A scoping review of interventions in primary science education

Figures & data

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Empirical research	Not empirical research Unclear empirical research Second hand or indirect research
Published from 2001 onwards	Published prior to 2001
Published in English	Published in a language other than English without an English executive summary
Focus of the study is an intervention for primary science education	Focus of the study is something other than a primary science intervention Focus of the study is a STEM intervention with ill-defined links to science
The study seeks to evaluate an intervention by measuring or exploring student science performance or achievement through data collected on at least two separate, defined occasions (i.e., pre-to-post-test)	The study does not seek to evaluate an intervention through data collected on at least two separate occasions. The study focuses on classroom/ science teaching processes/ experiences in a way that may not clearly delineate time periods (i.e., pre-to-post-test).
Intervention explicitly includes primary school-age students (i.e. 5–12 years of age and/or Kindergarten to Year 6)	Intervention is for students older or younger than the specified age and Year level ranges.

Table 2. Boolean search string terms.

Boolean search string 1:	science AND (elementary OR primary OR ‘middle school’ OR ‘middle-school’) AND (educat* OR teach*) AND (project OR programme OR unit)
Boolean search string 2:	(science -‘social science’) AND (elementary OR primary OR ‘middle school’ OR ‘middle-school’) AND (education OR teaching OR instruction) AND (project OR programme~ OR unit OR lesson) AND (child~ OR student~)
Boolean search string 3:	(elementary OR primary OR ‘middle school’ OR ‘middle-school’) AND (science -”social science”) AND (student~) AND ‘post-test’
Boolean search string 4:	(science -‘social science’) AND (elementary OR primary OR ‘middle school’ OR ‘middle-school’) AND (education OR teaching OR instruction) AND (project OR programme~ OR unit OR lesson) AND (child~ OR student~) AND perform~
Boolean search string 5:	science AND (elementary OR primary OR ‘middle school’ OR ‘middle-school’) AND (educat~ OR teach~) AND (project OR programme OR unit) AND -”pre-service”
Boolean search string 6:	(science -”social science”) AND (elementary OR primary OR ‘middle school’ OR ‘middle-school’) AND (performance~ OR achievement~) AND (student~ -‘pre-service’) AND (intervention OR treatment OR experimental)

Figure 1. Literature screening process.

Table 3. Coding framework.

Area of interest	Codes
Research methods	Qualitative
	Quantitative
	Mixed methods
Research design	Cross-sectional (one shot post-test)
	Quasi-experimental, pre-post-test design or multiple data collection points (including equivalent groups, single cohort & multiple cohorts)
	Quasi-experimental, pre-post design (with non-randomly assigned control group)
	Experimental design (with random assignment)
Longitudinal	Data collected after a delay period
	No data collected after a delay period
Outcome measure(s)/ concept(s)	Achievement/content knowledge
	Skills
	Attitudes
	Other
Science focus	LW – Living World
	PW – Physical World
	ES – Earth & Space
	MW – Material World
	WS – Working Scientifically
	DP – Design & Production
	NoS – Nature of Science

Table 4. Approaches to primary science teaching.

Approach	Description
Alternative Conception Targeting	Learners’ alternative conceptions can inform the design and delivery of science learning experiences (e.g., McKinnon et al., 2017) and are typically identified through diagnostic assessment at the commencement of a learning and teaching cycle. Alternative conceptions can be sourced directly from learners or through scholarly material.
Concept Mapping^a	A distinct subset of research output focussing on concept mapping as both an assessment tool and a means of structuring metacognitive learning reflection. Modes of concept mapping (Brandstädter et al., 2012), concept mapping as a tool for learning reflection (Asan, 2007) and integration of concept maps into complex digital learning spaces (Hwang, Kuo, Chen, Ho et al., 2014).
Play-Based Learning^a	Play-based learning is based upon harnessing children’s tendencies for imaginative and physical creative play in learning and recreation. Whether student or teacher guided, play-based learning is creative, spontaneous, enjoyable and process-focussed (Ashiabi, 2007; Pyle & Danniels, 2017; Sturgess, 2003). In science education research, play-based learning can occur in digital (Enyedy, Danish, Delacruz, Kumar et al., 2012) or physical (Bulunuz, 2013) spaces.
Problem/Project-Based Learning	Problem-based learning uses real-world problems as a starting point for the acquisition and integration of new knowledge into existing schemas (e.g., Etherington, 2011). This approach helps students to develop transferable skills which can be used in novel situations.
Constructivism/5Es	Learning that occurs when an individual constructs their knowledge through active cognitive (Kamii & Ewing, 1996) and/or social participation (Vygotsky, 1977) within a phenomenon or situation (Slavin, 1996). This also includes the 5Es framework underpinning the Primary Connections resources that are frequently used in Australian primary schools (e.g., Hume, 2012). Although previously deemed a guiding principle of primary science education (Deehan, 2022), constructivism has been operationalised for teaching through a variety of models and frameworks (Aubusson et al., 2015).
Cooperative Learning	Cooperative learning occurs when students work together to complete a task that would otherwise be impossible or unreasonable to complete individually (e.g., Deehan et al., 2017). This strategy is often supported with clear expectations in terms of process and output. For example, students or groups of students may be assigned discreet roles within a larger learning task (Tarhan, Ayyıldız, Ogunc, Sesen et al., 2013).
Cross-Curricular Integration (Including STEM)	An approach to teaching where two discreet disciplines are integrated to create deep learning outcomes. For example, allowing students to collect and graph data is an example of a deep integrative link between mathematics and science (e.g., Kim & Bolger, 2017). Broader STEM (e.g., Kandlhofer & Steinbauer, 2016) or deeper numeracy (e.g., Weinberg, Basile, Albright et al., 2011) foci would be classified as cross-curricular integration.
‘Hands-On/Student-Centred (NFS)’^a	Student-centred learning is characterised by affording agency to learners through hands on learning or simulations. Teachers function as responsive facilitators (e.g., McKinnon et al., 2017; Palmer, 2006). Student-centred learning can be more contained experiences where knowledge and skills can be developed for more extended inquiry sequences. This approach has previously been classified as a guiding principle of, rather than a tangible approach to primary science education (Deehan, 2022), and this can be reflected in procedurally unclear intervention descriptions (e.g., Akyurek & Afacan, 2013). In this study, this concept relates to researchers’ broad conceptualisation of interventions as “Hands-on/Student-Centred” whilst not providing further specificity (NFS). It is provided in quotation marks to signal that it is a distinct code that does not cover all areas. While it is acknowledged that hands on approaches are not necessarily student centred, this categorisation simply reflects how some interventions have been described.
Inquiry Learning	Inquiry learning is characterised by a focus on a specific outcome. It allows participants to apply skills and knowledge to seek the information needed to achieve the outcome. Learners can be afforded partial (guided) or complete (open) control of the inquiry process (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 2019).
Lesson Sequencing^a	A small selection of research outputs focused primarily on how lessons and/or learning experiences were delivered, organised or sequenced. Research foci included: learning stations (Metcalf, 2013; Ocak, 2010), massed, clumped and spaced science lesson delivery (Gluckman, Vlach, Sandhofer et al., 2014) and self-paced learning (Martin, Durksen, Williamson, Kiss, Ginns et al., 2016).
Literacy Support^a	Literacy support approaches were categorised as discreet from other forms of cross curricular because such elements are foundational, rather than enriching, to primary science teaching. Common Literacy Support approaches include: varied science texts (e.g., Balim et al., 2016; McTigue, 2009), Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI; e.g., Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, Perencevich, Taboada, Davis, Tonks, Tonks et al., 2004; Wigfield, Guthrie, Perencevich, Taboada, Klauda, McRae, Barbosa et al., 2008), science language transitions (e.g., Brown & Ryoo, 2008; Brown et al., 2010) and functional literacy scaffolds for problem solving activities (e.g., Bulu & Pedersen, 2010). Dialogue in primary science teaching continues to be a stronger area of focus in the field (Diakidoy & Kendeou, 2001; France, 2021).
Narrative Focus^a	Interventions with a narrative focus organise the resources, digital technologies and/or learning experiences around a cohesive story with the aim of developing holistic, synergistic knowledges and skills within learners (e.g., Lester, Spires, Nietfeld, Minogue, Mott, Lobene et al., 2014; Ritchie, Tomas, Tones et al., 2011).
Nature of Science Instruction	The understanding that scientific knowledge is fluid and always subject to reasonable debate. Instruction in this area may orient the learner to the variety of scientific approaches beyond an experimental research design. Essentially, ‘Nature of Science’ Instruction orients learners to science epistemology (e.g., Demirdöğen et al., 2016).
Science Beyond the Classroom	Interventions where the science learning is centred on experiences and strategies that extend beyond a typical primary science classroom. Excursions to local ecosystems (Prokop, Tuncer, Kvasničák et al., 2007), outdoor learning practices (Assaraf & Orion, 2010), museum visits (Martin, Durksen, Williamson, Kiss, Ginns et al., 2016), engagement with community members (Stevens Andrade, Page et al., 2016), university excursions (Ozogul, Miller, Reisslein et al., 2019) and summer camps (White, Eberstein, Scott, Ito et al., 2018) were examples of science learning experiences that could not be facilitated with the resources, time and support available in a typical primary science classroom.
Technology^a	Any form of digital educational technology delivered to primary students with the aim of enhancing science learning. Technological innovations may include; Robots (Shiomi, Kanda, Howley, Hayashi, Hagita et al., 2015), Technology Enhanced Curriculum (Varma & Linn, 2012), Augmented Reality (Fleck & Simon, 2013), 3d Games (Lester, Spires, Nietfeld, Minogue, Mott, Lobene et al., 2014) and Learning Management Systems (Field, 2009).

^aDenotes an approach that emerged inductively during the coding process.

Figure 2. Publications per year.

Figure 3. Publications by countries of origin.

Figure 4. Year levels.

Table 5. Science foci.

Science focus	Number of papers	Percentage of Codes (N = 278)^a
Living world	64	23.0%
Working scientifically	63	22.7%
Physical world	43	15.5%
Earth and space	38	13.7%
Nature of science	38	13.7%
Material world	20	7.2%
Design and production	9	3.2%
Unspecified	3	1.1%

^aCount is not equal to the literature sample (142).

Table 6. Intervention approaches.

Intervention approach	Number of papers	Percentage of Codes (N = 295)
Technology	49	16.6%
Inquiry Learning	43	14.6%
Cross Curricular Integration (including STEM)	33	11.2%
Problem/Project Based Learning	32	10.8%
Cooperative Learning	25	8.5%
Science Beyond the Classroom	24	8.1%
Nature of Science Instruction	20	6.8%
‘Hands-on/Student-centred (NFS)’	19	6.4%
Literacy Support	18	6.1%
Narrative Focus	9	3.1%
Alternative Conception Targeting	8	2.7%
Constructivism/5Es	6	2.0%
Lesson Sequencing	4	1.4%
Concept Mapping	3	1.0%
Play-based Learning	2	0.7%

^aCount is not equal to the literature sample (142).

Figure 5. Effect sizes for content knowledge, skills and attitudes data.

Table 7. The 10 highest reported content knowledge, skills and attitudes effect size increases.

Top 10 Content Knowledge Effect Sizes			Top 10 Skills Effect Sizes			Top 10 Attitudes Effect Sizes
Source – Nation	Teaching Approaches	Effect Size	Source – Nation	Teaching Approaches	Effect Size	Source – Nation	Teaching Approaches	Effect Size
(Prokop, Tuncer, Kvasničák et al., 2007)^a – Slovakia	Science Beyond the Classroom	14.39	(Safaruddin, Ibrahim, Juhaeni, Harmilawati, Qadrianti et al., 2020)^a – Indonesia	Problem/Project Based Learning, Technology	4.99	(Safaruddin, Ibrahim, Juhaeni, Harmilawati, Qadrianti et al., 2020)^a – Indonesia	Problem/Project Based Learning, Technology	8.33
(Ocak, 2010) – Turkey	Cooperative Learning, Cross Curricular Integration	6.91	(H. Akcay & Yager, 2010)^a – USA	Problem/Project Based Learning, Inquiry Learning, Science Beyond the Classroom, Nature of Science Instruction	2.07	(H. Akcay & Yager, 2010)^a – USA	Problem/Project Based Learning, Inquiry Learning, Science Beyond the Classroom, Nature of Science Instruction	2.95
(Panasan & Nuangchalerm, 2010)^a – Thailand	Inquiry Learning	6.60	(Cuevas et al., 2005) – USA	Inquiry Learning	1.97	(Prokop, Tuncer, Kvasničák et al., 2007)^a – Slovakia	Science Beyond the Classroom	2.25
(Liu, Peng, Wu, Lin et al., 2009) – Taiwan	Technology, Constructivism	6.10	(Taşkın-Can, 2013) – Turkey	Cross Curricular Integration	1.89	(Genc, 2015) – Turkey	Inquiry Learning, Science Beyond the Classroom	1.85
(Panasan & Nuangchalerm, 2010)^a – Thailand	Problem/Project Based Learning	5.97	(Brown et al., 2010) – USA	Technology, Literacy Support	1.81	(Girod, Twyman, Wojcikiewicz et al., 2010)^a – USA	Inquiry Learning, Nature of Science Instruction	1.17
(Liou, Yang, Chen, Tarng et al., 2017) – Taiwan	Inquiry Learning, Technology, Constructivism	5.23	(Malamitsa, Kasoutas, Kokkotas et al., 2009) – Greece	Nature of Science Instruction	1.48	(Yazicioğlu & Çavuş-Güngören, 2019) – Turkey	Technology	1.01
(Abdi et al., 2013) – Iran	Cross Curricular Integration	4.68	(Ting & Siew, 2014) – Malaysia	Science Beyond the Classroom	1.37	(B. Akcay & Akcay, 2015) – Turkey	Inquiry Learning, Cooperative Learning, Hands on/Student Centred	0.80
(Girod, Twyman, Wojcikiewicz et al., 2010)^a – USA	Inquiry Learning, Nature of Science Instruction	4.59	(Can et al., 2017) – Turkey	Problem/Project Based Learning, Cooperative Learning, Hands on/Student Centred	1.33	(Erdoğan, 2015) – Turkey	Inquiry Learning, Science Beyond the Classroom, Cross Curricular Integration	0.54
(Randler & Hulde, 2007) – Germany	Hands on/Student Centred	4.59	(Kaynar, Tekkaya, Çakiroğlu et al., 2009a) – Turkey	Constructivism	1.24	(Meluso, Zheng, Spires, Lester et al., 2012) – USA	Cooperative Learning, Technology, Narrative	0.53
(Karaçalli & Korur, 2014) – Turkey	Problem/Project Based Learning, Cooperative Learning	3.50	(Wu & Hsieh, 2006) – Taiwan	Problem/Project Based Learning, Inquiry Learning, Cooperative Learning	1.23	(Ercan, 2014) – Turkey	Technology	0.48

^aDenotes publications that appear in more than one list.

McKinnon, D. H., Danaia, L., & Deehan, J. (June, 2017). The design of preservice primary teacher education science subjects: The emergence of an interactive educational design model. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education (JAESE), 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.19030/jaese.v4i1.9972

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brandstädter, K., Harms, U., & Großschedl, J. (2012). *Assessing system thinking through different concept-mapping practices. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2147–2170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.716549

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Asan, A. (2007). *Concept mapping in science class: A case study of fifth grade students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 186–195. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.1.186

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Chen, N. S., & Ho, H. J. (2014a). *Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 71, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ashiabi, G. S. (2007). Play in the preschool classroom: Its socioemotional significance and the teacher’s role in play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0165-8 2

 Google Scholar

Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sturgess, J. (2003). A model describing play as a child-chosen activity—Is this still valid in contemporary Australia? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 50, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1630.2003.00362.x

 Google Scholar

Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012a). *Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 347–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9150-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bulunuz, M. (2013). *Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789195

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Etherington, M. B. (2011). Investigative primary science: A problem-based learning approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n9.2

 Google Scholar

Kamii, C., & Ewing, J. K. (1996). Basing teaching on Piaget’s constructivism. Childhood Education, 72(5), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1996.10521862

 Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). The development of higher psychological functions. Soviet Psychology, 15(3), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405150360

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. 1 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hume, A. C. (2012). Primary connections: Simulating the classroom in initial teacher education. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9210-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deehan, J. (2021a2). Primary science education in Australian universities: An overview of context and practice. Research in Science Education 52 6 1735–1759 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10026-6

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., Ng, W., Burke, P., & Pressick-Kilborn, K. (2015). Quality learning and teaching in primary science and technology literature review Sydney: Association of Independent Schools.

 Google Scholar

Deehan, J., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the science teaching efficacy beliefs and science experiences of a cohort of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2548–2573. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1393706

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tarhan, L., Ayyıldız, Y., Ogunc, A., & Sesen, B. A. (2013). *A jigsaw cooperative learning application in elementary science and technology lessons: Physical and chemical changes. Research in Science and Technological Education, 31(2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.811404

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9709-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). *Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weinberg, A. E., Basile, C. G., & Albright, L. (2011). *The effect of an experiential learning program on middle school students’ motivation toward mathematics and science. RMLE Online, 35(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2011.11462086

 Google Scholar

Palmer, D. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9007-0

 Google Scholar

Akyurek, E., & Afacan, O. (2013). Effects of brain-based learning approach on students’ motivation and attitudes levels in science class. Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 3(1), 104–119. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543600.pdf

 Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: Perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9623-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Metcalf, M. P. (2013). *Assessment of an interactive internet program to educate children aged 7 - 9 about science, the brain and drugs. Creative Education, 4(11), 683–693. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.411097

 Google Scholar

Ocak, G. (2010). *The effect of learning stations on the level of academic success and retention of elementary school students. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 146–157. https://tner.polsl.pl/e21/a11.pdf

 Google Scholar

Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014a). *Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children’s science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2997

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, A. J., Durksen, T. L., Williamson, D., Kiss, J., & Ginns, P. (2016). *The role of a museum‐based science education program in promoting content knowledge and science motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1364–1384. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21332

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Balim, A. G., Inel-Ekici, D., & Özcan, E. (2016). *Concept cartoons supported problem based learning method in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n2p272

 Google Scholar

McTigue, E. M. (2009). *Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Tonks, S., & Tonks, S. (2004a). *Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). *Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20307

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20255

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, B. A., Ryoo, K., & Rodriguez, J. (2010). *Pathway towards fluency: Using ‘disaggregate instruction’ to promote science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1465–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903117921

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010a). *Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001a). *Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00011-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

France, A. (2021). Teachers using dialogue to support science learning in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education, 51(3), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09863-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lester, J. C., Spires, H. A., Nietfeld, J. L., Minogue, J., Mott, B. W., & Lobene, E. V. (2014). *Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: A narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 264, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.09.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., & Tones, M. (2011). *Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003728039

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoğlu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasničák, R. (2007). *Short-term effects of field programme on students’ knowledge and attitude toward biology: A Slovak experience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9044-8

 Google Scholar

Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2010). *System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stevens, S., Andrade, R., & Page, M. (2016). *Motivating young Native American students to pursue STEM learning through a culturally relevant science program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 947–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9629-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ozogul, G., Miller, C. F., & Reisslein, M. (2019). *School fieldtrip to engineering workshop: Pre-, post-, and delayed-post effects on student perceptions by age, gender, and ethnicity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(5), 745–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1518408

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

White, R. L., Eberstein, K., Scott, D. M., & Ito, E. (2018). *Birds in the playground: Evaluating the effectiveness of an urban environmental education project in enhancing school children’s awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards local wildlife. PloS one, 13(3), e0193993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193993

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Howley, I., Hayashi, K., & Hagita, N. (2015). *Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0303-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Varma, K., & Linn, M. C. (2012). *Using interactive technology to support students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9337-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fleck, S., & Simon, G. (2013, November). *An augmented reality environment for astronomy learning in elementary grades: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, Talence, France. Association for Computing Machinery, (pp. 14–22).

 Google Scholar

Field, G. (2009a). *The effects of the use of Renzulli Learning on student achievement in reading comprehension, reading fluency, social studies, and science. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Ijet), 4(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v4i1.629

 Google Scholar

Safaruddin, S., Ibrahim, N., Juhaeni, J., Harmilawati, H., & Qadrianti, L. (2020). *The effect of project-based learning assisted by electronic media on learning motivation and science process skills. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 1(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v1i1.5

 Google Scholar

Akcay, H., & Yager, R. E. (2010). *The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9226-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Panasan, M., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). *Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. Online Submission, 6(2), 252–255. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509723

 Google Scholar

Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). *Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20053

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, T. C., Peng, H., Wu, W. H., & Lin, M. S. (2009). *The effects of mobile natural-science learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 344–358. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.4.344

 Google Scholar

Taşkın-Can, B. (2013). *The effects of using creative drama in science education on students’ achievements and scientific process skills. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 120–131. http://acikerisim.pau.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11499/8164

 Google Scholar

Genc, M. (2015a). *The effect of scientific studies on students’ scientific literacy and attitude. Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 141–152. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/omuefd/issue/20280/215035

 Google Scholar

Girod, M., Twyman, T., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2010a). *Teaching and learning science for transformative, aesthetic experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 801–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9175-2

 Google Scholar

Liou, H. H., Yang, S. J., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W. (2017). *The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 20(3), 110–121. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26196123

 Google Scholar

Malamitsa, K., Kasoutas, M., & Kokkotas, P. (2009). *Developing Greek primary school students’ critical thinking through an approach of teaching science which incorporates aspects of history of science. Science and Education, 18(3–4), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9150-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yazicioğlu, S., & Çavuş-Güngören, S. (2019). *Investigate the effect of game-based activities on middle school students’ science learning according to achievement, motivation, attitude and gender variables. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 13(1), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.584673

 Google Scholar

Abdi, A., Laei, S., & Ahmadyan, H. (2013). *The effect of teaching strategy based on multiple intelligences on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(4), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010401

 Google Scholar

Ting, K. L., & Siew, N. M. (2014). *Effects of outdoor school ground lessons on students’ science process skills and scientific curiosity. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(4), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v3n4p96

 Google Scholar

Akcay, B., & Akcay, H. (2015). *Effectiveness of science-technology-society (STS) instruction on student understanding of the nature of science and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.50889

 Google Scholar

Can, B., Yıldız-Demirtaş, V., & Altun, E. (2017). *The effect of project-based science education programme on scientific process skills and conceptions of kindergarten students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(3), 395. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.395

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Erdoğan, M. (2015a). *The effect of summer environmental education program (seep) on elementary school students’ environmental literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(2), 165–181. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062929

 Google Scholar

Randler, C., & Hulde, M. (2007). *Hands‐on versus teacher‐centred experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(3), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535091

 Google Scholar

Kaynar, D., Tekkaya, C., & Çakiroğlu, J. (2009a). *Effectiveness of 5e learning cycle instruction on students’ achievement in cell concept and scientific epistemological beliefs. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(37), 96–105. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hunefd/issue/7801/102230

 Google Scholar

Meluso, A., Zheng, M., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. (2012). *Enhancing 5th graders’ science content knowledge and self-efficacy through game-based learning. Computers & Education, 59(2), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karaçalli, S., & Korur, F. (2014). *The effects of project‐based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of “electricity in our lives”. School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12071

 Google Scholar

Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). *Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ercan, O. (2014a). *The effects of multimedia learning material on students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards science courses. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(5), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.608

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar