Introduction

Despite the importance that is placed worldwide on fostering students’ scientific literacy, schools are faced with a decrease in students’ interest in science and science-related activities across the school years (Potvin & Hasni, 2014). This negative trend is also observable in Germany (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011), the country in which the present study was conducted. Several studies have addressed this problem and have developed various interventions aimed at mitigating this negative trend. One crucial antecedent in this regard is the relevance of the science-related content worked on with students, as well as their active engagement (see, e.g. Renninger & Hidi, 2011). Perceived relevance can be fostered through various instructional approaches and methods, for example, by facilitating authentic scientific experiences on students’ part, through hands-on activities (Holstermann et al., 2010), by fostering students’ perceived autonomy (Großmann & Wilde, 2020; Markus & Gläser-Zikuda, 2021), by bringing in new media into the science classroom (Dohn & Dohn, 2017) or by combining different interest-triggering factors, such as novelty, relatedness, autonomy and others (Pekdağ & Azizoğlu, 2020). Such interventions have proven to be successful in supporting students’ situational interest (and occasionally also individual interest) in science education.

In this study, we aimed to build on previous evidence from interventions to promote situational interest, but we have chosen a starting point that has rarely been considered thus far. More concretely, we faced the leisure time interests of students, which were already present as students’ individual interests, and we assume that an appropriately designed intervention during physics instruction, in which these interests were taken up accordingly, would also increase their interest in the related physics topic. In so doing, relevance induction was expected to be successful, and we expected that students’ interest might ‘transfer’ from the leisure to the academic context. Students who are interested in a task or topic also show a comparatively higher level of engagement (Ainley, 2012). Therefore, our aim is not only to test whether the intervention was successful regarding students’ situational interest but also to observe its effect on students’ engagement.

Theoretical Background

Interest and (Behavioural) Engagement and Disaffection

Interest in a topic, a task or an activity can be triggered by the situation and its interaction with the person, which is termed as students’ ‘situational interest’ (Knogler et al., 2015). Furthermore, it can be described as a trait-like characteristic of the individual if they attribute value to the content or activity, want to gain more knowledge in the field and enjoy engaging in it (Krapp, 2002). In this case, the person has developed an ‘individual interest’ (e.g. Renninger & Hidi, 2019). Both types of interest describe a person-object relationship (Krapp, 2005). According to Hidi and Renninger (2006), a student’s individual interest develops in four phases, starting with triggered situational interest (phase 1, also called the catch-component of situational interest; Krapp, 2002), followed by maintained situational interest (phase 2, also termed as the hold-component of situational interest; Krapp, 2002; Mitchell, 1993) and then, consecutive emerging individual interest (phase 3), which may finally lead to a well-developed individual interest (phase 4). Students who are interested in a topic, domain, task or activity (Ainley et al., 2002) are typically more engaged, as may be reflected by increased effort, higher persistence and more frequent activities related to a particular topic or domain (Palmer et al., 2017). Finally, this behaviour is likely to increase students’ achievement (Renninger & Hidi, 2019).

Regarding students’ behavioural engagement, we rely on Skinner et al.'s (2008) work who distinguish between behavioural engagement and disaffection. According to Skinner et al. (2008), the behavioural dimension of engagement ‘includes students’ effort, attention, and persistence during the initiation and execution of learning interests’ (p. 766), while behavioural disaffection means ‘passivity, lack of initiation, lack of effort, and giving up’ (Skinner et al., 2009, p. 496). In line with Renninger and Bachrach (2015), we contend that students who are interested are typically also behaviourally engaged, while the opposite is not necessarily the case: Students may be behaviourally engaged without being interested in school-related activities and topics, for example, if concern for their grades pressures them to perform.

It is important to note that designing the learning environment appropriately makes it possible to trigger (and maintain) situational interest and subsequent behavioural engagement in (nearly) all students, regardless of their prerequisites (e.g. prior knowledge or attitudes; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger & Bachrach, 2015). Palmer et al.'s (2017) results even revealed that student teachers who initially exhibited negative attitudes towards science reported situational interest, due to a specially designed course with interest-arousing course elements. Accordingly, Loukomies et al. (2015) argue that ‘in a classroom setting, triggered situational interest is externally supported by the teacher primarily through the choice of activities and contents’ (p. 3017) – within a given framework that is defined by the curriculum.

Strategies on How to Support Students’ Interest in Science: The Role of Personal Relevance

The question arises: How may situational interest (and subsequent engagement) be triggered in a physics classroom? This is the starting point for the conceptualisation of the intervention presented in this study as there is limited evidence in the field.

According to Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2017), an emphasis on the fulfilment of students’ three basic psychological needs is of the utmost importance in triggering students’ interest (e.g. Kiemer et al., 2015; León et al., 2015; Wood, 2019). The three basic psychological needs concern autonomy, competence and relatedness. The need for autonomy refers to a student’s need to feel that they are the originator of the own behaviour. Students’ need for competence is met if they feel competent and effective. Finally, students’ need for relatedness is fulfilled if satisfying relationships with others are established.

Hence, the learning environment needs to establish the contextual conditions that are conducive to the fulfilment of these three basic psychological needs. Many studies in various domains (also outside of science education) have already tested a range of intervention elements based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) that aimed to support students’ motivation (including students’ interest) in class; many of them proved to be successful (see, e.g. Brandenberger et al., 2018, for mathematics). Consequently, SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002) has repeatedly been shown to be a suitable framework theory for developing targeted motivation and interest development programs for teaching subjects at the secondary level. Students’ interest in different school subjects (German Language, Biology, and Physics) and lessons was specifically addressed in a quasi-experimental intervention study based on the enhancement of students’ autonomy and learning activities in instruction (Gläser-Zikuda et al., 2005). Regarding students’ interest, Großmann and Wilde (2020) recently showed, that teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviour in the biology classroom can indeed support students’ (individual) interest development, particularly for students whose individual interest prior to the intervention was low.

Similarly, our study focuses on students’ perceived autonomy in the classroom – specifically, on students’ perceived (self-)relevance of the topic; this has been repeatedly mentioned as a crucial factor that triggers students’ situational interest or motivation in general (Böheim et al., 2021; Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). If students learn in accordance with their own goal and value system – which can be assumed, if they perceive the task/activity/content as relevant for them (Hauk & Gröschner, 2022) – it is likely that a learning environment conducive to arousing situational interest is present and that internalisation is supported (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). However, as Assor et al. (2002) argue, providing different options (i.e. choices between different topics or tasks) is not sufficient to fulfil the need for autonomy; the choices must also be meaningful to the students, which is not easily or straightforwardly achieved. Put differently, if the available options fail to connect with students’ individual goals and value systems, it is not very likely – despite the (superficial) autonomy support that appears at first glance – that students will develop motivations or interests regarding the task, activity or topic. In this regard, Hauk and Gröschner (2022) also found negative effects on student motivation in experimental studies in learner-controlled instruction.

Up to now, studies are missing, in which (situational) interest is investigated when students have opportunities to choose – under controlled conditions – from a set of options. Thus, this study contributes to this lack of research and aims to test whether students’ situational interest can be triggered and maintained if they are confronted with physics-related topics from which they can freely choose and that are strongly related to their leisure interests. In addition, the intervention fostered group work, as working with peers is highly motivating for adolescent learners (Järvelä et al., 2010) and, more specifically, a triggering factor for students’ situational interest (Pekdağ & Azizoğlu, 2020). Besides the effects on students’ situational interest, we also tested for effects on students’ behavioural engagement and disaffection. Hence, our study follows previous intervention research that attempts to increase students' interest in physics classes. It extends previous studies by developing a specific intervention that focuses on students' leisure interests in physics lessons. Consequently, this intervention is not only about addressing the relevance of the topics in the physics lessons. Instead, relevant content areas of the students, which are reflected in their leisure interests, are systematically integrated into the physics lessons, which is expected to generate an optimal starting point for the development of new physics-specific interests and subsequent engagement.

Research Aims and Hypotheses

The intervention study tested whether an intervention in physics instruction (over the course of 11 school lessons) in secondary education that integrates students’ leisure interests is successful in promoting students’ situational interest in physics. We assume that students of the intervention group will outperform students in the control group in the mean level of situational interest (catch and hold component of situational interest; Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, as triggered (catch) and maintained (hold) situational interest also goes hand-in-hand with an increase in students’ engagement and their desire to increase their knowledge in the field, we hypothesise that students’ in the intervention group will exhibit higher behavioural engagement and less behavioural disaffection in the classroom (Hypotheses 2a and 2b) and will also show higher interest in engaging in physics-related activities in their free-time (Hypothesis 3), compared to students in the control group. Finally, we explore possible changes in students’ individual interests concerning physics classes. As developing students’ individual interest is a time-consuming endeavour consisting of four phases, as described by Hidi and Renninger (2006), it is assumed that students’ individual interest in physics classes will not change, due to the shortness of the intervention period (Hypotheses 4).

Consequently, the intervention’s focus is on promoting students’ situational interest in a particular physics topic that connects to their leisure interest and the expected consequences on students’ behavioural engagement.

Method

Design

A quasi-experimental treatment (intervention) control-group design was applied. Prior to the intervention-study, a pilot study was conducted with N = 247 students who are regarding age and educational track comparable to the main group of students in the intervention in order to receive an up-to-date picture of students’ leisure interests (Brakhage & Gläser-Zikuda, 2014). These results were also used for the development of the instructional approach of the intervention.

During the quasi-experimental main study, standardised questionnaires were administered before and after the intervention. With these questionnaires we measured students’ trait characteristics (e.g. their interest in engaging in physics-related activities during their leisure time). In addition, we measured students’ situational interest after each of the intervention’s four phases. The design is depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Design of the study

Full size image

Participants

A total of 115 German secondary school students from six classrooms in three high-track schools (in German, “Gymnasien”) in the federal state where the university is located participated voluntarily in the main intervention study. This group of students resulted from the initiative to recruit physics teachers who are willing to work with the research team over eleven weeks for this study and agreed to teach both, an intervention and a control group of students, so as to keep the influence of the teacher constant across groups. Thereof, three complete classes (n = 60) were in the intervention group and three classes (n = 55) in the control group.

Of the students in the intervention group, 55% (n = 33) were male; 45% (n = 27) were female. In the control group, 62% (n = 34) were male; 38% (n = 21) were female. Most students were 14 years old, with a range from 13 to 16 years (MIG = 14.12; SD = 0.65; MCG = 13.98; SD = 0.57).

Measures

Students’ Situational Interest

After each instructional phase of the intervention, students were asked to rate their situational interest during the last physics lessons comprising of the catch and the hold component. The catch component of situational interest was assessed with six items (Knogler et al., 2015; Lewalter & Geyer, 2009; Lewalter & Knogler, 2014), e.g. ‘The lesson caught my curiosity’ (Cronbach’s α t1 = 0.89; t2 = 0.91; t3 = 0.92; t4 = 0.90). The hold component was also assessed with six items, e.g. ‘New questions have arisen for me to which I would like an answer’ (Cronbach’s α t1 = 0.86; t2 = 0.92; t3 = 0.92; t4 = 0.92). Both scales were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much).

Students’ Trait Characteristics (Pre/Post)

Students’ interest in physics-related activities in leisure time was measured with 13 items (Hoffmann et al., 1998), e.g. ‘Please indicate, how often do you do the following things in your leisure time?—Reading reports about physical or technical topics in magazines or the internet.’ Students rated items on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = very often). The scale’s internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α t1 = 0.82; t2 = 0.86).

Students’ behavioural engagement and disaffection (Skinner et al., 2008) during physics classes was measured using two scales: behavioural engagement, e.g. ‘In class, I work as hard as I can’ (five items; Cronbach’s α t1 = 0.87; t2 = 0.88) and behavioural disaffection (five items; Cronbach’s α t1 = 0.87; t2 = 0.87; 1 = not true at all; 5 = very true).

Students’ interest in physics classes (Köller et al., 2000) was assessed with six items, e.g. ‘It is important for me to understand content in physics lessons’, ‘I enjoy working on tasks in physics lessons’ (1 = not true at all; 5 = very true; Cronbach’s α t1 = 0.81; t2 = 0.85).

Description of the Intervention

The topic of the instructional intervention was semiconductor physics. The intervention lasted 11 school lessons. The core difference between the instruction in the intervention and control group consisted in the interest-oriented topics offered in the group work phase and the intervention group’s option to choose topics in this phase; the instructional intervention consisted of the five instructional methods related to student-centred instruction: learning station work, group work, students’ presentations, repetition phase, and a final exam. Insights into the teaching material can be found in the online supplement.

In a pre-study we asked students who were comparable with respect to age and educational track to report their areas of interests in their leisure time. The results (see Brakhage & Gläser-Zikuda, 2014) were used for the development of the intervention. More concretely, students’ high interest in sports, music, and new media identified in the pre-study were considered for instruction in the intervention. Furthermore, students’ special interest in working collaboratively in school was also an important methodological aspect integrated in the intervention.

The intervention involved four main instructional phases. For both groups, it started with a two-hour station work phase (phase 1), in which students worked in small groups at five learning stations with experiments on semiconductor physics. The experiments for this phase of work were specially compiled for the purpose of the intervention and were available to the schools fully prepared. In addition to the experimental stations, work sheets were developed for each experiment and were used by each group. While the control group received work sheets related to basic physical principles, the students in the intervention group also received information sheets that addressed the applications of these principles in various areas of students’ individual interests.

For the subsequent group work phase (phase 2) on a topic in semiconductor physics, the students in the intervention group were able to choose individually between different topics. Suggestions were offered in the form of information material but also concrete topics (e.g. the solar industry in crisis (solar cell), music and amplifier circuits (transistor), light-emitting diodes controlled by music, light and movement to music (diodes), valuable electronic waste, ‘The war for tantalum’ (‘semiconducting’ as a material property; doping; other materials in the electronics industry). The topics also referred in their physical connection to one of the above-mentioned physical topics semiconductor diode, semiconducting materials, transistor, and solar cell. In the control group, the students had no choice regarding topics and were randomly assigned to the topics: semiconductor diode, semiconducting materials, transistor or solar cell. The topics referred to the current physics curriculum of the German state in which the study took place. The time for working on the topics was limited to three lessons in both groups, and both groups were given a work assignment. The result was a written double A4 page on the chosen topic for a journal as result of the group work in the class. As an aid for this draft, the groups were again provided with specially developed worksheets.

At the end of this work phase, there was a two-hour presentation phase (phase 3) in which each small group presented its results. As expected, there were differences between the classes, as well as between the intervention and control groups in these two work phases due to the different topics chosen by the students.

The subsequent two-lesson work phase was again designed in the same way for the intervention and control group. The aim was to repeat the most important contents of the topic and to prepare students for the test (phase 4). Methodologically, this section followed a direct instruction with the aim of consolidation and preparation for the examination. The teacher could use the teaching method that the students were familiar with for test preparation. To support consolidation, a reader was made available to teachers and students. This reader was developed specifically for the intervention, based on the curriculum guidelines for the subject area of semiconductors and in accordance with the textbook presentations of the subject area; it addressed the most important technical aspects of the subject area.

Following this repetition phase, an achievement test was carried out containing a compulsory part that was uniform for all classes and an optional part with tasks dealing with specific project topics (in the intervention group).

Implementation Check

The difference between the intervention and control group consisted exclusively in the connection to the individual areas of interest in the intervention group: The students were allowed to choose a topic of their interest for work in the group (Brakhage, 2020).

To achieve treatment validity, teachers were asked to work with standardised material developed by the first author of this study, who is a physics teacher. In addition, students of the intervention and control groups responded to the following item: ‘The topic of my group picks up on my leisure interests’ (1 = not true at all; 5 = very true). This item reflected the main difference established by the intervention. A Man-Whitney-U-Test shows significant differences between the students in the two conditions (Z = -3.59; p < 0.001). The students of the intervention condition agreed to the item more frequently than those of the control group (Mean rankIG = 64.38; Mean rankCG = 43.46). Hence, the students’ ratings confirm that the main idea of the intervention (picking up students’ leisure interests during group work) was implemented successfully.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

The intercorrelations show high to moderate positive correlations between students’ catch and hold components of situational interest. The highest correlations are found within one measurement point. The mean values of students’ interest (catch and hold) vary between measurement points with higher values for the intervention group compared to the control group. However, the standard deviations are also higher for the intervention group, suggesting greater variation in students’ catch and hold interest compared to the control group (see Table 1).

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of students’ situational interest
Full size table

Table 2 reports means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of students’ trait characteristics (interest in physics-related activities in leisure time; engagement; disaffection; interest in physics classes). As expected, all factors correlate positively on a medium to high level, with the exception of ‘disaffection’, which correlates negatively with the other three student characteristics.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of students’ trait characteristics
Full size table

Treatment Effects

In order to test for intervention effects pertaining to students’ situational interest, a MANCOVA was conducted with interest (catch and hold) at the four measurement points as dependent variables and the condition (treatment versus control) as between subject factor. Overall, the MANCOVA reveals a highly significant result, suggesting differences in students’ interest between students in the intervention and the control group (Pillai’s-Trace: 0.21, F (8, 106) = 3.49, p = 0.001; ηp2 = 0.21).

Tests for between-subject effects indicate higher interest for students in the intervention group at all measurement points, as well as for the catch and hold component of situational interest. All differences are statistically significant (p < 0.01), suggesting that the intervention can be classified as successfully arousing students’ situational interest. The largest effects obtain for phase 1 (exploration) and the hold component of students’ interest in phase 4 (consolidation).

Students’ mean level of situational interest differed in the four phases in the intervention and the control group, which was expected, as different instructional methods were applied in each phase: While phase 1 (measurement time 1) focused on students' own exploration in station work, phase 2 was characterised by working in groups, phase 3 was characterised by presentations and phase 4 was characterised by consolidating learning and exam preparation. Exploration aroused the highest interest in both groups; repeating the content and preparing for the exam – a strongly teacher-centred phase – triggered the least interest (see Fig. 2a for students’ catch component of situational interest and Fig. 2b for students’ hold component of situational interest).

Fig. 2
figure 2

a Students’ catch component of situational interest across the four phases working on the topic ‘semiconductor physics’, b Students’ hold component of situational interest across the four phases working on the topic ‘semiconductor physics’

Full size image

Next, we sought changes in students’ trait characteristics (interest in physics-related activities in leisure time, engagement in physics classes, disaffection in physics classes and interest in physics classes). We conducted a MANOVA with repeated measures (between subject factor: treatment vs. control; two measurement points). Altogether, the treatment effect (time x treatment) was significant (Pillai’s trace = 0.093; F (4, 110) = 2.83; p = 0.028; ηp2 = 0.093).

Consecutive univariate tests indicate a highly significant effect for students’ behavioural disaffection in the intervention group, who developed more positively compared to the control group (F (1, 113) = 6.29, p = 0.014, ηp2 = 0.053; see Fig. 3). Furthermore, the engagement and students’ interest in physics activities in the leisure time developed more positively in the intervention group compared to the control group. The statistical tests just missed the significance level, but the effect size also suggests a small effect for both factors (engagement: F (1, 113) = 3.33, p = 0.071, ηp2 = 0.029; see Fig. 4; students’ interest in physics-related activities in leisure time: F (1, 113) = 2.99, p = 0.086, ηp2 = 0.026, see Fig. 5). No differences between the two groups are found for changes in students’ interest in physics classes (p = 0.83). Both groups exhibited a decline from pre- to post measurement.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Changes in students’ behavioural disaffection in the physics classroom

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Changes in students’ behavioural engagement in the physics classroom

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Changes in students’ interest in engaging in physics-related activities in their free time

Full size image

Discussion

In light of the frequently observed low students’ interest in science (Potvin & Hasni, 2014), the present study explores whether it is possible with an instructional intervention connected to students’ individual leisure interests to physics to promote students’ situational interest (catch and hold component) in physics lessons, as well as their behavioural engagement in class, their interest to engage in physics-related activities in leisure time and their interest in physics. Overall, the findings are promising, as students in the intervention group showed higher triggered and maintained situational interest in physics throughout the intervention compared to the control group (confirming Hypothesis 1). Moreover, their behavioural disaffection developed more positively from pre- to post measurement, compared to the control group (confirming Hypothesis 2b). The difference between the intervention and control group with regard to both behavioural engagement in class and students’ interest in engaging in physics-related activities in their leisure time just missed the significance level (disconfirming Hypotheses 2a and 3); however, the effect sizes nonetheless indicate a tendency. Behavioural engagement (in class and in leisure time) developed more positively in the intervention group compared to the control group. As the sample size was rather small, these effects should not be neglected. Finally, as expected interest in physics did not increase in the intervention group due to the short duration of the intervention (confirming Hypothesis 4).

Overall, these findings indicate the effectiveness of addressing self-relevance of topics in instruction in order to foster students’ interest (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). However, our study triggered situational interest not only through relevance as a cognitive facet of students’ attitudes towards a topic, but also via the affective facet inherent in students’ leisure interest (Krapp, 2002). The attempt to reach students both cognitively and affectively was consequently successful and goes beyond interventions that apply utility-value interventions based on the theoretical framework of Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles et al., 1983) to motivate students (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2021). Furthermore, in alignment with findings of other intervention studies in physics instruction (e.g. Riffert et al., 2021), our results support the importance of starting lessons with exploration phases (in our case, students’ experiments) that arouse students' interest in a content area. Both the catch and the hold components were highest in the exploration phase, while – as assumed – they were significantly lower in the final instructional phase, where repetition and consolidation were at the core. Typically, strongly teacher-centred instruction leads to a decrease in students’ positive emotions and motivation (Hagenauer & Hascher, 2010), while students perceive highly activating phases – particularly group work – more positively (Riffert et al., 2021) and experience more autonomy in their learning process more positively (Markus & Gläser-Zikuda, 2021).

Although the study reveals positive findings on the potential of triggering students’ situational interest by building on their leisure interests, it admits of some limitations. First, as already mentioned, the sample size is rather small. We compensate for this shortcoming by reporting effect sizes in addition to the significance level. Second, the intervention lasted just five weeks (11 physics lessons) and addressed only one physics topic. Thus, long-lasting effects, i.e. changes in students’ individual interest, could not be properly explored. Future studies should address this limitation through interventions that pick up students’ leisure interests in various different topics in physics classes over a longer period of time. This will allow us to test whether this intervention approach is not ‘merely’ successful in promoting students’ situational interest, but also students’ individual interest.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the important aim of science education to enhance students’ interest in this domain. More specifically, this study provides evidence that an instructional approach that systematically considers students’ leisure interests in physics classrooms can be effective in fostering students’ situational interest while learning a new physics content. In so doing, these findings underline the repeated finding that the relevance students attribute to the physics-related content is core to their situational interest and willingness to engage (behaviourally) in physics-related activities, in and outside of class. Frequently, relevance has been induced by connecting physics content to students’ daily lives in general; this study extends these approaches by demonstrating that building on already-developed individual interests in leisure time can positively affect students’ situational interests in physics. Consequently, it seems worthwhile to ascertain what occupies and inspires students in their leisure time and to systematically integrate their areas of interest in the preparation of physics instruction. This includes the development of learning and teaching materials, as well as the application of instructional methods that address students’ individual interests in all phases of instruction. In addition, a systematic integration of students’ areas of interest in science lessons, and beyond as an instructional concept in school education in general could foster students’ interest in different domains.