Journals / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2011 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4

Student labs on a university campus as a type of out-of-school learning environment: Assessing the potential to promote students’ interest in science

Pages
371–392
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The analytical framework used in this study is based on theories of interest development by considering the basic needs as mediator variables and offers a means of assessing students‟ interest in out-of-school settings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Student labs are out-of-school learning environments that are assumed to promote students‟ interest in science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Research has shown the potential for promoting students‟ interest in science for each of these aspects when implemented separately as a teaching approach in science education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The analytical framework used in this study is based on theories of interest development by considering the basic needs as mediator variables and offers a means of assessing students‟ interest in out-of-school settings.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Student labs are out-of-school learning environments that are assumed to promote students‟ interest in science. They are characterised by aspects of situated and authentic learning, a prominence of application contexts presented by scientists, and a high amount of practical work. Research has shown the potential for promoting students‟ interest in science for each of these aspects when implemented separately as a teaching approach in science education. This study aims to explore, whether (i) these aspects can be shown to be separately effec-tive on students‟ interest even when realised jointly in the learning environment and, if so, (ii) which reciprocal effects can be shown with regard to students‟ attributes (prior individ-ual interest, self-concept, gender) and the degree of pre-visit instruction in school. A ques-tionnaire was developed based on interest theory and theories of interest development. A to-tal of 378 upper secondary students completed the questionnaire. A factor analysis indi-cated the students‟ interest in the lab to be three-dimensional with the factors having a strong relation to (1) experiments, (2) application contexts of research, and (3) authentic learning environments. Structural equation modelling dictated significant interrelationships between students‟ interest in the student lab and students‟ attributes (e.g. prior individual interest in science), the degree of pre-visit instruction in school and the quality of instruc-tion in the student lab. The analytical framework used in this study is based on theories of interest development by considering the basic needs as mediator variables and offers a means of assessing students‟ interest in out-of-school settings.

🔖

Cite This Article

GLOWINSKI, I., BAYRHUBER, H. (2022). Student labs on a university campus as a type of out-of-school learning environment: Assessing the potential to promote students’ interest in science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4, 371–392. https://ajindex.com/articles/540834

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social-psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  3. Basey, J., Sackett, L., & Robinson, N. (2008). Optimal Science Lab Design: Impacts of Various Components of Lab Design on Students' Attitudes Toward Lab. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1-15.
  4. Beiers, R. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1992). Learning in interactive science centers. Research in Science Education, 22, 38-44.
  5. Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R. F. (1977). Modes of instruction in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 433-439.
  6. Bergin, D. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98.
  7. Berry, A., Gunstone, R., Loughran, J., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Using Laboratory Work for Pur-poseful Learning about the Practice of Science. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in Science education - Past, Present and Future (pp. 313-318).
  8. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  9. Brody, M., Bangert, A., & Dillon, J. (2007). Assessing Learning in Informal Science Contexts [Electronic Version]. Commissioned paper by the NRC for Science Learning in Informal Environments Committee. Retrieved 10.05.08, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Brody_Commissioned_Paper.pdf
  10. Buxton, C. A. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low performing” urban ele-mentary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 695-721.
  11. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1993). Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik [Self-determination theory and its pedagogical relevance]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 39(2), 223-238.
  12. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547.
  13. Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Educa-tion (pp. 317-332).
  14. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  15. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999)