SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Education / 2025 / Volume: 15 Issue: 3

Informal Learning Opportunities of Middle and High School Students: A Comparative Analysis Based on Selected Variables

Tufan İnaltekin(KAFKAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3843-7393
Ataman Karaçöp(KAFKAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8939-3725
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While the results showed no significant differences in students’ ILOs based on gender, notable variations were observed according to grade level, place of residence, living arrangements during the school term, family’s economic status, and parents’ education levels and occupations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to identify the informal learning resources of middle and high school students and to examine the effects of certain individual, familial, and environmental socio-demographic variables on their İnformal learning opportunities (ILOs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of the study consisted of 1,310 students from grades 5 to 10 in a province located in eastern Türkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While the results showed no significant differences in students’ ILOs based on gender, notable variations were observed according to grade level, place of residence, living arrangements during the school term, family’s economic status, and parents’ education levels and occupations.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Informal Learning Opportunities · Middle and High School Students · Socio-Demographic Variables

Abstract

This study aims to identify the informal learning resources of middle and high school students and to examine the effects of certain individual, familial, and environmental socio-demographic variables on their İnformal learning opportunities (ILOs). The sample of the study consisted of 1,310 students from grades 5 to 10 in a province located in eastern Türkiye. This survey-based study collected data through the Informal Learning Opportunities Test (ILOT), and the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square, independent samples t-test, and ANOVA. In addition to the statistical analyses, effect size values were also calculated to assess the practical significance of the results. The results of this study revealed that middle and high school students predominantly engaged in informal learning through easily accessible sources within their immediate environments. While the results showed no significant differences in students’ ILOs based on gender, notable variations were observed according to grade level, place of residence, living arrangements during the school term, family’s economic status, and parents’ education levels and occupations. Nevertheless, the effect size values calculated based on the statistical results showed that the differences associated with living with family, family’s economic status, father's education level, and mother's occupation were not practically significant. In contrast, the results of the study revealed that among the variables examined, grade level, place of residence, mother's education level, and father's occupation had a practically significant moderate effect on students’ ILOs. Based on these results, it is recommended that educational policies and school practices take into account students’ grade levels, places of residence, mothers’ educational levels, and fathers’ occupations in order to enhance their access to ILOs.

🔖

Cite This Article

İnaltekin, T., Karaçöp, A. (2025). Informal Learning Opportunities of Middle and High School Students: A Comparative Analysis Based on Selected Variables. Sakarya University Journal of Education, Volume: 15 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1690701

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (92)

  1. Akiva, T., Schunn, C. D., & Louw, M. (2017). What drives attendance at informal learning activities? A study of two art programs. Curator: The Museum Journal, 60(3), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12206
  2. Alam, G. M., & Parvin, M. (2024). Has secondary science program become an elite urban education product in the former colonized nation? Education and Urban Society, 56(8), 1002-1024. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245241238360
  3. Archer, L., Godec, S., Calabrese Barton, A., Dawson, E., Mau, A., & Patel, U. (2021). Changing the field: A Bourdieusian analysis of educational practices that support equitable outcomes among minoritized youth on two informal science learning programs. Science Education, 105(1), 166-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21602
  4. Asfeldt, M., Purc-Stephenson, R., & Zimmerman, T. (2022). Outdoor education in Canadian post-secondary education: Common philosophies, goals, and activities. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 25(3), 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-022-00102-4
  5. Bathgate, M. E., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. (2014). Children's motivation toward science across contexts, manner of interaction, and topic. Science Education, 98(2), 189-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21095
  6. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments. National Research Council.
  7. Bonanati, S., & Buhl, H. M. (2022). The digital home learning environment and its relation to children’s ICT self-efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 25(2), 485-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09377-8
  8. Cayubit, R. F. O. (2022). Why learning environment matters? An analysis on how the learning environment influences the academic motivation, learning strategies and engagement of college students. Learning Environments Research, 25(2), 581-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-093
  9. Cherif, K. M., Azzouz, L., & Bendania, A. (2024). Algerian secondary school students' preferences for the use of YouTube in their informal learning. Educational Technology Quarterly, 2024(2), 120-134. https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.697
  10. Chen, C. H., Chan, W. P., Huang, K., & Liao, C. W. (2023). Supporting informal science learning with metacognitive scaffolding and augmented reality: Effects on science knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and cognitive load. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(4), 1480-1495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2032629
  11. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., & Scott, M. R. (2016). Informal science: Family education, experiences, and initial interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990
  12. Daume, S., & Galaz, V. (2016). “Anyone know what species this Is?”–Twitter conversations as embryonic citizen science communities. PloS ONE, 11(3), e0151387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151387
  13. Dawson, E. (2014). Equity in informal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.957558.
  14. Dawson, E. (2019). Equity, exclusion and everyday science learning: The experiences of minoritised groups. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266763
  15. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
  16. Dunst, C. J. (2020). Parents' interests and abilities as sources of young children's everyday learning opportunities. Journal of Family Strengths, 20(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.58464/2168-670X.1421
  17. Eppley, K. (2017). Rural science education as social justice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9751-7
  18. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Routledge. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution: School is not where most learning takes place. American Scientist, 98(6), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1511/2010.87.486
  19. Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2013). Factors contributing to adult knowledge of science and technology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 431-452. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21080
  20. Feinstein, N. W., & Meshoulam, D. (2014). Science for what public? Addressing equity in American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 368–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21130
  21. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
  22. Fivush, R. (2011). The development of autobiographical memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 559-582. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131702
  23. Garbacz, S. A., Sheridan, S. M., Koziol, N. A., Kwon, K., & Holmes, S. R. (2015). Congruence in parent–teacher communication: Implications for the efficacy of CBC for students with behavioral concerns. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0035.1
  24. Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (2001). Development of an informal learning opportunities assay. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 569-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690116959
  25. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462
  26. Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media, and Technology, 41(1), 6-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954
  27. Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science Education, 88(S1), S59–S70. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20018
  28. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2005). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th edition). Pearson Prentice Hall.
  29. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019
  30. Harris, R. S., & Hodges, C. B. (2018). STEM education in rural schools: Implications of untapped potential. National Youth-At-Risk Journal, 3(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.20429/nyarj.2018.030102
  31. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2005). Final performance report for OERI: The social contexts of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement. Presented to Project Mo¬nitor, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. chrome extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://irbe.library.vanderbilt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7d737733-d16b-456c-947c-af8f5096205f/content accessed on 22.04.2025.
  32. Hughes, M., & Pollard, A. (2006). Home–school knowledge exchange in context. Educational Review, 58(4), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600971784
  33. Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2012). Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: A categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9044-9
  34. Idema, J., & Patrick, P. G. (2016). Visitor experiences during a science-themed community event. In J. Lavonen,
  35. K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future, Part 9 (co-ed. M, Achiam & G. Carvalho), (pp. 1241– 1250). University of Helsinki.
  36. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K.,. & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
  37. Ivaniushina, V. A., & Aleksandrov, D. A. (2015). Socialization through informal education: The extracurricular activities of Russian schoolchildren. Russian Education & Society, 57(4), 189-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2015.1068553
  38. Jeffs, T., & Smith, M. (2011). What is informal education? In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from http://infed.org/mobi/what-is-informal-education/
  39. Jose, S., Patrick, P. G., & Moseley, C. (2017). Experiential learning theory: The importance of outdoor classrooms in environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2016.1272144
  40. Kalonde, G. (2018). Technology use in rural schools: A study of a rural high school trying to use iPads in the classroom. Rural Educator, 38(3), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v38i3.218
  41. Karaçöp, A. (2020). Theoretical foundations of family involvement in education. In A. Karaçöp (Ed.), Family involvement in education with theory and practice (pp. 1-78). Pegem Academy.
  42. Kerai, S., Ibrahim, M., Molyneux, T. M., Hussain, U., Gadermann, A., Kassam, R.,. & Oberle, E. (2024). Out‐of‐school time use in Pakistan: A qualitative study featuring youth's voices. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 34(2), 296-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12916.
  43. Kim, M., & Dopico, E. (2016). Science education through informal education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 439-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9639-3
  44. Kline, RB 2016, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  45. Koper, R. (2004). Technology and informal learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 675-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00425.x
  46. Kormos, E., & Wisdom, K. (2021). Rural schools and the digital divide: Technology in the learning experience. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 11(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2021.v11n1p25-39
  47. Kumandaş, H., & Kutlu, Ö. (2014). Yüksekögretime ögrenci seçmede ve yerlestirmede kullanilan sinavlarin olusturdugu risk faktörlerinin okul basarisi üzerindeki etkileri [The effects of risk factors created by exams used in the selection and placement of students for higher education on school achievement]. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 29(74), 15-33.
  48. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
  49. Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.
  50. Latchem, C. (2014). Informal learning and non-formal education for development. Journal of Learning for Development, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v1i1.6
  51. Littrell, M. K., Gold, A. U., Koskey, K. L., May, T. A., Leckey, E., & Okochi, C. (2022). Transformative experience in an informal science learning program about climate change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(6), 1010-1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21750
  52. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the digital age. NYU Press.
  53. Lundgren, L., Crippen, K. J., & Bex, R. T. (2022). Social media interaction as informal science learning: A comparison of message design in two niches. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09911-y
  54. Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Bush, S., Delaney, A., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., & Soledad, S. Y. (2021). Informal learning environments and impact on interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10038-9
  55. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry, MyEducationLab Series. Pearson.
  56. McNamara, A. R., Akiva, T., & Delale-O’Connor, L. (2020). Opportunity gaps in out-of-school learning: How structural and process features of programs relate to race and socioeconomic status. Applied Developmental Science, 24(4), 360-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1513794
  57. Mogas, J., Palau, R., Fuentes, M., & Cebrián, G. (2022). Smart schools on the way: How school principals from Catalonia approach the future of education within the fourth industrial revolution. Learning Environments Research, 25(3), 875-893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09398-3
  58. Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449–475. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004449
  59. Nguyen, H., & Diederich, M. (2023). Facilitating knowledge construction in informal learning: A study of TikTok scientific, educational videos. Computers & Education, 205, 104896. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104896
  60. Ocular, G., Kelly, K. R., Millan, L., Neves, S., Avila, K., Hsieh, B., & Maloles, C. (2022). Contributions of naturalistic parent-child conversations to children’s science learning during informal learning at an aquarium and at home. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 943648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943648
  61. OECD. (2012). Connected minds: Technology and today’s learners. Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111011-en
  62. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill
  63. Pattison, S. A., Rubin, A., & Gontan, I. (2016). Rethinking learning in informal settings: A review of research on science learning beyond the classroom. Science Education, 100(2), 345-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21151
  64. Pearrow, M., Sander, J., & Jones, J. (2019). Comparing communities: The cultural cha¬racteristics of ethnic social capital. Education and Urban Society, 51(6), 739-755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517747680
  65. Peñaloza, G., Quijano, L., Falla, S., & Márquez, S. (2022). Making meaning of science: An experience of a science museum in fostering dialogue between young people and science. Human Arenas, 5(2), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00143-5
  66. Prior, L., Evans, C., Merlo, J., & Leckie, G. (2025). Sociodemographic inequalities in student achievement: An intersectional multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA). Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 11(3), 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492241267251
  67. Pröbster, M., Soto, M. V., Connolly, C., & Marsden, N. (2022). Avatar-based virtual reality and the associated gender stereotypes in a university environment. European Journal of Open, Distance & E-Learning, 24(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2022-0002
  68. Quiroga-Marabolí, P., Antúnez-Riveros, M. A., Aguirre-Jerez, M., Saldaña, A. B., Peralta-Camposano, J., & de Bahillo, G., M. P. R (2019). Perceptions of the educational environment among undergraduate physical therapy students in a competency-based curriculum at the University of Chile. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 16, https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.9
  69. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.
  70. Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutiérrez, K. D., & Erickson, F. (2016). The organization of informal learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 356-401. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16680994
  71. Rogoff, B., Dahl, A., & Callanan, M. (2018). The importance of understanding children’s lived experience. Developmental Review, 50, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.006
  72. Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Learning at not-school: A review of study, theory, and advocacy for education in non-formal settings. MIT Press.
  73. Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3th ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
  74. Shaby, N., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Tal, T. (2019). A student’s-eye view: What 4th grade students describing their visit to a science museum recall as significant. Research in Science Education, 49, 1625-1645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9669-4
  75. Singh, F., Saini, M., Kumar, A., Ramakrishna, S., & Debnath, M. (2023). Perspective of educational environment on students’ perception of teaching and learning. Learning Environments Research, 26(2), 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09428-8
  76. Stewart, O. G., & Jordan, M. E. (2017). Some explanation here: A case study of learning opportunities and tensions in an informal science learning environment. Instructional Science, 45(2), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9396-7
  77. Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2019) Using multivariate statistics. (7th edition). Person
  78. Tang, X., & Zhang, D. (2020). How informal science learning experience influences students’ science performance: A cross-cultural study based on PISA 2015. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 598-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1719290
  79. Tal, T., & Dierking, L. D. (2014). Learning science in everyday life. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 251-259. htp://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.123
  80. Thapa-Parajuli, R., Bhattarai, S., Pokharel, B., & Timsina, M. (2025). Parental informal occupation does not significantly deter children’s school performance: A case study of Peri-Urban Kathmandu, Nepal. Economies, 13(4), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13040095
  81. Tisza, G., Papavlasopoulou, S., Christidou, D., Voulgari, I., Iivari, N., Giannakos, M. N., & Markopoulos, P. (2019, May). The role of age and gender on implementing informal and non-formal science learning activities for children. In Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2019 Conference (pp. 1-9).
  82. Todd, B. L., & Zvoch, K. (2019). The effect of an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science affinities. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1534022
  83. Walan, S., & Gericke, N. (2021). Factors from informal learning contributing to the children’s interest in STEM: Experiences from the out-of-school activity called Children’s University. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(2), 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1667321
  84. Wang, J., Tigelaar, D. E. H., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Connecting rural schools to quality education: Rural teachers’ use of digital educational resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.009
  85. Wang, Q. (2021). Cultural pathways and outcomes of autobiographical memory development. Child Development Perspectives, 15(3), 196-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12423
  86. Warren, S., Nihalani, P., Kim, P., Zhang, K., Veletsianos, G., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, M. M. (2012, March). Emerging technologies for informal learning: Transforming traditional education from the inside and the outside. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4917-4924). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  87. Xie, Y., Zheng, Y., & Yang, Y. (2023). The relationship between students’ awareness of environmental issues and attitudes toward science and epistemological beliefs-Moderating effect of informal science activities. Research in Science Education, 53(6), 1185-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10126-5
  88. Yun, S. T., Olsen, S. K., Quigley, K. C., Cannady, M. A., & Hartry, A. (2023). A review of augmented reality for informal science learning: Supporting design of intergenerational group learning. Visitor Studies, 26(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2022.2075205
  89. Zhang, K., & Gao, F. (2014). Social media for informal science learning in China: A case study. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 6(3), 262–280.
  90. Zimmerman, H. T., Weible, J. L., Wright, E. A., Vanderhoof, C., & Jablonski, N. G. (2022). Using youths’ personal DNA data in science camps: Fostering genetics learning and socio‐emotional attitudes toward science with design‐based research. Science Education, 106(4), 767-796. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21709
  91. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K.,. & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
  92. Kerai, S., Ibrahim, M., Molyneux, T. M., Hussain, U., Gadermann, A., Kassam, R.,. & Oberle, E. (2024). Out‐of‐school time use in Pakistan: A qualitative study featuring youth's voices. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 34(2), 296-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12916.