Sergün Kaya, Şeyda Gül


The aim of this research is to examine the effect of REACT (relating, experiencing, applying, cooperating, transferring) strategy-based instruction on 11th grade students' attitudes towards biology science and biology course and their motivation towards context-based biology. The research was used quasi-experimental method. The sample of the research consisted of 50 students attending to the 11th grade of a randomly determined public school. The 'Biology Science and Course Attitude Scale' and 'Context-Based Biology Motivation Scale' was used as data collection tools. Descriptive statistics (arithmetic mean, standard deviation etc.), independent samples t-tests and ANCOVA analysis were used in the analysis of the data. According to the findings, statistically significant differences emerged in favour of the experimental group between the pre-test and post-test scores obtained from the students' attitude and motivation scales, and these findings were interpreted as the positive effect of REACT strategy-based teaching on these variables.

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


attitude; biology lecture; motivation; REACT strategy

Full Text:



Acar, B., & Yaman, M. (2011). The effects of context-based learning on students’ levels of knowledge and interest. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 1-10.

Al khawaldeh, S. A. (2013). Prediction/discussion-based learning cycle versus conceptual change text: Comparative effects on students’ understanding of genetics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 168-183.

Atik, A. D., Kayabaşı, Y., Yağcı, E., & Ünlü-Erkoç, F. (2015). The secondary school students’ biology science and course attitude scale: Analysis of reliability and validity. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 36, 1-18.

Ayaz, A., Çepni, S., & Akdeniz, A.R. (1993). Development of the Turkish secondary science curriculum. Science Education, 77(4), 433-440.

Balantekin, Y., & Bilgin, A. (2017). The Effect of ARCS motivational model on motivational level, attitudes and academic success of the students. Elementary Education Online, 16(1), 161-177.

Baran, M. (2013). The effect of context- and problem-based learning on teaching thermodynamics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from

Barker V., & Millar R. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 645-665.

Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science. New York USA: Continuum publish.

Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2003). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: what are they and what are their effects? In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165-185). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1521–1547.

Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 999-1015.

Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & 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. Science Education, 91(3), 347-370.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-364.

Broman, K., Bernholt, S., & Christensson, C. (2020). Relevant or interesting according to upper secondary students? Affective aspects of context-based chemistry problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2020.1824177

Campbell, B., Lubben, F., & Dlamini, Z. (2000). Learning science through contexts: helping pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 239–252.

Choi, H. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation in on-line courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215–227.

Cetin-Dindar, A. (2016). Student motivation in constructivist learning environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2), 233-247.

CORD, (1999). Teaching science contextually. CORD Communications, Inc., Waco, Texas, USA.

Çetin, İ. (2011). Attitudes that determine our lives and behavior. Retrieved from,de%2C%20anne%20%E2%80%93%20baba%20etkisidir.

Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71.

Dağıstanlı, F., & Yıldırım, H. İ. (2020). The effect of environment education supported by context-based learning approach on environmental attitudes, behaviors and success of 7th grade secondary school students. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 54, 106-132.

Demircioğlu, H., Vural, S., & Demircioğlu, G. (2012). The effect of a teaching material developed based on “REACT” strategy on gifted students’ achievement. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 31(2), 101-144.

Demircioglu, H., Asik, T., & Yilmaz, P. (2019). Effect of instruction based on REACT strategy: ‘water treatment and water hardness’. International Journal of Scientific and Technological Research, 5(2), 104-118.

Deveci, İ., & Karteri, İ. (2020): Context-based learning supported by environmental measurement devices in science teacher education: a mixed method research. Journal of Biological Education, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2020.1821083

Erdoğan-Karaş, Ö. (2019). Teaching of the 7th grade 'the cell and divisions' unit through react strategy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from

Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.

Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817-837.

Glynn, S. M. & Koballa, Jr. T. R. (2005). The contextual teaching and learning instructional approach, exemplary science: Best practices in professional development. Ed. R. E. Yager, 75-84. Arlington, VA: NSTA press.

Gökkulu, A. (2015). The evaluation of eight grade science and technology book sets according to the constructivist learning approach. Turkish Studies, 10(11), 683-706.

Gül, Ş. (2016). Teaching “Photosynthesis” topic through context-based instruction: An implementation based REACT strategy. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(2), 21-45.

Gül, Ş., Gürbüzoğlu-Yalmancı, S., & Yalmancı, E. (2017). The Effect of react strategy in teaching of “excretory system” subject. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(1), 79-96.

Gül, Ş. (2019). Development of motivation scale towards context-based biology (MSCBB): A study on reliability and validity. Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 6(11), 63-77.

Gürsoy-Köroğlu, N. (2010). Context based learning approach candidates teachers' environmental attitudes, interest and the environmental effects of conscious consumer behaviours [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from

Hofstein, A. & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1017-1039.

Işık, A., Budak, A., Baş, F., & Öztürk, F. (2015). The views of the instructors of elementary Mathematics teaching program on constructivist teaching. Kastamonu Education Journal, 23(1), 385-400.

İlhan, N. (2010). The effect of context based approach on the learning of chemical equilibrium [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from

İlter, İ., & Ünal, Ç. (2014). The effect of the activities based on 5e learning cycle model on learning process in social studies teaching: An action research. The Journal of Turkish Social Research, 18(1), 295-330.

Kang, J., Keinonen, T., Simon, S., Rannikmäe, R., Soobard, R., & Direito, I. (2019). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 1317-1338.

Karslı, F., & Yiğit, M. (2016). 12th grade students’ views about an alkanes worksheet based on the REACT strategy. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 472-499.

Karslı, F., & Saka, Ü. (2017). The Effect of the context-based approach on 5th grade students' conceptual understanding about “getting to know foods”. Elementary Education Online, 16(3), 900-916.

Karslı-Baydere, F., & Aydın, E. (2019). Teaching “the eye” topic through the explanation assisted react strategy of the context-based approach. Gazi Education Journal, 39(2), 755-791.

Keleş, H. İ. (2019). Teaching 'pure substances, mixtures and the separation of mixtures' topics in the 7th grade science course through react strategy [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Retrieved from

King, D. T., Winner, E., & Ginns, I. (2011). Outcomes and implications of one teacher’s approach to context-based science in the middle years. Teaching Science, 57(2), 26-30.

King, D. (2012). New perspectives on context-based chemistry education: Using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 51-87.

Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 75–102.

Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kuhn, J., & Müller, A. (2014). Context-based science education by newspaper story problems: A study on motivation and learning effects. Perspectives in Science, 2, 5-21.

Kutu, H., & Sözbilir, M. (2011). Teaching “Chemistry in Our Lives” unit in the 9th grade

chemistry course through context-based ARCS instructional model. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 30(1), 29-62.

Magwilang, B. E. (2016). Teaching chemistry in context: Its effects on students’ motivation, attitudes and achievement in chemistry. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(4), 60-68.

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th Edition). Boston: Pearson.

Özbay, A.Ş., & Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2015). The use of REACT strategy for the incorporation of the context of physics into the teaching English to the physics English prep students. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 4(3), 91-117.

Özgen, K., & Alkan, H. (2014). The Effects of learning activities corresponding with students’

learning styles on academic success and attitude within the scope of constructivist learning approach: The case of the concepts of function and derivative. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1-38.

Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralled, B., & the ChiK Project Group. (2006). “Chemie im kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041-1062.

Potter, N. M. & Overton, T. L. (2006). Chemistry in sport: Context-based e-learning in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 195-202.

Ramsden, J. M. (1992). If it’s enjoyable, is it science? School Science Review, 73, 65-71.

Saka, A. Z. (2011). Investigation of student-centered teaching applications of physics student teachers. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, (special ıssue), 51-58.

Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: What we know and what we still do not know? International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095-1107.

Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2012). Results and perspectives from the rose project. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe (pp. 203-236). Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Şensoy, Ö., Yıldırım, İ., & Gökçe, B. (2017). The effect of context-based learning approach applied in the 6th grade electrical conduction unit on the attitudes of students towards science. The Journal of Academic Social Sciences, 5(60), 124-134.

Taasoobshirazi G. (2007). Gender differences in physics: a focus on motivation. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 4(3), 7–12.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. edt). Boston: Pearson.

Tabuk, M. (2019). A Meta-analysis on the Relationship between Attitude toward Mathematics and mathematics achievement. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 49, 166-185.

Teyfur, M., & Teyfur, E. (2012). Investigation of teachers and school administrators' views regarding the constructivist curricula (Izmir city sample). Adnan Menderes University Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 66-81.

Topu, F. B., & Goktas, Y. (2019). The effects of guided-unguided learning in 3d virtual environment on students' engagement and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 1-10.

Utami, W. S., Sumarmi, Ruja, N., & Utaya, S. (2016). REACT (relating, experiencing, applying, cooperative, transferring) strategy to develop geography skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(17), 100-104.

Ültay, N., & Çalık, M. (2011). Distinguishing 5E model from REACT strategy: An

example of ‘acids and bases’ topic. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 199-220.

Ültay, N., & Çalık, M. (2012). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 686-701.

Ültay, N. (2012). Designing, implementing and comparing? acids and bases? instructional tasks based on REACT strategy and 5E model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from

Ültay, E. (2014). Investigating the effect of the activities based on explanation assisted REACT strategy in context-based learning approach on impulse, momentum and collisions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from

Ültay, N., Durukan, Ü. G., & Ültay, E. (2015). Evaluation of the effectiveness of conceptual change texts in the REACT strategy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 22-38.

Ültay, N., & Çalik, M. (2016). A comparison of different teaching designs of ‘acids and bases’ subject. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(1), 57-86.

Ültay, N., Güngören, S. Ç., & Ültay, E. (2017). Using the REACT strategy to understand physical and chemical changes. School Science Review, 98(364), 47-52.

Ünal, Ç., & Çelikkaya, T. (2009). The effect of constructive approach on success, attitude and

permanency at the social sciences teaching (5th class example). Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 13(2), 197-212.

Vaino, K., Holbrook J., & Rannikmäe M. (2012). Stimulating students' intrinsic motivation for learning chemistry through the use of context-based learning modules. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 13, 410-419.

Wilder, M., & Shuttleworth, P. (2004). Cell inquiry: A 5E learning cycle lesson. Science Activities, 41(1), 25-31.

Williams, P. (2008). Assessing context-based learning: Not only rigorous but also relevant. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 395-408.

Yıldırım, G., & Gültekin, M. (2017). Applications of context-based learning in primary 4th class science and technology course. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 18(Özel Sayı), 81-101.

Yu, K. C., Fan, S. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2015). Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills through context-based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 1377-1401.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Sergün Kaya, Şeyda Gül

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).