American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Educational Research. 2016, 4(1), 115-125
DOI: 10.12691/education-4-1-18
Open AccessArticle

Improving Pupils’ Conceptual Understanding by a Connected In-school and Out-of-school Science Program: A Multiple Case Study

C. H. Geveke1, 2, , H. W. Steenbeek1, 2, J. M. Doornenbal1 and P. C. L. van Geert2

1Department of Teacher Education and Center of Expertise Healthy Ageing, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Zernikeplein 9, 9747 AS Groningen, The Netherlands

2Department of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands

Pub. Date: January 26, 2016

Cite this paper:
C. H. Geveke, H. W. Steenbeek, J. M. Doornenbal and P. C. L. van Geert. Improving Pupils’ Conceptual Understanding by a Connected In-school and Out-of-school Science Program: A Multiple Case Study. American Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 4(1):115-125. doi: 10.12691/education-4-1-18


The number of out-of-school science programs, which refers to science education at outside school environments, is gradually increasing. Although out-of-school programs are generally considered to be important for the development of pupils’ science knowledge and skills, more evidence concerning the learning effect of these programs is needed. In the present study, we explored whether different degrees of implementation of a connected in-school and out-of-school science program affect pupils’ cognitive science skills in relation to teachers’/instructors’ support. We used a multiple case study design with four cases comprising three different degrees of program implementation: optimal, intermediary and marginal. The cases comprised pupils of upper grade elementary school classes, their teachers, and the instructors of the out-of-school activity. The effect of the program was measured by coding pupils’ performance with a scale based on skill theory, and by coding teacher’s/instructor’s support with the Openness Scale. The data was gathered from microgenetic measurements over time, corresponding with an in-depth analysis of the process of change in naturalistic conditions. We found the highest learning effect in the optimal program implementation, which indicates that it is favorable to implement the complete program, and train teachers/instructors to use open teaching focused on conceptual understanding.

scientific reasoning conceptual understanding complex thinking cognitive development teaching skills teaching and learning process science education interaction out-of-school science programs implementation

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.Y., Sanders, D. and Benefield, P., A review of research on outdoor learning, Preston Montford, Shropshire, UK, 2004.
[2]  Tenenbaum, H. R., Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G. and Vogel Zanger, V., “Children’s learning about water in a museum and in the classroom,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 40-58, 2004.
[3]  Knapp, D., “A longitudinal analysis of an out-of-school science experience,” School Science and Mathematics, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 44-51, 2007.
[4]  Griffin, J., “Research on students and museums: looking more closely at the students in school groups,” Science Education, vol. 88, no. S1, pp. S59-S70, 2004.
[5]  Braun, M. and Reiss, M., “Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out‐of‐school learning,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1373-1388, 2006.
[6]  Behrendt, M. and Franklin, T., “A review of research on school field trips and their value in education,”International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 235-245, 2014.
[7]  Salmi, H., “Evidence of bridging the gap between formal education and informal learning through teacher education,” Reflecting Eduction, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 45-61, 2012.
[8]  DeWitt, J. and Osborne, J., “Supporting teachers on science‐focused school trips: towards an integrated framework of theory and practice, International Journal of Science Education, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 685-710, 2007.
[9]  Bitgood, S., “School field trips: an overview,” Visitor Behavior, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 3-6, 1989.
[10]  Griffin, J. M.,School-museum integrated learning experiences in science: a learning journey, PhD thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, 1998.
[11]  Leary, R. F., “Field trip tips,” Science and Children, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 27-29, 1996.
[12]  Rennie, L.J. and McClafferty, T. P., “Using visits to interactive science and technology centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos to promote learning in science,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 175-185, 1995.
[13]  Flynn, E., Pine, K. and Lewis, C., “Using the microgenetic method to investigate cognitive development: an introduction,” Infant Child Development, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-6, 2007.
[14]  Siegler, R. S. and Svetina, M., “A microgenetic/cross-sectional study of matrix completion: comparing short-term and long-term change,” Child Development, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 793-809, 2002.
[15]  Tal, R., Bamberger, Y. and Morag, O., “Guided school visits to natural history museums in Israel: teachers’ roles,” Science Education, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 920-935, 2005.
[16]  Cox-Petersen A. M. and Pfaffinger, J. A., “Teacher preparation and teacher-student interactions at a discovery center of natural history,” Journal of Elementary Science Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 20-35, 1998.
[17]  Durlak J. A. and DuPre, E. P., “Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation.,” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 41, no. 3-4, pp. 327-50, 2008.
[18]  Gutwill, J.P. and Allen, S., “Deepening students’ scientific inquiry skills during a science museum field trip,” Journal of Learning Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 130-181, 2012.
[19]  Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C., “Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology,” in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, K. Sawyer, Ed., pp. 97-118, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2006.
[20]  Krathwohl, D. R. “A revision of Bloom ’s taxonomy: an overview,” Theory into Practice, vol. 41, no.4. pp. 212-218, 2002.
[21]  Chi, M. T. H. andOhlsson, S., “Complex declarative learning,” in Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison, Eds., pp. 371-399, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[22]  Ohlsson, S., Moher, T.G. and Johnson, A., “Deep learning in virtual reality: how to teach children that the earth is round,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, L. R. Gleitman and A. K. Joshi, Eds., pp. 364-368, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2000.
[23]  Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G. and Martin, L., “A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts,” The Journal of Museum Education, vol. 22, no. 2-3, pp. 3-8, 1997.
[24]  Fischer, K. W. and Bidell, T. R., “Dynamic development of action and thought and emotion,” in Theoretical Models of Human Development. Handbook of Child Psychology, R. M. Lerner and W. Damon, Eds., vol. 1, pp. 313-399, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 6th edition, 2006.
[25]  Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Tenenbaum, H. R., Koepke, M. F. and Fischer, K. W., “Transient and robust knowledge: contextual support and the dynamics of children's reasoning about density,” Mind, Brain, and Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98-108, 2007.
[26]  Schwartz, M. and Fischer, K. W., “Buildig general knowledge and skill: cognition and microdevelopment in science learning.,” in Cognitive Developmental Change: Theories, Models, and Measurement, A. Demetriou and A. Raftopoulos, Eds., pp. 157-185, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004.
[27]  Meindertsma, H. B., Van Dijk, M. W. G, Steenbeek, H. W. and Van Geert, P. L. C., “Assessment of preschooler’s scientific reasoning in adult–child interactions: what is the optimal context?,” Research in Science Education, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 215-237, 2014.
[28]  Van der Steen, S., Steenbeek, H., Wielinski, J. and Van Geert, P., “A comparison between young students with and without special needs on their understanding of scientific concepts,” Education Research International, vol. 2012, pp. 1-12, 2012.
[29]  Meindertsma, H. B., Predictions and explanations: short-term processes of scientific understanding in young children, PhD theses, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 2014.
[30]  Smith, L. B. and Thelen, E., “Development as a dynamic system,” Trends Cognitive Sciences, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 343-348, 2003.
[31]  Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J. and Tenenbaum, H. R., “Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1-18, 2011.
[32]  Krajcik, J. S. and Blumenfeld, P., “Project-based learning,” in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. K. Sawyer, , pp. 317-334, Ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[33]  Roth, W. M., “Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: interactions of context, content, and student responses,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 709-736, 1996.
[34]  Van Zee, E. and Minstrell, J., “Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking,” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 227-269, 1997.
[35]  Chin, C., “Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses,” Internationa Journal of Science Education, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1315-1346, 2006.
[36]  Stahl, R. J., “Using “Think-Time” and “Wait-Time” Skillfully in the Classroom,” ERIC Digest, ED370885, pp. 1-6, 1994
[37]  Van Zee, E. H., “Should professional development include analyzing and coaching ways of speaking during inquiry-based science instruction in elementary classrooms?,” Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 847-854, 2009.
[38]  Shulman, L. S., “Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching,” Educational Researcher, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 4-14, 1986.
[39]  Rowe, M. B., “Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: part one-wait-time,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 81-94, 1974.
[40]  Wetzels, A. F. M., Curious Minds in the Classroom: The Influence of Video Feedback Coaching for Teachers in Science and Technology Lessons, PhD theses, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 2015.
[41]  Dunbar, K. N. and Fugelsang, J., “Scientific thinking and reasoning,” in Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison, Eds., pp. 705-725, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[42]  Azmitia, M. and Crowley, K., “The rhythms of scientific thinking: a study of collaboration in an earthquake microworld,” in Designing for Science: Implications From Everyday, Classroom, and Professional Settings, K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, and T. Okada, Eds., pp. 51-82, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001.
[43]  Candela, A., “Earthly Talk,” Human Development, vol. 44, no. 2–3, pp. 119-125, 2001.
[44]  Van der Sijde, P. C., “The effect of a brief teacher training on student achievement,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 303-314, 1989.
[45]  Bos, J. and Steenbeek, H., Mediacoder, A Simple Application For Coding Behavior within Media Files. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, 2010.
[46]  Good, P. I., Resampling Methods: A Practical Guide to Data Analysis, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
[47]  Hood, G. M.,PopTools, Pest Animal Control Co-operative Research Center (CSIRO), Canbarra, Australia, 2010.
[48]  Simonoff, J. S., Smoothing Methods in Statistics, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
[49]  Harkins, H. K.,Influences on practice: a study of teachers who implemented curriculum-based field trips with classroom connections, PhD Theses, paper 74, University of Connecticut, 2013.
[50]  Steenbeek, H., Jansen, L. and Van Geert, P., “Scaffolding dynamics and the emergence of problematic learning trajectories,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 64-75, 2012.
[51]  Leach, D. J. and Conto, H., “The additional effects of process and outcome feedback following brief in‐service teacher training,” Educational Psychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 441-462, 1999.