Effectiveness of science outreach labs with and without connection to classroom learning: Affective and cognitive outcomes

Affective and cognitive outcomes of science teaching in schools may be enhanced by science outreach labs (SOLs). Particularly interesting is whether and how to connect SOL visits to in-school science learning. Recent studies—among others, in this journal—have confirmed SOLs’ positive affective effects. However, research remains inconclusive regarding cognitive outcomes, the effects of connecting SOLs to classroom teaching, and effects beyond the short term. This study more closely investigates the short- and medium-term effectiveness of SOLs on affective (interest, self-concept) and cognitive variables (conceptual and procedural knowledge), as well as the effects of integrating lab work with school-based preparation and post-lab activities. A quasi-experimental intervention study via a repeated measures design and two SOL treatment groups (TG1/2: with and without integration), and an in-school control group (CG; also with integration of pre- and postlab activities, in accordance with good practice) was undertaken. It took place in a lab work unit on “pressure and buoyancy” for the lower secondary level, with identical instruction and the same instructor across groups, and with several further control measures. The main findings are as follows: (i) SOLs can have substantial learning and affective outcomes [pre-post learning gains: Cohen’s $d>1$; increases in interest ($d>0.8$) and self-concept ($d\approx 0.5$) immediately after the visit]. (ii) Learning gains were still present at medium term ($d>0.7$) but not affective ones. (iii) Integration with classroom teaching was necessary for learning (TG1 vs TG2: $d=0.72$), and not harmful for interest. (iv) Learning and affective outcomes of an integrated SOL are as good as those of a well-prepared classroom setting, but not better. (v) No interactions of the outcome variables with gender and other covariates were found; the lab work units appeared suitable for both sexes and different kinds of learners. These findings are discussed with respect to current theories of learning and interest development, and SOLs’ added value to science education.

Figure 1

Enjoyment or general appreciation of various science outreach labs as percentage of maximal possible score value (“POMP” [38]). Abbreviations: B: biology; C: chemistry; P: physics; GS: science (general); SL: scientific literacy; rightmost column: average [32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48].

Figure 2

Connecting learning in and out of school: high potential of OSLOs as “catch” events (top) and for positive affective impact of “experience of competence” (bottom).

Figure 3

Study design. The comparison between TG1 and TG2 is about a lab work unit with and without integration (Hyp1a, Hyp2a) and the comparison between TG1 and CG is about a lab work unit at a SOL and at school (Hyp1b, Hyp2b).

Figure 4

Hands-on experiment on the bursting of a wine barrel according to Blaise Pascal [122]. Because of the necessary height difference (several meters), part of the activity was carried out outside the building.

Figure 5

Instructional material for preparation and follow-up work related to SOL experiment “Stone thrown from a boat”.

Figure 6

Example items from used scales.

Figure 7

Descriptive data of the learning test with standard error of mean. Significances and effect sizes refer to the pairwise comparisons of adjusted group means. Abbreviations: prep, preparation; fupa, follow-up activity.

Figure 8

Descriptive data of the subscale self-concept with standard error of the mean.

Figure 9

Descriptive data of the subscale interest with standard error of the mean.