There is evidence that informal environments could have strong effects on learning (Bitgood
1988). Especially in regard to informal science centre education, studies have mainly concentrated on its effects on motivation (Holmes
2011; Osborne and Dillon
2008; Salmi
1993,
2003,
2012; Tan and Subramaniam
2003; Vainikainen et al.
2015; Vennix et al.
2017). However, in our study, the goal was to analyse motivation as a multifaceted phenomenon by simultaneously taking into consideration the more stable self-determined autonomous motivation, the situation motivation and the interest in science in different learning contexts. The aim was to show the complex net of effects in the informal science learning environment. In the rather comprehensive model the relative role of different motivational effects, also in relation to cognition, was explored not only to support development of the theory, but also to help in planning even more effective and interesting informal learning environments. The relevance of this study, thus, was also to provide pragmatic solutions for the long-running challenges of science centres and museums. Are these institutes capable of orienting and enhancing the momentary, strong situational interest and motivation into a long-lasting intrinsic motivation (Rennie
2014; Salmi
1993,
2003,
2012)?
In many cases, it has been found that gender plays an important role, and that the attitudes of girls from early on already tend to become more negative towards science than do the attitudes of boys (Farenga and Joyce
1999; Hong
2010, 2013). Moreover, science interests differentiate according to gender as well as to age (Jidesjö
2008,
2012). However, the science centre learning situation has been shown to enhance learning in addition to reducing the knowledge achievement gap between girls and boys or different achievers (Ainley et al.
2002a; Salmi et al.
2016; Zoldasova and Prokop
2006).
The context of this study was informal education (science centre pedagogy), which took place in the mobile science exhibition. The objective was to identify students and student groups who gain the greatest benefit, or those who cannot obtain ‘cost-effective’ learning results through pedagogy, from this type of informal science education. In particular, we were interested in identifying similarities and differences in motivational and learning factors between the boys and girls because several earlier studies indicated gender equal results in informal learning environments compared with formal education (Doppelt
2004; Rennie
2014). This comparison is essential because, according research (Salmi et al.
2016), science centres also have turned out to encourage boys and girls towards unconventional educational aspirations and to gain positive cognitive and affective results (Thuneberg et al.
2017). In order to identify the role of motivational factors, it was necessary to control the role of cognition and reasoning, which was achieved by using a visual reasoning ability (Raven) test in this study.
The theoretical framework for our study included motivational variables: autonomous motivation (Relative Autonomy Experience, RAI), situation motivation and learning context (interest in science learning in school and in science centres). The cognitive variables were visual reasoning (Raven) and science knowledge pre- and post-test. All of these variables were considered in relation to gender.
Next, we present theoretical points associated with informal science learning environments and, following that, we look at our motivational framework, Self-Determination Theory, situation motivation, interest in science learning in the two contexts and theoretical considerations of visual reasoning.
Since the 1960s, informal education has been clearly defined mainly by the UNESCO report
Learning To Be (Faure et al.
1972) to mean that learning is taking place outside the formal education system. The role of informal learning is increasing with the growing impact of new technologies (Radu
2014), digitalisation and research results related to our everyday lives. Lifelong learning in modern societies needs new practical forms (Salmi et al.
2015), and thus, informal education has become a widely accepted and integrated part of school systems during the last three decades (Fenichel and Schweingruber
2010; Salmi
1993; Salmi et al.
2017). Out-of-school education forms a pedagogical link between formal education and informal learning (Braund and Reiss
2007; Rennie et al.
2003) because it is a term included in school legislation in several countries (Rennie
2014). It refers to using informal education sources for formal education.
Science centre pedagogy, originally pure informal learning, is nowadays often applied as a form of out-of-school education (Salmi
2012). According to meta-studies (Rennie
2014) and research literature, science centre and museum education has strong motivational effects (Braund and Reiss
2007; Rennie et al.
2003; Salmi
2012). Also, the effect on knowledge learning has proven to be meaningful (Rennie
2014; Salmi et al.
2016), and there is clear evidence that science centre pedagogy advances attitudes (Osborne and Dillon
2008; Thuneberg et al.
2017) and career choices (Tan and Subramaniam
2003).
Frank Oppenheimer (
1968) has been noted as the creator of science centre pedagogy (Hein
1990). His criticism of the passive pedagogy of science education derives implicitly from Dewey’s ideas (
1938) expressed in his thesis of ‘learning by doing’. The same approach can be seen in contemporary developments in science centre pedagogy (Braund and Reiss
2004; Salmi
1993,
2003; Salmi et al.
2017): The famous ‘hands-on’ principle articulated by Oppenheimer is a cornerstone of the interaction in modern science centres. What Dewey and modern science centre pedagogy share is the emphasis on motivation, free will and the learner’s own activity which is stimulated by the context and is not forced. These features enhance fulfilment of the autonomy need and engagement in exploration and learning (Hagger et al.
2016). Self-determined learning clearly forms a firm theoretical basis for research in the context of this present study.
Motivation through the lens of self-determined learning
A learner’s autonomy and personal agency are central for self-determined learning according to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Kaplan
2008; Reeve et al.
2008; Zimmerman and Schunk
2007). Furthermore, when motivation initiates a behaviour, the behaviour becomes guided by self-regulation. The perceived locus of causality (i.e. whom a student perceives to be the origin of action) affects how self-determined the behaviour is. Using Deci and Ryan’s (
2007) definition, this means how interesting, important and vitalising behaviour is, and how autonomously behaviour is regulated.
SDT suggests a self-determination continuum from less autonomous motivation towards a more autonomous, self-determined direction (Ryan and Deci
2002). At one extreme of the continuum, the pupils are
amotivated, which means that they are not at all motivated or that their motivation is very low. This corresponds to
non-
regulation, which in practice means that they are passive in relation to their school work.
External regulation indicates that children act because they want to avoid punishment or to gain rewards.
Introjected regulation implies that students behave because of experiences of inner pressure (Ryan and Deci
2000a), which have been shown to be connected with anxiety in school (Grolnick and Ryan
1989).
Identified regulation1 means that students are willing to engage in school tasks because school is important for them. It is connected both with enjoyment of school and proactive coping strategies (Grolnick and Ryan
1989). At the other extreme of the continuum is
intrinsic regulation, in which the cause of behaviour is interest in the activity itself, curiosity or pure enjoyment. The grade of self-determination in the continuum, according to SDT, depends on fulfilment of basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence and relatedness. Those needs were not directly measured in the present study, but they are essential factors affecting the Relative Autonomy Experience (RAI) (explained in more detail in "
Methods" section).
Experienced autonomy means choice and a possibility to control one’s own actions, realise intentions and avoid undesired events. In autonomous behaviour, agency experience and being a source of origin is essential (Ryan and Connell
1989; Skinner and Edge
2002). Competence need is an innate need to master one’s environment (Elliot et al.
2002; White
1959) and to experience self-efficacy and self-worth based on the skills needed in the learning situation (Deci and Ryan
2000). According to the SDT-theory (Ryan and Deci
2002), if success is experienced only based on luck or just as an organised win by others, it reduces self-determination and sense of competence. Relatedness need means need for relationships for which one feels accepted and liked, a sense of being with others, security and unity (Ryan and Deci
2002). Relatedness needs fulfilment is characterised by warmth of environment and a deprivation of the need by threat (Eccles and Wigfield
2002). Good social relationships have been shown to be significant predictors of motivation (Ryan and Deci
2000b). The psychological needs are intertwined in that, from one need’s fulfilment, how the other two are being satisfied can be predicted (La Guardia et al.
2000).
The learning environment can either support or thwart fulfilment of the needs. The more the three psychological needs are satisfied in a school environment, the more a child is free mentally to engage in learning and in intrinsically interesting school tasks and the more he or she is willing to integrate with school goals. Accordingly, self-regulation is less external (Deci and Ryan
2000; Grolnick et al.
1991; Ryan and Deci
2002). Self-determined learning involves ways of engagement in learning activities such as school tasks, tests and homework (Deci et al.
1996). It relates to the selection of competing motives and volition (Corno
2004; Deci et al.
1996). Furthermore, it relates to coping in case of failure and to tolerance for ambivalence (Hautamäki et al.
2002). Thus, the better that the basic psychological needs are constantly fulfilled, the better are the consequences: more autonomous self-determined motivation, higher willingness to learn, deeper learning, higher grades, more creative outcomes and better self-esteem. These are considered crucial for future educational aspirations (Benita et al.
2014; Eccles and Wigfield
2002; Reeve
2002; Richardson et al.
2012; Ryan and Deci
2000a).
Support for autonomy has also been shown to enhance science learning attitudes. In a learner-centred 2-year science education project (Jalil et al.
2009), autonomy was emphasised by, for example, allowing students first to experiment on their own. Autonomy support led to intrinsic motivation and positive attitudes towards science. The deprivation of psychological needs, however, has been reported to lead to unfortunate consequences such as dropout (Eisenman
2007; Hardre and Reeve
2003) and, in extreme cases, criminality (Quinn et al.
2005; Winters
1997) or even suicidal behaviour (Bender and Wall
1994; Svetaz et al.
2000).
Situation motivation
Situation motivation is a characteristic feature of extrinsic motivation. Most often it is related to a new place with a stimulating environment (Braund and Reiss
2004; Zoldasova and Prokop
2006), which might also contain elements of intrinsic motivation through curiosity (Salmi et al.
2016). Social relations, external factors, emotions, humour and temporary actions are typical conditions for it. Typical features for situation motivation are: (1) short-lasting motivation; (2) easily disturbed learning; and (3) orientation of learning to irrelevant subjects (McClelland
1951; Salmi
2003). Situation motivation has its origin deep in the evolution of homo sapiens as is shown in the early discoveries of eustress (Selye
1957). Active behaviour through all five senses is also a feature of situation motivation.
Visual reasoning
Thinking skills, or the ways in which people reason to solve problems, are considered essential to effective learning (Adey et al.
2007; Demetriou et al.
2011). According to Fisher (
2005), they are habits of intelligent behaviour which can be learned by practice. The more that reasoning skills develop, the more that pupils can gain from learning and life (Adey and Shayer
2002). In our conceptual model, we included visual reasoning and used it as a control variable. Reasoning and thinking skills are essential in learning science because they relate to metacognitive awareness and epistemic knowledge (Harris
2002; Michalsky et al.
2009), which free pupils from being bound only to the rote learning of scientific facts and support them in taking a critical stance and weighing the knowledge that they learn (Duschl et al.
2007; National Research Council
2007). Most of the cognitive tests demand both reading and writing skills. However, the learning outputs are knowledge and skills (Greenfield
2009), which should be the focus of research in both school and informal learning environments (Alberts
2009; Rennie
2014).
Research questions
On the basis of the learning environment theory, the research questions were as follows:
1.
To what extent do the motivational variables predict students’ knowledge learning?
2.
What kind of a role does self-determined motivation play in situational motivation and science interest at school and at the science centre?
Based on the literature reviewed, we hypothesised that autonomy experience would enhance science learning interest both at school and at the science centre, situation motivation and knowledge. Because the science interests of boys and girls have shown to differ, we also examined the role of gender. Based on the Raven test theory and previous studies, visual reasoning was hypothesised to be similar for boys and girls.