Informal learning: Student achievement and motivation in science through museum-based learning

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Informal learning: Student achievement and motivationin science through museum-based learning

Julie A. Holmes

Received: 7 May 2009 / Accepted: 27 April 2010 / Published online: 27 December 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This study examined changes in student motivation and achievement in science

during a visit to a university children’s science museum. The study was based on the

pretest–posttest control comparison group design with four treatment groups: control,

exhibit, lesson and exhibit/lesson. The sample consisted of 228 sixth-grade students from a

Louisiana public school who were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental

groups. Pretest, posttest and delayed posttest measures of intrinsic motivation and

achievement in science were obtained using the Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation

Inventory and an achievement test written to measure areas of science incorporated in the

museum exhibits. The data were analysed using a one-way ANOVA, dependent t tests and

Pearson r. Significant differences were found within groups for (1) the lesson group in

motivation and (2) the exhibit group in achievement from pretest to posttest and from

posttest to delayed posttest. A significant relationship between level of motivation and

science achievement was revealed for the exhibit group on the delayed posttest. There were

no other significant findings to support that the treatment led to any long-term effects on

motivation or achievement within any of the four experimental groups.

Keywords Informal science learning � Student achievement � Student motivation �Museum-based learning

Introduction

Most American students are not excited about science, according to Ye et al. (1998), and

this is the case for students in many developed countries of the world (Braund and Reiss

2006). American students take science classes because they are required, dislike science

because of too much memorisation, and find the mathematics in science difficult. Student

attitudes toward science decline progressively throughout secondary school and fewer

J. A. Holmes (&)Curriculum, Instruction, and Leadership, Louisiana Tech University, P.O. Box 3163, Ruston,LA 71272, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:263–277DOI 10.1007/s10984-011-9094-y

students are choosing to study science at higher levels (Braund and Reiss 2006). The

reason that students feel this way about science is, in part, because of the methods that

teachers use to teach science and their poor science background knowledge (Havasy 2001).

Hoff (2001) stated that teaching science by memorising facts and vocabulary words is

inappropriate because students are not required to connect this knowledge into a cohesive

picture of how the world works and how we come to know it.

So, how do teachers get students interested and motivated to learn science? Havasy

(2001) stated: ‘‘We need a revolution in the way we teach science.’’ (p. 49). She suggested

that, to increase learning in science, teachers need to give students a reason to want to learn

science. Driscoll (2000) noted that motivating people to engage in new learning requires

instruction to be designed to be appealing to the learners. Connections need to be made

between science and the world in which students live. In other words, science needs to be

related to the students’ real-world experiences. Motivation can be stimulated by matching

students’ values and motives with the content that they are learning (Driscoll 2000).

Familiarity creates perceived relevance to the learner, and relevance has been shown to be

related to strong, positive on-task behaviour (Newby 1991). When science is practical, it is

more dynamic and memorable for students.

The revolution to which Havasy (2001) alluded is inquiry-based learning in science. She

noted that the same information that is taught using traditional teaching methods can be

taught, often more effectively, through inquiry-based learning. These stimulated cognitive

processes have been shown to be important mediators of motivation (Driscoll 2000).

Therefore, student achievement can be improved in science when using inquiry-based

teaching methods, and interest and motivation can also be stimulated (Fouts and Myers

1992; Freedman 1997; Wilde and Urhahne 2008). Inquiry-based learning guides students’

natural curiosity by encouraging investigation and discovery. Keller (1983) referred to this

as inquiry arousal. Inquiry-based methods create problem solving situations which must be

resolved by employing knowledge-seeking behaviour. These situations, in turn, can make

science relevant in students’ lives.

Alternative learning environments need to be considered by teachers. Informal learning

settings, such as libraries, museums and zoos, can provide teachers with another venue in

which to improve student achievement, support interest and develop motivation to learn

more about a particular area of study (Bartels 2001). Science museums have the potential

to be a significant and valuable adjunct to the formal educational setting of the classroom

(Borun 1983). Specifically, science institutions can create direct experiences with scientific

phenomena that would not be accessible to students in a typical public school. Borun

(1983) noted that the visual and kinesthetic learning experiences provided by participatory

science museums are qualitatively different from classroom lessons. The three-dimensional

aspects displayed in science museum exhibits allow active exploration of scientific prin-

ciples using real objects. In terms of science museums, in particular, Bartels (2001)

claimed that they support inquiry-based learning and a shift in students’ and teachers’

attitudes ‘‘from a third person relationship (science that others do), to a first person rela-

tionship (science that I can do)’’ (p. 45). Thus, science museums and other informal

learning settings can be complementary to formal schooling (Braund and Reiss 2006).

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there are changes in student moti-

vation toward science and achievement in science when informal learning settings, namely,

a visit to a science museum, are used. The researcher also wanted to determine if different

levels of intrinsic motivation affected the quality of learning (i.e. to determine if students

who are assessed as having certain levels of motivational attitudes towards science

experienced superficial learning or deep learning of content. Finally, the researcher wanted

264 Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:263–277

123

to observe if different levels of intrinsic motivation could be created in groups of students

by using different methods of instruction.

Theoretical orientation

The study was based on the activity theory model, whose historical origins are from three

distinct areas: (a) German philosophy; (b) the works of Marx and Engels; and (c) the

cultural-historical psychology of Soviet Russian psychologists, Vygotsky, Leont’ev and

Luria (Engestrom 1999). Activity theory is based upon several dimensions. Engestrom

(1999) defines activity ‘‘as an object-oriented and cultural formation that has its own

structure’’ (p. 21). Various forms of activity can be seen as being goal-directed or object-

related. Activity can also be viewed as tool-mediated (object-based) or sign-mediated

(language-based). Internalisation, or the process of being able to do a task at an instinctive

capacity, is a strong construct that dominates activity theory.

Engestrom’s model of activity theory reflects a collective activity system. Engestrom

developed the theory of learning activity and the theory of learning by expanding, and he

advanced Vygotsky’s theory by including a social component that also mediates our action.

Engestrom pointed out that, as social beings, our activities are both directed to the envi-

ronment and toward the community’s actions towards the environment.

The subject in Engestrom’s model takes into account not only the individual, but also

the larger group of which the individual is a member. The object still remains as the central

issue in this model of activity theory because it is the connecting factor of the individual’s

actions to the collective activity (Engestrom 1999). The instruments are also referred to as

mediating artifacts in some diagrams of Engestrom’s model (Engestrom 1999). The rules

are the policies of the organisation and the guidelines that are acceptable. The division of

labour concerns the differences that the group might hold, such as different languages,

disciplines, nationalities and schools of thought.

Activity theory strongly supports this study in the sense that children learn through their

interaction with people and objects (Good and Good 1999). The student participants expe-

rienced hands-on science exhibits in small groups, allowing for socialisation within the

context of informal learning. They also experienced a science lesson related to the exhibits

which included more hands-on activities and opportunities to interact with the museum staff

members and those in their group. Falk (1997) showed that even brief interactions with

conceptually-related science exhibits help students to acquire factual and conceptual

knowledge, and that long-term recall of information was stimulated. It was thought that these

museum-based experiences would show that educators need to shift from instruction as

provision of information to providing opportunities for facilitation of learning. The activities

at the science museum could also be considered as an attempt to improve students’ attention

to the science content by varying the instructional presentation of the material (Keller 1983).

In these activities, learners undo and reform their existing understandings into different

forms, thus allowing them to apply knowledge in multiple settings. Learning of content,

therefore, would be deeper and more meaningful than before, because it is experienced in a

different way. This would lead to increased interest and motivation (Down 2001).

Methods

This study was based on a pretest–posttest control-comparison group design. The sample

consisted of 228 sixth grade students enrolled in a public north central Title I Louisiana

Learning Environ Res (2011) 14:263–277 265

123

school. The researcher selected the sixth-grade school for the distinctiveness of the setting.

This school serves the entire sixth-grade public school population from the four public

elementary schools in the city and only sixth graders attend this school. The school

operates on the block schedule. There are four science teachers, each teaching three

sections of classes.

The researcher measured both the level of intrinsic motivation and achievement in

science with two separate measures: the Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation

Inventory (CAIMI) and an achievement test developed by the researcher specifically to

measure content knowledge of areas of science incorporated in the science museum

exhibits. The CAIMI is designed specifically for students in Grades 4–8 to measure

motivational orientation (intrinsic/extrinsic) in science and other academic areas, such as

mathematics, reading and social studies, as well as a general orientation towards school

learning. The CAIMI is a 44-question, self-report inventory comprised of 122 items in the

five areas listed above. Each of the subject areas contains 26 items and the general section

contains 18 items. Of the 26 items in each subject area, 24 used a five-point Likert scale,

ranging from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. Two items in each area require a forced

response between an intrinsic or a non-intrinsic choice. All 18 items in the general section

used the five-point Likert scale (as described earlier), with some items being reverse-

scored. Approximately half of the items require an agreement response for high motivation

and half of the items require disagreement to indicate high intrinsic motivation levels

(Gottfried 1986). The researcher developed her own achievement test for the study to

specifically address the five main theme areas of the science museum exhibits of (1)

electricity, (2) light and optics, (3) mechanics, (4) sound and waves and (5) weather. The

test was comprised of 30 multiple-choice questions in which there was only one correct

response. These questions were also consistent with the sixth grade district and state

content standards.

In order to establish validity and reliability for this test, the researcher conducted a pilot

study on a sixth-grade population of 116 students that was similar to the one used in the

study in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. This group of students participated in

a visit to the same science museum used in the study in the fall of 2002. Data from the pilot

study were used to determine test reliability. Reliability analysis was completed using the

Kuder-Richardson 21 formula, which yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.31. The test was

also reviewed by science education staff and practising upper-elementary teachers to help

to determine the content validity of the test. The CAIMI and the achievement tests were

used for pretesting, posttesting and delayed posttesting of intrinsic motivation levels and

science achievement in the study.

The researcher met with the principal and the four science teachers and discussed the

study, made arrangements for pretesting the students, and scheduled the class field trips for

approximately 1 month after the pretests were completed. Delayed posttest dates were

scheduled for 1 month after the museum visit. In order to minimise experimenter bias, the

researcher instructed the four science teachers from the school in how to administer the

tests in the regular classroom setting for pretesting and for the delayed posttesting. The

same testing procedure was used for the posttest on site at the science museum. A para-

professional from the school was also trained to administer both tests in order to help with

testing because of overlap in testing schedules during the museum visit.

The pretests were administered to the students concerning the two areas of interest in

the study. All sixth grade students in the school were given the opportunity to participate in

the study and were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups using a table of

random numbers. Groups were colour-coded as red, yellow, green and blue. A rotation


123

method was used in which the first name selected was placed in the red group, the second

name placed in the yellow group, the third name placed in the green group and the fourth

name placed in the blue group. When all 280 students had been randomly assigned to a

group, the four groups were then randomly assigned to one of the following treatments,

namely, (1) control group, (2) exhibit group, (3) lesson group and (4) exhibit/lesson group.

Of the 280 students, those who did not return a human use/consent form to attend the field

trip were not allowed to participate. This yielded a useable sample of 228 students.

The setting for the study was the IDEA Place (Investigate, Discover, Explore, Ask), the

children’s science museum located at Louisiana Tech University. The IDEA Place opened

in April 1994 and, since then, more than 40,000 K–12 students from north Louisiana and

Arkansas have visited the IDEA Place. In 2002, the IDEA Place became the permanent

home of the Experiment Gallery, a hands-on science exhibit, which was designed and

constructed by the Science Museum of Minnesota through support of the National Science

Foundation. The Experiment Gallery consists of more than 25 interactive exhibits based on

the five theme areas of (1) electricity, (2) light and optics, (3) mechanics, (4) sound and

waves and (5) weather. The Experiment Gallery also contains an Activity Station, which

provides visitors with the opportunity to experience enjoyable hands-on science activities

supervised by the IDEA Place staff. These components of the Experiment Gallery and

other exhibits in the IDEA Place offer engaging and enjoyable activities which are

appropriate for children and adults alike.

The four science teachers were scheduled to bring their students to the IDEA Place

approximately 4 weeks after taking the pretests. Colour-coded name tags were given to the

students to wear during the field trip to identify their group assignments. Student workers at

the IDEA Place had colour-coded name tags to identify their group assignments. A

schedule was given to the student workers to rotate the groups properly through the

treatments in the correct order and in a timely fashion. The student workers were also

provided with a script of the exhibits in the Experiment Gallery in the IDEA Place.

Because the Experiment Gallery was fairly new to the IDEA Place, student workers might

not have known all the facets of all the exhibits. The script was used so that student

workers would have a quick and easy reference to inform the study participants of the

various activities that they could explore at each of the exhibits.

Control group

During the first portion of the visit, the control group was taken to one of the testing sites at

the university and completed the CAIMI and the science achievement posttest. During the

second and third portions of the field trip, the control group experienced the lesson and the

exhibits just as the other groups did. These activities are described below.

Lesson group

The lesson group began the field trip by spending the first portion in the Activity Station. In

this particular study, students participated in a 30-min lesson on mechanics which was

designed by the researcher. The researcher selected a preservice teacher who was a trained

IDEA Place staff member to conduct the lesson. The researcher worked with the IDEA

Place staff member to ensure that the lesson was consistently taught to each group. Next,

this group took the CAIMI and the science achievement posttests. During the final portion

of the trip, the students toured the exhibits in the IDEA Place and the Experiment Gallery.


123

Exhibit group

The exhibit group started the field trip by touring the Experiment Gallery exhibits for

60 min. The student worker assigned to the group was a trained IDEA Place staff member.

She spent the first 30 min introducing the exhibits to the students following the script (as

necessary) written by the researcher. The remaining 30 min was free time for the students

to explore more thoroughly any exhibits that were of interest to them. Next, the students

completed the CAIMI and the science achievement posttest. The group then experienced

the lesson in the Activity Station.

Exhibit/lesson group

This group began the field trip by spending the first 30 min of the visit with the intro-

ductory tour of the Experiment Gallery exhibits. The tour was guided by a student worker

who was a trained IDEA Place staff member and using the script (as necessary) written by

the researcher. Next, the group attended the 30-min lesson at the Activity Station. Then this

group was allowed the 30-min free exploration of the exhibits. Finally, this group ended

the trip by taking the CAIMI and the science achievement posttest.

Approximately 4 weeks after the museum visit, the participants were given the CAIMI

and the achievement test as a delayed posttest measure. These tests were administered at

the school by the students’ science teacher.

Results

After the pretests were given for motivational levels and achievement, the responses were

reported as means and standard deviations for the four experimental groups for each

measure in Table 1. Statistical comparisons of the mean scores of the four experimental

groups on the pretest CAIMI and achievement test were performed using a one-way

ANOVA. These data are reported in Table 2 to show that there were no initial differences

among the four groups at the onset of the study.

Hypothesis one stated that there would be a significant difference in intrinsic motiva-

tional levels between students who experienced museum-based learning and students who

did not. ANOVA was used to test this hypothesis. The results revealed that there were no

significant differences between the treatment groups in the participants’ motivational levels

towards science on the posttest. The F value (3, 224) was 2.050 with a p value of 0.108.

Because no significant differences were found, this hypothesis was rejected.

Table 1 Descriptive analysis of pretest CAIMI and achievement test scores

Group n Pretest CAIMI Pretest achievement

M SD M SD

Control 56 91.12 17.75 9.13 2.61

Exhibit 53 90.25 16.96 8.98 2.59

Lesson 61 94.31 15.24 9.38 2.54

Exhibit/lesson 58 88.52 17.17 8.86 2.68


123

Hypothesis two stated that there would be a significant difference in achievement in

science between students who experienced museum-based learning and students who did

not. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the groups in the participants’

achievement levels in science on the posttest. The F value (3, 224) was 1.002 with a

p value of 0.393. Because no significant differences were found, this hypothesis was

rejected.

Hypothesis three stated that there would be a significant relationship in the students’

level of intrinsic motivation and the quality of learning (deep, long lasting learning

of content or superficial, short term learning) as a function of the treatment that they

experienced. The Pearson correlation coefficients (see Table 3) revealed no significant

relationship between motivational levels toward science and the quality of learning (as

demonstrated by the achievement test score) that participants experienced on the posttest.

On the delayed posttests, the results showed no significant relationships for the control

group (r = -0.252), the lesson group (r = -0.017), and the exhibit/lesson group

(r = 0.187). However, a significant relationship was found for the exhibit group on the

delayed posttests (r = 0.402). Because there were no significant relationships found for the

posttest, this hypothesis was rejected. No significant relationships were found for the

delayed posttest for the control group, the lesson group or the exhibit/lesson group;

therefore, this hypothesis was rejected. The hypothesis was accepted for the exhibit group

on the delayed posttest, because of the significant relationship found.

Hypothesis four stated that there would be a significant difference between the levels of

intrinsic motivation towards science that students possessed as a result of the treatment that

they received (control, exhibit, lesson, exhibit/lesson). The results of dependent t tests are

Table 2 ANOVA results for pretest CAIMI and achievement

Source df SS MS F p

CAIMI pretest

Between groups 3 1,054.758 351.5861 0.250 0.293

Within groups 224 63,027.501 281.373

Total 227 64,082.259

Achievement pretest

Between groups 3 8.735 2.912 0.429 0.732

Within groups 224 1,520.331 6.787

Total 227 1,529.066

Table 3 Pearson correlations between motivational level towards science and quality of learning (posttestand delayed posttest) for four treatment groups

Group n Posttest Delayed posttest

r p r p

Control 56 0.132 0.334 -0.252 0.061

Exhibit 53 0.234 0.092 0.402** 0.003

Lesson 61 -0.191 0.140 -0.017 0.896

Exhibit/lesson 58 0.152 0.254 0.187 0.160

** p \ 0.01


123

presented in Table 4. For the control group, there were no significant differences between

pretest and posttest CAIMI scores (t = -1.034). The exhibit group also showed no sig-

nificant difference between pretest and posttest CAIMI scores (t = -1.410). The lesson

group, however, did show a significant difference between pretest and posttest CAIMI

scores (t = -2.371), with a small positive effect size (ES = 0.222). The exhibit/lesson

group showed no significant difference between pretest and posttest CAIMI scores (t = -

0.887). This hypothesis was retained for the lesson group, but it was rejected for the other

three groups.

Hypothesis five stated that there would be a significant difference between the levels of

science achievement that students possessed as a result of the treatment that they received

(control, exhibit, lesson, exhibit/lesson). The results of dependent t tests are presented in

Table 5. No significant difference emerged between the control group’s pre-achievement

and post-achievement scores (t = -0.932). However, the exhibit group did show a sig-

nificant difference between pre-achievement and post-achievement scores (t = -2.371),

with a moderate positive effect size (ES = 0.436). The lesson group showed no significant

difference between pre-achievement and the post-achievement scores (t = 0.339). The

exhibit/lesson group also showed no significant difference between pre-achievement and

post-achievement scores (t = -1.859). This hypothesis was retained for the exhibit group;

however, for the other three groups, it was rejected.

Hypothesis six stated that there would be a significant difference between the long-term

level of intrinsic motivation that students possessed (i.e. delayed posttest) as a result of the

treatment that they received (control, exhibit, lesson, exhibit/lesson). The means and

standard deviations for the posttest and the delayed posttest for the CAIMI are presented in

Table 6. The results of dependent t tests are presented in Table 7. There were no significant

differences found in long-term intrinsic motivation levels for the control group (t = 1.609),

the exhibit group (t = 1.657), and the exhibit/lesson group (t = 0.172). The results for the

Table 4 Results of dependent t tests for differences between pretest and posttest levels of motivationtowards science for four treatment groups

Group n t df p ES

Control 56 -1.034 55 0.306

Exhibit 53 -1.410 52 0.164

Lesson 61 -2.371 60 0.021* 0.222

Exhibit/lesson 58 -0.887 57 0.379

* p \ 0.05

Table 5 Results of dependent t tests for differences between pretest and posttest science achievement foreach treatment group

Group n t df p ES

Control 56 -0.932 55 0.356

Exhibit 53 -2.371 52 0.021* 0.436

Lesson 61 0.339 60 0.735

Exhibit/lesson 58 -1.859 57 0.068

* p \ 0.05


123

lesson group, however, showed a significant difference in the long-term motivation level

(t = 3.011), with a small and positive effect size (ES = 0.316). This hypothesis was

retained for the lesson group and rejected for the other three groups.

Hypothesis seven stated that there would be a significant difference between students

who experienced different treatments (control, exhibit, lesson, exhibit/lesson) and long-

term science achievement (i.e. delayed posttest). The means and standard deviations for

the posttest and the delayed posttest for achievement are presented in Table 8. The

results of dependent t tests are presented in Table 9. There were no statistically signif-

icant differences in levels of science achievement for the control group (t = 1.093), the

lesson group (t = 0.736), and the exhibit/lesson group (t = 1.159). The results for the

exhibit group, however, showed a significant difference in science achievement

(t = 2.052). Analysis revealed a small positive effect size (ES = 0.259). This hypothesis

was retained for the exhibit group. However, for the other three groups, the hypothesis

was rejected.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics for CAIMI for posttest and delayed posttest


M SD M SD

Control 56 94.11 22.48 89.86 15.09

Exhibit 53 92.57 16.51 89.57 14.76

Lesson 61 97.70 13.29 93.48 16.00

Exhibit/lesson 58 89.90 16.98 89.60 15.46

Table 7 Results of dependent t test for differences between posttest and delayed posttest for intrinsicmotivation for four treatment groups

Group n t df p ES

Control 56 1.609 55 0.113

Exhibit 53 1.657 52 0.104

Lesson 61 3.011 60 0.004** 0.316

Exhibit/lesson 58 0.172 57 0.864

** p \ 0.01

Table 8 Descriptive statistics for science achievement for posttest and delayed posttest


M SD M SD

Control 56 9.55 2.46 9.09 2.29

Exhibit 53 10.11 2.82 9.38 2.94

Lesson 61 9.23 2.92 8.89 3.14

Exhibit/lesson 58 9.62 2.70 9.10 2.57


123

Discussion

In this study, the researcher tested seven hypotheses about various motivational and

achievement aspects of museum-based learning. The first hypothesis dealt with difference

in motivational levels between students who experienced museum-based learning and

those who did not. As research reported earlier suggested, many students are not interested

in science (Braund and Reiss 2006; Ye et al. 1998). Informal learning settings, as reported

by Bartels (2001), can support interest and develop motivation to learn more about a

particular area of study. It was thought that an exciting environment, such as a science

museum, would lead to more interest in science. Braund and Reiss (2006) noted that out-

of-school contexts can improve attitudes towards school science and stimulate further

learning. The results of this study, however, did not corroborate claims in the literature. For

example, in the study done by Borun (1983), participants found museum exhibits to be fun

and enjoyable and more interesting than classroom lessons. In Salmi’s (1993) study,

museums were thought to be a motivational setting for learning. In my study, no significant

differences in motivation towards science were found among any of the treatment groups.

There are several possible reasons for these findings. First, the test used to measure

motivation towards science, the CAIMI, contains questions that deal with school-based

aspects of science, such as liking to do homework in science and liking to do challenging

problems in science. However, no clear questions directly asked the students about their

motivation toward science and the exhibits themselves. Also, the data showed that many of

these students were highly motivated toward science at the onset of the study, which could

have made it difficult to show significant increases in motivation toward science.

The second hypothesis dealt with differences in science achievement between those

students who experienced museum-based learning and those who did not. Field trips could

be thought of as a way to improve learning by changing the environment (Keller 1983;

Martin et al. 1981), with hands-on science museums having been shown to improve student

achievement (Fouts and Myers 1992; Freedman 1997; Wilde and Urhahne 2008). The

researcher believed that, through direct experiences with the hands-on, interactive exhibits

in the IDEA Place and the Experiment Gallery, there would have been an impact on the

achievement of the participants. The results for the four experimental groups in the study

showed no significant differences in science achievement among groups.

The literature reviewed, compared to the results of my study, revealed some discrep-

ancies about informal, museum-based learning. For example, in a study by Gilbert and

Priest (1997), some themes that emerged were recognition of familiar objects, prior

activities at school being relevant to the museum visit, the experience at the museum, and

future activities. Other research has identified the importance of conducting activities prior

to the museum visit that are aligned with curriculum goals, free exploration time, and post-

Table 9 Results of dependent t tests for differences between posttest and delayed posttest in scienceachievement for four treatment groups

Group n t df p ES

Control 56 1.093 55 0.279

Exhibit 53 2.052 52 0.045* 0.259

Lesson 61 0.736 60 0.465

Exhibit/lesson 58 1.159 57 0.251

* p \ 0.05


123

visit activities to reinforce experiences from the field trip (DeWitt and Osbourne 2007;

Myers and Jones 2004). Another factor, novelty of the setting, could have influenced the

results. Many of my study’s participants, when asked by the student workers at the

introduction to the museum, whether they had been to the IDEA Place before, responded in

the affirmative by raising their hands. The participants, therefore, could have held a pre-

conceived notion about what they were to experience and, when they discovered that the

exhibit area was vastly different because of the installation of the Experiment Gallery

exhibits, the familiar might have become unfamiliar. The novelty of the setting and its

effects on learning has been shown in studies similar to this one. Balling and Falk (1980)

conducted research into the effects that the novelty of field trip settings have on children’s

learning and behaviour. They found that children who were unfamiliar with the setting in

which they were expected to learn failed to learn at a significant rate and were unable to

attend to the task given. Other research supports these findings (DeWitt and Osbourne

2007). Balling and Falk (1980) also reported that certain learning environments might have

so much to be learned and be so complex that learning is inhibited. Such findings coincide

with those of my study. There were 25 new exhibits because of the installation of the

Experiment Gallery in the IDEA Place. Although the leader of the student worker group

gave the participants a short preview of each exhibit, the large number of exhibits could

have been overwhelming. Also, time constraints because of the nature of the treatment

schedule could have been a factor in these results. Because the science achievement test

that was designed by the researcher had low reliability, this could have influenced the

results for this hypothesis.

Hypothesis three stated that there would be a significant relationship in the students’

level of intrinsic motivation and the quality of learning (deep, long lasting learning of

content or superficial, short term learning) with regard to the treatment that they experi-

enced. Salmi (1993) showed in his study that the treatment group that was intrinsically

motivated performed the best on most of the cognitive tests given. This researcher thought

that, by exploring this relationship, a better understanding of motivation and its connection

to achievement would be obtained. It is interesting to note that the exhibit group showed a

significant relationship on the delayed posttests for motivation and achievement. Appar-

ently, the museum experience played a role in student motivation and achievement in

science for those who experienced the exhibits first. Once participants returned to the

classroom, the effect of the field trip was reflected in the delayed posttest scores for this

group. This concurs with Falk’s (1997) findings. Another interesting observation is that the

same effect was not noted for the treatment group that received both the lesson and the

exhibit tour. Again, the novelty of the setting could have played a role. Because the test

was of low reliability and student motivation was high at the onset of the study, these

factors also might have influenced the results of the statistical analyses used to test this

hypothesis.

The fourth hypothesis tested the level of intrinsic motivation towards science as a result

of the treatment received. Inquiry-based science has been linked with motivation in science

(Fouts and Myers 1992; Freedman 1997; Wilde and Urhahne 2008). Informal learning

environments, such as a science museum, can develop motivation to learn more about

science (Bartels 2001). It was hypothesised that, dependent on the treatment received

(whether experiencing the exhibits only, the lesson only, or both the exhibits and the

lesson), differences in motivation would be observed. Although the lesson group did

experience a significant increase in motivation level compared to the other groups, this is

inconsistent with what Borun (1983) found in her study. Her analysis revealed that, in

terms of interest in and enjoyment of the museum activity (in comparison to school


123

classes), the exhibit was preferred over the lesson. This might be explained in several ways.

The student worker in this study who taught the lesson was a dynamic individual. Since she

began working at the IDEA Place, she has been very energetic and works well with the

groups of children who come to the museum. The enthusiasm that she conveyed could have

played a role in the increased motivation towards science for the students in the lesson

group. It is also interesting to note that none of the other treatment groups experienced any

significant changes in motivation, which might have arisen because of: no prior classroom

preparation; the motivation test not being directly connected with aspects of the museum;

and the high motivational level of the students at the onset of the study.

A significant difference between levels of science achievement as a result of the

treatment received was the focus of the fifth hypothesis. Inquiry-based learning, as dem-

onstrated through the exhibits and the lesson taught at the IDEA Place, has been shown to

be an effective teaching method (Havasy 2001) and can lead to improvement in student

achievement (Bartels 2001). As with the fourth hypothesis, it was thought that different

levels of achievement could be measured dependent upon the treatment that the partici-

pants received. This was the case with the students in the exhibit group, who showed a

significant difference between their pretest and posttest scores, with a moderate and

positive effect size. This occurred possibly because of the hands-on experience with the

exhibits just prior to taking the posttests. The preview given by the student worker could

also have played a role in the achievement gains of this group, because this ensured that the

participants were exposed to all the exhibits and were given a description of what concepts

could be learned at each particular station. None of the other treatment groups, however,

showed significant science achievement gains. It was anticipated that the exhibit/lesson

group would have shown the greatest gains in achievement, but did not. The aforemen-

tioned reasons of novelty of the setting and students being overwhelmed with so much to

do and see in such a short time frame could have influenced the results of the science

achievement test.

The final two hypotheses involved the long-term results of the museum-based experi-

ence on the students’ motivation and achievement gains in science. Gibson (1998) reported

that the use of inquiry-based learning activities led to more positive attitudes towards

science and science careers long after participation in the program. Qualitative data

reported in his study indicated that the program had increased participant interest in science

because of the hands-on aspects of the program and enjoyment of the activities during the

camp. The researcher felt that investigating the long-term effects of the museum-based

learning experience on student motivation towards science would be beneficial for teachers

and administrators to consider in making informal learning experiences a part of regular

instructional practices. In this study, the lesson group showed a significant decrease in

motivation towards science on the delayed posttest. It appears that possibly the energetic

student worker who conveyed a very positive attitude towards science while teaching the

lesson had a positive effect for the posttest, but that the effects were not long lasting. No

other groups revealed any significant long-term effects on motivation towards science.

Again, because students scored relatively high on motivation towards science at the onset

of the study, it would be difficult to show a significant gain in motivation, and the CAIMI

did not have specific questions that would apply to experiences with science in a museum

setting.

The long-term effects on science achievement in conjunction with museum-based

learning were important in the researcher’s mind because many educators are searching for

effective ways to help students to learn. Miettinen (1999) stated the importance of

developing a learning network with various experiences to assist student learning.


123

Museums can be considered informal classrooms (Bartels 2001) and be a valuable addition

to formal educational settings (Borun 1983; Braund and Reiss 2006). It was thought that, if

a noticeable effect on long-term achievement gains in science (such as those gains asso-

ciated with the Balling and Falk 1980 study) could be established in combination with

museum-based learning, this would be important information for teachers and adminis-

trators. In my study, the exhibit group did show a significant difference for the delayed

posttest; however, the scores declined from the posttest given directly after experiencing

the exhibits. This is in contrast to Falk’s (1997) findings of interactions with conceptually-

related science exhibits leading to acquisition of factual and conceptual knowledge and

long-term recall of information. My study indicated that one visit to the museum did not

lead to a sustained achievement gain, perhaps in part because of limited time and the lack

of post-visit activities to reinforce what was experienced at the museum. These reasons

also could explain why the other treatment groups did not show any significant achieve-

ment gains. Also, the aforementioned problems with the achievement test could have

influenced these results.

Conclusions and recommendations

Museum-based learning, as it was explored in this study, had minimal effects on student

motivation towards science and achievement in science. Several important factors can be

used as plausible explanations for these results. The unfamiliarity and novelty of the setting

appeared to play an important role in the results of the study. As Martin et al. (1981)

showed in their study, the novel environment of the field trip setting resulted in reduced

conceptual learning, while those who were familiar with the setting showed a strong effect

in terms of overall conceptual learning. Balling and Falk (1980) developed a model based

on their studies of setting novelty and task learning. They found that task learning is

greatest when the setting is somewhat novel (i.e. not so familiar as to be boring, but yet not

so unfamiliar as to be threatening). In this study, students might have had a pre-conceived

notion about the museum because most indicated that they had been there before. When

they saw that the exhibit hall had dramatically changed, it could have led to a decline in

task learning. These researchers suggested ‘‘a first visit can emphasize activities that will

familiarize students with the setting’’ (p. 239). Other research suggests the benefits of

initial visits (DeWitt and Osbourne 2007; Myers and Jones 2004). It would be interesting to

compare groups of students who experience a museum setting one time with those who

experience it multiple times.

The testing site for the posttest might have also been an important aspect associated

with the study’s results. Martin et al. (1981) found that, when they administered tests in the

unfamiliar context, conceptual learning declined. The pretests and delayed posttests were

given in the students’ normal science classrooms, whereas posttests were given at the

university. The tests were essentially timed at the university, because the groups had to stay

on schedule. Administration of all instruments in this study in familiar classroom settings

might have altered the results.

There are other limitations to this study. Attrition presented a problem, because certain

participants were absent from school when the pretest was administered or when the

classes came to the science museum. Also, students were withdrawn from the school and

new students were admitted during the time of the study. Results might not be generali-

sable to the whole population because the study was limited to sixth graders attending a

public school in a northern Louisiana parish. Also, it is not possible to generalise to other


123

populations, such as inner-city schools, high-school students or other grade levels. Pre-

testing the participants also could have sensitised participants to the intent of the study. The

teachers might have taught this content during the time of the study, which could also have

influenced results. Maturation could also be considered in terms of the delayed posttest

given a month after the field trip. The use of a self-report instrument for intrinsic moti-

vation levels might not have provided sufficient information for fully determining par-

ticipants’ motivational levels. The achievement test might have been too difficult for the

students in the study, as well as having low reliability.

It appears that the positive effects of museum-based learning might be increased if

several steps are taken. Prior content knowledge activities need to be included before

visiting the museum and planned post-visit activities that build upon the museum expe-

rience are essential to increased learning. These factors were found to be important in other

research (DeWitt and Osbourne 2007; Gilbert and Priest 1997; Myers and Jones 2004). As

stated by Miettinen (1999), a learning network needs to be established. Teachers should

also plan for an initial visit to the facility in order for the students to become familiar with

the setting. Subsequent visits can then be planned to improve concept knowledge attain-

ment at the museum. This would help to lessen the novelty effect so that students could

experience more on-task learning. Teachers should plan to isolate certain areas of the

museum facility for the students to explore in depth during each visit. This is an important

consideration, especially if the facility is large and has many exhibits. Students might be

overwhelmed if expected to gain conceptual knowledge from too many exhibits at one

time. Additional visits could be planned to focus upon other exhibit areas of interest. Prior

content knowledge activities, coupled with multiple museum visits and post-visit activities,

would have a greater potential for promoting students’ attitudes toward science and

achievement in science.

Although the findings of this study were of little significance to the overall body of

knowledge on museum-based learning, important factors emerged for consideration in

future research on the subject. My study should be replicated with other groups of sixth

graders and other grade levels that have access to a university-based or other science

museum. There could be differences in the effects of museum-based learning for these two

types of facilities. The study should be replicated using a longer treatment time and with

repeated experiences in a science museum. This would lessen the novelty effect of the

setting and it could increase on-task learning. A more reliable achievement test needs to be

designed to measure the science achievement objectives of the exhibits of the IDEA Place.

Also the difficulty of the test needs to be addressed. Finally, a different motivation scale

needs to be designed in order to more accurately measure motivation in informal learning

settings. The CAIMI measures intrinsic motivation towards science (in this study) in

conjunction with most areas that are associated directly with formal learning settings, such

as homework and repeating assignments. A motivation scale that measures informal

concepts, such as being able to visit museums more or liking certain types of informal

settings, would be beneficial.

References

Balling, J., & Falk, J. (1980). A perspective on field trips: Environmental effects on learning. Curator, 23,229–240.

Bartels, D. M. (2001, September 19). On-site science: Why museums, zoos and other informal classroomsneed to be a bigger part of the reform equation. Education Week, 21, 45.


123

Borun, M. (1983). Planets and pulleys: Studies of class visits to science museums. Washington, DC:Association of Science-Technology Centers.

Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373–1388.

DeWitt, J., & Osbourne, J. (2007). Supporting teachers on science-focused school trips: Towards an inte-grated framework of theory and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 685–710.

Down, C. (2001). Learning for transfer: A theory of situational learning. In Research to Reality: Putting VETResearch to Work (Proceedings of the Australian Vocational Education and Training ResearchAssociation Conference, 28–30 March, 2001, Adelaide, South Australia). Retrieved November 24,2011, from http://www.avetra.org.au/abstracts_and_papers_2001/Down_full.pdf.

Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R.

Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Falk, J. H. (1997). Testing a museum exhibition design assumption: The effect of explicit labeling of exhibitclusters on visitor concept development. Science Education, 81, 679–688.

Fouts, J. T., & Myers, R. E. (1992). Classroom environments and middle school students’ views of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 86, 356–361.

Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science and achieve-ment in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343–357.

Gibson, H. L. (1998, April). Case studies of an inquiry-based science program’s impact on students’ attitudetowards science and interest in science careers. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED417980.pdf.

Gilbert, J., & Priest, M. (1997). Models and discourse: A primary school science class visit to a museum.Science Education, 81, 749–762.

Good, L., & Good, K. (1999). A conversation with Gita Lvovna Vygodskaya. Retrieved November 24, 2011,from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED430733.pdf.

Gottfried, A. E. (1986). Manual for the children’s academic intrinsic motivation inventory. Lutz, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Havasy, R. A. D. (2001, November 7). Getting a clue: We need a revolution in the way we teach science.Education Week, 21, 49.

Hoff, D. J. (2001, November 28). Progress lacking on US students’ grasp of science. Education Week, 21,1 & 14.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional designtheories and models (pp. 386–430). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martin, W. W., Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (1981). Environmental effects on learning: The outdoor fieldtrip. Science Education, 65, 301–309.

Miettinen, R. (1999). Transcending traditional school learning: Teachers’ work and networks of learning. InY. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 325–344).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, B., & Jones, L. (2004). Effective use of field trips in educational programming: A three stageapproach. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/WC054.

Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation strategies of first-year teachers. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 83, 195–200.

Salmi, H. (1993). Science center education: Motivation and learning in informal education. EdD disser-tation, University of Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED363613.pdf.

Wilde, M., & Urhahne, D. (2008). Museum learning: A study of motivation and learning achievement.Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 78–83.

Ye, R., Wells, R. R., Talkmitt, S., & Ren, H. (1998, April). Student attitudes toward science learning: Across-national study of American and Chinese secondary school students. Retrieved December 2,2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED425061.pdf.


123

http://www.avetra.org.au/abstracts_and_papers_2001/Down_full.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED417980.pdf



http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/WC054




Documents

Informal learning: Student achievement and motivation in science through museum-based learning