martin2016

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
Research Article
The Role of a Museum-Based Science Education Program in Promoting Content

Knowledge and Science Motivation
Andrew J. Martin,1 Tracy L. Durksen,1 Derek Williamson,2 Julia Kiss,2 and Paul Ginns3
1
School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2
Museum of Human Disease, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
3
Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Received 15 December 2015; Accepted 30 April 2016
Abstract: Informal learning settings such as museums have been identified as opportunities to enhance
students’ knowledge and motivation in science and to optimize the connection between science and everyday
life. The present study assessed the role of a self-paced science education program (situated in a medical
science museum) in enhancing students’ program-related content knowledge, self-efficacy, valuing, and
aspirations. The study also investigated whether gains in content knowledge recall and motivation (as
relevant to biology, anatomy, health) are associated with reported improvements in beliefs about health
practices relevant to everyday life. The program aligned with a well-established tripartite engagement
framework conforming to cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement principles as well as principles
underpinning guided discovery learning. Among a sample of N ¼ 167 (upper) elementary and secondary
school students (aged 10–16 years, M ¼ 12.62 years), we found significant gains in content knowledge recall
(achievement) and science motivation (self-efficacy, valuing, aspirations) following participation in the
science program. Additionally, gains in content knowledge recall and motivation were associated with
reported improvements in beliefs about everyday health practices. # 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res
Sci Teach 9999:XX–XX, 2016
Keywords: museum; informal learning; science education; motivation; achievement; zombies
Boosting the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills that underpin
research and innovation in diverse aspects of society (e.g., business, health, national security) will
enhance a nation’s competitiveness (Australian Academy of Science, 2006). STEM adds to the
intellectual capital base on which society relies to improve, transform, and prosper (Office of the
Chief Scientist, 2012). Enrolment and performance in science at school is a vital foundation for
these wide-ranging benefits. It also follows that under-participation in science compromises these
potential yields.
There is growing concern about young people’s participation in science at school and beyond.
Issues relating to achievement in science (e.g., content knowledge) and motivation in science
(e.g., self-efficacy, valuing, aspirations) have been suggested as barriers to students’ participation
Thanks are extended to Emma Burns and Marianne Mansour for data collection and the Australian Research Council
for funding.
Correspondence to: A.J. Martin; E-Mail: [email protected]
DOI 10.1002/tea.21332
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
# 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

2 MARTIN ET AL.
in science. Additionally, there are concerns about connections between science and young
people’s everyday lives. Informal learning settings such as museums have been identified as
opportunities to enhance students’ knowledge and motivation in science and to optimize the
connection between science and everyday life. Indeed, given an unequal distribution of science
participation, opportunity, and aspirations across different strata of society and socio-economic
status (referred to as “science capital”; Archer, Dewitt, & Willis, 2014), publicly accessible sites
(such as museums) that may promote science knowledge and motivation may be especially
important in broadening access and equity in science participation and pathways.
With concerning trends in science participation (particularly in “Western” nations),
researchers are calling for a creative and re-imagined focus on science education (Bissaker, 2014).
For example, in Australia (the site of the present study), enrolments of senior school students in
science subjects have been in a long-term declining trend for 20 years (Office of the Chief
Scientist, 2014). In the period 1992–2012, senior school enrolments declined in physics, biology,
and chemistry (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). Similar trends are found internationally (e.g.,
USA, Europe), prompting recommendations for educational researchers to explore predictors of
science participation in a bid to help meet increasing economic and global challenges (Abraham &
Barker, 2015; Ross & Poronnik, 2013).
Science Achievement, Motivation, and Everyday Relevance
Students’ achievement and motivation in science are connected and have significant
implications for their participation in school and post-school science pathways (e.g., Andre,
Whigham, Hendrickson, & Chambers, 1999; Britner & Pajares, 2001; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau &
Roeser, 2002; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). Science can be a difficult school subject and
assessment of science competence via examination is challenging for many students (Coe, Searle,
Barmby, Jones, & Higgins, 2008). Students’ perception of science difficulty and the extent to
which they believe they can successfully meet this difficulty are factors relevant to their science
self-efficacy. Researchers argue that students’ science achievement and belief in their efficacy to
succeed in science influences their choices of science-related activities, how much effort they
invest in those activities, and how long they persist in the face of difficulty (Bandura, 1997; Britner
& Pajares, 2001, 2006; Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, & Maczuga, 2016; Sha, Schunn, Bathgate, &
Ben-Eliyahu, 2015; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Therefore, science achievement and self-efficacy in
science—as predictors of students’ willingness to take science courses and subsequent course
performance—remain important factors in students’ science participation (Andre et al., 1999;
Britner & Pajares, 2001; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002).
It is also evident that those who opt out of science in senior high school and advanced sciences
do not hold positive future aspirations for science and report little interest in pursuing a science-
related career (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). Many also cite an overall lack of personal
relevance in science (Goodrum, Druhan, & Abbs, 2012; Lyons & Quinn, 2010). Students’ valuing
(e.g., perception of relevance, importance, and enjoyment) of science as well as their perceptions
of its role in their future pathways (e.g., aspirations) motivate them to continue (or not) with
science into their senior school years. Science valuing and science aspirations, then, are two other
factors relevant to participation in science.
Alongside debates around science achievement and participation, there has also been a major
focus on the relevance of science education for the larger benefit of society as well as calls to
recognize the everyday relevance of science for students (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014).
Researchers generally agree that a lack of perceived relevance in a student’s life results in low
levels of interest and motivation (e.g., Stuckey & Eilks, 2014; see also Stuckey, Hofstein,
Mamlok-Naaman, & Eilks, 2013). In the science domain, one key area of relevance is the role
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
MUSEUM-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION, LEARNING, AND MOTIVATION 3
science plays in people’s everyday health practices and health status (Aikenhead, 2006; Board of
Studies, 2015; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). There is much in school curricular science that
has implications for young people’s health beliefs and practices. For example, within biology
there is attention to hygiene, illness, disease, risk behavior, and lifestyle choices that have direct
implications for students’ beliefs about health and health practices (see Board of Studies, 2015).
Thus, alongside science achievement and science motivation (e.g., science self-efficacy, valuing,
and aspirations), beliefs about health and health practices may be relevant to young people’s
orientation to science and science participation.
Taking these findings together, three observations can be made. First, science achievement is
a factor relevant to science participation. Second, science aspirations, science self-efficacy, and
science valuing are also linked to science participation. Third, the relevance of science to everyday
life is a central consideration in efforts to increase participation in science through school and
beyond. It is thus important to: (i) explore ways to further develop students’ science achievement;
(ii) enhance self-efficacy, valuing, and aspirations in science; and (iii) identify factors that enhance
the relevance of science in students’ everyday lives. Accordingly, the present study explores a
museum-based science education program—built around well-established principles of engage-
ment and guided discovery learning—as a means to promote each of these outcomes.
Museums as Sites for Student Motivation, Engagement, and Learning
Our study was conducted in a museum of health and medical science. Museums are contexts
that can complement and augment motivation, engagement and learning (Schwan, Grajal, &
Lewalter, 2014). Gardner (1991) reports that museums have “the potential to engage students, to
teach them, to stimulate their understanding . . . to help them assume responsibility for their own
future learning” (p. 202). Falk and Dierking (1997) showed that visits to museums and related
informal learning contexts are linked to long-term recall of science content. Further, a recent
review of science learning and engagement in informal settings found that a major role was played
by museums (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009). Since museums are legitimate contexts
for learning and engagement in science, our study was situated in a health and medical science
museum focusing on biology, anatomy, and health as the subject areas of interest.
At the same time, we note that there is debate as to the best ways to promote learning and
engagement in museums (see Schwan et al., 2014 for a review), with researchers calling into
question the learning yields of some approaches to museum-based education (e.g., Cox-Petersen,
Marsh, Kisiel, & Melber, 2003). Martin, Durksen, Williamson, Kiss, and Ginns (2014) thus
suggested there is a need to better understand ways of going about education programs in
museums that can optimize educational outcomes. One approach they investigated demonstrated
that students setting learning goals prior to their museum experience led to gains in their science
aspirations. The present study builds on that work by examining the capacity of a museum-based
science education program to enhance young people’s program-relevant content knowledge and
science motivation outcomes as well as their links to young people’s beliefs about health and
health practices.
Design of the Science Education Program
The principles of engagement and guided discovery learning were central to the self-paced
science education program under focus in this study. Following research emphasizing the
importance of interactive educative materials in science instruction (e.g., Arias, Bismack, Davis,
& Palincsar, 2015), our medical science program comprised 11 stations: 10 stations addressing
distinct topics (e.g., influenza, malaria) and one station centered on a fun and novel theme of
“zombie-ism.” The design of each station conformed to a well-established tripartite engagement
4 MARTIN ET AL.
framework that conceptualizes engagement in terms of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional

engagement (see Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004) and key principles of guided discovery
learning (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Martin, 2015). Given recent theorizing around
engagement and instructional design (Fredricks et al., 2004; Kirschner et al., 2006; Martin, 2012,
2015; Reschly & Christenson, 2012), we posit engagement and guided discovery learning as
potentially valuable elements of a quality science education program.
Engagement
The tripartite (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional) engagement framework, proposed
by Fredricks et al. (2004), has predominantly been applied to formal learning contexts
such as traditional school classrooms. The application of this framework to informal
learning contexts however is relatively novel. Vadeboncoeur (2006) conducted a review of
engagement in informal learning contexts and suggested Fredricks et al.’s tripartite
perspective to be a potentially fruitful contribution to considerations of engagement in
these settings. Vadeboncoeur identified this approach to engagement as a “literature base
that may offer something to engagement in other contexts” (p. 270). While the design of
the present science program in an informal learning context may be one of the first
applications of this framework, we emphasize that the tripartite engagement perspective
was not intended to be adopted or applied in a prescriptive manner. Instead we propose it
as a heuristic framework that can be applied to: (i) further elucidate core facets of design
developments and delivery; (ii) assist in the interpretation of findings; and (iii) suggest as
a guiding model for future design and delivery. We also recognize there are other
approaches to similar concepts addressed here. For example, the notion of “active
learning” (e.g., Prince, 2004) aligns well with the engagement framework presented in this
study. We opt to focus on engagement because the tripartite approach it encompasses
suggests a demarcation of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional factors that we believe is
particularly illuminating when developing a multidimensional understanding of factors
underlying science participation.
Cognitive engagement refers to a willingness and thoughtfulness to exert the effort necessary
to understand ideas and master skills (Fredricks et al., 2004; Martin, 2012; Reschly & Christenson,
2012). This requires target stimuli to be accessible to participants and to incorporate multiple
modes of instruction. Accordingly, our program included diverse instructional stimuli such as
reading material, physical objects to manipulate, online and digital content, specimens, and
attention-grabbing images, visuals, colors, and fonts at each of the stations. Sample detail from
one of the stations (on tuberculosis) is provided in the Appendix. Cognitive engagement also
required that the content was appropriately pitched to participants in the sample’s age range. To
this end, science educators were involved in its development, ensuring that material was
intellectually accessible, relevant, and interesting to upper elementary and secondary school
participants.
Behavioral engagement refers to physical participation and active involvement (Fredricks
et al., 2004; Martin, 2012; Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Our program offered opportunities for
active manipulation and interaction at each of the stations. In addition, participants had a
workbook that allowed them to record observations and notes about each disease at each station.
As a further participatory mechanism, they were invited to match 11 different individuals suffering
specific symptoms with each of the 10 legitimate diseases—as well as an 11th disease: “zombie-
ism.”
Emotional engagement draws on positive and negative feelings, orientations, and affect in-
herent in the learning process (Fredricks et al., 2004; Martin, 2012; Reschly & Christenson, 2012).
The program conformed to these elements in three ways. First, the “Surviving the Zombie
Apocalypse” theme and subject matter was purposefully fun, novel, humorous, and light-hearted
(e.g., “Q: How do you prevent a zombie attacking you? A: Run faster than your friends”). Second,
we ensured that each station provided some information, questions, and tasks that were humorous
and novel to young people (and potentially distasteful to adults!) alongside the factual and
informative material that was designed to instruct. For example, stations offered explanations
about why carrot appears to always be present in vomit; how one can contract leprosy from eating
armadillo meat; and how tetanus can cause muscle spasms and stiffness, making one walk like a
zombie. Sample detail in the Appendix further illustrates. Third, the self-paced and self-directed
nature of learning at each of the various stations provided the environment for elements of flow
(e.g., autonomy, self-directedness) to occur, as evident by a person enjoying and being absorbed in
the process of an activity (Csıkszentmihalyi, 1996).
Guided Discovery Learning
Although we emphasize the importance and yields of a self-paced program, we do so with due
recognition of a critical distinction between pure and guided discovery. Pure discovery learning
tends not to emphasize structure, direct input and direction; students are encouraged to explore
and discover concepts for themselves (Pressley et al., 2003). Guided discovery has more direct
input from program developers, involves materials that are explicitly on-target to ensure essential
learning is occurring, and has in-built task scaffolds to assist the student as he/she proceeds
through the learning process (Pressley et al., 2003). Liem and Martin (2013) (see also Martin,
2015) suggest that there is an appropriate place for guided discovery learning in the learning
process. Such learning ensures there is the accessibility of skills and knowledge to engage in
meaningful discovery and exploratory learning. This is akin to Marzano’s (2011) conception of
enhanced discovery learning (see also Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011). Indeed,
evidence suggests guided discovery learning tends to be associated with greater gains in
educational outcomes than pure discovery learning (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller,
2001; Kirschner et al., 2006; Liem & Martin, 2013; Mayer, 2004).
Cognitive psychologists emphasize the importance of structure and direction as novices
move to a point of relative expertise (Kirschner et al., 2006). In part, learning rests on the
assumption that learners are at first novices with regard to skill and subject matter and that a
structured and systemic approach to instruction is important in the early stages of learning (Martin,
2015). Indeed, learning relies on working memory and long-term memory (Kirschner et al., 2006;
Sweller, 2012). Working memory is the conscious part of cognition that is used to process
information and perform tasks by continually retrieving information that is stored in long-term
memory and applying it to the task at hand (Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller, 2012). However, if
working memory is overloaded, then the learning material is not well understood or remembered
(Rosenshine, 2009).
Based on what is known about working and long-term memory, the aim is to deliver
instruction and learning tasks that do not unnecessarily burden working memory (Kirschner et al.,
2006). Therefore, the program comprised structure (e.g., organized by way of physical stations)
and clear targets (e.g., a workbook with questions and tasks; the challenge to correctly identify
particular diseases at the end of the program) that allowed participants to self-pace through the
program whilst also ensuring that essential information was appropriately delivered and activities
were being completed. As shown by the material in the Appendix, the bulk of content was selected
by the science education members of the research team (rather than “discovered” by participants)
and provided via materials and resources at the stations. This reduced ambiguity and uncertainty
with regard to what content was to be learnt (thus reducing the burden on working memory) and
6 MARTIN ET AL.
ensured that within the informal learning experience, the learning material was on-target and
relevant to the learning aims. Consistent with the instructional structures and parameters
suggested by cognitive psychologists (e.g., Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller, 2012) and also what is
proposed under guided discovery learning, we aimed to ensure quality content was delivered
while learners navigated through the material in a self-paced and self-directed way (Liem &
Martin, 2013; Martin, 2015).
Taken together, we designed a science education program in a museum context that
conformed to well-established features of cognitive psychology, learning engagement, and guided
discovery learning. As we noted above, there is debate as to the best ways to promote learning and
engagement in museums (see Schwan et al., 2014 for a review; Cox-Petersen et al., 2003). In part,
this may be because some museum-based education programs do not have sufficient regard to the
psychological dimensions underpinning young people’s engagement and learning. Accordingly,
we drew on an engagement framework that attracts significant empirical support (Fredricks et al.,
2004) and principles of guided discovery learning (e.g., Marzano, 2011) as a basis for designing
the program under focus here. The present investigation is thus an opportunity to explore this
approach to museum education in a bid to optimize knowledge and motivation relevant to the
subject matter (science) under focus.
Student Characteristics and General (Non-Science) Variables
To appropriately investigate gains in content knowledge and motivation, and the link between
these gains and beliefs about everyday health and health practices, we include student character-
istics (gender and age) and non-science (general) dependent variables as a discriminant validity
check.
Gender and Age
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) recently
reported that the low priority of time spent teaching science during the elementary school years
(see also Blank, 2013) and the range of (non-STEM) course options in secondary school is having
a detrimental effect on society’s level of scientific literacy (ATSE, 2013). Interest in science is
reportedly formed by the age of 14—with the crucial age range for the development of children’s
science-related aspirations beginning when a student is 10 years old (DeWitt, Archer, & Osborne,
2014). Some studies (e.g., Roberts, 2014) have also found a decline in a positive science attitude as
they age (e.g., from ages 8 to 11).
Through a survey of 14- and 15-year-old students’ opinions about science (e.g., my future job,
my science classes, my out-of-school experience), Jenkins (2006) found several significant gender
differences with respect to relevance—with girls expressing lower levels of optimism and
confidence. Moreover, Mack and Walsh (2013) report on a 10-year decline in girls’ participation
in secondary science courses while boys’ participation remained unchanged. Abraham and Barker
(2015) considered performance perceptions, interest value, utility value, and sex-stereotyped
attitudes as predictors of sustained engagement for physics enrolment. Results revealed
performance perceptions and sex-stereotyped attitudes as dominant determinants for sustained
engagement—which in turn, strongly predicted sustained choice intentions in physics enrolment
(see also Gill & Bell, 2013, with regard to gender bias in science).
Non-Science (General) Measures
While it is feasible to hypothesize the science-focused education program will yield positive
effects for content knowledge, motivation and health beliefs, we also explore whether the program
has impact beyond science-specific outcome measures. Akin to research on learning transfer (e.g.,
Perkins & Salomon, 1988), significant effects on science outcome measures would be considered
“near learning” in that effects emanate on outcomes that are aligned in context and content.
However, there is also the possibility of “far learning” on outcomes that are not so directly related
to the domain or content but which may arise in an informal and naturalistic learning setting.
Indeed, in the museum context, Michalchik and Gallagher (2010) identify the possibility that
when assessing learning in such contexts, “outcomes can and should include a broad range of
capacities, including ones that are unanticipated” (p. 214). Along similar lines, Pekarik, Doering,
and Karns (1999) classify key museum experiences that not only include gains in knowledge, but
also personal and social yields that may signify broader impact beyond target or “near” learning
outcomes.
Accordingly, participants were also administered two general (non-science) measures that
were unrelated to the science-specific museum-based education program, but reflected constructs
that may be developed informally in the learning experience. Specifically, we targeted the
concepts of buoyancy and adaptability from our broader research program. Buoyancy refers to an
ability to effectively deal with “everyday” setback, challenge, adversity, and pressure in one’s life
(Martin & Marsh, 2008a,b, 2009). Adaptability is defined as individuals’ adjustments of
cognition, behavior, and emotion in response to novel and/or uncertain circumstances, conditions
and situations (Martin, Nejad, Colmar, & Liem, 2012, 2013). It is known that exposure to novel
and informal learning environments can increase broader life skills and attributes such as
confidence and communication (Michalchik & Gallagher, 2010). Given this, it is possible, for
example, that participation in a novel program (e.g., unfamiliar materials and information) might
also increase participants’ adaptability (the attribute relevant to responding to novelty and
unfamiliarity). Moreover, given that confidence has been identified as a key element of academic
buoyancy (Martin & Marsh, 2008a), it may be that efficacy gains from participation in the program
will be associated with increased buoyancy. Inclusion of adaptability and buoyancy measures
therefore provides an opportunity to test the extent of learning taking place in the museum-based
science education program.
Aims of the Current Study
In the current study, we apply a pre/post-test design to assess the role of a museum-based self-
paced science education program as a means to enhance students’ science (viz. biology, anatomy,
health) knowledge, self-efficacy, valuing, and aspirations. Specifically, we aimed to investigate
whether any gains in content knowledge and motivation (as relevant to biology, anatomy, and
health) are associated with more positive beliefs about health practices relevant to everyday life.
We hypothesize that there will be significant gains in content knowledge recall (achievement) and
science motivation (self-efficacy, valuing, aspirations) (Hypothesis 1). We explore the extent to
which there are gains on non-science measures (buoyancy and adaptability) that are not targeted
by the museum-based program (Research Question 1). Finally, with regard to everyday behavior,
we hypothesize that gains in content knowledge recall and motivation (as relevant to biology,
anatomy, health) will be associated with reported improvements in beliefs about health and health
practices (Hypothesis 2).
To address these issues, the design of the study was such that school-aged participants were
recruited. Participants completed pre-test measures on content knowledge and science motivation
(science self-efficacy, science valuing, and science aspirations—the science measures) and general
buoyancy and adaptability (the non-science measures). As discussed fully in the Procedure section
(below), participants then engaged in a self-paced science education program. Following this, they
were administered post-test measures that included all science and non-science measures as well
as items that explored improvements in beliefs about everyday health practices. This design
8 MARTIN ET AL.
enabled us to test for gains in content knowledge and science motivation (Hypothesis 1), gains on
non-science measures (Research Question 1), and the role of content knowledge and motivation
gains in improvements in participants’ beliefs about everyday health practices (Hypothesis 2).
Method
Participants
Participating students were those accompanied by parents/guardians on arrival and
thus from whom informed consent could be obtained. Participants were N ¼ 1671 (upper)
elementary (36%) and secondary (64%) school students participating in a museum-based
self-paced science education program hosted by a health and medical science museum
located in a major research-intensive university in Sydney, Australia. The mean age was
12.62 (range ¼ 10–16; SD ¼ 1.78) years. Upper elementary school (educating the study’s
youngest participants) commences at approximately 10 years of age (grade 5) and
concludes when students are approximately 11–12 years of age (grade 6), at which time
they move on to high school (grade 7) that concludes at about 17–18 years of age (grade
12). The sample comprised 31% girls and 69% boys, a gender ratio not dissimilar to larger
studies of participation in school-based science (Archer et al., 2012). Twelve percent of
participants were from a non-English speaking background (NESB) as compared to
eighteen percent of Australian students who are NESB (Centre for Community Child
Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, 2009). Three percent of our
participants reported they were of Aboriginal/Indigenous descent, compared with four to
five percent of Australian students (Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon
Institute for Child Health Research, 2009). Participants’ socio-economic status (SES) was
scored on the basis of their home postcode using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS,
2013) relative advantage/disadvantage index. Compared to the national average SES of
1,000, our sample was slightly higher at 1069 (SD ¼ 79; range ¼ 892–1,213). In the current
study, we consider our sample as not markedly different from what would be expected in
the Australian population of children and youth, but also advise that findings be interpreted
in the light of what differences do exist in socio-demographics.
We also suggest that participants in this study are not atypical in terms of their museum
attendance. In elementary school it is common for students to visit museums (e.g., technological
museums, natural and other science museums, human and animal history museums etc.) as well as
other public education/information sites such as art galleries. In the early and middle years of
secondary school (grades 7–10), it is common for students to visit museums and/or undertake
science-oriented field studies (e.g., to environmental settings, observatories etc.) that also involve
education/information centers to complement practical experiences at these field sites. Indeed,
the context of the present study is one such center receiving regular school groups. Moreover, the
jurisdiction in which this study’s participants are educated has developed a curriculum that
involves formal collaborations with science (and other) museums and offers courses in museum
studies. In addition to school-based attendance, approximately 50% of children visit a museum
each year outside of school hours (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Yet despite these high
rates of science (and other) museum attendance, Australian participation in senior science,
post-secondary science courses, and science careers remains alarmingly low (as described in the
Introduction). We thus cannot conclude that our sample of museum visitors is necessarily more
inclined than the general population to participate in senior science, post-school science courses,
or a science career. To the extent that this is the case, we suggest our findings generalize to many
more children and young people than initially might be assumed.
Context
The self-paced science education program is a school vacation program that was advertised to
all secondary schools in the state of New South Wales via email, with follow-up advertisements on
Facebook, Twitter and mainstream media (including major radio stations). Elementary school
students were made aware of the program if they were part of a secondary school setting (some
schools comprised upper elementary and secondary students), from older siblings, or mainstream
and social media networks. The museum-based program targets upper elementary and secondary
school-aged students and is aimed at increasing their knowledge of health, disease, anatomy, and
human biology. To attract interest for recruitment, in addition to focusing on health awareness and
the human body, the museum educators advertised the novel aspect of the educational program as
involving the contemporary popular theme of “zombies” and “surviving the zombie apocalypse.”
Thus, participants were likely attending through an interest in “zombies” as much as an interest in
science. Accordingly, we see participation in the study is in part based on a self-motivation for
non-science activities as much as an interest in science activities. This suggests the sample is not
exclusively focused on science education and to the extent that this is the case, we see it as a
sample that can generalize more broadly than a purely science-oriented participant pool.
The museum focuses on the changing patterns of disease in society through specimen
displays (housed in labelled and catalogued bays), separate special exhibition areas, an interactive
medical computer discovery lab, and active outreach programs with particular emphasis on school
students. The museum science education program is a self-paced one where participants visit
various stations in the museum to learn about health, illness, health prevention, anatomy, body
systems, and human biology. There are 10 information and activity stations providing reading
material, images, diagrams, minor activities (e.g., assemble a basic model of a human brain), and
models describing different illnesses, health practices, and body systems. Participants were
allowed to choose in which order to visit each of the ten stations. As described earlier, an 11th
station was focused on “zombie-ism,” structured and presented in the same fun and light-hearted
tone of the other 10 stations. Overall, students find the topic fun and engaging as they participate in
the educational program that involves identifying and avoiding/preventing some “symptoms” of
“zombie-ism” as a light-hearted juxtaposition to symptoms of actual illnesses such as tuberculosis
(see Appendix).
Procedure
We collected data for a total of 20 days over two vacation periods (each 10 days in length)
from participants who voluntarily arrived for the museum program during school holidays. Prior
to commencing the education program, all students completed a brief online pre-test survey
(comprising the science self-efficacy, valuing, and aspirations measures) and quiz on facts and
information contained in the education program (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). When
participants finished the education program, they completed a brief online post-test survey
(comprising the same science self-efficacy, valuing and aspirations items—as well as a set of
health behavioral intention items) and quiz (comprising the same quiz items as the pre-test). To
explore for broader gains, in pre- and post-testing, all participants also completed non-target
(general; non-science) measures. Participants could take as long as they needed for the program;
the program’s duration was typically about two hours. All museum visitors (study participants and
non-participants) were given a small workbook in which they could record information and
complete a table to categorize various diseases and symptoms as they progressed through the 11
stations in the program. All other materials were at each of the 11 information and activity
stations.
10 MARTIN ET AL.
Table 1
Descriptive and reliability statistics for substantive factors
Mean SD Reliability
Target (Science) Constructs
Pre knowledge 75.10 11.83 —

Post knowledge 77.24 13.11 —
Pre self-efficacy 5.71 1.25 .71
Post self-efficacy 5.91 1.16 .82
Pre valuing 6.16 1.09 .70
Post valuing 6.38 .98 .81
Pre aspirations 5.14 1.34 .71
Post aspirations 5.44 1.22 .77
Improvement in beliefs about health 4.94 1.33 .96
Non-Target (General) Constructs
Pre buoyancy 5.33 1.14 .82

Post buoyancy 5.41 1.28 .90
Pre adaptability 5.47 1.07 .82
Post adaptability 5.55 1.20 .88
Note: Mean and standard deviation values for the knowledge pre- and post-tests represent percentage scores.
Materials
The measures administered for this investigation comprised a brief knowledge quiz, a set of
target science measures (science self-efficacy, science valuing and science aspiration), a set of
non-target (general; non-science) measures (buoyancy and adaptability), beliefs about health
practices, and basic demographics. Descriptive and reliability statistics for all substantive
measures are shown in Table 1.
Content Knowledge. We administered a brief quiz (14 True/False items) of content
knowledge to participants just before they entered the education program (pre-test) and again after
the education program (post-test). Quiz questions were based on facts and information contained
in the science education program, with items covering topics of disease, disease prevention, body
systems, health promotion, and personal hygiene (e.g., “Cells such as T-cells and B-cells are what
the body uses to fight off foreign invaders” [True] and “Bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses are all
infective agents spread through plant-based food” [False]). The test was primarily designed to
determine the effectiveness of the science education program in increasing students’ knowledge.
It was therefore based directly on the content covered in the program. Although some of the test
content aligned with aspects of the elementary and secondary school curriculum in Science and
Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education subjects, the study was not contingent on
participants having learnt this material at school.
Science Motivation. Science self-efficacy, science valuing, and science aspirations were the
science motivation measures of interest in this study. As displayed in the Results section below
(see Table 3), the measures of science motivation were reliable at pre-test (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .70
to .71) and post-test (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .70 to .82). Science self-efficacy was represented by two
items adapted from the self-efficacy sub-scale of the Motivation and Engagement Scale2 (MES;
Martin, 2010), as follows: “If I try hard, I believe I can do well in science subjects that involve
human biology” and “If I don’t give up, I believe I can do difficult schoolwork in science subjects
that involve human biology” rated by students on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
scale. Science valuing was represented by two items adapted from the valuing school sub-scale of
the MES (Martin, 2010), as follows: “I believe medical and science research is very important”
and “Learning in science subjects that involve human biology is important” rated by students on a
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Science aspirations was represented by two items
adapted from the educational aspirations scale previously validated by Green, Martin, and Marsh
(2007), as follows: “I’m happy to study science subjects that involve human biology until I finish
school” and “A career in science areas that involve human biology would be good” rated by
students on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.
Buoyancy and Adaptability. Using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree),

participants completed two general (non-target/non-science) measures: a 4-item domain-general
adaptation of the Academic Buoyancy Scale (Martin & Marsh, 2008a,b) and a 3-item short form of
the Adaptability Scale (Martin et al., 2012, 2013). Buoyancy (e.g., “I think I’m good at dealing with
pressures and challenges”) refers to an ability to effectively deal with ‘everyday’ setbacks,
challenges, adversity, and pressures in one’s life, while adaptability (e.g., “When faced with a new or
uncertain situation I am able to adjust my thinking or attitude to help me through”) is defined as
individuals’ adjustments of cognition, behavior, and emotion in response to novel and/or uncertain
circumstances, conditions and situations. Both measures were reliable, as indicated by Cronbach’s
alphas of .82 (pre-test) and .90 (post-test) for buoyancy and .82 (pre-test) and .88 (post-test) for
adaptability.
Improvement in Beliefs About Everyday Health Practice. We administered a 9-item measure
of improvements in beliefs about health practices after participants had completed the science
education program. Items, rated from 1 (much less important than before the program) to 5 (much
more important than before the program), addressed a variety of health, wellness, and hygiene prac-
tices that are relevant to physical and mental well-being in everyday life. For example, participants
were asked: Now you have completed the program, how important is it to: get immunized? eat a
balanced diet? exercise regularly? get plenty of sleep? Cronbach’s alpha was sound, at .96.
Data Analysis
Our analytical strategy involved two sets of analyses performed with SPSS 22. First we tested
the nature and extent of gains (or declines) on target science constructs and non-target non-science
constructs as a function of participation in the museum-based self-paced science education
program. We set out to conduct a 2 (pre-, post-test) 2 (female, male) 2 (elementary, secondary
school) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the first factor for each of the
four science constructs (content knowledge, self-efficacy, valuing, aspirations) and two non-target
constructs (general buoyancy and adaptability) as dependent variables. Next, we explored the
association between any gains in content knowledge and science motivation (self-efficacy,
valuing, aspirations) and participants’ reported improvements in beliefs about health and health
practices. This involved regressing each of the four post-test science scores on each of the four pre-
test science scores and saving standardized residuals, with positive residuals indicating science
gains between pre- and post-testing and negative residuals indicating science declines. Then we
conducted a series of bivariate correlations in order to investigate the zero-order correlation
between content knowledge and motivation gains and the nature of participants’ beliefs about
health practices. Lastly, we conducted multiple linear regression in which all four residualized
science constructs were entered as predictors of beliefs about health practices. This last step
12 MARTIN ET AL.
controlled for shared variance between the science constructs, enabling us to identify unique
variance attributable to each of the four science constructs in predicting improvements in beliefs
about health and health practices.
Missing data present well known problems in data analysis, especially when the missing data
exceed 5% (e.g., Graham & Hoffer, 2000). Prior research has identified numerous problems with
listwise, pairwise and cognate substitution methods (Graham & Hoffer, 2000), leading to
recommendation of the Expectation Maximization (EM) Algorithm. Missing data in our study
was 4.87% and so we implemented the EM Algorithm operationalized using LISREL 8.80
(J€oreskog & S€orbom, 2006).
Results
Gains in Content Knowledge Recall and Science Motivation
The first set of analyses sought to determine the extent and nature of gains (or declines) in
science and non-science factors as a function of the museum-based program. Findings from our 2
(pre-, post-test) 2 (female, male) 2 (elementary, secondary school) analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with repeated measures are presented in Table 2. As hypothesized, there are significant
differences between pre- and post-testing on all of the science-focused measures, but none on
the non-science measures. Specifically, as a function of this science education program,
there are significant gains in content knowledge recall, F(1,163) ¼ 4.17, p < .05, science self-
efficacy, F(1,163) ¼ 4.72, p < .05, science valuing, F(1,163) ¼ 6.85), p < .05, and science
aspirations, F(1,163) ¼ 4.88, p < .05. In contrast, no significant gains were found for the two non-
science measures of buoyancy, F(1,163) ¼ .31, p ¼ .58 and adaptability, F(1,163) ¼ .18, p ¼ .68.
Three of the four science measures—knowledge, self-efficacy, valuing—yielded a main effect of
time (pre- and post-test difference) only. Science aspirations, however, also yielded a 3-way
interaction of time gender stage, F(1,163) ¼ 5.57, p < .05. Follow-up analyses indicated that
there is a significantly greater gain in science aspirations among elementary school girls than
secondary school girls, F(1,49) ¼ 5.63, p < .05, but no such difference in gains between
elementary and secondary school boys, F(1,114) ¼ 2.23, p ¼ .14.
Associations With Improvements in Beliefs About Health Practices
Our second set of analyses explored the association between gains in content knowledge
recall and science motivation (self-efficacy, valuing, aspirations) and participants’ reported
improvements in beliefs about health practices following the program. Findings from regressing
each of the four post-test science scores on each of the four pre-test science scores and saved
residuals were examined for positive residuals (indicating gains in content knowledge recall
Table 2
Analysis of variance with repeated measures (F-values)
Target (Science) Non-Target (General)

Constructs (F-values) Constructs (F-values)
Knowledge Self-Efficacy Valuing Aspirations Buoyancy Adaptability
Pre-post change (T) 4.17 4.72 6.85 4.88 .31 .18
T gender (G) .69 .01 .16 .05 .66 3.22
T stage (S) .96 .88 .60 .33 .30 1.33
TGS .27 .06 1.34 5.57 .18 .05

p < .05.

Table 3
Associations with reported improvements in beliefs about health practices: Correlations and regressions
r b
Knowledge recall gain .01 .08
Self-efficacy gain .28 .17
Valuing gain .31 .25
Aspirations gain .22 -.05
Note: Model Fit ¼ F(4,158) ¼ 5.34, p < .001, Multiple R ¼ .35.

p < .05.

p < .01.

p < .001.
and motivation between pre- and post-testing) and negative residuals (indicating declines).
Table 3 presents the findings from a series of bivariate correlations. Gains in science self-
efficacy (r ¼ .28, p < .001), valuing (r ¼ .31, p < .001), and aspirations (r ¼ .22, p < .001), but
not content knowledge, were found to be significantly and positively correlated with
improvements in reported beliefs about health practices at the end of the program. This
suggests that improvements in science self-efficacy, science valuing, and science aspirations are
associated with more positive beliefs about health practices. Findings from the multiple linear
regressions (whereby all four residualized science constructs were entered as predictors of
reported improvements in beliefs about health practices) revealed that the set of science
predictors explained significant variance in beliefs about health practices, F(4,158) ¼ 5.34,
p < .001, Multiple R ¼ .35. We found that once shared variance was accounted for, gain in
science valuing emerged as the most significant predictor of positive beliefs about health
practices, b ¼ .25, p < .05, leaving other predictors non-significant.
Discussion
The present study demonstrated the role of a museum-based self-paced science education
program as a means to enhance students’ content (viz. biology, anatomy, health) knowledge recall,
self-efficacy, valuing, and aspirations. We also investigated whether gains in content knowledge
recall and motivation (as relevant to biology, anatomy, health) were associated with improvements
in beliefs about health practices reported at the end of the program. In response to Research
Question 1, we found no such gains for non-science measures. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, we
found significant gains in content knowledge recall (achievement) and science motivation (self-
efficacy, valuing, aspirations) following participation in the science program. Consistent with
Hypothesis 2, we found that gains in content knowledge recall and motivation were associated
with more positive beliefs about health practices reported at the end of the program. Therefore, we
suggest our findings hold implications for researchers and practitioners seeking to identify
museum-based education design principles and practices that better foster knowledge and
motivation in science.
Research Implications and Practical Applications
Educational processes and outcomes have been demarcated into “skill” and “will” factors
(Covington, 1998). “Skill” refers to knowledge and achievement; “will” typically refers to
motivation. Our findings suggest that our museum-based program, structured around well-
established engagement and guided discovery principles, was associated with gains in science
“skill” or, knowledge. To the extent that content knowledge gains were derived through this
education program, science educators may consider applying the engagement and guided discovery
14 MARTIN ET AL.
principles explored here as a means of reducing perceptions of science difficulty (Coe et al., 2008;
Lyons & Quinn, 2010) and enhancing achievement. With regard to “will” (motivation), it is
known that students who decide not to pursue science in senior school hold relatively lower
valuing and aspirations in science (Goodrum et al., 2012; see also Lyons & Quinn, 2010; Office of
the Chief Scientist, 2012). It is also known that students’ science self-efficacy predicts their
willingness to take science courses and their performance in those courses (Andre et al., 1999;
Britner & Pajares, 2001; Kupermintz, 2002; Lau & Roeser, 2002). Given these links between
science self-efficacy, valuing, and aspirations to desirable science outcomes, it is noteworthy that
the museum-based education program was associated with gains on these motivational factors.
Importantly also, the program was not associated with significant gains on the non-science
factors (buoyancy, adaptability). As a research question, we explored the possibility that the nature
of the informal science education program may have effects for such broader attributes. Whereas
“near learning” (Perkins & Salomon, 1988) is feasible for science outcomes, some researchers
have suggested the possibility of broader outcomes such as personal and social skills (e.g.,
Michalchik & Gallagher, 2010; Pekarik et al., 1999). Although the program (as developed and
delivered) did not yield significant effects for buoyancy and adaptability, we are not suggesting
that there were no informal learning experiences. Instead, it may be that there are more aligned
skills (e.g., problem solving or thinking skills) that the program developed—something to
consider in further work. From a methodological perspective, however, the findings offer some
support for discriminant validity in the study. Validity threats such as halo effects are not
uncommon for novel programs. An example of a halo effect in this study would be where
participants’ positive impressions of the science education program overall lead to broader
positive effects and perceptions, beyond aspects of the program that are targeted (Darby, 2007). To
the extent that this is the case, we would see significant effects for both science and non-science
outcomes. However, the present findings suggest that we may discount this possibility: the fact
that significant findings were generated for science outcomes but not the non-science outcomes
suggests no such halo effects were present.
The tripartite engagement framework (Fredricks et al., 2004) was central to our education
program’s operationalization. As the three engagement dimensions of cognition, behavior, and
emotion were central to the substance, format, and delivery of the education program, they are also
a basis for considering what elements to include in subsequent museum-based education
programs. For future informal learning design, it would be useful to know if one aspect of the
tripartite engagement framework contributed relatively more or less to the observed gains in
content knowledge and motivation. We were unable to disentangle the intervention effects in a
way to truly understand this, but we can infer from findings to make some tentative suggestions.
Firstly, all dependent measures (knowledge, self-efficacy, aspirations, and valuing) reflect
cognition (see Martin, 2007, 2009). Given they all evinced significant gains as a result of the
program, we might suggest that the cognitive engagement elements of the program are important
to retain. Secondly, of these dependent measures, valuing also has an emotional engagement
element in that it pertains to enjoyment and personal valuing/importance (Martin, 2007, 2009).
Indeed, of the significant content knowledge and motivation gains, those pertaining to valuing
were larger (as indicated by F-value). In addition, of the content knowledge and motivation factors
predicting improvements in beliefs about health practices, valuing was the only factor to play a
significant role. To the extent that all this is the case, we might infer that emotional engagement
also be considered when developing informal learning material.
With regard to cognitive engagement (referring to thoughtfulness and willingness to exert the
effort necessary to comprehend ideas and master skills; Fredricks et al., 2004), education
programs might consider incorporating multiple modes of instruction (e.g., reading material,
physical objects to manipulate, online and digital content, specimens, attention-grabbing stimuli)
and to appropriately pitch content to participants in the target age range. With regard to behavioral
engagement (referring to participation and involvement; Fredricks et al., 2004), museum
educators might look to involve active manipulation and interaction of stimuli, provide resources
(e.g., workbooks) that allow them to record observations and notes as they proceed, and to set them
an engaging “top-level” task (e.g., identify the person suffering “zombie-ism”). With regard to
emotional engagement (referring to positive and negative feelings, orientations, and affect
inherent in the learning process; Fredricks et al., 2004), educators might look for opportunities to
develop a theme and subject matter that is purposefully fun, novel, humorous, and light-hearted
(such as our focus on “zombies” and “surviving the zombie apocalypse”) and to consider self-
paced and self-directed activities that enhance autonomy and flow.
On this last point, however, we point out that this self-direction was within a structured
program that allowed for guided rather than pure discovery learning. Guided discovery learning is
associated with greater gains in educational outcomes than pure discovery learning (Kirschner
et al., 2006). Accordingly, there was structure (e.g., organized by way of physical stations) and
targets (e.g., a workbook with questions and tasks; the challenge to identify the person suffering
“zombie-ism” at the end of the program) within the program that allowed participants to self-pace
through the program but that also ensured essential information and activities were being
completed.
We also found that gains in science motivation predicted post-program ratings of improved
beliefs about health practices. Although much commentary on science participation centers on
“big-picture” issues such as career paths and national development, there is also the very real issue
of “grass-roots” yields in terms of everyday relevance and benefit. Since a lack of perceived
relevance and individual benefit has been linked to low levels of participation (Stuckey & Eilks,
2014; Stuckey et al., 2013), we suggest that motivating students in science may help extend its
reach into their everyday lives.
Although gender and stage of school (elementary, secondary school) were not central to
analyses, there is some literature to suggest that they can intersect science outcomes (Abraham &
Barker, 2015; ATSE, 2013; DeWitt et al., 2014; Jenkins, 2006; Mack & Walsh, 2013; Roberts,
2014). For the most part, we found that changes in science outcomes did not act as a function of
gender and school stage, suggesting that change attributable to the museum-based program
generalizes across boys and girls, (upper) elementary and secondary school students. Science
aspirations, however, did yield a gender stage effect such that there was a significantly greater
gain in science aspirations among elementary school girls than secondary school girls, but no such
difference in gains between elementary and secondary school boys. To the extent that future
orientations for science may be set earlier for girls, we call for greater and earlier attention to
promoting girls’ identification with science (Archer et al., 2012). Museum-based programs that
conform to principles of engagement and guided discovery may provide some direction as to how
more positive aspirations might be promoted in elementary school.
Limitations and Future Directions
When interpreting the present findings there are limitations important to recognize and which
also hold implications for future research and practice. First, participants in the study were self-
selected. They were therefore interested in science to the extent that they were motivated to attend
the museum during their vacation break. Notwithstanding this, we point out that many participants
attended for the “zombie” component alongside their interest in the science education program.
We also point out (as noted in the Participants section) that attendance at museums is a very typical
activity for Australian school students and for Australian children during out-of-school hours;
16 MARTIN ET AL.
thus our sample is not considered atypical by virtue of its attendance at this museum. We also
suggest there is broad comparability in socio-demographics between our sample and the
population of Australian children and youth to which we generalize (also noted in our Participant
section). Moreover, to the extent that participants were attending for the science education
program, this may have generated something of a ceiling effect in content knowledge and
motivation at pre-test and so the significant gains found here may be considered more notable.
Second, following from this, there would be value in exploring the effects of a purposefully
developed museum-based science education program for at-risk learners and also students with
special needs. Given there are concerns around science engagement and participation for students
at risk of disengagement in the “mainstream” (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012) and students
with special needs (Mulvey, Chiu, Ghosh, & Bell, 2016), it stands to reason that intervention ought
to address these at-risk learners.
Third, we recognize the absence of a control group, which was unavoidable given the nature
of the museum program. There is now a need for the inclusion of a control group in future research.
Since it is ultimately impossible to control for all factors potentially influencing the results, we
recommend that participants in a control group be extremely well matched to the treatment group
on factors that are deemed especially relevant (e.g., science ability, science aspirations, “science
capital”) to science knowledge and motivation. In the absence of a feasible control group, we
encourage researchers to consider comparison conditions (e.g., comparing individual participa-
tion with small group collaborative participation) so that the learning factors and processes
underlying such a science education program can be better known.
Fourth, beliefs about health practices assessed at the end of the program were self-
reported and so it is important to now collect objective data on actual health practices so
we can assess the link between gains in content knowledge and motivation and changes in
actual health practices. Theories such as theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991;
Armitage & Conner, 2001) and theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) would
suggest that although we assessed beliefs and intentions that are thought to predict
behavior, this needs to be empirically established. Fifth, related to this, it is important to
note that our “knowledge” measure was one representing content knowledge and
immediate recall of that knowledge following the program. Researchers have identified the
need to better promote long-term science knowledge (Dauer & Long, 2015; Shemwell,
Avargil, & Capps, 2015) and so future research would do well to collect knowledge data
some months following a target education program. Sixth, given the program was
multifaceted, with different stations and different resources and prompts at each station, it
would be useful to know if one station or one form of resource yielded relatively greater
impact on outcomes. This would be helpful in informing the development and application
of future museum-based science education programs. Finally, it would be interesting to
know if one of the three dimensions of tripartite engagement (cognitive, behavioral,
emotional) accounted for relatively greater gains than the others—or whether different
engagement dimensions led to gains on different science factors or health beliefs. This
information would provide further useful direction with regard to science intervention.
Conclusion
Informal learning contexts such as museums have been suggested as “everyday” oppor-
tunities to promote students’ knowledge and motivation in science. They have also been suggested
as sites that better optimize the relevance of science in everyday life. We developed a museum-
based science education program that conformed to well-established principles of (cognitive,
behavioral, emotional) engagement and guided discovery learning. Consistent with hypotheses,
we demonstrated gains in content knowledge recall, self-efficacy, valuing, and aspirations and
links between these gains and positive beliefs about health practices. These findings hold
implications for researchers and practitioners seeking to identify museum-based education design
principles and practices that better foster knowledge and motivation in science.
Notes
1
Part of the data (N ¼ 71) is shared with another study that focused on the role of personal best
goals in students’ science valuing and aspirations (Martin et al., 2014).
2
The MES attracts a small fee that assists in its ongoing development (e.g., norming),
administration, and part of which is donated to UNICEF. However, for this study, there was no fee
involved for its use.
References
Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2015). An expectancy-value model for sustained enrolment intentions of
senior secondary physics students. Research in Science Education, 45, 509–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11165-014-9434-x
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction
enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive affect,
and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school subjects.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 719–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199908)
36:6<719::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-R
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Willis, B. (2014). Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: Masculinity, capital,
and power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1–30. doi: 10.1002/tea.21122
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Balancing acts”:
Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96,
967–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21031
Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2015). Interacting with a suite of educative
features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 53, 422–449. doi: 10.1002/tea.21250
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic
review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Australian Academy of Science. (2006). Mathematics and statistics: Critical skills for Australia’s future.
Melbourne: Australian Academy of Science.
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. (2013). Enhanced commitment to
school STEM education is vital for Australia’s prosperity. Advancing STEM Education, September.
Retrieved from http://www.atse.org.au
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2010). Arts and Culture in Australia: A Statistical Overview,
2010. (cat. no. 4172.0), ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2013). Census of population and housing: Socio-Economic
Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http://www.abs.gov.au/
ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2033.0.55.001mainþfeatures100032011
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal
environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18 MARTIN ET AL.
Bissaker, K. (2014). Transforming STEM education in an innovative Australian school: The role of
teachers’ and academics’ professional partnerships. Theory Into Practice, 53, 55–63. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00405841.2014.862124
Blank, R. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the
implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Science Education, 97, 830–847. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/sce.21078
Board of Studies. (2015). Science K-10 syllabus. Sydney, NSW: Australian Government. Retrieved
from http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/science/science-k10/
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school
science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271–285.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20131
Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research (2009). A
Snapshot of Early Childhood Development in Australia—AEDI National Report 2009, Australian
Government, Canberra.
Coe, R., Searle, J., Barmby, P., Jones, K., & Higgins, S. (2008). Relative difficulty of examinations in
different subjects. Report for SCORE (Science Community Supporting Education). Durham, UK: Centre for
Evaluation and Modelling, Durham University.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Cox-Petersen, A. M., Marsh, D. D., Kisiel, J., & Melber, L. M. (2003). Investigation of guided school
tours, student learning, and science reform recommendations at a museum of natural history. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40, 200–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10072
Csıkszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Darby, J. A. (2007). Are course evaluations subject to a ‘halo effect’? Research in Education, 77, 46–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/RIE.77.4
Dauer, J. T., & Long, T. M. (2015). Long-term conceptual retrieval by college biology majors
following model-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1188–1206. doi:
10.1002/tea.21258
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2014). Science-related aspirations across the primary-secondary
divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1609–1629.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.871659
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1997). School field trips: Assessing their long-term impact. Curator: The
Museum Journal, 40, 211–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 2151-6952. 1997.tb01304.x
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). Student engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543074001059
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gill, T., & Bell, J. F. (2013). What factors determine the uptake of a-level physics? International Journal
of Science Education, 35, 753–772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577843
Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in
Australian schools. Report prepared for the Office of the Chief Scientist by the Australian Academy of
Science, Canberra.
Graham, J. W., & Hoffer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little,
K. U. Schnable, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied
approaches, and specific examples (pp. 201–218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics
and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity.
Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269–279.
Jenkins, E. W. (2006). Student opinion in England about science and technology. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 24, 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140500485365

J€oreskog, K. G., & S€orbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to
studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0663.93.3.579
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based
teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science
achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 123–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0802_03
Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’
situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139–162. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/S15326977EA0802_04
Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2013). Direct instruction and academic achievement. In J. Hattie, & E.
Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement. Oxford: Routledge.
Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing Science: Understanding the declines in senior high school
science enrolments, National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional
Australia, University of New England, Armidale NSW.
Mack, J. & Walsh, B. (2013) Mathematics and Science Combinations: NSW HSC 2001–2011 by
Gender. Technical paper. Retrieved from http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/SMS/MWW2013.pdf
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
413. doi: 10.1348/000709906118036
Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental
construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 69, 794–824. doi: 10.1177/0013164409332214
Martin, A. J. (2010). The Motivation and Engagement Scale. Sydney: Lifelong Achievement Group.
www.lifelongachievement.com
Martin, A. J. (2012). Motivation and engagement: Conceptual, operational and empirical clarity.
Section Commentary. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_14
Martin, A. J. (2015). Teaching academically at-risk students in middle school: The roles of explicit
instruction and guided discovery learning. In S. Groundwater-Smith, & N. Mockler (Eds.), Big fish, little fish:
Teaching and learning in the middle years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, A. J., Durksen, T. L., Williamson, D., Kiss, J., & Ginns, P. (2014). Personal best (PB) goal setting
and students’ motivation in science: A study of science valuing and aspirations. Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 31, 85–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/edp.2014.19
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008a). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’
everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2007.01.002
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008b). Workplace and academic buoyancy: Psychometric assessment
and construct validity amongst school personnel and students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26,
168–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282907313767
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy: Multidimensional
and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and cognate constructs. Oxford Review of
Education, 35, 353–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934639
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2012). Adaptability: Conceptual and empirical
perspectives on responses to change, novelty and uncertainty. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 22, 58–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.8
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2013). Adaptability: How students’ responses
to uncertainty and novelty predict their academic and non-academic outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105, 728–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032794

20 MARTIN ET AL.
Marzano, R. J. (2011). Art and science of teaching / The perils and promises of discovery learning.
Educational Leadership, 69, 86–87.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The
case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.59.1.14
Michalchik, V., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Naturalizing assessment. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53,
209–219.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps
begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45,
18–35.
Mulvey, B. K., Chiu, J. L., Ghosh, R., & Bell, R. L. (2016). Special education teachers’ nature of science
instructional experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21311
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Health of Australian Science. Canberra: Australian Government.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Benchmarking Australian Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics. Canberra: Australian Government.
Pekarik, A. J., Doering, Z. D., & Karns, D. A. (1999). Exploring satisfying experiences in museums.
Curator: The Museum Journal, 42, 152–173.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46, 22–32.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A. D., Raphael, L., Dolezal, S., Bohn, C., Mohan, L., & Hogan, K. (2003).
Teaching processes in elementary and secondary education. In W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
0471264385.wei0708
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93, 223–231.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and
future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.
Roberts, S. J. (2014). ENGage: The use of space and pixel art for increasing primary school children’s
interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Acta Astronautica, 93, 34–44. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.06.013
Rosenshine, B. V. (2009). The empirical support for direct instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy
(Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
Ross, P. M., & Poronnik, P. (2013). Science education in Australia: Time of change. In D. Lunney, P.
Hutchings, & H. F. Recher (Eds.), Grumpy scientists: The ecological conscience of a nation (pp. 59–66).
Mosman, NSW: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. http://dx.doi.org/10.7882/FS.2013.013
Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science
experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49, 70–85.
Sha, L., Schunn, C., Bathgate, M., & Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2015). Families support their children’s success
in science learning by influencing interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53,
450–472. doi: 10.1002/tea.21251
Shemwell, J. T., Avargil, S., & Capps, D. K. (2015). Grappling with long-term learning in science: A
qualitative study of teachers’ views of developmentally oriented instruction. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 52, 1163–1187. doi: 10.1002/tea.21239
Stuckey, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Increasing student motivation and the perception of chemistry’s
relevance in the classroom by learning about tattooing from a chemical and societal view. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 15, 156–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00146f
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in
science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1–34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.802463
Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and
others do not. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook
(pp. 295–325). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2006). Engaging young people: Learning in informal contexts. Review of

Research in Education, 30, 239–278.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical,
scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215–246. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3102/00028312037001215
Appendix. Examples from Tuberculosis (TB) Station

Cause
E.g., Tuberculosis (TB) is caused by bacteria (Mycobacterium Tuberculosis), most notoriously affecting
the lungs.
Signs and Symptoms
E.g., Bad cough (lasts 3 weeksþ), chest pain, coughing up mucus or blood etc.
Regions Where TB Common
E.g., Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe have some of the highest rates of TB in the world.
How to Prevent TB
E.g., Get vaccinated against TB, maintain good health, avoid exposure, wash hands frequently etc.
Treatment
E.g., Focus on antibiotics (and antibiotic resistance).
Once Upon a Time: History of TB
E.g., TB has been found in skeletal remains of prehistoric humans (4000BC) and Egyptian mummies.
Did you Know? (prevalence, trends, association with other diseases)
E.g., In 2011, it is estimated that 8.7 million people fell ill with TB (approximately 1.4 million died).
Fame: Famous People who have Suffered from TB
E.g., Nelson Mandela.
Zombie Attack: Light-hearted Links to Zombies
E.g., TB has been suggested as one origin of the zombie myth because victims turn very pale, often avoid
sunlight, and cough up blood. TB spreads rapidly and easily, similar to a zombie disease.
Images Included on TB Station
E.g., Images of lungs, creatives to match theme of topic (e.g., cartoon image of TB bacteria), photo of Nobel
prize winner for discovery of TB cause, famous people who had TB, images of antibiotics, images of hand-
washing to demonstrate hygiene, zombie images.

martin2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

martin2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

martin2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

The Role of a Museum-Based Science Education Program in Promoting Content

Received 15 December 2015; Accepted 30 April 2016

# 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

framework that conceptualizes engagement in terms of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional

Pre knowledge 75.10 11.83 —

Pre buoyancy 5.33 1.14 .82

Buoyancy and Adaptability. Using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree),

Target (Science) Non-Target (General)

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Note: Model Fit ¼ F(4,158) ¼ 5.34, p < .001, Multiple R ¼ .35.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2006). Engaging young people: Learning in informal contexts. Review of

Appendix. Examples from Tuberculosis (TB) Station

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like