Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab

Franz-Josef Scharfenberg; Franz X. Bogner

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

Full Text (PDF)

Franz-Josef Scharfenberg ¹ ^* , Franz X. Bogner ¹

More Detail

¹ University of Bayreuth, GERMANY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Nowadays, outreach labs are important informal learning environments in science education. After summarizing research to goals outreach labs focus on, we describe our evidence-based gene technology lab as a model of a research-driven outreach program. Evaluation-based optimizations of hands-on teaching based on cognitive load theory (additional group discussions) and on conceptual change theory (consideration of students’ alternative conceptions) achieved higher instructional efficiencies. We argue both modifications as generalizable for science teaching. As more general results, we describe identified student cognitive load types and problems of tutoring in hands-on teaching. Finally, we present our innovative approach of combining student and preservice teacher education, theory-based on pedagogical content knowledge by focusing on preservice teachers’ change from student, to tutor, to teacher roles.

Keywords

outreach education
hands-on teaching
cognitive load theory
tutoring
preservice teacher education
Pedagogical Content Knowledge

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 10, Issue 4, 2014, 329-341

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

Publication date: 15 Dec 2014

Article Views: 2191

Article Downloads: 1022

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abell, S. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1405-1416.
Arrington, C.A., Hill, J.B., Radfar, R., Whisnant, D.M., & Bass, C.G. (2008). Peer mentoring in the general chemistry & organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 288-290.
Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389-400.
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20, 136-140.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A.W., & Feder, M.A, (2009). Learning science in informal environments. People, places, and pursuits. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
Bogue, B. (2007). Did it really work? Good assessment can tell you. SWE Magazin, 53, 42-49.
Brandt, A. (2005). Förderung von Motivation und Interesse durch außerschulische Experimentierlabors. Das "teutolab" als Beispiel für den Lerngegenstand Chemie [Promotion of motivation and interest by outreach labs. The „teutolab“ as an example for the subject chemistry]. Doctorate thesis, University of Bielefeld, Germany.
Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27- 43.
Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
Dähnhardt, D., Sommer, K., & Euler, M. (2007). Lust auf Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Lernen im Schülerlabor [Having a mind to Sciene and technology. Learning in an outrach lab]. Naturwisssenschaften im Unterricht Chemie, 18, 4-10.
De Jong, O., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 947-964.
De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
Driver, R. (1989). Changing conceptions. In P. Adey, J. Bliss, J. Head, & M. Shayer (Eds.), Adolescent development and school science (pp. 79-104). New York: The Falmer Press.
Engeln, K. (2004). Schülerlabors: authentische, aktivierende Lernumgebungen als Möglichkeit, Interesse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken [Outreach laboratories: authentic and activating learning settings in order to develop interest in science and techniques]. Berlin: Logos.
Euler, M. (2004). The role of experiments in the teaching and learning of physics. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini, (Eds.), Research on Physics Education (pp. 175-221). Amsterdam, IOS Press.
Franke, G., & Bogner, F.X. (2011a). Cognitive influences of students’ alternative conceptions within a hands-on gene technology module, The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 158-170.
Franke, G., & Bogner, F.X. (2011b). Conceptual change in students’ molecular biology education: Tilting at windmills? The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 1-14.
Franke, G., & Bogner, F.X. (2013). How does integrating alternative conceptions into lessons influence pupils’ situational emotions and learning achievement? Journal of Biological Education, 47, 1-11.
Franke, G., Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2013). Investigation of students’ alternative conceptions of terms and processes of gene technology. International Scholarly Research Network Education, Volume 2013, Article ID 741807. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/741807 (access September 23 2013).
Gayford, C. (1992). Patterns of group behaviour in openended problem solving in sciuence classes of 15-yearold students in England. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 41-49.
Glowinski, I. & Bayrhuber, H. (2011). 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, 6, 371-392
Glowinski, I. (2007). Schülerlabore im Themenbereich Molekularbiologie als Interesse fördernde Lernumgebungen [Molecular biology outreach labs as interest promoting learning environments]. Doctorate thesis, ChristianAlbrechts-University Kiel, Germany. Retrieved from http://eldiss.uni-kiel.de/macau/receive/dissertation _diss_2564 (access August 13, 2013).
Goldman, S. R. (2009). Explorations of relationships among learners, tasks, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 451-454
Goldschmidt, M., & Bogner, F.X. (2013). Associations with plant genetic engineering: A perception analysis of students´ hopes and fears. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 115: 143-149
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teacher College.
Harlen, W. (1999). Effective Teaching of Science. A Review of Research. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Haupt, O., Domjahn, J., Martin, U., Skiebe-Corette, P., Vorst, S., Zehren, W., & Hempelmann, R. (2013). Schülerlabor – Begriffsschärfung und Kategorisierung [Outreach labs – terminology delimitations and categorizing]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 66, 324- 330.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573- 580.
Hock, M.F., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1999). Tutoring programs for academically underprepared college students: A review of literature. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29, 101–122.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Science. Towards a Personalized Approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
Johnstone, A., & Wham, A. (1982). The demands of practical work. Education in Chemistry, 19, 71-73.
Kersaint, G., Dogbey, J., Barber, J., & Kephart, D. (2011). The effect of access to an online tutorial service on college algebra student outcomes. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 25-44.
King, K. V., Gardner, D. A., Zucker, S., & Jorgensen, M.A. (2004). The distractor rationale taxonomy: Enhancing multiplechoice items in reading and mathematics. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
KMK (Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany; 2013). Richtlinien zur Sicherheit im Unterricht - Naturwissenschaften, Technik/Arbeitslehre, Hauswirtschaft, Kunst. [Policies regarding safety in science, techniques, and home economics education as well as arts]. Official letters of the Bavarian Ministry of Education, July 5th, 2013, No. VI.8-5 S 4400-6a.69 434.
KMK (Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany; 2005). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz - Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10) [Decision of the Standing Conference – Intermediatelevel biology education standards (grade 10)]. München: Luchterhand.
Koedinger, K.R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychological Review, 19, 239-264.
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf, J. (2007). What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a shortduration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE-Life Science Education, 6, 49-64.
Leiß, D., & Wiegand, B. (2005). A classification of teacher interventions in mathematics teaching. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37, 240-245.
Lernort Labor (2013). Daten zu Schülerlaboren [Data to German outreach labs]. Retrieved from http://www.lernortlabor.de/data.php?tl=12 (access August 10, 2013).
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1, 1-20.
Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’ preconceptions. Science Education, 87, 849-867.
NCHPEG (National Coalition for Health Professionals Education in Genetics; 2007). Core competencies in genetics for health professionals (3rd ed). Lutherville, MD: NCHPG.
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743.).
Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J., & Adams, J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive Load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1-8.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P.W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.
Park, S. & Oliver, J.S. (2008): Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261-284.
Philipp, M., Finkelstein, D., & Wever-Frerichs, S. (2007). School site to museum floor: How informal science institutions work with schools. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1489-1507.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Rommel, J. M, & Hermann, R.S. (2010). A critical analysis of faculty-developed urban K-12 science outreach programs. Perspectives on Urban Education, 7, 109-114.
Rost, J. (1996). Lehrbuch Testtheorie, Testkonstruktion [Textbook test theory and construction]. Göttingen: Hans Huber.
Saunders, W.L., & Dickinson, D.H. (1976). A comparison of community college students' achievement and attitude. Changes in a lecture-only and lecture-laboratory approach to general education (biological science courses). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 459- 464.
Scharfenberg, F.-J. (2005). Experimenteller Biologieunterricht zu Aspekten der Gentechnik im Lernort Labor: empirische Untersuchung zu Akzeptanz, Wissenserwerb und Interesse [Experimental teaching aspects of gene technology in an outreach lab: an empirical study regarding acceptance, cognitive achievement, and interest]. Doctorate thesis, University of Bayreuth, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.bayceer.uni-bayreuth.de/didaktikbio/de/pub/html/31120diss_Scharfenberg.pdf (access August 14, 2013).
Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2010): Instructional change of cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory: Effects on cognitive achievement and students’ activities during experimentation. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829-844.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2011). A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students' activities during experimentation in an outreach gene technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41, 505-523.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2013a). Teaching gene technology in an outreach lab: Students' assigned cognitive load clusters and the clusters' relationships to learner characteristics, laboratory variables, and cognitive achievement. Research in Science Education, 43, 141-161.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F.X. (2013b). Instructional efficiency of tutoring in an outreach gene technology laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43, 1267-1288.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F.X., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology lab with educational focus: Results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 28-39.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 5, 1-22.
Steffensky, M, & Parchmann, I. (2007): The project CHEMOL: Science education for children – teacher education for students. Chemistry Education and Practice, 8, 120-129.
Stolarsky Ben-Nun, M., & Yarden, A. (2009). Learning molecular genetics in teacher-led outreach laboratories. Journal of Biological Education, 44, 19-25.
Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R.A. Duschl & R.J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practise (pp. 147-176). New York, NY: University Press.
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong answers – Teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education, 4, 112-117.
Todt, E., & Götz, C. (2000). Interests and attitudes of adolescents regarding genetic engineering. In H. Bayrhuber, W. Garvin, & J. Grainger (Eds.), Teaching biotechnology at school: A European perspective (pp. 146–154). Kiel: IPN.
Valla, J.M., & Williams, W.M. (2012). Increasing achievement and higher-education representation of underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A review of current K-12 intervention programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18, 21–53.
Venville, D., & Dawson, V. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952–977.
Venville, G., & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031- 1055.
Venville, G., Gribble, S.J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetic concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89, 614-633.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W.F. (1999). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21- 39.
Weßnigk, S. (2013). Kooperatives Arbeiten an industrienahen außerschulischen Lernorten [Cooperative learning in industrial outreach labs]. Doctorate thesis, ChristianAlbrechts-University, Kiel, Germany. Retrieved from http://eldiss.uni-kiel.de/macau/servlets/MCRFile NodeServlet/dissertation_derivate_00004630/dissertati on_susanne_wessnigk.pdf (access August 13, 2013).
Winberg, T., & Berg, C. (2007). Students' cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1108-1133.
Yager, R.E., Engen, H. B., & Snider, B.C. (1969). Effects of the laboratory and demonstration methods upon the outcomes of instruction in secondary biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 76-86.
Yarden, H., & Yarden, A. (2010). Studying biotechnological methods using animations: The teacher’s role. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 689-702.

How to cite this article

APA

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2014). Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(4), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

Vancouver

Scharfenberg FJ, Bogner FX. Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(4):329-41. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

AMA

Scharfenberg FJ, Bogner FX. Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(4), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

Chicago

Scharfenberg, Franz-Josef, and Franz X. Bogner. "Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2014 10 no. 4 (2014): 329-341. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

Harvard

Scharfenberg, F.-J., and Bogner, F. X. (2014). Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(4), pp. 329-341. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

MLA

Scharfenberg, Franz-Josef et al. "Outreach Science Education: Evidence-Based Studies in a Gene Technology Lab". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 4, 2014, pp. 329-341. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a