Sparks of Learning

Insights from an After-School Science Museum Program for Teenagers
  • Marina Mehai


Since the 1980s, museums have experienced pressure to provide evidence for their impact on the communities with which they engage (Scott, 2003). While many informal learning environments have developed and are currently implementing evaluations to capture evidence illuminating the efficacy of their programming, various literature reviews on the topic recognize that there is a need for the development of common frameworks for data collection and the sharing of evaluation results among science centres (Association of Science and Discovery Centres [ASDC], 2010; Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Fedler, 2009).


Science Teaching High School Student Science Learning Focus Group Interview Personal Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajjawi, R., & Higgs, J. (2007). Using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate clinical reasoning. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 612–638. Retrieved from Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2011). Future science leaders program [Syllabus], Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from Science World.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2006). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91, 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., Lucas, K., Ginns, I., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Science Education, 84(5), 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, D., Piscitelli, B., Weier, K., Everett, M., & Tayler, C. (2002). Children’s museum experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning. Curator, 45(3), 231–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, D., Storksdieck, M., & Spock, M. (2007). Understanding the long-term impact of museum experiences. In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking, & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  7. Apsler, R. (2009). After-school programs for adolescents: A review of evaluation research. Adolescence, 44(173), 1–19.Google Scholar
  8. Association for Science and Discovery Centres. (2010). Assessing the impact of UK science and discovery centres: Towards a set of common indicators. Retrieved from;%20towards%20a%20set%20of%20common%20indicators%20%20May%2021%202010%20ASDC.pdf
  9. Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Fedler, M. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bell, R., Blair, L., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? The impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bevan, B., & Xanthoudaki, M. (2008). Professional development for museum educators. Journal of Museum Education, 33(1), 107–120.Google Scholar
  13. Briseño-Garzón, A., Anderson, D., & Anderson, A. (2007). Adult learning experiences from an aquarium visit: The role of social interactions in family groups. Curator, 50(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, A. L. (1988). Motivation to learn and understand: On taking charge of one’s own learning. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryman, A., Teevan, J. J., & Bell, E. (2009). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Canadian Association of Science Centres. (2008). STEP Up Canada! Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from Scholar
  17. Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 4. doi: 10.3102/0013189X023007004Google Scholar
  18. DeWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2007). Supporting teachers on science focused field trips: Towards an integrated framework of theory and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 29(6), 685–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeWitt, J., & Storksdiek, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dohn, N. B. (2011). Situational interest of high school students who visit an aquarium. Science Education, 95(2), 337–357. doi: 10.1002/sce.20425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experience and the making of meaning. New York, NY: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  23. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95% solution: School is not where most Americans learn most of their science. American Scientist, 98, 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2011). Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Learning science from museums Museus eo aprendizado da ciência. História, Ciências, Saúde–Manguinhos, 12, 117–143. Retrieved from Scholar
  26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring a new area of cognitive—developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Gammon, B. (2003). Assessing learning in museum environment: A practical guide for museum evaluators. London, UK. Retrieved from Scholar
  29. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606.Google Scholar
  30. Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the museum. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Kisiel, J. (2006). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural historymuseum. Science Education, 90(3), 434–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knox, K. L., Moynihan, J. A., & Markowitz, D. G. (2003). Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taunton, UK: Stan Lester Developments. Retrieved from Scholar
  34. Lord, B. T., & Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving students from information recitation to information understanding: Exploiting Bloom’s taxonomy in creating science questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 40–44.Google Scholar
  35. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Research, 17(2), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McLeod, J., & Kilpatrick, K. M. (2001). Exploring science at the museum. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 59–63.Google Scholar
  38. Morse, J. M. (1993). Critical issues in qualitative research methodology. Salt Lake City, UT: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Nashon, S., & Anderson, D. (2004). Obsession with ‘g’: A metacognitive reflection on a laboratory episode. Alberta Science Education Journal, 36(2), 39–44.Google Scholar
  40. National Science Board [NSB]. (2006). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: The National Science Board. Retrieved from
  41. Neuman, S. B. (2010). Empowered: After school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 30–36.Google Scholar
  42. Nielsen, W. S., Nashon, S., & Anderson, D. (2008). Metacognitive engagement during field-trip experiences: A case study of students in an amusement park physics program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ornek, F. (2008). An overview of a theoretical framework of phenomenography in qualitative education research: An example from physics education research. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), Article 11. Retrieved from
  44. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  45. Rennie, L. J., & Johnston, D. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S4–S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 40, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott, C. (2003). Museums and impact. Curator, 46(3), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scott-Little, C., Hamann, M. S., & Jurs, S. G. (2002). Evaluations of after-school programs: A metaevaluation of methodologies and narrative synthesis of findings. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 387–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stake, R. E. (1997). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Contemporary methods for research in education (2nd ed., pp. 399–446). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  50. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved from
  53. Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas, G. P., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self- efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, England: The University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  56. Yürük, N., Ozdemir, O., & Beeth, M. E. (2003). The role of metacognition in facilitating conceptual change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Mehai
    • 1
  1. 1.Secondary Science and Math TeacherCoquitlam School DistrictBritish Columbia

Personalised recommendations