Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

A review and critique of context-based physics

instruction and assessment
Gita Taasoobshirazi a,∗ , Martha Carr b,1
a Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States
b Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia, United States
Received 25 January 2007; received in revised form 10 December 2007; accepted 15 January 2008

Abstract
This paper reviews and critiques the existing research on a widely recommended instructional approach called context-based
physics, which involves placing physics material within a real-life context in an attempt to improve student motivation, problem
solving, and achievement. Described first are the problems that exist with traditional physics instruction that resulted in the shift
away from traditional teaching methods. This is followed by an in-depth description of context-based physics. Then the ten existing
studies that have either implemented context-based physics instruction or problems in physics classrooms in order to examine
student motivation, problem solving, or achievement are reviewed and evaluated. Because of the many methodological problems
with the existing research, recommendations are made describing the need for more and better designed research.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Physics; Context-based instruction; High school; College

1. Introduction

Three longstanding goals of physics instruction are to help students achieve a deep conceptual understanding of the
subject, to help students develop powerful problem-solving skills, and to support student motivation (e.g. Anzai, 1991;
Mestre, Dufresne, Gerace, Hardiman, & Touger, 1993; Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006; Redish, 2003). Traditional physics
instruction at both the high school and college level, however, has been found to result in a failure to achieve these goals
(Anzai, 1991; McDermott, 1991). Research has shown that traditional physics instruction leaves most students confused
about the basic concepts of mechanics, optics, thermodynamics, electricity, and magnetism (McDermott, 1991), and
tends to lead to the use of poor problem-solving strategies (Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980a). Further,
traditional physics instruction leaves students poorly motivated (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000; Murphy & Whitelegg,
2006). In response, a great deal of research has focused on the use of new instructional practices in physics, many of
which appear to have a positive influence on student motivation, problem solving, and achievement (e.g. Neumann &
Welzel, 2007). The purpose of this paper is to describe and critique one of these innovative instructional approaches,
called context-based physics, which involves placing physics material within a real-life context in an effort to improve
student motivation, problem solving, and achievement. We were particularly interested in the role of context-based

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 394 8207.

E-mail addresses: gshira2@uga.edu, gita.tshirazi@unlv.edu (G. Taasoobshirazi), mmcarr@uga.edu (M. Carr).
1 Tel.: +1 706 542 4504.

1747-938X/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.002
156 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

instruction on physics achievement when compared to traditional physics instruction, which is the primary goal of this
instructional method (e.g. Wierstra & Wubbels, 1994).
This review first describes the concerns with traditional physics instruction that resulted in the shift away from
traditional teaching methods. This is followed by an in-depth description of context-based physics. Then the ten existing
studies that have either implemented context-based physics instruction or problems in physics classrooms in order to
examine student motivation, problem solving, or achievement are reviewed and evaluated, and recommendations for
future research using this instructional method are provided.

2. The transition from traditional physics classrooms

One major goal of this review is to determine whether context-based physics instruction produces better achievement
than the method currently, and most commonly, used in physics classrooms. In a typical or traditional high school or
college introductory-level physics class, the instructor presents the material, calculates example problems on the board,
and occasionally performs lab demonstrations (Briscoe & Prayaga, 2004; Kang & Wallace, 2005). Students listen to
the lecture, take notes, but rarely ask questions or make comments. In best case circumstances, students perform
physics experiments in which they follow stringent directions to confirm already known results (Kang & Wallace,
2005). This teacher-centered type of instruction usually involves very little active learning, and often causes students to
become poorly motivated and disengaged (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000). Despite the problems with this method, it is
currently used in most high school and college physics classrooms today, particularly college-level physics classrooms
(e.g. Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006).
In traditional physics classrooms, the most typical problems given to students in class, on homework assignments,
and on tests are problems that require students to calculate a precise quantitative solution (Briscoe & Prayaga, 2004;
Neto & Valente, 2005). When solving these problems, students in these classrooms tend to focus on finding the right
equations, manipulating them, and calculating an answer (Redish, Saul, & Steinberg, 1998). This focus on equations and
calculations often results in students failing to understand the deeper conceptual relationships present in the problems,
which encourages poor problem-solving strategies (e.g. Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980b).
To make matters worse, physics instructors present and assign these problems expecting that students understand
the underlying conceptual relationships involved in the calculations (Taconis, Ferguson-Hessler, & Broekkamp, 2001).
During a typical lesson, an instructor will present practice problems by going through extensive and step-by-step
problem solving on the board, expecting the students to see the conceptual relationships in each equation. However,
the combination of the format of the problems and instruction that focuses on procedures results in students believing
that physics is centered around memorization and computation (Whitelegg & Edwards, 2001), again contributing to
their poor problem-solving strategies and understanding of material (Leonard, Dufresne, & Mestre, 1996).
A number of studies brought to light these problems with traditional physics instruction and encouraged the use of
more effective teaching methods (e.g. Hestenes, 1987; Viennot, 1979; Watts, 1983). One study that had a significant
impact on the field was conducted by Richard Hake. Hake (1998) administered the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
test to 6542 high school and college physics students. The FCI is a multiple-choice test that examines students’ ability
to apply the concepts of Newtonian physics to everyday real-life situations. The test uses non-technical language to
describe the situations, and uses distractors that specifically address common misconceptions about mechanics. Results
of the study indicated that before physics instruction, students held naive beliefs that were incompatible with Newtonian
physics in most respects. It was also found that traditional physics instruction resulted in only small changes in these
beliefs. However, Hake found that instruction that involved more interactive activities, including more hands-on and
discussion-based activities, resulted in much greater changes in student beliefs.
As a result of such studies, there has been much focus on improving physics instruction in order to improve
student motivation, problem solving, and achievement (e.g. Buck, Latta, & Leslie-Pelecky, 2007; Perkins et al., 2006;
Rogers, 2007; Shaffer & McDermott, 2005). One popular curricular innovation for introductory high school and college
physics classes encourages students to conceptually analyze problems prior to solving them (e.g. Leonard et al., 1996).
The purpose of this approach is to move students away from just forming and manipulating equations, and toward
understanding the principles and laws underlying the problems they are solving. Results of these studies (Leonard et al.,
1996; Mestre et al., 1993) indicate that the students who perform conceptual analysis of problems before solving them
have higher achievement and use better problem-solving strategies in comparison to students who do not conceptually
analyze the problems they are solving.
 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167 157

Another very popular effort to improve physics instruction involves engaging students in group discussion over
the material they are learning (e.g. Kittleson & Southerland, 2004; Prince, 2004; Reigosa & Jimenez-Aleixandre,
2007). Engaging students in discourse has been found to improve their comprehension of the material (Redish, 2003).
Further, engagement in discourse has been found to support self-regulation (Meyer & Turner, 2002) so that as students
hear diverse ideas, they are able to reflect on their own ideas and the ideas of others, which can help them tackle
misconceptions and develop better understandings. Through discussion, students are also able to become familiar
with the way that scientific language is used (Lemke, 1990), allowing their discourse to become more like that of
practicing scientists. In physics classrooms, engaging students in scientific discourse results in higher learning gains
than traditional physics instruction on relevant material (e.g. Redish, 2003), and also results in higher motivation
(Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre, & Wenk, 1996).
Group discussion is often used alongside inquiry-based learning, which has been described as a “pedagogical
method combining intellectual questioning with student-centered discussion and discovery of pivotal concepts through
laboratory activities” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 1) (e.g. Kittleson & Southerland, 2004; Prince, 2004;
Reigosa & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007; Volkmann & Zgagacz, 2004). This too has been found to be successful in
improving student achievement and motivation when compared to traditional physical science instruction (e.g. Chang
& Mao, 1999; Taasoobshirazi, Zuiker, Anderson, & Hickey, 2006).
Although these popular efforts have been successful in improving student motivation, problem solving, and achieve-
ment when compared to traditional physics instruction, many researchers feel that the context in such approaches
remains implicit (e.g. Finkelstein, 2001, 2005; Glynn & Koballa, 2005). Although students may become more reflec-
tive, active, and involved in what they are learning, they may still not have an understanding of how they can apply
their newly learned skills and knowledge outside of the classroom, limiting the authenticity of instruction. For this
reason, it is expected that contextualizing instruction so that is applicable to students’ everyday lives is a much more
effective way to improve student motivation, understanding, and achievement (Glynn & Koballa, 2005).

3. Context-based physics instruction

Context-based instruction is defined as “using concepts and process skills in real-world contexts that are relevant
to students from diverse backgrounds” (Glynn & Koballa, 2005, p. 75). Students learn a subject by tying it to a real-
world context in a way that allows them to make connections between the subject and its application to their lives as
citizens, family members, and students (Yam, 2005). A contextual approach to physics emerged in response to students’
perception that physics is impersonal, objective, and irrelevant to everyday life (Lye, Fry, & Hart, 2001), and that the
material and problems in physics are something to either memorize or compute (Whitelegg & Edwards, 2001). When
studying a subject, it is common for students to think or ask “Why do I have to know this?” or “Will I ever use this
again?” With a contextual approach to instruction, it is anticipated that the answers to these questions become apparent,
as students begin to understand how and why they will use their new skills and knowledge (Glynn & Koballa, 2005).
In our review, we refer to the method that is contrasted to context-based instruction as a traditional method of
instruction. In other words, what we refer to as traditional instruction is “business as usual” in the classroom. We
expect that since the research is comparing context-based physics instruction to traditional or “business as usual”
instruction, that traditional instruction does not already involve context-based instruction or any other type of physics
intervention (e.g. inquiry-based learning). None of the context-based physics studies published to date give in-depth
descriptions of traditional instruction, but we assume that it is similar to the traditional instruction described and
critiqued above.
In physics, when compared to traditional instruction, context-based instruction is expected to be more effective in
improving the motivation, problems solving, and achievement of students (e.g. Glynn & Koballa, 2005; Rayner, 2005).
Contextualizing the physics material is thought to prevent students from viewing physics as an abstract topic irrelevant
to their everyday life, supporting student motivation (Whitelegg & Edwards, 2001; Wilkinson, 1997). It is also expected
that integrating context into physics will move students away from viewing physics material and problems as something
to memorize or compute, resulting in them engaging in better problem solving (Whitelegg & Edwards, 2001). Finally,
context-based physics is expected to lead to higher achievement when compared to traditional instruction because of
increased motivation and use of better strategies (e.g. Wilkinson, 1997). Given that supporting student motivation,
problem solving, and achievement are longstanding goals of physics instruction (Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006; Redish,
2003), any effort to do so is significant.
158 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

Context-based instruction has its origin in an approach labeled situated cognition, which emphasizes the context in
which something is learned (Greeno, 1998; Lave, 1988). Many educational practices implicitly expect that knowledge
can be abstracted from the situations in which it is learned and used. Situated cognition, however, emphasizes that
knowledge is part of the activity, culture, and context in which it is learned and used (Greeno, 1998). One situated
cognitive model, anchored instruction (Cognition and Technology Group Vanderbilt, 1992), is a model of teaching
that is in line with that of context-based instruction. Anchored instruction involves presenting a problem to students
by immersing them in the actual context in which the problem would take place and engaging students in authentic
learning activities and authentic roles as they investigate the problem and develop solutions. For example, in the context
of physics, students may play the role of a pilot to learn about mechanics subject matter such as gravity and airflow.
Although anchored instruction and context-based instruction are alike in many ways, there are differences as anchored
instruction places more importance on group work and teacher facilitation than context-based instruction. Further, in
the area of physics, the research that has contextualized physics has mainly used the title context-based physics.
In order to better describe context-based instruction and its role in physics, we describe a high school classroom in
Georgia using this instructional approach. The classroom was made up of 17 students, including nine males and eight
females. Described are observations from the classroom on a day in which the students were completing a lab to build
their understanding of projectile motion. The students worked on the lab in self-selected groups, and were expected to use
a launcher that was previously set up for them by the instructor to determine where a plastic ball inside the launcher would
land. This lab was a practice lab preparing the students for the main lab, which was called Water Balloon Day, in which
students would go to their school football stadium, and in groups, use a launcher to try to hit their instructor with water
balloons. Students were spending time before the main lab practicing how to measure the required distances and angles
so that on the actual lab day, they would be able to shoot out water balloons from the launcher with the accuracy needed
to hit their instructor. Rather than just conducting a hands-on and collaborative learning activity where students had to
measure where a ball flying out of a launcher would land, this teacher contextualized the material so that the lab was
meaningful to the students because it was preparing them for the opportunity to hit their own teacher with water balloons.
This use of context in physics instruction is also seen in the amusement park field trip in which many high school
physics departments across the United States participate (e.g. Michael, 2005). For this field trip, students enrolled in
physics courses are assigned special permission to miss school, and instead attend a school trip to an amusement park.
On this field trip, students enjoy the rides, but at the same time complete an assignment in which they examine aspects
of the rides in relation to the mechanics content they are learning. Through such a field trip, students are provided with
the opportunity to see the theories and principles they are learning become real. For schools that are too distant from an
amusement park, physics instructors will often use toy roller coasters and cars, and playground rides to help students to
see the physics concepts at work in an everyday context (Featonby, 2005; Pendrill & Williams, 2005; Taylor & Turner,
2005; Turner & Taylor, 2005).
Benckert (1997) helps illustrate the difference between a context-based and traditional physics problem (see Fig. 1).
This problem is typical of those used on context-based assessments. One can see that compared to traditional problems,
context-based problems are personalized and solved within a real-life context, require more reading, thinking, and
analysis, and tend to take longer to solve than traditional textbook problems. Although various context-based problems
may differ in complexity, they are similar in that they provide a real-life context in which students use their understanding
of physics to solve problems.
Such contexts can be expanded to include situations that may be perceived as more relevant by students. For instance,
movies, TV shows (Rogers, 2007) and even dating situations (Linder, Fraswer, & Pang, 2006) can be used to support
a context. However, it is important that the context not be too emotionally pertinent or so highly interesting that it
would result in students becoming too focused on the context, and failing to think about the underlying physics content
(Shiu-sing, 2005).

4. Review of the research on context-based physics

We searched ERIC, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Google scholar using the following search terms: physics and
context, physics and context-based, physics and contextualized, and physics and anchored instruction. This search
resulted in the retrieval of over 500 studies. We went through each of the studies, selecting those that were relevant
to our review. Specifically, our criteria for inclusion included any study that had either implemented context-based
physics instruction or problems in physics classrooms in order to examine student motivation, problem solving, or
 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167 159

Fig. 1. Traditional and context-based physics problem.

achievement. We also went through the reference sections of articles for additional research. This search resulted in
a total of ten research articles that met our criteria. For the purposes of our study, we defined context-based physics
as integrating physics “concepts and process skills in real-world contexts” as defined by Glynn and Koballa (2005, p.
75). There were many studies that described context-based physics or provided useful ideas for developing a context
to study physics (e.g. Astin, Fisher, & Taylor, 2002; Colicchia, 2005; King & Kennett, 2002; Ng & Nguyen, 2006;
Waltner, Wiesner, & Rachel, 2007; Whitelegg & Parry, 1999). However, the goal of the current paper was to determine
whether there is sufficient research evidence to support the recommendation that teachers use context-based instruction
or problems in a physics classroom. Our review of the research includes seven peer-reviewed articles and three non-
peer-reviewed articles (two unpublished studies and a conference presentation). Given the dearth of research and the
tendency of researchers to not publish non-significant results, we felt the need to review unpublished research in
addition to published research.
The total ten existing studies could be broken down into two types. The first type compares context-based assess-
ment versus traditional assessment in classrooms using only traditional teaching methods. The classroom instruction
in these studies is not context-based. The context-based assessments in these studies use traditional textbook prob-
lems redesigned to integrate various real-life contexts. The second type of research examines classrooms that have
implemented context-based instruction. Described first is the research comparing context-based physics assessment to
traditional assessment in traditional physics classrooms. This is followed by a description of the research on context-
based physics instruction. The classrooms and students examined in the ten studies are all introductory-level high
school or college physics students.

4.1. Context-based physics assessment

There are four studies that have examined students’ motivation, problem solving, or achievement when comparing
context-based assessment and traditional assessment in classrooms using only traditional teaching methods. Rennie
and Parker (1996) investigated the effect of integrating context into physics by examining the physics achievement of
eight high school physics students from five different schools. The students were assessed using two sets of matched
force and motion problems, where the first set included physics problems embedded in a real-life context and the
second set included problems that were typical abstract textbook problems. The small sample size precluded the use
of statistical analyses, but it was found that students scored higher on the context-based problems in comparison to
the traditional textbook problems. Interviews with the students indicated that the students found the context-based
problems to be more interesting than the traditional problems.
160 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

Park and Lee (2004) used a substantially larger sample size of 93 high school students receiving traditional physics
instruction. They asked the students to think aloud as they solved four sets of context-based and traditional abstract
physics problems. They found that the students performed equally on the contextualized and traditional problems for
two of the sets, performed significantly better on the contextualized problems for one set, and performed significantly
better on the traditional problems for another set. Students’ responses on a questionnaire indicated that the students
preferred the context-based problems to the traditional problems. All of the contextualized problems were centered
around the context “safety in everyday life,” making it unlikely that differences in the results in various sets were due
to various contexts being less interesting or understandable.
Heller and Hollabaugh (1992) observed 400 students from two traditional college-level physics classrooms working
in small groups on either context-based problems or traditional problems, and analyzed the students’ discourse, ques-
tionnaire responses, and written problem solutions. No information was provided about how the students’ discourse,
questionnaire responses, and written problem solutions were analyzed. They found that the work and discourse of the
students solving the traditional problems was centered around what formulas should be used to solve the problems,
while the work and discourse of the students solving the context-based problems was centered around what principles
and laws should be used to solve the problems. This is in line with previous research (e.g. Larkin et al., 1980a) indicat-
ing that traditional textbook problems appear to encourage students to focus on forming and manipulating equations
rather than considering the conceptual knowledge needed to solve the problems, leading to poor problem solving.
Interestingly, the results of this study indicate that even when students are taught using traditional methods, contextual
problems support more effective problem solving. Unfortunately, achievement was not assessed in the study so we do
not know whether context-based assessment resulted in higher achievement than traditional assessment.
Enghag (2004) examined the discourse of two small groups of three high school physics students working on
two context-based physics problems. She examined student motivation as assessed by time spent on task discussing
physics. She found that with context-based problems, over 60% of students’ discussion was focused on physics. The
design of the study has a number of critical flaws. It did not involve a comparison group working traditional physics
problems, making it impossible to determine whether the context-based problems resulted in higher motivation than
traditional physics problems. It did not assess achievement so we do not know whether students learned more. There
were no pretests or posttests, or a comparison group, so we do not know whether any change in learning occurred at
all, particularly when compared to traditional instruction.
Taken together, the data on context-based assessment provides little solid support for the claim that it improves
achievement. Only one of the two studies examining achievement (Park & Lee, 2004) had a sufficiently large sample
size to perform statistical analyses, and the results were inconsistent. The work by Heller and Hollabaugh (1992) hints
at the possibility of higher achievement in the form of better problem solving, but achievement needs to be directly
assessed. However, the dearth of research also means that there is little evidence that context-based assessment does not
work to improve achievement. More research needs to be done in this area before recommendations should be made
to educators about the usefulness of context-based assessment. A major limitation of the research on context-based
assessment is that it does not include context-based instruction, which is the goal of this area of research (Whitelegg
& Edwards, 2001).

4.2. Context-based physics instruction

Six studies were found that examined students’ motivation, problem solving, or achievement in classrooms imple-
menting context-based physics instruction. The research that has been done indicates that students are more motivated
when context-based instruction is used. This research also suggests that students may be more likely to use more
effective problem solving, but methodological problems in the research make it difficult to be certain. Only two studies
examined whether context-based instruction produced higher achievement in comparison to traditional instruction, and
both studies had serious methodological problems.
A study by Kaschalk (2002), examined the impact of a single context-based unit on the motivation of high school
physics students. To implement context-based physics in his classroom, Kaschalk first spent 10 weeks of his summer
interning at a power/voltage test facility to learn how he could tie the context of the facility into the material and
standards that would need to be covered in his class. When school started, he took his students to the plant site so that
they could meet the lab technicians and the lab manager, and learn about how voltage was measured and used in a job
setting. Students were then asked to help the lab by designing a voltage divider sensor circuit that would be capable
 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167 161

of sampling voltages as high as 10 kV. The teacher, when observing his class working on the voltage divider circuit,
noted that student participation and motivation was the highest he had seen in any of his physics classes. However, it
was not determined whether this experience resulted in better student understanding of the relevant physics standards
in comparison to traditional instruction.
Rayner (2005), a physics instructor for college students majoring in physiotherapy, redesigned her lectures and
assessments to integrate the context of physiotherapy into the physics content, and replaced individual assignments
with group work to encourage discussion of the material. Her goal for this year-long intervention was to help students
develop an understanding of physics, while at the same time consider the relationship between physics and their
profession. The activities and assessments students completed required them to use physics to analyze physiotherapy
situations. In doing so, the students were expected to demonstrate an understanding of physics, as well as how the physics
concepts could be used to explain a treatment. Based on student responses on questionnaires administered throughout
the duration of the course, Rayner found that integrating the physiotherapy context into the physics material was useful
in improving the motivation of her students. Of greater significance, responses on the questionnaires indicated that
the students began to move away from using memorization to learn the material and solve the problems, and toward
forming a deep understanding of the physics material and problems. The professor found that the students tended to
achieve at an 80% average or above on the assignments administered in the class and a 60% average on assessments.
No pretest measure was administered, however, to provide a baseline for learning, and the design of the study did
not involve a comparison to a traditional instruction group, making it impossible to determine whether the instruction
resulted in better learning than traditional physics instruction.
Benckert (1997) implemented both context-based physics and collaborative group work in five introductory-level
university physics classrooms during the school year by replacing 50% of the traditional lecture sessions with collab-
orative group work and context-based instruction and assessments. The contexts in this study included many different
everyday situations that were integrated into the physics material. Benckert administered questionnaires to students in
both the implementation and traditional physics classrooms. She found that the students participating in the implemen-
tation had a more positive attitude, and were more motivated than students receiving traditional physics instruction.
Furthermore, in comparison to students receiving traditional instruction, fewer of the students in the implementation
classrooms stated on the questionnaires that solving physics problems meant finding and manipulating equations. The
groups were not compared on test performance so we do not know whether the context-based physics approach resulted
in better learning. Further, the implementation group also engaged in collaborative group work, making it difficult to
make comparisons to the traditional instruction group, or differentiate between outcomes that occurred as a result of
group work and outcomes that resulted from context-based instruction.
Cooper, Yeo, and Zadnik (2003) studied 78 high school physics students in three schools studying nuclear technology
using context-based instruction and assessment. The students studied nuclear technology for 5 weeks. They found that
the students had large gains from pre to posttest assessing the relevant material. However, no comparison group from a
traditional physics course was included in the study so it cannot be concluded that context-based instruction produces
better learning than traditional instruction.
Wierstra and Wubbels (1994) compared the performance of high school students receiving context-based instruction
using the context of traffic control to those receiving traditional instruction, over a 4-week period, on a traditional
physics test. There was no significant difference in the performance of the two groups. However, there was no pretest
administered prior to the implementation of context-based traffic instruction, so it is unclear whether the results were
due to pre-existing group differences or the intervention.
Murphy, Lunn, and Jones (2006) compared the performance of 53 high school students learning about radioactive
materials through real-life contexts such as radiation and health, radioactive waste, and power production, to 81 students
receiving traditional physics instruction, on a traditional physics assessment. The researchers found that students in the
implementation group had larger gains in achievement from pretest to posttest than students in the traditional group.
It is unclear the length of the implementation, and time between pre–posttesting. This is the only existing study on
context-based instruction that includes a pre–post measure of learning and a comparison group. However, a major
limitation of this study is that collaborative group work was integrated into the context-based group, making it difficult
to compare the two groups or to determine whether improved achievement was the result of contextualized instruction
or the use of group work.
It is difficult to draw conclusions about the efficacy of context-based instruction in physics as a result of significant
methodological problems with the few studies that have been done. The little and poorly designed research examining
162 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

whether context-based instruction results in higher achievement when compared to traditional physics instruction is a
major problem. Although a primary goal of integrating context into physics is to improve achievement, there is little
evidence that it does so. There is evidence suggesting that context-based instruction promotes more conceptually based
problem solving, but the confounding variable group work makes it difficult to interpret the results. More and better
designed research needs to be conducted before recommendations are made to educators about the effectiveness of
context-based instruction.

5. Critique of the research on context-based physics

We see three major limitations of research on context-based physics. First, it is difficult to design a context-based
curriculum given the lack of preprepared activities. A second limitation is the dearth of research examining whether
context-based physics instruction is more effective than traditional instruction in improving student achievement in
physics. A third limitation is the serious methodological problems with what little research that has been done. We
review these three limitations and provide suggestions for future research in this area.

5.1. Difficulties implementing context-based physics instruction

One limitation of context-based physics is that it is difficult to design context-based physics curriculum. It is often
difficult for teachers to find resources that can provide contextualized physics material and problems, or help them
design their own. In recent years, a few textbooks have been designed to help support context-based physics instruction.
Crawford et al.’s (2001) Physics in context is one example of a textbook that integrates context into the physics material
and allows students to explore the physics content in light of real-life situations. The Supported Learning in Physics
Project (SLIPP) (Whitelegg & Edwards, 2001) has designed a set of eight books that help teachers contextualize physics.
For instance, in one of the textbooks, Physics for sport, equilibrium of forces is taught through the consideration of the
way rock climbers use hand and foot holds at various angles on a climbing wall. Unlike traditional textbooks which
teach the concepts and then use real-life examples to help students better understand the material, the physics concepts
in these texts are embedded within the contexts.
Researchers are also beginning to provide useful ideas, guidelines, and cautions for the design of context-based
materials and problems in physics (e.g. Astin et al., 2002; Colicchia, 2005; King & Kennett, 2002). Researchers point
out that the actual context used is critical. It has been suggested that the context should be realistic, interesting, and
familiar to students (Yam, 2005), but not to the point where it detracts from learning the concepts. If the context is too
emotionally pertinent, students may become too focused on the context, and fail to think about the underlying physics
content (Shiu-sing, 2005). Highly interesting, but tangential information presented in text suppresses learning of target
concepts by priming inappropriate prior knowledge (Harp & Mayer, 1998). Further, inappropriate use of contexts, or
contexts that are overly complicated can confuse students. Some material may be better understood using a real-life
context, while other information may be better understood using the traditional context (Gomez, Pozo, & Sanz, 1995).
The lack of rigorous research on context-based instruction makes it difficult to provide teachers with tested materials
and activities to use in their classrooms.

5.2. A dearth of research focusing on learning outcomes

As for the studies that have actually implemented context-based instruction in physics, all but two have failed to
examine the effect of this instructional method on students’ understanding and achievement in comparison to traditional
physics instruction. One study (Wierstra & Wubbels, 1994) failed to implement a pretest; the second study (Murphy et
al., 2006) integrated group work in the implementation group, making it difficult to determine whether improvements
in learning were the result of contextualized materials or the use of group work. Substantially more well designed
research is needed showing whether context-based instruction has a significant impact on physics achievement.
There is evidence that both context-based instruction and assessment is more motivating, but this is not the same as
higher achievement. While it seems logical that motivated students are more likely to learn than unmotivated students,
we cannot assume that is the case. There is a substantial body of work in motivation that indicates that students may find
some activities to be highly motivating, but learn little from them (e.g. Harp & Mayer, 1998). In fact, highly motivating
activities may draw students’ attention away from key knowledge and skills that they need to learn (Shiu-sing, 2005).
 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167 163

The lack of well-designed studies is not limited to the work on physics. As with the research on physics, there is little
research done in other areas of science implementing context-based instruction, such as biology and chemistry. The
work in these areas is similar to the work done in physics with a good number of studies failing to assess achievement
(e.g. Bennett, Grasel, Parchmann, & Waddington, 2005; Holman, 1991). The very few studies that assess achievement
and include a comparison group provide inconclusive results with some evidence of better achievement (Bloom &
Harpin, 2003) and some evidence of no differences in achievement (Barber, 2001; Barker & Millar, 1996) when
compared to traditional instruction. As with the work on physics, the research assessing achievement in other domains
of science has serious methodological problems including a failure to pretest (e.g. Bloom & Harpin, 2003), lack of
random assignment (e.g. Barker & Millar, 1996), and failure to include a traditional instruction comparison group
(e.g. Burton, Holman, Pilling, & Waddington, 1995). Well designed studies testing the effectiveness of context-based
instruction on science achievement needs to be done before conclusions can be made about the efficacy of this approach
for improving science learning.
While there is good reason to believe that context-based instruction will improve learning, there is also reason to
believe that it may not. With context-based instruction, it is expected that students will be able to remember more of what
they have learned because it has become meaningful to them. For instance, Lye et al. (2001) interviewed high school
physics instructors and found that the instructors felt that students would retain more information “when they have it
tied to a context rather than when it is just remember the rules” (p. 19). However, we need to go beyond perceptions of
possible improvement in learning to documenting significant differences in students receiving context-based instruction.
Although one of the goals and expectations of context-based instruction is that students learning physics in context
will be better able to solve authentic problems (Whitelegg & Parry, 1999), there is concern among researchers that
teaching material within a specific context will prevent students from being able to generalize their knowledge outside
the context in which it was initially learned (Rayner, 2005). There is evidence that context-based instruction in math-
ematics has been found to suppress transfer of knowledge to other contexts (Bassok, 1997). This is thought to occur
because the knowledge becomes context-bound and not easily transferred to other similar situations (Renkl, Mandl,
& Gruber, 1996). There is a lack of research examining whether students better transfer the knowledge and skills
learned in context-based instruction to various contextualized, real-world problems when compared to traditional
physics instruction. The two studies implementing contextualized instruction that included a measure of achieve-
ment and a control group (Murphy et al., 2006; Wierstra & Wubbels, 1994) both used abstract textbook problems to
assess students. Testing whether context-based instruction better promotes transfer to contextualized real-life prob-
lems would require a study that includes both a context-based instruction group and a traditional instruction group
as well as a good measure or measures of transfer to contextualized real-life problems. This research has yet to be
done.

5.3. Significant methodological flaws in the research

Of the six studies examining context-based instruction, all have significant design flaws that make interpretation
of the results difficult. These problems include a lack of pretest, control group, and random assignment. Despite the
goal of improving learning, only four studies had some measure of learning as a dependent measure. For three of
the studies, all either failed to pretest making it difficult to determine whether results were due to the intervention or
to pre-existing conditions, failed to include a control group, or both. One of the four studies included a measure of
learning, a pre–posttest design, and a comparison group. Despite this, this study integrated collaborative group work
in the implementation group, confounding the results. None of the studies involved random assignment of classes to
condition. In two of the six studies, the researcher was the teacher, which could lead to biased results. Not one large
scale study has been conducted using a large sample size, random assignment of classrooms to treatment and control
conditions, pretesting and posttesting of student knowledge, the inclusion of measures of achievement in physics, and
the elimination of confounding variables that allow for clear interpretation of results.
In all of the studies examining strategy use, group work was also implemented, making it difficult to determine
whether improved strategy use was the result of contextualized materials or the use of group work. It may be that context
plays no role in promoting higher level strategy use, and that group work is the critical variable. Research needs to
differentiate outcomes that occur as a result of group work and outcomes that result from context-based instruction.
A study in which students receive context-based instruction with and without group work and traditional instruction
with and without group work would tease apart the influence of group work and curriculum.
164 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

Another problem with the current research examining context-based physics instruction is the failure to clearly
describe the length of the interventions and the nature and quality of the interventions and assessments. This makes
it impossible to compare different context-based classrooms or to draw clear conclusions about the effectiveness of
context-based physics instruction in comparison to traditional methods. Clear guidelines cannot be constructed to guide
teachers and researchers in the use of context-based instruction without this information.

5.4. Recommendations for future research

The changes in strategy use connected to context-based instruction need to be more rigorously assessed, and
connected to theory about the development of expertise. It would be helpful to determine whether context-based
instruction supports the move to expertise with the working backward strategy characteristic of novices being replaced
with the working forward strategy characteristic of experts (e.g. Priest & Lindsay, 1992).
There is no research examining how well context-based instruction communicates higher level concepts that are
typically taught in more advanced courses. Context-based instruction may be particularly effective for novices, but
may become less effective in higher level physics where students are required to understand and apply more complex
and abstract concepts. We need to know if and when context-based physics is effective and when it should not be used.
The few studies in the field provide no information that would guide the use of this form of instruction beyond the
introductory level.
If context-based physics instruction proves to be effective in improving learning, females may benefit the most from
this type of instruction. The largest gender differences in achievement and participation have been found to exist in
physics. Males have been found to take more physics courses, have higher physics achievement, have a more positive
attitude toward physics, and are more likely to major in physics (Benbow & Minor, 1986). Gender differences in
hands-on experience influence differences in knowledge in science, with males having greater hands-on experiences
in science than females, particularly in physics (Jones, Howe, & Rua, 2000). Context-based physics instruction may
provide females with some of the hands-on experiences they need to increase their understanding of physics.
In addition, females, more than males, feel that physics is irrelevant to them and to their future goals (Murphy &
Whitelegg, 2006). Integrating context into physics material may be particularly beneficial for females by providing
examples and experiences that make physics pertinent. Whitelegg and Edwards (2001) interviewed 38 students across
three high schools and found that the use of context in physics was particularly valued by the females. Females are
more likely to participate in physics courses that use context-based instruction (Wilkinson, 1999), which can be helpful
in bringing females into physics courses.
Another question that needs to be answered about context-based instruction is whether enrollment in physics courses
increases when it is implemented. There is significant concern about the decline in the number of students pursuing
degrees in physics (Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006). Instructional methods that increase participation, even if they have no
impact on achievement, might be of value. There is some evidence that context-based instruction improves participation
in physics courses. When context-based instruction was integrated in high school physics in Australia, it was found that
in the first year, there was a 25% increase in numbers of students taking physics, which was linked to the changes in
the physics curriculum (Wilkinson, 1999). Additional research should be conducted examining the impact of context-
based physics on participation rates of high school and college-level physics, and the number of females and minority
students enrolling in the courses.
In sum, the work on context-based physics to date has not provided the answer to the question: Is context-based
physics instruction better than what we are doing now? This is an important question that requires an answer before
recommendations should be made to teachers to adopt context-based physics instruction. At this point, there is insuffi-
cient research evidence to support the recommendation that teachers should use context-based instruction or problems
in physics classrooms. It is not difficult to find examples in both education and medicine where recommendations for
practice have been made prematurely, without sufficient support from research. We have an obligation to teachers,
students, and their families to have this data.

References

Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A. Anders & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise
(pp. 64–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167 165

Astin, C., Fisher, N., & Taylor, B. (2002). Finding physics in the real world: How to teach physics effectively with visits. Physics Education, 37,
18–24.
Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and Salters A-level Chemistry: Student views and achievements. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of
York, UK.
Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between Salters’ and traditional A-level chemistry students’ understanding of basic chemical ideas.
Science Education Research Paper 96/05. York, UK: University of York.
Bassok, M. (1997). Two types of reliance on correlations between content and structure in reasoning about word problems. In L. English (Ed.),
Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1986). Mathematically talented males and females and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 425–436.
Benckert, S. (1997). Context and conversation in physics education. Unpublished study.
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, 1521–1547.
Bloom, R. D. S., & Halpin, R. J. (2003). Integrating pharmacology topics in high school biology and chemistry classes improves performance.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 922–938.
Briscoe, C., & Prayaga, C. S. (2004). Teaching future K-8 teachers the language of Newton: A case study of collaboration and change in university
physics teaching. Science Education, 88, 947–969.
Buck, G., Latta, M. A. M., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. (2007). Learning how to make inquiry into electricity and magnetism discernible to middle level
teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 377–397.
Burton, W. G., Holman, J. S., Pilling, G. M., & Waddington, D. J. (1995). Salters advanced chemistry: A revolution in pre-college chemistry. Journal
of Chemical Education, 72, 227–230.
Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan’s students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of
Educational Research, 92, 340–346.
Cognition and Technology Group Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and
assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315.
Colicchia, G. (2005). Sit up straight! It’s good physics. Physics Education, 40, 365–369.
Cooper, S., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2003). Australian students’ views on nuclear issues: Does teaching alter prior beliefs? Physics Education, 38,
123–129.
Crawford, M., Souders, J., Pedrotti, L., Carter, N., Rinard, B., Westbrook, L., et al. (2001). Physics in context. Waco, TX: Cord Communications.
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3–47.
Enghag, M. (2004). Miniprojects and context rich problems: Case studies with analysis of motivation, learner ownership and competence in small
group work in physics. Unpublished Thesis, Linköping University, Sweden.
Featonby, D. (2005). Toys and physics. Physics Education, 40, 537–543.
Finkelstein, N. (2001). Context in the context of physics and learning. Unpublished study.
Finkelstein, N. (2005). Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science
Education, 27, 1187–1209.
Glynn, S., & Koballa, T. R. (2005). The contextual teaching and learning instructional approach. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science: Best
practices in professional development (pp. 75–84). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Gomez, M., Pozo, J., & Sanz, A. (1995). Students’ ideas on conservation of matter: Effects of expertise and context variables. Science Education,
79, 77–93.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–22.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 414–434.
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups.
American Journal of Physics, 60, 637–644.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Towards a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440–454.
Holman, J. (1991). A new look at A-level chemistry. Chemistry in Britain, 27, 813–814.
Jones, G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science
Education, 84, 180–192.
Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices.
Science Education, 89, 140–165.
Kaschalk, R. (2002). Physics—Why bother? . . . that’s why!. Contextual Teaching Exchange, 1, 1–8.
King, C., & Kennett, P. (2002). Earth science contexts for teaching physics. Part 1: Why teach physics in an Earth science context? Physics Education,
37, 467–469.
Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 267–293.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980a). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980b). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–
1342.
166 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1996). Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge
in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1495–1503.
Linder, C., Fraser, D., & Pang, M. F. (2006). Using a variation approach to enhance physics learning in a college classroom. The Physics Teacher,
44, 589–592.
Lye, H., Fry, M., & Hart, C. (2001). What does it mean to teach physics in context: A first case study. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48,
16–22.
McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political
science. Innovative Higher Education, 24, 279–294.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59, 301–315.
Mestre, J. P., Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Touger, J. (1993). Promoting skilled problem-solving behavior among beginning
physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 303–317.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 17–25.
Michael, V. (2005). Six flags for teachers. http://www.slapt.org/. Retrieved November 7, 2005 from St. Louis area physics teachers.
Murphy, P., Lunn, S., & Jones, L. (2006). The impact of authentic learning on students’ engagement with physics. The Curriculum Journal, 17,
229–246.
Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research into the participation of girls in physics. Institute of
Physics Report.
National Research Council. (1996). National science educational standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neto, A. J., & Valente, M. O. (2005). Problem solving in physics: Towards a synergetic metacognitively developed approach. Unpublished study.
Neumann, K., & Welzel, M. (2007). A new labwork course for physics students: Devices, methods, and research projects. European Journal of
Physics, 28, 61–69.
Ng, W., & Nguyen, V. T. (2006). Investigating the integration of everyday phenomena and practical work in physics teaching in Vietnamese high
schools. International Education Journal, 7, 36–50.
Park, J., & Lee, L. (2004). Analyzing cognitive and non-cognitive factors involved in the process of physics problem-solving in an everyday context.
International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1577–1595.
Pendrill, A. M., & Williams, G. (2005). Swings and slides. Physics Education, 40, 427–533.
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., et al. (2006). PhET interactive simulations for teaching and learning
physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18–23.
Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. The British Psychological Society, 83,
389–405.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.
Rayner, A. (2005). Reflections on context based science teaching: A case study of physics students for physiotherapy. Poster presented at the annual
UniServe Science Blended Learning Symposium Proceedings, Sydney, Australia.
Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66, 212–224.
Reigosa, C., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (2007). Scaffolded problem solving in the physics and chemistry laboratory: Difficulties hindering students’
assumption of responsibility. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 307–329.
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115–121.
Rennie, L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1996). Placing physics problems in real-life context: Students’ reactions and performance. Australian Science Teachers
Journal, 42, 55–59.
Rogers, M. (2007). An inquiry-based course using physics in cartoons and movies. The Physics Teacher, 45, 38–41.
Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (2005). A research-based approach to improving student understanding of the vector nature of kinematical
concepts. American Journal of Physics, 73, 921–931.
Shiu-sing, T. (2005). Some reflections on the design of contextual learning and teaching materials. http://resources.emb.gov.hk/cphysics/. Retrieved
November 4, 2005 from Contextual Physics in Ocean Park.
Taasoobshirazi, G., Zuiker, S., Anderson, K., & Hickey, D. T. (2006). Enhancement of inquiry and achievement in an astronomy multimedia learning
environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 383–395.
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 442–468.
Taylor, B. A. P., & Turner, R. C. (2005). Rollercoasters in the classroom. Physics Education, 40, 512–513.
Turner, R. C., & Taylor, B. A. P. (2005). Physics fair in the classroom: Relative motion with toy cars. Physics Education, 40, 513–515.
Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. Science Education, 1, 205–221.
Volkmann, M. J., & Zgagacz, M. (2004). Learning to teach physics through inquiry: The lived experience of a graduate teaching assistant. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 584–602.
Waltner, C., Weisner, H., & Rachel, A. (2007). Physics in context—A means to encourage student interest in physics. Physics Education, 42,
502–507.
Watts, D. M. (1983). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18, 213–217.
Whitelegg, E., & Edwards, C. (2001). Beyond the laboratory: Learning physics using real-life contexts. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W.
Graber, M. Komorec, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education: Past, present, and future (pp. 337–342). Dorderecht: Kluwer.
 G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Carr / Educational Research Review 3 (2008) 155–167 167

Whitelegg, E., & Parry, M. (1999). Real-life contexts for learning physics: Meanings, issues, and practice. Physics Education, 34, 68–72.
Wierstra, R. F. A., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Student perception and appraisal of the learning environment: Core concepts in the evaluation of the PLON
physics curriculum. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 437–455.
Wilkinson, J. W. (1997). The contextual approach to teaching physics. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45, 43–50.
Wilkinson, J. W. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of the contextual approach to teaching VCE physics. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45, 58–
65.
Yam, H. (2005). What is contextual learning and teaching in physics? http://resources.emb.gov.hk/cphysics. Retrieved November 4, 2005 from
Contextual Physics in Ocean Park.