Towards a more comprehensive framework for investigating novelty at out-of-school learning places for science and technology learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25321/prise.2018.521Keywords:
informal learning, novelty, curiosity, motivation, science education, literature reviewAbstract
Out-of-school learning places (OSLePs) have come to be recognized as an integral part of promoting science and technology education. Studies at OSLePs demonstrate that learner feelings of unfamiliarity present barriers to achieving educational outcomes. However, these investigations of novelty at OSLePs have drawn from several different, largely unconnected models to guide their work and have differently defined the novelty construct. The aim of this paper is to describe a more comprehensive framework for studying novelty at OSLePs. Through a literature review, we show how studies have focused primarily on how learners’ previous knowledge, experiences, and disposition, as well as features of the OSLeP, affect educational outcomes. Measures of these ‘novelty influence’ factors fall into five categories: cognitive, affective, setting familiarity, social, and capability. Another set of important, but less studied, variables have to do with perceived ‘novelty experience,’ or what learners find new or unusual during their OSLeP experience, and how it interacts with the novelty influence factors to shape educational outcomes. We relate the presented synthesis of research on novelty influence and experience factors to the Contextual Model of Learning, an influential theoretical framework for research about and development of informal learning programs. In a second part of the paper, we discuss how novelty at OSLePs relates to two general theories of educational science: self-determination theory and Yerkes-Dodson relationships. These models can provide a still broader understanding of novelty and its educational effects at OSLePs. Finally, we offer suggestions for designing investigations that will better inform OSLeP managers and researchers about how to leverage novelty for more positive learner experiences.References
Anderson, D., Ellenbogen, K. (2012). Learning Science in Informal Contexts – Epistemological Perspectives and Paradigms. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, C. McRobbie (Ed.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1179-1187). New York: Springer.
Anderson, D., Lucas, K. (1997). The Effectiveness of Orienting Students to the Physical Features of a Science Museum Prior to Visitation. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 485-495.
Baldi, E., Bucherelli, C. (2005). The inverted 'u-shaped' dose-effect relationships in learning and memory: modulation of arousal and consolidation. Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, and Medicine, 3(1), 9-21.
Barmby, P., Kind, P. M., Jones, K., Bush, N. (2005). Evaluation of Lab in a Lorry (Vol. Final Report): CEM Center and School of Education, Durham University.
Berlyne, D. E. (1951). Novelty and Curiosity as Determinants of Exploratory Behavior. The British Journal of Psychology, 41, 68-80.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boekaerts, M., Minnaert, A. (1999). Self-regulation with respect to informal learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 533-544.
Brandt, A., Möller, J., Kohse-Höinghaus, K. (2008). Was bewirken außerschulische Experimentierlabors? Ein Kontrollgruppenexperiment mit Follow up- Erhebung zu Effekten auf Selbstkonzept und Interesse (What’s the Effect of Science Laboratories? A Control Group Experiment with Follow-up Data on Self-Concept and Interest). Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 22(1), 5-12.
Bybee, R., McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific Literacy and Student Attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
Castranova, J. A. (2002). Discovery Learning for the 21st Century: What is it and how does it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st Century? Action research exchange, 1(1).
Cohen, J. W. (Ed.). (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cors, R. (2013). MobiLLab Program Background Investigation: Directions for Program Improvement and Evaluation Research (Verschaffen eines Überblicks des mobiLLabs) (pp. 32). St. Gallen, Switzerland: University of Teacher Education (Pädagogische Hochschule St. Gallen).
Cors, R., Matsubae, K., Street, A. . (2013). Chapter 8: How MFA, transdisciplinarity, complex adaptive systems thinking, and education reform are keys to better managing P: P is for Parity. In K. Wyant, J. Corman, J. Elser (Ed.), Phosphorus, Food, and Our Future. New York City, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Cors, R., Müller, A., Robin, N. (2015). Advancing Informal MINT Learning: Preparation and Novelty at a Mobile Laboratory. In: Pixel Associazione Culturale (Edt.)(2015). “New Perspectives in Science Education” (Limena: libreriauniversitaria.it) 53-58.
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. (2009). Field biology experiences of undergraduate students: the impact of novelty space. Journal of Biology Education, 43(4), 169-174.
de Jong, T. (2009). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
Deci, E. L., Valleran, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Ryan, R., M. (1991). Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 325-346.
Dohn, N. B. (2010). Situational Interest of High School Students Who Visit an Aquarium. In L. Dierking, J. Falk (Ed.), Science Learning in Everyday Life: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Dorie, B. L., Dankenbring, C.A., Denick, D.L, Ferguson, D., Huff, J., Phillips, C., Schimpf, C., Cardella, M.E. (2012). File: A Taxonomy of Formal and Informal Learning Environments. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana.
Dowell, K. (2011). 2010-2011 Evaluation of the MdBioLab Program. In EvalSolutions (Ed.), (pp. 33): Prepared for: MdBio Foundation, Rockville, Maryland.
Eschach, H. (2007). Bridging In-school and Out-of-school Learning: Formal, Non-Formal, and Informal Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190.
Falk, J., Dierking, L. (Ed.). (2000). Learning from Museums. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J., Dierking, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Museum Experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Falk, J., Martin, W.M., Balling, J.D. (1978). The Novel Field-Trip Phenomenon: Adjustment to Novel Settings Interferes with Task Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(2), 127-134.
Falk, J. H., Balling, J.D. (1982). The Field Trip Milieu: Learning and Behavior as a Function of Contextual Events. Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 22-28.
Förster, J., Marguc, J., Gillebart, M. (2010). Novelty Categorization Theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 736-755.
Gassmann, F. (2012). Das Schülerlabor iLab des Paul Scherrer Instituts (pp. 2). Switzerland: Paul Scherrer Institute.
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 & Science Education, 6(4), 371-392.
Hidi, S., Renniger, K.A. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
High Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. (2004). Europe Needs More Scientists. Retrieved on 9. January 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/research/ conferences/2004/sciprof/pdf/final_en.pdf: European Commission.
Itzek-Greulich, H., Flunger, B., Vollmer, C. Nagengast, B., Rehm, M., Tratwein. (2015). Effects of a science center outreach lab on school students' achievement -Are student lab visits needed when they teach what students can learn at school? Learning and Instruction, 38, 43-52.
Iyengar, S. R. S., Madhavan, C. E. V., Zweig, K. A., Natarajan, A. (2012). Understanding Human Navigation Using Network Analysis. Topi{CS} - {T}opics in {C}ognitive {S}cience, 4(1).
Jarvis, T., Pell, A. (2005). Factors Influencing Elementary School Children’s Attitudes toward Science before, during, and after a Visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 53-83.
Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: an eduational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIV(1), 23-40.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381-395.
Kubota, C. A., Olstad, R. G. (1991). Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225–234.
Lee, T.-H., Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring Novelty Seeking in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 732-751.
Luckay, M., Collier-Reed, B. (2011, 10-12 August). Admitting Engineering Students with the Best Chance of Success- Technological Literacy and the Technological Profile Inventory (TPI). Paper presented at the 1st Biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering, Sellenbosch.
Millar, R., Leach, J., Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Hames, V., Hind, A., ... & Scott, P. (2002). Towards evidence-based practice in science education. School science review, 84, 19-34.
Orion, N. (1989). Development of a High-School Geology Course Based on Field Trips. Journal of Geological Education, 37, 13-17.
Orion, N. (1993). A Model for the Development and Implementation of Field Trips as an Integral Part of the Science Curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325-331.
Orion, N., Hofstein, A. (1991a). Factors which influence learning ability during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the annual convention of the National Association for research in Science Teaching, Fontana, IL.
Orion, N., Hofstein, A. (1991b). The Measurement of Students' Attitudes Towards Scientific Field Trips. Science Education, 75(5), 513-523.
Orion, N., Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that Influence Learning during a Scientific Field Trip in a Natural Environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119.
Paas, F., van Gog, T., Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory: New Conceptualizations, Specifications, and Integrated Research Perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 115-121.
Pawek, C. (2009). Schülerlabore als interessefördernde ausserschulische Lernumgebuhngen für Schülerinnen und Schüler aus der Mittel- und Oberstufe. Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.
Priemer, B., Pawek, C. (2014). Out-of-school STEM learning in Germany: Can we catch and hold students’ interest? Paper presented at the NARST (National Association for Research in Science Teaching) Annual International Conference Pittsburg.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning Science Outside of School. In S. K. Abell, N.G. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roeckelein, J. (Ed.) (2006) Dictionary of Psychological Theories. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Salmi, H. (2010). Bridging the Gap between Formal Education and Informal Learning: Towards Evidence Based Science Education. In: M. Kalogiannakis, D. Stavrou & P. Michaelidis (Eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hands-on Science. 25-31 July 2010, Rethymno-Crete, pp. 35 – 41
Sandifer, C. (2003). Technological Novelty and Open-Endedness: Two Characteristics of Interactive Exhibits That Contribute to the Holding of Visitor Attention in a Science Museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 121–137.
Sasson, I. (2014). The Role of Informal Science Centers in Science Education: Attitudes, Skills, and Self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 4(3).
Scholz, R. W. (2011). Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sjøberg, S., Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings (pp. 31): University of Oslo.
Sliva, Y. (2013). In search for Instructional Techniques to Maximize the Use of German Cognitive Resources: A Case of Teaching Complex Tasks in Physics. (Doctor of Philosophy), Old Dominion University. (UMI: 3580483)
Tran, N. A. (2011). The Relationship between Students' Connections to Out-of-School Experiences and Factors Associated with Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1625-1651.
Wilson, D. B. (2015). Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator Retrieved last accessed 1. April, 2105, George Mason University, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-SMD-main.php
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The applicable licence is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, which means
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material under the following terms:
Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial: You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
