Learning About Genetic Engineering in an Outreach Laboratory: Influence of Motivation and Gender on Students’ Cognitive Achievement

Abstract

During the last 10 years, outreach science laboratories have become increasingly popular due to resource and time limitations in schools. Outreach laboratories offer hands-on projects in a situated and authentic learning setting, thereby promoting the development of students' scientific literacy. However, students' cognitive achievement within this context is still a subject of study. The aim of our outreach-lab study was twofold: first, we investigated the influence of students' motivation to learn science on their cognitive achievement. Second, we examined possible gender differences with respect to achievement, cognitive load, and instructional efficiency. We conducted an educational intervention on plant genetic engineering with Bavarian 10th graders (N ¼ 197) in an outreach laboratory. We applied a pre -post design with a follow-up test monitoring students' motivation to learn science, their cognitive achievement, and cognitive load. The last two variables were combined in the calculation of instructional efficiency. Our results indicated a substantial knowledge increase both in the short term and in the long term (medium to large effect), while highly motivated students achieved higher scores. Furthermore, we found significant gender differences in cognitive achievement and instructional efficiency, revealing that the females had a higher knowledge increase, resulting in a higher instructional efficiency (small to medium effect). Our findings suggest that active engagement in hands-on laboratory activities is especially beneficial for females. Therefore, we recommend improving the quality and quantity of laboratory experiences in science education to overcome gender differences. We discuss some potential implications for teaching.

The impact of science motivation on cognitive achievement within a 3-lesson unit about renewable energies

“…The simple fact that acquired short-term knowledge did not remain constant after the intervention is not surprising, when taking transfer processes from short-term to long-term memory into account (Driscoll, 2005). This result is in line with the literature: For instance, Goldschmidt and Bogner (2015) or Schmid and Bogner (2015) reported similar learning patterns in student-active learning environments, both formal (the first one) and informal (the latter). Comparing studentcentered and teacher-centered environments, Gerstner and Bogner (2010) came to quite similar results for both treatments.…”

“…Bandura, 1993;Goldschmidt & Bogner, 2015;Singh et al, 2002). Therefore, development of positive intrinsic aspect in classrooms should be emphasized.…”

To know or not to know: uncertainty is the answer. Synthesis of six different science exhibition contexts

“…Oppenheimer, 1968]. This is especially important, because the traditional school science instruction has been seen as failing to motivate student's interest in science and to further elaborate that interest [Goldschmidt and Bogner, 2015;Metz, 2008].…”

An Exploration of Female Engineering Students’ Functional Roles in the Context of First-year Engineering Courses

“…For example, teachers can set up specific standards to ensure effective task divisions, such as reporting task divisions and work stages regularly, or monitoring group working processes [40] . In the aspect of increasing female students' engagement in project-based learning, strategies taken by teachers can include interventions of group gender composition, process supervision of group members' engagement and gender equity education [41] [25] . In addition, more skill trainings should be added into curriculum design of project-based learning, so as to help students develop communication skills, teamwork skills, leadership skills and other skills that are necessary for 21st century engineers [10] .…”

“…Based on this finding, a range of suggestions have been proposed in the previous literature to improve female engineering students' learning outcomes. For example, Du and Kolmos (2007) emphasized the importance of a friendly learning environment in collaborative learning for female engineering students [23] ; and Goldschmidt (2016) brought up measures like contextual learning, laboratory projects and teachers' intervention to improve female students' self-confidence, persistence, and learning outcomes [24] [25] .…”