The Effect of Interest and Engagement in Learning Science on Adults’ Scientific Competency and Environmental Action
More details
Hide details
Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, TAIWAN
Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, TAIWAN
Publish date: 2018-08-12
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1609
Although existing research has documented the significant relationship among student interest, engagement, and learning outcome, limited studies have investigated how adults’ interest and engagement in learning science are related to their scientific competency and environmental action. This study used 2012 and 2015 national datasets which were collected from face-to-face interviews representing how the interest and engagement of Taiwan citizens in understanding and exposure to science in society synergistically interact with their scientific competency and environmental action. Results showed that engagement in learning is more predictive to scientific competency and environmental action than interest. In addition, engagement in visiting science museums appears to be a superior venue for promoting adults’ environmental action than watching science related TV programs. These findings reveal an effective strategy of promoting adult environmental action through science communication and the importance of deep science learning.
1. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4-12.
2. Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2011). Using tourism free-choice learning experiences to promote environmentally sustainable behavior: the role of post-visit ‘action resources’. Environmental Education Research, 17(2), 201-215.
3. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington: National Academies Press.
4. Davidson, S. K., Passmore, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Learning on zoo field trips: The interaction of the agendas and practices of students, teachers, and zoo educators. Science Education, 94, 122-141.
5. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
6. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
7. Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Staus, N., Wyld, J., Bailey, D., & Penuel, W. (2016). The Synergies research-practice partnership project: A 2020 Vision case study. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 195–212.
8. Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 455-469.
9. Fielding, K. S., & Head, B. W. (2012). Determinants of young Australians’ environmental actions: the role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 171-186.
10. George, R., & Kaplan, D. (1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82(1), 93-109.<93::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-W.
11. Grabau, L. J., & Ma, X. (2017). Science engagement and science achievement in the context of science instruction: a multilevel analysis of U.S. students and schools. International Journal of Science Education, 39(8), 1045-1068.
12. Hampden-Thompson, G., & Bennett, J. (2013). Science teaching and learning activities and students’ engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1325-1343.
13. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
14. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In H. RH (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Jack, B. M., & Lin, H. S. (2017). Making learning interesting and its application to the science classroom. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 137-164.
16. Jack, B. M., Lin, H. S., & Yore, L. (2014). The synergistic effect of affective factors on student learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 1084-1101.
17. Krombaß, A., & Harms, U. (2008). Acquiring knowledge about biodiversity in a museum- Are worksheets effective? Journal of Biological Science, 42(4), 157-163.
18. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Huang, T. C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25-42.
19. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., Chen, C. C. & Chou, C. H. (2011). The effect of integrating aesthetic understanding in reflective inquiry activities. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1199-1217.
20. Lin, H., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S., & Hong, Z. (2013). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science related activities. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941-954.
21. Lo, A. Y. (2016). National income and environmental concern: Observations from 35 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 873-890.
22. Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2013). TIMSS 2015 Assessment Frameworks. Retrieved from
23. National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25. National Science Board (NSB). (2010). Science and engineering indicators-2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from
26. Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908-937.
27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Paris, France: Author.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). PISA 2015 results- Excellence and equity in education volume 1. Paris, France: Author.
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).(2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris, France: Author.
30. Palmer, D. (2004). Situational interest and the attitudes towards science of primary teacher education students. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 895–908.
31. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921.
32. Sakellari, M. (2015). Cinematic climate change, a promising perspective on climate change communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 827-841.
33. Stapleton, S. R. (2015). Environmental identity development through social interactions, actions, and recognition. The Journal of Environmental Education, 46(2), 94-113.
34. Su, Y. S., Ding, T. J., & Lai, C. F. (2017). Analysis of students engagement and learning performance in a social community supported computer programming course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(9), 6189-6201.
35. Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2006). Students’ interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 124-129.
36. Wellcome Trust Monitor. (2012). Wellcome Trust Monitor 1: Wellcome Trust Monitor Survey report. Retrieved from
37. Wilks, L., & Harris, N. (2016). Examining the conflict and interconnectedness of young people’s ideas about environmental issues, responsibility and action. Environmental Education Research, 22(5), 683-696.
38. Wu, K. C., Shein, P.P., Tsai, C. Y., Chou, C. Y., Wu, Y. Y., Liu, . . . Huang, T. C. (2012). An Investigation of Taiwan’s Public Attitudes toward Science and Technology. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 2(1), 1-21.
39. Xiao, C. (2013). Public attitudes toward science and technology and concern for the environment. Environment and behavior, 45(1), 113-137.
40. Yamashita, T., López, E. B., Soligo, M., & Keene, J. R. (2017). Older lifelong learners’ motivations for participating in formal volunteer activities in urban communities. Adult Education Quarterly, 67(2), 118-135.