (2015), A cross-age study of science student teachers' chemistry attitudes, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16(2), 228–236.
- Chen H. T., Wang H. H., Lin H. S., P. Lawrenz F. and Hong Z. R., (2014), Longitudinal study of an after-school, inquiry-based science intervention on low-achieving children's affective perceptions of learning science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 36(13), 2133–2156.
- Cheung D., (2009), Students’ attitudes toward chemistry lessons: the interaction effect between grade level and gender, Res. Sci. Educ., 39(1), 75–91.
- Cosier M., Causton-Theoharis J. and Theoharis G., (2013), Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities, Remedial Special Educ., 34, 323–332 DOI:10.1177/0741932513485448.
- Crouch C. H. and Mazur E., (2001), Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys., 69(9), 970–977.
- De Jong O., Blonder R. and Oversby J., (2013), How to balance chemistry education between observing phenomena and thinking in models, Teaching Chemistry–A study book, Brill Sense, pp. 97–126.
- De Neve D., Devos G. and Tuytens M., (2016), The importance of job resources and self-efficacy for beginning teachers' professional learning in differentiated instruction. Teach. Teacher Educ., 47(1), 30–41.
- Deri M. A., Mills P. and McGregor D., (2018), Structure and evaluation of a flipped general chemistry course as a model for small and large gateway science courses at an urban public institution, J. College Sci. Teach., 47, 68–77.
- Dixon F. A., Yssel N., McConnell J. M. and Hardin T., (2014), Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy, J. Educ. Gifted, 37(2), 111–127.
- Dori Y. J. and Hameiri M., (2003), Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(3), 278–302.
- Driver R., (1989), Students’ conceptions and the learning of science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 11(5), 481–490.
- Duit R. and Treagust D. F., (2003), Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25(6), 671–688.
- Easa E. and Blonder R., (2022), Development and validation of customized pedagogical kits for high-school chemistry teaching and learning: the redox reaction example, Chem. Teacher Int., 4(1), 71–95.
- Easa E. and Blonder R., (2023), The development of an instrument for measuring teachers’ and students’ beliefs about differentiated instruction and teaching in heterogeneous chemistry classrooms, Chem. Teacher Int., 5(2), 125–141 DOI:10.1515/cti-2023-0005.
- Ebbers L., Conover K. S. and Samuels A., (2010), Leading from the middle: preparing leaders for new roles, New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(149), 59–64.
- Elmore R. F., (1995), Structural reform and educational practice, Educ. Res., 24(9), 23–26.
- Eltahir M. E., Alsalhi N. R., Al-Qatawneh S., AlQudah H. A. and Jaradat M., (2021), The impact of game-based learning (GBL) on students’ motivation, engagement, and academic performance on an Arabic language grammar course in higher education, Educ. Information Technol., 26, 3251–3278.
- Evers W. J., Brouwers A. and Tomic W., (2002), Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands, Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 72(2), 227–243.
- Ferri B. A., (2012), Undermining inclusion? A critical reading of response to intervention (RTI), Int. J. Inclusive Educ., 16(8), 863–880.
- Florian L. and Black-Hawkins K., (2011), Exploring inclusive pedagogy, British Educ. Res. J., 37(5), 813–828 DOI:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096.
- Fuchs D. and Fuchs L. S., (2006), Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Res. Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
- Fuchs D., Fuchs L. S. and Stecker P. M., (2010), The “blurring”of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services, Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323.
- Gess-Newsome J., Taylor J. A., Carlson J., Gardner A. L., Wilson C. D. and Stuhlsatz M. A., (2019), Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 41(7), 944–963.
- Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. F., (2009), Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education, Multiple representations in chemical education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–7.
- Göransson K. and Nilholm C., (2014), Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education, Eur. J. Special Needs Educ., 29(3), 265–280 DOI:10.1080/08856257.2014.933545.
- Gordon S., Reid A. and Petocz P., (2010), Educators' conceptions of student diversity in their classes, Studies Higher Educ., 35(8), 961–974.
- Grant G. P., (1988), The World We Created at Hamilton High, Syracuse University Magazine, 5(1), 7–11.
- Hacieminoglu E., (2016), Elementary School Students' Attitude toward Science and Related Variables, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ., 11(2), 35–52.
- Hartwig S. J. and Schwabe F., (2018), Teacher attitudes and motivation as mediators between teacher training, collaboration, and differentiated instruction, J. Educ. Res. Online, 10(1), 100–122.
- Hattie J., (2009), Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge.
- Herrera L., (2007), Higher education in the Arab world. International handbook of higher education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 409–421.
- Hess F. and Kelly A., (2007), Learning to lead: What gets taught in principle-preparation programs, Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244–274.
- Hofman R. H. and Kilimo J. S., (2014), Teachers’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Towards Inclusion of Pupils with Disabilities in Tanzanian Schools, J. Educ. Training, 1(2), 177–198 DOI:10.5296/jet.v1i2.5760.
- Hosford S. and O'Sullivan S., (2016), A climate for self-efficacy: the relationship between school climate and teacher efficacy for inclusion, Int. J. Inclusive Educ., 20(6), 604–621.
- Huleihil M. and Huleihil H., (2016), Status of Science and Technology Education at Arab High Schools in Israel, Athens J. Educ., 3(4), 365–386.
- Janney R. E. and Snell M. E., (2006), Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms, Theory Practice, 45(3), 215–223.
- Jarvis T. and Pell A., (2005), Factors influencing primary school children's attitudes toward science before, during, and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(1), 53–83.
- Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 7, 75–83.
- Jones M. G. and Carter G., (2007), Science Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs, In S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (ed.) Handbook of research on science education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 1067–1104.
- Jones M. G., Howe A. and Rua M. J., (2000), Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists, Sci. Educ., 84(2), 180–192.
- Kaplan S. G. and Cornell D. G., (2005), Threats of violence by students in special education, Behavioral Disorders, 31(1), 107–119.
- Khan G. N. and Ali A., (2012), Higher secondary school students’ attitude towards chemistry, Asian Soc. Sci., 8(6), 165–169.
- Kieserling M. and Melle I., (2019), An experimental digital learning environment with universal accessibility, Chem. Teacher Int., 1(2), 1–9 DOI:10.1515/cti-2018-0024.
- Kizilaslan A., Sozbilir M. and Zorluoglu S. L., (2019), Making science accessible to students with visual impairments: insulation-materials investigation, J. Chem. Educ., 96(7), 1383–1388 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00772.
- Kizilaslan A., Zorluoglu S. L. and Sozbilir M., (2020), Improve learning with hands-on classroom activities: science instruction for students with visual impairments, Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ., 1–22 DOI:10.1080/08856257.2020.1732110.
- Knopper D., (1988), Open space, Roeper Rev., 10(4), 238.
- Konstantinou-Katzi P., Tsolaki E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris M. and Koutselini M., (2013), Differentiation of teaching and learning mathematics: an action research study in tertiary education, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 44(3), 332–349.
- Kopmann H. and Zeinz H., (2016), Student teachers and inclusion. Attitude-related resources, perception of stress about different support needs and ideas for individual support, J. Educ., 62(2), 263–281.
- Kosel C., Bauer E. and Seidel T., (2024), Where experience makes a difference: Teachers' judgment accuracy and diagnostic reasoning regarding student learning characteristics, Front. Psychol., 15, 1278472.
- Kousa P. and Aksela M., (2019), The Needs for Successful Chemistry Teaching in Diverse Classes: Teachers' Beliefs and Practices, LUMAT: Int. J. Math, Sci. Technol. Educ., 7(1), 79–100.
- Lambe J. and Bones R., (2006), Student teachers’ attitudes to inclusion: implications for initial teacher education in Northern Ireland, Int. J. Inclusive Educ., 10(6), 511–527.
- Leyser Y., Zeiger T., and Romi S., (2011), Changes in Self-Efficacy of Prospective Special and General Education Teachers: Implication for Inclusive Education, Int. J. Disability, Dev. Educ., 58 (3), 241–255.
- Limón M., (2001), On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal, Learn. Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380.
- Linan-Thompson S., Vaughn S., Prater K. and Cirino P. T., (2006), The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems, J. Learn. Disabilities, 39(5), 390–398.
- Lombardi A., Vukovic B. and Sala-Bars I., (2015), International Comparisons of Inclusive Instruction among College Faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States, J. Postsecondary Educ. Disability, 28 (4), 447–460.
- Maeng J. L. and Bell R. L., (2015), Differentiating science instruction: secondary science teachers' practices, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 37(13), 2065–2090.
- Mahdi H. S., (2014), The impact of computer-mediated communication environments on foreign language learning: a review of the literature, Teaching English Technol., 14(2), 67–86.
- Markic S. and Abels S., (2014), Heterogeneity and Diversity: A Growing Challenge or Enrichment for Science Education in German Schools? Eurasia J. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 10(4), 271–283.
- Mask P. R., McGill M. J. and Austin S. F., (2010), Response to intervention (RTI): a work in progress, National Social Sci. J., 34(2), 93.
- Matland R. E., (1995), Synthesizing the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation, J. Public Administration Res. Theory, 5(2), 145–174.
- Matuk C. F., Linn M. C. and Eylon B. S., (2015), Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units, Instructional Sci., 43(2), 229–257.
- Mazurek K. and Winzer M., (2011), Teacher attitudes toward inclusive schooling: themes from the international literature, Educ. Soc., 29(1), 5–25.
- McKinney P. and Cook C., (2018), Student conceptions of group work: visual research into LIS student group work using the draw-and-write technique, J. Educ. Library Information Sci., 59(4), 206–227 DOI:10.3138/jelis.59.4.2018-0011.
- Mehan H., (1989), Microcomputers in classrooms: educational technology or social practice? Anthropology Educ. Quarterly, 20(1), 4–22.
- Morgan H., (2014), Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. The clearing house, A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, Ideas, 87(1), 34–38.
- Mullis I. V. S., Martin M. O. and Foy P., (2020), TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science, Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
- Mumba F., Banda A., Chabalengula V. and Doleng N., (2015), Chemistry Teachers' Perceived Benefits and Challenges of Inquiry-based Instruction in Inclusive Chemistry Classrooms, Sci. Educ. Int., 26(2), 180–194.
- Murray C., Lombardi A. and Wren C. T., (2011), The effects of disability-focused training on the attitudes and perceptions of university staff, Remedial Special Educ., 32(4), 290–300.
- Nakhleh M. B., (1992), Why some students don't learn chemistry: chemical misconceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 69(3), 191–196.
- Norman K., Caseau D. and Stefanich G., (1998), Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results, Sci. Educ., 82, 127–146 DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199804)82:23.0.CO;2-G.
- OECD (2012), Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools, Paris: OECD Publishing DOI:10.1787/9789264130852-en.
- OECD, (2019), PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do, Paris: OECD Publishing, vol. 1.
- OECD, (2023), PISA 2022 Results: The State of Learning and Equity in Education, Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing, vol. 1 DOI:10.1787/53f23881-en.
- Okcu B. and Sozbilir M., (2019), Designing a bulb to teach electric circuits to visually impaired students, Phys. Teach., 57(99), 99–101.
- Orgill M., Killedar M., York A. and Lamm M. H., (2021), Teacher beliefs and practices surrounding underrepresented students in chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 58(8), 1247–1277 DOI:10.1002/tea.21689.
- Osborne R., (1985), The Generative Learning Model and Its Implications for Science Education, Studies Sci. Educ., 12(1), 59–87.
- Osborne J., Collins S., Ratcliffe M., Millar R. and Duschl R., (2003), What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(7), 692–720.
- Petty R. E. and Krosnick J. A., (1995), Antecedents and consequences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Piaget J., (1970), Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology, Wiley, vol. 1, pp. 703–732.
- Potvin P. and Hasni A., (2014), Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research, Studies Sci. Educ., 50(1), 85–129.
- Ramli R. and Nurahimah M. Y., (2020), Self-efficacy and differentiated instruction: a study among Malaysian school teachers. Univ. J. Educ. Res., 8(4), 1252–1260.
- Richards J. C., (2008), Teaching listening and speaking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(4).
- Richards M. R. E. and Omdal S. N., (2007), Effects of tiered instruction on academic achievement in a secondary science course, J. Adv. Acad., 18(1), 424–453.
- Risch B., (2010), Teaching chemistry around the world, Waxmann Verlag.
- Rodríguez I. R., Saldaña D. and Moreno F. J., (2012), Support, Inclusion, and Special Education Teachers' Attitudes toward the Education of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Autism Res. Treatment, 2012, 87–94.
- Rott L. and Marohn A., (2018), Choice2explore–a teaching concept for inclusive science education in primary schools, In Proceedings of the 12th ESERA 2017 Conference, Research, practice and collaboration in science education, pp. 2194–2202.
- Sadler P. M., Sonnert G., Hazari Z. and Tai R., (2012), Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: a gender study, Sci. Educ., 96(3), 411–427.
- Said Z. M., (2007), Gender differences in achievement and attitudes in a problem-based general chemistry laboratory program, J. Chem. Educ., 84(6), 1049–1056.
- Salend S. J. and Duhaney L. M., (2011), Historical and philosophical changes in the education of students with exceptionalities. Adv. Special Educ., 21, 1–20.
- Santangelo T. and Tomlinson C. A., (2012) Teacher educators' perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: an exploratory investigation, Action Teacher Educ., 34(4), 309–327.
- Sharma U., Forlin C. and Loreman T., (2008), Impact of training on pre-service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities, Disability Society, 23(7), 773–785.
- Shernof D. J., Csikszentmihalyi M., Schneider B. and Shernof E. S., (2017), Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory, School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1), 122–137.
- Shkedi A., (2003), Words that try to touch—Qualitative research, theory and application, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Ramot, (Hebrew).
- Siegel M. A. and Ranney M. A., (2003), Developing the changes in attitude about the relevance of science (CARS) questionnaire and assessing two high school science classes, J. Res. Sci. Teach, 40(8), 757–775.
- Sirhan G., (2007), Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview, J. Turkish Sci. Educ., 4(2), 2–20.
- Smale-Jacobse A. E., Meijer A., Helms-Lorenz M. and Maulana R., (2019), Differentiated instruction in secondary education: a systematic review of research evidence, Front. Psychol., 10, 2366.
- Smit R. and Humpert W., (2012), Differentiated instruction in small schools, Teach. Teacher Educ., 28(8), 1152–1162.
- Snider V. E. and Roehl R., (2007), Teachers' beliefs about pedagogy and related issues, Psychology Schools, 44(8), 873–886.
- Solano-Flores G. and Soltero-González L., (2011), Meaningful assessment in linguistically diverse classrooms, Teacher preparation for bilingual student populations, Educar para transformar, 146–163.
- Sözbilir M., (2016), Practical work in science with visually impaired students, in I. Eilks, S. Markic and B. Ralle, (ed.) Science education research and practical work, Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 169–179.
- Spektor-Levy O. and Yifrach M., (2019), If science teachers are positively inclined toward inclusive education, why is it so difficult? Res. Sci. Educ., 49(3), 737–766.
- Stavy R., (1995), Learning Science in the Schools, Hillsdale, NJ: Research Informing Practice; Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 131–154.
- Stinken-Rösner L., Rott L., Hundertmark S., Menthe J., Hoffmann T., Nehring A. and Abels S., (2020), Thinking inclusive science education from two perspectives: inclusive pedagogy and science education, Res. Subject-Matter Teaching Learning (RISTAL), 3(2), 30–45.
- Stoll L., Bolam R., McMahon A., Wallace M. and Thomas S., (2005), Professional learning communities: A review of the literature, Institute of Education, University of London.
- Summers J. J. and Falco L. D., (2018), Evaluating construct validity of the Middle School Self-Efficacy Scale with high school adolescents, J. Career Development DOI:10.1177/0894845318773383.
- Suprayogi M. N., Valcke M. and Godwin R., (2017), Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom, Teach. Teacher Educ., 67(1), 291–301.
- Taber K. S., (2020), Classroom-based investigations of student misconceptions: an overview of research approaches and techniques, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(3), 792–807.
- Talanquer V., (2011), Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 33(2), 179–195.
- Thakur K., (2014), Differentiated instruction in the inclusive classroom, Res. J. Educ. Sci., 2(7), 10–14.
- Tillema H. H. and Imants J. G., (1995), Training for the professional development of teachers, In T. Guskey and M. Huberman (ed.) Professional development in education, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 135–150.
- Tomlinson C. A., (2015), Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms, Society, 52(3), 203–209.
- Tomlinson C. A., (2001), How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, ASCD.
- Tomlinson C. A. and Allan S. D., (2000), Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Tomlinson C. A., Brighton C., Hertberg H., Callahan C. M., Moon T. R. and Brimijoin K. et al., (2003), Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature, J. Educ. Gifted, 27(1), 119–145.
- Trumper R., (2006), Factors affecting junior high school students' interest in physics, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 15, 47–58.
- Tschannen-Moran M. and Hoy A. W., (2001), Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct, Teach. Teacher Educ., 17(7), 783–805.
- Tschannen-Moran M., Parish J. and Dipaola M., (2006), School climate: the interplay between interpersonal relationships and student achievement, J. School Leadership, 16(4), 386–415.
- Tucci C. L., Chesbrough H., Piller F. and West J., (2016), When do firms undertake open, collaborative activities? Introduction to the special section on open innovation and open business models, Ind. Corporate Change, 25, 283–288.
- Tulbure C., (2011), Do different learning styles require differentiated teaching strategies? Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci., 11(1), 155–159.
- Tsaparlis G., Pappa E. T. and Byers B., (2018), Teaching and learning chemical bonding: research-based evidence for misconceptions and conceptual difficulties experienced by students in upper secondary schools and the effect of an enriched text, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(4), 1253–1269.
- Üce M. and Ceyhan İ., (2019), Misconception in Chemistry Education and Practices to Eliminate Them: Literature Analysis, J. Educ. Training Studies, 7(3), 202–208.
- UNESCO, (2017), Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf.
- Valiande S. and Koutselini M. I., (2009), Application and evaluation of differentiation instruction in mixed ability classrooms, in 4th Hellenic Observatory PhD Symposium, London, UK: LSE, London School of Economics, vol. 25, p. 26.
- Valiandes S., (2015), Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness, Stud. Educ. Eval., 45, 17–26 DOI:10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2015.02.005.
- Van Driel J. H., Verloop N. and De Vos W., (1998), Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35(6), 673–695.
- Van Driel J. H., Bulte A. M. W. and Verloop N., (2007), The conceptions of chemistry teachers about teaching and learning in the context of a curriculum innovation, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27, 303–322 DOI:10.1080/09500690412331314487.
- Vaughn S., Linan-Thompson S. and Hickman P., (2005), Response to intervention as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities, Exceptional Children, 71(4), 391–409 DOI:10.1177/001440290507100401.
- Vishnumolakala V. R., Southam D. C., Treagust D. F., Mocerino M. and Qureshi S., (2017), Students’ attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences in a modified process-oriented guided inquiry learning undergraduate chemistry classroom, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(2), 340–352.
- Vygotsky L. S., (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press.
- Woldeamanuel M. M., (2019), Motivation and attitude towards learning chemistry, African J. Chem. Educ., 9(2), 70–88.
- Woollacott L., Booth S. and Cameron A., (2014), Knowing your students in large diverse classes: a phenomenographic case study, Higher Educ., 67(6), 747–760.
- Xu X., Southam D. and Lewis J. E., (2012), Attitude toward the subject of chemistry in Australia: an ALIUS and POGIL collaboration to promote cross-national comparisons, Australian J. Educ. Chem., 72, 32–36.
- Zee M. and Koomen H. M., (2016), Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: a synthesis of 40 years of research, Rev. Educ. Res., 86(4), 981–1015.
Footnotes |
| † In this paper we use the term alternative conceptions, but we are aware that the research literature uses different terms (e.g., pre-conceptions, naïve conceptions, misconceptions) (Osborne, 1985; Driver, 1989). |
| ‡ In Israel there are two major sectors: Jews: 74.2% of the total population (according to data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics for 2021). Non-Jews (Arabs: 21% of the total population, Druze: 1.7% of the total population, Bedouins: 1.9% of the total population, others (including Israelis without a clearly defined religious or ethnic identity, Circassians, French, Russians, and others): 1.2% of the total population. |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2024 |