Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instructional Efficiency of Tutoring in an Outreach Gene Technology Laboratory

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our research objective focused on examining the instructional efficiency of tutoring as a form of instructional change as opposed to a non-tutoring approach in an outreach laboratory. We designed our laboratory based on cognitive load (CL) theory. Altogether, 269 twelfth-graders participated in our day-long module Genetic Fingerprinting. In a quasi-experimental design, the control group (n = 121) followed the non-tutoring approach previously used, while the treatment group (n = 148) followed the newly developed tutoring approach. Each tutor was in charge of two student work groups and recorded the tutoring activities requested by the tutees throughout the day. We measured the students’ invested mental effort (as an index of CL), cognitive achievement (in a pre-post-follow-up design), and the students’ cooperation in their work groups as well as calculated the student instructional involvement (as a motivational variable). Additionally, we examined which aspects of the hands-on phases were of particular relevance to the students’ invested mental effort. Unexpectedly, the combined mental effort and cognitive achievement data indicated that our implemented tutoring approach resulted in a lower instructional efficiency despite the relevance of tutoring for students’ mental effort invested during the experimental phases. Most of the tutor assistance was unnecessarily requested for performing the procedural steps and using the equipment. Our results indicate an assistance dilemma and consequently underscore the necessity for effective tutor preparation in outreach laboratories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1997). Gender differences in small group discussion in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Human Genetics (2011). Genetics education outreach network (GEON ). http://www.ashg.org/education/k12_geon.shtml. Access 11 July 2012.

  • Arrington, C. A., Hill, J. B., Radfar, R., Whisnant, D. M., & Bass, C. G. (2008). Peer mentoring in the general chemistry and organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 288–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20, 136–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bavarian Ministry of Education (2011). Education in Bavaria. http://www.km.bayern.de/education-in-bavaria.html. Access 11 July 2012.

  • Beckman, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden—on some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20, 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, T., & Robertson, I. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalbert, C. (1996). Über den Umgang mit Ungerechtigkeit. Eine psychologische Analyse. [About handling injustice. A psychological analysis]. Bern, Switzerland, Huber.

  • Ding, N., & Harskamp, E. (2011). Collaboration and peer tutoring in chemistry laboratory education. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 839–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, E., Soots, B., Lemaux, P., Rhee, S., & Reiser, L. (2004). Strategies for avoiding reinventing the precollege education and outreach wheel. Genetics, 166, 1601–1609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure. A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeln, K. (2004). Schülerlabors: authentische, aktivierende Lernumgebungen als Möglichkeit, Interesse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken [Outreach laboratories: authentic and activating learning settings in order to develop interest in science and techniques]. Berlin: Logos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Euler, M. (2004). The role of experiments in the teaching and learning of physics. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research on physics education (pp. 175–221). Amsterdam: Ios Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, J. B., Giddings, J., & Mc Robbie, J. (1992). Assessment of the psychosocial environment of university science laboratory classrooms: a cross-national study. Higher Education, 24, 431–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glowinski, I. (2007). Schülerlabore im Themenbereich Molekularbiologie als Interesse fördernde Lernumgebungen. [Outreach laboratories in molecular biology as learning settings furthering interest]. Doctoral Thesis, Christian Albrecht University Kiel, Germany. http://eldiss.uni-kiel.de/macau/receive/dissertation_diss_2564. Access 11 July 2012.

  • Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hock, M.F., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1999). Tutoring programs for academically underprepared college students: A review of literature. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29, 101–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Science. Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hucke, L., & Fischer, H. (2002). The link of theory and practise in traditional and in computer-based labs. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 205–218). Dordrecht: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. (1997). Chemistry teaching—science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 262–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A., & Wham, A. (1982). The demands of practical work. Educational Chemistry, 19, 71–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: a cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19, 402–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampenes, V., Dyba, T., Hannay, J., & Sjoberg, D. (2007). Systematic review of effect size in software engineering experiments. Information and Software Technology, 49, 1073–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasai, K., Nakamura, Y., & White, R. (1990). Amplification of a variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) locus (pMCT118) by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and its application to forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 1196–1200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersaint, G., Dogbey, J., Barber, J., & Kephart, D. (2011). The effect of access to an online tutorial service on college algebra student outcomes. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychological Review, 19, 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiß, D., & Wiegand, B. (2005). A classification of teacher interventions in mathematics teaching. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37, 240–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpe, O., & Oliver, J. (1991). Dimensions of hands-on science. The American Biology Teacher, 53, 345–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (2010). Practical work. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science teaching (pp. 108–134). Berkshire: McGraw Hill Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, P. A., & Smith, D. G. (1995). Nonradioactive detection of hypervariable simple sequence repeats in short polyacrylamide gels. BioTechniques, 19, 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedderer, S., Von Aufschnaiter, S., Tigerhien, A., Buty, C., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., & Fischer, H. (2002). Talking physics in labwork contexts—a category based analysis of videotapes. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 31–40). Dordrecht: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olina, Z., Reiser, R., Huang, X., Lim, J., & Park, S. (2006). Problem format and presentation sequence: effects on learning and mental effort among US high school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J., & Adams, J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawek, C. (2009). Schülerlabore als interessefördernde außerschulische Lernumgebungen für Schülerinnen und Schüler aus der Mittel- und Oberstufe. [Outreach laboratories as learning settings furthering interest of secondary school students] Doctoral Thesis, Christian Albrecht University Kiel, Germany. http://www.dlr.de/schoollab/Portaldata/24/Resources/dokumente/Diss_Pawek.pdf. Access 11 July 2012.

  • Robinson, D., Schofield, J., & Steers-Wentzell, K. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: outcomes and their implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J.-F. (2009). Managing cognitive load during document-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 445–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sander, F., Schecker, H., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Computer tools in the lab—effects linking theory and experiment. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 219–230). Dordrecht: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2011a). A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students' activities during experimentation in an outreach gene technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41, 505–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2011b). Teaching gene technology in an outreach lab: students' assigned cognitive load clusters and the clusters' relationships to learner characteristics, laboratory variables, and cognitive achievement. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9251-4.

  • Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology lab with educational focus: results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigma (2000). GenElute mammalian DNA kit. Technical Bulletin, MB 660

  • Smith, K. (1996). Cooperative learning: Making "group work" work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standing Conference (Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany; 2003): Richtlinien zur Sicherheit im Unterricht - Naturwissenschaften, Technik/Arbeitslehre, Hauswirtschaft, Kunst. [Policies regarding safety in science, techniques, and home economics education as well as arts]. Official letters of the Bavarian Ministry of Education, Sept. 9th, 2003, No. VI.8-5 S 4400.13-6.72 085.

  • Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallmadge, G. (1977). The joint dissemination review panel ideabook. Washington: National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todt, E., & Götz, C. (2000). Interests and attitudes of adolescents regarding genetic engineering. In H. Bayrhuber, W. Garvin, & J. Grainger (Eds.), Teaching biotechnology at school: a European perspective (pp. 146–154). Germany: IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underhill, J., & McDonald, J. (2010). Collaborative tutor development: enabling a transformative paradigm in a South African university. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, R. (1997). Rating scales. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: an international handbook (pp. 958–965). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the teachers and students involved in this study for their cooperation. Additionally, we are thankful for the supportive comments of two anonymous reviewers. The study was funded by the Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection; the Oberfranken Foundation; and the German National Science Foundation (DFG BO 944/4-5).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Math and Science Education, Institute of Biology Didactics, University of Bayreuth, NW I, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany

    Franz-Josef Scharfenberg & Franz X. Bogner

Authors
  1. Franz-Josef Scharfenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franz X. Bogner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franz-Josef Scharfenberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scharfenberg, FJ., Bogner, F.X. Instructional Efficiency of Tutoring in an Outreach Gene Technology Laboratory. Res Sci Educ 43, 1267–1288 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9309-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9309-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation