On the Interest-Promoting Effect of Outreach Science Labs: A Comparison of Students’ Interest during Experimentation at an Outreach Science Lab and at School

Abstract

Outreach science labs aim to promote students’ interest. Previous research has often suggested that performing experiments in such labs has a positive effect on their interest. However, these studies often lack a comparison to the effects of performing them at school. This research gap was addressed in the present study. The sample consisted of 402 upper-secondary level students (age: M = 16.53 years, SD = 0.80 years) who performed three experiments on the topic of enzymology either in an outreach science lab (n = 203) or at school (n = 199). Contrary to the assumption, experimentation at the outreach science lab did not outperform experimentation at school in terms of students’ psychological state of interest in the comparison to the school setting. Surprisingly, differences in the value-related component of the psychological state of interest were even found in favor of the school treatment.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10140-7
1 3
On theInterest‑Promoting Effect ofOutreach Science Labs:
AComparison ofStudents’ Interest duringExperimentation
atanOutreach Science Lab andatSchool
TimKirchho1 · MatthiasWilde1 · NadineGroßmann2
Accepted: 31 October 2023 / Published online: 22 November 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Outreach science labs aim to promote students’ interest. Previous research has often sug-
gested that performing experiments in such labs has a positive effect on their interest. How-
ever, these studies often lack a comparison to the effects of performing them at school.
This research gap was addressed in the present study. The sample consisted of 402 upper-
secondary level students (age: M = 16.53 years, SD = 0.80 years) who performed three
experiments on the topic of enzymology either in an outreach science lab (n = 203) or
at school (n = 199). Contrary to the assumption, experimentation at the outreach science
lab did not outperform experimentation at school in terms of students’ psychological state
of interest in the comparison to the school setting. Surprisingly, differences in the value-
related component of the psychological state of interest were even found in favor of the
school treatment.
Keywords Outreach science lab· Interest· Experimentation· Biology classes
Introduction
Science education aims to promote students’ interest in science as it is an important fac-
tor of successful student learning and of unique importance for students’ choice of future
profession (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment [OECD], 2016; Renninger & Hidi, 2016; Zhang & Bae, 2020). However, science
education in Germany seems to be failing in achieving this goal (Potvin & Hasni, 2014).
Among 15-year-old students in Germany, interest in science is below the international
average and has been declining since 2006 (OECD, 2016; Potvin & Hasni, 2014;Schiepe-
Tiska etal., 2016). When it comes to the subject of biology, students in higher grades show
lower interest when comparing the students from Grades 5 to 9 (Großmann etal., 2021).
* Matthias Wilde
matthias.wilde@uni-bielefeld.de
1 Bielefeld University, Faculty ofBiology, Didactics ofBiology, Bielefeld, Germany
2 University ofCologne, Faculty ofMathematics andNatural Sciences, Institute forBiology
Education, Cologne, Germany
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

460
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
This negative trend is accompanied by declining enrollment and graduation rates in sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses (OECD, 2016) as well as
a significant shortage of skilled STEM employees (Anger etal., 2022).
In Germany, visiting an outreach science laboratory (hereafter ‘lab’) is a popular
approach to counteract these negative trends in STEM education (Euler & Schüttler, 2020).
An outreach science lab is a non-formal, out-of-school learning environment (Affeldt etal.,
2015; Euler & Schüttler, 2020; Garner etal., 2014; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004) that aims to
promote students’ interest in STEM and in science-related hands-on activities (Guderian
& Priemer, 2008; Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017; Scharfenberg etal., 2019). In order to
achieve this goal, the students engage in hands-on activities to investigate scientific ques-
tions in an authentic, science-related, and well-equipped learning environment (Dähnhardt
etal., 2007; Euler & Schüttler, 2020; Garner etal., 2014; Scharfenberg etal., 2019). Gener-
ally, their performance is ungraded (Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011; Pawek, 2009), and they
are supervised by (scientific) laboratory staff (Affeldt etal., 2015; Kirchhoff etal., 2022;
Garner etal., 2014).
Research on the interest-promoting effect of outreach science labs is mostly based on
the person-object-theory of interest (e.g., Krapp, 2005, 2007) in which interest is concep-
tualized as a relationship between a person and an object (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011; Ren-
ninger & Hidi, 2011, 2016). Objects can be physical objects or subject areas (Krapp, 2005,
2007) as well as activities (Holstermann etal., 2010; Jördens & Hammann, 2021; Krapp
etal., 2014). Interest is characterized by three components: an attribution of a high per-
sonal value to the object (value-related component), an experience of positive emotions
during an active engagement with the object (emotional component), and a high degree of
readiness to expand one’s knowledge about the object (epistemic component; Krapp, 2007;
Krapp etal., 2014; Renninger & Hidi, 2011). In addition, there is a distinction between
interest as disposition and interest as a current psychological state (Krapp, 2007; Renninger
& Hidi, 2011). Individual interest is cross-situational and refers to a motivational disposi-
tion and individual characteristics (e.g., an individual’s general interest in biology), while
situational interest is focused on the momentary state and depends on environmental con-
ditions (e.g., interest in experimenting in a classroom situation; Krapp etal., 2014; Ren-
ninger & Hidi, 2016; Vogt, 2007). Interest during an individual’s interaction with an object
arises from the interaction between both existing individual interest and the situational
characteristics of the environment (Krapp, 2007; Renninger & Hidi, 2011) and is referred
to as psychological state of interest (Renninger & Hidi, 2016).
The effects of outreach science labs on students’ interest have been described especially
for the psychological state of interest during an outreach science lab visit (e.g., Itzek-Greu-
lich & Vollmer, 2017; for an overview see Guderian & Priemer, 2008; Nickolaus et al.,
2018; Scharfenberg etal., 2019). As learners usually attend the workshops of outreach sci-
ence labs in the context of a one-time, half-day field trip (Itzek-Greulich, 2020), the effects
on the psychological state of interest are expected at first in the short term (Lewalter, 2020;
see also Palmer etal., 2017). In general, previous research has shown that outreach sci-
ence lab visits seem to promote students’ psychological state of interest (for an overview
see Guderian & Priemer, 2008; Nickolaus etal., 2018). Closer inspection shows that the
current state of research is more complex, ambiguous, and requires further research. Start-
ing with a more differentiated consideration of the psychological state of interest, the
results on the impact of an outreach science lab visit on situational interest are not uniform
across the three components of interest (Guderian & Priemer, 2008; Nickolaus etal., 2018;
Scharfenberg etal., 2019). There are usually no medium-term changes in the value-related
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

461
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
component (e.g., Pawek, 2009). However, Engeln (2004) did find an increase therein. The
values of the emotional component are often the highest and ceiling effects can be found
(e.g., Damerau, 2012; Scharfenberg, 2005). The emotional and epistemic components tend
to decrease in the medium term after visiting an outreach science lab (e.g., Brandt, 2005;
Damerau, 2012; Engeln, 2004; Pawek, 2009; Scharfenberg, 2005), whereas the level of the
epistemic component appears to be maintained by connecting the visit with regular classes
(e.g., Guderian, 2007).
Despite the generally favorable portrayal of outreach science labs, a comparison to
the school learning environment where experiments are also performed is often lacking
(Kirchhoff etal., 2022,2023; Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017; Nickolaus etal., 2018). As
the positive effects of hands-on activities on students’ interest have also been found in the
school context (e.g., Holstermann etal., 2010; Palmer etal., 2017; Potvin & Hasni, 2014;
Swarat etal., 2012), the question arises as to whether experimentation at an outreach sci-
ence lab outperforms experimentation at school in terms of the psychological state of inter-
est. To our knowledge, there are only a few studies that have addressed this issue, such as
the studies by Itzek-Greulich and Vollmer (2017), Schüttler etal. (2021), and Röllke etal.
(2021).
Itzek-Greulich and Vollmer (2017) conducted a quasi-experimental study in chemistry
education in which they compared three treatments (outreach science lab only, school only,
and a combination of outreach science lab and school) with a control group (a group that
was not taught in the study in either the outreach science lab or at school). The students in
the three treatments developed a more intense psychological state of interest compared to
the control group, but no differences among these treatments were found. However, in all
learning environments, the same laboratory equipment was used, although many labora-
tory materials are usually not available at schools due to their high cost. In addition, the
treatment conditions were conducted by different pedagogical staff that might have led to
“a ‘bias’ towards the teachers” (Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017, p. 20) who conducted the
parts at school.
In a study in the field of physics education, Schüttler etal. (2021) used a two-factor
design to examine the influence of the learning environment (outreach science lab vs.
school) and the quality of the materials (high-end vs. low-cost) on students’ psychological
state of interest. They found that the epistemic component was higher when the students
worked with high-quality laboratory equipment in the outreach science lab than at school.
By contrast, no differences were found in the emotional and value-related components.
However, the sample size was not very large (N = 148) and the participants only attended a
Gymnasium (i.e., a university track high school in Germany).
The studies by Itzek-Greulich and Vollmer (2017)and Schüttler et al. (2021) were
conducted in the fields of chemistry and physics. Other effects might occur in the field
of biology (Euler & Schüttler, 2020) as students’ interest in physics or chemistry is usu-
ally lower than in biology (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011). Moreover, girls often exhibit lower
interest in chemistry and physics than boys but higher interest in biology (Krapp & Pren-
zel, 2011). Therefore, the findings cited can only be transferred to other STEM fields to
a limited extent, and studies in the field of biology are required. For instance,Röllke
et al. (2021) compared students’ psychological state of interest during inquiry-based
learning at an outreach science lab and at school in the field of biology education. They
found differences in a certain type of interest (triggered situational interest and the feel-
ing component of maintained situational interest; see Linnenbrink-Garcia etal., 2010)
in favor of the students at the outreach science lab; however, no differences were found
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

462
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
in the value component (of maintained situational interest). At school, the teaching unit
was structured differently because the regular teachers supervised the theoretical parts
of the unit while the practical parts were supervised by the tutors of the laboratory treat-
ment. Moreover, the tutors provided laboratory equipment that is generally not available
at school such as thermocycler and electrophoresis chambers.
In summary, outreach science labs aim to promote students’ interest in STEM fields
by providing opportunities to perform hands-on experiments in a scientific laboratory.
According to previous research in this field, there are preliminary findings to support
this claim. However, these results are non-uniform regarding the three components of
interest and there are several limitations to overcome such as a lack of a comparison
group at school that performs the same experiments as in the laboratory with materials
usually available at school, different pedagogical staff conducting the lessons, and small
sample sizes. In our study, we addressed these limitations by implementing the same
teaching unit dealing with experiments on enzymology at an outreach science lab and at
school with materials that are usually available at an outreach science lab (e.g., micro-
liter pipettes) or at school (e.g., disposable pipettes), the same teaching staff, and a quite
adequate sample (n = 402). Based on the aforementioned rationale, we investigated the
following research question:
How does the psychological state of interest of students who perform experiments at
an outreach science lab differ from the psychological state of interest of students who
perform the same experiments at school?
Methods
Sample
Four hundred two students (64% female) in the first year of the upper secondary school
(age: M = 16.53 years, SD = 0.80 years) from two university track high schools (Gym-
nasium 50%) and three comprehensive schools (Gesamtschule) in the German state of
North Rhine-Westphalia took part in this study. They performed experiments either at
an outreach science lab (n = 203, 62% female, 55% Gymnasium) or at school (n = 199,
67% female, 46% Gymnasium).
Study design
This study is based on a quasi-experimental design with the treatments outreach sci-
ence lab and school. In both treatments, we assessed the students’ individual interest
in biology immediately before the intervention. Then the students performed three
experiments on enzymology in either the outreach science lab or at their school. The
experiments were the same in both treatments. In the outreach science lab treatment, a
workshop was implemented in one session (180 minutes). In the school treatment, the
workshop was conducted in the regular biology classes and therefore divided into three
lessons (two 45-minutes and one 90-minute lessons or three 60-minute lessons). Imme-
diately after the experiments, the students’ psychological state of interest was measured.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

463
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Test instruments
Before the intervention, the students’ individual interest in biology was assessed using an
adapted scale used in previous PISA studies (e.g., OECD, 2007; see Frey etal., 2009). We
used this scale in the pretest to check whether the treatment groups differed regarding their
individual interest in biology prior to the intervention as differences in their prior inter-
est could influence their psychological state of interest during the intervention (see Krapp,
2007; Renninger & Hidi, 2011). This scale consisted of 5 items (e.g., “In general, I enjoy
dealing with biology.”; Cronbach’s alpha α=.94).
Immediately after the intervention, the students’ psychological state of interest was
assessed with an adapted scale consisting of 16 items (piloted in Desch etal., 2016; Groß-
mann & Wilde, 2020), which was similar to the scales developed by Engeln (2004), Pawek
(2009), and Schüttler etal. (2021). This scale was not used before the intervention, since it
relates to a momentary state of being interested that depends on situational characteristics
of the environment (Krapp, 2007; Renninger & Hidi, 2011) that differ between the classes
before the intervention. The scale comprised three subscales that addressed the three com-
ponents of interest: the value-related component (5 items, “It was important to me that
we performed the experiments”, α=.78), the emotional component (5 items, “I enjoyed
performing the experiments”, α = .89), and the epistemic component (6 items, “I would
like to learn more about experimenting”, α=.81). The items of both test instruments were
rated on a five-point rating scale from (0) “not true at all” to (4) “completely true.” Internal
consistency was satisfactory (see Taber, 2018).
Teaching andtreatments
This study was conducted as part of an outreach science lab workshop on enzymology.
We designed the workshop in such a way that it can be conducted at an outreach science
lab and at school (Kirchhoff etal., 2022). The workshop dealt with biocatalysts, tempera-
ture dependence, pH dependence, substrate specificity, and competitive inhibition. In both
treatments, the students worked in self-selected groups of three or four persons to perform
the experiments at workstations. To structure the teaching unit, they received the same
scripts that included all information about the experiments in the form of stapled work-
sheets. Thus, the experiments in both treatments were framed with the same information.
Experimentation at outreach science labs usually corresponds to structured inquiry (Euler
& Schüttler, 2020; Scharfenberg et al., 2019). Thus, in reference to Hodson (2014), we
designed the experiments in our study as follows: In each experiment, the students devel-
oped hypotheses based on an informational text and predetermined research questions.
Afterwards, they tested their hypothesis by conducting a pre-structured experiment involv-
ing a controlled manipulation of the variables (e.g., enzyme; pH; temperature; substrate)
and the use of a blank sample (e.g., no enzyme). To conduct the experiments, the learners
followed the detailed instructions provided in the scripts and performed the hands-on ele-
ments of the experiments (e.g., operating the pipette). The collected data (i.e., observa-
tions) were interpreted to address the hypothesis.
In the first experiment about enzymes as biocatalysts, the students investigated whether
amylase degrades starch. For this, they conducted an experiment involving three starch
solutions (1%), one with water (blank), one with α-amylase (extracted from Aspergil-
lus oryzae), and one with salvia that contains α-amylase. All solutions were stained with
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

464
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Lugol’s iodine that contains iodide polymers. These molecules form blue-violet complexes
with starch, but not with dextrins, maltose, and glucose. As α-amylase cleaves the glyco-
side bond of starch, a starch solution stained with Lugol’s iodine loses its color when add-
ing α-amylase. Thus, during the experiment, the students observed a decolorization in the
two solutions with α-amylase and saliva that indicates the degradation of starch catalyzed
by amylase. To quantify the degradation rate of starch, the students additionally analyzed
data from a photometry of a starch solution treated with amylase involving 24 measuring
points of absorbance (λ=576nm).
In the second experiment, the students investigated whether the enzyme’s activity is
dependent on temperature (part 1) and on pH (part 2). For this, catalase (extracted from
Saccharomyces cerevisiae) was treated with different temperatures (0, 20, 37, and 80°C) for
10 min and pH for 5 min (pH=1 [hydrochloric acid, 1%], 7 [water], 14 [caustic soda, 1%]).
After the incubation, the students added 10% hydrogen peroxide and observed foam forma-
tion depending on the temperature and pH. The foam is formed by the oxygen produced
during the decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide. As enzymes are proteins, the conforma-
tion of enzymes depends on environmental conditions such as temperature and pH. Hence,
enzymes can become denatured and lose their function by a change in these factors.
In the third experiment about substrate specificity, the students investigated whether an
enzyme could catalyze different reactions (part 1) and whether the presence of a similar
substrate may inhibit the reaction (part 2). In the first part, the students conducted an exper-
iment involving two urea solutions (2%), one methyl urea solution (2%), phenolphthalein
(0.1%), and urease (extracted from Canavalia gladiata). They added phenolphthalein and
treated the solutions with urease except of one urea solution. This untreated urea solution
was used as a blank sample. By adding the enzyme, the reaction of urea and water to form
ammonia and carbon dioxide is catalyzed. The increasing concentration of ammonia leads
to an increasing pH value, which can be detected by the indicator phenolphthalein. Since
methyl urea fits more poorly than urea into the active site of the enzyme, the reaction pro-
ceeds more slowly. During the experiment, the students carefully observed and interpreted
the varying colorization in the samples considering the lock and key principle. In the sec-
ond part, the experiment involved a suspension with urea (2%) and one with both urea (2%)
and methyl urea (5%) as well as the blank sample from the first part. The students added
phenolphthalein (0.1%) and urease. Methyl urea blocks the active site and slows down the
reaction of urea to ammonia (competitive inhibition). The slower colorization rate in the
mixed sample (urea and methyl urea) was observed and interpreted by the students.
Based on literature (e.g., Sommer etal., 2018, 2020; for a detailed description, see Kirch-
hoff etal., 2022), we designed the treatment conditions under the consideration of the environ-
mental characteristics location, time, supervision, materials, and grading, as shown in Table1.
Data analysis
First, in order to compare the students’ individual interest that was assessed prior to the inter-
vention between the investigated groups, a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was
performed. Gender was considered as covariate(see Krapp & Prenzel, 2011). Afterwards,
we tested whether the students’ psychological state of interest differed between the treat-
ments. We analyzed differences in students’ value-related, emotional, and epistemic compo-
nents of interest using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). Their individual
interest and gender were considered as covariates (see Priemer etal., 2018).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

465
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Table 1 Varied characteristics of the learning environments outreach science lab and school
Outreach science lab School
Location Laboratory at the university Regular biology classrooms at school
Time Field trip (180 min) Regular biology lesson times (two 45-minute and one 90-minute lessons or three 60-minute lessons)
Supervision One supervisor for six to eight students One supervisor for all students (20-25 students)
Materials Lab coats, safety glasses, and gloves for all students Lab coats, safety glasses, and gloves for the students working directly with hazardous materials
Microliter pipettes Disposable pipettes
Water baths with a built-in thermostat and tube rack Water bucket with thermometer and test tube stand; external water boiler for heating the water
Mixing of enzyme suspensions using a vortexer Mixing the enzyme suspensions by hand
Grading Performance during experimentation was not graded
by the supervisors or their regular teachers
Performance during experimentation was graded by their regular teachers
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

466
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Results
We did not find differences in students’ individual interest before the intervention (ANCOVA:
F(1, 399)= 1.11, p=.292; outreach science lab: M= 2.39, SD=1.09; school: M= 2.29,
SD=0.98). Gender had no impact on individual interest (F(1, 399)=2.88, p=.090). That
is, there were no differences between female and male students in our sample.
When it came to the analysis of our research question about differences in the
psychological state of interest between the outreach science lab and school treat-
ments, we considered the value-related, emotional, and epistemic components of
interest. A MANCOVA yielded a significant treatment effect (Wilks Λ = 0.97, F(3,
396)=3.96, p<.010, η2=.03). The covariates individual interest (Wilks Λ= 0.69,
F(3, 396)=60.10, p<.001, η2= .31) and gender (Wilks Λ=0.98, F(3, 396)= 2.66,
p<.05, η2=.02) had a significant effect on the students’ psychological state of interest.
In the differentiated analysis of the components of interest (Fig.1), a significant differ-
ence (F(1, 398)=8.20, p<.010, η2=.02) in favor of the school treatment was found for
the value-based component (outreach science lab: M=2.36; SD=0.84; school: M=2.53;
SD=0.82). Regarding the emotional and epistemic components, there were no significant
differences (emotional: F(1, 398)=2.54, p=.112; epistemic: F(1, 398)=0.06, p=.801).
In both treatment groups, the mean scores for the emotional component (outreach science
lab: M= 2.80; SD = 0.92; school: M= 2.90; SD = 0.85) and the epistemic component
(outreach science lab: M=2.38; SD = 0.77; school: M= 2.36; SD= 0.80) were in the
agreeing range (mean scores higher than 2=“neither agree nor disagree”).
Discussion
In this study, we aimed to investigate students’ psychological state of interest when per-
forming experiments at an outreach science lab and at school. In contrast to the assump-
tion that performing experiments at an outreach science lab may be more beneficial for
one’s psychological state of interest (Guderian & Priemer 2008; Scharfenberg et al.
Fig. 1 Means and standard deviation of the students’ psychological state of interest during experimentation
at the outreach science lab and at school (** p < .010)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

467
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
2019), our findings reveal that the students who performed experiments at the outreach
science lab did not exhibit a more intense psychological state of interest than those who
performed them at school. Regarding the value-related component of situational interest,
even small differences in favor of the students in the school treatment could be found.
The findings on the value-based component might be related to the integration of
the treatment into regular biology lessons in the school treatment (Guderian & Prie-
mer, 2008; Klees & Tillmann, 2015; Reimann etal., 2020). In this case, the workshop
was implemented during the learners’ regular biology lessons and their regular teachers
graded their performance. Therefore, the connection to the regular biology class and, as
a result, a higher degree of personal value of the content might have been clearer to the
students in the school treatment than during the singular visit to the outreach science
lab. In the outreach science lab, the students’ performance was not graded by their regu-
lar teachers. However, the tutors provided support and instruction during experimen-
tation to ensure that they could use the laboratory equipment themselves and perform
the experiments successfully. In this way, the students received implicit feedback about
their performance on the experiments. Nevertheless, the tutors’ informal feedback had
no relation to the formal school assessment. When experimenting at school, the students
might have attributed a higher degree of personal value to their experimental activities
than the students in the outreach science lab treatment.
In both learning environments, we found all components of the psychological state of
interest on a moderate to high level, with the highest values in the emotional component.
Accordingly, the students had quite similar emotional experiences during their experi-
ments in the outreach science lab and at school. In general, students evaluate hands-
on activities such as hands-on experiments positively and report that these activities
favored their psychological state of interest (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Holstermann
etal., 2010; Palmer etal., 2017; Potvin & Hasni, 2014; Swarat etal., 2012); for instance,
Itzek-Greulich and Vollmer (2017) suggest that the added value of outreach science labs
for the development of a psychological state of interest lies less in the learning environ-
ment itself and more in performing hands-on experiments(see also Formella-Zimmer-
mann etal., 2022), which are rarely or never performed at school (e.g., Dierkes, 2010;
Gerhard & Wrede, 2016). The fact that students performed the same experiments in
both learning environments accordingly might have led to similarly high scores in their
emotional component (Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017; Scheersoi etal., 2019).
In addition, we found no differences in the epistemic component between the learning
environments. However, previous studies have shown different findings; for instance, in
the study by Schüttler etal. (2021), the epistemic component was higher for students in
the outreach science lab who worked with high-end equipment such as high-resolution
thermal infrared cameras and a very precise scientific field spectrometer than for stu-
dents who did not have access to such devices at school. However, no differences were
found between the learning environments when low-cost equipment was used in the out-
reach science lab (Schüttler etal., 2021). In this regard, the materials used in our study
might have differed less between the learning environments compared to the materials
used in the study by Schüttler etal. (2021). This circumstance may explain why no dif-
ferences were found in the epistemic component.
In previous studies (e.g., Priemer etal., 2018), the epistemic component received par-
ticular attention as this component may play a key role in re-engaging with an object of
interest and, thus, in developing individual interest (Lewalter & Geyer, 2009; Mitchell,
1993; Renninger & Su, 2012). However, since students usually attend the courses of out-
reach science labs during a single one-day field trip, long-term effects after such a visit can
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

468
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
hardly be expected (see Palmer etal., 2017)and areusually not evident (Guderian & Prie-
mer, 2008; Lewalter, 2020; Nickolaus etal., 2018; Scharfenberg etal., 2019). Therefore,
it is important to incorporate the students’ experiences and impressions in the subsequent
lessons after visiting an outreach science lab and to provide additional opportunities for the
students to engage with the subject of interest (Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017; Reimann
etal., 2020; Schwarzer & Itzek-Greulich, 2015; Wüst-Ackermann etal., 2018).
In this regard, it has already been shown that content-related and organizational prepara-
tions contribute to the effectiveness of visits to out-of-school learning environments (Glow-
inski & Bayrhuber, 2011; Orion, 1993; Wilde & Bätz, 2006) and that preparation can have
positive effects on both knowledge acquisition (Reimann etal., 2020) and the psychological
state of interest (Guderian & Priemer, 2008; Streller, 2015). However, the workshop con-
ducted in this study was offered and used by teachers as an introduction to a teaching unit on
enzymology; hence, they did not provide content-related but only organizational preparation
(e.g., travelling to and from the workshop, meals, etc.) for the outreach science lab visit. This
was agreed upon with the regular biology teachers of the participating students and we did
not further control for instructional preparation. To control for this, the students’ prior knowl-
edge could be considered. In general, however, a visit to an outreach science lab or other
out-of-school learning environments should not be considered as a separate event or a substi-
tute for regular science lessons (Euler & Schüttler, 2020; Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011), but
instead should be understood as a complementary educational learning opportunity to regular
school lessons. Therefore, it is a desirable approach to intertwine school lessons and visits to
an outreach science lab (Eshach, 2007; Itzek-Greulich, 2020; Orion, 1993).
In our study, we compared students’ psychological state of interest between the learning
environments outreach science lab and school where students performed the same experi-
ments with the materials usually available in these environments based on a quite adequate
sample. We found that experimentation in the outreach science lab did not yield a benefit
in terms of students’ psychological state of interest compared to experimentation at school.
It may be possible that the key factor in the expression of the students’ psychological state
of interest was the activity of experimentation rather than differences between the learning
environments (see also Itzek-Greulich & Vollmer, 2017).
However, we have to note that the effects found cannot be attributed to single charac-
teristics of the two treatments investigated such as the different distribution of time (see
Table1). This aspect was not within the scope of our focus and represents another open
field of research (see Nickolaus etal., 2018). For instance, it may be possible that the dif-
ferent distribution of time between the treatments (see Table1) had an impact on the stu-
dents’ psychological state of interest. Although the students performed the experiments in
both treatments for the same amount of time (in total 180 mins), the school treatment was
conducted within students’ regular biology class andwas implemented across a sequence
of lessons similar to how a regular teaching unit would be conducted (e.g., Sommer etal.,
2018, 2020). On the one hand, the students in the outreach science lab were able to dive
deeper into the lesson (i.e., to deal with the content more intensively) as all experiments
were performed during the field trip, whereas in the school treatment the break between
two subsequent lessons could have been more than one day. On the other hand, it is pos-
sible that the students in the school treatment could cognitively better comprehend the con-
tents of the previous lesson in the time between the lessons and thus have some advantage
in this respect. Future studies may investigate the effects of single characteristics on stu-
dents’ psychological state of interest. For instance, the effect of the distribution of time
could be investigated by conducting the workshop in school on one school day as well.
Nonetheless, our design yields ecological validity (Lewkowicz, 2010) since we compared
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

469
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
students’ psychological state of interest between two authentic environments (e.g., Euler &
Schüttler, 2020; Sommer etal., 2018, 2020).
Furthermore, we have tonote that our study involves only one data source taken from
one certain type ofworkshop at one singleoutreach science lab. Under these circumstances,
the ability to draw general conclusions is limited. However, we considered different school
types (university track high schools [Gymnasium] and comprehensive schools [Gesamts-
chule]) and previous descriptions of outreach science labs (e.g., Sommer etal., 2018, 2020;
for a detailed description, see Kirchhoff etal., 2022) in the design and implementation of
our treatments (see Table1). Therefore, the design is representative and it is not excluded
that the effects found can be replicated using other data sources. Nevertheless, future studies
could take other perspectives (i.e., data sources or methods) to achieve a more comprehen-
sive understanding of the interest-promoting effect of outreach science labs.
Regarding classroom teaching practice, these findings suggest that experimentation at
school can have similar positive motivational effects as conducting it in outreach science
labs. However, these results do not generally indicate that an educational field trip to an out-
reach science lab does not provide an added value for science classes. Outreach science lab
programs can complement regular school science classes by providing positive experiences
and insights into practical laboratory work and working areas in a “real” scientific laboratory
that school-based instruction alone may not provide. School-based instruction is limited in
this regard (Euler & Schüttler, 2020; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Röllke etal., 2021; Sommer
etal., 2018, 2020). Science classrooms at schools lack (high-end) laboratory equipment and
are designed very differently from the laboratory rooms at outreach science labs at universi-
ties (see Goldschmidt & Bogner, 2016;Röllke etal., 2021). As we aimed to compare the stu-
dents’ psychological state of interest during experimentation in an outreach science lab and at
school, we had to choose experiments that could be carried out in both learning environments
with the materials normally available in these environments; otherwise, the students’ psycho-
logical state of interest would be hard to compare or it would even be incomparable. When
it comes to performing more complex hands-on experiments that require special laboratory
materials that are not available in schools (e.g., genetic engineering, Goldschmidt & Bogner,
2016), there may be currently no alternative to outreach science labs.
Acknowledgments The authors want to thank the participating schools, teachers, and students for their sup-
port and participation in the study.
Author contributions TK developed the concept of and design for the study, recruited the sample, per-
formed the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of all article sections. MW contributed to the study
design and reviewed the article. NG contributed to the study design and the statistical analyses and reviewed
the article. All authors agree to be accountable for the content of the work, as well as read and approved the
submitted manuscript.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This project is part of the "Qual-
itätsoffensive Lehrerbildung", a joint initiative of the Federal Government and theLänderwhich aims to
improve the quality of teacher training. The programme is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (funding number 01JA1908). The authors are responsible for the content of this publication.
Data Availability The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the
authors on reasonablerequest.
Declarations The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the ethics commit-
tee at Bielefeld University (Ethik-Kommission der Universität Bielefeld) and written informed consent was
obtained from each participant.
Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of
this article.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

470
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Affeldt, F., Weitz, K., Siol, A., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2015). A non-formal student laboratory as a place for
innovation in education for sustainability for all students. Education in Science, 5(3), 238–254. https://
doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci503 0238
Anger, C., Kohlisch, E., Koppel, O., & Plünnecke, A. (2022). MINT-Frühjahrsreport 2022 [STEM Spring
Report 2022]. Gutachten für BDA, MINT Zukunft schaffen und Gesamtmetall, Köln. Retrieved,
August 26 2022, from https:// www. iwkoe ln. de/ studi en/ chris tina- anger- enno- kohli sch- oliver- koppel-
axel- pluen necke- demog rafie- dekar bonis ierung- und- digit alisi erung- erhoe hen- mint- bedarf. html
Brandt, A. (2005). Förderung von Motivation und Interesse durch außerschulische Experimentierlabors
[Promoting motivation and interest through extracurricular experimental laboratories]. Cuvillier
Verlag.
Dähnhardt, D., Sommer, K., & Euler, M. (2007). Lust auf Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Lernen im Schül-
erlabor [Desire for science and technology. Learning at an outreach science lab]. Naturwissenschaften
im Unterricht Chemie, 18, 4–10.
Damerau, K. (2012). Molekulare und Zell-Biologie im Schülerlabor - Fachliche Optimierung und Evalua-
tion der Wirksamkeit im BeLL Bio (Bergisches Lehr-Lern-Labor Biologie) [Molecular and cell biology
in the outreach science laboratory - Subject-specific optimisation and evaluation of effectiveness in
BeLL Bio (Bergisches Lehr-Lern-Labor Biologie)] (Dissertation). Bergische Universität Wuppertal.
Desch, I., Stiller, C., & Wilde, M. (2016). Förderung des situationsspezifischen Interesses durch eine Schül-
erwahl des Unterrichtsthemas. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 63(1), 60–74. https:// doi. org/
10. 2378/ peu20 16. art06d
Dierkes, P. (2010). Forschen, Lernen und Lehren im Schülerlabor. Das Goethe-BioLab verbindet attrak-
tive Lernangebote mit didaktischer Forschung [Doing research, learning and teaching in the outreach
science lab. The Goethe-BioLab combines attractive learning opportunities with didactic research].
Forschung Frankfurt, 2, 44–47.
Engeln, K. (2004). Schülerlabors: Authentische und aktivierende Lernumgebungen als Möglichkeit, Inter-
esse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken [Outreach science labs: Authentic and activating
learning environments as a way to foster interest in science and technology] (Dissertation). Logos.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal edu-
cation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10956- 006- 9027-1
Euler, M., & Schüttler, T. (2020). Schülerlabore [Outreach science labs]. In E. Kircher, R. Girwidz, & H. E.
Fischer (Eds.), Physikdidaktik: Methoden und Inhalte (pp. 127–166). Springer.
Formella-Zimmermann, S., Kleespies, M. W., & Dierkes, P. W. (2022). Motivation and technology accept-
ance in a neuroscience student lab – an empirical comparison between virtual experiments with and
without hands-on elements. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 817598. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc.
2022. 817598
Frey, A., Taskinen, P., Schütte, K., Prenzel, M., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., …, Pekrun, R. (2009). PISA 2006
Skalenhandbuch. Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA 2006 Scale Manual. Documenta-
tion of the survey instruments]. Waxmann.
Garner, N., Hayes, S., & Eilks, I. (2014). Linking formal and non-formal learning in science education – a
reflection from two cases in Ireland and Germany. Journal of Education, 2(2), 10–31. https:// doi. org/
10. 25749/ sis. 4064
Gerhard, M., & Wrede, J. (2016). Mehr Zeit zum Experimentieren –Erfahrungen mit vorbereitenden Vide-
oclips (ICM) während einer Unterrichtseinheit „Enzymatik“ in der Oberstufe [More Time to Experi-
ment –Experience with preparatory video clips (ICM) during an enzymology lesson in high school].
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

471
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Biologie (ZDB) - Biologie Lehren und Lernen, 20(1), 82–91. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 4119/ zdb- 1637
Glowinski, I., & Bayrhuber, H. (2011). Student labs on a university campus as a type of out-of-school learn-
ing environment: Assessing the potential to promote students’ interest in science. International Jour-
nal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(4), 371–392.
Goldschmidt, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Learning about genetic engineering in an outreach laboratory:
Influence of motivation and gender on students’ cognitive achievement. International Journal of Sci-
ence Education, 6(2), 166–187. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21548 455. 2015. 10312 93
Großmann, N., & Wilde, M. (2020). Promoting interest by supporting learner autonomy: The effects of
teaching behaviour in biology lessons. Research in Science Education, 50, 1763–1788. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s11165- 018- 9752-5
Großmann, N., Kaiser, L.-M., Salim, B., Ahmed, A.-K., & Wilde, M. (2021). Jahrgangsstufenspezifischer
Vergleich der motivationalen Regulation im Biologieunterricht und des individuellen Interesses an
biologischen Themen von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Sekundarstufe I. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der
Biologie (ZDB) Biologie Lehren und Lernen, 25, 134–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11576/ zdb- 4095
Guderian, P. (2007). Wirksamkeitsanalyse außerschulischer Lernorte - Der Einfluss mehrmaliger Besuche
eines Schülerlabors auf die Entwicklung des Interesses an Physik [Analysis of the effectiveness of out-
of-school learning environments - The influence of repeated visits to an outreach science laboratory on
the development of interest in physics] (Dissertation). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Guderian, P., & Priemer, B. (2008). Interesseförderung durch Schülerlaborbesuche – Eine Zusammenfas-
sung der Forschung in Deutschland [Promoting interest through visiting outreach science labs - A sum-
mary of research in Germany]. Physik und Didaktik in Schule und Hochschule, 7, 27–36.
Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand differ-
ent learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 09500 693. 2014. 899722
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first
century. Science Education, 88, 28–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sce. 10106
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’
interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11165- 009- 9142-0
Itzek-Greulich, H. (2020). Die Anbindung von Schülerlaborprojekten an die Schule [Connecting outreach
science labs to the school]. In K. Sommer, J. Wirth, & M. Vanderbeke (Eds.), Handbuch Forschen im
Schülerlabor (pp. 139–149). Waxmann.
Itzek-Greulich, H., & Vollmer, C. (2017). Emotional and motivational outcomes of lab work in the second-
ary intermediate track. The contribution of a science center outreach lab. Journal of Research in Sci-
ence Teaching, 54, 3–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ tea. 21334
Jördens, J., & Hammann, M. (2021). Driven by topics: High school students’ interest in evolutionary biol-
ogy. Research in Science Education, 51(3), 599–616. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11165- 018- 9809-5
Kirchhoff, T., Randler, C., & Großmann, N. (2023). Experimenting at an outreach science lab vs. at school
– differences in students’ basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and flow experience. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ tea. 21859
Kirchhoff, T., Wilde, M., & Großmann, N. (2022). "I’ve always thought that I was not good at experi-
ments…" – The benefit of non-formal learning in terms of students’ perceived competence. Frontiers
in Psychology, 13, Article 882185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2022. 882185
Klees, G., & Tillmann, A. (2015). Design-Based Research als Forschungsansatz in der Fachdidaktik Biolo-
gie [Design-Based Research as a research approach in biology didactics]. Journal für Didaktik der
Biowissenschaften, 6(1), 91–110.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations.
Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 381–395. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. learn instr uc. 2005. 07. 007
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest. International Journal of Edu-
cational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10775- 007- 9113-9
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: theories, methods, and findings. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 33, 27–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09500 693. 2010. 518645
Krapp, A., Geyer, C., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Motivation und Emotion [Motivation and emotion]. In T. Sei-
del & A. Krapp (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (6th ed., pp. 193–222). Beltz PVU.
Lewalter, D. (2020). Schülerlaborbesuche aus motivationaler Sicht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des
Interesses [Outreach science lab visits from a motivational point of view with special attention to inter-
est.]. In K. Sommer, J. Wirth, & M. Vanderbeke (Eds.), Handbuch Forschen im Schülerlabor (pp.
63–70). Waxmann.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

472
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Lewalter, D., & Geyer, C. (2009). Motivationale Aspekte von schulischen Besuchen in naturwissen-
schaftlich-technischen Museen [Motivational aspects of school visits to science and technology muse-
ums]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12, 28–44.
Lewkowicz, D. J. (2010). The concept of ecological validity: What are its limitations and is it bad to be
invalid? Infancy, 2, 437–450. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7078I N0204_ 03
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A., &
Harackiewicz, M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 70(4), 647–671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64409 355699
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics
classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436.
Nickolaus, R., Steffensky, M., & Parchmann, I. (2018). Expertise zu Effekten zentraler außerschulischer
MINT-Angebote. Nationales MINT Forum [Report on the effects of central extracurricular STEM
offerings. National STEM Forum]. Retrieved January 28, 2020, from https:// www. natio nales mintf
orum. de/ filea dmin/ medie nabla ge/ conte nt/ veran stalt ungen/6_ NMG_ 2018/ pdf/ NMF- Exper tise_ zu_
Effek ten_ zentr aler_ au_ ersch ulisc her_ MINT- Angeb ote_ 2018. pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006. Science compe-
tencies for tomorrow’s world (volume 1: analysis). PISA, OECD Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/
97892 64040 014- en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume
I): Excellence and Equity in Education. PISA, OECD Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 97892 64266
490- en
Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the
science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1949-
8594. 1993. tb122 54.x
Palmer, D., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2017). Using situational interest to enhance individual interest and
science-related behaviours. Research in Science Education, 47(4), 731–753. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11165- 016- 9526-x
Pawek, C. (2009). Schülerlabore als interessefördernde außerschulische Lernumgebungen für Schülerinnen und
Schüler aus der Mittel- und Oberstufe [Outreach science labs as interest-promoting out-of-school learning
environments for middle and high school students] (Dissertation). Christian-Albrechts Universität.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12
levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1),
85–129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03057 267. 2014. 881626
Priemer, B., Menzl, C., Hagos, F., Musold, W., & Schulz, J. (2018). Das situationale epistemische Inter-
esse an physikalischen Themen von Mädchen und Jungen nach dem Besuch eines Schülerlabors
[Girls‘ and boys‘ situational epistemic interest in physics topics after a visit to an out-of-school sci-
ence lab]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 24, 279–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s40573- 018- 0073-z
Reimann, M., Herzog, S., Parchmann, I., & Schwarzer, S. (2020). Wirksamkeit der schulischen Vor- und
Nachbereitung eines Schülerlaborbesuches [Effectiveness of preparation and follow-up lessons in
school of a student lab visit]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 26, 227–240. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40573- 020- 00121-y
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the Conceptualization, Measurement, and Generation of
Interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00461 520. 2011. 587723
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.
Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of human motivation (pp. 167–187). Oxford University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/ 97801
95399 820. 013. 0011
Röllke, K., Sellmann-Risse, D., Wenzel, A., & Grotjohann, N. (2021). Impact of inquiry-based learning in
a molecular biology class on the dimensions of students’ situational interest. International Journal of
Science Education, 43(17), 2843–2865. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09500 693. 2021. 19933 77
Scharfenberg, F.-J. (2005). Experimenteller Biologieunterricht zu Aspekten der Gentechnik im Lernort
Labor. Empirische Untersuchung zu Akzeptanz, Wissenserwerb und Interesse [Experimental biology
lessons on aspects of genetic engineering in the laboratory learning environment. Empirical study on
acceptance, knowledge acquisition and interest] (Dissertation). Universität Bayreuth.
Scharfenberg, F.-J., Möller, A., Kaufmann, K., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). Schülerlabore und Lehr-Lern-
Labore [Outreach science labs and teaching-learning labs]. In J. Groß, M. Hammann, P. Schmiemann,
& J. Zabel (Eds.), Biologiedidaktische Forschung: Erträge für die Praxis (pp. 229–250). Springer.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 662- 58443-9_ 13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

473
Research in Science Education (2024) 54:459–473
1 3
Scheersoi, A., Bögeholz, S., & Hammann, M. (2019). Biologiedidaktische Interessenforschung: Empirische
Befunde und Ansatzpunkte für die Praxis [Biology didactic research on interest: Empirical find-
ings and starting points for practice.]. In J. Groß, M. Hammann, P. Schmiemann, & J. Zabel (Eds.),
Biologiedidaktische Forschung: Erträge für die Praxis (pp. 37–55). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
978-3- 662- 58443-9_3
Schiepe-Tiska, A., Simm, I., & Schmidtner, S. (2016). Motivationale Orientierungen, Selbstbilder und
Berufserfahrungen in den Naturwissenschaften in PISA 2015 [Motivational orientations, self-percep-
tions, and career experiences in science in PISA 2015]. In K. Reiss, C. Sälzer, A. Schiepe-Tiska, E.
Klieme, & O. Köller (Eds.), PISA 2015 Eine Studie zwischen Kontinuität und Innovation (pp. 99–132).
Waxmann.
Schüttler, T., Watzka, B., Girwidz, R., & Ertl, B. (2021). Die Wirkung der Authentizität von Lernort und
Laborgeräten auf das situationale Interesse und die Relevanzwahrnehmung beim Besuch eines natur-
wissenschaftlichen Schülerlabors [Effects of an authentic location and laboratory equipment for
the situational interest and the perception of content relevance when visiting an out-of-school sci-
ence lab]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 27, 109–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s40573- 021- 00128-z
Schwarzer, S., & Itzek-Greulich, H. (2015). Möglichkeiten und Wirkungen von Schülerlaboren. Vor- und
Nachbereitung zur Vernetzung mit dem Schulunterricht [Possibilities and effects of outreach science
labs. Pre- and post-processing for networking with school lessons]. Naturwissenschaften im Unter-
richt: Chemie, 26(147), 8–13.
Sommer, K., Firstein, A., & Rothstein, B. (2020). Authentizität (der Wissenschaftsvermittlung) im Schül-
erlabor [Authenticity (of science teaching) in an outreach science lab]. In K. Sommer, J. Wirth, &
M. Vanderbeke (Eds.), Handbuch Forschen im Schülerlabor. Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische
Forschungsmethoden und aktuelle Anwendungsbeispiele (pp. 21–30). Waxmann.
Sommer, K., Wirth, J., & Rummel, N. (2018). Authentizität der Wissenschaftsvermittlung im Schülerlabor
– Einführung in den Thementeil [Authenticity of science teaching in the student lab - Introduction].
Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46, 253–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42010- 018- 0022-z
Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ tea. 21010
Streller, M. (2015). The educational effects of pre and post-work in out-of-school laboratories (Disserta-
tion). Technische Universität Dresden.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments
in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11165- 016- 9602-2
Vogt, H. (2007). Theorie des Interesses und Nicht-Interesses [Theory of interest and non-interest]. In D.
Krüger & H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung (pp. 9–20). Springer.
Wilde, M., & Bätz, K. (2006). Einfluss unterrichtlicher Vorbereitung auf das Lernen im Naturkundemu-
seum. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 12, 77–89.
Wüst-Ackermann, P., Vollmer, C., Randler, C., & Itzek-Greulich, H. (2018). The Vivarium: Maximizing
learning with living invertebrates - an out-of-school intervention is more effective than an equivalent
lesson at school. Insects, 9(3), 1–26, https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ insec ts901 0003
Zhang, F., & Bae, C. L. (2020). Motivational factors that influence student science achievement: A system-
atic literature review of TIMSS studies. International Journal of Science Education, 42(17), 2921–
2944. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09500 693. 2020. 18430 83
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com