Linking Formal and Non-Formal Learning in Science Education – A Reflection from Two Cases in Ireland and Germany

Experimenting at an outreach science lab versus at school—Differences in students' basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and flow experience

“…Therefore, research assistants or preservice teachers serving as tutors provide support for the students during the experiments when needed (Euler & Schüttler, 2020;Itzek-Greulich et al, 2015;Pawek, 2009;Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2013). As the students work in small groups (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004) that are supervised by one tutor each (Pawek, 2009), more frequent support and assistance from supervisors is available (Garner et al, 2014;Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2013). In this non-formal learning environment (Affeldt et al, 2015;Garner et al, 2014;Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004), the students' learning processes are not usually evaluated or graded by the tutors (Eshach, 2007;Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017;Pawek, 2009;Stecher et al, 2018).…”

“…Taken together, the non-formal environment of an outreach science lab offers unique opportunities for students to experiment together in small groups using laboratory equipment (Affeldt et al, 2015;Euler & Schüttler, 2020;Garner et al, 2014;Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). Accordingly, the non-formal laboratory environment is expected to yield better conditions in terms of learning (e.g., Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004) and motivational outcomes (e.g., Euler & Schüttler, 2020;Scharfenberg et al, 2019).…”

“…This support or assistance helps students to perceive a better fit between their skills and the challenges they face (Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995;Vygotsky, 1978) that is depicted in the perception of competence (see Danner & Lonky, 1981;Deci & Ryan, 2000;Jang et al, 2010;Reeve, 2015;Ryan & Deci, 2017). Students at outreach science labs may receive more frequent assistance from their tutors than from their teacher at school (Garner et al, 2014;Pawek, 2009;Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2013) and seek more interaction and collaboration with their peers (see DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008;Mohr-Schroeder et al, 2014;Tal & Dallashe, 2019). Therefore, they may experience better conditions for working in their zone of proximal development (Donato, 1994;Vygotsky, 1978) and perceive a closer fit between skills and challenges which is an important condition for the experience of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) than students at school.…”

“…Programs with a focus on biology mainly address the classes of the upper-level of secondary school (high school; Euler & Schüttler, 2020). The students perform hands-on experiments in small groups cooperatively under the close supervision of the local staff comprised of "real" scientists and/or preservice teachers acting as tutors using laboratory equipment that is used in scientific research but not normally available at schools due to its high costs (Affeldt et al, 2015;Euler & Schüttler, 2020;Garner et al, 2014;Goldschmidt & Bogner, 2016;Itzek-Greulich, 2020;Itzek-Greulich et al, 2015;Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2013;Scharfenberg et al, 2019).…”

Promoting Education for Sustainable Development with an Interactive Digital Learning Companion Students Use to Perform Collaborative Phosphorus Recovery Experiments and Reporting

“…This necessary connection between a nonformal and a formal learning environment defines a criterion for the curricular success of a Schülerlabor. Additionally, this laboratory event must not seem like an independent trip; it is even more critical to connect the curricular and extracurricular learning by preparing it in school beforehand, and afterward. − It is often unavoidable that the materials from the Schülerlabor are challenging to combine with the materials from the school preparation and follow-up. A multitouch learning book offers the possibility of presenting these materials uniformly and with a connection.…”